Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Smokers are pariahs...

Surprise surprise! A Cambridge University Press study has found that smokers are the new unclean lepers of our society. No kidding! I don't know how much this study has cost the taxpayer...a good few thousand I should think...but all they had to do was to simply ask a few smokers what they thought society was doing to much easier and cheaper don't you think?
An adviser to the DOH (department of health), Professor Hilary Graham is someone that overwhelmingly believes that society has now made lepers of the very people that nannies like herself were ostensibly trying to help. It sure took them some time to come around to that obvious conclusion...perhaps they've spent some time in the blogosphere reading and understanding what those that are most affected by the ban think. I think the Americans call it thinking outside the box.
I have to say though, she has called for the relentless anti-smoking campaign to be withdrawn to allow some sort of hiatus to develop whereby society doesn't continue this vilification for a while. Well that's nice...a bit late though...once this persecutory behaviour has established itself in the human Psyche, then it will stay permanently. Trying to roll this backwards will be virtually impossible to least for the next few decades.
The report raises issues about social class, I'm sure that you've read many times that poor people do most of the smoking and therefore they in some way should be pitied...after all they can't help it can they? How deeply patronising! Don't people from other classes smoke regularly, it has never been simply confined to one socio-economic class, smoking straddles and always will - the complete social divide.

Still any acknowledgment that this smoking ban legislation has created a group that can be legally hated is better than no acknowledgment...and that as far as were're concerned is called progress.

Saturday, 25 February 2012

Extradition should work equally both ways.

The picture on the left shows retired Businessman Chris Tappin from Kent, and his wife Elaine arriving at Heathrow airport before being deported to the US (Texas) accompanied by US marshals, where he will face charges of supplying batteries that he thought would be used in the car industry, but in fact were always destined to power Hawk air missile systems for the Iranians six years ago. When he steps off the plane in the states, he will be handcuffed to a chain around his waist, as well as having a leg-iron. How undignified for someone who has seemingly led a blameless business career. More than likely he will face enormous pressure to plea-bargain - and possibly face financial ruin for a crime he is adamant he didn't comit - in order to mitigate his sentence. What you probably don't know is that Chris Tappen at the time was dealing with a company whom he thought was a bona fide company, when in actual fact it was being run by the FBI...that's right, it was a sting set up for the purpose of entrapment, and so the Americans now want one of our British nationals to face trial and if he is found guilty of said offences, then he could face up to 35 years in jail, they really know how to sentence offenders don't they - nice eh?

Of course there are a whole host of problems with this, naturally. Why wasn't he prosecuted here by the CPS (crown prosecution service) if there was sufficient evidence against him. One reason being muted for this - and it does make sense - is that, if the FBI had set up this sting then the CPS didn't want to jeopardise their operation, and of course it isn't clear how Tappen came to the attention of the FBI in the first place...since there doesn't appear to be any evidence of whistle-blowing, although I'm sure that as events unfold this will become increasingly clear.

There is also the problem of the extradition treaty itself. Quite frankly it stinks! Why? Well, the biggest stumbling block is the way it was drawn up back in 2003 and came into force 2007. You see, it's so much easier for America to sucessfully extradite one of our citizens, than it is for us to extradite one of theirs. So, because of the public outcry David Cameron has asked Home Secretary Theresa May (her of the leopard skin shoes) to conduct a thorough review into the treaty that we have with the US.

According to a report produced by Lord Justice Scott Baker, 'the 2003 Extradition Act was not "lopsided" or biased against British citizens'. That may or may not be the case, but it does suggest that the treaty was drawn up rather too quickly after the 9/11 attacks against the Twin Towers and not giving our citizens the kind of legal protective framework that they deserve. This has to change, because as it stands the US makes a request and and one or more of our citizens is being carted over the pond on very little evidence - which in any event should be exhaustively tested in our own courts first...don't you think? Whatever the outcome though - I wish him well.

Incidently...we often hear sniping against the Daily Mail, but the snipers never mention that it has been the only paper to run a sustained campaign for Gary Mckinnon not to be extradited to the US.

Perhaps we should bear that in mind in future.

Thursday, 23 February 2012

Arnott vs Snowdon

A very interesting debate took place between Deborah Arnott of ASH and Chris Snowdon, author of Velvet Glove, Iron Fist and historian. This little skirmish took place on the Today programme, where Arnott had most of the air-time which is what you would expect from the beeb. However Chris scored some good points and personally I think did some damage. To begin with Arnott speaks about peer reviewed studies around the world (around the world?) showing that plain packaging would be successful. Surely this is doing things the wrong way round.
Let me explain. Presumably we are talking about epidemiological studies. Such a beautifully balanced word is epidemiology, it has twelve letters and literally sings from the page. Why? Because an epidemiological study is a one size fits all johnny, it can say whatever you want it to say, it depends who’s paying the bill. An epidemiological study can only make sense of intrinsic evidence as and when it becomes available, it cannot be used to determine any outcome unless that evidence is already available…and since we don’t know whether or not plain packaging works because it’s never been tried, then what use are any studies until then?
I do wish Chris had handled the question about funding a little better though. Arnott made the point that the Adam Smith Institute takes funding from tobacco companies – so what? At least it’s private money and not extracted from the taxpayer as it is for Arnott and her cronies. In fact ASH get two bites of the same taxpayer cherry. Once from central government – whether we like or not - and secondly, from CRUK, (cancer research UK) and BHF (British Heart Foundation). Just what the hell are these two doing funding ASH…shouldn’t they be using this money for their own needs?

Anyway since nobody will be reading this I’m going out to play in the sunshine.

Tuesday, 21 February 2012

Poo-bags...for that squishy moment!

If you want erudite bilge then go elswhere - OK? Now then lets get down to some good honest crap...get it eh? Crap! Ha, ha ha haha...Oh dear, how do I do it...I really don't know. Seriously though, like many people I did my potty training fairly early on...well when I say early...I was about fifteen when I got my very own personal pastel coloured little shit-bin. Hey, you know what...very often I would wear it on my ludicrously big head - not when it was full of course.

You know, my parents (God bless 'em) would allow me to have my friends round, where we could smoke, drink and discuss the individual merits of our pottys', you know the kind of thing, colour, style, holding capacity...and naturally we would hold potty races on the pavement outside before diving back into our garden shed when someone came along. Sadly, no potty events were ever held in our community.
Anyway, I was about thirty-five when I partially completed my potty training, and I could move on to my final bowel development stage. Wait for it!...Yep, you guessed it...BIG POO NAPPY-BAGS! What's more, they've now arrived in large numbers in the shops, just waiting for why not pop along and treat your self?

But first here's a little story for you.

Just recently
I was dining out with friends when suddenly I gave way to a monumental bowel movement, Oh boy – what a stink! But guess what…no problem at all, why? Because my ‘Big Pooh Nappy-Bags’ had everything under control - don't you see?
Despite the big pile in my pants, which became embarrassingly squishy, I was able to look the world right in the eye, because I knew I could still sit there without having to go to the shit-box and dump my load.
Yeah, that’s right, my ‘Big Pooh Nappy-Bags’ were saying to me “Hey…you can crap boulders you mincy bollock, but we can swallow em’ right up. So… you just kick back and enjoy your meal, you filthy smelly botty you!”

You can
now buy them in ‘Regular Big Pooh’, or ‘Super Big Pooh’ sizes, in four delicious colors accept brown of course and each pair is double stitched which doesn’t just mean extra strength, but also a great leak free experience. When you want to give that extra special present to someone you love, then why not try these. Doesn’t this just sound like the kind of thing you’ve been waiting for?
You can also step up a gear for that real hardcore experience on your next night out – by taking a full pack of laxatives…and treat your ‘Big Pooh Nappy-Bags’ to a real workout...squishy-ville here I come!

Believe me, I’ve never had so much fun since raiding washing lines for elderly ladies surgical support stockings back in the seventies!
Next week I’ll be telling you how you can make your own incontinence pants out of one of your neighbours bin liners…hell why use your own!

As usual all merchandise will be sent under plain cover. (You pervy bastards!)

Monday, 20 February 2012

Noble Lords?

I was doing a gentle trawl through Hansard today, and I thought I'd take a look at the Health Bill debate from 2006 concerned with bringing in an eventual smoking makes for some very interesting reading. I always believed that their Lordships were capable of nothing more than the usual rubber stamping of whatever came up from the commons. But that didn't appear to be the case at all.
This Health Bill was being read for the third time and concerned an amendment about smoking in vehicles. Not everyone thought that so called 'passive smoking' was as dangerous as the Government made out. Here is what Earl Howe had to say about it on the 4th July 2006.
“To say that there is a potentially lethal health risk from someone getting into the cab [of a lorry or tractor] after the previous driver has been smoking there seems ... ridiculous. If there is any residual smoke present, it will disappear rapidly ... there should be a common-sense cut-off point in these matters”.
It has to be said that Earl Howe wasn't the only noble Lord to find the nonsense spouted by the Government completely ludicrous.
Several Lords thought the same way, that the Government's response to something that was so trivial, was far too heay handed.
Lord Monson said this: "The Government seem to be arguing that second-hand smoke is not only disagreeable—few would quarrel with that—but also that it is one of the most deadly poisons known to man and that it remains poisonous hours after the last smoker has left the scene. That is ridiculous and it is certainly not borne out by the everyday experience of well over 99 per cent of the population". It's quite clear from reading their comments that they had a reasonably good grasp of the 'passive smoking' issue.
However one Government skivvy, Lord Faulkner always in favour of the ban, showed his ignorance or perhaps should I say intolerance. Here's what this bunteresque character had to say: "This attempt to imagine that we should exclude work vehicles, such as refuse vehicles where a gang of people may be at work and where people are coming and going all day long, because it is somehow safe if a couple of people smoke and it will not do any harm to the others is just absurd. The science does not support that point of view".
Earlier on in the debate Faulkner would not give way...and his naive comments just shows how deeply ignorant of the facts he is.
Faulkner was never able to present a shred of evidence that 'passive smoking' was as dangerous as the zealots so very often spout.

There were other Lords too (Lord Stoddart of Swindon for one) that fought their corner, but to no matter how reasonable their arguments.

Thursday, 16 February 2012

Excrement On Our Streets

I just can't resist coming back to this story about Abu Quatada, whom as you will know has been set free with restrictions which include not using a mobile phone or the internet and neither can he visit any mosque. It's been reported that his mother doesn't want him to stay wise is she. This dreadful slug has cost the British taxpayer a handsome £1 million pounds over the last 19 years to keep him in this green and pleasant land of ours.                                                                   You will also remember he arrived here on a false passport, and has been here ever since preaching against all manner of people in his moronic style...particuarly muslims who leave their faith. This is one sick shit!
But isn't it exstrordinary that the system he so depises has helped to keep him here living in some style. He lives with his brood in a grand house in London and all at the taxpayers' expense, he doesn't pay a penny for the upkeep of the house, nor does he work...he just spouts skip loads of bile with impunity.
There's a huge amount of evidence which isn't circumstantial, which lays bare his hatred  of most of mankind, which include jews, gays and Christians. He has not been charged with any hate crime in this country, because the police authorities say that it may compromise their sources of information.
This shit sucker is wanted for questioning in several European countries such as  France, Belguim, Spain, Germany and the US. I mean that's quite a roll call wouldn't  you say? So, if we can't send him back to Jordan - although were're trying our best diplomatic efforts to draw up an agreement with Jordan on having him returned there - if that fails, then we could simply put him on a merry-go-round, and send him to the countries that want to speak to him. Then when that country has done with this twat, and unless he's charged, he can then be passed on to the next country that wants to bend his bug infested tabholes. You can rest assured of one thing, that if ever he is charged and convicted in the US - then that nasty raggedy head of his will never see the light of day again anytime soon.

One question did occur to me, if he has to remain in this country, then perhaps he can be found a job cleaning sewer pipes for example  (fully supervised of course ) and start paying back all the money he's sucked out of this country.

Monday, 6 February 2012

Stephen Williams MP...debater or masturbator?

Personally I think the latter; this MP is one of those that when he finds a populist band-wagon to jump on – he will do so without thinking. Stephen Williams, is chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, he recently wrote on this blog: “This morning I was pleased to help launch Europe’s first major campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of glitzy tobacco packaging to children. The Coalition Government will shortly launch its consultation exercise on whether to follow the example of Australia and introduce the plain packaging of cigarettes.”

I like the use of the phrase “The Coalition Government will shortly launch its consultation exercise…” Yeah, right. It will be nothing of the sort, this bunch of politicians will do what all the others have done in relation to the smoking issue…they will simply ask themselves what they think through the myriad quangoes that they’ve set up with taxpayers money, whether the taxpayers likes it or not. Quangoes aren’t going to disagree with the government are they now?
Anyway he says he will go head to head with Simon Clark of Forest over the issue of plain packaging and other peripheral issues which surround this vexed subject. I do hope it comes about, and we can see from the Forest website that mostly all commenters are hoping this will happen. I wonder what stringent criteria Williams will set, perhaps in order to try and stack the deck. Will anyone from ASH dare to turn up and take on people with different opinions to their own...somehow I doubt it.
I say this because, I can’t possibly imagine it being a true and fair debate involving the pro-smoking side. Never once, in any meaningful way, has the pro-smoking side been asked to give their opinions, or been allowed more importantly, to ask detailed questions about ‘passive smoking’ killing people which we know there is no evidence for.
Nor do select committees ask detailed questions of those presenting so-called evidence to these select committees - and that's because they're too stupid or just a bunch of rubber stampers with no imagination. What do you think?

If it does come about I hope the media will be there to see fair play.