Saturday, 31 January 2009

The Righteous Spot a Gaping Hole in Their Reasoning

Perhaps the 'righteous' are not aware of the proverb 'Too many cooks spoil the broth'. There are so very many of these shrill, holier-than-thou harpies and doom-sayers now, that they seem to be getting mired in philosophical knots and contriving to funnel themselves up their own arses.

The British Medical Journal's warning against punishing employees for their lifestyle choices seems to be a loophole closing exercise that will provide many a laugh for smokers worldwide.

The increasing trend for employers, particularly in the US, to bar smokers from applying for jobs or staying in post should be stopped, until the appropriateness of such policies has been properly evaluated, argue experts in an essay published in Tobacco Control.

My word. A rare moment of generosity from the anti-smoking nutjobs. Well, not really, if you think about it.

The justification that is always given for healthist policies in the US is a financial one. That employees who choose to smoke, or eat unhealthily, or drink, are unproductive and can harm profits for their employer. That's fair enough, it is their right to hire and fire who they see fit, and to set their own policy within the law. Their defence is invariably that if employees don't like it, they can choose to work somewhere else.

But hold on. Turn that one on its head. The only reason that Labour could dream up for a blanket ban in pubs and clubs in the UK was that employees had no choice in the matter. The argument for the business owner to decide their own policy was over-ruled in favour of those poor workers who couldn't choose. No blanket ban could have possibly been brought in without this assumption. It would have trampled private property rights and led to a string of legal challenges on the basis of personal choice of the customer and the business owner. That is precisely why it was termed as a ban on 'places of work'.

The march of the righteous hasn't yet reached such absurd levels as in the US, but it doesn't need to. The perfect case for pub owners to exclude non-smokers and therefore eradicate the (flimsy) reasoning for a blanket ban has already been made. A precedent applies, courtesy of the oh-so-righteous EU.

The Czech commissioner, in a reply to a written question by Scots MEP Catherine Stihler over an Irish call centre company advert that stated “smokers need not apply”, said the ban does not broach EU anti-discrimination laws.

[Employment Chief Vladimir] Špidla said in a written response that EU anti-discrimination law prohibits discrimination only on the grounds of “racial or ethnic origin, disability, age, sexual orientation and religion and belief in employment and other fields”.

“A job advertisement saying that ‘smokers need not apply’ would not seem to fall under any of the above mentioned prohibited grounds,” argues Špidla.

If smokers (or anyone else for that matter) can be excluded from employment, for affecting the profitability of a business, without redress in law, then it is perfectly fine for a pub owner to deny a non-smoker the right to work in his establishment if he feels it will harm his business by being forced to stay smokefree. The entire rationale behind the smoking ban was the bar worker angle that bypassed the idea that one chooses to step into a smoking establishment. The workers can't choose, they claimed. If they are excluded completely, there isn't an issue, and the case for choice on the part of the business owner becomes irresistible.

So, with the legal backing of the EU, pubs can quite legitimately exclude non-smoking staff. As such, until such time as Government legislates to ban discrimination on the basis of whether workers smoke or not, there is quite simply no valid reason for a blanket smoking ban in UK pubs and clubs.

It seems the anti-everything lobby have spotted this and it would explain why the BMJ are pulling an about-turn and defending smokers in this case. It also adequately solves the mystery of why this report was so widely distributed whereas others along the same lines haven't seen the light of day. There is a problem there that needs to be plugged. The US are fucking up the UK raison d'etre for the blanket ban. Why else would the British BMJ be researching the policies of US companies toward smokers and other unhealthy lifestyles, with the help of pro-ban advocates such as Michael Siegel, who was one of the authors of the study? It was a shot across the bows.

In short, the bansturbators at the BMJ need to protect smokers against workplace discrimination, or their beloved blanket smoker ban is fundamentally indefensible.

Oh the irony. Isn't it funny when the righteous tie themselves in knots? Especially when an illiberal EU ruling is the prompt.

Friday, 30 January 2009

Hush Your Mouth

MSN are reporting that a bar owner in Scotland has banned swearing.

A landlord has banned customers from swearing in his bar after one customer used the F-word 16 times in a minute.

Hotelier Ian Milne said he had taken the step at the Royal Hotel in Keith, Banffshire, to protect his customers.

Mr Milne, 56, has placed a sign outside the hotel stating: "Royal Hotel has a no-swearing policy. If you have to swear do not come in."

Quite fucking right, too. About time some fucker did something about this menace.

Thursday, 29 January 2009

Fatso Liam Donaldson, Another Liar

The title is a bit misleading actually, it's not just the clinically obese Liam Donaldson who is lying, it's Alan Johnson and Ed Balls too (you don't appear to be surprised, wonder why). Here it is laid bare.

Children should not be given a single drop of alcohol before the age of 15, parents were told today.
And up to the age of 18, they should drink no more than once a week and only then under strict adult supervision.
Unveiling the controversial advice, England's chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson said parents who let their children have the odd tipple could be putting them at risk of brain damage, depression and memory problems.

Bloody hell, lardy Liam. That is shocking. Tell me more about the science behind that statement ... oh, I see. There is none.

Dr Rachel Seabrook, research manager at the Institute of Alcohol Studies, welcomed the guidance but said there had been no specific research on the effects of alcohol on child development.
And she said there had been no study to assess whether a few drinks with mealtimes would affect children.

That's some of your Government funding screwed next year then, Rachel.

I don't know about you, but seeing as there has never been any research on the subject, I'd say that Liam Donaldson is lying. On that basis, I can exclusively reveal a new piece of research conducted by me. Based on a study of 1 fat, lying, righteous, beknighted cunt, my findings are that all fat, righteous, beknighted cunts are liars. Perhaps we should ban them. Just a thought.

Pic H/T Ali of F2C

Martin Dockrell of ASH, Lying Again

You may remember that I've mentioned before in this article, and this one too, that Martin Dockrell of ASH is a lying cunt.

Well, bugger me sideways with a 1kg box of Brussels-bought Golden Virginia if he ain't doing it again.

[Lying fucktard Dockrell] said: “No-one wants to turn the clocks back to smokey pubs, not least because we know how harmful it is to people’s health.”

[The dickhead] added: “It’s certainly true old style pubs are having a difficult time but it cannot really be said to be to do with smoke-free legislation.”

Listen, you ridiculous onanist, the clue is in the story about which you were commenting.

Industry representatives from north Essex, including Colchester and Wivenhoe, gathered at the Queen’s Head near Coggeshall to discuss how to challenge the blanket ban on smoking inside establishments.

They believe the Government legislation, which came into force in summer 2007, has seriously damaged trade, with Paul Lofthouse, who runs the Queen’s Head, describing the industry as being in “dire straits”.

How many pubs have you run, Dockrell? Please tell me which part of your experience, as a Government-employed righteous shitstick, qualifies you to be an expert in the fortunes of the hospitality trade, and more knowledgeable than those who make their living in the industry?

'No-one' wants to turn the clock back? Well, this group do. That is the whole fucking point of the article. Are you spouting sweeping mendacity, or are you just a hopelessly illiterate cock? Your choice.

[Tax leech Dockrell] said there were 450,000 fewer smokers since the ban.

Really? Did you not read this then?

The proportion of men who smoke has actually risen since the ban in July last year while there was no change at all among women.
The figures, coming after years of declining smoking rates, are a massive blow to Labour's public heath policy.

For crying out loud man, if you're going to spunk our taxes up the wall to provide Government with information that confirms the nonsense that you are paid to prove on their behalf, you could at least use facts to do so. Instead of talking shite and plucking figures out of your state-sponsored arse.

What a right royal cunt you are.

Tuesday, 27 January 2009

Quote of the Day

From Godfrey Bloom MEP (UKIP), speaking at the TICAP conference, about the EU ...

"You must never mistake this place as a place of serious democratic process"

He's got a point, you know.

There is a live blog from the conference, if you are interested, just click here.

Monday, 26 January 2009

Freedom Officially Snuffed Out by the EU

Look what Raedwald has uncovered from the rotting offal of democracy in Europe.

Have you paid a parking fine recently? Got three points on your licence? Been formally warned by the council for your bin protruding on the footway? (yep, I have had the £1,000 fine threat on the last one) Been suspended from your Sunday football league for rough tackling? (yes, seriously) Congratulations! Your records could soon be added to a pan-European database of subversives. This EU Council decision of 20th January on the establishment of a pan-EU 'criminal' database includes the following 'offences' :-

- Offences related to waste
- Unintentional environmental offences
- Insult of the State, Nation or State symbols
- Insult or resistance to a representative of public authority
- Public order offences, breach of the public peace
- Revealing a secret or breaching an obligation of secrecy
- Unintentional damage or destruction of property
- Offences against migration law - an "Open category" (offences undefined thus all encompassing)
- Offences against military obligations - an "Open category" (offences undefined thus all encompassing)
- Unauthorised entry or residence
- Other offences an "Open category" (offences undefined thus all encompassing)
- Other unintentional offences
- Prohibition from frequenting some places
- Prohibition from entry to a mass event
- Placement under electronic surveillance ("fixed or mobile" - eg: home, car, mobile phone etc)
- Withdrawal of a hunting / fishing license
- Prohibition to play certain games/sports
- Prohibition from national territory
- Personal obligation - an "Open category" (offences undefined thus all encompassing)
- "Fine" - all fines. inc minor non-criminal offences

All those of us who have ever accidentally spilled a cupful of diesel in the water when refuelling, dropped a piece of litter or called the EU circle of stars a fascist and totalitarian symbol are now, officially, criminals. Welcome to the club.

So that's just about all of us criminalised, then. Looks like we have sleepwalked into prison after all.

As the Devil remarks, "They aren't even bothering to pretend anymore".

We're all going to a totalitarian hell in a handcart. Our politicians, of all stripes and parties, are selling us down the fucking river whilst the British people sleep on.



Sunday, 25 January 2009

Ask Not What Your Freedom Can Do For You ...

Having been rather busy with that thing called family life in the past couple of days, before buggering off to the ninth circle of Hell (aka Brussels, EU seat of fake democracy) till Friday, it has taken a while to catch up.

There is so much to do to halt the righteous, and Leg Iron discusses exactly what we should all be doing with this post over at Old Holborn's pad. I recommend you read it in its entirety and ask yourself this question.

"If my elected representatives aren't sick of my letter-writing by now, have I done enough?"

I think you know the answer.

Just a small suggestion if you have less time (quite understandable) than serial righteous botherers like me. Take November 5th off this year. Book it tomorrow morning and go for a little stroll with Old Holborn. Make it a 'new and improved' stroll, none of the excuses this time. There were only a couple of dozen of us last year but it was a good day out and, as an inaugural event, it did its job. Big events never start big, they snowball, and a snowball turns into a movement. Book the day off now (no reason to say there isn't enough time) and do your bit ... or stop moaning and join the enemy.

In the meantime, for a bit of lighter material, Obnoxio recommends a Daily Mash article for your comic entertainment. It's one of those that will have you laughing while simultaneously crying into your beer about how we managed to drive ourselves into this righteous cul-de-sac, out of which it is proving extremely difficult to reverse.

Right, I'm off to the heart of darkness tomorrow and if I manage to negotiate the Flemish Wi-Fi, and limit my intake of their industrial-strength beer to just a small tanker load, you might read something about the TICAP conference here.

... and if I see Mary Honeyball, I'll give her your best wishes, naturally.

Saturday, 24 January 2009

Top Trougher Honeyball

One might have expected better from a trougher with her hand regularly dipping into our wallets*, but it seems that Labour MEP Mary Honeyball's garbled, incoherent response to those who objected to her ugly triumphalist stance on the cancellation of the TICAP conference on Tuesday & Wednesday, is all we are going to get.

She has blogged twice since with much more clarity (perhaps the effects of the Friday night taxpayer-funded wine have worn off), but nothing further on her ramblings about Elvis on the moon, bear-baiting, or Tories having sex with kids.

* I should say purses as well, I suppose, seeing as Honeyball is a feminist. But dipping her hand regularly she definitely is. This is what she is entitled to as an MEP (exchange rate courtesy of

Salary - €7,000 per month (£80,280 pa)
Constituency Allowance - €4,052 per month (£46,471 pa)
Attendance Allowance - €235 per meeting (£225)
Travel Allowance - whatever it costs to get to Brussels or Strasbourg, all paid for
Personal Travel Allowance (for going outside the EU) - €4,000 (£3,823)

There is also a payment for secretarial services of €16,194 per month (£185,723 pa), and a generous pension fund.

Now, it's very difficult to find out how many meetings Honeyball attended, probably because the EU have only just realised that we might like to know. But I dunno, let's take it as being 50 per year, that isn't unreasonable. And let's say there are 50 claims for £500 travel expenses per year too. On that basis, Honeyball is costing you, the taxpayer, in excess of £350,000 per annum.

I'd venture to suggest, as a London resident (she being a London MEP), that she doesn't do a lot for me judging from her quite astounding blog nonsense in the past couple of days. But then, I'm not a woman.

... as the President sits down this week to an in-tray, of economic despair and two wars, will women’s issues be in the forefront of his mind?

That's right. The world is in a mess, but the President should be primarily addressing diversity and feminism. Good grief.

In Obama's speech on stimulating the economy he spoke of “building roads, bridges and schools, developing eco friendly technologies”. But as these are construction based industries that are dominated by men (just 2.7 per cent of US construction workers are women) such fiscal stimulation is almost to the sole benefit of male workers. To rectify this Albelda proposes an additional stimulus plan for the female side of the economy: “caring for those who cannot care for themselves, healthcare and primary education are the very foundation of a civil society. Investing in these outcomes is as vital to our long-term economic health as airports, highways, wind turbines, and energy retrofitted buildings.” She points out that not only do these jobs disproportionately employ women, but “investments in direct care, education, and healthcare would also go a long way in alleviating poverty.”

Yes, but they don't really create wealth do they, Mary? Which is sort of the point when it comes to stimulating an economy. Obama isn't a feminist because he isn't planning on spending enough on overheads? This is a very strange argument. But entirely Labour in its thinking.

Oh yeah. Do you remember this story too? The one about all our e-mails being logged? Well, that is, as is usual these days, an instruction from the EU. Our Government is required to introduce it. So Labour can't really be blamed for pushing it through in the UK, can they?

Oh yes they can. Because they were the fuckers who voted for it in Brussels. Here is the voting record for Directive 2006/24/EC, with Honeyball firmly in the 'yes' camp. She said yes to ...

The Directive requires Member States to ensure that communications providers must retain, for a period of between 6 months and 2 years, necessary data as specified in the Directive

to trace and identify the source of a communication;
to trace and identify the destination of a communication;
to identify the date, time and duration of a communication;
to identify the type of communication;
to identify the communication device;
to identify the location of mobile communication equipment.

This is the bit I like best though. It was where she really upset the catholics by lambasting the Pope in the Guardian. After he had refused an invitation from the EU on the basis that they were a "militantly secularist" organisation, Honeyball gave him a bit of a roasting. This is what she said in her article:

"Tolerance means defending one's views, hearing out others and respecting their convictions."

Really Mary? Funny that, seeing as you have a completely different view when it comes to pro-choice campaigners (who help pay for your £350,000pa troughing) wishing to hold a meeting in the EU building. Where did your personal tolerance and respect disappear to then? Did it elope with your fair-mindedness and keen eye for prejudice, perchance?

Lastly, get this. Mary was keen to talk about 'democratic processes' with regard to the smoking ban. Quite hypocritical considering not a single voter in London cast a vote for her. Nor can they vote against her. She is the result of a voting system which chooses jobs on the basis of a party list.

A quota is calculated for the constituency - the number of votes required to win one seat. Those who become the party's MPs, will be those placed highest in the party's list of candidates. Voters simply vote for the party, they have no say as to which candidates are elected.

So, to recap. Honeyball is sucking up over £350,000 from us. She will ignore men as she doesn't like them (even Obama), she has also ignored and ridiculed the female originator of the e-mail she received, despite blasting the Pope for not being tolerant of opposing views. She supports fake charities with no accountability to the public, but then why not seeing as she isn't accountible to the public either?

All she has to do is to follow Labour's directives and she will keep her place near the top of the closed party list for the elections in 2009 as part of their ongoing 'diversity' box-ticking exercise, thereby giving herself a better chance of sticking her snout in the very lucrative EU trough for a few more years.

Nice work if one can get it, but please Mary, don't call it democracy.

Banner pic H/T Lawson Narse

Update: Leg Iron doesn't care much for the trougher's methods either.

Friday, 23 January 2009

You Gotta See This

No wonder Labour MPs are gushing about Obama. He is showing them how leftist politics should be conducted. Compare and contrast what Labour have to offer.

Labour MEP Mary Honeyball has been ploughing her particular furrow well away from prying eyes seeing as she is an MEP that no-one usually notices. The first challenge she encounters on her blog though, after months of talking to her godawful self, and she rambles like a brain-addled crack addict.

We pay for this air-headed fucktard. In fact, as a Londoner, she is supposed to represent me. But ask her a question and she goes off on a tangent. This would be quite funny if we weren't paying for it. Think Norman Wisdom at the EU building and, well, you get the idea.

It wasn't like it was a particularly taxing puzzle. Honeyball thought it was quite funny to ridicule the idea that those who have a different viewpoint to her might want to hold a conference. The EU banned it of course, seeing as they don't really believe in democracy. It featured on quite a few blogs but I reckon Tim Worstall said it best.

Can we leave yet?

So, the answer to why she was so blase about freedom of assembly and speech being denied at the EU building is ...

There are several points made in comments. Firstly, free speech.
I have published all your comments as you have your views and I have mine. As I have done this, I am unclear on how you think I tried to suppress your views? By posting them I have given a forum and publicity to your conference.

Listen you tax-sucking retard, just because you allow comments doesn't make you a saint, it's what bloggers tend to do unless they are Labour wankstains like Dolly Draper. No-one suggested you had tried to suppress views. The EU did that. This was the crux of the problem, understand?

On smoking, even when I smoked, I supported ASH Action on Smoking and

Well, that makes you a fucking idiot then. They are a fake charity. No matter how much you agree with their views, you are supposed to be in favour of democracy. ASH have cut out democracy and you, as a proponent of democracy, should be opposing that, whether you smoke or not. And indeed, whether you agree with them or not. Or is that just me thinking that our elected representatives are supposed to think not of themselves, but of those they serve? Oh, silly me.

Some people think Elvis is alive on the moon. Others think
smoking does not cause widespread premature early death. You are welcome to your views, see free speech above, and I am entitled to disagree.

Always you, you, you, isn't it? Who said you had to agree? All anyone wants is a chance to air their voice. Commenting on your blog isn't the same as holding a fucking conference amongst tax-payers at a building we fucking own. Disagree all you like, but in a democracy, we should be allowed to object. You disagree, why can't we? You're a bit of an idiot on the sly, aren't you.

Finally libertarianism/anti-prohibition. Last time I had to deal with this it was a Tory MEP meeting with people who believed adults could have sexual
relationships with children.

Pardon? So all Libertarians and Tories are kiddie-fiddlers are they? Have you proof of assertions like that? It's considered usual when blogging to provide links. And even if you have, what the fuck has that to do with the subject matter?

I am a little unclear what it is you oppose being banned. Theft? Assault? Bear baiting? Hard drugs?

You had a heap of replies complaining about the EU cancelling a valid meeting on undemocratic grounds, but you still can't see what is the problem? Why are we paying taxes for tax hoovers like you that can't fathom basic comprehension?

In a civilised society if people are stopped from smoking in public areas by the democratic processes then that's fine by me.

Tell me the democratic processes involved where 646 MPs voted on a law that was presented to the electorate thus:

The legislation will ensure that all restaurants will
be smoke-free; all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be
smoke-free; and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to
allow smoking or to be smoke-free. In membership clubs the members
will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free.

It was your party's manifesto, I'm sure you must have read it. That's what we 44 million voted on, fuckwit. (just in case you were too busy watching X Factor, it's on page 67)

Finally, almost as a footnote, she got to the point. Unfortunately, I'm not sure she realised it.

I know some of you disagree and you are free to campaign to change
this. But you will not change my mind.

Good grief with bells on. We do disagree but we don't really give a monkey's ball-bag about your views on what was to be discussed at the meeting. You say we are 'free to campaign to change this' ... err ... no we are not. Your EU have banned us from doing just that.

That was the fucking problem you pathetic, blinkered waste of Brussels office space. How the fuck did you get elected? Who were up against you? Gary Glitter and a 14 day old lettuce?

No-one cares about your views on smoking. What this issue is about is the fact that the EU have banned those who pay their wages from talking about something the EU quite obviously believe shouldn't be discussed. Dissent is outlawed. What's more, it has been outlawed after complaints from organisations who pay absolutely nothing in taxes.

And this woman is part of the European Government? A trained chimp could do a better job.

Deja Vue

The Devil has chipped in with a classic rant about the latest BBC propaganda article on those oh-so-rigid drinking limits.

As one of DK's commenters observed, this is just a ratcheting up of the misinformation to achieve a future goal. Often explained by extremist Governments of the past as 'telling a lie, and telling it often' in order that in the minds of the slow of thinking, it becomes a truth.

The temperance movement, now alive and well primarily in Alcohol Concern and the Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS), have lifted this template straight from the success of the anti-smoking psychos. They will have a tougher job with alcohol as more like a drink than don't, but they'll keep dripping the untruths and misdirection until the gullible majority in society take it at face value. They have been working at this for a long time too, they have unlimited patience, and will be encouraged every time they see articles like that of Comrade Beeb.

Cast your mind back even as recently as 4 or 5 years ago and the idea of smoking being banned in pubs and clubs was inconceivable. Now, someone lighting up in a building where none had batted an eyelid before, is treated as if they have just released a canister of Sarin gas.

Comments to the BBC story tend to be of the 'fuck 'em, I'm glugging a nice bottle of Chenin Blanc as I stick two fingers up' variety at the moment, but believe me, now is the time to make yourself heard as this could potentially escalate very quickly. If you don't fancy the idea of a smart card registering your weekly units, after which you will be denied purchasing that bottle of wine or can of 1664 until the following Monday, get angry about it now, not just mildly irritated and dismissive of the threat. Think I'm being alarmist? Well, maybe, but perhaps it's better to make damn sure the environment is never allowed to arise in the first place. Remember, smokers have been through all this before.

Look at the similarity in approach:

1) Form a fake charity - ASH was formed in 1975, Alcohol Concern in 1985. Both enjoy charitable status without garnering serious donations from anybody at all.

2) Decide on a scare that could fool politicians into prohibition - ASH famously worked out their lie in the 70s, when a British GP announced at an ASH conference "the way forward is to foster the impression that smoking not only harms smokers, but those around them".

The temperance movement have spotted this tactic and are desperately trying to figure out how to achieve the same effect,

EU experts agreed that the strategy needed to show more clearly the facts concerning harm on third parties (both social and health), including children and other family members of persons with alcohol-related problems. Experts said that there, for information and pedagogic reasons, was a need for a good phrase to explain what we mean by third-party harm in the alcohol field.

By October 2004, the theme was established in a Eurocare submission to the Commission. ‘Alcohol not only harms the user, but those surrounding the user, including the unborn child, children, family members, and the sufferers of crime, violence and drink-driving accidents: this can be termed environmental alcohol damage or “passive drinking”.’

3) On the back of junk science, nobble the opposing industry with advertising bans - Tobacco advertising completely banned, alcohol advertising is subject to very strict rules ... so far.

4) Create a junk science reason for launching the scare - the anti-smoking industry have spent billions of dollars over the years to 'prove' that passive smoking is dangerous. They have failed in terms of risk ratios but the science is so intricate that they haven't needed to prove that much. Just a few lurid headlines and the job is done. The basic flaw isn't investigated and the lie holds water.

The anti-alcohol lobby have just repeated ad nauseam the unitary limits as if they are scientifically merited, which as the Devil correctly pointed out, they are not. Government now make policy based on fabricated figures and the public is having these numbers rammed down their throats. As the BBC article perfectly illustrates.

5) Embed the junk science firmly in the minds of the sheep - ASH use terminology such as "the debate is over", "the evidence is overwhelming", and accuse those who disagree of being flat-earthers or tobacco shills.

Alcohol control has reached this stage now and articles such as Comrade Beeb's are part of the process. As is this from The Times last year which contains a hint that the healthists are, indeed, following the template religiously.

The figures will be used by the Government to target middle-class wine drinkers and to make drunkenness as socially unacceptable as smoking.

The research, by the North West Public Health Observatory, concludes that just 22 units per week will push a man into the “hazardous” category, while women need to drink just 15 units.

Long-term problems from persistent heavy drinking include liver disease, circulatory diseases, cancer, brain damage. stomach irritation and skin and hair damage. Short-term problems include accidents and drink-related assaults.

6) Link the junk science with the scare, and push for legislation - ASH achieved this successfully, thanks to a pliable and, quite frankly, stupid Labour Government, and are now onto stage 7.

7) Eliminate all opposition by way of intimidation, humiliation and shame to avoid the cyclical nature of prohibition of both alcohol and tobacco throughout history - the first smoker ban was 400 years ago. The US had prohibition in the 1930s. The bansturbators know there could still be repeals of certain aspects of their laws, so they keep pushing. See TICAP conference cancellation, and also, this.

Avril Doyle, head of the Irish faction within the centre-right European People's Party (EPP), on Tuesday told a Brussels conference on how to prevent the tobacco industry from lobbying EU politicians that she wants cigarettes and cigars illegal in Europe by 2025.

Too many smokers and tolerant non-smokers spoke up too late to thwart anti-tobacco, not just in this country, but worldwide. The Drinkers Alliance is a good start against the temperance movement, but remember that those who wish to see your life changed for the worse are on step 3 & 4. After the smoking ban had been installed, protest has been vigorous, but the common reply from MPs is that "I didn't receive any letters prior to the ban", as justification of its merit.

If you believe that the market should dictate beer, wine and spirits prices and not Government; plus if wish to protect your right to buy alcohol when you choose and not when the Government dictates, the time to start writing letters is now. You may well regret it later if you don't.

No-one else will do it, CAMRA and the British Beer and Pub Association, for example, will probably roll over and play dead again.

Thursday, 22 January 2009

Disagree with the EU? Fuck You!

This is quite stunning from the EU. I mean truly stunning.

If you disagree with an EU policy, you will be stopped from raising your voice. Listen people, this isn't a conspiracy theory, this is bald fact. Read this very carefully and consider whether you may be next in line to have your say obliterated from the record.

Background: A two day conference had been arranged for next week by TICAP (The International Conference Against Prohibition) at the EU building. Speakers included Nigel Farage from UKIP; Godfrey Bloom, a democratically-elected MEP; plus a host of scientists and commentators on the anti-tobacco debate, from both sides of the fence. Avril Doyle, a renowned anti-smoking MEP from Ireland, had also allegedly expressed an interest in attending.

It has been arranged for nearly a year and was due to begin on Tuesday, but has been abruptly cancelled by the EU as it doesn't fit in with their policies. I kid you not. The reasoning apparently is, according to some organisation called the Smokefree Partnership, that ...

the event goes "against all of Parliament's adopted reports and the European Community's legislation and commitments on this topic"

So, because it disagrees with the EU, it is to be silenced. No debate allowed. What's more, the organisers weren't even told about its cancellation.

In an unprecedented move, the EU Bureau cancelled the conference with no record on their meeting agenda and without communication or right of reply to the sponsoring MEP, who was left to discover the truth by rumours almost a week later.

Some stupid Labour bitch thinks this is perfectly OK though, because she doesn't like the sponsoring MEP. She also saw fit to publish a personal e-mail from an attendee, complete with the sender's name, on her blog. So the award for cunt of the century goes to Mary Honeyball MEP.

Honeyball doesn't comment herself, but sneeringly states that the woman 'apparently' paid her own way to get to the conference. The title of her article and her ridicule of Godfrey Bloom shows exactly which side of the fence this particular tax-gobbling shit-stick is standing.

I'll tell you something Honeyball, you fucking cunt, I have also paid my own way to get to this conference (we haven't all been bankrupted by your inept colleagues in Westminster, and it's only 203 miles from Gatwick, you tool). I will be flying into Brussels on Monday and I fucking hope I see you. Do they do a green card system there? If so, I'm calling you out. Your job should be to defend democracy over the whole of Europe, not just support your own petty prejudices.

Stick around readers, you haven't heard the best of it yet.

The conference will still go ahead, simply because the organisers knew that the anti-smoking fascists (and I'm sure that the term fascists can now be used without any valid objection about these bastards) would pull a stunt like this. They had a plan B. Why the need for a plan B in a free society? Well, because nasty, vindictive cunts like Honeyball are in existence, that's why.

OK, so let's find out more about the Smoke Free Partnership. They are the ones that decided dissent should be stifled. Here is their web-site 'About Us' page.

The Smoke Free Partnership (SFP) is a strategic, independent and flexible partnership between the Cancer Research UK, European Heart Network, European Respiratory Society and the Institut National du Cancer. It aims to promote tobacco control advocacy and policy research at EU and national levels in collaboration with other EU health organisations and EU tobacco control networks.

Fuck me sideways. There's Cancer Research UK again. In fact, there be quite a lot of charities. When the fuck did the role of charities extend to stopping the electorate voicing their valid concerns in an open and democratic manner?

Listen you cunts, you are heavily-funded and you have your views. No problem there. Once you use those funds to dictate public policy, you cease to be a charity, you are then a lobby group and you should pay your fucking taxes. Every single delegate to this conference pays taxes in their respective country, and have used their own money to pay to be there, so they can make their democratic voice heard. Cancer Research took over £400m last year and paid fuck all, yet they somehow trump all the tax-paying voters.

Does anyone else find it extremely bizarre that an organisation that pays jack shit to any Government can have such a massive influence in stifling democratic debate across Europe? Especially over those that actually do pay for this shit?

Don't smoke? That's fine. But don't ever think that you aren't next. If you drink, eat the wrong foods, drive, fly (not as an MEP of course), use too much paper, or anything else these fuckers don't agree with. You will be similarly refused your democratic right to object.

In fact, judging by this farce, you won't even be allowed to discuss it.

UPDATE: Simon Clark has more about this on the Taking Liberties blog.

X Factor Politics

Immediately after the car crash Labour now move into the pre-pubescent world of simpering idol worship.

The Times have cast doubt on the veracity of Brent MP Dawn Butler's 'tribute' from Obama. However, Comrade Beeb, as pointed out by Iain Dale who broke the story, really can't see anything wrong with a member of parliament in a major western economy, acting like some X Factor contestant who has just met Simon Cowell.

Listen Butler, you dozy mare, you are a part of a distinguished establishment which forms part of why Britain is respected around the world. Granted, Labour have done their level best over the years to destroy that, but your simpering is akin to a 10 year old screaming at a Jonas Brothers concert (H/T my daughter). You're supposed to be in the same ruling class as Obama for fuck's sake. On a par with him. Show some bloody dignity.

Not content with writing her own congratulation (isn't that the same as sending oneself a birthday card because no-one else will?), she is actually happy to tell the world how in awe of Obama she is.

It is so embarrassing that I'm writing this from my loft, head between my knees hoping it will just go away.

Say what you like about the likes of Tony Benn, Jim Callaghan, even Dennis Skinner. They all have or had a bit of the embarrassment factor about them. But they sure as shit won't/wouldn't have jumped up and down on the spot clapping their hands and squealing like a Catherine Tate caricature. Sheesh, you were meeting someone in the same profession as you, Butler, and at the time he was at the same level of responsibility. I keep expecting Ant & Dec to turn up and ask her what it was like.

"Oh. My. God. It was SO cool. He said hello to me. I can't wait to tell my mates, they'll be WELL jealous. They'll be, like, wow!!!!!" but in txt spek m8.

This week we've had Paul Flynn having an orgasm (as usual) about Obama, whilst simultaneously moaning that he had to vote in our parliament (which he is fucking paid to do) instead of watching TV.

There were gasps of admiration for Obama's low key, expectations-lowering speech. He seemed to have adopted the preacher's cadences of Martin Luther King in his delivery.

We've had this solid gold Private Eye pseud from Polly Toynbee (probably also having an orgasm as she typed one-handed ... think about it).

There has never been a day like it for Britain's postwar generations. As that inauguration speech echoes out, the globe itself seems to inhale a mighty, collective intake of breath, frighteningly audacious in its hope.

And then this from Butler.

"I will treasure my photo with Obama and this quote forever ... He signed it with his own fair hand ... Meeting Obama was an inspirational moment. And I am so humbled that I can quote what he said about me ... Having met Barack Obama, I am lost to find the words ... but there is no doubting that just being the man he is has already exceeded many expectations"

Get over yourselves. He could be very good, he could be very bad. But, and I emphasise this, he has done fuck all yet. I hope he is fantastic for the world. Personally I hope does extremely well, whilst carrying on smoking, to show that whichever lifestyle one chooses, it's the person and their energy, enthusiasm, and talent that counts. It's a vain hope though, as his paymasters (pharma looms big) won't allow it.

But treating him like a messiah is bloody ridiculous at the moment. Most especially when our country is in a bloody mess. I'd like to think that Labour are subtlely trying to shift attention from the carnage they have created here, but I don't think they are that clever. Can they not just stop peering gooey-eyed across the pond and instead concentrate on the country they were elected to serve?

Instead, it seems to me that they have swallowed the TV reality trend so wholly that they truly believe that we want MPs to act like this. The sad thing is that the sheeple will probably agree.

Dial 0990 825 825 if you want to see Labour back next week. Calls charged at £17k per voter, and your vote may not be respected.

Stir Crazy

Womble on Tour recently commented on the case of the sick bastards who raped and disfigured a 16 year old girl. Their sentences were pitifully short for such a disgusting crime.

Now it seems, in Scotland at least, once in prison the poor mites' delicate feelings must be protected. The warders must choose their words carefully, at pain of disciplinary action, so as not to cause possible offence to the prisoners.

Capability Scotland's Elspeth Molony explained: “The word ‘daftie’ is used as a derogatory term. It implies there is something bad about them."

Of course there's something bad about them. That's why they're in prison you bovine daftie.

The Scottish Prison Service’s equality and diversity manager, Rob Hastings, defended that the guide "is not PC gone mad", concluding: "You have to keep chipping away at these attitudes."

How about I chip away at your teeth with a clawhammer instead, eh Rob?

Wednesday, 21 January 2009

A Lying Bastard Nailed

You may have seen a previous article of mine about a lying ASH bastard, Martin Dockrell.

By cherry-picking statistics, as ASH are wont to do, lying bastard Dockrell asserted that there was little damage to numbers of pub workers from the smoking ban, and almost no effect on job losses to the hospitality industry as a whole. He's wrong of course, but then he is paid to be a lying bastard by the anti-tobacco industry so it's understandable.

He also has no grounding in hospitality himself. Just a highly-paid job, paid for by your taxes, designed to sell nicotine replacement therapy on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry.

Quite fitting then, that his ill-informed figures should be destroyed by someone very well-versed with the issues faced by pubs post-smoking ban. And destroyed it has been, quite comprehensively, by a leading publican, and a non-smoking one at that.

Dear Sir

I have been asked to respond to the letter penned by Martin Dockrell the Director of Policy Research for ASH which itself was a response to Michael J McFadden's letter in the Financial Times dealing with deaths in the pub sector as a result of the smoking ban.

Let me say at the outset, that I will not be commenting on the death statistics as outlined by Mr McFadden, as I have not looked into the methodology of his claims, however, I would just point out that Mr MacFadden is internationally known for his meticulous research and evaluation of the whole smoking ban debate, so I have no reason to doubt his conclusions.

However, that sadly cannot be said of ASH who historically have been shown to have no scientific basis for their claims about deaths from Passive Smoking or indeed about the effects of passive smoking in a wider context.

When I first read Mr Dockrell's response and then his role within ASH, I have to say I was quite shocked that a person whose role would appear to be research based, clearly has made no attempt at it in relation to pub closures.

A simple 'Google’ search using the term 'pub closures UK', even without adding smoking ban, will reveal thousands of articles and stories. The one consistent element of these articles and stories are the recorded pub closure figures, and almost without exception these mention the smoking ban as a major factor.

Dealing specifically with Mr Dockrell's false claims with Camra as his source (who now are in line with all other organisations on closures), let me inform readers of the true position. In 2005 the number of recorded pub closures was 102 or 2 a week. In 2006 the year before the ban there were 216 closures or 4 a week. In 2007 there were 1409 reported for the first nine months of the smoking ban, meaning an estimated 1878 for the 12 month period, or 156 a month. These are the official closure figures reported by the British Beer and Pub Association, and reported widely by both the television media and most national newspapers in March and April 2008.

It has to be said that the actual number of closures could well be
substantially higher, as it has to be said, like the Government, the BBPA and Camra, have always been in denial about the consequences of the smoking ban, having sided with the stance taken by the Department of Health mainly advised by ASH, for a total ban.

As for the Nielson research, beer volumes have been in decline at a similar rate for 10 years, and pubs have adapted to counter these volume drops (as the figures of closures above for 2006 show) and have coped extremely well. The difference on this occasion is that the decline has resulted from the dramatic fall amongst the most heavily consuming group, the smoker. To deny that, is simply distorting the reality.

Mr Dockrell may hold the title ‘Director of Policy Research’, but he has clearly shown he is either incapable of the fundamental requirements of his job, or as we have come to expect, he has deliberately ‘spun’ by omission, and 'cherry picked' his information, something once again ASH are renowned for.

Robert Feal-Martinez

Just to recap, Dockrell (who, I remind you, is paid to lie by ASH, using money directly from your taxes) surmised that only 60 bar staff have lost their jobs as a result of the smoking ban that Labour didn't get voted in on (see Witterings from Witney for proof via the wording of the Labour manifesto 2005).

My my, this sets a different background on things doesn't it? By my calculations, this means that instead of the 60 job losses proposed laughably by the professional liar Dockrell, we are actually talking about 91,000 job losses over the next 5 years just in the UK, not including Ireland, as the original letter had done, and which the liar Dockrell failed to take into account.

Since even Dockrell can't lie his way past the British Medical Journal, I'd say that the 1,000 deaths caused by the smoking ban is a quite legitimate concern. The best Dockrell can claim is that it might only be 500.


Deaths from job losses attributed by the BMJ - at least 500
Deaths proven by the anti-smoking industry from passive smoking - Nil
Donations to ASH - £16,000
The salary of a lying bastard - a lot more
Registered electors who voted for a blanket smoking ban - about 400
Registered electors - 44 million

Still to be continued ...

... and Still No-one is to Blame

During watching Stockwell on ITV tonight, the recent Daily Mash article kept popping into my head.

I can't, for the life of me, fathom why.

(Nightjack & Inspector Gadget excepted of course)

Car Crash Politics

It's becoming increasingly difficult to envisage a more incompetent PM and Government front bench for our country.

The MP's expenses debacle today is quite stunning in the way it was handled ... or, more accurately, mishandled. It's car crash politics, tearfully appalling but still strangely fascinating in its ineptitude.

As Iain Dale highlighted earlier today, different Government departments had different info on what was happening. While Harman's lot were still advising the vote would be whipped, the one-eyed dolt was insisting there would be a free vote during PMQs, seemingly on the basis that he 'thought' the opposition were all on board.

He said: "We thought we had agreement on the Freedom of Information Act as part of this wider package.

Recently that support that we believed we had from the main opposition party was withdrawn. On this particular matter, I believe all-party support is important and we will continue to consult on that matter."

Perhaps he just assumed MPs would all stick together to hide their troughing, as is usual. Just a thought.

Then, immediately after PMQs, the vote was shelved. Margaret Beckett on the Politics Show was asked the straight question "Do you know what's going on?", but could only lamely answer with a curt "no."

So we have lack of communication between departments, followed by policy being amended on the hoof. If that wasn't the case and Brown knew this was coming, why did he still hint at an upcoming free vote during PMQs? To save announcing a humiliating U-turn live on BBC TV, perhaps?

But the biggest question of all is, how on earth are this shambles still only 13 points down in the opinion polls? How do some people still believe that the country is in safe hands with these morons at the helm?

This Government quite clearly can't organise the proverbial piss-up. *

* That's if there will be any breweries left soon, after Labour's wholesale destruction of our pubs. In fact, if they wanted their 'do' at the Stag Brewery in Mortlake, they'll have to be quick, the place is shutting down on Labour's watch, ditching 182 jobs in the process.

Tuesday, 20 January 2009

Just What We Need Right Now

As if running a business isn't difficult enough, the European Court of Justice has weighed in with this sledgehammer.

Britain's hard-pressed businesses suffered another damaging blow today when EU judges ruled that employees off sick will still be entitled to paid holidays.
It means that staff can take their annual leave built up while at home immediately they return to work.
In addition, any worker sacked or who leaves a firm while off ill must be financially compensated in lieu of the holidays not taken.

So, as well as sickness pay, which is paid at full salary by many firms, this means that some of those days will now effectively be double pay. With no useful value arising for the company doing the paying. I can imagine quite a few businesses reviewing their policy in the light of this and offering SSP only.

Maybe there can be a compromise or something, I'm sure the EU want European businesses to be globally competitive after all.

The European Court of Justice verdict ... cannot be appealed

OK. Maybe not.

Their verdict applies only to the 20 days' annual leave required by law under the EU working time directive.

However, the UK statutory minimum holiday allowance is 24 days and Law Lords, who are bound by the European ruling, will now decide whether to extend the benefit accordingly. Their decision is expected within weeks.

Remember that the current 24 days is increasing to 28 days from April this year.

I run a business and even reclaiming SSP is extremely rare. Legally you have to pay at least that and can only reclaim if it exceeds a percentage of your NI sum to HMRC. You would require a real epidemic of long-term illness to even get that.

In a caring society, that is just about understandable, although a drain on industry which, if Government want to care about employees, should be better funded for the businesses involved. However, this new ruling just puts another (unfair IMO) heavy burden on businesses.

This isn't Government money, or EU money we are talking about. All of these rules tell businesses how much of their own profits they should pay. Government like spending other people's money, it seems.

This, of course, on top of the massive increase in bureaucracy and red tape that has accrued since 1997. I think you know what happened then.

H/T Old Holborn

Monday, 19 January 2009

Pity the Pensioners

If I were a Highland Council pensioner, I'd be pretty irked today.

Highland Council has a successful, and not insubstantial pension fund, but is under pressure by the righteous to cut investment in certain companies. The fact that those companies are providing huge returns for pensioners that the fund is set up to serve seems lost on the nay-sayers.

Then it was confirmed five weeks ago that a substantially larger amount, £11.2million, from the council’s £711million pension fund was also invested in tobacco, despite a claim in the council’s official programme that it is “building a healthier Highlands”.

That story drew a pledge from council leader and GP Michael Foxley that he would ensure the authority withdrew from tobacco – but the council has confirmed it has not yet done so.

Trumpet call to the righteous then:

NHS Highland chairman Garry Coutts told the Press and Journal: “It’s up to everybody to make up their own minds on their investment decisions but I can see no good reason for somebody to be investing in tobacco companies at all."

Firstly Garry, yes it is up to everybody to make their own minds up so where you fit into this I don't know. Secondly, I can see quite a bloody good reason for investing in tobacco companies. It's because they consistently outperform the market on every indicator.

Here is the Imperial Tobacco stock over the past 5 years. (Note: the blue line denotes the shares, the other colours are FT100, FT250 & FT All Share).

BAT is even more profitable,

Garry continues,

“I would encourage everybody with such investments to consider dis-investing as quickly as possible.”

That's why you are a NHS non-jobber and not a financial consultant, you prick.

Cancer Research inevitably turn up, natch.

[Elspeth Lee, of Cancer Research UK, said:] “We urge all organisations to carefully consider how appropriate it is to invest in this industry and to look for alternative investments as much as possible.”

Elspeth, shouldn't you be off researching cancer somewhere, instead of dictating to councils about where to invest their pension funds? Profitably?

Christ on a bike. This council, just today, earned £100,800 for its pensioners if all that £11.2m was invested in Imperial. If it was with BAT, they enriched their oldies to the tune of £170,240. Tobacco stocks are a very safe investment. How is that not 'appropriate' for a pension fund?

What's more, the louder the antis shriek, the better investment such stock becomes. The Telegraph recently advised buying BAT stock (dubbing them "bulletproof") and in the US, tobacco firms are rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of more anti-smoking measures.

Why then has US tobacco giant Altria, maker of Marlboros, given its full support to the [anti-smoking] bill? Well, because the firm has read the small print. “This legislation might as well be dubbed the Altria Earnings Protection Act,” says Fortune magazine."

But Highland Council is being besieged by idiots telling them to dump a wise investment, and to plunge back into the market, at a time of unprecedented uncertainty.

Of course, no-one bothers to consult the people who will benefit or suffer from the "wise" financial advice propounded by the righteous. How many truly care where their pension fund is invested as long as they get a decent wedge out of it?

When will these morons stop? It's not your money. It is being wisely invested. Shut the fuck up.

Sunday, 18 January 2009

Dinner for Two. And The Righteous Came Too.

If you enjoy a relaxing evening in a cosy restaurant, the (near) future looks like it's going to be rather disappointing.

In August 2007, the proprietor of a no smoking restaurant in Worcester was getting all in a tizzy at his local council's decision to fine him £200 for not putting up the mandatory no smoking signs. He hadn't needed them before, and why should he? His was a no smoking restaurant. He had this to say on the matter.

"Fine me if someone smokes in my restaurant but don't fine me for refusing to put up a sign. It's pathetic.

What's next? It will lead to us having to put up warning signs all over the restaurant about alcohol and salt in food."

Remember the days when such protests were alarmist and taking a point to extremes? Perhaps that was his intention, but under Labour, he has turned out to be as accurate as the Oracle of Delphi with that particular scaremongering statement.

Fancy ordering that bottle of your favourite Sancerre with your sweetheart? Of course, and would Sir like a warning with that?

It comes as doctors' leaders call for pubs and restaurants to display clear warnings about how many units of alcohol are contained in drinks they serve.

The British Medical Association yesterday said the information should be displayed on signs and posters in bars, and on wine lists.

Irritating as that may be, at least the marvellous chateaubriand for two will banish the stresses of the week. True relaxation at last. Of course Sir, but I am obliged by law to tell you that it is bad for your arteries and is liable to make you obese. How would you like your plate of cancer-causing agents cooked?

The FSA has not finalised the scheme yet, but is looking for caterers to provide calorie information on menus with more information about fat, salt and sugar content included on leaflets at the outlet.

While the watchdog is focusing on the large food chains at the moment, it said if the scheme proved successful there was no reason why small, independent caterers could not follow with some help.

... and of course, rounding off the meal with a fine cuban or a sobranie light is perfectly acceptable. Your waiter will be happy to give you and your beau directions to the icy car park.

Labour. Tough on relaxation, tough on the causes of relaxation.

Don't believe the righteous will be happy with any of this though. It won't be long before they are calling for bans on certain foods and alcoholic drinks. Don't believe it? It's not like they've not imposed their healthist will on private business owners before through legislation, is it? Even the restaurateur in Worcester is probably stunned at the speed at which his worst-case scenario is becoming worst-case fact.

I reckon they may start by banning parma ham.

HAM and bacon should be cut from our diets to avoid the risk of bowel cancer, a landmark study has shown.

The World Cancer Research Fund study found strong evidence that eating red meat and processed meats such as pastrami, salami, and frankfurters can cause bowel cancer.

"Did you have a relaxing evening, Darling?"

"Did I fuck. I'll stay at home and do the ironing next week."

An Object Lesson in Lying

Martin Dockrell is a lying bastard, employed, at your expense, by ASH. Here are the latest available figures on ASH funding (I'm sure newer ones won't be much different), courtesy of The Filthy Smoker at Devils Kitchen.

Year ended 31st March 2007

Department of Health: £210,400

Wales Assembly Government: £110,000

Supporting charities: £185,228

Donations & legacies received: £11,143

Dockrell's latest lie (he lies for a living) is in a response on the letters pages. Liar Dockrell was replying to a letter written by Michael J. McFadden about deaths caused by the UK smoking ban.

Have some workers possibly been spared an extra chance in a thousand of getting lung cancer 40 years down the road? I actually don't believe so from my own research, but even if it were true, what is the trade-off? A loss of 50 or so pubs per week in the UK and Ireland translates into a five-year loss of roughly 100,000 jobs if we assume the average pub employs 10 people. The general impact on the economy of these people being forced to go on the dole or work at menial jobs has severe health consequences in and of itself.

A British Medical Journal study several years ago examined income inequality and its effect on mortality. It estimated that a 1 per cent difference in income translated into 21 deaths per 100,000 per year. If we assume that the estimated 100,000 workers who lose their jobs over five years had their income cut by 50 per cent, that would be over 1,000 extra deaths per year caused by the smoking bans. That's 1,000 per year, right now, as opposed to 100 claimed/theorised to happen 40 years from now without a ban.

Anyone wishing to pursue a career in Government-funded fake charities might want to start taking notes here, as Martin Dockrell gives an object lesson in lying like a motherfucker in his reply.

He makes this calculation on two assumptions. First, that over the next five years 50 pubs will close each week solely as a result of the legislation, making 100,000 bar workers unemployed, and, second, that 1 per cent of them will die as a result.

His sums only make sense if all pub closures for the next five years are entirely the result of this legislation and that all those workers have their income halved in the first year. Camra, the UK “real ale” group, has reported that an average of 57 pubs a month closed in the year pubs were subject to the new legislation but it also noted that 56 pubs a month closed the previous year, a difference of just one pub per month or 12 in all.

Lie number one is that lying bastard Dockrell is not comparing like with like. McFadden's letter mentions UK & Ireland. Dockrell purely focusses on the UK ... badly.

He goes on to quote CAMRA as a resource. That is lie number two. CAMRA did say that 57 pubs a month closed ... in March 2008.

The Campaign for Real Ale is calling for a tax cut on beer in Wednesday's Budget to help prevent community pub closures following the results of a survey released today which reveals that the number of pubs closed permanently has increased to 57 a month.

This was based on a survey of their own members at the same time that the British Beer and Pub Association was doing a survey of all pubs. They had a different figure.

Pubs have been closing at the rate of 27 a week - nearly four every day - over the past year, according to the latest figures released by the British Beer & Pub Association. The current closure rate is seven times faster than in 2006 and 14 times faster than in 2005.

1,409 pubs closed during 2007. This is a sharp acceleration on previous years. Pub numbers were down 216 in 2006 - four a week - following a fall of 102 in 2005 – two a week.

A bit more than Liar Dockrell's 57 per month but why let the truth get in the way of a lying bastard, eh?

So, the lying bastard Martin Dockrell quoted stats from a survey nearly a year old, and had already cherry-picked it from those available at the time. Conveniently ingnoring the industry standard in favour of a lesser survey by CAMRA that fitted with his particular technique of lying.

There have, of course, been further surveys since but Dockrell, the compulsive liar, has seen fit to ignore them.

Pub closures across Britain have accelerated to five a day during the first half of this year, according to new figures released today.

Pubs are now closing at the rate of 36 a week, according to figures compiled by CGA Strategy for the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA). This is a sharp increase on the 27 closures a week during 2007, reported by the BBPA in March this year.

Pubs are now closing nine times faster than in 2006, and 18 times faster than in 2005.

CAMRA agreed on their web-site.

With the most recent Beer & Pub Association report highlighting that 5 pubs are closing every day, CAMRA has to do more than ever to support local pubs through these difficult times.

Dockrell, strangely enough, chose to skip over that one from CAMRA, despite it being a hell of a lot more relevant than the CAMRA study he quoted. It couldn't be that he was being a lying bastard, could it?

Lie number three I am sure you have spotted already. That of the previous year's pub closures. I don't know where CAMRA got their figures from, and I'm not even sure if the inveterate liar Dockrell knows himself, he could be plucking figures out of the air as far as we know. It is, after all, what he gets paid for. It wouldn't be anywhere near a 'first'. Here is a document boasting about how the lying bastard Dockrell and his chums got round democracy to force their agenda on every smoker and tolerant non-smoker in the country. It is headed by "... how a Government committed to a voluntary approach was forced by effective advocacy to introduce comprehensive smokefree legislation."

Or, to sub-title, "How an organisation that no-one voted for changed the minds of a Government who were planning on doing what their electorate had asked them to do". Or perhaps, "How an organisation that can only garner £11,000 per annum in donations can dictate to a Government on how to run the country".

What we do know is that the British Beer and Pub Association did NOT record closures anywhere near 56 per week as the mendacious Dockrell claims was occurring prior to the blanket smoking ban ... that no-one voted for.

Yet this Labour Government believed lying bastards like Martin Dockrell when treating around 9 million voters as lepers. And how have smoker prevalence rates gone since?

to be continued ...

Saturday, 17 January 2009

Thursday, 15 January 2009

Dick Out and About

The title should flag me up as some flasher or some such I expect.

It's actually supposed to be about Health Minister Puddlecote being invited to post on the new National Death Service blog.

It's a grim read, but for those that like to hit back at GPs when they hector on lifestyle choices, as I do, it's a valuable resource that shows how very shocking the so-called 'free' health service is.

Firstly, it's not free. If you work, you pay for it, and you pay a hell of a lot. Secondly, you have little choice. You must pay, or else. Your only meagre choice is to still pay the Government, and then pay a private company again for a health service that actually works.

Just look at the number of abrigations of care detailed in the past couple of days. Even if you still believe that the NHS is free, why would anyone want something that is free if it doesn't do what it is designed to do? Add to that the fact that, God forbid you actually need to use the service you pay for, you are cast as a drain on the service and should alter your lifestyle so that you cost the NHS nothing ... even though you pay lots.

Would you not prefer instead to pay for something better? Especially if you could probably get the better service for the same, if not less, than you are paying already?

Have a look at National Death Service, see what you think.

Well, I Never!

Ex-head of the CBI and former Trade Minister, Lord Digby Jones, has been involved in an exercise in stating the bleeding obvious this morning.

[Lord Jones] described the civil service as "honest, stuffed full of decent people who work hard".

But he added: "Frankly the job could be done with half as many, it could be more productive, more efficient, it could deliver a lot more value for money for the taxpayer.

"I was amazed, quite frankly, at how many people deserved the sack and yet that was the one threat that they never ever worked under, because it doesn't exist."

Really? You don't say! You'll be telling us local councils are over-staffed next.

In fact, the only surprising part of this story is that Lord Jones was "amazed" at this revelation of what we all knew anyway. It also seems pointless to mention the situation - as if Labour are remotely interested in doing anything about it.

A Knockout for Punch?

Further to yesterday's news, they do say you never see a poor bookie, so Paddy Power must know their onions in offering 8/11 on the possibility of Punch Taverns trading at 1p in 2009.

That was quite an opportunity the pub chain grasped 18 months ago, wasn't it?

Stop sniggering at the back.

H/T handymanphil @ F2C

Wednesday, 14 January 2009

It's Hard Not To Laugh

It appears that Punch Taverns are having a bit of a 'mare.

Punch Taverns Plc, the U.K.’s largest pub owner, fell to a record low in London trading after reporting reduced sales and profitability, and saying it sees no improvement in business conditions as the economy weakens.

Punch dropped as much as 23 percent and traded down 11 pence to 46.75 pence at 12:16 p.m. local time, heading for the lowest close since a May 2002 initial public offering. Shares of rivals Enterprise Inns Plc and Greene King Plc also slid.

Profit at outlets leased to tenants and open at least a year fell 12 percent in the 20 weeks ended Jan. 10, Burton-Upon-Trent, England-based Punch said today. Sales at outlets managed by Punch dropped 2.5 percent on the same basis, while the operating margin, a gauge of profitability, narrowed by 5 percentage points because of rising food and energy costs, and price promotions.

Punch scrapped its second- half dividend in September and is repurchasing bonds to whittle away at debt that’s about 35 times more than its market value.

In fact, the pub chain's share price has fallen by 92% in the past year. So what is to blame?

Business conditions are likely to remain difficult “for the foreseeable future,” the pub owner said. The slowing economy, coupled with supermarket discounts on beer, are leading Britons to cut back on nights out.

Take your fingers out of your ears Punch, stop saying 'lalalalala', and think again. Below is how Punch shares have performed since 2003, they peaked at just over £13 per share in around about, ooh let's see, July 2007. It's been all downhill, quite literally, since then.

It's a startingly different outcome to the one they were naively expecting 18 months ago.

Francis Patton, customer services director said: “Too many people are looking at the smoking ban as a threat, but we know this is a huge opportunity. The smoking ban is a great opportunity to get new customers (who want to eat) into pubs and also keep people there who go regularly.”

Prior to the smoking ban experiment, Punch Taverns chose to spout execrable guff like that rather than speak up for their business and their industry, and fight the Government on behalf of their customers. Instead they just rolled over and let the righteous tickle their tum.

At time of writing, their share price has further collapsed to 43p per share.


Tuesday, 13 January 2009

Beg Pardon?

I don't think there are many that could argue that the smoking ban was brought in on the flimsiest of evidence. No matter what the righteous tell you, they had to manipulate the figures into a mish-mash before they could even produce a statistically-insignificant level of risk ... indoors.

If Government had tabled a vote on banning smoking in the open air, I think we can safely assume that it would have been trashed. Even this pathetic pile of myopic malingerers at Westminster would have seen through that one.

It doesn't stop our (ahem) wildly-successful and not-at-all wasteful NHS throwing our NI contributions at a problem that doesn't exist though, does it?

Patrols aim to stop staff and patients flouting the no-smoking rule in the grounds of two hospitals in Cumbria.

From Monday, all entrances and car parks at the Cumberland Infirmary in Carlisle and West Cumberland Hospital, Whitehaven, will be regularly checked.

A ban on smoking anywhere in the hospital or its grounds, was put in place in July 2007, but there have many reported incidents of it being ignored.

The health trust said this had been causing distress to non-smokers.

North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust is one of those moronic NHS bodies throughout the country that have decided that a blanket indoor ban which was not voted on democratically by the public, means that they can bring in a blanket outdoor ban, which ... err ... has not only not been democratically voted on by the public, but also has no valid scientific justification, and is unenforceable in law.

Unfortunately, with all the things that NCUH NHS Trust could be spending money on. You know, the usual stuff, curing patients, buying scanners for their hospitals, stopping killing people every now and then, things like that, they choose instead to spend our money on "Hit Squads" to tackle smoking on hospital grounds.

New smoking patrols are today being launched at north Cumbria’s hospitals in a bid to stop those who continue to ignore a high-profile ban.

Bosses at Carlisle’s Cumberland Infirmary and the West Cumberland Hospital, Whitehaven, banned smoking on their premises – both inside and out – in July 2007.

Until now the ban has not been policed, but following complaints from members of the public, bosses have decided to step up their efforts.

I dunno, but perhaps it hasn't been policed before because it isn't a fucking law? Now, however, the efforts are being stepped up. All of it detracting from what these dickheads should be doing. That is, concentrating (and spending their finite supply of funds) on curing people within their walls, not persecuting those outside.

Don't you fuckers EVER talk about certain lifestyles costing the NHS x amount of pounds again when you are spunking what you do have up the wall so gratuitously.

Seriously, is this not the biggest argument ever against the NHS? Enforcing a non-law, using our money to do it, which without any doubt whatsoever, diverts funds from what they are actually there to do. Unless I have got something wrong somehow and the real reason we pay our national insurance is so that some jackbooted troll can be paid to wander around a car park and stop someone smoking in their own car while waiting for a friend or relative.

No, honestly, I'm not joking. That's what they said.

Patrols will be at both hospital sites from today, focusing on all entrances, including outside accident and emergency units, areas behind buildings and car parks.

Those exhaust fumes are fine, it's just a smoker with his windows shut that is the problem. And guess what? It's still not a law, so if you tell them to shove their head up their arse, what can they do? Not a lot.

Good fucking grief.

Monday, 12 January 2009

Confused. Who is the Least Judgemental?

There's an interesting difference of opinion amongst commenters on Letters from a Tory.

I have to say that I don't agree with him/her either.

... you have been told by Leeds City Council that you are ineligible to do so as you weigh 24 stone. You have been informed that a reapplication will be considered if and when you slim down. Harsh as this may sound, I’m siding with your local council as you seem unable to grasp the dangers that your weight poses.

The guy is 37, and 6'1" in height. He weighs 24 stone, but his BMI is 42 as opposed to the arbitrary 40 that the council decrees is 'safe'. Who decides these limits? Are they plucked out of the air like the one about 'safe' drinking?

LFAT then goes on to explain ...

First, a basic lesson in health risks.

Good God. Is this what we are to expect if the Tories take charge? We've heard enough of that from James Brokenshire thanks.

Obesity is a major risk factor for heart disease and heart attacks as it increases cholesterol levels, raises blood pressure, induces diabetes and can lead to joint and muscle problems for obvious reasons.

There we go, sweeping generalisations a la Labour. All humans quite obviously follow a set path as dictated by scientific computer models. It saddens me greatly to keep reading the terms 'risk factor', 'health risks' etc, coupled with the bald statements that it definitely leads to illness and/or death. There is no 'may' in any of this assertion.

I know that the age-old saying of “the only thing that matters is that a child is brought up in a loving environment” can be wheeled out here. Even so, the BBC reported recently that carrying extra fat around your middle substantially increases the risk of an early death, in which a new study found that every extra 2 inches (5cm) around the waist raised the chance of early death by between 13% and 17%. If this figure is applied to you, the statistical risk of you dying young is frighteningly high.

New study? BBC? Why am I getting so very disappointed with Tories if they think and write like that? And ridiculing the 'age-old saying' by condescendingly stating that it can be 'wheeled out'? No, it's true. The central point of fostering surely has to be that a child is brought up in a loving environment. Anything else should surely be secondary to that. To dismiss someone primarily on their weight is wrong, surely, or has game theory taken such a hold that such things are irrelevant?

I accept that Leeds City Council’s decision may be hard to swallow (pun intended) but surely you can see where they are coming from. The fact that you don’t smoke and don’t drink is a credit to you.

A nice joke against the fatty (not the only one), followed by a congratulation that is probably fuelled by more adherence to what was read about some study or other in the paper recently, which without doubt was funded by some pressure group or other who are, in turn, funded by the Labour Government. Way to go, Tory.

My attitude on this matter is that despite your protestations of possessing good parenting skills, you cannot escape the reality of what you are offering an adoptchild: a potentially single parent family crippled by the early death of a parent caused by obesity plus the subsequent trauma this would inflict on a child who has presumably experienced enough pain and suffering already.

So let them keep suffering and rotting away in council care then? According to you LFAT, Damien isn't going to last long enough to bond anyway. There is still one parent left to look after him/her though.

Of course, there is no reason why the guy won't live to a ripe old age anyway. I know of a father in the Puddlecote household who is now 69 and has a BMI much higher than 42, he's on a blood-thinning drug too thanks to an inherited dodgy ticker. He is 69 and doesn't look like shuffling off this mortal coil anytime soon. In fact, we can't bloody stop him working from 6am till 6pm, more's the pity.

Why on earth do we have to all suddenly class people by their lifestyle choices or appearance rather than the people that they are? Because the BBC say so? Because it is righteous? Seriously, I don't understand.

It seemed to me that the couple had very many qualities that would have stood up well to adopting. Unfortunately, rather like this bunch of idiots at Redbridge Council (subsequently copied in other areas), the central point seems to have been missed by Leeds Council. Are they good parents or not? Bringing out the crystal ball to try to second guess the future on puritan grounds, whilst there is a shortage of people such as these, doesn't appear to be sensible to me.

Mr Hall made the observation that he is no different to a normal parent where life expectancy might not be certain. I venture to suggest that he may have a point.

I'm certain that Labour are confusing people with statistics on paper sent to them by those with a vested interest. I know also that the Lib Dems are equally useless when it comes to ignoring junk science and judging people on merit. I thought the Tories would be a bit better. I'm truly confused now. Can they all be succumbing to this bullshit?

Sunday, 11 January 2009

I Can See It Coming

The guy above is Ted 'The Count' Hankey, who has just won the BDO World Darts Championship. It's the other one, that Phil 'The Power' Taylor isn't in. The final was a good watch, and he deserved it after 13 sweaty sets, but I can almost see the headlines coming after the BBC reported on him earlier this week thus

'Healthy lifestyle' pays off for Hankey

Ted Hankey puts his 3-0 first-round victory over Brian Woods at the BDO World Championships down to fewer beers before matches - and then heads outside for a cigarette following his chat with Ray Stubbs.

As sneering goes, this snidey comment was up there with the best the righteous can offer. Remember that this is from the BBC web-site, an arm of the organisation that paid out our licence money on this, but still wish to rubbish it with their righteous agenda.

Are the BBC a bit confused as to what their role is supposed to be? Are they there to provide entertainment? Or to spout healthist crap?

Darts is a working man's game played primarily in pubs (the ones that are left after the righteous have decimated them of course). Viewers in their millions would have watched tonight and the rounds that preceded it. A very hefty proportion probably drink and smoke, in fact, the BBC's coverage leaned in that direction as the player interviews were held in the players' bar.

So, does one hand in the BBC know what the other is trying to achieve here? Why bother supplying live coverage of every match if some idealist tosspot is going to rubbish those that play it on the BBC web-site?

The guy won the whole thing along with the £95,000 cheque that went with it, but I can almost see the righteous jumping up and down with glee in anticipation of insisting that it was abstinence that got him there. I hope I'm wrong, but I expect the entirely Government-funded Alcohol Concern to turn up, righteously, in the next day or so.

The BBC don't know what to think. They had good TV tonight, but their IT twats will probably be hacked off that Hankey may have celebrated with a big fat cigar.

Ain't life a bastard when you're a righteous, working for a broadcaster who has to cater for everyone?

BBC privatisation, anyone?