Another day another video
Wednesday, July 8, 2009 
We were going to release this video in a week or two but it's already live on YouTube so ... here it is. It was filmed at Forest's 30th anniversary bash at Boisdale two weeks ago and features Ranald Macdonald, MD of Boisdale, and a surprise guest. (Well, it was a surprise to us.)
The song on the soundtrack is "I'm Going Outside" with lyrics by screenwriter Alan Plater (Z Cars, Softly Softly etc). The song was recorded exclusively for the Forest/Boisdale CD "You Can't Do That! Songs For Swinging Smokers" and performed by the Boisdale Blue Rhythm Band.
Feel free to post the video on your blog or website (if you have one). Click on the image above or HERE.
Simon Clark
The Forest video is currently featured on Conservative Home's PlayPolitical.com - "the best issue ad videos on the web". It reads:
Smoking ban is a symbol of attack on our liberties'. That's what Forest (voice and friend of the smoker) wants you to believe.
You can comment. Click HERE.
Reader Comments (58)
Yet another great video, with even more shots of our new chairman-Person. Ms Chase does hold that title now doesn't she?
Seriously, it was a great evening, a great crowd (including Ms Chase), and an even greater cause. Well done!
As always, wish I could have been there.
Time now for our spokespersons to move from the defensive to the offensive. The following link will be of great interest to all posters here. I wonder whether it might also be brought to the attention of Ms Chase?
http://www.freedom2choose.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1773&p=103329&e=103329
Another great video clip with the smokers point of view put across in the best possible taste.
I was very pleased to see the Save our Pubs badge on all the pumps.
Every pub should be asked to use them!
I hope most people managed to catch the Dimbleby Lecture on BBC1, by HRH Prince Charles, late last night? If not, catch up on it. See the influential faces in his audience.
He even mentioned the value of saving our pubs & clubs and that globalisation should be from the roots upwards not the sky downwards.
Watch out, Big Brother, there are some powerful forces against you now!
'Margot -
'Erewegoagain -
Would this be the same 'Prince Charles' who tried to join the Labour Party (you know - the People's Party) at Cambridge ?
Who last year praised the European Union for its action on 'Climate Change' (gimme strength)?
You may remember that meeting: it was the one at which Nigel Farage sensibly (and bravely) refused to to participate in the subsequent, and rather sickening, orgy of self-congratulation ("Prince Charles LOVES us !").
Who recently hosted a cosy get-together of the Great, the Good, and the Utterly Useless to discuss 'further measures' to deal with said imaginary 'crisis' (one CREATED by the Great, the Good etc) ?
Maybe Charlie don't surf ?
Or maybe his flunkies just need Google-Training.
Who consistently opposes the use of enviromentally-efficient GM crops (which will lead to Three-Headed Babies and Planetary Meltdown) in favour of the incredibly wasteful 'organic' option - so beloved of New Agers, Supermarket Conglomerates, and People Who Don't Live In Africa ?
Well, the Third World DOES need thinning out a bit, it's true.............
Let them eat Toffu !
Fine words about 'globalisation' (whatever THAT means) 'from the roots up', of course. But, do you imagine for one moment that he's referring to people like you and me - and starving Black People ?
Or (as I suspect) is he instead referring to the Rentamob Brownshirts of the NGOs and all those rather aggressive crowds that can always be relied upon to Make A Big Fuss at G8 conferences and the like, demanding 'action' on this, that, and the other - thereby rather conveniently reinforcing the hand of the Grey Masters in the United Nations, the WHO, the European Union etc etc ?
When that is, they're not enthusiastically destroying crops or smashing up power stations (with Zac Goldsmith's tacit approval, naturally).
Oops, nearly went 'conspiracist' there.........
OR is it the 'Prince Charles' who (for once) spoke Complete Common Sense - many moons ago - on the matter of our BUILT enviroment, thereby causing mass apoplexy among Angry Young Architects and their sneering Guardianista admirers (who ALSO tend to get a bit confused, poor dears) ?
In other words, is it the Princes Charles who's fundamentally SOUND (IMHO) on Aesthetics, or the Prince Charles who's totally DOSY on Science and Politics who is speaking ?
I'm only asking................(because I WANT to know).
Martin V.
'Erewegoagain - indeed!
I knew there would be at least one response like yours. All I ask is that you actually LISTEN to the lecture and, this time, in peace and quiet with an open mind. Put your black marker pen to one side for a moment.
We all live and learn. No doubt Prince Charles does too. It is obvious that he is, perhaps at last, becoming aware of the commercial domination threat which globalisation and "climate change" really are to us all - and what we can do about it.
Save our pubs & clubs. Gather together again as communities. Don't let the troughing pig bastards divide and conquer.
Excuse me for butting in Margot and Martin (good name for a tv show?) but if you would mind putting Prince Charles to one side for a moment, I thought you might like to participate in the comments currently taking place, which Simon mentions, over on Conservative Home's PlayPolitical.com
The subject of which is "Smoking ban is a symbol of attack on our liberties'. That's what Forest (voice and friend of the smoker) wants you to believe.
Charles will wait, believe me!
Margot -
I DID say that I was only asking............and if Prince Charles HAS performed a volte face in just a fortnight, I'll be the FIRST to pat him on the back.
As to:
"We all live and learn."
Not QUITE 'all', I fear - as History amply demonstrates..................
Peter -
Sorry, Old Chap: you're quite right, of course !
Shall pay it a visit in a mo.......
I just read a post on the Conservative Home's PlayPolitical.com site, which states that a smoking ban in Michagan has been overturned, see here:
CHARLEVOIX Charlevoix County's workplace smoking ban is no more.
Citing distaste for excessive government control and hoping to avoid overstepping existing state laws, the Charlevoix County Board of Commissioners repealed the regulation with a unanimous Wednesday, Feb. 27 vote.
"My bottom line is: Were do we draw the line for control?," said chairman of the board and District 2 Charlevoix County Commissioner Chris Christensen. "There were no citations written for it and business owners were clamoring about having it removed."
He added, "We were against it because it was excessive control (by) government."
The motion to rescind the regulation, originally levied in 2005 to prevent smoking in local businesses excluding bars and restaurants, was made by District 5 County Commissioner Bob Drebenstedt.
Peter.
My two posts above WERE relevant. The first dealt with the benefits of smoking and included the fact that the tobacco leaf has always been one of nature's great healers. The second stated not only the importance of our pubs, post offices and all community meeting places, but that every single part of our fragile eco system is important and none should be destroyed.
At least have a look at these two links, folks. Martin & I have had this climate change discussion before and are not dissimilar in outlook. I agree that this thread is not the place to continue it.
Your news that the smoking ban in the work place has been overturned in one state in America is brilliant news indeed. However, I won't waste my time on the Conservative Home Page until your party tables a similar motion against total control in the House of Commons.
To do this, they need a bit more ammunition than just the narrow point of view that the smoking ban is bad for business.
Ooh-er missus, Margot's wielding the cudgel again, and if I don't duck pretty quick, I could be on the receiving end.
I only pointed out something dear, I never mentioned your post not being relevant.
As for "My Party" (makes me sound like William Hague doesn't it) you should have a look on ConservativeHome more often, as they have featured items about this new incentive, as also has Boris' site.
I thought you had been quiet for a while, have you been on holiday?
Just a simlple comment to some of our members who seem to be have been infatuatied by a certain Bristol female MP. Well we all know were that madam went dont we ? All I am saying is that I do not trust whatsover any of those people for whatever reason and I respectfully suggest walk carefully before jumping to rely on the same ilk.
Comment duly posted on PlayPolitical.com I hate to count chickens and all that, but it does finally feel as if some momentum is gathering behind the amendment campaign. Keep up the good work, Simon!
Peter -
Thanks for the (implicit) advice re PlayPolitical.com (damn these capitals !).
Another weapon in our armoury ?
And thanks, too, for sharing the excellent news about Charlevoix County !
Have done as you suggested - and that includes putting Charlie back in his little box: he can always come out and play later.............(but only if he's good).
Just a quickie.
I just a few minutes ago posted on LabourList. The discussion was about how MPs ought to be more rebelious than less. The point was made that MPs dare not rebel through FEAR - fear of appearing dis-united and possibly losing elections. And, by extension, that governments live and act in fear.
My post was that there is another side to the 'fear' coin which is OPPORTUNISM. It is hard to think of an exact opposite of 'fear'. I think that maybe 'over-confidence' is possible. Thus you get the position where an over-confident government takes advantange of public concern over the environmental effects of aircraft to whap a tax on flying. Great idea! Oopst, along comes a recession..... I feel sure that the Hunting Ban and the Smoking Ban resulted from this factor of over-confidence and opportunism. There again, Prince Charles's assertation, that we have only 100 months (was it?) to stop climate change, is equally opportunistic. There is simply no evidence that that is true.
We must therefore be hopeful that there are signs that REALISM and LIBERTY are being to peep through.
Keep trying.
Junican -
You are quite correct, of course.
However, I doubt that there was ever THAT much 'public concern' over the enviromental effects of flying - a 'concern' in any case deliberately fostered by government through the use of 'O' Level Science and absurd computer 'models' and 'projections' which ASSUME the very thing they're supposed to prove.
Perhaps we members of the Smoking Resistance should also remind others (tactfully) that mean global temperature has recently experienced a FALL of ONE DEGREE - the equivalent of all the 'warming' for the entire 20th Century.
A Significant Event - and one which the 'models' failed to predict. My, how strange !
Shame it hadn't gone the other way, really: the BBC might have reported it then.........
Silly Planet !
Silly Smoker !
NEITHER seems to be behaving as it/he/she is 'supposed' to.................
Maybe we're BOTH just too stupid to do as we're
told ?
Or MAYBE not stupid enough.....................
The smoking ban was a total farce from the beginning.
It could only of happened in the good times. 'The good times' being the recently demised boom that was totally based on lies, fraud and false money, just like the smoking ban.
The smoking ban was thought up by government spin doctors to make the Labour govt look good and of course to make jobs for the boys.
The spin doctors/consultants/lobbyists quickly realised that a smoking ban was just ripe for its introduction to cater for the 'worried well' in our society, especially after they had destroyed the 'un PC' fox hunting industry.
The spin doctors soon cottoned on to the fact that if you give the prolatariat a bit of false money they would very quickly loose the run of themselves by thinking they could live desease free and with no 'nasty' sport venues to have to contemplate or anything considered non PC like our nasty rubbish that they make us pay a fortune to dispose of.
And now we have to put up with more lies and false statistics about the global warming scam. What caused the ice age.
Has anyone ever carried out an examination on the amount of money that these quangos/spin doctors/consultants/big pharma ad agencies are costing the taxpayer against the cost of the lives they claim are being saved since the introduction of the smoking ban?
Bit off subject I know, but as everyone seems to have taken this thread from the Boisdale video, right though to Prince Charles and the Doomed Planet, I thought you might be interested in an excellent article which was in the Daily Mail the other day, by Andrew Alexander.
Some of his observations also fit in perfectly with the anti-smoking debate (for want of a better name).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1198188/Hysteria-real-threat-global-warming.html
Ann asks;"Has anyone ever carried out an examination on the amount of money that these quangos/spin doctors/consultants/big pharma ad agencies are costing the taxpayer against the cost of the lives they claim are being saved since the introduction of the smoking ban?"
I think David Cameron has a "cunning plan" as Baldrick would say, with regard to quangos and he he proposes to deal with them. You can find what he says on ConservativeHome somewhere Ann.
Peter.
Funny that you should ask whether I had been away on holiday. I haven't. of course, I've been away working - hosting & transporting a large group to and from Wimbledon with dining and accommodation for three days in one of Heathrow Airport's most sumptuous hotels.
Nice work if you can get it? Not so, my dear environmentally unfriendly smoker friends.
Imagine the scene - a lavish breakfast next to sealed windows watching huge international jet planes landing right next to us. Not a sound to be heard. Oxygen-drained faces all around, having descended from the most luxurious en-suite bedrooms. Imagine the evening before in our private suite with large circular tables seating ten each. White linen napery gleamed, lit candelabra glistened, and complimentary wine bottles decorated them in abundance. The lavish buffet stood invitingly to one side. Laughter and happy conversation pervaded the atmosphere created by our 100 guests.
Having made sure they all felt like kings and queens for the night, I toyed a bit of food and crept quietly out, glass of wine in hand, in search of fresh air and a fag. I walked miles and made it outside to the few flimsy metal chairs and wobbly tables. Exhaustion running right through me, I sat down, lit my fag and took my first breath of fresh air. Fresh? Fresh? Heavily polluted with aviation and traffic fumes, it was all there was. People have to live their entire lives under these flight paths, and that is all they have. Same applies to people living in vast inner city areas.
Back inside, I rejoined my kings and queens and we relaxed in the vast marble columned, marble floored, glittering chandeliered Reception/Lounge area and watched the exotic international airline crews checking in for their overnight stays. Occasionally, a clutch of stretch limos would draw up outside and disgorge their well-heeled international glitterati for some lavish private function. The Indian Wedding was particularly colourful.
Then finally to bed. And that was the worst bit. Yes, of course, I had a smoking room. But what to do about the air? Impossible to open a window, so a choice between trying to sleep in the air conditioning with its millions of mutating newly-arrived international germs, or switch it off altogether and suffocate. So a luxurious restless night, longing for the dawn and getting my tired body dressed again, via bath or shower, and once more escaping to those few metal chairs.
Did I mention that the staff were superb and waited on us hand and foot? They were. They consisted of teams from Romania, Poland, Latvia and assorted Asian countries. Not an English face or voice in sight. Quite a bit of language difficulty too.
Still, all WE have to do is vote Labour out, Tories in, and continue to ridicule Prince Charles and his ilk - and all will be well. If we are very good indeed, we may even be allowed a few heavily controlled smoking rooms in pubs once more.
Nobody read the links I gave except Junican and I like his line of reasoning. A good bit of food for thought there. Meantime, vast swathes of ocean are devoid of all life forms - but what do we care? We're alright, Jack.
Do I believe in Global Warming? No, of course I don't. But I do believe that the quality of our air and our earth should be cleaned up and I DON'T believe that the cleaning up should be yet another way for our global fat cats to get even fatter. I also believe in my own little unpolluted allotment, my recycle bin where I make my own compost free of chemicals and my water butts. I also beleive in the common man and he certainly is not as stupid as the fat cats assume. I also believe that our top politicians have sold their souls to the EU for personal financial gain. God help us all if any of these three parties get back into power after the general election.
Good posts, Ann! Nice talking to you, as always, Peter.
Peter -
Thanks for the Andrew Alexander link: good solid sense from AA as usual - which almost compensates for the garbage one tends to get in the 'Health' section of the DM.
Margot -
How on earth do you manufacture compost 'FREE of chemicals' ?
I was always under the impression that EVERYTHING in the Phenomenal Universe is made up from 'chemicals' (either element or compound).
A 'chemical-free' compost would be as ineffectual as a 'chemical-free' diet, I'd have thought.
Was I misinformed all those years ago by my Science Master ?
Martin V.
Aw, go on with yer, Martin, yer arn' arf splittin' hairs.
For "chemicals", read, "commercially manufactured pesticides and fertilizers", or some such.
Have a nice weekend. This turned into quite an entertaining and informative thread, didn't it?
Consultation document on smoking restrictions on ships from ASH news:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/open/smokingonships/
There is also this linked from ASH news:
http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2009/07/09/328591/awts-smoking-campaign-fails-to-catch-fire.html
It contains the following two paragraphs:
"The BHA supported the ban, not least because employees affected by the smoke were taking their former employers to court. It may have impacted on businesses, but I don't see how amending the ban can practically work."
A spokesman for the British Beer & Pub Association added that the industry has moved on since the ban. "The industry has adapted to the challenge. Pubs have invested £100m on outside smoking areas and there is no going back now," he said.
I know nothing about the pub business. Is this fear of litigation genuine? If it is, then surely people would currently be taking legal action as none of the illnesses claimed to be caused by passive smoking are contracted instantaneously. It also assumes there is no such thing as free will. Construction is a lot safer than it was, but 60 workers die each year. Surely any right-minded person would realise that any health risk from infrequent visits to an efficiently ventilated smoking room are miniscule compared to what most people are prepared to accept. Even accepting the anti-smoking industry's figures, sitting in a smokefree pub eating a bacon sandwich is 5 times as carcinogenic as sitting in a smokey pub drinking mineral water. Add some alcohol and you're straying into the killing fields.I know this country is a mess, but judges still seem pretty sharp to me. It seems to me that the BHA has a hidden agenda. Can someone enlighten me? And can someone tell me whom the British Beer and Pub Association represents? Why is it not in their interests for smoking pubs to exist? Is it because they represent food pubs? To me it is unclear which categories of pubs, if any, want the ban amended. All I know is that 253 out of 50,000? don't agree with the BPA.
"A spokesman for the British Beer & Pub Association added that the industry has moved on since the ban. "The industry has adapted to the challenge. Pubs have invested £100m on outside smoking areas and there is no going back now,"
Who the hell does this guy think he is kidding? Doesn't he have a name, or is he like so many, who prefer to go anonymous? (fictitious more likely)
People like this should try looking at pubs in the big cities such as London where I live. where the only adaptation they have provided, is a doorstep outside the pub, and the reason for this being that these small city pubs do not have garden or other outside areas.
Pubs have invested £100m? I would suggest this unnamed person invests another £100m on brain transplants for himself and his friends at ASH.
Margot -
Oh, I see !
THOSE 'chemicals' - the nasty things that kill destructive insects and stimulate plant growth (or some such).
Well, I'm not telepathic, you know !
And I WAS only teasing.................;-)
While we're here (sorry, Peter)......
I've just sat through the Dimbleby Lecture, as you suggest. Twice.
While I certainly agree with the Bonnie Prince's strictures on post-War Modernism and fractional reserve banking (THE Big Con of the last 300 years), I find little in his recitation of the Gore-Monbiot Songbook ("Scary Climate Stuff For Kids and Celebrities") to encourage ME, I fear.
His 'science' is (still) as risible as his Rousseauesque Man-in-harmony-with-Nature schtick (anyone remember the Black Death, by the way ?): nobody, for example, seems to have told him, about NASA's little glitch with its satellite sensors (which thereby underestimated Arctic sea ice by a mere 500,000 sq. Km).
That sort of thing would spoil the plot !
Still, if Certain People STILL insist on believing that adding ONE molecule of CO2 to every 100,000 molecules of air - once every FIVE YEARS - is going to result in Global Catastrophe, who am I to prevent them ?
'Think Globally, Act Locally' is THE Green Movement's slogan du jour.
And it's that 'global' bit that worries me, frankly.
And in THAT, I see no sign of even a nascent resistance to the growing power of Big Brother (or, The Jolly Green Giant).
I like Charles - and am a fervent (constitutional) monarchist.
I merely wonder whether he's been talking to the right plants.
But I fear that his innate romanticism and humanity are being exploited by less attractive individuals with a rather unpleasant agenda.
He IS right to suggest that 'time is running out' - but NOT in quite the way he thinks.
Well, at least the Polar Bears are multiplying.
Have a jolly nice weekend yourself, too, Margot !
(Yes, Peter - it was a GREAT video !)
Jon asks, Why is it not in their interests for smoking pubs to exist? Is it because they represent food pubs?
Why should food have anything to do with it Jon? Don't even ask such questions, you are playing right into their grubby little hands by mentioning that maybe, just maybe, food and smoking do not mix.
Of course they mix, and they mix perfectly. Like a pint and a fag, like fish and chips, like salt and vinegar, a meal with a smoke after is a must! And it is the reason that people like myself do not go out to restaurants so much, where they cannot have a comfortable smoke any longer.
The nutters we have to deal with tell us that they don't like the smell of smoke, especially if they are eating. Well hard bloody luck I say, because I do, I think it enhances my meal, I love the smell of tobacco in all its forms, and I want to smell it.
If the person at the next table complained about the smell of the garlic on your food would you go outside to eat? Of course you wouldn't. It is about time we started telling these nutters that we do not like what they are doing and saying either.
Peter -
Just spotted your last post. The BBPA 'spokesman' sounds just like the prat I spoke to (and posted about) some time ago.
Strewth - what DOES it take to drive some sense into these MORONS ?
All those millions COULD have been invested in ventillation systems - against the day when the Ban is amended (please God ).
The Boisdale aside, freezing my bollocks off in mid-December next to the pot plants is NOT a 'viable' alternative IMHO.
While the Association has 'moved ON', I'd love to know how many smoking pub-goers have 'moved OUT'.
I was watching Question Time last night, which had Shami Chakrabarti, Director of Liberty on it, and she is not someone whom I usually take to all that much, but she came out with something which I thought was very good, and applied to the smoking debate as much as it did o what she was talking about. She said that when we speak about protecting people, we should also remember that respect should also come into the equation.
Protect and respect. Two words that the anti-smoking lobby would do well to remember.
New figures have just been released by Cancer Research UK showing the death toll from three of the most common cancers has fallen to its lowest level in almost 40 years, a new analysis of figures has revealed.
The UK death rates from breast, bowel, and male lung cancer are at their lowest since 1971.
Meanwhile, the number of men dying from lung cancer peaked in 1979 at 30,391 but dropped to 19,637 in 2007.
BUT, our friends at ASH state the following:
The most recent estimates show that around 114,000 people in the UK are killed by smoking every year, accounting for one fifth of all UK deaths. Most die from one of the three main diseases associated with cigarette smoking: lung cancer, chronic obstructive lung disease (bronchitis and emphysema) and coronary heart disease.
I wonder why ASH and Cancer Research cannot get their acts together more? One of them is obviously telling enormous lies, or maybe they both are? These are not just slight indescrepencies, from 19,637 a year on one hand, to 114,000 a year on the other, is what most people would call a "whopper"
Maybe they are hoping no one will notice?
Peter, I agree with you. I never understood the differentiation between food and non-food pubs, and I have not been to a restaurant since the ban. What I meant was that many pubs have turned themselves into Pizza Hut type places, for families; and that perhaps amending the ban would do them more harm than good. Smokers with children will put up with this kind of environment for a couple of hours, particularly if they can't go and smoke anywhere else. I'm trying to find out why the BPA, representing 58% of the country's pubs, many of which are in dire straits, does not want a change in the law which will increase their business dramatically.
Going back to food pubs: I think any smoking would have to be done in a separate area. No Government will now admit that passive smoking is no risk to waiting staff. Too many people would lose face. There would have to be a big fuss about expensive ventilation and strict rules about exposure of staff to smoke. Amending the ban is ambitious enough. I think humiliating the whole of the British Establishment is a step too far.
Oh dear. This is a general comment. I would like to enjoy my life, now in its eighth decade. I do not smoke if anyone around me objects or is likely to, but why do so many people find their enjoyment of life in denying me mine, whether they are present or not?
Norman, like you, I used to be very considerate of non-smokers. I say used to be, because I am no longer!
Apart from anyone in my own family who do not smoke (I make exception to them as they are perfect!) I do not care one jot about other people (apart from children) any longer.
Over the past two years I, as a smoker, have been treated like s**t by the vast majority of non smokers, or maybe that should read anti-smokers (I don't know), but whoever they are, I now treat them with the same contempt they have shown to me over this period.
I say it is time to turn the tables and start denormalising them now!
"Is this fear of litigation genuine?"
Jon
Page 7 http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_405.pdf
In a letter to the Publican it was suggested that there would be a "tidal wave" of prosecutions, and the only safety from this would be in supporting a ban.
Peter -
Well spotted on the ASH/CR UK 'discrepancy'.
That is, um, QUITE big......................
But then Amanda Sandford (for 'twas she) DID say ( to a 'health correspondent' from the DM) that there were MILLIONS of studies showing a link between smoking and etc etc.
Maybe she and her colleagues gathered together ten of the most 'favourable' reports - and ADDED the results together.
Statistically dubious, of course - but very effective when being dined by dimwitted hacks.
Or maybe, they just use different Random Number Generators ?
And I wonder which of the two has the greater resort to statistics compiled by The Great Peto - Witchfinder-General of the Tobacco-Hating Movement.............?
Norman -
THEY are the same people who would have fined you for not going to church on Sundays a little while back: the sort who Know What's Best.
Such creeps have always been around, I'm afraid - but rarely so well paid for their efforts.
Yes, I agree, Martin. They are the sort who 2000 years ago would have thanked God for their virtue,their greater holiness, their fasting and observance, while some poor chap stood outside and said he was 'not worthy'.I suspect that the religious martinets you mention would be surprised if they saw the founder of their faith outside the doorway with the smokers, the drinkers, the overweight and the socially despised. I would rather like to know what today's C of E leaders - I am a member of the C of E - think about this issue.
Norman -
Since the Archbishop of Canterbury himself now seems to believe that Al Gore walks with God, I think we know the answer to THAT one !
And I have a pretty shrewd idea what Jesus would have thought of the Priesthood of the New World Order ('Render unto Caesar' or not).
Yes, Martin, at a local level I have been a campaigner all my life. Nearly 40 years ago I initiated a 'green' campaign against some property development. It was (rightly) successful but during the process I tasted a kind of psychological intoxication which came from the support I received. It was such a righteous cause. And I thought then, all that time ago, that 'Green' could be the new Fascism. I saw the job through but I took a big step back from the hubris which might have taken me over. 'Green', I fear, returning to your message, is a new religion. although there might be a problem about burning people at the stake.
But these comments should not be taken to imply anything but belief in the founder of my faith, who died at the instigation of the religious zealots of his day.
Norman,
Surely Christ's death was political rather than religious? As I understand it, he was an enemy of the state. Later, the intelligent Emporer Constantine realised that if you can't beat them you must join them. He combined the two religions and created what became the iniquitous Roman Catholic Church - using symbolism from both. It was Prince Charles' ancestor, the very intelligent Henry VIII, who created the Church of England. In my opinion, digressing as usual, he and Edward III were our two greatest kings. [Yes, I know, don't digress further - Henry also wanted new divorce laws.]
I absolutely agree with you concerning danger from the extremist Greens. Let not my wish for unpolluted air, land and water lead anyone to imagine that I embrace their Nazi ideals.
Everything is now possible if dealt with in practical moderate ways. We can harness the power of the sun, wind and sea to produce much of the energy we need, and even pollution from coal fired power stations can be rendered harmless. Compression of hydrogen has solved the problem of battery charging so that electric cars are now inevitable.
To rid the earth of the poison of carbon monoxide is surely a desirable aim and does NOT have to mean that the fat cats get fatter through the latest scam of setting targets and trading carbon emission permits.
Martin.
I was so pleased to see that you have actually watched Prince Charles' lecture. Even more so that you did it twice. Of course he has been exploited and manipulated by big business. He is still only human within the vulnerability and isolation of his ivory tower. Do not underestimate his intelligence, though. He comes from a long line of powerful clever kings and queens who have preserved this island intact as a major world force. They also created an Empire on which the sun never set. Sadly, clouded perhaps by your own vast knowledge of the lies and manipulations of the great global warming/climate change scam, you did not pick up, as I did, his growing realisation of how such knowledge is being presented and abused. If he is guilty of using exaggeration and creating targets, [i.e. 100 months left before doomsday], he is simply using the language of our time to force home his concerns.
One cannot argue with the fact that depletion of the natural resource of the rain forests is a man-made disaster which must be halted and reversed. Nor can one argue with the fact that pollution of large swathes of ocean so that not a living thing can survive in them, is both dangerous and unnecessary. Not only do the oceans provide us with a valuable source of food, it is evaporation from these oceans which creates the fragile ozone layer protecting us from the full heat of the sun. And what goes up comes down. Pollution we create comes back down to us as acid rain.
I make no apologies and do not feel a fool that, in my own small corner, I grow my own free fruit and vegetables, gather my own free water and recycle my rubbish. There are millions like me and we are not eccentric. Nor are we fanatics. If I could afford the original installation, I would also create my own electricity. I have never owned a car and if I can't get there by walking, cycling or public transport, I just don't go.
In my spare time, along with many others here, I fight the smoking ban, its instigator Big Brother and our EU paid-up politicians. In the coming general election, which may be the last we will ever have, we have only one chance left to retain the United Kingdom and our freedoms. If any of the three major parties form our next government, they will have control over us for a further five years. Plenty of time to reduce us to nationwide poverty and dependence and plenty of time for the Lisbon Treaty to be fully ratified.
Thanks for your follow-up, Margot. I'm repeating myself, in the sense that I've said before on this site that a human temptation to control and condemn finds ready outlet in good causes, whether religious or political, which are then distorted. Politics and religion and their zealotries get mixed up. This is not to condemn the value of and need for either politics or religion.
Margot -
Blimey - I thought we were going to have a relaxing weekend !
How nice to hear that certain others on this site read History, too: it's the most all-embracing (and the sexiest) subject on the curriculum, but the one most badly taught (when it IS 'taught') in our schools.
As to Christianity, the Gnostics of course (with whom I have considerable sympathy) took a somewhat less roseate view of Constantine's smart decision to harness the Power of the State to the Power of Christ.
Carl Jung – probably quite rightly - felt that the ‘religious’ instinct was an innate Function of the Psyche.
With the general decline in orthodox religion in the West during the 20th century, new secular forms have stepped in to fill the vacuum: Scientism (NOT to be confused with True Science), Communism, Fascism - and now, of course, the Green Movement and Internationalism - both compliant handmaidens to the emerging New World Order. And the New Priesthood –speaking with the authority of the New Vatican (aka The ‘United Nations’) - is as intolerant of ANY dissent as its more theologically-inclined forebear(s). Not that the OLD priesthhood is offering much oppostion, it seems: maybe THEY are doing a ‘Constantine’ themselves ?
David Bellamy and Richard Lindzen are but two of its MANY victims (I’d have liked to see THEM in the audience, next to Melyn, Griff, and Jonathan).
"Are you now, or have you ever been a Sceptic ?"
Well, I'm QUITE happy to be a New Heretic in THEIR company – Zeitgeist or no !
And since I don't work for the BBC, the Media, Academia, or any government-funded body, I feel quite safe (for now).
As to your concerns about the effects of industrialisation etc upon the Natural World, I certainly have NO desire to see the Amazonian rain forests destroyed - any more than I wish to see what remains of Wild Britain turned into one gigantic Science Park by planting thousands of those hideous (and WHOLLY inefficient) bird-slicers hither and yon.
And – lest anybody allow themselves to be seduced into believing that Wind Power is (currently) any more even a PART of the Answer to Our Prayers than Girl Power, consider the following:
In the States (this from Steve Milloy) all major energy sources are subsidised by the taxpayer thus (for one Megawatt Hour of energy):
Natural Gas: 25 cents
Coal: 44 cents
Wind Power: $23.37
Solar Power: $24.34
Renewable energy ? You’d better have a Renewable Bank Account, too ! Or get a job with Goldman Sachs or npower.............
If those figures alone don’t indicate the sheer idiocy (or duplicity) of the Green Agenda, then nothing will.
Certainly NOT when we're sitting on three hundred years' supply of coal to fuel our energy needs at relatively low cost to the economy AND (with modern technology) the environment. But the blinkered religiosity of the Greens, and its INFANTILE obsession with CO2 (come on, Guys)
is standing in the way. And America is sitting on an OCEAN of coal.
Prince Charles might also care to ponder on why SO much deforestation has taken place in Africa (it’s not always ‘greedy logging companies’), for example. Perhaps if the Africans were ALLOWED to develop their own fossil fuel-based power stations (with our expertise), they could provide themselves with the heat and the light (and clean water) that we take for granted – instead of having to raid the countryside for fire material ? How many in the West would like to cook their family meals over a smoking pile of cow shit, I wonder ?
Not too many of our multi-millionaire spokesman for Planet Earth, I’m sure !
But Hypocrisy and Religion are OLD friends – are they not ? To say nothing of Raving Lunacy.....................
And why don’t these black guys just put a solar panel on their cute little ‘huts’ (as suggested by eco-genius Ed Begley Jnr). Hell,don’t they HAVE a Walmart over there............................?
Beats me, Ed !
And I, too, am in favour of SENSIBLE 're-cycling' (I detest waste as much as I detest corporate greed)). But NOT when all it amounts to is shipping millions of tons of OUR rubbish on barges over to China: Green Nimbyism at its most selfish. And plastic (one of the many benefical by-products of oil production) can only be re-cycled so many times.
As to the Oceans. Of course, all 'pollution' (which CO2 is not) needs to be carefully monitored and controlled. But death and dying occur NATURALLY in the seas as much as they do on the land. And one should not be too hasty in assuming that ALL the destruction (and yes, I include the coral reefs) is the result of Man And His Wicked Ways. Underwater volcanic activity, for example, is responsible for much (if not most) of the perceived 'acidification' that one hears so much of. But who asks the Geologists ?
As to Charles, you refer to:
“..his growing realisation of how such knowledge is being presented and abused.”
I must confess, I missed THAT bit – among all the tired eco-babble and Jackanory Science. I’ll watch him again – just to be sure:
Ice caps melting (if they are) ? What’s new...........................?
Dramatic rises in sea levels ? Nils Axel Morner (THE World Expert on the matter) doesn’t seem to think so.
Planetary COOLING since 1998 (or 2001 – take your pick) ? Er – no: I think we’ll miss THAT one out of the speech !
Methane levels flatlining ? Er, ditto.......
I mustn't be too hard on the chap, though: he obviously doesn't have OUR advantages of Internet access, books, etc etc
And – believe me – I DON'T ‘underestimate’ his intelligence.
I don’t over-estimate it, either. We’re a LONG way from the intellectual vigour and brilliance of the Tudors !
And – with the geatest respect, Margot – I think you’ve let your natural kind-heartedness blind you to the (probable) fact that Prince Charles IS being used as the Useful Idiot of the Green Movement (which itself is only a front, of course).
Sorry, but I’m simply unable to read into his speech anything that gives me comfort – beyond the points I mentioned earlier.
Prince Charles is as enitled to his opinions as the rest of us.
What- as a Very Important Person - he is NOT entitled to do, however, is bash us over the head with ill-considered propaganda, presented as unquestionable fact. 'Exaggeration' is just a polite word for Dishonesty.
When Science is used/misused/abused to underpin a Global Political Agenda – especially one with such MASSIVE potential consequences for all of us (and I don’t just mean Noddy and Big Ears driving to Tesco in their Toytown car) - we HAVE to be hard-headed and utterly ruthless in our pursuit of the Truth.
Wishful thinking and sentimentality are a dangerous luxury these days, and one we can no longer afford.
Something the Chinese understand perfectly well - when they’re not laughing themselves silly at our self-flagellating guilt over ‘problems’ that don’t even exist.
By way of a contrast (and to return the favour), may I recommend Christopher Monckton's 'Apocalypse -No' DVD ?
His passion for Humanity AND his unstinting devotion to Scientific Truth are unmatched in my experience. NOT for Monbiot-lovers, though !
Wonder whether HE got an invitation ?
Time for lunch !
Amanda Sanford also has said this too.
"Epidemiology is not a direct science. Our business is promoting public health. It is possible that in certain cases some anti-smoking campaigners do exaggerate.” and “A lot of the studies that have been done on passive smoking produce results that are not statistically significant according to conventional analysis.”
http://www.ipcvision.com/page05/t-luckhurst-01.htm
Dave -
So, what the Lovely Mandy REALLY means is:
"We're ENTITLED to LIE - provided it's In A Good Cause."
Now, where have I heard THAT sentiment before ?
Dave (2) -
Or - to put it another way:
MANDY: "Smoking should be banned"
ME: "Why ?"
MANDY: "Because it's very bad for your health".
ME: "How do you know ?"
MANDY: " Because the Science says so !"
ME: "But the Science is very BAD !"
MANDY: "That doesn't matter"
ME: "Why not ?"
MANDY: "Because smoking is very bad for you"
ME: "How do you know ?"
MANDY: "Because the Science says so !"
Or - to put it yet another way:
MANDY: "Smoking should be banned"
ME: "Why ?"
MANDY: "Because it's very bad for your health, I don't like the smell and I don't know why people do it".
ME: "How do you know it is very bad for your health?"
MANDY: " Because Smoking Kills !"
ME: "But you are going to die as well !"
MANDY: "That doesn't matter"
ME: "Why not ?"
MANDY: "Because smoking is very bad for you, I don't like the smell and I don't know why people do it".
ME: "How do you know it is very bad for you ?"
MANDY: "Because Smoking Kills !"
Timbone -
Yep - there just ain't NO way round 'em !
Rose2
Why on earth have publicans been brainwashed with this?
There has been one case against passive smoking causing lung cancer - it failed miserably - Labate against the EU - it is manifestly unfounded to suggest that lung cancer could be caused by SHS - a recent case as well.
Let's face it. As every reasonable and educated person knows, there is no harm in SHS. Epidemiology (ie guess-work) is not acceptable in a court of law.
We can all extrapolate figure to prove a point. But extrapolation is false.
It is 1.25am 12th July 2009. I am watching Jonothan Ross. Vivian Westwood has just been on.
Dressed in some sort of browny, purply tent, ski-boots and artificial redish hair, she 'made the case' for man made global warming. I quote (not accurately), "For 60 000 years, the % of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 300 parts per million. Now, it is 400 parts per million. And therefore, the rain forests are going to die. The government must do something about it".
Erm...uno momento....is it not true that the more CO2 that there is in the atmosphere, the more plants flourish? If that is true, and I am sure that it is, then, surely, the rain forests MUST grow and expand rather than shrink and die!
Oddly, the audience clapped - which just goes to show how ignorant (meaning, lacking in knowledge) the people of this country are.
What seems very odd to me is that MPs voted for a resolution -the Smoking Ban - which clearly, in due course, if it is successful, will SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE the tax take from the sale of tobacco. Why did they vote for this?
It seems to me that it just so happens that, at the time, the Health Dept had the upper hand, That there was no one in government who could or would say, "Just a minute, if you cut out smoking, where are we going to get the revenue from to replace the revenue from smoking?" The same also goes for the sale of alcohol products.
There are lots of not-so-dotty-professors who are making a very nice living -thank you very much! - from exagerating the importance of miniscule differences. EG. "There is a 50% increase in risk of geting lung cancer if you are exposed to passive cigarette smoke". Here are the questions that few people seem to ask (especially MPs),
1. What is the risk of being afflicted by lung cancer if you are not subjected to tobacco smoke AT ALL? That is, go back to a time before tobacco was introduced to this country and enquire about lung cancer. I saw a programmme on the TV which specifically stated that people in Roman Times were found to have died from lung cancer often. IE, 2 000 years ago! Why did they get lung cancer if there was no such thing as 'smoking'?
2. Why is it that, in view of the fact that in the 1930s, 40s, 50s and 60s, when almost all males persons smoked, LIFE EXPECTANCY has become higher and higher?
3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, if the smoking risk of geting lung cancer (disregarding the NATURAL risk of geting lung cancer) is, say, 1 in
10 000 and the risk of geting lung cancer from passive smoking is,say, 1 in 1 000 000, of what importance is it that the risk involved in passive smoking is increased from 1 in
1 000 000 to 1.5 in 1 000 000 (50% increase in risk)? My actual figures may be incorrect, but thinking is correct.
4. The same reasoning applies to other so-called 'smoking related diseases'.
We must now flit back to Prince Charles's idea that we have only 100 months to sort out global warming. Let us say that 100 months equates to, say, 10 years roughly.
OK. Suppose that we, the people, said to our government, do NOTHING for 10 years and let us see what happens.
I'll bet a pound to a penny that NOTHING will happen. The Earth will look after itself and the MINISCULE DIFFERENCES that the human race make will turn out to be of no importance whatsoever.
Sorry to go on at such length, but it is obvious, is it not, that these matters are not capable of being resolved in sound-bites.
Vivian Westwood - THE well-known Climate Change Expert ?
Well, we can add HER now to the list of all the others, including Sheryl Crow, Leonardo di Caprio, Barbra Streisand etc etc
Who needs SCIENCE when you've got CELEBRITY ?
No wonder the audience applauded (bless 'em).
So much for 'education' !!
Junican.
Nice post, nice figures, nice reasoning. Did you also watch the French Revolution programme earlier? It showed that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, lies are acceptable towards achieving the end goal, and eventually the whole thing implodes? Meantime,by doing NOTHING, 55,000 citizens were executed.
In our present dangerous situation, I feel that doing NOTHING is not really an option. Global Control already has all the power, all the money, all the armies, all the laws. We, the common people, have nothing. BUT we, the Smokers, are a new phenomenon - a new society not existing in the world before. We are cross-party, cross-creed,cross-nation, We can create the "tipping point" mentioned in the link I gave; but first we must be sure of ourselves and our facts.
May I draw attention again to my original comment? We smokers need to move on from debunking the myth that smoking is bad to extending the knowledge that smoking is good. Here is just one source which lists scientific links to the benefits:-
http://www.freedom2choose.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1773&p=103329&e=103329
In the olden days when smoking was as much a part of normal life as eating and drinking, people chose to smoke or not to smoke. No pressure was put on either preference. People were healthier and children were healthier. The medical profession and its pharmaceutical manufacturers were not as busy as they are now. We had the benefit of more fresh air to breathe both indoors and out. Smoking has a distinctive smell and no one has ever liked being enclosed in a really smoke-filled room. At the start of each day, pub doors and windows were thrown open to clear the air right through. Good ventilation systems were introduced into all large public buildings like airports and hospitals and fresh air regularly put through them. Since the smoking ban, great cost savings have been boasted about. It is no longer thought necessary to have the expense of introducing fresh air into air conditioning systems. Germs mutate and people, especially children, become sicker and sicker. The medical/pharmaceutical profession thrives.
If there is one pro-smoker left on these boards that still thinks some part of smoking MUST be dangerous, let him ask himself WHICH part and WHY? Where is the proof? If it is just the assumption that smoking shortens life expectancy - this is the most ridiculous assumption of all. Who has ever been able to predict the length of a person's life?
Useless to suppose that reasoned argument can change the perception of the likes of ASH. These people are the victims of Global Control as much as the rest of us. They have jobs; while all around them is deliberately contrived mass unemployment. They must continue to swear that black is white just to survive.
The same applies to our top politicians, who have been bought into the privileged "inner sanctum" from Ted Heath onwards. It doesn't matter what pretty noises they make as, possibly our last, general election looms. Once back in power, be the colour blue or yellow, the global control machine will roll inexorably on.
This thread has not digressed from the video clip and Ms Chase's statement, "I can think for myself and the more you take my thinking away from me...that's dangerous!"
Every part of global control and manipulation of the common man is a part of the whole. Perhaps we smokers will provide the "tipping point" referred to in recent posts in the link I gave to F2C and its "Benefits of Smoking". We smokers need to be sure of our ground and believe completely in what we say.
In other words, the Smoking Ban is bad for you, [and your children and your children's children.]