frank_davis4

frank_davis


Frank Davis

Banging on about the Smoking Ban


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
New World Disorder
frank_davis4
frank_davis
Newly converted to NWO conspiracy theory by Vaclav Klaus, I felt I had a bit of catching up to do on it all, so I've been watching Alan Watts: The Neo-eugenics War on Humanity Part 1.

The gist of his message was that everything that happens has all been carefully pre-planned. Talking quietly and confidently to camera, Watts said he had researched "how the future is planned" and "how culture creation worked". He had, he said, read "the big players", the technocrats - the Kissingers, Huxleys, and Lord Bertrand Russells -. He even had his own library of hardback books. "They told us where they were taking the world... And the world has turned out exactly as they planned." And, he added thoughtfully, "This can't be coincidence." Theirs was a very, very powerful organisation, that could fund all sides, all oppositions. And it planned ahead in centuries. 50 year plans. 100 year plans. 150 year plans. "Every change in culture right down to fashion and music had to be authorised from the top." Social control had been refined into science. Anyway, in our modern, post-industrial era most of us bozos had become superfluous. We were, he said ominously, so many "useless eaters".

It was such a well-planned world that I wondered why he was bothering to tell anybody about it, because quite obviously there was nothing anybody could do about it. It was such a well-planned world that even the conspiracy theories about how carefully planned it all was were themselves carefully planned.

I suppose that the essence of any conspiracy theory is that it always depicts the historical process as meticulously planned. Russian revolution? That was planned. The gulag archipelago. Planned. Kruschev's secret speech. Planned years in advance. Gorbachev's glasnost and perestroika. Meticulously planned 50 years in advance.

So also everything else. Elvis Presley? Planned. Mini-skirts? Planned. 9/11? Planned. The Kennedy assassination? Planned. Nothing happens that has not been carefully planned and rehearsed years beforehand.

If everything is so well planned, right down to fashion and music, and carried out by a super-powerful elite with thousands of years of hands-on empirical scientific experience going back all the way to Plato, what hope is there for anyone to change anything at all? What hope for the would-be Lenin or Castro rising up from the grassroots? The answer is: none at all. Lenin was planned. So was Castro. And Che Guevara too. The iconic photo. The T-shirts. Everything.

But what about scientific discoveries and technological innovations? Was that all planned too? Was it planned that Newton would set out the laws of motion and gravitation in 1680, and Einstein would come up with his theory of relativity in 1910. Did someone knock on young Einstein's door, and say "Right ho, Albert, you can start on your theory of relativity now." To which Albert would have no doubt replied, "What theory of relativity?" because he hadn't thought of it yet, obviously.

And if the course of history is so carefully planned, was it also part of the grand plan that I should stub my toe on a door frame this afternoon, and decide not to go shopping? Of course it must've been. There are no accidents round here.

Except I don't believe it. I don't believe that everything that goes on in the world is planned. No, it wasn't planned that I would stub my toe. Neither was it planned that Newton and Einstein were to come up with their insights into physics. They were accidents. Accidents are accidental. And so are discoveries.

At this point I suspect that someone like Alan Watts would retreat and declare that, well, not everything was planned in minute detail. But it was planned in broad outline, much like a motorway is planned and constructed. It might not be built exactly on schedule, but it would still be built.

But then I find it impossible to believe that even a large scale event like the First World War was "planned" in any meaningful sense. Yes, there were military plans. But they very rapidly became redundant. Thereafter, the war plans were restricted to particular battles. And even then, the plans always went awry.

In fact, it seems to me that, far from the historical process being one in which 50 year or 150 year plans are being meticulously carried out to the letter, hardly anything at all is actually ever planned. It's a process of continuous improvisation. Far from history following any carefully planned path or pattern, it is the more or less chaotic unfolding of events, and "one damn thing after another."

And yet, just because the unfolding narrative of history is not planned, it does not mean that it is chaotic. As I have several times remarked, the river on whose banks I've spent many an hour has not been planned by anyone. But it is still a very orderly and in many ways predictable thing. If it rains heavily, a few hours later the river will be in spate. Much of the natural world behaves in this unplanned but nevertheless orderly manner. In fact it's rather difficult to think of any natural process which is planned. And it is the task of the natural sciences to reveal that underlying order, and thus predict events before they happen. But to predict an event is not to plan it.

In fact, given that the natural world does not make plans, and that most of what happens in human life is equally unplanned, it's rather surprising that anyone seriously believes that human history has been planned out in advance.

It's probably perfectly true that there are a lot of politicians and pundits who have fully signed up to the idea of a New World Order. There may even have been numerous planning meetings, in which detailed plans have been set out for the orderly transition from from a democratic polity to a post-democratic one. But I would suggest that these plans are not really any different than the plans for the First World War by the general staff of the German army in 1914, and they are about as likely to be carried through successfully.

In fact, one might even say that the planned transition to a New World Order is an undertaking of such a magnitude that the military plans of the First World War, and even the Manhattan project, pale into insignificance beside it.

Given all this, it's a pretty safe bet that the New World Order hasn't any chance at all of success. It will degenerate into unforeseen disorder. Because it is, like so much else that goes on these days, a confidence trick. It is built upon getting enough people to believe that it's going to happen, and nothing can be done to stop it. But just because enough people believe something will happen doesn't mean that it actually will happen.

Anyway, it seems that my attempt to become a proper conspiracy theorist has foundered once again as my scepticism has roused itself from its temporary stupor. Perhaps I should try harder next time.

  • 1
From banned. "was it also part of the grand plan that I should stub my toe on a door frame this after", no, that was God.
I'm all in favour of New world Order conspiracy theories but if they are so clever why does eveything always go wrong? Is it because they need to use millions of untalented drones to help them carry it out?

Re: New World Disorder

if they are so clever why does eveything always go wrong?

Exactly. This is the argument that I usually use against conspiracy theories: nobody is that clever, or that omniscient, and so it's bound to go wrong.

Frank

Thanks for the link. In those videos, Alan Watt offers a clear insight into the elites' way of thinking and doing business with us walking garbage.

When you look at the world today, what was once "Christendom" is being dismantled in the same ways and at roughly the same times. This cannot be coincidence. Feminism - "Gay Rights" - mass immigration of Muslims - all changing the face of society. Sodomy has been a taboo for centuries, then, suddenly, it's almost compulsory. Why?

The sperm count is way down all over the world. Why?

The left/right paradigm that convinces people they have a choice when all they are doing is voting for the same system. It's why the West is so keen to "spread democracy" around the world because it enslaves them for the benefit of the elites.

Watt says there have always been slaves and that's us. We are left with just enough to pay for our homes, bills, food and a few luxuries if we're fortunate, and the rest is taken in tax.

The EU, UN and other agencies are stripping us of our sovereignty (or rather, the traitors elected to serve us are giving it away). There is a global system underway. Who decides what "International Law" is? Who will collect global climate change taxes? Who has the authority to fine a country for disobeying orders? Only a system of global governance. And everyone from our PMs to US Presidents to the Pope have been talking about new World/Global order.

I have been looking into this stuff for years now, so keep at it Frank and it will all become clear.

Re: Look at the evidence

Just to pick up one item in your list:

what was once "Christendom" is being dismantled in the same ways and at roughly the same times. This cannot be coincidence.

Is this deliberate, or is it simply part of a long term trend? It could be said that the idea of a monolithic Christendom broke down with the Great Schism between the Western and Eastern churches some time around 1050 AD. And that there was a further schism with the Reformation 500 years later. Christianity would seem to have been dismantling itself for a long time.

But quite apart from this, it seems to me that the rise of science over the past few centuries has simply made it difficult for many people to continue to believe in God, and in matters God-related.

And where people have retained a religious mindset, they have very often lost faith because of the horrors they have seen - the First World War, the Holocaust, etc. -.

The result is that there has been a very long slow decline of Christianity in Western civilisation. There's no conspiracy to this. There are a variety of reasons for it, of which the three I've pointed out are just a few.

That said, I do think that the churches are now under attack by people who would like to dissolve our identities and remake us into something new. The attack on the churches is an attack on traditional British culture along with other attacks like the smoking ban and the fox hunting ban. Such people see Britain as a melting pot in which the old culture is dissolved, and some sort of new culture emerges. In some senses, however, I think that people who think this way are simply 'trendy'. They follow and amplify trends, because 'that's the way history is going'.

Re: Look at the evidence

I think the "West" was still adhering to Christian ethics up until a decade or two ago. It is only in the past few years that governments have been recognising same-sex partners in law. The obvious conclusion is that there is a wider agenda behind it.

7 out of 8 who voted in Brian Souter's private referendum in Scotland ten years ago were in favour of keeping Section 28. This "sexual revolution" has been imposed on us by the state.

P.S. I hope I have been demonstrating on my blog that science and faith in Christ are completely compatible! Again, and as you know with smoking and climate change propaganda, science has been hijacked for political reasons.

Christianity is under attack because it is the foundation of our society and so it is being undermined to destroy our culture and freedoms to enslave us under global governance.


Re: Look at the evidence

I hope I have been demonstrating on my blog that science and faith in Christ are completely compatible!

I am well aware of this already. My physics teacher at school was a Benedictine monk. And historically most scientists in the Western world, including Copernicus and Galileo and Kepler and Newton, were all Christians.

I also agree that historically Christianity has been at the foundation of Western society.

Frank

Insanity

(Anonymous)
"...the unfolding narrative of history is not planned, it does not mean that it is chaotic. As I have several times remarked, the river on whose banks I've spent many an hour has not been planned by anyone. But it is still a very orderly and in many ways predictable thing...Much of the natural world behaves in this unplanned but nevertheless orderly manner."

Yes. That's the way I see it, too. I think that people who view history as a cabal have some difficulty making particular distinctions.

The most notable is that no one is keeping anything "secret". Rather, because secrecy is a form of dishonesty, I think that conspiracy devotees then believe that where there is dishonesty, there must also be secrecy.

On the other side, Utopian idealists who would like for us all to live under a single, worldwide government certainly exist. And many of the powerful people who want that haven't been secretive about it at all. As far as I can tell, they've proclaimed it quite loudly.

Others, however, leave you wondering about their motives. I think it's entirely plausible, for instance, that President Obama would smile at the prospect of the entire world living under a unified government. The same for Gordon Brown or Tony Blair. None of them can say that out loud, of course, because the political implications would be devastating. And, if that isn't what they want, then what do they want?

What's the goal? At some point, all of the vacuous idealism and rhetoric about "progress" has to mean something tangible to people.

Where I live, smoking was banned in bars and restaurants in 2002. This was supposed to save many scores of lives, and billions in health care costs. Where are the tangible results?

A few years ago, a documentary called "Super Size Me" was popular. The documentary criticized the fast food industry for offering over-sized portions. In response, the fast food industry stopped offering "super size" portion options. Politicians became involved in seeking to regulate fast food.

Where are the results? There are no results. There are simply new complaints to replace the old complaints. This seems to be how we define "progress" now: "progress" now means finding new and innovative ways to complain about current circumstances. The philosophy seems to be: "The more you complain, the better the world becomes".

What this all amounts to, in the end, is an excuse for government to have more influence on our private lives. Government and society operate on a reinforcing feedback loop, and the reinforcement works both ways. Because of this, public perceptions become policy realities. Government has taken too great a role where it doesn't rightly have a role, and this has distorted this feedback loop. Government isn't simply reacting to public perceptions, but actively trying to engineer public perceptions. These perceptions then feed right back into people democratically approving of a larger role for government.

I don't think that amounts to a conspiracy. It only means that overly idealistic people have always been in constant pursuit of imposing their values and beliefs upon other people. Because government has a monopoly on the legal use of force, these people are, and have always been, constantly looking to government to impose their idealism, and then claim victory in the name of "progress". They do so by setting up false benchmarks for progress that prey upon inherent human concerns: like health, safety, and protecting children.

Meanwhile, the very nature of being human isn't set up that way. We don't live our lives to live longer, or fit some sort of external ideal imposed by far removed bureaucrats who are acting on the basis of a survey.

It's all just insanity, but it's not a conspiracy.

It only means that overly idealistic people have always been in constant pursuit of imposing their values and beliefs upon other people. Because government has a monopoly on the legal use of force, these people are, and have always been, constantly looking to government to impose their idealism, and then claim victory in the name of "progress".

I think idealism is at the root of a great many of our modern problems, and has been for centuries. The idealists set up an imaginary ideal world (e.g. a 'smokefree' world) and use governments to force this ideal world into existence. But it has unforeseen side-effects, such as the fracturing of communities, the bankrupting of pubs, etc, etc. Rather than any sort of ideal world emerging, at the end of the day there is world that is considerably less ideal than it was beforehand.

And it happens again and again and again.

Frank

Of course, not everything is pre-planned. However, there are many examples in history where events have been pre-planned:

1. The Holocaust against the Jews. All carefully planned and kept secret by a Cabal of Nazis.
2. Interventions in the democratic processes of other countries by the US - all carefully planned and implemented by the CIA and driven by the US Government (Chile, Guyana, Hussain of Iraq, Shah of Iran etc).
3. Iran/Contra.
4. Gulf of Tonkin incident.
5. Operation Gladio.
6. MKUltra.
7. Operation Paperclip (transfer of Nazis scientists to the US, including Werner Von Braun).
8. Bay of Pigs

Etc, etc. These are only a few examples. They are not conspiracy theories - they are fact.

Of course, one must be careful not see conspiracies under every bush and behind every lamppost because that would lead to paranoia and in a lot of cases to see conspiracies where they do not exist. However, this does not mean you must dismiss from history all conspiracies because in fact elite powers did plan the events I have listed.

Snakey

Of course there is planning. After all, I'm planning to visit Spain in a few days. But because I make plans, and everybody else makes plans, that doesn't mean that everything that happens is part of some grand, detailed, long term plan or conspiracy.

In the case of the Holocaust, yes, it was planned at the Wannsee Conference in Jan 1942, a year before it started being done.

But was it what Hitler and the Nazis planned from the outset? Were they always intending to murder every Jew they could lay their hands on? As best I understand it, the answer to that question was: No.

If it had been, they would never have allowed Jews to emigrate in the pre-war years, yet a great many did emigrate. Also the Nazis themselves for a long time considered the so-called Madagascar Plan, which was to deport Jews to Madagascar. The Final Solution, it appears, was only adopted when Germany had been at war for over two years (and the war was beginning to go badly), and neither emigration nor the Madagascar plan were possible any longer. The Jews, in Nazi eyes, were perhaps seen as too much of a burden for Germany to bear in a time of war.

What this suggests is that if things had gone a bit differently, and, say, Germany had won the war quickly, then there probably wouldn't have been a holocaust.

It should perhaps also be borne in mind that in the Nazi view, there was a Jewish World Conspiracy, principally among bankers, to enslave the world. That idea has regained new currency recently, except the Jewish element has been stripped out, and people complain about bankers or 'banksters' instead.

Everything you list was certainly planned. But equally everything in the list would seem to have been planned 'on the spur of the moment', rather than as part of any long term grand plan thought out many years in advance. What's common to your list, perhaps, is that all these plans were secret.

My objection to Watts' vision of history was that it was one which unfolded under the control of elites with some sort of grand long term 150 year plan. It was this notion of such long term planning that I objected to, for being absurd, and not the fact that it was secret or semi-secret.

I think that certainly any conspiracy entails secrecy. But the conspiracy theories that I find myself strongly objecting to are ones which suppose powerful and almost omnipotent elites with very long terms plans, steering the world in their chosen direction.

Frank

I don't believe in grand conspiracy either. I think it's merely that human beings are social animals who realise that working as a group is advantageous. Our nature is such, however, that within each group, be it the parish council or the EU, there are individuals who crave power. The advent of modern technology means that the most power-hungry are more easily able to communicate and potentially co-operate with each other to further each individual's (either single person or body politic) ends. The nature of power, though, is such that there will be disagreements and so on so that the good of the collective is hijacked in the individual's lust for power.

It's interesting to speculate about an orchestrated decline in Christianity. Is there a decline (in this country)? It's only relatively recently that people weren't forced to attend church on pain of fines or social disapproval. Despite attendance being voluntary, the evangelical churches seem to be doing well and, apparently, the Catholic church has seen a record number of men enrolling in the past year in seminaries. It strikes me that the decline amounts to the UK establishment no longer using the Church as an overt tool of social control and, like the antismoking bunch, a small number of highly vocal and visible people, like Dawkins, astroturfing.

Jay

“I don't believe in grand conspiracy either. I think it's merely that human beings are social animals who realise that working as a group is advantageous. Our nature is such, however, that within each group, be it the parish council or the EU, there are individuals who crave power. The advent of modern technology means that the most power-hungry are more easily able to communicate and potentially co-operate with each other to further each individual's (either single person or body politic) ends. The nature of power, though, is such that there will be disagreements and so on so that the good of the collective is hijacked in the individual's lust for power.”

I think that’s a very good way of looking at things. Hey, you should write a book starting from this premise, because I think that a lot of what is talked about re the NWO, the global elite, the hidden agendas to many social “movements” etc etc is factually correct (or at least, is not as factually incorrect as the sceptics would like to believe), but that most writers on the subject get sidetracked (and often switch many of their readers off) by trying to offer reasons why these things are happening. So they get into alien theories, spiritual-vibration theories and other-dimension theories etc etc. Never have I read one which simply says “this is the nastier side of some people’s natures, and if we don’t remain aware of it, and guard against it, these people are going to end up running things.”

Which, when you think about it, is much easier for people to accept and get their heads round than the idea that they’re actually a bunch of extra-terrestrials who have been secretly plotting to take over humanity, body-snatchers-style, for the last few centuries. And even if the spiritual/alien/fourth-dimension stuff is correct (and who am I to categorically refute it?), I believe that the power-mad side of human nature has played a huge role in bringing about the ghastly state of the world today, whether at the behest of the Men from Mars or just for its own selfish sake.

Go on – write that book!

the individual's lust for power.

I've often heard of this, but it rather puzzles me. Somehow or other, I don't find myself craving this power. That is, I don't seem to want power for its own sake. Influence, yes, but that's not the same as power.

And, looking at the people I'm up against, I don't really believe that they want power for its own sake. I think that most of them, maybe even all of them, genuinely think they're working for a better world. A world, for example, from which the purposeless and self-destructive habit of smoking tobacco (or smoking anything at all) has been extirpated, and we can all breathe fresh air and be happy. And a world in which the state, in its wisdom, distributes wealth from each according to his ability to each according to his need.

But maybe I'm mistaken.

Frank

I've been trying to understand this, but its against my nature, so I'm having difficulty.

Why nasty guys rule and nice guys let them
http://www.newstatesman.com/200308110011

The Trap
What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom .PART 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5376212150896990926#

"The series consists of three one-hour programmes which explore the concept and definition of freedom, specifically, "how a simplistic model of human beings as self-seeking, almost robotic, creatures led to today's idea of freedom"

"The programme traces the development of game theory with particular reference to the work of John Nash, who believed that all humans were inherently suspicious and selfish creatures that strategised constantly.
Using this as his first premise, Nash constructed logically consistent and mathematically verifiable models, for which he won the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics.
He invented system games reflecting his beliefs about human behaviour, including one he called "F*** Your Buddy" (later published as "So Long Sucker"), in which the only way to win was to betray your playing partner, and it is from this game that the episode's title is taken.
These games were internally coherent and worked correctly as long as the players obeyed the ground rules that they should behave selfishly and try to outwit their opponents, but when RAND's analysts tried the games on their own secretaries, they instead chose not to betray each other, but to cooperate every time.

This did not, in the eyes of the analysts, discredit the models, but instead proved that the secretaries were unfit subjects.
What was not known at the time was that Nash was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, and, as a result, was deeply suspicious of everyone around him—including his colleagues—and was convinced that many were involved in conspiracies against him. It was this mistaken belief that led to his view of people as a whole that formed the basis for his theories"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trap_%28television_documentary_series

Game theory and cigarettes
http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2009/12/game-theory-and-cigarettes.html

The inertia of self-regulation: a game-theoretic approach to reducing passive smoking in restaurants.

"Using plausible assumptions about the net costs of unilaterally introducing smoking restrictions, what makes good sense for society as a whole is likely to be the least profitable option for an individual operator acting alone.

Operators find themselves in the classic prisoner's dilemma. If the aim of policy is to restrict smoking in public places in order to protect the health of employees then game-theory predicts that public health legislation banning smoking in enclosed places will be more effective than self-regulation and reliance on the duty of care."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11005396

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

If they are still using models of "human beings as self-seeking, almost robotic, creatures" created by a paranoid schizophrenic, when the ban came in they will not have expected the way we all started co-operating with each other.

I also suggest that they may be expecting us to turn on the other groups targeted for denormalisation in an attempt to deflect attention from us.

Rose

"I also suggest that they may be expecting us to turn on the other groups targeted for denormalisation in an attempt to deflect attention from us."

I do think that in that respect they have been proved right. It dismays me to see so many comments on so many forums and sites saying "What about drinkers? They cause more problems than us!" or "What about cars? They should be looking at the damage they do to other people and the environment!" I can understand how tempting it might be for smokers to want to hand over the baton of persecution to some other group - we have, after all, borne it for far longer than pretty much any other "modern" target group to date - but I think it's short-sighted to demand the same kind of treatment to another group just because it's another group - that just makes further erosion of personal liberty easier for the ones doing the eroding. Notwithstanding the lack of support which non-smoking drinkers (or car drivers, or obese people, for that matter) have historically shown to smokers, I think it's only by standing together and challenging newly-thought-up prejudices as they emerge, as non-members of a targeted group, that the prohibitionists amongst us can be stopped.


Slim-ish teetotaller, ready and waiting.


I've done a lot of the research already.

Alcohol
http://www.forces.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=363&t=1633
Obesity
http://www.forces.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=363&t=2570

Let's prove the blighters wrong.

Rose

Frank.

I hope that you do not mind me posting this. It may be a bit off topic - I am not sure, but it is connected. I have also posted it on LI, DP and Taking Liberties. (By the way, I seem to be 'persona non grata' on TL at the moment!)

What has motivated me in respect of the post below has been the BLUSTER of ASH and co about COSTS. The reality is that costs only matter in respect of inanimate things (as you will be aware). ASH and co want the 'body politic' to be regarded as 'things', to be deprived of the their pleasures in the interests of ...what? The NHS? Tobacco Control? What?
Anyway, here goes:

""There are two overriding principles involved, and if we understand these principles, Tobacco Control collapses.

Principle one is that people who enjoy tobacco can do so, if they so wish. All the legal arguments about, “I did not know how harmful smoking was and the tobacco companies knew about the harm and did not tell me” are history. It is hardly possible for anyone to claim that they did not know about tobacco harm (if it is true). People can decide for themselves whether to smoke or not.

Principle two is that second hand smoke is harmless (in normal circumstances). But this idea is not just a theoretical idea – it is a matter of fact. I would defy any ASH person to find any harm either to those people with whom I have associated, over the years, as a result of the fact that I have smoked in their presence, or, indeed (and this is more pertinent), any harm to my children, in whose presence I have smoked day after day for the last forty years.

Thus we see that Tobacco Control is all bluster. It really is the most incomprehensible idea that the WHO’s Convention on Tobacco Control (or whatever it is called) did not call for the extermination of the tobacco plant. All their submissions regarding the harm of tobacco can only lead to that conclusion.

There is a massive organisation which is dedicated to eradicating the harm of tobacco, but not one of them advocates the extermination of the tobacco plant. There have been masses of studies about tobacco harm, but I have yet to see ONE which recommends the extermination of the tobacco plant.

This is not true of the poppy plant.

The Government has a serious problem. Tobacco Control has such a stranglehold on the Department of Health, and is so powerful, that the Government cannot do anything about it. Pity the poor politicians who have to make decisions about matters that they know little about when confronted with the demands of Tobacco Control.

And yet, there is an answer. And it is very simple.

The answer is to move Tobacco Control out of the Health Dept. As I understand it, that is what the Irish Government have decided to do (more or less). When one thinks about it, the proper place for Tobacco Control is in the Health and Safety Dept, but there are also Business repercussion.

Moving Tobacco Control out of the Health Dept will, in one stroke, do away with the stranglehold that Tobacco Control has on the Health Dept, and cut millions and millions of pounds of costs. Of course, it would be critically important to do away with all the non-jobs involved. Ash and co can get funds from wherever they want, but not from the public purse, and that includes CRUK and BHF.

It is simple.""

Do you not think that 'Tobacco Control' has become so self-important that it thinks that it is all powerful? That it can dictate to Government? I do. When Liam Donaldson said to the Government, "If you do not do as I say, I will resign", the implications were obvious, ie, that Tobacco Control is all powerful and cannot be denied.

Does Clegg understand this? I doubt it.





Do you not think that 'Tobacco Control' has become so self-important that it thinks that it is all powerful? That it can dictate to Government? I do. When Liam Donaldson said to the Government, "If you do not do as I say, I will resign", the implications were obvious, ie, that Tobacco Control is all powerful and cannot be denied.

It was indeed puzzling that Liam Donaldson threatened to resign. What is the threat in this? One CMO goes, and another one replaces him. I didn't really understand it.

But it reminds me of the day in November 2004 when I first became concerned about all this when I read Sir Charles George, president of the BMA and BHF, calling on the government to introduce a complete smoking ban, and I wondered "Who the hell does he think he is?"

Frank

  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account