BMJ - British Medical Jerk-offs

... which is an American word for wankers, which is what they are, but BMW is already taken. With the BMJ, it's not so much 'Vorsprung durch Technik', but rather 'Vorsprung durch wahnsinnliche, hysterische Kontrol-Freakerei', as evidenced on their astroturf blog:

"Imagine you are sitting down to enjoy a nice meal in your own dining room, or settling in to your bed to read a good book or perhaps taking a long soak in your bath and all you could smell and breathe is cigarette smoke. Now, if you were eating in a nice restaurant or staying in a hotel or visiting a spa, you could no doubt complain to management and the nonsmoking policy would be quickly and swiftly enforced. But when this smoke is in your own home and the source is your neighbor who lives directly below, what recourse do you have?"

It's hard to comment. To do so would involve machetéing a path through the virtually impenetrable hedge of paranoid, puritan dumbnitude. When did people who think like this manage to convince themselves that they're the normal ones?

Choice; Guardian-style

It may not be very clear, but this is taken from the Graun article 'Smoking ban five years on'. As you can see, they're interested to know what their readers think, and are offering this question: Are current laws regulating smoking enough?

Most likely, this yes-no question captures the entirety of opinion among the jackboot-lickers who hang around that festering sore. Among the comments, which I don't recommend, one from a certain Rigsby, hits the nail on the head:

"Very few people more sanctimonious than a guardian reading non-smoker..."

Doctors kill more people than smoking

From the Daily Mail:

NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.

The figure given is 130,000 every year, which comes in way above the usual stat given for smoking-related deaths, 100,000, and the number 130,000 is only the intentional deaths. Once you add in the errors and the negligence, you're going to need to recalibrate the graph.

Via a comment at Pat Nurse's, I see the miserable anti-smoker zealots are using the occasion of great-grandmother Violet Phillips 101st birthday to denounce her for smoking, after she attributed her long life to the antiseptic qualities of tobacco smoke.

Last night British Lung Foundation Scots chief Dr James Cant said: “Violet’s story is extraordinary as very few smokers live to such an old age.”

But he added: “The best birthday present she could give us is to finally quit the habit.”

I suggest not only the fags but also keeping away from the murderous quacks has played a part. Remember, these are the people who protected the most prolific mass-murderer in British history, Dr Harold Shipman.

Harold Shipman: hero to the twisted misanthropes of the NHS

I shall be pointing this out the next time some tax-payer-funded lobbyist from the Department of Puritanism and Control starts lecturing me on matters in which he has no legitimate interest.

Temperance Taliban Chief predicts massive violence

As reported in the Telegraph:

Eric Appleby, chief executive of Alcohol Concern, said: "We think there is a big battle ahead."

As those with even a passing familiarity with the English language will know, a 'battle' is a violent clash between opposing forces, usually involving death, destruction, severed limbs and all manner of horror.

No doubt Appleby's apologists will claim he was only 'speaking metaphorically'. Yeah.

Only last week, the leader of another puritan sect described the movement in terms of a holy war, and in the article quoted above yet another called for 'extreme measures'.

Surely it's only a matter of time before these puritan jihadis put aside the rhetoric and the metaphors and revert to their older ways.

Comply or die. How puritans act when they get into power.

Anti-smokers call for mandatory goat sodomisation

That's a fact!

No, wait, it's not a fact, it's a reductio ad absurdum ...

Whatever.

What is the reason given by the anti-smoking puritans for 'plain packaging' (which won't actually be plain, of course, but rather covered in anti-smoking graffiti)?

There seems to be two: firstly the one I comment on below - the hypnotic trance which comes upon anyone who sees a brand image of a tobacco product, over-riding their own free will and the influence of a decade of brain-washing in the schools, and turning the unsuspecting victim into a 'Manchurian Smoker'.

The other reason is; the tobacco companies don't want it. ... And? That's it. The tobacco companies don't want it, therefore WE, the puritan fanatics of the anti-smoking lobby, therefore conclude that WE do want it.

Hence we find over at their new propaganda site a page entitled 'Good Quotes on Plain (sic) Packaging', which is a list of comments from industry sources, showing their opposition to the plan. This is apparently enough to claim 'quod erat demonstrandum'.

But surely, if this is the argument, there are other things the tobacco companies will object to even more? Surely mandatory goat sodomisation at point of purchase as a condition of purchase would be even more objectionable? And if it saves one life ...

Public health measure, or pretext to amass a huge stash of goat porn? Anti-smoking groups: no comment

I know what you're thinking, dear readers: Don't give 'em any ideas! For, as we know, yesterday's parody has a nasty habit of becoming tomorrow's reality, and if there is a bottom to the pit of their fanaticism, it has yet to be plumbed.

Anti-smokers: don't look now!

Too late, you poor fools!

Now that you have seen the above image, you are in our thrall, you will be a smoker like us. Your tiny mind will not be able to over-ride the compulsion to seek out a tobacconist, to purchase if you have the money or steal if you don't and then consume the above substance (mainly Virginia, a little bit of Perique), and following a short and degraded life, die in agony. In vain you'll cry: 'if only the human mind was capable of rational decision-making!' But no, it's not, is it?

Of course, it's possible that the above image of Robert McConnell's marvellous Scottish Flake will not bewitch you in this way. But then what are you to say? Admit the truth and destroy the case you have built for imposing plain-packaging?

Vile, puritanical anti-smokers bleat about death threats

The hateful scum of the anti-smoking lobby are turning to a new weapon in their campaign of control. Using the pretext of a few colourful metaphors employed by online commenters, they are attempting to portray themselves as victims.

Personally, loving everyone as I do, I try to steer clear of making violent threats, even when I am sure no one would take them in any way seriously, because I know that such things can, by being taken at face value, be fitted into a definition of a crime. Even though I believe in free speech, unlike the vermin of the anti-smoking lobby, I think if we can avoid having to enter into tedious defences of statements which can be branded as violent threats, but are obviously not, all the better. Also, why should we sink to their own, pitiable, misanthropic level?

What the puritanical oxygen thieves of the anti-smoking lobby are attempting with this agenda is to portray those who oppose their control-freakery as part of a conspiracy of nuts run by the shadowy 'Big Tobacco'. In this way, they draw a line between those who oppose the codification of their anti-smoking OCD and everyone else, including themselves with everyone else. So the majority in the middle, between on one extreme ASH and the other the fine, upstanding people who actively hate ASH and everything it stands for, is found on the puritan side.

"Kill them all" - the evil genius behind 'Big Tobacco' unleashes his assassins

But we know, dear readers, who the real extremists are, and where that divide should be demarked - between the vile, insane, puritanical, control-freak nannies from hell of the anti-smoking lobby and most of the rest of the people, who, whether they smoke or not, understand that it is a matter for the individual in a free society.

The puritans do not, as we know, believe in free will or a free society. They do not believe that adults are capable of deciding for themselves, hence their attitude to advertising and anything which, by twisting the definition until it's facing backwards, can be called advertising. They do not, of course, want to engage in a rational debate, as this would mean having to defend the outrageous lies, half-truths and distortions of their cod-scientific quackery, and thus they have nothing to gain from such a debate, and happily for them, the establishment media treats their every utterance as if it came down from heaven.

The anti-smoking puritans are probably making a mistake to claim victimhood, and pointing the finger at certain bloggers, a number of whom publish detailed analysis on just how dishonest, deranged and coproplenic the anti-smoking lobby is.

Hat tip: Longrider

Lottery Fund plundered by puritan lobby groups

We may not stand a chance in Eurovision, but this news should help us jostle past Nigeria and Bangladesh in another contest. Dick Puddlecote notes the interesting fact that one of the oligarchs in charge of the cash happens to be a key acolyte of the temperance fanatics' Scottish operation.

You know, I'd actually prefer it if they just awarded it to themselves to buy jewels and fast cars.

The Guardian: throw away the mask and embrace what you are - jackboot-licking authoritarian scum

As my blogging comrade JuliaM notes, the Guardian - via its Sunday sister The Observer - is beseeching the government to turn the flame-throwers on the tattered remains of our liberty in an editorial entitled: "Public health: tackle this obesity crisis, Mr Cameron", the final paragraph of which reads:

No one doubts it is a huge cultural, political and behavioural challenge or pretends there is an easy solution. But if the answers, whatever they are, involve challenging corporate power and practices, legislating to improve the content of food or even limiting individuals' freedom to consume junk, then so be it. Only radical action will begin to win the challenge of obesity.

Here we see encapsulated the strategy of the enemies of liberty. Firstly, we have the manufacturing of a public health crisis; the 'obesity epidemic'. Secondly, we have the identification of the enemy. Following the tobacco-control playbook, this enemy is the powerful corporations who must be curbed by the force of law. Thirdly we have the necessity to protect people from themselves, i.e., an attack on individual freedom 'to consume junk'.

Let us not waste time trying to reason with these people. They are the enemies of all that is good and true.

My Big Tobacco Front Operation

Nicorettes ain't a patch on this stuff!

The fanatical anti-smoking temperance zealots like to accuse everyone who objects to their crusade against Ralegh's demon weed of being in the pay of 'big tobacco'. This is part of one of their key strategies of attacking individual responsibility. It is not so much an attack on our right to choose, it is an attack on the very notion of our ability to choose. By defining their battle as against 'big tobacco', they get to play David to the corporate Goliath, but only play, as the reality is very different.

Firstly, there's no bigger Goliath than the authoritarian state which they are working to aggrandise, and which provides much of the funding for their work. Secondly, they clearly have no problem with 'big pharma', which also bank-rolls their operations and benefits from the sale of 'medical' nicotine. Thirdly, their real battle is against ordinary smokers, especially those with the temerity to argue against them.

Personally, I have yet to receive any payment from 'big tobacco', but I'm quite happy to do so in cash or preferably in tins of Peterson's Irish Flake (see above), which is likely to keep far longer than our sadly depreciating paper currency.

David Hockney: Hero

David Hockney puts a steel-toe-capped boot where it most deserves to go; into the bollocks of health nazis and joyless authoritarians, such as the much-loathed Andrew Lansley, so-called health minister in the current regime.

I recommend it highly.

Hat tip: DK

"Raising the legal drinking age"? Another reason to curse this government

Not that we needed another reason, but via Velvet Glove, Iron Fist, who N.B.s another telling 'suggestion' from the puritan fanatics who infest the government like a Biblical plague, that being the current favourite object of masturbatory frenzy amongst the morality police; plain packaging.

But I will highlight the 'suggestion' above the above in the list of 'suggestions' they wish to 'consult' on, as indicated in the title of this post. Now, I don't think they will move on this any time soon, but it brings to mind an incident I witnessed only yesterday. A young woman being refused a quarter bottle of whisky, even though she was 26 years old, and evidently over the legal restriction. But she didn't have any ID that proved this to the zealous shopkeeper. Therefore she left with her money still in her purse, and I followed, likewise with my money intact.

One step at a time, we have accepted our liberty to be taken from us, and we reap the reward for this cowardice in such ritual humiliations as I witnessed: a grown woman being treated like a naughty child. It wasn't like this in the past, and it doesn't have to be like this now, but as long as we acquiesce in our own degradation and infantilisation, we're only going to get more of the same.

As for the government's alcohol strategy, here's my suggestion:

GO FUCK YOURSELVES YOU PURITAN SCUM.

Protect Children ...

...Disembowel a Puritan Fanatic Today


You know, I'm kind of getting sick of those puritanical temperance fanatics. I mean, my view of them doesn't change, the opinion dial is stuck with the arrow pointing to 'Spawn of Satan', but my level of visceral loathing does fluctuate. And courtesy of Dick Puddlecote, the crab in my spleen is nipping at my guts.

Those who don't wish to wander through yon link, the gist of the matter is a poster WE THE TAX-PAYERS no doubt paid for, calling for plain packaging for tobacco products, their newest ruse to piss off smokers and, in their fevered imaginations, bring us damned souls under the heel of they, the Elect.

Lord, I wish it was the 16th or 17th Century. Then they could all get on a boat and fuck off, and build their 'New Jerusalem' on some fly-blown mosquito coast and flagellate each other to their hearts' content and LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE. Or else they could hole up in a town in Bohemia and the armies of the Counter Reformation could beseige them and, after much suffering, burst through the walls and put them all to the sword.

Now, all I need to do is cut and paste that into the government consultation document.

Joan Smith has filled her head with popcorn ...

... or something similar, because whatever matter occupies her cranial dome, it sure ain't brains.

Alerted by a weary Longrider, I come across her vicious diatribe against liberty, squatting beneath the headline: Filling your face with popcorn is not a human right.

This is as much disguise and distortion she manages to apply to this position: the state owns you body and soul. As such, in the puritanical purgatory she would impose upon us all, the state can tell you what to eat and drink. Naturally, she claims this is for our own good, and that the state wishes to protect us from ourselves. But if the principle of her argument is accepted, and the authority over such matters is ceded to the state, it makes no difference whether the state's decrees are intended to be beneficial or the opposite.

If the state has a right - an ownership right - to tell us to eat our broccoli, it can use the same right to order us to drink whiskey for breakfast and smoke Marlboro reds all day.

Rather than wring my hands at such naked state-worshipping stupidity, I take solace that perhaps Ms Smith has only written this piece to get some attention. Poor dear - it must be a cry for help. Perhaps it's her with the popcorn problem and what she's really trying to say is: "Please wire my trap shut, I can't stop munching".

May her plea be granted.

BMA back away from "23 Times" lie - but too late!

Just as so many members of their profession like to re-write the wills of their recently deceased patients, the BMA is attempting to tippex their latest public proclamation, but the damage is done.

The BMA have been outed as lying propagandists for the Puritan Tendency, and their belated attempt to "correct" the lie only makes them more contemptible. As this blog and others reported, their headline statistic was made up, and known to be made up by all those who study the medical journals, having originated in a newspaper report, backed by no research.

What these Bloody Mendacious Arseholes want Winston Smith to snip out and burn is the following sentence:

“Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle is 23 times greater than that of a smoky bar, even under realistic ventilation conditions.”

Why? Because they didn't do any such studies, they are merely repeating without checking something they've picked up from other organs of the Puritan movement. The "23 Times" claim is thus rather like the 'superbugs' that infest NHS hospitals: spread by doctors in (scientifically) unsanitary conditions.

Hat tip: Dick Puddlecote

Wogan: libertarian hero

He may not consider himself so, it being really a dose of common sense rather than the product of burying himself in Algernon Sidney's Discourses, but Terry Wogan nails the health nazis good and proper in this piece in the Telegraph, entitled 'The obesity scare raises its weighty head'. Here's an extract:

This time around, the bleating of the doomsayers is well up to speed: the British public should eat only as instructed, and those rotters, the food producers, should be similarly forced to come up with only what some expert has decided is good for us.

Yet doctors, dieticians, scientists and every deranged health-food guru have been at odds about what exactly is good for us since people could afford to be worried about what the next meal was going to be, rather than if there was going to be one.

In the tranquil area of France from which I write at present, the diet of the man in the street with the beret and baguette is one of wine, duck in all its forms (including the fat), lots of bread, and Armagnac to wash it all down. Heart attack on a plate, the rocky road to obesity? The inhabitants of this département live longer than any others in France.

In Spain, I was regularly presented with a chunk of country bread, grilled on an open fire, on which I was invited to spread liberal amounts of lard, until my stomach thought my hand had gone mad. I know, I know. The “experts” will tell me that this is “good” fat, far better for the children of Britain than an oven-baked chip, or a cheap pizza.

Maybe, but what is certain is that nobody, however qualified, has the right to tell anybody else what they should be eating. Or drinking. President Sarkozy of France, a great man for jumping on a bandwagon, is proposing a tax on fizzy drinks. What about human rights? The idea that tax should be levied on “wrong” food and drinks smacks too closely of dictatorship. It is the inalienable right of every man and woman in a free society to go to hell in their own handcart, as long as nobody else gets hurt.

Obesity is not catching, it’s up to you. And only you.

Well said, sir.

Stony Stratford commemorative ashtray

Commemorate the new low in puritanical lunacy achieved by Stony Stratford councillor Paul Bartlett with this fetching souvenir. Don't drop those saliva-soaked cigarette butts in the street, grind them into Bartlett's ugly mug.

On other pages, new research from Action on Smoking and Health reveals the Black Death which wiped out one third of Europe was caused by smokers, according to a survey of the cunts in their office.

UPDATE: Learn the measure of the man by googling "Standards Board for England Case No. 13644.05"