Sunday, 2 May 2010


Been out for Smoky-Drinky so it's a short one.

Here is a total moron trying to justify the Brown Gorgon's dismissal of a Labour supporter as 'bigot', while here is the old lady herself being rather more reasonable than any current Labour drone about the situation.

As for the Gorgon, Subrosa has something that really needs a wide audience. Especially among those who think they are voting for a Labour party. That is getting printed for the next Smoky-Drinky.

There has been much hoo-ha over a music video by MIA, which shows ginger people being rounded up and shot or blown up. The Ginger Alliance is furious. MIA says she wanted to demonstrate that picking on people because of one attribute is wrong and that the same thing goes unnoticed for other ethnics.

Should have gone to Smokesavers. If she had done the same thing with smokers, drinkers or fat people, there would have been no outcry at all. And that would have made the point she was trying to make far more eloquently than the video she made.

She doesn't get it either.

Right. Sleep time. Work tomorrow - I know it's a bank holiday weekend but I am not a bank. So I'm working. More info on Smoky-Drinky tomorrow.


Chief_Sceptic said...

" Ian Dunt " - Complete Cunt ...

Mr A said...

Indeed, as well as the wholly ethically abhorrent smoking ban, the bar on smokers adopting children etc etc I lost a £200 contract this week. For that I interview people in their home for a couple of hours (won't go into any more detail as I'm genuinely concerned about losing my job and being persecuted). The woman I was to interview insisted that she not be seen by a smoker. Not, "No smoking allowed in my house" but "I won't allow a smoker to enter my house to do his job."

This was somehow seen as pefectly acceptable and lost me that morning's work. I'd like to have seen the reaction if she had said, "No blacks." Or to tie in even better with the analogy, "No gays." (After all, I'm sure a gay interveiwer would abstain from buggary in her home much as I would abstain from smoking). After all, it's her house. But to say "No smokers." I cant describe my disgust.

This is what the ban and denormalisation have brought us to. Fuck smoking in pubs. It's gone betond that. It's about Nazism, pure and simple, and those MPs who voted for it should hang their heads in shame.

Incidentally, when watching the news keep an eye open for how many people are assaulted, raped or murdered OUTSIDE pubs. It's never reported as being "Someone killed by smoking ban" obviously, but just keep an eye open for it, at the number of people who are assaulted outside pubs, not at closing time, but at 8 in the evening or half nine or (and with no link made of course), "as they had a cigarette." Last month we saw a German tourist raped and a gay squaddy murdered as he was forced to stand in the street outside a gay bar (where are Stonewall in all this?). My own second cousin was murdered outside a pub as she had a fag. A random nutter took a liking to her, followed her outside the pub and killed her. Gaining this nutter's attentions would have happened anyway, but pre 2007 she would never have been separated from her husband and friends to allow the nutter the chance to attack.

Keep your eyes open for this unreported aspect of various attacks. You'll be shocked. Fuck the pubs - they've done nothing to fight it. But people are dying and discrimination and hate-filled prejudice is growing, because of this piece of legislation that is inspired purely by hate and spite.

I will fight it until the day I die. And shame on Cameron and the like who will do nothing to change it.

Anonymous said...

Couldn't agree more, Mr A. Years ago I came across a rabid antismoker whose house I had to visit. With very bad grace she invited me in and proceeded to tell me that she was allergic to smoking and that I was "very obviously a smoker" (even now I remember her words!) When I pointed out that I wasn't smoking, she said that she could smell it and wrinkled her nose in distaste. She made me feel like dirt. These days, third hand smoke will be a gift to her as she stands atop the moral high ground with lips pursed in righteous indignation, however, these days, being a lot angrier, I'd knock her off her pedestal.

I've been saying since the ban came in that it is immoral and irresponsible for HMG to have set about demonising smokers. How else are people going to react when the DOH runs TV ads which say that smokers are, in effect, murderers?


Mr A said...

Indeed. That nutter Glantz, apart from pushing the 3rd hand smoke lie has also been quoted as saying "Smokers are toxic." Yes, we actually exude poison (much like Glantz....), so one can only wonder what measures they will call for. Godwin's law doesn't seem so appropriate now when calling these people Nazis, does it?

The worst thing of course, is so pervasive is their denormalisation tactic that even I, someone who hates these fascists with every cell in my body, is not immune to their propaganda. Why? Because I too now see myself as "a smoker." Yes, in 2007 I was a graduate, a professional, a friend to many, someone who liked a laugh. Oh, and I happened to smoke. Now I'm a smoker. I'm defined by that one thing. And sadly, I too define myself by that one, tiny aspect of myself. I see myself as a persecuted minority, I define myself by that one thing.

Bastards. I can only hope that History tells us that these things come in cycles, that there will be a swing back to normality, tolerance, liberalism. But with our politicians paid off or too stupid to see what's happening, with the media seemingly gagged, even to the point of wiping comments from articles on their websites, with the whole thing feeding on people's intolerance (I am astounded when even self-confessed libertarians proclaim their support at the ban because they don't like having to wash themselves every day) and with no "friendly" entity (like the Russians (!) who did their bit in exposing the Climate Change myth with the CRU emails) I just can't see it ever changing. I always thought market forces would do the trick, but they seem happy to let the job losses and loss of tax revenues rack up. The other day I saw that in some cities, primarily in deprived areas, over a third of pubs have now closed. Yet these are the areas where the monkeys will continue to vote Labour. We should be rioting in the streets yet these people are still voting them in because the media have told them that the Conservatives are "toffs." And the Conservatives seem happy to back the far more contentious issue of fox hunting, while open "denormalisation" is deliberately perpetrated on millions of people, and jobs continue to be lost by the thousand.

The world's gone mad....

Edgar said...

Mr A. Libertarianism is about maximum freedom. If that stupid woman wants to ban you from her house, then a Libertarian would support her in that.

The other side of the coin of reversing the ban on smoking in pubs is to allow publicans who want to continue smoke-free to do that.

In my opinion, people who demand 'tolerance' are sharing a basket with those who preach its opposite.

Mr A said...

True. And in that respect I agree with you. I think it's entirely up to her who she lets into her house.... IN A PERFECT WORLD.

But given that her denying people of different races, sexes, disabilities etc etc to enter her house is so utterly fantastical and unlikely to happen that in these PC times it is difficult to even contemplate, I was annoyed that it seemed so very acceptable to bar me entry one the grounds of being a smoker. Where are my legal protections against discrimination? Or to go back to Leg Iron's original post, where are ginger's protection? It's no laughing matter - many ginger kids are bullied to the point of near suicide because it's acceptable, almost expected, to pick on gingers.

But then, of course, this is the folly of Political Correctness and why Libertarianism is the answer. When each little group gets special treatment others are, in turn, hard done by and in turn expect their own protections leading to ridiculous hypocrisies like it's illegal to deny a gay man entry but fine to deny a smoker; it's "socially unacceptable" to mock someone for one genetic trait, like Down's Syndrome, but it's fine to mock another, like baldness; it's "insensitive" to take the piss out of people's appearance if they have one arm but it's fine to mock their appearance if they're fat or ginger.

Of course, the best way is just to say people are people and we're all responsible for ourselves. If she wants to deny me entry to her house then fine. But then, if my landlord wants to let me smoke in his pub (and indeed, even bar her from entering as she is an anti-smoker) then again, fine. However, we live in a twisted world where some people have no rights and others have lots.

All I was saying was that while we live in such a "tolerant" world such tolerance should be extended to all - as a concept, not a tickbox list of who it is or isn't right to be tolerant to.

opinions powered by