Organised Crime

Bucko‘s local council, Blackburn and Darwen, has been clamping down on litter louts. He decided to investigate:

I fired off an FOI request to B&D council and asked exactly what they had issued fines for in the last six months. The results came back this morning

“FROM next week litter louts and owners who let their dogs foul the streets in Blackburn with Darwen will face ‘on the spot fines’ if caught.”

Fines issued for litter – 137
Fines issued for dog fouling – 26

“They are like secret police. They appear from nowhere and just slap you with a fine.

Fines issued for cigarette buts – 4113


It seems to have been aimed squarely at smokers, since they’re the ones who’ve been hit hardest.

According to my calculations, 4113 times £75 is £308,475 in 6 months, and £616,950 per year, extracted from the citizens of Blackburn and Darwen. The population of Blackburn and Darwen at the 2011 census was 147,489. Assuming a 20% prevalence of smoking, I make that £21 from every single smoker in Blackburn and Darwen. Or about one smoker in every four will have been hit with a £75 fine.

It’s just organised theft, really. There may as well be a bunch of muggers on the streets, robbing anyone they see smoking a cigarette. Or anything that looks like a cigarette.

But that’s what Tobacco Control is: Organised theft. Organised Crime.

I asked in the comments which parties controlled the council. The answer I got was: 37 Labour, 13 Conservative, 1 Lib Dem. Why am I not surprised? And maybe at the next council elections, smokers will stop voting Labour.

But if they do, and the Conservatives win, isn’t it likely that they’ll do the same as the Conservatives at Westminster? They’ll do nothing. They might even increase the fine to £100. What politician is going to turn down a new source of income? It’s all theft in a good cause, isn’t it? Surely it’s a vitally needed Public Health measure! Shouldn’t it be extended to include anyone who drops chips outside any of Blackburn and Darwen’s chippies? Wouldn’t that be another Public Health measure? The possibilities are endless.

And I’m wondering whether Tobacco Control is now moving globally to not just ban smoking (and anything that looks like smoking) in indoor public places, but also outdoor public places.

After all, a few weeks back, New York City councillor Peter Koo proposed a ban on smoking while walking on the city streets. And then Ireland’s James Reilly proposed a smoking ban in eating areas outside restaurants. And now our attention is being drawn to an English local authority targeting smokers who drop cigarette butts outdoors.

In each case there’s a different justification for the attack on smoking outdoors. Smokers are a nuisance, or they’re litter bugs, or maybe just bad examples to the ubiquitous chiiiildren that invariably front these campaigns.

And Tobacco Control is a global organisation, operating out of the World Health Organisation. They hold regular conferences, at one exotic location or other, much like the climate scientists in the UN. And these conferences now seem to be conducted in complete secrecy, with the world’s press excluded. It seems entirely plausible that they’ve now decided to push to extend smoking bans to ever-expanding outdoor areas, so that already-excluded smokers are excluded even more. And that’s the order that’s gone out to all their activists around the world: Start pushing for outdoor smoking bans. Do it locally. Push for them using any possible justification you can dream up. Ban smoking in cars. Ban smoking in parks and on beaches. Ban smoking while walking. Ban smoking while eating. Extend the bans from hospital grounds into surrounding streets. Extend them around schools that are full of chiiildren. The chiiiildren are your infantry: nobody can defeat them.

The politicians won’t get in their way. As we can see in Blackburn and Darwen, they’ll just be glad of a new income stream of fines from smokers.

But we smokers can band together. And we’re beginning to do so. In the past couple of weeks I met up with several people just because they were smokers like me. And Bucko was one of them. He drove a long way to meet up with us.

There’s a network of smokers slowly emerging around the world. They’re talking to each other. And they’re doing things for each other. I wrote this post today because Bucko asked me to, and I’m more than glad to help. Legiron in Scotland has done the same. And so has Grandad in Ireland. That’s four blogs mentioning it. (And now a fifth, Dick Puddlecote) What happens when there are 40 or 400?

The larger and more extensive the network, the more powerful it becomes. And I think that in a few years time this loose, informal network will become a new global superpower with millions of adherents. And they’ll destroy the organised crime syndicate of Tobacco Control.

About Frank Davis

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

30 Responses to Organised Crime

  1. buckothemoose says:

    Cheers Frank!

  2. Tony says:

    A couple of recent and relevant Charles Veitch videos
    Sneaky Blackshirts vs Smoking Students

    Dystopian Manchester is a mess

  3. Clicky says:

    • Frank Davis says:

      Not having a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, this is all I can read:

      Don’t Even Think of Smoking Inside Your New York City Apartment
      Dozens of buildings have voted to ban lighting up even behind the doors of privately owned units

      By Josh Barbanel
      May 9, 2018 8:00 a.m. ET

      The smoking lamp is going out at co-ops and condos across New York City.

      Dozens of buildings caught up in the zeitgeist of green buildings and healthy living have voted to ban smoking even behind the doors of individual privately owned apartments in the last few months, co-op and condo lawyers say.

    • Joe L. says:

      No subscription here either, but I was somehow able to read the full article on my first visit. Now if I visit the page again, I can only read the intro. Luckily, I copied the full text while I had the chance. Also note the mention of the magical property of smoke being able to penetrate solid objects (“future complaints about smoke seeping through walls”):

      The smoking lamp is going out at co-ops and condos across New York City.

      Dozens of buildings caught up in the zeitgeist of green buildings and healthy living have voted to ban smoking even behind the doors of individual privately owned apartments in the last few months, co-op and condo lawyers say.

      At the Century Condominium, a 1931 art deco tower on Central Park West, the ban on smoking in the 410 apartments there went into effect in March after a year-long campaign to gather two-thirds vote of owners needed to change the rules. It passed despite the opposition of some long-time smokers in the building.

      Clifford Eisler, a finance executive and board president said the vote would reduce the conflicts that occasionally arise between neighbors living side by side and give the building a tool to deal with future complaints about smoke seeping through walls and hallways.

      He said he expected little action against people who smoke—cigarettes, cigars, pipes or marijuana—in their apartments as long as there aren’t complaints.

      “We are not going to have smoke-detecting dogs,” he said. “If someone is smoking in their apartment and no one notices, it is kind of like a tree falling in the woods.”

      In many buildings, the push was driven by a new city law that takes effect in August, requiring every apartment building in New York City with three or more units to adopt an official smoking policy. The law doesn’t require buildings to ban smoking, but the effort to draft policies triggered a reassessment at many buildings.

      The changes also reflect the shrinking clout of a minority of New Yorkers who still smoke, as well as the increasing concern about second-hand smoke. A 2016 survey found that the share of adult New York City residents who smoke declined to 11.5% from 16.2% in 2011.

      The New York City Health Department pushed for the new law, along with other anti-smoking measures last year. It recently found that 49% of adult New York City apartment-building dwellers reported smelling smoke at home coming from other units or from the street in 2016.

      Smokers could be forced to stop smoking or move, but some buildings are grandfathering in existing owners, and others like the Century are quietly adopting the equivalent of a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell policy.’

      Under current law, attorneys say, smoking is banned in public areas, and condos and co-ops already have a responsibility to deal with complaints of pervasive second-hand smoke.

      Condo boards typically have the power to impose fines or seek a court-ordered injunction against owners who violates a smoking rule, said Steven Wagner, a co-op and condo attorney. Co-op boards can go further, and cancel the lease that permits shareholders to occupy their unit, evict them and sell the apartment.

      At the Charleston, a 21-story condo on East 34th Street in the Murray Hill section of Manhattan, a proposed ban on smoking raised a host of thorny issues, said Boris Sharapan Fabrikant, a real-estate broker at Triplemint who is on the board there. Among them: Should the ban apply to outdoor spaces such as balconies, the barbecue area or the rooftop open lounge? Should existing smokers be grandfathered in?

      At the annual meeting in January, he said, only two people spoke against a smoking ban. Supporters of a ban on smoking in apartments, but not on balconies, garnered signatures from more than 62% of the owners, but are still short of the two-thirds vote required. There are 191 units in the 2007 building.

      “After four months we lost a little steam,” Mr. Fabrikant said. The campaign is continuing.

      The new law technically covers about 150,000 privately owned buildings, with 2.2 million apartments, according to city housing data. But the measure limited the reach of the smoking rules.

      The law says the new rules won’t be binding on existing rent-regulated tenants, or even family members who succeed them. This exempts nearly one million apartments from the new rules, including thousands of regulated apartments in older co-ops and condos.

      The city’s largest landlord, the New York City Housing Authority, is due to ban smoking at the end of July, part of a change in federal rules.

      During an annual meeting at the Charleston on East 34th Street in Manhattan, only two people spoke against a smoking ban.

      Lisa Lippman, a broker at Brown Harris Stevens who recently sold a condo at the Century, said she thought the smoking ban would have little effect on apartment prices. Some people will reject a building because of the ban, but many others will walk away from an apartment if they even suspect a neighbor smokes.

      Sentiment, however, is turning away from tolerance of smoking. A few years ago, broker Barbara Fox said, her Upper East Side building voted down a smoking ban. She said she voted against it because she had a friend who would light up on her balcony without complaint. “It is a great idea, but it is limiting freedom,” she said.

      If a vote were held now, Ms. Fox said she would support it if it grandfathered in existing apartment owners.

      At the Century, the vote was close. The ban passed with about 68% of the owners supporting it and 16% opposed. The sponsor of the condo conversion, with 10% of the vote abstained. The remainder didn’t cast ballots.

      In 2002, when the city banned smoking in bars and restaurants, broker Robby Browne at Corcoran, who lives at the Century, said he was outraged. If a ban on smoking in apartments were proposed 10 years ago, he said, his reaction would have been, “You’ve got to be kidding.”

      Now, Mr. Browne, who said he has since quit smoking, said the ban in restaurants was “the best thing ever.” The smoking ban in the Century, he said, was one more positive for the building.

      • Frank Davis says:

        Thanks for that, Joe.

      • complaints about smoke seeping through walls and hallways.

        I would comment on that but simply cannot, for I seem to be presently hallucinating after reading that demented drivel, though I haven’t taken any mind-altering drugs for decades.

        I can only liken the tobacco control crew to ‘walking carrion’ (in French: charognes ambulantes), echoing the “whited sepulchers” of Matthew 23:27* (A person who is inwardly evil but outwardly professes to be virtuous). They sure jhave put the “i” in “we will ruin your life for you”!

        * “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside, but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and every impurity”.

        • RdM says:

          I suppose you meant – emphasise the “i” in “we will ruin your life for you”!
          But I had a weird stray thought, like a declension, after that typo:


          Yes, weird!

          Slightly off topic, but in line with the Marxist agenda of demoralisation of the target society, maximise inconvenience and minimise pleasure, another one is the global (again) influence toward banning the lightest, flimsiest, plastic supermarket bags – which many people find useful after for other purposes.

          It’s happening here too, the “virtue signalling”, bag bans, & etc.
          Absurd, considering all the hard & other plastics in even a supermarket.
          A scam. An influence campaign.

          I was wondering what the actual weight of one was (turns out average ~ 5.5g) and on the way found that there is at least some resistance, even in California, good to see:
          And they outline the (once again) ‘unintended consequences’…

          And, for amusement, the ever irreverent The Register (an IT computer related humour news site) from a couple of years ago, which shows that the plastic bag ban propaganda is at least that old…

          The assault is many-forked, and the forks have several tines …

  4. EJ says:

    And that is marxism ladies and gentlemen in a nutshell. There’s no private property. Also no privacy.

  5. beobrigitte says:

    Fines issued for cigarette buts – 4113


    It seems to have been aimed squarely at smokers, since they’re the ones who’ve been hit hardest.

    According to my calculations, 4113 times £75 is £308,475 in 6 months, and £616,950 per year, extracted from the citizens of Blackburn and Darwen.
    Considering that most smokers don’t throw their butts on the street perhaps the number of cigarette butts SEEN IN PUBLIC prove ASH to be liars?

    But we smokers can band together. And we’re beginning to do so. In the past couple of weeks I met up with several people just because they were smokers like me.
    Yes, we smokers are starting to band together – and appear to have a most interesting ally: Mount Kilauea. I have been following the eruption footages on youtube.

    When today I watched a geographer tell people that volcanic ash wasn’t dangerous (it is very fine dust, just like the fine dust from tobacco smoke that is supposed to kill us) I went in search for a smoking ban on Hawaii. And I found:
    Smoke Free Environment
    In 2006 the Hawaiʻi State Legislature passed sweeping laws under HRS328J expanding the scope of smoke free prohibitions in various enclosed and partially enclosed areas. Effective January 1, 2016 the prohibition now includes electronic smoking devices also known as e-cigarettes:

    Work and educational settings
    Restaurants and retail settings
    Hotels and multi-unit housing common areas
    Care and rehabilitation facilities including prisons
    Indoor and outdoor recreational settings
    Transportation related areas
    Clearly legible signs that include the words Smoking Prohibited by Law with letters not less than an inch high or, the international “no smoking” symbol shall be clearly posted at entrances at places open to the public or places of employment were smoking is prohibited.

    Local counties have also passed laws calling for additional smoking restrictions in areas not covered by state laws. Individual agencies and multi-unit buildings such as condominiums have also enacted their own smoke free policies for their respective properties. A growing number of agencies and private businesses have developed individual policies banning their use in settings such the work place, restaurants or city operated buses. Current state law restrict sales of electronic smoking devices (ESD) including e-cigarettes by persons under 18.

    I also learned that Mount Kilauea is the home of the fire goddess Pele, who, when angry can be calmed down by offerings of cigarettes and gin.
    Offerings: Offerings are traditionally left respectfully at the crater’s edge but may be placed on home altars, too: crystals, roast chickens, flowers, ohelo berries, flame-colored silk scarves or other luxurious fabrics. Pelé is frequently given cigarettes, gin, brandy, or other alcoholic beverages.
    I’m applying anti-smoker logic: The volcano’s goddess hates anti-smokers and is getting rid of them.
    The science is settled, we’re not discussing it.

  6. dave says:

    That company has been investigated before on BBC Panorama

  7. Smoking Lamp says:

    They just keep coming. After being vetoed twice over the past two years, the antismokers are once again looking to ban smoking at beaches on the Jersey Shore. “NJ Lawmakers Consider Statewide Smoking Ban On Public Beaches”

    There is a poll on the issue at

    Just as Frank pointed out, these calls for bans stem from a globally co-ordinated effort. It’s time smokers co-ordinate resistance to this overt persecution.

  8. Joe L. says:

    OT: I don’t even know where to begin with this ridiculous article:

    Third-hand smoke may be lurking in nonsmoking areas, study finds


    Harmful cigarette smoke residue may be lurking in rooms where no one has ever lit up, researchers report.

    In a new study, scientists from Drexel University in Philadelphia found that in an empty, nonsmoking classroom, nearly 30 percent of the tiny particles in the air were linked with cigarette smoke — what is called “third-hand” smoke.

    In lab tests, the investigators used cigarette smoke to confirm that tobacco residue can travel from its source to areas where no one has ever smoked.

    While this should be viewed as clear evidence that all of the same “toxic” chemicals found in cigarette smoke are also found in “clean” air, instead it’s used to convince people that cigarette smoke is supernatural!

    They make it sound like cigarette smoke is sentient and will seek out an enclosed, nonsmoking area full of chiiildren to settle down and become “third-hand” smoke, lurking (their word) in the carpet, just waiting for the opportunity to murder an innocent little one.

    This reads like a bad science-fiction novel. Are there people who actually believe this shit?

    • Vlad says:

      That’s insanity, pure and simple. What respect can one have anymore for ‘scientists’, ‘professors’ and ‘university’ after reading such utter drivel?

    • The ultimate deterrent to suppress dissent: sheer absurdity. Willingness to further comment simply nipped in the bud.

    • RdM says:

      The (Happy?) Valley News staff (I hesitate to call them ‘folk’, but perhaps they are too;-) obviously just scour the web or their bookmarks, feeds, for headlines…

      Perhaps 3rd-hand smoke seemed more appealing (“If it bleeds, it leads”) than say
      The Baltic Sea as a time machine for the future coastal ocean
      An early Cambrian greenhouse climate
      or other content at the study’s publisher:

      And here’s that ‘study’:

      The body starts off with the usual Litany…

      The negative health effects of smoking cigarettes and exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) are well known (1)

      (1) is
      U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2014).

      Then they go on to THS, “3rd-hand smoke”, with references 2 & 3, which I seem to remember even Dr M Siegel debunked, or it might have been elsewhere…

      But they seem to have focused on air-conditioned buildings, shared air.
      They even mention “THS species”.
      And, with a shot at the vapers,

      Finally, e-cigarettes, which volatilize liquids that are ~10% nicotine and are routinely used indoors where cigarettes are banned, present another opportunity for this exposure route because the key RdNS will make up a significant fraction of the e-cigarette effluent and deposited residue.


      I’ve only skimmed it…
      And I am too busy to, don’t feel like, getting myself worked up about it any further!
      All too much minutiae…

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      On ‘third hand smoke’ (THS) see: Hank Campbell, “Third Hand Cigarette Smoking – Legitimate Worry Or Shark Jumping By Zealots? Science 2.0, 12/28/2008. Campbell lays out the fraud of third hand smoke pointing out that the concept wasn’t the result of health outcome studies but rather a perception survey. As Campbell concluded; “The actual data on second hand smoke is suspect but it’s common sense that breathing any form of pollution is not a good idea for your kids. But this third hand smoke stuff, the idea that left over particulates from a cigarette will cause your child to not be able to read, is the kind of societal witch hunt science needs to make sure we all avoid.”

      The ‘study’ that started the THS gambit was Jonathan P. Winickoff, Joan Friebely, Susanne E. Tanski, Cheryl Sherrod, Georg E. Matt, Melbourne F. Hovell, Robert C. McMillen. “Beliefs About the Health Effects of “Thirdhand” Smoke and Home Smoking Bans,” Pediatrics, January 2009, ;123;e74-e79. Their conclusions (based on a telephonic survey) were as follows: “This study demonstrates that beliefs about the health effects of thirdhand smoke are independently associated with home smoking bans. Emphasizing that thirdhand smoke harms the health of children may be an important element in encouraging home smoking bans.” The study was funded by tobacco control entities and reflects a desire to impose home smoking bans. No health effects were studied, but that didn’t stop it from being used as propaganda to advocate smoking bans.

  9. Lepercolonist says:

    I wonder if Blackburn and Darwen provide cigarette cans to dispose of butts. They certainly have the revenue. It’s frustrating to see the disappearance of ash cans these days.

    • Frank Davis says:

      Well, if there were ash cans, the smokers wouldn’t drop their butts on the streets, and they wouldn’t be such a good source of revenue, would they?

      Michael Savage, who lives in San Francisco, says that a lot of people there now shit on the streets. Perhaps San Francisco has got no public toilets, and so they have no choice? Where ash cans are disappearing, maybe public toilets are disappearing as well. Maybe when everyone’s got their own private toilets, public toilets disappear?

      And in an age of mobile phones, public telephones seem to be disappearing as well.

      Equally in an age of private cars, public transport disappears. In the UK at least, the number of railways multiplied until about the 1950s, and in the 1960s a lot of them were closed down (Beeching?)

      • Joe L. says:

        Michael Savage, who lives in San Francisco, says that a lot of people there now shit on the streets. Perhaps San Francisco has got no public toilets, and so they have no choice?

        A big difference here is that San Francisco has welcomed a large homeless population to set up tents (obviously with no private toilets) and live on their streets. Smokers, on the other hand, have been forced by law into the streets.

        If you want to embrace the homeless population, you should provide adequate public toilets. And if you want to exile smokers to the outdoors you should provide adequate public ashtrays/cigarette butt receptacles. Both are examples of Progressive Utopian shortsightedness, but which makes more headlines?

        Today, fining a poor, helpless, homeless person would make you look like a heartless brute. However, fining a smoker makes you look like a hero.

        Also, if you fine a homeless person for shitting in the street and fine a smoker for littering a cigarette butt, which do you think is more likely to actually pay their fine?

      • The French railway network stopped expanding during WWI. For the subsequent five decades (1920-1970), an average of 190 miles (300 km) were axed per annum. Apparently in the UK the ‘axe’ came down later but it did with a vengeance.

        As to Britain’s railways, what happened to the “pressure [that was] on to rebuild them” a couple of years ago?

        • Frank Davis says:

          There has been something of a campaign to re-open a few lines. Also to re-nationalise the railways. But it’s not something I’ve been following.

  10. Pingback: The End Of Privacy | Frank Davis

  11. Clicky says:

  12. Pingback: Through The Drinking Glass – cFa – The Unseen Synchro – WP

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.