At last. The green blob is unravelling.

At last the MSM are waking up to the greatest scam of modern times. The relentless push to green us regardless of cost and indeed, lives.

It's an inconvenient truth, but the global warming zealots are to blame for the deadly diesel fiasco, writes STEPHEN GLOVER

The green lobby have been obsessed with the word CARBON to the detriment of all else. If it’s got carbon in it’s name it has to go. Never mind that the damage ensuing is far worse than the benefits.

Twenty years ago, diesel cars constituted a tiny minority. But following the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, most Western countries, including Britain, were legally obliged to reduce carbon dioxide emissions — alleged by some to cause climate change — by 8 per cent over the following 15 years.

As a smoker I’ve been bombarded by the insidious propaganda from the anti smoking zealots that my filthy habit is the cause of just about all the known ills that can effect all mankind. Strange that as smoking prevalence in the population has fallen by sixty percent over the years, Childhood asthma has risen at an alarming rate.
Could there just be a teensy weensy link between diesel particulates and the Asthma rise? I’ll leave you with one last section from the article.

Indeed, it is one of the ironies of this story that America — which, to the outrage of the climate-change lobby, did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol because of a certain scepticism about man-made climate change — is far sterner about vehicle pollution than any European country, including our own.
Haven’t they got it the right way round? A baby being pushed by her mother in a buggy, a cyclist and even an ordinary pedestrian walking along the pavement of a busy street are being exposed to unnecessary risks as a result of the completely foreseen dangers of diesel vehicles.

It’s heartening to say the least that the MSM (Except the BBC of course. They are still in thrall to the greens) are at last openly exposing the green credo for what it is. A religion gone bonkers.

Smoke and the state will snatch your children.

So it's come to pass that the state apparatus can take your children away if you smoke in your own home.

A two-year-old boy has been put up for adoption because his parents are smokers.

This has been reported in much of the MSM, but the smoking is cited as the main culprit.

Only in passing is the following mentioned:

The judge was told that the boy's father had mental health problems and that their home had been “dirty, smelly and unhygienic”.
There was also evidence of drug paraphernalia and the father had also tested positive for cocaine.

Now if I was the health visitor I wouldn't be able to bear the guilt of being the cause of a son being legally torn away from his parents for ever.

And I would hope that this foul creature will repent of the evil she has encouraged when she is finally on her death bed.

Responding to this case, Deborah Arnott, Chief Executive of health charity ASH said: “This is a very sad case. It should serve as a reminder to other parents or guardians who smoke that they should avoid smoking in the presence of their children because of the significant harm that can be caused by tobacco smoke.” 

Very apt.

I don't think I need to add anything.

Well yes, I think I will.

First it will upset any Feminazis who see the picture. We're not supposed to post pictures that may be attractive to men. (See page three of the sun for details).

Secondly, ASH and other anti-smoking groups will be foaming at the mouth that I'm glamourising smoking. My God, Think of the Cheeeeeeldren.

Plain packaging is the way to go.

I think not.

Plain packaging smoking materials, will not for one moment stop me smoking. I started smoking at school when someone offered me one. Although I went a violent shade of green and coughed for England, I was pleasantly surprised at the feeling of relaxation it gave me.

In all my life I’ve never been seduced by the colour or style of the packaging. It’s always been about the quality of the product and the price.

Of course now the price, is everything, and that’s why the antismoking Tobacco control industry and the government are heading into a world of hurt with the idea of plain packaging.

Which brings me onto why plain packaging should be abandoned.

Counterfeiting.

The health zealots insist that this is unlikely to happen. They have to say that as otherwise their whole premise falls.

Here are some facts about counterfeiting that I found interesting,  especially as it comes from the garden of England, Kent.

A recent survey by MSIntelligence revealed Gillingham topped the table for having the worst habit when it comes to smoking counterfeit cigarettes, with more than half being illegal.

It found 54.5% of packets thrown away in the town had avoided tax, while Poole in Dorset came second (50.83%) and Worthing in Sussex third (49.24%). Mr Turner, who has owned the shop for the past 18 months, said: “When I heard about the plans for plain packaging I thought it was loopy.

Now I don’t live in the Medway area so unfortunately can’t avail myself of a cheaper product. But I would if I could. (If there’s bootlegger in West Kent reading this then please let me know).

These counterfeit ciggies can’t be that bad as I haven’t seen any reports that the people of Medway are dying like flies yet.

It seems that the government will be making a rod for it’s own back if it introduces plain packaging as revenues from tobacco products will fall dramatically.

For those antismoker out there. Mull on this.

Supposed costs for all smoking ailments costs the NHS £2.7 billion per annum.

However, revenue from tobacco products is £11 billion. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. (Oh I forgot, you’re antismoking bigots).

Believe it or not, smokers are subsidising the ailments of the antismokers.

So what if all smokers quit tomorrow.

The government would have to make up the shortfall.

Working out on the back of a fag packet (Natch), it would work out that every man, women, and child, would have to pay £250 to make up the shortfall.

So a family with two adults and two kids would be taxed £1,000 more per year.

This is the price you will pay if you're an antismoker. I hope you can afford it. I shall laugh like a drain when I read that dreadful Arnott from ASH has has her house repossessed because she can;t afford her mortgage.

It will serve you right.

They're coming for you next.

For all you anti-smokers and the righteous out there that like Alcohol, are overweight, or like salt on your fish and chips,  you’re next.

The pic above is the template that is being used to scare you shitless that whatever you do is wrong and to make you ashamed of that little vice you have.
The powers that be, governments and many multinational organisations including the Club of Rome and  their agenda 21, have realised how scare tactics can keep you, the little people, under control. There is no study that has proved that ETS has actually killed anyone, but if you tell a lie enough times and appear to have authority, then people will actually believe it.

Now that they have de-normalised smokers, the politburo of public health have seen that their template has worked and now they're slowly trying it on other products that offend their nu-puritan ethos.

Traffic light labelling on food, health warnings on labels and minimum pricing off alcohol, and laughably less holes on salt cellars.

We are fast becoming the most miserable people in the world where everything you consume is deemed bad for you. There's been a complete switch from curing the sick to trying to prevent them being sick at all. They don't seem to see that what they might gain in physical health is matched by a rise in guilt and misery on the mental side of the equation. We do not need such a a worry in these difficult times.

I could also write about the fuel poverty we will come to experience in the next few years to barking mad policies to satisfy the green nut jobs.

However it is Easter Sunday, and I think it best not to swear on this day.

Lock them up

I suppose this may be the next stage of the game in the endless war of the Anti-smokers against the twenty percent of us who partake of a perfectly legal product.

Assault lighter

 Bearing in mind all the furore in the USA about guns and how they are classified I just wondered how the weapons of ignition of Tobacco products would be classified by the authorities. Here are three examples:

Will it be a case in the future, that when stopped and searched I'll be found  and charged for "Going equipped for the purpose of smoking"?

Bugger. I'm probably giving ASH and their drones ideas now. Plain packaging for lighters and matches may now sneak onto the agenda.

Time to find a boy scout and a couple of twigs.

The smoking war at sea.

This is the era when the badly researched science of second hand smoking was just starting to waft it’s ugly aroma.

Here we are off the coast of Iraq in early 2001

There I was onboard a massive grey painted ship just over the horizon from an enemy shore. The vessel in question is the Navy’s helicopter training ship and is sailing in her secondary function as “casualty receiving ship”. Not to be confused with a hospital ship. The reason being is that the vessel is fitted with a variety of armaments.

Hostilities have commenced and my Action Station post was I/C (In Command) of HQ1 (Command post for Fire fighting, damage repair, & Nuclear, Chemical and Biological threats). Adjoining HQ1 was the machinery control room run by a team of engineer officers and ratings.

Smoking areas on ships were a bit hit and miss at that time. It varied depending on which ship you were on.

I’m quietly sitting in my command seat when over my head set comes the somewhat worrying report from the Bridge that a Russian made anti ship missile search radar was sweeping us, and that the ship was going to turn and head out to sea at maximum speed. (Max speed being  a sprightly seventeen knots and sea skimming missiles have a habit of speeding in in the hundreds of knots).

Well naturally anyone would do what I did. I reached into the top pocket of my action coverall produced a packet of cigarettes and lit up. After a few moments a shout rings out from the adjoining control room, “you can’t smoke here”. My reply. (In wind up mode) “ Fuck off. I’m allowed to have a last cigarette before we all die in a blazing fireball in the next few minutes”. No reply.

Funnily enough no smoking in that space was never mentioned again.

Aside: One of the reasons I retired when I did, was the draconian rules on smoking that came about after 2007 onboard ships.

The Myth of Second Hand Smoke

narrative from a surgeon.

http://yourdoctorsorders.com/2009/01/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke/

The Surgeon General also stated that 49,000 deaths per year were caused by second hand smoke. As a surgeon, I was stunned, because I had never seen an autopsy report listing second hand smoke as the cause of death. Nor had I seen this as a secondary cause of death. So I asked six pathologists if they had ever listed second hand smoke as a cause of death – not one had. In my years of clinical practice, I have seen patients die from many devastating diseases, and yet I have never seen anyone who has been disabled by, or has died as a result of, second hand smoke. This was my first clue that perhaps there was more hyperbole than science involved in the reports issuing from the Surgeon General’s Office. To give a contrast: 33,000 people die per year of pancreatic cancer – all of the pathologists have listed pancreatic cancer as a cause of death.

And he continues.

If second hand smoke exposure is a significant risk factor for developing lung cancer, then we should expect to see increased numbers of cancer cases in non-smokers who are exposed to regular doses of second hand smoke. Has there been an increase in the incidence of lung cancer among non-smokers over the last 40 years? The answer is quite simply… No. 

Why is it that our health minister never gets to see articles like this? Instead they get fed a diet of obfuscation from the tobacco control industry, with words like maybe, could, it is thought, etc.

Personally, I think that the average minister in Government and their sycophantic senior civil servants are as thick as pig shit. No wonder no-one votes anymore. how many  MPs have held down a real job before

Would it not be more fitting if a government minister had some relevant experience to his job. Take our so called health minister.

Born in Hornchurch, Essex, Lansley was educated at Brentwood School and the University of Exeter, gaining a BA in politics. During his time at Exeter University, Lansley was elected as President of the Guild of Students (Student Union), as a Broad Left candidate.

It’s interesting in the above paragraph that he was a “Broad Left” candidate. we all know how the left love control.

In short, would it not be a prerequisite that ministers have to be qualified in a discipline to match their brief?

the Prime Minister must have run a multi million company.

The chancellor of the exchequer must have operated in the financial markets.

The Minister of defence must have actually served in the armed forces

The Minister for overseas aid should have been an ambassador to some shithole of a country.

Bye now I hope you’ve got the gist of my argument.

It all boils down to the fact the country is being run by people that are completely out of their depth. And it’s not going to get better in the short, medium, or long term.

You and me are screwed.

Think of the Cheeldren

I received an Email yesterday from a nanny fussbucket site that is blaming smokers for killing the newborn. Now I quite like receiving E mails, but when I receive drivel like that then I feel the need to reply.

In the Email the sender implied that smokers were mass killers of our youth. In it she attempts to state ten truths. Here they are:

1. Smelly baby – Probably the least important reason but still applicable; babies are known for smelling so clean and fresh. The smell of cigarettes is potent, and clings to anything and everything it touches. You really don’t want your baby to smell like an ashtray do you?
2. Fussy babies – It has been shown that infants do not do well in a smoke filled environment, and some studies have even correlated second hand smoke to a higher incidence of crankiness in babies. The smoke can irritate their lungs and eyes and make them uncomfortable.
3. Asthma – Studies confirm that children raised around smokers have a higher incidence of asthma than those raised in environments with cleaner air. Also, children who are exposed to secondhand smoke may have more frequent and more severe asthma attacks.
4. Poisons – Do you really want your baby breathing in all of those poisons? The fact is that secondhand smoke is full of irritants and chemicals that are harmful to the lungs. These chemicals include formaldehyde, arsenic, benzene, and vinyl chloride among others. Since babies have such small and delicate lungs that are still in the process of developing they are more vulnerable to the ill effects of these poisons.
5. Cancer – Research shows that second hand smoke can be just as harmful as smoking. In some cases, people who never smoked but were around smokers came down with cancer while the smoker remained relatively healthy. Secondhand smoke is a known human carcinogen containing a plethora of carcinogenic chemicals; chemicals your baby does not need to be breathing.
6. Lung damage – Recent studies reveal that babies who are subjected to secondhand smoke incur damage to their developing lungs which are quite possibly permanent damages. Their lung function decreases which can make them more susceptible to respiratory problems
7. Ear infections – The adverse effects aren’t limited to the lungs; in fact inhalation of secondhand smoke can cause fluid buildup in the ears resulting in ear infections.
8. Bronchitis – This is another respiratory issue that is seen more frequently in babies exposed to secondhand smoke.
9. Pneumonia – Babies breathing in smoke are more likely to come down with pneumonia than those in a clean air environment.
10. SIDS – One of the most frightening reasons to keep baby out of a smoke filled environment is that infants exposed to secondhand smoke are up to four times more likely to die of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

My reply:

1. Never smelt a dirty nappy?

2. Really. I'd just love to have that study to peruse. If you blow smoke in my eyes I would be cranky.

3. This one takes the biscuit. Smoking prevalence has fallen whilst Asthma levels have increased. The cause now being considered is excessive cleanliness in the infant's formative months.

4. It's the dose that's important. Next you'll be purporting that the wiff of SHS will kill instantly.

5. So you don't think that pushing your baby within feet of a car exhaust  is unsafe? You've actually stated that smokers are less likely to get cancer. Strange reasoning.

6. I'd like you to back up that comment with a link to that study. I can't find one that gives empirical evidence that your assertion is correct.

7.That little gem has never been proved.

8.Anyone can catch Bronchitis. I had repeated Bronchitis when I was young. My parents didn't smoke.

9.State your source for that assertion.

10. No-one yet knows what causes SID. The rate in the UK is static at about 300 per year. You set the cause of investigative science back to the days of necromancy. 

If you are going to write uninformed drivel like this and post it on my blog, then at least research the facts. If you wish, I can supply links that will give you the facts. I don't deal in populist hearsay.

Sniping at Smokers

Here we have another in the long line of attacks on a minority who like to take solace and pleasure in the simple habit of smoking. This article goes, In my view, a touch to far.

This so called Journalist, maybe in jest, but I suspect would dearly love this to be legal, advocates smokers to be shot on sight.

So let’s set a squad of licensed snipers on to the streets, with permission to pick off smokers whenever there’s a clear shot.

I confidently predict that the prospect of having your head blown off while enjoying what you didn’t realise would be your last cigarette would give smokers up and down the country an extra incentive to kick the habit.

Especially crass, in light of Yesterday’s shootings in Norway.

You may like to read Simon Clark’s take on it too.

And let’s not forget Dick Puddlecote

Longrider wades in a well

If you feel strongly about this hateful piece of journalism masquerading as humour you might like to send Lynn Hughes, the editor of Luton Today a quiet little missive .

It’s about time smokers were left alone. If I wrote an article in a paper that denigrated Gays, the disabled,  or Muslims, I would have the police kicking my door down and hauling me away in chains, faster than you can flick ash off a cigarette.

Stop it NOW.

The Stony Stratford martyr.

Listen to the high pitched whining sound

 

49 minutes in.

Another public service broadcast from TFE.

History of this story can be found HERE, and HERE

Stony Stratford–The end?

Well maybe. But I’ll be waiting to see if councillor Bartlett tries again on September 20th.

Councillor Paul Bartlett's smoking ban proposals were the main item on the agenda last night at the Stony Stratford Town Council meeting.

Members of the public were invited to speak on the matter before the proposals were voted on by the Town Council.

Councillor Paul Bartlett's motions were later rejected by the Town Council. Nobody present was prepared to second either of the two motions that were on the agenda for the meeting. As a result, the proposals were discarded and did not need to be debated on further by the Town Council.

The whole article is HERE.

H/T to Mr Puddlecote

A classic Antismoker

A certain councillor in the vast borough of Stony Stratford near Milton Keynes  blusters away on how smokers should be prohibited from smoking in public.

In his rambling diatribe he invokes SHS, Children, germ warfare (Saliva) , and the spurious argument that smokers are a drain on the NHS. (From Government figures, so called smoking related illness costs the NHS £2.7 Billion. However tax from smokers comes in at an excess of £10 billion).

Have a listen to his diatribe on the Jeremy Vine show. Then decide if you want councillors of his  ilk to run your local services.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b0128jv3

Starts at 35 minutes in.

If you have nothing to do on the 16th, why not go and visit the place and state your disproval. Others will be there.

Four excellent speakers have so far been confirmed, and the event has received support from The Freedom Association, Big Brother Watch, Forest, UKIP, Freedom2Choose, and - of course - our esteemed mascot.

Oh and the Media will be attending.

Local press will be in attendance and BBC Look East  will be bringing their cameras along on the day.

Further reading:
Smokers and non-Smokers alike should unite against the petty authoritarianism of Stony Stratford councillors - Huffington Post UK
Stick this in your pipe and... - The Commentator
A smoking ban standoff in Stony Stratford - AboutMyArea/MK11
Showdown in Stony Stratford - Frank Davis
Join us in Stony Stratford - Last Ditch
Join me and Dick Puddlecote in Stony Stratford - Dave Atherton

Signs of the future

If the country travels much further down this road of oppression, the sign below will likely become the norm.

The trouble with modern Britain is that so many laws have been passed in the last decade, no-one knows what is permissible and what is not. Where is the repeal bill promised to us after the election? That little stunt seems to have faded away into obscurity.

It’s the slow change from “innocent till proved guilty”, to “guilty until you damn well prove yourself innocent” which has overturned the fairness in our relation with the state apparatus. Parking fines, speeding in front of a camera, etc.

Oh and of course don’t swear at this article.

I’d like the Britain I used to know, back again.

Anti Smoking Manual

A little snippet from an Antismoking manual

Keeping a High Profile in the Media

Even if you’ve won all of the bylaw amendments you sought – and you’re absolutely exhausted– your work isn’t over yet. For the next few months, strive to ensure there are positive media stories, letters to the editor, etc., that tout how well the bylaw changes are working. There will no doubt be a backlash from smokers in the beginning until they get used to the changes. In the meantime, you have to counter their negative comments in the media, in comment sections of online news pieces and blogs, on radio call‐in shows, etc. Your job is to make politicians continue to believe that they did the right thing. It is not unheard of for councillors to backtrack on their decision and water down legislation.

Monitoring Enforcement Efforts

As with any smoke‐free places legislation, enforcement is a concern of both the public and politicians. Smokers will say that smoke‐free outdoor spaces bylaws cannot be enforced, why should police officers waste their time on them, enforcement will cost a fortune, etc.
In fact, smoke‐free outdoor spaces legislation is, by and large, self‐enforcing. Moreover, other than signage, it won’t cost much. It will take a few months before people get used to having to move away from others to smoke outside, but it will happen. Members of the public will start to ask smokers to butt out because they feel they have the power of the law behind them. No, we will never have 100% smoke‐free outdoor public spaces, but if they can at least be regulated, non‐smokers have a better chance of avoiding second‐hand smoke when they are trying to enjoy the outdoors.
Plant stories in the media about non‐smokers politely asking smokers to move to a designated smoking area or outside the smoke‐free area and smokers complying. Create the impression that the bylaw is working and it will!

That emboldened sentence really takes the biscuit. So lying  to the public is OK then.

Stalin would be proud. And my blood pressure has rocketed.

H/T to Freedom 2 Choose for pointing me to that piece of odious shit.

Don’t forget Drinkers and fatties, now they’ve perfected the method on smokers, you’re next.