#FreeTobaccoTacticss

Unsatisfied with bullying their way into our cars yesterday, the tobacco control industry's zealots -- this would be ASH, Bath University's Tobacco Control Research Group, CRUK, TobaccoFreeFutures, Fresh Northeast, et al -- are now attempting to bully, harass and censor the @TobaccoTacticss parody account on Twitter. It is a blatant attack on protected free speech. It's fucking bullshit. If you're on Twitter, please join in with the #FreeTobaccoTacticss hashtag and don't let these hateful bastards destroy any more of our liberties and freedoms.

Because the only reason why this shit happens is because we can't be bothered to fight back. If we let them do this to us without a fight, it's our fault.

PS: This is my 300th blog post.

PPS: Yes, I know I haven't blogged in over half of a year.

PPPS:  There will be another blog post in a few weeks' time.

PPPPS:  God damn it, stop letting these arseholes push us around.

Renormalise

Today is 31 May, 2013. It is "World No Tobacco Day."  Fuck 'em.

For me, today was a very, very good Tobacco Day.  The snus fairy delivered fresh snus so that I can use it when I travel to the States in two weeks' time.  You might recall that I like to travel with snus when flying, because flying sucks these days.

By complete coincidence, the hand-rolling tobacco fairy visited today as well, and "magically" I now have a gorgeous supply of 50g pouches of Belgian-bought Golden Virginia, thus legally starving the UK of the tobacco duty they so desperately want from smokers.  Because why would you pay up to sixteen or seventeen quid for a 50g pouch that you can buy for only five euros in Belgium?

This is the consequence of raising the duty on tobacco so high to "nudge" me to quit smoking; this is the consequence of the tobacco control industry's failed initiatives and legislation to "denormalise" smoking.  I haven't quit. I'm not going to quit (unless the anti-smokers take me up on my offer -- but they won't, because they need that money to figure out why everything they've ever done has failed to reduce smoking rates and likely increased them). I'm simply going to source my tobacco from a less oppressive regime. And when I can no longer do that for whatever reason, then I'll grow my own.  And if they try to make growing your own tobacco illegal, such as they do with cannabis (another massive government failure), then I suppose I will become a criminal.

More likely, I'll just leave the UK to a more favourable clime.

So, how's that for World No Tobacco Day?  Fuck 'em. Fuck all and every last one of those bastards.  Let us all now raise a two-fingered salute (or one-finger if you prefer to give these nazis the bird) to every hateful, socialist, piece of fucking shit that works in tobacco control:  you are all -- to every last man and woman --  evil, massive cunts.  I hope you all live forever.

What else should we do?

Well, Smoking Hot from the Nothing 2 Declare blog sent me a short missive suggesting that we make a video of smokers enjoying themselves, you know ... happy, partying, enjoying their life as we try to do best.  I think it's a great idea, so I agreed to make a video like this.  But we need your help to do it.  Actually, we need your photos and/or videos of you smoking to do it.

What do you think? Who wants to be infamous?  Want to be in a video that simultaneously shows how awesome we are and gives nanny two fingers?   If you do, then great!  But there's a catch.  It's a pesky legal thing, but an absolutely necessary legal thing.  OK, it's a bit more than one legal thing. And yes, it's a huge pain but it has to be done this way.  Let me explain by telling you what we're looking for exactly.

1.  You must own the photos/videos that you want me to put in the video.  No exceptions. Do not send me other people's photos/videos or those you found on-line, don't send me your friends' photos, don't send me the photos that your daughter-in-law took, and definitely don't send me the photos you found on Xhamster or any other amateur upload site.  I cannot use them unless they, the copyright owners, send them to me, and I will certainly check all photos to see if they exist elsewhere.  The photos and vids must be yours.  So if someone you know has photos of you smoking, then you need to ask them to send them to me.

2.  You must specifically agree to allow me to use the photos/videos in respect of this video we're making.  In effect, you are giving me an indefinite, non-exclusive, royalty-free licence to use the photos for only the video.  If you do not agree to those terms, then I cannot use your photos.  Note:  YOU still own your photos and vids, the copyrights, and everything. You're just giving me permission to use them for the video only, which will be released for free and will never make a penny.  So don't panic about these legal terms. Legal terms are designed to make the average person baulk and run away to give solicitors, lawyers and other attorneys an advantage on this stuff. To take your money.

3.  The people in your photos or vids, if they are not you, must also agree to have their likeness used in the video.  So you will need to obtain their permission as well.  I will need written confirmation from each person depicted in the photos or vids, for each individual photo or vid you submit.  Yes, I know this is a pain. I will do my best to make it as easy as possible for you by creating and providing a template to combine multiple submissions into one thing.

4.  Both the photographer and the people (models) in the photos or vids absolutely must agree to waive their "moral rights" in respect of using the photos for this video only.  What does this mean?  Well, it means that once you give me a licence to use the photos and I create the video, you cannot at some future date force me to take your photos out of the finished video because you had a change of heart about images of you smoking appearing on-line.  Essentially, it's a safety clause for me, the licensee. I will not use any photo where the moral rights have not been specifically waived. Period.

5.  Photos should be at least 800 x 600.  No smaller than that, please.  Larger is much better.  1200 x 762 or higher would be ideal, because the video will be in high-definition. Super massive photos that are so large as to have their own gravitational pull are also good.

And that's it.  In summary:

- You must own the photos/vids
- You agree to licence the photos/vids to me for use in the video
- The models in your photos/vids must also agree -- (if they don't, or they are unable to, then I can blur their image, but really... that's crap, and I don't want to have to do that, and to be fair I probably won't use the image. People who are dead cannot provide permission so they are an exception. I can use images of dead folk, but only as long as you're the owner of the photo.)
- Both the photographer (the copyright owner / licensor) and the models depicted in the photos agree to waive their "moral rights" in respect of these photos for this video.
- No tiny pics  -- photos should be at least 800 x 600.

Simple. Right?  Yeah?  Hello...  er... Where did everybody go?

Anyway.  We want cheerful photos. Fun and funny photos. Real photos of you. Sexy photos are good, too. Parties. Raves. Defying smoking bans. Whatever! Also, you can make your own artwork rather than take photos.  For example, see the stuff that Lawson Narse has made. Same legal stuff applies to your artwork -- DO NOT USE anybody's copyrighted stuff to create your artwork and drawings.  There is lots of free public domain stuff out there, though. Just be careful and make sure you can use things. In some cases, attribution may be required if you use someone else's stuff. 

Anything that shows smokers  enjoying themselves and that smoking is NORMAL is absolutely ideal. 

Because smoking is absolutely fucking normal.  That's why these public health fuckholes are so desperate to "de-normalise" something that is normal for a significant percentage (45% maybe?) of people all over the world. So on World No Tobacco Day, I say, "Fuck 'em!"  And so should you, if you want to do that. We'll counter their evil, fascist, Hitler-inspired denormalisation regime with our own liberty and freedom renormalisation video.  It's going to fucking rock!

Unless nobody sends in photos. Then it's going to suck ass.  So we need your help.

Oh, there's just one more thing. We need to do this sensibly and make it a bit easier on me. So I'm going to ask you to upload the photos to an on-line site somewhere of your choice.  I would recommend Imgur.com or even using your Google Drive account and sharing the pictures through that.  I don't want to receive any actual photos/images by e-mail. And there is no guarantee that your photo(s) will be used.

Before we go whole-hog on this idea, let me know what you think in the comments, or e-mail with concerns, suggestions, or whatever. I'm thinking that once it's kicked off properly, we'll allow for about 30 days for submissions.  And um, yeah... that's the awesome idea that Smoking Hot came up with and of course I ruined with all of this legal bullshit.  But needs must.

Let me know, please.

Yours sincerely,
Jay

P.S.:  Huge thanks to everybody who shared the last video "The Root of All Evil".  Much appreciated. If you didn't share it, why the fuck not?

P.P.S:  I may request tiny pieces of your souls for the video too, at my discretion.  But that will probably be optional.

Dangerous Pro-Smoking Smartphones

The arrogance of the tobacco control industry is stunning and it shines through magnificently in this piece in the Conversation (the favoured op-ed for prohibitionists down under) called "No more cigarette advertising? Never mind, there’s an app for that."

Co-authored by The Root of All Evil's minion Becky Freeman, this short article -- that required three people to write a paltry 628 words between them -- complains about smartphone applications that let users decorate their screens with images of cigarette brand logos.  Since tobacco companies are no longer able to put their logos and shiny trade marks on a packet of fags in Australia, or indeed on anything these days, Mrs Freeman et al are worried that the iPhone has become the next dangerous weapon wielded by the ever-clever marketing executives in tobacco companies:

Public health officials and governments have never been able to keep up with determined and inspired cigarette advertising executives.

This bold statement feigning helplessness is certainly untrue.  The WHO, Public Health zealots and vapid politicians the world over have been busier than ever in closing any so-called advertising loopholes that the Big Bad Tobacco companies have insidiously exploited to ensnare unsuspecting seven-year-olds, including but not limited to tiny letters on a cigarette paper that read "ESC."  So something must be done.

Many countries which have enacted tobacco advertising bans state that they also include all forms of Internet-based advertising. But, there is very little evidence on whether or how well these sorts of provisions are actually being enforced. Australia’s recently enacted ban of online tobacco advertising has yet to be tested.

Given the nature of the Internet, the ability for users to surf via proxies that easily bypass any state-controlled censorship measures and blacklists, it is nigh impossible to regulate the content that appears on the web.  How do you stop people from visiting an American web site that has a gorgeous and temptation-laden iconic image of a packet of Marlboro Reds on display?  How do you stop ordinary smartphone users from downloading or sharing smartphone applications over peer-to-peer file sharing networks?  How best can you can control what you do not want people to see in the digital age?

Equally important, how do you define "advertising"?

Because the anti-smoker True Believers have legislated that any kind of trade mark or logo is de facto advertising. To them, this must mean that anything that is capable of displaying a wicked cigarette brand logo is a de facto advertising medium that must be controlled in order to save billions of lives from the "tobacco epidemic." And who should be the ones in control? Yep, that's right: Public Health nutjobs.

Research on internet content regulation has failed to address the global nature of the online world, so international collaboration on internet regulation is imperative. The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control is an ideal mechanism to exchange analysis and information on emerging technologies and best practices for online tobacco advertising bans.

Well that's a nice plug for the FCTC.  In fact, it occurs to me that this article by Freeman et al is nothing more than advertising their hate campaign to like-minded prohibitionist zealots. For they also write: "Indeed, app stores can also be a fantastic resource for health promoting activities."

I like to imagine that Becky Freeman and Simon Chapman come up with these ideas whilst sitting in their office at Sydney University, drinking cheap Oyster Bay wine and musing how clever they all are that they alone can save the world from itself. The all important save the world routine in order to garner more funds for your research.  I suppose that compared to Chapman's record-breaking 55-page Curriculum Vitae, Mrs Freeman has a bit more work to do to catch up.  Don't forget to add how many Twitter followers you have, Becky.

Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously?

The article makes one very interesting point, though.  If indeed the smartphone applications are not authorised by tobacco companies, then why haven't the tobacco companies "taken any steps to prevent app developers from abusing their trademark?"  It's a good and fair question to ask.

I suspect that the answers to that are likely to be:

A) The companies did not know about them until about a week ago when Twitter was alight with "OMG!!!! There are pro-smoking smartphone apps which will make our children try smoking! Call the POLICE!!!!" tweets;

B) Tobacco companies are taking action against them but nobody bothered to ask them if they were;

C) Nobody considers that legal actions, such as defending against trade mark infringements, take an extraordinary amount of time to resolve. They do not happen overnight.  Nor has anyone asked the tobacco companies how many cases of improper trade mark use and infringement they have already dealt with this year.  I would bet the figure is quite substantial.

Just so we're all clear, particularly for those in Australia, this is advertising:

An example of advertising for your ease of reference
Source: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1973-Sexy-Redhead-Woman-Camel-Cigarettes-Print-Ad-/390335579635

And this is a phone with an image of a cigarette, which is not advertising:

Is this really a pro-smoking picture? If you're Australian, you bet it is! Source: theage.com.au

For an alternate viewpoint on this matter, feel free to check out this article by Annabel Crabb.

I suppose we can take small comfort in the knowledge that Freeman et al have said "There is no suggestion that anyone be prevented from distributing pro-smoking content online [...]," except when you read between the lines of that rhetoric, we see most clearly that the evil machinations of the WHO by dint of the FCTC will do precisely that ... if we let them.

Free Speech Sense From Across The Pond

I'm feeling a bit uninspired lately and others are covering recent events quite well enough.  So, today I'd like to highlight that there are two articles over at Popehat written yesterday and today that I think are worth reading.

The first one is called Confronting Junk Science: Keep Calm And Carry On, and dare I say that Ken, who is American, has a better appreciation for Britain's lack of freedom of speech than perhaps a truly sad majority of Britons? For instance:

In the United Kingdom, you have an arena with a level of protection for free speech that — and I say this out of love, with a debt of gratitude for my common law heritage and the language I love — sucks donkey balls. It sucks so badly that we've had to pass laws specifically providing that your ludicrous defamation judgments usually aren't enforceable here. My point is this: to the extent you employ censorious measures, you can expect them to be turned against you later by your foes, with the cooperation of your largely censorship-indifferent government. Do not take up any weapon you don't want used against you.

The whole post is awesome and truly destroys the arguments that some people's views aren't worth hearing from.  Public health zealots, including the entirety of the WHO, believe that only some people should be allowed to present a viewpoint to the public, and those zealots will go to great lengths to demonise anyone who disagrees with them.

And when you've finished that blog post, you should consider reading the next blog post, which is Subjectivity Is Slippier Than Any Slope.  (Yes, that slippery slope we've all been warning you about, well it can be applied to everything people don't like, which is why we keep warning you about it.) It is equally awesome, and covers the salient dangers of making exceptions to free speech.  Ken writes: 

But there's a third bucket of free speech exceptions — and it's slippier than the slippery slope. The third bucket contains arguments that speech should be illegal when it offends or upsets people. The slippery slope metaphor is inadequate to capture the danger of the contents of this bucket, because you don't need to posit the subjective decisions of future litigants and judges and prosecutors and jurors. The subjectivity is already build in to the model.

I truly wish someone would clone him and then export about a million Kens over here, because we need more voices to stand up for free speech and civil liberties, and far fewer "censorious douchebags" (as Ken would call them) in our government and public health bodies.

I don't always agree with everything Ken writes, but he always educates and entertains me regardless.  I also have no idea how Ken feels about smoking, smokers, or specifically about whether tobacco companies should be able to use a shiny trade mark on their packs. Based on Ken's views in all of the stuff I have read from him, I really do not think I need to ask.

A Little More Hypocrisy, If You Don't Mind

Last night on Twitter, I saw this campaign mentioned which is about reforming Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act, that wacky and abused British law that says you can be arrested if you possibly disturb, upset, or offend someone.  It's called Reform Section 5 - Feel Free to Insult Me.

Naturally, I support the right to free speech, even offensive speech.  Do people really need to arrested for tweeting dumb-ass comments? Even despicable racist comments?  I hardly think so. Nobody has the right to not be offended.  Anyway, whilst perusing the campaign's site, I clicked through to its supporters page, as you do, and was dismayed to see that at least two MPs listed as supporting this reform 5 campaign are also known supporters of plain packaging. 

Stop. Hold up a moment, bruv, I said to myself.

We all know that proponents for plain packaging have dressed it up as a Public Health issue, to protect the gullible children and women, but what it really is about is whether tobacco companies have the right to package their products in the manner of their choosing. It's about speech. Free speech.

Now you can argue all you like that packaging is not a matter for free speech but I really don't see a difference.  Speech takes on many forms. A photo. A drawing. Verbal and written communication. A logo or trade mark.  A middle finger, or two fingers... that is speech.  A raised eyebrow or a frown ... that is also speech. Dropping trousers, bending over and mooning someone ... yeah, that's speech, too.  Anything that conveys an idea to another must be considered as speech. A packet of cigarettes, even.  You don't have to like it.

But it is all speech. In a truly free society, all speech must be protected.

Plain packaging, however, deliberately aims to suppress free speech for a particular commodity.  It additionally aims to suppress a consumer's ability to identify with that form of speech, if that consumer chooses to do so. We might call that brand identity. So plain packaging interferes with my ability to freely express myself by using a particular product, in much the same way that computer users identify as PC or Apple.

So about those MPs.  Have you met Fiona Bruce MP?  She appears on our Sheep-Minions page as a supporter of plain packaging. Fiona Bruce is also a hypocrite for supporting the Reform 5 campaign. She is quoted here on the supporters page as saying:

"I support the Reform Section 5 campaign because freedom of speech is one of the most precious – and fundamental – elements of a free society. Lose that and you risk losing a whole lot more."

Which is all well and good, but how on earth can she hold that view whilst simultaneously saying that tobacco companies and consumers of tobacco products do not have a right to free speech?  This is utterly hypocritical.

So I really cannot see how Fiona Bruce can glom onto a campaign espousing the virtues -- no, the right to freedom of speech for all if she's so willing to restrict the speech of certain others that she disagrees with.  But isn't that always the way? 

We also note that Sheep-Minion Caroline Lucas MP also appears as a supporter of the Reform Section 5 campaign.

No doubt there are many more lurking out there, pretending to care about free speech, so long as the speaker suits them, and it suits their political careers.

This is why I want to Vote Them All Out.  Let's ensure we do not forget these two hypocrites.

Meanwhile, if you want to view the Reform 5 campaign's latest video, you can watch it here. It's got music and everything.

Brief Update on The House Plain Packs Cover

Last week I wrote a piece titled "What Moans May Come" in which I attempted to predict the tobacco control industry's response to The House magazine plain packs cover.  I regret that I didn't get all of my predictions right (for instance I haven't seen any press releases from CRUK or ASH), but some of it I did predict correctly. Well, as some musicians are fond of saying: it was close enough for jazz.

With a hat tip to the delightfully spoofy Tobacco Tactics account on Twitter, we now know via the University of Bath's tobacco tactics wiki that Stephen Williams MP fired off a letter to the publishers and moaned.  (I do not have a copy of that letter, nor do I have the response from the publisher, unfortunately.  If anyone does, please get in touch.)  It is curious that the only place this information appears is on the wiki. It is not on Williams's blog. It is not anywhere but on the wiki.  So we will have to take the wiki at face value and assume the information about the letter is correct. And because the wiki tends to change often, I've screen captured it as it stands now:

You can read the full wiki article here.

But I just love this line from the wiki:

By allowing Imperial Tobacco to include an ad such as this, The House magazine has enabled Imperial Tobacco to promote its anti-plain packaging agenda to the readership of The House, i.e. MPs.

This is how the tobacco control industry thinks and acts.  They believe that only they are allowed to promote their agendas of hate against smokers and those who would support the cause of liberty. Anyone else who disagrees with them and their tactics must not be heard from, and anyone who dares speak to speak out against tobacco control must be shouted down as stooges for Big Tobacco.  That strikes me as evil and totalitarian.

This is the bit about the letter that our very first Super Twat of the Month wrote to the publisher:

MP Stephen Williams wrote a letter to The House magazine, which suggested that a disclaimer should have been more prominently placed on the magazine cover and questioned why such a misleading advertorial was permitted in the publication at all, given that tobacco industry advertising is illegal in the UK. Gerry Murray, a publisher of The House magazine defended the inclusion such an advertisement by saying "Neither House magazine nor Dods operates a discriminative policy on who can and who cannot insert advocacy messages in the magazine. If they are within the laws of the land and the principles of common decency, in the interests of free speech we do not censor these messages. Whatever our personal views on smoking we cannot in all fairness exclude the tobacco lobby from the pages of the magazine. There lies a road to perdition, where would one stop?" 

Indeed, where would one stop on this road to perdition?

Furthermore, Stephen Williams MP could not resist a jab about the cover during a committee's discussion on clause 185 of the Finance bill in respect of duty on tobacco products.  Funnily enough, MP Peter Bone essentially told Williams to get stuffed for being off-topic, and then Williams was silent for the rest of the meeting.  I like to imagine Williams sulking like a three-year-old who just had his lolly taken away.  Have a look:

So that's the update. It's early days however. We might see more from the tobacco control industry regarding this. We might not.  Again, if anyone has these copies of these letters between the publisher and Williams, please get in touch. For now, it seems only Bath University has access to the letters.

LunchGate: Argyll and Bute Council Bullies 9-Year-Old Girl

I'm calling this LunchGate.

(UPDATE - 13:54 - 15 June 2012:  Well that did not take long. According to the BBC (same link as above), the council has lifted the ban. So this blog thanks Roddy McCuish and Mike Russell for their common sense. Chalk one up for the good guys!  I am leaving the original post intact as a reminder of how not to go about responding to criticism.)

(UPDATE 2 - 15:16 - 15 June 2012:  The original pathetic justification linked below has been wiped from the council's page and replaced with a statement from Roddy McCuish.  Fortunately, while I didn't screen capture it, I have the original text saved and have added it to the end of this post.)

I have previously mentioned the NeverSeconds blog, where a bright nine-year-old girl has been posting up images of her school's lunches.  The blog went viral.  So what does Argyll and Bute council do?  They bully the girl and ban her taking any more photos, essentially banning her from blogging. 

Here is the council's pathetic justification:

Argyll and Bute Council wholly refutes the unwarranted attacks on its schools catering service which culminated in national press headlines which have led catering staff to fear for their jobs. The Council has directly avoided any criticism of anyone involved in the ‘never seconds’ blog for obvious reasons despite a strongly held view that the information presented in it misrepresented the options and choices available to pupils however this escalation means we had to act to protect staff from the distress and harm it was causing. In particular, the photographic images uploaded appear to only represent a fraction of the choices available to pupils, so a decision has been made by the council to stop photos being taken in the school canteen.

There have been discussions between senior council staff and Martha’s father however, despite an acknowledgement that the media coverage has produced these unwarranted attacks, he intimated that he would continue with the blog.

So, catering staff were in fear for their jobs because a little girl took photos of the paltry lunches they served to their students?  I think they were embarrassed by all the media attention and when the father wouldn't capitulate to their demands, they ban the girl from taking photos.  Rather than address the problem, let's blame it all on a nine-year-old girl with a camera. That's good council planning. Tossers. And I suppose it's easy for a council to bully a nine-year-old girl to silence her.

I must add that the school, to their credit, fully supported the girl.

This is a fucking disgrace to the free speech rights of everyone, but more importantly it's government attacking a nine-year-old which is even more disgraceful.  If this is your council, please make a complaint.

Argyll and Bute Council Almost Bullied This Little Girl!
Fortunately, they have now lifted their ban. We thank them for supporting free speech.

The original statement was:

“Statement on school meals from Argyll and Bute Council
Published Date:
15 Jun 2012 – 10:53
Argyll and Bute Council wholly refutes the unwarranted attacks on its schools catering service which culminated in national press headlines which have led catering staff to fear for their jobs. The Council has directly avoided any criticism of anyone involved in the ‘never seconds’ blog for obvious reasons despite a strongly held view that the information presented in it misrepresented the options and choices available to pupils however this escalation means we had to act to protect staff from the distress and harm it was causing. In particular, the photographic images uploaded appear to only represent a fraction of the choices available to pupils, so a decision has been made by the council to stop photos being taken in the school canteen.
There have been discussions between senior council staff and Martha’s father however, despite an acknowledgement that the media coverage has produced these unwarranted attacks, he intimated that he would continue with the blog.

The council has had no complaints for the last two years about the quality of school meals other than one from the Payne family received on 6 June and there have been no changes to the service on offer since the introduction of the blog.

Pupils have a daily choice of two meals from a menu which is designed with pupils, parents and teachers. Our summer menu is about to be launched and includes main course choices like meat or vegetarian lasagne served with carrots and garlic bread or chicken pie with puff pastry, mashed potato and mixed vegetables.
Pupils can choose from at least two meals every day. They pay £2 for two courses and this could be a starter and a main or a main and a desert. Each meal comes with milk or water. Pupils can have as much salad and bread as they want. Salad, vegetables, fruit, yoghurt and cheese options are available every day. These are standing options and are not a result of any changes in response to the blog site.

As part of the curriculum for excellence, pupils in all our schools are regularly taught about healthy eating and at lunch breaks staff encourage pupils to make good choices from what is on offer. We use a system called ‘Nutmeg’ to make sure everything is nutritionally balanced. Our staff also get nutrition awareness training so they know how to provide a good healthy meal. There is portion sized guidance which we adhere to and it is matched to the age of the child so they get the right amount of food. Second portions would mean too many calories for pupils.

In Lochgilphead Primary School we are piloting a new pre-ordering scheme which is designed to encourage class discussion around meal choices and also improves the accuracy of meal choices. The pupils use a touch screen to select their lunch option and the data is downloaded in the kitchen so they know how many portions of each meal are required. As they place their order, the pupils are given a coloured band which relates to their meal choice that day. They wear it during the morning, and at lunchtime they hand it to the catering assistant, who will give them the corresponding meal.

The council’s focus is now on supporting the school in the education of young people in Argyll and Bute.”

Defamation Bill 2012-13

The Justice Secretary Ken Clarke's Defamation Bill will have its second reading in Parliament today.  Even if you are not a web site operator, you should be extremely concerned about what this bill could do to your on-line privacy if it is enacted.  The bill is perhaps intended to effectively kill free speech and opinion on-line under the guise of protecting people's reputations.  The BBC reports that web site operators will be forced to reveal the IP addresses of those who comment on sites they visit if someone makes a defamation or libel claim against that comment (emphasis added):

"Website operators are in principle liable as publishers for everything that appears on their sites, even though the content is often determined by users," said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke.

 "But most operators are not in a position to know whether the material posted is defamatory or not and very often - faced with a complaint - they will immediately remove material.

"Our proposed approach will mean that website operators have a defence against libel as long as they identify the authors of allegedly defamatory material when requested to do so by a complainant."

Did you see that? In essence, comments that are only alleged to be defamatory will require that bloggers or web site operators pass on the IP addresses of the users making those comments.  Otherwise, the operator will be liable and prosecuted. Amnesty only if you comply with Big Government it seems.

So while this whole thing is dressed up as protection against on-line bullies and smear campaigns, is its true purpose meant to stifle free speech and opinion in the long run? If enough people are outed and prosecuted, then perhaps people will think twice before leaving an opinion on a blog or news site?

The United Kingdom has some of the worst free speech protections of any western democracy as it is. This bill could further reduce our free speech protections.  Well, we will have to see what is in the revised bill. The previous draft bill removed your right to a trial by jury.  Let us hope they amended that bit at the very least.

Censored in York

I meant to post about this sooner, but it slipped through the cracks for which I apologise; fortunately a tweet this morning reminded me of it. A little over a month ago, SadButMadLad (SBML) advised me that York Council had blacklisted and banned this site on its free public wi-fi near Guild Hall in York Centre.  He also sent this image as proof:

Since I am not one to leap to conclusions, I asked him to check to see if any other pro-tobacco blogs had been banned, along with any tobacco company web sites. SBML obliged and duly reported a day later that only my site had been blocked.  In his words:

Well I tried a number of blog links from Dick Puddlecote's and other than yours found no problems. I didn't check 100% as the signal strength was very low and kept dropping out but I checked the most obvious ones. I also checked a number of Philip Morris' sites and could access them without problem. I could get through to Tim Worstall's which I can't normally via my smartphone ([provider redacted]) unless I give age verification.

So, based on his checks, I suppose we can safely assume that "tobacco" is not the likely reason for the ban.  I should point out here that a) I have not yet asked York Council why my blog is banned or if they would unblock it upon request, and b) I strongly suspect that my site is auto-blocked by their child-protection software, perhaps due to language.  I do use very bad words sometimes. But then so do others. Again, looking at the image that SBML sent to me, it shows the reason as "Content of type: Pornography blocked - Content Filtering."  My site is certainly not porn, not even for smoking fetishists.  So, does the word "cunt" automatically equal pornography these days?  Or perhaps these words are flagged:  fuck, motherfucker, pussy, slag, bitch, hooker, whore, porn, tranny, gay, lesbian, bisexual, cocksucker, blowjob, cum, MILF, wank, wanker, etc., etc.  They are only words -- I don't find any of the words particularly dangerous or harmful. Do you?

It is odd that my blog had only been active for almost two weeks when it found itself blocked on York Council's wi-fi.  This seems awfully quick to me -- how often is their blacklist updated?  How is it updated?  Who is responsible for updating it?  I don't know.  I've done a very limited search on it, but I can't find anything apart from this in respect of York's library computers (emphasis added):

As you browse the internet at our libraries, you may occasionally find that some webpages have been blocked by our automatic filter.  The aim of this filter is to block illegal or harmful sites - it is not intended to be a barrier to any legitimate internet use.  With any automated system there are some mistakes, and we ask users to let us know if they come across a site which they believe has been blocked in error. 

All right, that seems fair enough - anyone can contact them and let them know a site is blocked incorrectly.  But what, precisely, is a harmful site?  How is that defined?  Who defines it?  Do the words listed above count as harmful? 

I suppose York Council does not want to be sued for providing access to porn or other "harmful content." There is the larger issue of unbridled censorship at play.  It is this idea that children need to be protected from "harmful content."  This is the same argument that plain packs supporters use -- children are harmed by graphics on a cigarette pack.  It's complete fucking bullshit.  All we have done is created a culture of fear, which leads to absurdities like this story.  Parents need to take back their responsibility for protecting their own children. The Nanny State cannot do it without destroying everyone's civil liberties, and it is harming your kids in a far greater measure than any creepy paedo could, or some random web site that uses bad words.  Censorship protects no one except for those who would seek to keep the truth from you. For a truly free society, we need to have it all out there for debate (and no, I'm not at all suggesting that kiddy porn is acceptable and should be out there -- there are always some limits to freedom, and no sane person would ever support sexually abusing young children), and parents need to monitor their own kids.

Right. So if you are out and about and accessing public wi-fi anywhere, and you discover that my site or someone else's is blocked, send them a message asking for it to be unblocked.  Do also feel free to let me know, copy me in, or tell me separately.  Perhaps I'll compile of list of "nannying fussbuckets" as SBML likes to call them. 

Takedown! (Minor Update)

Google via Blogger has deleted the below post due to "allegedly infringing content."  I had noticed that someone was searching for a particular URL on my site, and I didn't know why until now.  I cannot yet view the reason for the takedown (until Chilling Effects publishes it, and then I'll update this) nor do I have any means to challenge it as far as I can see.  It could have been a snippet of fairly-used text, or it may have been an image.  So for now the image will be removed, and the fair use text will remain.  Because you are allowed to quote small sections of a copyrighted text when used for criticism or educational purposes.

Now, I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but who would have reported this as a copyright violation?  My, my, I have no idea.  No idea at all. But I won't stand for this.  Having worked in IP for years, I know what is and what isn't acceptable.  I hereby give permission for everyone to copy this blog post and post it on theirs freely, without attribution or credit.  This post is now public domain and I waive all copyright, while maintaining my moral rights.

The Original Post:

Bruce Guthrie - Epic Hater

Bruce Guthrie is a twat.  I didn't even know who he was until today, but based on his opinion piece in Australia's National Times, he's definitely a dickhead like the Root of All Evil.  Bruce Guthrie is unhappy because smokers "get the best seats" outdoors at restaurants.  Seriously.  Fuckwits like this guy have forced us outside, and then they complain about it. We knew this would happen.  We knew once you banned smoking indoors, it was only a matter of time before people would clamour for an outdoor ban, or a ban in cars, or bans in your home.

So what does Bruce Guthrie have to say?

 Of course, individual restaurateurs can institute bans and some have. Then again, they could simply take up the suggestion put forward by a tweeter this week: smokers should be made to sit inside at restaurants on the sort of balmy days we've been enjoying and outside in chilly winters. That way, non-smokers would always get the best seats.

So, here we see precisely the problem at hand.  Non-smokers are more important than smokers.  Smokers are not people.  In Bruce Guthrie's world, smokers are sub-human.  The anti-smokers treat smokers as if they are Jews in Nazi Germany, or blacks forced to sit in the back of the bus in America's segregated south.  That is the hate they have for people who smoke.  You can dress it up all you like as a health issue, but that's just the window dressing. Pull back the curtains and the black, seething mass of hatred is plain to see if you would only look.

So here's a Pro Tip, Bruce:  Don't go to restaurants, and if you do go then sit indoors if the smoke bothers you.  Also, thank you for letting me know you're a hateful slimy dirtbag of a human being, which is me being kind here.  Smokers are people too.  I would say smokers are better people than you could ever be, because we aren't out to demonise people for their lifestyles.

And, oh, Bruce...?  You might want to pick yourself up one of these if you're going to carry on with your campaign of hate, and it has the added benefit of protecting you from second-hand smoke, dickhead.

image removed but here's a link: [http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/1-segregated/images/kkk-robe-l.jpg]

Update 3 May 2012

Just a quick, minor update:  Chilling Effects still hasn't published the takedown, so I still don't know the actual reason.  It might take a while, which is crap to be honest. But here's the e-mail that I received last night, which shows the Blogger URL for the takedown is Australian:

Hello,

Blogger has been notified that content in your blog contains allegedly infringing content that may violate the rights of others and the laws of their country. The infringing content that has been made unavailable can be found at the end of this message.

The notice that we received, with any personally identifying information removed, will be posted online by a service called Chilling Effects at http://www.chillingeffects.org

. You can search for the notice associated with the removal of your content by going to the Chilling Effects search page at http://www.chillingeffects.org/search.cgi, and entering in the URL of the blog post that was removed. If you have legal questions about this notification, you should retain your own legal counsel.

Yours sincerely,
The Blogger Team

http://nannyingtyrants.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/bruce-guthrie-epic-hater.html

I really don't see the American Natural History Museum using the Australian URL for a takedown.  It's possible, though.  Anything is possible.

In Support of Cynicism

There has been quite a bit of action these past few days over plain packs.  Presently, if one were to use Twitter solely to gauge public opinion, it would seem that there is far greater support for plain packs than against.  This is to be expected because the message of "protect the children" resonates with the vast majority of sheep on this planet.  You can ban anything when you're doing it for the sake of children.  It doesn't even need to true; indeed, it rarely is true.  (Do note that the word "shocking" is being used. Morons, all of them.)

Moreover, if only 20 to 25% of the British population are smokers (the percentage I believe is a lot higher than that -- because I consider the occasional social smoker, who bums a naughty fag off of you when they've been drinking at the pub, should also be counted as a smoker), that means that the base support for plain packs has a minimum potential of about 75%.  This is, however, completely the wrong way to look at it.  The truth is, a number of smokers actually think plain packs is a good idea, because they have been demonised for so long about smoking that they end up hating themselves for smoking and they believe all of the propaganda.

Yet a high number of non-smokers think plain packs is a bad idea, which bring us to this well-written piece by cynical blogger Lisa, who smartly writes:

It is my view that measures such as these plain packs, if implemented, will lead to an extension in other areas. It will not stop with cigarettes. If permitted, plain packaging for every kind of good with connected health risks, however minimal, will be subject to the same treatment. Alcohol, for example. 'Junk' foods. The government will wage a war against the branding of all products with a perceived negative effect. This will then go on damage the companies, their profits and ultimately - the economy. 

This is exactly the point all of us are trying to make, in our various ways of doing it anyway, so thank you, Lisa. You can find Lisa's blog, The Voice of a Cynic, here: http://voiceofacynic.blogspot.co.uk/

In short, it's impossible to know how much support there is for plain packs.  And given that some of the tobacco control monsters are quite keen on rigging the results of petitions, it would be unsurprising to see some "cheating" when it comes to completing the consulation's questionnaire (notwithstanding that the questionnaire is complete fucking bollocks).  There could be dozens of Australians filling in the British consultation right now as I type this.  Maybe. I am a cynic, too.

That Hitler Blog

When one invokes Hitler as a comparison, people often get offended because Hitler was an evil fucking tyrant monster responsible for millions and millions of deaths.  Of all the murderous tyrants in history, he's definitely in the top three.  He convinced millions of his countrymen and women to follow him through tactics of fear, hate, deception, and blatant propaganda.  These are, of course, the traditional tools to sway the sheep-minions to your side. I don't think anyone would appreciate being compared to Hitler.

Which is exactly the point.  Hitler comparisons are always deliberately inflammatory. They are designed to provoke a negative response and to make someone both take notice of what you've have said, and to then try to demonise you for having the balls to make the comparison.  A Hitler comparison is in itself a method of propaganda fire-fighting, particularly effective when used sparingly.  Because, even though it's "not nice to say" it's often hitting very close to the mark, and people who usually take umbrage to that comparison know it is close enough to the truth.  Hitler comparisons are not used to marginalise or trivialise what Hitler did in the early 20th century; they are certainly not meant to offend Jews or anyone who fought against Hitler and his armies.  They are merely meant as a warning that if we continue moving forward in this direction, we are treading down a well-known, well-worn and absolutely dangerous path of hatred.  The results of which will be disastrous.  History often repeats itself, sadly.

Hitler was also a reformed ex-smoker, and tried very hard to demonise smokers to curb their habits.  Ultimately he failed, but some of the tactics he used back then are still in use today, and only slightly modified for modern times and opinions. I view tobacco control tactics as fascist -- a boot-in-the-face totalitarian stomp on civil liberties, freedom, free expression and to happiness. 

I don't expect anyone to agree with my views.  I don't expect anyone to like my views.  I certainly do not expect anyone to endorse my views.  My views are mine.  What I do is no reflection on anyone else but me.  Anyone who would try to demonise others for things I've said is a giant-ass motherfucking hateful cuntscab.  I'm just sayin', is all. 

I've already discussed the whole Nazi thing here.  Frank Davis also has additional commentary here.  

Image via here and here

To Kill A Mockingbird

I have to admit that I'm not a fan of Twitter.  It's certainly popular and is a fantastic tool for marketing your products, getting exposure for your blog or website, sharing a pithy viewpoint, etc.  It also allows people like the Root of All Evil, aka Les Chapman, to champion his hateful views incessantly to the herd of incredibly small-minded fuckwits who want to control every aspect of your lives.  They gobble it up greedily, like pigs at a trough filled with rotten fruit and excrement.  Hey, I believe in free speech, even speech that I do not agree with nor care to hear or see.  It does not even pain me to say that even the Root of All Evil deserves a platform to tell the world how much he hates you.  Because that afford us an opportunity to call him a fucking hateful, petty, nannying tyrant in response.

So, although I do have a Twitter profile that I have just recently created, I don't use Twitter except when I'm researching something or when someone e-mails me and points something out.  For me, one of the most annoying things about Twitter is that some people endlessly re-tweet (RT) others' tweets, like mockingbirds.  While I accept the usefulness of RT'ing in many circumstances, it doesn't make it any less annoying.  That is, of course, my problem.  If Twitter works for you, that's "luvly-jubbly."  Do what you like. It's your life, and I do not seek to ever tell you how to live it.

On the other hand, sometimes people offer up advice in the hopes that you might reconsider what you're doing.  Take, for instance, Sabine Wolff (and I apologise, I know nothing about Ms Wolff or her views on life) who tweeted "Stop retweeting Simon Chapman. Seriously."

This is sage advice, Sabine. 

Of course, the Root of All Evil is hurt by that, evidently:

Pro Tip, Root of All Evil:  You are often an arsehole of the highest order, which is my opinion and which is shared by more people than you would care to accept.  You are rarely nice to anyone and you are one of the most petty, hateful bastards I have ever seen -- and I've seen plenty in my day.  Don't get hurt when someone gets sick of seeing your twisted fucking views re-tweeted by your sheep-minions of hate. OK?  Now, please, go play with your fish and shut the fuck up for once.  If you weren't so in love with yourself, decent people might actually give you a pass.

But you're evil, and people have got your number by now. So no pass for you, Les. 

What is Freedom?

Freedom is sure the hell NOT this!

"The Home Office says the move is key to tackling crime and terrorism..."

Bullshit.  It's about control.  It's about controlling every aspect of your life, keeping you down, preventing you from speaking freely.

"'It is vital that police and security services are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public,' a spokesman said."

Whom, exactly, are you protecting?  You aren't protecting the public, you are protecting yourselves.  Because you know that the public is really fucking tired of your shit.  Their anger is building, slowly, steadily, a wave of discontent that will crash upon the gates of Parliament.  You know it's coming, so what do you do?

You propose this.  You intrude into our lives under false pretenses of protecting the public.  Liars.

Fuck you, David Cameron and your coalition government. 

We need to stop them.

Double Standards2

You could be forgiven for honestly believing that Britain has robust free speech.  You can say a lot of things freely, for instance you can attack smokers and drinkers and fat people all you like, without fear of being prosecuted or going to jail -- hell, the British government will even pay you with taxpayers' money to say these things. But the UK has carved out exceptions to free speech that severely curtail what you can say, or write, or quite possibly even think. 

Before I continue, I need to make one thing very, very clear:  I do not truck with racism.  I have personally experienced racist attacks, have personally witnessed it happening to others right here in the UK and abroad, and I have always spoken out against it and told people that I thought their views and actions were abhorrent. I could write 100,000 words on the subject of racism and intolerance and not even begin to scratch at its surface.  It is simply shameful, and those who spout off their hateful, bigoted views should be publicly castigated and shunned.  All of that said, I truly do not believe that making racist remarks is an offence that deserves jail time, but the UK government disagrees with my opinion.

In order for robust free speech to work, we must allow speech that we do not like.  Even bigoted speech.  We need to challenge these bigots publicly, and we should not hold back on calling out those who use their speech to promote their hateful opinions.

Which brings us to a very unpleasant boy named Liam Stacey.  You've probably read about him. You probably know that he's going to jail for making some truly dreadful comments about black people on Twitter.  There is no excuse for Liam's rants on Twitter, regardless if he was excessively inebriated or what have you.  The things he said disgust me, but I would defend his right to say them freely while at the same time calling him a hateful cunt.  (Note: Liam likes that word, too.  I'm sure he wouldn't mind being called it.)   As appalling as Liam Stacey is, it's even more appalling that he is going to jail for merely tweeting his awful views.

But this post isn't really about Liam.  It is about double standards.  In fact, it is double standards².

Case in point: Diane Abbott, MP, and Shadow Public Health Minister.  I have no idea if Diane is a racist -- I have never met her. I have seen her on BBC and I rarely agree with anything she has said. She has made some truly bigoted remarks about "white people" time and time again.

"One of the things about this new leadership is how post-meritocratic it is. Two posh white boys from the home counties."

"...blonde, blue-eyed" [nurses working at Homerton Hospital] might "never have met a black person before, let alone touched one."

"White people loving playing divide and rule. We should not play their game #tacticsasoldascolonialism."

 
Diane also believes that Britain invented racism, which shows a stunning lack of knowledge about history, but never mind that.

So, why isn't Diane going to jail for her comments?  Hell, why is she still serving as an MP?

For starters, she was wise enough to avoid using racially-charged epithets, although I could make a convincing argument that using "white people" in a particular context is semantically no different than any other racial epithet.  Diane is black, of Jamaican heritage.  So does being black automatically give her a free pass to say anything she likes about other people who aren't black?  Finally, Diane is a government minister.  And it pretty much goes without saying that MPs work under one set of rules for them, while the rest of the riff-raff class labour under an entirely different rule set abridging their speech.

Apparently, the rules of free speech are entirely different for black MPs.  Double standards². Look, free speech has to cut both ways. If Liam is guilty of a racially-aggravated offence, so by definition is Diane Abbott.  Her views on white people are pathetic and misguided.  She has no business representing anyone in any official capacity because she cannot be trusted to impartial and fair.

But I don't want to see either of these people in jail for their comments.  They should both be called out as bigots, they both should be shunned for making their comments, and more importantly the voters in Hackney should really think twice about re-electing Diane to public office.

Diane Abbott is a nasty piece of work, certainly.  She claims to believe in civil liberties, but she really doesn't believe that at all.  She, like Stephen Williams MP, limit their beliefs to a subset of the population to which they associate themselves. When she supports smoking bans and plain packs she is more or less telling us this: "I want these civil liberties for these people here, but that class of people over there do not deserve liberties."

Make no mistake, Diane Abbott is a hypocrite.  I'll leave it to you to decide whether you think she is racist.

Diane Abbott, MP - Protecting your children from colonialism and trade marks