Forgetfulness is now a crime
Saturday, July 19, 2008 Welsh Culture Minister Rhodri Glyn Thomas (left) has resigned following a story that he flouted the smoking ban - which he supported - by smoking a cigar in a pub near the Welsh Assembly (see HERE).
Did Thomas deliberately break the law? Did he refuse to put out his cigar? No, what seems to have happened is that he absent-mindedly walked into Cardiff's Eli Jenkins pub with a lit cigar and when a member of staff pointed this out he apologised and went outside. (The BBC adds a touch of colour to the story by claiming he was "reprimanded" by staff.)
Some of you may argue that because Thomas supported the ban he deserves everything he gets. I don't agree. This is no time to feel smug. The fact is, the career of a senior politician is in ruins because - shock, horror - he walked into a pub with a lit cigar.
The prize for the most sanctimonious comment I have seen (so far) goes to Opposition leader and Welsh Conservative AM Nick Bourne who said Thomas' resignation was "regrettable" before adding, "However, the smoking ban was introduced in the interests of public health to protect people from the risk of smoking-related illnesses." Ugh! Pass the sickbag. (See HERE.)
The worrying thing is, this sounds just the sort of thing that David Cameron would say.
Note: to put this story in perspective, it is clear that Thomas was becoming "gaffe prone" in the eyes of the Welsh media, and even some of his colleagues. In other words, this incident was the straw that broke the camel's back. Nevertheless, wouldn't it have been nice if someone, Nick Bourne, for example, had stood up and said: "This was the most minor offence imaginable. No-one died, no-one got hurt, or was even likely to get hurt. The minister has apologised. Let that be an end to it."
But no. Political opportunism comes first and the most trivial "gaffes" are seized upon by journalists, broadcasters and political rivals who fall back on soundbites and unproven junk science to justify the rampant and deeply unpleasant wave of puritanism that is engulfing this country.
Reader Comments (56)
<<Opposition leader and Welsh Conservative AM Nick Bourne said Mr Thomas' resignation was "regrettable".
"However, the smoking ban was introduced in the interests of public health to protect people from the risk of smoking-related illnesses.
"There can be no exceptions to the rules.">>
Any of you mugs still pinning your hopes on the Tories?
David Cameron will legalise fox hunting - because hunting is for toffs - but he will legislate further against smokers, because smoking is for plebs.
Yes, a most apposite comment, Mat. We shall have one poor government replaced by another which is also equally stupid about this issue. No-one should be surprised though, for Cameron and Nick Clegg - leader of the Lobotomised Dead - have the air of schoolboys about them. In other words, they give the distinct impression of a lack of experience.
However, here is an inside story on Nick Bourne:
Three years ago, when the proposed Welsh ban was being fought against, Bourne was one of the few who voiced misgivings about it. When, for example, Michael McFadden sent copies of his critique of the Assembly's anti-smoking study in to the Assembly, Bourne actually had it copied and sent to all his Tory colleagues. He was not happy about the extent of the smoking ban and maybe, just maybe, this is Bourne taking a bit of revenge on Thomas, who is also, of course, Plaid Cymru, and therefore part of a rival party. Two birds with one stone!
I get the impression that Mr Thomas didn't smoke the cigar, so did he break any law?
I would like to see MPs resigning for telling lies about passive smoking.
"Some of you may argue that because Thomas supported the ban he deserves everything he gets. I don't agree. This is no time to feel smug."
I'm afraid that I can't help feeling that this is an example of natural justice.
Talk about spin being put on a story, Simon.
Let's get this story into perspective a little shall we?
You state his comment ( the most sanctimonious comment you have seen) to be from Nick Bourne who allegedly said Thomas' resignation was "regrettable" and then added, "However, the smoking ban was introduced in the interests of public health to protect people from the risk of smoking-related illnesses."
I do not know if Nick Bourne really said this or not. But I do know that what he did say was "the matter wasn't a "resigning issue". He added: "I didn't call on him to resign, I'm a little surprised he did resign. "It seems to me there was probably [more] internal pressure from the government than external pressure from opposition parties or the media. "I didn't hear anyone call on him to resign. Personally I feel a bit sorry for him I have to say"
Now I wonder why this wasn't put in your original story Simon?
Also, you go on to say, "The worrying thing is, this sounds just the sort of thing that David Cameron would say" But Simon, David Cameron didn't say this did he? This was pure supposition.
I know you want people to debate on here, which there hasn't been too much of this past week or so, but to spin a story like this, and open it up the Cameron haters, who sit like vultures in the wings, waiting to swoop on their victim the minute his name is mentioned, whether it be true or just more spin, as in this case, is pure sensationalism for the sake of it.
Would that be the David Cameron who didn't say in response to the question of whether his Government would revisit the smoking ban, "I don't smoke"?
It's easily done. On the rare occasion that I visit a pub now (about twice a month)I still automatically reach for my fags while waiting to be served and then realise....
My local has a brilliant smoking area "outside" and apparently it is just within the "law". It is a free standing conservatory built about 9 inches away from the wall all round in a small courtyard garden and we spend our whole visit in there.
Yes, Joyce, that would be the same David Cameron, whom I believe did say that he didn't smoke. But then what else would you have had him say, that he did smoke, or that he was thinking of taking it up again?
But, as I said earlier, this thread was "supposed" to be about Rhodri Glyn Thomas, and Nick Bourne, until this can of worms was thrown into the ring as a little appetiser.
I used to argue that the general public were not really as stupid as politicians seemed to believe they were, that they could see right through the spin and lies, and would form their own conclusions as to who is telling the truth, and who is lying, and who said what about who etc., etc.
But now I am not so sure, the general public seem to be getting even more gullible by the minute.
Someone states that someone "might" have said something, or "could" have said something, and instead of thinking, Ah yes, but let's dwell on what was really said, if anything at all, they jump on what "could" have been said.
It might even be worthwhile putting some sort of book, or at least an article, together, on thoughts and actions, which famous people might, or could have done and said over the years?
Winston Churchil "could" have said, Let's give in to the Germans. Tony Blair, "could" have said, Oh please don't let's bomb Iraq, they haven't got any weapons of mass destruction. Guy Fawkes, "could" have said, let's throw water all over the politicians in Parliament, and so on and so on.
So please, everyone, let's try to put our energies toward fighting the real enemy, not the imaginary one.
Peter -
You say (rightly):
"So please, everyone, let's try to put our energies toward fighting the real enemy, not the imaginary one."
The question is, of course: WHO is The Enemy ?
Sadly, it is no longer enough to point a finger at The Government - which is more a manifestation than a cause of what is rotten, not only with this country, but with the whole of the Anglosphere.
Despite your appeals for calm among the 'Cameron-haters', you are perfectly aware that much of this angst derives simply from a justified sense of frustration that The Enemy has no real opposition - ESPECIALLY from 'The Opposition'.
What is it that is most imperilled in these islands ? FREEDOM.
And which word do I rarely hear tumble from the lips of the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Oppostion ? FREEDOM
Has the word been censored out, not just from his speeches (can you point to ONE notable one ?), but from his ENTIRE mental process, perhaps ?
I only ask because I want to know...........
Cameron MAY turn out to be another Churchill (without the child-killing cancer stick), Pitt, Palmerston, or Cromwell, of course, but he has a long way to go yet before he convinces ME that he - or any of his buddies, especially his Party Chairman - has a CLUE about what's wrong with our society and its politics.
Has ANY Opposition EVER been provided with as much ammunition to hurl at the Government as this one ? Surely, we are entitled to ask why so LITTLE of it has been used.............?
This far into HER leadership, most people had a pretty good idea of what Margaret Thatcher stood for. Consequently, you could love her or hate her according to taste. And at least, she never described herself as 'The Heir to Callaghan'.
Three years into HIS leadership, however, the only people who seem to endorse Cameron publicly with anything approaching enthusiasm are some Media Types, ageing Lefties, Polly Toynbee worshippers, and political rats (of various hues) looking for anything that floats.
Among my acquaintances - all of them sadly condemned to a life of toil in the Real World - alas, the dominant attitude seems to be one of wearied indifference at best, to downright contempt at worst.
He now has in his hands the MOST magnificent opportunity to save our wonderful country from the creeping corporate totalitarianism that is slowly draining it of all its colour, variety, risk and free-spiritedness.
If you'll permit a little Romanticism on my part, WHOEVER leads our country shortly will have the opportunity once again to turn it into a Beacon of Light in a darkening world.
The Government, the quangocrats, the professional busybodies, the trendy fashionistas, the Eurowallies, the bureaucracies (national and local), the dim-witted and cowardly Police Chiefs- all the bodies and personages that feed parasitically off our bloated State - need a karate punch to their collective solar plexus from a Man of Vision who isn't afraid to Make Enemies: not a sly tickle here and there to avoid the taint of Nastiness - even if he does have a few admirers down at The Screaming Queen, a lovely wife, and a wind turbine to boil his eggs.
In short - he needs to ACT, and ACT FAST.
I think most of us here KNOW who (and what) the REAL ENEMY is.
It's just that some of us entertain doubts as to whether we've yet discovered a REAL GENERALto lead the charge !
Just trying to stimulate some debate, Peter...
Very, very well said, Martin!
I'm not gloating (very much), but I can't help but observe that if he hadn't voted for a stupid, illiberal and disproportionate law, his career wouldn't have been laid low by a stupid, illiberal and disproportionate backlash.
Bravo Martin, for your insight and your passion. I think the enemy is the spirit of this age,which promotes health paranoia to destroy people's peace of mind and enslave them. What a fertile field for control freaks and the power mad. And they dominate the field of battle. Politicians of many hues, conditioned to the 'art of the possible' regard an attack on the citadel of the politically correct as a lost cause. If they recognise their cause at all they would probably see those who would take the fight to the enemy as naive and unworldly folk. And so they dither and posture in the long grass. Screwtape must be laughing.
Sound common sense from Peter. A superb synopsis from Martin.
Yes, we do have another Churchill, [without the alcohol and the vagueries which let him down in the end.] The puppet media, however, will never give him a sufficient voice and the general public will not be able to hear from him or know of his existance until it is too late. .
Please see the UTube I have given the link to on the thread below.
It is immaterial that Labour have lost the vote and that Cameron is not making the most of his political opportunities. All our political leaders are well aware that there will never be another general election if the Lisbon Treaty becomes law. Our parliament will become a meaningless charade and have no power whatsoever. All rules and laws will come from the EU and be enforced by a militarised European police force.
Our present top politicians and men of influence have been well entrenched into the gravy train and their wealthy futures have been ensured. All that is asked of them is that they see the charade through until the Lisbon Treaty becomes the law of our land.
What can we peasants do, apart from bleat on and on about trivialities? We can put our money where our mouths are and pay £10 [OAP rate] for UKIP membership. Then spread the word and the truth as much as we can.
We can also support Stuart Wheeler in his attempts to find an honest High Court Judge who has not already been bought into the EU system. We still have the Magna Carta, we still have our U.K. laws - but not for very much longer.
The Government are now considering banning 'happy hours'. We all know that the main cause of binge drinking is the cheap booze from supermarkets and 'happy hour' prices would still be more than the alcohol bought from supermarkets.
I do hope that MPs are not seen having a happy hour or two in a pub.
If I may just revert back to the origins of this particular thread. Thank you. Rhodri Glyn Thomas obviously felt incredibly foolish by his absent mindedness. Yes, it is utterly ridiculous that our society has become a place where this kind of mistake can bring an avalanche of sneering and criticism. May I just say though, that as a minister in the present political climate, Rhodri Glyn Thomas is part of this, and many other pieces of totally exagerated legislation - so it serves him right -
"This is no time to feel smug. The fact is, the career of a senior politician is in ruins because - shock, horror - he walked into a pub with a lit cigar."
Isn't it? I say again, hard luck old chap, serves you right.
As for the comment "...the smoking ban was introduced in the interests of public health to protect people from the risk of smoking-related illnesses." and "The worrying thing is, this sounds just the sort of thing that David Cameron would say."
Is it? I don't think so, if it was, then he would have said it when he said "I don't smoke". His "I don't smoke" comment was simply his attempt (and it worked on that occasion) to avoid discussing the SBE.
Politely keeping to the thread, Timbone,I think it ludicrous that a top politician lost his job because he entered a pub carrying a lit cigar. To make matters worse, we are even discussing the ins and outs of it all. Such a scenario, including our discussions, could not possibly have been envisaged just ten years ago.
Let us concentrate on the real enemy in our midst which is the orginator and perpetrator of all this very real madness. We can view the latest live video of the EU Parliament in action, and spend a few moments looking at related videos on that site:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXmidPjQaE8&NR=1
Yes Margot, I quite agree, as I said, "...it is utterly ridiculous that our society has become a place where this kind of mistake can bring an avalanche of sneering and criticism.", even the fact that 'it' was a mistake is ridiculous in itself. I watched the youtube link, and was very impressed with Nigel Farage. I still say however that the 'top politician' who resigned under pressure over his actions is a part of the machinations created, therefor a victim of his own success.
I would like to apologise to anyone who thought that I might have taken this thread off in the wrong direction, as I did somewhat.
The only reason I did this, was because of the way it was worded to start with, and because of the first couple of posts, which most definitely picked up, not on the story itself, but on the hypothetical aspect of something, someone might have thought or said, which is rather pathetic, when we consider what really happened here.
Timbone seemed to be the only one who addressed this subject from its correct perspective, as he says, "This is no time to feel smug. The fact is, the career of a senior politician is in ruins because - shock, horror - he walked into a pub with a lit cigar."
Timbone went on to say "....the sort of thing that David Cameron would say." Is it? I don't think so, if it was, then he would have said it when he said "I don't smoke". His "I don't smoke" comment was simply his attempt (and it worked on that occasion) to avoid discussing the SBE."
This is straightforward, rational debate, on Timbone's part, no supposition about what someone else might have said, involved.
I don't agree with all Timbone's comments of course, no more than I expect he agrees with mine. I don't agree with his comment about Rhodri Glyn Thomas, "I say again, hard luck old chap, serves you right".
I must admit in feeling sorry for the man. After all, he does not run his rotten government, he is, or was, just a cog in one of its giant wheels, which are fast falling off. He voted for a law which he obviously saw as something good at the time. We all make mistakes, and there is no crime in that.
In this ghastly PC world which we are now forced to live in, almost everyone is frightened to say what they really believe in, and that includes politicians as much as it does us. It is all very well for a few armchair rebels to shout on a blog, about what they would do, and how any politician that doesn't agree with them should be tarred and feathered, or similar, but when have we ever seen any of these rebels actually putting their money where their mouths are? There is only one that I know of, and that is Hamish Howit.
To get back to the real bones of this story, we have a terribly unfair law, which has discriminated against a massive portion of the public for far too long. This same law is now turning against its makers as well, which surely should start to show, even them (its makers) that the law is wrong!
Are we all stupid on here and all the other pro-smoking sites? We are if we let opportunities like this pass us by, and start substituting the real facts for our individual political persuasions. This is the first time a politician has been personally hurt by this absurd law, and Labour politician at that, so let's bury our political hatchets for the time being, and use this, like we are using the No-Smoke, No-Vote tool against Labour.
Forget those tired old red flags, tucked away in the back of the cupboard somewhere. We don't need a revolution, especially one dating back from the last century. We need to show that we have a good cause on our side, and we need to make all politicians listen to us, and I honestly think they just might start a little more, now they can see how they could also be affected too.
I must say some of the schandenfreude surrounding Thomas' resignation is not something I am in full agreement with, but in many ways you have to resort to cliches like "architect of his own downfall" and hoist by his own petard". Being politics there maybe far more than meets the eye, along the lines of just the excuse to get rid of him. Overall it seems his gaffes are honest mistakes rather than any malice of forethought. Overall he has my sympathy.
Perhaps Microsoft ought to add a cliche check along with grammar and spell check. My apologies.
I made light of Rhodri's resignation on our website. I could have written my commentary in a dozen different ways. I chose ridicule because it is ridiculous that a senior politician resigns for something as trivial as this. Like Dave Atherton, I firmly believe, but cannot prove, that there is something else at play here.
And if my commentary came across as smug, so what? This man did not spend even a yoctosecond thinking about me when he voted for this gormless legislation. I owe him nothing.
As for the other 400 odd MP's who voted for this spitefulness? I owe them nothing. Do they truly expect any smoker to vote for them come the general election? If they do they are naive in the extreme. That naivety must be punished.
Peter will be pleased to learn that I do not attack, or support, a single political party in this post. They are almost all thoughtless.
Those 400+ deserve to live in obscurity for a time. They have no idea the harm they have caused.
They will learn.
Peter.
Mr Thomas was Plaid Cymru and not Labour. They are only in coalition and not in government. This will suit Labour down to the ground as they can show the Nationalists as gaffe prone and not fit for public office. He did vote for the smoking ban [probably hoping to get into a coalition government], got his way and messed up. As a smoker and a Nationalist who preaches self determination he should be doubly ashamed of himself and now slink off into the political wilderness where he belongs.
Thank you pointing that out Michael. I automatically assumed that because he was labelled as Welsh Culture Minister, that he was a junior member of the Government.
Someone told me many years ago, "do not assume, anything", and I have tried to live by this rule, but I must admit, I screwed up badly in this case didn't I?
Which, by the way, does help to prove my point. As I said that no one is perfect, that we all make mistakes, and I do not think anyone, neither Mr Thomas, nor myself, should be judged by just one mistake.
I defy anyone on here to tell me in all honesty, that they have never made a mistake in their life, which they later regretted?
I must admit to feeling the gleeful pang of poetic justice, but Simon has made a good point. Gross overreactions should not be condoned regardless of who was on the receiving end of it.
Too much these days do we see people being punished for crimes in which there was no victim, where no one was even in harm's way and where the perpetrator committed the crime as a result of forgetfulness.
I've been on the receiving end of that when I picked up my one and only speeding ticket - a local dual carriageway that runs through my town had recently converted from a 40 to a 30 and a speed camera had been put up.
Sometime after this I was traveling along it at around 10.30pm with no other traffic and for a few seconds I forgot; flash-flash; £60 fine & 3 points of my license.
Not quite the price paid by Rhodri Glyn Thomas, but I remember thinking that my speeding ticket didn't feel like justice in action, and neither is this.
"The fact is, the career of a senior politician is in ruins because - shock, horror - he walked into a pub with a lit cigar"
The social lives of hundreds of thousands of people are in ruins because of the smoking ban that he voted for. If you ask me, he got off lightly...
Hmm, on the other hand, it could have given us something to work with if he hadn't resigned: "smoking inside can't be that serious" etc
I fail to have sympathy for this man. I appreciate that everyone makes mistakes and as the saying goes the person who never made a mistake was the person who did eff all. This all misses the point. Which was his mistake?
Was it selling out his constituents to form a coalition with Labour? Was it voting for a smoking ban based on lies and misinformation so as he did not ruffle any feathers of his new bedfellows? Was it walking into a pub with a cigar when even most fervent smokers know what the law is?
Ultimately, the man was not a 'Senior Politician' but a bit part player in a coalition thrown the scraps of 'Culture Secretary' from the Labour dining table. The voters of Wales would be better off without him entirely and he can then go prostitute himself somewhere else.
we need to make all politicians listen to us, and I honestly think they just might start a little more, now they can see how they could also be affected too.
Like these ones?
Where will the smokers go in Glasgow East? Presumably the Scottish National Party is anti-tobacco,though I don't know about that. Perhaps the turn out will be low.
The turnout is bound to be low Norman, voters don't like being bothered with by-elections, and being made to go out and vote. Also this time of year, there are bound to be quite a few people on holiday, which will cut it down even further.
You say that presumably the Scottish National Party is anti-tobacco? As we all know, there is only one party which openly states otherwise, and that is UKIP, but, as I have said many, many times, they can afford to say this as this particular time, because they know, they haven't a chance of getting into power, so in other words, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose.
The three main parties, I am sorry to say, have everything to lose by coming out on the side of pro-smoking. They read, the same as we do, the propaganda figures issued by the Government, and they also read, the comments made by the general electorate, who, so we are told, believe these figures and lies. So what would you do if you were a politician and wanted to keep your job? Would you go with your heart, and risk everything, or go with the figures and facts of what the general public are supposed to saying?
To smokers, I don't think it is going to matter one iota if Labour are returned or the SNP get in. At this point in time, neither party are up to allowing their hearts to rule their heads.
Personally, I hope the SNP get in, just to wipe the silly grins off the faces of those Labour twits.
Idlex.
I enjoyed that video. They say that smoking ages people, but I wonder what those ugly bunch of charactors are on.
You get what you give.
A gaffe to far for sure. If it wan't the SBE it would have been something else.
It is the reaction that is most disconcerting.
People who smoke have no representation from the main parties. How long is this position sustainable? How long can almost a quarter of the population have their views ignored.
We hear so much about 'inclusion' yet the words are hollow.
The scapegoating and 'Denormalizaton' of so many people and for what exactly?
More importantly for why?
west
----
As Peter says, it's no crime to make a mistake (and I think he meant voting for the ban rather than forgetfully walking into the pub).
Of course we all make mistakes as human beings, but I think that one measure of the character of a human being is his or her ability to admit mistakes.
There is a group consulting at the moment in the HOC to address the issue of the crisis facing pubs. From the reports that I've heard, the Government representative is refusing to acknowledge the role played by the smoking ban. It strikes me that the sensible thing to do would be to revisit the evidence (they couldn't possibly have critically evaluated the Anti-evidence or seriously considered the pro-choice solutions) instead of which they're tying themselves in knots trying to find the way forward, even proposing that pubs be subsidised!!!
The influence of the ban is so glaringly obvious from the figures that to ignore it is wilful misguidedness on the part of a Government which prefers to compound a problem rather than admit that the solution lies in reversing or modifying a poor policy. IMHO, not the sign of a government of character.
Peter: I quote from your message above: 'what would you do if you were a politician and wanted to keep your job?'
I long for a politician who wants to serve.
Smokers, a minority, though a very big one, are licensed by the authorities as 'untermenschen.' Who will speak up for them, in the name of the English principle of fair play, as simple of that?
A great politician, one whom history will remember, would break the mould and scorn the art of the politically 'possible',in its current, shrivelled interpretation.
He or she would speak up for a huge, law-abiding group in whose hands,maybe the future of freedom rests.
Norman: You "long for a politician who wants to serve". You have one in Nigel Farrage, as the UTube videos show.
Peter: You say, "We all know there is only one party which openly states otherwise, and that is UKIP, but, as I have said many, many times, they can afford to say this as this particular time, because they know, they haven't a chance of getting into power, so in other words, they have everything to gain and nothing to lose."
You speak as though they are full of empty promises and quite happy to go to the expense of putting themselves up for by-elections knowing that there is no MP's salary for them at the end of it. Nothing to lose? Everything to lose, I would say! So why do they do it? Could it possibly be that they are:
"Good men and true?"
There are ten of these misguided souls fighting daily for our rights and freedoms in the EU Parliament. They are in the midst of the corrupt baying hounds whose sole purpose is to heavily line their own pockets and reduce the rest of us to servitude.
How on earth did they get there? Surprise, surprise, they were voted in by the great British public in preference to the Conservative, Labour & LibDem candidates who stood against them. They, and only they, brought the truth of the Lisbon Treaty before the Irish people. They, and only they, brought a halt, however temporary, to complete ratification of the Lisbon Treaty. The Polish president will now not ratify it until the Irish do. Germany is still undecided.
Next year, God and EU willing, brings the EU parliamentary elections. This is our very last chance for a free fair vote before the jackboot of EU dictatorship turns our voting power into a meaningless charade. I wonder how much voice the puppet media and the Tory spin £millions will allow UKIP to have to bring the TRUTH to the British public?
Would you still have us vote Tory and so uphold the supporters of the Lisbon Treaty, the smoking ban and all other loss of liberty we now endure?
Yes, you would. And why? Because UKIP "haven't a chance of getting into power". Well, neither have Labour, now. And the LibDems never have had.
Money talks, eh Peter, so let's all put our money on the certainty and to hell with the consequences.
The expected poor voting turnout in the knife-torn Glasgow by-election will give no indication of the mood of the UK public in general - but UKIP will still be there. They will fly the impoverished flag of hope with no other backing than the membership fees of ordinary people like myself. They will be given very little media coverage and no pro-EU millionaires will step up to help them.
I wonder why they bother? They aren't even earning a living from it all.
From reading the article I can hazard a guess at the real reason for his resignation, but I have no sympathy. He voted for the smoking ban. John Reid knew it was not being brought in to protect employees, as did the House of Lords. He should have researched the issue a little more. Yes, poetic justice.
Peter -
You say:
"The three main parties, I am sorry to say, have everything to lose by coming out on the side of pro-smoking."
Forgive me - but HOW do you work that one out ?
So far as I can tell, the majority of (non-militant) non-smokers are perfectly willing to allow a choice to EVERYONE, and I would assume that quite a LARGE number of smokers would also be in favour.
What percentage of the voting population is represented by the Rabid Toacco-Haters ?
Where, therefore, is the Electoral Logic in holding on like grim death to a position which the MAJORITY opposes (except in the febrile imaginations of Granny Arnott, Rosa Kleb-Sandford, and Fatty Donaldson) ?
As I've mentioned before, to ME at least, the numbers surely suggest an ADVANTAGE to someone taking the Pro-Choice stand. And any hysterical 'Save The Children' counter-attack could be fended off quite easily.
What is more, now that we have a year's statistics (business closures, job-losses etc) -as well as a mass of anecdotal 'evidence' - to throw at the Antis, we are able to present the 'politicians' with that all-important Face-Saving Formula they so desperately seem to need.
You can almost hear the parliamentary statement:
"Mister Speaker, in the face of an unexpectedly high number of business closures in the hospitality sector and resultant job-losses, in addition to what is plainly an unacceptable reduction in social pleasure, especially among the elderly, The Government- which is, as you know, A Listening Government - has decided to amend the legislation as follows:............."
Or are we to take Harriet 'Eradicate ALL Smoking In England' Harman as representing the dominant view of the House of Commons (now - and for all time) ?
If so, then we're clearly ALL wasting our energies here.......
I posted this thought a while ago, so excuse me while I just repeat it one more time.
Of the possible 12 million smokers in the UK, if a third of them agree with the ban, and I'm being generous here, then that leaves 8 million opposing it. Each one of these MUST have at least two friends/family that supports them which equals 24 million. Now I'm holding back here as I believe they would know more than two. Even three would give an estimate of 32 million.
32 million is a clear majority of 'adults' in the UK.
A recipe for a clear change of policy if any of them had the guts.
Well said, Zitori..............!
Even as a Minority, we have the NUMBERS on our side - and that's a bloody good place to start ANY campaign.
Pity nobody seems to be keen on a nationwide petition, though..................the 'Petition For Choice' has a rather nice ring about it, too !
(Unfortunately, 'Petition Of Right' has already been taken, of course).
Martin, I think that F2C might have started a petition.
Thanks, Joyce -
I'll check it out !
And, Blad -
I've only just come across your cheering little piece on the excellent 'Pro Choice Smoking Doctor' site - regarding the march on the Capitol by Hawaii's brave Resistance.
Since Hawaii's is the only State Flag in the USA to incorporate the Union Flag in its design, that wouldn't be a bad place for the Revolution to begin.
Up the Rebels...............!!
Thank you, Martin V, for reminding us of the excellent "Pro Choice Smoking Doctor" site. and I too was very heartened by that article. Good to know that Blad's anti-prohibition movement is gathering such strength.
The smoking ban was started in America and it seems its demise is starting there too. State after state are rewriting anti-smoking laws and exposing the lies they were based on.
I recommend a meander through the excellent American "wispofsmoke" website. Its author is the vibrant DancingTigerBait who writes so often on the F2C site.
This is slightly off topic (although still about an MP)
Kerry McCarthy has written a piece on her blog entitled 'Insight' in which she - again - takes to task F2C this time for linking anti-smoking with Nazism. She is taking an interest in the thread and has responded in it several times. I commented (under the name Jay) in which I mentioned foster carers who smoke being denied the care of children, discrimination in the workplace and denial of NHS treatment. She's picked my comment up as raising 'serious, debatable issues' and would like evidence. Although I've read/heard reports of all of these issues, I haven't kept a note of sources. Can anyone point me in the right direction or put the reports that they have on her thread?
To give her credit, she does seem to be taking issues raised on board (and she keeps posting about smoking, even if her intention isn't flattering!) We've complained that we don't have the ear of politicians - now we have the ear of one (well, it's a start). I think that this is a chance to show that those who are unhappy with the ban are not just a few selfish, disgruntled smokers but people who do have genuinely important grievances.
Joyce - a couple of links here over the foster carers being denied care of children - I know there are many others as well:
Feb '08 - Bracknell Forest Borough Council - Non-Smoking Policy for Foster Carers:
http://www.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/non-smoking-policy-for-carers.pdf
Back as early as April '06 in Dundee:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article703574.ece
I'm led to believe that it is becoming common practice now, but I may be wrong.
Hope these help.
Well done, Joyce. A real breakthrough to keep an anti-smoking MP interested in the issue.
Like you, I can't keep all references filed neatly and always to hand. There was a good piece recently which linked Naziism to "green" and other environmental issues as well as smoking.
Anyone?
A good suggestion that others should post directly onto the site and not leave it all to you.
Martin,
You asked me how I worked out the fact that "The three main parties, I am sorry to say, have everything to lose by coming out on the side of pro-smoking."
I hold this view because I honestly believe that the majority of politicians (all parties) have been fooled as much as the general public, by the anti smoking propaganda that has been put out by the anti-smoking lobby.
You must know, as well as I do that the average man on the street has been indoctrinated by these lies, and now honestly believes that they are true. The smoking ban has been a huge success, the smoking ban has saved thousands of lives, the people want more restrictions on smoking, etc., etc.. We have all heard them, and so too have the politicians.
I can guarantee to have an argument about the smoking ban, almost every time I go out or meet someone. From my mother-in-law, to restaurateurs, to ex friends, and even children. No, I tell them, there has never been any positive proof that second hand smoking can harm other people, but all I get from them are condescending looks, as if to say that they don't want to argue with me, even though they know I am wrong.
But I am one of the lucky ones, I don't get castigated by the press and the media, like MPs do if they dare to admit the smoking ban just might be wrong, or if they dare to walk into a bar smoking a nice fat cigar. Look what happened to Boris when he came out on the side of smokers. The whole media circus jumped on him like a ton of bricks. Who the hell did this Tory toff think he was, running for mayor, whist condoning the murder of little children by smoking near them? He had to quickly retract, or give up his quest to become Mayor. This, Martin, is what politicians have to put up with these days.
It's all very well some posters on here coming over all sanctimonious, and saying that politicians should be men and women of principal, or words to that effect. In a perfect world, of course they should, but this isn't a perfect world, far from it, and like it or not, most politicians need their jobs and the money it brings in, just as much as we do.
And this, is why I believe the three main parties would be committing political suicide at this moment in time, by aligning themselves with pro-smoking. The people are not ready for it yet, the media are not ready. They need to be convinced, little by little, that people who smoke are not serial killers, out to murder them and their children, we are the people who live next door, the policeman, the fireman, the doctor, nurse, politician, soldier, teacher, etc etc.
Frustrating I know, but nevertheless, true. The only way forward that I can see at this moment, is to get business on our side first, when the business leaders are on board, the media and then the politicians will follow.
We need the tobacco companies, and the leisure industry, to wake their ideas up and come out fighting, and I am not talking about just here in the UK, I am talking about worldwide. So many people seem to forget that this is a world war against tobacco and smokers, not just a local one.
On the 'Forces Int' web site there ia a recording of a radio programme in which Norman Kjomo states that Pubs are more dangerous since the smoking ban, because ventilators have been taken out and all other toxic particles and carcinogens linger about.
I can understand to some degree when you state about 'political suicide' if other parties enter the realms of the smoking ban. But, I can't understand how those in opposition can simply sit back and let the media print shoddy figures and downright lies in some cases. That is not being pro-smoking. It is simply trying to display the truth.
Take the heart attack miracles in Scotland, Wales and England (not sure about Ireland, but no doubt it's similar). Each of these figures have been proved wrong - Amanda Sandforth from ASH has even conceded this fact for England. Why can't the opposition attack from this angle. Reporting the truth cannot be displayed as pro-smoking.
There is also another way around as well. They could begin to display themselves as pro-choice if they want my vote.
Do you honestly believe, Helen, that the various political parties in this country are worried about yours, or my vote? The smoker's vote doesn't mean a thing to them.
Look what happened at the Haltemprice and Howden by- election, when Hamish Howit stood as a pro-smoking candidate, he got 91 lousy votes. We will see how well he does again at tomorrow's Scottish by-election, where he is once again standing. I wish him all the luck in the world, but my instincts tell me otherwise I am afraid.
This country is in such a state at the moment, that I am sorry to say that smoking is very low on most people's agendas. You, as an individual, might say that you will not vote for any party who will not stand up for smoker's rights, but there are not many people like you in this country. The vast majority are fed up with Labour for a thousand and one things, and they want the Conservatives in, to put most of those things right again.
As I said earlier, "We need the tobacco companies, and the leisure industry, to wake their ideas up and come out fighting, and I am not talking about just here in the UK, I am talking about worldwide. So many people seem to forget that this is a world war against tobacco and smokers, not just a local one".
Peter said
"We need the tobacco companies, and the leisure industry, to wake their ideas up and come out fighting, and I am not talking about just here in the UK, I am talking about worldwide. So many people seem to forget that this is a world war against tobacco and smokers, not just a local one".
Up till now the tobacco companies have been sitting pretty. Bans have been good to them as a) More people start to smoke and b) people who smoke, smoke more.
The call for EU prohibition may indeed worry them though. So a change may be in the offing.
As for world not local. This is true, indeed NZ and Canada seem to be viaing with each other to be the first to prohibit smoking.
The UN (WHO) Framework convention is where this all stems from. I do not recall the signing of this treaty to have been in any manifesto.
The UN has hitched itself to AGW through the IPCC. This is starting to crumble. So UN credibility will start to wain on scientific issues. As this unfolds, we will have more opportunities.
As for Political parties, perhaps if they used opening up 'Choices' or restoring 'Freedoms' they maybe able to bring the SBE into the deabte. Though these terms are vague and nebulous.
On Kerry. I am suprised she is replying given her initial stance. Not sure if this to highlight F2C as some 'beyond the pale' organisation or it is out of genuine concern and learning. I hope the latter.
west
----
Hello again, Peter -
Yes, I quite take the points you have raised - depressing as they are.
I DO think, however, that you're a little TOO 'understanding' of politcians' 'problems', frankly:
Since when did people go into politics to AVOID controversy or criticism ?
Believe me: innate romantic that I am, I'm as capable as anyone of being a hard-arsed pragmatist !
Which is why 'friendly' politicians should present themselves (at every available opportunity from now on) as being 'Pro-Choice' rather than 'Pro-Smoking' .
I doubt whether there are many in 'Parliament' (let's allow the fantasy for a moment that we still HAVE such a thing) who advocate a Public Ban On Drinking, and that most would in fact sternly resist it (and not merely the drunkards).
Would such people be branded as 'Pro-Drink', I wonder ?
In this regard, semantics IS important, and it's ONE way to fight the Tobacco Nazis at their own game (cf the growing acceptance of the ludicrous 'Smoke-Free' - with or without a hyphen).
'Freedom' may sound like a vague concept to some, but the results of its destruction are concrete enough for all to see - not least down at my local on a Friday night.
And I just sense (nothing stronger as yet) that even among the Apathetic Many, the penny is STARTING to drop..................
And I share the sentiment that it's high time the Tobacco Companies came out to support their customers: if they believe they can depend on a growing Chinese market alone, then I fear they're in for a shock !
I also entertain the hope that one day soon the Spanish will re-colonise California - the health-crazed source of so many of our ills. I'm not holding my breath on THAT one, though...............