Treating adults as children

Do you ever get that thing where you're reading something in the paper and a throwaway phrase not directly related to the article sends such a chill through your soul that the rest of the article is momentarily forgotten? I had one of those this afternoon reading a story about a woman who died in Queensland in a street luge accident. My bold:

A 50-year-old woman and mother, who is a respected IT executive in the Brisbane community, has been killed riding a luge board down Mt Cootha this morning.

The woman, who was travelling downhill at high speed, has gone too wide on a corner and tried to brake, losing control and sliding into a guard rail.

[...]

Acting Inspector Chris Pemberton said the woman was luging, or street-sledding, down Sir Samuel Griffiths Drive around 6.15am when she lost control of her board and crashed against a guardrail on the north side of the mountain.

Acting Inspector Pemberton said luge was a restricted activity and required a permit, and it is believed the two riders involved this morning had not been granted permission for the activity that led to the tragedy.

Now up to the last paragraph I quoted there I was thinking how sad it was that someone had died doing something they enjoyed and that 50 is no age to go and what a tragedy it is for her family. But then I saw the phrase 'a restricted activity' being dropped in there without comment, like it's no big deal that being a restricted activity. Like it doesn't matter because there are so many restricted activities what with there being so many things that are potentially lethal (unlike life itself, which is certainly and unavoidably lethal). Like our governments - and don't think for one moment it's just Queensland or Australia - believe we're incapable of deciding anything for ourselves anymore, even to the point where they want to be involved in our diets in case we choose a cheeseburger over a salad. And like the infantilisation of adults in western nations hasn't been going on long enough to mean that sometimes they're half right.

That's the greater tragedy in this article.: the unspoken assumption that there are restricted activities that us proles may only take part in with permission from the nannies, and that there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not saying that street luge is safe or sensible on public roads when someone's just died doing it and the whole idea of lying on an oversized skateboard and rolling under gravity down a hill that fat Aussie cars and utes are coming up under power is sufficiently cuckoo to keep the Bavarian clock making industry going for decades. No, I'm not disputing the Acting Inspector (who sounds like someone employed by RADA with the power to fine people for hamming it up) when he says that street luge and public roads aren't a good combo.

But lots of things aren't a good idea. Are you telling me that there's no other option but to have a list, no doubt growing all the time, of restricted activities? Clearly when it can affect someone else it's not just down to the person doing the restricted activity, and in the case of street luging there's the obvious question of what happens if they collide with another road user. The obvious answer is that someone whose head is at wheel hub height is probably going to come off worst and is quite likely to come off dead, but the other person may have damage to their vehicle or bike and may even kill themselves trying to avoid a luger, and I don't know if many have third party damage insurance. But isn't there tort law for that kind of thing, and isn't there some very basic road law that covers the use of inappropriate vehicles? For heaven's sake, if under Australian laws a bicycle is legally a vehicle when ridden on public roads how can a street luge not be? And if cyclists can be fined, and heavily, for not having lights or wearing a helmet - again, not having a helmet really affects only that individual but nonetheless places cycling in the restricted activities category - much less running red lights or disobeying other road rules, then why not someone on a street luge?

I really can't see any reason why this kind of thing can't be dealt with by something rather less Orwellian than keeping a list of restricted activities, but sadly I suspect that so many people will have read that article and not had that creepy phrase leap off the page at them and scream in their faces that adopting a simpler approach, for instance just prosecuting and fining the idiots and fuckups and letting people who can do something without affecting other risk their own necks as they choose, is probably a vain hope.

Vote early, vote often

Bucko the Moose has a link up to an online poll about banning smoking in all cars - ha, fat lot of good the BMA's retraction of the 23 times lie has done, eh? They got the headlines and response they wanted and now idiots passing as journalists who can't or won't question the no-stop feed of bullshit PRs they're given. So do pop along and have a little vote at the Lancashire Borgograph and remember what it is you're voting for. On the one hand it's the right to be left alone in property that you've paid for and belongs to you. On the other hand, well, you work it out.

New enemies in the war on terror?

From Wikipedia:

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.

'Terror' itself being defined in Wiktionary as:

Noun
terror (countable and uncountable; plural terrors)

1. (uncountable) intense dread, fright, or fear.
2. (countable) specific instances of being intensely terrified
3. (uncountable) the action or quality of causing dread; terribleness, especially such qualities in narrative fiction
4. (countable) something or someone that causes such fear.

And coercion as

Noun
coercion (plural coercions)

1. (not countable) Actual or threatened force for the purpose of compelling action by another person; the act of coercing.
2. (law, not countable) Use of physical or moral force to compel a person to do something, or to abstain from doing something, thereby depriving that person of the exercise of free will.
3. (countable) A specific instance of coercing.
4. (computing, countable) Conversion of a value of one data type to a value of another data type.

So ignoring that last definition that relates to computing and thinking about that very first sentence in which Wikipedia suggests terrorism is simply the systematic use of terror as a means of coercion, I find myself wondering how broadly this applies and whether any organisation or organisations that use scare tactics in order to get their way, to see people cowed - terrified, in fact - into submission, would count as being terrorists. Specifically, I'm thinking about whether the BMA, ASH and so on could be seen as terrorists. Ridiculous? Of course it is. Absolutely ridiculous. I mean, most or all of these anti-smoking - and of course the anti-drinking, anti-drugs, anti... er, where are we up to now? Oh yes, anti-salt, anti-soft drinks, anti-red meat and/or junk food (like I even need to bother finding a link for that), anti-caffeine, even anti-muesli - anti fucking muesli for Christ's fucking sake, oh I wish I was making that one up - basically anti-whatever it is you do that you enjoy that might shave even a picosecond off your life according to anything that even passes for a scientific study in a bad light, most of these anti-whatever groups are either run by or partly funded by the government, or at least exist with their tacit approval. And clearly that legitimises them, doesn't it? How can they be terrorists with government approval and even funding, no matter how much they try to coerce people by means of fear?

Ummm, well, I didn't want to mention it, but...

State terrorism may refer to acts of terrorism conducted by a state against a foreign state or people. It can also refer to acts of violence by a state against its own people.

So depending on how broad a definition you want to use maybe they could be after all. Ah, but Angry, old mate, I hear you say, it's not like they're blowing anybody up, is it? They're not using force, are they?

Aren't they?

A former pub landlord yesterday became the first person to be jailed in connection with the smoking ban.
Nick Hogan, 43, was sentenced to six months in prison for refusing to pay a fine imposed for flouting the legislation.
Two years ago Hogan, who ran two pubs in Bolton, became the first landlord convicted of breaking the law for allowing his customers to routinely light up in his bars.

Tracey John, 48, from Pontypridd, was fined £350 by local magistrates plus £100 costs after refusing to pay a £75 on the spot penalty.
Ms John said: "They're making me feel like I'm a big criminal... it's not like I've done a massive robbery."
She was spotted smoking on the doorstep of her home in Maesycoed by a passing litter enforcement officer.
She claimed that despite picking up the cigarette she was given a fixed penalty notice.

The Health Act 2006 came into force in July 2007. The Health Act prohibits smoking in almost all enclosed public places, workplaces and even includes work vehicles.
Mr Minihan, a tanker driver from Liverpool, was seen flicking ash and disposing of a cigarette butt from his cab by council enforcement officers. Mr Minihan fought the charge by claiming he was using an Electronic cigarette.

I think a lot of people would argue that they certainly are using force and violence and the threat of same - the monopoly on force and violence enjoyed by the state whose ear the antis have long had and whispered into, Gríma Wormtongue style. That's about as forceful as it gets and the threat of state sanctioned violence is always in the air. Hangs around much longer than cigarette smoke too, which I very much hope all drinkers, salad dodgers, coffee lovers, Red Bull fans, salters, muesli munchers and anyone I've missed is by now noticing. Terrified? You fucking should be, though not for the same reasons the antis want you to be terrified.

Nor are innocent bystanders unheard of, and not just folks like the e-fag smoker up there:

A non-smoker was stunned to be given a £50 fine for throwing a cigarette butt out of her car window.
Gillian Leah has never had a cigarette and is vehemently anti-litter.
So the 46-year-old, of Hove Edge, Brighouse, thought the matter would soon be sorted after contacting council officials.
But her dispute has left her paying £50 for a crime she claims she didn’t commit.
The alternative was a fight through the courts with no guarantee of winning – and a legal bill running into thousands.

Ah, there's that monopoly on force, you see?

A RETIRED policeman was fined for dropping a cigarette end out of his car window – despite being a non-smoker and not even driving at the time.
Robert Marshall received a £50 fine from Nottingham City Council after a warden reported spotting him littering while driving along Hucknall Road, Nottingham.
But the council has now dropped the fine against the former officer after he told them he does not smoke and his car was in a car park at the time of the alleged offence.
The authority was also unable to confirm to Mr Marshall where in Hucknall Road the offence had taken place.
It has told him that a line has been drawn under the matter, after speaking to the warden involved.

A near miss, but (my bold)...

Mr Marshall, 48, of Moor Road, Bestwood Village, said: "The council have said they had a word with the warden, he said he was mistaken, and that is the end of the matter.
"This sort of thing is just unacceptable. I wonder how many others have been unfortunate enough to get this sort of ticket and have just paid the £50 fine because they cannot prove otherwise?"

So we've got an intention to coerce by scaring away resistance, a willingness to use force and innocent bystanders getting affected too. And now, this very week, the BMA - the British Motherfucking Authoritarians as Wolfers called them - are claiming that smoking must be banned in all cars (there's a poll on that article and you know what to do - vote early, vote often).

There is now strong evidence that smoking in vehicles exposes non-smokers to high levels of second hand smoke which is known to be damaging to heath, the BMA said.
Because of the small enclosed space inside a car, smoking creates 23 times more toxins than found in a smoky bar, it was claimed.

This is, of course, complete arse gravy and has not only been debunked by the likes of Chris Snowdon but, as he pointed out earlier this week, has even been repudiated by a Canadian Medical Journal.

The "23 times" claim is even more fun, because it involves a rare mea culpa from tobacco control. In a study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal entitled 'Second-hand smoke in cars: How did the “23 times more toxic” myth turn into fact?', MacKenzie and Freeman showed that the "fact" was entirely without scientific evidence and stemmed from a, obscure quote in a local newspaper in 1998 (as I had revealed on this blog two months earlier).

They concluded with the following unheeded recommendation:

We recommend that researchers and organizations stop using the 23 times more toxic factoid because there appears to be no evidence for it in the scientific literature.

Yet the BMA are still using it and assuming they're not ignorant of its complete lack of any authenticity it's not a huge leap to think that perhaps they're doing it with the intention of achieving their aims through scaring people. More terror. More coercion. More force. Fucking hell, some of them have even got the same kind of three letter initials: BMA, ASH... PLO, IRA.

Okay, I'm kidding - obviously that's not a fair comparison and lots of other organisations are known by TLAs. More importantly ASH, the BMA and so on don't use guns and bombs to scare people, but nonetheless their stock in trade is to try to scare everyone into submission and they're using the most powerful force inside any nation (often more than one nation). Dragging someone into the cells for failing to be an unpaid smoke warden in his own pub seems like violence to me, and not only are innocents already being affected we can all look forward to becoming as guilty as the smokers. And while they don't actually want smokers dead the same can't be said of their supporters, as a look through Dick Puddlecote's smoke psychosis gallery will tell you.

So is it terrorism? I don't know, I really don't. I suppose the day I feel genuinely afraid to do something I've always done and which was done peacefully by millions in past generations then I'll have my answer.


PS If you haven't already seen it there's a good op-ed piece in The Tele titled "All these smoking bans have left me fuming" and which has a particular go at the BMA over their proposed car ban.

And now, the campaigners are back: some people, they’ve noticed, have been smoking in their own cars. And other people might be in the car with them! So we need a new law, and a new set of criminals to prosecute – because, honestly, there’s nothing more important for either the political class or the medical establishment to be thinking about just now, right?
[...]
You might wonder how – were the ban to be introduced – it could be policed. Well, Oxford City Council has the answer to that. It plans to force CCTV into every taxi in the city, in order to record every conversation between driver and passenger. (I pity the official who had to review my conversations: it’s bad enough that the poor cabbie has to listen to me wittering on, without council officers having to listen in as well.)
Why not take it one step further, and insist on CCTV in every vehicle? Indeed, why stop there? (I doubt the BMA will.) Why not put cameras into every house, so that functionaries from the BMA’s Professional Activities Division can monitor our every move? You could even make it two-way, so that Dr Nathanson’s acolytes can bark out instructions every time some foolish little person tries to have a cigarette, or pours a second glass of wine.

Worth a read.

The best weapon against smokophobic nannies

Good quality piss taking, as ably demonstrated by The Daily Mash in response to the anti smoking mob again trotting out the tired and demonstrably ridiculous line about smoking in cars (see Velvet Glove, Iron Fist).

JAGUARS are not the only cars with fully opening windows, doctors have been told.

As the British Medical Association called for a ban on smoking in cars, experts said the windows on cars like the 1998 Ford Focus or some grubby little Astra went right the way down into the door.

Dr Bill McKay, a GP from Peterborough, said: "Are you absolutely sure? Well, I'm afraid that if poor people's cars can do the same things as our cars then we are going to need more money."

[...]

Smoker, Tom Logan, said: "I don't have kids and in the interests of my health I don't allow kids in my car.

"And if an adult is sitting in the passenger seat when I light up they can either open the window - because my car is one of the ones that does that - or they can get the fucking bus.

"Because it's my car. D'you see?"

Gold. Do go and read the whole thing.

Getting around Australia's plain tobacco packaging law #5

Part 1       Part 2       Part 3       Part 4

A final few ideas for sticking a middle finger up in the direction of Canberra in response to Australia's plain tobacco packaging law. Back in post #1 of these George in the comments suggested this:

Seems to me the way round it is to supply the standard pack (with no nanny warnings or porno cancer pics) wrapped in a goverment approved paper sleeve. Buy the pack, rip it off and leave on the counter.

I'm guessing that a simple outer wrapper might be deemed not to qualify as "the packaging" for the purposes of the law, but if the tobacco companies can swing it that's an excellent idea. If not then perhaps an inverse of that, a kind of packet within a packet. Perhaps some kind of light weight card carton with the foil containing the cigarettes, and more importantly on which designs and logos can be printed, and which can be slid out from the main package which is chucked in the bin on the way out.

I'd expect it to look much better
than this quick pshop but
you get the idea

Three downsides occur to me right away. First is cost - it will make packaging a little more expensive and therefore the cost per pack will rise. However, that might be offset by a lowering in cost of the outer packet as there should be no money being spent on pack design, Canberra having taken over the job in order to inflict plain packs on the industry. The second is that the light weight inner "packet" won't do a very good job at protecting the cigarettes, but that might be useful as the nannies will fart sparks if people throw away their plain outer packs and wave around something with those hated logos and branding on - the response is that it's just an inner sleeve and you can't stop people throwing away the real packaging. The third downside is that even if this idea is legal you can be damn sure the liberty loathing, bansturbating nannies will have it banned as well before long. It might be good for a year or two but there will be a new law and that will be that. In the meantime though it might be a possibility.

The other suggestion in the first post's comments was from Marcy, who said:

There should be a good market starting up for fancy reusable cig packs, including those supplied by manufacturers with their proprietary labels, given away for free of course to anyone who wants them, made out of tin maybe and bound to become a collector's item in the future.

Tins and cases I've already covered, and I don't see any reason why Marcy's suggestion of branded accessories, tins and cases included, couldn't be made by the baccy companies. Sure, there may already be a law against it, and if there isn't then eventually there will be even if any other bugger can make them, but it's about not giving in and again it'll buy time and annoy the nannies. But it also reminded me of fakefags.co.uk and their joke health warning labels that stick on over the originals. Joke horror pictures and stick on branding could be next.

About the only thing I don't think it's worth Ausssie smokers doing is hanging on to their existing packets since the horror pictures now are large enough that the packs are semi-debranded already. If I still smoked I'd lean towards a case that fitted the normal length of a hand made cigarette or a nice leather pouch for the loose tobacco and a pocket for the papers, but if I smoked pre-mades I'd probably get some card and use a template in post #3 to make my own packets. Ehow have more detailed instructions on this here and links to a couple of videos on origami ciggie pack making, as well as instructions on how to make a very nice looking wooden cigarette case.

The long and short of it is that foiling the Australian Baccy Nannies is restricted only by imagination and the amount of effort smokers are prepared to put in to avoid carting around drab packs with the colour provided only by the horror pictures and shouty warnings. And even though I've not smoked for a few years I may make up some cigarette packets in advance of the plain pack law coming into effect... you know, just so I've got one or two handy in case I see a smoker with a boring nannied pack. The fun begins soon, and I don't see the fact that I'm a non-smoker as a reason I can't join in.

Part 1       Part 2       Part 3       Part 4

Getting around Australia's plain tobacco packaging law #4

Part 1       Part 2       Part 3               Part 5

Learn to knit... yes, seriously.

Obviously that's not a real example. There'd be no need to knit little woollen matches and woollen cigarettes as well - that'd be as silly as, oh, I don't know, a law saying that cigarettes could only be sold in a boring green box with the obligatory death cancer horror picture on. But here's what I'm thinking, right. To protect it in my pocket with change and keys and so on I keep my mobile phone in a little pouch like the one below (but plain - I'm not yet barracking for Carlton).

Looking at it there doesn't seem to be any reason you couldn't knit a similar slip on cover with whatever design you like and make it large enough to fit a 20, 25, 30 or 40 cigarette pack snugly. They're hardly going to ban wool in a country with a hundred million sheep, are they?

/ Waits for inevitable sheep sex jokes in the comments.

Part 1       Part 2       Part 3               Part 5

Getting around Australia's plain tobacco packaging law #3

Part 1       Part 2               Part 4       Part 5

Make your own cigarette packets. Google is your friend and can find all sorts of services for you, even including people who will make cigarette boxes in your own design. Don't know what the prices are like as I wasn't going to bugger around getting a quote, but if that seems like too much expense then there's the DIY option. Without too much googling I found a template and instructions to make a cigarette packet. Just in case that ever disappears I'll save a copy here for posterity, and in case either of my readers smoke (hi, Mum, and I thought you'd quit years ago) and want to give it a try.

Click for embiggerisation - or buy smaller cigarettes

I suggest a design that takes the piss out of hysterical health warnings, or possibly pre-empts the next generation of hysterical health warnings. Perhaps something like this.

Part 1       Part 2               Part 4       Part 5

Getting around Australia's plain tobacco packaging law #2

Part 1             Part 3       Part 4       Part 5

Cigarette cases - I bet they will be making a comeback here, and I'll bet you that as well as clever ones like that from TheSmokingShop.com.au above (they also do one for the car that automatically lights the cigarette as it's dispensed) there will be branded ones, either legit or made without the approval of the IP owners, appearing before long. Whether those tobacco companies whose trademarks are being infringed will have any motivation to do anything about it when they can't use them anyway is another matter. Currently they do take trademark infringers to courts in Oz but only because they're losing money from counterfeiting. If they were selling the fags that are being put inside a really cool looking cigarette tin I doubt they'll give a shit, which would be another unwanted side effect of the plain packaging law.

And if the wide variety available online doesn't flick a smoker's switch and you don't care about trying to find one with your brand on, authorised or not, why not go for something DIY such as the iPod Classic ciggie case?*

I thought I saw an iPhone version as well but it turned out to be a case for e-cigs and an actual iPhone, but I'm sure that sooner or later someone somewhere will make an iPhone-a-like cigarette case, much to the natural disgust of Apple and to the inevitable excitement of their legal department. But I'll leave you with one more example of a cigarette case that I saw among those at this online seller - one which will not only make the plain packets law here irrelevant but will drive the Righteous even further into outraged palpitations. I doubt I'll have to explain why... < evil grin >

Mwahahahahahahahahahahah!!

Tell you what, I think some of my Christmas shopping is going to get done early.

*  If any smoker reading this has a dead iPod they fancy converting into a ciggie case I'll mention there's a knack to getting into these old iPods. A watch case opener does the job but the trick is to give the iPod a gentle squeeze as you apply it. You'd still need a case opener each time though, so if it was me I'd be thinking about how to change it so it's be easier to open. Maybe remove the catches and glue in a spring loaded hinge or something. I dunno, I'm speculating there. I'll leave that to DIY experimenters.

Part 1             Part 3       Part 4       Part 5

Getting around Australia's plain tobacco packaging law #1

Part 2    Part 3    Part 4    Part 5

I'm not sure this hasn't already been covered in the legislation but as it's been reported it's going to be mandatory plain packaging, and the defence the Commonwealth government intend to use against the tobacco industry's accusation that their trademarks have been appropriated and that under Australia's constitution they should be compensated is that the trademarks have not been actually been taken, they just can't be used on cigarette packets. I'm no lawyer but we all know that the number of places the industry can use its trademarks has been diminishing and I feel that at some point you have to concede that effectively they've been taken from them, but in the meantime I wonder if there's anything to stop the trademarks being used on the cigarettes themselves. Most cigarettes have always had their makers' names on so it doesn't seem to unrealistic to use the whole cigarette. Maybe whatever ink ends up being used on the paper to do this would actually make cigarettes slightly more harmful for their users, I have no idea, but on Planet Smokophobia the alleged health benefits from the plain packets would surely offset any harm done by fully branding the cigarettes themselves instead. No, I know that makes no sense, but when we're talking tobacco legislation is that even necessary any more?

Part 2    Part 3    Part 4    Part 5

Fireworks - next in the banners' sights? - UPDATED

Despite the distance from Westminster Australia used to celebrate Guy Fawkes night as well but these days it's fallen by the wayside, and I suspect the reason is simple: you can't buy fireworks anymore in most parts of Oz. I'd assumed that this was mostly because of the bushfire risk but I've since been told that it was also to do with idiot behaviour involving fireworks, and we all know that governments unable to deal effectively with idiots will often try instead to ban whatever it is the idiots want to play with and never mind the responsible users.

And of course firework idiocy is far from unknown in Britain. Every November for as long as I can remember there have been ad campaigns warning of the risks of handling or throwing lit fireworks, and every November there's a handful of idiots who take no notice and end up being able to count up only to nine in future. Even if you could somehow eliminate firework idiocy there are still risks involved, even at professional displays. What goes up must come down, and all those rockets exploding up there are showering the ground beneath with bits. It's inevitable that now and then some land on people or property. Mostly harmlessly, sure, but I once got up the day after Guy Fawkes night and found the stick from a large rocket a few feet from my car. Had it hit the car I expect I'd have had some bodywork damage, and had it hit a person I'm sure it would have been a nasty injury.

But such things are rare, incredibly rare given the amount of fireworks set off around Guy Fawkes night, and since most people enjoy the celebration and the fireworks and the bonfires they're prepared to accept the risks, doubtless to the dismay of the nannies and banners. To get fireworks banned there needs to be a sea change in public attitudes, and that's most likely to be achievable if something really nasty, some incident that harms a lot of people, involves fireworks.

With that in mind let's turn to the tragic multi-vehicle crash on the M5 and the speculation that a fireworks display at a nearby rugby club may have had something to do with it.

The rugby club’s “spectacular” fireworks display is being investigated to see if thick smoke drifted on to the motorway.
[...]
The cause of the crash was being investigated last night but police confirmed they were looking at the possibility that a pall of black smoke from a firework display at Taunton Rugby Club, 300 yards from the scene of the crash, may have drifted on to the motorway.
Mr Bangham said: “We are aware there was a fireworks display nearby happening at a similar time and we will also be looking closely at that and at what kind of planning was looked at ahead of that event.”
A member of the public who attended the display said: “The fireworks display was massive and caused a huge amount of thick black smoke that drifted towards the motorway less than 10 minutes before the crash. Before the display I could see right across the pitch and see the headlights of traffic on the motorway. After the display the visibility dropped to less than 30ft, I couldn’t even see the huge floodlights positioned around the pitch.”
Sam Kotvics, who was at the display, said: “I think the fireworks had a contributory effect. It was a spectacular display. Anything could have happened to cause the accident though.”
Weather forecasters said that smoke from bonfires encourages fog, especially in damp conditions.

And...

Click for linky

Police fear the M5 disaster that claimed the lives of at least seven people may have been caused by heavy smoke drifting on to the motorway from a nearby fireworks display.
[...]
Senior officers investigating the cause of the crash, on the northbound carriageway near Junction 25, said they were focusing ‘very closely’ on a fireworks event at Taunton Rugby Club, located near the carriageway.
Forensics teams arrived at the club yesterday afternoon and sealed off several pitches.
The display at the club finished at about 8.15pm on Friday, minutes before the crash. Experts believe a lack of wind allowed intense black smoke from the finale, when the largest and most spectacular rockets were fired, to hang in the air and render visibility poor. There had already been reports of wet conditions and patchy fog.
Last night no one from Firestorm Pyrotechnics, the Somerset firm that organised the display, was available for comment.
But another fireworks company boss told The Mail on Sunday that he turned down the opportunity to stage a display at the rugby club two years ago because of concerns about safety.
‘It is a very difficult site. My concern straight away was the distance from the motorway,’ he said. ‘It makes it a very difficult site to fire from. You would look closely at the flight line [of the rockets]. Are they going to make drivers look up?’
Taunton Rugby Club secretary Oli Massingham said the organisers had liaised fully with police.
[...]
Meanwhile witnesses spoke of bonfires in other areas nearby also spreading black smoke, including one in particular at a smallholding.
As well as the smoke itself blinding drivers, one expert said it could have caused further visibility problems by encouraging fog to form.

I'm not saying the fireworks display did or did not have anything to do with it. For all I know right now it might have, but that's not what I'm getting at. My point is that almost certainly someone somewhere is secretly hoping that the investigation does end up blaming the crash largely on the display, and parts of the reporting already make it sound like some of the media is sold on the idea. "Firework fun as displays turn deadly for drivers" - it's a headline writer's wet dream, isn't it? And of course for the banners and nannies the first step to restrictions and prohibition is a scary headline or two.

As I said, I'm not trying to claim that the fireworks display is blameless as I have no idea whether it is or isn't, and I'm not going to form an opinion either way while it's still being investigated or second guess the people doing the investigating. This post isn't about trying to blame or shield from blame anything in particular. It's just making a prediction: that whatever else was involved if the fireworks display is determined to have contributed even in a small way there will be calls to restrict or even ban fireworks, and even if the club's display is exonerated there will still be calls for at least tougher regulations.

And I haven't even looked at The Daily Mail comments section yet.

UPDATED - five minutes after finishing the post I've just looked at the comments at the Mail, and while they're in the minority just as I predicted...

With all the controversy about cutting pollution from things like industry and car emissions we should now be banning bonfires . If fireworks are going to be allowed then it should only be in a properly managed display and away from any major road or built up area...

Are there any regulations covering bonfire and firework displays near motorways and main roads? I was travelling on the M61 near Bolton a couple of years ago on bonfire night and suddenly drove into thick black smoke, which meant I couldn't see 10 yards in front of me and when this happens to you whilst travelling at 70-80 mph it is incredibly disorientating and frightening. Once through the smoke (I thought it was better to carry on rather than just stop) I pulled over onto the hard shoulder. I realised that the smoke was coming from a bonfire in a field less than 100 yards from the carriageway, at a pub adjacent to the motorway. I rang 999 to report it, it was incredibly dangerous. The organisers of that bonfire were incredibly irresponsible and should never have been allowed to set a bonfire that close to the motorway. If there aren't any regulations then there need to be before this happens all over again next year.

Time all fireworks were banned, they cause untold harm.

Completely possible. Bonfire night/fireworks are the worst offenders of filling the atmosphere full of smoke. I remember driving this time last year and I could not see a thing, it was like driving with a fogged up window. Especially with the fireworks display being so close to the motorway, it would explain why the 'fog' had cleared up by the time emergency services arrived. It doesn't help with the wet floor and speeds of a motorway, even if all of the vehicles were obeying the speed limit. The fog probably came out of nowhere/was unexpected.

And over at the Tele:

I have listened to the radio media and I hope there is a law against holding a firework display next to a motorway. Clearly the reason for the crash may never be known. However a distraction on a wet dark motorway by a firework for less than five seconds is enough to cause this course of tragic events...

It might have been better if health and safety jobsworths spent less time stopping kids playing conkers and more time giving serious consideration to issues like a firework display next to a motorway...

Obviously the fireworks were a distraction and the smoke reduced visibility. It was a bad idea to have a display like that at the side of a motorway. I noted on the way home, there was strange dense patches of fog around Mid Devon.

Again, a minority (most commenters there seemed to be into the Afghanistan comparison), but you can expect the same things are being said by people with the ear of those with the clout to do something. Don't be surprised if the question of a fireworks ban or tougher regulation pops up in Parliament over the coming weeks.

And then they came for the drinkers...

Yes, drinkers, they're coming for you now. You really should be aware of this by now, but then you really should have been aware of it long ago when the intolerance was directed at tobacco and the sound of marching boots wasn't something for you to fear. Ah, those were the days, eh? And you helped, didn't you?

Yes, you did.

Yes, you did - you're just kidding yourself. You said you'd enjoy the pub more if it was smoke free, though of course not that much more because you didn't spend enough to make up for what the smokers used to spend before they stopped going and now it's shut. You said it would be lovely to be able to go out and enjoy a glass of wine without some filthy smoker's pollution wafting over you, possibly inhaling the carcinogens from a roaring fire in the corner or even a candle on your table instead.* Oh, not all of you said so but quite a lot did, and many more of you just stayed silent and raised no objection, happy that it was someone else getting it and not you.

Remember when they weren't allowed to advertise on TV, and then not in print media either, and finally weren't even allowed to sponsor sport? Did you all object? Did you say it was unfair? Did you stand by the smokers then?

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist

Remember when they weren't allowed to put cigarette cards and other collectibles in the packets? What did you say? Did you oppose it? Did argue that it was unnecessary?

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist

Remember when tax on tobacco went up and up and up and up, and carried on going up ever since? Did you say that it was excessive? Did you point out that it would hurt British retailers as people bought abroad? Did you add that it would increase smuggling? Or did you go on your way, happy once again that it wasn't your vice that was being hammered?

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew

Remember when the health warnings came in? How they began as information about tar and nicotine content? How they then became larger and included phrases like "Smoking can damage your health"? How they grew larger still to make room for a variety of longer warnings, and then moved from the sides to the front of the packets? Remember how once on the front they grew rapidly so as to include nasty pictures of various illnesses and conditions that were implied to have been caused by that person smoking? And how the people selling tobacco were then made to hide the stock in drawers and behind closed doors, as if it was somehow possible to become addicted to smoking by looking at the packets? And how they're now saying that even that's not enough and these hidden packets must be absolutely plain? Except for the health warnings and horror pictures, of course, which are to grow even bigger than ever. Did you say "Stop"? Did you say "Enough"? Did you say "You've done enough, now leave the smokers alone"? Did you raise even a peep of complaint?

Then they came for me,

and there was no one left to speak out.

No, you did not. By and large, at best you drinkers kept your silence, which was of course taken for acquiescence, and at worst you joined in the intolerance and marginalising of smokers. Many of you still do, and more fool them. Collectively you did nothing or nearly nothing to help the smokers, and as you reaped so you are beginning to sow.

Red wine's reputation for preventing heart attacks has come under fire from health experts who have declared every drink of alcohol can do you damage.

This should come as no surprise since it's by no means the first time recently that the temperance crowd, the latest gaggle of nannying, neo-puritan wowsers (employing many of the same techniques and occasionally even some of the same people as the tobacco control mob), have pushed the idea that there is no safe level of alcohol.

The coalition cites other studies from around the world finding that the harms from alcohol are likely to outweigh any benefits. ''Every drinking occasion contributes to the lifetime risk of harm from alcohol,'' the report says. Any reduction in alcohol consumption would reduce the lifetime risk of alcohol-related harm.

Does this sound at all familiar to you, drinkers? Does it sound at all like "Every cigarette is doing you harm"? It certainly should do as the message is identical - only the target has changed, drinkers, and the target now is you.

Actually you've been the new target for some years. Did you realise? Were you even aware that the nannies and wowsers were so confident of their victory that they swung the sights around to point your way even as they were still bullying smokers with your assent, if not your vociferous and active support? Did you know?

The smokers knew. You might think it somewhat surprising for people who sit all day in clouds of smoke emitted from something out of a packet covered in health warnings about it sending them blind, but the smokers saw it with crystal clarity. Mind you, it had been done to them so they were sure to recognise it, but I think they're puzzled, drinkers. They've been shouting warnings at you and you've been just sitting there. "They're doing to you what they have done to us", the smokers are shouting, and have been shouting for quite some time. Yet you don't seem to have heard. Is it because the nannies and wowsers persuaded you to push the smokers away out of earshot, or does alcohol damage your hearing?

Oh, I'm so sorry, there'll probably be a health warning to that effect now. Oh yes, there probably will. Tax on alcohol has been going up and up, and will continue to go up and up, and of course there have been labels on the bottles with the alcohol content for quite a while. And you sucked it up and accepted it, possibly in part because you could see that the smokers were getting a worse time of it. But all those other things I mentioned before are happening to you as well now, drinkers. Look at the examples. Look at the dates. This has been going on around you for years.

Seven years ago.

Two and a half years ago

Proposed

Already in use today

Do you see it? The calls for restrictions on advertising and minimum pricing, the health warnings that have already begun to appear on the labels and the proposals to make them bigger, and not least this new message that it's bad for you even in the smallest quantities and any positive benefit you thought it may have had... well you were wrong, d'you hear? Wrong! It was all a big fat lie, probably invented by a man with a vineyard or a brewery or something.

Is any of this ringing bells with you, drinkers? Can you see the pattern being repeated? "De-normalising alcohol"? Oh, yes, that particular chicken came home to roost earlier this year. Even the concept of passive drinking has been put forward (about five years ago - did you notice, drinkers?), to a large burst of bitter laughter from the smokers, I have to tell you. It dealt them a nasty blow and it's going to do the same to you, drinkers.

Now I hope this has served to get your attention, drinkers, because now I come to the point where I tell you some bad news, some good news and some bad news. The first bad news should be obvious: the same process that has been used with such success on the smokers is now well under way on you, and if you are persist in blinding yourselves to this fact then your liberty to enjoy an alcoholic drink in peace may be beyond saving, at least in the near future. The good news is that there are rather more of you than there are smokers and so you can put up more of a united front. But the other bad news is that this might well be insufficient since the wowsers have the ear of government and government really doesn't care much about you either. If it can do the same thing it did to the smokers, tax the hell out of them at the same time as making their lives miserable, then you can be certain it will. You need reinforcements, other voices to stand up for you. People who are not primarily drinkers. People who can see and understand what is being done to you and what is going to happen next.

People like the smokers, you might be thinking.

But I'm afraid I also have to tell you that some of the smokers think you fucking deserve it. You stood by and did nothing, not a damned thing, to help them when they were getting it in the neck, and now it's your turn some smokers are less than sympathetic. Many of them enjoy a glass or two and can be counted on to fight against the booze wowsers just as they did the smoke wowsers, but of course some smokers don't drink and can't see why they should lift a goddamn finger. Even now you can browse the comments sections of many an online article about smoking and find such bile and venom directed at smokers that Dick Puddlecote has begun to collect it (coincidentally, as I write this he's also got another piece up about passive drinking, just in case anybody thought that one from 2006 was a one off) and you can be certain that the overwhelming majority of the people who've spat such hate are fellow drinkers. Why, many smokers will ask, should they care when you still hate them? Even some who drink will ask why, when they're now making their own arrangements with Leg-ironian smoky-drinkies and soon home brewed drink and home grown baccy as well, they should give the remotest shit?

So who are you going to ask instead? What voice is going to speak up and object to the de-normalisation of alcohol? Me? Not my problem, fellas - I don't drink. But good luck with it, even though I might add that it really annoys me when some bloody drunk yaks all over the pavement or some slightly tipsy yahoo gets a bit loud in a restaurant. Nah, I think I'll let you get on with it while I finish my cheeseburger. Eh? What do you mean it'll be my turn next if I don't stand with you and help now?

Which is true, of course, and has been my point all along. But did you ever think of that when you were watching the smokers get a shoeing? Did you ever consider that they occupied the buffer zone between you and the nannying wowsers? No, you didn't, and many of you still don't. But now you're occupying the buffer zone between me and the wowsers, so of course I'll speak out for drinkers even though I don't drink.

But if you want the best chance of being able to drink in peace I'd mend some fences with the smokers if I were you, and I'd do it pretty damn sharpish.


* H/T Narco Polo (refs 1 and 3)

Seriously, New Zealand?

I mean, seriously?

Over-zealous officials are said to have banned bagpipes from the terraces amid fears that they could distract Scotland's opponents - despite the fact that they have featured in previous tournaments around the world.

Well, it's their stadium terraces so it's up to them, but the justification seems pretty silly. I suppose there might be something in the idea that the sight of a man in a skirt apparently fisting a screaming octopus is distracting, but since Scotland have yet to win the World Cup and haven't won the Six Nations since it was still the Five Nations possibly, just possibly, it's no more distracting than that French brass band who play like they're on amphetamines or Phil Vickery's face. Or that war dance that the national team of a certain south Pacific island nation do before every international match.

On the subject of smoking...

... I noticed just now while putting up a picture gadget to promote the the Wozza-Thompson e-petition to review the smoking ban that the number of signatures has roughly quadrupled in the day and a half or so since I added mine. Good start, and let's all liberty loving types, whether we're non-smokers or smokers, do what we can to keep that ball rolling. As I explained the other day, if you don't smoke but you drink then you're next, if you're a bit on the tubby side then you're right after the drinkers, and if you're neither you have a little bit of breathing space but you'd be very foolish indeed to believe that you're not on the list for something. Those jackboots of intolerance are marching towards you too, and if you can't hear them yet I assure you that you will eventually.

Your chance to have your say

And since this is to join Anthony Worral-Thompson in petitioning the government to scrap the smoking ban it is of course also a golden opportunity to be ignored and dismissed by your government, but that doesn't mean it's not worth having your say anyway. Eventually they'll have to justify why they're continuing to ignore it, and hopefully the useful idiots who currently support this kind of thing will wake up and smell the coffee (assuming it isn't banned or restricted by then). Even if you're not a smoker and don't like the smell of smoke - which I'd understand, being myself now a non-smoker who doesn't like the smell either - I'd still encourage you to sign it for three very compelling reasons:

1. If you drink then you're next.
2. If you don't drink but weigh more than the healthists say you should then you're right after the drinkers.
3. If you're not a drinker or a salad dodger then you're after both, but don't kid yourself for a minute that you're not on the list.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

So please think very carefully before deciding that it's a smokers' thing and it doesn't apply to you.
I guarantee that at least one other non-smoker will be signing it.

Click for the petition

Tip of the Akubra to Dick Puddlecote.

P.S. And thanks to MrAngry61 in the comments for letting me know I'd stuffed the link up. Hopefully anyone else went via the dismembered jewel thief's place, but if not it's fixed now.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

It's a funny one, the Law of Unintended Consequences. It's one of those laws that is beyond any possibility of repeal, but it's one that most governments, if they ever stop their furious production of arse gravy for long enough to think about things for a few minutes, must wish they could do away with quietly because they keep falling foul of it. These days the poor, stupid things seem to be particularly prone to unintended consequences when trying to give themselves a veneer of greenishness, and so it is with the latest example from this part of the world.

A couple of years ago, in a move reminiscent of the current drive for Australia to lead the world by introducing mandatory plain tobacco packaging to make it easier for counterfeiters and chop-chop dealers to compete with the legal tobacco industry, South Australia led the nation in banning plastic carrier bags. This would, it was claimed, reduce waste sent to landfill - though quite why that's a problem in a state of more than a million square kilometres and only 1.6 million people, three-quarters of whom live in Adelaide, I'm not quite sure. Nobody likes to see plastic bags littering the place, but SA is not short of room to bury shit is what I'm saying here. Now I know that you can probably emit some carbon dioxide down any street of any city in the developed world and be sure of warming at least half a dozen green zealots by a fraction of a degree, all of whom will tell you that plastic bags in landfill won't decompose for about eleventy squillion years, and hyperbole aside they're probably right. So far better to ban the nasty things and force everyone to buy those reusable ones, right?

Wrong, as any member of any household that used to reuse their carrier bags could have told them. We do use the reusable bags but we tend to make sure we get a few carriers on shopping trips for use in small pedal bins and for clearing up after pets, and since many SA pet stores will surely sell bags for that it's not like the bags are completely banned in SA. It's just that the supermarkets aren't allowed to give them out, or even sell them, for you to take your groceries home in. And since South Australians also used them for more than that the ban has had an effect that you probably needed to be in government to have been unable to foresee.

BIN liner sales in SA have doubled since free plastic shopping bags were banned more than two years ago.
And most bin bags are made of thicker plastic than traditional bags, which means they take longer to break down in the environment.

But... but... surely there must be some mistake because, as the article mentions, none other than the head of Zero Waste SA (a state government quango by the looks of it) said at the time that there wouldn't be a significant increase in bin bag sales. Exactly what he thought South Australians would be lining their bins with I don't know, but clearly it wasn't expected to be bin liners. So this must be coming as a bit of a shock.

Woolworths (one of Australia's big two supermarket chains - AE) says SA sales of plastic kitchen-tidy bags of a similar size, capacity and shape to single-use plastic shopping bags, are now double the national average.
At Coles (the other big supermarket chain - AE), sales of kitchen tidy bags increased 40 per cent in the year following the ban in May 2009.
Bin bag manufacturer Glad reported a 52.5 per cent jump in kitchen-tidy bag sales in the first year of the ban, compared with a 5.5 per cent increase nationally.
In SA, 48 million Glad bin bags were bought in 2008, rising to more than 73 million in 2009 and 84 million last year.
The figures have raised concerns about whether the plastic bag ban has been effective in reducing waste sent to landfill.

And it gets worse, since both paper and reusable bags are heavier, meaning emissions if you believe in warble gloaming, and costs if you don't, are higher per bag you transport since you'll get far fewer of them on the lorry. This is going to be at least partly cancelled out if a lot if people do reuse them but it turns out that there's more bad news on that score - they have to be reused a hell of a lot before they make up for the extra energy used in their production.*

HDPE bags are, for each use, almost 200 times less damaging to the climate than cotton hold-alls favoured by environmentalists, and have less than one third of the Co2 emissions than paper bags which are given out by retailers such as Primark.
The findings suggest that, in order to balance out the tiny impact of each lightweight plastic bag, consumers would have to use the same cotton bag every working day for a year, or use paper bags at least thrice rather than sticking them in the bin or recycling.
Most paper bags are used only once and one study assumed cotton bags were used only 51 times before being discarded, making them – according to this new report – worse than single-use plastic bags.

And ironically this means that I, as a warble gloaming sceptic, can use the allegedly eco-friendly bags with a clear conscience, while the eco-sustainability types should be marching on the South Australian parliament house to demand the evil polythene ones back. Clearly then, the policy makes no sense at all, and it's really a bit of luck that the South Australians have found out about these unintended, though not unforeseeable, consequences in time for other states and territories to avoid the same trap.

The Northern Territory and ACT are now introducing their own bans.

/facepalm


* Tip of the Akubra to Cracked.com.

Fighting back

It's looking increasingly likely that the ridiculous plain tobacco packaging plan is going to happen in Australia - coming to a country near YOU soon - but it's also having a positive effect in that people and businesses are at last starting to push back and tell the government to leave reasoning, responsible adults alone to make their own decisions. The latest effort, part of a campaign called simply Stop This Nanny State is rather good and I thought both my readers (hello Mum) might like to see it.

As with ideservetobeheard.com.au it's a simple website with the ads (which is where I half-inched them having seen them a few times on TV the last few days), some info, and a form to fill in which fires off a letter to your federal MP:

Dear [Local MP Name]

I'm an adult and I say NO to Plain Packaging Legislation

While many rules are necessary in a modern functioning society, there's a limit. The proposed Plain Packaging Legislation is quite simply regulation gone too far.

As an adult, I can make my own decisions.

I strongly urge you not to make Australia a Nanny State and ask that you represent my views to parliament.

Thank you

[First Name] [Last Name}

Needless to say I've already filled it in and I encourage my Australian reader to do likewise. And if you don't smoke watch that first one again, paying particular attention from 0:11 onwards. Don't go thinking that this is good for the majority, those of us who don't smoke, because the things that we do like to do are on the hit list too. They're already talking about health warnings on alcohol so it's no exaggeration to bring that up in the ad, and even my fellow non-smokers and/or non-drinkers should by now realise that the food we eat is next - we were reminded of that only the other day.

It's a simple choice, folks. We can choose to be free or we can submit to those who are so concerned for our physical welfare that they feel we must be prevented from doing anything they disapprove of. As C.S. Lewis said, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. And the nannies are so very, very concerned for the good of their victims.

Playing games

ZOMBIES!! Over there! Quick, kill 'em, kill 'em. We're allowed now, or at least we will be soon.

I wasn't planning to blog much over the next day or two but I'm going to make the time because of a rather unusual event: nothing less than a proposed reduction in the nanny state. Or, since we're talking about computer games, Australia's lack of an R18+ classification and the vocal minority who insist that we shouldn't have one, perhaps the religiously inspired moral arbiter state might be a better term. But however you want to describe it the bottom line is that it looks as if it's about to change and there'll be a little, though only a little, less nannying when it does.

On 25 May 2011, the Minister for Justice, the Hon Brendan O’Connor MP, issued a media release announcing draft Guidelines for the Classification of Computer Games for the information of the public.
Under the Classification (Films, Publications and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Cth) Commonwealth, State and Territory classification Ministers may approve guidelines by agreement to assist the Classification Board (the Board) apply criteria in the Code. Under the Classification Act, computer games are to be classified in accordance with the Code and the guidelines. If an R 18+ category is introduced, guidelines would assist the Board in applying this classification.
Separate guidelines for computer games have been drafted because of compelling research evidence indicating that interactivity may increase the impact of the classifiable elements in computer games (compared with films).

That's the good news. The bad is that there is still wiggle room in which the government and the Board can manoeuvre to concede other people's freedom to the religious minority that shrieks that violent games must be banned for the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiildren and that even scary games designed and marketed for adults should look like this.

Maybe not quite like this.

Now there are a couple of caveats here, so we shouldn't get too excited. First there is the use of the phrase "if an R18+ category is introduced" suggesting that it's not a certainty, although personally I feel it's pretty likely that it will happen. Second is the decision to believe in research (exactly what research isn't specified) that says interactivity "may" - another one of those could, might, may instances - increase the impact on players of sex, drugs, violence and all the other stuff the wowsers are worried about rather than research that says that in fact the opposite could/might/may be true. I'm not saying one lot of researchers are right and the others are wrong but I am saying that the government appear to have picked a side which, coincidentally I'm sure, appeals to the nannies, paternalists and other self-righteous pricks, and that greater impartiality would have been more appropriate.

Then there's the fact that once again South Australia seems to be playing silly buggers and wants the new category not as an addition to the current lineup but as a replacement for MA15+. So much for the new(ish) SA Attorney General being a more enlightened type when it comes to censorship. Still, in fairness to John Rau his concern that a lot of adult games are actually being sold as MA15+ here in Oz precisely because there hasn't been an R18+ category. Take Alien vs Predator, for example, it's an 18 in the UK and most countries, but only MA15+ here. Daft? Yes, it is daft that we have violent games being given a classification intended for less adult titles because there's no other option, but isn't it just as daft to want to reverse the situation so that games which really aren't that violent have to get lumped in with the all the alien-slaying zombie shoot 'em ups? I suppose that with Adelaide also being known as the City of Churches there's probably a significant religious vote for the local politicians to worry about. However, when something like 90% of the country thinks an 18 category is well overdue you'd expect the religious Righteous to be in a minority even in the City of Churches - just because there are a lot of churches it doesn't mean everybody goes.* Fortunately there is nothing in the proposed new guidelines about removing MA15+ and it doesn't look like happening.

Finally there are the guidelines themselves (here in PDF and here in DOC for those interested) and I have to say that there is still some cause for concern over a couple of sentences. First in the code (my bold):

The Code

Under the Code, classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles:
(a) adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want;
(b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them;
(c) everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive;
(d) the need to take account of community concerns about: (i) depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence; and (ii) the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.

Oh dear, the right not to be offended rears its ugly head again, though as usual it's not applied to the vast number of things that offend me. And nor should it unless you want to deprive millions of people of soap operas, soccer and manufactured pop music. I'm particularly offended by this pernicious belief, unsolicited examples of which I get every time I turn on the TV or open a newspaper, of various busybodies that I can't be allowed to make my own mind up and need protection from myself. That last clause suggests more of the same and could presumably be used to ban games which depict, say, overweight and brightly coloured people with aerials on their heads and a vocabulary of their own name plus five other words as being ravening zombies to be decapitated by a shotgun blast to the head. As we all know you don't need to find one to complain - you just need to find someone else who's prepared to complain on their behalf. Better to ditch the approach of worrying what may offend and demean people and just point out that computer and games console comes with an off switch.

More worrying is the bit about "community concerns", especially when taken with this section on the R18+ category itslef.

VIOLENCE

Violence is permitted except where it offends against the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults to the extent that it should not be classified.

Is it just me or does this sound like a sop to the Helen Lovejoys who'd probably like Scrabble to be restricted or for the letters S, E and X removed from every set? Australians would be allowed to buy adult games but only ones which don't offend the standards of morality (as defined by the Classification Board no doubt) which are accepted by reasonable (presumably also defined by the Board) adults and don't cause any community concerns (I expect defined by the Board and anyone who can drum up a few thousand signatures of people who want to express their outrage). There's also a bit that says that sex in games must only be simulated and that real sex is forbidden, though I'm not sure why anyone would think that's even necessary - wouldn't it void the warranty?

So all in all I'd say there'd still be some room for the finger waggers, prodnoses, nannies and disapproving busybodies to get in the way of other people's lives on the thinnest of pretexts, and therefore still room for improvement. I'd like to see a voluntary code where games makers simply put the content on the box and the kind of age group they've aimed it at, and beyond that leaving it up to parents to do some parenting and retailers to be sensible about it when someone 4 foot high asks in a piping voice for a copy of Naked Zombie Orgy Death Shotgun 3. At the least the draft proposal could make it plain to the tiny but noisy minority that what responsible adults choose to buy to entertain themselves with is nothing to do with anyone else, and they could do that by going back to that code and removing half:

The Code
Under the Code, classification decisions are to give effect, as far as possible, to the following principles:
(a) adults should be able to read, hear, see and play what they want;
(b) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them;
(c) that's it, now as long as you all play nice you can knock yourselves out.

I realise that of both my readers at least half are not resident in Australia (hi Mum) but if the proposal affects anyone reading this and you agree that the having game classifications should be about providing information to consumers, not about providing the means for small numbers of noisy wowsers to have censored anything they personally dislike, then you might like to know that the Commonwealth government have set up a short survey asking simply if you support the R18+ addition and/or the draft guidelines along with any comments you may have. It closes on the 22nd June, so why not get a copy from the proposal from links above, look it over then pop along and leave them some feedback?


* I'm not sure why so many of the people who get upset about people playing games with zombies in also happen to venerate someone who's supposed to have risen from the dead. Even the approval of Catholic bishops in Australia for R18+ is qualified by the statement that they'd still prefer it wasn't available at all.

Smoked fishiness - UPDATED

En bloc from The Australian:

Australians back plain cigarette packs

MOST Australians support the introduction of plain cigarette packets, with only about a quarter opposing the plan, a new survey shows.

Commissioned by the Cancer Council, the Newspoll telephone survey of 1200 people found almost 59 per cent approved of the Federal Government's push for plain cigarette packaging.

Almost a quarter (24 per cent) of respondents disapproved of the measure.

Cancer Council spokeswoman Caroline Miller said plain cigarette packets were backed by the science and the public.

"From what we know now, there is no valid reason to oppose plain packaging," she said today.

"The evidence is there, the community support is there and the desperate campaign being waged by the tobacco industry is further indication that it should work."

Labor wants to introduce plain packaging for all cigarettes from mid-2012 but the Opposition is yet to declare whether it will support the move.

As is so often the case with these things the actual questions asked and the context they were in are not reported, and that rings alarm bells. Were there one or more leading questions? Were there restricted choices on Who knows, since what's actually been reported appears to have been taken pretty at face value from a Cancer Council PR embargoed until 00:01 on the 29th May (just over an hour ago here) and amusingly leaked here two days ago. The PR doesn't offer any hints as to what was asked either. There is currently nothing on the Cancer Council's website about the survey, and there is nothing on Newspoll's website either. The lack of openness and the difficulty in finding out what was actually asked along with the fact that the survey was commissioned by a body which is extremely partisan on the issue, oh, and also my personal experience of not having met one single person who thinks it's a good idea - not one - being the polar opposite of 'most Australians support plain packs' all makes me wonder how reliable this survey is. In short, I wonder if it's had the Yes, Prime Minister treatment.

Incidentally, the Cancer Council's PR had one of their mouthpieces actually say (my bold):

“... it’s very encouraging to see that plain packaging is supported by the community, as well as by the science.”

The "science"? Science as in a survey with undisclosed methodology and a tiny sample size? Or science as in "experimental studies where subjects have typically been presented with both branded and mocked‐up plain packs and asked about associations and preferences" (PDF - p11) since there is no actual empirical data on the effects of plain packaging, nobody having been mad enough to do it up 'til now? Obviously I realise that the point I've made on this blog over and over and over again - that all illegal drugs, including illegal tobacco, are already sold in plain packaging and with no branding even possible beyond "the stuff that Dave-o gets" or similar, and that the people in that trade have no difficulty in maintaining a market for their products or attracting new consumers - is not a scientific one, the word "science" having become a cheap whore for any self-righteous, authoritarian, bastard wowser who feels like deploying it as a magic word to win an argument.

No, the point that drugs or any other commodity for which there is a demand do not suffer from plain packaging is not scientific, and the way the word is sometimes used these days I feel proud that it is not scientific. It's fucking factual, which I consider to be a hell of a lot better.

UPDATE - an hour or so later and I've just realised something. Neither The Aussie nor any other news website I seen which has the press release cum propaganda piece dressed as a news story had comments enabled at the time I wrote this. Perhaps a large number of commenters would have opposed the plain packs plan giving doubt to the claims being made, and perhaps not. Make of it what you will.