Thursday
Jul292010
Open thread
Thursday, July 29, 2010 You are welcome to comment on a wide range of issues while I am away (see below) but please don't abuse this thread. Comment moderation can be activated should the need arise ...
Update on Wednesday, August 11, 2010 by
Simon Clark
Simon Clark
Thanks for all your comments. I've just read them and there's some interesting stuff. I might make this Open Thread a regular feature!
Reader Comments (250)
Food and drink busters!
How about taking fizzy drinks and unhealthy snacks from people as well under the guise of ‘Keeping the nation healthy!’
Perhaps they can go to municipal car parks and plaster stickers all over cars because of the amount of carbon monoxide that they pump out, doing damage to the health of young children – eh?
The point, surely is this;
'Stunt' or not, the thinking - and OFFICIAL support behind it - would have been virtually unthinkable twenty, or even ten, years ago.
To that extent, I'd say it's a pretty reliable indication of how far we have 'progressed' as a nation.
"We'll fight them on the beaches."
Provided there's nothing on Sky this evening..................................
Here is another one for your joke book, taken from a comment on a Digital Spy forum -
"I have no problem with smokers paying extra tax generally, as that covers the increased NHS spending they require by contracting lengthy illnesses earlier in life, than non smokers who are more likely to die suddenly without needing any prior treatment."
Is that called brainwashing Timbone?
Cold War
Try this one
6 brainwashing techniques
None of those links work, sorry.
Anyhow I stumbled across the obligatory pages from Ceefax on BBC1 after closedown tonight and lo and behold a whole page dedicated to some jerk from the BMA backing wee Nicola's minimum pricing scheme and in the same breath, setting his sights on YOU smoking in YOUR own-paid for cars, salt and the obese.
That was some digest in one page.
Of course various searches on the net have failed to uncover the Ceefax story or anything else, - HOWEVER I was rather pissed but I didn't dream it.
OK I just watched the video on Simon Thomas's link. I did think it was very obviously staged and filmed - but if it happened in a less obvious way, and someone came at me shouting 'CIGGY BUSTER' to draw attention to me in that way and to attempt to 'humiliate' me publicly, my natural reaction would probably be one of shock. I'm a VERY private person, and my first reaction to shock is to break down and burst into tears. Pathetic, I know, but it's not something I can help, as I have a form of PTSD from traumatic life events - so something like this would feel to me as though I was being publicly beaten up. Not funny at all.. So I'd like to see how they would respond to that, although I don't want to give them the opportunity. If these sorts of things start to be considered acceptable, I'll have no option but to leave the country for somewhere sane that would be better for my nerves.
If students are encouraged to take/rob cigarettes from smokers, I bet the little brainwashed creeps will target the vulnerable like pensioners and easy targets, just like their masters, the cowardly creeps in government who target the vulernable tax payer and easy targets every time.
These dumbed down headless chickens would be just following by example.
I just mentioned this story to my non-smoking partner, and he said that it sounded to him like sanctioned mugging and assault. He felt sure the police would not stand for this behaviour against any section of the population. I hadn't thought of that, but surely he's right on this point?
Joseph - Sorry about the links. Try the 6 brainwashing techniques again...when you get through to the Cracked.com site...type brainwashing into the search box...it will then bring up 6 brain washing techniques that they use on you today.
Interesting !
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/research/2010/08/if-councils-can-put-a-minimum-price-on-alcohol-can-they-repeal-the-smoking-ban.html
David R -
Thanks for the 'Brainwashing' link.
Can't QUITE understand, however, why the author(s) should have chosen ALEX JONES, of all people.
He's been trying to DE-brainwash the American People for years - with some success.
A more potent (and truthful) image of a Dumbed-Down and Lobotomised America would have been the so-happy-I-could-cry expressions on the adoring mugs of the Obama-Worshippers.
(A MUCH scarier phenomenon than the fictionalised psychology of 'The Manchurian Candidate'.)
And I'm not just talking about the BBC staffers over there (or here).....................
Martin V
Good points Martin.
Alas 'the so happy I could cry expressions on the adoring mugs of the Obama-Worshippers' have now turned to scowls, with tea parties to prove it.
While ol Hill's beaming smile means she wont be in need of a face-lift for some time.
The ban is being ignored
According to several different report, the smoking ban is being ignored more and more across the country. Real all about it here
Didn't I say just that? This is how and where it starts. Lets see the 'enforcement' and the whinges and moans about waste of money etc. that follow any attempts. 2012, by which time the Councils/Govt. will be following the public. (who don't give 2 hoots)
It will, just, sort of 'happen'. No banging of drums or blowing of trumpets. Just there.
Anyone here fancy a giggle?
A few days ago, I came across a reference to a new blog site set up by the British Medical Assn (BMJ) asking for suggestions for 'new forms of words' to attack smoking. I entered a comment giving a list of about 200 'nasty' words (eg. 'faeces'). Needless to say, my comment was moderated out. However, undeterred, I thought of a way to circumvent their moderators, using an alter ego. I managed to sneak in a reference to Jimmy Saville's 'clunk click' ad for seat belts in an otherwise innocuous comment. We all know what Jimmy S was famous for do we not? A big fat cigar? But my 'piece de resistance' was the next comment. If one pays attention to the first letter of each sentence, they spell out a certain word.
Go to:http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2010/07/30/word-wars-and-tobacco-control/comment-page-1/#comment-70
Have a little laugh at a bit of gentle piss taking.
Oh, by the way, the amount of support that they receive is absolutely abysmal.
Ooops! That url does not seem to work. Try this:
http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2010/07/30/word-wars-and-tobacco-control/comment-page-1/#comment-70
Junican
I made two comments there on 5 August and they are still awaiting moderation :). I know at least two people who have had their comments deleted. I get the impression they are a little surprised that addicts can contribute to their columns and are wondering how to proceed ...
One thing that annoys me very much is when a person in the media gets something wrong, giving ammunition to the reader or listener.
I had been out this afternoon, and sat down with a coffee and rolled some cigarettes with the TV on. There was a programme called 3@3 on ITV. One of the subjects was the idea of refusing treatment to obese people, dirnkers and smokers. FIona Philips was the presenter. Towards the end of the show she was reading some emails which had been sent in. One was from a smoker, who said that the amount of tax smokers paid not only paid for their treatment but lots of others as well.
There was the expected moan of disapproval from the audience. Then Fiona Philips dropped the bombshell. She said she had looked into it, and smokers paid 9 million but cost 2.7 billion. I was shouting at the TV, NO 9 BILLION NOT 9 MILLION!!!
@Junican
Her piece is nothing more than descrimination and Orwellian Newspeak, I too had my comment deleted.
Did you know Press Complaints Commission it is against their code of conduct on a publication blog to moderate and delete comments as long as they are decent.
Also under the Public Order Act 1986 there maybe a case with the denormalisation of smoking and hence smokers for a case to be made for "causing harrassment, alarm and distress."
Also because it is blatant descrimination against an identifiable group of people the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and/or Liberty maybe interested.
I see that the medical professionals are at it again.
In the Telegraph today - ""SMOKING IN THE HOME 'A FORM OF CHILD ABUSE'.
So said Prof Steve Field, chairman of the, Royal College of General Practitioners, rapidly followed up by a quote from Anne Milton, a Health Minister trotting out the usual lies re high support and agreement of smokers.
All the signs of sheer panic.
I was a little intrigued by Belinda's observation that her two comments are still awaiting moderation. I have just gone to the BMJ blog again, but by googling 'bmj blogs' and finding my way there without using the url I quoted. The comments that I made under my alter ego are there although the phrase 'awaiting moderation' is still there.
Could be that Dave Ath has got it right and that someone has pointed out to them the error of their ways and that they do not know what to do.
Whatever, I had my little moment of glee.
I am sure that Dave Ath is right about the Equality and Liberty. Certainly the Prof Steve Fiield trotted out the usual garbage about 'damage to children's' lungs, bronchial illness, asthma and a lifetime of ill health'. How DO they get away with it?
If it's child abuse...then we must report it...mustn't we?
I left the suggestion below on the Childline
Yes have a report phone line for parents smoking in front of their children...as Prof Steve Field says...this is child abuse!
Perhaps our unctuous Prof should report this child abuse to the relevant authorities.
I'm sure when you get through you will leave your two-penneth worth...it's the box on the right.
Will smokers one day be refused health care?
My blood is still boiling after watching Newsnight. Tonight’s discussion was about how much government should intervene when pushing us towards taking responsibility for our own health.
On the panel was our friend Prof Steven Field (didn’t take him long to end up on Newsnight), Caroline ‘nanny’ Flint and epidemiologist (well there just had to be one) Kate Pickett from York University. You will have guessed of course that there was no balancing opinion…well of course not…it’s the BBC after all.
Naturally smoking figured in the discussion, and what a great success the smoking ban was. The government believe that individuals should take responsibility for their own health…but these bastards thought that wouldn’t be enough.
At one point Kirsty Wark suggested that there might be a time when cigarette packets would sport the message ‘smoking could lessen your access to health care’, at which point the epidemiologist agreed saying she would like to see that. What!
Don’t be lulled into a false sense of security that the tide is turning…I beg of you.
"this is child abuse................."
Perhaps the good 'professor' should go and visit some GENUINELY 'abused' (ie physically and emotionally maltreated) children, and adjust his crackpot rhetoric accordingly.
To equate smoking before a child with beating it senseless with one's fist, scalding it with a hot iron, or making it sit for hours naked in a cold bath is a form of 'abuse' in itself.
An Abuse of the English Language.
And an Abuse of Truth.
'Professor', my arse.
I wouldn't employ such a gibbering cretin as a driving instructor..........................
DavidR
Sounds like a very balanced panel to me.
Kirsty Wark and family has hosted summer hols at their agreeable villa in the Algarve or where-fucking-ever to Jack (soon to be Lord) Mc-Con-all, and his brood, so you shouldn't really be surprised at her standard of journalistic integrity.
‘smoking could lessen your access to health care’..........................
Fine by me - on one condition:
The immediate abolition of Tobacco Tax - which would allow me (easily) - as a 30-a-day man - to opt for treatment by the Private Health Sector - where the patient is treated as a Valued Customer (ie as an ASSET) rather than a Bloody Nuisance (ie a LIABILITY).
THAT would be a perfect example of my 'taking responsibility' for my own welfare.
It would also, of course, 'free up much-needed resources' for the NHS, whilst allowing peasants like me to continue subsidising the State Healthcare of certain millionaire politicians (and their heiress wives) via other forms of taxation.
The NHS would continue to 'remain safe' in their hands, I'm sure.
Any objections, Kirsty ?
(That is to say: any RATIONAL objections)
Sounds like a winner to me.........................................
Martin V, I mentioned earlier a programme where thick FIona Philips read 9,000,000,000 as 9,000,000. If I had had time and access, I would have loved to mention the National Insurance I have paid for 43 years. What is this falacy about the NHS being free?
Sorry if I’m being dim, Junican, but I couldn’t work out your “hidden word.” Can you give me another clue?
Re the “child abuse” comment – I’m always amazed when this is said (and it has been said before) that people who have really been abused don’t rise up in abject fury and force a public retraction. Surely such outrageous statements, made publicly as a “good thing,” only serve to demean and diminish the real crimes perpetrated by real abusers against real children. So why aren’t such comments roundly and furiously rebuffed by abuse-survivors or by those who work with them and know the scale of damage caused by real abuse?
And yes, Martin, I’ve often thought that – as we are such a terrible drain on the NHS (and it is always this cost which is cited as the main “financial burden” part of smoking), - they should take the £9 billion that we pay in taxes out of the tax system altogether and use it to set up separate smokers’ hospitals. On the basis that treating us would cost these hospitals £2.7 billion per year (their figures), that would mean that there’d be a whopping £6.3 billion per year left to spend on research, equipment, screening, patient facilities, out-patient services, better staff, better cleaning …... And as there’s so few of us, they wouldn’t even need to build that many of them – with that amount of money available, I would think they’d be able to build enough to provide care for all the smokers in the country within a couple of years. Non-smokers, of course, wouldn’t be allowed to use them, but then they’d reap the benefit of the £2.7 billion that they were saving, which they could spend on, oh ….. maybe better sandwiches for everyone?
Can you imagine??? People would be taking up smoking just to be able to use the new facilities. Ah, yes. I knew there was some reason why they hadn’t done it yet …..
BELINDA!
A moderator has appeared on the BMJ blog! The post that I refer to above by that unknown person 'jwatso' have been passed!
Misty! Misty! Try again. Erm......ok. If you look at the 3rd post by 'jwatso' (whoever he may be). you will see that the the word spelt out by the first letter of each sentence is PROPAGANDA (oddly, although my original post and the 'fair copy' which appeared as 'awaiting moderation' separated the sentences beginning with the final N and the D, these two sentences have not been separated by a space in the post-moderated statement - but, what the hell! - the point has been made.
Just had another look at the BMJ blog - on further inspection, the 'word' is spelt out correctly. My last sentence above (after the bracket) is wrong. Have another look, Misty. I find it ever so amusing to infiltrate these thoughts.
Here is an ‘idea’ that I have just posted on the Your Freedom site. I would be grateful of persons posting here would add a few comments and votes.
It may be a waste of time, but if the idea is never put into the public domain at all, then there will NEVER be any possibility of success at all, will there? I am going to try to put this ‘idea’ to the Publican and others as well. In a sense, the ‘idea’ renders the blandishments of Prof Steve Field etc somewhat ineffective.
..........................................................
THAT POLLUTERS SHOULD BE THE ONES TO REMOVE POLLUTION AND NOT THE INNOCENT (PARTICULARLY AS IT APPLIES TO THE SMOKING BAN).
It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.
This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.
POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.
As regards the Smoking Ban, it may well be true that tobacco smoke is harmful. If that is true, then tobacco smoke is polluting the atmosphere. People who create this smoke must therefore be stopped from polluting the atmosphere.
But who is going to enforce the cessation of the pollution? Passers by? Shop assistants? Church wardens? Railwaymen? Surely not? Surely, Government inspectors should be the people responsible for enforcement?
But this is precisely the position as it exists at the moment! Innocent people, people who do NOT produce the pollution, are being forced to spend time, effort and money enforcing the cessation of (tobacco smoke) pollution. I speak, of course, of PUBLICANS.
Publicans do not produce the pollution. It is a BAD LAW which forces them to stop the pollution. The smoking ban ought never to have been part of a health act (unless it was for the purpose of banning tobacco completely). If anything, it should have been a safety act.
The Health Act 2006 should be amended to remove the requirement for publicans to enforce the cessation of pollution.
..............................................................
I hope that people can see the significance of the 'idea'. As a smoker, I do not accept that I 'pollute' the atmosphere at all or cause anyone any harm. But I say that, even if that were true, then it would be for ME to stop polluting the atmosphere and not for publicans to do so, since they do not cause the pollution. If such a cessation has to be enforced, then Government Inspectors should do it.
Back me up! I intend to circulate this idea.
Junican, I thought you were heading towards saying that the tobacco companies should be responsible for the pollution issue and should produce a non-polluting cigarette - but you ended up putting the onus on smokers themselves as far as I can see. Perhaps I'm thick, but I can't see how putting more blame on us is going to help, since the main argument has tended to be that we are being accused of a level of pollution and harm that is totally out of proportion.
As a matter of general interest, I just looked at the FOREST site for the first time in years, and noticed this. May be of interest to anyone with a story to tell:
http://www.forestonline.org/output/Case-Studies.aspx
I hope it's OK to post that here. Since Simon has never posted it he may wish to keep both sites completely separate - in which case I apologise.
Timbone -
Yes - I DID pick up on your earlier comment about The Lovely Fiona's Freudian slip, and that sort of thing makes me mad, too.
And notice how the Antis ALWAYS refer to the (putative) cost to the NHS.
If they were rather more honest, and referred to the 'cost' to the EXCHEQUER, that would automatically stimulate a question (from someone with a functioning brain) about the OTHER side of the economic equation: the INCOME.
That, of course, would present a Clear And Present Threat to the Antis' little Paper House of Lies, wouldn't it ?
On the subject of National Insurance, one of the post-War members of the Labour Cabinet (I forget who) remarked later on how 'clever' it was to refer to this additional TAXATION as INSURANCE.
Even today, we are still apt to believe that WE are somehow 'contributing' to OUR wellbeing (especially in Old Age) via some sort of personal funding.
Nonetheless, the con has worked well - and the NHS has become a sort of Religious Icon for the populace. Even to question whether it might - in our present conditions of unprecedented prosperity - STILL be the best way of providing healthcare for all (as, demonstrably, it is NOT), is to invite the sort of reaction one would expect from a crowd of scythe-wielding peasants who've just witnessed the village Madonna being splattered with horse-shit from a passing group of drunken English football-supporters.
It IS possible, I'm sure, to be both Rational AND Humane - but many still find the connection a difficult one to make.
And I include Respected Academics in the 'many'.
Apart from anything else, Irrationality is a whole lot easier on the brain, and a much more effective tool for Bossing The Ignorant Masses About.
Hence the runaway success of all this rent-a-quote numbskullery that passes for 'discussion' in the media........................................
Misty -
Got it in one :
Anybody here NOT had this conversation ?
YOU: "We contribute (approx) £8 Billion NET to the Economy.
ANTI: "But what about the £2 Billion you cost the NHS. I read it in the 'Daily Mail' yesterday ?"
YOU: "Please just LISTEN for once: £10 Billion in taxes, minus £2 Billion in costs, makes a PROFIT of £8 Billion. It's called 'Arithmetic'."
ANTI: "Yes, but it takes money from the NHS."
YOU: "No, it PROVIDES money (potentially) for the NHS: that's what 'NET' means."
ANTI: "Sorry, you can say what you like but.................................."
YOU: "Okay - let's put it another way: if we ALL gave up smoking, the Exchequer would be DOWN by £10 Billion."
ANTI: "Yes - but the NHS would save £2 Billion."
YOU: "But where does the NHS get its money FROM ?"
ANTI: "You're just playing with words, because you're a Smoker."
YOU: " Sweet Jesu !! Tell me - have they given you the Vote yet, or are you
still waiting for the brain transplant appointment ?"
And so on, and so on, and so on.
And these are the same people (invariably) who laugh at BALDRICK'S stupidity ?
Pass the Smith and Wesson, someone - and let me put THEM out of MY misery.............
DavidR: h/tip http://f2cscotland.blogspot.com/2010/08/newsnight-worthies-discuss-health.html
Junican ... they never used my posts :( ... I'll just have to keep trying!
Martin V
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/08/major-health-care-cuts-for-poor.html
health cuts because not enough people are smoking!
During the Newsnight feature, Steve Field came out (don't ask me why) with the statistic that male smoking prevalence was lower in Newcastle than any other part of the country (don't know how "part" is defined). Is this true and why?
I suppose it could have come from thiese statistics provided by Fresh Northeast.
http://www.freshne.com/news.html
the north east was allegedly one of the more " smokier " area,s in the country.
A new campaign just been launched about the 84,000 children being adversly affected here because of their ignorant parents, grandparents and anyone else who may come into contact with them
That story on Michael Siegal's site is fascinating Belinda. Interesting assertion about the e-cig issue. Perhaps F2C should send that one to the Health Secretary and put to him that either:
a) if they want people to quit smoking, then allow them an alternative that simulates smoking sufficiently to make it a realistic possibility to quit. or
b) if they can't afford for people to quit smoking, then stop treating them like dogs and give them the respect they deserve for pursuing a risky habit that would appear to prop up State services provision for all those who currently spit on us.
Thanks Sheila,
I got this through the link you provided. The region in question is the whole of the NE: not just Newcastle. It appears genuine if it really is from the ONS. I haven't checked. I'm assuming the NE includes Middlesborough, Sunderland and Newcastle and that they make up most of the population. It truely is amazing.
" North East Smoking at a record low
Date: 29/01/2010Category: Fresh Press ReleasesNEW figures out today show the North East has had another drop in the levels of smoking - with fewer adults smoking in our region than ever before.
The latest results show that the number of people smoking in the North East has fallen for a third consecutive year starting from 29% in 2005 to 21% in 2008 - a total of around 170,000 fewer smokers over this three year period- the biggest percentage decline of any region in England. Fewer adults males smoke in the North East compared to any other region in England (17% compared to the national average of 21%) but the decline in female smoking has been slower (23% compared to the national average on 20%).
The statistics are in the General Lifestyle Survey, issued today by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The survey collects information from households on a range of topics and reports on smoking trends annually."
Belinda -
Many thanks for that one.
Rational Government.
A contradiction in terms ?
IMHO, people REALLY need to begin asking two very serious questions:
1) WHAT, in the modern era, is Government FOR ?
2) WHAT, in the modern era, is the MINIMUM size Government needs to be effectively to perform the functions WE think it should ?
The fact that neither question IS pursued these days accounts, in part, for the Interference Mania we're all suffering under.
The way things are going, pretty soon all it'll take is for some dipstick politico from California to introduce a Herbal Rights Bill, and within a few short years WE will be applying for licences to mow the lawn, and rip out the weeds.
Think I'm joking ?
I wish..........................................
Here is the table (table 1.11 on P26 of the pdf page counter). It does say 17%, but looks very odd.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/GLF08/GLFSmoking&DrinkingAmongAdults2008.pdf
The sample was small - only 290 men. This gives a 95% confidence interval of + or - 4.6%. Perhaps that explains it. I don't see how a region containing large areas of low pay and deprivation can have a smoking rate not achieved anywhere outside of California or Sweden.
Very VERY true Martin V. It's become the boss rather than the servant.
Peter T -
Sorry, but I forgot to thank YOU, too, for the Good Bad News link above.
I have to admit, it DID cheer me up immensely - and, on a grey, rainy day in Hampshire, that's no mean feat !
Naturally, any Antis wandering by chance onto that page will have their prejudices re-inforced: smoking IS An Addiction - and the Addicts Need Help in quitting.
Solution ?
Male Smokers: wire testicles to the mains for several minutes, whilst flashing images of Deborah and Liam on the Main Viewing Wall of the NHS-funded Torture Facility ("Because We Care").
(Children: DON'T try this on Grandad, unless you've already received - and read - your 'Stop Relatives Killing You' Funpack from school)
Female Smokers: simple womb-removal (thus removing forever the danger of Little Smokers).
(Children: see note above)
See "Inherited Smoke-Addiction Disorder - A Modern Plague"** at page 20 and passim.............
**(The ASH/RCP-reviewed findings of a resident group of Smokefree Blancmange Scientists at the University of East Droitwich earlier this year).
Smoking lowest in North East?
ROFL (I live there)
On the brainwashing issues and Alex Jones, has anyone else seen the Adam Curtis documentary's "the trap" and "the power of nightmares". Also "the century of the self". I cant stress how truly magnificent these docs are, if your interested in civil liberty's or government control, they are a must watch.
On a brighter note....
Great to see the smoking ban being ignored. On the fines, i believe its 30 quid for the smoker and 2500 for the owner of the premises. So theoretically, if someone were to, (not that I'm saying they should), smoke in a building owned by e.g. factious corp: trASH, they could cost the corp. thousands of pounds in fines! If we take this thought experiment further, a few people could bankrupt a corp, with just a 30 quid outlay. My point is so there IS an upside:-)
I'm not sure how true this is, but a friend of mine knows a surgeon who has an elegant solution for circumventing the idiotic ban. Apparently during a long operation he has a long hose attached to a cigarette that leads outside. It sounds too fantastic to me, but it begs the question, can this technology be exploited by the tobacco companies or some other companies. Perhaps a 20 foot long cigarette holder could be the solution. Well its tobacco for thought.