« Kutaisi rewarded | Main | Fire turns cold »

February 22, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

HuwOS

"You pulled me up about various things that I said. You did that by 'selecting and copying' various bits. But you did not 'select and copy' the most important thing - which is the dissonance between the ACTUAL deaths from liver disease in 2009 and the CLAIMED deaths from liver disease."

According to you that is the most important thing, you might like to clarify your writing style so the important inaccuracies can be easily picked out of the apparently unimportant inaccuracies.

Your biggest problem is that you are believing and then challenging the newspaper reporting,
which by its nature tends to attempt to "simplify" papers,reports and studies.

If you wish to challenge something then you would be better off looking for what Gilmore et al actually said.

It is in the Lancet with the title
Projections of alcohol deaths—a wake-up call
Nick Sheron, Chris Hawkey, Ian Gilmore

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60022-6/fulltext

You will need to register to read the whole thing, but it is free to do so.

Patrick

Sorry meant to say at the end.

My recent ancestors polluted their environment and their own bodies.

Patrick

Junican

“Am I bitter? YES I AM! I am so bitter that it will not go away. I fear for the freedom of my children and grandchildren. They are being brainwashed at school to accept the 'health zealots’ new religion. “Do not enjoy your life. Be a good productive worker” for the benefit of the wealthy and the aristocratic politicians.”

A politician initially becomes a candidate by reflecting his/her party’s interests. The party choose somebody articulate that is likely to be elected by the cross party general public. This is not some sort of conspiracy, it’s democracy. Everybody including you and your family has the opportunity to be a politician.

I’m delighted that my children are being educated at school to the harms of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs. I’m delighted also by the amount of time given to environmental studies.

If future generations are to survive in an ever increasing hostile planet (regardless of whether they are man made or not) then education has a vital role to play.

We have had decades to realise what harms us and our habitat.

You may feel it’s all about smoking, yourself, and people preventing you from having enjoyment.

The reality is that it’s about the bigger picture. Pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, thousands of products that were liberally spread across fields and gardens have all been banned. They not only killed beneficial organisms in the earth but washed into the ground waters and polluted the rivers.

My recent descendants polluted their environment and their own bodies.

My children’s generation hopefully will not!

Junican

@huwOS

Thanks for that tip - it has worked!

You pulled me up about various things that I said. You did that by 'selecting and copying' various bits. But you did not 'select and copy' the most important thing - which is the dissonance between the ACTUAL deaths from liver disease in 2009 and the CLAIMED deaths from liver disease. The actual was about 7000, the claimed about 30000. A slight difference of 23000. Are the health zealots' figures correct or is the Nat Office of Statistics correct? How many MPs have been seduced by the spurious figures of the health zealots? And how did the aristocratic, unelected, authoritarian health zealots gain control of the Dept of Health?

Junican

I regret that a post of mine was duplicated. These things seem to happen for no apparent reason.

My MP is Yasmin Quereshi. I wrote directly to Ms Quereshi about something or other and received no reply - not even an acknowledgement. I wrote to another MP (on the grounds that my own MP did not respond) and he advised me that the convention was to pass such correspondence to the 'correct' MP. I received no response to that either. Can I make it clear at this point that I am not a person who dashes off a dozen letters a week to his MP - maybe one per six months, and even that, only since to smoking ban.

Can I just explain briefly my thinking regarding the ban? I have been a ‘socialist’ all my life, as was my father. When the Labour manifesto said that ‘wet’ pubs and private clubs would not be affected, I believed it, and I voted Labour. I was astonished when the Health Bill was amended to cover ALL ‘public’ places. I was appalled at the parliamentary tricks which were used to get the legislation through. I was appalled that people who enjoy tobacco would be treated worse than pigs (external shelters). And why was this draconian legislation enacted? On the grounds of a perceived utterly minuscule danger. SHS is as ‘harmful’ as the alcohol which people who have had a pint or two breath out. That is the truth.

I know that you were and are in favour of the smoking ban, but I do not understand your reasoning. How did the average age at death come to be around 80 when so many people smoked and so many more were exposed to tobacco smoke? How does an intelligent MP fall for this eugenicist nonsense? But more important than that, when did the State gain the constitutional right to invade our private property when no activity which is, in itself, criminal, takes place? Whence did local authorities get the right to invade private property in order to see whether or not a legal activity (smoking) was taking place?

Not only that, but we have the unaccountable EU spreading persecution over the whole of Europe. How come? Who gave these political aristocrats the power? How did they gain this power? The ‘political aristocrats’ of Europe must be laughing their heads off at the gullibility of MPs as they bank their enormous monthly cheques and their own ‘climate change’ companies make massive profits. Will the Gov do anything about it? Of course not! A position in the EU is a nice little earner for ex-ministers.

Am I bitter? YES I AM! I am so bitter that it will not go away. I fear for the freedom of my children and grandchildren. They are being brainwashed at school to accept the 'health zealots’ new religion. “Do not enjoy your life. Be a good productive worker” for the benefit of the wealthy and the aristocratic politicians.

I thought that you were a socialist, Mr Flynn. Why do you agree with prohibitions for the masses? How did you become corrupted? (Sorry! I do not mean that litterally!)...

Paul Flynn

Who is your MP Junican? I'll tell you whether she/he is genuine.

Junican

I will try that, HuwOS. Merci.

HuwOS

"Does it occur in the minds of these MPs that hardly anyone actually wants anything to be done?" - Junican

The reality is rather different,
on the whole, on any issue that captures the public imagination there are a great many people who insist that "something must be done."

"The elephant is that that Prof Gilmore et al DO NOT say, as one would expect, that VERY STRONG ALCOHOLIC DRINKS, like whisky, should be banned altogether. Why not? No doubt they are eventually going to work up to it." - Junican

Again, Gilmore has spoken against prohibition so is unlikely to be working up to it for alcohol. Your sense of narrative seems to require you to ignore this.


"You cannot compromise on ‘freedom’ of the people of England."

Being in Wales, the people of England can do what they like as long as they leave us out of it. Getting the English to do so, has proven to be remarkably tricky.

"please tell me why it is that so many mothers, especially in the US, insist that they would SCREAM if a person who enjoys tobacco comes within a few yards of their babies?"

I doubt that is true. Link?


"Do not say that this is not true since NICE conducted a survey on MUMSNET asking whether or not MUMs were in favour of a ban on smoking in cars"

Sorry, proof that Moms, especially in the US would scream if a person who smoked but was not smoking around them is going to come in the form of a NICE survey of MUMSNET on whether or not they would be in favour of a ban on smoking in cars?

"Mumsnet was in favour by 97%."

Gosh, such figures on such a different topic.

Please link to this NICE survey as I know nothing about it and would be interested.

I do know that the British Lung Foundation sponsored a somewhat similar survey of mumsnet.

http://www.lunguk.org/ONESTOPCMS/Core/CrawlerResourceServer.aspx?resource=be3c2e64afab43f4b385c9408e84afc6&mode=link&guid=a7780214b5624c4ab79d44e5b17841b5

In that survey the result was that
86% (873) of respondents support a ban on
smoking in cars where a minor is present and 83% (106) who are current
smokers would also support the ban.

There were no stats given on whether mums would scream or not.

"And yet we ask the question, "why should people who do not drive and do not have a car dictate?"" - Junican

1st, who is this we?
2nd which people do not drive? Mums?
3rd Mums also do not have cars?

It seems Junican that you rarely read what you type.
You are probably going to think it is some PC gone mad backlash when people pick you up and then slam you back down for being incredibly sexist with that last remark.
You probably meant something else, but god alone knows what else.


"Paul Flynn is supposed to be a supporter of free speech, but he has organised his site to censor comments which he does not like or may not like. That is what he had done. There is no doubt." - Junican

Not only is there doubt Junican, your belief about this is simply nonsensical.

The cannot accept your data message isn't from Paul's end, it's typepad itself which seems to have some awkward timeout habits.

If you find you get that error, that you get so often, open a new window or tab return to the typepad page you wish to comment on, copy and past the text of the comment across add a space or a period and post.

patrick

Junican

“I feel that I am alone. I feel that my MP has deserted me. I feel that my MP has swallowed every 'harm' that can be imagined, and that 'something should be done.”

Most people tend to say this sort of stuff if our partner of 30 years walks out. Were you in a special relationship?

“Does it occur in the minds of these MPs that hardly anyone actually wants anything to be done?”

All you need to do Junican is put yourself up for election (that will be easy as they will mostly agree with you). Getting elected will be a doddle as you will be opposing the changes ‘hardly anyone wants.’ Having gained power you can then dictate what you think we all want.

Best of luck!

Junican

Mr Flynn.

You are a Member of Parliament.

I know from your posts that you are perturbed by the 'revolving door', and you are right to emphasise this matter. There is corruption.

But we must ask how it comes to be that there is any advantage for an ex-Minister to aquire a post with an international organisation? There is an advantage for that person, but no advantage for the people.

I do not have the skills to enquire. But I am sufficiently skillful to undertand that politicians are utterly corrupt.

Junican

And, HueOS, please tell me why it is that so many mothers, especially in the US, insist that they would SCREAM if a person who enjoys tobacco comes within a few yards of their babies? Do not say that this is not true since NICE conducted a survey on MUMSNET asking whether or not MUMs were in favour of a ban on smoking in cars. Mumsnet was in favour by 97%. And yet we ask the question, "why should people who do not drive and do not have a car dictate?"

Our comprehension of 'rights' is becoming more and more skewed. It is becoming similar to 'why should cars be allowed to happen on the road'? 'Why should the German army have not been allowed to invade England'? 'Why was it allowed that the Germany army was not allowed to invade?'

HuwOS. You are clearly an intelligent person. Do we need to disagree?

ALL MPs should be defending our freedoms - and not giving them away - not to the Health Dept, not to the EU, and especially not to the WHO (Tobacco Control).

I feel that I am alone. I feel that my MP has deserted me. I feel that my MP has swallowed every 'harm' that can be imagined, and that 'something should be done'. Does it occur in the minds of these MPs that hardly anyone actually wants anything to be done?

Junican

Try again........

Good......no block.

The grave danger lies in the new definition of Public Health. Some people have said that the new definition began with the seat belt law (other than in war time). It sounds reasonable. The seat belt law was the first time that citizens were required by law to limit their own freedom (to be fined and penalised if they did not) ‘for their own good’. Are we not now seeing an extension of this idea further and further into our lives? Prof Gilmore uses the fact that a very few people become alcoholics and die as a result, to promote penalties on the millions of people who do not. Here are some figures from the ONS:

Liver disease

Up to 34............230
35-44................1180
45-54................1800
55-64................1950
65-74................1390
75-84.................790
85 +...................260
Total.................7600

That table is deaths from liver disease out of a total of deaths in 2009 of close to 500 000. In the press release, it was said that ‘up to’ 30 000 people die each year from liver disease. Well, I suppose that 7 600 IS ‘up to’ 30 000, give or take 22 400.

Prof Gilmore et al want ALL alcoholic drinks to be subjected to price control, but do we not see the elephant in the room? The elephant is that that Prof Gilmore et al DO NOT say, as one would expect, that VERY STRONG ALCOHOLIC DRINKS, like whisky, should be banned altogether. Why not? No doubt they are eventually going to work up to it.

Isn’t it odd that the erroneous, new meaning of the phrase ‘Public Health’ is only now beginning to emerge? It ought to have been visible when the seat belt law was passed. (NB. It has been shown that that law has not been effective).

The seat belt law seems to have paved the way for a more general invasion of the liberty of the individual. Now the State invades private property and dictates to individuals what they can and cannot do ‘for their own good’. It even severely punishes people who do not accept the new religion of ‘Public Health’.

I understand that it is very difficult for you to stop yourself from being malleable as regards principles – after all, isn’t ‘compromise’ (the art of the possible) what politics is about? Nevertheless, there are some principles which are ‘inaniable’. You cannot compromise on ‘freedom’ of the people of England.

HuwOS

My comments were addressed to Mr Flynn. I asked him to consider the idea that 'Public Health' is an idea which concerns those matters which concern the whole public and over which the whole public has no control - like the purity of the water supply. One might also mention the 'bugs' which seem to be endemic in hospitals. Those things are Public Health. What is anathema, in terms of our freedom as individual Englishmen (and I am not talking about the BNP etc), is Public Health as a religious idea, being used to limit our personal decisions as to whether or not we should be 'healthy' (as defined by Prof Gilmore et al). There is no reason whatsoever that an Englishman should not be 'healthy' if he wants not to be healthy. Prof Gilmore et al assume that they have a right, by virtue of the erudition, to try to persuade the Gov to enact laws to limit the freedom of Englishmen (I use that word only to illustrate that The People of England and Wales, and Scotland and Ireland are not slaves, to be dictated to Gilmore et al.

You raised the question of the enjoyment of tobacco, not I. But you are quite correct in raising the subject. However, I refuse to discuss the matter because the Gov of the region (in EU speak) known as the UK has no power at all to make decisions. The UK GOV signed up to the UN Tobacco Control department and is thus powerless to do other than this group a powerful individuals say. Do you understand that, HueOS? Whoever is chief of the WHO can dictate to the UK Gov, and, by implication, can dictate to all free Englishmen!

But that is what you want, HueOS, isn't it? You actually want the State, the EU and the WHO to decide what you can and cannot eat, don't you? You want the State to regulate EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING!

You must understand that when the State gets the OK to invade our private property and our homes, with its erroneous ideas, we, as a people, become subjugated. Gilmore et al are slavemasters. They are not happy to tell us what is not healthy, they wish to FORCE US, by edicts from Parliament, to conform! I WILL NOT AND NEITHER SHOULD YOU. We should all defend our freedom.

Paul Flynn is supposed to be a supporter of free speech, but he has organised his site to censor comments which he does not like or may not like. That is what he had done. There is no doubt.

And yet he believes that he has the right to insult anyone that he pleases to insult!

We have this stinking, abominable political system under which only what politicians say is true is true. Thus, our children are being taught political correctness rather than maths, history, grammar, etc. Is it any wonder then that our children are IGNORANT? It is important to differenciate between IGNORANT and STUPID. Ignorant means 'lacking knowledge'; stupid means 'inability to understand'.

Junican

Is there some sort of 'time out' here? I do not understand. If there is, just say so, for heavens sake! Or is it that certain words..............

Heavens above! I tried to post something on a BNP site and it was not published (not that it was insulting. Is there some sort of block here too?

Junican

Damn it! How did you get that comment through? I have just tried to comment and I got 'unable to accept...' bla bla.

HuwOS

"Prof Gilmore et al DO NOT say, as one would expect, that VERY STRONG ALCOHOLIC DRINKS, like whisky, should be banned altogether. Why not? No doubt they are eventually going to work up to it." - Junican

While I disagree with the Gilmore's belief that increasing the price of cheap alcohol would be of any overall benefit,
as he is the same person who believes in the decriminalisation of drugs like heroin and cocaine it seems unlikely in the extreme that he would ever be supportive of a ban on alcohol.
He did endorse an article in the BMJ which argued that
the policy of prohibition had harmed public health, encouraged organised crime and fuelled corruption.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10990921

Junican

Good......no block.

The grave danger lies in the new definition of Public Health. Some people have said that the new definition began with the seat belt law (other than in war time). It sounds reasonable. The seat belt law was the first time that citizens were required by law to limit their own freedom (to be fined and penalised if they did not) ‘for their own good’. Are we not now seeing an extension of this idea further and further into our lives? Prof Gilmore uses the fact that a very few people become alcoholics and die as a result, to promote penalties on the millions of people who do not. Here are some figures from the ONS:

Liver disease

Up to 34............230
35-44................1180
45-54................1800
55-64................1950
65-74................1390
75-84.................790
85 +...................260
Total.................7600

That table is deaths from liver disease out of a total of deaths in 2009 of close to 500 000. In the press release, it was said that ‘up to’ 30 000 people die each year from liver disease. Well, I suppose that 7 600 IS ‘up to’ 30 000, give or take 22 400.

Prof Gilmore et al want ALL alcoholic drinks to be subjected to price control, but do we not see the elephant in the room? The elephant is that that Prof Gilmore et al DO NOT say, as one would expect, that VERY STRONG ALCOHOLIC DRINKS, like whisky, should be banned altogether. Why not? No doubt they are eventually going to work up to it.

Isn’t it odd that the erroneous, new meaning of the phrase ‘Public Health’ is only now beginning to emerge? It ought to have been visible when the seat belt law was passed. (NB. It has been shown that that law has not been effective).

The seat belt law seems to have paved the way for a more general invasion of the liberty of the individual. Now the State invades private property and dictates to individuals what they can and cannot do ‘for their own good’. It even severely punishes people who do not accept the new religion of ‘Public Health’.

I understand that it is very difficult for you to stop yourself from being malleable as regards principles – after all, isn’t ‘compromise’ (the art of the possible) what politics is about? Nevertheless, there are some principles which are ‘inaniable’. You cannot compromise on ‘freedom’ of the people of England.

HuwOS

Sure, take a break Junican, but in the meantime, congrats on linking Stalin and the ban on smoking in public places.
Given that Gilmore has said the government should take the health effects of alcohol abuse as seriously as the health effects of tobacco smoking, I can't help but feel that may be your motivation here.


I await the day that a topic is discussed that you don't find that connection for.
It surely must come, but at the same time, it will be a crushing disappointment, so I hope it is in the far distant future.

HuwOS

Sure, take a break Junican, but in the meantime, congrats on linking Stalin and the ban on smoking in public places.
Given that Gilmore has said the government should take the health effects of alcohol abuse as seriously as the health effects of tobacco smoking, I can't help but feel that may be your motivation here.


I await the day that a topic is discussed that you don't find that connection for.
It surely must come, but at the same time, it will be a crushing disappointment, so I hope it is in the far distant future.

Junican

There is a question which has bothered me for a long time, ever since I realised that a lot of people are trying to 'propagandise' me, and trying to bend my mind so that I think as they want me to.

The question is:

"Why should a person not kill someone who is trying to kill him?"

I know! I know! Don't shout at me! Stalin, Hitler, Hussein went far, far beyond that idea.

Thinking about Stalin etc, we must observe that, not only were they killing people who were trying to kill them, but they also killed many, many people for ideological reasons. There are lots of examples, such as Stalin’s agrarian reforms or even the potato famine in Ireland. However, there are lots of similar actions which do not result in death, or anything close to death – merely cause people discomfort or limit them in some way.

But there is something in common with Stalin’s agrarian reforms and the modern day equivalent in our own society, and that is the visualisation of Society as an amorphous mass. Thus we see ‘Public Health’ transformed from an idea meaning the health of ALL the public into an idea meaning the health of SOME of the public. For example, all of the public are affected by clean water and the safety of nuclear power, but only some (a very few, in fact) are affected by eating meat. It is almost insane to say that eating meat causes cancers. One only needs to look at mortality statistics to realise that.

(Just in case you are interested, below is the URL for detailed cause of death statistics from the ONS for 2009:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Table_2_Death_Registrations_Cause.xls

This transformation of the idea of Public Health is leading us into grave danger. A few people are gaining power over the public far beyond their reasonable remit. I speak of Prof Gilmore et al. They are using the effects of alcohol (for example) on a few people to justify restraints on the liberty of all.

Can I break here and post what I have written? Just in case a block occurs.

Jonny Roberts

'Most of the press are biased towards the Government' sounds like the UK

The comments to this entry are closed.