This Week's Twitter Mob Target Is @KTHopkins

If, amongst this week's gorgeous weather and the Murray Wimbledon climax*, you missed what raised a hell of a lot of hackles about Katie Hopkins, here it is.

Now, you may think she is being deliberately controversial, I do. I've written before about her doing just that and I don't expect she'll change anytime soon.

But how very depressing is the reaction from our mob mentality public?

It's enough that the main media channels are shorn of anything which they deem 'hate speech' - even when it's not - and that they apologise profusely if anyone so much as utters a word like 'shit' on the TV or radio. Now, though, merely expressing an opinion is worthy of reply by the modern version of pitchfork and lighted torch.

Within hours of the appearance, Hopkins' website was hacked. 

Websites were falling over each other to find the best bullying replies; certain newspapers demanded she be censored; and the thousands who are without sin on Twitter went into righteous overdrive to cast the first (and thousandth) stone, confident that they are far more nice and polite, natch.

Neighbour wants to know why I have pants on my head. 'I have been called c**t so many times today, I thought they would suit me'
— Katie Hopkins (@KTHopkins) July 6, 2013

It was opinion, for crying out loud, and one which has been played upon by left and right-leaning stand-up comedians for decades. Indeed, tapping into the same unsaid prejudice, would Wayne and Waynetta Slob have been half as funny if they were John and Mary with their daughter Jane?

The idea is that you agree or disagree but respect the right of someone to say it. How difficult can that be? 

However, in this bovine country, offending someone - even if a very many might quietly nod their heads in agreement - is far more dangerous than losing the right to free speech! Or, in the words of the person many would happily see killed right now.

Welcome to the UK. Here is a short list of things you can say. The list of things you can't stay will be delivered by lorry to your home
— Katie Hopkins (@KTHopkins) July 7, 2013

Quite.

The BBC and ITV have featured Katie Hopkins and will undoubtedly do so again. The reason being that she expresses bold opinion and sparks debate, however much one disagrees with it. There is no law against that, nor should there ever be.

In the past, our country was clever and resilient enough to agree or disagree in our own selves. We were strong, well-adjusted and robust. We may have had a debate over a barbecue on a warm weekend about it - and I'm sure there have been many of them this weekend - but were life-grounded enough to leave it at that.

So how the blithering fuck did we descend into a situation whereby an opinion is justification for the kind of abuse normally reserved for paedophiles and police murderers?

It's not like Hopkins will become the country's most hated person forever. Next week it will be someone else. Then some idiot MP will 'demand action', and down that stupid spiral we will continue to descend. 

Is this the same country which won "Two World Wars and one World Cup", as the saying goes? Or just a bunch of easily-slighted myopic bullies who are happy to see free speech curtailed in their selfish pursuit of the perceived right never to hear or read anything which they dislike.

Great Britain? Don't make me laugh. 

* He's a Scot apparently, so not worthy of national pride for many hateful idiots.

Link Tank 06/07

In case you're not out enjoying the sun.

No evidence of health danger, but Teresa May bans qat anyway

The confused state of play with e-cigs and smoking bans in the USA

The more fast food restaurants in New Zealand, the less obesity

Unionist councillors try to impose a drinking ban at a beer festival in County Down

Germany rules porn is 'too primitive' to copyright

The t-shirt is 100 years old this week

Le Whopper and Burger King 'to return' to Paris

Free beer if it rains for 10 minutes in Burma

15 year old girl faces child porn charge over a picture she took on her iPhone

Man banned from Castleford shopping centre for masturbating while riding a bike

An invasion of obese fish

Confiscating Children ... For The Children

There's a tag I use on this 'ere blog which public health and their entourage routinely object to. They refute the term 'health Nazis' because, you see, they're only trying to help us; they're not ogres or dictators at all, but instead simply working hard to make our lives better.

This is obviously why they sit by and allow situations like this one, very succinctly described by Brian Monteith at the Free Society earlier this week.

Sheriff Scott Pattison ruled at Ayr Sheriff Court (24 June) that a mother’s smoking had shown a “parental lack of care” and breached the Children Scotland Act 1995. The law states that “compulsory supervision” may be required if children are “likely to suffer unnecessarily or be impaired seriously in their health and development due to lack of parental care. 

The court, which has greater powers than an English magistrates court, could now decide if the mother – who cannot be named for legal reasons – is fit enough to raise her children or if the should be removed into care.

Can't you see how this help and encouragement is fantastic for the betterment of society? After all, how very small is the threat of destroying childrens' lives by dumping them in care compared with the apocalypse of their smelling a few wisps of sarin-like smoke, eh?

Not to be outdone, anti-alcohol prohibitionists in Sweden have also this week shown how very much they care by calling for kids to be confiscated from parents if they enjoy a glass of Côtes du Rhône with the family dinner.

Law professor calls for ban on parents drinking

"It is a parent's responsibility to be sober when they are with their children," said Professor Madeleine Leijonhufvud to the Dagens Nyheter (DN) daily.

Leijonhufvud pointed out that every fifth child in Sweden lives with one or two parents who suffer from drinking problems and argues that a new law penalizing parents would address the problem. 

The proposal was presented at a seminar organized by temperance society IOGT-NTO's at the Almedalen political week and is specifically designed to tackle "everyday drinking". 

The law currently has no scope for punishing parents who drink in the company of their children and Leijonhufvud argued that the proposal is an attempt to prompt a discussion on the issue. 

She compared the offence to minor assault which currently carries a penalty of up to six months imprisonment. 

While the proposal is aimed at "everyday drunkenness" it in effect suggests that parents would not be able to share a glass of wine at dinner.

So, removing children from their parents is quite clearly the kind and caring thing to do, err, for the children.

They're not health Nazis, merely wise and benevolent people with our well-being at heart at all times. Oh yeah, and there's clearly no slippery slope, either. Got that? 

Crunch Time For E-Cigs

There is now less than a week until a crucial EU committee meeting in Brussels which will decide the fate of e-cigs amongst the 27 28 nations (welcome to the asylum, Croatia).

I can only echo Clive Bates in that it's time to do all one can to hinder those who would see just about everything pleasurable prohibited.

We are now in a crucial week before the ENVI committee vote on 10/11 July and it’s time to get busy

Too right. Do please go read his suggestions as to how you can urge Euro MEPs to do the right thing in relation to e-cigs (if not also snus).

Some are travelling to Brussels next week (July 10th) to make their presence felt and I will be tagging along too. If you'd care to join us, there are details of the event here. Meanwhile, inside the EU building, some MEPs will show how two-faced they are by hating tobacco but also objecting to anything which allows smokers to choose an alternative.

Meanwhile, one of the MEPs who actually understands the issue - as opposed to Labour and Greens who are determined to wipe out e-cigs for lazy and pathetic reasons - visited an e-cig manufacturer this week to get more info before the ENVI committee, of which he is a member, meets.

"I suspect [my father] was someone who would never have responded to nicotine patches" should be the rallying call here. Who does unless bullied into it by ridiculous legislation?

There's been far too much political pandering to pharmaceutical lobbyists over the past decade or so. It's time that politicians were told to start actually caring about health instead of ideology and vested interests. I think we can all agree with that.

So if you can't make it to Brussels, do please consider writing to your MEP and asking them to act on the side of the angels by resisting would-be e-cig prohibitionists next week. Every little helps, as they say.

Hide The Decline

The Mirror today published a bit of a non-story about parents shocked that their 15 and 16 year old kids are growing up in the very same way that they did.

Nothing really too surprising, except this part.

Underage drinking is on the increase, according to research by the Alcohol Concern charity.

Pretty alarming, huh?

Indeed, if we look at the latest published government statistics on smoking, drinking and drug use among young people (page 137), we can see exactly how scary that increase looks in graph form.

Yes, underage drinking is still decreasing just as was reported the last time these figures were released. So how did Alcohol Concern manage to come to the opposite conclusion? After all, it's not like they could have missed the highlighted 'key findings' box, is it? (page 121)

● 45% of pupils said that they had drunk alcohol at least once. This was at the same level as in 2010, and maintains the downward trend since 2001 when 61% of pupils had drunk alcohol. 

● In 2011, 12% of pupils had drunk alcohol in the last week. This continues a decline from 26% in 2001 

● The reported frequency of drinking continues to decline. In 2011, 7% of pupils said they usually drank at least once a week, compared with 20% in 2001.

It seems that, if government statistics don't fit in with AlCon's agenda, they just cobble together their own. A cynic might even be tempted to believe that Alcohol Concern just say anything to justify their non-jobs, doncha think?

Another day, another fake charity fable goes unchallenged in the nation's media.

Only Government Is Allowed To Mislead

Regular readers may remember my pointing out, in January, a PETA advert as a perfect example of the slippery slope which tobacco control tax spongers say doesn't exist.

Err.

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

FACT: Tobacco is not like any other product.

Sadly, PETA hasn't read the script. 

            

Well, it appears that the ad has now been banned.

Animal rights campaigners in Britain have been forbidden to use a billboard campaign showing a child smoking a cigar, which warns that eating meat increases the risk of cancer. 

Warning the advertisement was “misleading”, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said claims that eating any kind of meat increased the risk had not been “proven beyond doubt”.

I take it from this that the ASA will be equally dismissive of misleading claims being promoted by other absurd evangelical extremists ... like the Department of Health.

It is still facing a rebuke, however, for a separate NHS Smoke Free campaign after 18 complaints it was misleading. The veracity of the claim: “When you smoke, the chemicals you inhale cause mutations in your body and mutations are how cancer starts.  Every 15 cigarettes you smoke will cause a mutation. If you could see the damage you’d stop” is to be investigated to determine if it can be substantiated.

But then, being consistent would waste £2.7m of taxpayer receipts, wouldn't it? So best they don't go there, eh?

In 21st century Britain, some raving lunatics are far more equal than others. 

Further reading: What normally happens when you complain about government adverts to the ASA, however clear cut the misdirection may be. 

Dalli, The Bahamas, And Millions Of Mysterious Euros

In October last year, e-cig trade body ECITA wrote an article about the summary dismissal of John Dalli, EU Health Commissioner at the time and drafter of the appalling Tobacco Products Directive currently slithering its sleazy way through Brussels

To recap, he was sacked personally by EU President Barroso after the anti-corruption body Olaf found what they called "unambiguous circumstantial evidence" that he - through intermediaries - had solicited €60m in bribes from snus manufacturer Swedish Match.

Four months later in February, a lone comment popped up under the ECITA article with a teasing nugget of info.

Edward Butters says:
February 18, 2013 at 6:33 pm 

Would anyone be interested that John Dalli visited the Bahamas with his daughter in Aug and Sept 2012. Rented a seaside million dollar mansion and had discussions with Bahamians about transferring tens of millions of $’s to the Bahamas? More info available.

Well, I was certainly interested. So, with the help of @TheMorrigan1972, tracked the guy down to ask a few questions. Sadly, he wasn't too thrilled with talking to a mere blogger so I pointed him in the direction of EU-centric journos who might be motivated to write it up, but not before teasing out a couple of juicy alleged tidbits about the case.

Today, however, The International Tribune has revealed this shady trip to the Bahamas on its front page.

What made Mr Dalli so tired during those meetings in Cyprus, however, is now finally clear. He had flown more than 16,000 kilometers, or 10,000 miles, for a weekend in the Bahamas as part of a quest to move tens of millions of dollars. 

Asked about the previously undisclosed trip on July 7-8 to a Caribbean island known for its secretive banks and sun-swept beaches, Mr Dalli said in a telephone interview Friday that he had gone to meet unidentified friends. He said he returned at least once in the summer as part of efforts to arrange financing for a philanthropic project. 

Barry Connor, a Bahamas resident who rented Mr Dalli’s family a villa on the island, said he recalled being told by Mr Dalli that he planned to transfer “large amounts” of money for an unspecified venture. 

Asked about sums of up to $100 million, Mr Dalli said that the money was not for him, that he was acting on behalf of other people who wanted to set up a “trust” and that the project was “very personal”.

The Times of Malta has picked up on it and is reporting that ...

OLAF, the EU anti fraud agency, may reopen its case against former Commissioner John Dalli after it learnt that he travelled to the Bahamas last summer as part of a quest to move millions of dollars, the International Herald Tribune reports today.

Dalli, of course, is denying that he has done anything wrong. Again, it is simply that the world is out to get him.

“This is all conjecture without any sense... people are still trying to smear me,” Mr Dalli said.

Maltese blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia has been running a series of interesting articles all day on this development, with her summation of Dalli's explanation being the best bit in my opinion.

No doubt, two of the world’s most reputable newspapers are in a conspiracy with Saviour Balzan’s Queen of Bile, evil bloggers, gOnziPN, Giovanni Kessler, Jose Manuel Barroso, the nasty European Commission, and the mysterious agents who hacked Dalli’s email account and called him J Dalli BA. 

I am sure his psychiatrist – a man I mention because his medical certificates were so much in the news when he certified Dalli unable to get on a plane because of ‘psycho-social’ problems – has a name for this disorder, which unites persecution mania with the ability to convince oneself that one is absolutely innocent at all times, even when one is not. 

Enough of this nonsense. Really, enough.

It certainly does seem to be a 'scandal' which has more in and outs than a 24 hour multi-storey car park, but the whiff surrounding Dalli still won't disperse. No wonder they made him 'step outside' the EU building that day in October ... or, as Galizia puts it.

This is enough for the European Commission to open a fresh investigation/case against him. 

And quite frankly, they should sue us for inflicting somebody so substandard on the Commission in the first place. Damn shame he got through the grilling.

Now, I have no idea if Dalli is guilty or just incompetent as a natural result of the EU's daft appointment criteria. But there is little doubt that controversy seems to follow him around wherever he goes ... and that it is always about money. Probably why the tobacco control industry have gone very quiet about their initial hilarious conspiracy theories, he certainly isn't someone I'd personally feel confident in backing with my reputation. Indeed, Private Eye could perhaps dig up something juicy themselves if they weren't such a sad shadow of the organ that used to embarrass establishment years ago.

Meanwhile, the tobacco products directive Dalli wrote continues to be adopted despite serious question marks still hanging over his integrity; despite Dalli ignoring the consultation on snus and justifying it on the basis that there are responses hidden away at the back of his sofa (hmm, millions of mystery euros 'privately' hidden away rings a bell, doesn't it?); and despite his showing he knows absolutely nothing about e-cigs.

The entire directive has been an exercise of incompetence, chicanery and dodgy dealing from start to finish; a damning indictment of arrogant EU self-regard and waste. Can we leave yet?