WHOOPI DO FOR COMMON SENSE

I dislike the tag "Smoker's Champion" because it is so banal but that is often what actress Whoopi Goldberg is described as and here in this ABC news report, she defends the rights of US soldiers thrown into the hell of war to be able to smoke.

As she points out :

"If they're so concerned about health, then why send them out to war in the first place?"

Most people on that panel agree that forcing soldiers to quit at one of the most stressful times of their lives is morally wrong except for one woman.

I note how she throws money in at the very first opportunity to bolster her argument. I find these pulled from the air figures, like £800 million as the cost of healthcare, unrealistic. I might believe them if the source was ever quoted and backed up but it never is - and we all know about science by manipulation of data by paid for academics rather than science by biological fact.

She also quotes the number of people killed by pulmonary disease as being caused solely by smoking when we know that isn't always true. A never smoking relative of mine has hereditary pulmonary disease and it is a crying shame that this is never mentioned when citing so called figures of smoking "related" illnesses.

In truth, genetics plays just as much of a role in our illnesses as those products they claim are "bad" for us in a whole myriad of ways - some made up some true but we don't know to what extent because the people who give us this information can't be trusted.

I'm also as mad as a box of frogs about this derogatory fraud that smokers are somehow mentally challenged which I find odd given that three previous generation of smokers built the society we have today including two generations of smokers who won two world wars.

Those on the smokerphobic's side of the debate include historical figures who were more mentally challenged than any smoker most normal people have met in their lifetime. Because we question or challenge their propaganda we are called holocaust deniers or flat earth believers.

And yet their supporters, like Hitler, designed the holocaust and the rooting tooting evangelical nutter W.G Voliva - one of the first rabid anti-smokers who decided non-smokers were "clean" and smokers were not - did indeed believe in the flat earth theory and paid a lot of money to anyone who could disprove his wild and weird theories

Despite the fact that history shows the unhinged to be on the side of the anti-smoker campaign, they still make dodgy claims that they expect us to believe from smoking causes cancer to smoking makes your skin fall off to smoking gives you dandruff. They even claim it will give you TB which real scientists know is scientifically impossible.

The anti-smoker industry's ridiculous suggestions are aimed at one thing to my mind - hatred, distrust, and loathing of smokers by suggesting that they are somehow not the same kind of people as those who chose not to smoke. And that is bigotry. If directed at ethnic people it would be racism.

UPDATE :
How they lie is demonstrated and worked out by The Moose. Most of the smoking and health garbage really is just an illusion based on phobic manipulations rather than true and actual fact.

Patterns of pubgoing

OK, here are the results of my recent survey, which impressively attracted the maximum permitted 100 responses within 24 hours. Thanks to everyone who completed it. The number of responses obviously equate exactly to percentages.

A few points worth making. 89% of people live within half a mile of a pub, which is accepted as the maximum distance most people are prepared to walk to a pub. However, 35% never visit their nearest pub, and 27% never visit a pub on foot at all. And the high figures for people who go to the pub from work in the evenings, and combined with leisure activities, underline the importance of these sources of trade.

For 17% of people, there were over 50 pubs closer to their home than the pub they visited most often, although that is entirely feasible if, for example, someone from the south end of Hazel Grove was a regular in the Crown or Magnet in Stockport town centre.

And not a single person said that TV sport was one of the main factors influencing their choice of pub. Maybe it’s not quite the moneyspinner licensees believe.

1. How often do you visit pubs?

Daily: 5
Most days: 13
2-3 times a week: 30
Once a week: 15
Once a fortnight: 7
Once a month: 9
Less than once a month: 21

2. How far are you from the nearest pub?

400 yards or less: 53
Half a mile: 36
A mile: 5
A mile and a half: 1
Two miles: 3
Over two miles: 2

3. Do you regularly visit your nearest pub?

Yes, it is the pub I visit most often: 20
Yes, but I visit another pub more often: 10
No, but I occasionally call in: 35
No, I never visit it: 35

4. If you visit another pub more often than your nearest, how many pubs are closer than your chosen pub?

1: 7
2-5: 27
6-10: 9
11-20: 13
21-50: 4
51-100: 8
Over 100: 9

5. Would you say that you have a “local” pub, even if not the closest?

Yes: 64
No: 36

6. What methods of transport do you use to travel to and from pubs? (Choose all that apply)

NB: this refers to the main mode on each journey – by definition all will require at least a little walking

Foot: 73
Bus: 40
Train or tram: 27
Pedal cycle: 9
Motor cycle: 1
Taxi: 14
Car as driver: 18
Car as passenger: 28

7. On what occasions do you visit pubs? (Choose all that apply)

Directly from home in the evenings: 60
Directly from home at lunchtimes: 14
From work in the evenings: 44
From work at lunchtimes: 11
When shopping: 27
Combined with leisure activities (e.g. sports events, sightseeing, cinema or theatre): 49
Other (please give details): 10

1. After dog walking
   
2. Weekend days as a decision to go drinking
   
3. Folk club
   
4. Weekend afternoons.
   
5. days out specifically for pub crawling
   
6. Weddings,funerals,christenings
   
7. Political meetings once per month
   
8. I used to go but not anymore
   
9. Meeting up with friends
   
10. Wake

Some of these slightly missed the point, but “weddings, funerals and christenings” is a good one. In a past era “after church” might have been added too.

8. What are the main factors influencing your choice of pub? (Choose up to 3)

Range of beer: 48 Quality of beer: 68 Convenient location: 15 Choice/quality of food: 7 Comfort/ambience: 50 Value for money: 7 Smoking facilities: 21 My friends go there: 25 Live entertainment: 3 TV sport: 0 Other (please give details): 7

1. No TV
   
2. Interesting area
   
3. Good landlady
   
4. Quality of service
   
5. No smoking available, so I seldom go there anymore.
   
6. It's got a good smoking shelter and the service is really quick.
   
7. Choice of Lager!

Maybe “quality of service” would have been worth adding to the list.

9. How many pubs do you usually visit on each drinking occasion?

1: 70 2: 11 More than 2: 19

10. Any other comments?

24 comments received, reproduced verbatim below:

1. The good old 'boozer', and the attendant characters, are virtually extinct. Sad, so very sad.
   
2. Having been a very regular pub goer (5-6 times a week) I no longer visit pubs unless away on business. This is a direct consequence of the smoking ban, no other reason.
   
3. More than two unless it's my local. Then one.
   
4. Also visit other pubs for meetings & socials on a regular basis. My answers as to location transport & no of pubs would be different for these visits
   
5. How different this survey would have been in 2007. I used to go out several times a week but now I struggle to even bother visiting the restaurants near me which are laughably called pubs.
   
6. I stop going in winter
   
7. Two main reasons I don't visit pubs more is the cost, and the demise of so many of my favourite breweries. What's the point of going on a pub crawl of Henley nowadays, or Wandsworth? I've yet to find a new brewery that can produce ordinary bitters that are a patch on Brakspear's or Young's - let alone Batham's or Harvey's... (OK, pub crawls of Brierley Hill or Lewes are still very agreeable, thankfully.) All of which is a bit of a pity really, as pubs themselves are more pleasant to visit now you don't come out of them reeking of fag smoke!!
   
8. My nearest pub was once very good but is sadly now a filthy drugs den.
   
9. Used to go to pubs 3-4 times a week before the ban.
   
10. And my visit to the pub is entirely dependent on the weather. eg NOT RAINING
    
11. I have days when I just visit my local, other nights out are pub crawls.
    
12. Now once a month at the most Between 1961 and 2007, 7 nights a week
    
13. Used to go quite often but with no more smoking available I stopped except for once in a while. Most others have stopped too so I'm not alone. We tend to visit one anothers houses now instead of the pub. It is more friendly plus we can smoke and drink at the same time.
    
14. Used to go 5 nights a week, since smoking ban down to two.
    
15. Basically, the only time I visit a place with a bar (not a pub) is when we have a local BNP meeting. Then I MIGHT have a bottle of wifebeater (not that I have a wife to beat, these days).
    
16. I have been to a pub three times this summer and not at all last winter, due to the smoking ban. Why should I pay the same price of a drink, when if I want to use a legal and taxed product I am forced to sit outside in inferior facilities at most pubs.
    
17. I’m not friendly enough to have a proper local, I like to try different pubs everytime I go out.
    
18. I do live in Cyprus so there is a bit more "slack" in the situation! :-))
    
19. My nearest (give or take a hundred yards) pub is excellent, and is part of the reason why I bought a house where I did, but my friends live on the other side of town so that's where I normally go to drink.
    
20. Used to go to a pub every Friday and Saturday night then came the smoking ban - nuff said
    
21. Mumble mumble smoking ban mumble.
    
22. I walk past a w/mens club and a pub on the way to my local club (men only,that should have Harriet Harpie spitting blood) PURELY for the smoking facilities.The 2 closest to me have been visited less than 10 times since that fateful day.I give them the same support as they gave me,and have told them so.
    
23. Keep up the good, Hail to the ale.
    
24. I would go more often but...........the smoking ban!
    

I like the one about not being friendly enough to have a proper local ;-)

Frightened of your own strength

RedNev pointed out this article about Health Minister Anne Milton giving evidence about alcohol policy to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. In this, she said in relation to High Strength Beer Duty, “Already, there has been a response from the industry. Already they are dropping the alcohol strength to get below that duty level.” Yet I have seen no evidence of that at all, and the new duty regime has been in place for a full month now. I’ve checked on the supermarket shelves, and Special Brew and Tennent’s Super are still there at 9.0%, and Gold Label at 8.5%, albeit at a considerably higher price than before.

I’m sure the brewers are watching the situation closely, but there seems to be a strange kind of ossification in this segment of the market, whereby established products continue to be brewed, but there is a total avoidance of any kind of product innovation – or indeed any advertising or promotion. Presumably they fear that, if they did so, the Daily Mail would be screaming down their necks. Yet the cask and premium bottled ale sectors seem to happily sail on under the radar, with a number of new launches of higher-strength beers like Old Crafty Hen and Pedigree VSOP.

If I was the brand owner of Carlsberg Special or Tennent’s Super, what I would be tempted to do is to keep the existing product at 9.0%, but introduce a new brand at 7.5% which would sell for considerably less, and let the market decide which prospered and which failed. Yet there’s no evidence of that at all. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next few months.

On a related subject, it’s long been my view that there is a gap in the mainstream beer market for a premium lager of around 5.5-6.0% ABV. However, for the same reasons, no major brewer would touch this with a bargepole for fear of denting their image of social responsibility. To some extent the Polish imports like Tyskie and Zywiec fill this niche, but there’s nothing brewed in this country. In a sense, when it was 5.2%, that little extra kick was a major selling point for Stella. A couple of years ago, the much-trailed launch of the 5.5% Stella Black was pulled, and the name was later used for a weaker “premium” brand extension which now seems to have died the death.

WHY I WON'T QUIT

That I enjoy moderate smoking is no surprise to anyone that visits this blog. It is the reason I never thought about quitting but I must admit I was tempted to in the late 90s early 00s as I got more drawn into the propaganda. It was only when it started to become nasty that I dug my heels in and vowed never to quit.

Despite the marginalisation of smokers like me who won't give up, I'm glad I still smoke because research has told me that the issue isn't black and white - especially for people like me who have smoked over a lifetime.

And in risking the abuse from an anonymous poster on this blog, I will repeat that I simply don't see smokers dropping dead around me. Most of the people I have known in my life of my generation who smoked are still alive and if they died it was for other reasons. Sorry anon - but it is a fact.

With the issue bugging the hell out of me today, I was very interested to read THIS over at Smoking out the Truth.

I will just say that my own foray into research showed me the same thing and I completely agree with the blog post including the fact that on active smoking my jury is still also out. The rest I'll leave to Grandad.

Some years ago, for reasons now forgotten, I gave up smoking altogether. Within days I came down with a bad chest infection. That was followed by a very sore throat which in turn led to more chest infections. I though initially that it could be a reaction to quitting but the infections continued. One day I asked my doctor if it was coincidence that the deterioration in my health coincided with quitting the pipe. He shuffled uncomfortably and admitted that yes, it wasn’t a coincidence and that I wasn’t to tell a soul he said that. A while later, for other reasons I went back on the pipe and the illnesses immediately stopped. This was my first real insight into the possibility that they weren’t being strictly honest about the dangers.

My jury is still out on the dangers of smoking itself. I have discovered that it has many beneficial effects such as reducing obesity, protecting against colitis, depression, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and, for some women, a lower incidence of breast cancer. I have discovered that all the initial research into tobacco vs cancer had gaping holes that would discredit any serious research. I have discovered that research has been driven not by a quest for truth but by a religious zeal to ban smoking altogether.

My investigations into second hand smoking are a slightly different kettle of fish. I have discovered that ALL the current ‘proof’ of the harm is derived from false analysis of figures, distortion of statistics and downright lies. I have not found a single piece of research anywhere that proves that second hand smoke is harmful. To the contrary, I have discovered that it may even have slight beneficial effects. The whole concept of second hand smoke was invented to divide society. Nothing more, nothing less.

Pubgoing survey

I’ve created a new survey about blog readers’ pubgoing habits and preferences which can be taken here.

Edit: the survey is now closed having reached the maximum of 100 responses. I will post the results tomorrow (Saturday). Cheers to all those who took part.

Cat wins mouse welfare award shock

I was amazed to read that JD Wetherspoon has been named as Britain’s best pub operator for customer satisfaction. Now, my usual experience of Spoons has been that you put up with service that varies from just about adequate through to execrable in return for the low prices, wide choice and consistent offer. It’s a trade-off between one and the other. The same has been reported by many friends and other bloggers – there never seem to be enough staff, and unless it’s virtually deserted it’ll take you a long time. See here, for example.

Earlier this year, when I was out at lunchtime with work colleagues, so time was limited, but going elsewhere wasn’t really an option, I had to wait about fifteen minutes before even attracting the attention of a barperson. And a Spoons was the last pub I walked out of after despairing of ever getting served, when there only seemed to be one member of staff on duty, and a long, complicated drinks order from another customer was then followed by what seemed like it was going to be an even more time-consuming food order.

The only explanation I can think of is that amongst nationally recognisable pub chains there isn’t much competition – the best service is likely to be found in independently-run pubs.

DEATH LISTS FOR SMOKERS

I am not a morning person and I am particularly not an early morning person so the prospect of getting up at 5.30am for a 7.30am radio interview did not get my day off to a great start.

The reason for this very early rise was because I thought I would be debating the Smokerphobic idea of a (ahem) "Doctor" to name and shame dead smokers by publishing their names daily in tabloid newspapers and a bit of research is always best to have at hand. I was promised that some one from the local smoke free quango would be in the opposite - "and possibly someone from ASH." Ooh, I thought, that would be great if it was to be Debs. I always fancied pinning her down to debate which is usually that someone who defends their right to smoke must be in the pay of the tobacco industry.

However, after the interview with Rod Whiting, the BBC Radio Lincolnshire Presenter, the voice on the other end said : "Thanks Pat. That was great."

"Oh, isn't there a debate?" I asked him but the researcher told me that it was just me. How odd, I thought, but pleased that finally, perhaps, the usual agenda driven drivel was being replaced by someone who actually did want to hear what life has been like for smokers since the spiteful ban introduced and legalised discrimination and marginalisation of a minority group.

Instead, once I was kicked off air, the presenter threw it over to the listener to ring or text in their views as to whether they agreed with me and what more could be done to stop people like me smoking.

I only heard one response because I couldn't be bothered to listen to the whole programme. A former smoker rang in to say how in 1999 she had a heart problem that scared her and after being diagnosed with angina, she quit, relatively easily (proving my point about "addiction", incidentally. Those who really do want to stop and are not forced, bullied or shoved into quitting, have no problems in doing so.)

It kind of felt that I was put up as the "bad" smoker and she was put up as the "good" smoker.

Sadly, the early morning call meant that when you listen to the broadcast you will hear my mind whirring and my words stutter as I try to find the right ones. Really, for me, the debate was the wrong one. We should have been debating why this alleged public health "Doctor" Paul Jepson is ignoring the Hippocatic Oath's clause on confidentiality, art as well as science and compassion, in his quest to further denormalise and stigmatise smokers and whether he should be struck off or brought to task by those that regulate his work.

Someone over at Taking LIberties has suggested Jepson far from being a medic is actually a vet. I'd really like to know if anyone has confirmed this.

The lady who rang in did agree with me on one point though. The warnings are not for smokers. We ignore them.

If you want to listen to the whole interview, it will be available HERE for the next seven days. It begins at 1:37:21.

I'm beginning to wonder if I should have stayed in bed.

Rat leaves sinking ship

The Board of Alcohol Concern has announced a restructuring of its senior management following the loss of core funding, with the role of the CEO becoming part time for a year alongside the recruitment of a full time Director of Fundraising and Campaigning.

This means that after more than six years at Alcohol Concern, of which three and a half year have been as Chief Executive, Don Shenker has decided to leave the organisation in order to take a full time position elsewhere.

Crack open a bottle!

Perhaps SIBA will make up the missing funding.

Failure breeds failure

There’s been a lot of talk recently of the decline of traditional high streets, with retail guru Mary Portas being appointed to head a government task force looking into how to revive them. Inevitably, this has a knock-on effect on the business of town-centre pubs. In reality, the various parts of town centre economies have a strong degree of interdependence and can’t be considered in isolation.

The Centre for Cities has looked at second-rank provincial towns and cities like Sunderland and Preston (a category that would also include Stockport):

In Sunderland’s case the city centre suffers from a lack of scale – out-of-town employment sites limit the number of commuters into the centre each day. This limits footfall which in turn limits lunch time and evening demand on the High Street and in restaurants and bars.

It seems fairly obvious that a thriving employment sector will benefit both shops and pubs. However, they argue that simply limiting out-of-town development is unlikely to have much impact, and that much more attention needs to be given to the positive factors that will increase activity in town centres.

It works the other way, too, as Leg-Iron points out here. Deter people from visiting pubs, and they won’t visit the nearby shops either.

It also doesn’t help when local councils take measures, for whatever reason, that lead to a reduction in town centre footfall. For example, I saw the following comment on another blog:

In my local town the council have:

- raised all the car parking charges
- closed one large car park completely
- pedestrianised the High Street
- lowered the speed limit on all the approach roads
- installed loads of speed bumps
- installed loads more traffic lights at minor junctions
- closed all the public toilets
- closed the two theatres
- demolished the ice rink

and there's probably more that I can't think of just now.

And guess what (1) - the High Street is full of empty shops, charity shops, pound shops, and short-term tat generally and also guess what (2) the same council is wringing its hands wondering how it can save the High Street.

It's a cliché, but you couldn't make it up.

One would expect that particular town (which I think is one of the London boroughs) has also experienced numerous pub closures, although no doubt one of the more down-market Wetherspoons is doing OK next to the 99p store. Pedestrianisation of town centre streets, while it may create a more attractive retail experience during the daytime, can all too easily turn them into intimidating dead zones once the shops have closed.

It also has to be recognised that, just as with pubs, a range of social changes are working against high street shopping. Most of the closed pubs are never coming back, and neither are most of the 25% of shops currently vacant in some town centres. There needs to be a focus on what works in the 21st century context, not a naïve belief that a bit more stimulus will bring the good old days back.

Another idea that has been expressed to me is that the revival of residential development in town and city centres has proved beneficial in sustaining the pubs in those areas. However, I’m not entirely convinced that’s a particularly strong factor. As I’ve argued before, the idea that the typical pattern of pub use is to come home, have your tea and go out for a few pints is very much exaggerated, and the presence of nearby chimneypots is no guarantee of trade. To a large extent, people visit pubs because they’re out and about doing other things. That pubs in Manchester city centre are conspicuously thriving when in many other places they’re not is a function of the city centre being a strong hub for retail, employment, entertainment and public transport, not because a lot of new flats have been built there.

Trundling down the slope

The latest edition of the UK Quarterly Beer Barometer produced by the BBPA confirms the trend of the past two quarters, with a continued steady decline in on-trade beer sales, although not as steep as those often seen over the preceding three years. Over the past year, they are down by 5.2%, compared with an average of 7.4% in 2008-2010. This is more a steady trundle down a slope than a precipitate fall off a cliff. However, even this will lead to a halving of the figure in thirteen years.

Off-trade sales, which are always much more affected by seasonal fluctuations, are down by 3.6% in the year, although slightly up compared with the year to June 2011. The overall beer market is 4.4% down, which no doubt will give Don Shenker some cause for celebration. This may defer the arrival of the “tipping point” when off-trade sales exceed the on-trade, as the retailers seem to have largely passed on the recent duty increase, which has perhaps slowed the rate of change.

Is no cask better than bad cask?

Last night, we were out on a CAMRA pub crawl of the southern fringe of Stockport town centre. We went in one particular pub, a bog-standard, modernised Robinson’s local. The only cask beer available was Unicorn, and it was utterly vile. Not cloudy, not vinegary, but with an overpowering appley off-flavour. Had I been in the pub on my own, I would just have left it on the table and sneaked out, but when you are out in public as the identifiable “CAMRA posse”* you are conscious of the impression you may make, so most of us forced it down.

But if a pub like that can’t keep cask beer in decent nick, then surely it would make sense not to bother at all. Bear in mind this was Friday night, supposedly one of the busiest sessions of the week. The time when “all their pubs serve real ale” was seen as a brewery virility symbol is long gone.

It also must be said how good the atmosphere was in the final venue, Sam Smith’s Queen’s Head – and the Old Brewery Bitter was only £1.52 a pint! This must be a future candidate for the Campaign for Real Pubs.

Incidentally, this was a repeat of the pub crawl described here.

* Only one person present had a beard, although the average age was undoubtedly well north of 40.

Crisis, what crisis?

According to the Portman Group, “alcohol consumption continues to decline, in a trend that has been continuing since the early to mid-2000s”.

The report found that consumption per adult head of population is 10.2 litres – 11% lower than the 2004 peak of 11.5 litres.

The average number of units consumed per week by those who drink is continuing to fall from 18.7 for men and nine for women in 2006, to 16.3 and eight respectively in 2009 – well within the government’s guidelines.

The proportion of men and women drinking hazardously – more than 50 or 35 units per week respectively – peaked in 2000 and has been declining since 2002.

The proportion of pupils who had drunk alcohol in the past week was 13% – its lowest level since records began in 1998.

So what is it that you were bleating about, Mr Shenker?

The ravages of drink

This article so conveniently brings together two of the favourite themes of the Daily Mail – hysterical scaremongering about alcohol and making women feel bad about themselves – that it verges on self-parody. It really is beyond credulity that drinking a daily amount that at most is only slightly above the official guidelines is going to have such an effect on you. You might as well say from comparing the pictures that alcohol will stop you from going grey.

In any case, it is not realistic to expect women in their fifties to all look like Andie MacDowell.

It’s also an urban myth that rosacea and “boozer’s nose” are solely or primarily caused by drinking: “Although alcohol may be a precipitating factor or trigger for rosacea, the stigmata that all patients with the large overgrown nose seen in rhinophyma are in fact alcoholics or "boozers" is absolutely wrong.”

THAT EU DEBATE

MUCH has been SAID about THAT EU DEBATE which has now been moved forward to Monday.

I take my UKIP stuff over here these days but I think it's in everyone's interest to push for this YES to a referendum vote.

The issue needs airing and the air clearing. The resentment lies in never being asked about such a huge change to our constitution and it's been a festering sore for too long. What harm can it do to ask us what kind of future we want - especially at a time when politicians are showing us just how untrustworthy, manipulative, and controlling they are.

I want a free Britain that is able to trade freely with Nation state citizens who can move freely around friendly neighbourhood European countries and who will all stand together if trouble rears it head. I don't believe we need the unelected self interest EU leaders or quangos to achieve that.

The EU is cloning us all, dictating to us all, denormalising "normal" and making a once free western Europe believe that the once oppressed eastern Europe way of politics is best suited to all.

I am not afraid. I want change. What we have at present is awful. Anything must be better.

THEN AND NOW

As I watched the original chat show discussion about the controversy surrounding the making of the Monty Python film The Life of Brian last night, it struck me how familiar the debate was between the "believers and followers" of yesterday and the "non-believers and skeptics" of today.

The only thing that has changed is what people believe in - or what they are encouraged to believe in. Now we are more multi-cultural and multi-religious than we were in the 1970s, it seems the common ground that can unite all spiritual faiths is a belief in health - the body as a temple, the air as divine right, the environment as holy ground.

The Bishop and Muggeridge, in the youtube video above of the debate, defend their beliefs. They are the same as those who pump out the propaganda on smoking and climate change today. Both share the same fear and insecurity that anyone should question their deeply held beliefs and find them factually or scientifically inadequate. Both seem worried that people might choose to disbelieve their religion if they researched it a bit more.

What John Cleese says about the teaching of religion at school, (about 21 - 22 mins in) the people who blindly follow anything without question, and the need for critical thought in everything we are told to ensure we remain a free thinking free society is as true today as it was then.

Unfortunately too many believers in the Church of the Smoke/Eat/Alcohol Free has led to out and out witch hunts and the scourge of heretics who would rather think for themselves and see for themselves where the truth lies.

More and more I am becoming dishearted to see these so called "progressives" are taking us further socially backwards in time. I guess it won't be long before I'm lighting my cig on top of the bonfire - except a last cigarette before execution would probably be refused on Pious grounds from the Book of Good Health.

* The debate between the committed Christian and the Pythons brought me echoes of the debate I had with a Smokerphobic "believer" recently who would have pregnant smokers bullied in the street for their heresy.

Judge for yourselves between what was said then and what is said now. There isn't much difference but for the subject matter. Then God's word was law and now it is the "scientists" - both suffer little children to come unto them...

Axe the tax!

The latest addition to the sidebar is a button asking you to sign the petition created by CAMRGB to scrap the 7.5% beer supertax introduced at the beginning of this month. As I and others have argued, this is half-baked pandering to the anti-drink lobby that will do nothing to stop problem drinking, will inhibit innovation in the brewing industry, will harm well-established products that have no link with irresponsible consumption and is potentially fraught with unintended consequences.

Yes, it may turn out to be p*ssing in the wind, but at least by signing it you will have made your voice heard, and hopefully it’s something the entire beer community can rally around.

The petition could have done with a later closing date than 14 January 2012, though.

Supermarket sweep

Here are a couple of photos of prominent local pubs that have recently been turned into supermarkets – the Chapel House in Heaton Chapel (top) has become a Tesco Express, while the rather splendid White Lion in Withington is now a Sainsbury’s Local. It must be said that neither was a recent closure – the White Lion had probably been shut for well over five years, and the Chapel House went through several barrel-scraping incarnations as the Tut’n’Shive (sometimes referred to as the Tub’o’Shite) and Conor’s Bar before finally closing its doors a couple of years ago.

As I discussed here, this seems to be a growing trend. However, obviously it wouldn’t be happening if the pubs had been viable and thriving in the first place. Tesco et al are not causing it, they are simply coming in afterwards and picking up the pieces.

BUCKET O' BACCY

Smoking Hot over at Nothing 2 Declare gives a good account of the smokers' cross channel shopping trip which was great fun and a huge success.

I really like what he has to say about P&O and it's smokerphobic smoking policy which I complained about the last time I took the trip.**

From what I could see that time and this, most passengers are smokers. The inside of the two bars were scattered with people as many crammed outside where the real fun was.

There were friends on the trip from previous smoker, activist and protest meetings including Bucko who I first met at Stony Stratford. I met Mrs Bucko for the first time. They were practically neighbours as their cabin was a couple of doors from ours so they called in each night on their way "home". I'd brought my travel kettle - or my life support - and some serious tea drinking went on into the small hours along with some damn fine conversation.

I also met Nominedeus for the first time and was delighted to know we had a common interest and knowledge of towns in North Wales. I'll definitely look him and his missus up next time I'm over there.

It was a refreshing change to apologise for ranting on about nothing else but the smoking issue only to find the people I was among were eager to hear it and more as we discussed experiences since 2007 particularly.

In fact I was encouraged that one couple on the boat, who knew nothing about any resistance and support for smokers on the internet, were the first to rant on to me about the injustice of it all as I stood outside and lit up a fag. They eagerly took down various blog addresses I gave them and promised to try and pop in for a read but they don't love computers.

They had booked their trip coincidentally for the very same reasons. None of us were there to make a profit as smugglers but a political point as denormalised smokers denying the Govt our tax until it starts to listen to what we want. They joined our crew and it was great to have them aboard.

I'd like to think the future for us lies in something like this. There is no harm in providing smokers' rooms or bars even on a boat. P&O easily could - and should - for the sake of the majority of its customers on that route.

UKBA, despite our fears, left us in peace. Perhaps because SH had called them out and they were aware before we went of our intentions. I bought enough tobacco to last six months and an extra bucket of baccy because I thought if my home grown becomes a success, I'll need something to keep it in.

I have no idea if or when another trip will be organised but I hope so because it was simply ace. There were so many people that I didn't get to meet or chat to them all but hopefully next time. I can't wait.

Big thanks must go to SH for sorting all this out, for the hand-outs on the law and advice for those of us who exceeded these ridiculously low guidelines, and for making sure that the two friends with with me and my other half, who didn't have bus transfers, managed to get into Bruges and back from Zeebrugge.

I had a go at Hull the last time I caught the Ferry but after managing to get this photo of the sun going down on the docks, I guess the town's beauty depends on what angle you look at it from (or what mood you're in at the time).

** I will get around to uploading some of these lost images soon.

UPDATE 18th October 2011

I just received an email from P&O asking for feedback. I referred them to this post and the links from SH, Nominedeus and the Moose. I told them that the trip would offer a better service if it offered facilities for smokers, that smokers would spend more in places that didn't treat them as second class citizens, and P&O could make more profit if it offered choice for both sides.

I'd encourage others to make the same point if asked for feedback on the trip. We can only hope that P&O really will take this feedback "to inform the improvements to the P&O service." The company might want to note that although I would travel P&O again, only when I'm among such fine company, there are many smokers who have commented here and elsewhere to say that they would not specifically because of it's smokerphobic policy.

Welcome to Pro Smoking Blog

Welcome to Pro Smoking Blog

Binge-drink Britain

In a shock revelation, a poll of 101 readers of the Pub Curmudgeon blog showed that, in the past year, 81% had consumed at least 6 pints of beer in a single session, with 35% having drunk a literally staggering 10 pints or more. Don Chancre, Chief Bansturbator of fakecharity Pubs’R’Evil, raged: “This is utterly appalling. Why aren’t these people dead? This only serves to illustrate what a bunch of hypocrites these so-called beer bloggers are when they go on about moderate drinking and yet are happy to condone such disgusting excess!” He then collapsed in a heap, foaming at the mouth, and had to be revived with a refreshing glass of sarsaparilla.

The 2.8% solution

Don’t let anyone tell you that Sam Smith’s aren’t on the ball – the other day I was in one of their pubs and spotted a little sticker on the font for the keg dark mild saying “Alc. Vol. 2.8%”. I think it was previously only 3.0%, so that won’t make much difference to the drinking experience. I wonder if they’ve dropped the price or are keeping the duty saving for themselves. Has anyone else spotted a 2.8% beer on sale in a pub since the duty cut? For that matter, has anyone spotted a pub offering to sell you beer in a two-thirds pint “schooner”?

DENYING THIEVES AND LIARS MY TAX

These people not only steal money from smokers to create their programs to encourage smokerphobia - but they don't even work for the money they cream off

And it is such theft and misuse of my tax payer funds here in the UK - which goes to fund smoker denormalisation, stigmatisation, exclusion, and marginalisation via the fake charity ASH - that I am today going on my latest trip abroad to give my tax to a country that treats smokers better than they do here.

And as part of The Resistance, I will be meeting up with lots of other smokers and tolerant non-smokers on a boat trip to Bruges because denying the UK Govt of my tax is the only complaint I can register and the only thing I can do.

I know that the UK Govt has set the border agency dogs onto law abiding EU cross border shoppers from Britain and ordered them to be harassed if they buy more tobacco than the Govt thinks they should smoke - even though they are breaking EU Law - you know, the bits we can't pick and chose - in setting ridiculously low guidelines.

I had asked my MEP who knows me personally for a letter of reference that I could show to UKBA and prove I am a smoker buying my own own personal stash but I'll write more about that on my return.

Suffice to say I feel rather let down by my political party of choice although it's not all bad news.

For now I'd better clear off and get ready for my trip but my message to the UK Govt is this - treat us human and you might just get back your lost £2 billion in taxes that we are purposefuly giving to other more tolerant and less fascist European nations until you end the hate campaign against us.

A super tax

I spotted on my most recent visit to Tesco that the new High Strength Beer Duty had now been applied to the beers over 7.5% ABV, so 4x500ml of Carlsberg Special Brew was £7.68 (43p per unit) and 4x330ml of Gold Label £5.67 (51p per unit). It remains to be seen whether the regular customers of these products will stomach these higher prices, or if their strength will end up being reduced. Ironically, during October Tesco are re-running their generous 4 for £5 offer on a wide variety of British bottled beers, so I could have got 4 500ml bottles of the 6.7% ABV Pedigree VSOP (had they not run out) which would be a mere 37p a unit. I should have checked the price of Duvel – I’ll have to remember that next week.

BULLY COUNCIL FURTHER EXCLUDES SMOKERS

A council in Blackpool has shown it's Smokerphobic colours by publically stating that it's discriminatory and unnecessary outdoor smoking ban is not imposed on grounds of health but hatred of a minority lifestyle group and a desire to force smokers to quit.

The sign in which they poke fun at smokers is offensive and smacks of group bully action. It isn't even legal and has no weight in law as a recent move to sneak through an amendment to the Health Act 2006 shows

The dickheads in Blackpool who put up such a huge and intimidating sign admit they can do no more than hope smokers will not smoke. They can't make outdoor bans legally but they know that the weak and vulnerable are easy to push around so they do it because they can. They are even forcing private property owners to give over more outdoor space at cafes, restaurants and pubs to those who hate smokers.

Note how the prick from the council says it's not about health but forcing smokers not to be smokers anymore without giving any consideration to whether the one in five smokers in the town want it or not. Nor does the council ask its libertarian non and never smoking population whether this is a civil liberty taking step too far.

"The Solaris Centre is an environmental centre and the grounds are very closely connected to the buildings. Staff are unable to smoke in the area and we *ask* visitors to the building and park to do the same.

“The signs are there to encourage people to think about their behaviour and help to create a smoke free environment.”

I would urge the council to think very seriously about it's own behaviour and how destructive their bigotry is to the sound and fair principles of choice, democracy, tolerance and social cohesion. If anyone fancies a day out in Blackpool to hammer home the message to the council that smokers will not be bullied, singled out and punished in this way, then please let me know.

Meanwhile, I'll be contacting Hamish Howitt, the one reasonable voice in Blackpool's sea of bigots, to see how and when this can be done. We must show these people that they can no longer push us around. Some of us are here to stay no matter what they do and they must make space for us.

They cannot tell us after centuries of smoking, after a lifetime, and generations of family smoking, that we are suddenly - within just five short years - "socially unacceptable". By what right do these truly awful fresh-air fascists think they can decide this? There are no proven grounds at all - ever - that smoking outdoors harms anyone.

This policy is simply based on hate and prejudice. Blackpool has revealed itself to be the most intolerant, regresive, fascist council in England. Perhaps Coun Paul Bartlett who was humilated in Stony Stratford should move there. His own voters thought his idea of an outdoor ban was the most outrageous ever and it led to a no confidence vote in him.

UPDATE Anon in the comments brought my attention to one of my lost blog images by a nutter called WG Voliva who believed the earth was flat, that he would live to be over 100 due to his diet of nuts and water but he died of cancer in his 70s.

Yes, such bans have always been based on hate and not health and imposed by bigots and nutters.

UPDATE 17th October 2011.

Smokers who make a stand can make a difference. The council has now decided it will not enforce this ban which is against the law.

I like the idea in the comments below to stick swastikas on these offensive signs until officials everywhere get the point that "No Smoking" is sufficient - except in areas, such as outside, where putting them up breaks the law.

Forbidden fruit

There’s an interesting article here by Kate Fox – surprisingly on the BBC website – in which she argues that, to a large extent, “the effects of alcohol on behaviour are determined by cultural rules and norms, not by the chemical actions of ethanol.” She points out that in many societies – specifically those bordering the Mediterranean – per capita alcohol consumption is higher than the UK, but there isn’t the same association with violence and sexual abandon. In the 1960s, the French on average drank getting on for four times as much as the British did then, but the streets weren’t full of drunken yobbery and girls throwing up.

I have read that there is a major alcohol problem amongst aboriginal people in Australia, but their typical response to alcohol is apparently a state of zonked-out stupefaction that in this country you would more associate with smoking cannabis.

In recent years, although overall alcohol consumption has been falling in Britain, at the same time we have become more disapproving and censorious about it, so the association with irresponsible and uninhibited behaviour has if anything increased, resulting in lurid exposés like this in the Daily Mail. Perhaps if we were more accepting of moderate drinking in an everyday social context we would have a more mature and relaxed attitude to alcohol in general. Fat chance of that happening then.

Youthful enterprise

12-year-old Tommie Rose from Salford sounds as though he has just the kind of entrepreneurial spirit we need to revive the moribund British economy. But unfortunately he was taking £60 a day selling chocolate bars and fizzy drinks to his schoolmates. Inevitably, this contravened his school’s “healthy eating” policy and so he ended up being suspended.

Now, the school are perfectly within their rights to prohibit trading on school premises, although if his business had been in collectable toys I do wonder whether they would have been so concerned. But, as the school spokesman said, “Activities which undermine our healthy eating policy cannot be tolerated.” Now, where have I heard that kind of sentiment before?

And if the “healthy” school dinners weren’t such unappetising slop, then there might not be the demand for Tommie’s services in the first place.

I also can’t help thinking that the adjective “healthy” has metamorphosed from a description of a state of well-being to a definition of an official ideology of hair-shirted self-denial and restricting oneself to government-approved activities.

Creatures of habit

It used to be a staple anecdote about pubs that you’d wander into an unfamiliar pub and plonk yourself down in a cosy seat only to be told “Sorry mate, you can’t sit there, that’s old Bob’s seat, and he’ll be in in a few minutes!”

It’s probably less likely nowadays, as there are fewer regulars who are in pubs most nights of the week, and despite our ageing population it also seems less common to see groups of pensioners gathered in pubs. But, as with many things, you imperceptibly find what you once dismissed as the habits of the elderly creeping up on you. It’s certainly the case that life tends to settle into more of a routine.

I can’t say that there’s any pub I visit often enough to call myself a “regular”, but there are maybe five or six that, for various reasons, I find myself calling in at least once a month. And, if I think about it, assuming that spot’s available, I always sit in the same place. It’s not the the end of the world if it’s taken, and in most of them there’s somewhere else that’s almost as good, but it’s interesting how these things turn into a regular pattern of behaviour.

I also recall that, in his last years, I would often take my late father in one particular pub where he found the atmosphere congenial. And yes, it was what some would call a “dumpy old men’s pub”, and all the better for it. We would always sit in the same corner and if, for some reason, it wasn’t available he would be a touch discomfited.

Bringing it all back home

A wide spread of responses to this poll on how much off-trade beer people drank. There was 75 replies, of whom 6 did not drink beer at all. Of those who did, 29 (42%) either did not drink at home at all, or only drank the odd bottle. 18 (26%) drank between 3 and 10 bottles or cans, 13 (19%) between 11 and 20, and 11 (16%) over 20. Mind you, assuming that’s all you drink, it’s only an average of 3 pints a day. Not sure whether it really illuminates anything, though.

EXCELLENT!

One of the best memories of the festival I work at each summer for my ticket was last summer when viruoso guitarist Jon Gomm played.

It was raining and a bit cold but I was oblivious to the weather as I sat completely spellbound by Jon's guitar playing. I felt shivers literally running up my spine and it had nothing to do with the drizzle settling in around me. If you watch the YouTube video linked above, then you might just feel what I'm talking about.

One person who commented on the performance posted up on the site understands - judging by what he or she said : "This one leaves me speechless. How does a person have so many things going on at once , but can make them flow together so beautifully? The world needs more of this!"

Jon is playing Passionflower, the first in a series of singles he is releasing on his own record label Performing Chimp. The musician is a committed independent artist and the label is owned jointly with his wife and manager Natasha Koczy.

Jon says the inspiration for this track, which is pay what you want download, is about a plant he grew in his 10-feet-square backyard in the Leeds inner city area.

He said :

"I put the seeds in a tiny tub, but it grew like a Roald Dahl story until it took over the whole yard, then one day the sun shone extra hard and 100 flowers all went "Pop!". It was amazing, so I wrote a song for it."

I have two of his albums and I'm really looking forward to the release of the singles. The next in The Domestic Science Singles Series will be out on Saturday October 29th and the launch will be at the Leeds Guitar Night. Tickets are available HERE

To download Passionflower check out the links HERE

Jon played recently with another of my favourite independent artists Matt Stevens who has recently released a new album called Relic.

*Pic by Natasha Koscy

I've never seen Matt perform live and unfortunately I missed the gig he played at Round Midnight in London on Sept 28 where Jon's single Passionflower was launched.

I did enjoy this track below - Nightbus - taken from Relic and I hope you like it too. Independent artists like Jon Gomm and Matt Stevens are securing real music for future generations who would only have Big Record Label produced and manufactured pop tunes if the industry execs get their way. Both artists deserve your support so enjoy, share, buy and spread the word.

A SUNDAY SONG

HALCYON DAYS, COLD NIGHTS

Europa 1976 Vintage Classic, holiday villa, or ...

This story reminded me of my own long-drawn out slow police chase on the motorway as I was going to Cornwall a few years back.

I was moving to Bodmin where I planned to live if I enjoyed the job I'd got at Newquay. If my family liked the area, we'd eventually sell our house and settle over there for good. Until then It seemed a good idea and financially the most practical to live in the caravan on Bodmin Moor.

It was my pride and joy. I enjoyed every minute of the eight months I lived in it - even over the worst winter Cornwall had experienced in a decade when I was up to my knees in snow.

The caravan fell into our lap after a school gate conversation me and my other half had with a schoolmum we knew well. We'd chatted about how we had stayed in a friend's modern caravan on holiday and what a good time we'd had. The mum told us that she had a caravan but it almost tore her relationship apart. She hated it. Her husband loved it but recognised that every time they took it away they tore verbal chunks from each other in heated rows about it and came home feeling as miserable as sin. After their last holiday in it, they dumped it on a farm and ignored it.

Next day, as promised, the mum gave us the keys. The caravan came home all green and mouldy but when cleaned it gleamed and I fell in love. I polished it regularly, taking care to ensure the chrome bits around the windows sparkled, I made new furnishings for it, and my other half fixed a few things that didn't work inside it.

He always hated it. My descriptions of it alternated between "my holiday villa" and "A 1976 vintage classic." He had only one phrase to describe it : "A F****** piece of junk."

He intended just to clean it up and use it for one summer but 10 years later it was still taking us on holidays by the sea because I just couldn't let it go. When the chance to work in Cornwall came up it seemed the ideal solution to a temporary accommodation problem.

One of the main reasons my other half hated the caravan so much was because he had to tow it. If we ever argued it was always because of the stress of the journey - like the time the tyre blew out on the M25 as the hard shoulder ran out.

And so it was that he had to tow my treasure to Cornwall as I followed in my car. I don't like driving much and I hate motorways. This was at night so I stuck close.

Caravans don't travel well at over 50mph and it's best to keep them slower than that. Needless to say on a 70mph road, I was doing something like 35mph in my little Ford Fiesta as I followed. I became aware of flashing blue lights at the side of me as I drove. As much as I wanted to pull over, I couldn't. My other half hadn't spotted this going on behind the caravan.

Everytime I looked to my right, I saw a police officer pointing to the hard shoulder. I couldn't stop unless my other did because I was scared he'd drive on, I'd lose him and not know the way from there. He had the map. We've never had a SatNav.

I looked away awkwardly at first and then back and away again, and then pointed to the caravan hoping the officer would understand why I couldn't stop, that he'd have to pull my other half over if he wanted to talk to me. He looked a bit confused but at the moment as I looked away again the caravan began to indicate to the left, pulled into a lay-by and I pulled up behind it thereafter followed by the police.

The reason for the stop was because I was driving to close to the caravan, they said, which perhaps I was not wanting a lorry to get between me and my view of it. The police were very nice about it. They made me watch a video of myself driving too close to the caravan. They wanted to know where I was going. I told them about the new job as a senior reporter. They wished me well and let me off with a warning to keep a good braking distance apart.

I don't know how long they followed me on this slow chase before we all came to a stop but it was some time. I guess they knew that I wasn't going to outrun them or make a dash to cross the border to the next county so they patiently waited until it ended as it did.

I really enjoyed that halcyon few months working in Newquay and living on Bodmin Moor. I saw stars dance on the sea on a brilliant hot day on Fistral Beach. I counted the decades of different plant species in the historical hedgerows as I walked the lanes. I saw some of the best sun-sets I will probably ever experience in my life. I trod through snow deeper than I've been in before. And in work and life I met some of the nicest people I've known.

The planned move didn't work out, incidentally, but that's another story - and I have plenty of those to tell about this caravan which I was persuaded to sell after my kids all grew up and we found less and less reasons to move it from the space it occupied on the drive.

SMOKERPHOBICS WILL NEVER GET IT

Frank Davis's scrape with a smokerphobic has led to a debate in his comments on how the propaganda has perverted figures to steer people away from tobacco and those who choose to consume it.

Frank wonders if all vapers are like the bigot he bumped into but most of those I have met have bigger minds and can see the bigger picture. They defend our right to enjoy the natural product because once we're gone, they know they'll be next on the hit- list.

They also challenge the junk science on smoking because they know that soon the scientific cannons will be pointed at them. Some like Mr Bigot will never get it and that's the tragedy. All those of different lifestyles should stand together or they will pick us off one by one in this public health social engineering project.

They don't want smoking in future of any kind, and they don't want any evidence that it existed in the past. Eradication of all forms of smoking - shisha, cigarette, pipe, e-cig, cigar - is the ultimate aim. Useful idiots like Mr Bigot will help get them there faster.

The reason I don't believe this plucked from the air figure of several hundred thousands of deaths from smoking is because I haven't seen such deaths among my own generation of smokers. That's not to say that I don't believe active smoking can be harmful but I get more sceptic about the alleged "harm" it causes as each new day brings something new that smoking causes including dandruff. The health message gets more and more ridiculous and bizarre.

Meanwhile they don't explain why smokers I know from my generation are not dead? Even doctors say they don't understand why only 15% of smokers die of lung disease while others can live to a long life.

How many friends from my generation have died over the last few decades have been on my mind a lot lately after another died in a motorbike accident last week. He isn't the first in our circle lost through either a bike or a car accident.

I didn't know him well but a sudden death does rather focus your mind on how many people you have lost in your own life. There are those friends who committed suicide - one because he had a gambling problem he couldn't control and it was destroying his life, and another because the tax man was about to break him - and one friend died before he was 30 from leukaemia, another fell off a mountain while walking, another from a horse.

Within the last decade I've heard of too many who have fallen to heroin and died from overdoses. We had a bad heroin epidemic here in the late 90s and early 00s. Just imagine what they could have done to socially engineer people away from heroin rather than spending cash playing down its dangers by equating it with smoking.

Too many smokers from my generation have died before their time but none of them from cancer, a smoking related respiratory illness, or a heart problem. Sadly they have succumbed to living with all of its risk factors.

The fat of the land

Denmark has recently introduced a fat tax imposing an additional levy on all foodstuffs containing over 2.3% saturated fat (an oddly specific figure – how did they arrive at that?). Our esteemed Prime Minister has indicated that this is something he might be willing to consider for the UK (h/t to Leg-Iron for the poster).

This has been extensively discussed already in the blogosphere, but the following points are worth making:

1. There is an inherent contradiction in any such Pigovian tax as, by definition, if it is successful in its objective it will yield little or no revenue. Using the tax system as a means to promote changes in behaviour is a blunt and inefficient instrument that is highly prone to unforeseen and unwanted consequences.
   
2. While it’s hard to see people smuggling crisps, any tax system that imposes arbitrary cut-off points will inevitably lead to action by producers to get around it, as we are seeing with the new beer duty regime. Look forward to a whole raft of products in Denmark coming in at exactly 2.3% fat. These may well be even more “processed” than those they replace, and less palatable to boot.
   
3. It goes completely against common sense to stigmatise such natural, traditional and wholesome foods as butter and cheese, especially as many experts (as quoted in the BBC report about Denmark) believe that “salt, sugar and refined carbohydrates are more detrimental to health”. It is a dangerous game to try to sort foodstuffs into the “healthy” and “unhealthy” as in reality, as has often been said, there are no unhealthy foods, only unhealthy diets. You might perceive fatty burgers as “unhealthy”, but you’d live a damn sight longer on a diet of fatty burgers than on a diet of lettuce and celery.

At a time when we are in the middle of a global debt crisis and have been experiencing riots in the streets, to regard this as any kind of important political issue suggests a highly inappropriate choice of priorities, and indeed is indicative of a yawning disconnect between the political class and the general public, as Brendan O’Neill suggests here:

Cameron’s comments about a fat tax – which would target those great scourges of our age: ‘milk, cheese, pizza, meat, oil and processed food’ – were particularly striking, because they gave an insight into what this oligarchical political class thinks of those who live outside its bubble. We are not political subjects to be engaged with, apparently, but rather bovine objects to be physically tampered with, punished for our gluttony, pressured to ditch those gastro-pleasures which the political and media elites, as they discuss the horrors of sexist language over wine and vol-au-vents, have decreed to be ‘fattening’.

You do have to wonder if eventually the worm will turn and give the politicians a nasty bite on the no-doubt well-padded and fat-laden bum.

Edit: there’s an excellent article here by Basham and Luik in which they arge that “fat taxes” and “sugar taxes” quite simply do not work, and indeed may lead to people eating less “healthily”, not more.

Two pints of milk and a packet of rusks

The Daily Mail reports that the King’s Fee Wetherspoons in Hereford has started running a baby and toddler group in the bar area. It’s only from 10 am to 12 noon one day a week, so isn’t really going to bring about the end of civilisation, although you do have to wonder how well the kiddies will mix with the typical JDW early-doors clientele. But it’s hard to decide which is worse – the fact that it is happening at all, or the ludicrously sanctimonious comments expressing horror at children being taken into such a den of iniquity as a pub.

And it’s not so long ago that Prue Leith was proposing that pubs should be used for serving school dinners in rural areas.

BLOODY HELL! (Pat Elsewhere)

Well, I'm astounded. I agree with Peter Hitchens.

Given that he has become something of a smokerphobic of late, I'm bloody amazed that I find what he says in the linked article above fair, balanced, accurate and full of common sense.

What a shame that someone with such intellect is a prick when it comes to tobacco and personal choice.

FRANKENSTEIN AND FAT FOOD

Oh dear, I use to love broccoli but it looks like it'll be off the menu for my family in future thanks to scientists corrupting a healthy vegetable in the name of good health.

A heart disease and cancer-fighting "superbroccoli" developed by British scientists has gone on sale in the UK.

They say that they haven't messed about with the genetics of the plant :

Beneforte - a hybrid of British broccoli and a wild growing Sicilian variety - is available in Marks & Spencer stores now and will appear on other supermarket shelves next year.

British scientists used conventional breeding techniques to develop the new broccoli, rather than genetic engineering.

But I don't believe them neither do I trust any scientists any more since so many of them have set aside ethics and humanity to feather their own nests in the anti-smoker cause.

I also think that if this wild broccoli is so damn beneficial on its own, then why pervert it by mixing it with the more traditional kind?

I just wish they would leave our food alone and stop denormalising the normal and turning us into a nation of weirdos.

And if Cameron thinks he is doing us all a favour by slapping a fat tax on sinful food, then perhaps he should think about us skinnies. I can't put weight on so why should I be punished because someone else can?

All that will happen if he prices people out of food is that we will get skinnier and skinnier and the fact is, the undisputable fact is, that people who can't afford to eat will die of starvation. The myth of the "obesity epidemic" is just that. An over-hyped new industry designed to make scientists and their do-gooding, mealy mouthed, puritanical supporters, fat. They could well be the only ones able to afford to eat in future.

They make me sick - and that doesn't do us skinnies any good either!

UPDATE : 6/10/11

I think this poster that I spotted over at Leg-Iron's place pretty much sums it up. Vote Tory and starve!

And I'm guessing the mealy-mouthed miserable Tories will have to do something about this enemy of the state I mean, how dare Gregg's the High Street bakers push products that kill? One sniff of a giant doughnut is all it takes. Give it time and I am sure some junk science will "prove" that in line with Govt paid for demands. That's how it's done isn't it?

FRENCH DIGNITY DENIED TO UK SMOKERS

I just read this poignant account from Anna Racoon of her cancer treatment at a French hospital.

I found the last part of her story the most reassuring and well deserved considering what she'd been through. Anna said :

On arriving at Bordeaux, I met the ‘Oncologist’ – she spoke a little English she said. That turned out to amount to:

‘I have a lot of questions to ask you.’

‘Hmmn, OK.’

‘Do you smoke?’

‘Oui’ … (here we go!)

‘Ow many chaque jour‘ … (are we coming to the end of the English? Maybe the lecture in French is not so bad!)

‘Hmmmn, 20 or so’ … (takes deep breath and braces self)

‘Would you rather sit in zee petit jardin so you can haff a zigarette while I demand the questions…?’

-and with that she poured out two coffees and carried them to a seat in the garden and smiled benevolently as I lit up!

Wowee! These people are human!


Other reports from France show that smokers are treated equally humanely, with dignity, and not derided for "making themselves ill" as in the UK.

The message below was sent to me recently of a similar experience in France :

I was amazed when offered the opportunity to smoke in the hospital garden over a cup of coffee when filling in a questionnaire.

I was stunned to discover that even when hooked up to an intravenous drip, I was free to do so at any hour of the night or day in order to join the other walking wounded snatching a quick fag outside the door.

I was completely gobsmacked when two nurses appeared outside one evening pushing an entire bed containing an obviously very sick lady outside the door - followed by her partner carrying a bottle of champagne – and waited patiently for some half an hour whilst he had a couple of cigarettes (she was attached to an oxygen machine…ergo, they had come from the third floor, the lung department,) and shared the champagne whilst watching the sun set ...

One of the better sightings was a lady with only one leg on crutches, accompanied by a nurse who patiently alternated between holding her cup of coffee so she could smoke, and holding the cigarette so she could sip the coffee!

I have talked to one of the nurses about it, and their view is that – we already have cancer, so why worry about getting it somewhere else/ it is more important that we are stress free to survive the debilitating chemotherapy / the law only says no smoking inside the premises / most of them smoke as well...

None of the British nonsense of no smoking within the grounds of an NHS trust, not a single anti smoking poster in the entire place, just one statutory notice affixed to the main door.

Ashtrays provided in the small garden, and an elderly man who goes round with a broom sweeping up all the cigarette ends left by the walking wounded who can’t manage to get as far as the garden ...

Why is British law so hysterical – this place is a centre of excellence for cancer care in France, and if they are not hysterically anti-smoking, why are the British?


The email reminded me of two very different examples of NHS care that I'd recently heard about here - one by a close friend whose relative died in 2006 and the other a young mum I met on the street last July and chatted to over a smoke.

In the first case, the old woman in her late 70s was dying. Her last wish was to have a cigarette. To my friend's amazement, the hospital staff pulled a curtain around her, brought her an ashtray, and allowed her to smoke in her hospital bed between puffs of oxygen. That's how I'd like my end to be if I am not at home when my times comes.

I think that for some people smoking is a culture. One of the floral tributes at this woman's funeral was in the shape of a giant cigarette. I stifled a giggle when my friend told me because it seemed a bit bizarre but the point was that her relatives knew she'd want that final fag for her journey. Smoking had been a central point of her life since childhood. I'm sure her view would have been like Mark Twain's : "If I can't smoke in heaven I shall not go."

The other, recent, case was a young mum's grandma who needed a hip op but she was told she would have to pay for it herself because she was a smoker. Apparently on the grounds that the outcome after an operation is not good for smokers and they did not want to risk her life - but she could if she paid for it and she did. That was 2011.

All of the above are anecdotal examples of how NHS compassion appears to have been lost in such a very short time. It has been forced out of the service by a new regime and the politicisation of the NHS through our lifestyle factors. Everything about the sudden change in the way smokers are treated began with the smoking ban and health act of 2006.

The current Govt is adding to the woe in the misleading guise of "public health" which punishes people for wrong life choices. Soon there will be no NHS worth having if politics doesn't butt out.

If this new "progressive" form of NHS must lead to change, I would much rather see it go the French way than the American. In the US they don't just discriminate against smoker patients as our NHS does, they also discriminate against smoker staff on grounds of hate. There is not one single proven piece of evidence to suggest that the smell of smokers harm others.

If these so-called Progressives think that enforced social change can be achieved by denying people with "bad" lifestyles access to communities, housing, jobs and services, that their exclusion from the NHS is justified and a good and positive move forward, then they are showing themselves up for what they truly are - bigoted Regressives who are intent on taking us socially backwards because it fits their own ideological view of the perfect world.

And some of them are downright dangerous to society in pushing this enforced change.

Just about every single day since July 2007 it has been demonstrated time and again that this is really not about health.