Harm Reduction ... For Smokers Too!

When e-cigs are mentioned on these or any other pages, there are always a few tobacco smokers who begin to feel rather uncomfortable. The recurring reason they give is that they fear voluntary harm reduction methods could prompt authorities to force smokers to switch in the future.

I was reminded of this on reading an article in the FT a couple of weeks ago.

British American Tobacco has started clinical trials of a cigarette designed to reduce the harm caused by existing products. 

Some 300 volunteers in Germany took part in the first six-week trial, which showed that prototypes substantially reduced exposure to some “toxicants” – harmful compounds in tobacco smoke. The results are published on Monday in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.

This research is being taken very seriously by BAT according to one of their boffins.

David O’Reilly, BAT group scientific director, said the prototype cigarettes would not be introduced as a new product line but, if further research showed they cut the risk of smoking, the technology used to produce them would be transferred to existing cigarettes. 

Mr O’Reilly pointed out that non-smoking tobacco and nicotine products, such as e-cigarettes and snus (Swedish mouth tobacco), are already “known to pose a substantially lower risk than cigarettes”. 

“We don’t know whether it will be possible to prove scientifically that reduced toxicant cigarettes reduce health risks,” he added. “But we believe reducing smokers’ exposure to cigarette smoke toxicants continues to be an important research objective, given the numbers of people who smoke and the numbers who are likely to continue to smoke for the foreseeable future.”

It would appear from this that BAT are talking about a new form of harm reduction ... one for smokers too! 

Now, it all seemed very sciencey on first read so nothing I could get a handle on writing about. However, a video has since been published which a more enlightened member of the tobacco control industry recently critiqued on Twitter by concluding that "the science is sound".

Now, if I'm understanding this right, the operative word here is "exposure". In the past, attempts were made to reduce harm with innovations such as holes in the filter, for example, but each idea reduced the harmful elements and also the level of nicotine, resulting in compensatory behaviour. This new research looks to be targeted at reducing just the elements which are by-products of smoking, not the nicotine itself.

A quick Google search shows that tobacco control should be thrilled with the idea of less harmful cigarettes. After all, it is something they have been demanding for a long time with papers such as "Existing technologies to reduce specific toxicant emissions in cigarette smoke" and "Reducing Levels of Toxic Chemicals in Cigarette Smoke: A New Healthy People 2010 Objective".

But, and it is a big but, it's the hysterical tobacco control industry - and their many irrational prejudices - we are dealing with here, as The Lancet pointed out way back in 1991.

In 1988, a major US tobacco company released details of a highly innovative type of cigarette that heats rather than burns tobacco. The smoke particles were virtually tar-free, consisting mainly of water, glycerol, and a small amount of propylene glycol. The nicotine yield was low-0-3 mg. Apart from a carbon monoxide yield of 10-6 mg, amounts of other noxious gases were negligible compared with conventional cigarettes, as was the biological activity in extensive tests. In terms of the aims for product modification laid down by the UK Independent Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health, this would seem a near-perfect low-tar cigarette, and there is no doubt that it would be less harmful than most other brands on the market. 

Far from welcoming it in the USA, the American Medical Association, the Heart and Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and others combined to petition and speak against it at a special Hearing before a Subcommittee of the House of Representatives." Eventually the product was labelled as a nicotine delivery system and attempts to market it as a tobacco product were abandoned by the company, who meanwhile remain free to promote conventional cigarettes to the 50 million Americans who still smoke after decades of antismoking policies.

Y'see, in an ideal world - you know, one in which tobacco control were actually concerned about health - BAT would be applauded for pursuing this kind of research, perhaps even be invited to sit round a table with altruistic anti-smokers excited about the game-changing health benefits which could be in the offing. After all, a tobacco product with all harm removed should surely be a winner all round. Just imagine millions who enjoy tobacco being able to do so without the harmful chemicals we are constantly harangued about; imagine the 'savings' to the health service; not to mention savings to the government who would no longer be required to spend billions on nagging smokers to give up, but instead could enjoy the global fruits of successful British businesses.

Sigh. If only. Instead, anything BAT's labs discover is likely to be roundly ignored however beneficial to health it may be, as another FT article in 2009 describes.

The BAT research and development centre may be better equipped than most, but that largesse is not its defining characteristic. Rather, it’s the fact that Gaca’s results, no matter how interesting, will not be discussed freely with her fellow scientists outside BAT. For the past decade, academic scientists in Britain have maintained a blanket ban on accepting funding from the tobacco industry or taking part in joint activities – a decision made under pressure from medical charities. 

The academic ban is enforced with two powerful weapons: the threat of adverse publicity for anyone accepting tobacco money, and the medical charities’ spending power. The charities will not fund research at any institution collaborating with a tobacco company. No university would allow, say, its chemistry department to embark on a joint research project with BAT if that meant the Wellcome Trust cut off funding to the biology department.

Still, for those who worry about the advance of e-cigs, you might be encouraged to know that harm reduction isn't just a concept designed for vapers, snus users and quitters putting their faith into the woo of woeful pharma products. In the future, smokers may be able to benefit from innovation too.

Unless anti-smokers continue to prove they couldn't give a fig about health, that is. 

Distracting Issues

Mr Osborne added that the Government would "learn" from the verdict delivered at the ballot box on Thursday.

He told BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show: 'I think what people are saying is focus on the things that really matter, focus on the economy and on education and welfare.

'Focus on those things, don't get distracted by too many other issues.'

A tiny flicker of realisation from one of our Westminster wallies. Do we believe that these 'distracting issues' might include minimum pricing and plain packs and that they should be ditched? Nah, course not, they only got a slight spanking at the polls, not a brain enlargement operation.

On the futility of banning colour schemes to make health warnings more visible and frightening, for example, if only Gideon would listen to anti-smoking advocate Gerard Hastings.

Fear messages are important. The first step in tobacco control is to inform people of the dangers of smoking. But repeating this to a population that knows it, two thirds of whom already want to quit, is of questionable value. To return to our initial example, there comes a point where the theatre-goer shouting “fire” is reduced to the irritation of a malfunctioning alarm. Furthermore, searching for evermore powerful warnings is fruitless. There is no ultimate deterrent in smoking, no mother of all health warnings that will finally alert smokers to the error of their ways.

Though written a while ago, his conclusion is strangely ironic.

All we have to do is be a better friend to the smoker than the tobacco industry. Surely we can manage that.

One might say the same about Cameron and Clegg's government.

If they can't manage to be more popular than a Labour party which ripped up civil liberties, bullied its public, signed away vast tranches of our sovereignty, engaged in two unpopular wars, and bankrupted the nation for decades to come, there really are no limits to their ineptitude.

UPDATE: Cameron agrees.

The message people are sending is this: focus on what matters, deliver what you promise – and prove yourself in the process. I get it.

He 'gets it', does he? Deliver what was promised, eh?

Forgive me for asking, but can anyone point to the part in either the Tory or Lib Dem manifestos which mentioned minimum pricing or plain packaging?

Shop Till They Pop

Quite appropriate for a Saturday afternoon, this.

I've mentioned before that e-cigs give anti-smokers a severe attack of the willies, so this development has the potential to make their eyes swivel like a bastard.

Totally Wicked is proud to announce that it is the only vendor in the United Kingdom which offers a truly unique "try-before-you-buy" service.

Gain confidence before you make your purchase and visit the Totally Wicked Retail Outlet in Darwen/Blackburn, Lancashire and experience the wonders of such products like the Titan 510 and Titan Tornado for yourself. Here, you will meet informative, helpful, staff who will assist you in making the right choice for yourself and your vaping needs.

Vaping has already made its TV debut in America, and now looks as if it is preparing to make the big step out of the internet and into a more tangible setting.

Just imagine scenes like this in high street shops up and down the country, neatly rubbing shoulders with Carphone Warehouse and Clintons.


With awareness of the existence of e-cigs spreading, such a prospect becomes ever more likely. As a result, it's quite possible that we may see Scanners-esque psycho anti-smoker head explosions outside Marks & Sparks in the near future.

The only possible obstacle would be if our political elite can be persuaded by big pharma interests that water vapour is somehow a deadly substance. And they'd never be so stupid as to fall for such tactics, would they?

Oh, hold on.

On CCTV And Compo

Shhhh ... don't tell Alex Deane, but Puddlecote Inc employs CCTV. In fact, we have done for a couple of years now since Wayne Chav and Solomon Junkie trashed half a dozen of our vehicles parked in and around our premises. For a bit of fun.

Kids today, eh? So creative.

Since we've had it installed, the formerly customary bag full of empty 1664 cans and the used needles we'd become adept at clearing up from the doorstep, on many a morning, have ceased to materialise. Mr Puddlecote Sr occasionally satisfies his curiosity by looking at what happened the night before, but apart from the odd fox crapping on the cucumbers (we thought it might be fun to try growing a couple), nothing goes on around there anymore.

With the sole exception, that is, of one camera once picking up the movements of a burglar escaping from the old people's home across the way. The police found it very helpful when we were exemplary neighbours and transferred the footage to a disc. The images in question were captured by a camera directed at the car park which the council (who administer the old people's home, remember) have now said we can't use. Fair enough, then. That camera will now be taken down - which saves us money - and they can catch their own criminals in future, the ignorant twats.

I digress.

The reason for mentioning CCTV is following an interesting story from Mrs P this evening as we soaked up the sun at the boy's cricket practice. For background, she works for a company which contracts services to major chain stores. As a consequence, she occasionally fields complaints from the stores' customers (or, more accurately, their solicitors) looking for a payday.

One such anecdote from today. A haughty e-mail was received stating that the ambulance chaser's client had slipped and fallen at one of these stores on April 4th, and that there were nine levels of Hell about to follow unless readies were coughed up sharpish. Mrs P checked the calendar and - rather quickly, as one might expect - worked out that this was Easter Sunday when the shop was closed. As claims go, it was a simple one. E-mail followed by a limp reply and no apology.

Being a stubborn and reactionary soul, I suggested that I might (in fact, would) have pursued some serious fun if placed in the same situation. I'd have gone after them in the same threatening manner as was first advanced from the other side. I'd have enjoyed it too.

Especially since - now get this - each claim is instantly budgeted for a potential loss of £5k. That's how much each lucre-sniffing lowlife is entitled to claim for what used to be just an unfortunate occurrence. You can put signs up all over the place, but the {cough} highly-respected legal profession will do their utmost to prove that, even if it was 10 foot tall and in dayglo paint, it was invisible and therefore no-one else's fault but a business doing their best to earn a profit.

Five. Fucking. K.

What's more, I pointed out that if Mr P was in the same job, I'd have been looking to collaborate with the stores to fight each and every case to its ultimate limit. All stores are fully CCTV'd up and could put this nonsense to bed if it faced down every claimant who took the mickey.

But, as you may have noticed, this claim materialised three whole months after an event which was apparently so life-changing that it required £5,000 to fix. It's rather difficult, time-consuming, and therefore costly to businesses, to trawl through recordings from that long ago in order to present a defence. As such, many are just settled to save the hassle and extra expense of legal representation.

You haven't heard the best bit yet, though.

Apparently, this £5,000 - let's just cross-reference that in words as required by a cheque - FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS, is claimable for three years after the accident.

So, to defend themselves from frivolous legal action, each business in the UK must keep CCTV records for three whole years. I'm pretty sure that there are very few that can do so even if they tried, and the ones who can are probably so cash-rich that they would rather pay out than go through the rigmarole of checking if the claim is worthy or not.

I kinda understand the risk-terrified nature of businesses more after tonight.

Now, forgive me if I'm way out on this one, but wouldn't limiting compo claims to about a month (enough time to talk to the CAB and seek representation) make one hell of a difference in sorting the deserving from the money-grubbing opportunists?

What Dreams May Come

Looks like yesterday was a bad day for business if you're a self-righteous mockney twat.

The Jamie Oliver-approach will not work in tackling public health problems like obesity and smoking, the health secretary says.

Mr Lansley said people needed to take responsibility for their own health.

"If we are constantly lecturing people and trying to tell them what to do, we will actually find that we undermine and are counterproductive in the results that we achieve,".

{insert short sound file of the Hallelujah Chorus here}

I never thought I'd be jealous of a minister (even though I held such a position in a dream sequence once), but those who know my views on 'jerk off' Jamie will be unsurprised to know that I'd have given my 1980s 7" vinyl picture disc collection to have been able to deliver that withering dismissal of his methods. And to the comrades of the BMA, too.

The self-appointed saviour of our nation isn't too happy with his relegation to background noise, of course.

"I'm not encouraged by the news that the new health minister has summed up 8 years of hard work in a few lines for the sake of a headline," said Mr Oliver.

Retorts the person whose 'hard work' for the last 8 years has consisted of making headlines for the sake of selling more books.

Coming to his defence was our old friend, Alan 'Libertarian by nature' Maryon-Davies.

"Of course, we could probably do a little less nagging, but you still need to nudge people."

Keep plugging with those libertarian ideals, eh Al? Oh yeah, and perhaps buy a dictionary?

Despite previous reservations, this is all very promising from Mr Lansley, who only the day before engaged with our forthright blog mascot on the same area of policy.

Philip Davies: "May I urge the Secretary of State to get NICE to go back to what most people think it is for, which is to monitor the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of drugs? Many people do not think that it does a particularly good job on that, anyway, but it is currently indulged in empire building, with its ridiculous drivel in recent weeks on smoking breath tests for pregnant women, compulsory sex education for five-year-olds and subsidies for food companies to make healthier food. Surely it ought to go back to what it should be doing, and doing it better, rather than empire building, as it is doing."

Andrew Lansley: "In 2005 the previous Government charged NICE with producing public health guidance as part of its work. As I establish a more integrated and effective public health service, I shall consider how the advice of NICE fits into that strategic framework."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement there, I thought. More like a 'not us, Guv' and a vague implication that the current arrangements may change. In light of Lansley's speech today, perhaps the change might not be favourable to NICE ... which would be a bloody good thing.

Now, encouraging as this all appears, the Puddlecote mistrust of politicians runs rather deep so enthusiasm/ire will remain on ice until such time as hopes of a change in the dictatorial state attitude are fulfilled/dashed.

But the still small squeal of Jamie Oliver is a delightful taster of what could follow if Lansley gets heavy on the collective righteous ass. I was therefore, last night, mostly dreaming of an upcoming indignant cacophony.

Mmmmmm.

{Waves To Nick Clegg}

Interesting news from the hospitality industry.

The number of bar and pub firms going out of business in the first three months of the year was more than double the number in the same period last year, [...]

Wow! That's nasty stuff. Especially considering the escalating devastation the industry has already been suffering since ... ooh, about 2007?

Here's another quick reminder of pub closure figures.

UK Pub Closures 2004-2009

Or ...

2004: 478
2005: 102
2006: 216
2007: 1,409
2008: 1,973
2009: 2,365

The Graun piece goes on to say.

The position of many pubs and clubs is generally accepted to have been made worse by the smoking ban and a losing battle for sales with supermarkets.

Now, I don't know about you, Nick Clegg, but I reckon an amendment to the smoking ban is a cost-free measure which could dramatically boost the fortunes of a hefty proportion of the pub and club economy. Whaddya think?

And, oh look, you have a Great Repeal Bill on the go which it could be tacked onto.

How very convenient.

If you haven't yet joined the corresponding Facebook group, please do so here or at the sidebar and invite your sympathetic friends. Ta.

Allowing Kids Independence Is Not Child Abuse

As anyone who has ever scrolled through the overwhelmingly turgid drivel at CiF will tell you, it's the cyber equivalent of wading through waist-high treacle. So when an item of dazzling enlightenment pops up there, the joy at finding it is all the more intense.

Apparently, this article from Leonore Skenazy was requested by a regular reader, suggesting that there are some who aren't yet fully assimilated into the joyless, self-righteous, risk-averse navel-gazing enjoyed by your average Guardianista. And the Guardian should be congratulated for commissioning it.

Why does 'go play outside' sound crazy?

The safer our society becomes, the more we – and the media – feel compelled to ramp up fears about unlikely dangers

"Why would you want to put children in harm's way?" That, put simply (and minus a lot of the yelling), is what I have been asked on 10 TV shows, 31 radio interviews, and an avalanche of blogs for about a week now – ever since I declared last Saturday "Take our children to the park … and leave them there" day.

I'd come up with the idea as a way for neighbourhood children (including mine) to meet each other, and even be forced to entertain themselves.

It's not the first time Leonore has lobbed a mentos mint in the fizzy pop of righteous helicopter parenting. A couple of years ago, she left her own 9 year old son in New York's Bloomingdales with just $20, a travel card and a map of the subway system, and let him travel home on his own.

Predictably, she was accused of child abuse, and when Vanessa Feltz applauded this parenting decision on her radio show, she herself was roundly attacked by British listeners too.

But, as Skenazy said at the time.

“It’s safe to go on the subway,” Skenazy replied. “It’s safe to be a kid. It’s safe to ride your bike on the streets. We’re like brainwashed because of all the stories we hear that it isn’t safe. But those are the exceptions. That’s why they make it to the news. This is like, ‘Boy boils egg.’ He did something that any 9-year-old could do.”

Indeed.

There is an incomprehensible attitude towards parents who allow their kids some kind of self-reliance, and one which I've experienced myself. The little Puddlecotes have just turned 9 & 10 respectively, but have been sent to the local Co-Op on their own on numerous occasions for anything from eggs and broccoli to washing liquid and kitchen roll, but tell that to a school gate parent and they look at you aghast.

"But they have to cross two roads!", they cry. Yeah, and so what? They not only know how to cross roads, they are hugely more wary of them than I was at the same age.

The reason being that schooling in my 70s childhood was about educating kids and that's all. Apart from the odd Green Cross Code ad and Charley the cat, how to avoid trouble in life was left to the parents. Yet now we have schools teaching about every danger it is possible to encounter, along with largely lower crime rates, safer roads, and CCTV which monitors every move, everywhere, of everyone. Kids have, quite obviously, never been safer to run such errands.

Despite this, the age at which they are allowed to do so by parents is increasing, and the idea of encouraging small elements of independence in kids is frowned upon, or condemned, more than ever.

There is simply no logic to that.

Surely, if we wish to have a more roundly educated, confident, self-reliant, and yes, healthy future for our kids, this is exactly what all parents should be doing. Far from being tarred as irresponsible, a liberal approach to easing kids into the world should be the norm, and those who insist on wrapping their offspring in bubble wrap until they're 18 should be the ones who attract the horrified looks.

Considering the unarguable facts on increased safety for kids, and their better education about danger, there is only one explanation, in my humble opinion, for why that isn't the case.

It's selfishness on the part of parents, pure and simple.

Because, you see, when mine leave my sight I'm worried. It may only be a mild worry, but it's there nonetheless. My parents were worried when they let me do the same (they told me) but it was a rite of passage that they realised was necessary. Modern parents don't want to suffer that worry, however slight, so they prefer instead to eradicate it entirely. And, I'd argue, it's an attitude that is not only harming society, but also damaging the future life awareness, independence, and well-being of the children they think they are protecting.

And, as Leonore Skenazy points out, all because of risks which are mostly non-existent.

But how common is it really? Warwick Cairns, author of How to Live Dangerously, crunched the numbers, and now asks: If, for some strange reason, you actually wanted your child to be kidnapped, how long would we have to leave him outside, unattended, in England, for that to be statistically likely to happen?

About 600,000 years.

It doesn't matter that those are about the same odds as death by lightning. All that matters to the media is scaring us. Result? We keep our kids inside. We stay there too. Then we turn on the TV and look! "Up next: is your toothbrush dangerous?"

Funny she should mention that.

Sigh.

But Which Four To Choose?

New Elderly Care Programme Offers Hope**

The Government has refused proper health care to many elderly citizens due to their advancing years. It is a worrying problem for many but help is at hand.

Join the new free care plan today. If you are 60 years or older, you can apply. All new members will receive a gun and four bullets.

You are allowed to shoot one MP (two if you live in England), one MEP, one councillor and, just to be sure of a long sentence, someone you really don't like and think the world could do without.

As part of the plan, you will leave enough evidence to make sure of being caught, and, in due course, sent to prison.

There you will get a safe centrally heated environment, three meals a day, lots of company, free TV and an assortment of games, plus - most importantly - all the health care you need!

New teeth needed? No problem.

New glasses? They'll be provided.

New hip, knees, kidney, lung, heart? They're all covered too.

And who will pay for all of this? The same government that told you they can't afford your current health care.

And as an added bonus, because you are a prisoner, you don't have to pay income tax anymore.

PLUS:
Smoking allowed inside.

Britain. A GREAT country or what?

** Not my own work, and could be a viral, but worth sharing anyway.

Appreciation All Round

As you can see from the sidebar, Philip Davies has been invested as this blog's official mascot, as promised. His commons performance last week is now preserved for prosperity and can be viewed by clicking on his amiable fizzog.

Davies has been informed of this prestigious appointment and, judging by his reply, I have a sneaking suspicion that it is much appreciated.

Dear Richard

Thank you very much indeed for your extremely kind email which is much appreciated and for your supportive comments which are much appreciated.

Best wishes

Philip

I think I can say, with confidence, that more MPs like Davies would be much appreciated by readers of this blog, and that if he could find time to kick Kevin Barron in the shins - very hard - at some point in the near future, that would be much appreciated too.

UPDATE: Davies, on being informed of his investiture, was understandably overwhelmed.

Thanks Richard

... he gushed.

Democracy In Action

I never knew that MSPs were so bound to the whims of their constituents. Apparently, according to thistle-munching arch public health bansturbator, Nicola Sturgeon, if you live in Glasgow Govan, she is obliged do anything you ask.

Nicola Sturgeon lobbied court for benefits fraudster

Alex Salmond’s number two wrote a letter of support for Abdul Rauf prior to him being sentenced for defrauding £80,000 from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

She referred to Rauf’s crimes, which include a previous conviction for stealing £60,000, as “mistakes” and appealed to the court to “consider alternatives to a custodial sentence”.

Miss Sturgeon, the Glasgow Govan MSP, admitted she knew about the fraudster’s criminal record, but claimed she was duty bound to represent her constituent.

I reckon there are more than a few Govan constituents who would like her to lobby against minimum alcohol pricing on their behalf. If you know any, just get them to write to her, as apparently she must do it. While they're at it, get them to tell her she is duty bound to ask for a fair amendment to the smoking ban, too.

Hey, if she's fine with backing proven benefit cheats, I'm sure she will be more than happy to help law-abiding taxpayers who favour self-determination and freedom of choice.

Just drop her a line at her constituency office and her wish is your command.

Nice Video, Shame About The Policies?

It has been suggested on Con Home that the Tories might make an anglicised version of this bit of anti-government fun from the US.



I quite like it. But the Tory manifesto is going to have to be quite radical for the message to work exclusively for them. As an anti big government song, it hits the mark, but Dave and his bunch have shown us very little so far to suggest they will be much different, to be honest.

Similarly, unless there is a big surprise in Oliver Letwin's locker, they'd have to scratch the "tell us to behave" line (1:30) entirely. That or boot out James Brokenshire, amongst others, of course.

Will Lansley Be Consistent?

Still catching up after a busy Friday, so thanks go to The Daily Politics for YouTubing Thursday night's Question Time. This snippet raised an eyebrow or two as the grown-up Puddlecotes enjoyed the weekly QT Chenin Blanc (from 4:18 in the above clip).

Andrew Lansley: "The job of all of us is to respect the views and the needs of minorities as much as we respect the view of a majority in a democracy."

Glad to hear it, Andrew, very glad.

The problem is that he doesn't appear to apply this excellent democratic outlook to the minority or the majority on certain issues, if Tim Montgomerie on Con Home is to be believed, after a poll found that a majority of Tim's blog members favoured choice for the minority with regard to the smoking ban.

My understanding, however, is that Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley - a great believer in public health - does not want to return to the issue.

No. It would seem that the majority stamping all over an element of choice for the minority is perfectly acceptable to Lansley when it comes to the provision of separate smoking rooms, or any other compromise, for the 21% of adults who enjoy tobacco.

If Lansley truly believes that "The job of all of us is to respect the views and the needs of minorities", he would look at a way of amending the smoking ban should the 'shadow' be removed from his job title post-general election.

Unless only some minorities count, of course.

Stroll On

I don't know about others, but taking time away from business to wander around London tends to lead to a busier following day, so you've probably read most of yesterday's happenings on OH's walk already.

A few who weren't there had something to say about it, too. Some thought it was pretty silly, others were more generous. All valid opinions, and in keeping with the mantra laid down to me during my educational years. That being - stress whichever point you wish, as long as you are able to back it up with proper argument and reasoning. For my part, I enjoyed the day (apart from the après-constitutional Sam Smith's beer which was even more objectionable than I recall it being 12 months ago - not to decry the pub itself, though, as they are exceptional hosts).

BUT ... as I had feared, although the day was useful as a getting together of like-minded people, the walk itself didn't have the same impact as last year.

The first walk had an element of catching the authorities 'on the hop' (which particularly surprised me at the time and, if truth be known, was probably exactly what we wanted for the 'coup' to work), however, the sight of a CCTV car already in place outside the meeting point at 11am in St Martins Lane indicated that this was expected and was to be 'controlled' from afar. Seeing a CCTV pole atop a noddy car, line of sight obscured with the arrival of a big white van, extending like some metal tortoise neck to continue filming two people smoking outside a pub, has to be experienced for its comedic effect. Perhaps my unshaven mug will be appearing on a spotter card at some point, or maybe they'll just change the date stamp to November 2010 and charge me with contravening next year's "Control Of Smoking Anywhere Except In A Metal Container Buried Close To Milton Keynes Act".

This year's departure was to attempt entry to the public gallery at the HoC. Successful in the end, but not before having item after item removed from our persons to such an extent that I was beginning to wonder if I would get to overlook the chamber wearing anything more than my Ben 10 underpants.

And all to watch a few average-minded individuals blather on about climate change, of all things, whilst lolling around on the historic benches like indolent teenagers. Feet up on the furniture of government (you get fined on the tube for that), tweeting on their Blackberry (no mobiles allowed for us), while Elliot Morley, fresh from his 'don't do it again, chap, it was awfully inconvenient' moment, poured forth rambling pseudo-crap, to be met with the same from Simon Hughes. It went something like this.

There was an ickle bit of noise from our contingent. You know, irreverential chat, a stifled giggle, the odd pig noise, that sort of thing. But nothing to really detract from their six fucking hour long verbal mutual masturbation session, although Ed Miliband did fire a contemptuous look our way at one point ... which was nice.

Before leaving to rejoin our day long police 'tail', I took one last look at the ceiling to balcony glass barrier placed between us and our representatives, bolted onto the walls of this ancient building, and thought, yet again, that they are taking the fucking piss here.

Arguably, Stone Henge was built on a hill on such a vast scale as to be marvelled at from below by the great unwashed. It was built as a symbol of authority and of might. A big sign saying 'Don't you fucking dare. I mean, really. Don't'.

And then there are the Houses of Parliament. Built so very long ago on mud that surrounding communities lived upon, to such a grand scale, that the same message was sent. And still is today. It is a structure that will instil pride in any Englishman (and, hopefully in this Union, to some extent by the Celts we have collected along the way), yet is being abused by these odious career fuckwits.

The glass screen, IIRC, was put in place following the incident where a few pro-hunting protestors threw purple powder from the gallery onto Bliar below. The reaction from these guys wasn't to think that they may be pissing people off with their tinkering on matters which, let's face it, don't really get to the heart of the real problems in our country but merely peel away another liberty. No, their response was to desecrate a revered building by driving industrial rivets into the walls so that no-one could do it again.

These are little men and women, emboldened by the vast authority of the building they inhabit, and over-imbued with ego which was already brimming before they set foot in the place. Their already stunning arrogance bolstered by the comfort and safety of a long-established statement of authority, they pass law after law ripping away our liberties and ways of life with never a care for how their glib witterings and pronouncements are destroying the fabric of communities the length and breadth of the country.

They don't deserve the setting for their abhorrent proscriptive agenda. They warrant nothing more than a suffocatingly-packed ramshackle church hall and a few folding plastic chairs. Perhaps then they might think a bit more about the damaging consequences of their gobshitery instead of blithely signing away everything great about our country, crafted over centuries by statesmen, in the very same place that the current crop are systematically dismantling it.

Or, as the best comment I've seen today on this subject, from Dungeekin, puts it.

We are 'ruled' not with consent by honourable people, but by avaricious power-seekers who rule by fear.

We are told to fear Terrorism, because the fear of terror garners our tacit consent for legislation that removes our rights and liberties. Our soldiers, who volunteered to defend our nation, are dying in a foreign field not for our freedom or for the liberty of others, but to satisfy the need of Government to keep us scared of 'terror'.

That fear is used to enact the laws that make us guilty until proven innocent, forced to prove our own identies, restricted in our right to protest.

We are told to fear infection. Swine 'flu, Bird flu, SARS, whatever the latest potential pandemic might be. Fear of infection reduces human contact and interaction. We are in fear for our health, the Government instructing us on our salt content, our fat consumption, our exercise levels.

We are taught to fear injury, under the auspices of 'Health and Safety'. No risk, no pleasure, no life, in the terror that our actions may bring our life to an early end.

Our own children are taught to fear. They are taught that paedophiles lurk in every corner, that they cannot trust their parents. They are taught what to eat. Taught everything, in fact, than how to think for themselves.

I think for myself. I am a dying breed. This is why I walked yesterday and, although that in itself is not going to make a massive difference, if it inspires others to question the authority of these pompous, myopic, self-aggrandising penny-pinchers and righteous hectors, then it was time well spent.

And if not, at least I can be happy in myself that I did something, instead of just shrugging shoulders and whinging, as millions do since these bastards declared war on their own citizens.

A Libertarian Interlude

Catchy, cute, common sense.

Question Time Bingo

So, preliminary haggling has been overcome, and the day when I hope that absolutely everyone on a panel show loses, has arrived.

And Nick Griffin has been handed, on a silver platter, all the ammunition he needs.

As 'quote bingo' games go, "Britain is overcrowded" is a gimme.

UK population 'to rise to 71.6m'

Just over two-thirds of the increase is likely to be related directly or indirectly to migration to the UK.

If the projected increase materialises, the population will have grown at its fastest rate in a century.

How about "censorship of legal political parties"? It's a possibility.

But Mr Hain said the BBC had "made one of the biggest mistakes in its proud history".

The reciprocal question "Who are the real fascists?" has an outside chance.

Mr Hain will also send a message of support to the UAF rally, which is being held in central London.

And no points whatsoever for predicting the ridiculously erroneous accusation of "extreme right wing" towards a hideously lefty collectivist party.

I'll plump for an outside wager that Dimbleby is quoted after the event describing the show as the "lowest part of my political career" or some such. A lazy fiver on that at a good price appeals.

Wine in the fridge, check; munchies, check; big fat 'happy days' cigar, check. Roll on 10:35pm - let's just hope all participants are amply provided with barbed wire encrusted baseball bats prior to cameras rolling.

How One-Sided Healthist Arguments Work

You'd have to go a long way to beat an article such as this. In fact, you have to go a bloody long way just to find it!

Good to know that scepticism of healthist lies methods is a worldwide phenomenon, though. It's a viewpoint which seems to be especially thriving in New Zealand for some reason.

Sometime soon, we'll see a report showing that the social costs of skiing are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It wouldn't be hard to produce a number that large. First, show frequent skiers are more likely to have accidents than recreational skiers.

Then, make the critical assumption that nobody could ever rationally decide to take risks - health is all that matters. Frequent skiers then are by definition irrational, and irrational people enjoy no benefits from their ski outings, no matter how happy they appear.

This is an argument proffered by libertarians that is generally dismissed out of hand by our holier-than-thou masters. Of course they aren't going to go after skiers ... or rugby players, or cyclists, or anyone else enjoying a pastime which is deemed 'correct' - when was the last time you read about the huge weekly cost of park footballers clogging up A&E departments with recreational injuries? Such hobbies have benefits - healthy ones - plus, the fake report authors are quite keen on doing such things themselves, so they'd never produce the kind of lunatic 'science' and innumerate manipulation of financial outcomes as they do in other fields.

And there isn't a fake charity, paid by government, to tackle problematic skiers, egg chasers, or the Haringey Cloggers Sunday footie team ... yet.

We've seen a lot of cost measures of this sort. Tobacco, fatty foods, gambling - just about anything fun seems to cost "society" more than a billion dollars.

But, like my hypothetical report on the costs of skiing, these reports rely heavily on what I'll call a "healthist" assumption about how we should live our lives.

Any time we make a decision that lets us enjoy a bit of fun but with some risk to our health, that decision is considered irrational and cannot generate any real enjoyment.

Consequently, benefits are either assumed equal to zero or set to an arbitrarily low level.

And there it is in a nutshell. Your enjoyment isn't worth quantifying to the righteous, it has a benefit of £nil. You may derive enjoyment from it, you may find that your meagre lot is more happy and tolerable, and that you are a more useful member of society as a result, but the righteous dismiss that as worthless.

Downtime on the piste will bring equal relaxation and enjoyment (both of which, last time I looked, were considered as an incontestable good), but such enjoyment is allowed. It is decent and admired. If your personal choice of unwinding is deemed unworthy, the rules change.

Driving a car is also an evil which is worth quantifying as being beneficial. It may kill and choke thousands, probably millions or even billions, but healthists also drive, and they also manage to quantify the financial benefits and accept the inherent risks.

If health and safety were our only goal, the world would look very different. We would all buy cars made of padded foam rubber and drive very slowly. That we don't is strong evidence that we have pluralistic sets of values - we are not monomaniacal healthists in our daily lives.

For every skier who dies in an avalanche, tens of thousands of others took no fewer risks but enjoyed a great time out on the slopes. Their enjoyment ought to count for something.

And, for every drinker who dies in an accident that could have been avoided were he sober, there are countless others who simply enjoyed a good night out.

Where a healthist report tallies the social costs for the unlucky few, rational policy requires putting weight on the benefits as well.

But they don't. Because they don't want to, as it doesn't fit with their rent-seeking, single-minded agenda.

There are risks all around us, in every single activity that humans indulge in. Either vital to the country, or merely recreational.

However, there are also costs and benefits in all of them too. To ignore advantageous economics in some areas whilst accepting it in others is quite simply wrong.

Some may even term it more sinister than that. I would be amongst that 'some', and fortunately, as it would appear from this excellent article, there are a whole load of us around the world who feel the same.

The heart still clings to the hope that one day we might see the 646 in parliament populated by a few more who would even begin to understand the incontrovertible logic carried in this article.

The head, however, comes to the conclusion that they will forever wander around Westminster like nodding dogs the moment a dodgy stat is placed in front of their dim, unquestioning, myopic, self-promoting intellect.

And, in doing so, they cost us, collectively, a hell of a lot more than any healthist scaremongery boasts about, on a daily basis.

A Major Tri-Party Disconnect

Obo pointed out a rather satisfying piece of Lefty exasperation today.

Labour has lost a generation

Love it yet? Cos I bloody well did. I want Labour to suffer very greatly for what they have done to our liberties and general way of life. A generation may be long enough for the calming to take effect ... perhaps. OK, maybe not. But onwards etc.

To be fair to Dave's Part, he appears to be very level-headed about it all.

LISTENING to a group of young people shouting ‘Labour, Labour, Labour; out, out, out’ while marching past Brighton’s conference centre yesterday took me back to when I was the same sort of age. We had a similar chant, you see. But back in the 1980s, the slogan was aimed at Maggie.

Instantly recognisable was the intensity of the hate on display, which was clearly of the kind that will last a lifetime. My twentysomething animosity to the Conservatives has been enough to secure decades of commitment to the far left, and I don’t doubt that a whole layer of students, young workers and a million or so NEETs in 2009 are in pretty much the same frame of mind about the party of which I am a member.

I’m assuming, if only from what I overhear apolitical workmates in a similar age bracket say, that this mood is generalised and not confined to the radical elements that each successive decade inevitably throws up.

Well spotted. Add circumspect and astute to my summation of Dave's article.

And frankly, New Labour might just as well have striven actively to cultivate the contempt of the young, as evidenced by everything imaginable from tuition fees to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the parliamentary expenses scandal.

It's not just the young, though. No-one but the terminally deluded can stomach Labour at the moment. Mandelson's boast of a 100% record in knowing future Labour election results (like your Gran who always knew the Grand National winner after the event, but would never tell you prior to the race) is a nonsensical piece of grandstanding. He knows full well that Labour are screwed in 2010.

If he felt Labour were going to lose in 1992, he must surely see the writing on the wall now that their chances are rapidly approaching nil. That would, of course, mean he was lying but, being a Labour politician, that doesn't surprise. Much as the few Labour faithful who bothered to stretch themselves out in the expanse of empty seats in Brighton wouldn't care if he was.

Dave's denouement told of a more encompassing malaise which is affecting Labour.

In recent posts I have detailed how New Labour has lost the north, and pointed to analysis that suggests it will be wiped out in Wales. For good measure, let me highlight this Evening Standard poll, which indicates that 17 of its 44 seats in London are set to go.

To lose regions such as this – the historic cradles of Labourism – is of course calamitous ...

And you know that this isn't just the loss of the young we are talking about. This is happening now. The future will hopefully be worse.

Perusing the comments of the lefties who contributed to Dave's recent articles, they were mostly of the same opinion. That of Labour shifting to the centre and forgetting the working man/woman/hermaphrodite. And THAT is entirely the problem.

The 'Tories will be bad for you' line doesn't work when you've told a road worker from Coventry that bitumen fumes are acceptable, but a fag in his working men's club isn't, so he must stop, and his club must close. 'Life will be worse under the Tories' isn't alluring to a banksman who saw his take home pay screwed by the withdrawal of the 10% band. Those evil Tories aren't so evil anymore when the party of the working man {pfft} have been spending their last few years in office attacking every meagre enjoyment that the working man holds dear.

Especially when they see huge sums being directed at office wallahs and pen-pushers, both local and national, on an increasing scale.

Believe me. Working people don't like bankers, but they hate the local council suits more heavily. Plastic plod, enviro-loons with a badge, clipboard-carrying jobsworths. These are easily-accessible hate figures for the working man.

Exactly the people Labour have been shovelling money towards while hammering the average Joe who just wants to do his job, have a pint without hassle, and relax.

And don't even get 'em started on diversity, immigration and all that guff.

How do I know this? Well, I'm one of them. A lucky one who can articulate and express my opinion, yes, but still basically from the same mould. I talk a lot, I get angry, but I am a product of a London Labour heartland. I still socialise with the people who Labour wish to target. I employ them. I see and hear their hissing hatred of New Labour. They are never asked for their opinion, and if they are, they would first have to find where to express it (a bloody difficult task in itself) before being drowned out by the stifling web of Labour-funded yes-men who are paid to spout exactly what Labour wish to hear.

Yet still the same mantra is churned out.

Jackie Ashley in the Guardian says yes, Labour are poor, but think of the alternative.

There are a few crooks and plenty of outsized egos, politicians who have forgotten what it's like outside the Whitehall bubble, but this remains a party with the right instincts.

Instincts are useless when all Labour voters see is bullying.

Like Dave, Jackie realises that Labour have lost their way, and they are all just crossing their fingers and hoping that someone at the top may notice it soon.

It's not going to happen, which is why former Labour voters won't be voting Labour next year. Sorry Mandy, but you're onto a right loser this time. If you want to take me on, though, I will beat the bookies' best current price of 13/2 and offer you 10/1 on Labour gaining most seats at the next election, no limit. Can't say fairer than that.

This is another example of a huge disconnect in British politics. I feel that I may have been overly harsh now when I pointed out the difference between the Lib Dem membership and the parliamentary party. The Tories are equally out of touch with their party members. In a recent poll on Conservative Home, 58% reckoned the smoking ban required another look, and we have known for years that a majority of Tory party members wish that the EU would go jump in the Mediterranean. Yet all of that is ignored by a hierarchy who think they know better.

The result is three parties entirely divorced from their electorate. Which is why Labour voters are bleeding profusely to the BNP, why Tory voters are turning to UKIP, and why the Lib Dems are doing ... well ... not a lot, really.

If an incumbent or PPC wishes to succeed in 2010, all they have to do is listen to their core vote. It really shouldn't be that difficult. Just ignore focus groups and single interest lobbyists. Take your eyes away from the Marsellus Wallace briefcase-like glowing light of overarching glory.

And do the job as democracy intended. How hard can that be?

Disappearing Blogs And New Additions

With the erudite and eloquent Costigan Quist deciding to close down his blog, the Himmelgarten Cafe, earlier this week, I've finally been forced to get off my idle backside and tidy up my diminishing blogroll.

It was already becoming rather sparse following the apparent unannounced ceasing of activity from a few favourites. The thought-provoking Womble has stopped wombling free, as has Haddock. Also strangely silent is Banned, whilst Tory Totty's domain has disappeared altogether (a bit worrying, that one, as she was a teacher - hopefully there isn't anything sinister behind it).

So, deprived of my token Lib Dem, I've redressed the balance by adding Charlotte Gore and Liberal Vision instead - they are Lib Dems in name, at least. And as I like looking at funny pictures, Banned's disappearance will be more than adequately compensated by GOT and Lawson Narse.

I've also thrown in a few I've been reading via RSS for a while. Tom Paine, The ASI blog, The Angry Upside-down Brit, and Mummy Long Legs. Oh sod it, may as well stick Rab the ranting sporran jockey on there while I'm at it.

You may have noticed I haven't added a Tory in response to Totty's departure. It's because they don't deserve more representation when they are cranking up their illiberal shite production line, another example of which was highlighted by the Pub Curmudgeon yesterday.

Well, that's one long overdue task done, one day I might get round to giving the whole blog a makeover. But then, I can be a right lazy bastard at times, and considering the fact that, to spend the meagre sum I have set aside, I'd need to find someone to design me something individual (suggestions welcome) and then apply it, don't expect to see much change anytime soon.

Phew! Time to crack open a can and put my feet up again after all that exertion.

Terminology Creep

That this should all have come about by appallingly drawn-up illiberal Labour legislation is no surprise.

Two working mothers have been banned from looking after each other's toddlers because they are not registered childminders. The close friends' private arrangement had let them both return to part-time jobs at the same company.

However, a whistleblower reported them to the education watchdog Ofsted and it found their informal deal broke the law.

An Ofsted spokesman confirmed it had been called in after a complaint.

Yes. A single complaint and the wheels have not only to come off, they must also be dismantled to their component parts, never to be reassembled.

Again, nothing even mildly eyebrow-raising under Labour's watch. The rules in question are part of a shit law, as with a huge proportion of the 3,000+ that have been instigated since 1997, and the fact that Ofsted have sprung into action to deny entirely innocent mothers the economic chance to work, instead of relying on the state, is also not anything we haven't seen before. Labour enjoy paying the population to do nothing worthwhile, much as they enjoy dictating to the population what they can and can't do.

No. What is worrying about this report (it is the Daily Mail, but are you certain this isn't going to catch on?) is the use of the term 'whistleblower'.

A whistleblower should be a positive description of a selfless person who exposes misdoing for the common good, often at huge personal risk to themselves. Not, and I repeat not, anything like the 'anonymous complainant', of which this is an example, who is a vindictive cunt deserving only of being ostracised by polite society.

I have written about the sinister advance of these rancid pond-lives before.

Add in the fact that this is no doubt another instance of the 'anonymous complainant' setting the whole comprehensive waste of time, effort, and money in motion, and we have an archetypal snapshot of a miserablist nation jam-packed full of odious, self-important, unthinking fuckknuckles.

More than once, in fact.

It is heart-breaking to see so many anal and selfish Britons gutting each other over matters which really shouldn't bother them.

The anonymous complainant has been incubated and nurtured by Labour, almost as if they were the product of their own loins. Their every cuntish, spiteful whinge is positively encouraged with every new snitch-line that Labour unveil for the benefit of nasty cowardly curtain-twitchers everywhere, including elected ones.

In the society which Labour have created, an anonymous phone call can destroy a life/career/business either temporarily or permanently without any potential repercussions for the spurious or spiteful accuser.

It is entirely correct to keep the identity of a true whistleblower secret so that their evidence may be scrutinised properly.

However, the anonymous complainant, such as in this case, are a completely different matter. Make them give their name and address, with a warning that if their complaint is proven to be spurious and/or wastes resources they must suffer the consequences, and watch society become more tolerant and respectful of the lives of others in a very short space of time.

Brown, You Naughty Fibber

No, not that Brown, the other purveyor of sneaky misdirection, Derren.

The Mail are asking, so are the Beeb. Mathematicians have ripped you a new one, sunshine, so how did you really do it?

This guy, in 30 seconds in his living room, reckons he knows.



Shame. Imagine how much more fun it would have been if he had actually rigged the lottery draw, as in the conspiracy theory.

Via the Fink