Smokers face tidal wave of regulation
Friday, May 25, 2007 
I spent much of today discussing strategy. There are some - latecomers to the smoking debate - who believe we should be spending all our time and energy fighting the ban. We did that, from 2003, when it became clear that the government was no longer interested in a voluntary solution based on public demand, to 2006 when MPs voted overwhelmingly in favour of a blanket ban.
During that period Forest commissioned regular opinion polls, launched advertising campaigns in national and local newspapers, published and distributed essays and pamphlets, lobbied national and local politicians with a variety of campaign tools, submitted written reports to local and national government, gave evidence (in person) to a variety of government bodies, generated support from public figures such as David Hockney, Antony Worrall Thompson and others, conducted hundreds of media interviews, organised special events and ad campaigns at party conferences - and, after all that, we lost.
Much as we oppose the ban on smoking in enclosed public places, nothing we say or do (including prohibitively expensive legal action) is going to stop it happening. We will always argue for exemptions (and fight our corner on issues such as passive smoking) but the battleground has moved on. Today the debate is about cars, care homes and unenclosed public spaces such as parks, footpaths and beaches. Already, there is talk of segregating smokers and non-smokers outside pubs. Some campaigners (and local politicians) want to go further still and introduce exclusion zones around pubs and clubs. That's right, you won't even be able to smoke outside the pub!
Our principal fear is that the "progressive" (ie gradual) changes of the past 20 years could become a thing of the past. If the anti-smoking lobby has its way we could find ourselves swept aside by a tidal wave of regulation, "moving explosively fast", as one person put it.
Another referred to Forest "shouting at the waves as they come in". It does feel like that times, but we aspire to more than that. Stretching the analogy further, I see Forest and The Free Society as seawalls designed to prevent the further erosion of individual liberties. Turning back the tide (of illiberalism and paternalism) is something else. It's our long-term goal but, for the moment, we must be realistic. If we can delay the rate at which Britain is drowning under an ocean of (frequently petty) rules and regulations, we'll be doing a reasonable job.
Reader Comments (84)
The alcohol prohibition has been planned for ages Jenny and, hilariously, the EU has even considered second hand alcohol effects - although not in the way you and I may think of it and there they have missed a trick.
Yes, indeed, there is second hand alcohol. It's what's expelled into a room from people's breath and the evaporation of the liquor from the glass. There is also a lot of it in the air of any pub or restaurant. Next time you're out on a cold day (the colder the better) blow out and see how much breath you produce.
However, the EU has, to date, seen it more in terms of effects of alcohol on unborn babies and the social fallout. However, alcohol prohibition is on the way and if you want to know more go on to the Robert Wood Johnson website and check out their donations to organisations seeking to ban or research the effects of alcohol.
Finally, one good thing is, that if they move too far, and ambition is an impatient master, then finally the public might, just might, wake up its dead brained, shopping addicted self and realise that freedom is paramount not health.
Certainly, we've all seen the newscasts of totalitarian regimes with people exercising themselves silly. Want to be like that? Not me! I will choose how healthy I want to be and to what extent I wish to follow healthist trends.
Lastly, there is the supreme vanity of these idiots who think they will be moulding human behaviour forever. They won't be and only a fool would believe that. The health fanatics who have the realistic perspective are the false fanatics who follow the money. These are the short term get richers and there are many of them.
Excellent stuff Blad.
Jenny; You said you were glad about the coming alcohol nonsense because it would impact on those anti smoking drinkers. I completely understand your feelings here but there is another aspect to this.
The ruling elite who make and benefit from laws would be an obvious target if they attacked all of us at once. Democracy allows them to divide and conquer. As smokers we get to feel the anti smokers are the enemy but I say unto you they are not! As drinkers we get to feel the anti drinkers are the enemy but, again, I say unto you they are not. The enemy is the power to make laws that usurp our property rights.
I don't have any problem whatever with an ASH type organisation informing and trying to persuade smokers to quit. They should have a right to say what they like. But I very much object to their having a means to enforce their ideas on the rest of us. It is the means that is the problem and not their silly ideas.
Bernie - I see your point completely. Perhaps I did give the impression that I would be hurling verbal abuse at my local antis!! However, fear not - I am a good-natured, tolerant soul really. If the powers above decide to launch attacks upon more and more groups at the present time and in the coming weeks and months, the better it is for our cause. I like to believe that I can think rationally and logically and eventually the breaking point will be reached. (The last straw that broke the camel's back etc. etc.). At present, there are a few straws waiting to be placed on the camel's back and that breaking point is inevitable. I believe that Germans use the word, 'Zeitgeist' - spirit of the time. I sense that the spirit of this particular period of time is a very very tense one.
Re my post on may 26- We cannot make this law go away,but it is possible to render itunworkable.Little can be done yet to protect the individualgetting caught red handed by a snooper. It is the more complex and flimsy liabilityon the licencee to jjeopardise his businessacting as an unpaid policeman, being everywhere at all times.To enforce thissection they must rely on fear,intimidation harrassment,dark threats,anything but court action. This is because they know full well that a fine by a magistrate could unleash their ultimate nightmare- An appeal court hearing before a jury, and it is thisfear of a test case which would be our strongest weapon and should be exploited to the full. Provided we have the legal brains,A top defence lawyer and lots of money made available,and this is how it would work- The first licencee toface the magistrates would be accompanied by a few witnessesto testify to his integrity and his efforts to comply with the legislation, and our defence lawyer to make it quite clear he was ready for a showdown. The magistrate would then have no option but to deliver a not guilty verdict,and have thecourt to re-imburse our defence costs. The second licencee to face court would have more witnesses and the same lawyer and would yield the same result,ad infinitum. It would soon become clear to the courts that this action was quite futile. All licencees would then have the confidence to stand up to the bullying tactics,knowing that help was always on hand. Having got this far,it should be too difficult to use the same proceedure to protect the customer from the fixed penalties for smoking (in some cases) on their own premises. Allround legal knowledge will also be required to scrutenise the wording of the new act against established legislation to find how they conflict with each other,and further weaken their powers. So, our requirements are- expert knowledge,a top defence lawyer,and lots of available cash. Since the first two elements can be bought there just remains the funding.Well, there are lots of millionaires around (lottery winners) Some of them must be sympathetic to such a worthy cause,(Well I would be) And to be hailed as a national hero. And it need'nt cost all that much considering that there will be no appeal court hearing,no court fines to pay, and all our defence costs will be paid from the courts central funds. Any comments?
Ron I love the way you think!
I particularly like the idea of rendering the law unenforcible. I can imagine being in a pub with a camera filming the landlord as he rushes about to dozens of smokers trying to get them to stop, meanwhile upsetting those at the bar who want to buy drinks. Filmed so as not to identify the smokers this could be used in court if needed.
If enough pubs in a town did this at the same time there wouldn't be enough nazi type inspectors to handle it.
It is time to compile a list of all the great ideas that have been posted here. We should print them up and take them round to our local pubs as leaflets. It would put a smile on many a landlord's face I'm sure.
The ironic thing for me is that I don't normally go into pubs more than 4 or 5 times in a whole year. I think I may be going every day soon.
Jenny I never thought of you as anything other than a good natured and tolerant soul:-)
I think the 'Benny Hill' chase scene type of approach could be very good indeed - and at least we'd all get a laugh out of it. People popping up with funny masks on in various rooms/areas with cigarettes in their hands would make a marvellous short film! Recently one of my students 'sparked up' in a enclosed large shopping mall - he ended up having not one or two but THREE security guards chasing him. When he left the premises he gave the 'victory' sign to the security guards and then jumped onto a bus which (luckily for him) set off! On a more serious note - I think the legal aspects Ron Davies talks about are very good indeed!!
Fabulous idea on the Benny Hill chase. Must find the music for that. I want to make that film.
Robert, your standing your ground is admired. I've read some of your other posts and it's good to see you engaging in discussion even if it makes you feel like John Procter ;)
Keep up the good work!
Sorry for interrupting. Enjoying the debate. Except the usual hot air (pardon the pun) from Rob Simpson.
Ron, from Freedom to Choose, letter after letter has been written to wealthy people and others who one would think might be interested. Indeed, as I write even more approaches are being tried. But, for some reason, obtaining substantial amounts of cash ia extremely difficult So far, all our running costs have come from members for we are truly a grass roots organisation unlike ASH and the other sections of the anti-smoking lobby.
However, if you want to offer your services in letter wrting and for approaching wealthy potential donors e-mail our Loraine and offer your support.
Stephen, I'm amazed you can tell what my air is like, what with you lurking all the way back there, behind someone else's convictions.
Rob,
Stephen reminds me of the kid at the back of a crowd at school during a fight, yelling "Hit him! Hit him!".
How brave.
Belinda, I agree with you that passive smoking is unlikely to be an exclusive cause of death although it does have the potential to trigger asthma attacks which could then be fatal in rare cases. But I'm stretching the point here in terms of mortality. Depending on levels of exposure,however, I would still argue that passive smoking is unhealthy and can contribute to the risk of heart disease, hypertension, emphysema, lung cancer etc in some people. I do agree with you thgough that passive smoking is unlikely to be an exclusive cause of death
Rob, there has to be a limit to the price we're willing to pay for reducing the death toll from any pursuit including smoking. We could reduce road accident fatalities to zero by banning all motor traffic and returning to Victorian modes of transport. Of course nobody would support that but it still doesn't stop us from managing risk as best we can.
I think there's a parallel here with smoking. Nobody's suggesting we ban it but let's pursue a policy of risk management. Part of that approach is to ask smokers to refrain from smoking indoors in public places.
So far as the obesity problem that you mentioned is concerned, we can't legislate to make people thinner but some people do support ideas such as a 'fat tax' on certain types of food. Perhaps any government would immediately stand accused of promoting the 'nanny state' but there would be some merit in this
Stephen, thanks for your comment but I do hold Rob Simpson's arguments in higher regard than that. His views are presented with reason and conviction and I enjoy reading Rob's and everyone else's comments in this debate.
Robert .... you are reverting. Come back to being a rational person.
You used the word "we" several times. That is a fabulously elastic word that can hide all manner of intentions. Are we (those who read here) to suppose that when you say "we can't legislate to make people thinner" that you are a part of the government?
And the obvious one to stamp on;
"Part of that approach is to ask smokers to refrain from smoking indoors in public places."
So I am only being "asked" to refrain. Is it okay if I say "no"?
Last time I looked Bernie, it cost £50 to say "no".
It is a civil offence to say "no".
"Asked to refrain"? If only.
That would suggest choice, that would suggest that citizens were empowered to make their own decisions and accept responsibility for their actions. (That would mean both non smokers and smokers-the former to accept the "lethal" risks of SHS, and the latter to light up).
I am certain that legislation to make people thinner is in the pipeline. The big stick worked with smoking indoors. The genie is out of the bottle now.
First "we" have to sober them up.....dont worry, theres a big stick for that behaviour too.
Robert; Smokers are NOT being ASKED to refrain from smoking indoors - they're being FORCED not to by government legislation. All legislation is force. Bar owners are forced to enforce this rule as well, and sometimes right up to the point where it drives them out of business.
I don't specifically disagree with you comment regarding risk management. The HSE have been doing that in workplaces for years BUT they have done it an entirely different way.
Had they followed the pattern they wouldn't have banned smoking they would have specified minimum air quality... which they actually HAVE been doing for years.
The problem for the anti-smoking movement was that even with a room full of smokers air quality never dropped below the minimum and for the HSE to raise the bar on air quality would have had devastating consequences across the entire manufacturing sector - and quite possibly cause problems when it came to preparing food in restaurant kitchens.
So, smoking gets treated as a special case. Why? Because there's a risk element. The risk has never been proven and the vast bulk of studies done have returned a zero-risk result, but even the worst case scenario return a risk that rates well below that accepted by a taxi-driver.
My point being, that in order to justifiabley start passing legislation to manage the risk, shouldn't you first prove there actually is a risk and that that risk is too great to be left to the individual to volunteer to take?
Bear in mind, we're only talking about the people who work in bars, not the patrons, even the worst case scenarios give a next-to-zero risk of fatal consequences for just being a patron.
"First "we" have to sober them up.....dont worry, theres a big stick for that behaviour too."
I noticed the report from last month that recommended the minimum drinking age should be raised to 21. If that passes through within 2-3 years of the ban they won't need to sober us up - there'll be nowhere left for us tp get pished in the first place.
Sorry, I mean to say something else to Robert regarding legislating making people thinnner.
They don't takle it directly - just like they're not legislating that people can't smoke (they'll just legislate that it becomes harder to find a place to do it, support employer's rights to not hire smokers and doctors to withhold medical treatment) they will takle obesity in a similar back-door method.
Bernie, no of course I'm not part of the government. Neither am I a member of any political party.
I would still personally ask you to refrain from smoking inside any pub, club or restaurant after the 1st July if your manner suggested that you were about to light up. If you just said "No!" and carried on regardless then of course either the business owner or council official would then starting quoting the law and telling you to go and join the party in the beer garden
Rob, never in a month of Sundays are we going to agree on the dangers of passive smoking. But even if I was a smoker, and in denial about the risks to health, I still wouldn't regard the banning of smoking indoors in public places as anything more than an inconvenience.
Robert; I'm not about to put anyone else (landlord) at risk of prosecution without his consent.
On the inconvenience of the ban I think you are missing the point.
I've mentioned elsewhere a cafe where the owner has banned smoking. He did that more than 6 months ago. He did it by exercising his right to control what people are allowed to do on his property.
If every pub owner in the country were to ban smoking on their premises by exercising that same right then it would be inconvenient. Maybe a few of us smokers might get together and open our own pub exclusively for smokers and run by people who were completely happy with that.
But as we know that isn't what is happening. The end result is not the same either as we won't have the option of opening our own pub as above.
So it isn't inconvenient. It is the kind of abomination that we supposedly fought the Nazis over.
What a great debate - reminds me of 'Dad's Army'! The difference between 'ASK' and 'FORCE' - let me give a few examples: -
ASKING AND FORCING LESSON 1
Capt Mainwaring says, "Right, Wilson, fall the men in for parade!" Sgt.Wilson addresses the troups with, "Would you men all mind awfully falling in and putting your cigarettes out!" Some do and others simply ignore the comment, such as Private Walker and carry on talking. The warden, Hodges, marches in with some of the ARP and barks out, "You there, PUT THAT LIGHT OUT!" - result - snarling and grumbling and general discontent, although the cigarettes are reluctantly extinguished. Walker, however, ignores the comment as he dislikes Hodges and being bossed about. Pike chirps up, "Uncle Arthur, I want to be a snooper, please can I go and be a snooper and issue a fine!" Well, he's young, PC, eager to please, naive...to which Godfrey murmurs, "My goodness me, is something happening here. My sister Dolly has some lovely home-made blackcurrent wine! I ought to bring it in as a night-cap for us." The old chap is blissfully unaware of the real argument. However, asserting his authority, Capt. Mainwaring continues, "Certainly not, Godfrey! The wine contains alcohol and that has been banned as well! As for you, Pike, I'm not allowing you to issue any tickets after the way you broke the platoon's only machine gun last Tuesday night over at Mr Bluett's! Walker, please do as the man says and put that cigarette out! You know that the vicar doesn't approve of smoking and we are using his hall and office."
Fraser steps in, "Aye, and the verger too! No more cigarettes in here, Walker, for ever and ever! We're doomed, we're doomed!"
Who is popular and who is unpopular? Yes, Hodges of course! That's the difference between asking and forcing. I'll let you make your minds up about that but Robert Evans certainly has the makings of being a 'Hodges'!! - ps. Sorry for missing out Jones !!
One of the best posts of this entire blog Jenny. Would have been THE best if Mainwaring had said "Stupid boy".
Sorry Bernie - in the pub last night I realised I'd missed out the great line 'Stupid Boy' - and 'Don't tell him Pike!' but I got a short follow-up sketch in my head which I may submit featuring Corperal Jones! That's how farcical I think everything is becoming at present and humour is a great form of attack! :)
Robert - we don't have to agree on the actual risks, but given the spectrum of results offered by the dozens of reports done on the issue it is far from proven.
And here's a tip, see if you can catch any of the figures relating to the death toll due to passive smoking from around the world - NONE of them match up and I mean not even remotely, and they're continually changing.
That should be enough to tell anyone that matter is far from settled.
As for inconvenience, forget about being the smoker, think about being the landlord. Would you consider it merely an inconvenience if the ban put you out of business?
But on the inconvenience front I'll issue you with a challenge. Go into a busy "land-locked" pub yourself and order a pint. Stand at the bar until your pint is halfway down and then leave it unattended at the bar for ten minutes whilst you simulate going off for a ciggy. This experiment works best when the weather is rotten and you get the full experience by standing unsheltered in the rain out the front of the bar.
Go back in after 5 minutes.
If your pint still there? If so then you're doing well. Now all you have to worry about is whether someone tampered with it or not.
Jenny,
You're a genius :)
That was brilliant.
The Roy Castle bit - the valves of these instruments need oiling - this oil is usually petrol or kerosine based.
Most players only put the oil in the valves, but some pro's are known to 'flush' the whole instrument before putting the mouth piece in place!
Not only do they blow into the instrument, they also need to suck in air - but just sweep that under the carpet in the corner!
Regarding Roy Castle - that's a great point Jacqui. I read elsewhere many years ago that there is a fair amount of asbestos in theatres and here it shows that it has been commonly used on film and TV sets:
http://www.tuc.org.uk/h_and_s/tuc-12043-f0.cfm#tuc-12043-6
On a side note - I wonder how long it will take before trumpet playing is banned altogether, given that it carries a risk of inducing stroke. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/948374.stm
Poppy - I've written a 'sequel' - longer sketch - may be a little too large for this comments section. I've just been polishing it up before I distribute it generally. If this is approved, I shall post it up for general amusement!
A HUMOROUS APPROACH TO THE REDICULOUS MENTALITY PREVAILING TODAY
‘SNOOPING PIKE’ (Sketch 2) 'SATIRICAL COMMENT'
Firstly, I would like to pay tribute to Jimmy Perry and David Croft who created immortal characters. I see those characters almost every day of my life in almost any situation – their work was ‘pure genius’! Their brilliance and the stupidity prevailing today have inspired me to write the following: -
I set the scene a few messages ago whilst debating the theme of ‘Ask or Force’. Walker and some of the other men have been told off by ARP Warden Hodges for smoking in the church hall. Pike volunteers to be a snooper, but Captain Mainwaring dismisses him because he has wrecked the platoon’s only machine gun and does not wish to give young Pike responsibility. The short sketch ends with Capt. Mainwaring (officially in charge of looking after the hall whilst the Home Guard use it for meetings etc.) asking Walker to stub out his cigarette because it may upset the vicar and others who use the church hall. Reluctantly Walker does so, whereupon Fraser proclaims that ‘We’re all doomed.’ (that is, those who wish to smoke inside the church hall or inside the vicar’s office which are enclosed areas).
The men are on parade inside the church hall when, suddenly, the air raid siren is heard. [siren in background wailing mournfully].
“Don’t panic, don’t panic! It’s an air raid, it’s an air raid!” Jones exclaims.
“OK Jones, calm down! I think we’re all aware of that. Right men, there’s obviously an air-raid, “says Captain Mainwaring. “We must all leave the hall in an orderly fashion and go to our nearest air raid shelter! Everybody out! Don’t linger Godfrey, don’t you know there’s a war on!”
“Is there, sir, I hadn’t even noticed!” Godfrey picks up his first aid kit and plods on behind the others.
“I do think you are sometimes awfully hard on poor old Godfrey, sir.” says Sgt. Wilson. “After all, sir, he is getting on a bit and we haven’t really seen any action at all in this area so far.”
“That’s no excuse, Wilson. There is a war on and he’s as likely to be bombed as the rest of us. We need to get to the shelter as soon as possible!”
[In the shelter]
Fraser, always one to tell a tale of gloom, is addressing Pike and some of the others.
“Aye, it was smoking that killed him. That old sea-dog I knew back in the First War.”
“Who was that, Mr Fraser?” enquires young Pike.
“Ald Jimmy MacRae his name was, an ald man of the sea, but it got him in the end.”
“What did, Mr Fraser?” Pike wants him to continue.
“Smoking, lad. I read his obituary in the Caledonian Chronicle last year. Mind you, he was in his ninety-seventh year!”
“Oh, do stop all that Fraser!” Capt. Mainwaring interrupts. “You know it will only give the boy nightmares. Right, that’s the ‘all clear’ – back to the church hall everybody. Come on! We can’t sit here all night.”
“Mr Mainwaring, Mr Mainwaring!” “What is it, Pike?” Capt. Mainwaring asks with a frown. “I want to be a snooper. On my way back to the church hall can I go and do some snooping and get some experience?” Pike is eager and enthusiastic to prove himself worthy of greater responsibility.
“No you can’t, Pike, now go along with the others! Wilson, that boy is getting out of hand. You’ll have to have a talk with him.”
“I don’t think it will make much difference sir,” says Wilson nonchalantly. “It’s his mother who is to blame - she mollycoddles him and indulges him!”
“Mollycoddles him – she damn well smothers the boy! Making him wear his scarf inside the church hall! It’s ludicrous! Pike, go back to the church hall with the others!”
“Aw, spoilsport!” and poor young Pike sulks and shuffles along dragging his feet.
(music in background – song: Run Rabbit, Run Rabbit, Run, Run, Run!)
[Back in the church hall]
Back in the hall, the men are on parade, suddenly, Pike starts sniffing and then creeps away. He’s noticed that there is smoke coming from the vicar’s office. Capt. Mainwaring, oblivious to all this, carries on pointing out the location of the novelty rock emporium on his plan, as the platoon are on duty that night down at the pier. Pike creeps out of the hall through the back door and is forgotten.
Capt Mainwaring continues, “Right men! I’ve divided everyone up into small groups. You, Wilson, will go with Godfrey, Sponge and three of the others and you will be located here.”
“Where, sir?” asks Wilson. “Here, at the lighthouse at the end of the pier. You can row across from the quayside and guard the area around the lighthouse…. And you, Fraser with Jones, Walker and Pike will be based over here by the old ice cream stall.”
[Patter of footsteps in the background and Mr Yeatman, the verger, comes running in wearing his leader of the Sea Scouts uniform followed by several young scouts.]
“Capt Mainwaring, are you still here? We’ve booked the church hall! You’ll have to evacuate. If there are too many people in the hall at the same time, the vicar won’t like it. He says it’s against government Health and Safety regulations!”
“Look, Mr Yeatman. We were interrupted by the air raid. I am briefing my men about tonight’s manoeuvres – can’t you see that we are busy?” The good captain explains. However, not to be deterred, Mr Yeatman continues. “Can’t you do that outside – his reverence will be angry if two groups are here at the same time and it’s our turn to use the hall!.”
[The vicar enters yawning and holding papers in his hand. He’s obviously been writing his latest sermon.]
“Oh do be quiet Mr Yeatman!” snaps the vicar. “Capt. Mainwaring – could you finish your business promptly as Mr Yeatman has booked the hall and I don’t wish to fall foul of new regulations.”
“New regulations? What are these? I’ve not heard anything about new regulations!” Capt. Mainwaring looks puzzled and looks at the men. Walker, with his packet of woodbines in his top pocket, shrugs his shoulders.
“Yes, no more than thirty people are allowed to congregate in any one place at the same time – it’s due to the possibility of multiple casualties. This has just been issued – I heard it on the wireless this morning. They are to be implemented straight away.”
[Enter Hodges – in uniform with his tin helmet on and in fine form]
“Put that light out, put that blinking light out! Don’t you know there’s a war on? Oh – I should have known it would be you, Napoleon!!! And – what are all of you doing in here at the same time. There must now be more than thirty people in the church hall. Haven’t you heard about the new government regulations? And – what’s this? I smell smoke! [The warden sniffs and looks about him.] I think it’s coming from the vicar’s office!”
Mr Yeatman sniffs too and says, “Yes, Mr Hodges is right, your reverence. There is smoke and it is coming from the direction of your office.”
[the vicar’s office door is flung open and smoke comes billowing out].
Young Pike, dancing around in glee and waving his rifle in the air, proudly announces, “I’ve got two smokers, Mr Mainwaring – not one, but two!! I’ve read them the riot act, informed them about the new regulations and I’ve issued tickets and fined them five shillings apiece, Mr Mainwaring! Didn’t I do well, Uncle Arthur?” Wilson, however, shakes his head and looks concerned, and responds, “I can’t comment upon how well you’ve done, Frank. Not until I know the facts. Who, exactly, are the smokers?”
Major Regan and Capt. Cutts, senior officers, emerge from the vicar’s office. The platoon immediately falls in upon seeing these senior officers]
Major Regan, voice booming, declares, “Who is that silly boy and who does he think he is addressing senior offices is such a disrespectful manner? Who is responsible for this outrage?”
Capt. Mainwaring and Wilson look seriously concerned and Capt. Mainwaring asks, “What’s going on, sir, what exactly has happened?”
Major Regan explains, “Capt.Cutts and I were in the area. We have received military intelligence that there are some German paratroopers in the area. During the air raid, one of the aircraft was shot down by the reservoir and the crew bailed out. We came over here to brief you about this serious military operation. We were in the office quietly smoking cigars when, suddenly, this young idiot burst in, threatened us with his gun, related some stupid nonsense about it being against regulations to smoke in an enclosed space, he filled in some farcical forms and then attempted to fine us five shillings each! I’ve never heard of anything so preposterous in my entire military career – and I’ve been in the army for over 20 years and been decorated with the VC!”
Corp. Jones pipes up, “German paratroopers in the area – don’t panic, don’t panic!” “Oh do shut up Jones and fall in with the others!” commands the perturbed Capt who is now seriously worried and addresses Major. Regan. “I’m dreadfully sorry, Sir, I wasn’t aware of any of this.”
“Yes, you will be sorry Main-Waring. It’s your duty to control your men and this young man obviously wasn’t on parade with the rest of them. I have also been looking through your most recent application to join the local golf club, of which I am the current president. After this incident, I am afraid to say your application will not be approved! Right, Cutts, let’s be off before we experience any further outrageous, disrespectful behaviour.” [They leave and all the people in the hall are quiet and shocked. Capt. Mainwaring’s face looks grave and he broods.]
[Frank’s mother, Mavis Pike, rushes into the hall with some sandwiches for Pike and clutches a red and yellow striped woolly hat].
“Frank, Frank, where are you? You haven’t had your tea. If you are on patrol this evening, you’ll need to wear this hat – and make sure you keep your scarf on. I don’t want you getting croup again. You know how cold the sea air can be and especially at night! And don’t go near any smokers!! Arthur – Arthur! Are you on patrol as well tonight?”
“Yes, Mavis – both of us are on patrol – probably for most of the night.” Wilson looks embarrassed.
“Well, I hope you’re both back for breakfast because I’ve got something special and especially for you, Arthur!”
[Wilson grimaces and the rest of the men snigger and look at each other. Mrs Pike leaves.]
Capt. Mainwaring recovers himself and turns towards Pike. “Now look what you’ve done! Upset Major Regan and Capt. Cutts, made a laughing stock of me and the whole platoon – and in front of the vicar, the verger, the warden and all of the others. If there’s anyone who’ll be fined, Pike, it will be me! I'm in charge of the church hall when we're using it!”
“But Capt Mainwaring, Sir, I wanted to be a snooper and I thought I’d done a good job and managed to raise ten shillings for the Town Clerk’s snooping fund!”
“I feel completely humiliated, Pike, and what’s more, I’ve been trying to become a member of the local golf club for years! YOU STUPID BOY!”
[CURTAIN FALLS – end of sketch]
Colin says:
Stephen reminds me of the kid at the back of a crowd at school during a fight, yelling "Hit him! Hit him!".
That may be the case, but you're standing right beside me. It's very interesting how there are so few anti-smokers that post here, or anywhere as the great Simpson pondered.
I don't think it has as much to do with anti-smokers being ridiculed for having a different opinion, but rather indicative of a majority who feel no need to placate a group of inconvenienced individuals.
Anti smokers are hardly a majority. They're a minority that's actually smaller than smokers. The majority are non-smokers. Non does not mean anti.
The interesting thing about antis is that many of them struggle to keep a civil tongue in their head. They rarely have anything constructive to say and appear on forums like this not to discuss the topic but to launch attacks at other members whom they disagree with.
Sound like anyone you know?
It is about time we all started to hit back and make ourselves as awkward as possible about the ban. Joy Faulkener (Smokers of the World Unite) who got fed up with trying to fight in New Zealand gave me an idea.
If you are ever summoned for Jury Service fill in the form and try to get excused.
One very good excuse is (and you must word it properly) to say that you are a smoker addicted to tobacco and you could not possibly sit in a court for hours without having a cigarette as this would affect your concentration of the serious responsibility of judging your fellow man and that it could impede your judgment. Also you could not in your conscience judge anybody who had come up against any New labour law (i.e. smoking) as you would be biased in favour of the smoker. You could also say that in your conscience the only person to judge another's actions is God. I don't think they would waste time and money in allowing you to be a juror.