Thursday
Jun212007
Forest sells out (no, not like that!)
Thursday, June 21, 2007 
Revolt In Style: A Freedom Dinner is now sold out. From nought to 400 guests in four weeks is pretty good going. Now the hard work really starts - selling the event to the media. See HERE - and watch this space!
Reader Comments (58)
Congrats on a 'full house' Simon. I'm not that surprised, since there's very obviously enormous support in the 'real world' (as opposed to the zealots' Utopia) for a more tolerant, less divisive solution than we've been led to believe.
A couple of questions:
1. Any news on David Hockney's badges being made available to the public?
2. Have you seen the news that Cherie Blair is taking on a 'fight the ban' case?
See here:
Nightclub boss hires Cherie to fight Tony's smoking ban
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/06/21/nightclub-boss-hires-cherie---to-fight-tony-s-smoking-ban---89520-19330874/
_________________
Oops! Ignore number 2 (above) - I see it's on the Forest headlines section now. It wasn't there when I checked earlier.
As you were people! ;)
Now, about those badges. The season's (era's?)latest 'must have'.
Poppy - there is now an article on the daily mail website - and I have made a comment on it. Cherie Blair is staunchly in favour of the ban and is now milking it for all it is worth - rather like her Human Rights legal work.
A lawyer? Chasing money? Unthinkable!! (LOL)
I think it'll be interesting to see how it pans out. Whether she's pro-fessional first or pro-ban first.
It is exquisite. Her husband and his henchmen make laws that she can challenge and collect a fat fee for.
On a sort of related subject (stretching the meaning of "sort of" just a bit) here is an excellent and articulate call for the abolition of the BBC.
http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr052.htm
Simon,
I would like to wish you every sucsess for the "revolt in style" dinner,I wont be able to attend, but I really do hope that you get the message across to the right people and we start to see some positve action from it.
Has anyone heard the latest government initiative, which they apparently want to push through parliament as quickly as possible, in the so called name of good health?
This new proposal would ban anyone over the age of 50 and under the age of 21 from driving on a weekend. It is proposed that this is the only way in which to seriously cut down CO2 emissions.
That is a joke isn't it? Peter?
Get these ....ing bastards out of office.
my sentiments exactly, Andrew
Peter might be having a joke with us, but I believe anything is possible with this junta.
The latest picking on foster parents. Anthony Booth ( Cherie Blair's Father) smoked like a trooper, don't see it's done her any harm. This government is actively encouraging a Koo Klux Clan
philosophy towards smokers. Get the bastards out, before they have us shot.
You can learn a lot about Cherie's father on Wikipedia.
Interesting to read his reasons for retiring to Ireland (and the Wilkes Booth connection!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Booth
Andrew is quite right ,we need to get them out sooner rather than later,but how??,we all know that Gordon Brown wont call a general election as soon as he takes office,(look what happened in Scotland),theres also the question of would whoever replaces nufascists in government be any better??
By way of good cheer everybody I have been asked to formally anounce the following:
ENGLISH SMOKE BAN PROTEST AT BOLTON
On Sunday July 1st, the first day of England's smoking ban, Nick Hogan will be hosting a smoke-in as a protest against the ban.
This will take place at The Swan pub, Churchgate, Bolton, Lancashire. Doors open at 12 'o' clock midday and from 2pm there will be live coverage by Sky News. This will give many people a chance to express their views and therefore present a marvellous opportunity. See also this frightening trade damage analysis by Sky News:
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30400-1270997,00.html
Nick is putting in the time and effort (as well a sticking his neck out). He is receiving plenty of support but he nevertheless asks that as many people as possible will make the effort to join him in Bolton to ensure this is a strong and worthwhile protest. All that is required is your time and energy!
We are supposed to live in a democracy so let's ensure that democratic principles triumph on July 1st!
For those of you living nearer to Hereford, there will also be a smoke-in protest by Tony Blows at The Dog Inn at at Ewyas Harold, south-west of Hereford and see for further details:
http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/roundup/display.var.1470254.0.tony_blows_his_top_over_smoking_ban.php
There will be more protests than this but I'm not sure where they all are...Yet!
Thanks for that Blad. I really want to go to one of these. I am based in SE Essex. Anyone from nearby or London who wants to go please post here and maybe we can get a mini bus, or even a coach, organized.
I really wish the best outcome of every protest that opposes to ban on smoking.
By the way, does anybody think that many more protest should have been organised much earlier. We could organise protest that oppose to “ban on smoking” every weak since we first time hear about ban.... Why we waited so long.
Will these protests on 1. July be beginning of the some serious movement or will be just daily entertainment without any significance.
It seems to me that not only non-smoker but as well the majority of smokers believe that one day in future quitting smoking will bring them some health benefit and that is reason that pro smoking movement is nonexistent.
Luke
I think there are many people just taking the attitude let's wait and see. Once they find they want a smoke and can't they will see this draconian law for what it is.
Andrew is absolutely right. I'm afraid it will be a case of reality biting when the time comes. As for events - I have not heard of anything going on in Yorkshire, but perhaps I may during the coming week. It will, however, prove to be significant because the atmosphere in my local is changing now. I popped in for an hour last night and found the games area (usually with a lot of smokers) pretty empty except for a few non-smoking unfamiliar domino players, then a load of local non-smoking people came into the main area and looked around at the three smokers and turned their noses up at us! Then a group from a local sports club came in clad in shorts etc. and eventually we just felt uncomfortable and left. These 'nouveau pub goers' are changing the atmosphere in places and making us feel out of place. The change of atmosphere will put a lot of regulars off in future.
Jenny
Your experience in the pub last night sounds appalling. The government are encouraging this form of discrimination.
Smoking hasn't been banned on this site has it, I haven't seen hardly any of the locals all day?
Discrimination, for too long, has actually been against non smokers who do not want to breath in second hand smoke in pubs and clubs.
The licensed trade has by and large failed to cater for non smokers and the attitude of many people has been 'well if you don't like it, don't go to the pub then.' So non smokers have just had to like it or lump it.
I have always enjoyed going to the theatre and the cinema, yet a few years back if I had objected to the smoke in these venues then many people would have said 'Well if you don't like the smoke, don't go to the theatre or cinema then!"
Before I passed my driving test, 23 years ago, I used to travel by bus or train. Again, if I had objected to breathing in others' smoke then the response would have been "Well don't go on public transport then!"
My very first job was in an office and at that time it was a common sight to see ash trays and people smoking at their desks. Again, if I had objected, the response would have been 'like it or lump it!'
So which group of people have really been discriminated against for all these years? Certainly not the smokers, whom nobody has dared to challenge their freedom to smoke.
I'm not in favour of discrimination against smokers or non smokers but let's have a bit of tolerance on both sides. There has been much mention of 'tolerant non smokers' over the past few weeks yet there is such a thing as 'tolerant smokers' too who respect the new laws coming in in 9 days time and other people's wish to avoid indoor second hand smoke.
Whereabouts are you from Robert? In London, where I am from, there has been quite a large number of pubs and restaurants where smoking has not been permitted for years.
Even when I was a child, people were not allowed to smoke on the lower deck of a bus. Smoking was only permitted upstairs, and as you probably know, tubes and trains have not allowed smoking for years.
But most smokers have put up with this, as we thought it just part of a fair move to allow both smokers and non smokers a free choice of where they eat or drink or travel. But this new law does nothing of the sort. It is against freedom of choice, it is a law that tells us to do what we are told or else, and that surely is a breach of people's human rights.
What could be fairer than having, as they do in Spain and other countries, places that allow smoking and places where it is not allowed?
Robert
You have the perfect right to the majority of places to be smoke free. Would you object to a few establishments that cater for smokers. I personally do not want to frequent a gay bar, but this does not mean they should be totally banned. We have no choice.
Robert
A further point.
If people start to congregate outside establishments in order to smoke, many local residents will start to complain. This will result in more police time being spent on smokers, do you want this?????????
Why are so many antis in public forums unable to grasp that ventilated venues would make for a tolerant atmosphere that is comfortable for ALL but the most zealous anti who simply wants smoking abolished.
When everywhere *did* allow smoking (which was a hell of a long time ago), I don't recall receiving one complaint from anyone, anywhere. Nor would I ever have said 'like it or lump it' to someone, had the question ever arisen. I'm sure that many smokers would agree that they were simply not aware that other people had a problem with it.
The idea that all smokers are the same (rude, inconsiderate, stinky, yellow-toothed, lazy etc) is regularly inferred by antis, and is as ridiculous as saying that all non-smokers, all whites, blacks, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims etc. are the same. Absolutely preposterous.
Oh, poor badly done to Robert Evans - pubs with smoke, heart, soul and individuality as well as freedom of expression. My heart bleeds for you. I really hope all this fresh air does you and your like-minded brethren so much good - can't wait to see your lot wearing your sports gear, looking supercilious and drinking mineral water at my local in future - only I won't be there. You haven't had to like it or lump it - for as long as I can remember there have always been smoke-free rooms. And even if there weren't in some places, there were in others. Only we don't have any choice.
In last twenty years the incidence of diabetes are seven fold on increase and is strongly correlated with reduced smoking population and absence of second hand smoke.
It is just one of many illnesses and disease that incidence every years accelerating.
It seems that not smoking and absence of second hand smoke has devastating effect on human immune system.
In general people were much healthier when smoking was allowed on upper deck of the bus.
Can somebody really be serious when saying that ban on smoking is about health?
Deadly serious Luke, but lying nonetheless!
I doubt if Robert will reply to our posts. Unless he subscribes to discrimination, he has no argument.
In fairness to Robert, he is not as venomous as you portray him here. Read back over some of his other posts and you will be able to formulate a different opinion.
Never thought I would defend an anti-smoker, but Robert is lucid, and often posts liberal views.
He just doesn't like tobacco smoke. A valid statement, and we really ought to think about the many people that do not like the smell. That the science is bullshit is meaningless to this group of people.
We know there is a solution. We just need to convince them of that.
Dear God....I sound like Kofi Annan.....sorry.
Hello Colin, regarding those people whom you say do not like the smell, have you read my piece entitled THE STINK, which is on your own website? I have tried there to sum up what this is that seems to have got up their noses in the past few years. Please let me have your views?
'The stink'was wonderful, Peter. It is all about associations, and as far as THEY are concerned it is about destroying associations. This should alarm everybody.
Peter,
I have read the piece and it is a wonderful essay and evoked many strong and happy memories for me.
My point is this: smoker bans are enacted using "public health" as the main driver. A cursory glance at the science tells one that this is the biggest scam in the last 100 years. Their "evidence" is so underwhelming, it beggars belief. Their financial argument holds no water either. It doesn't leave them much to fight with, but, having had a thousand "debates" with the most hardened zealots over the last couple of years, the final argument we get from them is "Yeah, so what? I dont care about the science, or the fact that the country is making a humongous profit out of you. The fact is, smoking stinks".
And I would say to you, since this is their ONLY argument, lets fix it. We are up for compromise, (We have demonstrated that hundreds of times. We gave them planes, trains, museums, doctors surgeries, art galleries, theatres, cinemas, and all the rest), so lets chase other solutions and get them implemented. Air filtration, ventilation, separation, even segregation are workable solutions. All will take the "smell" away, and will immediately give them nothing further to complain about. The only non smokers in our immediate vicinity will be those that want to be there. Everybody wins.
The fact that they do not accept these solutions (all have been proven to work) tells me that this vindictive spiteful nonsense has nothing to do with health. Not yours, not mine, and most certainly not theirs.
Peter, I live in Wales and before the smoking ban came in here there weren't any non smoking pubs. Not in my own home town anyway. As for a straight choice between smoking and non smoking venues wouldn't this just create a form of apartheid? Many of my friends and a number of my wider family are smokers. The problem is I enjoy their company and am even happy to sit outside with them whilst they smoke.
Andrew, allowing a few establishments to cater just for smokers would discriminate against non smokers. I'm not anti smoker, just against the fumes that come off lighted cigarettes indoors. The two are not the same thing. As for residents living nearby pubs complaining about noise and taking up police time, this just hasn't been a problem at all in my own home town in Wales.
Poppy, I don't want smoking abolished, just a fair arrangement to accommodate smokers and non smokers in public places and to give them equal opportunites to socialise. If I was a pub landlord I would be doing my very best to provide a smart, comfortable and friendly outdoor sheltered area for smokers for those 5 minutes that it takes to have a cigarette. Would you still boycott my venue?
Jenny, you're mocking me because of my preference to avoid passive smoking indoors in public places. Please be more tolerant of people who for whatever reason do not wish to be exposed to second hand smoke. If you're not then your praise of 'tolerant non smokers' rings hollow.
Colin, Thank you for your comments. I respect your views on smoking even if I don't agree with you. I am so looking forward to the smoking debate widening up and reaching a greater audience over the next 7 days and listening to views on both sides of the argument. The Judicial Reviews by 'Freedom to Choose' will provoke further interest and debate and I will watch those with equal interest. In the end though I agree with you that it all comes down to compromise and tolerance on both sides.
One of basic human’s rights is right to live in healthy environment.
It is right as well not to be forced to socialise without own will especially that is associated with health risk.
Socialising in non smoking environment people are forced to breathe second hand breath that is full of micro organism and viruses.
Smoking and second hand smoke protect people from dangerous micro organism and viruses that are in second hand breath.
Robert E:
Don't worry, I don't believe that you want smoking abolished, but I do wonder why you keep bypassing the ventilation argument as though it hasn't been mentioned. Forgive me if I find that a little suspicious, as I've seen that trait repeatedly in antis who turned out to be 'wolves in sheep's clothing'.
Yes I would boycott that venue, because if any landord truly believed in, as you say:
"...a fair arrangement to accommodate smokers and non smokers in public places and to give them equal opportunites to socialise."
Then you wouldn't make it impossible for smokers to enjoy that venue on very cold and rainy days. You're saying in one breath that you want to give 'equal opportunities' and in the next you are stripping those away by pushing smokers outside.
I still believe that ventilation is the answer. I deeply believe that the most intelligent solution in any problematic situation is the one that increases tolerance rather than increasing divisiveness, and I think that MPs walked into the voting lobbies on this one like zombies without a thought for 'unintended consequence' and having been totally brainwashed by a small group of zealots with only one raison d'etre and with no mandate from the public.
As much as you may favour the outcome (as it stands at the moment), I do not understand how anyone can fail to see that this flies in the face of democracy and that an air quality standard, set and met, is by FAR the most tolerant, civilised, democratic, inclusive, mature, fair and reasonable solution.
It would 'protect' non-smokers from their fears, it would protect businesses from closing, and it would enable elderly and disabled smokers to continue socialising and not be forced into isolation.
In short, it would provide 'equal opportunities to socialise' which you say is what you want.
So what is your problem with that?
Can we talk about democracy when 14 million peoples are forced to give up own way of life.
If Churchill tried to have reasonable discussion with the Nazis guess what will be outcome.
We are going to “Soylent Green” democracy.
Robert - yes I do enjoy mocking you! I believe I have mentioned before and I will mention it again, that some of your views appear to be very reasonable. Actually, by nature I am a very tolerant person - but lines have to be drawn somewhere. Non-smokers and anti-smokers in better weather want to sit in beer gardens and outside - when smokers are all forced outside, this will create friction in itself. Yes, you do seem to ignore all references to ventilation systems. Poppy is correct. Having analysed the content of your arguments, you still appear to be of the opinion that people should not be allowed to smoke tobacco in absolutely every single enclosed area - every room in every bar, pub, club and other place in the land. Sadly, unlike Spain/Italy/France we do NOT have the climate or mentality for a cafe society - we are experiencing lots of rain and storms in June. In those countries, a lot of people simply ignore the ban anyway and do not send round enforcement officers or put the onus on the owner of the establishment to enforce the law. If you were to go into somewhere like a pub or working men's club in the North of England and express your views, I would not be surprised if someone physically assaulted you - that is how strongly people are feeling in some of these places and people like you do not appear to realise this. Smokers (14 million people) are being criminalised and demonised - that's a lot of people to upset at any one time. We believe that people should have non-smoking social places to attend, but that people who enjoy smoking should, equally, have some places to congregate and socialise. However, you never seem to address this point - you pursue one track like a person with tunnelled vision where indoor places are concerned. This government is trying to make everyone the same - and force people to behave in exactly the same way regardless of personal liberties and views. In short, Robert, you, (like the government) do not listen to us where indoor places are concerned. Our PM didn't listen to us and signed a major agreement this weekend upsetting millions of people (this is a separate matter) but the one aspect in common is that people are not being listened to or considered seriously. Not just a few people - but millions and millions of people. If people are not listened to, there can not be democracy - it is tyranny and we now have a dictatorship. Think about all the millions of people who fought and lost their lives and were maimed in the First and Second World Wars and other wars so that we, their descendants, could have freedom of choice and a peaceful free way of life. They, like us, have been betrayed by today's governing elite.
Robert, you talk about accommodating smokers and non smokers, in public places, which sounds all very fine, but what this new law constitutes as a "public place" and what is a public place in reality, are two totally different things. How on earth can a private club ever be regarded as a public place? The general public are not allowed in a private club. A private club allows in members only, who have to agree to that club's rules and conditions.
If you saw a club which advertised itself as catering for child pornography, would you want to become a member of such a club, and would you think it unfair if you were refused membership? I doubt it very much. So why then, do so many non smokers, think they should have the right to stop other people smoking in a cigar club for instance, when it is a place where no non smoker in their right mind, would ever dream of wanting to go?
The government think they have covered their backs on that one, by saying that this new law is to protect the workers in that industry. What an absolute load of poppycock. If they really cared one iota about the workers, they would bring in a clean air act, which would ensure all pubs, bars, restaurants and private clubs, and indeed all work places, installed efficient ventilation systems to ensure all fumes, gasses, smells etc., that could possibly cause any harm to both the workers and the patrons of these establishments were filtered and wafted completely away, and as we all know, there are such systems available.
As we all know, such simple solutions would be far to easy for this nanny government to contemplate. Since when has this particular government been interested in our health? Our hospitals and health service are in total disarray, with people waiting months and months, sometimes years, for simple operations which people in other countries get within a few days or weeks at the most. As for this government trying to save lives, maybe they would like to explain that one to the families of the many servicemen and women who have been killed in Iraq since they were sent there illegally by Blair and Brown.
Robert
You say smoker pubs would discriminate against non smokers. Do gay bars discriminate against hetrosexual people???????
Peter, there is some merit in allowing genuinely private clubs such as 'cigar clubs' to remain exempt from the new smoking laws. I wouldn't describe most night clubs as private though as they invite the general public in. If such an exemption was allowed then I can just imagine them exploiting this as a loop hole. And what's to stop ordinary pubs suddenly describing themselves as private clubs and just giving out membership tickets like confetti?
Andrew, I'm not sure that I understand your question.
Robert, it wouldn't make any difference if pubs did decide to become clubs and "hand out memberships like confetti". The whole point I am making here, is that if any pub, bar, or restaurant did decide to become a club, then their rules and conditions would be published for all to see, and accept or reject as they see fit.
As I said to you before, if you knew a club was involved with child pornography, would you want to join, or even go anywhere near it? I doubt it very much, so why would anyone want, or feel the need to join a club which promoted something which they disagreed with?
It would be simply a matter of supply and demand. If there really is such a small minority in this country that smoke and want to go to bars or pubs which allow smoking, then surely those "smoking" bars would not last very long, so with this in mind, what on earth are the anti smokers worried about, there would be plenty of non smoking bars and pubs for them to languish in?
Yes Peter, it's that very irrational position that demonstrates their real agenda - i.e. to eradicate smoking from the face of the earth.
I honestly believe that the anti-smoking brigade is made up of people who have bereavement issues from losing a loved one to a 'smoking-related death' (even though lifelong non-smokers also die of 'smoking-related deaths' and always have and always will). I have some sympathy for these people, but wish they would find a more constructive and effective way to heal the hole inside themselves. The rest, I think, are who quit smoking in a way that wasn't entirely their own choice - leaving them with a vicious resentment that anyone else is still enjoying the smokes they used to love.
A case of "If I can't play, I'm taking my ball home, and I'm taking all your balls too!"
Oh. I do beg your pardon. I think there is a third type - the type that is paranoid and fearful of everything.
I trust that (following the SHS 'logic' through to it's obvious conclusion), ALL anti-smokers also support a ban on bonfires, barbecues, cooking on a gas stove, car pollution and industrial pollution.
I gather that sniffing a barbecue alone is equivalent to smoking 500 cigarettes in one hit.
After that we can go further, and look at every possible activity that carries a risk. We could start with dangerous sports (since driving will already have been abolished), and work our way through. Ultimately, most accidents occur in the home, so we will have to abolish homes, and I believe most deaths worldwide are still caused by infectious diseases, so the safest thing I can think of is to abolish mammals and insects in their entirety.
Yep. That'll do it. A safe world of vegetation and sea creatures, and no epidemiologists, pressure groups or governments to tell them what to do.
Sounds like heaven to me :)
Peter, smokers and non smokers are not two entirely separate groups of people who have nothing to do with each other. Within any extended family or circle of friends there is going to be a mix of those that smoke and those that don't. Leaving aside people's differences as to whether they welcome the new smoking laws or not, most people are happy to socialise together and would not want to be segregated between smoking and non smoking venues.
Poppy, I confess that a good part of my views on smoking come from my father's demise after smoking about half a million cigarettes. I will remember my grandma's reaction forever when we broke the news that her son had died after 12 years of ill health. The only consolation was to remind her that he wouldn't have to suffer any more. With 3 children of my own now I am determined to do all that I can to reduce the chances of history repeating itself. My eldest son is 13 years of age now and although it is his choice and freedom as to whether he starts smoking or not, it will be an informed choice. He knows every detail of how his grandfather suffered, how his chest was opened up for a bypass operation, how he suffered heart attacks and a stroke and how his leg circulation was so bad that in the final few weeks gangrene set in.
Smoking is an issue that I feel passionately about but I thank you for hearing me out even if you disagree with every view that I ever expressed.
Robert, I have enormous compassion for you and your suffering. I too have suffered bereavement, and it took me about 20 years to even begin to come to terms with it. What I have learned, though, is that the healing of that hole can ONLY come from inside ourselves. It can never be healed by orchestrating other peoples' behaviours or trying to 'set the world right' - no matter how noble and 'correct' that may feel.
Encouraging and supporting dictatorial laws is dangerous territory. There are many forms of suffering, but surely history proves that dictatorships have wrought the worst suffering that mankind has ever known. I will not move an inch in that direction, for fear of the suffering that THAT will ultimately cause.
The simple solution is: An air quality standard, set and met.
There is NO NEED for divisiveness.
Robert, I know that smokers and non smokers should not be two different groups, and until very recently, they have not, with a few exceptions of course. But this new law is doing exactly that, it is dividing people, even friends.
I'll give you a good example. I have a friend whom I have known for 30 years. This person has never smoked, but he has always associated with smokers, both in his work, and in pubs and restaurants. In all that time I have never heard him complain once about smokers, or the smell of tobacco, or second hand smoke. My wife and I have been out to dinner with him and his wife on many, many occasions, we have been to his house for meals and he has been to our house. In this long period of association, I have always smoked. I am not a heavy smoker, but nevertheless, I do like a cigarette, especially after a meal, and this person has never, ever, complained.
A few months ago however, he started to wave his hand about in front of my face when I lit a cigarette, even though I am always very considerate when I do smoke, and always keep my cigarette as far away from other people as possible, usually down by my side, and I make sure that I always blow the smoke in the opposite direction to other people.
This rude little habit of waving his hand in front of my face got worse and worse, and a few weeks ago culminated in a stream of abuse from him regarding my smoking. I tried to reason with him and explain some facts to him, but his answer to me was that I was talking "a load of Bxllxks. How on earth can anyone conduct a sensible argument with a person who responds like this?
Needless to say, we parted with bad feelings all round, and after 30 years I have no intention of being friends with him ever again. This is what this law will do to people, it is divisive and wrong. This person, who was my friend for 30 years has changed so much because of the divisive propaganda he has heard, and you try to tell me that smokers and non smokers are not two entirely separate groups?
They wasn't, but they are certainly becoming that way, and I can promise you that it is not the pro-smokers who are causing this rift.