Their Lips Move

I describe regularly how the tobacco control template can help us predict the future path of regulation in other areas such as alcohol, and foods rich in fat, sugar or salt. But the smoking debate can also tell us a lot about how modern politics works (or, more accurately, doesn't) in general.

For there is no other issue which is so very adept at showing MPs up as hypocritical, anti-democratic arseholes.

Take the tobacco display ban, for example.

Mike Penning, the shadow health minister, told the National Federation of Retail Newsagents: "I am not a lawyer but I have always been concerned whether the Government's legislation on this is legal."

Mr Pelling said the Conservatives, if elected, would bring the matter back before Parliament.

That was in April 2010 when they wanted your vote.

It took less than a year - in which time they had received those votes and now couldn't give a flying fig what you think - for an astounding u-turn to have taken place.

Tobacco displays in shops will be banned in England as part of a package of measures to discourage smoking.

A consultation will also be launched on whether manufacturers should be forced to put cigarettes into plain packets.

So, not only did the matter not get within a country mile of parliament, but the 'next logical step' was being mooted before the last one had even surmounted a judicial review.

Trust in politics? Pull the other one.

The smoking ban itself is another acute reinforcement of the adage which states that you know when an MP is lying because their lips move.

In 2006, Tory MPs voted 3 to 1 to allow exemptions to the ban. You'd think, then, that they'd be more than happy to conduct an impartial review of it, as was promised in the initial legislation. Wouldn't you?

Under Labour, the sole premise of the third year review was a purely politicial one. It was to be a rubber-stamping exercise by way of a report commissioned from one of the most biased sources it could be possible to choose, as Chris Snowdon explains.

It was entirely written by Linda Bauld, a professional anti-smoker who is a member of the ASH Advisory Council, a member of the Smokefree South West Programme Board and a member of the International Network of Women Against Tobacco. It would be hard to imagine anyone less qualified to produce an "independent review".

Politically, it would have been extremely easy for the government to have binned Bauld's review as being fatally flawed. There could even have been some mileage to be made by highlighting how very corrupt Labour are for even considering Bauld for the job in the first place. That in the coalition's 'new politics' this kind of behaviour is no longer acceptable and therefore a truly independent review is well overdue.

Nope. Lansley and Milton just released the steaming effluence anyway as part of their justification for ever more stifling measures ... which they had rubbished while in opposition.

The result is that we have a piece of legislation which has been ruthlessly implemented to the letter, except for the part which mandated an asssessment of the impact on the public, and business, as a result of its terms. That bit's been banished to the basement like some embarrassingly gay Victorian uncle.

Their blithe dismissal of common sense hasn't gone unnoticed, though, for the simple reason that Bauld's review was just too one-sided. To say that the hospitality industry has not suffered any inconvenience at all since July 2007 is quite absurd, and goes against the experiences of everyone in the country who isn't handsomely paid to say the opposite, as Snowdon puts very succinctly.

It is at odds with what publicans, market analysts, customers, publicans and the stock market have said. It defies reason, common sense and the evidence of one's own eyes for ASH [of which Bauld is a member] to continue with this charade.

At time of publication, I pointed out a few of the logic-bending contortions employed by Bauld, such as self-referencing and the regurgitation of blatantly biased studies which conflict with the state's own NHS data, but Snowdon highlights a critique by Imperial Tobacco which comprehensively pulls her fairy story apart. It's well worth a read.

As well as spotting, like I did, that a source as tainted as Bauld had referenced her own equally financially-motivated studies, it highlights her work as being a systematic exercise in avoiding the truth at all costs.

Linda Bauld suffers from a peculiar nasal problem

She completely ignores any evidence on pub closures conducted by those in the trade, for example; makes assertions without allowing the data on which they based to be openly scrutinised; ignores potential weaknesses in the sources employed; chooses to use declarations of quitting 'intent' instead of real measurable actual statistics; misrepresents the conclusions of studies into air quality and - most damning of all for Lansley and Milton - fails miserably to reach the standards set out by the government's own Regulatory Policy Committee on evidence which MPs should take seriously.

Principled science it certainly ain't, yet it cost just shy of £1m of your taxes and has been swallowed whole by the coalition. You know, the same bunch who gleefully declared last May that there was a change in the air and that things were going to be different now that they are in charge.

Bollocks, wasn't it?

The simple truth is that we have still had no proper review of the Health Act 2006, and the three main party front benches are quite happy for there never to be one. They have made their minds up, and any old biased poppycock will do to prevent their having to face the appalling thought of being properly accountable to the electorate over their anti-social, highly destructive, and disgustingly draconian laws.

The only thing that really matters in political circles is the collective ego of those in charge, the myth of democracy just draws a thin veil of respectability over their deeply damaging authoritarianism and encouragement of unintended consequences.

It's the same story with every area the state interferes in, it's just that their self-important lying and reliance on fake science is most transparent when tobacco is involved.

It matters not who you vote for in early 21st century Britain. The left, right and centre of politics is rotten to the very core.

Give us our independent state-mandated review, you hideous, venal, self-serving bastards.

Stony Stratford Councillor Struggles With His Evidence

Say, for the sake of argument, you were a councillor. And say you hypothetically decided to propose something as ludicrous as a total smoking ban outdoors on the premise that:

"When you walk through the high street in any town smoke is in your face and harming you and any children there. Smokers then get their butt, which is full of saliva, and chuck it on the floor. It costs millions to clear street rubbish, and goodness knows what a child could pick up from them. If I make the environment cleaner and save on council tax, sometimes you have to take the bull by the horns."

And say you were approached by BBC Look East to appear in a feature on such a proposal.

Would you:

a) Tactfully decline under the weight of adverse publicity - you're a savvy politician, after all?
b) Agree to do so, and back your rhetoric up with examples from the town you represent?
or c) Be filmed in anywhere but the place which would be forced to suffer your lunacy?

Guess which option Councillor Bartlett chose.

The proposed smoking ban in Stony Stratford was featured on the BBC's Look East programme last night, 30th June.

Stony Stratford Town Councillor Paul Bartlett, the man who is making the proposal is, rather strangely, interviewed and shown picking up cigarette butts outside the Tesco's Store in Kingston, Milton Keynes. That's nearly 10 miles away from the picturesque High Street of Stony Stratford!

In another shot, the Smoke Room window of The Swan pub in Old Stratford is shown. That may be geographically close to Stony Stratford, but it is over the river in Northamptonshire.

Yes. It's such a massive problem in Stony Stratford that Bartlett was forced to travel for miles, and over county borders, to find evidence for his plan to ban smoking in a town where there is - judging by his choice of televised venue - no apparent problem.

I think this curious case requires further investigation seeing as the council is adamant that the vote will still go ahead on the 19th of July. I reckon I'll pop up there and have a look around, have a beer, smoke a bit lot, and maybe even track down Herr Bartlett for a little chat (if he's not mooching around in an entirely different town, of course).

Fancy coming along?

I'm serious, by the way.

UPDATE: Bartlett's BBC Look East appearance can be viewed here.

Link Tank 02/07

It's that time again.

Google chief warns of an upcoming internet censorship storm

FDA highlights danger of Chantix, anti-smoking organisations who advocate it stay silent

Across Europe, irking drivers is urban policy

The 10th anniversary of Portugal decriminalising drugs and it's been a massive success

Have the Tories rediscovered euroscepticism?

Australia set to ban just about all online sexual content

Advice for those aspiring to be an anti-smoker

Supreme Court restores parental responsibility by overturning California's video game ban for minors

E-cigs make you really horny

The French are getting bored with wine

In The Belly Of The Beast

There was a friendly little gig at Westminster on Wednesday, you may have heard about it.

I'm an incredibly busy bunny at the moment and have targeted limits on my time - as you will have noticed from the reduced output here - so ... of course I was there!

A highly-respected proper blogger has already eloquently described events, so I'll just chip in with the usual tabloid take on things to which you have become accustomed.

The day started on College Green with a gathering of people who didn't really know what they were supposed to be doing. It's to be expected really, since they are your normal men/women in the street, unlike the handsomely state and pharma-financed anti-tobacco lobbyists who are professionally accustomed to the ways of parliament, and probably on first name terms with Westminster security.

150 or so of pub and club industry personnel who have seen, up close and personal, the ban damage denied by ASH et al dutifully queued for their day passes - the ones not required by tobacco controllers who have laminated season tickets given to those who fly through the revolving doors on a regular basis - to be greeted with free food, beer, music and speeches.

It would be wonderful if this had been donated by a state which steals money off of every man jack of them on an ongoing basis, but it wasn't. Only tax-leeching anti-smokers qualify for such treatment, spending the money taken from us with the help of state threats and intimidation.

On a personal note regarding security, my jacket was scrutinised very closely on the X-ray machine when they spotted my e-cig battery (which does, admittedly, look like a .303 rifle shell), but just as I was about to pre-emptively explain, the female operator looked at me; smiled; and waved it through. It must have been one of my more pheromonically-attractive days. That's when I applied the cleverly-designed magazine to my mobile phone-shaped semi-automatic and shot every last one of the futhermuckers!.

Once within the ancient walls, those MPs who had been contacted by attendees and invited to discuss the possibility of an amendment - and who could actually be bothered to spend 5 minutes with real people - popped along. Mostly conveying the same message. It went generally like this (I could name names, but some such things are best left in reserve for now).

"Oh yes, the ban is OTT, and I agree with you that there should be an adjustment to the legislation, but if pushed to a vote I'd have to abstain. That's politics, sorry."

The die is cast. Only certain minorities are worth championing. More than my job's worth etc.

A line with which the BBC obviously agree judging by this appallingly slanted piece on Brillo's show. Watch as the studio MPs exhibit an astonishing lack of imagination (or simple-minded ignorance) of the vast array of different options for allowing choice for all. It seems we are, indeed, living in the age of kakistocratic government.

They're not all that idiotic, of course. A healthy contingent of unblinkered MPs mingled with other attendees of a very good turnout for such an event, including many influential political individuals.

The fine weather was immensely welcome as many took in the terrace view over the Thames while a HoC employee informed us that "smoking is prohibited in the parliamentary estate" - a rule which was *cough* impeccably observed, natch. You see, it's only members who are allowed to smoke on the terrace, not the public. There really is one rule for them etc on that issue, it seems.

Later, after having decamped to the pub for a couple of hours of refreshing conversation, I headed off into the dusky evening to make my way back to Puddlecoteville. And as I did so, a sign on Parliament Square seemed to express sage advice to anyone who has sampled the stench of self-important paternalism and grotesque dismissive denial of personal liberties around Westminster.


If only it wasn't necessary, my electronic friend. If only.

The Tobacco-Powered Electricity Plant Is An Official Secret

I understand that a follow-up request has been lodged to ascertain exactly which power station is tasked with emitting these highly toxic chemicals.

That was how I left it a few days ago on the subject of UKBA's contribution to electricity generation ... with goods confiscated from cross-border shoppers. A solution which does no 'stakeholder' any favours.

The response has now been received. Apparently, the destination of all that contraband is so very secret that revealing its location would be a threat to security.

I can confirm that the UK Border Agency holds the information that you requested. However, after careful consideration we have decided that the information is exempt from disclosure under section 31 2 (i) of the Freedom of Information Act. This provides that information can be withheld where disclosure would prejudice the purpose of securing health, safety and welfare of persons at work and the public interest falls in favour of applying the exemption.

We have considered the public interest there may be in the fact that the tobacco is shredded and used as an alternative power supply. Whilst the information that the Agency recycles its seized goods is already in the public domain, we feel that the disclosure of the name and address of the power station where the alternative fuel product is burned outweighs the public interest in disclosing these details.

There is an argument in (sic) to support the public interest in releasing this information on the grounds that it provides greater transparency with regards to outside organizations with whom the agency works. It may also assist the public in being able to develop an understanding of the processes adhered to in this instance however, ff (sic) we were to disclose this information it could substantially jeopardise the health, safety and welfare of the contractors acting on the Agency’s behalf. Due to the nature of the work involved all the Agency’s Contractors require anonymity in order to safely undertake the work of the Agency.

Disclosure of this information could put at risk the safety and welfare of the staff at the site where the tobacco is being shredded and transformed into an alternative fuel product. If this information was made public it could increase the risk of recovery by force of the tobacco product prior to it undergoing the necessary treatment processes. This is clearly not in the public interest.

In short. If they tell you where the baccy is being burned, hordes of disgruntled trippers are going to rock up with pitchforks and torches to grab the stuff back. Or are they scared of the perennially-terrified driving their diesel-powered 4x4s up there to complain about their pure air being contaminated? Could be either, but they don't elaborate.

However, secret the plant must stay as a vital matter of health and safety.

The instigator hasn't taken this lying down, of course. We're talking serious health threats here after all.

With reference to your reply to the above FOI request dated 29th June 2011, I am requesting an independent internal review of your decision not to supply the information that I requested.

You state that information is exempt from disclosure under section 31 2 (i) of the Freedom of Information Act as disclosure would prejudice the purpose of securing health, safety and welfare of persons. The information that I requested is to secure the health, safety and welfare of people that may be being exposed to deadly 'second hand smoke' from the burning of 'shredded tobacco'.

In view of this known deadly health hazard, I believe that the whereabouts of the burning of this 'alternative power supply' should be known to the public whose health may be in considerable danger.

In light of the recent assertion that secondhand smoke is more dangerous than sucking on a car's exhaust pipe, it's uncommonly worthy of the enquirer to go the extra yard on this issue, don't you think?

Please God let the place be in or around Milton Keynes.

Just When You Thought Milton Keynes Had Stopped Being Ridiculous

Cows made of concrete, a stolen football team, and now this.

A town is set to become the first in Britain to ban smoking from its streets.

Councillor Paul Bartlett, 50, wants to create a new bylaw to outlaw smoking in any open place or public street in the market town of Stony Stratford, Buckinghamshire.

The ban, which would be the first of its kind in the country, would be enforced by PCSOs, traffic wardens and members of the public.

Shorn of any character by its sub-governmental planning, the new town which likes to pretend it's a city has finally evolved to be the godawful nightmare that the state-led nature of its conception destined it to be.

Milton Keynes. A town containing real people, with real lives, run by a bunch of suits who have made the place a laughing stock for over three decades.

And are determinedly committed to doing so for the foreseeable future, it would seem.

Like Leggy, I do so hope they go through with this, because we really need Milton Keynes to continue to embarrass itself in order for the laughter to reverberate around other municipal buildings and save us all from the same level of bonkers.

If you live there, just consider this as 'taking one for the team'. With my sympathies, natch.

A Rumbling Thunder

Can you hear it?

Outcry in America as pregnant women who lose babies face murder charges

Rennie Gibbs is accused of murder, but the crime she is alleged to have committed does not sound like an ordinary killing. Yet she faces life in prison in Mississippi over the death of her unborn child.

Gibbs became pregnant aged 15, but lost the baby in December 2006 in a stillbirth when she was 36 weeks into the pregnancy. When prosecutors discovered that she had a cocaine habit – though there is no evidence that drug abuse had anything to do with the baby's death – they charged her with the "depraved-heart murder" of her child, which carries a mandatory life sentence.

Gibbs is the first woman in Mississippi to be charged with murder relating to the loss of her unborn baby. But her case is by no means isolated. Across the US more and more prosecutions are being brought that seek to turn pregnant women into criminals.

In this instance, it's the religious right in the US criminalising women who suffer unsuccessful pregnancies which authorities solely - and without proper substantiation - attribute to the mother's behaviour.

[Robert McDuff, a civil rights lawyer] told the Guardian that he hoped the Gibbs prosecution was an isolated example. "I hope it's not a trend that's going to catch on. To charge a woman with murder because of something she did during pregnancy is really unprecedented and quite extreme."

Well, that's a battle for the future, one suspects, and it's not difficult to imagine the new religion of public health proudly at the helm when it inevitably arrives.

We've already seen a few rumblings, and I'm sure we've all heard the "it should be classed as child abuse" line many times already with regard to parental lifestyles. So why not just go that little extra step and push for the prosecution of women who have problematic pregnancies while also being obese, consuming cigarettes, or drinking in excess of guidelines, eh?

We'll just have to take it on trust that those currently taking the opportunity to rail against the religious right on the criminalisation of pregnant mothers will be consistent when the idea is picked up by the predominantly left-leaning health lobby.