Oh they will, will they?

A minor boiling of the blood as I saw this on Facebook this afternoon:

'Every smoker knows that one day he will have to quit. Either voluntarily or involuntarily.'

Is that a threat? Involuntarily? How does that work then? Are a crack squad of antirauchennazi going to kick my door in and wrestle me to the ground whenever I spark up? I do hope so, because if they're not quick enough they'll drop stone dead as soon as I exhale. These guys must be on serious danger money.

Oooh, what's that I spy? There's a little. . . thing. . . in the corner of the clever little logo which looks like a stubbed out ciggie. Ah, yes it would be the EU, wouldn't it? I thought I'd have a little look, see what they're all about.

You can't display the content while I'm viewing Facebook over a secure connection? What's going on here? The EU wants me to view one of their Facebook apps by surrendering my secure connection? Let me just go to the kitchen drawer and get my tin-foil hat.

This isn't the EU trying to covertly harvest data from Facebook, is it? That would be a low trick. I wonder how many people fell for that?

So, out of a population of 500 million, 55 people have decided to 'like' this. I bet they're doing the conga around the corridors of Minitruth about that.

Unstoppable? More like unstartable.

Muppets.

Just take it.

I don't have any horses. Not one. Therefore, for me to pay for a stable, hay, oats and a stable lad would be a ridiculous waste of money. Thus I do not pay for these.

I am thankful that my health has always been good, however the time may come when I need to make use of the National Insurance contributions that are taken from me, without so much as a by your leave, every month. I'd be very annoyed if I needed the service having paid all this money, only to be told that I was prohibited from using it.

Dick Puddlecote has highlighted the following:

It's been coming for a while, but NHS West Kent have become the first health authority to actively pursue a comprehensive policy of restricting treatment based on social criteria.

The policy document states that:

From this month, patients who smoke and need planned surgery will have to complete a NHS Stop Smoking course before their operation.
  
Patients who are clinically obese or with a BMI (body mass index) of more than 30 will also have their surgery delayed and will have to carry out a weight loss programme. Health bosses said that losing the weight would reduce the length of hospital stay and lessen the risk of complication.

It's a good job I don't live in Kent. . .

Oh, bugger.

That's alright, though, there's no way that anyone else in the county would do the same. It isn't as if savings have to be made to accommodate the legions of non-surgical management and outreach diversity equality community bollock juggling officers is there?

Oh, bugger.


I would raise merry hell if he were denied treatment. Leave aside the anti-smoking dog whistle for a moment. I pay my NI contributions because I am forced to. If I were not forced to, I would take out a cheaper, better, private healthcare package. I would pay a premium for this as I would declare my smoking.

As a smoker I also pay a premium on top of the NI contributions to cover my NHS treatment in the form of the duty on the tobacco I buy.

So I pay for a service, and am then told that even though I pay for it, I am to be denied treatment? There's a word for that, it'll come to me in a moment. . .

Ah yes. Fraud. That's it.

Oh don't worry, I am but a filthy smoker, I deserve everything I get, I am untermensch. If you drink alcohol, or eat food that does not fit the dictated standard, they'll do the same to you, too.

Yeah, OK, snort with derision. Don't believe me, I really couldn't care less. When they go after the drinkers, they don't mean you, you who sit there with your glass of Chianti classico riserva with your dinner, they mean the chavs who get dosed up on slut petrol before hitting the vertical drinking establishments on a Friday night. When they go after the fatty food eaters, they don't mean you, you who eat your filet mignon with duck fat chips, they mean the pram faced single mums who serve up fat and salt ridden microwave meals to their multi-coloured offspring in the estate on the other side of town seven nights a week.

Sail on, it has nothing to do with you, you're a good boy or girl, you do what you're told. I am evil, I deserve to be turned away. I should probably be chained to the hospital gates to act as a warning to the others like me.

Scum, scum, scum. I'm scum.

Fine. Well, Leg-Iron has hit a nerve with me, and I'll act like fucking scum. You'll not like it, but then I couldn't give a toss.

Don't take my money, eject me from the game and still expect to play nicely. It ain't gonna happen, chum.

And that's not all. . .

Let's see, what missiles are being thrown our way today?

People who are exposed to the second-hand smoke from others' cigarettes are at increased risk of hearing loss, experts believe.

Oh good, it is nice to see they believe in something. They probably decide they believe in Father Christmas around 23rd December. Where is this item of research from? Which august publication has this startling revelation?

The latest study in the journal Tobacco Control, involving more than 3,000 US adults, suggests the same is true of passive smoking.

Obviously no vested interest here then.

"Hearing loss can often be very frustrating and lead to social isolation, if not quickly addressed. 

Good, because I'm not bloody listening to you.

"Before you next light up a cigarette, consider how it could impact not only on your own long-term hearing but your friends' and relatives' too."

OK, will do. But not as much as I'll consider how it will impact your vision, when I stub it out on your cornea, you utter mong.

Meanwhile, over at Harvard. . .

Mothers who puff a pack a day or more while pregnant run a 30-percent higher risk of having kids who become criminal offenders, according to a study published Tuesday…

Well hang on, what about control groups? What about mothers who visit McDonalds throughout pregnancy? What about mothers who had a drink every day? What about mothers who wear odd coloured socks? What effect do they have? I think we should be told.

Elsewhere, Hugh Jarse of The Institute of Mythical Anthropology and Zoology said this:

'Passive smoking attracts goblins and imps to the house, and smoking when pregnant increases the chances of your newborn being replaced by a fairy changeling by up to a percentage I'm just about to make up. It also makes you very greedy. Dragons smoke all the time, and those selfish bastards are obsessed with gold. I am getting paid for this, aren't I?'

I made one of those studies up, I'll leave it up to you to guess which one.

What a waste of bloody money.

It is bad enough that money is taken from our pockets and pissed up the wall with gay abandon on projects you'd never even be able to dream up, let alone support. It is even worse when you willingly surrender your income for a service and then find that you've been stabbed in the back.

What am I going on about? This:

Workers at a district council in Norfolk must now clock off and back on if they take a cigarette break. 

Staff at Breckland Council will no longer be paid for the time they spend smoking after the proposals were given the go-ahead.

Simon Clark, from smokers' lobby group Forest, said everyone was entitled to a break during work.

That's old news. We've heard this story before. But here's a new spin:

The group described the plan as "tyrannical", but council management, unions and workers backed the change.

Council management I'd expect no more of. Workers come in the same group as 'the people' in Righteous speak, they are a homogenous mass, of one opinon and utterly identical to each other. But the unions? What the fucking flying fuck?

I don't even know where to begin. I really don't.

Firstly, I bet I can guess which unions are involved in this, at least two of them, and they are biggies.

What the hell? Are members paying their subs only to find that when management penalises people for engaging in a perfectly legal activity, an activity which sits very much in a bracket with other perfectly legal activities, the unions actually support it? As the bloke from Forest says:

Some take coffee breaks others go out for a cigarette.

In the old, old days, you could smoke at your desk, but they are long gone. I don't object to that. In the old days there was a smoking staff room where I worked, people would take their work in with them, so the loss to the business was nil, now we've been sent outside, from our sealed and vented room which no non-smoker had to go into, and having been sent outside we find ourselves being penalised for doing what we've been told to do.

Ah yes, but you don't have to smoke.

True, but then I don't drink tea or coffee, you don't have to drink it either. So why the fuck aren't you clocking off when you go out to get your umpteenth fix of caffeine of the day? Oh, they'll come for you eventually, your addiction will become as anti-social as mine, make no mistake, they're coming. Don't come crying to me. You've spat in my face, when your time comes, I will point, dance and laugh at you until I'm sick.

I'm getting side-tracked here. For a union to take subs from members under the pretence of representing their desires and interests, and then to arbritrarily abandon those members, members who are engaging in an activity which harms no other members, nor the union as a whole is a sickening betrayal.

I disagree with the TUC affiliated unions on a good number of subjects, but give them their due, they will support (by and large) the terms, conditions and rights of their members, even when those demands are excessive, outdated and completely against the interests of the public that fund them.

But this? This is a total betrayal, and if were a member of one of these unions, I would be livid.

The thing is these unions, the really big ones, I'm talking PCS and Unison here, the two I'm convinced are behind this capitulation, aren't really about staff in the way unions were when they first came into existence. They are more about politics than staff t&c's, it is the members' job to pay their subs and then dance to the tune which is played for them.

How loudly would they squeal if a clock was put on the computer terminals in the office to measure how much time was spent on ebay or slebrity news websites? How high would the pitch of that squeal get if that time was then knocked off staffs' flexitime?

Exactly.

Treacherous, spineless, hypocritical cowards. The fucking lot of them.

If you are a member of the union(s) behind this capitulation and you smoke, make no mistake, this will not be confined to one anonymous district council in Norfolk, it will come to your office soon and the precedent has been set. Be a good drone, pay your cash and do what you're told. They know best. Not you.

Late to the party.

I've not had the opportunity to fly a proper sortie over Blogland for the last few days, still haven't this morning to be honest.

This from Anna Raccoon is a wonderful piece of work, important, blood pressure raising and heartening in the response to it.

I've nothing to add to what Anna has written. Please do go and read it.

Oh, won't somebody think of the children?

Dick Puddlecote and Leg Iron have been banging this drum for some time now, it isn't entirely clear which vice will be next, will it be eating or drinking? Perhaps the eaters and the drinkers will be played off against each other to ensure mutual destruction.

One thing is for certain, now the smokers have been dealt with, it is time to paint at least one other group as the evil, murdering architects of society's downfall. Today it is the drinkers.

Children as young as five are contacting a charity helpline to talk about their parents drinking or using drugs.

Note the weasel words in there. Not about their parent or parents alcohol abuse or alcoholism, but just the act of drinking.

Of course there are parents that are alcoholic. Of course there are parents who are alcoholic who become abusive towards their partner. Of course there are parents who are alcoholic who become abusive towards their children. To pretend otherwise is stupid, blinkered and short-sighted.

Just go and read Inspector Gadget or Bystander. You'll see plenty of evidence that courts will accept a sob story of alcoholism as a mitigating factor. It's been an interesting tactic, stab someone who has broken into your house and is threatening you and yours and that mitigation will not hold as much water as the mitigation of 'it was the drink wot made me do it'. It would seem from the above that the tide is slowly turning, the victim is being turned into the perp.

I for one think that is a good thing, 'was pissed' is no defence. Alcohol cannot be a shield to hide behind. But, and here's the very big but, how many people who have a drink at any one time end up in court because they've acted like a clot? Very few.

Slowly, slowly the creep towards the denormalisation of drinkers has changed, almost inperceptably the pace has picked up, we're not in the final sprint towards the finish line yet, but the signs are there.

Notice how the act of drinking is up there with the use of drugs? Smokers were painted as drug users a long time ago. The same brush is being loaded with tar for the drinkers now.

How best to apply that tar? Well, getting the kids as soon they enter school and tell them how any act of drinking is something to be frowned upon. Next year's intake will be told how an act of drinking is to be objected to. The year after will be told how an act of drinking is something to be reported to nanny. Nanny will keep you safe.

I remember Childline being set up, I was a child myself when Esther and her teeth launched it way back when, I can still remember the jingle that advertised the phone number. As I remember, Childline was an independent service giving the kids the opportunity to speak to advisors on a range of subjects from sexual abuse to bullying.

I wasn't aware that one of the worst fake charities out there, the NSPCC, had taken it over. I suppose the Righteous have struck again, we can't have people helping without their say so and their all seeing guidance. Those people might make the wrong decisions. The Righteous are incapable of making mistakes. The Righteous are never wrong, the fault lies entirely with you.

Give the kids a bogeyman. Give the kids a friendly uncle or aunt to tell on the bogeyman. Give the kids a free method of doing it.

Give the kids a uniform, perhaps a badge for doing the right thing.

1984, anyone?

The drinkers still think it won't happen to them. They're going to very disappointed and very, very angry. But it won't matter, no one will listen to them. They are untermensch, after all.

UPDATE

I've just seen this over at Dick's.

I'll be Kevin Costner, you can be Sean Connery.

The One That Is Amazed. . .

Occasionally, something happens which gives you a renewed sense of faith in humanity. Sometimes people do things that show you despite all the misery, intolerance and interference that the human race specialise in, there is also evidence that we are the most amazing, determined and quite brilliant animals out there.

What am I blithering on about?

I have a friend, the same age as me, and about three years ago her mother suffered a very serious stroke. Just to show the Righteous how wrong they can be, she was a non-smoking, almost teetotal woman of 51 who cycled 4 miles a day in her journey to and from work. She was the very epitome of the health nazi's model citizen. Fit as a fiddle. It just goes to show you that when life decides to pitch you a curve ball, there's bugger all you can do about it.

The result of this stroke was that she was immobile, with significantly reduced vision and looking at spending the rest of her life in a care home. She could still communicate, perfectly capable of speech, but was easily confused, tired and without much hope of having even a fraction of the life she had before the event.

After what can only have been a very hard conversation with her kids, she decided to sign the no resus chit in the event of a repeat performance.

On Wednesday morning I received a phone call from my friend who was beside herself. It transpired that her mother had suffered another stroke. She'd been rushed the short distance from her care home to the hospital but there was nothing that could be done. She was breathing for herself, but that was it. Her kidneys had failed, there was absolutely no response to any stimulii or tests and the opinion of the quacks was that given the gap in time between the stroke occuring and her being discovered that the brain was effectively dead and it was just a matter of hours until the other systems shut down.

Because of the no-resus chit, no mechanical or medical assistance was afforded to my friend's mother beyond some suction to remove the fluid from her airways (nasal and oral discharge had turned from clear to dark red, a sure sign of the fat lady filling her lungs before bursting into song) so her death wasn't caused by choking/drowning.

The whole family rushed to the bedside, a good deal from hundreds of miles away, to say their goodbyes, and had returned home on Friday evening, secure in the knowledge that the embrace of death was a formality.

At 3am on Saturday, some three days since the stroke and without even a saline drip, my friend's mother woke up. Although incapable of speech, she could focus on people in the room, squeeze hands and nod or shake her head in response to questions.

At 5pm on Saturday, with my friend's uncle in the room (having hot-footed it back from up-country with the rest of the clan), my friend's mother stared at her brother and proclaimed 'I'm baaaaack! Now go and get me a pint of bloody Stella.'

This woman was written off, had been left to expire with no assistance, at her own request, in a hospital bed with no fluids for at least three days. The family members had said goodbye, her room at the care home had been surrendered. This was, dear reader, curtains.

What point am I making? Well, none really. Beyond that fact is stranger than fiction, if you were to write it as a novel/stage or screenplay it would be spurned for being too fantastical. One further point, never, ever underestimate the human capacity for survival and to prove people wrong. I am not a religious man, but events like this can only be described in terms of miracle.

She'll never run the London Marathon, but this determination to live and also not to do as one is told is a lesson for us all. Isn't it also just like a bloody woman to ask for one thing, and then to go and do the exact bloody opposite?

OK one final point, we pay through the nose for our NHS. The nursing staff at the hospital have been magnificent, but, it was fully eight hours between the woman in question waking up and her seeing a doctor. There were simply none on site, in a large hospital on a Saturday morning.

There is no way she can get an assessment of the damage and a prognosis until Monday, because no-one with more than a nursing qualification seems to work on a Sunday. In a fucking hospital.

Don't worry though, there was a pencil neck wankstain with a clipboard on duty who came out to berate the greiving relatives (this was before the Lazarusesque awakening) for smoking in the open air, fifteen metres away from the nearest person, who tried to take personal details in preparation for prosecution for an offence which doesn't exist, (vis. smoking in a hospital grounds, or one suspects, in a position where a hospital can be seen, even if you have to use binoculars) and over which he would have no powers of prosecution. They gave him the option of collecting the details, or leaving with his teeth. He chose the latter.

The One That Says It Will Never Work. . .

Libertarianism won't work. People will only look out for themselves. The vulnerable and needy will be cast aside to fend for themselves.

Wanna bet?

Nick Hogan is safely back behind bars. Not the bars which the government sought to contain him behind for failing to act as an unpaid policeman and report his customers for smoking – even when he was not on the premises to witness them to doing so – but the bars, the snug, and the restaurant of his own private property, the Swan with Two Necks, in Chorley, Manchester.

It was with the greatest pleasure that I was able to telephone Denise Hogan, his wife, a few minutes ago, and ask her to go and collect her husband from the Forest Bank jail in Pendlebury.

The indefatigable Old Holborn had moved heaven and earth, above and beyond the call of duty, to arrive at the jail with £8,664.50p in cash, to exchange with the Custody Officer there in return for Nick Hogan’s freedom.

Nick was jailed as an example to us all, that when the State barks ‘jump’ you only question ‘how high’.

He didn’t. He said ‘Why’?

The State made him pay a high price for his temerity; they harassed him, hounded him, bankrupted him, and finally forcibly removed him from his family and friends and jailed him for six months.

His crime? No longer the original charge that he had failed to prevent two customers from smoking on his premises. No. He was actually jailed for being unable to pay the £11,600 in fines and prosecution costs resulting from that charge. He had managed to pay off £1,600, but incomprehensibly to the State, he was not able to put his hands instantly on the £10,000 balance.

The State is so used to having a bottomless pot of Taxpayers money to dip into whenever they feel the need, that they have literally lost the ability to comprehend what the recession means to ordinary people.

I blogged about this affair on the afternoon of 28^th March. My primary concern was, and always would be, Nick’s wife Denise.

Nick objected to the smoking ban. He was part of a group of people, unsurprisingly largely publicans, who violently objected to the smoking ban, both regarding choice and their viability as a business. That is both his right, and his concern. He hosted a demonstration on the day the ban came into force. He stood up to be counted. He was willing to challenge the law.

He eventually paid the price for doing so.

Did Denise? She stood in the background, the loyal wife. She is not a ‘campaigning person’. She is not macho. She is just a wife and Mother.

When the Bolton Evening News story came out, I tracked Denise down to interview her. She was ‘shell-shocked’. Having run a busy restaurant and hotel myself, I was only too aware of the position she had been left in.

‘Put a smile on your face girl; keep the show running’, while the posturing idiots make their political point. Not her choice.

Within minutes of my blog appearing kind hearted people were asking how they could help, where could they send money? I asked Old Holborn if he would let me use his Paypal function and cross post the story onto his web site. Unwittingly I had lured him into a nightmare situation where he would be abused, vilified, threatened, and harassed himself. One day I shall blog about the back ground events to this saga, but today is a day of celebration.

Within 36 hours over £5,000 had been raised. A further £1,200 was donated over the next two days before the campaign received a crucial helping hand from political blogger, Guido Fawkes, who publicised it on his influential site.

Money came in from all over the world, the International Blogosphere had reacted in a truly heart warming way, outraged at the behaviour of the State.

Four days after my story first appeared, Old Holborn’s Paypal account held in excess of £9,700 in assorted currencies. We had to ask people to stop sending money! Then began the battle to persuade Paypal that we were not part of an International money laundering cartel….

Today we succeeded, and with the good wishes of thousands of ordinary men and women, equally battered by the recession, Nick Hogan is once more in the bosom of his family, able to support his wife Denise and their children, instead of being locked up with drug dealers and murderers.

Thank-you Blogosphere – and well done.

The fact that so many of you responded is a powerful message from the voting public that politicians would be well advised to heed. The Blogosphere will not be controlled by politicians, bound up in regulations, throttled by impenetrable legislation. It is not a single target that a ‘D’ notice can be fired at. We are not beholden to advertisers.

“We are the authentic, unfiltered, voice of your electorate”.

Be afraid, ye righteous, ye Statists. We don't need you. We don't need you to grant us permission to act in support of those we deem deserving. We don't need you to guide our actions or to make sure our actions are 'fair' or 'appropriate'. We don't need you to tell us who the deserving are.

We don't need you one little bit.

I have shared a drink and a smoke with Old Holborn on a number of occasions, and was fortunate enough to meet Anna Raccoon on the most recent 'little walk'.

I am hugely, ridiculously and pathetically proud of them, their actions and my small association with them.

The One That Says 'Really? Is That True?'. . .

It isn't just in this country where control freakery runs wild.

Turkey has today brought in a smoking ban in its bars, restaurants etc, etc. I'm glad to see that the problems of human rights abuses, censorship of the press etc, have been sorted out to make this such an important issue in the country.

In Italy, the northern city of Milan (a particular favourite of mine) has had a smoking ban for a few years now along with the rest of the country. The fines for breaking this ban are quite steep and it is adhered to. However, as we've seen in the UK, once one evil is removed, another great evil is selected for campaigning against. We must be saved, it is for our own good.

Nanny Beeb is reporting that:

Milan has banned the consumption and sale of alcohol to young teenagers in an effort to curb binge-drinking. Parents of children under the age of 16 caught drinking wine or spirits will be liable to heavy fines of up to 500 Euros ($700;£450).

And that is where the theory falls down. Under 16 and drinking wine or spirits? That's a fine for your parents. End of story. Now if that were the case in this country, the police would be out in force on Sundays, undercover in churches, waiting for the communion.

When I was a teenager, around 15-16, the pub visiting started in earnest. A group of us started. In one particular pub. Not because the licencee had a rather laissez-faire attitude towards the laws regarding the sale of alcohol, although he did. Not because we knew we could get served alcohol in there with the minimum of hassle, although we could. But because we knew the rules surrounding drinking in this establishment. 1: He wouldn't serve you spirits. Right out. Beer and cider only, it was his pub and if you didn't like it, you could piss off outside into the cold and rain. 2: Bloody behave yourself. If you didn't, you were out, never to return. 3: When he said you'd had sufficient, you'd had sufficient and you would say good evening and go home.

This landlord took the opinion that we'd be drinking anyway, and it was better to do it in an environment where there were boundaries and people looking out for each other, rather than a load of teenagers with no experience getting well and truly Flintoffed on the street. I was certainly looked well over 18 by the time I was 16, not an eyelid would have been batted had I walked into the off licence and picked up vodka and special brew, and then my friends and I could have sat on the recreation ground and got absolutely shitfaced. We didn't, we went to this pub (now sadly no longer) instead. I even recall serving police officers amongst the Friday night crowd (and it was only Friday nights when this happened) the local old bill knew the score.

Of course these days the old sod would have lost his licence, a good deal of money and probably his liberty. Us kids would probably have found ourselves sat in front of social workers and attending alcohol counselling classes. The irony is of course, that we learned a good deal more about how to handle and respect alcohol when in that pub than we would ever have by being forced to attend some 2 day course with a hard-hitting video and *gulp* role-play.

The police knew that we were in there, they knew that we were drinking, they also knew they never got called out to a fight, to a case of vandalism, they never saw an ambulance outside, and never had to scoop some barely alive wreck off the pavement at closing time. They also knew that to close this place down, where there were no problems, would mean that next Friday night, there would be kids getting pissed up on the Rec.

If you're going to prohibit the sale of alcohol to some groups, it makes much more sense to do it on the basis of attitude rather than age. But we can't do that. So it is age. And still people don't like it, they don't like the sale of alcohol at all, getting rid of tobacco was so easy, surely we could do the same again, with drink? But how?

First we must think of the Children, have they done this in Milan? Check.

However the Children cannot be held responsible. Someone else will carry the can. Is this in place in Milan? Check.

Excellent. Now we need some astonishing, unqualified statistic to make everyone throw their hands in the air. Do we have one of those?

A third of 11-year-olds in the city have alcohol related problems.

What? A third? Right, a little guessing maths. Milan is a metropolitan area with a population of 7.4 million. According to the CIA Factbook, 0-14 year olds make up 13.5% of the national population of Italy. So we'll assume that is a happy average for each commune, that means 999,000 kids below 14 in 'Greater' Milan. So to get a rough guess, let's assume that the birth rate has been constant for the last 14 years, that means around 71,300 11 year olds.

So you're telling us that 23,000 11 year olds have alcohol related problems? That is either bullshit, or the biggest collection of juvenile alcoholics in the world, ever. I doubt that a third of 11 year olds are piss heads in Milan. Or anywhere.

But the authorities are deeply concerned about the increase in consumption of alcohol by children as young as 11 in the country's industrial and financial capital.

Ahhhh, so the mere consumption counts as a 'problem', does it? What even in their own home? With their parents? Are the Carabineri to kick down doors and cart parents off for introducing alcohol to their kids in a responsible and measured fashion?

A national law banning the sale of alcohol to under-16s is only loosely enforced, as Italian families are used to sometimes giving young children a teaspoon of wine as a family party treat.

A teaspoon? Oh, how wonderfully twee.

In past centuries, Italian children would sometimes even be given wine to drink in preference to water which was often polluted.

No shit. Not just in Italy, shit for brains. We did it with beer and cider. On account of the fact that the climate has not often been warm enough to grow decent enough grapes for wine.

And here's the social engineering kicker. The one that tells you that all has, is and will be changing.

There has been a storm of protest by bar owners who refuse to act as alcohol police for young people.

But changing social customs mean that old easy-going attitudes towards consumption of alcohol in Italy will have to change. (Trans: But increasing political willy waving means we have to do something to justify our huge salaries, so we're changing this, and you'd better play ball, or else.)

It's not just us.

The One That Is Saying 'Oh Give Me A Break'. . .

We are now being told that third hand smoke will kill us all.

I'm sure this is backed up by really robust scientific proof that is funded by independent parties.

I'm going to sue some bloke in Australia because he's had a ciggie whilst looking at a picture of Canterbury, and the bastard's given me cancer.

I'll bet that binge drinking causes earthquakes.

Oh give me a break, won't you?

The One That Can See The Future. . .

It wasn't in the Queen's speech, but this morning the story has broken about how Alan Johnson will today announce that cigarette displays will be banned (there's that word again) in shops.

It would appear that Mandelsnake thinks it will hurt smaller businesses, Johnson has decreed it will go ahead anyway.

It was always going to happen, that or cigarettes would have to be sold in blank packages. Few people will make a fuss, passive smoking kills more people than the holocaust, Stalin's purges and the Cultural Revolution put together. Every year, if you believe the Righteous. It's for our own good.

We've already seen the first skirmishes in the next war break out. A plan to ban the sale of discounted alcohol has been announced. Of course, it won't apply in the Commons Bar, some are more equal than others. We'll carry on paying for the MPs' booze. They'll still be able to have a fag whilst they're drinking their subsidised gin and tonics as well.

Next? Well, we've already heard about the idea of a dedicated boozers' checkout in the supermarkets. But you'll still be able to see it, won't you? Best to build a partition wall around the booze section of the supermarket. Stick a man in uniform (paid for by the supermarket) at the little gate so he can check everyone's ID before they go in. ID cards will stop binge drinking.

Better still, I remember in Moscow in '91 they had this wonderful system, you went to the desk and told the nice woman what you wanted and paid for it. She would then give you a little chit which you would present at the counter when you were summoned to collect your wares. It's worked in Argos for years. What about a drinkers' database? Present your new smart chipped ID card when you order, a quick scan will ensure that you haven't gone over your unit limits for the week. You'll not be able to buy stuff for other people and parties, but it'll be so much safer, don't you think? It's a bit of a pain, but there are people throwing up in the streets and ending up in hospital, we can't have that.

A member of the Righteous says:

'But there is still the problem of the pubs and clubs. People can just walk in off the streets and order booze. It is a disgrace. Let's force the pubs and clubs to put card readers on the bar. 'A pint of Old Peculiar? Certainly, sir. Would you just put your ID card into the reader please? Oh, I'm sorry, you're only allowed one more unit. A single shot of Victory Gin? Very good, sir.'

Next on the list, all those bottles of fizzy drinks, packets of crisps and sweets and chocolate bars at the end of the checkouts, people are getting fat. We're going to have to remove them. Then there's the microwave meals and the cheap frozen stuff. That is all packed with fats, salt and sugar. Then there's red meat, I'm sure I read somewhere it gives you bowel cancer. Is that fish farmed? Tut tut. What about those vegetables? Are they GM free and organic? Blimey, look at the electricity these supermarkets are burning. Don't they know they're killing the planet?

Look, if we collectivise the farms we can issue rations to everyone who lives in the area, they don't need to go shopping. We'll look after them all, they just don't teach Home Ec in schools anymore. Rightly so, those happiness and citizenship classes are so important. Next door's kids came home yesterday singing a perfectly charming song about the new tractors the farms have been given.'

All of a sudden there is a knock on the door, followed by a voice shouting, 'Comrade! Open up, this is the anti-terror police.'

The One That Is Saying 'Enough Now, Stop It. Really. Stop It This Instant'. . .

Not content with coming after us who do smoke, now some bunch of self righteous arse-clowns are coming after those of us who don't smoke.

Now to declare my interest, I am a smoker. I think I'd quite like to give up, but to be honest I get so much joy out of pissing off bastards like ASH that I'm going to carry on. Cutting my nose off to spite my face? Maybe, but it's my nose and my face.

Anyhow, there's a company called The Electronic Cigarette Company that produces inhalator style thingies that vapourise nictoine electronically and let you 'smoke' without breaking the ban.

Oh no, no, no, no, no, say the righteous. That will never do. There could be anything in that leccy baccy, they could be dangerous. More dangerous than cigarettes? Do they contain tar? Do they produce carbon monoxide? What about benzine or the whole host of other thoroughly unpleasant ingredients? I would have thought not.

No, the real problem with these things is that they allow the users to thumb their nose at these bastards who will not stop at tobacco, these complete fucktards who want to control every aspect of your life, who will undoubtedly go on to ban alcohol (contains alcohol), crisps (fat), peanuts (salt), coffee (caffeine), tea (milk, you could be lactose intolerant), sandwiches (you could be wheat intolerant*), water (there's a shortage) and anything else that gives people even the merest sense of enjoyment, will not rest until every single facet our lives is documented, licenced, regulated or otherwise under control. Then we will be safe.

Well, not safe exactly, safe from ourselves. Because so many resources will be used on controlling us that bank robbers, corrupt politicians and muggers will be free to do as they please. But at least we'll be safe from ourselves. I mean it isn't as if we're capable of making a decision for ourselves, is it? So we can all sit safely in our houses, with our hands on the table in clear view of the telescreen on the wall, in the knowledge that nothing we are allowed to do will hurt us. Best not go out on to the street. Chris Rock jokes that in his neighbourhood you can get shot whilst getting shot. Well, soon, in your neighbourhood, you'll be able to get arrested by the fingermen for breaking curfew whilst getting shot by the feral chav for not showing him respect.

Choose a night in, choose Labour TV, choose conformity, choose surrendering your responsibilities, choose an approved dinner menu, choose safety, choose security, choose existence. But don't, whatever you do, choose life. Leave it all to those who know better than you.

* I love the idea of being lactose and/or wheat intolerant. Isn't that a hate crime? Do you see people in Sainsbury's shouting 'AAAAAAAAAAAAARGGGGGH! Get out of my store, bread, you grainy little bastard!' or people producing alternative league tables for the football, discounting goals scored by people who take milk in their coffee? White goals don't count!

Oh, you mean an allergy. Just fucking call it that then, won't you. Don't be such a bloody drama queen. Actually I know someone with a wheat allergy (sorry, Ben) I also know someone who is allergic to nuts, but I've never heard her talk about being 'kernel intolerant'.

The One That Thinks It Knows What's Coming Next. . .

And how do I know? Simple, it has already started.

OK, let's start with smoking. I smoke, and I hate it. It is expensive, makes me stink, destroys my taste buds and is generally unpleasant. I started when I was 21, it was the single stupidest thing I've ever done and I wish I'd never started. The whole bansturbation mania surrounding smoking pisses me off, although I personally prefer pubs without smoke, I can see no reason why smoking exclusive and smoking inclusive venues can't be had, but that and the new proposals surrounding the display and sale of cigarettes isn't the point here.

The point is that as soon as smoking is trussed up, the target of the nannies is going to be alcohol. We've seen the first shots fired today. Firstly, today is the day that drinking on the London transport network is now verboten. We also have notification of plans to stop the under 18's drinking in public.

Now, most reasonable people would respond that this is a reasonable step. Isn't socio-political conditioning a wonderfully insidious thing? Because teenagers drinking in public is immediately associated with teenagers fighting, intimidating passers by, vomiting and any other of a legion of anti-social activities. It always starts with the children. (Won't someone pleeeeeease think of the children?) Firstly, isn't existing drunk and disorderly and public order legislation robust enough to deal with this?

Secondly, the reason that kids are carrying on like this is because they're so fucking bored. There's nothing to do, where are the town centre cinemas? Closed, to go out of town with the wonderful shopping centre, and there's no public transport, that's where. Where are the youth clubs of yore? Closed, because of obscene insurance rates brought about because if an accident happens, it must be someone's fault and thus they owe you a shit load of cash.

Thirdly, what about kids drinking perfectly legally, such as is allowed under licencing laws with their meals with a family. That is drinking in public, is this to be banned as well?

Once again we see huge amounts of our cash spunked on another initiative, the Police with loads of PCSOs but no officers to enforce the law. It isn't a legislation problem, it is an enforcement and parenting problem.

I smoke, and smoke responsibly, but shortly will not be allowed to do so, or if allowed my perfectly legal behaviour will be made very difficult indeed.

I drink as well, I await the ban on alcohol advertising, drinking in public (excepting Royal palaces, obviously), the display of alcohol in shops and so on. This will be because a small number of people cannot behave in a reasonable fashion. It is akin to the teacher threatening to keep the whole class in detention if the miscreant fails to own up. . . And when the miscreant does own up, punishing the whole class anyway.

Then the ban on advertising confectionary and fatty foods, eating these products in public, the display of said items. . .