Carry on 'spying'

One intriguing story has gone quiet.

In December it grabbed the headlines. Lib Dem Mike Hancock said Katia Zatuliveter, 25, had nothing to hide, he backed her 100%, and would appeal.

The she faced deportation proceedings after she was taken into custody on the orders of MI5, the Sunday Times claims. A security source is said to have told the Sunday Times that Ms Zatuliveter's presence was not "conducive to national security", and the intention was to "show her the door".

A parade of security 'experts' told daytime viewers of the blood-curdling consequences if Katia was allowed to roam free among the secrets of the Defence Committee and the Council of Europe. What secrets? There are none. All the affairs of the bodies that Mike Hancock serves are in the public domain.

Are we safe in our beds. If the 'experts' were right, 'no' because Katia is free. Such is the danger and urgency of the case she will not be called on to give evidence in her defence until October. This is the first date that the MI5 man has free in his diary. He is fully occupied chasing other hares. The full story would make a good book. 

A farce of course.

 

Comments

[patrick]

Smoking quotes

“People always come up to me and say that my smoking is bothering them... Well, it's killing me!” Wendy Liebman

“Sooner or later, everyone stops smoking”

“It's easy to quit smoking. I've done it hundreds of times.” Mark Twain

[patrick]

Junican

I made the following statement-
The reasons people are living longer lives is down to better nutrition, hygiene and health.

You then say-
"Precisely – so longevity has nothing to do with smoking. Thank you. I could not have put it better myself."

Only a complete moron would fail to realise that better health (that'll be the third on the list) has a lot to do with the fact that less people now smoke.

On the other point i actually indicated that the piece about France was indeed written by a child. You then read it and say "Such incompetence could only come from a childlike bigot (probably wearing a fur bikini)."

You then take the child to task on grammatical errors. The end result is that the child that is not bright enough to write properly is still bright enough to recognise a mindless addiction.

People are living longer due to several reasons. One of which is that less people smoke!

,

[HuwOS]

"Yes, I was aware of that quote "
Ah so now you were aware of it, and aware enough of it to know that it's true origin is doubted as it was only reported by Frederick Perle and his reports of it lack consistency.

How unfortunate that your fingers and mind were not communicating when you wrote.

"Kaydear, you said: "And if you know Einstein well you'll know what he though of human stupidity." I'm sorry, I do not know to what you refer,..."

As with your stated dislike of conspiracy which you regularly state before embarking on a conspiracy theory about the ban on smoking in public places.

With so much time spent contradicting yourself, it is fortunate for us that you can also spare the time to contradict everyone else too.

I know you feel that dark and sinister forces are at work to discriminate against smokers, but I do have some good news for you.
Not all such discrimination is negative.
If you have not already purchased a pension annuity and presuming you have invested in a pension plan then you can take advantage of companies who have been brainwashed by the anti-smoking lobby and get up to 30% more pension as they are suffering the delusion that the average smoker won't live as long as the average non smoker.
http://www.ashwoodlaw.co.uk/individual-advice/retirement-planning/extra-pension-for-smokers-/-ill-health

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11169046

So, every cloud and all that...

[Junican]

@ HuwOS.

Yes, I was aware of that quote – unfortunately, he almost certainly did not say it. It certainly does not appear in his papers or his letters. It may be that somebody said that he said it and that it has become accepted truth. Below is a quote which he definitely did make:

""The stakes are immense, the task colossal, the time is short. But we may hope — we must hope — that man’s own creation, man’s own genius, will not destroy him. Scholars, indeed all men, must move forward in the faith of that philosopher who held that there is no problem the human reason can propound which the human reason cannot reason out.""

Do those words sound like the words of a person who believes that mankind is infinitely stupid?

@ patrick.

“”The reasons people are living longer lives is down to better nutrition, hygiene and health.””
Precisely – so longevity has nothing to do with smoking. Thank you. I could not have put it better myself.

As regards your statement re France, whoever wrote it must be illiterate. In line one, there should be no comma after the word ‘now’. In line three, the word ‘cigarettes’ is spelt wrongly. In line seven, the word ‘associated’ is spelt wrongly. More importantly, the first sentence makes no sense whatsoever:

“”People smoke less now, than fifty years ago in France, because now it is becoming more socially unacceptable around the world.””
Only a child could write a sentence like that since it implies that the decrease in smoking over the last five decades is a result of smoking becoming more socially unacceptable NOW! Also, this result in France is a consequence of something which is happening NOW around the world.
Such incompetence could only come from a childlike bigot (probably wearing a fur bikini).

As regards your final comment re inducements, I can only say that I pity you. The propaganda based totalitarian State is just around the corner and you cannot see it.

[patrick]

Junican
“What inducements were offered to Ireland to be the first to introduce draconian measures of tobacco control? What inducements have been offered to Spain and Greece to introduce similar measures, despite the recession?”

Not enough!

[patrick]

Junican

The reasons people are living longer lives is down to better nutrition, hygiene and health.

People are living longer at a time when smoking is both declining and becoming socially unacceptable – Notice the connection?

People are more aware , better informed and bright enough not to develop a dangerous addiction from an early age.

The following was written by one such example-

‘People smoke less now, than fifty years ago in France, because now it is becoming more socially unacceptable around the world. Ciggarettes are becoming more expensive, and now they have introduced health warnings on the packets, telling each user how dangerous it is for them to smoke, and the health problems asocciated to smoking.
Smoking is an important risk factor for the three diseases that cause most deaths in France: heart disease, stroke and lung cancer. It is responsible for around 80% of all lung cancer deaths and 20% of all cancer deaths. Smoking has also been linked to cancers of the mouth, bladder, kidney, stomach and cervix, among others. Smokers are also at increased risk of having reduced lung function from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Using tobacco has been linked to a variety of other conditions, such as diabetes, peptic ulcers, some vision problems, and back pain. Smoking in pregnancy can lead to miscarriage, stillbirth or premature birth.
This is why people smoke less, and less people smoke now, rather than 50years ago.’

Nobody is bothered if you smoke yourself to extinction in the privacy of your own environment.

I simply asked what are the benefits to the next generation.

I didn’t expect a sensible answer and wasn’t disappointed.

The fact is there are not any!

[HuwOS]

Now you do know.

[HuwOS]

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Einstein

[Junican]

@ Kay Tie.

Kaydear (I trust that you do not mind a little old man addressing you as 'Kaydear' since we 'old boys' tend to be affectionate, sort of, especially in the North West of England. You may call me 'Jamesdarling' if you wish, since that is what my dear mother called me.)

I knew that you would fall into my little Einstein trap. I just knew that you would be unable to resist, although, I must admit that your 'take' on the matter is slightly different.

The point about Einstein is that he bucked the perceived wisdom of the time. As a result, he arrived at a very fundamental understanding of nature which had not previously be known.

Kaydear, you said: "And if you know Einstein well you'll know what he though of human stupidity." I'm sorry, I do not know to what you refer, unless you are talking about Einstein's views about war and race. Well..who does not agree with his sentiments? Einstein never said that human beings were stupid. In line with Michael Faraday and Maxwell (and Isaac Newton), he did not fall for the sort of religious beliefs that Tobacco Control is spouting.

That was the point of my reference to Einstein.

Kaydear, you are a bigot! Clearly, since you refer to me as 'an old boy', you are young. You need to grow up.

Bigots like you, Kaydear (or should I say 'fur bikini wearers who like solitude'),

[Junican]

Damn it! It's happened again! I tried to post a comment and received the message, "We're sorry, we cannot accept this data". What is going on?

And so, I will post this comment here, if I may. It should actually be on the 'Omens' thread.

""May I contemplate the word ‘bigot’ again, for a moment?

I think that my definition of ‘bigot’ is roughly correct. Now..I am in favour of freedom of choice. As regards enclosed places, I see no problem with some enclosed places being smoking and others not. This may involve some rooms in pubs and clubs being designated ‘smoking’ and others not, or, some pubs being designated ‘smoking pubs’ and others not, depending upon their size. I see nothing irrational (or bigoted) about that. Compare that with Kay Tie’s idea. Her idea that all such places of any kind should be non-smoking merely because she dislikes the smell of tobacco smoke, irrespective of whether she actually goes to these places or not. Now, tell me, who is the bigot here?

Patrick has asked me the following question:

“”In what way is supporting smoking and the Tobacco industry beneficial to the next generations health?””
I asked for an answer to the question of why governments are passing anti-smoking laws, when their economies are in recession, which are certain to some extent to damage their economies. I have received no reply which is rational. But I will answer patrick’s question.
Firstly, we must separate the idea of ‘supporting smoking’ from ‘supporting the Tobacco Industry’. I do not believe that I must go into the difference between the two since it is pretty self-evident really and would take a lot of words and time.
I do not support the Tobacco Industry – I merely buy tobacco. I buy it from whoever supplies it – end of story. Nor do I support smoking as such. What I support is my right as a free adult Englishman to enjoy tobacco if I wish to. I also support the right of property owners to decide to allow a legal activity on their premises.
(Please note that I am answering your question with the facts as I see them. It is pointless to argue with me about the facts since such arguments will be endless.)
(By the way, I assume that when you say: “In what way is supporting smoking and the Tobacco industry....” you are actually asking me why I support these things. If you are actually asking a theoretical question, then I have nothing to say)
Secondly, we must examine the phrase ‘beneficial to’. The fact is that, in a free society, benefit is in the eye of the beholder. I would contend that, as regards the enjoyment of tobacco, there is neither a benefit nor a non-benefit in general. Only the individual can decide for himself. I enjoy tobacco, therefore it is ‘beneficial’ to me.
Finally, we must look at the words: “... to the next generations health?”
I’m sorry, but I do not really see any meaning in the phrase. It is just words, and very inexact. I mean, it implies that the next generation will suffer if the present generation smoke, but recent history (the last 100 years or so) has shown that each generation is healthier and lives longer than the last. The implication is that smoking is irrelevant. The further implication is that, in macro terms, smoking makes no difference to the general health of the nation.
Patrick, you have been brainwashed by Tobacco Control!
Please now answer my question, which I will re-phrase.
“What inducements were offered to Ireland to be the first to introduce draconian measures of tobacco control? What inducements have been offered to Spain and Greece to introduce similar measures, despite the recession?”
I await your well thought out reply.
Mr Flynn, thank you for your reply to my query about my comments being blocked, and I understand that it should not happen, but what is really annoying is the notice which signifies the block. The notice is, “this data is not acceptable”. I mean, suppose that you spoke in the house, and after you had spoken, you received a message that your speech had been blocked somehow so that no one heard what you said, and suppose that the message you received was, “Your words are not acceptable”. Would you not be bemused by that message? Would you not seek to discover by whom and why the message was sent?
If I was you, I would seek to find out how this message is generated. However, I do not suppose that it is very important – after all, it is very doubtful that Rachel Welsh, in her fur bikini, in “one million years BC” would have been concerned with such fripperies (along with Kay Tie in her solitude).""