These Filth Never Stop

H/T Tony and Harley in the comments, and Freedom-2-Choose (Scotland). Undeterred by the UK government’s decision to not introduce ‘plain’ packaging for tobacco, antismoking scum appear to have adopted another device, not just to get plain packaging into UK law, but also to ban smoking in cars with children inside them.

The new device is to include both as amendments (prepared on 20 July 2013) to the Children and Families Bill 2013:

12A           Children’s health: standardised packaging

(1)   The Secretary of State may, if satisfied that doing so is in the
interests of preventing harm to the health of children under the age
of 18 or of promoting the health of children under the age of 18,
make regulations specifying retail tobacco packaging requirements.


“8A Offence of failing to prevent smoking in a private vehicle when 
children are present

(1)   It is the duty of any person who drives a private vehicle to ensure
that that vehicle is smoke-free whenever a child or children under
the age of 18 are in such vehicle or part of such vehicle.

One has to wonder who governs Britain, that these vicious people feel they have the right to introduce legislation by hook or by crook, regardless of the government’s stated position.

It certainly fits with Anna Soubry overriding parliamentary scrutiny in order to ensure that the UK remained able to introduce plain packaging.

But why are they in such a hurry? And why have they set about banning smoking in cars as well (which, to the best of my knowledge, hasn’t been debated at all)? It’s almost as if they’re working to a scheduled (EU-wide?) rolling programme of bans, all designed to demonise and suppress a venerable culture.

Junican, in a comment, pointed out the reference to “children under the age of 18”. Are there children over the age of 18? With a flick of a pen, I can well imagine this becoming “children under the age of 25”, or even “children under the age of 60”. Because that’s really how they see absolutely everybody: as so many children to be controlled and instructed.

These people really are filth. And they never ever stop.


About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to These Filth Never Stop

  1. Children under 25 isn’t that far away Frank. They’ve already been pushing the children concept, at least through strong implications about “vulnerability,” among college populations here in the US: i.e. 18 through 22. And though I have no ref on this, I remember something about an age of 23 being proposed out in California… I think as a yearly graduated increase from 18. That was before they dared to propose the “Year 2000” nonsense. Year 2000 is a cute trick btw: it’s so far off in the future (i.e. 2018 for it to first have any effect) that people are willing to support it because they’re thinking of the “children” currently running around who were born in 2001 and afterward. If the Antis get it voted in, then, when it actually starts to “bite” they don’t have to fight: they can simply say, “Look, we all already AGREED on this law YEARS ago, so the only debate now is how to enforce it effectively.” Just like the delayed bans they go for in bars etc when they can’t get an immediate one passed.

    And the focus on cars right now isn’t EU — it’s worldwide, and it’s part of the general propaganda trick of focusing on children. They don’t give a damn about the children of course, but they see it as a way to reduce opportunities to smoke and also to give them an entryway into banning it inside homes/buildings where children live or visit.

    One thing though: you say “they never ever stop.” That’s only true as long as they have money. Yes, you’ll always have “The Neurotics” and “The Controllers” etc, but the power behind them comes from the money being yanked from things like curing cancer to put into nonsense like thirdhand smoke poisoning kids in cars. We need the sensemilla-growing hippies of the 60s/70s/80s to turn their talents to developing easily home-grown and cured tobacco strains. Take away the tax money and the Big Pharma profits and things would change rapidly out there.

    – MJM

    • Barry Homan says:

      All right, you guys still don’t like my National Choke-Out Day, where smokers (and all other persecuted people, because of weight, lifestyle choices etc) get together and refuse to buy anything, thereby putting the squeeze on worldwide commerce? It doesn’t even have to be my brilliant idea, I’m just frustrated no end by the Nanny State, as much as you Frank.

      Michael wrote me recently and asked if I had any kind of suggestion for a course of action. Sorry for not answering MJ, it’s because I had no brilliant idea for you. All I got is the spare time to read Frank’s and others’ blogs, it’s like watching an endless wrestling match. And that’s all that the average schmuck like me has got, we’d do battle if we had any…weapons.

      We smokers are 1 billion strong. That’s a formidable number. Frank, my idea is at least worth more than the few sentences it takes to express on this simple white page. THE AVERAGE SMOKER CAN NOT DO ANYTHING TO BATTLE THIS INSANITY. He has no weaponry. I feel it’s at least worth dragging the other higher-ups into some kind of discussion; you and Michael gotta get Leggy, Chris, Audrey, Pat, Dick and all the other worthy folk in on this. At least put the idea down on the table and you all study it together. See what, if anything, about it has merit. You wanna win this war? Then consider all the workable options. Thanks to you both, and to anyone else concerned.

      • Frank Davis says:

        you guys still don’t like my National Choke-Out Day

        I don’t dislike the idea. And I doubt anyone else here dislikes it either.

        It’s just a question of how something like that can possibly be organised. Because it’s the sort of thing that needs the mass media. And the mass media are entirely in the hands of the enemy.

        But this may not matter, because I think that what you are suggesting is happening anyway, and happening more strongly than you’re asking. In the ISIS study (see right margin), I estimated that, with smokers staying home and stopping spending, demand in the UK economy was down something approaching 10%. A single National Choke-Out Day wouldn’t reduce demand that much. We’re already having a big impact, without any organisation at all.

        What you seem to want, however, is a demonstration. You want to show the authorities what our real (or potential) strength is. You want to say to them, “Hey, look at what we can do.” Is it necessary to do this?

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Oh weve got plenty to fight with and it reeducates the public mind from TC and its junk science claims!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        That Plain packaging and minimum pricing were left out of the queens speech shows the hand of official policy of the government.
        What it truly shows is that the Nazis push has been thwarted and if the UK doesnt do it being one of the largess countries it sends the signal down the political pathway to other countries to ignore the anti-tobacco agenda.

        That is why these dirtbags have to by hook or crook force thru theyre madness!

        If one major country deters from the path they laid out the entire agenda is compromised and puts all they have done in jeopardy………..

        In america many places have dropped the outdoor bans and even repealed them although to many are still allowing this to happen. But, as Dr Siegel has stated by going for outdoor bans they have risked all and the junk science behind it. As was just shown in a recent study discussed here:

        Its becoming apparent at this point any further advancement of TC laws is one based upon simple hate and dislike. Its in all the comments when they are reduced to the basic laws of human nature. Having lost the SHS debate they simply collapse!

        Even in the direct smoking claims they collapse when challenged.

        How much longer the madness can continue is anyones guess,but it cant last for very much longer when we see governments and moneys falling away.

        The losses in revenues,the losses in enforcement,the largess blackmarkets.
        It all aids in forcing governments to end the chirades of public health fanatisism!

    • Rose says:

      We need the sensemilla-growing hippies of the 60s/70s/80s to turn their talents to developing easily home-grown and cured tobacco strains

      MJM, poor innocent soul that I am, I had to look that up to see what you were talking about.

      I’m thinking that a Havana/Virginia cross might fit the bill. The Havana grew easily but was such a pain to cure that I got rid of it. When I tested the few leaves I had left, I regretted my hasty decision.
      Virginia cured very well using the same system but it is not as smooth as the Havana.

  2. Marie says:

    “It’s almost as if they’re working to a scheduled (EU-wide?) rolling programme of bans, all designed to demonise and suppress a venerable culture.”
    I have this feeling too. It would be nice to have that proved.
    ““children under the age of 60″. Because that’s really how they see absolutely everybody: as so many children to be controlled and instructed.”
    Big MOTHER is watching you!

  3. beobrigitte says:

    Frank, you have ,enviably, summarized quite a number of issues of what is wrong with the mindset of anti-smokers.
    My answer to them:
    Lyrics of a song by Dios:
    I can’t be what’s wrong with you…
    (Dios is a very UNKNOWN mexican-californian band that seems to avoid youtube… lol)

    I guess an ever increasing number of people (and some political parties) can’t be what’s wrong with tobacco control, either. We have to break up with the anti-smokers & tobacco control.

    Perhaps we should do it via facebook?

  4. Iro Cyr says:

    Is it too far fetched to imagine that they probably get ”bonuses” from Big Pharma if they rush things through by hook or by crook? This is the only logical explanation I could give to this frenzy. If not then I truly think that they have become totally obsessed and in need of urgent treatment for their addiction to power. On this side of the Atlantic they are even worse. Maybe it’s some type of contest which continent passes the most absurd law the fastest. And don’t think such contests don’t exist. ”The Orchid and Dirty Ashtray” awards is one such competitive event for global zealots.

  5. Marcus says:

    To me it is quite simple, and not even money orientated. We all know that, while there are some very good health professionals out there in our NHS – who recognise that we are customers and not just ‘patients’ – there are also those that fall into the “I am God and you will do what I say” category. Unfortunately, this culture prevails in the upper echelons of public health policy making, on everything, not just tobacco use. Our biggest weapon is good scientific argument, but unfortunately we are a bit late with it, because none of us ever thought our country would ever go as far as it did, and by the time we realised that these nutters in the NHS policy making unit might actually get their way, it was too late!

  6. John Watson says:

    It’s time to remind the politicians who really has the power in this country, start firing the ones who support the anti-smoking lobby, make it clear why they are being fired that is what your vote is for! It’s not just smokers anymore either, it’s the obese, anyone who likes a drink, and anyone who drives a car, politicians love to penalise all of these people through taxation and in some cases bad legislation.

    • smokingscot says:

      Unfortunately the people behind these amendments are not elected. They hang out in the House of Lords and they’re a cabal. Some grace Stephen Williams committee on Plain Packs.

      They have no fear of losing their seat and they have no accountability whatsoever to the electorate.


  7. But we are all arguing against a wall. It has nothing to do with health, and you all know that.
    “Health,” is only an excuse for the morally superior to look down on and discriminate against smokers. As an example I cite a recent ad I saw on U.S. TV, which shows a young lady buying a 6 pack of vodka (I am not making this up) to take to her friend’s house. I had the sound off, but my guess is that it was one of those flavored vodkas that will appeal to teenagers. Want to screw up a kid’s health, and in the same 1/10 of a second wipe out an innocent family of 4? Induce that kid to suck down a 6 pack of flavored vodka, just like the handsome adults on telly do. That of course, is not good for the health. But nobody is writing laws that require prior restraint against drinking, for example, as they are doing against smoking. Drunken driving teenagers (and adults) don’t offend the morally upright the same way you do when you want to have a relaxing smoke. Shame on you immoral smoking degenerates. Nothing you can do will redeem you (unless, maybe, if you give up smoking and just take up drunken driving).

  8. waltc says:

    Could someone explain the politics of this to me. Who are these Lords and Ladies who can amend a law on their own? Are they part of some (equivalent to the US) executive branch agency (like the FDA, EPA) some body that can make “rules” w/o reference to (our equivalent) congress? or are they MP’s– and if so, don’t major amendments like this have to be voted on? Just trying to understand the rules of your politics (tho the rules to ours here seem to get broken with abandon).

    • Frank Davis says:

      Don’t ask me, because I’m no constitutional expert. But, very roughly, amendments can be made to bills put before parliament. So they’ve taken an existing bill, and and amended it by tacking on their antismoking clauses. Whether it gets through is another question, I believe.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        If its anything like America it can be killed in comittee or destroyed by a simple vote in the legislature at the time of voting on the amendment to the bill……Then it comes down to partyline votes usually and thats when you find out who is with us and who isnt. Many times major legislation gets canned because of these rider amendments that get attached.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Walt regulatory law is how they side step constitutional laws! They claim the regulations are constitutional because of the interstate commerce clause which is where all these federal depts and federal law enforcement find their ability to exist! We have to remember interstae commerce clause only truly dealt with the fact congrees wanted to ensure free flow of commerce between states and that no stateline could impose tariffs or charge tolls crossing statelines. It had nothing to do with the federal govment having the power to regulate what that commerce was.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      That was another states rights issue,but the the fugitive slave law allowed men from other states to cross statelines and retrieve runaway slaves. Hense the beginnings of interstate laws on the federal level along with toll roads built with federal monies. Its been expanded to the behemouth we have today.

  10. nisakiman says:

    Well, looks like the antipodeans are leading the way in fucked-up thinking again:

    Authorities in New Zealand have told a South African chef he is too fat to be allowed to live in the country.

    They really are a sweet bunch, are they not?

  11. junican says:

    If you go to the actual document, you see that it is an amendment being proposed by a few fascist Zealots in the House of Lords. They have done this before, and their efforts have been rejected in the Lords. As I understand it, one or two Lords cannot actually force the adoption of an amendment off their own bats. Note this:

    As I understand it, it is this ‘Grand Committee’ which suggests amendments to Bills which are to be proposed in the Commons. It isn’t often that amendments proposed in the Lords get through, unless they refer to technical/legal matters, which is what the Lords is supposed to be there for.

    In my opinion, the amendments, while they look legalese, are rather sloppily expressed. The phrase ‘children up to the age of 18’ rather gives it away.

    I think these particular Lords (probably members of the All Party Group on Smoking … ) are just trying it on.

  12. junican says:

    By the way, ASH ET AL have been using the phrase ‘children and young people’ for ages, thus lumping together kiddies and young adults (up to a non-expressed of around 25). It is one of their favourite axioms and one of their most useful propaganda axioms. It is based upon the other axiom that people who do not start smoking before the age of 25 never start smoking at all.
    But that is another of their false axioms, like smoking kills 50% bla, bla. What they are doing with that axiom is taking the status quo (being that people take up smoking as soon as they are old enough and have enough money, and have the inclination) and falsely implying that they would not have taken up smoking had they had to wait until they were 25.

    • lleweton says:

      Re Lords Grand Committees:
      If a public bill is not committed to a Committee of the whole House, it is usually committed to a Grand Committee. As described above this is done on motion moved after Second Reading. Bills which are unlikely to attract amendments and which would have their committee stage discharged on the day of the committee stage are not committed to Grand Committees.
      7.98 Any bill may be committed to a Grand Committee. The proceedings and forms of words in Grand Committees are identical to those in a Committee of the whole House save that no votes may take place. Only one bill per day may be considered in Grand Committee. Amendments, which may be tabled and spoken to by any member, are printed and circulated as for Committee of the whole House.
      7.99 As divisions are not permitted in Grand Committee, decisions to alter the bill may only be made by unanimity. Thus when the Question is put, a single voice against an amendment causes the amendment to be negatived. If there is opposition to an amendment, it should be withdrawn in Grand Committee, to enable the House to decide the matter on report. For the same reason the Question that a clause or Schedule stand part cannot be disagreed to unless there is unanimity; provided there is a single voice in favour, the clause or Schedule must be agreed to.

    • Marie says:

      I started to smoke, when I was 25.

  13. ‘Children’ of 16 and 17 are legally able to drive cars in the U.K.
    What would be done if a driver of a car aged 16 or 17 was smoking. Would they be prosecuted for ‘endangering’ themselves ?

  14. Pat Nurse says:

    Will they also take the one thing that smokers do have left – the smokers blogs?

  15. Pingback: Anna Soubry Must Be Fired | Frank Davis

  16. Pingback: Tory MPs Rebel against Plain Packaging? | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.