Dick Puddlecote

Eric Schmidt The Cross Border Shopper

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Wed, 22 May 2013 21:05:00 +0000

Kudos to Google's Eric Schmidt today for standing his ground so bluntly on tax avoidance (emphasis mine).

Schmidt: "Taxes are not a choice."

Q (from Krishnan Guru-Murthy): "The way you use transfer pricing, Ed Miliband says that's wrong. You've taken a decision to put a lot of money in Bermuda, and you take moral positions in lots of other areas."

Schmidt: "If the international tax regime changes we will too."

Q: "But is that moral?"

Schmidt:"Virtually all the American companies have tax structures like this, and UK companies operating in the US do too. But if we pay more taxes in one area then we pay less in another."

And that is the beginning, middle and end of it.

Miliband and Cameron are playing a confidence trick on the public in a competition to appear the most 'concerned'. But the truth - which is obstinately refusing to move out of the way of political massaging of voter envy - is that politicians like Miliband and Cameron made the rules which Google are adhering to.

The EU is a free trade area for all 27 member states, meaning that a multi-national company has to choose where to base its operation. Only a business with someone astoundingly incompetent at the helm would choose a nation which didn't benefit their business the most.

The problem for the UK is that we are not competitive enough for Google to stick their name plate up on a head office in London, and it is arrogant for British politicians to automatically assume Schmidt should do so whether the UK is competitive or not.

The alternative - which I really do believe some sad people are suggesting - is that Google should have head offices in every EU state where they do business. But then, they are a multi-national with all the associated economics of scale which help to create jobs, lower prices for their advertisers and (ahem) allow them to offer services 100% free to the public; and the EU is run like a great big nation with businesses based all around it according to their choice. Like, as Schmidt rightly compares, the USA.

Schmidt: "Personal answer: when you have high differential tax rates you will have widely divergent outcomes, you have this in the US where you have lots of different rates. There's some feeling this is good because it makes governments moderate ... this is a big fight in the economics community.

So, if Miliband and Cameron want Google's cash, work for it. Make the UK the most attractive EU nation to base itself. The fact they don't means that Miliband and Cameron are failing in not attracting the receipts, not that Google are 'immoral' for not rewarding that failure.

Of course, we could always leave the EU, thereby solving the problem, but none of the three main parties can officially contemplate that so - IMO - they really should zip their traps.

Besides, again in my humble opinion, it's everyone's democratic duty to avoid tax as I commented at Longrider's the other day.

The state is made up of legislators and employees whose only job is to legislate and spend. Human nature – and historical experience – shows that they will legislate and spend as much as they possibly can unless checked.

We are now at such high levels of taxation compared with GDP (over 50% in many developed nations) that legislators have trouble legislating for more money to spend as it is politically damaging to their re-election. They know this which is why we have seen many policies since 2000 which seek to bribe the public with spending of *other* people’s money. For example, minimum wage, paternity pay, auto-enrolment pensions, plus talk of a living wage etc.

The control of excessive legislation on taxes is fear of electoral defeat; the control on excessive spending (which they’d naturally wish to do) is to deprive the state of excessive money to spend, thereby forcing them to live within their means or have to explain themselves for accumulating debt.

Governments have reached the limit of what they can get away with from the electorate with taxation in relation to GDP; they have almost exhausted other people’s money that they can spend; so they are now scrambling around trying to claim that it is “immoral” to follow their own rules and use perfectly acceptable avoidance methods. Just to hoover up more money to spend.

Avoiding tax is therefore a part of democratic process, and we should be proud to be part of checks and balances on out-of-control government by doing so.

We jewel robbers should understand this very well.

Hands up who refuses to pay UK duty on cigarettes and utilises the EU market to buy them abroad instead. It's our way of sending a message that the state has gone too far and is no longer competitive compared with Belgium or, I dunno, Bulgaria. It is our little bit of tax avoidance and follows the same principle as that of Google. If the UK government refuses to change its rates of duty, they would have a fucking cheek to harangue us about taking our duty payments elsewhere.

Likewise, vapers have seen what politicians do when they are given too much of our tax - they inevitably waste it by producing ridiculous documents like the Tobacco Products Directive which effectively bans e-cigs.

Trying to make Google, Amazon, Starbucks etc into patsies is an attempt to conceal the obvious fact that the UK government has spent so much of our money that they have nowhere left to go to raise funds to waste, as again Longrider neatly describes today.

Clegg and Miliband ... will merely piss it up the wall, lining the pockets of their fat cat cronies in the NGOs, fake charities, quangos and the makers of inane public information films.

It is you and I who have to dig deeper into our wallets to fund the largesse of politicians who think our money is their money to give to their friends and co-conspirators in the third sector and the public sector.

Quite.

There is one last curiosity which all three leaders have brutally exposed in the past week too.

When all three parties talk tough about limiting banker bonuses, the industry replies that, in the global internet-led world, the bankers would simply up sticks and move to where their rewards - and the huge taxation which comes with them - are better appreciated.

When there is talk of taxing banking transactions (the Robin Hood tax), banks reply that many companies would simply relocate to Singapore and take their corporation tax contributions with them.

"Good riddance" is the general bravado from advocates of both policies, "if they think like that, we don't want 'em".

Yet when companies like Google and Amazon do exactly that to avoid unhelpful tax rates, politicians whine like a McLaren F1 car.

I wish they'd make their minds up.

E-Cigs Becoming Cool? Trendy? ... Profitable?

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Tue, 21 May 2013 16:53:00 +0000

I don't know who Jodie Marsh is, but the video below says she is a model, so does that make her glamorous?

Whether the answer is yes or no, she certainly knows her stuff on e-cigs, by crikey!

The reason I ask is that e-cigs have attracted some stellar afficionados.

Hollywood stars like Stephen Dorff and Johnny Depp have embraced them, following on from Katherine Heigl on the Letterman show, no less (please feel free to add others I might have missed). And now, Jodie Marsh, the most informed and eloquent celebrity so far on the subject of vaping in my opinion.

Early articles on e-cigs portrayed them as uncool or even embarrassing to be seen using. Yet in the past few days detractors have described them in entirely different terms. A Sydney Morning Herald sneerer said they were "trendy", whilst a Daily Mail hack reported that they are "the latest craze" (by the way, do go read the Mail article as its 'information' is an exhibition of utter shite from start to finish, as I remarked on Twitter).

I'm sure this adulation of e-cigs will all come as a terrible kick in the guts to a certain closed-minded blowhard we all know.

Of course, if he weren't such an old dog incapable of learning new tricks, he might be sensing an opportunity with all this 'trendy' celebrity-glittered publicity. You know, rather like a proper businessman would do.

E-cigarettes: What's your experience of these? I'm interested in whether you stopped real fags or went back to them? Reply with #efags
— Lord Sugar (@Lord_Sugar) May 16, 2013

E-cigarettes - do they work? I'm interested in whether e-cigs helped you quit real fags, or did you go back to them? Reply with #efags
— Lord Sugar (@Lord_Sugar) May 16, 2013

E CIGARETTES can you tell me if they offer the same satisfactions as normal cigarettes. Reply use #EFAGS2
— Lord Sugar (@Lord_Sugar) May 17, 2013

E-CIGARETTES can you tell me if they offer the same satisfactions as normal cigarettes? Reply use #EFAGS2
— Lord Sugar (@Lord_Sugar) May 17, 2013

Bannatyne once said that ...

“One of the hardest lessons I've learned along the way was that the advice you don’t want to hear is probably the advice you should listen to the most”

This would appear to be precisely one of those occasions.

E-cigs as trendy, a craze, and attracting positive attention from celebrities, politicians and astute businessmen? With all that in their favour, what businessman could possibly be stupid enough to not be able to spot massive profit potential in the e-cig revolution?

UPDATE: Thanks to Rursus in the comments who provides an update of Bannatyne's deep comitment to health.

@lord_sugar What is the big thing about efags? Personaly I hate them!
— Duncan Bannatyne (@DuncanBannatyne) May 17, 2013

Shhh, Don't Tell The Food Snobs

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Mon, 20 May 2013 18:38:00 +0000

In their down-time, the little Ps occasionally play a globally popular online game. On different computers, they can compete and 'see' each other within cyberspace as well as interact with each other or with players from all around the world.

It's a massive site with such a huge amount of tricky levels that it allows almost endless game-play. Being so very popular, it constantly requires more new difficult-to-negotiate areas so encourages users to design and submit their own environments.

Here are a couple the little Ps came across at the weekend (click to enlarge) I'm told it is one of dozens of similar 'obbys' (puzzles, to we crusties).

Note also the challenges listed to the right of the screen.

Complete with a slice of pizza? I did chuckle.

There is a worldwide tour 'convention' for this game, so popular is it amongst kids and teens. Their continent-hopping roadshow visits this country in a couple of months and the best session times were sold out in a matter of days when announced.

Can you imagine the reaction if food snobs (cos they're not about health either) were to discover this? We could expect hastily-arranged bent studies on the health dangers of online games; furious fantasy calculations of how many kids will die by seeing the Pizza Hut logo; accusations of kids being paid 'Big Food' stooges; and a host of the usual suspects going all Helen Lovejoy while they attack the website developers

So keep it under your hat, yeah?

Norman Lamb: Perfect Example Of The Genre

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Sun, 19 May 2013 10:09:00 +0000

I enjoyed a news-free day yesterday watching cricket with the boy all day and Eurovision in the evening with both little Ps and a deadly pizza.

Reading back this morning, though, I spluttered over my bacon and eggs reading Simon Clark's revelations about the flip-flopping of Lib Dem Health Minister Norman Lamb.

In camera with a potential voter, he was right on their side.

"I'm Norman Lamb, your MP. Have you voted yet today?" I shook his hand and told him that because of the smoking ban and plain packaging I wouldn't be voting for his party.

He made clear that he 'respects my opinion' (ie thinks I am wrong). But we chatted on about plain packs and he said, almost verbatim, "I can reassure you that it won't be coming in during this parliament". He made fairly clear that the preference is to wait to see the body of evidence coming from Australia/New Zealand, which he believes will come.

However, Clark then points to a Guardian article where Lamb shows that he was either attempting to strategically manipulate the voter or ... readers of the Guardian.

"MPs from all three parties support this, so I will continue to argue the case for us to act. There could still be an opportunity in this parliament to act and I will argue the case for it," said Lamb.

Shocking, yes. But hardly unexpected. He has form, you see.

This was Norman Lamb saying whatever would get him elected back in 2008 when it was revealed by the Daily Mail that the smoking ban had been followed by a rise in smoking rates.

Liberal Democrat health spokesman Norman Lamb said: 'These are pretty stark figures which demonstrate forcefully that the Government's strategy on smoking has not been successful.

'It's yet another case of the Government pursuing tough eye-catching initiatives which in the end don't succeed in tackling the real problem.'

Eye-catching initiatives like, perhaps, the tobacco display ban. A law which 'liberal' Norman Lamb strongly objected to while in opposition.

Commenting on today’s ban on the open display of tobacco in shops, Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary, Norman Lamb said: “This is the nanny state going too far.

“This will hit small businesses with added costs while there is no clear evidence that it will actually reduce the number of young people smoking.

“The Government is obsessed with headline-grabbing gimmicks instead of tackling the real problems."

He later became a member of the government and was part of the Lib Dem contingent which waved the ban through despite the lies provided to parliament which underpinned it.

He has since experienced a Damascene change in attitude, it would seem. Plain packs are, apparently, not "the nanny state going too far" despite "no clear evidence that it will actually reduce the number of young people smoking".

So Lamb is against the smoking ban until he isn't; is against the tobacco display ban until he isn't; and is against legislating on plain packaging without evidence, err, until he isn't.

It all depends on who he is talking to at any particular time. Of course, now he is in government, "eye-catching initiatives" and "headline-grabbing gimmicks instead of tackling the real problems" are his stock in trade. Oh yeah, and lying to the electorate too, natch.

A perfect example of the principle-free 'say anything for a vote' political class and why they are deservedly so despised.

Rebecca Taylor MEP On E-Cigs

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Sat, 18 May 2013 18:12:00 +0000

I'm going to do something very dirty now, that is to praise a Liberal Democrat for being - surprise, surprise - fairly liberal.

MEP Rebecca Taylor agreed to be in this short three minute film about e-cigs after attending the shocking EU workshop on the 7th of May chaired by the most dangerous European alive today. I predicted on the morning of the shebang that it would be a farce and it didn't disappoint, as Rebecca found out a bit later on.

"Some of the speakers were making assumptions which have absolutely no evidence to back them up"

Indeed. Here's the clip (watch for a fleeting cyber-glimpse of your host if you freeze at 0:38).

It is so rare these days that politicians actually listen to the public and act upon their pleas, so she should be congratulated for speaking up for e-cigs. She's often on Twitter and worth following just on the evidence above.

Having said that, she lets herself down badly by believing the utter nonsense about minimum alcohol pricing.

@lifelandlady I am also looking at #MUP for alcohol, which I've been told is supported by pubs & bars (at least in Scotland).
— Rebecca Taylor (@RTaylor_MEP) May 17, 2013

Sigh.

Link Tank 18/05

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Sat, 18 May 2013 10:00:00 +0000

Back whether you like it or not.

Where will the plain packaging slippery slope slide to next?

Wetherspoons boss says pubs are better focussing on food VAT cut than minimum alcohol pricing

More idiotic politicians move to tax e-cigs

KFC tunnel smuggling in Gaza

Bloomberg's nanny state: A cautionary tale

The collapse of liberty in Scotland

21 to drink coffee?

STOP that or you'll go blind!

Is some sex wrong even among consenting adults?

Stay strong, Prague

"We’ve been under attack for too long, and it’s time to lay off."

The new Jesus is an anteater

Some Nasty Animals Shouldn't Be Kept As Pets

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Fri, 17 May 2013 18:23:00 +0000

As I was laughing throughout this BBC article, I couldn't help but be reminded of stories where big cats have assaulted those who loved and cared for them.

Alcohol Concern's survey suggested that 31% of Labour MPs, 20% of Conservatives and 19% of Liberal Democrats thought their colleagues drank too much and the charity called for a change in drinking habits among politicians at Westminster.

Chief executive Eric Appleby said: "If a quarter of employees reported an unhealthy drinking culture in any other organisation it would provoke immediate action by bosses."

That's the Alcohol Concern, created by government in the mid-1980s, which has been reared and nurtured by the love and financial sustenance of politicians as a pet to snarl, bully, and intimidate a previously content public.

Now it has slipped its leash and is savaging its carer. Oh joy! How d'ya like them apples, boys and girls?

What sweet irony, too, that MPs are currently considering new laws against people who keep vicious dogs as pets. They should be well aware, then, that irresponsible owners who don't properly discipline animals with ferocious vandalism in their genes are liable to turn nasty without warning.

You reap what you sow, as they say, so suck it up Nanny Statists.

The Honest Campaign

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Thu, 16 May 2013 21:11:00 +0000

I read something in Westminster records today which very much reminded me of this chutzpah from ASH.

The tobacco industry has run a well-resourced and mendacious campaign against standardised packs. If it does not proceed with the proposal, the UK Government risks being seen as bowing to this pressure.

Mendacious campaign? Are they serious?

The past couple of weeks have seen politicians (mostly Labour) queueing up to lie outrageously to their respective houses.

Here's the latest from Baroness Morgan in the Lords.

Nine months after the consultation ended, we are still awaiting a response from the Government.

Yes. So are we, dear. We'd like to see if half a million ordinary people are to be respected for their views or ignored. We demand an answer too.

In the time we have been waiting, Cancer Research UK estimates that more than 150,000 children have started smoking.

They may well have done, but not one of them because of a colour scheme.

Let us take a moment to reflect on the support for standard packs, which is extremely broad. I mentioned the support of the health community. I cannot overstate the extent to which health organisations agree with this measure.

You can definitely overstate it. Health organisations will always agree with just about any pile of cockwaffle that they themselves have concocted ... because they are paid to produce it.

This issue also resonates with the public.

No it doesn't. There was not a single member of the public involved in the plain packs folly. No-one asked for it; no-one campaigned for it before the tobacco industry thought it up; no-one is that daft as to think it urgent. It is solely a policy construct of people paid to devise ever more bizarre attacks on smoking.

In the Government’s consultation more than 200,000 members of the public supported standard packs.

And half a million rejected it! Is this woman incorrigibly ignorant or is she ... mendacious?

These are the supporters of standardised packaging: a majority of the public and more than 190 health and welfare organisations.

Err, should that not read "a minority of the public" and "the financially motivated"? If the Baroness were to be honest, she would say yes. But she isn't.

Yet their collective voice has at times struggled to be heard over the well organised campaign by the tobacco industry.

You have got to be shitting me! Who had huge billboards stuck up all over the South West paid for by £468,462.06 of taxpayer receipts? And who was castigated for being invited for a short meeting to fulfil the DoH's democratic obligations?

Baroness Morgan has proven conclusively that ASH are hilariously hypocritical to accuse the other side of being "mendacious". She has presented half-truths, never-were-truths, paid-for study results, unrelated propaganda, and lies to the House of Lords, no less. While also being a prominent agent in the denial of "the collective voice" of the public being heard over the "well-organised campaign by the tobacco [control] industry".

The campaign against plain packs, in contrast, did not attempt to rig the consultation; did not produce literature containing bald-faced lies to MPs; did not enthusiastically encourage corrupt multiple signatures; and did not attempt to influence government to exclude any consultation responses they disagreed with.

There was only one honest campaign in the plain packs debate. And it ain't the filthy, disgusting, lying one which the Baroness endorses. Her deeply mendacious - yes, mendacious - contribution to the Lords' debate proves that conclusively.

Italy To Propose Tax On E-Cigs By The End Of The Week?

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Wed, 15 May 2013 20:24:00 +0000

Following swiftly on from yesterday's article about how Italian MEP Giancarlo Scottà has been floating the idea of sin taxes on e-cigs, comes this from German news source Südtirol Online.

(I'll try my own paraphrasing as Google translate comes out like something from the Swedish Chef)

Tax on E-Cigarettes looming

The Italian Treasury is now targeting electronic cigarettes

The Letta government wants to tax them in the economic measures decree that should be adopted by the end of this week, this is expected to raise 14 million euros for ailing state coffers in this year alone.

Next year it could be up to 50 million euros. The state wishes to make up for the losses in tobacco tax revenue.

The state complains that, due to the increasing success of electronic cigarettes ... tobacco sales are declining by 80 million euros with negative effects on treasury coffers.

[...]

The extension of tobacco tax to e-cigarettes would mean that they would equate with normal cigarettes.

Idle rumour? Well, it's possible since this is a regional German operation reporting it, but there seems to be a fair amount of detail. It would be interesting if any Europeans have seen the report elsewhere.

But after reading of an MEP - out of 27 nations to choose from - from the very same country raising exactly the same proposals with the EU just a couple of weeks ago, it's one hell of a coincidence doncha think?

H/T Jens Mellin in yesterday's comments

We're Losing Revenue! Quick, Let's Tax E-Cigs!

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Tue, 14 May 2013 19:45:00 +0000

Could this be what it's really all about?

Italian MEP Giancarlo Scottà tabled this extraordinary written question a couple of weeks ago.

I wish to put a question to the Council regarding an issue which has recently been attracting a great deal of interest, but which has never been addressed from the point of view set out below.

I am referring to ‘electronic cigarettes’, devices considered to be ‘nicotine-containing products’ which therefore fall within Article 18 of the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products (COM(2012)0788 — 2012/0366 (COD)).
The consumption of traditional cigarettes provides the Member States with sizeable revenues, as a result of the substantial taxes to which they are subject.

According to a recent report by ANSA (Italian news agency) of 21 April 2013, in the first two months of 2013 alone, Italy’s coffers registered a loss of EUR 132 million, corresponding to a fall in revenue from duty on tobacco of approximately 7.6%. Of course, this shortfall cannot be completely blamed on the increasing use of electronic cigarettes, but it is certainly partly responsible.

In light of the above, can the Council state what action it intends to take to address the differences in tax revenue materialising in State coffers following the proliferation of electronic cigarettes, which currently appear to be free from any form of duty?

Now, just pause for a moment and digest that.

He seems very upset that Italians are stopping smoking at such a rate that it is depriving his government of moolah. This, from someone in a profession of which approximately 100% claim that they would be delighted if everyone in the world quit smoking immediately.

What a surprise, then, that he is hinting at taxes being applied to e-cigs for the sole reason that they are stopping people from smoking and, therefore, reducing Italian government receipts.

Looks very much like that is the gist of it, eh?

Now, it's easy to condemn Scottà for his absurdly hypocritical concern but you can bet your house that more politically astute MEPs have had this very same thought bouncing around their heads ever since the e-cig revolution burst on the scene and disturbed their comfy status quo.

It dovetails nicely into the fears of the tobacco control industry too, doesn't it? You see, they're desperately constructing a damage limitation exercise while e-cigs continue to soar in popularity and show up their movement as being laughably ineffective, wedded to corporate pharma interests and - the best bit - not as interested in health as their prior emotional string-pulling has led the world to believe.

We seem, then, to be witnessing an unholy alliance of grasping state representatives weeping as their budgets decline, while simultaneously an unwanted guest - in the form of e-cigs - breezes in and smashes the sound system at tobacco control's carefully crafted mood music party.

Legislators want the money, obsessive anti-smokers want the decades-long ego-stroking to continue (as well as the cash it affords them too, natch). And they all hate e-cigs for fucking it up.

It would neatly explain why Linda McAvan - the most dangerous European alive today - and her junk scientist chums are endorsing utter garbage as fact during internet televised kangaroo 'workshops. We've seen the same behaviour before, and I've written about it, but never has it been displayed so honestly in the public domain.

It also proves that - at the highest level - the ability of e-cigs to aid smoking cessation is accepted no matter how much tobacco control circle their wagons and try to deny it.

If it was truly about health, furrow-browed politicians who harangue us relentlessly to abandon tobacco - and the lucrative industry which has profited by producing ever more imaginative but ineffectual wheezes to bully smokers into submission - would be welcoming the advent of the e-cig and allowing them to be advertised as smoking cessation devices.

Like I said, that would be if it were truly about health which, of course, it has never been.

Nice of Signor Scottà to admit it.

H/T Rursus via e-mail

Perils Of Puddlecote Update

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Mon, 13 May 2013 19:49:00 +0000

I thought you might be interested in an update on the case of the shunted and towed vehicle.

I recounted the whole sorry tale back in March so do go have a read if you're unfamiliar with it. That first episode in what promises to become a saga was left something like this.

All I will say is that now - three weeks on - we are still £300+ down; have heard not a peep out of the police; and are pretty unimpressed with the whole experience. It's true that we've probably expended about the same £300 in time, effort and expenses, but what would you do?

We have, however, now heard from the police ... but it wasn't very encouraging.

A month ago (five weeks after the event), we received a short, one page letter thanking us for contacting them. It stated that they were sorry to hear about how our vehicle was parked legally before being shunted onto a yellow line, and that no-one had bothered to contact us before it was towed.

Unfortunately, they said (paraphrase, the letter is in the office):

"It is not in our best interests to pursue the matter, so please take it up with your insurers."

And that was it! Not in their best interests!

We were quite surprised at this, especially since the footage clearly showed the chasing woman going to a door next to the CCTV camera and fetching a spouse/relative/colleague to inspect the damage on the back of our vehicle. Naïvely, we believed - seeing as we were innocent victims of a £300 charge and a day trying to sort it all out - they might have sent a bobby along to knock on their door for an informal chat. You know, because we are taxpayers who fund them?

So we searched the police websites for the right person to contact and express our dissatisfaction. We found her e-mail and copied in seven others on the relevant local authority police panel.

After ten days, we had received not a single response, so e-mailed them all again. A few days later, still not a single response.

Sorry if this is getting boring, but ... we then rang our community support officer (who was breathless, as usual).

"Hi sunshine, we're having a hell of a time getting in touch with Mrs Prunehat (name changed to protect the useless) at the PCC office, can you help?"
"Sure {huff, puff}, I'll give them a ring {huff, puff, splutter}".

Ten minutes later, we receive a call from Mrs Prunehat herself. Yay!

"Hello", she chirpily began, "I'm sorry to contact you so late, how can I help?"
"Yes, we contacted you a while ago but the e-mails must not have reached you"
"Oh no, I saw them. I just forgot to reply"

I'm not making this up, honest! After two weeks of begging for a response or even an acknowledgement (not difficult in the modern age), it was only once our power-walking copper rang her on his mobile that she could be bothered to pick up the phone or apply fingers to a keyboard.

Despite our exasperation, we ran through the whole story (again) and politely notified her that we weren't too thrilled with the service. Her reply merely repeated what the curt letter had said, except that she added that they couldn't waste their 'resources' on our problem. She could, however, raise a complaint for us if we wished. We definitely wished, if only out of beleaguered curiosity.

Which brings us to today, when we received a call from the police from a woman who was unfortunate to be afflicted with an almost unintelligible accent. Guess what she said?

"I'm afraid we can't use our resources on your problem".
"But your letter has a tag line saying that you are supporting the public, yet we have been wronged and you won't do anything about it!"
"You can always take it up with your insurers"
"OK, could you tell us who to contact as you have the registration number"
"No, we can't possibly do that!"
"Why not?"
"Because it is a breach of information laws"
"So how are we to pursue them via our insurers if we don't know who it is? Please remember that we have already done your job for you by procuring the CCTV footage"
"That is up to you"
"Couldn't you just send someone round to the address and ask some questions?"
"No, but that is something you could do".

And that seems to be where it ends. There doesn't appear to be anyone higher to get in touch with.

In summary, our vehicle is parked legally; someone shunts it onto a yellow line; it is reported; police attend and (probably) check it's taxed before ringing the council; council turns up and tows it; no-one tells us until we call to report a theft; we pay £300.

{Deep breath}

We (not those we pay taxes to) investigate and gather evidence; the police see it but refuse to help; they then refuse to reply to repeated attempts to contact them; when they do reply, they say it's our problem and tell us to do the investigations ourselves; and won't help by accessing their computers and giving us the details of the owner.

So here we are, two months later, still £300 down through no fault of our own and no nearer recouping it despite annually paying these people six figure sums in taxation for exactly this kind of event.

Are we leaving it at that? Well, what do you think?

To be continued.

Ireland: EU Leader In Tobacco Control Failure

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Sun, 12 May 2013 17:38:00 +0000

While the tantrums of the tobacco control industry over plain packs are still ringing in our ears, it's worth pointing out how their 'bash tobacco companies' idea has yet more anti-smoker failure written all over it.

For example, let's look at the EU's pioneer in tobacco control, Ireland. In February, their Minister for Health, James Reilly, was ranting about how bad Ireland's smoking rates were.

"The overall prevalence rates for Ireland are more or less similar to the EU average with 29% of Irish adults being current smokers. This is simply not acceptable."

This is the Ireland which was the first EU country to implement a comprehensive smoking ban; the first to hide tobacco behind screens; the first to place restrictions on vending machines; and the first to ban packs of 10.

Ireland's smoking ban began in March 2004, so how did that affect the number of smokers? Well, this report by the Irish Department of Health and Children gives us a clue.

Overall, 29% of respondents in SLÁN 2007 reported that they were current smokers. This was lower than in 1998 (33%) and a non-significant increase from 2002 (27%). The downward trend between 1998 and 2002 was seen in both men and women, and across all age groups and social classes (see Table 1). Progress then stalled in all these categories, with no significant change in smoking rates between 2002 and 2007.

That's correct. There was an increase of 2% following a prior dramatic decline.

As Reilly's remarks show, nothing has changed since 2007 despite the ever-shrill demands of the tobacco control industry. Six years later, prevalence is still at 29%. All the 'urgent' bans and restrictions; all the game-changing legislation, has had no effect whatsoever.

And how does that compare to other countries?

Well, the OECD recently released their 2013 factbook which charted - amongst other trends - the prevalence of smoking for a large array of countries since 1990. You'll find tobacco control pin-up boy Ireland at the extreme right of this graph (click to enlarge) with the lowest reduction in smoking of all nations in the EU.

All that taxpayer cash handed to obsessed single interest bully boys and doom-mongers, and the upshot is a decline of 3% in around a quarter of a century. Epic fail, huh?

Of course, if you look carefully at the figures, it isn't difficult to work out which European nations are performing the best.

Large declines occurred in Nordic countries, in Denmark (from 45% in 1990 to 20% in 2010), Iceland (from 30% to 14%), Sweden (from 26% to 14%), Norway (from 32% to 21%), and in the Netherlands (from 37% to 21%).

That is, Nordic countries where smokeless tobacco and snus are widely available - and Holland which has one of the loosest smoking bans in Europe.

Any rational analysis of these conflicting experiences would suggest that making alternatives to smoked tobacco available (snus and e-cigs) would be a good thing, and severity of smoking bans have little relevance.

Of course, that would be to assume that global tobacco control inc has anything to do with health rather than pointlessly attacking the tobacco industry.

Plain packaging wouldn't 'save lives' any more than previous spiteful laws have done. If anti-smokers want to see reductions in smoking, they'd be better served by campaigning for the EU ban on snus to be lifted, gently encouraging smokers instead of bullying them with 'denormalisation', and getting on board with the e-cig revolution.

The exact opposite, in fact, to what the newly proposed EU Tobacco Products Directive is seeking to do.

Wouldn't it be great if, one day, politicians looked at hard statistical evidence such as that from the OECD rather than speculative, fantasy, policy-based garbage produced by ideological, liberty-averse state-funded front groups, eh?

The Creatures Outside Looked From Pig To Man, And From Man To Pig ...

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Fri, 10 May 2013 20:47:00 +0000

Busy in Puddlecoteville again, and likely will be for the next few days.

However, after yesterday's revelation that Labour despise the working man (and woman) so much that they will lie to deprive them of their meagre pleasures, I couldn't help but notice this exchange in the commons yesterday.

Angela Eagle (Wallasey, Labour): Many of us were shocked by the omission from the Gracious Speech of the promised legislation to ensure plain packaging for cigarettes. The public health Minister, Anna Soubry, publicly supported the proposal, and when the Leader of the House was Secretary of State for Health he said:

“The evidence is clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers, so it makes sense to consider having less attractive packaging. It's wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets.”

Note: Anna Soubry supported the proposal when she had no business doing so as a minister before a public consultation has been concluded. If this was done by a Tory about a policy Labour disagreed with, they would be scandalising Soubry and calling for her resignation.

Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire, Conservative): The hon. Lady asked about standardised packaging. I initiated the consultation on standardised packaging, and I did so, as I said at the time, with an open mind. As my right hon. Friends have made clear, no decision has been made in response to the consultation on that. I think that the hon. Lady will recall that the nature of the Queen’s Speech is to put forward proposals for legislation where the Government have decided what their policy is, not to venture into legislation where no policy decision has taken place. It is completely false to imagine that there was ever a question of including reference to standardised packaging in the Queen’s Speech; there never was, and it would not have been appropriate to do so.

As we see above, Labour are desperate to bypass a consultation (to which half a million citizens objected) because they couldn't give a flying fuck what you think. And they are brazenly happy to employ bare-faced lies in doing so.

While Tory Lansley - to his credit - at least recognises that the public are a feature of something which is called, err, a public consultation.

Why do Labour hate the electorate so much that they will lie their arses off to ignore their views? Wasn't their movement originally set up in objection to Tories and Liberals doing exactly that to working people?

Clever man, that Orwell.

Lies And Loathing In Labour

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Thu, 09 May 2013 20:52:00 +0000

It was interesting to read how Diane Abbott accused a government which - almost tiresomely - consistently insisted it had an open mind on plain packaging of somehow reneging on a "promise".

As Simon Clark observed:

As anyone who has followed the plain packaging debate knows, David Cameron has not broken any promise nor done a u-turn.

The Coalition Government, bless 'em, never promised to introduced standardised packaging.

Nope, it's a big fat lie from a politician who could be described in the same way.

It seems to be party policy, though, judging from this contribution from Labour's Baroness Royall of Blaisdon during the Lords' Queen's Speech debate.

Neither is there any legislation on the sale of cigarettes in plain packaging—again, a commitment promised and abandoned because of the efforts of the tobacco lobby.

Nope, it wasn't a promise, and it wasn't a "commitment" either. Are these politicians so inept that they have failed to notice the thousands of hints to the contrary? I knew they were stupid, but wow!

It was also abandoned in the face of a political challenger, the leader of UKIP, who was seen in interview after interview last week, after so many Conservatives had defected to his party, celebrating that success with a pint in one hand and a fag in the other.

Like millions of Labour supporters like to do, you mean?

Neither is there any legislation as floated on public health, or on minimum alcohol pricing.

Probably because it is quite obvious that minimum pricing is deliberately designed to punish the poor.

I remember when Labour - who were once led by a Prime Minister who was almost never seen without his pipe - used to represent the working class, but then I'm in my forties. It's so old hat, isn't it?

Nowadays, Labour in Westminster hates you if you like "a pint in one hand and a fag in the other". So much so that they're grumbling that the coalition isn't punishing you hard enough for your free choice.

It is little wonder that UKIP are picking up so many votes when it's hard to recognise where one elite bunch of lying political upper class snobs end and the others begin.

This is not even mentioning their class hatred towards those who eat McDonald's instead of a North London ethnic tofu salad. Good grief.

The Final Throw Of The Dice For Plain Packs Is So Predictable

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Wed, 08 May 2013 09:45:00 +0000

There has been more desperate activity at the start of this week by those in favour of plain packs.

They've thrown insults, cast aspersions about MPs, issued threats, occupied Twitter with predictions of Armageddon, and are now saying it must be because the Tories' campaign strategist once worked on a tobacco campaign that reports are suggesting the coalition might not include legislation in today's Queen's speech.

The one possibility they refuse to consider is that their case was quite simply shite.

Like cats avoiding looking in a mirror, they are incapable of viewing their own possible failure without seeing a non-existent ferocious beast poised to usurp their authority.

For example, yesterday ASH tweeted this link to a press briefing they published a few days ago.

ASH media advisory: Has the Government Caved in to Tobacco Lobbying? (pdf) bit.ly/YrU9Ur #plainpacks
— ASH (@ASH_LDN) May 7, 2013

Y'see, they are still ignoring those half a million signatures in opposition as if they were an aberration rather than the biggest rejection of any public consultation in the history of British politics.

ASH's briefing is probably the source of the Mirror's speculation about Lynton Crosby, due to this standard tobacco control industry slur.

4. The source for this story is not known, but we speculate that it may well have been Lynton Crosby. His lobbying company’s involvement in the plain packaging debate in Australia is detailed in this brief at paragraphs 27-28.

27. In Australia, while Lynton Crosby was Federal Director of the Liberal Party, the Party accepted major donations from the tobacco industry. It has been reported that between 2000 and 2010 the Party received $AUS 2.5 million from PMI and BAT.

28. The UK Conservative Party has hired Mr Crosby through his lobbying firm Crosby Textor Fulbrook, which has represented tobacco industry clients, including PMI, since the 1980s. In Australia, Mark Textor, co-founder of the company with Mr Crosby, was an adviser to the industry in its campaign against standardised packaging. CTF now has an office in London.

It says the usual stuff {yawn}. In effect "they were paid for a tobacco campaign once so are now forever making the case for tobacco, in this life and probably the next" despite now being paid to get the Tories back in power with popular policies (which bossy infantilising of the public is clearly not). Playing the man not the ball is usually a signal that the debater has lost the argument, but the tobacco control industry have traded on it for decades.

The plain fact is that they might have bitten off more than they can chew with this one. They got greedy and moved before their last nonsense of banning tobacco displays had even been fully implemented. The public - and politicians who aren't entirely vacant broom handles - are getting tired of their constant shrill, apocalyptic whining.

In such circumstances, it would be advantageous to have cast-iron evidence but - as we have seen - there is nothing but dodgy polls, state-funded claptrap, bastardised evidence, dick-waggling exercises, and attempts at rigging the system to their advantage. It's hardly surprising, then, that when all that made no impression they should seek to throw their last crap and bandy about speculative character assassinations.

What I find very encouraging about ASH's May 3rd document is that they are still - even at this late stage of the game - spinning wildly to disprove valid issues raised by the Hands Off Our Packs campaign. They are obviously well aware that the threat of an increase in counterfeiting is real, and that government will be concerned at a time when illicit trade is already rising rapidly due to previous tobacco control industry meddling.

So, even now, ASH are still doing what seasoned political campaigners call 'playing in the other side's playground' by constantly reminding us all how dangerous an increase in counterfeiting might be.

21. The tobacco industry claims that standardised packs will increase illicit trade. There have been a series of recent media reports based on industry funded studies suggesting that the UK faces a growing level of illicit trade. However, all independent studies (including HMRC’s “Measuring Tax Gaps” publications) show that the illicit tobacco trade is falling in the UK. The most recent HMRC figure for the proportion of cigarettes consumed in the UK that are illicit was 9% in 2010/11 (mid range estimate, down from 21% in 2000/1). The most recent independent study is a survey by the market research firm NEMS in the North of England in January and February 2013 (sample size 1500), showing the level of illicit trade down to a record low for the region of 10%.

As is their custom, they are again using two years out of date figures with only a small cherry-picked regional study to try to hide the worrying current rise that politicians will already know all about.

They are almost doing the Hands Off Our Packs campaign's job for them, cementing in the minds of the government how threatening the effect of more counterfeiting could be and all but admitting that plain packs will facilitate it.

Because, rather than some small survey in the North East, real up-to-date UK and Europe wide stats show conclusively that illicit is growing alarmingly however much state-funded front groups try to deny it, as The Times reported last week.

The most startling statistic to emerge from first-half figures from Imperial Tobacco Group is the 10 per cent fall in the number of cigarettes the company sold in the UK. This has to be down to the illicit or quasi-legal trade, because basic consumption across Britain is flat and there are no indications that Imps is losing share to its legal competitors.

In Spain, the total was down by 12 per cent; in the rest of the European Union, excluding Germany, sales were off by 7 per cent. Across the EU as a whole, though, total consumption was down by at most a couple of per cent.

The rise in the black market is hardly surprising. A legal pack can cost you £8 or so; illicit ones may change hands at £3. Clearly, a large chunk of Imps’ market in the developed world is disappearing in a puff of smoke. The question is how much further this can go. The UK illicit market is about 25 per cent of the total; indications from other countries are that when it gets much above 30 per cent, governments take action to protect their tax revenues. We shall see.

That is real time, one week old, startling 2013 evidence instead of more encouraging data from 2010 before tobacco control ballsed it all up with stupid, spiteful, and ultimately pointless tobacco industry-bashing legislation.

If plain packaging does somehow squirrel its way into the Queen's speech today, it won't be based on compelling justification provided by the tobacco control industry. Instead, it will be a result of flimsy 'evidence' produced to order, government lobbying government, attempts to bypass the democratic process, emotional hysterics, interference from other countries, corrupt practice, lies and - in the final few days - pathetic bullying.

Just the usual modus operandi, then.

[Watch] Tobacco Control Industry Lunacy Broadcast Live Today From 12:30pm

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Tue, 07 May 2013 11:10:00 +0000

Today, the EU are holding a workshop to discuss the terms of the Tobacco Products Directive which relate to e-cigs. As you can imagine from the pharma-led morons in Brussels, it is specifically designed to be a whitewash.

The opening comments will be delivered by a Labour MEP who I described as - and continue to believe is - the most dangerous European alive today. She will be followed by a series of carefully selected tobacco control extremists who will advance their ridiculous reasons as to why e-cigs should be banned.

No, seriously, just look at the presentations they are set to deliver. The e-cig consumer body ECITA gives more information on the unsuitability of contributors here.

Proceedings begin at 12:30pm and you can watch it all live at this page.

I would highly recommend you do so, for two reasons.

1) It will illustrate - as if it were needed - the wilful disregard the EU has for democracy and balanced debate.

2) It will show conclusively that the EU is an organisation more interested in self-perpetuating than looking after its citizens in a responsible manner.

And 3) it will show you how extremist tobacco control bastards operate, because it ain't ever been about health.

They won't bother to listen to their own committee which says they shouldn't even be discussing e-cigs, nor will they acknowledge that the proposals were drafted by a sacked commissioner who is still under investigation for bribery, and whose successor is disastrously ignorant of basic facts.

Nope, they will go through the motions with tired and discredited arguments, then decamp to a restaurant in the Grand Place at our expense and discuss how great they have been in protecting Pfizer profits.

Watch it here, live, and try not to get too angry.

Desperate Plain Packs Agitprop In The Guardian

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Mon, 06 May 2013 17:10:00 +0000

I haven't fisked an article for a while, but this desperate guff from Tanya Gold in the Guardian is just so inept that it begs for it.

She seems to have no clue about the year long public consultation on plain packaging, or even the shabby evidence that prompted it. Here's a perfect example.

(Established smokers rarely change brands.)

Really, love? Because, you see, the campaign for plain packaging disagrees with you. They even cite it as a case study in their literature in favour.

"Our share grew by over 0.4% during this period – that might not sound a lot – but it was worth over £60 million in additional turnover and a significant profit improvement.”

£60 million is one hell of a lot of smokers changing to just a single brand, and there are around 200 of them in all. This is precisely why the tobacco industry would like to keep branding which distinguishes them from their competitors. It also neatly skewers the simpletons who are so lacking in the scantest knowledge of how business works that they believe industry objection can only mean that the policy will be brilliant. Like Simon Chapman, for example.

Anyway, back to sixth form throwback Tanya.

Or does the government feel pressure from Ukip, some of whose members seem to think that smoking, along with misogyny, homophobia and racism, is patriotic?

Yep, that's right. It's there in most of their material, "bash up a Paki", it says, "stab a gay", and if you get time while it's still light why not sexually abuse a woman, eh?

It beggars belief that the Graun allows idiots like this to make such tendentious sweeping statements, but then these are desperate times for those whose only concern is telling all us plebs how to live our lives.

Of course Ukip backs smoking. It thrives on the rhetoric of the pub

Because, it would seem, anyone who uses a pub and talks politics is obviously insane and should be ignored. Only those with a town house in Islington and a healthy addiction to ground coffee and qinoa seeds should be allowed to comment in this democracy of ours. They're really not learning, are they?

The freedom to smoke is a freedom of sorts – and Nigel Farage smokes. This is like David Cameron legislating for morning coats

No, it's nothing like that .. even remotely. That would be a law to force someone to do something. Government is legislating increasingly to force the public to not do something. It's a subtle difference too complicated for Tanya to comprehend, obviously. Or perhaps she is just playing deliberately dumb. I don't know which flatters her less, to be frank.

Who else smokes these days? Children mostly, and poorer children more than anyone, and the numbers are rising.

You're shitting me, surely! You mean that after advertising bans, bans on vending machines, graphic warnings on packs and hiding cigarettes behind screens, that youngsters are smoking more than ever? Jeez, put those tobacco control incompetents in jail, then! Not just because they are incompetent and dangerous, but also because they have been wildly extolling such policies as being overwhelmingly successful.

They are quite obviously fraudulent liars and any of their subsequent policies should be roundly ignored ... err, like plain packaging, perhaps?

When representatives of Imperial Tobacco, British American Tobacco (BAT), Philip Morris International and Japan Tobacco International met the government this year. Imperial Tobacco threatened to pull its packaging manufacture from the UK.

No mention whatsoever that the DoH was compelled to invite these companies to make their views known as part of legislation on impact assessments designed specifically to stop governments from abusing democratic process. And there I was believing that the Guardian was in favour of civil liberties and against fascism, eh?

They insisted plain packaging would assist counterfeiters and smugglers. If this fascinates you, I suggest you watch British American Tobacco's amusing and ostensibly racist promotional video Who's In Control?, in which cartoon eastern European gangsters drool over the financial possibilities of regulation

Ah, racist. The ultimate refuge of a lefty scoundrel bereft of coherent arguments. Course it is. It features people from other countries in a bad light because they are criminals, so is obviously racist. The BBC were also racist when their Panorama programme highlighted criminal Chinese gangs driving illicit fags in Scotland. I remember Tanya's ground-breaking exclusive on the Beeb and its fucking racist right-wing bastards, I'm sure I do.

Are these theoretical gangsters Bulgarian, or Romanian, is the obvious question.

Well, err, no. But it helps Tanya's contorted anti-UKIP agenda to suggest it, doesn't it?

We could muse further on these apocalyptic fantasies

{cough} Is she seriously supporting plain packs and accusing others of that?

But the independent studies undertaken all agree – young people and women don't like plain packets, and tobacco knows it.

{cough} Independent?

Plus, whether they say weak pliable women (shame on you, Tanya) or youths like it or not (a bit of a no-brainer that they wouldn't), tobacco control's 'evidence' says nothing about whether they will subsequently quit. In fact, their own studies admit that kids are blithely unaware of the packaging and have no interest even if they were. Hey, this isn't big evil tobacco saying this, it's those most enthusiastic about plain packs!

[T]he British government, theoretically dedicated to the health of its citizens, has a duty not to sink to lobbyists

Which is exactly what they might have done by rejecting emotional, evidence-free shroud-waving rubbish by people paid to do nothing else but lobby government and campaign for legislation which precious few others actually want.

As ever with this government, hollow rhetoric will do.

As ever with the Guardian, hollow baseless ideological, spectacularly ill-researched rhetoric will do. How on Earth this collection of intellectual savants lose £44m per year is anyone's guess.

Good grief.

Wigan Council: Confused, Irresponsible, Or Just Plain Stupid?

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Sun, 05 May 2013 18:45:00 +0000

In March last year, Wigan Council were determined to stamp out smoking by any means possible.

Wigan Council members overwhelming voted to urge the Health Secretary to bring forward legislation to introduce plain packs for tobacco products, at a meeting of the Full Council this week.

Elected members took part in a lively debate about health promotion and the need to de-normalise smoking in society. In supporting the motion, councillors sent a strong signal that Wigan wants to lead from the front.

The motion was carried and makes Wigan Council the first in the country to make this point in support of further marginalisation of tobacco products.

In fact, they went further than that. They actively campaigned in favour of plain packaging by stating just one side of the debate on their website and urging their citizens to support the measure.

Just as an aside, in itself this is a breach of the Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, which clearly states:

15. Local authorities should ensure that publicity relating to policies and proposals from central government is balanced and factually accurate.

16. Local authorities should not use public funds to mount publicity campaigns whose primary purpose is to persuade the public to hold a particular view on a question of policy.

19. Where local authority publicity addresses matters of political controversy it should seek to present the different positions in relation to the issue in question in a fair manner.

35. In general, local authorities should not issue any publicity which seeks to influence voters.

In other words, a cast iron example of government lobbying government during an ongoing public consultation.

Just thought I'd throw that in there as yet another example of how twisted and unprofessional the plain packs campaign has been, but it's not the main point of this article. Instead, this is.

See, scroll on to March 2013, and this is Wigan Council's e-cigs policy. Or, rather, their policy of banning them to all staff while on duty; demanding that residential care home and day centre users must go outside to the smoking area to vape; and banning their use by the public in council buildings, most especially if there are chiiildren about.

Do have a read in full either in the embed above or at this page as it's an object lesson in woeful public sector ignorance.

In their attempt to "provide information to employees and others" about e-cigs, they have exhibited an astonishingly childish credulity in swallowing every half-baked fallacy promoted by the lunatic fringe of the tobacco control industry. Yes, even including the batshit crazy belief in fantasy secondhand e-cig vapour.

They make the claim that "Wigan Council actively promotes the health and wellbeing of employees" but it is a laughably hollow statement. There is no credible evidence whatsoever that plain packaging will have any effect on reducing smoking prevalence, as illustrated by the cautious campaign slogans employed by Cancer Research UK and others.

However, there are now one million e-cig users in the UK, hundreds of thousands of whom have quit smoking entirely using e-cigs. And there is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence, population level observation, and compelling research showing that they are the most effective smoking cessation method on the market today.

Yet Wigan Council have - in pursuit of the health of their employees - banned them. Go figure.

For info, Wigan Council is an overwhelmingly Labour authority.

If you feel the urge to comment on their crashingly stupid policy, this form on their website is very useful.

Link Tank 04/05

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Sat, 04 May 2013 10:40:00 +0000

So on we go ...

Tories must start listening to ordinary voters, not their old school chums

After Savile: policing as entertainment

Queensland politicians vote to ban chocolate

Classmates rally round student expelled for doing the right thing

In France, fast food chains' sales have overtaken those at traditional restaurants

Did the British intelligence plot against UKIP?

Hysterical regulations won't stop the rise of the billion dollar e-cig market

So it might really be true - nicotine is good for your brain

Magazine discussing marijuana to be treated like porn

Science and the colour of beer bottles

French sheep lawnmowers

Friday Night Tobacco Control Insanity

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Fri, 03 May 2013 20:18:00 +0000

It's been a manic week in Puddlecoteville, I've been madly dashing from one place to another since early Monday morning. Having finally caught up with my e-mail backlog though, I thought a bit of tobacco control lunacy would be fun for a Friday night.

This stunning example of the genre comes from Canada.

Comment magazine publisher Michael Chesney was told Monday to remove the tobacco plants from his Victoria Street storefront or face a fine under the Tobacco Control Act.

Since 2008, the province has prohibited the display and promotion of tobacco products anywhere that could be seen by minors. Similar regulations exist all across Canada with the aim of deterring younger people from taking up smoking.

Chesney was growing a crop of about 50 tobacco plants at his magazine office that he formerly ran as the Kootenay Time cafe. He said the plants were grown from seed and were being used to provide shade and privacy for people working inside.

He was given two days to either remove them or face a fine of $575 each day they remained on display.

Perhaps the plants were just too glitzy for the precious child automatons of British Columbia, who are obviously so well educated that they are experts at botany and can identify plants in the genus Nicotiana with just a glance.

Sadly, they are simultaneously devoid of any education as to the dangers of smoking and utterly incapable of restraint or self-control.

There are times when I truly pity the tobacco control industry for their total lack of common sense and failure to understand how idiotic they look to the outside world. This is one of those occasions.

How DARE Government Threaten To Ignore Tobacco Control!

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Thu, 02 May 2013 21:27:00 +0000

Well I say! It is being reported today that the answer to my question of yesterday is, err, a big fat no.

The Sun, The Daily Mail, Financial Times and The Metro - all of which accept comments, by the way - are collectively convinced that the coalition is ditching plain packaging.

So what do prominent tobacco control industry execs have to say on the matter?

A BIG domino falls in #plainpackaging -- UK do introduce. Congrats to all my UK colleaguesguardian.co.uk/society/2013/m…
— Simon Chapman (@SimonChapman6) March 5, 2013

Oh sorry, silly me. That tweet was from March. What am I like, eh? This is the one I meant to post.

UK squibs on #plainpacks. A nation that once led public health, now mired in mediocrity. BigTobacco rejoices! thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/n…
— Simon Chapman (@SimonChapman6) May 2, 2013

Of course, no-one really knows yet what will happen until after the Queen's speech on Wednesday and the consultation is finally concluded. Hence why the superannuated Aussie Methuselah was stupidly jumping the gun with his congrats just a couple of months ago.

Likewise, we would be just as pathetically naïve if we were to take today's reports at face value. As far as I'm concerned, it's not over till it's over and now is exactly the time you should think about emphasising to your MP that plain packs are definitely NOT wanted. Because you know very well that in the next few days they will be fighting off fake charities, state-funded pressure groups and shroud-waving deludos like a shopkeeper in a zombie film.

Here is how the tobacco control industry officially greeted today's news.

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of the campaign group Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), said reports reducing deaths and improving health were no longer a ‘key purpose’ was ‘shocking’.

"Shocking", apparently, that government appears to have listened to half a million people. "Shocking" that government may have resisted disgraceful rigging of democratic process. And "shocking" that government might not have been taken in by appalling junk science and a dire lack of any evidence whatsoever.

By "shocking", they mean that they're shocked at the thought of the state not falling into line with their increasingly ridiculous and flimsily-based demands. They're shocked that someone may have read their studies rather than heroic press releases bastardising their own evidence, which shows that kids barely notice cigarette packets. They're shocked that the coalition might actually be sticking to their dislike of government lobbying government. And they're shocked that their corruption and appalling hypocritical lies might have been detected.

In summary, shocked that the legislature didn't do what they normally do and bow down meekly to rent-seeking manufactured hysteria and hyperbole.

They're also pretty shocked at the possibility that the far left public health industry's darling bible, The Guardian, may have got it disastrously wrong, while their despised devil Rupert Murdoch's Sun - which they deride as a comical rag - might have published an exclusive that actually turns out to be true.

Whether true or not, today's articles tell us even more about how tobacco control operates, and further emphasises that it's never been about health.

In the meantime, please do send your MP another communication by clicking here.

Oh yeah, and maybe allow yourself a celebratory cigar as it's been quite a good news day on the whole.

Will The Coalition Be More Bossy Than Labour?

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Wed, 01 May 2013 11:10:00 +0000

We're still no nearer finding out if the incredibly inept campaign in favour of plain packaging will be successful.

If you're not already aware, it's been a farce from start to finish, so much so that I can only direct you to the Plain Packaging tag here for info as the instances of corruption, lies, gaffes, gerrymandering and idiocy are far too numerous to mention. Snowdon had a go at listing them in March but it's akin to attempting to trap running tap water in a sieve.

It's moved on since then. Just over a week ago, Anna Soubry was the latest (we thought) nonsensical MP to out themselves as showing scant regard for democracy while promoting their own retarded opinions. Guido Fawkes further pointed out her lack of competence for ministerial office.

But the stupid just doesn't stop!

Here is Labour MP Sharon Hodgson talking in the House of Commons a few days ago.

When he was Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) proposed that the next front in the fight would be standardised or plain packaging, and we urge the Government to stop stalling and introduce measures to ensure that as soon as possible. If recent media reports are to be believed, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has responsibility for public health, is using all the means at her disposal to agitate for such measures, including briefing journalists and so on. The Opposition support her in those endeavours, even if her colleagues do not.

Before a consultation exercise has concluded, this daft woman would appear to be actually celebrating ministerial ignorance of protocol.

Hodgson fired in that comment about plain packaging which was not the point of the debate at hand and was therefore mildly rebuked for it - quite rightly - by her own side. However, it's clear that plain packs advocates are getting desperate so it isn't too surprising that mesmerised MPs like Hodgson go to such lengths considering they are pinning their hopes on plain packaging being in the Queen's Speech next week.

But here we have Hodgson trying to make some political mileage on the subject. Let's re-visit this bit.

The Opposition support her in those endeavours, even if her colleagues do not.

Really? That's odd, because Ed Miliband produced an alternative Queen's Speech the other day .. and plain packaging wasn't in it!

Very wise, I thought.

So, we have an interesting situation here. Labour quite obviously think that plain packs isn't worth their while legislating on, while Labour MPs harangue the Tories for not, err, doing what Labour are are not planning to do themselves.

We could be entering virgin political territory here. Come the Queen's Speech, it could be a time where the Conservative Party first shows itself to be more paternalistic; less trusting of personal responsibility; less respectful of business and property; further to the left, and ultimately bossier than the Labour Party they despise. Hmm, what was that the Tories were saying about "vote UKIP, get Labour"?

We are truly living in bizarre times.

How To Rig An EU Tobacco Products Directive

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:02:00 +0000

Take a good look at this woman. She is - according to tobacco control's own claims - possibly the most dangerous European alive today.

It is Linda McAvan, the Labour MEP chosen as 'rapporteur' for the EU Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) which seeks to permanently ban snus and effectively render e-cigs useless. As rapporteur, it is her role to shepherd the TPD through its various stages of implementation. She is, as you might expect, a virulent smoker-hater and - I'm ashamed to say - British.

I mentioned yesterday that 1.5 billion fewer cigarettes are being smoked in the US in 2013 as a result of e-cig use, a figure that will only exponentially soar if allowed to blossom. The population of the EU is four times bigger than that of the US, including one million vapers in the UK alone according to the BBC who McAvan hopes to force back into tobacco use.

Despite admirable protests by other UK MEPs, most notably Lib Dem Chris Davies, it would seem that McAvan is keen to exclude debate from anyone who disagrees with her blinkered views on e-cigs, as David Dorn reports.

Linda McAvan has seen fit to appoint a known opponent of e-cigs as the curator of the "knowledge" that will be presented at said workshop. Will Clive Bates (@Clive_Bates) be there? Professor Gerry Stimson (@GerryStimson), Professor Constantinos Farsalinos, Professor Michael Siegel, Professor Jacques le Housec or Professor John Britton? Somehow I doubt it. And yet they damned well SHOULD be there.

Why? Well, simply put, each and every one of those luminaries are capable of separating nicotine from the act of smoking lit tobacco. This curator of the knowledge - Dr Martina Potschke Langer - is not. To her, you either quit (meaning become nicotine abstinent) or die. Her world is so very simple.

Where it is possible for her to distort the truth about e-cigs, she does. If she can present a biased conclusion and miss out vital information about e-cigs or their comparators, she does. Frankly, in this writer's opinion, she has no place curating this "knowledge base" for MEPs to partake of. In my opinion, she is not qualified. In my opinion, she is the very opposite of qualified for the role, as her bias is so very transparent.

Indeed, because McAvan's choice of curator is truly insane and solely designed to ignore objections.

Martina Pötschke-Langer is a spiteful bereaved East German who has dedicated her life to the eradication of anything that resembles smoking.

She was influential in achieving a ban on e-cig use in Hanover's civic offices, and considers e-cigs to be a "gateway drug" which she claims causes "respiratory irritation and dizziness" to anyone in the vicinity of someone using one. Passive vaping, to you and me.

She is also behind an atrocious article in the Mail on Sunday which claimed e-cigs are more dangerous than cigarettes which was deleted by the newspaper because it was pure unsubstantiated garbage.

Can you think of anyone who is more unsuited - in the whole of Europe - to collate evidence for or against e-cigs? Because Linda McAvan seemingly foresees no conflicting interest whatsoever.

It's a recurring theme with the tobacco control industry, isn't it? If it is looking like the public are opposed to the latest madness being proposed, democracy can go hang. They'll just rig proceedings by any means possible.

It is towards quite appalling individuals such as McAvan and Pötschke-Langer I directed this paragraph yesterday.

In effect, they'd prefer it if those ~~1.5~~ 6 billion cigarettes continued to be smoked until the smoker quits using a cessation method approved by their global cabal.

It tells you all you need to know about the tobacco control industry. Within it are hideous hypocrites who are more interested in the 'control' part of the job, and their own self-enrichment, than public health goals they like to pretend they are working towards.

History will surely judge these evil ideologues to have blood on their hands.

The Dramatic Success Which Must Be Stopped

noreply@blogger.com (Dick Puddlecote) — Sun, 28 Apr 2013 17:53:00 +0000

Via Business Insider, here is a graph to put a chill down the spine of many a tobacco controller (click to enlarge).

This is the astonishing success of e-cigs year on year, compiled by those who analyse the market to the nth degree.

As you can see in the chart ~~below~~ above, Adelman estimates that e-cigarettes will take the place of around 1.5 billion cigarettes this year, up from around 600 million last year.

Yes. That's 1.5 billion fewer cigarettes smoked per year; 1.5 billion (and still rising dramatically) being replaced by totally harmless e-cigs. And that's in the USA alone.

You'd think the tobacco control industry would be in a state of euphoria, wouldn't you? Applauding rapturously as if all their wildest dreams were coming true at once. After all, for tobacco companies to move out of the sale of tobacco and into other areas is what they have been demanding for decades!

Yet, worldwide, professional anti-smokers - and incompetent Maltese politicians - are feverishly trying to ban them. Wherever you see a positive article about e-cigs, you'll find a handsomely paid bansturbator desperately bleating about how they should be outlawed or prohibitively restricted.

In effect, they'd prefer it if those 1.5 billion cigarettes continued to be smoked until the smoker quits using a cessation method approved by their global cabal.