It's Like Christmas Eve For Nick Clegg

Personally, the news of another review of plain packaging looks like a stitch-up to me.

It is being conducted - in double quick time, we are told - by Sir Cyril Chantler, a paediatrician who is bound to believe all the rigged evidence or else he'll be ostracised by the rest of the public health Mafia. There is also the small matter of "enabling legislation" so that if a green light is given, plain packs can be on your shelves before you can say '20 Benson and Hedges please'.

However, others seem to think it's just a bit of politicking, see here from Simon Clark and here at ConHome. I was also taken to task by a lifelong Tory friend on Facebook, and a fellow jewel robber in Westminster commented via e-mail that "interesting politics are going on here ... pressing ahead just before or after next May's elections would be pretty unwise".

They may have a point, who knows? I suppose it would explain why Andy Burnham has been less than happy today despite Labour's wildest dreams of sticking it to the working classes apparently coming true.

And, it surely can't have escaped the coalition's attention that the public really can't be bothered to get excited about plain packs, as the public consultation showed.

Or maybe it did. Because Health Minister Jane Ellison - following on from Anna Soubry as the DoH's latest Nicola Murray - claimed on Radio 5 this morning (from 2:16:00 here*) that:

"When we did the consultation in the summer, actually, it was more in favour of going ahead"

Utter nonsense, of course, which was contemptuously corrected by the IEA's Mark Littlewood immediately after she'd finished waffling. But it is interesting that, despite the largest response to a public consultation in the history of the UK government, the results should be so badly represented.

What she was restricting her commentary to were the 'detailed responses', rather than mentioning all who had expressed an interest. By that, she meant almost exclusively state-funded departments; fake charities; single interest pressure groups; and other professional 'stakeholders', rather than, you know, the public. The fact that the figures showed a tiny difference between those paid to spend their time writing, as against those of us who sent detailed responses on our own time should send a message to Ellison. If she received it, though, she isn't letting on.

Perhaps someone should point out that there is a 'public' bit in the term public consultation.

Anyway, sod all that, this tabloid guffer can't be doing with trying to analyse why politicians seem so resistant to listening to the public right now.

But perhaps there's a clue in the reaction of Nick Clegg. This was the most telling quote of the day for me (do go watch the video clip).

"We have an open mind as a government on this, and if the evidence from the review emerges in favour of plain packaging, which I hope it will, it's a measure we would then proceed with".

He's like a kid at Christmas, isn't he?

Not "I hope it shows that we don't need to interfere", not "I hope, as a liberal, that more rules will be unnecessary".

Nope, Nick can't wait to get started. He is crossing his fingers and praying that he will be able to take business away from the packaging industry; desperate to see gratuitous gore become a part of everyday life; and almost coming in his pants at the prospect of causing inconvenience to retailers.

If the review were to find that there is no need for legislation, I guess he would be right pissed off. And even if the review found that plain packs harmed kids rather than deterring them, he'd presumably be frustrated and depressed. Because he was so looking forward to banning something, so he was.

This is the same Clegg, remember, who wanted to ""roll back the power of the state" and "restore British liberties" with the Freedom Bill that went nowhere.

What a pathetic mess politicians manage to contrive every day, eh?

* And if anyone cares to record that lie and stick it on Soundcloud or something for posterity, I'd be grateful.

NICE Are Not Nice At All

Another day, another case of counter-productive anti-smoker bullying.

Unsurprisingly, the BBC splashed this tiny story everywhere they possibly could; devoted their Radio 5 phone-in to it; and - of course - opened up a rare 'Have Your Say' page on their web story as per usual.

The NHS must stop turning a "blind eye" to smoking and ban it in all hospital grounds in England, according to new guidance. 

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence said it wanted to see smoking shelters scrapped so patients, visitors and staff could not light up. 

Staff should also stop helping patients out of their beds to go for a smoke. 

And patients who smoke must be identified and offered help to quit, the guidance added.

Sigh.

Now, NICE issue guidance on many things. They have issued 13 items this month alone, only one of which I expect will have crossed the autocue of Nicky Campbell or any other presenter on the BBC. Can you guess which it might be?

So what this boils down to, children, is that you're just not listening to them. The managers at NHS trusts up and down the country have been banning smoking in grassed areas, car parks and sitting on the wall by the main road, but the spurious reasons are so pants that people are not taking any notice. So put your hand out, you naughty boy, the regulator's ruler is to be applied to your smoky palms.

Naturally, by far the most popular comment under the BBC's article was the one which offered the most common sense.

252. landscape
My local hospital has a shelter for smokers. It's 20-30 metres away from the main entrance and off to the side of the car park so no one has to walk past it unless they choose to.
Still people stand just outside the doors but Hospital security are very good at moving people to the smoking shelter.
Perfectly fair way to deal with the issue.

Quite.

Indeed, this is what Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust found to be the most advantageous solution when they applied to construct 12 shelters back in August.

Mark Trumper, director of development and estate at the NHS trust said it would "continue to discourage smoking" on all of its hospital sites, but had "taken the decision to establish a limited number of smoking shelters for patients and visitors". 

He added they would "create a more appropriate environment" around entrance areas where smokers "historically" have caused "a significant problem".

But common sense seems alien to NICE, who don't seem to be very nice at all.

[NICE public health director Prof Mike Kelly said] “We need to end the terrible spectacle of people on drips in hospital gowns smoking outside hospital entrances."

Yes, it's a disgrace from a 'caring' industry to force them to do so. Bring back smoking rooms and the "terrible spectacle" can indeed end. However, Mike's solution would never consider such a thing, it's not quite nasty enough.

Is the NHS prepared to compound the disgusting treatment of smokers by making them walk even further away from the building for no reason, or by taking away their liberty to do so?

You guessed it. Mike suggests a system of social engineering, coercion and restricting liberties. While you're in hospital contrary to what you'd like to be doing - and most who are there will not be suffering from smoking-related problems - NICE want staff to take that opportunity to nag, cajole and bully you. Even to the point of not assisting you if you decide you'd prefer to ignore their advice and have a smoke.

Hmm, this public sector organisation seems to forget who pays their wages and those of every NHS member of staff in the UK, doesn't it?

A long time ago (it seems) the banning of smoking was all about secondhand smoke. It wasn't restricting your freedoms, oh no, it was about ensuring others are not harmed. Now, though, NICE want you hounded even in wide open carbon monoxide riddled car parks ... for your own good, natch.

OK, that's the rant over with, but now for the comedy.

If you read NICE's full guidance, there are quite a few astounding and often hilarious suggestions. I'll just leave these two here.

"Varenicline and bupropion can be used with caution in people with mental health problems"

Varenicline, aka Chantix, because a drug linked to 500 suicides should be fine for them. Nope, can't see anything wrong with that.

Whereas, on the other hand ...

• Encourage people who are already using an unlicensed nicotine-containing product (such as unlicensed electronic cigarettes) to switch to a licensed product [i.e patches and gum].

Bwahahahahaha!

It's not about health. Again.

The European Union And "The Rotten Hand Of Big Pharma"

Following on from yesterday's article here about the EU and its avoidance of democracy in favour of pharma lobbying, do watch VTTV's David Dorn explaining the disgrace in more detail and advising on how to go about embarrassing these motherfuckers into acting with decency.

Now, there may be many who think that there isn't a lot of point; that no-one in the EU is noticing. I can tell you that they certainly are.

A fellow jewel robber within the Berlaymont shared the EU parliament's social media briefing with me yesterday. It is a report sent out by parliament detailing the most significant mentions of the European Parliament on Twitter for each day. Here is their report for Monday.

·  “The European Union ignores science and common sense by making proposals that will damage the health of smokers and vapers” Ecigarette Research (230+ mentions) http://bit.ly/1aT4RIr

·  “They just don’t get it – Commission proposal for the regulation of e-cigarettes” Counterfactual (210+ mentions)  http://bit.ly/1cLmSHV 

·  “Bayer is suing Europe for saving the bees [petition]” SumofUs.org (100+ mentions today) http://goo.gl/ZVSkLY

·  “Prostitution: We need to see paying for sex as violence rather than vice” Independent (75+ mentions) http://ind.pn/1ekqOki

Top hashtags: #ep2014uk (180+ mentions) #eu (100+ mentions) #ep2014 (80+ mentions) #ecigs (75+ mentions)

A follow up e-mail received this afternoon simply said: "Same again today".

They're noticing, right enough. They might not like what they are seeing, but they are very aware of what is being talked about by real people.

This has always been the strength of the vaping community. Despite public health tax spongers continually pretending that objectors are merely front groups for whatever industry they are trying to destroy at any particular time, vapers are real people and can't be ignored. Politicians are timid souls, always easily scared at the thought of bad press from bully-boy prohibitionists, but they're far more terrified of real people holding them and their stupid pronouncements to account.

Electorate outrage - as highlighted at The Free Society today regarding what David Cameron described as the not "very sensible approach" in other areas of the Tobacco Control Directive (TPD) - is still a powerful weapon.

It's always been clear that the TPD was a deeply corrupt document, drafted by incompetent Maltese politicians and presented to a supranational body riddled with cronyism and infested by lobbyists whose motivation is anything but health. This leaked Lithuanian lunacy is just the latest shameful episode in its ill-begotten timeline.

On the plus side, it has exposed this arrogant and insular cabal for the revolting creatures that they have always been. I do hope that those who read here and harbour a deep dislike for the bully state will find a little time to shine a light on them by doing as David Dorn suggests above.

Whichever part of this ill-considered, pharma-designed, evidence-light, propaganda-heavy, illiberal and incoherent TPD nonsense you object to, do get writing, sharing, retweeting and generally making a fuss to make EU politicians notice more than they already do.

Pile it up, people.

The EU Doesn't Understand The Word No

My, haven't those pharma lobbyists been busy!

Via Clive Bates, it seems that Brussels is trying its best to ignore October's decision by the EU parliament and bring in medicalisation of e-cigs anyway.

A document has been leaked (see here) which details dozens of clauses which the EU's pharma sock puppets plan to insert into the tobacco products directive seemingly out of spite. As Bates describes:

Basically, the Commission has tried to smuggle in as much medicine-style regulation as possible, and then added the most restrictive commercial aspects of tobacco regulation on top – thus imposing the worst of both worlds for this most promising product. There are one or two acceptable things in the new draft, of course, but the very bad things listed hugely outweigh them all.

Now, my new gadget arrived at Puddlecote Towers on Saturday, this is the saucy little devil here.

So, for those who don't know much about vaping, let's measure how this one product would be affected by product-centric aspects of the EU's daft proposals.

- Allows only single-use cartridges.  No refillable units or tanks will be permitted.

Fail. Mine would be banned because it has a tank which holds {gasp!} a whole 3ml of liquid.

- Allows only flavours already approved for use in NRT.

Unless watermelon is a flavour allowed in pharma gum, my current favourite would be gone. Yes, watermelon, and you're laughing why?

- Limits nicotine density to 20mg/ml maximum with no justification

27mg here because it gives a satisfying kick. Knock it down and I'll be ordering more baccy from the milkman.

- Limits nicotine content of any container to just 10mg/unit.

Lots of little bottles instead of one big 30ml one, then? Of course, that's if I can find where to buy them because ...

- Bans all advertising in press or printed publications (except trade), on radio, TV and other audiovisual services and the internet.

I buy online. Without websites promoting their products, that's out the window too. This, naturally, also means that any smoker who is curious about e-cigs and wants to try them as a replacement - or even to quit - won't have a Scooby where to look.

It kinda looks like none of this is about health, doesn't it? That's probably because, as I have said many times before, anti-tobacco (and now anti-vaping) has never been about health. None of it. Only pharma profits.

As Bates describes:

Make no mistake, if implemented this proposal bans every product on the market today and would severely limit options for future products

Quite.

This does seem to give us a better understanding of the EU in general, though. France said no in a referendum on the EU Constitution in 2005, they were ignored; Holland also said no on 2005, they were ignored; Ireland said no to the Lisbon Treaty in 2008, they were told to vote again and come up with the 'correct' result.

The EU, it seems, simply doesn't understand what 'no' means, in any European language. Why the hell should they be bothered what you, the people, think? They have a plan and they're going to stick with it.

Please do go read Clive Bates' article in full and consider his suggestions for objecting to this illiberal and dictatorial behaviour to your elected rep. Whether you are a fan of e-cigs or not, this is symbolic of the problem we have with gutless politicians and their mesmerised idiocy in the face of the public health Mafia in general.

I'll be badgering my local politicos again, the poor souls. Cos you see that lovely bit of shiny up there? Out of my cold dead hands, you shitehawks.

NSFW

As a responsible blog, we warn you to exercise caution and clear children from the room before scrolling down.

You're probably well ahead of me here, but this sensitive material is? 

If you have been affected by issues covered in this article, please contact Samaritans.

Good grief.

Link Tank 23/11

More other people's stuff.

Sir Ian Gilmore and Alcohol Concern are lying to us

24 hour Tubes are on their way - the impact on London will be huge

More evidence that calorie counts on menus don't work

Science says you should marry someone as drunk as you

Why Rob Ford is better than most low life politicians

Merseysiders fear house price collapse after seeing their estate from above (pic)

Nanny Bloomberg moves to ban polystyrene cups

Why a tube driver must be paid £22.73 to buy a bottle of whisky worth £2.10

Amsterdam pays alcoholics in beer to clean streets

E-cigs that use real tobacco

Rat-hunting dogs

Prohibitionist Fantasies

Snowdon has been feasting himself by debunking some of the shameless lies being promoted by anti-booze types during 'Alcohol Awareness Week'. You might like to read about the most recent here, here and here.

Yesterday, though, saw an uptick in bullshit from the temperance lobby, with a succession of astounding nonsense at their hashtag #TackleAlcoholHarms, tweeted directly from some conference or other packed with people paid out of your taxes. They are set for more fantasy claims today before knocking off at 2:30pm to celebrate raucously with a lemon grass and durian smoothie, I expect.

I was particularly intrigued with this tweet, though, and was educated by Mudgie as to how it was disastrously gullible.

The way we are drinking alcohol is changing! More people are drinking at home. Consumption at home is up dramatically #TackleAlcoholHarms
— Kay Gee (@kirstygail) November 21, 2013

You see, we have undisputed and government-trusted figures about this from the BBPA. Here is what they look like.

Now, that doesn't look like a 'dramatic' rise in off-trade sales to me. It more suggests that beer consumption is in general decline, which kinda trashes the 'booze epidemic' mantra. The one thing we can tell conclusively is that there is no "up dramatically" about any of the lines there.

Ok, so maybe wine and spirits sales are taking up the slack? Not noticeably, no.

Wine & Spirit Sales continue to fall as year on year tax rises hit consumers 

Off Trade

- Total volume sales have continued to slide, down 3% annually and 4% over the latest 12 weeks.

In fact, sales of wines and spirits have been flat for some time now, as these graphics show quite clearly.

Yes, these data are provided by trade organisations. But even if we ignore the fact that government trusts these sources and that it would be in the best interests of private industry to talk up their successes to assuage shareholders instead of highlighting declines, who do you trust more? Tax-funded lobbyists whose income relies on pretending there is a "dramatic" rise in home consumption, or trade bodies for companies beholden to shareholders and financial regulators to provide accurate information?

And then there is this, which is not a slippery slope and therefore patently false.

Alcohol Promotion - Interesting comparison between how warning labels on cigarettes could be transposed to alcohol #TackleAlcoholHarms
— Temp. Sgt Mick Urwin (@AlcoholHarmCop) November 21, 2013

It took 50yrs to reduce the harm from smoking - hopefully alcohol won't take that long ! #TackleAlcoholHarms #talkdrink
— Temp. Sgt Mick Urwin (@AlcoholHarmCop) November 21, 2013

They're not even hiding it any more.