Energy Companies Are Today's New Tobacco And Must Be Silenced

I've often referenced the tobacco control template and how prohibitionists the world over are copying the tactics, but I don't think I've ever seen the ideological plagiarism being quoted as openly as this.

The FCTC's Article 5.3, and its accompanying guidelines, sets the precedent for limiting interactions between an industry that profits from harm and those tasked with minimising and ultimately stopping the harm it causes. 

Now is the time to make the case, and build a global campaign, for a climate agreement which protects climate change policy-making from the vested interests of corporations that benefit from the continued excessive use of fossil fuels.

For those not familiar with Article 5.3, it is the gagging clause which demands state bodies ignore opposition to tobacco control's policies, good or bad. They don't want any debate, less so one from anyone who actually knows their onions and is capable of highlighting their lies and spin (also see yesterday's post).

This is already being duplicated by the EU and WHO towards alcohol, but here we have a scary scenario whereby climate extremists could well be afforded exclusive access to idiot politicians over and above energy companies who are tasked with infrastructure to prevent the lights from going out, and oil companies who ensure transport serves our everyday needs.

Of course, even though the document proudly boasts throughout of imitating tobacco control tactics to the letter, this is not a slippery slope because tobacco is not like any other product.

Those fine upstanding tobacco control guys - who have never been known to tell a lie - said so. 

H/T @fredbarboo

Reasons Not To Trust Wikipedia #254

It's one of the first world's rules of life that Wikipedia should be avoided for anything but the most general of information. Those who advise as such - including, admirably, the little Ps' teachers - are certainly not wrong, it seems.

Courtesy of a fellow jewel robber via e-mail, the talk section of Wikipedia's plain cigarette packaging page shows signs of it being distinctly one-sided.

I have added new information to this page, on the evidence and arguments for and against plain packaging, and a link to a Cancer Research UK campaign site that contains more information. A disclosure - I work for Cancer Research UK, who are actively lobbying for plain packaging. However, I hope the information I have added to this page will be seen as an attempt to enhance its usefulness, and I welcome constructive criticism about how this can be improved. I don't want to get into a fight over this! :) HenryScow (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that would surely be kicked out on Wikipedia's principle of neutrality, wouldn't it? Apparently not, no.

Thanks for improving the article, Henry: it's definitely relevant to have info about anti- and pro- plain packaging campaigns in the UK, including that of a major national charity such as CRUK.

So Henry had another go in July, just after the consultation - which his employer was deeply involved in, and beginning to realise was foundering somewhat - was extended.

I have replaced the text that stated:

Because it hasn't been implemented anywhere yet, all the evidence available to date is anecdotal and based on statements of intentions or surveys.

With a paragraph stating:

Direct, concrete evidence of plain packaging’s effectiveness is unavailable as it has not yet been rolled out in any country. However evidence from quantitative studies, qualitative research and the internal documents of the tobacco industry consistently identify packaging as an important part of tobacco promotion.

Well, if it really is that easy to publish political campaigning literature on a site which prides itself on impartiality, perhaps those evil tobacco companies and their all-pervasive buckets of cash might have done so earlier, eh? After all, the moderator has specifically stated that info on anti-plain packaging arguments would be equally welcomed.

It's not like there isn't a huge amount of evidence showing that the pro-plain packs campaign - including Cancer Research UK - is corrupt, fuelled by state funds, and peddling biased untruths, is it?

Anyone good with Wikipedia?

One Egg McMuffin Too Much

On the day that Australia rejoiced at the endorsement of plain packaging for tobacco, one of the most prevalent arguments for a precedent not being set was that fizzy drinks, fast food and alcohol are perfectly acceptable in moderation whereas just one cigarette is deadly.

It hasn't hampered the world's best cyclist too much, mind (click through for pics if you haven't seen them).

Stripping off to reveal his athletic body in the eatery, the 32-year-old sportsman soon wandered outside where he treated himself to a glass of wine and a cigarette.

Letting a pal light up his nicotine fix for him, Wiggo seemed happy and relaxed as he enjoyed the balmy evening.

Meanwhile, in America, Michelle Obama was bristling when another World Champion admitted to following her two gold gymnastics medals with - shock horror - a McDonald's Egg McMuffin!

It doesn't play very well for Mrs Obama's snobby crusade against fast food when a world class gymnast proves that anything is OK in moderation, does it?

Now, ask yourself this. If it's wrong for a finely tuned athlete to enjoy just one breakfast burger, what do you think they're going to say about your more lax body ingesting the same? Not to mention, of course, the no safe level of alcohol claim for alcohol or paralysing fizzy drinks.

It's not so much if branding will be taken from other products now, as which one will be next.

Miserablist School Produces Results

In February last year, I reported on a summit organised by ASH Scotland to teach anti-alcohol campaigners how to be as successful as the tobacco control industry. The original link has now been removed, but it was announced with much fanfare at the time.

Alcohol Focus Scotland, ASH Scotland and Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems are pleased to announce a joint conference which will consider what progress has been made in alcohol control and tobacco control and explore what each sector might learn from the other.

Of course, there isn't much anti-smokers need to be taught about creating mythical hazards backed by statistical chicanery, so the flow of information was almost certainly one way. As a result, the temperance movement appear to have learned quite a lot if Alcohol Focus Scotland's latest newsletter [pdf] is anything to go by.

Do tactics like this seem recognisable to you?

A new report from Alcohol Concern, Making an Impression, shows that children as young as 10 are more familiar with some leading alcohol brands and adverts than those for popular foods and snacks.

The number of children able to identify alcohol branding and advertising was comparable to, and in some cases, greater than those who recognised brands and advertising for products known to appeal to children, such as ice cream and cake.

Hmmm. Do you think this might be a heavy hint towards advertising bans, restrictions on display and even one day in the future - because those brands, you see, they're so very dangerous - plain packaging of alcohol?

Well, there wouldn't be much point to their 'research' if not, would there?

Alcohol Concern’s Mark Leyshon said: “The drinks industry asserts very strongly that it doesn’t aim its advertising at children. However, this new study provides more evidence that alcohol marketing messages are getting through to young people well before they are legally able to buy alcohol. Research shows that children who are exposed to alcohol advertising and promotion are more likely to start to use alcohol, have positive expectations about alcohol, and to drink more if they are already using alcohol.

Ah, the old 'industry is knowingly corrupting children' angle. We know a current campaign exploiting the same mendacious ploy, don't we, lads and lasses?

Perhaps alcohol puritans are salivating at the prospect of being bunged their own £2.5m from the taxpayer to hoist billboards all over the country lobbying for something which only a negligible minority of intolerant, anti-social prodnoses would consider remotely worthwhile.

The drinks industry will have valid reasons for resisting such pathetic self-enriching, duplicitous nonsense from these tax spongers but, you guessed it, the tobacco control template is there before them.

[Dr Evelyn Gillan, Chief Executive Alcohol Focus Scotland said], ... despite minimum pricing being the will of the governments both north and south of the border and enjoying the support of doctors, nurses, the police, children’s charities and others, sections of the alcohol industry continue to threaten legal action. The lobbying power of global corporations is well documented and unfortunately all too often results in decisions being taken which favour business interests over the public interest. If the global alcohol producers and retailers persist in seeking to thwart laws which are likely to confer significant health benefits on the people of Scotland and the rest of the UK, they risk going down the same path as the tobacco industry.

The language is so uncannily familiar, it's almost déjà vu, eh? .

"All your business is belong to us" is about the gist of it. If the alcohol industry rightly claims that their detractors are absurd - and that it is long past time someone in government put them firmly back in their box - these rancid people-hating whingers will re-categorise respected businessmen as child-killers. No bag of jelly babies for spotting where this method has been employed before, I'm afraid.

Naturally, politicians will see straight past such hideous and miserable sophistry, yes?

During the Stage 1 debate in Parliament, Willie Rennie made a direct plea to the alcohol industry to stop lobbying against the measure: “I would appeal to the industry - do not go down the route of the tobacco industry and fight this tooth and nail, because there is a will in this parliament to deliver it. I appeal to them: Let’s get on with it.”

Well, no. Of course not. Because politicians are idiots.

It's clear that there's only one way this is all going. There will be a minimum price for alcohol; there will be a ban on advertising all alcohol products at some point; there will be a display ban for alcohol too; and there will be gruesome warnings on bottles of wine because alcohol prohibitionists have a precedent to help push for all of them. Swiftly followed by plain packaging unless politicians stop being dickheads long enough to realise it's a pointless and wholly miserable idea.

What's more, it doesn't matter if the alcohol industry lays down and lets it all wash over them quickly - as alcohol campaigners would wish - or fights it every step of the way. They will still be portrayed as evil big business preying on the misery and suffering of little children. It's a vital component of the whole process.

If the industry is seen as responsible, alcohol control salaries don't get paid and conservatories, loft conversions, circular drives don't get built. The new top-of-the-range car is put on hold and the dining out at Michelin restaurants at the taxpayers' expense becomes more rare. The creation of an opponent allied with Beelzebub to entrap kids is indispensable to prohibitionist wealth creation. Appeasement is entirely futile.

It's what was taught at the tobacco/alcohol summit. It's all part of the plan.

Following The Template For Fast Food

Would this quote surprise you?

"They (tobacco companies) have so many billions of dollars at stake in their profits that they'll do everything they can to fight the changes that are really necessary to help address the world's smoking problem."

Well, no of course not. It's standard rhetoric designed to demonise the opposition and reframe debate into one where input from manufacturers of a certain product is ignored. We see it on a daily basis.

Except the academic making the statement - Kelly Brownell of Yale University - didn't refer to tobacco companies or smoking. Instead he (for it is a he, a rather fat one too) was talking of food companies and obesity, and it isn't a coincidence either, as we can see from the rest of what he has to say.

"You might despair at this and say, 'Well, what can we do about it because these companies are so powerful?' That's what was said about the tobacco companies 30 and 40 years ago and look what happened to them. … So if the tobacco industry can be taken on successfully by the public health world, then I don't see any reason why the food industry can't be the same."

In the same article, fellow food-hater Thomas Frieden of the CDC is ploughing the same well-worn furrow.

"We are seeing changes. They're not gonna be overnight, they're not quick, but they're happening. And they are going to help control the weight of the nation. 

"Fifty years ago, tobacco was ubiquitous. And I think in 50 years we'll see the ubiquity of unhealthy foods today in a similar light."

Now, you may point to freedom of choice and the inability of campaigners to argue against it, but they've already been working to fix that problem by deeming unhealthy food as addictive ... as anti-tobacco did with tabs. Once they have that principle entrenched, it frees up our oh-so-benevolent maternal government to move in and act to save you all from yourselves.

I hate keep coming back to that farcical myth currently being peddled in the plain packs charade (see previous here, here, here, here and here), but these almost daily examples of other bansturbators following in tobacco control's footsteps make a mockery of the claim that "plain packs for tobacco will not set a precedent for other consumer products".

Indeed, on the very ASH Scotland page peddling this so-called 'myth', there's even a link to the summit last year where ASH taught temperance campaigners exactly how to go about exploiting previous precedents, brought about courtesy of the same tactics now being employed by the likes of Brownell and Frieden against food.

Only a fool would believe that measures implemented against tobacco will not be similarly rolled out in other areas over time. Unfortunately, we have around 600 of them in Westminster who believe just about anything they're fed by vested interest prohibitionists.

Sigh.

H/T CCF

Food Is Now 'Unique' Too

This statement from ASH is fast becoming so funny that it could pass into history alongside images of the Keystone Cops or the pronouncements of Homer Simpson.

[...] the “domino theory” i.e. that once a measure has been applied to tobacco it will be applied to other products is patently false.

Others make equally daft claims along the same lines.

Myth #7: It may be tobacco today but other consumer products will follow

FACT: Tobacco is not like any other product, it is the only legal consumer product on the market which is lethal when used as intended. That is why the UK and over 170 other governments have signed up to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which places legal obligations on governments to strictly regulate tobacco products. Plain packs for tobacco will not therefore set a precedent for other consumer products.

Because, you see, the examples of how patently unfalse it all is just keep piling up.

The United Nations now put their size 9s into ASH's molars by advocating supra-national interference in the consumer/producer relationship towards certain foods.

50 (c) Adopt statutory regulation on the marketing of food products, as the most effective way to reduce marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids, sodium and sugar (HFSS foods) to children, as recommended by WHO, and restrict marketing of these foods to other groups;

(d) Impose taxes on soft drinks (sodas), and on HFSS foods, in order to subsidize access to fruits and vegetables and educational campaigns on healthy diets;

52. WHO, in discharging the mandate assigned to it by the General Assembly, should

(b) Consider the findings of the present report in preparing recommendations for a set of voluntary global targets for the prevention and control of non-communicable diseases.

Like a Framework Convention for Food Control, do you mean? How novel! So HFSS foods are now as unique as tobacco.

Nope, no domino effect there either (according to state-funded pharma shills). Obviously.

H/T Stateside David G, who misses nuffink.

It's All In Your Imagination

If you thought creationists or flat earthers were a bit barmy, you have quite obviously never read ASH press briefings. I've mentioned this particular fantasy pronouncement before, but it's worth revisiting it now and again just to emphasise their hilarious employment of the term "patently false".

[...] the “domino theory” i.e. that once a measure has been applied to tobacco it will be applied to other products is patently false.

Well, ASH started calling for age restrictions on films which contain smoking scenes back in 2001. They still have the same daft view now.

Films depicting people smoking should be given an 18 certificate, according to a report.

The study by the UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies and published by the British Medical Journal, said the cinema glamorises cigarettes and encourages young people to smoke.

It wants smoking to be treated like sex and violence.

Anti-smoking group Ash agreed, with chief executive Deborah Arnott saying: "Smoking in films encourages children to take up smoking. And that's no surprise.

"That is why tobacco advertising was banned, because showing images of people, particularly glamorous young people, smoking encourages children to smoke."

It's OK though because, according to ASH, the idea that the same measure "will be applied to other consumer products is patently false".

So this doesn't actually exist. Patently.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to investigate whether the association between exposure to images of alcohol use in movies and binge drinking among adolescents is independent of cultural context.

[...] our findings raise concern about the role popular movies may play in Europe and beyond in the early experimentation with patterns of alcohol consumption in adolescents. These patterns have the potential to have a detrimental influence on individual health and future drinking trajectories and to be costly at a societal level.

It's kinda worrying to think where they might be going with that, isn't it?

However, worry not. You see, ASH have stated categorically that there is no chance of campaigners against other consumer products following tobacco control's lead, which is why anti-food campaigners haven't today been demanding the next logical step for HFSS food advertising.

Television adverts for food high in fat, sugar and salt should not be shown before the 9pm watershed, according to Scotland's public health minister.

It follows recent research which suggests children are still exposed to the same level of junk food advertising despite tighter regulations.

Health groups say further action is needed to tackle the problem.

Which, of course, is completely different to the way tobacco packs were banned from being seen firstly on TV, then in magazines, at sports events, and now in supermarkets.

It's all simply an amazing coincidence.

Those drums are getting closer for many a consumer product. But there is still no domino effect. Oh no, that idea is "patently false".

Peer Review: How Daft Headlines Are Made

William Tyndale caused a right royal stir back in the 16th century. His crime was to produce a Bible written in English ... they executed him for it.

Prior to this, the Church was the only keeper of the word of God. Bibles were written in Latin, and even members of the public who were able to read at all - not too many in those days - had no chance of deciding for themselves if they were being sold a pup by the Latin-educated clergy. Enabling the testaments to be understood in English was unacceptable, so poor William had to go, violently natch.

What the Church said went. And it was non-negotiable, anyone who attempted to do so was a heretic. They hadn't seen what the Church had seen, you see, and the Church could interpret the word of God howsoever they saw fit.

Every industry seeking to jealously guard their power must shun accountability and debate like this, and for the modern dictatorial Church - that of public health - their altar and chalice are the epidemiological study and peer review. And their excommunication is the threat of cancer and death should you disobey their word.

They talk in their own circles, only venturing out of the inner sanctum of closed discussion groups to issue press releases with their pious pronouncements; their articles invariably shun comment or debate; anyone with the wherewithal to oppose them is silenced; and they communicate even mundane information not through letters or open forums, but by way of yet another impenetrable and restricted study.

These studies are then 'peer-reviewed' (i.e. approved by their mates), which is designed to put a full stop at the end of their argument through which no-one must dare to venture. If it's peer-reviewed, you see, it's now fact in their opinion, and you must believe in a flat earth if you disagree. You will see many a public health tax leech professional fall back on this tactic when things don't look to be going their way.

"But it's peer-reviewed!", they will arrogantly declare, before ignoring all objections and scurrying back to the holy of holies with their equally shadowy colleagues to plan the next sleight of hand to enrich themselves.

Just as in Tudor times, the vast majority of the public will never see the misdirection being played upon them. The authority of the unintelligible word is all powerful. Doctors talk in English, but not in an accountable form that the average Joe would be able to interact with. They may as well be talking in Latin.

This self-protecting approach leads to daft headlines like this.

Ice cream as 'addictive as drugs' says new study

And somewhere - in fact, in many many places - this becomes a fact despite it being execrable bollocks.

"This down-regulation pattern is seen with frequent drug use, where the more an individual uses the drug, the less reward they receive from using it," said Dr Burger, the study's co-author.

"This tolerance is thought to increase use, or eating, because the individual trying to achieve the previous level of satisfaction.

“Repeated, overconsumption of high-fat or high-sugar foods may alter how the brain responds to those foods in a way that perpetuates further intake."
He added: "The data supports the theory that overeating such foods may result in changes in how the brain responds to those foods in a similar fashion seen in drug addiction."

We know it's bollocks only because their own side have mildly debunked it, probably since it is so absurd that even Mrs Prunehat and her puritan daughters would notice the nonsensical nature of the claim. That's not good for the aura of the new Church.

But this idiocy was peer-reviewed.

The study was carried out by researchers from the Oregon Research Institute in the US. Sources of funding were not clear. The study was published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Which is probably why it was published in all its glory by woeful hacks.

Likewise, Jill Pell's egregious mendacity is regularly reported by way of 'science by press release', despite having no basis in fact whatsoever. It's peer-reviewed, of course, so it must be true.

Despite being plainly false, it is also touted as fact in parliament itself, because it's peer-reviewed, innit?

The most notable health gain for members of the public is the fall in the number of admissions for acute myocardial infarction. Researchers at the university of Bath have calculated that there has been a 5% drop in the number of heart attacks in England (also peer-reviewed, also false), attributable to smoke-free legislation. The figure was higher for Scotland and it was measured within 12 months of the ban coming into force

This is how headlines are made, and how those who have no hope of seriously challenging them are mostly rail-roaded into believing just about any old crap.

It is how vested interest manufactured myth is transformed into fact, and the method has changed very little since the days of Henry VIII, only the media employed are different.

Do please remember this the next time you hear or read some public health advocate - or their eager entourage of helpful stooges - fall back on the peer review smokescreen. If they resort to the peer-reviewed close down, they're invariably rattled and unwilling to engage in debate for fear of being exposed.

End of discussion. Amen.

A 'Reformed' Anti-Smoker Speaks

Following on from the fourth article down in today's link tank, the author, Charles Adler, recently held a Canadian TV interview slot with Dr Michael Siegel who was mischievously captioned as a "reformed anti-smoking activist".

I tried to find a way of embedding the clip, but for some reason it's not available like most others, so for a bit of Saturday evening entertainment do go watch it at this link as Siegel describes how tobacco controllers have moved into "the area of fanaticism" on outdoor smoking bans, and compares his colleagues to animal rights extremists.

Adler also has more to say on the subject here.

History Repeating Itself?

Does this look familiar to you?

An American-Indian tribe in South Dakota has sued some of the world's biggest beer firms over severe alcohol-related issues in the community.

The Oglala Sioux Tribe are asking for $500m (£316m) for healthcare, social services and child rehabilitation.

Well, it should do as it's exactly how the long road to tobacco prohibition started.

1954 saw the first litigation in America claiming tobacco companies to be liable for the effects of consumption. It failed, as many would in the following decades. The regular defence was that smoking is a personal choice and the harms are well known.

More recently, though, some cases have been more successful by advocating that the industry were aware that their products were addictive. And of course, once a substance is classified as addictive, personal choice can be discarded as a defence. The consumer doesn't choose to consume ... they are forced into it.

This appears to be the gist of the claim here. That booze was being sold near to vulnerable people, and therefore there was pressure to buy which caused alcohol-related illnesses. The ability of the individual to resist what they know to be harmful is dismissed.

I don't expect this case will be successful, but I wouldn't bet on there being a future alcohol Master Settlement Agreement on the distant horizon. And once that comes in, all hell will break loose for the drinks industry - they will be paying for their opponents to produce acres of junk science to prove alcohol causes every ailment from incontinence to ingrowing toenails, accompanied by recommendations for legislation which would regulate ethanol on the same severity as sulphuric acid.

The lawsuit, filed in the district court of Nebraska, targets Anheuser-Busch InBev Worldwide, SAB Miller, Molson Coors Brewing Company, MillerCoors LLC, and Pabst Brewing Company.

Interestingly, most of those companies have seen this all before. They were closed down between 1919 and 1933 under America's period of prohibition. They must be thinking "here we go again".

The difference is that, this time, the anti-booze puritans have a ready-made litigious template as to how to topple a large and popular - albeit potentially unhealthy - industry. It will just take a decade or two to fully implement, that's all.

This is tobacco control's miserable legacy to the world. A future where humans are reduced to incompetent, unthinking lobby fodder, and where enjoyable products are incrementally denormalised and banned due to the self-righteous crusades of a few miserable obsessives.

Going Sour On The Kids

Boy, did Cardiff University dentists pick the wrong day for their particular brand of miserabilism.

Their smoke-hating counterparts were monopolising the internet, TV, and radio today by spouting one myth and manipulated half-truth after another under the guise of making life more pleasant for children. In the cause of age equality, though, the dentists decided to launch a campaign to make kids' lives that little bit duller, too.

A NEW generation of super-sour sweets, masquerading as brain tissue, human blood and even toxic waste has prompted concerns for children’s teeth.

Using novelty packaging, including tiny toilets and babies’ bottles, the sweets contain high levels of sugar and acids and are available at pocket money prices

Nice pinching of Alcohol Concern's cute little soundbite, but it doesn't really work when it comes to children's products. You see, they're at 'pocket money prices' because - and I hope this doesn't come as too much of a heart-stopper for them - they are products which are bought with, err, pocket money.

Many of these sweets, which are imported from China and Thailand, also encourage children to come back for more. Candy spray sweets can contain up to 150 doses, while other packaging comes with a replaceable lid, allowing children to return to their sweets time and again.

What their origin has to do with anything is hard to fathom, apart from the obvious reach for an arrogant xenophobic dog whistle. I'm pretty sure there are bodies in this country - which we pay for through our taxes, willingly or not - specifically designed to cope with such issues ... the Food Standards Agency and Trading Standards come immediately to mind.

The number of 'doses' is a pointless factoid too, there is only so much sugar and other ingredients in it. If there are 150 doses, each will deliver 1/150th of the total content, no?

Still, they must have some compelling evidenced to go to press release with this, let's hear them out.

The Cardiff University School of Dentistry is hoping to set up a postgraduate project to research the sweet phenomenon and study their exact impact on children’s teeth.

Oh, I see. There isn't any yet. But they hope there will be some soon (translation: 'can we have some money please?').

It follows a short piece of research into children’s attitudes towards these new sweets, which showed they were attracted to the garish packaging and the distinctive sweet-sour taste.

Kids have been attracted to garish packaging and sweet-sour tastes since time immemorial. Someone researched this? With public money?

Still plenty more to cut, Dave.

The Cardiff-based school children, all aged nine and 10, were all aware where they could buy these sweets, often in shops near their schools, and of the prices – they range from 25p to £1.

Kids know that they can buy sweets in sweet shops, and are aware of the prices of things they like to buy? Gosh! Someone alert the Nobel Prize Committee to this ground-breaking study!

But when asked whether there were any health issues associated with eating such sweets, the children gave vague answers, such as “they make you sick” or “bad for your teeth”.

One young boy told the researchers: “They say: ‘You should not have that because it’s either too dear or it will rot your teeth.’ I’m like, I’m going to lose half of these anyway so, like, rock on.”

Well, you can't fault his logic, can you?

Maria Morgan, a lecturer in dental public health, said: “There are a couple of issues about these sweets; they are very sweet and contain acids as well, but they are also being eaten by children under the radar – many adults and parents aren’t aware of these sweets, which are being sold at pocket-money prices."

Many adults and parents haven't a clue who Labrinth is, either. This is because certain products are aimed at adults, and others at children. You know, it's the same principle by which women buy things with hearts and flowers on, while men will happily buy something promoted by a pneumatic blonde with a milky smooth cleavage. What was this study called? "A qualitative analysis of the bleeding obvious", by any chance?

And do leave off with the 'pocket money prices', for Gawd's sake. It makes you look daft, woman.

Mrs Morgan, who also monitors the Welsh Government’s Designed to Smile programme to improve children’s dental health, said: “One of the most unexpected things we found was their concept of a ‘treat’. In my day, a treat was something you had once a week.

Aah, that explains it. You're old and were subject to living a childhood during post war rationing. Oh hold on, just seen your profile. You were either woefully under-privileged to be treated so sparsely (this is Wales we're talking about, I suppose), or you've just thrown that in to fit your case. Having said that, you've certainly made up for it in the intervening years, eh?

She added: “I believe that food should be enjoyable and there can be an element of having a treat in your diet but we need to be aware of these novelty sweets, which are available at pocket-money prices.”

Yes, because ... oh I give up.

Good grief.

It's Christmas, Let The Misery Commence!

How do you know when Christmas is really close?

Tree up and tinsel glittering around the house? Santa in your local department store? Easter eggs on the shelves at Asda?

Nope, it's none of the above. It's when the grinches pop up every-fucking-where.

The BBC have led the way today with blanket coverage of what they call 'Black Friday' ... or a night where a hell of a lot of people enjoy their annual Christmas works party to the rest of us. It's an exceptionally busy night because - for many many out tonight - it is the only time in the year they'll do it.

Even that is too often for the tutters and head-shakers.

The doom and gloom has been laid on thick, with Beeb reporters camped out in Cardiff just itching to report on puke and gore. Ambulance drivers have been wheeled on TV and radio all day to bemoan the fact that they have to work harder than usual, and to make the customary air-headed demand for charges on top of the taxes citizens have already handed over to pay their wages. Of course, if we were all tucked up early in bed and their services weren't needed, they'd be striking and marching on parliament once their jobs were cut.

Words to describe the evening - like jovial, revelry, merriment, celebration, carnival etc - have been replaced with carnage, mayhem, bedlam and irresponsibility.

Happy pigging Christmas to you too, you whey-faced tossers!

And just to prove it's a global thing, here's some quite hilarious idiot from Boston describing his decision to tell kids to "leave the Christmas cookies, cakes, candy bars, and soda at home and to bring fruits, unsweetened juices, popcorn and raisins instead.".

Superintendent Everett Olsen says the ban on holiday sweets has nothing to do with being politically correct, rather, his motive is simply promoting a healthy lifestyle.

“We aren’t trying to take the Christmas out of Christmas. We’re not trying to take the enjoyment out of children’s lives. We’re just trying to act responsible,” he told WBZ NewsRadio 1030’s Mike Macklin.

It seems that even Christmas isn't free of the toffee-nosed snobbery of the self-righteous. Because they, of course, are entirely perfect in their choices and restraint. Having fun and abandoning oneself to joyful things is just so common, isn't it?

There's still another week of this crap to go yet, too. Let's see what other miserable shite these morons have lined up before the 25th finally shuts their hideous traps, eh?

The BMA And BBC Will Be Lying To You Today +Updated+

You'd think, wouldn't you, that in these austere times we'd be reining in on fripperies like prohibitionists with nothing else to do but spout anti-social garbage courtesy of the public purse.

Obviously not.

Take Jim Wells, for example, a hideous DUP rep in the Northern Irish Assembly. While the global economy buckles, this guy's prime concern is that you should be criminalised for smoking in your own car. And he cites the smoking ban in pubs as proof that all is hunky-dory.

We have not needed squads of enforcement officers calling at pubs and restaurants throughout Northern Ireland to enforce the ban. There has been a 99% compliance rate, and it has been voluntary.

'Voluntary' in the sense that people voluntarily choose to avoid the crippling fines his sort have disgustingly imposed on private property owners. Not that he makes mention of that aspect, of course.

Still, in his warped mind, this makes banning smoking in private vehicles perfectly acceptable.

I do not see police officers routinely stopping cars on motorways or dual carriageways to see whether there has been smoking or whether there is ash in the ashtray. It is more likely that large numbers of people will realise that it is illegal and will stop, and there will be enormous health benefits as a result.

Course they will. Because people 'voluntarily' stopped smoking in bars once he said so, nothing at all to do with the owner of the premises being in fear of his livelihood for allowing it.

But even if smoking drivers do decide that this is a law that is a disgrace, entirely counter-productive, and very easy to contravene - which it is - Wells has that covered too.

Equally, if someone is stopped for some other reason, perhaps for using a mobile phone or driving too fast, and the officer notices that he or she has been smoking, it may be added to the schedule of offences.

Doesn't it just make your very being glow that this berk is happy for fines to be imposed by the police on the premise that the odour in the car was a bit tobacco-ey?

This is what passes for political wisdom these days, sadly. Irresponsible Unionists (remember that this is the norn-iron equivalent of conservatism) who are so hypnotised by health lobbyists that they abandon their previously held principles of choice and rights over personal property.

Aren't we lucky that it's just a provincial anomaly whereby the power of local arroganzas is magnified way beyond their limited intellect by way of devolution?

Not really, no. Because at least he was talking in a debate which qualified which cars would be included. The British Medical Association have far more sinister plans, and Westminster MPs are more than likely to adopt them at some point, the daft fuckers that they mostly are.

A review of compelling scientific evidence supporting a ban on smoking in motor vehicles is published today (Wednesday 16 November) in a new briefing paper1 from the BMA.

The BMA is calling on UK governments to introduce an extension to the current smoke-free legislation to include a ban on smoking in private vehicles.

Err, just to distinguish this from Wells's nonse, the BMA are talking about all private cars, whether others are in them or not.

Research compiled by the BMA shows that there is strong evidence that smoking in vehicles exposes non-smokers to very high levels of second-hand smoke. This is because of the restrictive internal environment in motor vehicles which exposes drivers and passengers to 23 times more toxins than a smoky bar. Children and other vulnerable individuals, such as the elderly, are particularly at risk from these health dangers.

And they are doing so by citing - in their 'compelling' evidence - a study which has long since been destroyed as being ... how can I put this? Non-existent.

There is no evidence to support the claim that smoking in cars is 23 times more toxic than in other indoor environments, according to a report in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Ross MacKenzie and Becky Freeman, from the University of Sydney, have criticised the 'unsubstantiated' figure and plotted its path through both the mainstream press and scientific publications before become widely accepted as 'fact'.

Kim Barnhardt, of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, said: 'There is no evidence to support the fact that smoking in cars is 23 times more toxic than in other indoor environments.'

And as Chris Snowdon pointed out last night from the same report ...

We recommend that researchers and organizations stop using the 23 times more toxic factoid because there appears to be no evidence for it in the scientific literature.

Not that such unequivocal dismissal will stop the BBC pumping this shit all over the airwaves today.

I mean, why should an acclaimed body like the BMA, or a self-professed world leader in unbiased news gathering, be expected to report something that has a basis in truth, eh?

Consider today as yet another day in your life when people you were brought up to trust lied to you, shamelessly. Just the same as every other day since you were born, funny enough.

In defence of the BBC, it's only going to be low key, so you can listen to them talking about it on "Five Live Breakfast (7.10), the Today programme (7.30) and BBC Breakfast (8.10)", on BBC Radio Sussex at 9:40, BBC Lincoln at 7:30 and 8:30 with Pat Nurse, and BBC radio WM 9:30, with BBC Stoke bringing up the rear at 10:20 with Dave Atherton.

After that, they'll just shut it until the national lunchtime news and other assorted TV offerings.

Well, when lies are this good, can you blame the righteous Graunistas at the Beeb for grabbing it with both hands?

UPDATE: Nigel Farage has called the BMA out in typically direct fashion.

"That the BMA is prepared to either lie, or maybe even worse be incompetent is just clear evidence that they are not to be trusted in public."

"Nobody would encourage people to smoke, nor would anybody be wildly happy about, as they say, forcing children to breath your smoke. But have these pettifogging nincompoops ever heard of car windows?"

Click here for the full press release.

Step Away From The Bacon

It seems that the tactic of anti-food campaigners using the tobacco control template has been quite the fashion of late. Of course, previous examples have just imitated the terminology set out by tobacco control finger-waggers.

That's not to say that alarmist puritans won't derive just as much satisfaction in producing imagery to align their particular taboo substance with cigarettes, though.


Yes. Believe it or not, bacon is now the new tobacco. Well, for this week, anyway. Who knows what it will be in a few days time?

One of Iowa’s signature meat products took a shot Monday when an advocacy group planned to put up a billboard on Douglas Avenue near Merle Hay Mall equating eating bacon with smoking.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, based in Washington, D.C., backed up its anti-bacon message with a salvo at Des Moines’ annual Blue Ribbon Bacon Festival, which celebrates the newfound chicness of bacon.

You're probably there before me, as I've mentioned PCRM before as nothing more than a PETA-funded front group for veganism. That's to say, a bunch of top drawer nutters like Kerry. But then, they don't look at all out of place amongst some of the other arguably insane campaigners we regularly feature here. Quite the opposite, in fact, they just emphasise the anti-social nature of every self-righteous body which seeks to restrict the enjoyment of others on dubious - and increasingly far-fetched - health grounds.

Brooks Reynolds, the Des Moines insurance man who founded the Bacon Festival five years ago, took the billboard and its message in stride.

He invited Susan Levin, the physician group’s education director, to visit next February’s Bacon Festival, which will be themed “Baconpocalypse Now: I love the smell of bacon in the morning.”

Reynolds asked Levin to “enjoy the fruits of Iowans’ labor and to live a little.”

“The Bacon Festival is fun,” he said.

Brooks Reynolds quite clearly doesn't understand these people! 'Fun' is as attractive to them as genital warts or dog vomit salad is to the rest of us.

As of Monday afternoon, Levin and the Physicians Group had not responded to the invitation.

No. Because that would involve cracking their hideous, grey, humourless faces.

For some strange reason, I've developed a sudden hankering for a nice juicy gammon steak. So much so that if Harvester were capable of selling one, I'd even be tempted to pop up there.

Nature Has Nothing On The Power Of Governments

In yesterday's article, the supranational state's intentions were laid out by Dr Judith Mackay. You are to be told what to eat, drink, and not smoke, and you must comply or be hit with crippling "taxation, taxation, taxation".

You may think that this is a trifle unfair. We are, after all, supposed to be living in free societies where personal choice is cherished.

So how is this discrepancy to be tackled? Governments want - demand, in fact - that we shun products which we enjoy for the sake of their arbitrary decisions for our health. However, we - in overwhelming numbers - would prefer not to, and may feel rather empty and miserable if we did.

Fortunately, politicians have an answer for the problem. You see, they are in charge of nature itself now.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told members of the National Restaurant Association on Monday that Americans need to “adjust” their tastes so that they like the kind of food the government believes they should eat—and “we have to make sure that what we do is create the appropriate transition.”

“You know, as we deal with this issue of reducing sodium and sugar, it sounds simple to do, but you all know better than I do, it’s not as simple as it sounds,” said Vilsack.

“It’s going to take time for people’s taste to adjust and they will adjust over time, but it will take some time,” he said. “So, we have to make sure that what we do is create the appropriate transition."

Is he really saying that our tastes must evolve to fit in with government health policy?

Yes. I think he is.

Doesn't that say a lot about how politicians view their importance in the world as opposed to ours? Governments worldwide have now ceased arranging themselves around how their employers (we, the public) wish to live, but instead expect the exact opposite - for us to change our lifestyle, and even our genetic make-up, to suit what they (our staff) have pronounced.

Anyone else feel they've inadvertently walked through a wardrobe into some strange fucked-up parallel universe?

The State And Its Back Seat Driver

I can see I'm going to be referring to this work of art at Counting Cats for quite some time to come.

Here, for example, is a perfect illustration of the scenario painted so vividly by IanB.

Motorway speed limits could be raised to 80mph to shorten journey times and boost the economy, it is reported.

Fantastic! Before the full story emerges, that is.

The current 70mph restriction is rarely enforced, police often turning a blind eye to anyone driving at up to 10mph faster than the limit.

Experts have argued that by having a higher speed limit that is enforced more readily, drivers are more likely to have respect for the rules.

See what they did there? They'll change the rules for us (ain't they kind?), but only if we have respect for their arbitrary - and now very much out-of-date - limits. This, in technical parlance, is known as giving with one hand while inflicting buggery by way of sandpaper glove with the other.

Let's look at the history here. Motorways were designed when the average family saloon suffered from speed rattle once you hit a mile a minute. However, engineers - as they have always been wont to do - built in a margin and designed them for safe travel at 90mph (can't find a link but, trust me, it's my job). And this was back when cars were heavier; not regulated to hysterical standards as they are now; didn't have ABS, power steering, crumple zones, etc etc; when there were no seat belt laws; when drink drive limits were not yet set; when crash barriers were mostly non-existent, let alone computer crash-tested; and when the driving test could be passed after an hour or two of shite tuition in a Morris Minor with Uncle Freddie.

The 70mph limit is as irrelevant to the 21st Century as The Bay City Rollers. As illustrated by its origin.

Q: When was the 70 mph motorway speed limit introduced in Britain?

A: The 70 mph National Speed Limit was introduced as a temporary measure in December 1965. It is often blamed on Barbara Castle, but at the time the Minister of Transport was Tom Fraser.

The reason given was a spate of serious accidents in foggy conditions, but it is often claimed that the MoT had been alarmed by AC Cars testing their latest Cobra on the M1 at speeds up to 180 mph.

It was confirmed as a permanent limit in 1967, by which time Barbara Castle (a non-driver) had become Minister of Transport.There was surprisingly little debate at the time: the fact that the average family car of the time could only just exceed 70 mph perhaps had something to do with this.

This was a rule originally set to tackle either a phenomenon which is much more unlikely now or, as some believe a rare anomaly, but was done in true political fashion to affect just about no-one too unduly.

This has now been turned into a golden rule which will lead to instant death if it is reviewed. So, yet again, the state approach is to assuage those who would give them grief over it. But unlike in the past, it's not us voters who governments are afraid of, it's the 'campaigners' (aka the righteous). Let's quote IanB.

Just as by the 1970s a government couldn’t make any decision without asking the Unions for permission, now no government can make a decision without consulting The Campaigners. And just as nearly everyone accepted the situation as normal back then, so it is that most everyone treats the situation now as normal too.

The Campaigners in question here are no doubt 'experts' like Brake or RoadPeace. And everyone does indeed think this is normal.

The public would now prefer to abrogate their right to have government listening to them, by allowing unelected - and often publicly-funded - quangoes and fake charities to do the dictating instead.

So we have a situation where even if our parliament comes out with a rare good idea - such as raising the speed limit to a realistic level, commensurate with modern living rather than rent-seeking fantasy - they are obliged to temper it with some hideous big boot to get it past the professionally aggrieved.

If this long overdue re-casting of the motorway speed limit is eventually enacted, you can bet your Nat West piggies it will be accompanied by more fines on non-compliance, and a whole raft of initiatives to bring city driving down to a maximum of 20mph.

If not, the nagging, vilification and shrill squealing by special interests whose livelihoods rely on slicing your freedoms up bit by bit, would become unbearable.

This is how government works in the Britain of 2011. They'll give us more rope, but will hang us high with it to avoid suffering the inevitable incessant whinging that would result otherwise.