The Snobbery Of Banning Sweets At Checkouts

On an otherwise glorious day of electrifying sunshine and impressive football success, let's nail this distasteful sophistry from the embarrassing Department of Health and its massed ranks of tax-troughing government lobbyists, shall we?

Via the BBC:

[Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt] said the cost of obesity was too great to ignore. 

"Parents are asking for help - we know that over three quarters of parents find offers for sugary sweets and snacks at checkouts annoying. 

"It's our job to give power to parents to make healthier choices, and to make their life easier in doing so."

Parents are asking for help to, erm, say no? Government is now passing laws - and effectively creating criminal offences - because some parents find something annoying?

Jesus Christ, I find Coronation Street annoying but it's a minority view. So is the annoyance at the display of sweets at checkouts. And how do we know this? Because if it was a widespread problem with consumers, businesses would have got rid of them decades ago. The Conservative Party should know this, but then they seem to have abandoned conservatism in favour of big state interventionist stupidity of late.

The overwhelming majority of parents are perfectly able to say no to their children. The overwhelming majority of consumers are fine with sweets being sold at checkouts, maybe even finding it a nice impulse buy as a treat after doing the chore of a weekly shop. What is absolutely certain is that banning sweets at checkouts will have no impact whatsoever on the prevalence of obesity, nor on an 'epidemic' which is entirely fictional, and it won't save the NHS one penny of a gerrymandered and fictional cost.

So what is really going on here? Well, it's just good old-fashioned snobbery, as I have written about on very many occasions in the past couple of years.

If you questioned these parents who are apparently "asking for help" and asked why their parenting skills are so pathetic that they can't say no to their children, I wager you'd find that they tell you they're brilliant parents! And how dare you suggest otherwise! They are more concerned about "our children", as in everyone else's children.

Tom Paine wrote most eloquently about this a few years ago when discussing a quite rancid authoritarian snob who was rightly termed "the all-round worst person at the Battle of Ideas" of 2012.

My choice is Dr Michael Nelson, director of research and nutrition at the Children's Food Trust (a "social business" working with the "charity" the Schools Food Trust). ... it wasn't the advice he would give parents as to what their children should eat but his contempt for their ability to make choices and their right to do so that was the problem. He ... complained that parents (as witness the contents of packed lunches they sent with their children to school) could not be trusted to make good choices for their children's health. Government attempts to improve nutrition by requiring catering contractors to offer healthy choices had failed because those choices were simply not taken up. If we care about "our children" he said (oddly as he and I have no children together) then we must help parents who;  

...we know from experience do not themselves have the the power of executive decision when it comes to their own diet... 

In other words, these people are too stupid to be parents. I asked myself (but did not dare to articulate the suggestion unless it gave him ideas) why he stopped short of taking all of British childkind into care. After all, their parents are too stupid to raise them properly and are jeopardising their families' health irresponsibly.

Now, if you put the views of Dr Nelson to those who Hunt says are "asking for help", you would find that they would agree. It is not their own kids they want help with, but other people's. If you don't believe me, try this experiment. As above, if you hear a parent say they are in favour of this policy, ask them why they are so bad at parenting they need a law to help them say no. I guarantee you they will instantly talk about other parents and children who are not their own.

How a Conservative government has contrived to place itself in a position where one of its core beliefs - personal responsibility - is being obliterated by its adherence to the vile and the judgemental in society who like to tut and sneer at other people's lives, is a mystery.

Still, at least it's made them popular with the tax-sucking bastards who pander to society's most repulsive snobs, eh?

Government's New Plan To Halve Child Obesity 'Is An Absolute Travesty', Say Health Campaign Groups

For pity's sake, when will these oak-brained politicians realise that appeasing 'public health' only excites them more? Just ignore them!

Fucking idiots. 

The Sugar Tax Con Trick

So the sugar tax was introduced on Friday and on social media many are starting to wake from their slumber as to what it all means.

We are already seeing smaller chocolate bars being sold for the same price, popular drinks that have been national favourite for decades being effectively discontinued, and meal deals being wrecked at the altar of 'public health' fantasy.

The public are being screwed out of their cash for no good reason, and - as Mark Littlewood writes today in The Times - it is hypocritical government which is doing the screwing.

[I]nterventions such as the sugar tax undermine the government’s narrative in other key areas. As leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband struck a chord when he campaigned on behalf of the “squeezed middle” and talked of a cost of living crisis. In the early stages of her premiership, Theresa May said she would be a champion of “just about managing” households. With real wages having been obstinately flat for years and house prices staying high, politicians of both stripes have been keen to empathise with families whose modest budgets barely allow them to purchase the essentials of life. 

Consumption taxes, such as the levy on fizzy drinks, have a measurably regressive impact. They chew up a relatively high proportion of the incomes of those least able to afford them. According to the Office for National Statistics, these types of taxes account for nearly a quarter of the disposable income of the poorest 10 per cent in British society, compared with a more manageable 13 per cent for the richest decile. The next time a Tory spokesman sympathises with those who are struggling to get by, the electorate may ask why the government is gearing the tax system to make it more difficult for those on budgets to afford staple products.

If an industry conspired to ramp up prices in an entire sector as this tax does, it would be condemned as a cartel by government and be subject to scandal and heavy scrutiny. We might expect to see price caps and business owners would likely be prosecuted for fraud.

Yet the government is the one doing the price-gouging and impoverishing the poor, so apparently it's OK. It's not OK and is a national scandal that the government should presume it ever has the right to decide what we are allowed to eat and drink!

But what I find most interesting about this whole grubby affair is the huge con trick that has been played on the British public.

For example, we are told that this measure is required due to the spiralling levels of child obesity. Let's look at those from the latest HSCIC figures, shall we?

The increase - if there is one - is minimal and even that is tempered by the fact that the NHS admits the stats up to 2009 were under-estimated. There really isn't a "crisis" in child obesity.

And even if there is, it has nothing to do with sugar.

And certainly nothing to do with soft drinks consumption either considering it has remained flat for over a decade, with low sugar alternatives making up a greater proportion of that in recent years. If, like me, you are a child of the 70s and 80s, you will remember that we drank much more fizzy drinks than kids today and there were far fewer low-sugar options. We had a lot more tooth decay than kids today but we were - according to the health 'experts' - far slimmer. So how can anyone say it's the sugar causing this mythical obesity crisis? It's quite clearly not.

Yet we are told there is enough evidence about the evils of sugar in food and drink to fleece the public to the tune of £240m to £500m, depending on how trusting you are in the power of the coercive state to make predictions.

It's complete arse-biscuits.

Instead, what has happened is that the public has effectively been brainwashed into believing this fantasy, led by 'public health' cranks with an agenda to promote and a bank balance to feed with grants and advocacy salaries.

Which is why we have the bizarre situation where even articles like Littlewood's, which calmly debunks this paranoia and government over-reach, are always followed by comments from people who just can't get their head around how they have been comprehensively conned. And, to be honest, it's because many of them really want to be conned; they are eager for the poppycock they are fed to be true.

They fall into three camps, but all are based on good old-fashioned selfishness, ignorance and class hate.

Firstly, you have the look-at-me virtue-signaller. These are the ones who will boast about how they always cook food from the healthiest ingredients at home, will ban their kids from McDonald's and never have poison like fizzy drinks in the house. Oh no, they are a better class of person, not like those common oiks they see in the High Street. They are so much better than you and can't wait to jump onto radio phone-ins to explain at length how very perfect they are compared to the rest of society. They will often also requisition your kids as their own by saying action is necessary to save "our children". Ironically, these holier-than-thou types were banging on in the 90s about how they give their kids orange juice not Coca-Cola, but will never admit that now that orange juice has been demonsed too.

Secondly, we have the ones who claim their interest is because they are being unduly taxed for the sins of other people. They will scream about the cost to the health service as if this is costing them personally. The cost to the health service argument is shonky at best considering we're told the obese die earlier than those fine, upstanding healthy people thereby saving a fortune in government's biggest expenditure, pensions. But it always amuses me to think there are people around who honestly believe if everyone was slim they'd get a reduction in taxes. Of course they wouldn't. These people are actually arguing that the sugar tax is good because it will cost the NHS less (which it won't) and that might benefit them (which it won't) so are happy to see the government whack taxes on products that they may buy (which definitely will cost them). They should look up Parkinson's Law.

And lastly, we have the type who knows very well that this is a load of bollocks but just like the fact that sin taxes are regressive. They will leap on any old nonsense to justify a tax which punishes the poor, for the simple fact that they hate people who are not like them. They don't care whether the sugar tax will work, they are simply a modern version of a Victorian aristocrat who would sneer at the choices of the poor. It is now considered shameful to advocate an income tax rate for the low-paid which is higher than that for the rich, but positively encouraged by government to support disproportionately gouging the less well off for products which the rich can afford quite nicely, thank you.

It should be repellent that so many people support this assault on their fellow citizens, but politicians have been conned as much as the rest of society has. The facts show that sugar consumption has been falling consistently for decades; that sugary drinks consumption in the UK has been declining; that taxing that consumption - which makes up such a tiny proportion of our diets - will have little effect on what we buy let alone our waistlines; and it has proven to be a failure wherever it has been tried.

But we still try it because ... snobbery, as Alex Deane described at the time it was announced.

Virtue-signalling politicians, bureaucrats and celebrities feeling tremendously good about themselves because they’ve bossed the rest of us around, and imposed a stealth tax on those least able to afford it.

Still, it's only a small imposition isn't it? The government punishing the poor over fizzy drinks will be the end of the matter. Well not really, no, and if you believe that my local pub has a smoking room you can buy at a decent price.

The sugar tax is born out of the same vile and scum-infested middle class base as the smoking ban. The only difference being that back then it was smokers, now it is the overweight. The precedent was set a decade ago, a precedent which gave a green light for the most hideous in society to point fingers, criticise the choices of others, publicly vomit insults, and demand government force be brought to bear on people who they feel offended at seeing. That's all, just seeing!

The sugar tax proves that an entire population can be conned into the most grubby of sentiments purely by the repetition of lies designed to prey upon hidden prejudices. History has seen this before with disastrous consequences. 

Signage And The Anti-Vaping Status Quo

In July, the government released its Tobacco Control Plan (TCP). It claimed to be supportive of e-cigarettes, including this part about vaping in public.

Public Health England has produced guidance for employers and organisations looking to introduce policies around e-cigarettes and vaping in public and recommend such policies to be evidence-based. PHE recommends that e-cigarette use is not covered by smokefree legislation and should not routinely be included in the requirements of an organisation’s smokefree policy.

As vaping bans sweep up and down the country without a whimper of objection from 'supportive' tobacco control groups we could mention, it doesn't appear that many employers or businesses are taking much notice of the TCP. In fact, it doesn't even appear that NHS Trusts have bothered to read it either, here's a telling picture of two ghastly goons from Chesterfield unveiling their retarded policy to the media earlier this month.

The very next day, Darent Valley Hospital in Kent went one better. They didn't just completely ignore the TCP, they also celebrated the Stoptober campaign ... by banning the products Stoptober said smokers could use instead of tobacco!

21st Sept, @stoptober announces you can use #ecigs to quit, on 25th, @DarentValleyHsp celebrates Stoptober by banning them #Idiots pic.twitter.com/9q3s4lyii7

— Dick Puddlecote (@Dick_Puddlecote) October 6, 2017

Of course, as we have come to expect, these creeping bans on vaping were met with complete silence by those in the tobacco control industry who claim to be onside. 'Twas ever thus.

In the meantime, Transport for London - which, again, is a state-funded arm of government - insists on these signs on all its taxi and private hire vehicles in the capital.

It is the legally-mandated no smoking sign, just with the addition of vaping as if to imply that using e-cigs is against the law - which it is not, of course - but they tweet regularly about how you can be fined by a court anyway. As I understand it, if a vehicle does not carry this sign, it will fail inspection and not be licensed.

Don't you have to wonder about how sincere the TCP and the tobacco control industry is about supporting vaping when these signs are going up without so much as a stern word from anyone in 'public health'?

Recently we have also seen private companies pretending that e-cig use is against the law when it isn't. I wrote last month about London Midland trying to brazen it out when challenged that - despite what their policy says - vaping in public is not a criminal offence. Yet here we have Aldi claiming the same thing.

@AldiUK It's not against the law to vape anywhere in the U.K you need to alter your sign, it's incorrect @PHE_uk @NNAlliance @jsummers71 pic.twitter.com/bjKnOWiumH

— Brian Coe (@BrisyCoe) October 4, 2017

Greggs, too, either think vaping is against the law, or just like pretending that it is.

.@GreggsOfficial Please change this - ecigs are not smoking & you're helping confuse people about a safer alternative pic.twitter.com/Wabing90UY

— NNA_John Summers (@jsummers71) October 12, 2017

Now, in light of this apparent support of vaping recently from 'public health', how can it be that so many organisations - both private and public sector - can be allowed to bastardise the law to insinuate that using e-cigs is a criminal matter rather than just a boneheaded policy decision by lazy and/or stupid people?

Surely making claims, either directly or indirectly, of law-breaking when it is nothing of the sort should be subject to some kind of sanction in a country that supposedly values freedom? Well, apparently not, because you see the government itself has said that this kind of fraud is perfectly OK.

Their update to the The Smoke-free (Signs) Regulations in 2012 states:

"While it remains a legal duty to display at least one legible no-smoking sign in smoke-free premises and vehicles, the owners and managers will have discretion as to the design and location of no- smoking signs."

In other words, you can change the legal no smoking sign however you choose, and many have chosen to include e-cigs in theirs.

How about that for joined-up government, eh? The TCP makes a pledge to support vaping, PHE provides advice saying that policies should distinguish between smoking and vaping, but all the while a government statutory instrument allows a wild west affair whereby just about anything can be described as illegal alongside smoking ... and the same state-funded organisations claiming to be in support of tobacco harm reduction just whistle and look the other way.

A cynic might conclude that seeing as tobacco control gets its grants from advocating tax hikes, bans and pseudo-prohibition, it is quite happy for vaping to be demonised in this way, considering how e-cigs have clearly been far more successful in creating former smokers - without any cost to the taxpayer whatsoever - than anything they have done at huge cost to the public purse.

Every week we see research studies from tobacco control about safety of e-cigs, liquids, views of children on vaping, even social media scrutiny of vapers themselves. I have yet to see a single study, though, which touches on the derogatory effect of vaping bans on smokers switching. It's almost like they are happy with the way things are going and really couldn't care less, isn't it?

The status quo is very profitable for tobacco control, don't expect their 'support' to be anything more than a few words here and there designed to con vapers that they actually care, when they really don't. 

The Curious Case Of The Criminal Offence That Isn't

In early August, an article appeared in the Birmingham Mail which appeared to jump the shark regarding vaping on trains. As we will come to, it has since been significantly edited, but the Wayback Machine has the original.

Train users caught putting their feet on seats or vaping could face prosecution

Train company London Midland has launched a new campaign to stamp out anti-social behaviour and it could see passengers facing prosecution for breaking new railway by-laws. 

Commuters caught putting their feet on seats or vaping could end up in court. 

The new regulations were introduced this week (from August 7) in response to complaints from train passengers. 

"Prosecution"? "New railway by-laws "? "End up in court"? For using an e-cig? What fresh hell is this?

It seemed a bit rum seeing as new by-laws must be approved by the Secretary of State for Transport, and if that had been the case, it passed just about everyone by. So a few questions were asked about this hyper over-reaction on Twitter.

As usual, click to enlarge

Right OK. So within a few tweets we are already miles away from "new railway by-laws" and into some dumbass policy dreamed up by wooden tops in suits in a Brummie office. How, exactly, can anyone be prosecuted for breaking a private company's policy? I could install a policy of banning the eating of sardines in my office premises (thought has occurred), but I don't think the Police would race down with their blue lights flashing to enforce it and fine people for me.

Because the article also showed a BBC video of a passenger being given an 'interview under caution'. Now, I have experience of these so know that an interview under caution is a procedure, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984, in situations where someone is suspected of committing a criminal offence. Not adhering to a private company's charter is not a criminal offence unless private companies are allowed to just make up criminal law on the hoof or something.

The Freedom Association's Andrew Allison asked this question about the interviews, and London Midland seemed to think that, yes, they were being conducted against vapers.

And again

They suggested, though, that it was not they who were conducting them, but the British Transport Police. So I asked them. They couldn't say how many interviews under caution they had conducted, for two reasons. Firstly, because London Midland hadn't even been in touch with them about it.

I have contacted the Officer in Charge for British Transport Police at Birmingham New Street and the Superintendent who has overall responsibility for British Transport Police’s Midlands region and neither are aware of any written guidance correspondence or guidance received from or given to London Midland on this issue or any guidance issued to officers specifically relating to vaping on London Midland services.

But secondly, and probably more importantly, because it wouldn't be their responsibility anyway (emphasis is all theirs, not mine).

A number of Train Operating Companies issue guidance that the use of e-cigarettes is prohibited on the railway. It may be that the TOCs’ Conditions of Carriage prohibit the use of electronic cigarettes however BTP are not responsible for enforcing conditions of carriage. Under normal circumstances, the use of an e-cigarette on a train or in any enclosed railway building is not a criminal offence. 

British Transport Police would not have issued any fines or threats of prosecution in relation to Terms of Carriage alone.

If anyone is conducting interviews under caution, then, it isn't British Transport Police, so it must be London Midland. I do hope they have a rock solid case for doing so, don't you?

On that note, as I mentioned earlier, the Birmingham Mail's article has since been re-written after Sarah J pointed out to them that it was very misleading. It now includes this clarification, presumably after consulting London Midland.

Although vaping is not specifically included within the railway by-laws, in light of customer complaints London Midland considers it to be a discomfort to other passengers and may therefore be a breach of the regulations.

The specific 'regulation' they refer to is Railway By-Law 6(8) [pdf] which states:

No person shall molest or wilfully interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person on the railway. 

That's one hell of a stretch. Which is why I was glad that the British Transport Police included their own guidance on the matter in their reply.

Is the use of an e-cigarette a Byelaw offence? 

The use of an e-cigarette would not normally be covered by Byelaw 6(8) unless we can evidence that the interference is wilful. For example, where after a complaint from another passenger, the individual continues to use the e-cigarette. We would need to ensure we are able to obtain sufficient evidence to support the prosecution.

London Midland can "consider" vaping to be a contravention of that by-law as much as they like - they are entitled to their opinion after all - but the Police beg to differ. Or, as they put it, "There is no law or byelaw against vaping on a train".

Nope, and some train company exec is not suitably qualified to decree that a criminal offence has been committed when the Police disagree, I'd say. So this would appear to be a case of some pompous, puffed-up, lazy pratts at London Midland making a great big deal out of a very minor 'problem'.

So what was the state of play before this grand new display of clunking fist power by London Midland? Well, whether vaping was prohibited by their charter or not, if a passenger felt discomforted or inconvenienced by someone vaping, they could complain. If the vaper then continued, wilfully, it would become a contravention of a railway by-law.

And what is the situation now? Well, exactly the same. It doesn't matter whether London Midland have an opinion one way or another, their charter doesn't create a criminal offence, and the by-law is only contravened if a vaper persists when asked to stop. A complete waste of time then, and a further hysterical restriction on e-cigs which the Royal College of Physicians have said should be widely encouraged.

Instead of a neanderthal show of widespread corporate ignorance, if London Midland had any bright sparks working for them, they could have instead adopted an inclusive policy like this advanced by ECITA a couple of years ago.

In order to ensure that customers are fully informed, we recommend the installation of signage, such as this:

so that those who wish to use electronic cigarettes are reminded to do so discreetly, and to treat their fellow passengers with courtesy and respect, while also informing those customers who do not wish to use such products that they can expect the products to be used in a minimally invasive or offensive way – and can report any misbehaviour in this regard. We believe that this is the appropriate balance to strike for this type of public environment. If such a policy were adopted by UK train operators, then they could be – at least in some small way – contributing to improvements in UK public health, rather than risking being a potential cause of harm.

Sadly, London Midland is staffed - from Twitter monkey right up to board level - by people with about as much acumen, common sense and imagination as a garden gnome.

Still, that's probably why they've just lost the franchise. Oh dear what a pity never mind. 

Stop Pretending, 'Public Health' - You're Simply Common Prohibitionists

A few years ago comedian Steve Hughes jokingly spoke of the approach 'public health' has towards smoking.

"Can we still buy cigarettes?"
"Of course!"
"Where can we smoke them?"
"Nowhere"

Now, it's a regular refrain from the vile, selfish wankers who form tobacco control's fan base - basically curtain-twitching prodnoses who believe the world revolves around them, their shit doesn't stink, and that they are entitled to meddle in other people's lives - that smokers should smoke in their own homes and nowhere else.

Well, that's kind of the problem, because tobacco control fanatics can't tolerate even that, as we see from the weekend.

Professor John Middleton, president of the Faculty of Public Health, said adults smoking in the home damaged the development of children’s lungs and put babies at risk of cot death. 

"Housing associations and councils are looking at smoke-free housing buildings. Where children are involved I think there is a real case for it,” Middleton said.

The head of "Faculty of Public Health", a civil servant who obviously fails to take into account the varied needs and desires of the public he is supposed to serve. Middleton cites a 'risk' - cobbled together using extreme cherry-picking and junk science - so negligible that when applied to Ibuprofen tablets, his colleagues summarily dismiss it, and employs this paltry non-concern to advocate depriving social housing tenants of one of the most fundamental rights of all; the freedom to do as one chooses in one's home.

These people are quite simply disgusting. There is no other word for it.

But then he has back-up from fellow state-funded tax leeches like Debs Arnott of ASH.

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Ash, said the anti-smoking charity had a call last week from a woman whose granddaughter had cystic fibrosis and had never been able to visit because neighbours’ smoke from communal areas drifted into the grandmother’s home. 

Arnott said people were often “frustrated by councils’ and social landlords’ failure to take action”.

Hey, Debs, we have news for you. There are many more people who are "frustrated" that no-one in government is taking action to deprive you of the cash your organisation has been stealing from the taxpayer for over 40 years despite not a soul wanting to hand it to you voluntarily. Tell the woman the truth - that passive smoking is a long-fabricated lie fantasy health issue (as you very well know) - but if she is that worried, arrange a meeting in one of the thousands of venues you have ordered MPs to make 100% smokefree. Then, shut the fuck up.

In case you thought this is just a couple of barking mad outliers flaunting their wildest wet dreams in public, think again. Banning smoking in people's homes is a quietly-stated goal of all anti-smoking health professionals throughout the country, without exception. The reason for this cult-like wish to deprive smokers of their rights is, sadly, because the 'public health' abomination doesn't even recognise that people have rights in the first place, as this state-funded 2009 study from Scotland illustrates starkly.

On the one hand the home is a private space and there is some resistance found in the ethical debates inherent in public health literature to the blurring of the public/private boundary for smoke-free public health interventions. This is often articulated by libertarian arguments advocating the rights of smokers in their own home and opposing perceived encroachment of the State into private space.

On the one had the home is a private space? What other hand is there, exactly? As for the part about the encroachment of the state into private space being merely 'perceived'. No, it's real, because that is exactly what they are sitting around a table to work towards. We don't 'perceive' that they are working towards it, we can see with our own fucking eyes that they are.

Simon Clark has offered a very astute say on the matter here, so do go read, but I'd like to also add this.

Back in 2008, former Scottish Labour MP and decent sort Tom Harris had this to say about the very idea of home smoking bans.

But the Department of Health recently held a consultation on whether the smoking ban should be extended into people’s private vehicles and homes. Now, I know this caused a great deal of perfectly understandable outrage among a lot of people. So let me make this clear: the government will not, under any circumstances, legislate to stop people smoking in private. It would be a crazy move and, believe it or not, ministers are not crazy people - they’re politicians and they recognise political realities.

And if they did attempt to legislate in this direction, I would risk the wrath of those who don’t believe Scottish MPs should vote on English matters by voting against it.

But as I say, I won’t need to, because it’s not going to happen.

That was in 2008, but it shows how far down the absurdly dictatorial road those in 'public health' have taken us in the interim, with the backing of political lightweights who are as gullible as the lowest common denominator in their electorate.

If Harris is correct and politicians aren't that stupid, then why are people like Middleton and Arnott being funded? Who is calling them to account and telling them to stop this kind of Orwellian nonsense?

Secondly, why does 'public health' and the political class hate the less well off so much? This won't affect me because I own my home and if any of these people stepped on my territory to snoop I'd have a solicitor on them for trespass, a luxury not available to those in social housing that disgusting people like Middleton and Arnott wish to harass and bully.

Thirdly, if the tobacco control gravy train is now demanding bans in homes, can they stop denying they are full-blown, hysterical Prohibitionists? Even their most ardent troglodyte fans don't believe it is a justified measure, so why not just come out and admit it? Drop the facade and demand full prohibition of tobacco, and stop wasting everyone's time and money.

Steve Hughes made jokes about the ludicrous positions that anti-smokers make in the UK; he meant it as a parody. But they really are that ridiculous, and it's not funny any more. When they are actively attempting to remove rights of people in their own homes, politicians should act - as Tom Harris rightly said, rationally - recognise that they are beyond the pale; defund them; and also jail a few as the dangerous, bullying, inhumane, anti-social bastards into the bargain. 

The Problem With 'Public Health'

2016 is still proving to be the most busy and stressful year that I can ever remember (albeit in a good way), and I do still intend to refer to Rod Liddle's excellent speech at the Freedom Dinner last week at some point as promised, but I can't help but comment on this while I have some time.

Yesterday, by total chance, I managed to hear Martin Dockrell of Public Health England on radio 5 live speaking about the new guidelines his organisation has produced on vaping in the workplace. (You can listen to it here from 41:45 onwards).

In the humble opinion of your host here, it speaks volumes about the problems we face with both 'public health' and the public sector in general.

For example, the slot was introduced almost as a comedy piece by the vacant BBC presenter. Y'see, everyone knows those dirty smokers are to be condemned at every opportunity, don't they?

"Every now and then you get a story where you think, I think this might get the listeners going"

Got that listeners? Prepare to get your hackles up, Auntie Beeb is eagerly awaiting your outrage.

PHE's guidance was then presented as if they had encouraged businesses to give vapers more breaks from their workstations than those already hated smokers! The bloody nerve!

It comes from an implied premise by the BBC that - obviously - vaping is either already banned by any self-respecting business or is surely going to be soon - so that the only way one can be able to afford vapers "frequent interim top-ups" of nicotine is is by allowing staff to "step away from the desk" and do so.

The fact that vaping is not harmful to anyone and perfectly legal to be used indoors is completely avoided.

Now, Martin Dockrell (who many readers will recall that I've had issues with in the past) is, as I understand it, admirably supportive of e-cigs so should surely nip this nonsense in the bud, don't you think? Sadly not.

He spoke about how vapers should "not necessarily" be banned from vaping indoors and how some - only some - employers may feel that vapers should be allowed a "stealthy puff" every now and then (not in the BBC, of course, har-di-ha because they've banned them everywhere). He was thrown the old canard about people who like chocolate being given time away from their desk to enjoy their habit and replied that staff in every company have 8 hours a day to "chomp their chocolate" and that "nobody is made to go outside to chomp their chocolate".

Erm, wouldn't this be a perfect opportunity to say there is no reason vapers should be made to go outside to vape either? Just a thought.

But no, open goal after open goal was missed by Dockrell and the end result was as predictable as it was saddening. The listening public could only really come to the conclusion that vapers should be shoved outside like smokers, just in a different area.

So let's look at what the PHE guidelines actually said. They fudge a lot too but there are some unequivocal views in there once you cut through the 'public health'  tip-toeing.

International peer-reviewed evidence indicates that the risk to the health of bystanders from exposure to e-cigarette vapour is extremely low.

For extremely low, read 'non-existent'.

The evidence of harm from secondhand exposure to vapour is not sufficient to justify the prohibition of e-cigarettes. Managers of public places and workplaces should ensure that this evidence informs their risk assessments.

This should give people like Dockrell a green light to say something like - ooh, I dunno - there is no health or legislative reason that vaping should be banned in workplaces.

e-cigarette use is not covered by smokefree legislation and should not routinely be included in the requirements of an organisation’s smokefree policy

Yes, exactly that. Because it is not any kind of threat so should be up to each business to decide.

However - and this is extremely important - surely 'public health' should be giving a very clear message that using e-cigs in public is quite simply not a public health issue! Far be it for me to suggest things for PHE to say on media if they are asked but how about this clear and concise one?

Vaping indoors is legal, not at all harmful to anyone, and it's not any of our business what companies do. However, we'd like to say that if you ban these devices you're a bit of a dick unless you have extremely strong grounds to do so.

Isn't it funny that in alcohol policy we're told that nuanced advice has no place and so only "no safe level of alcohol consumption" will do, but with nicotine a simple message that there is nothing to worry about and we're going to butt out of your lives is far too simple so, erm, we're going to try to say something nuanced instead?

The upshot is, of course, that listeners were guided into believing that this was a call to give filthy smokers more breaks, which the BBC were happy to stoke by gleefully reading out "what a load of old tosh!" reactions from their listeners who they led by the nose to object before a word was spoken by Dockrell.

It's difficult to understand why people like Dockrell can't just clearly say "there is no problem with vaping at all" until you understand three core problems with 'public health' in this area.

1) As we saw with the McKee FOIs, PHE are operating in an environment where they are being attacked by hideous anti-vaping dinosaurs who have no care for health whatsoever and are backed up by a Chief Medical Officer who is a disgrace and not fit for purpose. Offering proper advice must be difficult so it could be argued that Dockrell is dancing on eggshells in media appearances like this.

2) When you have pandered to the selfish, bigoted and anti-social with the myth of secondhand smoke and its imaginary dangers based on laughable relative risk, how can you then come out and say that even negligible risk from vaping is perfectly fine? It kinda opens you up as a bunch of liars doesn't it? So we have the bizarre situation whereby the PHE guidelines talk about bans being justified on the basis of "nuisance", "distraction" or - as Dockrell mentioned in his 5 live piece - "comfort". Erm, wasn't it about the threat of death to bystanders? If you're consistent you'd say there is absolutely none with vaping. But then that doesn't keep the shekels rolling in does it? Which brings us to 3) ...

3) 'Public health' is not really about public health, it's about salaries. If PHE came out and said that they have no position about vaping indoors because it's not a public health danger, and that their only comment would be that it should be roundly supported, then how could they justify their share of the £500m per year they are shovelled?

This is not to knock PHE's laudable support of e-cigs but to condemn their limp and spineless defence of vaping indoors or outdoors. It's great being supportive but absolutely no fucking use if there is increasingly nowhere that they can be used where cigarettes aren't.

Dockrell mentioned a policy goal during his radio interview which I think he failed to deliver.

"We don't want policies that end up doing more harm than good"

Well, when the message taken by BBC listeners is that PHE guidelines are "a load of old tosh" then it's fair to say that this goal is not being achieved and, in fact, prejudiced bans on e-cig use are actually being legitimised.

I'll start to believe all the guff about how 'public health' believes in e-cigs when outdoor bans in sports stadia begin to disappear, not before.

The Blind Fanaticism Of ASH Wales

My ears have just stopped ringing from having a Sikh and a Derryman employing an incredibly loud kango to knock down internal walls at Puddlecote Inc today - for SIX BASTARD HOURS - as part of our reorganisation plans.

Back in the comparative peace of home, I now find that ASH Wales have been up to their old tricks again. You may remember that in March they were thrilled to "fully welcome" an outdoor smoking ban on Little Haven beach in Pembrokeshire which also encompasses e-cigs, so much so that their logo (and that of fellow 'vape-friendly' Cancer Research UK) is proudly displayed on the sign which announces the fascistic and pointless policy to the public.

Well, now they seem just as enthusiastic about a similar Orwellian initiative in mid and west Wales.

A PA system is being launched at hospitals in mid and west Wales to discourage smokers from lighting up. 

Hywel Dda University Health Board is the first in Wales to launch the "Push the Button" system to curb smoking at Carmarthenshire, Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire hospitals. 

It enables people to anonymously push a red button which triggers an announcement reminding them hospitals are smoke-free. 

The policy also includes e-cigarettes.

ASH Wales loved it enough to eagerly retweet it to their slavering smoke-hating followers on Twitter, though.

Can you think of anything more like handing vile playground bullies a knuckle duster and the promise of a gold star from teacher than that? If you read here regularly I've often written about how state-funded anti-smoking organisations actively pander to the most vile, intolerant and anti-social in society, and there is your proof.

A loud-hailer bully button for the prejudiced and hateful in society to express their bigotry without fear of reproach. And this is apparently to be welcomed. Good grief.

Aside from that, to many people who have previously had no opinion either way the conflation of vaping with smoking will be taken as evidence that both are just as dangerous as each other, including outdoors. But, d'you know, I don't think ASH Wales could give a shit about it. In fact I think they know very well that the public might believe that and quite like the idea.

It's also interesting that they felt the need to share screaming junk science research from America on their Twitter timeline just a few hours ago too.

Research | E-cigarettes and future cigarette use among American youths | https://t.co/xmkIdrsD3w

— ASH Wales Cymru (@ASHWalesCymru) June 13, 2016

To save you the trouble of reading it, this is a study which comes to the conclusion that youth use of e-cigs means that they are more likely to smoke.

It's cobblers, of course, as most tobacco control 'research' is, but what is fascinating is that it had already been soundly rubbished by other tobacco controllers both here and in the US hours before ASH Wales decided to eagerly tweet it. I'm pretty sure they would have seen the controversy over 'gateway' studies like these too. After all, what else do professional anti-smoking lunatics have to do all day except monitor sources of information in the areas in which they are active?

They happily tweeted it anyway though. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

On this evidence it doesn't appear to be coincidence that Wales has come closest yet to being subject to a ban on e-cigs in public. ASH Wales are so fanatical about attacking smokers and supporting bans on tobacco use even outdoors - where it is a mere inconvenience only to fruitcakes, fucktards and the insane - that they're willing to sacrifice vaping on their altar of extremist cult zealotry too.

I'd love to hear their lame and transparent excuses this time, because there is no way in the world they can claim any of it is about health.

SEE ALSO: Grandad on the Hywel Dda "Push the Button" plan and our right to tell them where to stick it.

ASH And Tobacco Control Caused All Vaping Bans

An article published today in the Leicester Mercury highlights just how nasty and intolerant a world self-serving tobacco controllers have created for us.

Leicester City fan banned from last home game of season after smoking e-cigarette 

A Leicester City fan has been banned for two home games due to smoking an e-cigarette in the stands.

Erm, why?

No harm has ever been attributed to e-cig use indoors let alone outdoors, so there is no harm being inflicted on anyone and no victim. There is no problem here, so a guy has been deprived of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of seeing his team win a miracle Premiership Title because of a rule applied simply for the sake of having a rule. This is the vile state of modern Britain - where the intolerant and prodnosed are pandered to - and it has been created and encouraged by the tobacco control industry for no other reason than their own bigotry and bank balances.

As I've written before, the only reason e-cigs are included in stadium bans is thanks to a bunch of pharma-funded 'public health' charlatans at Healthy Stadia and the Health Equality Group deliberately spreading false information to sports clubs.

But there's more to it than even that. Consider this zombie argument that you will see repeated often.

Erm, why would anyone need to "differentiate between people using e-cigs and people smoking normal cigs"? The ban on smoking in stadia is purely a vile bullying policy imagined, lobbied for and supported by grubby, tax-sponging organisations such as ASH and others in the same mould.

There is, and never will be, any measurable harm to others from passive smoking outside, it is a fantasy demon that the tobacco control industry has created amongst the public. Worse still, those in tobacco control who promote this fear are very clever with their words because they know very well that they are purposely lying about the potential 'dangers'.

So what if someone slips under the radar and smokes amongst others who are vaping? Neither is any kind of a problem we should be worrying about. If it is, we sure as shit need another war to illustrate what discomfort is really all about, and to remind many that a lot of people fought very hard to protect the freedoms that the selfish and affected amongst us are now seemingly content to flush down the toilet.

Ah but, I hear you say, some people don't like the smell of smoke, so it's only fair they be catered for. Well of course, but did anyone consider smoking and non-smoking areas? Well of course not because that wouldn't sit with ASH's chosen policy of bullying and 'denormalisation' of perfectly law-abiding people consuming a legal product. It is only the effete, snobby and repellent who ASH cater for.

Besides, if the smell of smoke is so rancid and identifiable, it wouldn't be much of a problem to spot, now would it?

Naturally, now ASH and other tobacco control industry organisations are "supportive" of vaping, I'm sure they'll be along soon to condemn Leicester's policy of banning fans who are using a product which Public Health England & the Royal College of Physicians say are a boon for public health.

Only a matter of time before ASH publicly voice disapproval about vaping bans instead of supporting them; likewise ASH Wales will ride in all guns blazing at some point to criticise vape bans instead of "fully" welcoming them; and I'm sure ASH Scotland's deafening silence will soon end as they use their clout to publicly shame the idiots who are creating anti-vaping policies up and down the nation on an almost daily basis.

In fact, I'm sure ASH are, as we speak, writing to Leicester City FC to tell them how absurd their policy is towards this fan and how cruel the punishment for something which they and others recognise as being conducive to improved public health. The public statement will follow soon after, I expect.

@ASH_LDN You're still being very quiet about the Notts Council vaping ban. When can we expect you to publicly condemn it?

— Fergus McFergface (@FergusMason1) April 28, 2016

Yep, anytime soon.

I mean, considering ASH and the tobacco control industry are responsible for every vaping ban ever implemented, it's the very least they can do, isn't it?

Fat Budgets And Fake Friends

Next time you hear some local authority rubber band-flicker whining about how government 'cuts' are slashing their resources to the bare bones, remind yourself of this.

Via Taking Liberties, it seems that despite 'savage' austerity measures, Aberdeenshire Council still has a budget fat enough to come up with sinister, absurd and utterly pointless new policies like this.

A Scottish council is looking to ban people from smoking in their own vehicles if they are on local authority land. 

Aberdeenshire Council has drafted a revised smoking policy that aims to ensure non-puffers are prevented from inhaling toxic tobacco fumes in car parks. 

Under the proposed new rules, smoking - including electronic vaporizers or 'e-cigs' - will face a blanket ban on any premises or site owned by the council even if someone lights up in a private vehicle.

Now, this isn't a reaction to public demand. Have you heard of any grassroots campaign to prohibit smoking in private vehicles in car parks? No, nor me. I'm pretty sure no-one has ever demanded that anywhere - let alone in Aberdeenshire - so why the need to waste taxpayers' money on such a stupid piece of illiberal and unenforceable garbage? Especially since if there was any call whatsoever for such a policy it would have originated from one of the tax-sponging sock puppet bullies in the bloated, anti-social and entirely wasteful tobacco control industry.

No, this is just a bunch of state-funded troughers sitting around trying to dream up something - anything, however flimsy the justification - to keep themselves on the tax-funded gravy train.

They are quite literally collectively pissing your taxes down the drain and then squealing that government is really mean for making cuts. Well of course cuts are urgently necessary if there is still enough in their coffers to pay for egregious lunacy like this.

And it is lunacy, as I explained early last year regarding a similar proposal.

The move – which has been introduced as part of plan to create a tobacco-free generation by 2034 – also bans patients and staff from smoking in their cars on hospital ­property.

For the education of any bemused alien life forms who might be scanning our internet, these are cars which are allowed on NHS property.

And this is a cigarette - which is banned for polluting the lungs of hospital visitors - being smoked ... in a car. I've highlighted it in red in case you can't see it.

Turn the spaceships round, fellas, we're not worth conquering, believe me.

It's also worth remembering what ASH Scotland's Sheila Duffy said about that policy at the time, too.

Ms Duffy said: “We want people to understand why the policy is there in the first place. At the moment, seeing smokers is a part of life but that is changing. 

“It is not a habit that smokers want for their children. 

“The aim is to put it out of fashion for the next generation and send a clear message that smoking is incompatible with health.”

This is Sheila Duffy, of the supposedly vape-friendly ASH Scotland, by the way. The same ASH Scotland which gave the Press and Journal's version of this story top billing in their daily bulletin today despite e-cigs being included in the 'ban'.

It's interesting that Simon Clark states that he was approached for a quote on Friday, so you'd have to assume Sheila Duffy and ASH Scotland were well aware of the story too. Yet they have been studiously silent on the matter despite it being reported in the Scottish Daily Mail, The Press and Journal, the Evening Express and The Herald. A very strange thing for an organisation solely paid to talking about smoking to do, don't you think?

Just like their equally insipid and manipulative pretend 'vape-friendly' colleagues in ASH London and ASH Wales, they sit idly by as another ban is inflicted on e-cigs. The only difference is that they didn't actively applaud this policy like ASH and their Welsh equivalent did.

So, considering the silence, we must assume that condemning bans on e-cig use is so very difficult for ASH Scotland that they are content with sacrificing vaping for the greater good, and have learned just to stay silent instead.

Or perhaps, to paraphrase Duffy's justification for outdoor smoking bans, she quietly believes e-cigs should be included in bans. Maybe she thinks that:

"We want people to understand why the policy is there in the first place. At the moment, seeing vapers is a part of life but that needs to change.  

“It is not a habit that vapers want for their children. 

"The aim is to put it out of fashion for the next generation and send a clear message that vaping is incompatible with car parks."

Perhaps someone might like to ask ASH Scotland precisely why their claimed support for harm reduction doesn't extend to actually doing anything about it ... rather like ASH and ASH Wales, in fact.

In the meantime, can we have more austerity please George? There is quite clearly still billions of pounds of irrelevant state-funded flab to be cut. As well as socially-damaging - and selectively indolent - sock puppet fake charity tax-spongers, it appears quite a few highly-paid pen-pushers in Aberdeenshire Council are also long overdue their P45s on this showing.

The Customer Is A Nuisance, Not Always Right

In the New Statesman, wordy panel show fodder Will Self has been recounting an experience which will be familiar to many people who use e-cigs.

Take the Pizza Express in Langham Place, just south of Broadcasting House and cheek by jowl with a branch of Byron. I’ve taken to eating there on Mondays, because that’s when I get my fundament greased by Doctor Wong of Wimpole Street. The place is a symphony of pale wood and pale wood-laminate, so, as a dynamic media professional (who requires regular fundament-greasing), I’m right at home there. So at home that I think nothing of puffing away gently and discreetly on my electronic cigarette.

The word 'discreetly' is key here, as I shall come to later.

The other lunchtime I was doing just this when the manager appeared and peremptorily informed me: “You’re not allowed to do that here.” I, naturally enough, asked why, and she replied: “It’s company policy.” 

Well, surely, a bullish fellow such as me can be forgiven for reacting to this red flag. “Yes,” I snapped back, “it may well be company policy, but it isn’t against the law, and I’m not at all sure it’s legally enforceable – so why is it company policy?”

He was further reminded of this policy on a subsequent visit by a different manager.

“The thing is,” he pressed on, “it’s against company policy to use electronic cigarettes . . .” 

Again: I’ll save you the repeat-order of dialogue. Once I’d established I wasn’t going to be forcibly exiled from the mozzarella Eden, I engaged more fully with the manager, and he conceded that, no, he had no idea as to the whys and wherefores of this policy.

Nor, I suspect, do the Pizza Express board members who decided to implement it in the first place.

These policies are popping up everywhere now, for no decent reason whatsoever. Here is another which a few have tweeted about recently.

Vapers should avoid 'Premier' Hotels. As should everyone else, to be honest. pic.twitter.com/4NvykP94oI

— Christopher Snowdon (@cjsnowdon) 1 March 2016

At least in this instance an explanation was offered, even if it is bullshit.

@peterbeckett Sorry you feel this way Peter, we do not allow vaping as it can activate the smoke alarms in the rooms. ^Alex

— Premier Inn (@premierinn) 10 April 2016

I've written before of outdoor bans on smoking and vaping based on nothing but ideology, prejudice and spite, but these 'policies' are based on something even worse ... laziness and contempt for the customer.

Pizza Express may well have received the odd complaint from precious, bigoted, anti-social arseholes but how lazy is it to react with a blanket ban on all use? Why the need for an arbitrary rule? The only explanation is either that those making the rule are too lazy to think up something acceptable to all, or that they think their staff too stupid to be able to judge circumstances and apply their common sense.

The case of Premier Inns is even worse! They would rather inconvenience all customers than warn them that the smoke alarms are sensitive and to be discreet. And a £100 fine? Why? To recompense for some minimum wage hotel employee having to haul their arse off of a chair for a few minutes to turn off a smoke alarm which - in my experience - is almost definitely not going to be triggered? Well yes, it would appear so.

Nope, these are just excuses. Here is what I suspect the conversation in boardrooms has been in recent times.

Lazy Exec 1: So, I keep hearing about these e-cigarette vapey thingies, lots of people are using them I hear.
Lazy Exec 2: Yes, I read that there are millions of people using them now, so a lot of them will be our customers.
Lazy Exec 3: So what should we do about them?
Lazy Exec 4: Well we could develop a policy which maximises the number of customers who are happy?
Lazy Exec 5: Nah, too much effort, let's just ban them.
Lazy Execs 1,2,3 & 4: Agreed!

Which is probably exactly how the conversations went when hotel chains, for example, steadily phased out smoking rooms despite their being excluded from the smoking ban. It was too much effort to stand up to tobacco control nags and whiny effete hand-waving cretins, and it's only those smokers after all, who cares about them, eh?

Now, it's true that we are talking about private businesses here and they are entitled to make their own rules, but what 'problem' are they trying to solve in the case of vaping? I'd say these are the issues.

1) Some customers might not like it 

I'd venture to suggest that the customers who don't are pretty irritating fuckers anyway, so if a business bends over backwards for them they will only invite further problems for the future. If you pander to intolerant prodnoses, expect to also have to handle numerous other nitpicking grumbles.

Besides which, such anti-social bedwetters are a vanishing minority and vastly outnumbered by people who either use e-cigs themselves or really couldn't give a rat's arse if others do. The gulf between the tiny number of weepy willow shitsacks and the vast majority of those of us who are capable of living in the real world without complaining about petty irrelevances will only increase as e-cig use becomes more common and understood.

2) There is a worry about secondhand vapour in the workplace

Yes, this is the understandable result of the mythical secondhand smoke scare which anti-smoking organisations are well aware they are lying about. Businesses have been terrified that they'll be hauled over the coals and sued into the middle of the dark ages by a non-existent threat. That threat is even more non-existent when it comes to vaping but their execs are obviously too lazy to research it ... or are they?

Because, you see, the vapers' {cough} 'friends' at ASH have produced a briefing paper on vaping in private businesses which sits on the fence so much that whoever wrote it now has B&Q permanently imprinted on their arse. It provides enough corroborating information to back up whichever pre-determined policy decision any business wants to make. They could have saved a lot of time - and therefore taxpayer money that they waste on our behalf - by just publishing "whatever you want to do about vaping is fine by us, ban it if you like, see if we care".

Scan that ASH article for the word 'choice' and you won't find it, by the way, because for prohibitionists it's a dirty word.

3) Clouds

This one is a bit different because I can actually understand the reasoning behind it, and it has the merit that whoever dreamed up a no vaping policy might actually have an inkling of what's happening in the real world.

The media (as happened in Stony Stratford in 2011) are always very keen to portray big clouds of smoke or vapour and smokers/vapers are generally quite happy to oblige. If you've ever seen a report on vaping on TV or in the press, it's almost certain it would be set in a vaping lounge where vapers are billowing out thick white clouds on 100 watt sub-ohm devices and creating a dense fog.

The fact that most vapers - as Will Self describes above - do so discreetly and with respect to their fellow customers is completely lost when the clunking fist of 'company policy' comes crashing down.

Now, we know that even big clouds aren't harmful but the public doesn't; they're mostly daft enough to have been conned into thinking a wisp of smoke is killing them so it's very easy for them to believe that thick vapour might be able to do the same or even worse (this is such a divisive issue recently that I think it might deserve a whole post of its own, which I may do soon).

However, although I can understand a policy written in fear of clouds and can even see the merit of the person who wrote it, it still falls into the category of lazy and is implicitly insulting to the intelligence of the company's staff. A better (and more profitable) policy might look like the one suggested by ECITA when talking of knee-jerk train company bans (as far as a ban is possible with stealthing an option) in November, which I've paraphrased below.

"[T]hose who wish to use electronic cigarettes are reminded to do so discreetly, and to treat their fellow passengers with courtesy and respect, while ... customers who do not wish to use such products [should] expect the products to be used in a minimally invasive or offensive way – and can report any misbehaviour in this regard. We believe that this is the appropriate balance to strike for this type of public environment.

Doesn't that look better, less authoritarian, more respectful of all customers and less likely to create division and enmity? Is it not better to call on the public's natural urge to get on with others by encouraging good etiquette rather than appealing to vile, crass self-interest and rabble-rousing the most hideous and objectionable in society? Of course, but it just takes a bit more thought, which many in this country seem to be sadly lacking.

4) The policy of needing to have a policy

Lastly, why is there a need for a company policy at all? To give an example, Mrs P uses the local Starbucks whose official company policy is to ban vaping entirely, except that a significant proportion of customers at the Puddlecoteville branch vape and the management are quite happy not to rock the boat.

So why does some suited twat in Starbucks HQ think they know better from their plush boardroom what works in every store over and above the person managing it? Again, it's this idea that their staff are obviously too stupid to assess situations and so a policy must be created from on high irrespective of how it might benefit or damage the business.

This is even more acute and insulting when applied to businesses working on a franchise basis. In that scenario the excuse that it is their gaff, their rules doesn't even apply, the policy would be working in direct contravention of the business owner who has invested their time and money into the enterprise.

There should be no need for a company policy on a harmless legal product where there are trusted staff members on the ground with delegated authority. That is, of course, unless the company doesn't trust its staff, but then that should be their problem to sort out, why should the customer - who is always supposed to be right, remember - be arbitrarily punished as a nuisance rather than encouraged to visit more?

These are all just discussion points and you can agree or disagree with as many as you see fit. The one thing I think we can all agree on though is that the people responsible for this mealy-mouthed and ugly rush to create division and hatred where there was once co-operation and tolerance are the repulsive snotbags in 'public health', and well rewarded they have been via our taxes for it too.

As I've mentioned a few times before, they should have a paraphrase of St Francis of Assisi's words laminated above each of their desks as their own organisational policy:

Where there is harmony, may we bring discord. Where there is truth, may we bring error. Where there is faith, may we bring doubt. And where there is hope, may we bring despair.

Maybe they already have, who knows?

See How They Run

Bravo to Vapers in Power who have written an open letter to the vacant Pembrokeshire Council wooden tops who think outdoor smoking and vaping bans are a spiffing idea.

From the ViP blog:

Are you aware that there is no evidence that e-cigarette vapour has any harmful effect on bystanders, whether inside or out?  Also that there is no credible evidence that vaping normalises smoking: in fact the evidence points in the opposite direction. You may have seen the Public Health England expert independent review² which estimates vaping to be at least 95% safer than smoking and says ecigs have potential to help people to stop smoking. The authors regret that nearly half of the adult population don’t realise that ecigs are safer than tobacco cigarettes, a misconception which the Little Haven beach ban does nothing to dispel. 

There is no scientific justification for this and it will harm public health. 

Our Welsh members have expressed concern that this will harm much needed tourism in the area. Many of our members also feel it’s disgraceful for smoking to be banned on a beach or open space; this measure is similarly without scientific backing.

Of course it isn't, we're talking about tobacco control initiatives here, they're never about science and always sod all to do with health too. This beach ban in Wales is perfect proof of that.

It's nearly a week since this petty, vindictive, pointless and clawless 'voluntary' ban was put in place but apart from ViP's open letter there's been pitiful silence about it since, most notably from ASH Wales - you know, the self-professed friend of the vaper in the province - who as I pointed out on Thursday were more interested in praising Pembrokeshire's overt fascism instead.

[Jamie Matthews, Deputy Chief Executive of Action on Smoking and Health, said:] “We fully welcome the smoke free beach pilot in Pembrokeshire to protect our young people from the harmful effects of tobacco.”

Note use of the word "fully" in that context. Not a cautious welcome 'but why the fuck are e-cigs that we support included?'. Nope, "fully" welcome.

In other words, you can quit smoking using e-cigs if you like - and have a good chance of being successful - but the state-funded fake charity shitsacks at ASH Wales are still very happy to bully you and 'denormalise' you anyway.

They were very coy about condemning it when asked afterwards too.

As said in previous tweets, we support beaches being smokefree but wholly council's choice to include vaping. https://t.co/GKgl9dql4N

— ASH Wales Cymru (@ASHWalesCymru) March 11, 2016

Not us, Guv, it was them guys over there. We did our best, we really did. Yeah, pull the other one.

Even a direct invitation to condemn something which is utterly absurd to anyone who 'claims' - and ASH Wales' position as a supporter of vaping is exactly that, just a claim - to be a friend to vapers and e-cigs came up woefully short. A full five days after they'd conflated smoking with vaping in the eyes of the public - on a major and widely-read news platform - they came up with this pathetically limp sophistry which will have been seen by precious few people ... something I'm sure they were well aware of.

"Do not support" is a bit different from condemning, isn't it? And if they didn't support the ban on vaping why on Earth did they say they "fully" welcomed the ban when the press came asking for a quote? All the ASH franchises are primarily political lobbyists so know the value of language; if they said they "fully" welcomed the ban - thereby, I repeat, conflating smoking with vaping in the minds of the public - they meant it. Either that or the person entrusted to talk to the press is incompetent and should be handed their P45. You decide.

But then again, they are also very happy to have their logo appended to the message that seeing vaping is equally dangerous to kids as the vapid idea that seeing smoking is dangerous.

Of course, it's not difficult to work out why ASH Wales are determined to sit on the fence and are happy to see their logo proudly displayed on a disgraceful beach ban policy. On the one hand telling vapers how they're right onside and happy to engage, while on the other "fully" welcoming bans which are counterproductive and acting in a manner which is a disgusting slap in the face to the vaping advocates who have held faith in them.

You just have to look at their funding.

Voluntary donations from the public total a whopping 2.6% of the £610k they were handed last year. The Welsh government accounted for £135k of that, a full quarter of their revenue, 78% of which - in turn - is state-funded in some form or another. With the Welsh government currently polishing off a Health Bill which has painted e-cigs as a danger to kids everywhere, it's not wise to tell the truth bite the hand that feeds, now is it?

So the question now is what ASH Wales are going to do tomorrow. You see, the Welsh government - who hand ASH Wales £135k every year - are passing a law tomorrow which will ban the use of e-cigs just about everywhere, despite no credible evidence that vaping causes any harm to anyone, and plenty of evidence that it is beneficial to 'public health'.

TOMORROW: @AssemblyWales will decide if the #PublicHealthBill should become law in #Wales https://t.co/h1DqUMhJzS

— Senedd Health (@seneddhealth) March 15, 2016

So looks like ASH Wales will have to show us what they really think about e-cigs, eh? Will they publicly condemn the Welsh government for an appalling law which goes against everything fair, equitable and evidence-based towards vaping? Of course they won't, they'll throw vapers to the wolves and think nothing of it.

Just watch which way the rats run tomorrow when forced off that fence.

A Day In The Strife Of Wales

There were three interesting articles yesterday about e-cigs in Wales which give a great insight into the disconnect between the public, on one hand, and the repulsive parasites who plague us on the other.

Via the South Wales Argus:

A POLL of smokers and vapers for No Smoking Day shows that two-thirds (65 per cent) of e-cigarette users have managed to quit smoking. 

The poll found that [two thirds] (63 per cent) of e-cigarette users say they’re using them as an aid to stop smoking tobacco. 

[Mike Knapton, associate medical director at BHF, said:] "This unique study shines a light on just how popular vaping has become as an aid for smokers in Wales trying to quit and we need to listen to what is helping people the most on their path to a smoke free life."

Indeed. If - as politicians and 'public health' nags constantly insist - it is important that smokers quit, then perhaps it might be a good idea to listen to what the public says works for them. And if, as the BHF appear to suggest, e-cigs are working for many many people in Wales, surely their use should be encouraged, no?

Well, of course no, because Wales is run by feeble faggot-lipped fuckwits.

Via the BBC, also yesterday:

AMs have backed a proposed ban on e-cigarettes in some public places. 

The Welsh government has won support from some Plaid Cymru AMs for the measure after ministers watered down the ban to places where children are likely to be present.

So, just about everywhere then.

And where are self-professed friends of the vaper, ASH Wales, while all this is going on? Oh yeah, they're having orgasms over a pointless and absurd beach smoking 'ban' ... which also includes e-cigs.

No, really!

The first smoke-free beach is being trialled in a drastic bid to discourage young people from taking up the habit. 

Little Haven beach in Pembrokeshire, West Wales, is the first seaside resort in Britain to test the no-smoking signs on the sand. 

The year-long trial, which also includes e-cigarettes, comes after a YouGov survey showed 54 per cent of adults believe smoking should be banned in communal areas like parks and beaches. 

[Jamie Matthews, Deputy Chief Executive of Action on Smoking and Health, said:] “We fully welcome the smoke free beach pilot in Pembrokeshire to protect our young people from the harmful effects of tobacco.”

Note use of the word "fully" in that context. Not a cautious welcome 'but why the fuck are e-cigs that we support included?'. Nope, "fully" welcome.

In other words, you can quit smoking using e-cigs if you like - and have a good chance of being successful - but the state-funded fake charity shitsacks at ASH Wales are still very happy to bully you and 'denormalise' you anyway.

That's because, yet again, none of it has anything to do with health, merely ugly, rancid morals and salaries for sock puppet tax-spongers like ASH. If there is a hell, that's exactly where Welsh AMs and ASH Wales are headed, vile, socially-destructive, lying, self-enriching, fascist cretins that they are.