I thought this was a spoof when I first read it: Sunday Post (my added emphases).

THIS will leave you in a spin – Government chiefs are weighing up a “bonkers” plan to ban domestic washing machines.

Proposals set out by the Scottish Government could also see people forced to give up energy-gobbling white goods such as spin-dryers and dishwashers.

In a Scottish Government proposal entitled ‘Making Things Last’, mandarins argue people should “move away from product ownership” and “rather than actually owning appliances”, they should use washing machine and dishwasher providers to pay “per wash”.

Green types claim centralised launderettes using super-efficient washers would help the environment, especially as the average household does almost 400 loads of laundry each year, consuming about 13,500 gallons of water.

But the plans, set out in a baffling consultation document which was published last week, have been branded a “suddy outrage” by people fed up with a claimed Scottish Government “nanny state”.

Scottish Conservative MSP Alex Johnstone slammed the proposals and said: “It’s bad enough the Scottish Government wants to appoint every child a state guardian and tell landowners what to do with their land.

“Now it seems the Big Brother mentality is creeping into how people wash their clothes and secure toys for their children.

I don’t know what ‘suddy’ means. But I do know what ‘forced’ means.

From Hampy Hamp (aka Pat Nurse?) on Facebook (my added emphases):

FYI – I had a letter this week from UK public health minister Jane Ellison (written by one of the ASH political lobbyists installed in the DoH) who confirmed that the Govt does intend to force everyone in the UK to quit smoking by any means and does not rule out criminalisation and discrimination as a means to achieve this. The Minister said people who enjoy smoking and have smoked a lifetime don’t matter. The sooner they die or quit the better. She only cares about people who don’t smoke. I won’t be voting Conservative, Labour or LibDem again as all those parties hate us and feel they have a right to bully us into living their way of life. ‪#‎MyLifeMyChoice‬ ‪#‎GovtDoesNotOwnMyBody‬ However, that said, she is too much of a coward to do it herself and so has given the power of persecution to local councils full of either thick morons or prejudicial bigots like our very own pRick Metcalfe and Karen Lee – both are dangerous smokerphobics.

I haven’t seen the letter. Maybe Pat Nurse has published it somewhere. But once again, I understand what the word ‘force’ means.

What is it about these people that they feel it is necessary to force people to do things. I suppose it must be because they think they won’t do them otherwise.

It’s actually perfectly possible that people might choose of their own accord to use ‘centralised launderettes using super-efficient washers’. If somebody offered me a service whereby I could have dirty clothes collected, washed, dried, ironed, and returned next morning, all for a modest price (made possible by the super-efficent washers), I’d happily dispense with my washing machine. Same with my dirty dishes.

But rather than allow the market to supply such services, these people have decided that they’re going to force people to use such services, which almost certainly will mean that you’ll have to carry your dirty clothes to the centralised launderettes 5 miles away, where they’ll all be boiled in filthy water that makes them even dirtier, and returned as un-ironed rags three weeks later (if they are returned at all).

But then, they’re not interested in what people want. They’re concerned about the environment. Maybe even Gaia. That’s what matters to them.

I think that all these mad utopian schemes – and they are all completely barking mad – will result in an economic and political disintegration in which the government tax income that is currently funding all these harebrained schemes completely dries up, and all these demented utopian planners in government and universities and quangos lose their jobs because there’s no money left to pay them. And there will be no money available for the washing machine law enforcement agencies either. They’ll all be fired.

And when they’ve all gone, people will dig up the washing machines and the stashes of tobacco and sugar and salt they hid or buried at the height of The Madness, and sit contentedly smoking in front of the little spinning machines (if there’s still any electricity to power them).

The utopian programmes, imposed by force, will all fail, of course. They always do. They will result in poverty, hardship, and most likely starvation and death. But why wait for this to happen? Why not simply pre-emptively fire all these batshit-crazy, authoritarian dreamers right now, and save ourselves a great deal of trouble?

About Frank Davis

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

52 Responses to Bonkers

  1. roobeedoo2 says:

    Someone should get David Hockney to ask Jane if this is true. Very proud of her roots she was when I worked under her at John Lewis. She lurved Hockney ;)

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    Its simple they don’t want self reliant anybody. They want you to be forced to use only state sanctioned ways of doing things and with that they build a world of insanity. A rock and a stick in a stream will wash clothes. Then hang to dry. Fuck the government Most of us fored them years ago anyway for just reasons like this above.

  3. Smoking Lamp says:

    I don’t know if the statement is true, the facts however support the move toward criminalization of smoking and discrimination toward smokers. Criminalization is being implemented incrementally. First indoors, now outdoors in parks, on the high street, and the beaches. Discrimination is being found in moves toward prohibiting smokers from working at some businesses, moves to ban smoking breaks, and moves to ban smoking in people’s residences (public housing for example). Coercion and outright force nurtured by propaganda is the means for this campaign for total control.

  4. slugbop007 says:

    Who is this Jane Ellison? Looks like another career politician who doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Prime Minister Cameron is a turncoat and a wimp.

    • Joe L. says:

      It appears you are correct, slugbop. A little background on Jane Ellison: “Ellison read Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Oxford. Previous jobs include working for the John Lewis Partnership, she was managing John Lewis’s customer direct marketing sector until 2010.”

      Surprise, surprise. Yet another rabid antismoker in a position of power who has absolutely no medical background! In fact, her background is completely devoid of natural science. This is a growing and deeply disturbing trend.

      What makes Ellison especially awful is that she actually studied politics. Personally, I believe those who study politics should be banned from holding any public office. It shows that they have no genuine interest in the well-being of the populace, but rather an interest in the inner workings of the political machine itself (most often in order to advance their own careers).

      • “Ellison read Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Oxford.”

        Er, does this mean she got a degree in those three things? Or that she attended for at least one day and read read at least a sentence by a political economic philosopher?


        • Some French bloke says:

          “The graduates of Oxford’s Politics, Philosophy and Economics course form the largest single component of the most despised generation of politicians since the Great Reform Act. Yet their old university does not show a twinge of concern.”

          (sensitive UKIP supporters beware: contains Farage bashing).

        • nisakiman says:

          Thanks for the trigger warning – Lord, I might have clicked on that link and been terribly offended! I would then have had to get on Twatter to call for legislation with draconian fines for any Farage bashers.

          Whew, close call…

        • nisakiman says:

          Sorry, @SFB is what I meant to type.

          I’m well down a bottle of (rather excellent) Nemea red, and my fingers tend to take on a life of their own…

  5. richard says:

    Ernest Shackleton’s polar expedition had a second component which was to lay supplies from the opposite side of Antarctica. Things didn’t go as planned, and the resultant saga of survival was truly heroic. Aneas Mackintosh was in command of this team, which became stranded.
    “”We have to face the possibility that we may have to stay here, unsupported, for two years. We cannot expect rescue before then, and so we must conserve and economize on what we have, and we must seek and apply what substitutes we can gather”. Their first recourse was to the food and materials from supplies left behind by Scott’s and Shackleton’s earlier expeditions.These supplies provided a harvest of material, which enabled clothing, footwear and equipment to be improvised, while the party used seal meat and blubber as extra sources of food and fuel. “Joyce’s Famous Tailoring Shop” fashioned clothes from a large canvas tent abandoned by Scott’s expedition. Even a brand of tobacco—”Hut Point Mixture”—was concocted by Ernest Wild from sawdust, tea, coffee and a few dried herbs.”
    Smoking in the workplace, eh? Naughty boys! However they didn’t wash their clothes for two years, except by “dry cleaning” them in petrol; they weren’t, for reasons beyond their control, able to have them sent out to a State washery to offset the CO2 from the seals they cooked.
    Funnily enough I have more respect for Mackintosh and Shackleton than for the type of power-crazed bint that likes to set her own fanny twitching by ordering people about. These people are nothing more than workplace bullies of the micro-manager, interfering, over-the-shoulder type but unfortunately their workplace is the nation.

  6. Rose says:

    I haven’t found anything about washing machines as such, but who knows?

    Making Things Last

    “In a world of finite resources, where global population and consumption growth are generating volatility and vulnerability in the supply of raw materials, the circular economy approach offers a new and exciting perspective.”

    “At the end of the day, it comes down to making things last – whether that be designing complex products to enable remanufacture, or quite simply empowering people to repair household items instead of throwing them away, the concept makes sense for business, industry, the public sector and individuals.”

    “For example, in a circular economy, the leasing, lending, and sharing of things, such as clothing, tools, and toys, could become the norm.”

    “The average UK household owns around £4,000 worth of clothes – and around 30 per cent of clothing (1.7 billion items) in our wardrobes has not been worn for at least a year. The cost of this unused clothing in Scotland is around £2.5bn.”

    How can clothing in your wardrobe cost the government £2.5bn?
    I have stuff dating back to the 90’s and beyond. I mean, sundresses just don’t wear out, because we get so little sun and special occasion clothes are exactly that. Old ripped jeans are good for the garden, I’m supposed to lease them out in winter?

    The mystery is solved, when the EU gives them an excuse, the social engineering enthusiasts go off in flights of fancy.

    Scotland’s solution seems to be to put itself on a war-time footing with a variation on “Make do and Mend” and a bit of Global Warming thrown in.

    Zero Waste Scotland has identified priority sectors and measures for action to develop the circular economy at European level, in its response, published today, to the European Commission’s consultation on the subject”

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Assignment: Ukiah – Mighty Jim Wood’s bold attack on big tobacco

    By Tommy Wayne Kramer

    Posted: 09/06/15, 12:01 AM PDT |

    I like people who smoke.

    I like people who smoke and drink.

    I like people who smoke, drink and ignore the schoolteachers, therapists, politicians and other pious scolds who think they are in charge of how others live their lives. Screw ‘em all.

    Smokers and drinkers are independent sorts who enjoy life; politicians are rank demagogues who trade their cheap rhetoric for moron votes. Schoolteachers and therapists are timid phonies who think that if they avoid red meat and white sugar, go gluten free and MSG free they’ll live an extra two years, even if it’s a joyless, dreary 24-month slog of misery.

    Whee. I lived to be almost 71. Break out the kale juice. Make mine a double.

    There is no more pathetic a species than the progressive PC herd that roams the Ukiah area, shuffling from meeting room to seminar, sipping bottled water and boring each other with assurances that they feel much better and much cleaner since they eliminated coffee from their diets and began the green tea regimen.

    Question: How do you know if someone is gluten free?

    Answer: Don’t worry, they’ll tell you.

    Our therapists and teachers are tired weakies who abstain from nicotine and bourbon only because they’re afraid of what their neighbors, colleagues and fellow-Democrats might think.

    If caught smoking, they might not be invited to the next central committee planning meeting.

    If caught chewing tobacco, they might be shunned, ostracized, fired and divorced. Such things just aren’t approved of in our circles, you see.

    A generation or so back Americans smoked two packs a day, had three martini lunches and built the Golden Gate Bridge, the interstate highway system, Yankee Stadium, wrote the best novels, poetry and journalism the 20th century ever read, sent rockets to the moon, and all the while taught America’s kids to fish, hunt, play ball and learn the accordion. But those parents smoked and drank. Very bad role models.

    Our generation is a lot smarter and we know better; no one smokes or drinks or builds anything other than their resume and their ego. They paw their smart phones, check their agendas, plan their meetings, accomplish nothing and go home early to eat organic low-fat, high-fiber sugar-free drudge with a side of tofu. No dessert for me, I’m lactose-intolerant.

    Now we live in cities where nothing of importance has been accomplished since an old hotel in the middle of town was demolished for a new dog park with green belts, urban trails and bike lanes. Along with No Smoking signs every 12 feet.

    Oh, it’s a better, safer, more sanitized world by far. Look at that guy: He’s happier and healthier and will live to be 71, going to meetings every day until he dies of boredom, having accomplished absolutely nothing in his lifetime other than attend ad hoc review sessions and serve on committees.

    But be sure to mention in his obituary that despite being obese, diabetic, boring, careful, politically correct, addicted to marijuana and stupid, he was proud of never having smoked a cigarette in his life. We’ll sure miss him.

    Now comes a recent Daily Journal front-pager (“Smoking Age Bill Moves Ahead”) about Jim Wood, a local political weasel with a plan to go after Big Tobacco. If there’s a fatter target than Big Tobacco, or lower hanging fruit or a cheaper way to pretend to take a bold stand on a risky issue, I’d like to know about it. Wood’s anti-tobacco blather is cynical political posturing, camouflaged as Helping the Children. Ahh, but isn’t it always?

    Wood, a State Assembly Democrat (who represents you, maybe) wants to raise the legal age for smokers to 21. This means Wood is fine with 18 or 19 year old men getting drafted, going to war and fighting, just so they don’t have any nicotine in their system when they die on the battlefield. He thinks 20 year olds (and a whole lot younger) are mature enough to vote, get pregnant, have babies and start families, but not mature enough to inhale tobacco fumes.

    Wood thinks he’ll save the taxpayers a lot of money by making sure no one smokes, gets cancer and dies at age 53. But the reality is that the bigger expense will be for people who drink bottled water, eat organic seaweed and live to be 106, the last 30 years hooked up to hospital machinery at a cost to Medicare of $41,000 a week. Oh yeah, Jim Wood’s always looking out for the taxpayer. And the children.

    Hey Woody: If you’re really interested in eliminating the problem why not raise the smoking age to 75? Why not make smoking illegal? Get tough, Jimbo!

    Except we all (even Jim Wood) know the answer and it’s a simple one: If there were no smokers he’d lose money. The inflated price of a pack of cigarettes (now hovering around $7) is mostly tax, levied by agencies like the California Assembly and politicians like Jim Wood.

    These tobacco taxes are notoriously regressive and more burdensome for lower income people, who have less money to begin with and smoke at higher rates than the wealthy. Wood wants higher taxes on impoverished smokers, meaning there’ll be less money for their kids and family.

    Jim Wood just can’t shake his addiction to tax money, even if it hurts the children.

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    Theophil Goddard Burning one gallon of gasoline burns as much organic matter as pack a day smoker burns in 7 months.

    Further, unlike the organic matter burned from tobacco leaf which was optimized over 8000 years of use by billions of life-long test subjects for beneficial and pleasant properties of its smoke, the burned matter of car gasoline was optimized for powering car engines with no regard for beneficial properties of its smoke.

    As result, in animal experiments, it is not difficult to harm test animals, including producing lung cancers, via inhalation of car engine exhaust. In contrast, in animal experiments with inhalation of tobacco smoke, the smoking animals not just don’t get harmed, but live 20% longer than non-smoking animals, while staying thinner and sharper into the old age.

    For over 6 decades of trying very hard, antismoking scientists simply couldn’t make inhalation of tobacco smoke to cause lung cancers in such experiments. Even more interestingly, when in such smoking experiments both smoking and non-smoking test groups of dogs were co-exposed to real lung carcinogens, such as inhalation of radon gas or radioactive dusts, 7 times more non-smoking dogs got lung cancers than smoking dogs. In other words, something in tobacco smoke was anti-carcinogenic (they never figured out from what components of smoke, much less how it worked).

    You can find references and discussion of these little known and completely unpublicized experiments in a long thread “Smoking is good for you” on life-extension & nootropic forum Longecity. The links to highlights of that discussion are in this post (I write there as “nightlight”):

    • Rickie says:

      Forget money Harley, this excuse is not needed to change the views of Forest who always agree about the dangers of smoking.

      Its your lobby, your side, and your truth and its rejected by Forest…..its as simple as that, unless you can get your side to agree then you are fucked.

      You have not hit anyone hard and bad…….this is just more denial, nothing has changed for the good of smokers in 8 years….these are facts..

      Your victories are comments are not permitted ,and a wiki page naming denialists….the smoking ban however continues to expand and worldwide too.

      This war of words that online bloggers like Dick Puddlecote/Frank Davis and the rest of the followers in this cult engage in is not REAL , there is no debate, no communication and it will remain that way whilst the cult hide behind fake names in their bedrooms.

      This is not lobbying….the proof is that nothing has changed, nothing even got close to changing,, their is no evidence that anything got started…..unless you count “intellectual property rights” which is a tobacco company advertising issue.

      First take baby steps Harley ….contact Simon Clark at Forest…show him your truth, and ask when can lobbying about smoking get started.

      Don’t say Rickie don’t help..

      • Frank Davis says:

        the followers in this cult

        It’s not us who are members of a cult. A cult consists of people who start believing crazy new ideas. What we believe is what was always believed about tobacco until the Tobacco Control cult (and it is a cult) showed up.

        We also tend not to believe what’s now being said about alcohol, sugar, salt, fat, etc either

        Come in number 86. Your time is almost up..

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Mummies’ clogged arteries take smoking, fatty foods, lethargy out of the mix

          By Tom Valeo, Times Correspondent

          Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:30am

          You do everything right: You exercise every day, include lots of fruits and vegetables in your diet, never smoke, minimize the stress in your life and take medication to keep your cholesterol and blood pressure under control. You’re preventing modern life from ruining your heart, right? • Well, maybe modern life isn’t as much of a problem as merely living. CT scans of 137 ancient mummies from three continents show that our ancestors had plaque in their arteries, too, even though they never smoked, never tasted ice cream or pork rinds, and had no choice but to exercise vigorously every day of their lives.

          According to the study, which appeared recently in the Lancet, at least one-third of the mummies, who lived as long as 5,000 years ago, had arteries that had narrowed as a result of atherosclerosis — the buildup of fatty deposits in the arterial wall. Apparently the cardiovascular system has a tendency to clog up over time.

          “Our research shows that we are all at risk for atherosclerosis, the disease that causes heart attacks and strokes,” said Gregory Thomas, medical director of the MemorialCare Heart & Vascular Institute, Long Beach Memorial Medical Center, and one of the authors of the study. “The data we gathered about individuals from the prehistoric cultures of ancient Peru and the Native Americans living along the Colorado River and the Unangan of the Aleutian Islands is forcing us to look for other factors that may cause heart disease.”

          The diet of the mummies varied widely, but contained ample protein and vegetables (and presumably no cupcakes or pork rinds). Aside from the few Egyptian mummies who lived their lives as pampered royalty, these ancient people used their muscles constantly.

          Yet, the atherosclerosis was found in mummies who died in what we today would consider middle age (almost none made it to 60). And just as today, their arteries became more narrow as they got older. CT scans of modern people have demonstrated that after the age of 60 for men and 70 for women, some degree of atherosclerosis is all but universal. One large study found that teens ages 15 to 19 showed early signs of atherosclerosis, and 50 percent already had conspicuous accumulations of plaque.

          “All of us age in every tissue of our body,” says Dr. Donald LaVan, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and a spokesman for the American Heart Association. “It’s just a question of how rapidly it happens. There’s nothing you can do to stop aging. All you’re trying to do is prevent it from advancing faster than it should.”

          The authors of the paper agree. “Although commonly assumed to be a modern disease, the presence of atherosclerosis in premodern humans raises the possibility of a more basic predisposition to the disease,” they concluded.

          So what can we do to thwart that predisposition?

          Above all, don’t smoke, says LaVan, and engage in regular physical activity.

          “After that, we’re in the realm of treating disease,” he says. “If your lipids are up or you have hypertension, take care of it. If you have problems with rhythm disturbances, that must be treated, too, because it impairs the ability of heart to pump efficiently. We’re looking at common sense here, but getting patients to do these things is tough.”

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Weve done everything I said weve done and without help from anyone. Forrest can keep on saying whatever they want. Their problem is they cant just go out and say everything the Nazis have said for years is shit science,at least not just yet. But trust me they know it the same as we all know it……….Franks Blog is full of facts and has discussed every claim ever made all the way back to the first junk science studies were done…………all full of holes……….all of them and still not one shred of end point proof of disease causation!

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          I can fill this whole blog page up showing all the junk science done thru the years the same as nearly any regular here can………..forrest is playing politics and the day will come when even they state outright NO PROOF EXISTS OF A TOBACCO DISEASE………Then the government will admit it too!

  9. RdM says:

    I reckon it’s been an old KGB influence campaign from the start.
    Or shortly riding along after, as intelligence operations do …

    What better way to destabilise, demoralise the West?

  10. Rickie says:

    I wonder why after 8 years of the smoking ban there hasn’t been any lobbying to change anything….all Forest /Simon Clark do is agree with ASH about the dangers of smoking and their need to educate smokers and encourage them to quit..

    Intellectual property rights (branding) or point of sale restrictions are fuck all to with anything really…the smoking ban could be challenged in certain areas like the elderly in care homes etc.

    The facts are that wallowing in denial and conspiracy is the cowards way of dealing with the issues especially as the those that do that are almost certainly anonymous bedroom warriors shit scared of being identified.

    lobbying and campaigning is an everyday event , fully transparent, real people, doing real things…Smoking lobbying doesn’t exsist.

    Ask yourself these questions Frank and your cult followers.

    1.If smoking doesn’t kill then why has nobody gone to the media abouth this truth, be identified as a real person and why is the official smokers lobby ignoring these claims.

    2. why has there never been a grass roots campaign to change anything for smokers, demonstrations etc….yes there was stony stratford but that was all squeezing into a pub…it doesn’t count does it.

    My view is that 99.9999999% of smokers are fully agreed about the dangers of smoking and agree with the ban…..this truth is of course known to you and your followers Frank so the real issues about the smoking ban are ignored and nothing is ever challenged , so all that is left is more conspiracy and denial exchanges between the cult that achieves nothing but 80% of pro smoking bloggers fucking off and giving up their blogs.

    Smokers you have done nothing but hide ….you have yourselves to blame.

    The greater crested scabby newt gets the public off their arses to do something.

    Its not rocket science but the simple truth…yet nothing will change.

    Good blog though….most smoking blogs are/have been frauds just wanting adds to blogrolls and more followers…this cult is serious and its fun to read.


    • nisakiman says:

      You are full of shit, DD. Go troll somewhere else, will you. Your comments are so repetitive and boring it really is no wonder you’ve been banned on so many sites.

      • smokingscot says:

        Look at it this way Nisakiman.

        With bated breath he managed to get another wonderfully original and enlightened comment posted on someone else’s blog.

        And he managed to get comments back. Okay they were disparaging, but hey, any kind of attention’s better than nothing at all.

        Imagine the excitement, perhaps the closest he gets to being aroused.

        On the other hand Dioclese has posted twice today and our Tricky Ricky the Double Dicky ain’t defecated over either post… so far.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      They give lip service to smoking harm. Since no proof exists of proven harm!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Rickie your side gets 10S OF BILLIONS a year to run propaganda and pay for junk science studies besides tons of taxpayer money to lobby and line the pockets of government legislators. We have none of that. If the government ran on an even keel and were forced to give the opposition as much money as it does its own created sock puppet non profits then we could destroy the very soul of the prohibition movement and likely Big Pharma too. Make no doubt it is Pharma pushing these lifestyle wars on everyone. But as all political agendas go they have a limited effective life and die a terrible death after they are found out for the frauds they are and publicly condemned by everyone including the media.

      As that’s what has happened thru the last 600 years of anti tobacco prohibition movements they always get repealed and todays will be no different. You see you guys couldn’t stop,you couldn’t be happy with a few small victories. No you had to move for total prohibition and then attack all the rest of the worlds population on anything and everything. That’s what hitler did made more enemies than he could control or fight.

      Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

      1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

      1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

      1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

      1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

      1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

      1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.


      • Rickie says:

        Thanks Harley for answering in an adult way.

        The problem is you can’t get your side to believe what you post about, you have to convince FOREST and all their spokesman what they know about smoking and its dangers are all lies, because at the moment they piss in the same pot as ASH over smoking kills policy.

        The other problems is if the 8 year long lobbying over the smoking ban remains confined to your bedrooms then you will achieve nothing.

        Money has nothing to do with convincing Simon Clark or geting off your arses and doing something.

        The official smokers lobby ignores you….. you couldn’t make this shit up.


        • harleyrider1978 says:

          They haven’t ignored anything. What they are contending with is DOGMA of the junk science community with big names and government doctrine put forth by ASH and CANCERUK all frauds to start with for big government and big pharma.

          Like I said we know how to spend the money to defeat these liars and propagandists if we had it. PR firms and open messages is all need be done to undo the LIARS right in the public eye. Weve done it before by simple Blogs like Chris Snowden and even Mikle McFadden in the SCHUMAN CASE……….

          So many times these junk scientists have to recant their propaganda its pitiful.

          OSHA itself knows its all BS yet because progressives are in charge the same way as climate junk science gets pushed so does anti smoking claims even when their proven lies at every turn……….

          It will end as the whole world tires of their BS……..And its so coming.

          BTW we have done more in 8 years with no money than you could ever have done with nothing.

          Comments rule the debate even the Nazis admit that.


          Comments Are Effective

          Posted on January 24, 2014 by Frank Davis

          Via Facebook:

          Commentary accompanying anti-smoking public service announcements (PSAs) in online forums like YouTube has an impact on the PSA’s overall effectiveness. Both negative and positive comments accompanying PSAs degrade the persuasiveness of the videos.

          According to researchers from the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg School for Communication, viewer commentary on PSAs have become an integral part of a PSA’s overall message.

          “One thing is very clear: It is no longer possible to consider the influence of news or other messages in the public information environment apart from the comments which follow them,” write Rui Shi, a doctoral candidate at Annenberg, and Profs. Paul Messaris and Joseph N. Cappella.

          I guess that means that if you write “Baloney!” under an antismoking ad, it really does make it less persuasive.

          “The detrimental effect of comments […] seems to suggest anti-smoking PSAs would be better off without comments, especially if the PSAs are strong or if the target audience is somewhat ready to quit smoking,” they write. The power of audience participation via social media is clearly a double-edge sword.

          I must remember that.

          But it isn’t really very surprising. I’m very often as interested in the comments under something as I am in the main item.

          And if comments aren’t permitted, I tend to wonder why. I usually conclude that they’re trying to shut people up, or they don’t want to know what anyone else thinks.

          Which happens to be true for Tobacco Control.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          We hit them so hard and bad thru the years Tobacco Control even set up a wiki page to point us out by name about 3 years ago or so. yes they are that rotten.

  11. slugbop007 says:

    That was a great link. I am going to send it to the lawyer representing the bar and restaurant association of Quebec. The Quebec government wants to ban smoking on outside terraces and the bar and restaurant owners association is planning to sue them.

    I just sent an email to Sebastien Sénéchal, the lawyer representing the bar/restaurant owners association of Quebec. I forwarded him Smoking Lamp’s link on tobacco control tactics, along with some other tidbits.

  12. Scot says:

    “The average UK household owns around £4,000 worth of clothes – and around 30 per cent of clothing (1.7 billion items) in our wardrobes has not been worn for at least a year. The cost of this unused clothing in Scotland is around £2.5bn.”

    Put your fingers in the air and, pluck out a number. Fucking horseshit, 4k of clothing in this house, the only thing thats worth anywhere near 4k in here is my spare kidney, and “unused” costs (pluck a figure out of the air school of economics again) 2.5bn? How?

    My wardrobe is hardly packed with top-end overpriced designer lables, in fact no designer shit in here, we don’t buy into it all.

    This sounds like getting a knock from the council wardrobe inspector in the not too distant future.

    They’re all fucking micro managing control freaks.

    And barking mad, like their figures…

    • Heh, 40K pounds is about equal to 50K dollars or so. It’s rare year that I spend 50 (PLAIN SINGLE) dollars on clothing! I guess it would take me 1,000 years then to acquire the wardrobe of a Scot!

      No WONDER that I don’t wear a kilt!


      • slugbop007 says:

        I guess it takes a lot of sheep to make one kilt.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Don’t the Scots have a Goodwill store around……………

        • Scot says:

          I get most of my gear from “charity” shops or second-hand clothes shops, after all if it’s still in good nick after 40-odd years, it’s not going to fall apart at the seams, after I wear it for a few days is it?

          As for kilts, you either buy one and keep it for life, or you rent one for special occasions (mostly weddings or rugby matches).

          What boils my piss is the bald lie about having £4k worth of gear hanging in your wardrobe.

          I’m not a bling-bling gangsta, or a SPAD for the Scottish government, so I wouldn’t recognise £4k worth of clothing if you dumped a skip of it in my drive…

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

  14. harleyrider1978 says:


    Posted on September 2, 2015 by John Mallon

    Circumstances have contrived to put smokers in a very awkward situation today. Due to persistent professional lobbying by the various arms of Public Health, cigarettes in Ireland cost twice the European average from all the legal outlets.

    However, as is the way of these things, the criminal fraternity have seen their opportunity and they would appear to have ridden to the rescue of the hard-pressed smoker by providing illegal cigarettes all over the country for the European average price or even below it.

    Forest Eireann has long argued that increased Government Excise on tobacco yields decreased income from that source because it forces smokers to seek an alternative supplier. When a fifty gram pack of Samson costs €20.00 in the shop and yet you can get the exact same thing for €6.00 on the street, you can see where the problem lies. At the stroke of a pen, the Government could put the criminals out of business. All they would need to do is return tobacco product pricing to the EU average, thus removing the profit motive from the handling of the illegal stuff.

    But that is just pure common sense so it is unlikely to happen. That leaves a problem though. The power-sharing executive in Northern Ireland is on the point of collapse and it is down to IRA criminality. We know on this island the IRA in it’s various incarnations are the Godfathers of tobacco smuggling. The guaranteed profits from these operations actually fund their continued war against our democracy in both Ireland and the UK.

    This then is the real moral dilemma for the victimized smoker. When you opt NOT to be a victim of State racketeering by buying legally in a shop, you are instead either directly or indirectly funding terrorist organisations. Think of it as, “The ballot box in one hand and twenty cigarettes in the other.” Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern both engaged in a lot of real politic when then cajoled all of the parties to sign up for peace in the North. Both leaders knew that the ranks of the paramilitaries on both sides were filled with young men who had only ever known a state of war and their war was funded by criminal activity. Those uniforms on the front line of law enforcement now know this and the unspoken official attitude seems to be to look the other way. After all, isn’t it better to have these men smuggling a few fags instead of bombing the State into violent confusion.

    There is little appetite in either London or Dublin to really stamp out the illegal tobacco trade lest it sets the hard men growling once again. But equally both Governments are guilty of pushing their own innocent citizens into the arms of these gangsters by falsely and grossly inflating the price of tobacco as they have done over the last ten years. And it is unsatisfactory now for the very lobbyists who forced our Governments down this track to wash their hands of the resultant criminality and say instead that it is a law and order issue. The lobbying charities and the feeble listening ears in Government are both guilty of conspiring to create the new tobacco smuggling phenomenon.

    They in turn though will blame we smokers for buying the cheap stuff rather than obeying their demands of us. In response however, we refuse to be bullied by quasi-charities and lying politicians and the criminals win hands down. This then is the state of play as I write. The retailers are naturally up in arms because by complying and obeying bad laws they all see their business going tits-up. Meanwhile what the Irish Examiner calls “An epidemic of illegal tobacco,” floods the country as we poor smokers are forced to fund the ex-paramilitaries.

    The very voices who condemn us for enjoying a smoke also tell us that smoking is a stronger addiction then a heroin habit. This begs two questions. If a heroin junky could buy his stash at half price or less, what do you think he would choose to do? And if smoking is harder than heroin to give up, how the hell are a million smokers to do so overnight? So buying illegal but reasonably priced tobacco contributes to the destabilization of the State, that much is clear. But then again, this is the State that controls the price for the legal supply and lies about ETS.

    It’s a moral dilemma but not of our making.

  15. smokingscot says:

    Imagine if you will that they do indeed ban all washing machines and dish washers. Then – somehow – stop people washing their duds in the sink.

    So you’ve got to place the whole lot into bags to be collected. Let’s just say it’s ecologically better to have that done in some sort of equivalent to a wheelie bin. So on the allocated morning you meander down to your local collection point to place your smelly fugs in a nice bag and the following day/week it’s back in your allocated collection point.

    So perhaps there won’t be a problem about your clothing being there with people of a different faith, or street people, or immigrants or people of colour or fags or dykes. But sure as night follows day someone’ll get royally ticked at having their clothes in close proximity to a smoker. I can well imagine the outrage at endangering the lives of others with 3rd hand smoke.

    Nah it ain’t going to work, that is unless they decide to have separate collections specifically for people who smoke. Oh and they’ll also have to have separate washing machines that’ll need to be decontaminated – so we’ll have to pay well over the odds.

    Then there’s the business of hamlets in the north of Scotland as well as the outer islands. Goodness, they hardly warrant a post office, so perhaps best just let them wash their own clothes. And keep their little secrets of crotchless knickers and the like to themselves.

    It’s just the practical things that sometimes get in the way of a cracking good conceptualisation.

  16. slugbop007 says:

    Shakespeare was ahead of his time.

  17. Pat Nurse says:

    Frank. I have emailed you. Can you check it hasn’t gone to spam x

  18. Pingback: Zip Zip Zooray – The Sun Came Out Yesterday | Library of Libraries

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.