Named and shamed
Friday, July 6, 2007 
Seven days ago the news was dominated by the London car bombs. Now, exactly one week later, one of the leading items on BBC News is the allegation that former LibDem leader Charles Kennedy has been caught smoking on a train, as if this was a serious offence. (Full story HERE.)
I know - from a journalist's perspective - that this is good knockabout stuff. But what a warped society we are living in when a bloke having a quick smoke in the course of long distance train journey becomes headline news.
What is ominous about this story is the fact that someone has sneaked on Kennedy and the same person (or someone else) has then leaked it to the media. On top of that we have the ill-disguised attempt to humiliate an otherwise law-abiding person for - what, exactly? To the best of my knowledge, this was a completely victimless 'crime'.
Earlier today I was asked to comment on another story that enforcement officers for a council in north Wales have imposed a £50 fine on a lorry driver for smoking in his cab. He was alone. The same local authority has demanded that businesses put up 'No Smoking' signs or face being "named and shamed". Pompous prats.
In some ways I welcome these stories because I really hope that people come to their senses and understand that what is happening should not be tolerated in a civilised society. For the moment, this country is now in the hands of sneaks and jobsworths who will do their utmost to make life a misery for those who don't conform to the government's idea of the perfect citizen.
Simon Clark
When I spoke to journalists yesterday I expressed sympathy for Charles Kennedy. My comments (see HERE) reflected my concern for Charles Kennedy, smoker. In view of the fact that the former LibDem leader voted in favour of the smoking ban, I have little sympathy for Charles Kennedy, politician. You reap what you sow etc, and Kennedy has been hoist by his own petard. See Iain Dale's Diary for some interesting and (please note!!) concise responses to the same story. (Scroll down to 'Charles Kennedy, Hypocrisy and Consistency'.)
Reader Comments (37)
Snoops, snitches and jobsworths. Welcome to Britain 2007. It makes me SICK!!!!
I feel sorry for Charles Kennedy but this is excellent publicity - and it highlights the point that the media will focus on this as opposed to something serious like the recent flooding or terrorism threat only a few days 'after' these events. (I realise we still have threats of more floods and terror attacks.) Like Simon, I welcome such stories. These highlight the pathetic mentality which is prevailing today including the lorry driver incident. Also - it fires people up to react against snoops and snitches etc. and fuels hatred and resentment against them instead of against tobacco smokers.
I hope the media keep up their petty reporting, mainly because it puts me in the mind to send Mr Kennedy a 'With Sympathies' card with a Forest membership form inside!
The media sees it as an opportunity to knock high-profile targets off their pedestals - I see it almost as though they're introducing me to new friends.
Simon, you are quite right that it shouldn't BE a news-worthy issue (especially with the flood damage and terrorist threats) and that it violates Mr Kennedy's rights as a private citizen.
That said, if he does it again in a train carriage near me - I think I'll join him!
The thing that took me by surprise in all this is that I understand he voted for the ban! (How could you Charles? Whatever happened to the meaning of the word 'Liberal' in 'Liberal Democrats'?).
But anyway - if he voted for it then he's been hoist by his own petard.
Karma, eh? It'll get 'em all in the end. Hopefully people power will get there faster though.
Hopefully the majority of the public will be equally horrified that this has taken such high media priority. This law is just insane.
As well as this story today we have the tale of two people in Grimsby who were pounced on by a litter warden to be issued with a fine because he thought that they were about to drop their cigarette butts! Other stories are emerging of local authorities using their positions as landlords to extend the ban.
I am biding my time until stories emerge of harassment and intimidation of smokers when I intend to contact those who have the moral authority to speak out against this witch hunt
As for the Kennedy report,we can all appreciate a "good knockabout story" but once upon a time such a story filled the "...and finally..." slot. When it is being reported as a leading report its status and function are different. How low are they going to sink?
Michael Siegal, himself part of the tobacco control lobby, now believes it has all gone too far and has felt the full blast of opprobrium from other Antis for daring to say so. He believes the movement is in danger of imploding. I do hope so.
You're so right Joyce. It would certainly have been an 'and finally...' article in previous times.
If anything I would have preferred to see the death of the inimicable George Melly on the front pages, under the heading 'The Last Man Who Ever LIVED'. He surely did live his life according to his own wishes, and the way things are going, he will have been the last to have been allowed to do so. He proved you can live a long life if you let your spirit run free, take pleasure in your talents and vices and stay true to yourself. I fear we'll all die prematuraly of suffocation from all these straightjackets the politicians want to force us into.
I'm surprised there's no obit on this site - since I would have thought he would tick all the liberty boxes (unless there's something about him that I don't know!)
Just posted on this very subject on my blog. I see it a little differently. It is a very positive thing.
www.icanhelpit.co.uk/blog
Parliament has again got it wrong. Money wasted on the Smoking Ban whilst others suffer.
The flood damage across the country comes second as usual. Those killed or maimed by the July 7th 2006 bombing are left to wait until this Government gets its act together.
WHO now claim deaths throught smoking account for 1.3 million lives each year. Since Malaria causes 3 million deaths each year are they now trying to claim that smoking by mosquitoes causes cancer. As we all know, we all die from respiratory complications.
We now hear that those poor victims of bombings are now only allowed to claim for a restricted number of limbs.
How fortunate that we smokers are banned from enclosed spaces.
My sympathy for Charles Kennedy no longer exists - apparently he did vote in favour of the ban. At the time Labour announced the ban last year he is reported (in one of today's papers) as saying, "I think it is inevitable that is the way it is going to go. And it is something I personally would support." If people who support and vote in favour of these laws can't observe them, how do they expect ordinary people to do the same? A case of do as I say, but not as I do. Anyway, the main thing is that this is all being given a lot of publicity and the public is talking about the smoking ban a lot more as a result of such stories. Long may they continue!
If we had a country that worked even remotely like it should then Kennedy would be forced to resign from politics forever. Breaking a law you HELPED bring into effect *should* be an unforgivable transgression.
That might sound extreme, but since these buggers believe themselves fit to dictate how we should be living our lives they should be setting the example and taken to task when they break their own rules.
There seems no consistency so far, there are those still defying the ban, a priest entering a police station and lighting up, with no consequences. I now read a driver in Wales has a fixed penalty. Surely he could argue that others have not been fined, why should I pay.
I think you have a good point, Andrew. A law that is not being implemented consistently is one not being implemented justly. I also, sadly, think that, in today's UK, the principle of equity cuts no ice.
The picture concerning Charles Kennedy and exactly what happened on the train is not completely clear. If he was alone, between carriages, having a quick smoke with the window open then even as a fellow passenger passing through I would just turn a blind eye to it.
If a member of the train staff spotted him smoking then it would be quite reasonable to politely ask him to put it out. That should have been the end of the matter with nothing more needing to be said let alone to the police or the media. If on the other hand, Charles Kennedy has refused to do so, been argumentative or confrontational then just what is the member of the train staff supposed to do? Turn the other cheek?
Robert
When will you get it. Watch Schindlers List, see how people turned on others, spat stoned, TURNED THEM IN.
If anyone decides to go onto the Daily Mail website, there's the story about Charles K and people have made lots of comments in the comments section - this makes entertaining reading. On the same front page there is a story about 500,000 people informing the Inland Revenue about people they believe are not paying enough tax. Looks like this is becoming a trend now, that is, informing on others. I saw Schindler's List, Andrew, and I remember people being so afraid that they were prepared to inform on their own people, but eventually they themselves were executed. Today's informers may be tomorrow's casualties.
We've become a nation of such low ambition. The whole of life for many seems to have become the pursuit of the 'Curtain Twitcher of the Year Award'.
God that's depressing :(
You are right,Poppy - we have become a nation of such low ambition. We've had competitiveness kicked out of us and especially over the past 10 years. However, this story is still going and others are surfacing. There does appear to be no consistency which just shows how ludicrous this new law is and the penalties are.
"The way the world is moving, in terms of people's awareness, perception, concern about health, as well as the liberties of those who do not smoke. I think it is inevitable frankly that is the way it is going to go. And it is something I personally would support." (Charles Kennedy Daily Star, 20 June 2005)
This is just sloppy thinking by Kennedy. There is no inevitability to human events. There is no direction to human history. Nothing is certain. History is littered with the wreckage of failed historicist predictions of Kennedy's sort.
And in this particular case, the anti-smoking cause has been advanced with so much deceit and propaganda and arm-twisting that it might be suggested that quite the opposite prediction might be made, on the grounds that the truth will out, and lies are always found out in the end, regardless of what anyone thinks at the moment, or how many people think it, or are convinced that everyone will think the same way in the furure.
Did Charles Kennedy actually vote for the blankey ban in the free vote before Parliament - or did he say he was in support of the forthcoming legislation at an earlier stage when the outline was more reasonable - i.e. with exemptions etc.? If it is the former then Kennedy deserves everything he gets for conspiring to impose a law on other people whilst acting as though he is above it. If it is the latter, then I have sympathy for him as he is being villified by merit of being a useful stooge for the Antis to force negative publicity on.
Charles Kennedy did, indeed, vote in favour of the blanket ban. Most Lib Dems are in favour of this. In fact, it is now the official party line of all three major mainstream parties. Only UKIP and the BNP appear to be against the blanket ban.
UKIP get's my vote.
Does anyone remember a few years ago, a man being fined £10 for smoking on a train. He then went on to sue the rail company for his £10 back, right through the system up to the high court. The poor chap lost his case and it cost him a fortune,but as I remember it was touch and go all the way.If it had gone the other way we would have had smoking carriages on every train. Now just consider this:- The rail company had what should have been a stonewall case against him (after all it was their train and had an established penalty system) yet they could quite easily have lost. Now what if, instead of being cought on a train he had been cought in his own private club and followed the same proceedure? No doubt at all in my mind that it would (and hopefully will) be the beginning of the end for what is nothing more than a senseless a nd childish vendetta.
There was a case - though I don't remember the name of it off the top of my head - where a man took the train company to court for judicial review over them imposing a fine on him for smoking on a train. Because it was a matter of train company policy it was correct that the company were allowed to prevent him smoking on their property - however, it was upheld by the judge that they did not have legal authority to fine him - they were not a government agency, no private organisation has the right to levy fines. The position is now different because it is the law that people can be fined, but the revenue goes to the government - any further fine that a private company tried to impose would still be illegal - they are not entitled to create revenue in this way.
DRAMA QUEEN: Andrew gets my vote!
Schindlers List!? FFS!!!
James
Your question mark, have you not seen the film??????????
Hello RadCat, I am not quite with you on what you are saying here? You state:
"it was upheld by the judge that they did not have legal authority to fine him - they were not a government agency, no private organisation has the right to levy fines. The position is now different because it is the law that people can be fined, but the revenue goes to the government"
So, Redcat, you say that "no private organisation has the right to levy fines", you then go on to say "the position is now different because it is the law that people can be fined" But you do not make this clear, "fined by whom?"
You lastly state "any further fine that a private company tried to impose would still be illegal - they are not entitled to create revenue in this way" If they are illegal surely that cancels out your previous statement that they can still be fined?
Please don't misunderstand this, I am not in any way against what you are saying, I am just at a loss to the true meaning of what you mean?
Peter; I think he means that private companies don't have the right to levy fines. They always had the right to ban smoking on their trains but not to levy a fine. They should have had the right to remove someone from a train for violating the conditions under which they allow people to use their trains. The law now says that owners of trains and other properties no longer have the right to decide their own smoking policy and that it is now illegal to smoke on trains. Because smoking on a train now violates the government's law it is the government who can fine you for smoking on a train.
Yes Andrew, I have seen it a number of times. Please don't use that subject matter to try to get your point across; it's repulsive.
James
Peter Thurgood made some comments in a previous post. He explained after being good friends with a couple for 30 years, they decided to give up pre ban. They did give up, then became so anti, they did not want to aknowledge Peter anymore. That is repulsive, and I compare that behavior to the brainwashing of people against jews in the early part of the second world war.
Also don't lecture me, we have enough of that from the government.
Also I suppose DRAMA QUEEN is better than TOSSER.
James; Nazism does not = gas chambers and nothing else. The Nazis were in power for many years before gas chambers came along. During those years they invented "passive smoking" and banned smoking in many "public places".
If we are to learn any lessons from history one of them must surely be to see the warning signs of something bad before it is too late to stop the process. The communists took ownership of all businesses. The fascist left ownership title in private hands but they controlled what the owners could do with their property. Our government are doing the same thing. They have also enacted a smoking ban. These were Nazi policies. What do you think we should call them?
Peter -
Bernie's analysis of my last post is correct. Train companies as private businesses never had the right to fine people; people can now be fined (by the government) by merit of this law, but not directly by the train company or similar.
Actually, I have noticed on a few trains there are signs up threatening fines for putting feet up on seats - they can't fine you for this either.
The devisive nature of this law and the mindset that lies behind it, is very indicative of the Nazi propaganda of the 1930's. The aim is the same..divide and conquer. This law is repulsive and it's slow-burn ,is not recognized by many people, obviously. Recognizing this in it's early stages is extremely important. It's supposed to make you feel helpless, as a lot of people do already,and then it makes it much easier for them to widen the parameters and the severity, of an already dictatorial law.
Refusing to acknowledge its' Nazi connotations
is missing its essence,and being blind to the potential for dispicable control.
We are the free nations, we do not discriminate in a free society. You all believe us don't you. Remember the Cold War, we had to stop those evil communists. The Mcarthy Trials, these were just, we are right everyone else is wrong. Pherhaps someone who is up on this subject could remind us of glorious capitalism at it's very best. Pherhaps I will be on trial soon, for free thinking, BUT I WOULD DESERVE IT WOULDN'T I.
Andrew; Capitalism we do not have. We haven't had it for more than a hundred years. What we have is Corporatism. That is where big companies are able to gain advantage over their competition through the power of government laws. Capitalism is nothing more than each of us being free to buy or sell whatever we want on a purely voluntary mutual consent basis.
It has been attacked for a long time. Most of the attacks come from those who want to use the power of government to control us. True capitalism can only exist in a free society. We are a long long way from a free society.
The 1930 Natzi's as well has campaigning against smoking also embarked on De-normalising Jews. It sarted as the usual "dirty" filthy" "smelly" "moronic" sound familiar? Then they were accused of attrocities "eating children" "killing children" "ritual sacrifice of children" sound familiar yet? They were then outcast, "denied employment" "made to walk in the gutter" "lost their business" "wear identifiers" - must be getting close to familiar by now.
By the time the "final solution" was implimented the vast majority of the German people where brainwashed into considering Jews as sub-human, unworthy of compassion. Just like our society is being taught to consider smokers.
SMOKING SHOULD BE BANNED
I HATE ALL SMOKERS, AND THIS SITE DISGUSTES ME.
I WANNA KILL ALL SMOKERS
DIE SMOKERS DIE
Isn't it nice to see how hated we smokers are by the illiterati? I presume this person would have been sufficiently provoked by a whisp of smoke to have assassinated Churchill or Einstein.
Logistically his task may be a little wearisom. I believe there are over one billion smokers across the globe. The UK alone has something like 14 million.