A case of 'told you so'

In an earlier post I linked to one by Raedwald who suggested that the 26 to 1 scenario, in regard to the 'Events Bruxelles', may well be more like 18 to 1.

This has now been confirmed by an article in EUobserver, one which advises that within hours of arriving at a fragile treaty deal for the eurozone and nine other EU states, the agreement delivering deeper integration is already confronting the spectre of multiple referendums and a host of legal barriers.

Do follow the link - it looks like Merkozy's plans are unravelling before the pair have fully knitted them together.

Here we go again - Smokin'

The question of a ban to make it illegal to smoke in one's car has reared its head again with the latest demand by the British Medical Association - and one which is but a repeat of that made last March by a letter which appeared in the Times signed by 20 'senior doctors'. I can but refer readers to my post of 24th March 2010 and the comments about passive smoking.

Michael White has an article on the Guardian website and this doyen of British journalism - aka the cut 'n paste industry - blithely writes that: "It's not a case in which the medical facts are open to much dispute any longer. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for one's health and bad for those close to a smoker whose smoke they may inhale". With a view to increasing White's education perhaps he would do well to refer to this post from Raedwald, following the link contained therein, coupled with the extract from Booker and North's book 'Scared to Death' (pages 269-270) quoted in my post mentioned above.

A car is an extension of one's home, namely a private place in which it should be possible to smoke or not. If this ban were to be enacted - leaving aside the question of how it could be policed - then how much longer would it be before these health zealots demanded and received a ban covering one's home? I may be mistaken but I do not recall such a proposal being included in any political party manifesto last year, which leads me back to the argument that our present system of democracy allows for dictatorial decisions without any consultation of the people affected by said decisions.

Update: On the point the BMA makes about 'toxin levels being 23 times higher than in a smoky bar', yet another article pours scorn on this claim, one that appears to have been 'doctored' somewhat.

What a waste!

The Daily Telegraph reports that the UK must invest £8bn to deal with waste or risk EU fines, something that the blogosphere in the shape of Richard North and (praise be) the Guardian were reporting in 2006.

Raedwald earlier this year updated a post he wrote in 2008 which shows that we extract more from the ground than we could infill - were we not constrained by orders from Brussels.

Back to the Telegraph article:

"Jamie Reed MP, Shadow Minister for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: "Rubbish is a resource we can't afford to squander by burying in the ground. More infrastructure is needed to deal with our waste, not only so we can use this valuable source of energy and materials, but also, so that we avoid paying millions of pounds in landfill tax and EU fines."

This projected cost, one purely to satisfy some 'enviro' mentalists, is something we cannot afford so would someone attempt to instill a tad of logic into the pea-sized brains of Reed and other MPs before I shoot them?

Your call.......................