Those Inconvenient Commoners

Tom Slater has written a superb essay in Spiked Review which I can heartily recommend you read in its entirety. Here are a few salient highlights.

Victorian elitism is back. Let’s fight it. 

The bald, seething contempt with which journalists, academics and politicians met the British people’s decision to leave the European Union has been remarkable. Though often dressed up in defences of representative, parliamentary democracy, against the alleged instability of direct democracy and plebiscites, the message has been clear: the masses are too stupid, too emotional, too morally ill-equipped to play a serious role in political life. 

The necessity of having a cool-headed elite to temper the will of the masses, and insulate politics from the people, has been argued for plainly, even by those who would consider themselves radical and progressive. In an interview with Open Democracy, philosopher Slavoj Zizek slammed the referendum, arguing instead for the ‘appearance of a free decision, discretely guided’ by the elite – an ‘invisible state, whose mechanisms work in the background’. Elitism, technocracy, soft tyranny, even, are being presented as necessary correctives to the ignorance of the masses: ‘Perhaps’, opined a US academic, ‘the UK’s leaders owe it to the people to thwart their expressed will’. 

The shamelessness with which arguments against democracy, against the people, have been put forward feels genuinely astonishing and new in an era in which those who rule feel, at the very least, obliged to tiptoe around us, rather than greet our arguments and passions head-on. But history shows us there is nothing surprising to the elite’s response to the Brexit vote.

No, there isn't. And there is nowhere that it is more transparently seen than in the issues we talk about on these pages.

'Public health' tax-scroungers are past masters at ignoring the will of the people. How else does one describe a vast array of NGOs and fake charities which derive no funding whatsoever from the public but who employ thousands of highly-paid lobbyists to do nothing but scaremonger, produce junk science and petition parliaments for anti-social policies on popular products?

There was no call from the public for a sugar tax until a few state-funded nutters demanded it; no-one ever asked for minimum pricing to make their weekly grocery bill more expensive; no-one asked for plain packaging (because everyone except 'public health' troughers know it's laughable); and people quite like fast food and don't want outlets shut down; yet vast amounts of our taxes are hurled at repulsive prodnoses to shriek about how 'urgent' these things are.

ASH itself was only founded by government cash in 1972 because the government couldn't understand why the public weren't anti-smoking like politicians were, and Alcohol Concern was likewise set up by elitist politicians in the 1980s.

Similarly, the Godawful pact between elitist politicos and the rancid gravy train passengers they fling huge salaries at has become accustomed to using or ignoring public opinion however it sees fit, as I've written about before.

Yesterday Simon Clark reported that Swansea Council held a Consultation on Smoke-Free Public Spaces ... and promptly ignored it.

In other words, even though less than 15% of respondents were current smokers there was still a clear majority opposed or strongly opposed to extending smoking bans to public beaches. 

Ignoring that small detail, Swansea Council has gone ahead and introduced a 'voluntary' smoking ban at Caswell Bay with the support (naturally) of ASH Wales and other interfering busybodies. 

The Caswell Bay policy is described as a one-year pilot scheme. I imagine it's what they intended all along. The outcome of the consultation was a minor hiccup.

Indeed, because anti-smoking is a pseudo-religious crusade. It is nothing to do with health and the tobacco control industry has never been remotely interested in the public good. Despite undoubtedly knowing the results of the Swansea Council consultation ASH Wales, for example, couldn't give a badger's tit what the public think.

“We support Swansea Council in implementing their first smokefree beach – only the second of its kind in Wales. 

But then the first, you may remember, was "fully" welcomed by 'vape-friendly' ASH Wales despite (or maybe because) it included vaping. Their logo now sits proudly on signs designed to 'denormalise' e-cigs in the minds of the public. It's pretty clear that the only people ASH Wales really care about are those who derive state-funded salaries from ASH Wales.

Well, actually it's not strictly true that tax-sponging anti-smoking sock puppets always ignore the public. If it suits them they are more than happy to use us as lobbying tools, as we saw in September last year.

Sheila Duffy, from anti-smoking group Ash Scotland, said in a 2014 survey, 73% of Scottish adults agreed smoking around hospitals should be outlawed.

So, if the public want smoking banned, ASH will call for a ban; if the public doesn't want smoking banned, erm, ASH will still call for a ban.

This is, of course, not even close to being the first time all branches of ASH have completely ignored the wishes of the people whose taxes pay their salaries, the same was true with plain packaging and all UK smoking bans to name but two occasions of many.

In short, here is the tobacco control industry's policy towards the public, in full.

"If the public is useful for what we want, great; but if not, fuck 'em"

This is just one example. There are many others I could mention which all share the same characteristic ... according to the 'public health' cult, we must never, on any account, be listened to unless our opinion agrees with what they - a circle jerk of vapid politicians and tax spongers who encourage them - have decided for us.

What's more, they are often even prepared to ride roughshod over their own kind if a policy they want to bully us with doesn't agree with the evidence. Here is an incredible example from Sheffield this past week. A smoking ban outdoors has been applied despite there being no evidence of harm whatsoever, it includes e-cigs. Just a couple of weeks ago Public Health England stated quite clearly that this should not happen, but who gives a shit if you're a Director of Public Health?

Screw those city slickers,eh @felly500, what do they know? #JoinedUpPublicHealth pic.twitter.com/A4tQMChnDt

— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) July 30, 2016

Well whaddya know! After years of telling us otherwise, anecdotes *do* equal anecdata after all! @felly500 #Crooks pic.twitter.com/kuqbnfSA5W

— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) July 30, 2016

Y'see - after ignoring the public; blocking dissent on social media; excluding all opposing views from being heard; and excluding independent voices from debates - even if elements of 'public health' itself agrees that prohibitionist policies are wrong, the moral panickers and bigotry-stokers will still navigate around it.

Tom Slater is correct, these hideous elitists must be fought all the way. Do go read his whole piece to see how top-down elitist snobbery is not even a new phenomenon, it's just that state-funded lobbyists have learned to harness it to selfishly stuff their trousers with your hard-earned in recent decades, and bugger the consequences.

Mascot Watch #27: State Jackboots In Your Property Edition

Real life has got in the way in Puddlecoteville so there's been no time to comment on how the country's most vacuous woodentops failed to see beyond the end of their snouts and voted for a ban on smoking in private vehicles. For teh chilrenz, natch.

However, I can't let this pass without comment. You see, mere mascot status is looking a tad miserly for our Phil after reading his contribution to the pathetic charade debate. Here are some highlights.

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative) 

I have no quibble at all with Luciana Berger, who represents the smug, patronising excesses of new Labour. They think that the only reason they came into Parliament was to ban everybody else from doing all the things that they happen not to like. What perturbs me is that Conservative Ministers appear not to have grasped the concept, even though they claim to be Conservatives, that we can disapprove of something without banning it. This is just another in the long line of triumphs for the nanny state. 

The Conservative party used to believe in the rights of private property, and that people could do as they pleased in their own private property. Their private vehicle is their own private property. If people wish to smoke in a car with children, that is a decision for them to take. As Conservatives, we should not interfere with that. 

We all know where this is going to end up. The people at Action on Smoking and Health, who appear to be the only people the Department of Health listens to, are not going to hand over their company car keys when this measure gets passed tonight—they will be campaigning for the next one, which is of course to get smoking banned in everybody’s homes as well. Once we have agreed to the principle of banning smoking in people’s private cars, how on earth can we logically say that there is a great difference regarding people’s homes?

Do go read the whole thing, including this part of his denouement which lays bare how comprehensively unfit for purpose the current fuckwitted catastrophe (the correct collective noun, I believe) of modern career politicians now is.

The Minister said that it would be a constraint on the Minister’s power to accept my amendments. Well, I make no apology for trying to constrain the Minister’s power. That is what the House of Commons is all about—trying to make sure that sensible decisions are taken based on evidence, not just on the latest whim of the nanny state brigade whom she has listened to. We are supposedly here to try to defend the freedoms of people in this country. This Government want to trample over every single one of those freedoms.

Which, by a stunning coincidence, is precisely why the entire country despises politicians and wouldn't lose sleep if each and every one were to be strung from a lamp post tomorrow.

Bravo, Mr D! As of now, you are no longer my mascot - instead, arise Sir Philip, official blog Knight.

Watch out, too for an eloquent contribution from Ian Paisley Jr and a Tory MP rubbishing Deborah Arnott's foul bullshit from the green benches of the House.

Charles Walker (Broxbourne, Conservative) 

My hon. Friend will know that one of the main scourges for young people is alcohol. Why are the Government not proposing standardised packaging for alcohol?

Don't know about Debs, but that certainly looks like a domino theory come true to me.

And lastly, kudos to this Labour MP for delivering a speech which is brilliantly ahead of its time (after three tiny edits).

David Winnick (Walsall North, Labour) 

I was also around when we debated banning smoking in vehicles with children, which it was argued at the time was a grave restriction on freedom. Who in the House of Commons today, in 2019, would argue that, apart from the hon. Member for Shipley and a few others? The ban, which was so controversial at the time, has been widely accepted in the country. People said that it would not be accepted and that the law would be broken, but has it been? Where is the evidence that the law on smoking passed in the previous Parliament has been broken? 

I accept entirely that it may be difficult to implement the measures that have been suggested on smoking in private homes, and I do not underestimate the difficulties. I do, however, say simply that it is worth a try. Every organisation that has been mentioned and is concerned with public health has argued that the amendment should be put into law, as I believe it should be. It provides an opportunity to protect children in the way it describes, and it is likely, however difficult it may be to police, that people will accept that the law has been passed by Parliament, and that there will be a greater desire to ensure that it is observed. This measure is worth a try, and anything that can protect children from the dangers of smoking should certainly be supported tonight.

I wonder where he got his Tardis from?

Go On Then, Just One More Giggle

Seeing as 'Ex Democrat' mentioned it in yesterday's comments, how about a little chuckle at Punch's expense. Last time, I promise.

2007.

Francis Patton, [Punch Taverns] 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.”

And now (click to enlarge for full schadenfreude joy).


Punch Taverns grabbed that 'opportunity' of a 99% collapse in their share price with both hands, so they did. Well done, you sage Captains of industry, you.

After supping with the Devil, what else did they really expect?

And in case that didn't make you laugh enough, here's the comedian who tops the bill in these parts of late (you may want to hum the Benny Hill theme tune as you read this utter crud from Linda Bauld).

Impact on the Hospitality Industry

Annual Business Inquiry data were only available to 2008 at the time the scoping study was conducted. These data showed that turnover fell in 2007 for bars but not for restaurants or hotels.

Data on consumer spending showed some signs of a small decline in the third quarter of 2007 in the period following the introduction of smokefree legislation, but the size of this fall did not reach statistical significance

See, that chart from above is just an illusion. It didn't happen. Professional anti-smoker Linda Bauld says so, so it must be true.

Because when Labour were looking to ascertain the effect of the Health Act 2006 (smoking ban, to you and me) and paying nearly £50,000 for the 'expert' opinion, who do you think they hired to do so?

Was it ...

A) An eminent accountant
B) An accomplished economist, or
C) A dedicated anti-smoking health professional with no grounding whatsoever in business or financial affairs, and with a track record of producing bullshit?

Hmmm, that's not as funny, is it? The joke's on all of us instead for having to put up with such blatant manipulation and mendacity.

Stony Stratford Councillor Struggles With His Evidence

Say, for the sake of argument, you were a councillor. And say you hypothetically decided to propose something as ludicrous as a total smoking ban outdoors on the premise that:

"When you walk through the high street in any town smoke is in your face and harming you and any children there. Smokers then get their butt, which is full of saliva, and chuck it on the floor. It costs millions to clear street rubbish, and goodness knows what a child could pick up from them. If I make the environment cleaner and save on council tax, sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns."

And say you were approached by BBC Look East to appear in a feature on such a proposal.

Would you:

a) Tactfully decline under the weight of adverse publicity - you're a savvy politician, after all?
b) Agree to do so, and back your rhetoric up with examples from the town you represent?
or c) Be filmed in anywhere but the place which would be forced to suffer your lunacy?

Guess which option Councillor Bartlett chose.

The proposed smoking ban in Stony Stratford was featured on the BBC's Look East programme last night, 30th June.

Stony Stratford Town Councillor Paul Bartlett, the man who is making the proposal is, rather strangely, interviewed and shown picking up cigarette butts outside the Tesco's Store in Kingston, Milton Keynes. That's nearly 10 miles away from the picturesque High Street of Stony Stratford!

In another shot, the Smoke Room window of The Swan pub in Old Stratford is shown. That may be geographically close to Stony Stratford, but it is over the river in Northamptonshire.

Yes. It's such a massive problem in Stony Stratford that Bartlett was forced to travel for miles, and over county borders, to find evidence for his plan to ban smoking in a town where there is - judging by his choice of televised venue - no apparent problem.

I think this curious case requires further investigation seeing as the council is adamant that the vote will still go ahead on the 19th of July. I reckon I'll pop up there and have a look around, have a beer, smoke a bit lot, and maybe even track down Herr Bartlett for a little chat (if he's not mooching around in an entirely different town, of course).

Fancy coming along?

I'm serious, by the way.

UPDATE: Bartlett's BBC Look East appearance can be viewed here.

Argos: The Choice Of The Professional, Apparently

In August, Liberal Vision commented on a BBC article which, in turn, unquestioningly regurgitated a load of nonsense produced by New Zealand's University of Otago, one of the world's most ridiculous anti-smoking institutions.

Here was Comrade Beeb's take on it.

The tobacco industry may be using websites such as YouTube to get around a ban on advertising cigarettes, a study says.

The authors analysed 163 clips, of which 20 appeared to be "very professionally made," they say.

Angela Harbutt at LV mirrored my thoughts at the time.

How disappointed must they have been? All that time slaving over a hot pc looking at shed loads of evil…. and their smoking gun (excuse the pun) is …….that 20 pro-smoking videos on YouTube look great?

Who is to say that these brilliant videos were NOT made by a number of motivated, gifted individuals, with a video camera and/or some editing equipment, sharing their passion with the wider world? Why is it that the quality/brilliance of the videos is taken to mean that they are bound to have been made by the tobacco giants or their ad agencies…. Have these people not checked out just how many brilliantly made, professional looking, videos are being put out there on YouTube these days?

I am thinking of emailing the authors of the research study [...] asking if they wouldn’t mind posting links to the 20 videos that looked “very professionally made” so that we cant put them up on LV.

Well, Angela, via an Observer article today, we have a better idea of what they are talking about.

Here is the example they give.

Err, and that's it. 'Very professionally made' with - as the uploader admits - "a digital camera, a mac and too much time on my hands."

Quite obviously, then, categorical proof of tobacco industry involvement for the terminally obsessed - and one must seriously start doubting their sanity soon - tobacco control movement.

Except that stop motion photography isn't new, or even that difficult. For crying out loud, I toured a secondary school this week where 12 year olds were exhibiting more advanced stuff than that clip! In fact, kids were making such films for Screen Test's annual 'Young Film-Makers' competition back in the 1970s, well before the advent of digital cameras and software affordable to just about everyone.

You'd think the BBC might have worked that one out considering they funded the fucking show, and aired the stop motion films. Made. By. Kids!

What's more, just a cursory glance at the other videos uploaded by this user shows that he is a Transformers fan, that's all. He also transforms matchboxes and Durex packets to the theme tune, as well as posting a clip of Transformers in Indonesian.

And ASH - funded by your taxes, remember - describe such an innocent video thus.

Amanda Sandford, research manager at anti-smoking group Action on Smoking and Health (Ash) said the study's findings were "disturbing but fairly typical of tobacco industry activity".

Amanda. Seek psychiatric help. No, really.

I wonder what the other 19 'professionally made' videos (that can't be revealed as the report is behind a paywall) were like. Something really advanced like using captions, perhaps? Or daring to employ fade and wipe on a £60 Argos Alba?

Good grief.

H/T The Grim Reaper

It's That (Lying) Man Again

"A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on." C H Spurgeon (1834-92)

Unfortunately for serial porkie-spouter, Martin Dockrell of ASH, when truth gets its steel toe-capped DMs on, it can deliver one hell of an arse-kicking.

It will no doubt come as no surprise that Dockrell has again been doing what he is paid by the Labour Government to do. Lie. If the old wives' tale about a fib resulting in a spot on one's tongue is correct, Cockrell's mouth must be an almost radioactive cauldron of putrid, pus-laden, boiling sores. If he were made of wood, his conk would have speared half a dozen office blocks by now. This guy is a Grandmaster in the art of being a cunt.

His latest excursion into the realms of bigoted fantasy is particularly disgusting though, and would seem to exhibit a real sense of desperation. He is rather irked that scorn has been poured on a pile-of-shit 'study' regarding a fall in heart attacks in Scotland following the smoking ban, which was not true, and has been proven conclusively not to be true by subsequent factual health admissions data.

Proving both the laziness of journalism, and the quote about lies gaining momentum without merit, Dockwit's crap was yesterday smeared all over Medical News without so much as a casual glance at the veracity, and within hours, was also repeated verbatim on over a dozen other health sites.

The target of his anger was Michael Blastland, a prominent statistician who produced this Comrade Beeb article.

The facts in the way of a good story

It looked like a vindication of the smoking ban in Scotland - in little more than a year, the heart attack rate had been cut by almost a fifth. But look at official figures, says Michael Blastland, and it just doesn't stack up.

Dockshit is incandescent about this. How dare anyone question the march of the righteous? Following a series of half-truths, misdirection, and cherry-picking of statistics, he concludes that Blastland is a "dissident", a "conspiracy theorist" and akin to a denier of the link between HIV and AIDS.

In Dockrell the liar's wibbly-wobbly world perhaps, except Blastland is none of the above, he is merely a well-regarded best-selling author on the misuse of statistics in many areas, and is published by the BBC, The Guardian, The Times, The New Statesman, and the New York Times.

Dockrell, as we know, is paid to lie on one subject, and one subject only, by the Government, and isn't well-regarded by anyone. Not surprising considering he is a lying cunt.

What is even more distasteful is that Dockrell's slurs come on the back of another condemnation of those who wish to debate the matter, by a disgustingly evil knob-stroker called Martin McKee. He makes comparisons between those who disagree with the passive smoking 'science' and holocaust deniers.

Seriously, I'm not making this up. If you think that the issue of passive smoking is overblown, you must, according to these nasty cunts, believe that HIV isn't linked with AIDS, and that no jews died in the gas chambers.

Don't believe me? I know it is hard to fathom how DNA could possibly contrive to form itself into something as objectionable as Martin Dockrell, but it's true. Fortunately, Dockrell's lies have been systematically taken apart by Chris Snowdon here. I strongly recommend you read this in its entirety (it's not a long article) to give you a realisation of how these lying nutjobs operate.

My personal favourite piece of world class bullshit from Dockrell, was this stunning hypocrisy.

The ASH review acknowledges that many of the studies have differing strengths and that no single study can ever demonstrate causation.

Yet he made no comment about his ASH colleague, Deborah Arnott, using this single study to 'prove' causation at the time, did he? Nor does he now.

Anti-smoking campaigners said the figures proved smoking bans would improve public health. As well as reducing heart attacks, the bans are likely to cut rates of cancer in the long term, said Deborah Arnott, of the pressure group Action on Smoking and Health.

She added: "We knew from epidemiological statistics there was a risk from secondhand smoke to cardiovascular health but not how much of a risk until now."

Dockrell, you have been caught being a lying piece of shit, yet again. This time, though, your methods are sinister and designed to foster hate. I'm sure your intentions are altruistic (if you're not just doing this for the Government cash, that is), so if you truly care about the future of the human race, how about you cut your tongue out with a rusty saw so future generations aren't subjected to your particular brand of nasty, mendacious bigotry. Best of luck.

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.

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.

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.

Number-crunching:

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 ...

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.

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 FT.com 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 ...

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.

Not Guilty M'lud

You may remember Hazel "my Dad's smaller than your Dad" Blears getting rather irritated by bloggers on the day we were strolling up to Parliament Square.

She turned her fire on political "bloggers" - accusing them of fuelling disengagement by focusing on "unearthing scandals, conspiracies and perceived hypocrisy" and of being written by "people with disdain for the political system and politicians".

I know it's been done before, but ... if politicians weren't such dismissive individuals, perhaps we wouldn't be so disdainful of the political system, eh?

Unless and until political blogging 'adds value' to our political culture, by allowing new and disparate voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and pessimism.

The culture of cynicism and pessimism emanates from the fact that you won't listen to us. We are the new and disparate voices, raising legitimate protest and challenge. What sort of challenge do you expect when you rig all your 'public consultations'? All faithfully reported by Comrade Beeb without recourse to 'responsible' objective journalism.

Then, as if by magic, via Iain Dale, comes the news that the Law Society are warning us that bloggers could be in line for defamation or libel actions.

As media specialist Amber Melville-Brown at David Price Solicitors & Advocates observes, modern technology means a defamatory story can no longer be forgotten ...

The internet, in particular, she says, has brought about a fundamental change, with the ‘publisher’ of defamatory material online no longer being only the old but known foe of the media, but an entirely different force: the blogger.

Olswang associate Ashley Hurst added,

...defamation cases have become more sophisticated and that the work of media lawyers has changed.

Defamation lawyers are now spending lots of time tracking down anonymous internet users. In contrast to libel actions against newspapers, in some cases claimants are now bringing proceedings simply to establish who is responsible for damaging their reputations and obtain injunctions ...

Personally, I have always written what I believe to be the truth, but I'm taking the well-intentioned advice seriously.

As a result, I'd like to say that ASH are a bunch of Government-funded liars who refuse to even consider debating their ridiculous claims, preferring instead to bypass democracy by way of lobbying Government and the Media, against the stated wish of the voting public. Their insistence that "the debate is over", with regard to passive smoking, is incorrect and they are well aware of that ... well, they would be seeing as they are a bunch of Government-funded liars.

Come and get me. Let's see your rebuttal stand up in court. You know, that place your type are desperate to avoid seeing as you generally get butt-fucked when you get there.

Talking of lying, here's a bit more from the aforementioned Amber Melville-Brown about our wonderful broadcast media.

Rolling news enables a story to be published over and over to millions of people worldwide ...

While an affected party may choose to disregard them as not meriting a response, she says, they can have an insidious effect, creating a momentum of their own until – repeated and republished frequently enough – they are believed to be true.

Trying to stop a concerted campaign of criticism on the internet, she adds, can be like ‘trying to plug the holes in a colander’.

She's right you know, Comrade Beeb has been presenting ASH lies as fact for quite a while now. Almost invariably without providing a right of reply to bodies that disagree with the Government-funded liars.

This one is just the latest. Exhibits A through to Z and beyond would have just taken too much time to post.

Wot eva

I see Comrade Beeb are at it again, with this ridiculous 'health' article about Third Hand Smoke.*

I was preparing a comprehensive fisking of this seeing as it is littered with misdirection, lies, and downright shoddy journalism, but I don't think I shall bother.**

I think I'll let this lady comment instead.***



She said, "What a load of old shhhhitt"

* Here is the original research from that font of scientific expertise, some bigoted pharma shill in Massachusetts
** I reserve the right to spank the living daylights out of it in the future though.
*** The irony of this being a BBC creation is not lost on me. In fact, I pinched the pic from their site. Stuff 'em, I helped pay for it.

Before, During, and After

Having spent a few days enjoying the company of family, installing a shiny new PC with the biggest screen in the world, and generally drinking irresponsibly while eating tins full of Celebrations and watching darts on TV, a quick butcher's around seems to show that the Righteous don't bother much with the season of goodwill. They like to fuck us up all year round!

Nanny Knows Best highlighted the leaflet that did its level best to stop us enjoying the festive period prior to the event ...

Nanny's knobheads from Ed Balls' Department for Children, Schools and Families have issued 150,000 of the leaflets called "Tis The Season To Be Careful".

The BBC propaganda division (there is only one division in the BBC) then faithfully reported on a plan to take away driving decisions from motorists, in favour of those of oh-so-reliable computers ...

Speed-limiting devices should be fitted to cars on a voluntary basis to help save lives and cut carbon emissions, according to a new report.

The government's transport advisers claim the technology would cut road accidents with injuries by 29%.

Err ... no, that's bullshit. It could cut road accidents if computer models are correct. I'll say it slowly, real ... life ... is ... different ... to ... a ... computer ... simulation.

To tick another box, Mark Wadsworth highlights another huge BBC lie

Ministers warned that, if left alone, obese and overweight people would cost the taxpayer in England £50bn by 2050.

Notice the word 'would' again, instead of 'could'. These morons must have a bloody time machine to be so certain. Hope I can have a lend and move back to the 1970s to enjoy my life again, pretty please?

Then this copper-bottomed over-exaggeration,

By 2050 90% of today's children will be overweight or obese, it predicted.

There surely has to be a competition somewhere in the public sector to produce the most unbelievable line to fool the sheep in this country. This is close to top spot in my opinion.

So, that's drinking, eating and driving sorted. What about smoking? Well, they haven't been as successful there. They've lied so much that even the sheep are starting bite back at the shepherd. Plus, the weight of the lies is threatening other areas, as the likes of the Telegraph are starting to look a bit more closely at the crapness of health consultations, after the laughable manipulated results Labour produced recently.

The finding has prompted critics to accuse the Government of spending taxpayers' money on establishing groups designed merely to back the Government line on public health issues.

Ministers have effectively been accused of "astroturfing" - cultivating a fake grassroots movement in order to make a position appear more popular than it really is.

Matthew Elliott, the chief executive of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "This is the Government funding bodies to lobby itself. The consultations appear to be biased in favour of the Government's preferred position."

No fucking shit, Sherlock.

The Government also published responses to a consultation on alcohol consumption earlier this month, in advance of a Policing and Crime Bill currently passing through Parliament, which proposes giving the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, sweeping powers to control licensing in pubs and clubs.

The consultation attracted 2,336 responses. Almost 2,000 of these came either from a survey by Alcohol Concern, a charity which last year was given almost £400,000 by the Department for Health and raised nothing through fundraising, or postcards distributed by the Department itself, which posed the question: "Fed up with alcohol problems where you live?"

Pay me out Ladbrokes. I mentioned this lot in an earlier article.

Perhaps the outrage was too big to allow the Government-funded Alcohol Concern to carry on with their crap. (Note: I am guessing they are Government-funded as it is usually the case - I am a betting man and reckon it's odds on that I'm correct).

So what, exactly, has the Government spokesmong to say about being caught with their hands firmly shut tight in the till of consultation fraud?

"This work is vital in the plight to reduce the 87,000 unnecessary deaths a year in England alone, and bring down costs to the NHS of between £1.5 billion and £1.7 billion per year."

That's right, they answer a newspaper's uncovering of their lies with an impossible to prove computer-modelled hypothesis, followed by another outright lie.

Listen, here's the maths, OK? Even a Labour educated drone could work this one out. There are 9 million smokers in this country. Say each smokes one packet of cigs a day. That makes, based on 77% tax on a £5 packet of smokes, according to Comrade Beeb, an input to the treasury of just over £1,400 per smoker per year. £1.7bn cost divided by 9 million smokers results in a cost to the NHS of £188 per smoker, per year. Smokers massively help the economy, NOT cost it.

So, a big fat whopper of a lie that is repeated over, and over, and over, again.

I've an idea. If the Government really wants to cut the cost of unhealthy lives on the NHS, scrap the whole damn thing and let us all go private. My policy is detailed here

Just think. No more worries about how anyone doing anything non-Righteous is harming the finances of the health system. What a result, eh? You could then even stop wasting our taxes on telling us what to do, and go get a job that isn't a massive waste of our fucking taxes yourselves. Genius, huh?

Before, during, and after Christmas, the Righteous didn't rest. They just grabbed a turkey sarnie in between jobs.

The contempt I have for these arseholes is beyond compare.

The Wrong Suppliers

Yes, this is a tenuous Christmas link, but did you see Wallace and Gromit on Christmas Day? The 'Wrong Trousers' guys? One pair (set?) of trousers fine, the others lead directly to a Hell on Earth?

The latest Wallace and Gromit instalment was rather disappointing I thought. Very predictable, and not of the same high standard as they have shown in the past. Not surprising though seeing as they set the bar so very high.

The same could be said about the 'Wrong Nicotine' lobby. You know, the ones who frown on the pleasurable way of taking it, and expend millions of pounds of pharmaceutical cash to make sure you use the 'righteous' supplier?

Their lies used to be so much more ingenious, almost awe-inspiring in fact. Now, they seem to be reaching a bit to hide the fact that their crusade is anything more than an extension of the marketing arm of Nicorette (Johnson & Johnson) or Niquitin (GlaxoSmithkline). Which it is, of course.

They have however, excelled themselves of late in showing that they don't really give a toss if people give up smoking, as long as they throw their cash, in doing so, in the right direction. That is, toward a compass point that leads to their pharmaceutical paymasters.

The blithe arrogance set in a couple of years ago, just after they conned an inept Labour Government (and the equally stupid, if not more so, Lib Dem 'opposition') into believing that they were voting on a health issue, instead of a massive lie intended to divert the huge market in nicotine, from the 'wrong' supplier, to the 'righteous' one.

Buoyed by the success of having circumvented democracy, ASH's liar-in-Chief Deborah Arnott, spat on the grave of respected quit smoking guru, Allen Carr, on the occasion of his death no less, via the BBC. She was rightly forced to apologise. It took the arrant, disrespectful bitch an entire fucking year though.

Today Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the public health charity, has apologised to Allen Carr’s Easyway Organisation for unfounded comments made by its Director in November 2006.

In November of last year, Deborah Arnott, Director of ASH claimed that specific success rates quoted by Allen Carr Easyway were “plucked out of the air” and “basically made up.” She made these comments whilst on the BBC Radio 4 “PM” programme during a piece concerning the death of Allen Carr, founder of Allen Carr’s Easyway organisation.

Deborah Arnott’s comments referred to two independent studies conducted by eminent experts in the field of smoking cessation which had already been published in peer reviewed journals indicating a 53% success rate for Allen Carr’s Easyway to Stop Smoking Clinics after 12 months.

Yes, you read that right, one of the experts in 'plucking figures out of the air' was urinating on the memory of someone who was responsible for many thousands of people giving up smoking. I reckon the BBC were probably expecting a congratulation from ASH, not a vile and disrespectful condemnation.

It's easy to understand why though, if one considers that almost every ASH press release mentions the wonders of Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT). Allen Carr was, and still is, even in death, an inconvenient obstacle, seeing as his success rates dwarf those of the pharmaceutical industry's NRT products, and they probably always will.

GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, and others in the same industry, are fighting the tobacco industry for control of a multi-billion pound nicotine market. In the UK, this manifests itself in endless TV ads at peak times costing many thousands of pounds apiece. Allen Carr was getting people to quit, just not the right way as he wasn't peddling nicotine. Plus, he was outspoken about not only the lack of success of the alternative nicotine peddlers, but also the Government money they were harvesting to achieve that lack of success, as he mentioned to Tony Blair.

In spite of repeated formal approaches throughout 2004, 2005, & 2006, your Government, Department of Health, NHS, ASH, and QUIT have all refused to even meet me – let alone show an interest in my method.

It costs the taxpayer more than £400 to treat a smoker at the NHS Stop Smoking Clinics which use nicotine products, according to ASH they achieve a success rate of 20% after 12 months; i.e. a FAILURE rate of 80%. The fee at my clinics is £220 and if smokers don’t quit, it costs nothing.

I have not had the benefit of charitable donations, government funding or the vast wealth of the pharmaceutical industry to fund marketing campaigns. The success and fame of the method has been achieved through personal recommendations. I am now widely recognized as the world’s leading expert on helping smokers to quit for one reason alone:

MY METHOD WORKS

Your government still refuses to provide my method on the NHS. Its refusal even to evaluate the method was made through the “National Institute for Clinical Excellence” (NICE) presumably under the influence of the pharmaceutical industry which sells nicotine via so-called Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) – gums, patches, nasal sprays, inhalators, etc. NRT is a misnomer. Nicotine is not replaced, it is continued and there’s nothing therapeutic about that.

YOU CANNOT CURE NICOTINE ADDICTION BY SUPPLYING NICOTINE!

Wise words from the man. If a smoker wishes to give up, he will have more chance if he actually wants to, rather than being cajoled or bullied. Smoking bans don't work, as proved worldwide before England became the latest country to show an increase in smoker prevalence following legislation.

A sucker punch to ASH, one might think. But no, they really couldn't give two hoots. All they really wish for is that sales of nicotine products stay healthy for those who pay their wages.

Predictably, when a different method of delivery is proving successful in lessening the effect of the smoking ban, which ASH have admitted was designed to make people quit, the righteous get a bit tetchy.

NICOTINE refills which have been on sale could be deadly to young children, it emerged last night.

Around 100 “electronic cigarettes”, designed to help people quit smoking, were bought in two months in Inverness before trading standards officers put an immediate freeze on their sale.

It followed an investigation which revealed that the amount of nicotine in each refill was potentially lethal to a small child.

I await the shelves of Tesco being emptied of Whisky because the amount of alcohol within is 'potentially lethal to a small child'. I expect the bottles of bleach to be stuck under the counter too, instead of on the bottom shelf. And sales of Lynx body spray must be immediately banned.

(Keith Webster) said: “Nicotine is classed as a poison, which means the product must have some sort of child lock.”

Yep, all those nicotine patches on open displays in the supermarket are fully child locked-up aren't they. Being the poison that they are, of course.

Perhaps the key to this nonsense is contained in a couple of telling lines.

The product was supplied by the Lancashire-based Electronic Cigarette Store.

NOT a pharmaceutical supplier then.

And quoted as a 'Key Stakeholder' on page 6 of the Scottish Trading Standards document about tobacco? You guessed it, ASH Scotland.

The smoking debate should be about encouraging people to quit by whatever means, or not to start at all. Unfortunately, those proposing measures that discriminate against smokers don't seem to care much about how many smokers there are. The disgraceful treatment of Allen Carr proves that quite comprehensively.

All that really matters is that you get your nicotine from the right supplier. There are huge profits to be had. It's a straight fight between tobacco manufacturer and pharmaceutical industry, for control of the income.

It really doesn't help when a third party like Allen Carr or an e-cig manufacturer gets in the way. They are the 'Wrong Suppliers' as much as those selling fags.

The Royle Family was on Christmas Day too. It's equally tenuous but ... ASH primarily wish to stop smoking? My ARSE.

A Bad Week for the Righteous

If you agree with the smoking ban, you may be tempted to stop reading this, but give me a second while I explain why, you too, should be very happy with the events of this week, a very bad week indeed for the Righteous in the anti-smoking lobby, and the Labour/Puritan movement as a whole.

There are four main scares that the Righteous use to shape your lives against your better judgement. Terrorism, Paedophilia, Climate Change and Cancer/Death.

The Righteous at ASH, Cancer Research UK etc., aided and abetted by your tax receipts, have been in the vanguard of illustrating how a template based on misdirection, irrational fears, and unfounded (but well-funded by themselves) 'science', can be used again and again in different areas to bully you into agreeing with measures against your freedom about which you would normally bristle. A perfect example is the clinically obese Liam Donaldson using the cancer scare tactic this week to talk about the obese ... of which he is one.

This is him, does he appear svelte to you?



I thought not. One must surely ask why the fat man wants to be a fat controller? (H/T Rev W V Awdry). Your guess is as good as mine, but I reckon it's a money thing to do with the NHS, seeing as every scare is accompanied by an estimate of how much the thing that you like to do costs money to an organisation that you pay for. I mean, how fucking dare you? You're supposed to pay the money, without choice in the matter, and then change your life to make sure you use the service as little as possible, you idiots. Doesn't matter if you pay more in duty for your lifestyle choice than expended by the clinically-obese Donaldson's department either, you have to stop. Full stop.

If you agree with the smoking ban as you don't like smokers (despite the fact there are a multitude of better options than a blanket ban on all privately-owned establishments, which was NOT democratically voted upon), I hope you are also going to be happy with restrictions to your drinking, consumption of anything that isn't 5 a day, and other substances or practices that the Government object to by way of cost.

Those who hunt were the recipients of the prototype banning scare from this Government, it had to be forced through by way of the Parliament Act. Lessons were learned and the lies were beefed up to marginalise smokers more effectively (using the same endemic prejudice as a tool). The legislation since the smoking ban has been incessant and the same methods are increasingly being used in other areas (drinking, unhealthy foods, motoring etc.). The clinically-obese Liam Donaldson, for example ... again, has used the term 'Passive Drinking' quite regularly. He first started using that particular sound-bite at the end of 2007 and last used it on the Simon Mayo show on Five Live a few weeks ago. Well, if a lie works with one substance, why not use the same lie again, eh?

Unfortunately, this week is seeing a right kick in the teeth for ASH and their ilk. Lies are being exposed quite ruthlessly. First we had the revelation a couple of days ago that the smoking ban in England had actually reversed a long trend and managed to increase smoker prevelance. Today, ASH have been beaten by an even bigger stick as it was revealed that the Scottish smoking ban, allied with a banning of the sale of packs of 10, and the raising of the age for buying cigarettes has resulted in a 5% increase in young adults smoking in Scotland.

The number of young people smoking in Scotland has returned to a level last seen nearly 10 years ago, according to a report by health officials.

The survey revealed nearly a third of people between 16-24 are smokers.

In 2004 the number of young smokers in Scotland had fallen to just 25% but by 2007 that figure was 31%.

Note the dates. Smoking cessation initiatives have been an abject failure and have massively increased smoker prevalence in the 16-25 age group. So what does Shona Robertson suggest to halt this slide? Yep, you guessed it. More of the same failed policy.

Significant progress has been made in recent years to shift cultural attitudes to smoking, but this report clearly demonstrates that firm action needs to continue if we are to succeed in our desire to make Scotland smoke-free.

Significant progress? Yes, you have significantly progressed from a reduction in smoking to a big increase. Good job Shona. When will your pea-brain work out that people don't react well to dictatorial wankers like you?

Considering the past week's news, perhaps it is time to revisit the ASH handbook on the myths of anti-smoking legislation.

1) Myth: It will be bad for pubs

I think that has been answered emphatically by the British Beer & Pubs Association

The British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) has said closures across the UK are running at 5 a day, up a third on last year, with close to 1,900 of the country's 57,000 pubs set to shut this year if the current rate continues.

The industry is angry with the government for pressing ahead with tax rises when it is facing the toughest trading conditions for years with pressure on household budgets, last year's smoking ban, cheap alcohol offers in supermarkets, and the miserable summer weather encouraging drinkers to stay at home.

2) Myth: It will be bad for bingo

Yes it was.

Carmen Media has highlighted that over a year into the smoking ban in the UK, more than 53 land based bingo halls have closed, bringing the number of clubs still open to about 550.

The company said if one considers the impact of the smoking ban in Scotland (in effect since March 2006) where all reports showed that it has been an absolute disaster for all the top bingo clubs, the history has only repeated itself in the UK.

Odd that ASH didn't spot this repeating of history, don't you think?

3) Myth: There will be large scale non-compliance

That's answering a myth with a fabricated myth. Take away the £2,500 fines and see how much compliance you get.

4) Myth: There will be heavy handed enforcement with undercover officers and covert filming

Never gonna happen ... is it?

Westminster City Council brought a prosecution against him after environmental health officers twice visited his bar last August and reported he was permitting customers to smoke.

They didn't reveal themselves and ran up a bill for hundreds of pounds after a slap-up three-course meal with expensive wine, payable from taxpayers' money of course.

Nope, no undercover officers. Not at all.

5) Myth: Working men's clubs and shisha bars will close

Like the myth of Britain's oldest Working mens club closing perhaps? Amongst many many others? Or how about the myth of shisha bars closing?

When the ban on smoking in public places kicks in on July 1st hundreds of shisha bars across the UK will have to close their doors.

... and doesn't this one morph into so-called myth 4 about undercover officers ... at nearly 1am?

Katherine Jamieson, for the council, said environmental health officer Steve Joyce stopped outside the bar, in Evington Road, at 12.50am. He saw a member of the public enter and a number of people sitting at tables smoking shisha pipes.

A bit of myth 3 confirmed there too.

5) Myth: People won't really quit

*Cough* People really haven't. Increase in England reported this week and an increase in youth smoking in Scotland. See above.

Plus, wasn't the legislation brought in to 'protect bar workers'? Patricia Hewitt's department said, only this week, that ...

'The legislation was never intended to be a measure to reduce smoking prevalence.'

You and ASH should get together sometime and agree on the lies you are telling, Hewitt.

6) Myth: Smoking is a victimless crime/ Claims about the health impact are flawed

Firstly, the claims ARE flawed, but the misdirection is the real issue. It should be up to the individual to make decisions based on educated risks. Smoking is very definitely a victimless crime if the victims are quite happy to be where they are happy. What the fuck has it to do with you?

7) Myth: House fires will increase as people will stay at home to smoke

This is a cracker of a lie. It's one group with a stated purpose quoting another with a business interest. The myth was apparently from Direct Line insurance. They were using ASH's very own scare tactic model to increase their business.

8) Myth: There will be an increase in exposure of secondhand smoke in the home, affecting children

This one is quite amazing even by the standards of these inveterate liars. ASH themselves confirmed a truth that they said was a myth. As lies go, this is a stunner.

Last night anti-smoking pressure group ASH told The People that the Government's public smoking ban had made the problem WORSE for children - because it encouraged parents to light up at home instead of in pubs.

ASH campaigner Hannah Sandford said the smoking ban had put kids at greater risk. She said: 'We now have a situation where adults are protected from second hand smoke but young children are not.'

Well, if you cared about the kids, why did you shift smoking from an adult environment like a pub, into other places where kids might be present, you pricks?

9) Myth: The public do not want a smoking ban or any further tobacco control measures

The public have voted with their feet about your smoking ban. Further tobacco control measures have been proved to be motivated by rigged consultations and even this idiot Government have started to realise they are not too popular amongst voters. I think they may have finally worked out that ASH have conned them. Took them a while seeing as ASH have been boasting for a while now about how democracy was circumvented.

Objective: To examine how a Government committed to a voluntary approach was forced by effective advocacy to introduce comprehensive smokefree legislation.

Smokers have suffered all of this nonsense on your behalf, we are the guinea pigs. You may enjoy the smoking ban, but sooner or later these people are going to come after YOU. It might be the wine/beer you enjoy (ever more likely), it could be your Friday night curry. Perhaps they don't like you wife-swapping with your equally eager partner, or even that they don't agree with what you like to view on the internet. How about if they use their template to dictate which car you drive (they're getting there)? Or refuse you the services of the NHS for an arbitrary reason that fits their agenda?

All of the above can be banned by the utilisation of scares about Terrorism, Paedophilia, Climate Change or Cancer/Death ... if you let them.

If you value your own way of life without interference, then you must value the choices of others who choose a different lifestyle to you. One can't pick and choose freedoms that are acceptable without, at some point, having someone else telling you how to live your own life. If you are happy with the Governmant telling others what to do in a free society, knock yourself out, just don't start whinging when these lying arseholes start on you. Or, as it says in the good book, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

This is a good week for those who agree that our lives should be our own under a democracy. The Righteous got a good spanking. Their rubbish rules have just made things worse, which we can all agree is a bad state of affairs.

Long may their idealistic nonsense be exposed as unworkable.