Let's talk again about that 'denormalisation' thing.
That the marginalisation of UK citizens, based purely on whether they smoked or not, was an unspoken policy of Labour prior to their 2005 general election manifesto must be difficult to deny now.
That they lied in said manifesto (repeatedly and in so many areas) is dramatically evident.
Parties lie, they always have done. OK, not as egregiously as this particular collection of incompetent bastards, but it kinda comes with the territory of being ruled by self-serving career fuckwits. MPs with an axe to grind who are fed up with merely flicking rubber bands at each other, spending all day on Twitter, or using our money to dine at Mezzo's, will inevitably turn to their own prejudices if they aren't allowed, by law, to pursue others.
It's the 'denormalisation' thing that is so hard to stomach from a party who profess a need for society to be bettered by a lessening of friction based on fairly irrelevant criteria.
Discrimination by way of race, gender, sexuality, age and disability has now quite rightly been outlawed. As such, the human condition requires five new categories of perceived lesser beings to ostracise.
Smokers are already installed at number one, and Labour - the party of equality - have set in motion, thanks to their fake charity chums and Department of Health truth-benders, a system of green lights to bring other perceived wrongdoers into the denormalisation process.
What is staggering is the swift nature of it all. One minute you're a constructive member of society who just happens to enjoy tobacco, next you're a pariah. A stain on society and someone who should not be allowed to be touch children.
Likewise is the startling advancement of denormalisation towards number 2 on the list - people who enjoy alcohol.
Consider, for example, this story of life in a northern town (eh-oooh-ma-ma-ma).
Parents in Barnsley have been criticised by police for drinking alcohol when dropping off and collecting their children from school.
Complaints have been made about drinking in the street around Doncaster Road primary school in the town.
Councillors and police are to meet to discuss banning drinking alcohol in the streets around the school.
If the ban is implemented police will have the power to confiscate alcohol and drinkers could face a £500 fine.
Det Insp Mark Spooner, of Barnsley's Central Safer Neighbourhood Team, said they had been getting reports of drinking in the streets around the school and also of parents drinking whilst waiting to pick up their children.
He said: "In my view that's clearly not acceptable. It's not acceptable in a modern society and we will put a stop to it."
Ambush Predator covers this well, but it still begs the question "Which law is being contravened here?".
The answer, of course, is that there isn't one. Hence the requirement for a new one to be created.
Not because there is any law-breaking going on, but for the simple fact that people are exercising their right to drink a legal substance where the righteous don't think it is appropriate.
This is why it is deemed 'unacceptable'. Coca-Cola is acceptable, but not anything which consists of a single figure percentage of alcohol. There is no talk of flatulent drunkards turning up at the school gates, merely those whose refreshment choice isn't of the approved kind.
So how does one sell such a daft policy? Why, with a frantic search for a victim, of course.
Officers surveyed 230 residents in the area and 200 of them said the streets were being blighted by problems with drinkers.
And how many of these transgressors were parents dropping their kids at school, one wonders? I guess at nil.
Other issues included under-age drinking, people urinating in streets and alleyways, late-night noise, damage to vehicles and property and litter.
None of which would seem to have any relevance to the story being discussed.
There is a pointed reference to people drinking at 8:30am, which would appear a bit chavvy admittedly, but seeing as the article mentions that the area in question is one of 'deprivation', it might be fair to say that there could be at least one or more parents who are night workers, doing those vital jobs which the righteous no doubt believe are performed by mysterious elves, for whom 8:30am is the end of a fucking long arduous shift. A beer before going for a long sleep, after dropping off the kid you rarely see, would put an entirely different slant on the matter, would it not?
So, still no law broken; still no hint of armageddon by someone quaffing a Carlsberg; still no realistic victim; still nothing, in fact, but a second front of denormalisation.
Best try to pin it all on the sellers of the alcohol then. There is a victim to be emphasised there if you're devious and determined enough.
ORDINARY consumers are subsidising binge drinkers because supermarkets increase the cost of everyday items to make up for discount alcohol sales, a leading doctor has said.
Liver specialist Dr Chris Record said a minimum price of 50p per unit of alcohol should be introduced, a move he claimed could lead to a reduction in the cost of a weekly shop.
There it is! The dirty drinkers are costing us all money. It's passive alcohol buying.
Bingo!
Burn them. Damn them all to hell.
So, with number 2 nicely installed on the denormalisation hall of fame, it's next stop number 3. Those disgusting, anti-social lardies.
Don't Labour make you so very proud to be living in such a tolerant, bully and prejudice-free country?
