The Budget Could Have Been Worse For Smokers…..


I watched the second half of the budget speech this afternoon. To be honest, I had forgotten about it until something reminded me. I was in time for his his tobacco announcement.

I was somewhat disappointed. I expected at least a short diatribe about the Evil Tobcoms, but t’was not to be. All there was was a single sentence – something like, “As usual, tobacco duties will rise by inflation plus 2%”. End of.

I am not saying that ‘inflation plus 2%’ is OK. Far from it. Inflation will increase the price of a packet of cigs a bit, but then add another two percent, year after year, and then add VAT onto that new price, and you have a perfect example of ‘persecution by process’. The ‘process’ is the automatic nature of the 2% increase, plus the VAT on top. They call it ‘the escalator’, but it should properly be called ‘the screw’, since it is being tightened all the time.

I thought that it was quite comical that he then went on to extol his freezing of duty on beer, cider and spirits, although there was some talk about ‘white’ cider being different. I did not quite catch that. So, he increased the price of tobacco ‘as usual’, but, in effect, decreased the price of booze!

Is that hypocrisy?

I think so, especially in view of the sugar tax. There is a tobacco ‘epidemic’, and obesity ‘epidemic’ and a booze ‘epidemic’, but the booze tax gets reduced ‘to help the great British Pub’! What happened to the ‘epidemic’?

But it could have been worse. I vaguely read Hammond’s very short statement about the increase in tobacco duties as slightly apologetic. I just have a feeling that these people know very well that the incidence of LC in women has increased at much the same rate as the decrease of LC in men, even though smoking prevalence has fallen amongst males and females at much the same rate over the past few decades. They know very well that the ‘tobacco epidemic’ was never a single issue – that it was multi-factorial. Inhaling coal dust AND smoking would be dangerous. Inhaling tobacco smoke AND clean, seaside air would not be dangerous. Unless the persons had a genetic propensity to LC anyway.

And so on and so on.

That, essentially, was the basis of Fisher’s (the ‘father of statisitics’) criticisms of Doll’s Smoking Studies. Doll was not a statistician. He got enough funding from wealthy Anti-tobacco zealots to hire people to send out questionnaires to doctors and link the resulting info about their smoking history to their death certificates. The whole process was political in a broad sense. According to Fisher, the process was not even remotely scientific. Doll’s conclusions that smoking caused LC deaths was equivalent to ‘bad air’ causing malaria.

But the budget could have been a lot worse for smokers. At least those of us who still go to the pub occasionally can drink beer at a lower price than would otherwise have been the case. At the same time, we can also do our best to continue to circumvent the persecution in any way that we can.


The 2018 Budget is Due on Monday


Funny how Arnott et al go very quiet in the weeks preceding the budget, innit? No doubt they have brought massive pressure on Hammond, the chancellor, to raise tobacco duty by another whopping percentage, and I have no doubt that he will do so. The idea that he is engaging in pure theft will never occur to him. Health is a wonderful excuse. For was not ‘health’ precisely the excuse used by Osborne to raise a tax on sugar?  But we all know the truth. The truth is that the propaganda concerning obesity and sugar was a wonderful opportunity to slap on a sugar tax.

The ability of the Gov to disregard all ethical considerations in everything that it does flies in the face of civilisation. How can a Gov ‘crack down on theft’ when it engages in theft itself?

Perhaps we should note how, gradually, the ‘right’ thing to do has been replaced by ‘evidence based’ policy. In other words, it does not matter if some law is the ‘right’ way to proceed. Only whether it will work or not matters. Will a duty increase of £1 per packet of cigs reduce smoking prevalence by, say, 1%? No doubt ASH et al have ‘research’ to prove so, but that is just icing on the cake. What matter to Hammond is the ‘proof’ that the increase in duty will bring in £x billions more in revenue.

But what really matters is that hardly a single MP will give a shit about the bare-faced theft. It will not register in their brains for a single moment. Nor will it register for a single moment that they are engaging in persecution. Nor will it register that smokers have been being persecuted for years and years. Such persecution has become ‘normalised’.

I bought some ibuprofen rather than paracetamol the other day because of its anti-inflammatory properties. Guess what it says on the packet?

“Talk a pharmacist or your doctor before taking this product if you: suffer from condition a, or b or c, or d, or….. if you smoke”

I wonder when that stricture was added? Ibuprofen has been around since 1969! It was first introduced as a ‘remedy’ for rheumatoid arthritis, but was gradually authorised for any sort of pain relief.

But what is the implication? It is that ibuprofen is dangerous for smokers. Why would that be? I doubt that such dangers were advertised other than in recent years. What is the proof that it is dangerous for smokers? Retailers are only allowed to sell two packets at a time. Should not they also be asking if a person suffers from the listed conditions and if they smoke? Could the retailer be sued for millions if a purchaser suffered tragic ill-effects, if the retailer did not ask the questions? That is not a lot different from publicans being forced not to serve a person who is drunk, or throw out anyone who dares to light a cig indoors.

What do all these things have in common?

They are EASY!

I do not know how the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany started and how it progressed to the idea of extermination. But we must be aware that anti-Jew has been part of Christianity in Europe during various periods in European history. One has to admire the Jews for the perseverance. Perhaps the reason for vague persecution of Jews was that they seemed to driven by the acquisition of wealth. Let us not forget Shakespeare’s Sherlock, who demanded the return of money lent or a pound of flesh. He was a villain and a Jew. One cannot help but feel that Kings occasionally milked the Jewish population of its wealth.

So we smokers can expect further persecution on Monday. The Gov must think that we are rich like Jews or Muslim Sheikhs.

Perhaps we ARE rich like Jews or Muslim Sheikhs, in that we are free spirits.



It is becoming harder and harder to place your trust in any ‘establishment’. It used to be estate agents who were thought to be the epitome of ‘untrustworthy’ due to their glowing descriptions of ram-shackled properties, but they have been overtaken by any number of shady ‘operators’.

For example, what on Earth has happened to academics? ‘Professors’ and ‘Doctors of this or that’ used to immerse themselves in their subjects. Their objectives were to discover everything that they could about their subjects and to write books about them with the intention of revealing ‘truth’. They passed on their knowledge to students, who themselves continued the investigations, if they were sufficiently interested. In many cases, such students used the knowledge gained to make worth-while careers for themselves outside academia, and did very well. One might think of the vast increase in knowledge about the human body. It isn’t that long ago that doctors relied upon taking a person’s temperature as a major guide to his state of health. A high temperature showed that the person’s body was fighting an infection and the doctor could help that process along. When the person’s temperature returned to normal, then he was ‘cured’. I don’t think that doctors take temperatures any more. They do blood tests instead.

At some point, and it is hard to know exactly when, academics became very politicised. I was reading this evening about some professor in the USA confessing with much weeping how he was, even unwittingly, a male supremacist, and about how much he saw females as ‘sex objects’ rather than ‘souls’. He even confessed to looking at girls’ ‘butts’ with admiration (and lust, I suppose) when he was young. What he was implying was that you cannot, at the same time, admire a girl’s ‘butt’ and her intellect.

But the question then arises as to how much trust you can put in the objectivity of politicised academics. And do politicised academic somehow ‘rise to the top’ because of their ideology? Because they are ‘Professors’ or ‘Doctors of this and that’, do their pronouncements carry more weight? It seems to be so since many government departments seem to be full of them.

What could be more at risk of such an invasion than ‘Public Health England’? It is hard to envisage how such an organisation could be objective, no matter how much it tries. You see, ‘objective’ and ‘population wide’ go together. The only way to be ‘objective’ in PHE is to regard the whole population of England as a uniform mass. X% are obese, therefore the whole population must be subjected to price increases of fattening foods. But that ideology is a false ‘objectivity’. It is a cop-out. Real objectivity would look for ways to identify those at risk and help those individuals.

There was a case recently where a hospital identified the comparatively small group of individuals who appeared in A & E very frequently. By approaching them as individuals and helping them, attendances at A & E were significantly reduced.

It may well be that the vast majority of people in the UK are oblivious to such concerns, but we all see the news. We all are aware ‘that there is something terribly wrong’. The Brexit vote was a case in point. You cannot put your finger precisely upon a specific reason for voting against the EU. You just know ‘that there is something terribly wrong’.

The same applies to the UN, WHO, etc. And that feeling ‘that there is something terribly wrong’ is justified when it turns out that the ‘top dog’ in the WHO is attending an anti-smoking conference whilst the Ebola ‘epidemic’ is raging in Africa.

Distrust is entirely justified when you can see plainly that MPs, the Cabinet and the PM are not telling you the truth, and are acting maliciously to promote their personal, ideological agendas.

How can trust be restored?

Misuse of Data by NHS Et Al


I like the design of this site. It is simple and direct. I do not need bells and whistles.

I tried to write a post last night, and, for some reason not specified, WordPress decided: “Draft could not be saved”. I had also opened the site on a different tab so that I could copy and paste a comment from a previous post, but it is hard to see why that should take the site down.

Anyway, the post was about opportunistic tricks to introduce anti-smoking propaganda into ‘advice’ on medical procedures. I need to have certain procedures done on my bladder problems. I was given an four page document describing the procedures.

For some reason or other, there appeared in the body of the document a longish paragraph about the dangers of smoking. It reproduced the usual mantras about how almost all ‘conditions’ which are not actually communicable diseases, are caused by smoking.

What really, really annoyed me was that stopping smoking is totally irrelevant to my condition. I have an ‘acute’ problem and not a ‘chronic’ problem. The problem is here and now, and not in the future. So what is the point of worrying me about smoking, when it is irrelevant in the situation? Even more crazy is that the document was supposed to have been created with the help of the ‘Plain English org’ and other orgs which are supposed to be monitoring the text for ease of comprehension. Why did no one monitor the text for blatant propaganda?

I read an article in the Sun which someone linked to. It was written by a doctor and it extolled vaping. But two thirds of the article were about the horrors of smoking and the ‘undeniable positive proof’ that smoking was a killer. Much as I support vapers, I cannot deny that I hate the comparison between an atomic bomb and a firework, if indeed vaping has the harmful power of a firework.

In a comment to my last post, Smoking Lamp produced the text of a recent study (which I tried to copy and paste) which showed that LC prevalence amongst non-smokers has increased from 8% around 1997 to around 15% around 2015. That is a massive increase. It makes a mockery of the hypothesis that not smoking will prevent LC.

The Zealots created hysteria about smoking. It should have been obvious to Blair et al that the smoking ban would create even more hysteria about all sorts of things and that more and more calls for bans would be made.

The answer is obvious to anyone who wants to stabilise Society. Repeal the Smoking Ban. ‘Risks’ are a choice. The Smoking Ban was an attempt to eliminate tiny risks caused by SHS – tiny risks. It is hard to believe that Blair et al were not aware that the risks of SHS danger were tiny.

So we still have to fathom out why Blair et al went ahead with the ban. What were they REALLY thinking of?


Insidiously Penetrating The Conscience


We Brits have been nurtured down the centuries to have a ‘conscience’. The vast majority of us are ‘programmed (in a nice sense)’ to not only avoid harming our neighbours but also to help them if the encounter serious problems. Part of that is undoubtedly due to Christianity. “Love thy neighbour as thyself”.

But it also applies in every circumstance that you can describe. Strangers rush to help a person who collapses in the street. They call an ambulance if necessary. It is ingrained in our way of life.

I have only realise in the last few days, somewhat laboriously, that TobCON has been messing about with our ‘consciences’ for years and years without us knowing it. For example, if I am walking along the street with a cig in my hand, and I spy a woman and child heading towards me on the same side of the street, I become ‘conscious’ of the fact that I am smoking ‘in the presence of a child’.

Now, that awareness cannot have come from my inbuilt conscience since I have been smoking ‘in the presence of children’ for most of my life. I have three daughters. None of them have come to any harm. No, that awareness must have been implanted in my conscience. By constant repetition about ‘harm to children’, a doubt about my behaviour has been implanted, not only into my conscious mind, but also into my conscience.

What is the difference between the ‘conscious’ and the ‘conscience’? I think the answer is that the ‘conscience’ is emotional, which would explain why we cannot control it. Emotions just ‘happen’ – they cannot be controlled. People who vomit at the sight of blood do so because they have no control at that moment.

We have paid loads of attention to the junk science which has emanated from TobCON, but hardly any of us have really noticed the insidious invasion of our consciences.

THE INVASION HAS BEEN DELIBERATE! But most of us, including vapers, have been bewitched by ‘the science’ of smoking, vaping, HnB, nicotine patches, nicotine gum, inhalers, etc. Do they work?

Irrelevant. The whole point of most of the propaganda has been to invade our consciences. Make us feel bad about harming others, even if that is just smoking in the street ‘in the presence of’ a child 50 yards away.

Perhaps that is why TobCON is struggling so much with ecigs and other variants. Smokers who have switched know that the dangers are massively reduced, therefore their consciences are much relieved. They feel much better about themselves. Perhaps they might even feel that they are immortal, which should pleasure them enormously. But they will still suffer the problems of old age eventually, even if they are immortal.

The lesson to be learnt is that the ‘penetration of our consciences’ has been deliberate and planned, but kept very secret as an objective. It far surpasses the effect of smoking bans.

What can we do? Funnily enough, it is probably best to describe the perpetrators as ‘disgusting, filthy, stinking turds’. That is reasonably true. They have implanted in countless millions of minds their own self-disgust. I cannot help but think that people like Arnott MUST know that they are wallowing in the excrement of the WHO.

A Conservative Canvasser Calls….


I don’t know why a canvasser called today – elections are not due until May 2019. She asked me if I would complete a survey which she had in her hands. Perhaps they are getting organised very early.

I told her that I was not interested in the Tories because I am a persecuted smoker; that I am sick to death of being ripped off by excessive taxes and banned, banned, banned. She told be that she used to smoke but stopped when she had to have an operation and did not want to be desperate for a smoke while in hospital. “Your decision”, I said, “And that is what it is all about”. I told her that there was never any need for the total ban in pubs etc since rooms could be allocated for smokers. She said that the bans were to protect non-smokers. Protect them from what? Doll’s Doctors Study showed that it takes 30 years or more for smoking to have an effect. SHS danger was a fraud. And then she said that it was not the Tories who introduced the bans. True, it it was Blair, but Cameron took the demonisation and persecution a step further with PP. She said that you could still smoke at home. For how long?

But the conversation was quite amicable, which would not have been the case with an anti-smoking zealot (unless she was such a zealot but was hiding it. Ex-smokers are sometimes the worst of zealots).

Will that conversation make any difference at all? Probably not, but the more people who concentrate upon the theft of excessive taxes, the discrimination, the criminalisation, the demonisation, the more likely it is that the penny will drop; that there are millions of angry smokers whose votes are there for the taking.

But there is a problem. Not all smokers are angry, which is a shame. They should be angry. Many (most?) don’t quite realise that the smoking ban was fully intended to dispirit them – to diminish them in their own minds; to make them feel like outcasts.

There was a cigarette advert on TV many years ago for Strand cigs. It depicted a smoker standing under a lamppost and smoking a Strand cig. The caption was, “You are never alone with a Strand”. It was reported that the advert was a massive failure, although I do not know what ‘massive failure’ means. Perhaps the advert actually diminished sales because smokers did not want to be associated with ‘being alone’.

And yet we stand outside pubs, often alone, having been diminished in our own minds.

I fight against that every time I step outside. I make a point of taking my cig and lighter out of my pocket before I step outside, and showing everyone that I do not give a shit. I just obey the law. We cannot actually do anything about the pub smoking ban because publicans did not ‘fight, fight and fight again’ against being criminalised for ‘allowing’ smoking. The vast majority of publicans did not realise that ‘allowing’ included ‘forcing not to’. They were obliged to force smokers not to smoke indoors under penalty of potentially vast fines.

I was reading something today about how Waitrose has decided to rename ‘Gentlemans Relish’ after complaints that the name was sexist. A commenter asked why was it that ‘Woman’s Hour’ and the magazine ‘Woman’s Own’ were not sexist. Why did Waitrose capitulate so easily? What were they afraid of? Or was it that they took advantage of the ‘free’, apparently ‘negative’, publicity?

And is that what all the fuss about iQos is? Is that also ‘free negative’ publicity, which can be turned to commercial advantage? The more that iQos is talked about, the more publicity is generated, and the greater the sales. No wonder that Tobcom share prices rose quite substantially after the FDA announced its crackdown on ecig flavours.

I do not own a iQos. I understand that they work by heating a wad of tobacco without burning it. The machine heats the wad of tobacco when a button is pressed. Once the button is released, the heating stops.

Let us suppose that the wad of tobacco contains a quarter of the tobacco in a cig, but it lasts just as long as a full cig because it does not burn down. A tobcon can charge just as much for ‘heets’, including taxes, as it charges for a packet of cigs, even though there is only a quarter of the amount of tobacco. Government loses out because it can only charge duty on the amount of tobacco in the ‘heets’.  In the UK, duty is charged not only on the amount of tobacco in a cig, but in addition, a charge per cig. But there are no cigs involved in ‘heets’. How then can ‘heets’ be taxed without raising massively the duty on rolling tobacco as well? Further, there is the question of deterring smokers from taking up a much less harmful alternative than inhaling smoke.

Who can blame tobcoms for promoting iQos and equivalents? They will survive and go from strength to strength. No wonder that TobCON is in hysterics, since its whole ‘raison d’etre’ is to destroy tobcoms and release tobacco plantations for the growing of cabbages to feed Africa.

The ‘Resistance’ can only be negative at this time. Obey the law but circumvent it where possible, if you can. Above all, if you can, avoid buying cigs at full price in the UK. Just do what you personally can do. Non-smokers must realise that their taxes MUST rise if smokers stop paying the ridiculous duties.

So it comes down to ‘passive resistance’. Tell canvassers that you are a smoker and detest the persecution. UKIP came close to representing smokers, until they chickened out. I do not know why – some 10,000,000 voters are not a target to be easily ignored.

All is not lost. I had occasion to attend Bolton Hospital as a visitor for a couple of days this week. There are ‘No Smoking’ notices all over the place, but no one ‘patrolled’ the area outside but within the grounds of the hospital. There were big bins here and there with lot of cig ends on the top. The fact is that the hospital is just paying lip-service to the ban on smoking.

How many MPs are just paying lip-service to the persecution of smokers? How many, in their hearts, KNOW that they have been persecuting smokers for years and years?

So, if you get the chance, tell canvassers that you are a smoker and resent massively being being demonised and ripped off and that their parties mean nothing to you. Make the enjoyment of tobacco the MAIN thing.

Is The Border Problem Between North and South Ireland Insoluble?


PM May is pushing for an extension of Brexit date ‘for a few months’. She specifically stated that the reason concerns the above. There is uproar in the Tory Party. Needless to say, she did not explain on TV why an extension would make any difference.

I have a feeling that the problem has nothing to do with trade, but is entirely concerned with the movement of people. It would make some sense for the ‘people movement’ border problem to be put on one side so that a comprehensive deal could be agreed, excluding that thorny problem. We would still not have left the EU, but trade etc have been dealt with.

The assumption has been that there can be no ‘picking and choosing’ what EU principles can be taken up and what principles can be disregarded. The EU bosses have said so again and again. Perhaps that is the reason that Macron, President of France, said that UK citizens may need visas to visit France.

As I understand it, the Schengen agreement was that citizens of the 26 nations which agreed it. The UK and Ireland opted out. It is all a bit messy, as you can see from this:

But it is not clear. Most of those countries do no even require passports, never mind visas. You can board a train in Spain and travel to Germany without having to show a passport. However, that seems too simple. I suspect that what it means is that you have to show identification (a passport) at the start of your journey, but not again. Otherwise, what would stop a UK national boarding such a train? Or an illegal immigrant?

I don’t know why precisely the UK and Ireland opted out. Perhaps it was because it would be too easy for a boat at sea to pick up illegals. We are never told these things. But because we are never told these things, we automatically assume that ‘illegals’ can enter Southern Ireland and make their way to the UK, without hindrance, via the unprotected Northern Ireland border.

The problem therefore seems to be about trust between the opted-out Rep of Ireland and the opted-out UK. There has never been a problem with French, Spanish, German people visiting the UK or working here, and vice versa.

Who or what created the problem?

It is entirely possible that it was the EU itself which created the problem. It looked at the landmass of Europe and likened it to the landmass of the USA. Sure, Hawaii is separated as are some other states, but Hawaii is a long way from the USA and is unlikely to house terrorists just waiting to grab a boat and paddle to the USA mainland. But the EU was blind to the history of Europe, its different cultures and antagonisms. After the civil war in the USA, the USA settled into a system of Federal matters and State matters. The idea of ‘smuggling tobacco products’ across State lines would have been thought to be ridiculous, since some States were tobacco producers and some were not. Only massive taxes in some States have distorted the Market. For example, our now deceased friend, Harleyrider, said that lorries carrying huge quantities of leaves shed loads of leaves on the wayside, but no one could be bothered collecting them because tobacco products were so cheap.

The Irish boarder question is a ‘gordian knot’. It cannot be unravelled. The word ‘backstop’ is entirely the wrong word. In my opinion, the answer lies in cutting the know out altogether. That can only be achieved by bilateral agreements between the Rep of Ireland and the UK.

The EU has nothing to do with it.

The Corruption of the UN/WHO/FCTC


You cannot see the corruption. It is invisible. You can only infer it. It seems the Netherlands has just decided to ‘catch up on’ its nanny state status. It has been trailing behind for years and years. According to:

the health minister there is going potty:

That could soon change. I mentioned on Monday that the Dutch health minister, Paul Blokhuis, wants to fast-track plain packaging through the Dutch parliament. He also wants to introduce minimum pricing so that the price of a crate of beer doubles from €10 to €20. He wants to emulate the UK’s food degradation programme and he wants to copy Chile’s ban on the use of recognisable characters on food packaging.

As if that weren’t enough, he wants to ban smoking on terraces, stop supermarkets selling cigarettes and include e-cigarettes in both the country’s smoking ban and the plain packs legislation.

And he can do most of this without the need for primary legislation. Plain packaging is scheduled to be passed before the month is out. By this time next year, the Netherlands could jump from the bottom end of the Nanny State Index to the top.”

Now, it just so happens that the Netherlands is ‘pencilled in’ to host a WHO/FCTC jamboree in the near future. I am sure that readers will be aware that those jamborees, like holding the Olympic Games, are worth a lot of money.  Not that the WHO or FCTC bring in the same sort of money, but several million €s is not to be sneezed at. So why not write a few regulations to ensure that the money is forthcoming?

The inference is supported by what happened in Russia. Did not Putin introduce some heavy-handed regulations in much the same circumstances – some time before a WHO event was scheduled for Moscow? And did not something similar happen in Afghanistan (or Azerbaijan or somewhere similar)? My recollections are somewhat vague…

I’m just sniffing around, but the more that you sniff, the stronger the stink becomes. But you can’t find the turds which are emitting the stink. Which people in the hierarchy of the UN/WHO/FCTC are the turds? Surely the people in the UN etc cannot all be turds?

But it is weird how political turds are happy to reveal themselves. In the Netherlands, it is one, Mr Blokhuis:

Mr Blokhuis is from the Christian Union. They came eighth in the election with just 3.4 per cent of the vote. They only won five of the 150 seats available but since nobody wanted to deal with Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom, and the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy couldn’t get on with the Greens, the Socialists or the Labour party, they somehow got into government.”

One can only surmise that such people douse themselves in gallons of perfume to disguise the stink. There again, it is quite possible for the other turds not to be able to sense the stink.

That is where people like Trump score. He may have his own sewerage problems, but he can smell ‘the swamp’ from miles away. I understand that he has taken the UN in hand to some extent by refusing to finance more that 25% of ‘peacekeeping’.

We in the UK could do with such a character, but our political system does not allow ‘an outsider’ to gain control. Whoever replaces PM May will never even think of extending ‘austerity’ to the UN and all its vastly expensive turds. For we must not forget that the UN itself does NOTHING. It is a leach on the body politic, or rather, the body taxpayer.

Would it not be wonderful if ‘The Taxpayers Alliance’ suddenly received vast funding to investigate things like contributions to the UN, and especially the FCTC, which is almost completely funded by the UK (other than ‘black (market)’ funding)? But that would only be possible with total UK Gov support.

Our attention is constantly being distracted by nonsense like ‘Pizzagate 2’. It cannot be other than deliberate.

The answer? IGNORE THE PIZZAGATES! Do not talk about them. Such regulations as might be imposed are totally irrelevant to what is important.

It follows that I must chastise myself, and I do. But I have no idea where to start to take apart UK conspiracies with the UN, WHO, FCTC. But what is certain is that massive defunding of those organisations would bring the stinking turds out into the open.

Pizzagate 2


There is a conspiracy theory going viral that the Government intends to regulate pizza toppings so as to keep the total calorie content at or below 928 calories. Clearly, this must be nonsense. The three of us, here a home, ordered in pizzas for our evening meal for a change and to save daughter N the chore of cooking since she had had a very busy day. And delicious they were. I don’t know what pizzas she ordered. There was garlic bread and a pizza with pepperoni and other stuff. Since she shared them out between us, there is no easy way for any one of us to know how many calories we had consumed. But we also had the garlic bread, so our total meal each included that as well. I must admit that there was an ample plateful each. In fact, herself left a bit. Even so, since none of know how many calories we consumed, it may well be that, even after an ample plateful, we might still under-nourished. Perhaps an equally ample bowl of ice-cream would have made up the difference, plus a glass or two of wine.

The only other possibility, other than that the story is absolute nonsense, is that, once again, the Government is being made a fool of. Let’s face it, the sugar tax was always a joke, and everyone knew it. Lucosade fell for it and have lost masses of business by changing their formula rather than increasing the price or absorbing the tax for a while. Coca Cola have rejected the interference out of hand.

Politicians seem to be such simple souls, do you not think? Do they not realise that pizza toppings are another example of ‘thin end of wedge’? If they agree, then they have no defence at all against further demands.

But let is think a bit more about pizzas. What sizes do they come in? I don’t know, but I would guess 6″, 9″, 12″ approx. So the regulations will have to differentiate between sizes. Will the differentiation between sizes be per ounce or per inch of diameter?

And so it goes on, starting with vast exaggerations of SHS danger of tobacco, and eventually culminating in soylent green for the masses.

I can’t help but feel that, eventually, the whole question of freedom of the individual (including the sale of goods which are in demand) will come before our Supreme Court. It will be a massively important question of whether or not Parliament can do anything it wants ‘in the public interest’, for it is in that phrase that that denial of personal freedom resides. That phrase is so unspecific that it is not a ‘feature’ of our constitution. It has been invented.

Is it in ‘the public interest’ that pizza toppings should be regulated?

I my view, ‘the public interest’ should apply to EVERYONE, rich and poor, and if the regulation in question hits only the poor or the poor hardest, then it is not ‘in the public interest’.

On that basis, smoking bans could be justified, but massive rises in taxation could not. On that basis, VAT would not be ‘in the public interest’ since it taxes the poorest and the richest to the same extent.

Perhaps some time in the foreseeable future, our Supreme Court (aka Constitutional Court) will overturn masses of legislation, especially EU directives, which penalise and persecute classes of citizens.


The Use of Language


Pat Nurse drew attention to how we should not accept TobCON’s use of words. For example, the word ‘Stoptober’ means nothing to anyone who chances upon it without previous knowledge of some sort of campaign.

I fully agree with Pat.

But it is hard to reject those words. EG, the use of ‘quit’ to mean ‘stop’. As best I can recall, the American word ‘quit’ meant ‘leave’. You might ‘quit'(leave) a building, ‘quit'(leave) a game of poker. But it did not mean just ‘stop’.

But what is far, far worse is the practice of TobCON (and others more recently) of creating ephemeral ‘objects’ which do not actually exist. “There is a worry that….” is a favourite. There is no such thing as ‘a worry’ without a worrier. ‘Worries’ are not things. At best, they are ‘states of mind’. which apply only to individuals. TobCON is a globalist monopoly. It cannot have ‘worries’, but it can crush all dissent.

TobCON is ‘a thing’. It has no feelings, no intelligence, no affinity. It continues to exist ONLY by being fed money. Without money, the whole edifice of the FCTC would collapse.

And which idiotic group of people are sustaining the FCTC with money? You have guessed – it is the UK taxpayers far more than any other group. But taxpayers themselves are not the idiots. Ministers of the Crown are the idiots. It is they who do not regard a few million pounds as important.

There are many more examples of misused words. ‘Regulation’ is one. To ‘regulate’ does not mean ‘to ban’. Strictly speaking, ‘regulate’ means ‘make rules’, such as in a game. The idea of ‘regulation’ is provide a ‘level playing field’ when necessary. It DOES NOT mean ‘forbid’.

It might be useful to provide a lexicon of TobCON ‘ephemeral objects’.