Cynical? You think not, well just ask Sixty five-year-old Gillian Duffy:
Wednesday, 28 April 2010
Cynical? You think not, well just ask Sixty five-year-old Gillian Duffy:
Tuesday, 27 April 2010
Monday, 26 April 2010
Sunday, 25 April 2010
A personal view by TheBigYin
All the things you do, all the things you say,
I'llwe'll be watching you!
Yeah, that'll do it, you bastard, you and
my your party fucked lied to me us smokers voters. To Brown and my now ex labour party I say this...I BLOODY HATE YOU, you, the Labour party, hate me, and my 12 + million voting pals so I have ceased to listen to you, all of you lying cheating bastards. I will be conned by liars and cheats now and again but even I can see that this is one lie to bloody often!
I cried through the lean years after every General Election, yearning for a Labour victory after 1979, even after the [Labour] disasters that had went before. In 1997 I finally was relieved that the Tory era was over but little did I know what was to replace it!
At first, in 2006, I still thought you would not go through with it, I thought that you were a caring party that was for the working class and working class ethics, and culture...how
fucking wrong were we was I?
In this video, you said:
Then you said:
The Labour party is the greatest force for fairness this country has ever seen?
Our country has been moving forward for the past few years, the Cancer guarantee, the fox hunting ban, smokefree public places and xxx.No, I am no fan of killing animals for fun but I do think there could have been a compromise between Labour and the hunting fraternity as could have been between smokers, pubs, clubs and businesses that should have business rights, a thing that Labour seems to frown upon, rights! Anybodies rights! You [the Labour party] trample over rights with an armoured tank.
Smoker, hunter, gatherer, you are being watched!
Wednesday, 21 April 2010
Click To Play
Eddie Douthwaite on Radio Leith FM
Monday, 19 April 2010
Despite there being no better way to scare men into hectoring compliance than to go after their virility?
A large-scale review of factors affecting sperm production found that how a woman looks after herself in pregnancy could have a major effect on her unborn baby's ability to father a child in adulthood.You see, it would be more believeable if he hadn't said that.
Professor Sharpe, of Edinburgh University, evaluated studies from around the world on the effects on male fertility of factors such as smoking, obesity and exposure to chemicals.
Or this when asked about his assertion that perfumes and body lotions could cause unborn kids to suffer infertility or cancer.
Infertility groups have said the issues of smoking, drinking and diet are more pressing – what do you think?And how exactly is this known? Well, we just have to rewind to the Godber Blueprint as it stood in 1979.
I couldn't agree more. I'm more interested in the environmental factors. You have to put these things in perspective. What we need to do in giving advice is first deal with what we know are important – about alcohol consumption and smoking.
Donovan's most interesting remarks related to smoking and pregnancy . He admitted that he couldn't explain how or why smoking harmed the fetus but suggested that, instead of worrying about such fine points, women be told that all unborn children of smoking women will be hurt . Donovan urged every participant to go back to their countries and publish estimates of the lethality of smoking and pregnancy based on the number of pregnant smokers . He urged this as an effective method to get women to stop smoking.Now, no-one is saying that smoking while pregnant is a good idea, far from it, but the scaremongering of Professor Richard Sharpe could be viewed as counter-productive and dangerous. In fact, his willingness to cause alarm merely by way of supposition is diluting potentially useful health messages.
How do I know this? Well, because Professor Richard Sharpe said so.
Pregnancy and fertility stories are very popular – what is your main concern about them?Did someone just cry wolf, Richard?
If people are constantly bombarded by these, they can become desensitised, so when something comes along that is important, they don't pay any attention.
A personal view by TheBigYin.
Ahead of the General Election the three main parties (and most of the others) have published their manifesto’s, whoopee doopy bloody doo! So which party does the humble, and much maligned smoker, all 12.81 million of us, look to for respite against the onslaught of anti-smoker
Which of these parties will amend or repeal the most draconian of laws ever to hit these shores? Vote Labour in again thinking they will say “we didn’t really mean it, we were conned by ASH et al into believing the junk science. We weally weally value your ten billion pounds
extorted levied at you for the sake of the children, that’s why we salt the economy with your money and will think of you when forming the new government when you elect us AGAIN? Don’t vote Lib Dems or the Tories just for change, we’ll give you more of the same, you know you love it.”
Are you going to get change with the other two parties? Or are you going to get more of the same? Which of the other two are going to give the smoker a break eh?
Ok, we know that smoking, and where you can smoke, is not up there with XXX number of trillion pounds we are in hock to the EU or the
wankers bankers, our laws being handed over, carte blanche, to the Eurocrats, or our sovereign autonomy being handed over by our government and our sovereign lady being gag-ga about signing over that sovereignty to a foreign power called the Common Market EU. But the Smoking Ban Experiment must not be ignored, must not be passed off as a law that is noble and just, just because the anti-smoker [ASH et al] have leavened the bread to turn a lie into a truism in the minds of the sheeple people. Don’t forget, you non-smokers, drinkers, fast food eaters that there is a group out there who try to influence your government about your lifestyle choices or habits, whither you indulge in these things heartily or not you can be assured that they will be asking your government to ban it!
Well we now know not to trust Labour (and, as a
ex Labour voter all my eligible voting life, and that was difficult to write,) after all they reneged on their 2005 manifesto pledge: (Ed: My emphasis throughout.)
In November 2004, the government published the white paper on public health, detailing its intention to introduce a partial ban, which would make it illegal to smoke in enclosed public spaces in England and Wales. However, an exception would be made for licensed premises such as bars, private clubs and pubs where no food was served. There would be a complete ban on smoking in the bar area of licensed premises, to protect staff.
So Labour screwed the smoker, and businesses that rely on the smoker, for the most part, for their income, like pubs, clubs, Bingo halls and Shisha Bars, BIG STYLE! And they are unrepentant, on page 35 of their 2010 manifesto they say:
Prevention and early intervention
The NHS must be as effective at preventing ill health as it is at treating those in need of care. Prevention and early intervention will be at the heart of our plans for a reformed healthcare system offering more for every pound we spend, significantly improving survival rates for cancer, heart disease and strokes so that we are among the very best in the world. (Ed: Go tell it to the Yanks Labour, Obamacare is going down a storm over there. I wonder which health care model President Obama is using?)
We all have a responsibility to look after our own health, supported by our family and our employer. The ban on smoking in public places will be maintained.
Wherever necessary, we will act to protect children’s health from tobacco, alcohol and sunbeds.
Gulp…SUNBEDS…whatever next? Who the hell has it in for sunbeds?!? Ohh, Gillian Merron, now where have I heard that name before? And I wonder where she gets her advice from…Ohh. If the public wants it, enjoys it, but this government thinks it’s bad for them, debate over, ban it! Another legitimate industry/business that will suffer under NuLabour.
Under-18s will be banned from visiting sunbed salons in a move by the government to reduce the risk of young people developing skin cancer.
Gillian Merron, the public health minister, said that voluntary action by the sunbed industry to stop children had failed and that ministers planned to introduce legislation to tackle the problem.
The proposed ban comes as research reported in today's British Medical Journal shows that more than 250,000 children aged 11-17 in England are thought to use sunbeds. It shows that up to half of all girls aged 15-17 in some areas undergo artificial tanning, which experts warn seriously increases the risk of malignant melanoma, the most aggressive form of skin cancer.
Two studies of children's tanning habits highlighted in the BMJ, which were government-funded and commissioned by Cancer Research UK (CRUK), found that 6% of 9,000 children aged 11-17 interviewed had used a sunbed. The average age of first use was 14, they found. If translated across England that would mean that around 250,000 children in that age group had done so. Girls, children of both sexes from deprived communities and those in the north of England are disproportionately likely to use sunbeds.
"We are determined to protect young people from the dangers of using sunbeds," said Merron. "Cancer Research UK's report clearly shows worrying levels of sunbed use by under-18s. The report confirms that voluntary action by the industry is not protecting young people, and points to the need to introduce legislation."
When it comes to this nations health this [Labour] government uses the Godber principle, which they have used to great effect to make laws that curtail the public’s ‘lifestyle’ choices (especially the smokers,) which are filed under “My knee just jerked!”
In 1975 our Chief Medical Officer, Sir George Edward Godber (a total anti tobacco zealot) cornered the ear of the World Health Organisation (the WHO) and informed them that deception was needed to change people’s perceptions of second hand smoke (SHS). He stated that if a programme were set out conditioning people to believe that SHS was deadly, then smoking habits could be controlled by governments - how right he proved to be! Nobody could foresee the colossal damage soon to be caused. All they (the anti tobacco zealots) could see was a world where nobody smoked, it was their eutopia.
Suffice is to say that what you do for [legal] enjoyment is under scrutiny by government ‘advisors’ which, in turn, is turned into a draconian law against your “naughty but nice” pleasures by your sharing, caring [Labour] government. Oh you lucky people! You’ve never had it so good.
1957: Britons 'have never had it so good'
The British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, has made an optimistic speech telling fellow Conservatives that "most of our people have never had it so good".
These days the ‘feelgood’ factor is lost on me as I stand outside a pub, freezing my nuts off having a cigarette and listening to my whining mates talking about how they are being treated as second class citizens and being denormalised while calmly saying “what can I do about it?!” Somehow 1957 feels more comforting, even under a Tory government.
Talking about manifestos and political parties I found the only one that talks sense:
UKIP believes the smoking ban should be made more flexible, and that some exceptions should be made possible - in short, 'That the Landlord should decide', to allow those pubs and clubs very seriously damaged by that ban to make alternative arrangements for smokers within agreed guidelines. UKIP is deeply concerned at the loss of 39 pubs a week ( for last 6 months of 2008, up on 36 previously and equal to 6 pubs a day closing ), many of which can be blamed on a fall in takings of 8 to 10% due to the ban, and the fall in AWP ( Amusement with Prizes ) Machines takings by 20%.
So there are parties out there willing to acknowledge that businesses are suffering since the smoking ban experiment came into being on the 1st of July 2007! Well that’s a start.
The ruling Labour party, months ahead of it’s much mentioned smoking ban review are proven to be liars, cheats and deceivers of the public, there 2010 manifesto said:
“The ban on smoking in public places will be maintained.”
So, months ahead of the smoking ban review my
beloved government of the people sharing, caring government have already decided that the smoking ban review will be a whitewash!
The government will review its policy on its partial ban on smoking in public places three years after the new legislation is introduced in summer 2007, MPs were told last week.
Eh, partial ban?
Speaking to the parliamentary select committee on health on the same day that she unveiled the Health Bill, the secretary of state for health, Patricia Hewitt, said the bill would mean smoking is banned in "virtually" every enclosed work place and public place in England.
"We will monitor the impact from day one, and we will have a full review at the end of three years," she told the MPs.
So you, and your bloody review committee will say that your Smoking Ban Experiment was a bloody success, despite all the evidence to the contrary? You and your cohorts in your party have already decided that the review is a
stitch up forgone conclusion.
Why should I, a
now floating voter, believe you and your party on other issues like the economy, immigration, jobs, housing, businesses or health for that matter? Truth is Labour…YOU SCREWED ME OVER, BIG STYLE, and I don’t forget!
You can guess where my
floating vote is going.
Thursday, 15 April 2010
Off with your head Andrew.
Reminiscent of school yard bullies, Andrew Neil, bully in chief, and belying his opening statement in the recording below, proceeded to verbally beat up Chris Mounsley, ex Etonian and founder of LPUK (Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom) as he went off topic and waded in about Chris’s blog, The Devil’s Kitchen.
Many bloggers have made commentaries on the interview so I won’t bore the reader with my ramblings. The last blogger I read on the subject was the inimitable Anna Raccoon and she was on top form, as usual.
I’ve found a kinship with a lot of fellow bloggers and I do so with Chris. Good luck with your reconstituted Devil’s Knife. And I hope LPUK goes on to bigger things just to give a smack in the face to that smug bastard who interviewed you.
I post this recording of that interview because some people have apparently gotten rid of their TVs, like Frank Davis, and I couldn’t bear foisting that fat, crass bastards face on you all.
Click To Play
Wednesday, 14 April 2010
Tuesday, 13 April 2010
Monday, 12 April 2010
Friday, 9 April 2010
|When socialising, do you object to being in the company of smokers?||Yes |
|No opinion |
|Do you still smoke?||Yes |
|Trying to stop |
|(Smokers) How many cigarettes do you smoke per day?||Under 10 |
|Over 30 |
|(Smokers) What age did you start smoking?||Under 10 |
|16 plus |
|Did you ever try cigarettes and not like them?||Yes |
|Yes But Still Smoked |
|(Smokers) Does price put you off smoking?||Yes |
|No Comment |
|(Smokers) Has the smoking ban deterred you from smoking?||Yes |
|Has the smoking ban affected your social habits||Yes |
|No Opinion |
|(Smokers) Do you smoke in your home environment?||Yes |
|With the information now available, do you believe that SHS poses a health threat?||Yes |
|No Opinion |
|Do you think pubs & clubs should have smoking rooms?||Yes |
|No opinion |
|Do you think pubs/clubs should have the choice of being smoking or non smoking?||Yes |
|No Comment |
All respondents were guaranteed complete confidentiality in the interest of obtaining truthful responses. It is felt that this objective was achieved.
Interestingly, only 11.4% of those surveyed stated they objected to being in the company of smokers (actively smoking) and a further 9.8% offered no preference either way, which relates to 88.6% enjoying the company of smokers.
Slightly less than one third of those interviewed (32.6%) were smokers on a regular basis with the majority taking up smoking between the ages of 10-15 yrs. (Some areas were earlier smokers than others)
None said they felt pressured into smoking by others, and all opined it was a matter of personal choice. Many had brothers or sisters that did not smoke.
Pricing structures had little or no effect on purchasing cigarettes; the majority opined that governments used cigarettes as a regular tax increase year on year. All in this age group showed a clear anger at the way smokers were being treated. Most were happy to forego other commodities in favour of their cigarettes. Many saw that the government had made smoking ‘cool’ again. The smoking ban has made no difference as a deterrent to this group, again, some even stating that they had smoked more in defiance of the ban.
In socialising terms this age group again described the Smoking Ban as a disaster for it had turned their social lives upside down with many smokers not bothering with pubs & clubs nearly so much as they used to, which in turn led to many of their non smoking friends following suit. Many reported local pub closures aplenty and University bar takings considerably down from pre-ban figures. Live entertainment nights were becoming fewer as pubs could no longer afford to pay the performers on a regular basis. We were informed that one singer was now offering a 2for1 service to clubs!
There was some concern noted insomuch that the ban was supposedly to enhance the enjoyment of non smokers but seemed to have had the reverse effect. Several opined that being outside with smokers was ‘a great way to get with new girls (birds)’! Many respondents stated that the British pub had lost its charm, atmosphere and most of all its own particular smell which had been replaced by body odour and cleaning product smells. Generally it was stated that as such the pubs were very ‘off putting’.
The vast majority considered that pubs & clubs should be allowed to have a smoking room or the choice of being a smoking/non smoking establishment-many citing closures due to the ban and the growing dole queues from the hospitality sector.
Most noticeable was the few that still believed the mass advertising in regard to the purported health risks from SHS (Second Hand Smoke). Only 7% considered it to be harmful whereas many cited vehicle exhaust fumes as considerably more toxic. This is in direct contrast to media reports from government sources.
Several also cited our rampant drug related problems as a far more pressing business to deal with.
During interviews, many questioned the integrity of the scientific 'evidence' behind passive smoking. The internet was much mentioned as the source of intelligence on the subject and as a powerful source of information.
All our respondents agreed that discrimination against a minority group; i.e. smokers, was wrong, with several quoting EU laws on Human Rights etc.
Much was made of the exorbitant costs to government for a law that has divided the nation-mention of “divide and conquer” was often made. The majority of respondents could not understand why a total ban was implemented in the first place when referring to the horrendous number of closures because of the ban. It was felt that government had grossly miscalculated the effects that a total ban may have. Ignorance or blind refusal to accept and publicise closures in Southern Ireland & Scotland was questioned for some respondents quoted the government line that Caroline Flint used in dismissing business closures pre-ban.
This age group proved to be highly ‘internet orientated’ which has led them have a deeper knowledge of the ‘behind the scenes’ work put into the ban by government. Many asked the question concerning ‘junk science’ being used when (quote) “80 odd percent of the world’s top studies show no direct link between SHS & mortality.”
It was universally accepted by this age group that this was a clear case of discrimination against smokers and very little to do with health benefits.
Questions were asked about the relevant health status of all those who had lost their jobs since implementation of the smoke ban. Of course, suicides were mentioned as it has been well documented that some licensees could not see any other way out of their misery and poverty, where once they ran a thriving business. Four suicides to date were mentioned.
Overall it is clear that this age group have not accepted the legislation with any degree of faith whatsoever and are quite prepared to rebel against what they clearly see as an affront to their dignity and human rights. Many of this age group gain part time employment within the hospitality sector but now find it exceedingly difficult to do so.
“I don’t smoke & don’t like smoking but what they are doing to smokers is disgusting-the law has gone too far”
“”I’m a student and I think it’s stupid that I have to stand outside like a naughty schoolboy just because I enjoy a fag”
“stupid law that has purposely divided the country and caused totally unnecessary litter problems. When we were smoking inside everyone used ashtrays. We had proper, uninterrupted conversations and didn’t have idiots sneering at us and waving their stupid arms about!”
“crap law from a crap government”
“gone far too far with this law”
“the law is a load of ‘bollocks’-sorry”
“ridiculous law. Why do WE have to go outside when we could have a smokers room-like what my dad did?”
“landlords should decide for themselves, not go bust because of some law”
“what are this loony government doin’ then? Tryin’ to ban fags altogether?”
“health values my a**e, it’s just an electioneering strategy”
“why can’t governments stay out of our private lives?”
“I feel sorry for the pubs n clubs, they got no chance of making a living now!”
“them shelter things are crap man, ought to be condemned”
Our landlord spends more time outside with his real customers!”
“too many boozers turning to food so the market will be flooded with them soon – and then they’ll go skint”
“are they gonna ban junk food next then ?”
“them in Westminster haven’t got a clue what life’s all about, they wanna spend a month up ‘ere mate!”
“check out the internet mate, it’s all lies and junk science”
“my old man goes out at 9pm now, cos the boozers shut (wink) know what I mean Harry- takes more money between then and midnight that ‘e does all day!”
“too much interfering from them in London”
“who’d wanna live in this country now, it’s f****d mate!”
“’ow can they say passive smoking kills when the WHO couldn’t prove it?”
“landlords should decide for themselves, not go bust because of some law”
“what are this loony government doin’ then? Tryin’ to ban fags altogether?”
“nothing to do wiv health, it’s just a social engineering plan they got”
“why can’t governments stay out of our private lives?”
“I feel sorry for the pubs n clubs, they got no chance of making a living now!”
“the so called smoking shelters are immoral, why does a pig have to be 95% enclosed but not us?”
“Our landlord spends more time outside with his real customers!”
“the health feaks don’t realise that cancers amplified alongside industrialisation-it’s called ‘the costs of progress’-simple as that!”
Liam Donaldson is clinically obese isn’t he, are they going to wage war on him next?”
“Down here mate you’ve gotta know the times and the places I’m telling you-nudge nudge”
“I don’t smoke but spend most of my social life outside with my colleagues-it’s a disgrace”
“Labour! Labour? The smokeban has killed their vote around here. Good riddance.”
“Are they banning highly toxic diesel fumes next week then?”
“Funny how they only believe certain ‘scientific studies’ isn’t it?”
Phil Johnson, Chairman of the pro-choice group Freedom2Choose who engaged in this exercise states, “It is obvious that the implementation of a total smoking ban was wrong when choice was freely available to cater for everyone. It’s appalling that 5000 businesses have closed and around 100,000 people are out of work as a result. The youth appear to be showing the way forward.”
Thursday, 8 April 2010
Some people believe that smoking cessation products such as Pfizer (PFE)’s Chantix or GlaxoSmithkline (GSK)’s Nicorette are a scam designed to fill drug company coffers with cash because quitting cold turkey is more effective and cheaper.
Those folks will get a little more ammo for their theory from a new Nicorette commercial in the U.K. which recreates smoking scenes from classic movies but replaces the cigarettes with the Nicorette “inhalator.”
Yeah, that looks very cool!
I have unashamedly taken the text below from Leg-iron, word for word, syllable by syllable. If this does not stir the anger and shake the apathy out of the smoker and non smoker alike then nothing will, you will have resigned yourself to your fate.
Government-sanctioned violence. By Leg-iron
There was once a woman who smoked. She went outside to smoke because if she didn't she would be fined and so would the establishment she was in. Outside, alone in the dark, she was attacked and raped. Apparently, the deadliness of second hand and third hand smoke does not deter rapists. There has been no word from ASH or the government on this issue. They are still partying because a smoker was attacked as a direct result of their actions. Make no mistake, the Dreadful Arnott is delighted at the news. (Debbie dear - you have no way out of this one. Please, make the attempt.)
If that premises had not been forced by law to be non-smoking, if it had had a choice, it might still have been non-smoking anyway. Therefore you might argue that this attack would have happened anyway. You would be wrong.
If the premises had a choice, so would every other. The smoking woman would not have visited the non-smoking premises if a smoking premises were available nearby. No such premises exists, nor is it allowed to exist by law. Anyone attempting to set up such a premises will be prosecuted, even though it would only be frequented by smokers and would therefore not trouble the delicate nostrils of those who don't like the smell.
Frank Davis draws a parallel with the Protestant/Catholic battle of 1549. He is exactly right. Catholicism was banned, but some Catholics held secret Catholic masses in private. They could not possibly offend the Protestants, they could not even be seen or heard, but they were attacked nonetheless. It was banned, and even if everyone on the premises wants to do it, even if nobody at all is troubled by it in the slightest, it is banned and that's that. Dissent from State decree invites punishment, even if the action causes no harm or inconvenience to anyone else.
Here it is again. All I hear as justification is 'I don't like the smell'. Well, that's fine. I have in the past proposed setting up a smoker's club, staffed by smokers with only smokers allowed as members. That is not allowed. No antismoker would be even slightly troubled by its existence but they will not allow it. We must do as we are told and soon, just like those priest holes in houses from the 1500's, we will have smoker-holes in our own homes so we can hide when the authorities come to arrest us. So the time for compromise has passed. We tried, you refused.
There are even those who seek to make this draconian ban retrospective. JuliaM points to the story of the taxi driver who was arrested for refusing to let a passenger smoke in his cab, over twenty years ago. At that time, a cab that was effectively not available for hire was breaking the terms of its licence. The cabbie wants retrospective exoneration because now, it is not illegal for him (or anyone) to tell a smoker to clear off and it would in fact be illegal for him to allow anyone to smoke in his cab.
Well, if he succeeds, every past and present publican can be prosecuted for allowing smoking before the smoking ban. Publicans, even if you no longer own a pub, beware of Labour's retrospective lawmaking. They have form.
But, when you look at that story in detail, some interesting things emerge. Firstly, he did not refuse to take the customer. He refused to allow smoking in his cab. That sounds fair enough, it's a private cab and therefore private premises. The customer wanted a smoke on the way to where he was going, the cabbie had asthma, so the two actions were incompatible. From reading, it seems that the customer accepted the cabbie's reasoning and agreed to wait for the next cab. The customer did not initiate any prosecution. It was an amicable arrangement between two individuals and there was no need for the State to be involved at all.
A traffic warden, a State employee totally uninvolved in the discussion, saw what happened and it was he who decided on the prosecution. The State, just like in 1549, could not accept that two adults could come to an arrangement that benefited both and harmed nobody, because it was against their rules.
I agree that the cab driver should never have been prosecuted but under the law at that time, he was prosecuted. Several bar owners are being prosecuted now for allowing their adult customers to engage in an adult pastime on their premises, harming nobody. Neither is fair, neither makes any sense, just as it made no sense to raid private homes in 1549 and arrest people for praying in Latin. The law is, and always has been, an ass. Even so, changing the rules and making them retrospective makes the law a complete irrelevance. If the law can change tomorrow to make whatever you do today illegal, then nobody has any idea what the law is now. That is worse than anarchy.
Worse, the NHS contains doctors who decide whether you live or die based on your lifestyle choices. Tipped by Dick Puddlecote - A doctor has been revealed as withholding oxygen treatment from smokers. Now, I just bet there are a few out there thinking 'Good. Let them die'. They will also be rejoicing at the rape of that woman smoker. Just like the Catholics in 1549, we are not really human, are we? Go on, admit it, you want to drive the trucks, and help dig the mass graves. The thought really gets your juices flowing, doesn't it? Aren't you so looking forward to being the one who turns the tap on the gas chamber? I bet you even have the uniform all pressed and ready to wear. Remember, when the time comes, all you have to say is 'I vos only obeyink orders'.
"I don't want my taxes paying for filthy smokers to use the NHS". I am a filthy smoker. I pay tax and NI. I have made no use at all of the NHS for about twenty years. I do not want to pay for you to use it, but I have to anyway. It is not my choice to fund it, as it is not yours. You have no choice. Someone takes that money from you by force. That someone is not 'the smokers', 'the drinkers', 'the fat people'. Can you see who your real enemy is yet? No? Maybe, one day, you will. Until then, you have chosen me as your enemy and it's game on.
The nurse who revealed this doctor's decision to play Lifestyle God has been sacked. The doctor has not. So, let's hear the old 'it's just a few individuals, not the whole establishment' line and then tell me how such a doctor could still be in post while the woman who actually tried to save lives is out of work. She also spoke of nurses saving up excess medication and using it months later. That stuff has expiry dates, you know. It's not just smokers who will die from out-of-date medications. It's one of the reasons I don't go there. Aside from the fact they charge me to tell me I'm scum, of course.
The NHS contains, and defends, doctors who withhold treatment from smokers that they would give to the real people. We are not considered worth saving by the NHS. Oh, we are definitely considered worth squeezing for the cash to pay for it, but if we ever try to use it, "we are costing the taxpayer money". Let me try to put this in simple terms for the extraordinarily simple antismokers out there.
I AM A TAXPAYER.
I pay income tax, NI, council tax, and a load of duty on cigarettes and booze - more than average - with VAT on top. Do not presume to tell me I am costing you money. I am not using the NHS. I do not claim benefits. I am paying for you to use it and in some cases, antismokers, I am paying your benefits, your child support, your tax credits and pensions too. So take your 'you are costing me money' whine and shove it where the smoke don't blow.
We can be refused employment because we smoke. We can be refused entry to anywhere because we smoke. We cannot object to that, although anyone else can. We are not permitted to set up smokers-only licenced premises. As soon as it has a licence - bam - smoking is banned. We are restricted in what sort of businesses we can run and in which buildings we can enter. With third hand smoke, we will be refused entry soon enough. The NHS can just let us die and that's fine with the antismokers. Smokers can be attacked and raped and the antismokers cheer. Does any of this sound familiar yet?
You antismokers are turning into Nazis and Communists and the Inquisition and Witchfinders and those early Protestants who dragged Catholics out and killed them. You are the same thing, all over again. You are the start of the next great pogrom. You are the SS guards and the camp kommandants. You are Matthew Hopkins's sidekicks and the East German Stasi. You are the red-caped cardinals of 15th-century Spain and the vicious killers of Pol Pot's regime. You are the ones who knit at the guillotine and cheer at the burning stake. You are all these things because although you have not realised it, they were all, all of them, ordinary people.
Just like you.
All it took was a clever campaign to convince you that one group of people - doesn't matter who - are evil and out to get you. You are frightened and you believe in the enemy you have been told is coming for you.
This government has turned you into a mob, and the next will continue on the same lines because you are useful to them. When a smoker is attacked, you are there, knitting at that guillotine. When a landlord is prosecuted for allowing smoking, there you are again, cheering as the stake burns. The government says it's okay to do these things so you do them. Soon, you come to enjoy them. Violence is such fun, isn't it? The only reason humans don't do so much of it is because there are consequences. Well, the government protects you from those consequences so you can play at the games you see in films like 'Hostel' and 'Saw' and the government will pat you on the back and smile. As long as you do it to one of the groups they hate.
Look into that mirror. There is an evil afoot in this land. There is an especially vicious breed of people, a new mob of witchfinders and Stasi and SS and Gestapo and Thought Police and Sandmen and Inquisition and every rampaging, unthinking mob throughout history. Every one of them, real or fictional, was Government sponsored. Ordinary people do the deed and take the blame. Ordinary people rip the entrails from the victims and those who nudged them forward can say 'Not me'.
Look deep into that mirror. Antismoker. Witchfinder. Stasi. Gestapo.
Look hard at the face you see there. Antismoker. Thought police. Inquisition. Kommandant.
Look into your own eyes and tell yourself - not me, yourself - that this time it's different. This time you have not been duped by a government bent on total control. This time your enemy today was not your friend yesterday. This time you have not turned on your own family members because they are the 'wrong type of human'. Tell yourself those things.
And believe it.
Then decide who you will vote for.
Tuesday, 6 April 2010
We have a choice, as smokers. We can sit back and accept pariah status and complain about it or we can start to do something about it. We can come up with schemes, drop them and say 'Oh, it won't work, we're all doomed' and wait until the smoke inspectors enter our homes and we have CCTV in the garden –Leg-iron-
Leg-iron, of underdogs bite upwards fame, has had enough, enough of being treated as a second class citizen and has started a fightback that all self respecting smokers should get behind 1000%!
As I write this watching the news on TV Gordon Brown is on his way to see the queen to dissolve parliament as he sets the date for the next general election, which will be on May the 6th 2010. The in-fighting between the three major parties will start in earnest as soon as Gordoom returns from seeing our monarch. The three main parties will, without any shadow of a doubt, court all major minority groups to elicit votes. However, the largest minority will be forgotten, the only minority, in excess of 15-25 million, that has state sponsored terrorism levied against them, SMOKERS. Every other group or minority have the protection of the law against victimisation except smokers, who bring into the exchequer in excess of £10 billion. Not one of the LabLibCon will try and court the smokers on the theme of amending or repealing the smoking ban. It’s time smokers started their own campaign.
On that theme here is Leg-iron’s campaign on behalf of the smoker and as I said, if you smoke and you have any self respect left then join him and spread the word.
See that? You can't smoke in it. It has no intact windows, no electricity, partial floors and holes in the roof. If you smoke in it, you will be fined and so will whoever owns it. They'll be fined for allowing you to smoke in there even though they had no idea you were in there. Ignorance of the presence of a smoker is no excuse. The law is clear - if you own it, you are responsible for making sure nobody smokes in it.
To many of the rabid antismoker, that law makes perfect sense. These are the same people who consider smokers as unthinking, weak, inferior beasts. The same ones who are terrified of amounts of tobacco smoke so small, they are undetectable even to a sniffer dog. Those are the enemy, and they have waged war on smokers for years.
To date, we have responded with 'Okay, let them have a non-smoking carriage' and they took the whole train. We responded with 'Okay, we'll have smoking and non-smoking areas, and even whole non-smoking pubs' and they took every public space for themselves. They have now moved on to smoke-free outdoor areas starting, as always, with 'the cheeldren'. Banning smoking in play areas - no problem, few were smoking in there anyway - then extending the ban to entire parks and soon all outdoor areas where the feeble lungs of a non-smoker might collapse if they so much as see a pack of cigarettes on display.
Now they are coming to your house.
We smokers have attempted compromise at every turn. We have not demanded all the pubs back, we have asked for some. We have asked for private smoker's clubs, staffed by smokers, but have been refused. The ban is total. No compromise at all. And we are called 'selfish'.
We are also called many other names, any of which, if applied to one of the government's pet groups, would get the name-caller arrested. We smokers are expected to shut up and get out of the way because we are inferior.
I say 'enough'.
The antismoker don't want any form of compromise at all.
Okay, that's how they want it. We will not compromise. We must now demand every pub, every restaurant, every bus and every train, every last space available as a smoking area. The application of a 'No Smoking' sign in any premises must be treated as if it was a 'No Jews' sign.
If you are so scared of a little tube of paper filled with leaves, stay at home. Stay out of sight. Go outside if you want fresh air. Don't like it? Tough. We didn't like it either but nobody in government will listen to us and nobody is willing to allow us any space at all. Not even in our own homes.
We have weapons. We have second hand and third hand smoke, and now we have the Smoker Breath of Death. Yes, the idiots believe it. All we have to do is exhale at them and we don't even have to be smoking. Make use of those weapons, don't be shy, you and I know they are totally harmless but our enemy believes in them.
Leg-iron even has his own posters. If you want to find out more and join in then visit here and read more.
Also read Frank Davis’s A Plague on Them All.
Smokers of the world unite.
Monday, 5 April 2010
What was the question again? Well yes, 2x2 make 5, what a dumb question.
Yep, another mad “research project” to further demonise smokers, lookout for more warning labels on your tobacco product stating “Smoking makes you thick.”
A study of 18 to 21-year-old men revealed that the IQs of smokers averaged 94 – seven points lower than non-smokers on 101.
IQ scores in a healthy population of young men fall between 84 and 116, but those who smoked more than a pack of cigarettes a day averaged just 90 between them.
Researchers in Israel took data from more than 20,000 healthy men before, during and after they spent time in the Israeli military.
About 28 per cent of their sample smoked one or more cigarettes a day, three per cent considered themselves ex-smokers, and 68 per cent said they never smoked.
Professor Mark Weiser, of Tel Aviv University's Department of Psychiatry, said: "In the health profession, we've generally thought that smokers are most likely the kind of people to have grown up in difficult neighbourhoods, or who've been given less education at good schools.
"But because our study included subjects with diverse socio-economic backgrounds, we've been able to rule out socio-economics as a major factor."
The study also measured effects in twin brothers – and in the case where one twin smoked, the non-smoking twin registered a higher IQ on average.
Prof Weiser said: "People on the lower end of the average IQ tend to display poorer overall decision-making skills when it comes to their health.
"People with lower IQs are not only prone to addictions such as smoking. These same people are more likely to have obesity, nutrition and narcotics issues.
"Our study may help parents and health professionals help at-risk young people make better choices."
The study was reported in a recent version of the journal Addiction.
I’ll say only one thing:
And if you think the piece of pap above was bad…there’s more.
Rich White, author of Smoke Screens: The Truth About Tobacco found yet more “research” claiming that:
- Cigarettes may contain blood - research
- "Insight into world of cigarette manufacture"
- Likely to raise concerns for Muslims, Jews
CIGARETTES may contain traces of pigs' blood, an Australian academic says with a warning that religious groups could find its undisclosed presence "very offensive".
University of Sydney Professor in Public Health Simon Chapman points to recent Dutch research which identified 185 different industrial uses of a pig - including the use of its haemoglobin in cigarette filters.
Prof Chapman said the research offered an insight into the otherwise secretive world of cigarette manufacture, and it was likely to raise concerns for devout Muslims and Jews.
Religious texts at the core of both of these faiths specifically ban the consumption of pork.
"I think that there would be some particularly devout groups who would find the idea that there were pig products in cigarettes to be very offensive," Prof Chapman said today.
"The Jewish community certainly takes these matters extremely seriously and the Islamic community certainly do as well, as would many vegetarians. […]
Digging around Rich found this:
In a claim likely to cause consternation from Muslim smokers, a Dutch author has published a book that claims that pig blood is used to make cigarette filters.
Pig 05049, written by Christien Meindertsma, lists 185 different ways that pigs’ body parts can be used, including in the manufacture of sweets, shampoo, bread, beer and bullets.
Pig hemoglobin is, according to the book, used to filter harmful chemicals in cigarettes.
The Indonesian Consumer Protection Foundation (YLKI) called on authorities to investigate the claims. “If the claim is true then the National Food and Drug Monitoring Agency (BPOM), the Ministry of Health and the Indonesian Ulema Council’s Food and Drug Analysis Agency (LPPOM) should immediately conduct a sampling test,” Tulus Abadi, chairman of the YLKI, told the Jakarta Globe.
Tulus said that Indonesian cigarette producers were using imported filters because they are not produced locally.
If the claims are true, Tulus said, the government has a stronger case to take a stand against tobacco. “As the most populous Muslim country, we should be really careful, most smokers in Indonesia are Muslims. How would they feel if they found out that the cigarettes they smoke were made using pig hemoglobin?” he said.
MUI chairman Amidhan said that MUI would not comment on the matter and would not conduct any certification test unless there was a request from the cigarette industry or the importer.
“Smoking is offensive and for now that’s our stance. However this information should be regarded as a warning for smokers to be more aware,” he said.
Professor Simon Chapman from the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney was quoted on the university’s Web site as saying, “many devout Islamic and Jewish smokers and some vegetarians would be horrified to think they were putting a filter in their mouth which contained a pig product.”
Rich is not impressed and nor am I:
“Professor” Chapman obviously did not feel it necessary to disclose either the name of the Dutch researcher or the name of the paper. His argument also hinges on extraordinary ignorance from the readers too. For starters, haemoglobin being part of the filter does not mean cigarettes contain it. Secondly, it is neither ingested through smoking nor harmful, and is used it beer, shampoo and bread, neither of which were mentioned by Chapman. You would think bread or shampoo would be a bigger issue for the religious communities really. Thirdly, he claims the tobacco industry is secretive - wrong. Ever since the Master Settlement Agreement their internal documents have been viewable by the public, and they openly list their ingredients for each brand on their respective websites for the world to see. Each ingredient, by the way, is certified for usage in tobacco products. Chapman also noticed “one” brand in Greece had haemoglobin, so hardly a major panic piece.
Seriously, this crap against one of the biggest earners this country produces, tobacco revenue, has to be fought with vigour, no holds bloody barred!