Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Cat to be castrated after all

The Treasury have just published the results of their review of alcohol taxation. In general, this doesn’t recommend any major changes to the tax structure, but there are two significant exceptions.

The first is that they are planning to introduce a new higher rate of duty for beers over 7.5% ABV. The intention here is to increase the cost of super-strength lagers such as Carlsberg Special Brew which are clearly associated with consumption by problem drinkers. However, it will apply across the board and so will also hit traditional British strong ales such as Robinson’s Old Tom, and imported products such as Duvel and most Belgian abbey beers.

The report argues that such products will only see a small percentage increase as they are already typically sold at a premium price, but even so it seems unreasonable to penalise them when they are in general consumed responsibly and are not associated with problem drinking. Old Tom is not something you can pour down your neck at a rapid rate of knots.

I would have thought there was a golden opportunity here for CAMRA to campaign for an exemption from this new tax for cask- and bottle-conditioned products, whether home produced or imported. (In my view, the whole thing is misconceived, but obviously CAMRA can't be seen to be standing up for Special Brew, and at least this would give them something reasonably productive to gnaw at)

And surely what will happen in practice is that the super-strength lagers will simply be reformulated to bring them down to 7.5% ABV to avoid the new tax, so there will be a clustering of products at that level. Arbitrary tax cut-offs of this kind inevitably lead to distortions in the market place and are prone to unintended consequences.

The other proposal is to introduce a reduced rate of duty for beers of 2.8% ABV or below. As I’ve argued before, I can’t see this making much difference, as it is difficult to brew beers at such strength with much taste or character, and realistically the demand for them is minimal. On the other hand, had the threshold been set at 3.5% it might have encouraged a revival of the milds and light bitters which have become a neglected part of the British beer scene.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Minimum pricing on the way?

I was taken aback to see the headline in today’s Sunday Telegraph “Minimum price for alcohol”. But, on reading the article, it seems that all that is planned is preventing retailers from selling alcohol for below the cost of duty plus VAT. So nothing really to worry about there, although it might cause a problem if you want to get rid of slow-moving stock that is approaching its sell-by date. In reality, very little of this goes on anyway, and I suspect it will end up making no noticeable difference to anything.

Not surprisingly, the anti-drink zealots don’t think it goes anywhere near far enough. But I can’t help thinking that the idea that setting a minimum unit price for alcohol in an attempt to reduce “alcohol-related harm” is the logical equivalent of trying to improve road safety by saying that nobody should be able to buy a car for under £15,000.

Spuds glorious spuds

A while back I was taken to task in the comments on this post for ignoring the range of “hugely varied and interesting food” that is now available in pubs. But I still believe that the vast majority of pubs continue to embrace an old-fashioned, conventional approach to food that largely ignores the revolution in eating habits in this country over the past thirty or forty years.

I was recently in a pub that is held out as a local example of high-quality pub food. The menu included seventeen main dishes, of which thirteen were served with potatoes of some kind. The menu doesn’t offer (as some more enlightened ones do) the opportunity to swap one accompaniment for another. Where's the rice, the pasta, the noodles, the couscous, the garlic bread, the pizzas?

While not quite “chips with everything”, that isn’t exactly a warm embrace of the contemporary international menu. I suspect in most pubs claimed to serve “good food”, you would find much the same.

Saturday, November 27, 2010

NUVOTERS DEBATE


Keir Hardy, A Labour Party founder and it's first leader.

I see Wallace and Gromit Red 'ead Millibland thinks he can sort out NuLabour's problems

Below is my response to that which sparked a minor facebook debate and made me think about my politics and why they've turned the way they have.

Your party stabbed it's core voter in the back by pandering to the whims of the anti-smoking industry and the lifestyle police. As a fourth generation smoker - third generation Labour voter - I say Labour is no more. Your NuTony created a NuParty that lost its roots. Unless you recognise that smokers are somebody too, you will NEVER be elected again and you don't deserve to be!

AH - I dread the thought of them idiots ever getting in again.

JS - why did you ever vote labour!! even after the war, the bloody socialists freebies grew and grew its now outgrown the private sector whos taxes are mind boggleing the red tape never ending. think about it free cradle to the grave NHS. well it never was free it was bleeding expensive, dont tell me you voted for kinnokio and his leftie friends the liberals. who cant wait to desert back to labour, the cowards.please dont tell me you wanted Blair and not Hague .the unions never gave a flying f**k about the working man..And they care not a jot for the small business man. or for the pubs that have shut down, or that cigs are $5 a packet not a f**king jot..or about open door policy that Brown let rip. if thats socialism you can stick it..what a rats arse they make everytime they get in..PC brigade liblab crap..

JS - PS Ed miliband is a complete nerd, and if hes the old socialist he can take a running jump..in fact socialism is kind of control freakery..

AH - how can anyone vote labour?

Patsy Nurse - JS - I was old Labour for generational reasons. My grandfather fought WW1 and my dad WW2 both poor working class. You start somewhere with politics and for me it's always been about the party that supports the little man. I was't even interested in politics really apart from putting my cross in the "right" place every four years.
I never voted Tony Blair because there was something not Labour about him that I can't put my finger on. I then abstained from voting until last May when I finally found a party that spoke my language - a mixture of both Tory and Labour or something that perhaps I still can't put my finger on.
The smoking ban woke me up politically. It made me look around, and believe me I really wanted to go over to the Conservatives as my political ideology developed but I couldn't honestly see any difference between what they offer and what NuLabour offers.
The NuCons are moving things around, trying to put things right - I accept that - but in the little issues that matter so much to many people - and the important one of the EU - I only see things getting worse.
The Limp Dumps have never mattered to me. They simply take votes from parties that could actually do something useful to bring simple common sense and fair poltiics back to what was once this Great nation of Britain.
I think there are a lot of people out there who are like me even if smoking hysteria is not the issue that most concerns them.

JS - liberal party is no more and there hasnt been a liberal party for yonks. they are not democratic either. the labour lot have now become so far left its unbeleivable Blair was a leftie he was never a conservative not while he was married to chery f**king booth. Cameron is supposed centre right what ever that means ,labour are still run by the unions. the gimmy gimmy more of your money.. cigarette smokers are now so vilified even though they put 10 billion more in taxes into that black hole of freebies. its a disgrace. and my Grandad fought and my uncles in both wars small business folk who never claimed a penny. and would never vote for a socialist red flag flying party .think about it..and some uncles didnt come back. and my Grandad lost a leg in WW1 he was a tinsmith and had a small shop. he returned from war went back in his shop and made his own false leg . he died aged 46....

Patsy Nurse - I think we're on the same side in NuBritain JS.

JS - yes im sad I never met my Grandad or my Great uncle Ted ..bless them all those who fought and died . and those that fight today .. they do not fight and die for constraint on the British way of life,and our freedoms of thought.. our laws, our Country ,they fought for it , political correctness needs burying ..its not the smokers its the PC Brigade..what are these lot of marxist going to ban next.


Feel free while I'm away to debate why you've either switched your traditional party support, stuck with it, or are contemplating changing that support.

IT'S DIFFERENT FOR ...



Some things I'm itching to write about like re-educating Nigel Farage on the reality of homelessness and being a single parent or young parent, but they'll have to wait until I'm back from my trip.

Meanwhile, I'll leave you with my favourite Joe Jackson song and the pro-choicer's common sense views on the best way to fight the anti-smoking bigotry that denormalises smokers.

No change

It is common to see commentators ascribe part of the decline of pubs to “stricter drink-driving laws”. There was an example only this week in the Daily Telegraph article by Rowan Pelling I referred to below. But, in reality, while there have been changes in equipment and procedures, there has been no change whatsoever in either the UK legal limit or police powers to carry out breath tests since the breathalyser law was introduced in 1967. Indeed, the ultimate high water mark of the British pub trade was reached twelve years after that in 1979.

What has changed, though, is public attitudes, with a growing reluctance to drive after drinking even within the legal limit. In the early years of the law, this was widely regarded as normal and responsible behaviour, and many suburban, village and rural pubs prospered on this “car trade”. However, from the mid-80s onwards, there has been a distinct shift towards the view that drivers shouldn’t touch so much as a half of lager, which has become commonplace amongst new entrants to the driving population.

There are still plenty of people from their mid-forties upwards who continue to do what they have always done, although their ranks are steadily being thinned by age, death and infirmity. But, amongst their younger counterparts, the kinds of people who in the 1970s would have routinely gone to the pub in the car and drink a couple of legal pints haven’t, by and large, found an alternative means to get there, they have simply stopped going in that kind of regular, moderate way (although they may still have a weekend blow-out). And this has, over the past two decades, been a major and ongoing cause of the continued decline of the pub trade.

Ironically, because of cutbacks in traffic policing, you’re probably less likely to be stopped and breathalysed now than at any time since 1967.

Friday, November 26, 2010

Let a thousand flowers bloom

There was a particularly nauseating piece in the Morning Advertiser recently proclaiming the virtues of “gastropubs” and arguing that they should be seen as a successful contemporary evolution of the pub trade.

The growing band of gastropubs represent a golden seam of excellence, a burgeoning carpet of flowers prospering in the fertile ground of increasing demand for a high-quality, pub-based dining experience.
Pass the sick bag, Alice!

There is nothing wrong with pubs serving food, and good food at that. But the essence of a pub surely is that it is a place for people to socialise over a drink, and there comes a point at which a food-led pub has gone so far down that particular route that it effectively ceases to be a pub at all. And the mere fact of declaring your establishment a “gastropub” is putting two fingers in the air to the history and tradition of pubs in this country. I’m firmly with Rowan Pelling here in believing that “gastro” has not enhanced the British pub but ruined it.
Cut to 2010, and my parents’ old pub has a smart new Barratt-style dining room glued on its side, and the epic-length menu offers “griddled peach and Parma ham tart [with] balsamic drizzle” at £6.50. No wonder gastro-pubs turn a profit – but where can punters go to nurse an honest pint?
Many former pubs have “evolved” into successful businesses of all kinds from wine warehouses to tanning salons. Others have found a new role as fancy restaurants – it’s just a pity they continue to masquerade as pubs when in reality they are no such thing.

A PAPER WITH GUTS



At last!

An actual mainstream newspaper that actually cares about its readership's views and not just moulding a news agenda.

The Daily Express has come out fighting for the right to leave the EU and it gives good and valid reasons for doing so.

Today's edition, for example, highlights the madness of the EU waste of cash.

EURO MADNESS

- £350,000 for a dog fitness and rehabilitation centre that was never built. Plans included developing a hydrotherapy system to “improve dogs’ wellbeing”

- £4.5m for a fleet of limousines for Euro-MPs in Strasbourg. Green Party estimates already show that travelling between and maintaining the European Parliament’s two buildings in Strasbourg and Brussels already costs European taxpayers £170m

- £13,500 to Tyrolean farmers to boost their “emotional connection with the landscape.” They were expected to become “more aware of their emotional reactions to it compared to their prevailing rational economic ones.”

- £4,300 on a “Europe Horse” to promote the EU to German children. A booklet was produced chronicling the cartoon animal’s trip from Germany to Brussels, meeting various EU figures along the way

- £763,000 for a golf course, hotel and spa whose guests include German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The platinum membership fee for the club is 1,100 euros per year

We've always known the EU was barmy but I personally find it offensive that the Eurocrats promote those who disagree with this political project of being mentally ill or plain and simple nutters.

I know which daily paper I'll be buying from now on.

Add to that the paper's stance on the economically damaging and socially dangerous tobacco display ban and it's obvious that The Daily Express is worthy of support because of its comment sense and courageous approach.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

REPRESENTATION VERBODEN IN EUSSR



This is a classic example of EU democracy in action.

Note how Godfrey Bloom, the elected representative of the voter in Yorkshire, who wants him to speak up on their behalf, is escorted out by security because the EU does not like what he says.

The EU cares not about the people of Britain or any other country but only the members who enforce its rules in their own countries. I don't know who the English MEP is that is turning on his own constituency. I only know he is a traitor. He should stand for his voters - not for the privileged few in that tax payer funded room.

Those in that chamber don't have to be reminded that they work for us because they don't. We slave for them and there is nothing we can do about it. That English MEP doesn't care as long as he keeps drawing his fat salary, I'll bet.

Insults abound from the President and his cronies that UKIP is fascist and yet when a UKIP MEP returns the insult, he is thrown out. Surely only those that voted him in can evict him?

To misquote George Orwell, it seems all pigs are equal but some are most definitely more equal than others.

It is as well that the EU Parliament is reminded of the past so it does not follow the same path under the guise of new ideas, or new ways of thinking.

History should not be allowed to repeat. It's such a shame that what has become the EUSSR is incapable of accepting such criticism.

EU THREE RULE BRITANNIA



Nigel Farage is without doubt the best Prime Minister this country could have if only the voter would wake up and recognise that until we are out of the EU we have no British leader in anything other than name and appearances only.

David Cameron has about as much power as a parish council leader because thanks to NuLabour the last of our country has been given away and Dave is not bothered to get it back. He's happy playing leader knowing he doesn't have to make any real decisions as they are done for him by unelected president Herman Van Rompuoy.

We cannot even decide ourselves what laws are best for us or whether we can hold our own elections if Ireland is anything to go by. Dave just has to keep telling us to sshhh while telling the wider public that UKIP is a nutty party to ensure the voter stays compliant and uncomplaining.

In truth, he's just desperate to hide the fact that he has no power. Like Ireland, his "govt" is forced to attack the poor to keep the Eurocrats happy. Ireland, lets not forget, has been told it must cut welfare and the minimum wage among other things before the EU will let it hold it's own general election. A new party will change nothing. The EU has already decided for Ireland and she is not in control of her elections, laws, social or economic policy.

Our Govt can do nothing more than meddle in our private affairs to give it some kind of sense of being in authority. That's why it interferes with the little issues in our lives like what we eat, drink or smoke, because it cannot make the big decisions.

Those are made by van Rompuoy and the two other unelected officals - CND activist Baroness Ashton (NuLab) and a foreign chap few of us know called Barrosso. They are nameless, faceless, unaccountable officials and very dangerous for the cause of civil liberties. Our Govt is simply their enforcer.

Klaus Vaclas, president of the Czech Republic knows it too. His speech linked here is like an apology to his people that there is nothing he can do about encroaching EU control and power that aims to rob nation states of their cultures, identities, history and heritage.

As Nigel says, the suppression of national identity is what will lead to violence. Certainly it seems to me that if you enforce rules, regulations, and laws on people who have no avenue to hold an election to remove you if they don't like your ideology, then you are asking for long term unrest and trouble.

National elections currently don't matter. They are just a front. Nothing changes no matter what party gets voted in because the EU is the Govt and we cannot elect it. That's why all of the laws we hate so much will stay.

The smoking ban is one such example. We only have it because the EU insists. That is why Cameron makes no mention of it. He is too scared to let the British people know he has no power to change it so he brushes it under the carpet. Other countries don't enforce it as rigorously as Nanny Britain but they have it only because of the EU. Former unelected president Pottering was duped into it by the unelected EU SmokeFree Partnership director Florence Berteletti Kemp, who has no support from the public but merely heads an EU quango.

When the voter and their EU Parliament representatives wanted to meet in the alleged home of European democracy, they were banned from the Parliament building after one call from the unelected Ms Berteletti-Kemp. Just one example of how democracy does not work in Europe. That was when I woke up. A kick in the teeth tends to do that.

Free speech in the EU means you can say what you like but you will be ridiculed, condemned and slandered for it if the EU three don't agree. That's why UKIP has been criticised as "Little Englanders" or "Racists in Blazers". It's because the establishment is terrified that this new party of the people will be heard as more and more voters get wise to what is really going on. UKIP came second in the EU elections. It will do better than the Tories next time as disillusioned former Tories drift over to a party with guts and courage.

Van Rompuoy has tried to incite fear by claiming that without the EU state, individual nations would not survive. Of course we would. We have done for centuries and our friendships will remain unchanged.

What started as an avenue for trade with European friends and neighbours has become a huge multi-state state Govt that frowns on democracy. No one wanted this.

The only democratic thing about it is that we can vote in MEPs. They have no power, however, except that they can raise concerns and highlight the threat to democracy from the EU and the adverse effects its dominance has on British life.

Nigel is passionate and not afraid to speak his mind, like other UKIP MEPs but unlike Lib/Lab/Con party MEPs who appear to do no more than just nod agreements between naps as they let the EU dictators just get on with ripping Britain's soul out.

Some are just simply trainee MPs and career politicians like Nick Clegg who start in the EU parlt, keep their mouths shut, comply with all and everything they are told, and then get themselves a nice little earner as an MP in the castrated British Parliament when a seat becomes available.

There is only one way to end the EU oppression and rid ourselves of the conflicts that will come in a few years' time as rage rises in nation states and European economies implode. We must get out. That can only happen if UKIP is voted into the British Parliament. It desperately wants out of the EU and to stop paying the £120 billion we give to the Eurocrats but more than that it wants democracy back and wants the British people to decide their own future, their own economy, their own way of life, their own security, their own social policies, and their own laws.

The British people have never been asked how far they want to go towards cultural, military, economic and political integration via a referendum as is their right by constitution. The Lib/Lab/Con has continually denied them since 1973. Union with Europe was never supposed to be about three people who aim to remove power from national Govts. Isn't that what Hitler had in mind for Europe?

Polls show that 75% of British people want a say on whether we stay in the EU or come out. That 75% should vote UKIP in the next general election. Only by voting UKIP do they have any chance of getting a referendum and ending the tyranny that is the EU. Only by voting UKIP into the British Parliament can the people of this country begin to get control of their own lives back.

Other European countries feel exactly the same as we do. Once one country drops out of this hell, others will quickly back away too, and then go back to how they should be - proud of their own, tolerant of others, and able to make the decisions that the people and not the Eurocrats want.

Meanwhile it appears our elected representatives are not allowed to raise concerns about the way the the EU is run on our behalf

BBC VICTIMISES THE POOR AND VULNERABLE




From Big Brother Watch comes the photo above and a piece about how the BBC uses threat and force to intimidate people on the grounds that they are guilty of not having a TV licence before it's been determined whether they have a TV or not.

It brought to mind a phone call I got the other week from a young mum who was terrified that she would be picked up and locked up on her child's birthday because she had been convicted and fined for not having a TV licence when she knew nothing about it.

As someone who has no money other than what lasts half a week - basically enough to feed her child and the gas and electric meter - she has nothing left for any kind of pleasure - not even a bar of chocolate.

She probably shouldn't watch TV because it's against the law to do so without a licence - as is using a computer without a TV Licence also - but she simply cannot afford it.

When you're poor, little things like sitting down and watching CBeebies with your child for pleasure is a simple luxury that in this technological age is surely not too much to expect.

Sadly it is for TV Licensing who send the bullies round to intimidate such young families because they can. They can waste acres and acres of newsreel telling their viewers how much they care about the poor and vulnerable both here and abroad and the BBC is terribly biased about those things which it perceives could harm "the poor" like smoking and drinking.

But it has no qualms at all about threatening, bullying, intimidating and imprisoning those on low income when it wants it's very unfair share of their very limited cash.

The young mum caught without a licence once already paid a heavy price in a huge fine that she is still paying off. Because of this BBC greed, she would have to sit half the week without heating or light, or without food, just so the multi-million pound organisation can have its pound of flesh for the utter rubbish and Govt propaganda it spews out. It also needs to steal from the poor to pay the rich and fund the likes of Jonathan Ross's personal millions.

Luckily, she has managed to keep borrowing from Peter to pay Paul to keep the BBC off her back but then without warning, she suddenly received a letter from her local court telling her a warrant for her arrest had been issued because she failed to appear in court on a second charge of watching a TV without a licence.

She was hysterical and extremely upset because she had not had a second visit from TV Licensing, she received no court summons, and by the time she received a letter the warrant had been issued and the police were set to arrest her. If she had been unlucky enough to get picked up at the end of the week, she might have to wait until the Monday for her case to be heard. That would have meant two days locked up without having been convicted fairly of any crime at all. Yes, we really do lock up the innocent in this country simple because they have no money.

Her biggest fear was that she would either be arrested by police outside of the school gates or on the child's birthday the day after she called me.

I advised her to get a solicitor immediately, to ring the court and explain, and it appears the warrant has now been withdrawn but she will still face a court appearance when no one from TV Licensing even checked whether she still had a TV or not. They tried her and convicted her in their own minds without even bothering to see if there was any evidence to support such a conviction.

The BBC should not charge any fee. It is state broadcasting and does not work on behalf of the public but simply acts as a mouthpiece for the state.

It is a hypocrite pretending to care for the poor and vulnerable and yet being one of the worst offenders when it comes to using its great power to bully them into submission.

We are in an age of multi channel television. There can be no excuse for supporting the BBC when it does not support its audience. The BBC should advertise like everyone else. Not one ounce of quality would be lost if it did. It doesn't have any morals, it cares not about truth. It's time it was abolished and it fended for itself like it expects from so many young and vulnerable families it steals from.

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

The Manchester Minimum

Minimum alcohol pricing has recently been decisively rejected in Scotland, but the Manchester Evening News reports that the ten Greater Manchester local authorities are still pressing ahead with plans to implement a 50p/unit minimum in their local areas via a bylaw. It is also proposed to outlaw various on-trade discounts and promotions such as, from the sound of it, the CAMRA Wetherspoon vouchers.

The article is accompanied by a survey of personal alcohol consumption and attitudes to alcohol, which contains so many tendentious and loaded questions that I declined to fill it in. You’re on a hiding to nothing, really – if you say you only drink two halves a fortnight, then minimum pricing will scarcely affect you, but if you drink two gallons a week then you’ll be portrayed as part of the problem.

The comments on the article are overwhelmingly opposed to the idea. Indeed, you have to wonder exactly whose agenda the MEN is following in continuing to champion such an unpopular (not to mention illegal) plan, when clearly it is not wanted by the general public.

Monday, November 22, 2010

MIDDLE AGES POLICIES DON'T WORK



Despite the bullying it seems these damn smokers still won't quit.

I don't know why others are not giving up but the reason I don't quit is because my mother taught me to stand up to thugs.

I toyed with the idea of quitting in the late 90s but by the time the 00s arrived, the more Nanny nagged the more I felt like reaching for my roll ups to prove I was the one still in control of my own body.

I'm told that smoking outside has become cool for young people in a stylistic sense despite the freezing weather. Non-smokers are happily chilling outside with the smokers while a bit of "smirting" goes on. The antis are still moaning as they sit inside on their own.

Govts don't seem to learn that social engineering doesn't work. People will behave as they want and have done for centuries despite the threats.

Tobacco use is millions of years old. Historically smokers were executed, persecuted, and imprisoned at about the same time that courts put animals on trials for crimes such as murder.

Just over 50 years after the first smoker was imprisoned during the Spanish Inquistion in 1493, a sow and her piglets accused of killing a child in France in 1547 led to the execution of the pig. The sow's family was spared because of their youth and the fact their mother set a bad example.

It's great to see that we don't put animals on trial for breaking the law any more and we did make progressive moves towards smoking and smokers but the anti-smoking industry has dragged us back centuries.

Thanks to their backward stance smokers are still being sent to prison and they say the smoking ban is ... errrr ...progressive...?

The fact is - as the evidence shows - that no matter what the anti-smokers backed with big corporate cash and the might of the bully state do to smokers they still won't quit.

Money poured into anti-smoking hate really is taxpayers' cash wasted.

TEA - NECTAR OF LIFE



Nothing goes better together in my opinion than a cup of tea and a cigarette and the Japanese proverb below about tea could easily be true of tobacco also.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty.

For more lyrical descriptions of the nectar of life see HERE

Having just had a cup of tea and fag with daughter No 3 and grandaughter No 1, I can say that there is nothing better than compnay while smoking and drinking.

Grandaughter No 1 at four years old doesn't mind her mother and grandmother smoking in the least but she did moan a lot when a dirty bus spewing filth from the exhaust made her choke as we walked down the street.

She loves a nice cuppa tea too but then my children have intellect, taste and fair minds and all understand truth and beauty.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

FIRE FIGHTING



I will be donating to this cause as soon as I'm back from Prague and once my overdue payment for work comes in even though I think it's just fire fighting.

I'd much rather have a fund set up that can help us help all smokers by fighting the laws that enable continual prosecutions against them. First Nick Hogan, then Sheila Martin, and now the Mchales.

Some time ago I called for the prosecution of ASH directors for hate crime and fraud. A private prosecution was what I had in mind because I doubted we would get any help from the police against a Govt backed organisation.

I did make tentative enquiries about it but not in depth investigations. I was told the cost of bringing such a prosecution would be prohibitive and few if any lawyers would be willing to take it on. There was also a pro-choice view that a high profile legal ruling against us at this early stage of our development as a movement would be too much of a setback.

However, I do think with our host of scientific experts and supporters who have signed the Brussels Declaration of Scientific Integrity we could build a good case.

Other things we could do is challenge the laws based on propaganda which work towards our exclusion from society while encouraging hatred of our socially defined group of people which would be against the rights of other minorities.






Perhaps there is also something we could fight for based on people's private property rights.

By attacking the laws that oppress smokers and steal their property from them, we target our resources into saving them all from future prosecutions.

Meanwhile, Smokers Justice is the only voluntary group that I now support - even on a firefighting basis - because I know the money will actually get to resolve the problem I want it to.

Those who run it earn nothing - in fact they lose money because of the genuine free time they give to the cause. Every penny of the money that is only donated by the public goes directly on the case they support.

Compare that with Govt backed "charities"

H/T Dave Futers

UNICEF - CEO, receives $1,200,000 per year, (plus use of a Rolls Royce for his exclusive use where ever he goes, and an expense account that is rumoured to be well over $150,000.) Only pennies from the actual donations goes to the UNICEF
cause (less than $0.14 per dollar of income).

The second worst offender this year is Marsha J. Evans, President and CEO of the American Red Cross...for her salary for the year ending in 2009 was $651,957 plus expenses. Enjoys 6 weeks - fully paid holidays including all related expenses during the holiday trip for her and her husband and kids. including 100% fully paid health & dental plan for her and her family, for life. This means out of every dollar they bring in, about $0.39 goes to related charity causes.

The third worst offender was again for the 7th time was, Brian Gallagher, President of the United Way receives a $375,000 base salary (U.S. funds), plus so many numerous expense benefits it's hard to keep track as to what it is all worth, including a fully paid lifetime membership for 2 golf courses (1 in Canada, and 1 in the U.S.A.), 2 luxury vehicles, a yacht club membership,
3 major company gold credit cards for his personal expenses...and so on. This equates to about $0.51 per dollar of income goes to charity causes.

Fourth worst offender who was also again in the fourth spot, for every year since this information has been made available from the start 1998 is amazingly yet again, World Vision President (Canada) receives $300,000 base salary, (plus supplied - a home valued in the $700,000 - $800,000 dollar value range, completely furnished,
completely paid all housing expenses, including taxes, water/sewer, telephone/fax, HD/high speed cable, weekly maid service and pool/yard maintenance, fully paid private schooling for his children, upscale automobile and an $55,000 personal
expense account for clothing/food, with a $125,000 business expense account). Get this, because it is a "religious based" charity, it pays, little to no taxes, can receive government assistance and does not have to declare were the money goes. Only about $0.52 of earned income per dollar is available for charity causes.

SAVE TAX - SEE THE WORLD





Since becoming part of the Resistance Movement I've travelled to more countries than I ever would have done and part of the joy of planning my next personal allowance baccy trip is deciding where I'd like to visit next.

After one trip a couple of years ago to Budapest, I thought I'd try Eastern Europe again because I loved the free loving attitude of those who recognise oppression when they see it after decades of living under Soviet Rule.

I began toying with the idea of Poland and Gdansk seemed a good bet until someone pointed out that it's bloody freezing at this time of year. A Polish friend my other half has made in the town where I'm currently working, told of how he once had to jump out of a five storey building window to help dig the lower floors out of the snow.

I think I'd still like to visit Poland but I'll wait until my next trip abroad in Spring when I'll need to stock up again.

Meanwhile, inspired by Dick Puddlecote's trip to Prague I've decided to make that my destination. I go next week and return five days later.

I'm slightly disturbed that Dick didn't find any baccy on sale even though there were plenty of cigarettes and very cheap ones too. An internet search tells me that as long as I don't buy my rolling tobacco from the airport then I should be able to get it for five Euros a pack. I'll report back after next week on how the search went.

I don't mind buying fags if I have to. After all, they can be more economical. When I was a young skint mum, I used to smoke just 70 fags a week because I'd break them up and roll about four fags from each tipped cigarette thereby making my smoking experience affordable.

I'm also taking on board ASH's own advice. They crow about how saving the money from quitting smoking can lead to a nice little holiday at the end of the year. By being part of the Resistance, I've found that the tax I save does indeed amount to a nice little holiday - but more than one each year.

My trip with cheap flight and accommodation for two people is just over £300 all in. I will be spending about £300 on my personal 3k allowance. The money I'll spend in Prague would have been spent here during a week off but then there is no point in smokers holidaying in the UK anymore. The NuGovt doesn't want my £300 tax every four months or so. Prague is welcome to it. Anyone would think the UK wasn't skint because of the way it can afford to lose smokers' tax.

Spain is still on my list of countries to visit and I'll get there eventually - perhaps after Poland in Spring - maybe even next winter because I hear the climate at this time of year is great.

I would bet that the Govt is losing about £1200 a year in tax from me and I am not the only one in the Resistance who will not keep paying tax for the Govt to fund anti-smoker hysteria and Denormalisation.

GOVT BACKS RISE IN CHILD SMOKING



According to Chris Snowdon the NuGovt has shown itself to be as gullible as the last in backing moves to increase child smoking.

The government is currently planning to ask retailers to cover up their displays of cigarettes from next year to protect children. But now cigarette packets could also be made a standard colour like grey, rather than the existing bright colours.


In effectively announcing the tobacco display ban they have taken control of tobacco sales from the beleagured small shop owner and put them into the hands of criminals who won't check ID to see if their customers are under age.

But then that socially backward organisation ASH - which lies to achieve it's ideological aims - wants more children to start smoking to ensure that ASH can continue into the next generation and beyond.

The above video serves as a reminder that criminals all over the world will be celebrating this news and setting up business plans for when tobacco becomes illegal and smokers are criminalised.

I mean hiding things that are bad from you from shop displays immediately leads to lack of sales doesn't it? Just ask the millionaire black market drug dealers. They'll tell you that no one uses illegal drugs - not even the 12 year olds - because they don't see them on the shop shelves.

The most disturbing part of the news that NuTories/ConDems have taken this on shows just how thick our leaders are. I really expected them to have some intelligence. Perhaps I expected too much. But then when you are as anti-smoking as health persecutor Andrew Lansley, I'm afraid that intellect flies out of the window chased by pure and unadulterated hate.

Meanwhile, ASH demands that no-one is allowed to see a pack of cigarettes and yet happily advertises them on it's Flickr page Can this disgusting group get any more despicable and hypocritical?

Parents who don't want their children to smoke now have more to worry about. Not only will the black marketeers offer cigarettes to the under age but other products in their stash bag as well.

Oh my Govt, what have you done?

* - Regular readers may have noticed that I've removed the "defender of liberty" image of Philip Davies MP. Not one Tory will get space on my page until I see some kind of tolerance being shown towards smokers from the NuGovt. Philip is great in that he has said and done as much as his party will allow. Frankly he is in the wrong party and until he moves over to one that is more Libertarian, then there is no point in backing him. His masters are not listening to him either.

The same goes for Karl McCartney. I'm grateful that Karl - my MP - is not Gillian Merron and he did vote for choice in pubs, but unless he starts taking real moves to end persecution of smokers then he will never get my support.

I'm sick of smokers and their representatives being frozen out of all negotiations. Permitted lip service to keep us quiet from Govt representatives like Karl and Philip is simply not enough. Tolerance or war - nothing between.

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Hoist with his own petard

It seems that Schadenfreude is one of the few pleasures still legal. And I got an especially enjoyable dose on hearing that Labour MP Eric Joyce, who only a few days ago had been banging on David Nutt-style about how the middle classes were hypocrites for condemining drug use amongst their offspring while happily jugging back alcohol, has been banned from driving for refusing a breath test. God knows how he got into that situation, but I can’t say I have the remotest drop of sympathy. People in glass houses, and all that...

The tipping point

Statistics suggest that during the next twelve months, the “tipping point” will be reached where off-trade beer sales exceed on-trade sales. Currently, the off-trade accounts for 46% of beer sales, but the report claims that, by 2018, 70% of beer sales will be in the off-trade,and a mere 30% in the on-trade. And I can’t say I’m surprised. The latest stats from the BBPA show a 7.8% decline in year-on-year beer sales in the past quarter, and a 44% decline since 1997. That is not an “adjustment”, it is a slow-motion car crash. Maybe the Magnet and the Marble and the Baum are doing fine, but the pub trade in general is falling off a cliff. And CAMRA’s typical concentration on a limited number of favourite venues means that many of its members - and many beer bloggers - seem oblivious to the wider decline.

No doubt some will accuse me of having a gloomy outlook, but you can’t argue with the cold hard facts.

THEN AND NOW





Righteous folks who care about people are often offended by the comparison between how smokers are treated in the healthist 21st century and how Jews were treated in the fascist 20th century.

The offence is caused because they believe the propaganda about smoking and want to try and save people who smoke from themselves. Their stance comes from a caring perspective but they don't realise that they have been lied to by those who not only hate smoking but people who smoke too.

They say that it's outrageous to compare not being able to have a fag with what happened to the Jews and I actually agree with them. But for smokers the issue is not about being able to smoke or not. It's about how anti-smoking propagandists backed up with Govt money and resources are inciting hatred against people who smoke to turn wider society against them.

Even if they stopped smoking the hate would continue. Their alleged rotten teeth wouldn't suddenly be clean and white would they? Any fatal illness they might have picked up wouldn't suddenly get better would it? They'd still be considered as a smoker even if they had stopped smoking wouldn't they? They'd still be accused of having contributed to global warming and the deaths of millions to come from their past "passive sharing of smoke" or "passivrauchen."

That is where the comparison with what happened to the Jews - motivated by the same kind of hatred - is relevant. After all, even some Germans back in the days of Nazism believed that all Jews had to do to stop the hate was change their religion. After all, religion is a choice isn't it?

Their Govt told them that Jews were as poisonous as mushrooms and like a bad mushroom could kill a whole family, Jews could murder a whole village, a town or even a nation. Perhaps it was the righteous of those times that cared about people who jumped on the bandwaggon of hate against Jews for the "greater good" and allowed the holocaust to happen by passive compliance.





Just as Jews then were promoted as greedy, selfish, dangerous, and fat smokers, so are smokers today compared in similar terms.

What was missing from wider society then to enable to climate of opinion to swing with the Nazis against the Jews - and other undesirables - was the principles of tolerance, fair play, and compassion.

Just as it is missing from THIS intolerant person who refuses to believe the world is big enough to share because he personally hates smokers - ie: people now defined as a lifestyle group.

Just as protection of the Jews and positive comments about the Jews was banned in the 1930s, so is any protection of or positive comments about smokers banned in the 21st century.


Whatever people might think of smoking, how ever much they may fear it, hate the smell of aromatic tobacco, or care for those they want to save from themselves, no-one can deny that the bottom line on this issue to keep both sides happy, and to end hate, is tolerance, choice and respect for people's differences and beliefs.

I don't believe that this will end in the gas chambers for smokers but how far down the road of hate do we want to go as a society? I believe the constant attacks on smokers by the state with public support will end with them being forced into sub-normal classes, criminalisation with laws made against them, and ultimately being locked up as the Jews and other undesirables were before the holocaust happened.

I find it ironic that ordinarily fair minded and compassionate people who are offended by the comparisons of hate directed at smokers now and Jews then are persuaded by the tool invented by Himmler - propaganda.

Friday, November 19, 2010

Spiked

There’s an unusual case here where police officer Myles Hughes escaped a drink-driving ban after it was shown his drinks had been “spiked” by giving him pints of Stella top rather than Stella shandy. Exceeding the legal alcohol limit is essentially a strict liability offence, so it is good to see the courts exercising a bit of discretion where someone has inadvertently ended up over the limit and genuinely believed he wasn’t. If his blood-alcohol level was only 85mg after four Stella tops, it is clear that it would have been well under 80mg after four shandies.

However, it does raise a few questions – did he not see any of the drinks being dispensed, and was he really unable to tell the difference? The barman’s motivation is hard to fathom, and if Hughes had really been planning to drive you might have thought it would make sense to drink Carling shandies rather than Stella shandies. You also have to wonder whether if he had been a member of the public rather than a police officer he would have received the same leniency.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Acting drunk

Police in North Wales have been hiring actors to go in to pubs pretending to be drunk and seeing if they can get served. While it is illegal for pubs to serve “drunks”, this kind of agent provocateur tactic does leave a nasty taste in the mouth, and of course it isn’t actually an offence to serve someone who is just pretending to be drunk. (To be fair, the police did make it clear they were not seeking to prosecute any pubs that had served these actors, merely give them a warning)

However, there may well be a divergence of opinion about exactly what constitutes being “drunk”. I would define it as staggering about and being incapable of coherent speech. But some po-faced individuals not used to pubs could easily intrepret someone as being drunk merely when they have become a bit loud and boisterous, so this kind of approach has the potential to rebound on pubs well beyond those recognised as trouble spots. This is a point I made back in December 2007 in a column entitled Spy in the Pub.

(Incidentally, I turned word verification for comments on a few days ago and it seems to have worked wonders in cutting down the amount of spam being received)

DIVIDE AND EXCLUDE

It's been a terrible week for smokers with relentless attacks that would be laughable if they weren't designed to incite hatred and disgust of consumers to put people off them if they won't be put off from smoking.

It seems that almost every day there is a new "study" or "report" that tells us that smokers are undesirables. The most offensive is the one that says our children are likely to grow up as criminals.

Dick Puddlecote came across this disgusting promotion of smokers as all of the horrible things that "normal" people are supposed to hate. It's all part of the plan to promote :

Smokers as malodourous
Smokers as litterers
Smokers as unattractive and undesirable housemates
Smokers as undereducated and a social underclass
Smokers as excessive users of public health services
Smokers as employer liabilities


Globally, this hate is oppressive and it is worse in other even less tolerant countries. This anti page links to instructions of how to get law abiding smoker neighbours chucked out of their own homes in Australia.

The effect of "Denormalisation" in the UK is division in every aspect of our lives. It separates us from our family and friends and turns neighbours against us when the science does not justify it. All that backs up "Denormalisation" is paranoid fear, hysteria and hate and these are supported by Govt when it backs the programme with laws such as tobacco display bans, blanket public smoking bans, approving the use of "non-smokers only" in job ads, and allowing councils to discriminate against smokers when fostering children.

Denormalisation also rips families apart and family relations are not something Govt should be involved in.

The story told by June on Simon Clark's taking liberties is one that most older smokers can identify with.

I had issues with two of my children in the past but things have improved as they have got older. I don't smoke at their homes and they accept that I will smoke in mine. I don't let them chew gum in my house. I tolerate it when I visit them.

The thought of June being banished as a leper to a specially designated area of her own house saddens me a lot. Perhaps my family knows that there is a line that I won't cross and to push me would end disastrously and cause huge emotional fall out that could last a lifetime.

They know I've been hounded from everywhere else. My home is my last refuge. I will not be humiliated here. I'm grateful that all of my children, two of them, however, really don't give a damn if I smoke around them or not, are level headed and intelligent enough not to buy totally into the anti-smoking propaganda.

One was particularly intolerant in her early 20s based on her dislike of the smell but not from fear of harm. The other became difficult when she had a boyfriend who appeared to object to her parents' lifestyle. My kids are impatient with my politics of choice but as they mature more they appear to understand where I am coming from - particularly in light of the slander against them as potential career criminals because I smoked.

They also know that my smoker mother, their grandmother, was the most loving person in the world and her smoking while pregnant with me, and my smoking while pregnant with them, caused no harm then or over four generations that I know about.

I recognise the signs that "Denormalisation" of fat people has started. It looks like they're going for "Fat people as a public health liability" first. I guess it won't be long before some new "study" suggest some sort of body chemistry scam that says they smell too.

It's the same format used to hype up fear of smoking and then smokers. First they come up with some "shocking stats" followed by fear of the future, backed up with calls "to do something".

I'm pleased to see that Lansley is not buying the crap about the need for a fat tax. I don't know if that is because the Govt just thinks it won't work or it doesn't support "Denormalisation" - a tool about as ethical for public health use as water boarding is during interrogation.

Govts that do support its use and development are not progressive. Govts that make its use illegal are.

BACK LATER



Meanwhile, I'm watching American Chopper about Orange County Choppers.

I don't usually bother with reality TV but this lot are great. They make great bikes. They make me laugh and I love the drama of the fierce family rows between Paul Teutul senior and Paul Teutul junior and how their long-suffering staff try not to get caught in the middle.

Anyway it's started. Back soon.

Monday, November 15, 2010

CREEPS AND LIARS




I see that biased publication the Guardian is spreading muck again.

We know that tobacco display bans have no effect on youth sales, they drive up black market sales, they ensure that tobacco ends up in the hands of far more children than legally controlled sales but this newspaper is so far up that creepy organsation ASH's arse a good organic fart wouldn't shift it.

Now the Coagulation Govt is actually doing something that makes perfect sense. It is basing it's next move on fact and not the hysterical whinings of self-interest pressure groups such as ASH. It's a shame the Guardian has come out guns-a-blazing on the side of the bigots. I would have expected better from a newspaper that is supposed to be "impartial" although it seems to have forgotten the true meaning of the word.

And this creep has absolutely no idea of what he's talking about :

John McClurey, a Lib Dem councillor in Gateshead who supports the point-of-sale ban, said he was concerned that many shopkeepers were buying the tobacco industry's arguments.

"So far, many small shopkeepers seem to have fallen for the industry spin," McClurey said. "Let's hope for our children's sake that the coalition is not so easily fooled."


He's bought the crap from ASH but then he is a Lib Dem and I find them to be the most naieve and stupid when it comes to swallowing shit spoon fed by prejuidicial fake charities.

When you are told, Mr McClurey, that "shopkeepers have fallen for indusrty spin", I am afraid you are missing the point. They've simply listened to their ordinary consumers. ASH et al will tell you that ordinary consumers ARE the tobacco industry. I say get out a bit more and actualy ask shoppers in these small shops what they think. You would be surprised at the answer.

I hope Jon McClurey gets voted out of office next time around. He is obviously an idiot who is incapable of independent thought and neither we nor Gateshead need such dangerous politicans who let themselves get voted in and then let anyone else but them make decisions about our future.

Check your facts and check the science. You will find neither agree with your prejudice about tobacco display bans.

END FAKE CHARITIES NOW!



There have been some great posts on Taking Liberties this week such as the interview with former director of FOREST Stephen Eyres who Simon Clark interviewed back in the days when life was normal and being weird wasn't.

Today Simon features a post about fake charities and concerns by Blad Tolstoy regarding throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Now ASH is most definitely a fake charity and does not work for the good of anyone but the political pressure group's own self interest and I agree with every word that Simon says.

I also accuse Cancer Research UK (CRUK) of being fake. It has jumped on the anti-smoker bandwaggon and realised what a nice little earner it can be but spends far too much money on inciting hatred against smokers than raising cash to actually do some research into what causes cancer and how it can be cured.

I keep thinking that one day I'll put this to the test. If I had a sponsored 24 hour smoke-a-thon for CRUK with promises of cash for every cig I chain smoke in 24 hours would CRUK take my money?

As for ASH, they are so clever but I wonder if the Coalition is really that stupid. When NuLab was in power, ASH pretended to care about "the poor". Oh how they crowed about "healh inequalities", the poor being "too stupid and too poor" to know how to make the "right" decisions.

Now, lo and behold, we have a Tory led govt and suddenly ASH is all about promoting how much the smoker costs the public purse knowing that for the Tories money talks and bullshit about the poor walks.

This organisation is scum because not only is it a fake charity, it is a criminal one. ASH incited hatred against people who smoke by telling lies and funding false studies with money that the smoker pays.

I for one will pay no more. I've just booked my latest baccy trip abroad and another country will get the benefit of my tobacco money. I will never buy tobacco in the UK again until this Govt shows it has a brain and it stops funding the anti-smoking industry whose only purpose is to make its individual leaders rich by persecuting those too vulnerable to stand up for themselves.

In short, ASH and it's "smoke-free alliance" are liars, bullies, cheats, thugs, and criminals.

It's time they were prosecuted for fraud. Benefit claimants who lie to get more benefit get prosecuted. ASH lies to get public money and it should also face the criminal courts for taking this money under false pretences.

And THIS by Mr Puddlecote explains better than I could how the science does not support the lies promoted by such fake charities.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Baby and bathwater

There has been a huge kerfuffle in the beer blogosphere in the past week or so about the role of CAMRA and whether it shoots itself in the foot by defining good beer too narrowly. The charge was led by Pete Brown, eloquently backed up by the Zythophile, and their charges were passionately rebuffed by Tandleman. Now, I will happily place myself in the “revisionist” camp, but my complaint really is not that CAMRA defines what it campaigns for too narrowly, but that, all too often, it seeks to campaign against anything that isn’t “real ale”.

My personal view is that, while I am happy to support “real ale”, as the supreme exposition of British draught beer, it is a definition that doesn’t extend beyond that sphere, and there are many other quality beers in the world that don’t conform to that definition. And even, on occasions, I might drink a pint of cooking lager, and will regard it as a refreshing, rather bland, industrial product, and not some kind of vile filth.

Tandleman says “CAMRA is a broad church, but it actually the moderates that prevail. These are the guys you bump into in Bamberg, Brussels and Prague, or at the Great American Beer Festival, or wherever. They seek out beers to enjoy whatever the provenance and are comfortable with being CAMRA members and the odd dichotomy.” That is true of Tandleman, of my local CAMRA branch chairman, of most of the beer bloggers, and of many CAMRA members I know. But it is far less dominant than he suggests, and it is all too common to see the old unreconstructed attitudes surface – not least in the opinions of the most prolific contributor to the CAMRA web forum. The generalised “campaign against lager” and the broad-brush view that bottle-conditioned bottled beers are without exception far superior to their brewery-conditioned counterparts are two prime examples of this. And, regrettably, while it is often ignored at the coal face, these things are enshrined in CAMRA’s official policies.

More worrying, though, is the attitude expressed by one respondent to Pete Brown’s post:

As I've mentioned recently elsewhere (mainly Twitter & other blogs) I think that there's an argument for CAMRA to tighten or at least clarify its definition of what is 'real'.

To my mind, the campaign was launched to try to preserve good British beer, made with decent ingredients, by a quality brewery & beers that had not been overly processed.

For me, there are now many beers that are classed by CAMRA as 'real' that don't fit with various parts of that broad description (& some that do, but aren't classed as being real!).
Is that likely to lead to a redefinition of “real ale” as stuff produced by obscure small breweries and consumed by pretentious middle-class tossers?

Surely two of the great virtues of “real ale” are that it has a crystal clear definition, and that it is something that is available to ordinary drinkers in ordinary pubs.

The risk from that approach is that you may end up casting aside the brews upon which the real ale revival was founded, such as Wadworth’s 6X, Marston’s Pedigree and Greene King Abbot Ale, and that you also end up casting aside the pub in favour of the specialist urban yuppie craft beer bar.

I have no problem with CAMRA being a campaign for “real ale”. I have no problem with the definition. I just wish it didn’t, so often, present itself as a campaign against all other forms of beer. Does the Alfa Romeo Owners’ Club oppose all other marques of car? I don’t think so. Why not say “We like beer, full stop. But British draught real ale is something very special that is worthy of campaigning for”?

Friday, November 12, 2010

HATE CRIME

From Smoking out The Truth

"I will successfully kill someone who
smokes. I encourage any non-smokers who are reading this to go out and
kick the shit out of smokers.”


Didn't they just find and fine someone for posting a joke on Twitter about bombing an airport?

And yet they encourage the sort of people above to commit hate crime by inciting violence against smokers.

It's about hate not health.

I did have plenty to say about the Muslim group that showed such disrespect on Armistice Day but I'll keep the rant short as I'm struggling with a cold, it's Friday and I'm fooked.

The burning of the Poppy was done with no knowledge or sympathy for our culture at this time of year.

If we insulted Islamic traditions we would be thrown in jail as racists. I believe in free speech and I do actually understand the anger of these Islamic young men because of the loss of innocents in their country. But they should have stood with us on Remembrance Day. They should have directed their anger at those who deserve it not at the young men and women who do their duty when called upon for low wages and little respect.

Anger directed at our troops, who would fight for their freedom too if called upon, is misplaced. Had the Muslims Against Crusaders directed that anger at the British war criminal Blair and his hench men and women who took our country into an illegal war, we would have given them more support.

Their behaviour only showed them up to be religious zealots and thugs who quite frankly should be deported.

Why does this spineless Govt fail to act against hate crime when it's directed at us as a nation or as individuals?

I think it's time this country started to get it's priorities right.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

LEST WE FORGET


Image from here

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.

In Flanders fields the poppies blow, Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place: and in the sky, The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago, We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields.

* I have much to say about the Muslim protests against British soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq but today is not a day to rant but remember and be silent.

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

THE NEXT TARGET



Now healthists have smokers under control they are swiftly moving on to the next target for profit and general propaganda using the same formula.

It took them 40 years of Big Pharma funding to make the lie of SHS a "fact" and then hype up it's dangers year on year to the point where there is now an hysterical fear of smokers and smoking.

They had to make other people believe that smokers could harm them before Government would take them seriously. They are now using the same format on fat people who they've only recently started to persecute.

Apparently :

"It looks like obesity is becoming more infectious," said Alison Hill, a graduate student at the Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology.

What next? Banning anyone over a certain size from entering public places in case we "catch" their fatness? Do they really think we are that stupid?

How the lifestyle of this man doesn't make him 48 stone is beyond me. He's doing everything the healthists say will give you the obesity you could pass on to someone else.

At least people are getting wise to the manipulative political methods of self interest groups, fake charities and the Pharma Industry in exaggerating the threat of "passive obesity."

Meanwhile for smokers the insults continue in the name of everybody's else's good health. ASH is now promoting them almost daily in news releases as child abusers using the usual tactic of telling a lie often enough that it becomes the truth.

This kind of approach is motivated by hatred with no scientific grounds to justify what is a disproportionate "threat".

Hot on the heels of accusing decent, law abiding, considerate and caring parents past and present in the most despicable terms, the anti-smoking industry now has to show how much of a financial burden they are on everybody.

Of course all of this is part of the "Denormalisation" plan to promote :

Smokers as malodourous
Smokers as litterers
Smokers as unattractive and undesirable housemates
Smokers as undereducated and a social underclass
Smokers as excessive users of public health services
Smokers as employer liabilities

But they are looking for even worse language in the hate campaign.

I told them that to "reframe quitting as “breaking up” with a deceitful best friend " was patronising. I said they had to learn to live with lifelong smokers who would not quit and if they wanted to reach them, they should stop the propaganda.

I said their language offended. They short listed a comment about cigarettes as "a deceitful best friend" to the top six of a voting poll to find new insults to use.

Failure to engage with smokers is proof in my opinion that they don't want to work with smokers but against them by promoting language that promotes smokers as weak and all the rest.

Smokers - I feel sorry for you, Fatties - I feel sorry for you too. Fat Smokers, it looks like you are public enemy No 1 but I am on your side.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

OUCH!



Even though I expected it the rejection of my script by the agent still hurt more than sitting through six hours with a tattooist.

As my other half tortured himself in the name of art, I sulked for about half a day and then started to think about my next move which is to send the script out again to the next agent on the list. My tutor assures me it's good or she wouldn't have given it a First so I'm thinking it was probably not this particular agent's cup of tea.

I need to read through it again because I think time away from it will allow me to see any faults more clearly, and I need more feedback. One or two people have offered to read it and that will help.

Meanwhile, I've also been thinking that I've barely written any fiction since leaving the course. That's mostly because of work, partly because of blogging and time leeching diversions such as Facebook.

I'd been thinking that I'd start to to write the novel after my current work contract ends but that is still not in sight. It could be quite a while yet. I've got to be stricter and more disciplined in the use of my time and it's going to take a lot of it to place this script with either another agent or a TV company.

My other half heard an interview on the radio the other day of a recently published author who had 37 rejections before her work was accepted. That's my target before I think of giving up.

I've decided that while I wait for the script to do the rounds I'll start writing a novel adaptation of it. That will keep my fiction skills challenged, take my mind off waiting for the script to come back, and give me something else to market when it's finished.

Meanwhile, I will have to find the time somewhere to fit in an extra 2000 words of writing every day. Ouch!

ROYAL APPROVAL OF POLAND?



It's shame that Twinings is moving out of the UK and into Poland taking 286 jobs with it.

My other half's initial reaction was fear that the tea would't taste the same if it wasn't made in England. I pointed out that tea originates from India so it would probably be OK.

We drink Twinings and Yorkshire - loads of it. What we buy depends on which is cheaper at the supermarket. The price tends to change a bit from week to week.

I started buying it when I moved to Cornwall and couldn't find Yorkshire Tea. Twinings was "By Royal Appointment" after all and I thought if it was good enough for Her Maj then it was good enough for me. I wasn't disappointed. I am now.

Perhaps the Queen should rethink giving Royal approval to this particular tea company and perhaps consider bestowing it instead on one that considers the impact of a loss of jobs for British subjects.

Meanwhile, I think I'll stick with Yorkshire Tea.

You can turn back

I’ve often heard it claimed that the main reason for introducing the smoking ban in the UK was the protection of workers. This, of course, is completely spurious, as:

  • It is widely documented that the main driver for the ban was an attempt to reduce the prevalence of smoking
  • There is no scientifically credible evidence that environmental tobacco smoke represents a danger to health anyway
  • Even if there was some small danger, the protection of workers could easily have been achieved without a blanket ban – after all, smoking is still permitted in hotel rooms
  • There are many occupations that are still allowed, but where there is a far greater and better proven risk to health, such as farming, mining and quarrying, and deep sea fishing
But even if you taken the claim at face value, it rather falls over if a pub has no employees. So, the Netherlands has decided to lift its smoking ban for small “mom and pop” bars that are solely run by the proprietors. No doubt they will be looking forward to a substantial increase in trade.

The structure of the trade is different in this country, with very few pubs and bars that don’t employ any staff, but I would imagine many of the small evenings-only “box bars” that have opened in former shop premises could qualify – though no doubt the big pubs would whinge that they couldn’t compete on a level playing field. A growth in small, individual, independent bars could be just what the licensed trade needs.

And this news gives the lie to the assertion that there is “no going back” from the British smoking ban. If it can happen in Holland, it can happen here.

PRISONER AND MIGRANT EQUALITY

I'm working away from home most days and from Wednesday the travel to work time is up to an hour and a half each way. That doesn't leave me with much energy to blog when I get home especially during the latter half of the week. That means I miss my chance to rant when something in the news breaks that pisses me off.

It also means that sometimes those things I observe during my present daily routine are pushed to the back of my mind until the urge to blog strikes.

This week I heard about the EU ruling that gives prisoners the right to vote and all the critical comments made about that.

My own view is that some prisoners should. One person's "criminal" is another person's "political prisoner." Pub landlord Nick Hogan for example. If he had been forced to stay locked up for the whole of the six months he would have missed the election. He was locked up simply because smoking is a political issue and he was made an example of. He took no one's human right. He offered it. Choice.

I would not like to see child killers, murderers, rapists and fraudsters able to choose the next party of power. Some say they should be treated as humans and not monsters. I say they took away the human rights of their victims. God might forgive them one day but that is not our job.

I think the policy will be exploited by the BNP who target the underclass on sink estates whose lifestyles continuously bring them into conflict with the law. That can only be a bad move. I think to avert the threat of a rise in BNP support, UKIP must find a way of engaging and involving the underclass who feel powerless and victimised.

The other piece of news that caught my attention was the EU ruling that the UK has to treat Migrants fairer by giving them benefits earlier. It brought to mind a case I saw at court involving an Eastern European migrant.

He got 14 weeks for shop theft and was let out after serving half of his sentence which is normal UK practice with all offenders as is giving them £90 when they are released.

The migrant used his £90 quid discharge grant to get somewhere to live on the day he came out. With no work or money he went shop lifting again, got caught and ended up back before the court. The magistrates were told that if they sent him back to prison then he'd be in the same position when he came out.

The solicitor said : "It wouldn't achieve anything positive and would only result in more of a burden on the tax payer."

The bench sent him back to jail to serve the last seven weeks and imposed another four. I wonder how much that's costing. I wonder why we can't send these people back when they fall into drugs and crime. We are doing them no favours here. We have nothing to offer. I don't see the benefit to them or the UK of EU migration.

GIGGLE DON'T FIGHT



Was this test really done and if so what could have been it's purpose?

I saw a TV programme ages ago about the Zulus in the Boer War and the fact they were such a fearsome enemy because they never felt pain or fear.

Apparently, they were drugged up and it was because they were under the influence of hallucinogenics that they could continue fighting even when mortally injured.

Perhaps that's why the British Army tested the effects of LSD on troops. Maybe they wanted to see if the drug would create war machines instead of soldiers.

As the video shows, it had the opposite effect. The test revealed that if the world was on LSD, there would be no war.

Has anyone thought of slipping it into the watering holes in the Middle East?

H/T My son

* UPDATE : I just received this. Seems military history is not my area of expertise :)

The Zulu wars were in 1879 and the boer war was in 1900, the documentary you saw was about the battle of islandwana which was January 21st 1879. Involving the 24th foot and the Zulus. They believe that the Zulus had been taking drugs before the battle and many warriors said they felt invulnerable to the British martini Henry rifles.

Wells & Youngs - a summary

In conclusion, the bottles I was kindly given to sample by Wells & Youngs represented a varied range of quality beers that were all distinctively different and avoided having an obvious house character*. If they do have something in common, it is that they are all to a greater or lesser extent malty but dry. All of them are beers that I have bought myself in the past.

Bottle-conditioning can often be problematic in quality terms, but Wells & Youngs seem to have got it right, with the beers (unlike some) having noticeably conditioned in the bottle, but all the yeast sticking to the bottom and not ending up in the glass.

As an everyday drinking beer the Wells Burning Gold is probably my favourite, but the Young’s Special London Ale is well worth saving for a cold night or a special occasion. Directors is the one where the tasting most improved my previous opinion.

The only one of the five beers I found a touch disappointing was the Young’s London Gold which, while pleasant enough, was lacking in distinctiveness and, as I said, maybe too subtle for its own good. Although it looks the part, I kept searching for something flavour-wise that I couldn’t quite find.

This will also motivate me to look out for the bottle-conditioned Young’s Bitter. The last time I remember having some on cask was probably in 2008 but it was always one of my favourite “ordinary” bitters. The bottled version is, however considerably stronger at 4.5% ABV rather than 3.7%.

* To be honest I quite like the Greene King house character, but all of their beers taste somewhat the same.