Further Ruminations About the MOT Test


My car passed the test with flying colours. No problems. Mind you, that should not be surprising since I have only done 150 miles this last year. I really ought to sell the car. I am paying for the MOT, vehicle tax, insurance, and repairs. Yes, repairs. I went somewhere a few miles away for some reason and got a puncture. I had to replace the tyre. How many other people experience a puncture every 150 miles? The car is costing me a bomb and I hardly use it.

So why do I do it? Why do I keep the car against all rational thinking?

Let me think…..

I have had only a few cars ever since I passed the driving test around 1970. My first car was a Singer Chamois (a slightly  posher version of the Hillman Imp). It served us well when my kids were children. The next one was a Datsun. It was crap. The engine was OK, but the bodywork rotted like mad. After that, I bought a Capri 1300. Surprisingly, although it was only 13oo cc, it was a good motor. I never noticed any performance inadequacies. I had that for a few years before swapping it for a 2 litre Capri Sports. I loved that car. It had acceleration and power, but cruised quite economically. I kept it for about 20 years. I would have it now if it were not for the fact that the bodywork underneath had started to go. It was with great sadness that I said goodbye to it.

So I now have a Rover 216. It is a bit unusual because it does not have a Rover engine. It is a version which has a Hyundai engine. I have had it for about 10 years and it is still performing superbly well, even though it has done 93,000 miles. It is about 15 years old.

Is there not a common thread throughout the above history? Is it not pretty obvious that, apart from the Datsun, I HAVE ENJOYED MY CARS?  Actually, I was quite happy with the Datsun until I realised that the bodywork was crap. I enjoyed my cars.

I look at smoking in much the same way.

Did I worry about the differences in safety or performance when I drove about in my cars listening to the singing of the engine? I have never been one to have the radio on or use the music system. I am happy to listen to the music of the car engine. Even cruising down a motorway has lots of enjoyable noises, such as the sound of the wind brushing past the slightly open window. No, I do not give a toss or even know about the ‘Relative Risks’ of danger between one car compared with another. I simply enjoy driving.

But to be more precise, I suppose that there is a much greater risk of danger when you are driving than when you are walking. I mean in the sense of making a mistake. But that does not deter me from enjoying driving at all. If I was fearful of danger, then I would most certainly never board an aircraft. Oh, they say that, per mile, flying is safer than any other form of transport. Don’t make me laugh! If I were to jump off the Eiffel Tower, I would be in no danger at all until I hit the ground. The same applies to aircraft, except that danger of take-off is like the lift taking you to the top of the Eiffel Tower accelerating and then bursting through the top of the lift shaft.

I would say that the danger in every-day living is greater now than it has ever been in the history of mankind.

I enjoy smoking in much the same way that I enjoy driving. The danger is irrelevant. What will be, danger-wise, will be. What is important to me is the pleasure. If other people do not wish to indulge in driving, for fear of danger, that is their problem. Such people should also be aware that danger is ubiquitous and cannot be avoided.


It is weirdly true that ‘The Authorities’ have spent billions on ‘road safety’ – reducing danger risks. But, ever since around 1970, very, very little thought was given to reducing smoking risk. An attempt was made in Canada (and maybe elsewhere) when the Gov of Canada and TobComs jointly developed a programme to produce a tobacco plant with very little tar. They succeeded. Smokers were given a choice –  they could smoke ‘regular’ cigs or ‘lights’ (except that the word ‘regular’ did not appear). You could smoke, say, Players, or Player ‘lights’. But TobCoN, years later, managed somehow to turn the attempt to reduce tar in cigs into a deliberate attempt by TomComs to addict more and more children.

It beggars belief that such skulduggery could exist at Government and Legal level.

Health is a matter of FACT, and only fact. Propaganda and Prohibition form no part in Health. Only FACTS matter in Health.

There WILL come a time, and not in a very long time, when Trump, or someone like him, will realise that the UN’s purpose must be changed. It IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE a World Government. I do not understand why such a Government would not provoke world-wide, and extremely bloody REVOLUTION sooner or later. Only the most brutal repression could prevent it.

But what else are we experiencing via Tobacco Control other than brutal repression? How can our elected representatives permit such brutal repression? Have they not noticed that the cost of tobacco products is causing massive inequalities between the poor and the better off?

I wonder what would happen if a political party appeared which championed those who are poor and ‘just managing’?

Oh, just a minute. Did not Theresa May say……


The ‘MOT’


For the information of non-Brits, ‘MOT’ means ‘Ministry of Transport’. We Brits say that we have to pass the ‘MOT’ annually, but what we really mean is that our cars have to pass the MOT test. So, we should really not abbreviate the phrase. We should say ‘MOT test’. The test checks the safety of the vehicle and other things, one of which is ’emissions’.

But you know what we Brits are like. We have been using ‘slang’ since time immemorial. That’s what come from a thousand years of hegemony (despite the civil wars etc).

England has not been violently invaded for 1000 years. Whatever laws have governed the behaviour of The People have come from within. They have not been imposed from outside.

Until just now. (By ‘just now’, I mean in comparison with 1000 years) Now, laws are imposed from EU directives. In theory, those directives are the product of much discussion and consideration, and are just, reasonable, equitable and untainted by corruption, and are agreeably to our own elected representatives.

So why was it that snus was banned throughout the EU except Sweden where it was popular? When did our Gov agree that and why? And why have ecigs been demonised? When did out Gov agree that and why?

It can only be that very minor matters have been elevated out of all proportion, which is exemplified by smoking bans throughout Europe and the world. It’s as though abject poverty was less important that tuning a piano.

A bit of amusement tonight (I hope!). I have heard nothing from my mechanic of 25 years, so I think that I can assume that my car has passed the MOT.

Does Brexit Have to be Complicated?


The key word are ‘have to be’.

What did we vote for in June? We voted ‘to leave the European Union’.

There was much agonising in the lead up to the referendum as to how the question should be phrased. The ‘Commission’ decided that the question asked should be simple and clear – no buggering about with leading questions. ‘Leave’ or ‘Remain’ was decided to be the clearest wording. But little consideration seems to have been given to the meaning of the words ‘the European Union’. In fact, I do not recall anyone in either campaign group stating, with any precision what the words the European Union’ meant.

Before casting my vote (Exit), I gave some thought to what I was voting for. I must admit to being a bit depressed by the fact that neither side elaborated with any precision.

“The economy will tank”, said the Remainers.

“The economy will thrive”, said the Leavers.

And so on. But no one talked about precisely what the words ‘Leave/remain in the European Union‘ meant.

So you have to ask what is the physical thing called ‘The European Union’? It is strange to call a disembodied construction  a physical thing, and yet the EU acts like a massive chemical reaction. It acts like a catalyst in chemical reactions. It makes verbal and theoretical regulations which cause massive physical changes.

The crux of the Brexit negotiations is what we voted for, and it was very clear. We voted ‘to leave the European Union’. All that is necessary is to define ‘The European Union’. There is no negotiation involved in that decision. It is ‘absolute’.

I personally see the ‘European Union’ as an attempt to ‘standardise’ The People. You can be nationalistic as regards football and other sports, and are encouraged to be so, so as to distract attention from the denationalisation of almost everything else.

What I detest is the ‘hidden agenda’ – the rendering of whole populations, with their different attitudes to religion, family, culture, etc, into a lump of sloppy clay, to be manipulated into a beautiful object. It will not happen – not least because the object is very unlikely to be beautiful.

So what did we vote to leave? I wish that I could define it, but I cannot. The only idea that comes into my mind is to abrogate the Lisbon Treaty. But I must admit that I have no idea what that means and what the effects are.

In effect, what I am saying is that we remove ourselves from the propaganda non-entity and stop paying for propaganda. Stop paying is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.

Finally, would it not be wonderful if the USA, UK, and possibly Russia, reformed the UN and got rid of its massively wasteful blatherings? To say nothing of its magnificent physical edifices which we all pay for.

So I see our vote to mean that we absent ourselves from the massively expensive politics and associated institutions, and that we do not pay a penny towards their continuity.

But I would like to see easy movement of Europeans. Note that I do not say ‘free’ movement. The word ‘free’ no longer has any real meaning. ‘Easy’ movement means having a passport which is not ‘freely’ gained. You have to earn the passport. ‘Easy’ movement applies to tourists and settlers, but absolutely not to health tourists and spongers. The problem is distinguishing between the two groups.

But those later considerations are paltry. The main thing is to exit the quagmire and to reverse anything that was horse-traded. The ban on snus is an obvious example, but there are many others.


The ‘Deep State’


The phrase ‘Deep State’ suddenly seems to have caught on. Essentially, it means that there is a level of ‘control and command’ within a State which is not subject to political control, or at least, not without great difficulty. Personally, I think that the ‘Deep State’ goes deeper than we think in that politicians know very well that they can only scratch the surface of ‘The Bureaucracy’. I think that they know that, if they overstep the mark, there are ‘People in the shadows’ who can bugger everything up. That is especially so when the so-called ‘ruling’ party has only a small majority.

I also think that the ‘Deep State’ has taken control of Agencies, such as the UN, WHO, EU, World Bank, IMF, IPCC and myriads of others, including vast numbers of big charities. It is not difficult to see how that could be done, provided that there was opportunity, time and money to do so.

And there was ‘opportunity, time and money’ to do so around the early 1960s.

Here are a couple of quotes from Wikipedia:

On January 11, 1964, Rear Admiral Luther Terry, M.D., published a landmark report saying that smoking may be hazardous to health,[5] sparking nationwide anti-smoking efforts. Terry and his committee defined cigarette smoking of nicotine as not an addiction. The committee itself consisted largely of physicians who themselves smoked. This report went uncorrected for 24 years.[6]

The important thing is the date.

And another:

He [George Godber] was instrumental is persuading the Royal College of Physicians to form a committee on smoking and lung cancer in 1958. Their report Smoking and Health, published in 1962 was important in bringing the link to the attention of the public.

The collusion is clear, although it is doubtful that anyone really noticed, because the effects of smoking, at the time, were described mostly as being short of breath and such. You know, no big deal and no real connection with serious ill-health.

Doll et al had produced the Hospital Study around 1950. It purported to show a big correlation between smoking and lung cancer. As an example, I shall quote this from my analysis of the Hospital Study:

He quotes a large-scale study from the USA (Wynder and Graham, 1950) which showed that only 1.3% of lung cancer patients were non-smokers, while 14.6% of general patients (not LC) were non-smokers.

It is easy not to ‘get’ the implications. The implications are:

Only 1% of LC patients are non-smokers, whereas 15% of patients suffering from other conditions are non-smokers. THEREFORE, smoking is 15 times more dangerous as regards contracting LC.

Of course, the actual study was far more detailed, but that relative risk (15 times) was the chief thing.

I remember reading that Doll et al were surprised that hardly anyone took any notice. I am pretty certain that the Doctors Study had already been planned because it started in 1951 – far too short a period for the planning to have been completed and the systems to have been set in place after the completion of the Hospital Study.

But I have digressed. The important thing is the collusion between Terry (USA SG) and Godber (UK CMO). It was they, in collusion with others, and especially with Foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, a known prohibitionist institution, who started the ‘long march through the Institutions’. It was they who began the persecution of smokers, but it took a long time, even to the extent that the originators had died, before their machinations overrode National Governments.

And now we see the results. There is a world-wide system in place which is totalitarian. No politician or group of politicians dare NOT TO support it. We have even arrived at a situation where a dictator is actively assassinating anyone who does not comply with his decrees. And he seems to be very popular in his country. Or perhaps the popularity is similar to Stalin’s and Saddam’s 99% votes in elections.

Will Trump do the business? He may, but ‘draining the swamp’ is not the correct symbol. It is more like tearing out the foundations of massive edifices. The problem with that is that only parts of the massive edifices are rotten.

What we lack, and have lacked for decades, is any sort of clear indication of what principles and ideals Government imposes upon itself. Government is a monopoly, and is dangerous. How many times does that truth have to be illustrated before politicians kill us all?


Why Does Anyone Buy Taxed Tobacco Products in the UK?


It beats me. I cannot understand. There are all sorts of ways to take a trip abroad. A friend that I was talking tonight in the pub is going on a three day trip to Belgium, or wherever, and is bothered about travel insurance. It might cost him and his wife an extra £50 or whatever. That cost is irrelevant if he were to think about buying hundreds of pounds of cheap cigs in Belgium. It is worth using a credit card to do so. It is not difficult to calculate that the interest charges on the credit card debt are FAR less than the difference between tobacco taxes in Belgium and those taxes in the UK.

But that idea is an fairly extreme example because it requires the use of a credit card. But is it extreme?

The main thing is that you can prove that you can afford to buy the products. That is essential. A bank statement or a credit card statement should be sufficient. If you can afford it, you can afford it, and there is no counter to that fact.

The likes of Hammond MP, Chancellor of the Exchequer, somehow lose human empathy when they take the job. Humans become things and numbers. They are objects. They buy tobacco products and are nicotine addicts and so they can be exploited. They are things.

But, in a way, the ‘addicts’ are their own worst enemy, if they buy taxes products from UK shops. If they have to, they have to, but they should avoid that if they possibly can.

Coupled with ecigs, a dramatic fall in tobacco product purchases, at the silly prices, would be permanent. There would be no way back. The taxes would disappear.

As the prison riots etc have shown, Human Nature trumps mathematical calculations as depicted by epidemiological studies. And it will get worse unless it is stopped.




The ‘Nationalisation’ of Tobacco Products


In China, tobacco is nationalised. I have no idea how it works, of course, neither am I interested. I guess that smokers have some sort of choice based upon quality, but I do not know. Perhaps the ‘Nationalisation’ only refers to retailing – ‘tobacconist shops’ are state owned, but the Managers can source their wares from wherever the choose. I guess that there is a ‘flat tax’ on whatever products are sold, which goes to the Chinese Government. But the probability is that the ‘flat tax’ is nowhere near the exorbitant rate that it is in the UK.

For is it not the problem, caused by Government after Government, year after year, that the ‘flat tax’ is enormous?  Duty is  a ‘flat tax’, even though there are minor variations upon how it is calculated. Let us take an example. Suppose that you could buy cheap cigars for, say, £1 each. You do not know the origins of the tobacco or the quality. Suppose also that you can buy top quality Cuban cigars for £5 each which are guaranteed to be genuine.

Now, add £100 in duty to the prices. Cheap-muck costs £101, and top quality costs £105. Thus, there is no significant difference between quality and crap. Thus, quality and crap become the same thing – indistinguishable. Thus, there is no longer a ‘market’ for quality, and so quality disappears – everything becomes crap.

Via year after year interference, that also applies to cigarettes and all other tobacco products. Everything is the same.

Tobacco has, in effect, been NATIONALISED! There is not doubt at all. So, despite the hysteria about diseases caused by tobacco, the STATE has decided that the money obtained from smokers is more important than the lives of smokers.

There is a massive disconnect in that respect. It is hard to describe the enormity of the disconnect. Taken to an extreme, you might have prohibition of smoking, and yet encourage smoking to get the tax income. That is what is happening. It is crazy.

Tobacco has been nationalised, but in a roundabout way. Tobacco retailers are Government employees. They ought to be demanding payment for their work.

I am serious about that. In the UK, the State is demanding that we, the citizens, do more and more unpaid work, like separating our waste into different bins. Nobig deal, but the question is: “Where does the State get the authority do demand unpaid work from?” That is slavery. No matter how small the demands, they are slavery. Oh, and there are whips to force you to obey.

There are some fundamental ideas at stake. ‘Freedom’ requires to be visible. If it is not visible, it is not ‘freedom’. I need hardly elaborate upon the consequences of that idea as regards ‘The Children’. ‘The Children’ do not trump the visibility of Freedom.

“Why is the Tobacco Control Plan Being Delayed?”


ASH recently demanded that the latest version of the plan to increment the persecution of smokers should be implemented. ASH said that the latest version of the plan has been recommended for months, and nothing has happened.

ASH has a big problem. It has nothing to do when Government fails to obey instructions. All its press releases are on hold and it ‘experts’ unpaid. ASH is like a ‘hare-coursing’ club – it cannot wait for the its dogs to tear the hares apart.

It is reasonable to ask how ASH came to have such a bloated opinion of its own importance. I would say that the reason is that no politicians of any significance have ever dared to visibly defy it. The word ‘visibly’ is important.

You see, ASH is equivalent to the marketing department of any company that you might imagine. Its sole purpose is ‘sales’. To justify its existence and cost, it must ‘SELL’ the product.

ASH was created in the 1970s by the Royal College of Physicians. Well, perhaps that should read “The controllers of the RCP”. The same ‘Controllers’ created the FCTC in due course. Initially, the money came from the Rockefeller Foundation and other prohibitionist Gods, but was gradually transferred to taxpayers.

I must admit that I have come around to the conclusion that the rate of deaths of doctors in the Doll ‘Doctors Study’ was manipulated. You can only ask questions. It seems to me that too many doctors conveniently died in their mid-sixties.

But that is a subject for another post.

So what is ASH LONDON being paid for? How does it pay its staff? It admits that, unless its ‘strategy’ is published, it has no purpose. But who gave it the power to have ‘a strategy’?

The whole thing stinks.



The Ubiquitous “We”


So Health Zealots want unapproved food to be wrapped in disgusting, stinking, filthy packaging, just like tobacco. One day, the truth will be recognised. It is not that smokers are disgusting, filthy, stinking but the minds of Health Zealots which are disgusting, filthy, stinking.

So we look at this quote from Snowdon here:

Only a fool didn’t see this coming, and Schultz seems like just the kind of loathsome, illiberal, messianic health fascist to push it forward…

“We should not advertise, propagate or encourage the unnecessary ingestion of calories,” Schultz said at a press conference held on Monday to announce the winners of the 2017 Brain Prize. “There should be some way of regulating the desire to get more calories. We don’t need these calories.”

Steady on, Wolfram.

“Colourful wrapping of high energy foods of course makes you buy more of that stuff and once you have it in your fridge, it’s in front of you every time you open the fridge and ultimately you’re going to eat it and eat too much,” he added.

When I read that quote, the ‘disconnect’ struck me immediately. In the first para, it is “WE”, but in the second one it is “YOU”.

Does anyone believe that those two paras were ‘off the cuff’ remarks, and that the change from ‘we’ to ‘you’ was, sort of, accidental? If you do, then you are somewhat naive. Such statements are carefully contrived. Nothing is unintended. Note the absolute lack of the pronoun “I”.

And then other quotes appear which back up Schultz’s statement, even thought they might be ‘shaded’ somewhat.

Nothing is left to chance. All the quotes have been rehearsed and deliberated over. But the change from ‘We’ to ‘You’ in the Schultz quote is quite unusual in that it is so obvious.

“WE” (the clever) will control what you can be told and what you can see. “YOU” (the stupid) will stuff your faces with whatever is in your fridge.

The ubiquitous “WE” appears constantly from the lips of Arnott et al. Sometimes, depending upon the circumstances, the “WE” translates into “THERE IS”. Thus: “There is a worry that ….”. Erm, when did ‘worries’ have objective existence? Is there a moon of Saturn called ‘Worry’? No, that verbal trick is employed to avoid the use of the phrase, “WE are worried that ….”. In other words, the word ‘We’ is deliberately used to convey a sense of ‘everyone agrees that…’.

I have only once heard/seen the use of ‘we’ challenged. It was on a radio programme when a sweet voiced witch from TC claimed something about “OUR” children. It was a ‘call in’, and the other person said, “WHOSE children?” The sweet voiced witch asked if the caller had children. He refused to say. He again asked: “WHOSE children?”, whereupon the sweet voiced witch became hysterical. You see, she had no answer.

“We must” almost always means “You must”.

But there is a further interesting point to be made. Brexit clearly showed that ‘Experts’ are out of fashion. I think that this is of extreme importance. 52% of citizens of the UK were not impressed by ‘Expert’ opinion that Brexit would be disastrous.

I saw a brief announcement on TV (only a vague noise) that Parliament has said that any agreement with the EU has to go through Parliament. It could be this:


The House of Lords has demanded.

If you were Theresa May, what would you do? There is risk in everything, but it seems clear to me. She must invoke the irreversible Article 50 and then call a General Election. She cannot do it alone, which used to be the case. It used to be the case that the PM could, using his own power, call a general election. That is no longer true. For him to do so, Parliament must agree by a simple majority. It is hard to conceive that the Tory party would not be inclined to accept such a proposal at this time. LibDem is shattered and Labour is in chaos. It is an odds on bet that the Tories would be returned with a big majority. A Tory Government could then negotiate confidently and strongly with countries in the EU and almost, but not quite, ignore the EU apparatus.

It strikes me that the only time that the word ‘We’ should be used is when it is understood that ALL OF US gain or suffer as a population. Obviously, there would be losers – there always are. British MEPs will cease to exist, and all the UK MEPs will no longer have a job. But they will have a nice pension. Or will they? If a pension was in their ‘terms of employment’, then they have a case, but against whom? With what body did they have an agreement?

But the main thing is that we, The People, will be extracted from the disgusting, filthy, stinking, corrupt behemoth that is the EU.

It is also imperative that our taxes must fall. Never mind £300,000,000 going into the NHS. BOLLOCKS! The funding of the NHS is a separate thing altogether. The savings from not funding the disgusting, filthy, stinking, corrupt EU apparatus must be reduced taxation.

But my bet, as things stand, is that everything has been calculated.

We will have a General Election after Article 50 has been triggered.

And so it should be.

How Efficient Engines Break Down


The first thing that you need to do to ensure that efficient engines break down is describe them as perfect. They cannot break down because they are perfect, and anyone who says that they are not perfect must be ridiculed and told to prove that the engines are not perfect.

The opposite is also true. An engine might well actually be perfect, but critics might point to unknowns, which are intended to undermine the mechanical perfection. There is no defence to unknowns, precisely because they are ‘unknowns’.

It surprises me how easy it is for certain academics to get away with claiming unknowns as a reason to ban things. Why is snus banned in the EU apart from Sweden? How has that ban survived the MASSIVE amount of evidence from Sweden that it is relatively safe?

We must use the word ‘relatively’ because there is no such thing as ‘absolute’ safety. Someone somewhere will choke to death on a piece of toast. Someone somewhere will be allergic to orange juice and die after drinking it. The survival of the human race has been because of genetic variations, intelligence, and courage.

But those attributes are being undermined, especially courage. Anyone who dares to be courageous is vilified. Only conformity is admired – even among scholars.

But the sanctification of conformity undermines discovery, and that is especially so when conformity is eulogised and funded, whereas discovery is vilified and starved of funding.

How is it that anti-smoking is still funded extremely well whereas alternatives, such as, snus (banned), chewing tobacco (strictly regulated), ecigs (essentially flavours with a little nicotine), are starved?

Would it not be wonderful if Trump in the USA and May in the UK just derailed the gravy train? It would be so EASY. Funding is the railway line upon which the gravy train runs. Remove the railway line, and the gravy train must fall over.

But there is a massive problem. The Quangos and Charities, funded by taxpayers, have grown and grown, and cost more and more. Further, their chief function is to try to get government to spend more and more money on their pet projects.

There is only one solution. It is to call a halt. The end of the line. But that would not be easy. It could be done by demanding that such entities show positive intentions rather than negative intentions.

It all becomes very messy. Sometimes only war sorts these things out.


‘The Rule of Law’


We are habitually accustomed to regard ‘LAW’ as sacrosanct. It is not created  by gods these days, but it is still ‘holy’. Many people have the idea that ‘Law’ is a creation of gods, even so.

The ‘Laws’ are so powerful that only gods must have created them. That must be so since the laws must be obeyed.

But what happens when people refuse to obey ‘the laws’?

This is a short post because I am tired.

What we have seen in the last few decades is the creation of ‘Laws’ which are not really ‘laws’. They are ‘regulations’.

Such things avoid the inconvenience of ‘Laws’. For example, despite the fact that tobacco leaf is an agricultural product which can be freely traded in the EU (and America, and everywhere else in the world), and that the UK agreed to that definition, the GOD of TobCon has created a SIN.The SIN is to acquire a kilo of dried tobacco plant leaves. There is no similar SIN in acquiring grapes, hops or grains.

I don’t think that Government realises that the more SINS that it creates, the more that the SINFUL dig their heels in and refuse to obey.

What that comes down to is that ‘The Rule of Law’ ceases to exist because ‘laws/regulations’ have become punitive and irrational. What justification is there for rates of duty on tobacco of 70% or so? It makes no sense at all.

The budget is due next week. Smokers will no doubt be singled out to pay even more tax to bail out non-smokers.

But the hegemony is beginning to break up. Today,  a report in the Mail said that,  as part of ‘foreign aid’, UK taxpayers are paying £20,000,000 pounds to ‘foreigners’ to stop people smoking. I suspect that that figure is the UK contribution to the FCTC organisation. But it is the same thing. It is good that it is gradually being recognised where are ‘foreign aid’ is going to. It is going to the salaries of FCTC operatives.

Another report today concerned prison problems created by the smoking ban.At one prison, the electricity supply was cut because a couple of prisoners tried to create a spark by disconnecting, and short-circuiting, the leads to an electric kettle.

TobCon is gradually disintegrating. But what annoys me is that the thugs will walk away scot-free.