4,442 Reasons Why Plain Packaging Won't Work

As Snowdon has reported today - do go read his analysis here - a new study has shown that smokers don't take up the habit because of the packaging. Yes, any fule kno that except the tobacco control industry who get paid handsomely to say otherwise, but the study in question is very interesting nonetheless.

It was authored by researchers from Imperial College London, Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Crete, with one of them also affiliated to Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention’s Office on Smoking and Health, and was published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association (EPHA). A who's who of global authorities, right there, which is perhaps why we've seen not a whisper from the tobacco control industry about it - their one trick of throwing smears and ad hominems about the authors or assumed funding sources simply doesn't work in this instance, so they instead stay silent and pretend it doesn't exist.

Snowdon has highlighted the main fact-finding question in the study which was asked in personal interviews with a total of 4,442 current and former smokers aged 15-39 from all 27 EU member states as at 2012.

Respondents were allowed to select up to three among the following response options: ‘your friends smoked’; ‘your parents smoked’; ‘you liked the packaging of the cigarettes (or other tobacco products)’; ‘you liked the taste or smell of tobacco’; ‘you liked menthol cigarettes’; ‘you liked cigarettes with a specific sweet, fruity or spicy flavour’; and ‘cigarettes were affordable’. Respondents who indicated that they started smoking because their friends smoked were classified as having initiated smoking under the domain of ‘peer influence’ and those who mentioned that they started smoking because their parents smoked were classified as under the domain of ‘parental influence’. All other responses were grouped together as ‘tobacco product features’, as the numbers of respondents who indicated each one as an influence were small.

You'll note that of the seven options from which to choose, the five which referred to "design and marketing features" of tobacco had to be lumped together because so very few smokers said they were a factor in why they began smoking. The option "you saw someone smoking in a park and instantly wanted to go out and buy 20 Marlboro" didn't even make their drawing board during study design, it seems.

The conclusion proves that tobacco control has purposely been barking up the wrong tree for the best part of the past decade!

No significant association between design and marketing features of tobacco products and an early initiation of regular smoking was observed (OR = 1.04; 95%CI 0.83–1.31).

By "early initiation", they mean starting smoking before the age of 18. Yet in recent years we have seen tobacco display bans, for the children; a proposed ban on menthol in the EU TPD for the children; bans on flavourings in the US for the children; and plain packaging in the UK, erm, for the children. Despite children not being seduced by any of these features.

Hmm, perhaps packaging is indeed designed to protect and grow market share - just as in any other industry - amongst adult smokers who choose to smoke, as the tobacco industry has always insisted. Fancy that!

It's almost like the vast and lucrative anti-smoking industry is not really about the children - or health - but instead about the salaries of tobacco controllers who are running out of valid campaigns to keep the grant money rolling in, isn't it?

Now, just cast your minds back to the arguments being made in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) challenge to plain packaging.

Unnecessary obstacles to trade can result when (i) a regulation is more restrictive than necessary to achieve a given policy objective, or (ii) when it does not fulfil a legitimate objective. A regulation is more restrictive than necessary when the objective pursued can be achieved through alternative measures which have less trade-restricting effects, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment of the objective would create.

Well, considering the entire point of plain packaging is to stop "early initiation" of smoking amongst children, I'd say a study - conducted by Imperial College, Harvard, the CDC and EPHA - concluding that packaging, even bundled up with other options, had no measurable effect in initiating smoking amongst 4,000+ young people from 27 EU member states, will be welcomed by countries who claim, quite rightly, that it is an unnecessary obstacle to trade and that there are "alternative measures which have less trade-restricting effects".

Let's just hope their lawyers have picked up on it.

Charge Your Glasses

Seeing as it's Friday, here is some budget-related Twitter squealing to make your weekend tipple taste extra sweet.

Alcohol industry once again setting govt policy as duty frozen on Scotch whisky & cider, beer cut 1p. Goes against all evidence.
— Alcohol Concern (@AlcoholConcern) March 19, 2014

Public health 101 - when stung, trot out the standard 'evil industry' ad hom. A line faithfully taken up by this AlCon employee.

Lynton Crosby all over the budget as once again @George_Osborne & @David_Cameron give into alcohol industry on duty
— Emily Robinson (@EmilyRobinson1) March 19, 2014

Then comes the incredulity.

.@George_Osborne accepts tobacco price imp but not on alcohol. Errr why not? Booze costs UK £21bn. We're all in it together paying for it.
— Emily Robinson (@EmilyRobinson1) March 19, 2014

"But ... but ... they're not following the tobacco template! We're next! They told us we were next!"

A concern echoed by one of the team who produced Sheffield's Uni's policy-led minimum alcohol pricing junk.

"No good health reason" for stopping the tobacco duty escalator but alcohol duty escalator scrapped. Hmmm...
— John Holmes (@JHolmesSheff) March 19, 2014

Then there was the truly bizarre.

Well what a shock! Osborne's claim to be concerned about alcohol consumption all crap. Cheap booze/easy cheers/more deaths/NHScrisis
— Alastair Campbell (@campbellclaret) March 19, 2014

Yes, that's the Alastair Campbell and yes, he really did say that. Sometimes put-downs are so easy you don't even have to elaborate.

You’re tweeting about someone causing ‘more deaths’ @campbellclaret fuck me but you’ve got some brass balls on you.
— Lord Skip Licker VC (@Skip_Licker) March 19, 2014

Lastly, there is the plain dull and disappointed.

Public health let down again: Alcohol duties frozen/cut across the board #Budget2014
— IAS (@InstAlcStud) March 19, 2014

'Public health' have been let down? Marvellous! It's something the country should be heartily thankful for, and should be treated to far more often, so I'll drink to that.

Cheers!

The Pitiful Search For Plain Packaging Evidence Fails Again

It's all getting desperate Down Under.

Tobacco controllers and anti-smokers are going garrity on Twitter about this new, undisputed 'proof' that plain packaging works!

Conclusions: There has been a sustained increase in calls to the Quitline after the introduction of tobacco plain packaging.

So how many of these people actually did quit? You know, how are the prevalence figures looking one year and three months on?

Well, Crikey gives us brand new info from Australia ... or, more precisely, a lack of it.

A global study out today has found that after decades of declining, Australia’s rate of smoking has plateaued, and even increased slightly among women. There are almost 3 million smokers in Australia and between them they puff on 21 billion — yes, billion — cigarettes a year. 

That’s the most recent data available, and it goes up to the end of 2012. As to whether the world’s first laws mandating the plain packaging of cigarettes have worked (they started in December 2012), those who have the data won’t release it. It’s a public policy secret.

That's very interesting, isn't it?

You'd think, wouldn't you, that if plain packaging had helped decrease smoking prevalence that Australia's Department of Health and Ageing would be screaming it from the rooftops instead of hiding the stats.

For the record, it seems Aussies are giving up less and less the more dictatorial anti-tobacco bullies become.

The big drop in people smoking is a medium-term success story, but since 2009 the rate of smoking in Australia has levelled off. This graph from the report shows the rate of change is now approaching zero:

The report, from The Journal of the American Medical Association detailing trends in 187 countries, specifies Australia's percentage decline in prevalence as 1.9% per year since 1980 but - as Crikey states above - the significant declines were before tobacco control embarked on the bullying and barrel-scraping of recent years, after which the effect has disappeared entirely.

And, since Google is our friend, we can see that Australia's population increased by 1.8% in 2009, 1.3% in 2010, 1.2% in 2011 and 1.6% in 2012 - from 21.78 million citizens in 2009 to 22.68 million in 2012. So, if the percentage prevalence figures are no longer decreasing, this means that smoker numbers in Australia are actually now increasing in recent years.

Could this be why the Aussie government are so coy about releasing their assessment of how plain packaging has 'worked'? Vanishing percentage decreases in prevalence and increased numbers of tobacco users is hardly a proud boast to other countries - like ours - who are looking Down Under for evidence of a ground-breaking policy, now is it?

Of course, this will simply spur on the Aussie tobacco control industry to call for more absurd regulations, while conveniently ignoring previous Quixotic global failures of denormalisation via daft and incompetent regulations.

No matter the cognitive dissonance, though, all this does kinda make the Aussie government's drive to "by 2018, reduce the national smoking rate to 10 per cent of the population" [pdf] - that is, to reduce it by 43% in four years - funnier than anything you'll ever see on Live at the Apollo.

Hopefully, our government will ditch their usual blinkers and look properly at the evidence from Australia. Plain packs is quite clearly not working or we'd have heard more about it than a shonky study on what people are thinking about doing - rather than something they are actually doing.

Still nothing anyone could call convincing evidence then, eh Sir Cyril?

NB: And note, yet again, that a policy lobbied for on the basis that it was vital to 'save children' has shifted sideways into one about forcing smokers to quit. The Quitline study which has energised the bovine on Twitter today doesn't mention children once; nor kids or youth. And the only mention of the word young is via the surname of the lead author.

Smoke Or Drink And The NHS Will Cut Your Bits Off

'Tis an important date here in Puddlecote Towers but, before I zip off to a rather nice restaurant for the evening, here's something astonishing from the postbag.

Long-time fellow jewel robber Moonrakin recounted a story from the weekend about which he is still understandably angry. In his own words, here is what happened to his brother in law who I shall rename John.

My brother in law is an electrician and a builder - yesterday [Saturday] he got his thumb squashed very badly on site by a JCB digger. So ... chauffeured off 10 miles to our local A&E by the mortified digger driver- where the following took place: 

Doctor: It's bad
John: I can see that.
Doctor: Are you a smoker?
John: Never smoked - ever
Doctor: Are you sure?
John: Look, I've never, ever smoked
Doctor: If you're a smoker we're going to cut it off right away
John: Look, I said I don't smoke and never have...
Doctor: Do you drink?
John: Yes
Doctor: How much - more than 50 units a week?
John: Not sure, a couple beers two or three nights a week - more upon occasion.
Doctor: So how much do you drink?
John: Look, what's the score with my thumb?
Doctor: Don't know, we'll have to get a specialist in from [local city].

Moonrakin went on to say that further conversations later with the doctor confirmed that an admittance of drinking over 50 units would have similarly led to the thumb being lopped off. He was also quizzed far more intensely with the doctor seemingly unable to accept assurances that the brother in law could be a builder and a non-smoker.

Sounds like the doc was desperate to get the bone-cutter out, the psycho nice 'caring' professional that he obviously is.

So, the message here is to do what nanny tells you or they'll send your body parts back to you in a cellophane bag. Capiche?

Minimum Pricing: Sheemed Like A {Hic} Good Idea At The Time

You have to wonder if UK politicians who have been promoting minimum alcohol pricing might have been a bit pissed when they made the decision to go for it.

Consider this response to a parliamentary question tabled by a UKIP member of the House of Lords.

Lord Willoughby de Broke (UKIP) To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of whether their proposal for minimum pricing on alcohol is compliant with European Union law. 

Lord Henley (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Conservative) The legal advice which the Government have received on this issue is subject to legal privilege. We do not, therefore, believe it appropriate to disclose this advice (or any summary of it). The Government are currently in discussion with the EU Commission on this issue.

You'd think, wouldn't you, that if a government was bold enough to announce such a courageous policy as minimum pricing, someone would have made absolutely sure that it was legal under EU rules.

Lord Henley's inability to disclose even the merest detail of the legal advice they have received suggests they might be having a few problems.

It's the same in Scotland where Nicola Sturgeon is similarly struggling.

[Labour’s Scottish health spokeswoman, Jackie Baillie, said:] “If [Nicola Sturgeon] is so confident, why does she not come clean and finally publish the legal advice, her proposed minimum price, and formally notify the EU?”

One thing is quite clear. The only answer to this apparent dithering lies in Brussels, as Cameron's advisers seem to understand quite clearly.

At a private meeting on March 26, three days after the Prime Minister set out his controversial alcohol strategy, industry sources said that Whitehall officials told representatives it was their understanding minimum unit pricing did raise legal concerns. 

The meeting had been planned prior to Mr Cameron's announcement to discuss more routine tax issues. But minimum unit pricing was raised among the opening remarks, with Treasury officials relaying their view that the policy could have difficulties under European law. 

The Treasury disputes that it said anything more than laying out some of the legal issues, although industry sources said it went further than that.

Oh, it goes a lot further than that. In an answer to Lib Dem MEP George in February, the situation was explained conclusively.

It seems that the EU are quite happy for member states to implement minimum pricing on alcohol, as long as it doesn't unfairly hinder trade from other EU countries. However, the competition law aspect insists on comprehensive impartiality. And that comes with some rather awkward conditions.

From a competition law perspective, the critical factor when it comes to a national measure setting minimum alcohol prices is that the alcohol industry should not be involved in the process in any way whatsoever, since this would render the measure contrary to Article 4, paragraph 3, TEU, in conjunction with Article 101 TFEU. The Court of Justice has held that national measures where a Member State requires, favours or reinforces an anti-competitive agreement or where it delegates to private operators the responsibility for taking decisions affecting the economic sphere will infringe said provisions.

Translated, this means that any legislation would have to be implemented without any company or individual in the alcohol manufacturing or retail industries even being allowed to take part in the consultation exercise. So much as a letter or a phone call would render the whole thing illegal and they'd have to start again from scratch.

North of the border, this puts the SNP in right sticky situation. How do they get their little baby through by wilfully ignoring whisky manufacturers who they regularly talk about in very proud terms, and whose products provide a massive boost to the Scottish economy?

Cameron has even worse problems. He would appear to have driven into a cul de sac from which he is going to find it extremely difficult to reverse. Y'see, he has doggedly defended his decision to include industry in proceedings. In fact, his 'responsibility deal' is a commitment inextricably written through his government public health agenda. It is, quite simply, a major plank of his government's modus operandum.

For minimum alcohol pricing to reach the statute book, every tie with anyone from the drinks industry will have to be cut. They would have to be blackballed at a stroke.

I can imagine some policy formers in the Tory party holding their sore heads and groaning "never again, Lord, I swear!", as the reality of their binge-meddling hits home. Either an embarrassing climb-down beckons or else they'll be picking a fight with major businesses which will never go away in our lifetime.

As if that wasn't funny enough, the fallout - should Cameron be stupid enough to dig his heels in - promises to be even more hilarious.

A minimum price for the off-trade is just the start, as the Sheffield University study which underwrites every single piece of anti-alcohol rhetoric states quite clearly.

Differential minimum pricing for on-trade and off-trade leads to more substantial reductions in consumption (30p off-trade together with an 80p on-trade minimum price -2.1% versus -0.6% for 30p only; 40p together with 100p -5.4% compared to -2.6% for 40p only). This is firstly because much of the consumption by younger and hazardous drinking groups (including those at increased risk of criminal offending due to high intake on a particular day) occurs in the on-trade. It is also because increasing prices of cheaper alcohol in the on-trade dampens down the behaviour switching effects when off-trade prices are increased.

Yes, you read that correctly. A minimum alcohol price for pubs.

And if the precedent has been set for the off-trade, and the medical community states - as it will - that such a move is essential to save lives according to the University of Sheffield, politicians will be faced with the prospect of being forced into implementing that too. What's more, they'd have to do so without engaging in discussion with pub-loving interests in any way whatsoever.

Can you imagine the horror on minimum price advocate CAMRA's faces if that were to materialise? Not to mention all those MPs who currently fall over themselves to defend pubs despite their policies having crushed them.

Stock up on popcorn boys and girls, this could turn out to be the best political laugh-fest since David Mellor shagging in a Chelsea shirt.

Thoughts While Idle

Having just undergone very minor surgery - not remotely tobacco, alcohol, salt, fatty food, sugar, processed meat or cholesterol-related, disappointingly for doomsayers - I've been watching a lot of TV. And of all the things I've watched, the most gruesomely interesting scene was during Saul David's last episode of Bullets, Boots and Bandages where he gives an account of the amputation of Lord Uxbridge's leg at the Battle of Waterloo. It's not for the squeamish as he re-enacts it with a cow's leg from 18:50 on at this link.

For those don't want to (or can't) watch, it was shot to pieces by a cannon ball necessitating amputation without any anaesthetic. Uxbridge was reported to have "borne the operation well", with barely a word said.

It just struck me as incredible that British resolve has descended from such immense bravery into a nation where we're now scared of even something which might be 'potentially offensive'.

That's all.

But I suppose this is a good excuse as any to give Steve Hughes's ridicule of the easily-offended another airing.

Myth-Busting For The Masses

Oh dear, word is starting to get out that those advisory alcohol units - which public health like to portray as rigid limits - are a bit crap. Once the most venerable Stephen 'national institution' Fry pronounces against them, you just know that alco-worriers are on dodgy ground.

Delightful.

H/T The Skinner

State 'Bullying' Can Be Fun

Today is an apt time to re-post this letter from a former MP in response to a challenge to her abandonment of the smoking ban exemption for private members' clubs.

Sean is a lifelong Labour voter. On 28 October 2008 [Margaret] Moran wrote to him as follows:

Dear Sean Spillane,

I refer to your most recent letter regarding the smoking ban. The contents are noted, however I refer you to my previous reply on this subject, particularly the evidenced health benefits of the ban.

As MPs we are elected to weigh in the balance the greater good for our constituents, and it is for this reason that I wholly support the current policy. No amount of public bullying of the sort you indulge in will change my position.

I also understand that the constitution for working men's clubs mandates that they are not party political. I therefore understand that your public statements have been referred to the relevant governing bodies.

Yours sincerely,

Margaret Moran MP
Labour MP for Luton South

The reference to "public bullying" seems to relate to a number of readers' letters written by Sean and published in his local paper, the Luton News. So, it's all right to ignore an election manifesto commitment and support a far more draconian piece of legislation, but when constituents fight back it's called "public bullying".

Hey, Margaret, love. That ain't bullying ... this is. Deservedly.

Moran, the last politician to be investigated over the scandal, faces 21 charges relating to more than £60,000 worth of parliamentary claims.

Keir Starmer QC, the director of public prosecutions, said there was ‘sufficient evidence and it is in the public interest’ to bring the charges.

As I've said before about those responsible for the Health Act 2006:

Each time one of these odious, anti-social, community vandals gets their comeuppance, I always feel someone up above is enjoying a hearty chuckle.

I know I certainly did on reading the good news today.

Enjoy that smokefree cell, Maggie.

Up With This Sort Of Thing

As a business owner, I've ploughed through many a politely-worded business-speak pdf file, the good Lord help me I have. I've seen so many that if you cut me up, my retinas would be indelibly imprinted with terms such as 'Key Performance Indicators' and 'Milestone Objectives'. In triplicate, probably.

Then, for relaxation, I come home and ... read more pdf files from public sector blow-hards and state-funded, pumped up, anti-fun bansturbators who seem to think they are somehow not the same as indolent benefit leeches. Which they are, of course. In fact, here are some pictured sitting on their sorry arses wasting the handouts that they are shovelled. Bring back national service, I say! Send the lazy, good-for-nothin' tax drains off to Afghanist...

... anyway, I digress. Back to the point.

I read yet another last night, as posted at Taking Liberties. A response to the Welsh Assembly by Imperial Tobacco, specifically, and if you haven't yet done so, perhaps you should read it too as it came as a bit of a surprise.

Simon Clark gave us a few teasers, but the whole document was a fully-referenced piece stubbornly rejecting the collective back-slapping of Welsh legislators in the tobacco control debate (if there ever was one).

As I said, these things have to be worded in a certain way - it's laid down in the public sector scriptures, so it is - but in seven glorious pages, Imperial Tobacco eloquently conveyed the message "Sorry, but you've lost the plot, and we ain't buying your crap no more".

What's more, they did so by quoting back to the assembly their own - and Westminster's - (expensively-drafted) documents. Here's an example.

It is therefore bewildering that the Government sees adult free choice as a ‘problem’; that prevalence stagnation is due to a lack of mass-media anti-smoking campaigns⁷, the use of niche tobacco products⁸, and smoking in cars and homes⁹, all of which were considered negligible issues at the time of the smoking ban⁶. When informed adults choose to continue smoking the answer should not be yet more draconian and disproportionate policies to force behaviour change.

The superscript references were Welsh consultation document assertions totally refuted by Welsh NHS papers apparently referenced in the process.

Likewise:

The Plan claims that ”Smoking is also a leading cause of health inequalities, having been identified as the main cause for the gap in life expectancy between rich and poor.”¹¹

The belief that health inequalities arise as a consequence of smoking is spurious. As set out clearly in the Marmot Report published in the UK last year, the root causes of health inequalities are fundamental:

“…Most effective actions to reduce health inequalities will come through action within the social determinants of health. However, attempts to reduce health inequalities have … relied increasingly on tackling more proximal causes (such as smoking), through behaviour change programmes. Part of the explanation for this emphasis lies with the comparative ease of identifying action to address behaviour, rather than the complexity of addressing social inequalities shaping such behaviours.” ¹²

Marmot sets out two alternatives; one challenging but effective, one simple but ultimately inadequate. The Government appears guilty of opting for the latter option.

And after blowing a raspberry at the consultation for its shoddy evidence, well, why not a bit of plain old-fashioned ridicule, eh?

The Plan insists that there is no evidence of a shift in smoking to the home from pubs and workplaces. Considering that prevalence levels have remained flat at 24% since 2007 it leads one to question where else the Government thinks the adult smokers, who have been forced out of pubs, now smoke.

I just wish the author had been allowed to suffix that with "well, duh!".

Oh, oh, wait. I nearly forgot this bit, you'll love it!

Furthermore, the evidential base for the introduction of invasive legislation is often absent or highly flawed. For example, one report that was extensively recycled in the media claimed that second-hand smoke was “…23 times more toxic in a vehicle than in a home...” ²⁰ Such claims are without any substance, and have been roundly refuted by the evidence²¹.

Indeed. In fact, there wasn't any evidence whatsoever. It was a load of made-up guff from the start and bolstered by a game of gullible Chinese Whispers, as we who are 'not experts, Dave' have known all along, but which ASH (the experts, remember?) swallowed whole.

As did dozy Welsh anti-smoking politicos (and boy are they dozy, you only have to remember laughing at this guy for proof), it would seem.

It's been suggested that the response, great as it is, won't even be read by the people paid by Welsh taxpayers to do so. That's as maybe, but perhaps Imperial Tobacco knew that, as the only thing missing from the response was a great fat dirty one of these at the bottom.

Yaki dah this, sunshine

Following on from obstinate challenges to the vending machine and tobacco display bans in Scotland, is this a new, hunkier tobacco industry we are seeing here? One more in tune with what we would like to see from them?

Let's hope so, 'cos I read the Imperial response and was hearing the A-team theme as Mr T bazooka-ed the damn fools who had held him captive for much of the show; it was the Indiana Jones grimace as he decided enough was enough in Temple of Doom; the bullied kid finally wising up and kicking Big Baz squarely in the balls.

We want more of this stuff, guys and gals. Civil servants and their fake charity lickspittles may not be listening, but if we really must be surrounded by morally and evidentially corrupt righteous scumbags, let's go down fighting like Butch and Sundance, not Mr bloody Bean*.

* Or, indeed, CAMRA.

A Risky Career Choice

Public health officials love to tell us all how their studies show we're heading for an early date with a brass handled wooden box, but perhaps they should instead seriously consider researching the risks attached to choosing health hectoring as a career.

Because things like this happen along quite regularly.

Dr. Richard Daines, the state Commissioner of Health during the Paterson administration from 2007-2010, died Feb. 26 at age 60.

Dr. Daines left a legacy as a fervent supporter of the public health of New Yorkers—whether or not New Yorkers wanted to grapple with their obesity, smoking habits and soda addictions. He championed the fight for a tax on sugary beverages, taking to You Tube to graphically educate New Yorkers about the dangers of obesity and the empty calories in soda.

Not a great advert for their health recommendations, is it? Still, at least Dr Daines scrambled past the 60 mark, unlike others one could mention.

Considering the story of the day, perhaps insurance companies should think about offering favourable terms to public health miserabilists wishing to take out pension plans.

Just saying.

H/T The mushroom lover

Duncan Bannatyne: A Threat To The Nation's Health

Oh dear. If you were a smug, self-declared health guru, I expect you'd feel rather uncomfortable reading things like this.

The fitness market was worth £682m in 1996, £1.6bn in 2001 and is now stable at £2.5bn (these are Mintel figures). In the UK, 5.2 million adults have membership of a private gym. That market penetration is phenomenal. I don't want to labour the point about how this correlates with obesity, because some people – myself, for instance – have membership and don't use it. But put it this way: whether we're using the gym or not, as a cohort, it's not making us any thinner.

One of the reasons for this is that vigorous exercise stimulates your appetite. So a 20-minute run might use up 200 calories, but your hunger won't necessarily – indeed, almost certainly won't – restrain itself to that amount of extra food.

So someone who promotes 60 fitness centres, for example, could be fuelling that there global 'obesity epidemic'?

Hmmm, kinda reminds me of this article I read yesterday.

Can regular exercise avert or undo some of the harm associated with binge drinking? Perhaps even better, could exercising beforehand pre-emptively reduce your urge to overindulge in alcohol later? Or does exercising actually drive you to drink?

[...]

Half of the rats were given access to running wheels for three weeks. The others were kept in cages without wheels. After three weeks, the running wheels were removed, and half of the animals from each group were allowed unlimited access to alcohol for 21 days. [...] the exercising animals turned to alcohol with significantly more enthusiasm than the sedentary rats, mainly during the first week of the experiment. “It was a bit of surprise,” Dr. Leasure said.

But the findings are right in line with those from a recent, large-scale national survey of human subjects published in The American Journal of Health Promotion.

What? You mean that those who profit from gyms are doing so, at the expense of the country's finances, by contributing to the binge-drinking epidemic, too?

The bastards!

No wonder Bannatyne drones on about smoking so much, it's - quite obviously - merely a diversionary tactic to disguise his own selfish disregard for the health of the nation. Innit.

Feed Or Starve A Cold? I Can Never Remember

It's not often lurgey gets me, but on waking this morning there were tell-tale signs that a cold was doing its damnedest. It only got worse after watching 2012 at the insistence of the little Ps. I felt my antibodies - and my soul - throwing a stick and spotted hanky over their shoulders at around about the hour mark.

So, as you can imagine, I'm not much in the mood for writing. Instead, urgent restorative measures are required, consisting of Mrs P's friend coming over to help mop my fevered brow, alongside the application of known remedies - red wine (I prefer white but cures were never meant to be easy, eh?), and copious servings of curry - to limit the damage. Yes, it's going to be tough, but I can handle it.

In the meantime, here's something I lazily pinched from the comments at one of the few places I visited today. I'm sure many will have seen this Independent article from 2000, but I hadn't. Well, it made me laugh anyway.

Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past

However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.

David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via the internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually "feel" virtual cold.

Especially after seeing this on the same thread.

Anyway, must go. Our visitor is expected so I need to prepare myself for the upcoming torturous treatment.

Oh, woe is me!

Spectacular Crystal Ball Fail

Newsweek have recently been uploading articles from archived past issues onto their website, though I'm sure Clifford Stoll wishes they hadn't. Here's a snippet from his 1995 piece offering predictions on the future for the internet.

Visionaries see a future of telecommuting workers, interactive libraries and multimedia classrooms. They speak of electronic town meetings and virtual communities. Commerce and business will shift from offices and malls to networks and modems. And the freedom of digital networks will make government more democratic.

Baloney. Do our computer pundits lack all common sense? The truth is no online database will replace your daily newspaper, no CD-ROM can take the place of a competent teacher and no computer network will change the way government works.

On hearing that his dismissal of computers being used in schools and the notion of online shopping was being digitalised, do you reckon he winced much?

Public Health Doesn't Have A Monopoly On Rent-Seeking

OK, we're all familiar with the concept of brown-trousered politicians collapsing at the merest hint of pressure from health-related lobby groups and fake charities, but a fellow jewel robber often e-mails to point out that it's the same story with foreign aid.

His latest, a witty re-write of yesterday's Guardian article on the backtracking by the Department for International Development, is an eye-opener and definitely worth sharing.

Our friend has struck out the flim-flam and replaced it with bold text. This is how he reckons the piece should have read:

Andrew Mitchell soothes charities' rent-seekers’ fears over planned DfID cuts

Development secretary Andrew Mitchell last night pledged to boost spending on a broad range of anti-poverty initiatives large government-funded interest groups as he sought to allay fears expressed by charities large government-funded interest groups about the government's root-and-branch study of its aid commitments investigation into whether the large government-funded interest groups actually do anything useful.

Responding to a letter signed by five leading UK agencies government-funded interest groups warning that they might consider withdrawing backing for the government's development strategy, Mitchell promised full consultation to consider the political implications to the government and his own career prospects before any final decisions were made on the future of individual programmes.

The reassurance came after the five large government-funded interest groups (who received hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayer money every year) – Oxfam, Christian Aid, Action Aid, Save the Children and Cafod – wrote to Mitchell last week in the wake of a leaked report showing that the Department for International Development (DfID) was planning to scale down drastically the number of entirely pointless spending commitments inherited from Labour.

In their letter, the aid agencies said they accepted his right to hold a strategic review of DfID spending, but not if it affected their jobs, career prospects, or holidays in Tuscany. They added: "We are, however, very concerned at the apparent proposal to review and potentially drop the majority of the existing development commitments the UK has made. If this went ahead, it would impact on the full range of development policies, affecting our budgets drastically almost every sector of DfID's work."

They said commitments and targets were vital in creating support for aid spending creating nice headlines that convince Joe Public that more money should be spent on “foreign aid”, which the government has pledged to increase to 0.7% of GDP. "Mobilising public support for the UK's aid spending target will become difficult to justify to our supporters if these commitments are dropped. Without government hand-outs to pay for our propaganda to be plastered all over the Tube, our donors might want their money to only go to actual aid stuff, abroad. They might even start checking that it works."

Mitchell, one of the only two cabinet ministers to have his budget ringfenced increased in the spending review, said the government's approach had been "misreported". He said it was important DfID focused "ruthlessly on results and impact", but kept increasing spending whatever the results. He said in many areas "we anticipate increasing – not decreasing – activity, depending on the results of the reviews, and the threats made by large government-funded interest groups."

He added: "As this process of reviewing our bilateral, multilateral and humanitarian work unfolds in the months ahead, I envisage strong consultation and backroom discussions with the full range of government-funded groups and individuals NGOs, academics, experts and others who live off this multi-billion pound industry bring such strength to the UK international development effort. I have instructed my officials to ensure that the recipients of government funds are allowed to tell us whether or not to cut the funds that pay for their careers NGO community is fully engaged to help us identify the best uses of the aid budget, and have asked officials to be in touch with you to set out in detail the steps we will take to ensure that this happens.

The charities said they were pleased with the outcome of face-to-face backroom talks with Mitchell but warned they would only be able to pass judgment on the coalition's development approach once they details of the spending review were announced were 100% sure that their budgets had been protected, and that this wasn’t just a political trick by a Tory, given that they’ve been brought up in the belief that you can never trust a Tory. However, John Hilary, who has spent two decades in the pay of government-funded groups like the BBC, VSO, ActionAid, Save the Children, and is now executive director of the anti-trade, Communist pressure group War on Want, took a stronger line. "To many people in the sector who, like myself, are funded by government, what the government is doing to international development our budgets is profoundly disturbing. The return to a focus on short-term aid outputs that we saw in the 1970s is deeply regressive, whereas since then foreign aid has clearly worked in places like Ethiopia, Somalia and Zimbabwe, whilst free trade has helped no one but the Western rich."

Meanwhile, the pressure on the development secretary was maintained last night when two complete morons England footballers spearheading a global campaign for universal primary education raised concerns about government policy. The players morons, who are ambassadors for 1GOAL, said they were worried by the proposal to scrap the UK's £1bn-a-year education commitment, which represents almost a third of the world's spending for primary education and provides a great boon for ‘civil servants’ in African education departments who can siphon it off to their mates and families.

John Barnes, the former Liverpool football player and no-doubt expert in economics and development, said: "It was only six weeks ago that I was sitting in a Soweto classroom with Andrew Mitchell listening as he told children that education would remain a priority for the UK government. I can do this because I don’t have a proper job, after making so much money out of football that I can just doss around and preach nonsense to the rest of you. I'm surprised and worried that, even after being treated to a nice trip to see “evidence” of some education programme seeing the impact of education on the lives of those kids, he could be considering scrapping key commitments to education in poor countries.

Bristol City and England goalkeeper David James said: "I'm proud to be a barely-famous face fronting some or other charity that helps me avoid the usual ‘selfish footballer’ image founding ambassador of 1GOAL and part of their campaign demanding education for all. The charity’s PR people told me to say this: With over 15 million people from around the world signing up to 1GOAL's campaign, I believe it is important that the UK government continue to support this. Now I’ll go back to my mock-Tudor mansion and play Nintendo". Education gives people the tools to help themselves out of poverty and is the basis of so much of what developing countries need in terms of democracy, peace and fighting the corruption that Western governments fuel by giving billions of dollars to corrupt regimes.

Gareth Thomas, the shadow development minister, said: "This letter makes clear the significant concerns that leading aid agencies is great. Groups that we funded to the hilt such as Oxfam and Christian Aid are now doing our political work for us by attacking the new government after our cronies in Whitehall leaked documents which led to meaningless hysteria and have following the recent revelations in the media. It’s almost like someone planned it.”

Glorious.

There Goes The Neighbourhood

Ouch!

CIGARETTES, ALCOHOL AND FUEL

No change this time round. Labour's plan to increase the duty on cider by 10% above inflation will be scrapped from July.

If you're in the Shoreditch or Whitechapel area and have been hearing a high-pitched whining noise since lunch, it's not the incoming 747s on the Heathrow flightpath. Merely an almighty tantrum being thrown in a couple of offices.

There'll be screaming all over the MSM in the next couple of days, mark my words, the righteous aren't used to being ignored, you see. Swarm like flying ants, they will.

Sweet.

Mascot Watch (8)

Our Philip's been a bit of a busy bunny of late, so he has. Highlighting male victims of domestic abuse in the House, receiving Seb Coe in Shipley, talking to the police about the Bradford murders and, err, judging a kids' fancy dress contest?

Some may also have noticed him at PMQs last week, though, in the slot (1. engagements) which customarily sees a friendly dolly tossed up for the Prime Minister. Davies is a trifle too contrary for that, though.



This was followed up by an article penned for The (Invisible) Times prefaced in his typically forthright manner.

For far too long in this country, the small band of left-wing, politically-correct do-gooders have had a disproportionate sway over the debate on law and order. “Prison doesn’t work” they say or, “we lock up more people than any other civilised country.”

The reality behind these myths needs to be seriously exposed for the sake of this country’s future.

[...] When it comes to sentencing, we should be thinking of extending sentences not shortening them.

I'd give you more but I don't fancy waking up next to a kangaroo's head as punishment for handing Rupert's stuff out for free.

This stance seems to impress Peter Hitchens, who on Sunday questioned Davies's compatibility with his own front benches.

The genuinely conservative MP Philip Davies smacked the Liberal Tory Premier, David Cameron, smartly about the chops.

How long, I wonder, can people such as Philip Davies sit on the same side of the chamber as Mr Cameron and his liberal, PC friends like Chris Huhne and Ken Clarke?

Actually, Hitch, I'm rather hoping he stays there as long as possible to regularly prick the collective coalition conscience.

And it looks like he will do exactly that considering the avalanche of approving comments when his remarks were reported back in his constituency. I think a geezer called Bert Sanders summed up the general feeling.

"Nay lad you must not punish prisoners its against their human rights. You'll always be on the back benches as you are not toeing the line, but I reckon you'll be Shipley MP for a long time."

Looks like my sidebar pic is safe for a while, then.

The Exception That Proves The Rule?

Practice ...

... makes perfect.

Let's Hear It, Joan

One from Guido made me laugh, in a funny Labour-are-hypocritical-twats kinda way.

You would think while discussing rape and the sensitive circumstances surrounding it, that Members [Denis MacShane] would be able to contain themselves from jeering and interrupting from the back benches, but given it was a late sitting just before midnight it seems one member may have enjoyed the pre-debate refreshments a little too much.

Is this the same Denis MacShane who is so awfully concerned about the trafficking of women into prostitution that he is willing to stand up and provide false statistics on the matter?

I think it is.

I'm sure his missus will have gone spare about his antics yesterday then, and is probably already planning to rip his guts out in her next column for the Independent.

Can't wait to see it, Joan.

Joan? Err, Joan? Aw shucks, not you as well!

Let's Hear It, Cath

It was only a joke.

[Labour leadership candidate, Jack] McDonnell said he had once been asked in a warm-up question on the BBC's Any Questions what he would do if he found himself in an Ashes To Ashes situation – a reference to the time-travelling TV series where a policewoman finds herself transported back to the 1980s.

To applause from the audience in Southport, Merseyside, he said that he would have liked to go back to that era and ‘assassinate Thatcher’.

The MP for Hayes and Harlington in West London - who served as Ken Livingstone’s deputy at the Greater London Council - insisted his comments were ‘a joke and it went down as a joke’.

OK, it lacked what one would usually class as a punchline, but if he says it's a joke that should be the end of it, I suppose.

Not sure lefty arch-feminist, Cath Elliott, will find the idea of a politician joking about violence against women funny, though.

I disagreed [...] that in some contexts so-called rape ‘jokes’ can not only be deemed to be acceptable, but they can also in fact be funny.

Because they’re not. Ever. They never have been and they never will be. They’re not funny when Ricky Gervais tells them, and they’re not funny when a Tory Councillor tells them either.

Expect the vitriolic article to appear on Liberal Conspiracy very soon, Jack. Very soon.

Off you go, Cath.

Cath? Err, Cath?

Heads up from Obo

Too Soon?

Joe Stack ... the game.

Don't miss out on your medal for trashing the Toyota, too.