A Labour MP writes
Thursday, July 3, 2008 Kerry McCarthy (left) is the Labour MP for Bristol East. Writing on her blog on Tuesday, she says: "My recent post about the success of the smoking ban mentioned a reception by Forest, the pro-smoking group at a private members club in Belgravia. And today they're having a champagne tea party for MPs in the Commons. Kind of bears out what Libby Brooks is saying in today's Guardian."
Leaving aside the fact that Boisdale is NOT a private members' club (it's a public bar and restaurant), how chippy can you get? (Has she never heard of champagne socialists?!)
Anyway, two days earlier, she wrote:
Since the smoking ban was introduced, there has been a record rise in the number of people giving up smoking. The figures for April to December 2007 (only 9 months) were up 22% on the previous year. 80% of people think the ban is a good thing. And fears that more people would smoke at home instead haven't been realised. There is also good news about people with lung conditions now being able to socialise without harming their health, and a predicted fall in the number of heart attacks (as happened in Scotland after they introduced their ban). As someone who voted for the full ban, this makes me feel good.
Kerry doesn't seem to get many comments on her blog. Perhaps you'd like to change that. Click HERE.
Boring but important: please do NOT insult her or write anything that could be construed as personally offensive. It is vital that when we engage with MPs we do so forcefully but politely. This is a battle of ideas and we want to make MPs think - not alienate or bully them. Stick to facts, and your own personal experience of the ban and the war on smokers.
Simon Clark
Kerry McCarthy writes: "Forgive me for being somewhat sceptical of the fact that four comments arrived in very quick succession opposing the smoking ban. And from people who have never posted comments before. Would it be cynical of me to suggest that Forest might somehow be involved?"
13.09 Kerry has promised to reply later in the day "once the comments have stopped coming in". So keep those comments coming in. Click HERE.
14.31 Brilliant post on KM's blog from "Frankie". (In case anyone's in any doubt, it's a spoof!) Frankie, you've made my afternoon.
16.11 Uh-oh. Lots of good points and then some idiot mentions Hitler. (Not a Forest supporter, I hope.) This sort of language has no place in the smoking debate. Talk about an own goal.
23.25 There are now 85 responses - Kerry's blog has never had it so good! Remember, keep the language reasonable, please.
Reader Comments (60)
Hello everybody have any of you guys seen this, even Amanda Sandford of ASH says that 30 minutes of exposure to SHS will NOT induce heart attacks. She wrote this in the New Scientist.
ASH (UK) endorses your conclusion that bad science can never be justified. ASH, unlike some organisations, has never asserted that a single 30-minute exposure to second-hand smoke is enough to trigger a heart attack, and we are not aware of any UK health advocates who have done so.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19626320.100
It makes her to feel good does it to see elderly people having to stand outside to have a cig and mental paitents denied the chance to smoke like so many others ?
By crackey ! What a saint she is.
It is irritating that obviously intelligent, well-educated people who, for their work, must keep abreast of current affairs, are still unaware that there was no smoking ban effect on the incidence of heart attacks in either Scotland or England. I guess that's the power of newspaper headlines. Kerry, take a look at this BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7093356.stm
Intelligence is a much misunderstood word Jon. Because someone is an MP or a doctor or a professor, does not necessarily mean that they are intelligent.
I know many students who have been to various universities, but their knowledge of life is quite often abysmal, to say the least, and as for MPs, I don't think we need to say much about them. They could be classed as clever, as they certainly know how to earn fantastic wages, and manipulate even bigger sums of money on their expense accounts, but the word intelligence doesn't feature in the equation.
Intelligence is the ability to work things out for yourself, not to pick up and read every piece of paper our political masters hand you, and believe it.
So you think the mentioing of Hitler is out of place in this debate. Excuse me Simon what debate? There is no real debate, because the likes of Forest, so cosy in this situation, and the only group to have access to the media have never really challenged the anti smoking lunatics. The sort of comments I see printed from Forest must have Ash quaking in their boots, or laughing all the way to the bank.
We are talking about criminals here! People who have supplied fraudulant information to the Government to change laws. A criminal offence, and all Forest talk about is exemptions. It's amazing. Where are the accusations of this in the press by you. Nowhere. Where is the exposure of the real agenda behind the ban in your interveiws. Nowhere, and you have the audacity to call someone an idiot ( 'hopefully not a Forest supporter') for mentioning Hitler, who's regime invented all the steps the US anti smoking steamroller has taken worldwide, and not forgetting their fashioning of the phrase 'passive smoking'.
Is this the reason Forest does not join with other groups to defeat this scourge? Forest doing nicely thank you, while the ban is in place? Don't want to ruffle too many feathers. Have you had your instructions from on high?
Many died fighting the Nazis, and this type of control is just the start, so it is extremely relevant, and don't you bloodywell forget it.
I second Zitori in respect of Hitler. The plain fact of the matter is that all the antismoking science we have today started life in Nazi Germany. See here, here, here, here, and here. The Nazi regime also imposed a number of smoking bans in public places, although none quite as draconian as our present one. What's wrong with pointing this out? Why should this be kept secret?
Or is this just Basil Fawlty saying, "Don't mention the war!"
Check out Mzz Kerry's voting-record.
At the bottom of this page, you'll see that she's also one of our more indulgent MPs when it comes to getting jiggy with the expense-allowances. £90,000 p.a. on staff? Is she employing a personal diversity-auditor? I do hope that's not friends n' family she's got posting letters for her. Maybe she needs help shifting the mail-mountain though, as her stationery & postage bill for last year was nearly £8,500.
On top of her salary, she milked the taxpayers for £155,487 for the year 2006/7. What value!
PPS to Wee Dougie, this former Luton councillor's been parachuted into one of NuLab's safest seats, so it seems her careers's on the up.
Thanks for the heads up _ I suspect there will be more comment than she wanted on her little 'blog'. Lest it be lost in the crowd, here's my retort.
Ms McCarthy makes sweeping statements about the smoking ban, posts them on a blog on which she invites comment, then gets snitty because the comments do not agree with her view ( what temerity!) and may come via FOREST - a pro-choice organisation seeking to protect smokers from the deciet based assault by ASH and their like ( funded in part by the nice people who make Nicotine Replacement products) on their rights to use and enjoy a legal substance.
Ms McCarthy's government makes more money from tobacco than the companies that produce and manufacture it - so who is aligned to the tobacco business more - HMG or FOREST?
Of course, being an MP, Ms McCarthy knows everything better than ANYONE.
She knows that the people who RUN the Bingo Clubs, Pubs and Social clubs are WRONG to say they have haemoraged customers since the ban. She knows that Price Waterhouse are WRONG to uplift their prediction on pub closures from 2000 to 5000 in the next 5 years, but if this was right, it would be WRONG to say is largely as a result of the ban - no it's the credit crunch - stupid. (But wait, hasn't it always been observed that thick,underclass smokers somehow always manage to afford our fags and beer even when we're scrounging the dole?) She knows that reports indicating a higher incidence of children reporting to doctors and hospials with respiratory problem since the ban is WRONG because the ban has not meant that smokers have abandoned the pubs and clubs in droves and are staying at home and smoking there instead. So we are left with a puzzle. The leisure industry is minus tens of thousands of customers and the money that goes with them, but Ms McC knows - because she is not just any MP but a NuLabour MP - that we smokers are not staying home. Presumably then, we are all at the library, eagerly awaiting Ms McCarthys 'flat earth' lecture.
One cannot help thinking that this particular, New labour, MP has opened an interesting can of worms with her ingenuous comments on the perceived success of the smoking ban. Her sanctimonious and triumphalist comments, echoed in other places, has flushed out the well rehearsed and potent arguments from many Forest posters. Thank God I say. An opportunity to tell her how it really is.
And she needs to be told. Tolerant, smoking, labour voters such as myself would have accepted the manifesto commitments. What we cannot accept is the blanket ban which denies the right to smoke in any enclosed space. Such a decree smacks of dictatorship. It may be a mild one but it was enough to lose my vote of over forty years for all time.
There is no coherent argument for banning smoking in enclosed rooms in pubs, clubs, care homes, and mental institutions. If Ms McCarthy and her ilk cannot see that then they deserve to be kicked out at the first opportunity. Whenever I pass a bus shelter with its sign 'It is against the law to smoke in this bus shelter' I outwardly laugh and inwardly cry. Our country has come to this. And the Ms Mcarthy's of this world approve. I despair.
Grumpybutterfly.
PS - I wanted to post this on her site but the technology defeated me. I am therefore, no doubt, one of the unintelligent masses who can safely be ignored. I am not, or I do not think so, but more importantly I still have a vote. Unfortunately not in Bristol.
Well done Forest, there are many comments on the blog. I hope Kerry replies. I feel these comments should be posted to as many MP's as possible, so please give more blog info.
Good grief! Check out Kerry's recent visit to Millpond primary school.
"A lot of the questions were about what politicians could do to stop people smoking, drinking, dropping rubbish, carrying knives, carrying guns, etc, including this: "If smoking kills, as it says on cigarette packets, why isn't it illegal?" Good point!
We got into quite a debate about how laws can be passed to stop people doing things, and how this will mean that the majority of people comply - e.g. when seatbelts were made compulsory, most people starting buckling up. Then there's the issue of enforcement; some people will comply only if they think they're going to get caught. But the police have to prioritise what they do, so can't always be there to stop them. And then there's social pressure, when things like smoking in public places and drink driving becoming increasingly unacceptable."
The real buttock-clenching moment comes in the penultimate para:
"They were also really keen to tell me what they'd learned in lessons about the environment, and to discuss what could be done to encourage people to do more to tackle climate change; I told them the most important thing they could do was to evangelise about these issues to their parents, grandparents and anyone else they could win over. When they're not busy nagging their parents about smoking and drinking and walking to work, that is."
Grumpy,
You are not alone. I was also denied.
This is what I intended to post:
Ms McCarthy,
My Press Team and I wrote to you a short while ago. (Actually, we wrote to ALL MP's). So far we do not seem to have had an answer from you.
No matter. I am prepared to issue a challenge here.
I will meet with you, or ANY MP willing to discuss the smoker ban in a full and frank debate. I am able to demonstrate why we have the upper hand on the science, the finance, the morality, the vindictiveness, and we can share REAL stories of economic and social damage.
The longer you, and the other 500 or so MP's who voted for the ban, ignore the pain and damage you have caused, the worse your Party is going to suffer.
As has already been said, smokers vote. ALL of them, (especially now that you raised the legal age for tobacco purchase to 18), and they react at the ballot box. Quietly, and forcefully, but decisively.
Continue to ignore us, and you can warm the opposition benches for years.
The choice is simple: do the right thing and amend the ban, or enjoy the wilderness years.
Rgds
Colin Grainger
Campaign Chairman
Freedom to Choose.
The technology defeated me, too, but here is the post that I wanted to put on her blog:
I don't think that there's much left to say in view of the foregoing comments but, as I now live in a state of quietly simmering rage, I intend to vent my spleen before that too, is banned.
I think that the blanket ban was one of the most disgraceful pieces of legislation enacted by a government. Not only was it in breach of a manifesto promise, its ostensible justification - protection against the dangers of ETS - is laughable. Since the danger defies common sense, it is hardly surprising that the studies that purport to prove it are so disreputable that within the discipline of epidemiology some people have the courage to express their disquiet. And, boy, do people need courage to speak out against the powerful, zealous and ruthless tobacco control coalition which has no hesitation in smearing the reputation of dissenters.
Even if there were any real danger, a solution was possible if it were assumed that adults are capable of evaluating risk and exercising choice and that, in a free society, they should be allowed to do this. Instead, the ban is a prime example of the infantilisation of our society by a government that believes that the State knows best and has the right to impose its will.
I believe, however, that 'passive smoking' was simply a ploy used within the overall strategy to 'denormalise' smoking as part of the drive to reduce smoking prevalence to WHO targets. The basis of my belief lies in an address given to the WHO in 1975 by a British GP who suggested that the way forward would be to foster the impression that smoking not only harmed smokers, but those around them...
I'm sympathetic to the view that it is a laudable aim of government to educate the public. I certainly don't believe that a government that spearheads a campaign of demonisation of a particular group in an attempt to meet targets deserves to be re-elected. If smoking is so, so dangerous that the elderly have to stand in the street, that in-patients who are mentally ill have to cope with involuntary quitting and the terminally ill, in their last weeks in a hospice, are denied the comfort of smoking, then the government whould have the moral decency to forego the huge financial contribution that smokers make to the Treasury.
Joyce
I couldn't get on to messages bit of the site either. Also lost what I had written. It boiled down to a question as to whether she would want her loved ones to stand with their drips outside hospitals and ex service people to freeze outside their clubs and pubs. There was also a simple plea for that old fashioned thing: a sense of fair play.
For those that can't post on Kerry's blog.
You need a Google Account. Simple to register & only takes a couple of minutes.
Once you have one, you can post under that account on any blog run by Blogger, it's worth having one.
Sorry, forgot the link to register a Google Account
https://www.google.com/accounts/Login
Whoever "Frankie" is, thanks - my post has appeared.
Martin, thanks, too for trying to help. It seems that I already have two (!) accounts but I'm too tired to figure out how to access either (whatever I'm doing isn't working!)
I am hopeless with technology. Is it possible for the comments on Kerry McCarthy's blog to be copied and sent to her fellow MPs?
Do you think Kerry will bother answering?
Kerry goes to many meetings with her Bristol neighbour, public health minister Dawn Primarolo, which may explain a lot.
I would imagine a few trouble makers will suddenly appear to send the thread into disrepute. This conveniently would solve Kerry's problem.
I think, Helen, that if she has any common sense, she should be worried by the comments. The fact that they're the result of an email alert should suggest that smokers are so hacked off that they're looking for advocacy. The comments show that smokers are well-informed as well as very angry with many vowing never to vote Labour again. She should also bear in mind that, if there are only tens of comments rather than hundreds, this just might be because many smokers don't have access to the internet or are unaware of Forest. If I were in her position, I'd be using the opportunity to try and claw back some support for Labour - God knows they need it! There again, Labour seems to have a death wish...
Helen asked, "Do you think Kerry will answering?" I ask:
Do you think Kerry will bother to read them all?
Do you think Kerry will put 2+2 together and realise that she is being swamped because there are a lot of enraged smokers out there?
As she presumes that most are from the Forest site, will she realise that all these people have smoker and pro-choice friends who will be advised by them that Forest exists and probably join it? Does she realise that they too will tell other pro-choice friends?
Does Kelly realise that this rapidly growing number of people are all voters?
This weekend I will be taking a group of around 80 people to Wimbledon. In the evenings we will sit outside the hotel in the pleasant summer garden and chat.
Guess what my topic of conversation will be?
And what theirs will be when they arrive back home - all over the U.K.
Not everyone is interested in tennis but, sure as hell, everyone is interested in the Smoking Ban.
P.S.
And when I say, "Smoking Ban", I mean, of course, the growing loss of all human rights it also represents.
Margot
The millions of potential votes for Labour (smokers) are well and truly gone. Labour could well be in denial about their future, which of course is none. Now we move to Cameron, will he want to compromise with the millions, and come more into line with exemptions in other countries, or become another weak and inefectual leader only to last one term.
For those who cannot contact Kerry on her blog, they can email her at 'mccarthyk@parliament.uk'.
How are you Chas?
Will Kerry reply? Probably not.
Most likely in her mind smokers have been consigned to a category of disapproved non-persons: people who are not to be heard out, but simply told what to do. That's what happens when "the debate is over". She probably sees the commenters as a bunch of uppity smokers who don't know what's good for them.
That a quarter of the population have thus come to be regarded as non-persons is a tremendous triumph for virulent antismokers, and a absolute tragedy for the Labour party. This was, after all, once the party of Clem Attlee - a pipe smoker - and the party of the common man and woman. What a disaster for it - what a complete negation of its purposes - that it has now taken a quarter of the common men and women of this country, and stripped them of the rights they once enjoyed - and shows every sign of wishing to do the same for drinkers and fat people.
What surer way for a political party to write its own death warrant? They may as well all march off a cliff. I sometimes wonder what Labour politicians like John Reid, who fought a long battle against the smoking ban, in and out of ministerial office, must think. If I were him I'd be weeping. It's been said before, but it's worth saying again: whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
Boris
The latter, I expect.
We all anxiously await news from Cameron. Comes there none! His only pronouncement, so far, is that he will monitor EU control and if, during his second term of office, he finds that he does not agree with some of their laws, he MIGHT do something about some of them. He hastily pointed out, in the same breath, that it might be very difficult to do so as the Lisbon Treaty will have become law by then.
I note that he was absent from the House when the Smoking Ban vote was taken - but then, so was Tony Blair.
He gives the impression he is confident that all he needs to do is sit pretty and wait for all Labour votes to switch to Tory. He should not be so confident. In a true general election, as opposed to a by-election with its carnival type fairground fringes atmosphere; true Labour supporters would never vote Tory - nor the side-kick to any ruling party, the Lib-Dems.
Very active now, and waiting in the wings, is UKIP. Cameron should remember that just one hundred years ago, Labour were a "fringe" party.
So come on, David Cameron, your party is rising high to the crest of the wave, AT THE MOMENT. Let us have a definite statement from you regarding the ruinous Smoking Ban and all other loss of human rights. Or have you already sold your soul to the EU?
We look to you and we are listening!
One would assume like me that smokers are holidaying abroad, wonder what that's costing the tourism industry. I suppose they will try and ban duty free's next.
I really can't see that the Labour party can survive this disaster. They've come back from the dead once before, as New Labour. Can they re-invent themselves yet again? I don't think so.
New Labour was Blair's invention. For a long time Blair had an uncanny knack of accurately judging the British people. But he fell off the high wire with Iraq. And since then, the Labour party has reverted to what it probably always was - a party of interfering, mean-spirited busybodies. I sometimes think that Blair saw this, and quite deliberately passed what he knew to be the poisoned chalice of the smoking ban to Gordon Brown as he left office, saying, "Here, Gordon. This will make you really popular." And Gordon, poor fool, believed him.
I also wonder whether the silence of the Conservative party, the evasiveness of Cameron and Davis about the ban, grows not from any agreement with it, but from a wish to make the Labour party drink deep from this poisoned cup, and thereby seal its fate. What better way to do this than to take a few swigs oneself? Always taking care to walk away and spit it out. Chances like this only come once in a lifetime, or even less frequently.
There is no way out now for the Labour party. This is their law. They did this. Over 90% of their majority of MPs voted for the ban. And they've kept this vindictive ban in place for a whole year now. Even if they repeal the ban tomorrow, and give out free cigarettes to every smoker in the country, they will still be thrown out of office.
Kerry McCarthy is going to find, in a year or two, that she is absolutely nobody. And that the Labour party has ceased to exist. And that everybody hates her, because she was one of those bastard MPs who voted for the complete smoking ban.
Perhaps yesterday she learned for the very first time just how deep that runs. Even though everyone was so nice to her.
David doesn't reply to bloggers, Margot, but he has asked me to reply to you on his behalf.
You asked for a definite statement regarding the smoking ban and all other loss of human rights.
If you care to look at our policies, which are clearly laid out on the Conservative website, you will see that we are totally opposed to all restrictive practises, which we consider infringe on people's rights. The Human Rights bill does not come into this, as we want to see big changes in this as well. We assert that freedom and human dignity should be at the heart of not just foreign policy, but home policy as well.
As HM Government's main opposition, we are not in the position to dictate policy, only to recommend certain policies which we see as a clear way forward, such as monetary policies. With regard to the smoking ban, and its effect on business, this is something which will be looked at very closely when we hopefully form the next Government.
Our stall is also clearly laid out with regard to our position on Europe. Again, we want to see changes in the European Constitution which will enhance the lives of British citizens and let us, as a nation decide our own laws and our own taxes.
I hope this answers your questions Margot. If you require further information please log onto our website http://www.conservatives.com/
D.M.
I note that he was absent from the House when the Smoking Ban vote was taken - but then, so was Tony Blair.
Cameron was absent. His wife was having a baby. But Blair was there, and voted for the ban in the first division and in the second division (to ban smoking in private clubs). Gordon did the same. As did Kerry McCarthy.
With regard to the smoking ban, and its effect on business, this is something which will be looked at very closely when we hopefully form the next Government.
Who is D.M? Is this for real? I suppose that looking at something very closely is a slight improvement on not looking at it at all.
Really, if the Conservative party wants to avoid being swallowed by the black hole the Labour party have fallen into, they're going to have to distance themselves a bit further from this poisonous ban. They have some advantages at the moment: Cameron didn't vote, and most Tory MPs voted against it. But that's a slender margin which could easily disappear.
The Tories are not worried about the smoking ban because they know that failing another Falklands War, Labour are out. It is in their interest to say very little because to the non smoking electorate the ban is not something that will influence their voting intentions. Smokers will likely vote tactically to remove the sitting MP and vote for whichever party has the best chance of winning.
The Tories have too many easy targets to hit before they want to rattle the cages of ASH and the other vested interests.Whether they will review the ban once in in order to propose any amendments is all that anyone could hope for at this time. Unfortunately for me, I work in N Ireland and live in Southern Ireland so any breakthroughs or amendments you can achieve in England will not be passed on to us. Good luck all the same and I hope changes are implemented particularly because I travel to England a lot through work and would love to visit a proper pub again and enjoy a fag with my beer. I would certainly be tempted to take my holidays in England if the ban was lifted but until then I will have to stick to Spain or Turkey.
I wasn@t able to publish this on Kerry's blog, so hope she reads it here.
Dear Kerry,
If you are not already aware New Labour are on the way out. By implementing the smoking ban one year ago, you have alienated your core voters - the working class - who Labour is meant to represent. The worst thing about the smoking ban is that to went against the 2005 manifesto that was going to allow choice of smoking and non-smoking venues.
The science of passive smoking, SHS, ETS or whatever you want to call linking adverse effects on non-smoker's health is weak and in most cases a scientific fraud.
Pubs are closing at a record level of 4 per day and destroying a much loved amenity over the centuries. Labour has been instrumental in this happening with the introduction of the smoking ban. Your party has caused much misery to smokers and wilfully discriminated against this sizeable minority. Along with New Labour's other nanny state initiatives, this sizeable minority will be pushing many Labour MPs out to pick up your P60's in less than two years time.
I am an ex-Labour supporter, but will never vote Labour again as long as there is breath in my body.
Bill C
Hmmm... So DC has been reading this thread? And has asked some aide to respond to Margot? That's very interesting. What could it mean?
That he's concerned about civil liberties? That he takes the smoking ban much more seriously than anyone might think? That he's interested in the little fracas on Kerry McCarthy's blog?
The last is interesting, actually. I've not seen it happen here before. It was a veritable wolfpack attack on a poor defenseless Labour MP. She hadn't seen it coming. And no antismokers came to her aid. You'd almost think that Simon Clark meticulously planned it all in the lobby of the Apex International Hotel in Edinburgh, and issued prior instructions to his minions around the world, including trusted hitman "Frankie", to "Get McCarthy". But was it really quite like this?
I did email Cameron yesterday and ask him or whoever views the email to look at the Kerry blog.
Hi Boris from E.S. Regarding duty frees. I was interrogated by Customs, three weeks ago on my way back from Belgium and France with my tobacco. Two persons on my coach had their goods confiscated. I wrote to two MPs and two MEPs. My own MP forwarded my letter to Mr Liam Byrne, Minister of State. Roger Helmer MEP stated that 'no rule seems to have been breached by the customs officers'. Are we part of the EU or not? If we lived on the continent we could freely travel across borders with no interference.
Chas
From Customs and Excise site
Alcohol or tobacco
If you are bringing in alcohol or tobacco goods and we have reason to suspect they may be for a commercial purpose, a Customs officer may ask you questions and make checks, for example about:
the type and quantity of goods you have bought
why you bought them
how you paid for them
whether all your goods are openly displayed or concealed
how often you travel
how much you normally smoke or drink or
any other relevant circumstances.
You are particularly likely to be asked questions if you have more than:
3200 cigarettes, 200 cigars, 400 cigarillos, 3kg tobacco, 110 litres of beer, 90 litres of wine, 10 litres of spirits, 20 litres of fortified wine (such as port or sherry).
The officer will take into account all the factors of the situation and your explanation.
If we are satisfied that the goods are for a commercial purpose we may seize them and any vehicle used to transport them, and may not return them to you.
If you are caught selling alcohol or tobacco goods they may be seized, and for a serious offence you could get up to seven years in prison.
The country where you buy tobacco goods may have its own laws on how much you can buy or have in your possession, and what documents you need. If in doubt, check with that country’s authorities before you buy.
If you let a coach, ferry or aircraft store your goods while travelling back to the UK you must make sure when you arrive in the UK that you collect the exact goods you bought.
From some EU countries there are limits on the amount of tobacco products you can bring back without paying UK duty.
From ESTONIA - 200 cigarettes or 250g of smoking tobacco*
From BULGARIA, HUNGARY, LATVIA, LITHUANIA, POLAND, ROMANIA OR SLOVAKIA - 200 cigarettes*
*No limit on other tobacco products as long as they are for your own use.
If you have tobacco products over these limits you should speak to a Customs officer in the red channel or on the red point phone.
From Kerry's website today 'Well the good news yesterday was that my modem at home wasn't working, so unfortunately I couldn't spend the twilight hours reading comments from angry smokers'.
How's that for good news?
Thanks for that, Boris. So DC is interested in the Kerry blog comments. Why? And why does he request a response to Margot?
Someone on the Kerry blog comments said that the comments should be sent to all MPs. And it would probably be news to many of them, given that smokers have next to no public voice while the media ignore the ban. MPs would normally never get to see so many such comments in one place.
Maybe it's news to DC too. It shouldn't be. As an ex-smoker, he should have a pretty good idea how smokers feel about the ban - although he gave up smoking when he became Tory leader, and so may not have any direct experience of the ban. Or he may have become, as so many ex-smokers do, an antismoker, and as such blind to the sufferings of smokers.
It would be quite some turn-up if the effect of the the Kerry comment thread was not so much to wake up Kerry, but to wake up DC - and induce him to respond rapidly to the direct questions of Margot.
What the Conservatives could also learn from her blog is the sarcasm and general contempt for smokers. I thought this sort of thinking went out years ago.
From correspondence and the rare conversation I have had with people with links with Conservative Central Office it seems that the Tories are happy to declare their opposition to 'political correctness' in general but they avoid mentioning the smoking ban in particular, Perhaps this is indeed an official line based on a view that they do not need to invoke smoking issues in their campaign against the Government at this stage.I hope so. Certainly their views would be prone to misrepresentation and distortion and maybe it's not necessary to run the risk of that. However, I hope that as they prepare for the next election they will ask themselves whether the totalitarian viciousness of the current law reflects the traditions of tolerance and fair play for minorities which one would hope their party exists to conserve.
So is DC moving away from 'NHS should not treat those with unhealthy lifestyles' say Tories from last year?
Quote: David Cameron is considering NHS Health Miles Cards to reward clean living .... But heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could be denied some routine treatments such as hip replacements until they cleaned up their act.
And his comment this year (?) "I Don't smoke" when asked about the SBE on this blog?
On the Kerry blog, it seems she maybe taking the weekend to read the comments.
The thread there is full of some interesting comments and deserves a wide audience just for the opinions, facts and questions posed.
Hopefully other MPs will read and discuss the implications and the, as yet, poor response to them.
west
----
D.M.
Thank you for your response.
Whether you are a genuine representative of David Cameron is immaterial, However your name and department would have made it more credible.
The Tory website is full of good intentions but the road to the hell we now live in was paved with these on both sides of the House.
We need action RIGHT NOW. The suffering caused by the Smoking Ban is clear to see and continues on minute by minute. From the elderly patients attached to drips painfully making their way to outside a hospital; to the patients inside secure units forbidden the healing benefit of a cigarette, to the thousands of honest businesses having to close and the unemployment caused; to the millions of employees denide a smoking break in a decent rest room; all the evidence is there before your eyes and right at this very moment.
A year has passed since the Smoking Ban Experiment. It has proved unfit for purpose and remains a gross draconian infringement of human rights.
Written into that new legislation was the proviso that should it prove to be flawed, it could be debated. A motion in the House should be tabled right now and a GENUINE free vote allowed. Both sides of the argument should be clearly stated - especially, as was mentioned in the first letter on this thread, the dishonest science and statistics it was based on.
Have any of the leading parties the courage to face the truth, or must we continue to be governed by lies and fear?
.
Kerry is a Vegan. She obviously believes in animal rights over human rights. By law, a pig must have 95% cover, whereas a smoker is not allowed more than 50% cover.
A couple of exchanges on Kerry's blog prove enlightening.
A poster writes
I think your 'champagne tea party' comment (and the article you linked to) implied that opponents of the smoking ban are mostly upper-class reactionaries who are completely out of touch with the 'real world'. In my experience as a bar worker and customer in the North, this really isn't the case - and prolier-than-thou insinuations do your cause no credit.
Kerry replies
I don't think all opponents of the smoking ban are - but given that Forest held an event at a private members club in Belgravia and are now holding a champagne tea party in the Commons (whatever that is?) then they certainly appear to be.
Repeat
then they certainly appear to be.
Now haven't Labour been telling us it's the poor and uninformed that smoke, well Kerry seems to think it's upper class reactionaries that are out of touch with the real world. Interesting, but not surprising.
Did you make any sense of DM's message, Margot? I'm still trying to fathom it out.
I had the idea this morning that the line in it that might matter most was: we want to see changes in the European Constitution which will enhance the lives of British citizens and let us, as a nation decide our own laws and our own taxes. I wondered if this was a coded way of saying what many people are saying (e.g. Blad Tolstoy), which is that the smoking ban is really just another EU directive, and that when we can make our own laws again it will be repealed.
When asked, however, nobody ever seems to be able to produce this EU 'directive' (Blad Tolstoy included), and I suspect that the smoking ban is simply being used as another convenient stick with which to beat the EU. As I see the smoking ban, it's a law that our own parliament - and this Labour government in particular - has inflicted on us, and it is they who are responsible, and not the EU.