NHS Patients Should Be Allowed To Vape

Hospitals have been instructed to begin selling e-cigarettes and letting patients vape indoors and even in bed under controversial new health advice and the Public Health England (PHE) stated every smoker striving to quit, including pregnant women, should be encouraged to take up e-cigarettes.


Officials advised hospitals to substitute smoking shelters with vaping rooms and said patients should even be permitted to vape in their beds if they had single rooms. Plus they stated the devices should be given out by GPs on prescription, to promote broader takeup.

The proposals come as PHE issued an objective review into the evidence surrounding e-cigarettes and the reports, by experts from King’s College London and the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, the University of Stirling and Cancer Research UK, suggests e-cigarettes are helping up to 57,000 smokers a year to quit.

Plus it restated prior claims that vaping is at least 95 percent less dangerous than smoking while putting the heightened cancer risk at less than 0.5 percent.

Officials said smoking kills up to two in three smokers, yet half of the smokers wrongly thought e-cigarettes were as hazardous as smoking, however, in the new report, PHE projects its authority behind vaping, declaring that anyone striving to stop smoking should be encouraged to try e-cigarettes.

Health officials encouraged all employers to set aside rooms for workers using e-cigarettes as a means to give up smoking. However, they called on NHS hospitals to lead the way in making it easy for vapers to find somewhere to enjoy e-cigarettes within their buildings while imposing an entire prohibition on smoking anywhere on hospital grounds.

Martin Dockrell, PHE tobacco control lead, maintained hospitals should consider setting aside single occupancy niches for vapers and to encourage them to make at least some single occupancy rooms where people can vape and for the creation of shared lounges for vapers.

The writers of the review stated pregnant women who smoke should be urged to change to e-cigarettes, though they stated investigation on this is only now underway and writer Professor Linda Bauld stated pregnant women should never be dissuaded from vaping if the option was that they continued smoking.

The priority is that pregnant women should quit smoking and they shouldn’t have to wait three years for the trial and the warning to pregnant women is a logical strategy and every minute someone is admitted to hospital from smoking, with about 79,000 deaths a year in England alone.

The new study bolsters the verdict that vaping is a portion of the danger of smoking, at least 95 percent less dangerous, and of negligible danger to bystanders. Although over half of smokers either erroneously think that vaping is as dangerous as smoking or simply don’t know.

It would be terrible if thousands of smokers who could stop with the aid of an e-cigarette are being put off due to erroneous concerns about their safety and it’s of great concern that smokers still have such a feeble knowledge about what causes the harm from smoking.

When people smoke tobacco cigarettes, they breathe a deadly mix of 7,000 smoke elements, 70 of which are identified to cause cancer and people smoke for the nicotine but opposed to what the immense preponderance think, nicotine causes little if any of the harm.

The poisonous vapour is the offender and is the overwhelming cause of all the tobacco-related morbidity but hospitals are packed out as it is, a number of them don’t have an iota to spare with far too many patients being managed in hallways.

If they can obtain any spare rooms they should be using them to manage patients, not converting them into vaping zones. Patients who are capable of getting up and around could vape outside as years ago people who smoked were permitted to go outside in a designated space on the hospital grounds, which are not used anymore or for anything in particular.

Perhaps even put some seats outside for the patients so that they can feel more untroubled as numerous patients get really stressed and worked up in hospital and to be able to vape outside could be a way to make them feel more comfortable like they would do at home as creature comforts are really significant while a patient is in hospital and when these creature comforts are taken away it seems that patients don’t recover as fast.

Vapes are very good for those that want to give up smoking, but for those that don’t smoke also find that the smell is vile from the plumes of smoke that is puffed out by the vapers.

Maybe once the United Kingdom leaves the EU we should abandon their ludicrous controls on e-cigarettes and the NHS are only in crisis because the EU is an economic strain on the country, if Theresa May grew a spine and told the unelected officials in Brussel’s where to go we would have much more money to use on our services.


However, e-cigarettes that would be accessible on the NHS won’t be like the one you see in the shops, they’ll probably be those disposable Cigolite type ones that are mainly a waste of time, so a number of people would probably spend their own money purchasing a vape that work’s better but for people who don’t have a lot of money, they would find buying a vape much more challenging.

There will be plenty of people out there that will state that the NHS shouldn’t be giving out vapes for people and that it will cost too much money, perhaps that’s a valid point, after all, people that smoke cigarettes pull that money from their own pockets and consequently if you want to vape, that should perhaps also come from the buyers pocket.

On the other hand, the purpose is to prevent people from smoking entirely but this will not happen ever because tobacco companies get far too much money from people who smoke cigarettes, it’s a really profitable enterprise that kills people every day.

Cigarettes are not free on the NHS so neither should these vapes be available if someone wants to stop smoking they can comfortably afford a vape and if they can afford the cigarettes in the first place a vape will be no obstacle.

Some might state that an e-cigarette is not a medication and that it shouldn’t be accessible on the NHS and that there is lots of relief out there to stop smoking or going cold turkey and that giving up smoking will not kill them.

Smoking has fortuitously been labelled as an immediate passage to death by the World Health Organization, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and every other medical establishment on the face of the planet.

For those who spark up, the danger of cancer, lung disease, heart disease, and other medical maladies are considerably enhanced. Since the once-lucrative cigarette market has decreased in light of health crusades, a counterculture of unrealistic schemes to stop has sprung up in its place.


While we praise those who can kick the cigarette addiction, smokers encounter a unique and probably dangerous hurdle that is rarely discussed.

There are various manifestations associated with the discontinuance of smoking. Soon to be ex-smokers are typically prepared for moodiness, headaches, and periods of stress. What they’re not prepared for are cancers, heart attacks, and strokes.

If quitting smoking is deemed to be the best thing a smoker can do for their health, why does cutting the nicotine sinew frequently generate even more medical complexities?


The answer is nicotine and its interplay with a systemic fungal infection. While a cigarette is a deadly cocktail of chemicals, none is so powerful as nicotine. None of the chemicals in a cigarette are good for you, but they’re essentially created to serve as a delivery service for the star of the show, nicotine, which is absorbed inside seconds and heads right for your brain.


There, the nicotine simulates acetylcholine, the most widespread neurotransmitter in the brain. Acetylcholine assists in basic muscle functions, hand-eye-coordination, and complex neurological responses such as the release of another neurotransmitter, dopamine, which in turn arouses the body to sense gratification.

Acetylcholine is a substance produced in the brain and its release is rigidly controlled. Nicotine is not controlled by the brain, meaning the amount that you consume is the amount that stimulates the acetylcholine receptors. When the acetylcholine receptors are activated, they release the dopamine that then creates the calming pleasure response most smokers experience when they have a cigarette.

Another neurotransmitter that is stimulated by nicotine is glutamate. Involved in both long-term and short-term memory recall, the stimulation of glutamate while dopamine is being delivered produces a profoundly rooted memory of satisfaction associated with the consumption of nicotine.

This chemical process repeated many times every day is what produces such an extreme craving.

While your nicotine is tricking your brain into believing its acetylcholine, it’s also doing something else. Nicotine decreases the growth of parasites and fungus but does not stop them from spreading their contagious offspring all over the body.

When a smoker quits absorbing the nicotine, abruptly all of these disease-causing factors that have been dispersed everywhere the body starts to generate, formulating an infested body in a pretty short amount of time.

Therefore, does this suggest you should continue to smoke? Certainly not. Cigarettes and nicotine are poisonous and what this implies is that you need to reconstruct your immune system and strengthen the body while you quit smoking to decrease fungal growth.

Not only will this increase your overall well-being, but this will serve to control your cravings and decrease the withdrawal process.

In fact, various manifestations connected with quitting are really indications that there is a serious systemic fungal infection that is rearing its head for the first time and while it’s true that there are significant manifestations from nicotine withdrawal, frequently there are carbohydrate needs, weight increase, and low blood sugar rise from the infection developing.

Nicotine stifles both your taste and the fungus, therefore the amount that you consume reduces significantly, leading to smokers’ normal weight falling 10 pounds from the rest of us. Once a smoker stops their taste returns to normal and the fungus bounces into effect, eating up all of the sugars and carbohydrates in the bloodstream.


This causes the carbohydrate desires and low blood sugar, which cause people to consume more which in turn leads to weight increase.

Of course, smoking is the dumbest thing you can do to your own body, short of hurling yourself off a cliff. It turns your fingers yellow, your teeth brown and your lungs black and if you just picture your lungs, you could just torture yourself with the thought, that steady puffing that has transformed your lungs from cherry pink wet breathing baubles into a brittle pair of crackling desiccated paper bags, dangling sides by sides like toasted wholemeal pitta bread filled with tar and tumours.

Cigarettes trap you in a sadistic relationship, they beat you up within, yet some people can’t exist without them and some people are said to smoke like a chimney which would be misleading. A chimney belches smoke serenely, with little obvious effort.

Every so often people come to their senses and kicked the cigarettes out, assuring themselves that actually, it was over for good this time and then, months down the line, they’d overlook the bad times, forget all the damage, but the fact is, they still fancied a cigarette and in a vulnerable moment, following a few drinks, there they are having a cigarette.


But, people want out, going cold turkey which might endure 12 hours and then you end up roaming around your garage in tears all night. Next, come the patches and you can have some ridiculous dreams on those patches.

Thanks to the patches some people quit for five years or longer, suddenly they might go through a disturbing break-up or something similar and choose that it would be a breeze to amplify the grief by taking up smoking again.

This time, the habit adheres quick, then you try the patches again, but your spirit isn’t in it. You then end up using them as a stop gap for the habit. You spank on a patch on in the morning, pretend not to smoke all day, then strip it off at night and puff away through a packet.


There is a clinically high association between smoking and carcinoma of the lungs which has been the focal point of societal crusades against the habit and the tobacco lobby. In an overview of personal chronicle in a number of lung cancer patients regionally, there has been a causal connection between the presence of lung cancer and an abrupt and current suspension of the smoking habit in many, if not most situations.

The connection is more than the casual development of cancer within a few months of abstaining cigarette smoking. Over a span of 4 years, a sum of 312 instances was treated for carcinoma of the pulmonary source, of this amount, 182 patients had stopped smoking within 5-15 months prior to their being diagnosed with lung cancer.

Of the 182 patients, 142 were male and 40 were females, with ages ranging between 47 and 74.

Each one of these had been addicted to the habit for no less than 25 years, smoking in excess of 20 sticks a day. The outstanding direct statistical association between suspension of smoking to the growth of lung fatalities, more than 60 percent plus, is too evident to be rejected as coincidental.

It is the assumption that a wave and stream in re-activation of bodily healing and restoration mechanisms of continued smoke-damaged respiratory epithelia is caused and driven by an unexpected discontinuation of habit which goes wrong, triggering
uncontrolled cell division and tumour genesis.

In normal tissue healing, anabolic and catabolic processes obtain balance about 6-8 weeks following the first insult. When an irregularity occurs between these stages and happen in the healing process, and interruptions in repair limitations happen which lead to tumour genesis, this succession is fully represented in the formation of keloids from scars.

Nicotine spurs corticotrophin-releasing factor (CRF) besides raising the level of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), both of which interfere with immune systems.

The sudden removal of the addictive drug could trigger confusion of the smoking-steroid conferred resistance, priming the healing lung epithelia to critical levels of uncontrolled cell division.

Although, people usually sense or know something is awry, get frightened and stop smoking but by that time it’s too late. Sad to say quite a few smokers or anyone survive lung cancer, however, nothing would be lost by those who want to stop smoking and to do so slowly as described in this study, which makes great sense.

The safest way to stop smoking would be to cut out 1 cigarette per week until reaching 1 or 2 cigarettes a day. Then, the person can choose if he wants to also reduce those cigarettes.

People tend to listen to or learn the material, studies that have been done, some with unsupported scientific rigour, then there are the studies of secondhand smoke.


Remember your childhood, and how many cigarettes, pipes or cigars you were exposed to when your families came to visit, there have been many studies on secondhand smoke, but as we all know, studies are known to be particularly incorrect at times and then we have carbon emissions.

Smoking is like an addiction and like any addiction lifelong addicts must be weaned and tapered off and going cold turkey could be quite damaging to the body, essentially a trauma to the system, particularly the lungs, it’s not rocket science, it’s logic.

The government say they’re helping you to quit smoking, they replace the packaging, put on the side of the packages “Smoking increases the risk of cancer” and then market it for an exorbitant amount of money.

The government don’t care if you stop smoking or not, they simply have to look as if they actually care, but they only care if their profit margin is good and by definition, if you think you can’t have something, you simply want it more. At the end of the day, we’re all going to die, we could get knocked down by a car tomorrow.

We know that cigarettes are toxic, there is no denying that fact and if a person wants to willfully poison themselves, that’s up to them but there are many other chemicals that we ingest every day that destroy us as well.









No Tuition Fee Reforms This Year

More than 500,000 students have been apportioned a tremendous setback after a Tory minister ruled out extreme reforms to education fees this year. Sam Gyimah declared it wouldn’t be credible to complete a purposed shake-up merely months after he took the position of universities minister.

It means those starting university in September 2018 face paying fees of £9,250 a year and above-inflation interest on their loans, currently at 6.1 percent. That’s despite them starting their education nearly a whole year after Theresa May began her major review of student funding at the 2017 Tory conference.

Mr Gyimah informed the BBC that while tuition fees were a problem, and that living costs were also a dilemma, what he wants to do is look at the entire arrangement of student finance in the round and it’s got to be done very precisely and quite orderly.

When he was questioned if improvements would happen in time for September 2017, Mr Gyimah stated that if he were to say that the government will conduct a review of our whole higher education system and be done in seven months, that would not be likely.

It wasn’t conceivable for him to respond and it wasn’t a conceivable timeframe within which to do that piece of work.


Tory MP Justine Greening, who was removed as Education Secretary in Theresa May’s reorganisation, asked for a more progressive policy than maintenance loans to meet students’ living expenses and loans which replaced grants for the disadvantaged were wrongly leaving hard-up scholars with more debt by the time they graduate.

She advised she had been against a wide-scale review of student finance while in office because the danger of a review is that you just kick things into the long grass and she recommended the money raised from tuition fees should be ring-fenced for the higher education system and figures from admissions service the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) show 650,000 people applied for university positions last year.

Political parties always say vote for us and we will do this and that for you and then they respond with or think that we were stupid enough to choose them and then they do nothing that they promised, however, nobody should be surprised by this!

Education is, of course, a cash cow as is pension schemes. Privatisation is a cash cow and utilities are a cash cow, rents are cash cows and the nation has come to a point where you have to pay to prove your own existence and we’re simply a commodity.

THIS Is Judge Cottle

There will always be Paedophiles, but it’s what’s done with them after they have performed a crime that matters.

It’s a really ruthless business putting somebody in prison, it’s not only a burden on the justice system that has to determine that outcome, but it’s also a burden on society.

Of course, not everybody complies with the law, but there are unquestionably some laws that we must comply with at all times and there are others that we might be able to get away with a slap on the hand or a non-custodial punishment but paedophilia, rape and murder are not one of those times.

However, Judge Cottle refused to jail certain people that had performed paedophilia offences and he appears to believe that the exploitation of children is not a severe enough violation to justify a custodial sentence.

He further fails to appreciate the long-lasting repercussions of these heinous crimes on young and defenceless child survivors and the penalties he is serving up are quite frankly an affront to the victims affected.

In January 2018, a charity worker arranged to meet girls under the age of 14 for sex in hotel rooms. This man avoided prison because Judge Graham Cottle thought that this man could get help.

Another man asked at least 39 minors for naughty images and threesomes before he was seized by the UK database but Judge Cottle gave him a 12 month suspended sentence for two years and this man was ordered to serve a 20-day rehabilitation.

In 2007, two men plied two 14-year-old girls with booze and amphetamines before having sex with them at a gathering and has been saved from prison because Judge Cottle concluded it was consensual, he may as well have performed the offence himself.

In May 2009, a man molested a five-year-old girl and he has also dodged prison, he was convicted to 18 months in prison, deferred for two years by Judge Cottle. He had also been convicted of indecently abusing the girl in the 1990’s and a similar offence against a 12-year-old youngster in another part of the country in the 1980’s, he clearly didn’t learn his lesson.

In 2003, a paedophile school bus driver assaulted three young girls and evaded prison.

How he was even allowed the job of school bus driver after having sex with a minor and also being on the sex offenders register is incredible. He then targeted the three girls who were also minors.

However, Judge Graham Cottle refused to jail the felon after a jury found him guilty of indecent assault and said that he should undergo a sex offender’s programme instead.

In 1996, a former school bus driver pleaded guilty to sexually violating two schoolgirls and was given the opportunity to change his ways by Judge Cottle despite a damaging report that he posed a danger of re-offending.

In September 2017, a convicted sex offender took four girls under the age of 10 out on excursions and took photo’s of them on the English Riviera big wheel. He was given a deferred prison sentence by Cottle for breaching the terms of a court mandate forbidding him from unsupervised association with children.


In August 2011, the Beast of Sligo was released to wander the streets despite being sentenced to 238 years. Joseph McColgan was imprisoned for a record 238 years for raping his own children. Nevertheless, the Irishman who was dubbed the Beast of Sligo served only nine years before his early discharge in 2004.

In June 2010, Judge Cottle gave him only 30 months for possessing child sexual abuse photographs before he was discharged early again.

Of course, the list goes on, and of course, we don’t want to misuse the taxpayer’s money, but if a felony has been perpetrated and such a heinous crime at that, then that offense needs to be approached in the correct way, after all, isn’t that why we have a justice system?

It’s not like they were stealing from a bank or taking from a friend, even though they’re against the law, it’s not the same as stealing a child’s virtue, that’s something they will never get back. It’s not material, it’s physical, not only to the mind but to the body as well.

A prison sentence should mean a prison sentence when dealing with paedophilia, rape and murder because those initial years of a child are fragile and need to be refined in a particular way and when somebody comes along and violates that, their whole being is violated for life, there is no going back to the beginning.

I’m not insinuating that we should bring back capital punishment, hell no, but when someone perpetrates such a heinous crime, such a sentence should be implemented – Life!





Baroness Tessa Jowell – A Standing Ovation

Baroness Jowell stood donning a headscarf as peers and MPs gave a minute-long standing applause following her address about her battle against terminal brain cancer. The unparalleled applause was marked by around 200 peers applauding her, several of whom were in tears after Lady Jowell called on them for a more coordinated approach to combating cancer.


Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, attended the deliberation at the session of the House of Lords with other ministers and joined in the ovation.

In the end, what gives a life meaning is not only how it’s lived but how it draws to an end and we pray that this deliberation will give faith to other cancer patients, like Baroness Jowell so that people can live well together with cancer and not simply the terminally ill but all of us for longer.

Following the supported ovation, she continued: “That belongs to all of us, so thank you very much.”

Lady Jowell applied her address to push for more alliance and distribution of information by doctors to combat cancer and for more adaptive trials of new cancer medications and too much information about new drugs has been held in silos with extremely limited access.

The strategy should be all about sharing knowledge at every level between everyone involved.

She told the peers: “Seamus Heaney’s last words were ‘Do not be afraid’.

“I am not afraid. I am fearful that this new and important approach may be put in the too difficult box but I also have such great hope.

“So many cancer patients collaborate and support each other every day. They create that community of love and support each other every day.”

Reading from her minutes, and occasionally tripping over her words, Lady Jowell explained how she was getting into a taxi on May 24 last year when she discovered she could not talk and two days later, she was diagnosed with a brain tumour, that was removed two weeks later.


Lord Falconer, the former Labour Cabinet minister, who sat beside Lady Jowell, stated that he had never seen the public gallery as abundant as they had been that day and everyone was a friend or member of the family of Tessa Jowell.


Lady Jowell was one of Labour’s best-known features throughout Tony Blair’s time and was recognised as the minister who brought the Olympics back to Britain in 2012.

Some might not like her party or politics but we should all wish her well and she warrants admiration for addressing the matter and it was such an amazing moment in the House of Lords with an emission of love and respect for Tessa Jowell from all who were present in the chamber, including Jeremy Hunt watching from the steps of the throne.

Some might say that she’s using her situation to promote and would she have done this if she wasn’t sick and maybe self-serving is the only message some people might get from this and imagine all the families who have lost people to this illness who have been demanding for this investment in research and development and have been disregarded.

It’s terrible what she is going through right now but I question if she ever thought of this when she was actually in the House of Commons and she could have supported other people who had Cancer then.

There are so many different sentiments on this and it should not take one member of the House, suffering from Cancer, to make an argument that many in the medical field have been making for years and it’s tragic to see how frail she now looks.

Some people believe there is already a remedy for Cancer and that the world of alternative cancer treatments overflows with claims like these: “The war on cancer is largely a fraud.”

In 1964, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) spent millions of dollars to stop an alternative cancer treatment which had cured hundreds, if not thousands, of cancer victims.

The pharmaceutical multinationals, powerless to control or claim sole rights to the vitamin, started a publicity barrage of unprecedented viciousness against B17, despite the fact that strong evidence of its effectiveness in managing all kinds of cancer envelope us in a powerful bounty.

The prevailing narrative is that there is a collusion by the well-established medical industry to keep the cure for cancer hidden. This is the “cancer conspiracy”. The logic behind this theory typically goes like this:

Alleged Fact 1: Cancer is a multi-billion dollar industry.
Alleged Fact 2: Treatment X cures cancer so well it would slaughter that industry.
Conclusion 3: Some people, companies, and government establishments included in the enterprise are containing the data about X to keep their business flourishing.

Is the government suppressing the cure for cancer? Of course, they have it. The government have the cure for cancer but won’t realise it because they would lose so much money. They wouldn’t need to be prescribing drugs which the government make money from, they wouldn’t need all these cancer nursing doctors which make a bunch of money from these foundations such as Macmillan et cetera.

We should let this be known to the world what the government are attempting to do so those who have succumbed to cancer haven’t perished in vain.

If the government really had buried a cure, and they released it finally, the tumult from the people would be terrifying. Furthermore, why would the government hide it for money? The medical industry would maybe, but I’m not sure the government would because the government could simply print cash anytime.

Even if the medical industry did find a cure for cancer, they could simply sell the drug at an indecently huge amount and counter their loss of those ineffective drugs that don’t cure cancer.

However, it’s scrawled all over their bank accounts, new cars, new houses, private jet everything. You can’t be too naive in this society anymore, it’s been over eighty years and they have made over 100 billion dollars from cancer victims and charities put together.

You simply need to question, if they found the cure, fewer positions would be required in the health department.

However, most people feel strongly that the government, not just the US government but governments in other countries know about a cure for cancer and don’t expose it because it’s a means of population control.

There are more and more treatable cancers that people live through and overcome perfectly well, however, they the government don’t implement the cure for terminal cancer because they see it as a means to help overpopulated nations.

Everything is about money and if the government knows that if they were to release the cure that hospitals, doctors and pharmacist/pharmacies et cetera, they would lose money and so would many other industries.

So to circumvent that, they prefer to not give up the cure and let millions of people perish from cancer.

Sadly, the world isn’t a perfect place, and in some cases, it requires those little blemishes and when governments are mentioned, they should be mentioned as a whole, US, NATO and the UN because issues like this that affect humanity are not only dealt with by the US, they’re dealt with by the Global Elites, World Bank Heads, and Members of the UN.

Around the world, approximately 8 million die each year from cancer, although there are about 7.2 billion people in the world and the population growth is a steady 1.14 percent each year and countries and governments around the world can’t afford overpopulation and they do their best to control population growth.

Why do wars exist today? Other than of course money from companies that benefit massively from conflict and its effective way to regulate the population.

War actually doesn’t benefit anyone, but what has been the sole greatest man-made explanation of destruction, slaughter, cruelty, death, sickness, disease, depression, abuse, loss of identification and selection? The answer is war and it has sort of endured for as long as people have.

While most of us will agree that war is a terrible thing, we also talk about world peace as we all see the terrible effects war has had on literally billions who have been killed or have had their lives affected negatively from it.

Therefore, why does war endure? Is it just human nature? And whose nature? All humans? Since it unquestionably isn’t in mine neither is it in the overwhelming preponderance of people.

Even people who go to war come back with repentance, and psychological problems, with suicides amongst former soldiers, which are common but despite the fact that they felt terrible guilt, they’ll still justify why going to war was a necessary evil.

But why is it necessary, who is it for and who is it helping?

War, cancer and HIV are the most profitable and the most efficient ways that governments around the world have been making billions of dollars and killing millions.


The Federal Reserve, other than generating debt, takes old money that no one wants, destroys it and restores it with new money that people want, which reduces inflation and raises the value of the dollar and saying that, hospitals do the same for human beings, they get rid of the old, restore it with the new and increase the value of life by formulating incurable diseases that control the inflation of humans as we know it.


If we think about how many enterprises benefit from cancer. Cancer research, pharma, educational institutions, medical professionals et cetera, the results would be so far-reaching and if you don’t believe that big pharma and governments are in bed together you might want to think again.

They’re certainly getting a piece of the action on the meds they approve and they would sell a cure for cancer, but the money they would make from that wouldn’t affect how much they make keeping people sick.

We’ve all been schooled in all sorts of distortions about cancer by the cancer exploiters. The institutions, cancer doctors, oncology centres and chemotherapy drug makers who benefit from cancer.

In order to keep their profits rolling, they have to keep you in the dark about cancer facts. How it starts, how it can be stopped and how it can even be reversed and if you or a loved one have been diagnosed with cancer, or even speculate you might have cancer, it’s essential to learn how the profit cancer business has been misleading you.

Remember, cancer doctors like the felonious oncologist Dr Farid Fata dishonestly diagnosed people with cancer to make money off treating them with dangerous chemicals known as chemotherapy. Dr Fata, who worked out of a state-of-the-art cancer centre in Detroit, is now a convicted criminal.

But there are more felons working in the cancer business. Oncologists, cancer surgeons, breast cancer professionals and mammography con artists. Their aim is to terrify you with a fake positive diagnosis, then persuade you to undergo surgery, chemotherapy or radiation therapy that you don’t even require.

To bypass all that and possibly even save your own life, master and retain these top 20 biggest cancer lies you’ve been programmed to accept.

Cancer is caused by unavoidable bad karma, not cause and effect, it’s a lie. Cancer always has a cause. There is no such thing as spontaneous cancer without cause, and the cancer doctors who maintain such phenomena are practising nothing but cancer voodoo or promoting anti-science disease magic embedded in occultism rather than truth.

There is no cure for cancer, it’s a lie. There are thousands of cures for cancer that already exist in the natural world and are being used every day all across the planet, outside the controlled monopolies of pharmaceutical medicine and toxic chemotherapy.

Your body already knows how to cure cancer. It simply requires the means and avoidance of toxic chemicals to achieve it.


Chemotherapy treats cancer, it’s a lie. Chemotherapy is a sort of chemical carpet-bombing method to primitive medicine that defiles the whole body. The measured reduction of cancer tumours isn’t a treatment for cancer at all.

Unless the cancer tumour stem cells are removed or destroyed, the tumour simply grows back and once the body is destroyed by chemotherapy, its immune response to cancer is forever endangered, which is why cancer tends to return in multiple organs within 12-24 months following a person undergoing chemotherapy.

There’s no such thing as an anti-cancer food or herb, it’s a lie. Anti-cancer medicines have been created by Mother Nature since the beginning of life on our planet. There are actually thousands of anti-cancer plant nutrients found in the foods at every grocery store in just the fresh produce section.


The anti-cancer properties of these powerful foods like turmeric, garlic, onions, ginger and broccoli seldom draw any media attention because they can’t be controlled and turned into high-profit drugs.

None of the chemicals used in personal care products causes cancer, it’s a lie. Popular personal care commodities are completely packed with cancer-causing chemicals, including hormone disruptors, known carcinogens and fragrance chemicals that increase mutagenesis.

Almost all commercial laundry detergents and fabric softeners are little more than cancer-causing cocktails of hazardous chemicals sold in happy-looking boxes.


Pesticides and herbicides don’t cause cancer, either, it’s a lie. Pesticides only work because they meddle with metabolic processes and kill organisms. By definition, they’re dangerous, or they wouldn’t be used as pesticides.

The world’s most widespread herbicide, glyphosate, is molecularly pretty similar to VX Nerve Gas, the most lethal thing ever invented by humankind and developed as a weapon of mass destruction.

You’re destined to get cancer and there’s nothing you can do to prevent it, it’s a lie. There’s nothing in your genes that programs you to have cancer. Your genetic code is actually a blueprint for excellent health.

But when your body’s cells are soaked in deadly, cancer-causing chemicals found in food and personal care products, it causes good genes to turn bad through mutations, leading to cancer. You have extraordinary authority over your exposure to or evasion of cancer-causing chemicals.

Cancer doctors want to help you defeat cancer, it’s a lie. Cancer doctors make enormous profits on chemotherapy, surgery and radiation regimes. It’s in their financial interests that you have recurring cancer, generating repeat business for them.

If they helped you defeat cancer, they would lose your business and lose out on all the money they can make off your disease.

Mammograms detect cancer early and thereby save lives, it’s a lie. Mammograms release ionizing radiation that causes cancer. The more mammograms you get, the more likely you are to eventually be diagnosed with cancer, caused by the mammography.

Also, there are so many false positives in mammography that statistics show mammograms eventually harm 10 women for every 1 woman they might help.

A cancer diagnosis is always true and correct, it’s a lie. Cancer examinations are often embellished or manufactured out of thin air by cancer doctors looking to make money off medically unjustified cancer treatments.


Dr Farid Fata, for example, was found guilty of criminal deception for falsely diagnosing healthy people with cancer at his popular oncology clinic in Detroit. He intentionally lied to every patient who walked into his clinic, telling them they had cancer and that they would die without his chemotherapy.

He poisoned thousands of people and is now serving time in federal prison for his offences and he’s just one of many criminal cancer doctors in the industry.

The drug companies want to find a cure for cancer, it’s a lie. The drug companies want to keep milking cancer for profits, and they have no interest whatsoever in reducing their revenue stream by curing cancer and to do so would be financial self-destruction.


Komen for the Cure raises money to try to defeat cancer, it’s a lie. The fraudulent, corrupt Komen group is a cover for the cancer business. It gathers in money from contributions and uses most of it to run mammography clinics in poor, inner-city neighbourhoods where people can be diagnosed with cancer and turned over to chemotherapy treatments for sick profits.

Komen for the Cure is operating a medical scam and has zero interest in curing cancer. It’s the same scam we’ve been guaranteed since the 1960s. If we just had a few more billion dollars in funding, we’d find a cure.

Cancer is an antagonist that has attacked your body, and it should be defeated by invading the body with chemical weapons, it’s a lie. Cancer is really just your body’s own cells multiplying out of control. It’s not something you catch or something that infects your body.

Modern medicines make an enormous blunder in treating cancer like an infectious disease, blasting the body with substances to try to annihilate cancer. But the cancer is your body’s own cells gone haywire, so to kill cancer, they have to very nearly kill you at the same time.

Once the drug companies find a cure for cancer, they’ll give it to the world for free, it’s a lie. The drug companies are engaged in profits, not saving mankind. The very notion that drug companies would give billions of dollars promoting a drug and then give it away for free is ludicrous.

All these people giving money to search for the cure don’t realise that cure will never be delivered to the world for free, even if it is ever found in the realm of pharmaceuticals. Drug companies solicit profits, and profits come from controlling the treatments while keeping people sick.

They don’t come from finding a cure and delivering it for free.

Having a double mastectomy prevents breast cancer, it’s a lie. Hacking off body parts that might eventually get cancer is maybe the most stupid way possible to strive to evade the disease. There’s a sexist element to this, too.

Have you ever noticed that cancer doctors never tell men to cut off their balls to prevent testicular cancer? Perhaps they will someday recommend people cut off their own heads to stop brain cancer, too.

Sunlight causes cancer and sunscreen prevent it, it’s a lie. Sensible sunlight exposure actually inhibits cancer by producing vitamin D in your skin. Most people are horribly vitamin D deficient, and it’s low vitamin D levels that encourage tumours to spread throughout the body. This is why most tumour growth happens in the winter.

Vitamin D is such a powerful nutrient that it alone has been shown to inhibit more than 80 percent of all cancers. But it has to be consumed in much higher dosages than typically used.

The only reason we haven’t already cured cancer is that we haven’t spent enough money on it yet, it’s a lie. This is the same deception repeated since the 1960s, a claim that the cure for cancer is just around the corner, and we only require more research money to ultimately solve it for good.

But what this deception entirely neglects to acknowledge is that the cancer business isn’t interested in a cancer cure. There’s far too much money to be made from cancer patients, cancer contributions, cancer research and cancer drugs.

Cancer is a multi-billion dollar enterprise, and nobody in the industry is actively trying to make themselves irrelevant.

Modern cancer treatments are extremely effective and supported by scientific data of their effectiveness and safety, it’s a lie. The actual scientific data shows that chemotherapy only works on about 2 percent of cancers.

For the other 98 percent of patients undergoing chemo, it’s really a lethal toxin that destroys their heart, liver, brain and kidneys. As with almost everything in the pharmaceutical industry, the scientific data on cancer treatments is twisted or manufactured to favour the financial advantages of the drug industry.

There is no link between diet and cancer, it’s a lie. Unless you’re a smoker, what you eat is the number 1 deciding factor of whether you get cancer or avoid it. The foods you eat every day have a direct, measurable and undeniable influence on cancer, either preventing it or causing it.

The cancer industry wants to put itself out of business, it’s a lie. Ultimately, the great lie of the cancer industry is that it wants to make itself obsolete by solving cancer. This deception is predicated on the ludicrous proposition that every cancer expert, the cancer doctor, cancer non-profit, cancer research facility and the cancer drug company wants to bankrupt itself by eradicating cancer permanently.

Any rational person knows that people who are marinaded in the profit of cancer will never give up those gains, even if it involves making sure people stay sick and diseased because your suffering is of no interest to them. They need profits.


Little Green Pieces Of Paper

Have you ever overheard people say that money is simply small green pieces of paper? Well, that’s precisely what they are.

Money doesn’t have any intrinsic worth, except if you like staring at images of dead public heroes, then money has no more value than any other piece of paper until as a nation and an economy, we attach meaning to it.

Then it has value, but the value isn’t inherent, it’s assigned and usually agreed upon by users worldwide but it didn’t always operate this way.

In history, money usually took the form of coins made of valuable elements such as silver and gold.

The value of the coins was then harshly founded on the value of the metals they contained because you can always melt the coins down and use the metal for other purposes and until a few decades ago paper money in various countries was based on the gold and silver standard or some combination of the two.

This then meant that you could take paper money to the government, who would then trade it for some gold or silver based on the exchange rate, which was established by the government.

The gold standard continued until 1971 when President Nixon declared that the United States would no longer trade dollars for gold. This ended the Bretton Woods system.

Presently the United States is on a system of fiat money, which is not attached to any other stock, therefore, these pieces of paper in your pocket, are just simply that, pieces of paper.

Therefore, why does a five-dollar note have value and some other pieces of paper don’t?

It’s really easy, money is great when there is a restricted supply and there is a need for it because people want it.

The reason we want money is that we know other people want it, so then we can use the money to buy goods and services from them. Goods and services are what sequentially matter in the marketplace. People exchange their labour to earn money in the present to buy goods and services in the future.

And if we think that money will have value in the tomorrow, we will strive towards getting some of that.

Our system of money works on a common set of ideas, so long as enough of us believe in the future value of money the method will work and it is doubtful that money will be replaced in the coming future.

If one currency is to be succeeded by another, there will be a period in which you can change your old money for new. This is what occurred in Europe when countries changed over to the Euro.

Therefore, our money is not going to die completely, even though at some future time you may be trading in the money you have now for some kind of money that replaces it.

Money that has no intrinsic worth, paper money called fiat money, which originates in Latin, where it’s the imperative mode of the verb facere, to make or become.

Fiat money is money whose purpose isn’t inherent but called into by a human system and in the United States, it’s called into being by the federal government, which demonstrates why the expression “backed by the full faith and credit of the government” which indicates what it states and no more.

The money may have no inherent value, but you can trust using it because of its federal reinforcement.

Why else might we consider that our money might not be of value to others in the future? Well, what if we thought our money wouldn’t be nearly as valuable in the future as it is today?

This increase of the currency, if it became superfluous, then makes people want to get rid of their money as quickly as possible and inflation and the normal way citizens respond to it can cause great suffering for an economy.

People will not sign into lucrative deals which involve future payments because they’ll be uncertain what the value of money will be when they get paid and business activity piercingly weakens because of this.

Inflation can cause all kinds of other inabilities, from the cafe down the road adjusting its costs every few minutes to the homemaker taking a wheelbarrow full of money to the bakery in order to purchase a loaf of bread.

The belief in money and the constant value of the money are not innocuous things.

If citizens lose confidence in the money stock and think that money will be worthless in the coming economic activity, it can then grind to a standstill.

This is one of the principal reasons the US Federal Reserve works diligently to keep inflation within the bounds, a little is really good, but too much can be destructive.

Money is actually good, so as such is governed by the premise of supply and demand and the value of any good is defined by its supply and demand and the supply and demand for other goods in the marketplace.

And a reward for any good is the sum of money it takes to get that good.

Inflation happens when the price of goods rises, in other words, when money becomes less important relative to those other goods.

This can happen when the amount of money goes up and the amount of their goods goes down.

The principal cause of inflation increases in the supply of money but inflation can happen for other reasons, say if a natural catastrophe damages shops but left the banks intact, we’d expect to see an instant increase in prices, as assets are not limited relative to money.

These kinds of situations are unique and for the most part, inflation is created when the money supply increases quicker than the number of other goods and services.

Money only has worth because people think that they will be able to exchange this money for goods and services in the future and this idea will only continue so long as people don’t fear future inflation or there is a collapse of the issuing agency and its government.

Our money only has worth because we maintain it does.

A dollar bill is simply a worthless bit of green paper in your pocketbook unless everyone else thinks it’s worth a dollar but green pieces of paper aren’t like pieces of silver or gold, you can’t boil them down to make anything of value.

Money only means something because we as a culture acknowledge that it does and that’s why we feel happy taking cash as payment for the work that we do, rather than gold or timber or something else.

But remember, money is great just like anything else and goods are subjected to the dictates of supply and demand. If you have a lot of widgets and no one really wants a widget, then those widgets would be worthless.

The same is true of our money, if there’s too much money out there, that money will be used to purchase things and then charges on goods like a four-star meal will rise swiftly and each dollar won’t have that much value.

That’s inflation but the reverse, deflation is just as harmful.

So, why does money have value? Because everybody says it does!


Rail Fare Rises And The NHS

Theresa May has supported rail fare rises by maintaining investment is required and the Prime Minister stated increases in regulated fares are kept to inflation, with 97p of every pound given towards a ticket being put into railways.

Fares increased by a percentage of 3.4, with a yearly pass from Mrs May’s Maidenhead constituency to London raising by £104 to £3,092.


Theresa May, talking to BBC1’s The Andrew Marr Show, announced: “Since privatisation, usage of the railways has doubled and we have seen the biggest investments since Victorian times in our railways.

“A lot of people rely on our railways, we want to see good service on our railways but that does mean that investment is needed.”

Theresa May was further asked about the Government’s early close of the East Coast rail franchise involving Stagecoach and Virgin.

They had agreed to give the Government £3.3 billion to operate the service over eight years until 2023 even though it was announced in November that a new East Coast Partnership will take on responsibility for both intercity trains and track operations on the route in 2020.

When asked to guarantee that taxpayers will get the £3.3 billion from the two companies, Theresa May responded: “Virgin and Stagecoach are still paying money to the Government for the East Coast line.”

However, remember this, everytime an MP gets on a train it gets put on expenses and it doesn’t matter to them how much it costs and then they go on TV and the radio informing the masses this and that, with people forgetting that the choices they make normally affect them.

Then there is more money and cheap fare for the foreign countries that own some of our railways, Deutsche Bahn that own Wales & Borders

The main three companies from abroad were German state-owned Deutsche Bahn, the international branch of the Netherland’s nation operator, Abellio, and French firm Keolis.

When will the government acknowledge that rail franchising has failed and to do the only rational thing which is to deliver all UK rail services to public ownership? Nevertheless, analysts pointed out the reason for overseas affairs in the United Kingdom.

International operatives want to buy into the United Kingdom to encourage growth in commuter amounts as do the privatised UK franchise operatives and even though the likes of Deutsche Bahn are state-backed, they’re managed commercially and for the interest of travellers, unlike nationalised UK companies.

With Britain’s railways transported passenger volumes of 1.6 billion in 2016, this compares with volumes of 735 million in 1995, just as the privatisation of the UK’s rail network started. This was a drop from volumes of just over 1 billion in 1948 when British Rail was first brought in to run the network.

Nationalisation has led to declining passenger usage and privatisation has led to growing passenger usage.

Nationalised UK industries have revealed unequivocally, that they can’t operate commercially and that International arms of European state-owned operatives have worked commercially.

Theresa May is so out of touch with the real world. When was she ever on a meagre salary with bills to pay and no pay increases for years and the same with NHS, when did she last use them?

Theresa May is in denial and out of touch in her acknowledgement to the crisis of the NHS and she and her Tory Government have ceased to take any blame for looking after our National Health Service.

She casually disregarded the concerns of thousands of patients and NHS workers, lecturing that hospital pressures were nothing more than a small number of incidents in which unacceptable practices have taken place.

Nationwide, some 66 out of 152 hospital trusts have raised major alerts showing they’re struggling to manage and behind each of these major alerts are hundreds of accounts of patients being let down by an NHS in disaster.

Ambulances have been backed up sometimes for hours and hours with patients unable to even get to the hospital and every day we hear more and more of these stories.

Theresa May and her Government not only take no blame. She feels no remorse and doesn’t appear to understand what’s happening to real people and now thinks it’s a small number when more than a quarter of patients are waiting over four hours in A&E.

She now thinks it’s acceptable that hospitals have to turn gymnasiums into makeshift wards and pensioners are ambushed, waiting in freezing ambulances and everybody aside from Tory ministers knows that unless we properly finance and combine social care and health care we will never completely solve the dilemma confronting our NHS.

Everybody in the real world knows that if you don’t finance the social care older people need, they will end up in NHS hospitals not being able to get safely home where they want to be. But Theresa May doesn’t live in the real world.

Rather than doing something about it, her answer is to attempt to water down the A&E target as if she thinks that adjusting the goals in Whitehall will make any difference to somebody waiting in fear on a trolley in a real A&E, she is very wrong and she’s even attempted to accuse family doctors.

NHS - Logo.png

The rest of us know that the NHS is in a real mess and the Prime Minister is in denial and out of touch with her acknowledgement.


It’s time to give our NHS and social care the money they require. Plus we urgently require qualified leadership from the top of Government as well.

Do you notice how this disaster of a Prime Minister supports everything? She defends the NHS funding although it’s entirely inadequate, now it’s okay to impose extortionate increases in rail tariffs. It goes on and on and no doubt she’ll support successive governments’ genocide of 25,000 preventable deaths per year of vulnerable UK citizens, at least in part, to food and fuel poverty. Theresa May, the Mayhem of disaster.

Yet people still choose Tory, it really beggars belief.








Knife Crime

On New Year’s Eve, four young men were stabbed to death in London in unconnected crimes recording one of the saddest days of knife crime in the metropolis.

This is unusually rare that four men were killed in one night but this is absolutely standard on a Friday and Saturday night across London and we should question what the death toll would be if it weren’t for the magnificent skills of the ambulance service, their helicopter medics and the A&E departments.

It’s terrifying out there and we should question why such horrendous situations like this are occurring but the reasons are quite clear. Theresa May has cut the police service so that there are no longer police officers on the street and the control of the public space has been lost.

This is simply one manifestation of that, but there are infinite others.

Deaths on the road are increasing because road traffic police are going and shoplifting is going through the roof because there are no police officers to dispense with that. Antisocial behaviour is getting out of control again because there are no community officers.

Then there is the moped crime epidemic, there are no officers out there and those that are out there aren’t permitted to pursue.

It’s pretty simple. It’s solely down to Theresa May and her cuts to the police. She has the blood of these young people on her hands but I guess her reasoning would be that the task of policing has evolved a lot in the current years because presently there is the continuous intimidation of extremism and terrorism and of course that was something that she supposedly looked into for the New Year festivities because it was heightened.

However, Theresa May has been Home Secretary and the Prime Minister for almost eight years and she is solely accountable for this situation.

She has declined consistently to listen to trained police officers that have informed her that crime and the demands on policing have evolved but they haven’t gone away, they have just changed.

Approximately 3,000 armed police officers were brought into inner London to police the New Year’s festivities but those officers didn’t come from someplace else. They just came from someplace else in London.

They don’t simply have a box of police that is simply brought out for the night. That indicates there are fewer policemen elsewhere. So it’s no shock to discover that knife attacks took place on the outskirts of London and not in the heart of London where all the police were brought to.

There are too few police officers to keep the public protected and Theresa May has been told that repeatedly and she is disregarding it and it’s felonious.

Knife attacks seem to be going up, so what can be done to tackle it?

Maybe there should be Stop and search and police protection and appearances in public areas. That’s what keeps people protected at the pointed end, but officers must be in schools and officers must work with youth groups.

The Police need to be working with community groups and officers need to be working with the probation service to tackle and deal with offenders to prevent them from re-offending.

There are a thousand things that must be done and you can’t do them without officers, no matter how much this government goes on and on about making more use of technology and an Ipad is not going to stop a single stabbing.

Nothing appears to be increasing the awareness of this government they simply appear to be disregarding everything and why are they not handling this as the emergency that it is? It’s a public disaster occurring in slow motion in front of our eyes.

If these young people were white and they were on the streets of Maidenhead in her constituency and in Windsor, there would be absolute turmoil and it wouldn’t be overlooked and this is organised prejudice at the core of government.

The public expects the police to protect them from infliction by using the authorities given to them by Parliament in an effective and appropriate way, however, conceivably, some of the most meddlesome and controversial powers are those of stop and search.

For decades the unseemly use of these powers, both real and perceived, has disgraced the association between constables and the communities they serve, and in doing so has drawn into question the real legitimacy of the police service.

Thirty years following the disturbances in Brixton, concerns about how the police use stop and search powers were again raised following the disturbances in England in August 2011. Over a million stop and search encounters have been recorded every year following 2006, but only 9 percent of those led to an arrest in 2011/12.

Statistics further revealed that segments of black and minority racial groups were stopped and searched more than white people, compared to the resident community and while there was intense civil discussion about the excessive use of the powers on some assemblies, there was surprisingly limited care given by both the police service or the public on how efficient stop and search powers are in decreasing or identifying crime.

In a culture where policing is founded upon the system of permission, the police service requires the support of the people in order to be productive. By using their powers impartially and in a way that is effective in keeping the public protected, the police
can create community morale and inspire people to be more culturally competent in serving to reduce criminality and chaos.


Her Majesty‘s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) is an objective
inspectorate. It has a constitutional duty under section 54 of the Police Act 1996 to examine authorities in England and Wales and to report their performance and effectiveness.

The goals of this investigation are to ascertain how efficiently and impartially the police service is using those powers of stop and search in the fight against crime and to ascertain whether operational police officers know how to use stop and search powers tactically as part of evidence-based practice to combat crime and to recognise how the powers can be used in a way that builds the public’s confidence in the police, establishing the legitimacy of the service rather than eroding it.

There is no precise definition or recognised perception of what constitutes an adequate stop and search encounter. The legal rules
of stop and search are given to support police officers in the prevention and discovery of a crime, and to bypass needless arrests in situations where a swift search on the street might verify or remove an officer‘s suspicions.

The use of measures such as arrest rates is extensive amongst forces and valuable in terms of understanding how various forces use the powers to overcome or detect crime, but they are too oversimplified and can’t be viewed as an ideal example of victory.

For a stop and search encounter to be valid and legal, a police
officer must have fair grounds for suspicion, founded on specific and
unbiased information that a person is in possession of a stolen or forbidden item.

Those grounds should be thoroughly disclosed to the person being stopped and searched, and the person should be handled with civility, compassion and respect.

In such situations, obtaining the item and arresting the wrongdoer or eliminating the suspicion or bypassing an unnecessary arrest are both valid and victorious outcomes. However, the percentage of times on which stolen or prohibited items are located gives a symbolic measure of the strength of the grounds for suspicion but only seven of the 43 forces currently record how frequently these items are found.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (UK) examined all 43 police forces in England and Wales between October
2012 and April 2013 and approximately 500 senior managers were interviewed, including police officers of the rank of inspector and above, and conducted focus groups with over 550 operational constables and frontline supervisors.

To test this, unannounced visits to at least two police stations in each force area were made to examine their stop and search information at a local and national level. Policies were examined, plus methods and guidance papers relating to stop and search that was open to operational police officers.

Each force had created its own form on which to enter details of stop and search encounters, so they were matched to ascertain what data was being collected, and for what goal. Also checked were at least 200 completed records from each police force, to evaluate both their compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Code A: Code of Practice for the exercise by police officers of statutory powers of stop and search, related to thereafter as the code of practice, and whether adequate grounds for carrying out searches were reported.

Studies of 19,078 members of the general public and 391 people who had been stopped and searched were performed, in order to collect their opinions on the use of stop and search powers and ultimately, video footage of stop and search encounters that had been recorded through body-worn cameras were evaluated.

Examinations ascertained that most respondents were knowledgeable of police powers to stop and search people and over three-quarters thought that use of the powers assists the police to apprehend offenders and deter or identify criminals and more than half the respondents stated that seeing the police using those powers in their areas made them feel protected.

Interestingly, a quarter of respondents thought that some groups of people in the community were likely to be stopped and searched more frequently than others, with a third attributing this to criminal differentiation, this number grew to about 55 percent amongst black and adolescence racial respondents.

The effective use of stop and search powers rely on police officers installing the tone and method of policing, and managing or determining how the police use those powers, with a readiness to mediate when things are not done accurately.


Nationally, the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), working with the College of Policing, has created an Authorised Professional Practice document which gives national recommendations for the use of stop and search powers.

Within forces, however, it was observed that many levels of consideration were given to stop and search powers by chief officers. Most did not, by reason of generally high levels of public satisfaction with the police and low levels of stop and search-related complaints, considered that stop and search was a high priority.

There was a notable slippage in the level of attention given to
the management and administration of stop and search powers by senior officers since the publication of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report in 1999.

As a consequence of the budget cuts ordered by the Government‘s 2010 spending review, forces were attempting to do more with less support. It was therefore very surprising that the use of stop and search powers was not better directed at stopping or identifying those violations the force considered to be the most significant.

Most forces concentrated on stopping and identifying theft, burglary and other property violations and, in big city neighbourhoods, extreme crime. While those priorities imply that stop and search powers would be targeted at property crime and weapons, nearly half of the searches nationwide were for drugs, and of those searches, most were for low-level street possession.

London-metropolitan-police-logo (1503478086264).gif

The Metropolitan Police Service noticed this and took measures to use stop and search powers better in stopping those violations they thought to be most significant however in 2008, HMIC highlighted that there were extensive fundamental skills gaps
at frontline sergeant level.

Five years on, this investigation identified that this had not changed in relation to the exercise of stop and search powers.

The code of practice puts a particular responsibility on supervisors to monitor the use of stop and search in order to stop its abuse. Yet, there were disturbingly low levels of supervision of officers conduct of stop and search encounters, and of how they recorded them.

There were discrepancies in the documentation of searches, evidence that people searched were not always presented with the information required by the code of practice, and that they were not
always fairly treated.

A startling 27 percent (2,338) of stop and search records reviewed by HMIC did not include reasonable grounds to search people, even though several of these records had been approved by supervisors.

They were not performing their responsibilities as stated by the code of practice. In addition, this proposed that police forces may not have been completely complying with the terms of the public sector equality duty, which expects them to have adequate regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination and promote fairness of opportunity, encourage good relations and to that point, ensure that they are appropriately collecting,
examining and publishing the facts to show that they have adequate
data to explain the impact of their work.

These duties are critical in protecting the public from the misuse of this intrusive power. This shows a disturbing deficiency in the frontline supervision of stop and search powers.

Less than half of forces complied with the requirement in the code of practice to make arrangements for the public to scrutinise the use of stop and search powers. Acknowledging the significance of keeping the public informed, it is shocking how little forces consulted or interacted with the public about their use of stop and search powers.

Approximately half of the forces did nothing to understand the impact of stop and search encounters upon communities, with just a really small number proactively seeking the opinions of the people and communities most affected.

For forces to understand the effectiveness of their use of stop and search powers, they needed to assemble pertinent data but each force was using a different method to assemble what is, in the main, inadequate data about stop and search encounters.

The lack of relevant data made it pretty difficult for forces to understand the impact that stop and search encounters was having against crime and community morale and there was only a limited suggestion that forces were instructing officers and then deployed them to use stop and search powers in crime hot spots, or against persistent offenders or crime groups.

And where they did, forces did not examine the activity to conclude whether deployments had a bearing on crime levels or public morale.

Data is an important by-product of stop and search encounters, nevertheless numerous forces did not use the data collected from these encounters as part of their intelligence pictures and only five forces had an intelligence field as part of their search records, with all other forces depending on officers presenting a separate form, which in most forces was optional.

Most officers had not undergone any training in the use of stop and search powers after they entered the service and only 21 forces gave any kind of refresher training, and in many of those, the training was delivered by e-learning packages.

Those forces which had made significant investments in training in the use of stop and search powers had done so because of outside demand from oversight groups, such as the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), or to accompany variations in recording methods.

In the absence of proper training, it was discovered that police officers were developing practices which were acquired through observing and listening to others. This can be a positive approach if experienced teachers are involved but contrarily can lead to the
spread of improper or, in some instances, illegal practices, for instance, searches carried out without reasonable grounds for suspicion.

There is a need to develop a structured national training curriculum to develop officers perception of their use of the powers, the establishment of equitable grounds, and the impact of the use of the powers upon communities, and how to use those powers efficiently in stopping crime.

Forces should ensure that training is given and that they are prepared to promote training and development by identifying those who use the powers efficiently so that they can train and
assist their co-workers.

There has been inadequate financing in developing the technology and the connected infrastructure to assist officers walking the streets and it was found some promising improvements in information systems and in the mobile devices that could be used to access them whilst officers were on patrol, but these
were not widespread across the service.

Only 17 forces had the capability to record stop and search encounters on the street electronically, and in most circumstances, these methods were inaccurate or did not give a complete spectrum of functions to help officers adequately.

In developing electronic recording systems, there is a tension between the drive to overcome bureaucracy on the one hand,
and the collection of satisfactory knowledge to recognise the effectiveness of stop and search encounters on the other.

Recording less information and substituting supervisory oversight with computerised checking systems may decrease bureaucracy and cost, but it does not necessarily provide the information needed to evaluate whether the use of stop and search powers is

The development of other technology, including body-worn video cameras and detection devices, such as metal detectors, can help the police in using stop and search powers more efficiently. The use of video recording seems to improve the behaviour of the subject and the officer, while detection aids offer an opportunity to screen people without resorting to the intrusiveness of
a full search and these possibilities should be further investigated and utilised.

Very few forces could show that use of stop and search powers was founded on an understanding of what serves best to lower crime, and seldom was it targeted at priority offences in their areas. Forces had decreased the volume of information received to decrease bureaucracy, but this had reduced their capacity to recognise the impact of the use of stop and search powers on crime levels
and community morale.

And better use of technology could help by giving frontline officers with real-time data and the ability simply to record data that could enhance the use of those powers.