Is the Tory Elite Beholden to Big Business, and Is the Labour Elite Beholden to the Unions?


You could put the question in another way. Is the Tory Party (the entity) owned by Big Business and is the Labour Party (the entity) owned by the Big Unions? That translates into funding.

I don’t like asking that question because it sounds very much as though our ‘democracy’ is not very democratic at all. It would suggest that both parties make a big issue out of minor matters while concealing their true intents. For example, the Labour Manifesto says that they will establish some sort of enquiry as to why public houses have failed and closed down in such numbers. Needless to say, the smoking ban would be mentioned as an afterthought, of no great consequence. But anyone who was going regularly to their local pub will remember what happened in July 2007 and subsequently. For a couple of months, during July and August, there was much fun to be had outside of the pub where the smokers congregated. We sat around in considerable numbers, drinking, smoking and laughing. But, as autumn drew in, the numbers declined and people drifted away. They not only drifted away from the outdoor scene, they drifted away from the pub totally. In summer 2008, there was no re-creation of the 2007 summer scene. It was gone for ever. That pub declined and declined until it changed hands and became nothing but an eatery.

The pub across the way went in a different direction altogether. It stopped serving food. There was no demand. It became just a pub. But it is A PUB! There is not a great clientele, but its costs must be as low as they can be. It gets by. Youths go in there to play pool, and there are people who play darts. That pub now has a darts team, which it has not had for many a year. It remains only for dominoes and crib to come back into fashion for it to become a 1950s pub.

It was the smoking ban which turned the gentle decline in pub numbers into a veritable avalanche of closures. Before the smoking ban, numbers of visitors had declined a lot. I remember it very well. But that decline was mirrored in many other entertainment places. Dance halls began to close; discos began to close. And yet the Nation was as wealthy as it has ever been. What had changed? What were people doing to entertain themselves? Where were the youths going to meet members of the opposite sex? Even now, in 2017, where are the youths going to meet members of the opposite sex? I have no idea. A couple of years ago, I drove down into town at night to see what was going on. The town was almost deserted with a few people in various pubs. I was astonished. The town used to be vibrant and jolly. It has become a morgue.

If my opening heading is reasonably accurate, we can see how minor matters such as the demise of pubs in great numbers is a consequence of carelessness. I really believe that Blair, when, after much soul searching we are led to believe, agreed to the universal smoking ban as compared with the ban in the Labour manifesto, which exempted private clubs and wet-led pubs, the fact is that he was careless. It is hard to understand why some Unions were calling for a smoking ban when so many of their members were smokers. I can only understand it in the context of ‘Big Business Bashing’.

But why were so many Tory MPs also in favour of ‘Big Business Bashing’? Perhaps the noisiest amongst them were not Tories at all but were ‘placements’ who were, for example, doctors. They were Labour pretending to be Tory. You do not need many such infiltrators to make a lot of noise.

But why did Labour, under Blair, decide to viciously persecute it base supporters? Be in no doubt that massive tax increases on tobacco products were vicious persecution. They were intended to be so in order to force smokers to stop smoking. We must bear in mind that any deliberate persecution is absolutely unacceptable. It does not matter how low the intensity is. It is persecution.

Frank Davis has been talking about ‘the army’ of smokers, if they could be mobilised. Smokers (plus drinkers, plus drivers) massively subsidise non-smokers, non-drinkers and non-drivers. I have a car. I like having a car. Last year, I drove only about 150 miles. I am retired and have no desire to drive around for no reason. But I like having a car. The costs are actually horrendous, but I do not care. I like having a car. Perhaps I am fortunate in that I can easily stand the costs. But I still hate being suckered. I would not complain if the ‘road tax’ was actually spent on the roads. It used to be. Now it is just another tax which goes into the cesspit of ‘general taxation’. Thus, our roads locally are full of potholes with blue rings around them. Nobody gives a shit. It is a bit like being a member of a golf club. The course has to be maintained whether you play or not. That is why your fees are high. Maintenance of the roads was reasonably distributed when the ‘road tax’ was used for the maintenance of the roads.

Our politicians do not understand their function. The Prime Minister is NOT some sort of King. Her function is to control the REAL Government, which is the Civil Service. The Civil Service is THE KING Politicians exist to control THE KING. When a non-entity such as the slippery snake which has the bodily appearance of the Oz pretence for a human being called Andrew Black can openly mesmerise a Minister Of The Crown, then we must despair.

It would not be so bad if he was a University Professor, but he is embedded in the Health Dept.

Those people have to be removed. They are no different from Nazis. They really are not. They are crazy, out of their minds. How on earth do people like that get into Government?

So it is not so much as question of getting rid of TC. It is more a question of removing the ‘Actors’. That word used to mean people who appeared on stage, but it is now also used to describe anyone who ‘acts’ – does actions. Makes things happen. Such people are now described as ‘actors’.

What has been happening for years is that the Health Dept in the UK has been dominated by Prohibitionists, and successive Health Ministers have been to afraid of the repercussions if they refuse to obey. As politicians, they wait for ‘public opinion’ to change.

THEY ARE PATHETIC!!! And that is why TC prevails. They oscillate to and fro.

The Civil Service in the UK probably contains the very best people to run the country. Politicians do not run the country. But when the Civil Service becomes corrupted, mayhem ensues.

That is what I think that has happened with TC. Everyone in the Civil Service with experience and sense has got out of the way to protect themselves.

TC will blow itself up. It has no end.

The ‘Danger’ of the Nanny State


Few people talk about how dangerous the nanny state is. You might like to look at VGIF’s  contribution here:

It is a very short discussion about the idea of ‘plain packaging’ of hamburgers. That is, the idea of plastering hamburger packets with medical porn to stop people who have bought that product from buying it. Perhaps the intention is to persuade them to take the product back and demand a refund. There were four panellists. Three pretended to welcome such packaging and one other pretended to hate it. (I believe that all these ‘discussions’ are pre-planned) The three panellists who were in favour of medical porn actually expressed belief that the hamburger was dangerous because of the medical porn on the packaging. And those three persons were adults.

It is almost beyond belief that persons who appear on a TV discussion programme are so gullible. Frankly, it really IS beyond belief. The programme was staged.

A hamburger is a perfectly healthy piece of food. When I go on one of my trips to Magalluf, I often have a hamburger for my lunch. I like it with onion and a side salad of lettuce and a few crisps. It is delicious around 3 pm, half way between breakfast and dinner. But I do not eat ten of them.

It is eating ten of them which causes obesity.

And that is where the nanny state is a massive failure. It MUST assume that some people eat ten hamburgers at a sitting. Only if that is true can the nanny state condemn hamburgers as such. The idiocy goes further and further when you extend that idea to cereals. How many helpings of of porridge will make you fat, even if you eat nothing else?

Dick Puddlecote has been saying for ages that ‘Tobacco Control’ has nothing to do with Health, and he is right. Nor has ‘Hamburger Control’. It is not the word ‘Tobacco’ or ‘Hamburger’ which is important. The important word is ‘Control’.

People who are ‘in control’ do not have to make profits from their work. They leach upon those who do the work and make the profits. I do not mean those people who are CEOs of companies. I mean those people who are totally outside such businesses but use them for their own ends.

The danger of the Nanny State, as we have seen over the past several decades, and particularly since 2007, when the smoking ban was enforced with enormous vigour and force, is that there is no limit. Politicians should have spotted that ‘infinitude’ before 2007.

It is time that ‘important’ people started to examine ‘Public Health England’. I is becoming, or has become, an instrument of of persecution and torture. Torture does not have to be physical, although ‘sin taxes’ are torture for the least well-off. Torture can be mental. It is especially torturous when patients in medical institutions are deprived of their succours, such as the enjoyment and relief that they derive from smoking.

Why are there not dozens of politicians fighting like like hell to give mental patients succour? Why has Tobacco Control been allowed to persecute such vulnerable people?

And why has Tobacco Control been allowed to persecute prisoners? Maybe prisoners should be whipped daily to to persuade them to mend their ways once they are released, but stopping them enjoying tobacco will only encourage them to regard ‘authority’ with even more disdain.

I believe that TC is digging its own grave. It has happened again and again. The alcohol prohibitionists in the USA got alcohol banned, but the result was mayhem.  The same is happening even now as regards smoking. I was talking to my nephew last night at a family do (30th birthday of a daughter – not mine). He showed me his home-made cigs in a special cig case. The cigs were very slim. So people like him are taking their own steps to reduce their MASSIVE exposure to MASSIVE punitive, usurious, punishing, prohibitionist taxes. THERE IS NO OTHER REASON FOR SUCH TAXES, OTHER THAN OPPORTUNISTIC MONEY GRABS BY THE LIKES OF OSBORNE.

It has nothing to do with Health.

Taking Back Control of Our Language


I must admit to a failure. I started to use the word ‘quit’ as regards stopping smoking. That was a failure in the first degree. It allowed a rather nasty word to enter our minds as regards our enjoyable habit. I remember seeing the word ‘quit’ from time to time. Usually, it was in the context of someone deciding to give up. “I QUIT!”, he said,  meaning that he had had enough and was getting out. You would rarely see a statement like, “I have had enough of this job. It is sickening me. I shall stop doing it”. But you might well see, “I have had enough of this job. It is sickening me. I quit”. ‘Quit’ is very emphatic.

But there is more. When you approach a red traffic light, you ‘stop’ your car. You do not ‘quit’ your car. To ‘quit’ your car would mean getting out of it. It means ‘to leave’.

And that is what the word ‘quit’ always meant. It meant ‘leave’, ‘exit’.

No one ‘quits’ smoking. They ‘stop’ smoking. So, from now on, I shall avoid intensely allowing my language to be perverted. A person ‘starts’ smoking. He does not ‘initiate the use of tobacco’. You may see my point. ‘Initiate the use of tobacco could meaning anything at all which involves the ‘use’ of tobacco, such as the creation of ecig liquids. Chemically, there is no need to use tobacco to make ecig liquid. The nicotine can be just as easily extracted from the green leaves. Only cured leaves are ‘tobacco’.

A person might ‘stop’ smoking’, and then might ‘start smoking again’. Is there a word like ‘unquit’? No, there is not. Is there a phrase, ‘stop quitting?’ There is not.

Think also about the word ‘risk’. Imagine betting on a horse race. There is a ‘chance’ that you might win your bet. But we would not say ‘there is a risk that you might win your bet’. And yet the word ‘risk’ could easily be applied to good outcomes as well as bad outcomes.

The word ‘risk’ implies bad outcomes.

But does that imply ‘DANGER’? That idea is what should sink SHS ‘risk’. SHS is not DANGEROUS’. There is a ‘risk’ of harm for some people, such as asthmatics (so they say), but that ‘harm’ is normally not ‘dangerous’. It is a passing nuisance, easily avoided by not going into places where the irritant exists. I remember going into my favourite bar in Magalluf. Standing at the end of the bar was a woman. As I ordered my drinks, I went to light a cig. She said, “Please do not do that. I have asthma”. So I looked at the owner behind the bar, and he looked at me, and I said, “Sorry. I shall wait [words to that effect]”.

The importance of the above is that I was prepared to ‘give way’, even in a nonsensical situation. What on earth was a asthmatic doing standing at the bar in the worst possible position? Why was she there at all? Why was she in a small bar which could become full of tobacco smoke when all the hotels roundabout have huge ‘assembly’ rooms where tobacco smoke disappears almost instantly? Would you put yourself IN DANGER if there was no need to do so?

The important word there is DANGER.

Is SHS dangerous? 

There might, perhaps, be some minuscule risk of unspecified harm some time in the future, but is there any danger? 

The fraud of SHS, as regards smoking bans, is the the invocation of ‘risk’ as though it was a ‘danger’. The Surgeon General of the USA said, “There is no safe level of SHS”. I think that there is no ‘safe level’ of Surgeon General pronouncements. They are ‘dangerous’.

Where the blame lies for the distortion of our language, the lies and the exaggerations is perfectly obvious. It lies with successive Ministers of Health. For decades, they have been frightened and bribed by Health ‘Experts’. The result? Doctors and Hospitals being overwhelmed by perfectly healthy people who are afraid that they have ‘smoking related diseases’ even if the do not smoke.

Smokers do not ‘quit’ – they ‘stop’.

Smokers do not ‘initiate’ – they ‘start’.

Smokers who try to ‘stop’ do not ‘relapse’ – they ‘start smoking again’.

There are no such things as ‘smoking related diseases’ – there are ‘diseases’ (communicable) and there are ‘conditions’ (non-communicable). To describe a ‘condition’ as a disease if a fraud.

So we take back control of our language. There is a ‘risk’ that a meteorite might drop out of the sky and bash your head in. But what is the danger? There is a risk, but no danger. 

We must not let ASH ET AL distort our language. They are fond of using phrases such as, “There is a worry that….” Such phrases are intended to CREATE worry. There is, in fact, no worry at all. That is what I mean be distortion. This distortion is wonderful in its creativity. It results in statements such as “70% of smokers like smoking bans because the bans ‘help them’ to quit”.

I dare say that there are enough frightened smokers who would welcome a total prohibition. In fact, it is hard to see how such terrified people could do otherwise than welcome prohibition. They have said so themselves. Anyone who says, “The smoking ban helped me to stop smoking” is demanding prohibition. Not so much as an individual but as a ‘wish-think’ sinner – one of a group of ‘wish-think’ sinners.

It comes down to this.

There are terrified people. They may not know that they are terrified. This does not only apply to smokers. We should be a happy people, since we live in a wealthy country – no one starves and we do not step over dead bodies in the street. No one starves. So why are we all unhappy?

The fact is that we ARE happy, by and large. It is organisations like ASH ET AL which have the deliberate intention to make us unhappy. They disseminate misery.

Retrieve our language. Replace ‘addicted’ with ‘happy with’. “I am not addicted to chocolate, but find that eating chocolate is pleasurable and I have no intention of stopping eating chocolate”.

So our dictionary must exclude the words an phrases that TC use as much as possible.



Fighting the Battle Against Tobacco Control


Over at Frank Davis’s site Frank and other have been talking about an army of smokers. It is a reasonable hypothesis that a massive rabble can defeat the most well-trained, well-funded, well-armed, small force. Usually, that argument is stated the other way round – a small well-trained etc force can defeat a rabble.

I cannot help but feel that the millions of smokers in the UK swung the Brexit vote. Some people might say, and I have seen it said, that the EU has not been as vicious in its persecution of smokers as the UK Gov has been. That is true, but I hold that the EU has no right whatsoever to be persecuting smokers. I never had any authority to coordinate the spread of smoking bans. In fact, Health ought never to have been an EU competence at all. But it is possible to imagine such a competence in an advisory capacity, but only in such a capacity. I am thinking in terms of ‘best practice’. But such ‘best practices’ would concern actual clinical practices, approval of drugs and the like. Certainly not behaviour control.

I speak of behaviour control in the context of forbidding activities via limits. For example, Subry, the former Health Minister signed the UK up to the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) having allowed herself to be misdirected by her adviser, Andrew Black. He advised her that Ecigs had been dropped from the TPD, or mis-advised her by omission. She got sacked and he got promoted. Weird or what. In the TPD, a limit was placed upon the amount of nicotine permitted in ecig liquid. You could understand that if there was a level of nicotine which was dangerous and known to be so. But there is a problem which is not acknowledged – nicotine is a solid. It is not a liquid. It can be dissolved in water and, I suppose, in other liquids, but it is a crystal in its structure. It is a solid. Think of the salt in the sea. Given the right conditions, it is quite easy to see things under water in the sea. But the sea is full of salt. ‘Full of’ is obviously the wrong phrase. If the sea was ‘full of’ salt, then you would not be able to see one inch in front of you, nor would you be able to swim or sail in it. So think of nicotine in the same sort of terms – the solid, nicotine, is distributed throughout tobacco in a similar way that salt is distributed in the sea. Nicotine in ecig liquid is much the same.

No one knows what level of nicotine is dangerous, other than that it is quite high. So what the EU apparatchiks did was take an average of the level of nicotine that most people favoured. Some preferred, say, 30 ml strength and some preferred, say, 10 ml strength. Split the difference and demand a limit of 20 ml. That is what happened. There was nothing scientific about the 20 ml level. It was an arbitrary decision decided by a committee. The possibility that millions of smokers throughout Europe might need a higher level of nicotine to overcome the other attributes of smoking, such as hand to mouth motions and the simple activity of actually lighting a cig, never entered their minds. The blind led the blind. The absolute craziness is that those limits became LAW, and, since that law came from an EU directive, it is written in stone. There is no simple mechanism in the EU for directives to be repealed.

That is one of the reasons that I voted to leave the EU. It is an absolutely monstrous mediocrity. It is a ‘level playing field’ of average.

There is only one serious ‘big gun’ that Tobacco Control has. Without it, TC is powerless. That ‘big gun’ is Second Hand Smoke.

In 2007, PM Blair, and his Cabinet of Minsters, accepted the advice of ‘Experts’ that SHS was dangerous. Once those eminences accepted that premise as true, the rest followed. Bans and more bans. And yet, SHS was never described by ASH ET AL as DANGEROUS. It was always described as ‘a risk’. But the clever trick was to convert that small risk to a few people, such as asthmatics, to everyone.

Enstrom and Kabat did a study, initially funded by the American Cancer Society, or some body similar. When their results were unexpected (no effect of SHS on spouses), the Society withdrew funding. To complete the study, E an K got funding from TobComs.

But there was also the WHO study, I forget its name, which found that SHS had no correlation with heart problems, or was it lung cancer? That was a study by the WHO itself, but the WHO attempted to bury it. We know about it, but it is effectively buried.

Tobacco Control is a confidence trick, based upon ‘risk’ and not ‘danger’. The fight against TobCon must be based upon that fact.

What is the actual danger?

From that point of view, the idea of banning smoking in Council Houses makes no sense whatsoever. Why should a ‘danger’ apply only to Council Houses? Why should not that danger apply also to every house in the UK?

The key to fighting and defeating TC is epidemiological. It was epidemiology which brought in the smoking ban. A year or so ago, I examined the mortality statistics for LC between 1950 and now. I cannot now find my research, which is not surprising since I did not think that it was important at the time. In any case, medical advances in delaying death from LC must have affected the statistics. But what I found was that male LC deaths had reduced, but female LC deaths had increased. And yet female smoking had reduced, much the same as male smoking had reduced.

Success in the battle MUST come from the exaggerations of SHS DANGER. That is the hard thing in a political sense.

Defeating the Undefeatable


Frank Davis has an interesting piece today about building an army of smokers:

I fear that such a venture is doomed to failure.

I tried to do so on a small scale by asking visitors to tell me what constituencies they came from. My idea was to build up a ‘Constituency Group’. That is, a group of people who, individually, came from every constituency in the country. That would require some 650 individuals. I did not do badly in that some 150 people told me what constituency they came from.

My idea was that, if we could get a group of people with at least one person from every constituency, then we could pester the incumbent MP to death about smoking bans and such. There need not be total coverage, of course.

But the question then arises as to who is in control. Who decides what to pester MPs about. Who frames the questions and the arguments? I am a little old man. I do not have the time or resources to set up an ‘organisation’.

But such an organisation already exists and is reasonably well-funded – FOREST. Why does FOREST not have a ‘Constituency Group’?

It seems to me that you have to pester your MP to death. Why did Soubrey MP, who signed the TPD Directive on behalf of the UK, not know that it contained vicious terms which attacked ecigs? Why did she not know? If there had been a ‘constituency group’ then perhaps she might, at least, have been informed. Not that it would have made any difference.

So what might actually overturn the anti-smoker persecution?

I do not know. But we have to be clear. It is not the anti-smoking agenda that we protest about. The State can throw out as many danger warning as it wishes to. It is the persecution which we object to – all and any persecution. That very much centres on the ideas. “High taxes reduce smoking” may be true, but imposition of such taxes, with the objective of reducing smoking, is persecution. Be in no doubt.

WE cannot defeat the Undefeatable. But it is possible for Tobacco Companies to do so since they have the funds. The defeat of TobCon could come from decisive evidence that SHS CANNOT cause major damage within normal lifetimes. Even better would be that such exposure actually protects children. There is at least one study which revealed such a fact.

Tobacco Control has wallowed in the trough of accusations levelled at TobcoMs. It is time that TobCoMs fought back. They tried their best to reduce tar, aided by the Canadian Gov; they succeeded. They took steps decades ago to reduce nitrosamines by providing the heat to cure leaves from sources outside the barns. They succeeded.

TobcoN is based upon the emissions of cigs which have long ceased to exist.

The EU is falling apart. It could have been wonderful had it just built up upon the fact that people could visit other countries using the passports. I did so in 1957. I was in no way obstructed crossing borders from the UK to France, from France to Belgium. I just showed my passport. ‘Free movement’ in Europe has existed for decades. Odd, is it not?, that when you go to Spain, despite ‘free movement’, you still have to show your passport. I suppose that French people have no need to have a passport. Erm.. unless the want to go the USA or such places.

Shortly after WW2, some great people tried to ensure that such wars would never occur again. The general idea was that all Europe would be equal and that resources and land would not be conquered. They would be freely traded.

But that wonderful ideal has been turned into a despotic Empire.

Why did Cameron et al defend and support that despotic Empire?

I would love to know.

Tobacco Control and Individuals


When the Smoking Ban Act was passed (or rather, when the Health Act of which the smoking ban was a small part was passed), every business in the UK was forced to comply. Individuals were not. Individuals caught smoking were liable to a fine of £50, or thereabouts. Businesses were liable for fines up to £3,000. The House of Lords condemned those swingeing fines, but they were still passed in the Commons. In other words, publicans etc were blatantly used as enforcers. Compare that with the seatbelt law. Drivers and owners of cars were not responsible for adult passengers belting up. Adults were individually responsible for their own in-actions.

I did not know that when the smoking ban came in. Or rather, I did not see the implications. As far as I was aware at the time, a law had been passed which forbade me from smoking in a pub. What I was not aware of, and what horrified me was the ENTHUSIASM which some bar staff showed for ensuring that no one lit a cig indoors. I was horrified that normal, friendly individuals could allow themselves to be used in that way.

What I very quickly realised was that the enthusiasm was fake. It seemed genuine, and perhaps some youths enjoyed exercising undreamed of power which they could wield, which they had never enjoyed before in their in their lives. Bossing their elders about. But it was not. As far as Pubcos were concerned, orders were handed down from the top to managers. NO QUARTER! THE BAN MUST BE ENFORCED! As far as independents were concerned, I have no doubt that they received visits from Town Hall officers, or at least letters, warning them about the consequences of failure to act as enforcers. And so, on 1st July 2007, an enormous army of mostly unwilling conscripts was created with the objective of defeating the enemy. What was the enemy? It was the vague risk that a barperson might inhale the equivalent of six cigs per year. Disregard the fact that the turnover of barpersons is enormous. Disregard the fact that big studies had shown no ill effects from SHS.

It is easy to pass laws which affect corporations and businesses. But it is not so easy to pass laws which affect individuals. The ‘nasty cig packets’ law in Australia has had no effect on individuals. They still buy their cigs. I can honestly say that when I open a packet of cigs, I do not even look at the packet, other than to find the little strip of cellophane which makes it easy for me to open the packet. Maybe banning that little strip will appear on the agenda in due course. They can do that, if the wish, but it will make no difference. I possess several pairs of scissors.

The ‘no smoking in cars with kids present’ law will not change the habits of individuals. I defy the law daily by throwing my cig butts into the street. In fact, I delight in doing so. My action is a tiny little bullet compared with the big guns of TC, but it amuses me to fire that little bullet. I detest having to go outside for a fag when I go to the pub (much less now than I used to), but, at the same time, I delight in the fact that I have not been cowed into submission. I am not the only one. The pub manager and his girlfriend often join me, along with sundry others. Almost all are young. Well, would old and decrepit people who might go to the pub for a beer and a cig, continue to do so if they could not have their cig? Only non-smoking elders who are a bit decrepit now go to the pub.

It strikes me that when TC runs out of ways to bash the Tobacco Industry and other Industries, and tries to bash individuals, that is when it will fail dramatically.

The same applies to ecigs. The TPD and the the FDA in the US have tried to disable the ecig industry.  But they are struggling. There is a massive backlash. Commenters should disregard ASH ET AL. They are bit players in this war. They are just megaphones. The important actors are Public Health England and the Federal Drugs Administration. They are in conflict. Do not think that they do not know that. They are fully aware. The conflict is at an industry level. Should the ecig industry be permitted to operate with little interference, of should it be mega regulated?

That little war will run on for some time.

Individuals will work things out for themselves, sooner or later, which is what happened as regards ecigs. Individuals decide to give ecigs a go, and some of those people liked them. They stopped smoking or cut down. Cost might have been important to them, more than health. Who knows? You Gov surveys do not ask such questions. They are fixed.

Despite ASH ET AL, PHE, FDA, etc, in the end, individuals will win. When enough individuals disobey a law, the law has to be changed. That is what has always happened.

I suspect that, sooner or later, it will become clear that SHS is not a problem, just as climate change is an aberration. It would be wonderful if Trump told the UN to vacate the USA and set up it headquarters in Uganda or somewhere like that. He might say that the USA would build the necessary huts to house the personnel. The dismissal of the UN from New York would free up a large area of real estate.

He could do worse.

Why are Politicians So Inept?


It has been a mystery to me to understand why a small medical mafia has been able to force Governments, world-wide, to comply with their demands regarding the enjoyment of tobacco. I remember reading something which said that the Prime Minister, MacMillan, when told that smoking was causing old people to die in their 70s (or whatever) when they should live on into their 80s, said, “What is the point of us keeping people alive longer?” I am sure that that is not what he actually said, but is a free translation. Perhaps it would be better to state it thus: “Why should we stop people from enjoying themselves in order to make them live longer?”

A good friend of mine, with whom I played many games of golf, played football for Bolton Wanderers. In his mid-sixties, he developed brain cancer and died. Many people blamed his condition on heading footballs again and again and again. That may be true, but who knows? You would think that boxers would develop brain cancer more than anyone else since they constantly accept many really hard blows to the head. I do not know it they do.

It strikes me that Epidemiology is extremely weak. For example, on November 5th, the whole Nation celebrates Bonfire Night. It really is laughable that we celebrate a failed coup, which never had a chance of succeeding. Perhaps it is an example of the British character of celebrating eccentrics. What could be more eccentric than King Canute ordering the sea not to obey the prevailing tide? Even the best Epidemiology can only indicate some possibility at a point in time or over a period of time in the past.

I am particularly minded of the TAR problem with cigs around the 1960s and before. Remember that TAR is not the same thing as road tar, even though ASH ET AL have tried to frighten people by claiming such. I have just googled TAR, and what I got was a mass of anti-tobacco results. There was no actual description of ‘road tar’ in the immediate responses.

T.A.R actually means  ‘Total Aerosol Residue’. It is the smoke coming from cigs, pipes, cigars. It has nothing to do with road tar whatsoever.

Epidemiology is a bit like Bonfire Night. It exaggerates differences. Thus, if there is one chance in a million that a sober swimmer will drown, and there are two chances in a million of a drunken swimmer drowning, then the risk of drowning is 100% greater if a swimmer is drunk. But the REAL risk is 1/1,000,000 as compared with 2/1,000,000. A tiny, tiny risk.

Smoking bans are precisely the same. The risks for bar workers from SHS are tiny. It has been suggested that the risk for bar workers is akin to smoking six cigs per year.

Now, here is the important thing. Blair, who was PM when the Smoking Ban was introduced, was said to have thought long and hard about the Smoking Ban.

I do not believe it. For what was there to think ‘long and hard’ about? Either you persecute your most loyal supporters, the working class, or you take on the whole medical mafia. Those people will think nothing of accusing you of killing babies.

So you persecute your most loyal supporters, but you do so in such a way as to make them believe that they are hurting themselves. It is not you who is hurting them, but they themselves.

And yet, such thinking is inept. It assumes that ALL smokers are riddled with guilt. I think that the vast majority of smokers are far from riddled with guilt. In fact, they are gradually moving the goalposts so as to make anti-smokers feel guilt.

The problem with politicians is that they think that it is all over and done with once they have voted in the House of Commons. It is not, not by a long way. The fact is that the House of Commons is gradually becoming irrelevant because no one in it understands what is going on.

This reality is a amply demonstrated by the Smoking Ban. No right thinking MP would have voted for a measure which turned publicans against their majority clientele, on the basis of abstract epidemiology. And yet they obeyed the instructions of The Medical Mafia. Or rather, the Blair Government obeyed the instructions.

The Medical Mafia controls our Government.

Is Theresa May strong enough to destroy that Mafia? She may be, but it is a HUGE task.

The NHS is WONDERFUL. Believe me. If it were not for the NHS, my wife would have been dead twice, once when she went into a coma because of an infection, and twice because she suffered from pneumonia. Her life was saved by the NHS.

The medical mafia exists in the Universities. It is they who demonise smokers. It is not in hospitals. But their agenda is not local, it is universal. It is hidden in plain sight. It is about the ‘millennium goals’ from the UN apparatchiks. Most of all, in the Millennium Goals, is population control.

I can understand that. I really can. How can the human population continue to explode exponentially without massive conflicts and mass exterminations, eventually, due to the scarcity of resources and spaces to live?

What really annoys me is the secrecy. Why not say it as it is, and garner support for ‘sustainability’? Why impose it?

Politicians annoy me by their shallowness. Smoking bans are as nothing compared with the the really grave matters which they should be debating. We ought not to forget that Blair imposed the Smoking Ban around the same time that he agreed to blast Iraq.

The Election of Andy Burnham as Mayor of Greater Manchester


It was a forgone conclusion that Andy Burnham would be elected. First, he was the only candidate with ministerial experience at Government level. Secondly, and more importantly, the constituent elements of the electorate around Manchester are Labour supporting.

He is/was the Labour MP for Leigh in Lancashire. I was born and lived in Leigh for much of my life. Industry in Leigh was coal and cotton. If you disregard the ‘satanic mills’, it was a nice town to live in – not too big and not too small. It has a rugby league team which won the cup in 1972 (?). I went to Wembley to watch the cup final. It was a great occasion. Much celebration took place in the town that night, and for several nights thereafter. The population was small enough (around 40,000 at a guess) for there to be multiple connections between the citizens.

Leigh has been a Labour stronghold since the beginning. That is not surprising since the population was very much ‘working class’. There was very little wealth in Leigh. The Town Hall was controlled by Labour. But the councillors were sensible. They did what they could to improve the town and the lives of citizens. That is, they were POSITIVE.

I do not know when councils became NEGATIVE. I do not know when the tipping point occurred. I now live in Bolton, which is not much different from Leigh, except that it is bigger. Leigh had its ‘posh’ area, to the South of the town, whereas Bolton’s ‘posh’ area is to the North of the town (generally speaking). But it is certain that a tipping point occurred. Bolton Council is now riddled with Zealots.

How can we get shut of them? There is only one way – people with the charisma of Nigel Farrage have to stand and shout. The Zealots must be removed. They stand as Labour candidates, but they are not. They are Zealots of Tobacco Control. They get their proposals accepted by invoking the ‘baby killer’ mantra.

Andy Burnham is the lowest of the low. He is as thick as two short planks. He has said so himself. In his acceptance speech, he said that his main concern would be with the homeless. Worthy though that cause might be, it is a tiny fraction of the concerns of citizens of Greater Manchester.

And, to make things worse, he is an ardent supporter of the persecution and torture of smokers. I do not know why, but it is true.

I see Burnham originating massively expensive initiatives which no one can object to on the grounds of costs because those causes are ‘worthy’. Is that not the defence of the EU? The EU is ‘worthy’ because it unites all the people of Europe. It does no such thing. It subjects the people of Europe to ‘one size fits all’ – total standardisation.

Standardisation of electric plugs, etc, makes sense. That is in the area of trade standards. Such standards facilitate trade by removing uncertainties. They are factual and worthy.

But what is most revealing about Burnham is that he said that his main concern would be about the homeless. I applaud his concern. But, just a minute, why should the plight of the homeless be more important than the plight of desperate home-owners who are out of work and cannot pay their mortgages?

Burnham would claim that ‘the homeless’ are desperate, and his cause is just. I do not deny that, but it is marginal. There are very few homeless individuals, other than people who deliberately wish to be so.

Concern for the homeless is a worthy attribute, but it does not impinge upon the vast majority of citizens.

I think that Burnham has no idea what his job will be. He is a POLITICIAN. He will endeavour to make himself look good.

Has any politician ever admitted to have made a mistake?


The Danger of Certainty in Health


When a cig packet has the notation “Smoking Kills”, that is a statement of fact. But it is a statement of the obvious. It is almost certain that somewhere, somewhen, a person will drop dead immediately after a single puff on a fag. It is also very likely that someone, somewhere, somewhen, will drop dead immediately after a puff on an e-cig.

Someone, somewhere, somewhen.

It is also likely that someone, somewhere, somewhen will drop dead. The reason might be that that person’s heart stops for no obvious reason. It happens, and it happens all the time.

And that is what really annoys me about Tobacco Control – the aura of certainty. But there is no certainty. It does not matter that some non-smokers survive for ten years longer than smokers. There is no certainty. Some do and some don’t.

When a hospital bans smoking in the open air in its grounds, it creates a ‘certainty’. It creates a ‘certainty’ that tobacco smoke in the air anywhere is dangerous. And yet, in my local hospital, a big one, there is a public road which runs through it, used by everyone including a bus route.

Thus we get ‘Possibility’ becoming ‘Probability’ becoming ‘Certainty’.

The Reality in ‘Health’, both for an individual and in general, is that nothing is certain.

Perhaps that idea needs to be further explored.

The Promotion of Ill Health by Public Health England


And all the other Public Health Quangos.

“Prevention is better that cure”. How many time have we heard that? Is that not the justification for everything that Public Health England does? But it is a mantra’, is it not?

Cambridge dictionary:


(especially in Hinduism and Buddhism) a word or sound that is believed to have a special spiritual power:
A personal mantra is sometimes repeated as an aid to meditation or prayer.

a word or phrase that is often repeated and expresses a particular strong belief:
The British fans chanted that familiar football mantra: “Here we go, here we go, here we go…”

As regards ‘prevention is better than cure’, I prefer the first meaning.

Vaccines, provided that they have been thoroughly tested and found to be safe for the vast majority of people, are good prevention. The discovery of quinine as a defence against malaria is a perfect example. The MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) is less clear. It might be true that there is a risk of autism, but how great is the risk? And how dangerous are measles, mumps and rubella? As a child, I developed measles and mumps. Lots of kids did so. But we did not die as a result. Catching those diseases immunised us for the future. How many children actually died from those diseases? I do not know. I suppose that some did.

But how do you prevent football injuries? The only way is not to play football. You cannot immunise someone against football injuries.

Where things go wildly wrong is when ‘Prevention’ includes the use of force. The mantra goes as follows:

“If we prevent (via bans and taxes) people from smoking, there will be no need to cure the ‘smoking related illnesses'”

Or even more of a mantra is:

“If we prevent children from taking up smoking, the ‘smoking related illnesses’ will not occur and there will be no need to cure those illnesses”

In those two cases, the aim of preventing the illnesses justifies the use of force.

The smoking ban was the use of force. Publicans were forced to use force to stop people smoking in their pubs. ‘Forced to use force’. I am not talking about just physically throwing a smoker out of the pub. I am also talking about refusing to serve such a person with more drinks or banning such a person. Those too are force. The justification was the prevention of illnesses among bar staff, even though there was almost zero evidence of such illnesses. The evidence was ‘allegorical’ at best, and non-existent at worst.

In like manner, cig manufacturers have been forced to cover the packets with dire warnings and pictures of people with diseases, which are very unlikely to be pictures of confirmed consequences of smoking. Indeed, one person (at least) has complained that he was the subject of a picture, and yet he was a non-smoker. If that were true, and I suppose that it would be a devil of a job for the person to prove that he was the subject, he has a very good case for claiming damages to his reputation, among other things. For a start, his health situation is private and not public. He had a right to agree or disagree to his private situation being publicised, and he had a right to be remunerated for the use of his picture in that way.

My main point follows.

How much harm is being perpetrated by the constant blitzkrieg of fear and propaganda by Public Health England? How many perfectly healthy plump people are worried to death about their health? How many people who enjoy ONE glass of wine or whiskey after dinner are worried to death because Silly Sally said that she worries about breast cancer every time that she has a glass of wine? How many people are worried that they sprinkle some salt on their food, and especially what proportion of a gram is entailed? How many people are worried stiff that they enjoy a spoonful of sugar in their tea? How many people will NOT take in enough salt? The body rids itself of excess salt via the kidneys, although, of course, that defence can be overridden by massive and continuous ingestion of salt. But a sufficiency of salt is absolutely essential.

I think that it is almost certain that Theresa May will have a decent majority after the coming General Election. She should realise that smokers, vapers, drinkers, have greatly enabled her victory, even though the MSM has not acknowledged that fact. I can say that because I truly believe that there are fewer ‘tribal’ voters than there use to be. My parents were Labour because they were part of Orwell’s Wigan Pier downtrodden masses. My Dad was a coal miner and his wage was only just enough to live on. A week in Blackpool was the best holiday that they could afford.

But I must stress that their lives (and the lives of my sister and I) were not unhappy. Our week in Blackpool was magical, but there was also magic for us children exploring the ponds in surrounding fields and finding ‘frogspawn’. ‘Frogspawn’ was a gelatinous mass of cells, all stuck together. Each cell could become a frog. Adult female frogs produced that mass in huge quantities. After a while, the cells turned into newts and then into frogs. But I dare say that most of the newts were devoured by other creatures in and around the pond since only a few frogs actually survived.

There was lots of fun to be derived in those days of ‘parental responsibility’. I remember one evening when my best friend and I, when I was about 10, sheltered in our bush hideout while a massive electric storm raged overhead. IT WAS MAGNIFICENT!! Lightning flashed and thunder rolled, but there was no rain. It was wonderful to behold.

Public Health England needs to be purged. It is promoting worry with every pronouncement. The Government MUST set up its own research establishments and abhor Universities. Universities are corrupt. They need to be put back in their place – apolitical education about FACTS. It is really, really abhorrent that OPINIONS have displaced FACTS. The Climate Control gang in the uni of Essex(?) were particularly criminal in their activities, and yet not one single person has been castigated.

It is not in the interests of university professors to castigate each other, and they will not.

And the same is true about the objectives of Public Health England. If smokers have to be ‘eliminated’, then so be it. Gas chambers are not needed – well, not yet.

The critical thing revolves around the use of FORCE, whether by bans or taxes. Such things are not ‘Prevention’ – they are naked FORCE, and they have no part in English life.