Delicious advertising insanity

People are talking. The press is reporting. Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall must be delighted.

Sane people are appalled. It would be funny, if it wasn’t so very peculiar, a symptom of odd thinking.

The true absurdity of the ‘junk food’ advertising ban revealed

A little known fact about Transport for London’s ban on ‘junk food’ advertising is that a company doesn’t have to be selling food to fall foul of the rules. If an advert for a West End musical used a picture of a custard pie, it would be rejected.

The rules also apply to TfL’s own advertisements. The campaign shown below ran in 2016 but would not be permitted today because cakes have too much sugar for Sadiq Khan and the neo-puritans of ‘public health’.

Banning the depiction of normal food products in adverts that are not advertising food soon leads to absurdity. To get an idea of quite how absurd things get, I used a Freedom of Information request to ask TfL how many of its own adverts it has had to edit to comply with its own daft rules. The documents I received are mind-boggling.

The story begins in late November 2018 when someone at TfL with the mildly sinister job title of Customer Marketing & Behaviour Change Executive realised that her organisation could be caught short by the impending changes. She e-mailed staff requesting a comprehensive review of TfL’s in-house advertisements to weed out any depictions of ‘junk food’ that could violate the new rules and embarrass the Mayor. To be on the safe side, it was decided that ‘junk food’ would not only be scrubbed out of TfL’s adverts on public transport, as the ban required, but from all its marketing materials.

Do read more…it gets pretty crazy – LINK

and more..

TfL forced to remove strawberries and cream from Wimbledon advert after it fails to follow its own junk food rules

First they came for the smokers…..when ARE we going to be allowed to be normal, ordinary people, safe from maniacs?


Nice links for smokers and vapers

Such skill and knowledge in the writings of these two men is worth sharing.

For smokers read this answer I found by Gustavo Guardiola on Quora – it’s great.

How is it fair that during work, smokers get to take a break to smoke but don’t have to make up the time they missed?

For vapers read Clive Bates on The Vaping Epidemic (in young people in the USA) (Long but worth the read)

The great American youth vaping epidemic. Really?



I’m looking for a political party to join…

I used to be very interested in UKIP. Indeed I voted ‘Leave’. I liked Nigel Farage – a smoker and drinker – a sort of family guy.

I have come to the conclusion our political parties are dreadful. I’m not Conservative, nor Labour nor Lib Dem. They have all behaved disgustingly in the savaging of Brexit. I hold them all responsible. If ever we needed proof that politics is a grubby, dirty thing, we’ve seen it now.

The stomach turns.

One of the grubbiest laws to pass in Parliament was the 2007 full smoking ban which was pushed through by a trick at the last minute. It was put forward as a partial ban, but that was not what happened.

UKIP’S manifesto was the only manifesto that I have ever seen to mention smokers and smoking. But the new manifesto doesn’t mention it.

There are millions of smokers in the UK that deserve consideration. They are more numerous that LGBTQ! Yet not a soul mentions them. I have brought the smokers’ persecution up with my own MP, who replies by sending me Tobacco Control templates.

Smokers are vilely treated by a brainwashed society who have fallen for grubby and dodgy anti smoking tactics. I am not a smoker, but I used to be and my soul remembers the disgraceful behaviour of anti smokers towards me. I will always be a smoker at heart.

I would join UKIP if there was one mention of smokers in their manifesto. And I bet a million other smokers would too!

So I wrote to them….

I would like to know if your party would press the Government to re assess the smoking bans, or do anything for the section of the British public who feel they are a persecuted minority – the smokers? I’m not sure how many smokers there are – nine million or so. To these people, such an addition to your manifesto would be an important addition, which you used to have but have now removed for some reason! What a real pity. They have been sold out… I am not a smoker, but I used to be. No other section of the population is treated with such inconsideration, and I have been disappointed you have removed any mention of them now. This is not the UKIP I knew – the UKIP smokers would vote for.

I received a reply…

Thank you very much for your e-mail.

You are absolutely right – UKIP did have provision in earlier manifestos to allow smoking areas in pubs where the landlord or landlady so wished it. Quite why this has “evaporated” I do not know.

Thus I am forwarding your message and query to Gerard Batten MEP.

So we will see what we will see…..

I would join UKIP if they restored their original smoking policy. The original was not “to allow smoking areas in pubs where the landlord or landlady so wished it.”, it was for the smoking ban to be reassessed. Pubs aren’t the only victims of the smoking ban…..

Be clever UKIP. There are millions of voters out there, just waiting for a tiny piece of consolation.

Spamming Public Consultations online – vaping as an example of the dangers of ‘Public Consultations’

I have always been suspicious of so called ‘Public Consultations’. Just the name gives me the creeps. I know, that the outcomes of a ‘Public Consultation’ are rarely implemented and the whole operation is a scam.

A ‘Public Consultation’ is just a modern form of patronising the masses in a pretend offering of power.

‘Public Consultations’ seem particularly prevalent in Tobacco Control issues, and during the vaping wars with the European Union back in 2013, ‘Public Consultations’ were used to ‘discover’ public opinion. Of course, the final destination of a ‘Public Consultation’ is the bin, and further regulations on the already over-regulated public are brought in regardless. Public opinion be dammed!

In the USA, the FDA ran ‘Public Consultations’ on Vaping some years back when the controllers-of-people first panicked about it. The rulings the ‘Public Consultation’ produced are ludicrous. They covered regulations about the devices Vapers use to vape with. Now, they are doing it again about the flavours vapers use in their e-liquid.

It has become a farce.

But the whole episode is not unique. It has happened before. Spamming a ‘Public Consultation’ is a useful tool for a Government to have cause to dump the whole ‘Public Consultation’ operation as not being valid. That’s very convenient when controllers-of-the-people want to do their own thing despite public opinion.

As a vaper, the whole situation of the witch-hunt against vapers and vaping is very interesting to me. I watch what is happening.  I am appalled by the fact that vaping is now illegal in many countries, punishable with fines and imprisonment.

I ask myself “Has the world gone insane?”

But the spamming of the FDA ‘Public Consultation’ debacle exposes to me the fact that the world has NOT gone insane – but rather, it is influenced by the forces of EVIL working against the people living in it.

In a bitter battle to destroy vaping, bad actors have spammed over 255,000 fake ‘anti-vaping’ comments into the system overseeing the public consultation process for FDA’s proposed rulemaking on the Regulation of Flavors in Tobacco Products. Regulations that could include: restrictions on flavors or an outright flavor ban.

FDA sources tell RegWatch; the spammed entry of over a quarter-million fake comments is “extraordinary” and “unprecedented”. It nearly brought down federal servers and so bogged-down the internal network it’s become next-to-impossible to process any submissions at all. It’s a massive assault on the credibility of the public consultation process.

Who did it? Was it Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids?

Video on this LINK HERE

Who was it? Well – it is Tobacco Control of course! Who could doubt that? What other group has proved themselves more despicable in the manipulation of society?

Legacy of the Nazis

Once, years ago, I went to meeting at our village hall. A man was speaking. The topic was ‘The Fourth Reich’. Being a historian, I was interested to know what that was.

But I was only one of about five people who attended.

‘The Fourth Reich’ turned out to be The European Union. The chap speaking – I can’t remember his name – must have been disappointed with a turnout of five people, but his talk made a permanent impression on me!

Since then, I have always thought of The European Union as ‘The Fourth Reich’.

Of course, I did not just accept what the speaker said, but I was so shocked by the idea, I came home and did a huge amount of research on the topic. I found the idea supported by evidence.

Not only is the European Union ‘The Fourth Reich’, but other Nazi legacies are still with us, like Tobacco Control, Public Health, Government ‘Nudge Policy’, the War on Drugs, Political Propaganda, Political Correctness etc.

But this post is about The European Union. Here is a video I saw this morning on the topic which is seldom – or never – mentioned.


Commonhealth – George Monbiot

Good reading! Please read the whole article on loneliness…but I think the persecution of smokers, disconnecting them from social life has CAUSED a lot of loneliness. Tobacco Control have shattered a once supportive society – especially in the UK, and especially for older people, not brainwashed, by anti smoking ideology. Smokers have become lonely by law! And carers are not “allowed” to enter homes where they might be infected by Second Hand Smoke.

A famous paper published in PloS Medicine in 2010 reviewed 148 studies, involving 300,000 people, and discovered that those with strong social relationships had a 50% lower chance of death across the average study period (7.5 years) than those with weak connections. “The magnitude of this effect,” the paper reports, “is comparable with quitting smoking”. A celebrated study in 1945 showed that children in orphanages died through lack of human contact. Now we know that the same thing can apply to all of us.

Source: Commonhealth – George Monbiot

‘The Disease of Public Health’ – excellent article

‘The Disease of Public Health’ – is an excellent article in Spiked, by Chris Snowdon published in 2013.

It still applies.

In fact, it is even MORE applicable in 2017.

As the definition of ‘health’ has been changed, so too has the meaning of ‘public health’. It once meant vaccinations, sanitation and education. It was ‘public’ only in the sense that it protected people from contagious diseases carried by others. Today, it means protecting people from themselves. The word ‘epidemic’ has also been divorced from its meaning – an outbreak of infectious disease – and is instead used to describe endemic behaviour such as drinking, or non-contagious diseases such as cancer, or physical conditions such as obesity which are neither diseases nor activities. This switch from literal meanings to poetic metaphors helps to maintain the conceit that governments have the same rights and responsibility to police the habits of its citizens as they do to ensure that drinking water is uncontaminated. It masks the hard reality that ‘public health’ is increasingly concerned with regulating private behaviour or private property.

The anti-smoking campaign is where the severe new public-health crusade began, but it is not where it ends. Libertarians warned that the campaign against tobacco would morph into an anti-booze and anti-fat campaign of similar intensity. They were derided; ridiculed for making fallacious ‘slippery slope’ arguments. In retrospect, their greatest failing was not that they were too hysterical in their warnings but that they lacked the imagination to foresee policies as absurd as plain packaging or bans on large servings of lemonade, even as satire.

The slippery slope was both predictable and predicted. The only surprise is how little time it took for the British public to taken in, when only a few years earlier they would have scoffed at the idea of drinkers and salad-dodgers being next in line. Once again, all it took was a change in terminology. A ‘binge-drinker’ had traditionally been someone who went on a session lasting several days. Now it means anyone who consumes more than three drinks in an evening. Similarly, the crude and arbitrary nineteenth century measure of body mass index (BMI) has been used to categorise the chubby as ‘obese’ and the fat as ‘morbidly obese’.  Sugar is ‘addictive’ now – and ‘toxic’. ‘Big Food’ is the new ‘Big Tobacco’. The anti-smoking blueprint of advertising bans, tax rises and ‘denormalisation’ provides the roadmap for action. At this stage, there is nothing to be gained from saying we told you this would happen, but we told you this would happen.

Today, if you are gripped by an urge to eradicate some bad habit or other, you no longer have to make a nuisance of yourself knocking door-to-door or waving a placard in some dismal town square. You can instead find yourself a job in the vast network of publicly funded health groups and transform yourself from crank to ‘advocate’.

No wonder, then, that everything – from gambling and climate change to gay-rights and international finance – is now pitched as a ‘public health issue’. No wonder, also, that a swarm of political activists and belligerent academics have transformed themselves into ‘public health professionals’ as a way to win power without winning votes. Although ‘public health’ is still popularly viewed as a wing of the medical profession, its enormous funding and prestige has attracted countless individuals whose lack of medical qualifications is compensated by their thirst for social change. The movement is dominated by sociologists, engineers, psychologists, lawyers, epidemiologists and other academics whose contempt for consumer capitalism is often more conspicuous than their concern for people’s health and wellbeing. Whether it is attacking multinational corporations or campaigning against ‘health inequalities’ (which are invariably a proxy for income inequalities), the endlessly accommodating field of ‘public health’ is a magnet for unelectable social scientists and moral entrepreneurs.

Do read the whole article of which there is much more thought provoking stuff – and the comments at the end.

I am archiving it here for my own interest. It’s a reason why I feel I’m living on an alien planet.

Let the people smoke

I seems to me, that smoking served a purpose. It was something people did to comfort themselves. They could smoke when out. It was a communal pleasure. So called baby boomers used to be the smokers. THEY are the ones living the longest – isn’t that strange?

But the term ‘baby boomer’ now encompasses ‘people over fifty’. That’s not the true meaning of ‘baby boomer’ which was the increase in births after world war two.

So, according to this article in the Guardian, ‘baby boomers’ are giving trouble.

Baby boomers’ drink and drug misuse needs urgent action, warn experts

“This is the first generation of home-drinkers who are far more likely to buy cheap supermarket alcohol than visit their local pub. They are drinking more than their parents and it’s no surprise that their health is starting to suffer as a result,” she said, adding that price increases and tighter controls on alcohol promotions are needed.

Well – they stay at home because they can’t SMOKE when they are out – so they never go to pubs anymore. And they drink more than their parents because THEY could and did.

I suggest you stuff  your price increases and tighter controls on alcohol where the sun don’t shine, and admit that the Tobacco Control fallacy that ‘second hand smoke’ kills other people is concocted. If people could smoke as they used to, or have proper smoking areas, everywhere, perhaps many of our new problems would waft away.

Including the use of worse drugs.

Seems simple to me. I’m a real baby boomer who smoked for fifty years.

Let the people smoke.

It’s economically sound too.

Image result for smoking woman image cartoon


And what bloody good does this do? Alzheimer’s

Hello Hello y’all folks! We are celebrating here on this planet.

Did you read this amazing news in the newspapers?

New eye test could spot Alzheimer’s disease 20 YEARS before symptoms emerge

An eye test could spot Alzheimer’s disease two decades before symptoms emerge, a new study claims.

Researchers in Los Angeles trialed the test on 16 patients.

Comparing their results to brain scans, the eye test was just as successful at spotting those with twice the amount of plaque build-up in their brains.

Experts say the finding is one of the biggest breakthroughs in Alzheimer’s research to date, offering the first sign of a cost-effective and non-invasive test.

‘The findings suggest that the retina may serve as a reliable source for Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis,’ said the study’s senior lead author, Dr Maya Koronyo-Hamaoui, a neurosurgeon at Cedars-Sinai.

Now here is the thing.

What bloody good would THAT do?  We have NO IDEA what causes Alzheimer’s in the first place.

‘Our hope is that eventually the investigational eye scan will be used as a screening device to detect the disease early enough to intervene and change the course of the disorder with medications and lifestyle changes,’ said Dr Black.

The findings have been celebrated worldwide.

Yup – that confirms it for me – medical science, is quite daft!

We can tell we are getting yet another disease we have no method of curing, so as well as making ‘lifestyle changes’ by cutting our breasts off to avoid Breast Cancer, we can stress ourselves out for twenty years knowing our brain is furring up all that time.

And while we are waiting, and furring up, we can change our lifestyle. I know! Don’t smoke, eat five fruit and veg a day and exercise regularly – and most importantly, don’t become obese.

Well, actually – I know a better way. Smoke cigarettes – maybe.  Or vape! The jury is still out on that conundrum ….

 That is, patients with AD or PD are approximately 50% less likely to have smoked cigarettes during their lifetime than are age- and gender-matched controls. Alternatively, cigarette smokers are 50% less likely to have PD or AD than are age- and gender-matched nonsmokers. This statistically significant negative association has been interpreted as suggesting that cigarette smoking exerts an undefined, biologic, neuroprotective influence against the development of PD and AD. Link

Of course, since then, it has been found that smoking CAUSES Alzheimer’s (and almost every other disease on Earth). Who would have guessed?

Medical epidemiological studies are SO NOT reliable.