Thursday
Aug282008
What are governments for?
Thursday, August 28, 2008 Writing on The Free Society blog, Forest's Neil Rafferty attacks the denormalisation of smoking and concludes:
"The proposals laid out in the consultation paper on the future of tobacco control are the enemies of choice. They are simply another stage in the government’s rolling programme of interference and intrusion into the lives of free individuals.
"Governments," he adds, "are not elected to tell us how to behave. They are not elected to bully, cajole and denormalise. If government has a role in public health it is to warn people of potential risks to their health in a measured and matter-of-fact way and then leave us alone to choose for ourselves."
Full article HERE.
Reader Comments (48)
Neil Rafferty is absolutely correct in saying that "Governments, are not elected to tell us how to behave. They are not elected to bully, cajole and denormalise".
Neil speaks of "Governments" in the plural, but in reality, we all know there is only one Government which treats its people like this, and that is our present Labour administration.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, speak of educating, and letting people decide for themselves.
In a speech yesterday, 27th August, Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Secretary of State for Health, stressed that rather than telling people what to do, the government needs to give everyone the information, opportunities and incentives they need to lead a healthier life.
The smoking ban is only one issue, undoubtedly a very serious one, but there are many, many, equally serious issues which this Government has forced upon us that also need addressing.
We need to all work together to show this Government that we have had enough. Stop taking everything they throw at us, stand up for our rights, just as the lone protester did, who stood in front of a line of tanks in Tiananmen Square in June 1989 in Beijing.
If one man, with the courage of his convictions can halt the might of the Chinese army, just think what we, as an organised army of smokers could do....
I agree to a degree with your comment Peter, but I am very sceptical that either Conservative or Lib Dem will do anything to amend the smoking ban and give people the choices that they should have.
In my view, they are really all as bad as each other and will tell us exactly what they think we want to hear, right up until the winner of the next election is decided. Then it will be deja vu - back to square one as they bring out their real agenda!
I know many people disagree, but my vote this time round has to be a protest vote. I will vote for whomever instills the greater confidence in me, with the exception of any of the 3 major parties, who couldn't instil any confidence with me, no matter what they did or said. My belief is that all 3 of them need a very sharp slap in the face, and even if one of them get in, so long as the minor parties do much better than in the past, then I think it might just make them look up and take notice.
It might be a long shot, but it is the only course of action left to those of us who have been left feeling totally impotent.
Is that the same scum Tory Party that this week has said fat people shouldn't receive NHS treatment unless they "reform"? Is it the same vermin-filth Tory Party that introduced all the anti-smoking measures in the first place in the 1980s and 90s?
Is that Mat, the same super intelligent political debater that cannot string a sensible sentence together?
Crikey, we do get them on here don't we!
I think Matt left off the bit about how the Tories started World War 11 and caused the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004.
If you're going to go for it Matt, at least do it on a big scale.
Matt may have point in that the Tories are not exactly the guardians of civil liberties and we cannot expect them to be any better than Labour. I can remember numerous Home Secretaries being slated by High Court judges as both parties tried to introduce draconian legislation. The only liberties ever protected by politicians are their own, as can be seen by all party support to exempt their expense claims from the Freedom of Information Act.
Peter may see the Tories through some rose tinted glasses but I personally do not see any difference between the parties and believe that people should vote for the politician who has the greatest chance of beating the incumbent if that sitting MP voted for the ban. It would not take too many votes to unseat a few and then, when the review is announced around 2011, some nervous MPs may reconsider their original vote.
It is not a case of seeing the Tories through rose tinted glasses Michael, it is being able to differentiate the huge variety of shades between black and white.
I do not believe that Labour are black, Liberal, grey, and Tories white, or whichever way you wish to paint them. I believe that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of shades in between these colours, and those shades are what makes up each individual politician, and indeed each individual human being on this planet.
To not be able to see the difference between the parties, is a huge liability on your part Michael. We have more information at our fingertips now, than ever. A politician cannot break wind without us hearing about it.
A perfect example is between Boris and the late Mr Livingstone. Ken's idea of how to run London was to squeeze Londoners until the pips burst forth, dripping blood and piles of our money, as they did so, whereas Boris' idea is just the opposite. One of his first actions was to drop Ken's proposed £50 gas guzzler charge. That, is just one very obvious difference between two politicians, and I am sure everyone can see that?
As for voting for the politician who has the greatest chance of beating the incumbent MP who voted for the ban, that of course is your prerogative, and many people did exactly that at the last couple of by-elections, although I don't really think it was just the smoking ban they were protesting about.
One of the main jobs for Governments is to look after our economy. Pharmaceutical companies provide us with the drugs to assist our health. One such company has developed two drugs which are equally efficient for treating AMD. One costs nearly £1,000 and the other about £25 and the Government have been 'forced' by the company to use the expensive drug. This is not only force economy, but proves (what we have always said) that Our Government is ruled by Pharmaceutical companies.
Peter
In your swooning admiration for Andrew Lansley, did you overlook this sentence in yesterday's speech:
"Environmental health is still important. Banning smoking in public places is undoubtedly the most significant public health measure of the last decade and it is very much an issue of environment, not just lifestyle."
As far as I can see, Lansley may use words like "Nannying - at least among adults - is likely to be counter-productive" - but nothing in his speech suggests that he is any less a nanny than any of the miserable wretches who have been the recent incumbents in the Government post to which he aspires.
Indeed, if you read his proposals carefully, I fear that far from being in for 'more of the same' under a prospective Conservative government, things are likely to be going to get much worse.
Lansley is a nanny, a denormaliser - and a complete Richard-head - in my most humble opinion!
When I was first fuming about the smoking ban, which in my case was when I was hit by the severity of it on July 1st 2007, I knew very little about the process which brought it about. For a while I thought that it would have happened whoever had been in power. Since looking at the facts however, and keeping my ear to the ground, I do not think it would have happened with a Tory Government. For a start, I do not think that there would have been an open vote. ASH and their cronies forced this on the Labour party, I do not think the Conservatives would have succumbed to the pressure. For a start, too many Tories enjoy a cigar, well, why else would their vote be 2 to 1 against a blanket ban. I also think that they would have warned the hospitality trade to get their act together. There was a charter which the hospitality trade had signed to improve air quality in premises with improved ventilation, and to make more provision for separate areas for smokers and non smokers, with emphasis on the non smoker. The hospitality trade shot themselves in the foot. They didn't enforce these conditions, then, under pressure they went for the 'level playing field' idea (which also came from ASH), and now end up in a pickle. Serves them right. Anyway, I will try and cut the waffle. I think the Tories would have stuck with the 'voluntary' approach, and most important of all, would not have introduced ugly signs to go up, even in places where nobody had smoked for years, decades, even centuries! By the way, I am not a Tory, (sorry Peter), although I did vote for them once, in 1979, it was Winston Churchill, a son of a son of a famous father. No, I just don't think a complete ban would have been in in the Tory fabric.
Timbone you are quite possibly right in what you say about the total ban not happening if the Tories had been in power, however, now that it is here, I do not see the Tories, should they come to power, removing it!
Peter, with regard to your comments on Boris, I quite agree, but I also think he is one on his own! Seeing as Downing Street have decided, eventually, that Jeremy Clarkson would not do for PM, the next best choice, I believe, is Boris. This has absolutely nothing to do with him being a Tory and everything to do with him being him! He is cut, I think, from the same or very similar cloth to Jeremy Clarkson in that he says what he sees and thinks and it is just tough if it happens to upset some super sensitive people!
The very fact that he has completely turned around what was proposed by Ken Livingstone is the very reason he should be seriously considered for PM - whether that is as leader of the Tories or not!
Personally, I cannot justify giving my vote to any of the three major parties - they have all screwed up big time and they have all let us down very badly! To give them more power would give them licence to go even further and disregard us, the electorate even more!
What paved the way for the idiot Blair to bring in a smoking ban was "the world leaders" - Ireland. The eu knew what it was doing when they picked out a wannabe small country eager to punch above it weight when they got a bit of false money and lost the run of themselves. They thought it would be cool to look like tanned water drinking americans they saw on Friends and for the first time in their lives could afford to be the worried well. That combined with an ex school teacher and failed health minister called Michael Martin who thought he would rock the world by bringing in the smoking ban and cover up a nursing home scandal while on his watch in health at the same time, figured he could pull off a coup by playing to a vulernable audience and getting a pat on the head from his masters in the eu - but I digress.
I agree with Lyn, there's not much to choose from between the main parties, its the same everywhere, but I think a change of govt is the best way to go and of course not forgetting our fringe parties as well.
We should all get behind any politician who gives an ear to smokers and the denial of our civil liberties as a tax paying minority group. Why does every other minority group that has popped out of the woodwork in recent years get their rights met and not ours, are we lepers or something. No one has proved to date that passive smoking kills.
We should not let up on our demand for a civilised indoor smoking room away from the elements where drinkers could get their own drinks from the bar. That way we would not be 'polluting' bar workers and would keep the ash nazis happy at the same time. Surely thats not too much to ask for.
We should make this demand our main focus point and keep emphasising it to all in govt.
PS Last week on irish radio one question on debate was "Should a smoking room be allowed in pubs for smokers".
You'd never know folks!
I have far from "swooning admiration" for Andrew Lansley, Brian, and I most certainly didn't overlook his comments, i.e., "Banning smoking in public places is undoubtedly the most significant public health measure of the last decade".
In fact I posted something about this on another forum, where I said the following:
"The only reference to smoking that I could find in his speech (and I certainly do not agree with it) was the following: "Environmental health is still important. Banning smoking in public places is undoubtedly the most significant public health measure of the last decade and it is very much an issue of environment, not just lifestyle".
But he stressed that rather than telling people what to do, the government needs to give everyone the information, opportunities and incentives they need to lead a healthier life".
I probably should have repeated it on here in order to clarify exactly how I felt about what Mr Lansley said. But now you have it, so I hope you do not get any more wrong ideas about how I feel about what Andrew Lansley said .
What I do not understand, are people who keep saying things like "they are not offering us anything different". What do you expect "them" to offer you Brian? Do you honestly think it would be in their interest to come up with a proposal to overturn the ban, or even to amend it, at this present time? The Labour Party would tear them to pieces, the Labour press would have a field day, we would see headlines such as "Tories want to return to the bad old days of poor health", and "Tories are condemning your children to shorter lives".
Surely you have seen the wretched propaganda which they dish out on an almost daily basis now? The very best that anyone, who seriously wants to get into power, can offer, is what
Andrew Lansley said, when he said "that rather than telling people what to do, the government needs to give everyone the information, opportunities and incentives they need to lead a healthier life".
Nobody, not even the conniving Labour Party, could disagree with that, and a comment like that leaves the Conservatives, or anyone else who might make such a statement, an open door to change, when and if they get to power.
I didn't know that, Timbone, about " a charter which the hospitality trade had signed to improve air quality in premises with improved ventilation, and to make more provision for separate areas for smokers and non smokers".
As you go on to say, "The hospitality trade shot themselves in the foot. They didn't enforce these conditions".
So, in other words, we had everything in position with which to please everyone, yet still this dictatorship of a Government, still went ahead an imposed a blanket ban upon us.
To get back to the rest of your post, Timbone, I just cannot understand your reasoning? You say that you don't think the Tories would have imposed a blanket ban, that they would have stuck with a voluntary' approach, and then in your next breath, you say you do not vote for them?
You don't have to smoke cigars you know, to be a Tory, and I am sure their reasoning is more to do with freedom of choice, rather than being cigar smokers.
As an aside, did you know that Harold Wilson, the Labour PM of the sixties, was an inveterate cigar smoker, and only used his famous pipe as a "working class prop"?
Thank you Lyn, when I spoke about Boris and Ken, that is exactly what I was trying to point out to Michael, that you should not try to paint everyone with the same brush.
Everyone is different, not all Tories are Royal Blue, just as not all Socialists are Blood Red. I met a Socialist once, who was almost normal....(joke).
But, whilst you understand just how different we all are, you still seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to differentiating between the major political parties, you say, they are all the same?
How would you feel if you heard a politician say that about us, the electorate? "Oh, we know what they want, because after all, they are all the same aren't they?"
As you know Lyn, we are far from being all the same, and so are the politicians.
Hi Ann, Ireland wasn't the first you. I think America was. But that's neither here nor there now is it?
Of course we should have separate smoking areas, every sane person would have to agree with that, but unfortunately our masters in Nu-Labour are not sane.
A debate on Irish radio "Should a smoking room be allowed in pubs for smokers". Blimey Nu-Labour had better watch out, we'll have people leaving their bins out on the wrong days next if this level of rebelliousness is not nipped in the bud pretty damn quick.
I stand corrected, I meant to say Ireland was the first country in europe to bring in the smoking ban.
As regards Andrew Lansley's comment when he said that rather than telling people what to do and give everyone the information and incentives etc to lead a healthier life. For gods sake we have been bombarded with health information for the past decade not to mention all sorts of other information. This is the information age with a capital IT after all.
Personally speaking before the smoking ban came in I had cut down to 8 cigs a day but after the ban took effect I felt so restricted and uncomfortable when socialising that I started smoking more than before because I dont like to be told what to do especially having lived in a free society up to that point. I also gave up going to pubs and restaurants as I found it impossible to comply with the new rules and I'm sure a lot of people felt the same as me.
Peter - perhaps I should have put it better and said that ultimately the 3 major parties all have basically the same agenda, in that they will all aim for the same ends, they just might go about it differently or in a different order of priority, but in the end, whatever the manifestos say, I do not believe we can trust them! Individually, like us, politicians are, or course all different, but they also survive in an environment where they need to stand together in order to keep their jobs and benefits (including being able to smoke inside in their parliamentary bar, or whatever it is), therefore, much as there may be many issues they do not entirely agree on, if it doesn't do them any personal harm or cause them inconvenience, it is a small price to pay to run with it. Those who are prepared to stand up for their constituents and what they believe is right, regardless of their own personal feelings, do not seem to last very long or get on very far in terms of their political career.
From that point of view, I would not trust any of the main 3 parties, as a whole, rather than as individuals, as that is what matters at the end of the day. My point is that they have all had their chances over the years and one way or another they have all reneged on their manifestos, without any explanation or apology to the people who voted them in the basis of those very same manifestos.
There comes a point when the electorate have to make a stand and say long and loud that enough is enough and do their damndest to vote them out! After all, it is the only language they will ultimately understand but until that happens, they will continue blithely on their way, ruining lives, health and businesses on route!
Ann - you are not the only one no longer going out or smoking more. I rarely go out any more because I do not find it enjoyable or comfortable, but by staying at home I tend to smoke more and have also put weight on as I tend to snack more!
Good old government, eh? Instead of encouraging us to stop smoking altogether they have led us to smoke more and on top of that, in my case anyway, to also have a far greater weight problem than I have ever had before! Great, if things carry on it means I will not get NHS treatment on 2 fronts! One because I smoke and the other because I am overweight! What better way to kill off people so that the pension funding will not be such an issue in the future! I never could understand the logic in trying to tell people they would live longer if they stopped smoking, cut down on drink and lost weight, especially with all the revenue they are losing as a result, because if it is true, then the government will have an even bigger headache fining the funds to keep everyone in their old age!
Very well said Lyn I feel exactly the same about the whole lot of them in govt, they all promise you everything before the elections and when they get into govt they go with the flo and vote with the party.
But this present lot never got a mandate from the people before election to bring in such a draconian smoking ban, they did this of their own volition by scarmongering, brainwashing and whipping up a media frenzy on health fears and appointing state agencies like Ash to do their dirty work for them.
This govt have been in govt for far too long, they have gone soft on their big salaries and perks and are totally detached from the people. Looking back over the past 11 years just what have labour achieved for britain only open borders and overcrowding which they try to cope with by cracking down on the easy target, the ordinary law abiding tax payer, with stealth taxes and bans. Then they turn around and blame it on globlisation and the world economy or the old reliable climate change, as if it has nothing got to do with their bad management.
Apart from all that, in my opinion any govt that brought in a smoking ban deserves to be kicked out on their ass on that issue alone. Lets show em all a lesson.
Peter Thurgood wrote: "What I do not understand, are people who keep saying things like "they [the Conservatives] are not offering us anything different". What do you expect "them" to offer you Brian? Do you honestly think it would be in their interest to come up with a proposal to overturn the ban, or even to amend it, at this present time? The Labour Party would tear them to pieces, the Labour press would have a field day..."
Very well. Then why, subsequent to being elected to government, should "they" propose to overturn or amend the ban? The Labour party would tear them to pieces, etc. Why on earth should an incoming Conservative government be expected to do something it never promised it would do?
If Conservatives really feel that they will be "torn to pieces" if they proposed so much as a minor amendment of the ban, aren't they really conceding that health considerations trump all other considerations, including those of personal autonomy and individual freedom?
What I'd like to see is someone - a Boris Johnson - stand up and boldly declare: "Look chaps, certainly health matters a great deal. But it doesn't matter so much that we must ban any and every activity that has the slightest health risk attached to it. Free people must be allowed to make their own decisions about the risks that they and their like-minded fellows are prepared to take. To disallow that is to deny them a most fundamental freedom in the cause of good health. It is to entirely throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let us by all means point out the dangers. And the dangers are many. But let us not try to dictate to people what they may or may not do, but instead act reasonably to minimize the risks while retaining the widest freedom of choice. Let us create well-ventilated bars. Let us produce separate hermetically sealed smoking rooms. Let us encourage smokeless e-cigs. But for heaven's sake let us not dictate, as we are now dictating, to our fellows what they may or may not do in every tiny detail of their lives - and particularly their social lives. And so I move that we act to restore a freedom which has been removed, and permit smoking in public places under tight restrictions...."
Unfortunately, I can't see a single Tory (or Liberal for that matter) being so bold as to make any such principled stand. None of them dare face the baying hordes of healthist zealots. Health rules uber alles. They will instead sit on the fence and wait for public opinion to change of its own accord as disenchantment with the nanny state grows, preferring to follow than to lead.
You hit the nail on the head Idlex, it is exactly what I have been saying.
We would all love to see a "Boris Johnson", stand up and say what he believes in, which is why I, and the majority of Londoners voted for him.
But don't forget, before he was elected, he was scared to say too much. In fact when I stood up for him on here, I had so many people rallying against me, all saying that he was no good and he was a turncoat etc., etc.. Now however, we are gradually seeing him do the things we all wanted done. Admittedly he hasn't dome anything about the smoking ban, but he did at least answer my email (or get it answered) and said that the smoking ban was not covered by his remit, so at this moment in time, there is nothing he can do about it.
In this ghastly politically correct world we now live in, nearly everyone is frightened to say what they really believe in. You can't call a midgets a midget any more, black people are every race under the sun, as long as its not white Anglo-Saxon. You mustn't call a woman darling, if a person is crippled, you dare not call them that. I wouldn't mind betting that the p.c. brigade soon ban the word "smoker", saying it could encourage children to think about it.
I'm not asking anyone to vote for who I vote for, all I am saying is that if anyone is expecting promises regarding the ban, prior to a general election, than I think they will have a long wait, a very long one.
I'm glad we agree. At the moment, by a process of elimination, I'm inclined to vote Conservative for the first time in my life at the next election. But it's really only in the faint hope that they might just see their way to doing something about the smoking ban. If somebody else looks more promising, I'll vote for them instead.
Boris is - as someone who actually has his own opinions - something of a one off. David Cameron seems to be the chameleon that Labour described him as. I have no idea what he believes about anything.
As for political correctness, I think the inevitable end result of being put in this language straitjacket can only be some almighty future explosion when all the forbidden language comes bursting out once again, and we once again enjoy seeing and hearing people robustly and colourfully speaking their minds. It will probably be a rather shocking experience. I for one look forward to it.
Peter. I have made some vague political comments on here, and I respect your opinions, (and like "The Smoker Magazine", especially when you put a new update!!), so I thought I would use this space to try to let you know where I stand - I will try to be concise!
I was horrified by some of the things the Conservatives did between 1979 and 1997. Following their momentus defeat in 1997, I joined the Labour Party. My membership was short lived. I respected their policy not to make radical changes, but was disilusioned by the fact that they carried on building on what I considered to be initiatives started by the previous government which were complicated and unworkable.
I have a belief that the Liberal Democratic Party could have been an opposition by 2010. I think that it was the Iraq affair which scuppered this LibDem growth and Tory demise. Floating voters began to return their vote to the Conservatives.
I used to argue vehemently with lethargic people that they should use their democratic right to vote - I have now joined their ranks. We will never have proportional representation in this Country, if I felt that this was a possibility, then I would cast my vote.
I do not think I need to use my vote at the next General Election to get the Labour Party slaughtered like the Tories were in 1997, it will happen without me. I will stay up on the night of the next General Election and enjoy watching it happen.
I am not sure where things will go in this Country. I predict ( which is pretty obvious) that we will have a Conservative Government soon. What will happen after that I do not know. As some people may remember, I have already said that 2010 is my year for leaving British soil. It will be even more enjoyable to watch the Country of my Birth sink further into the mess it is creating from afar.
In one way I envy your decision to leave this country, Timbone, but unfortunately, I cannot agree with your comments about it being enjoyable to watch the country of your birth sink further into the mess it is creating.
I love Spain, and work with Spanish partners, and as such, I do travel and stay there quite a lot, but I also have family here, I have children, and now also have grandchildren, and it depresses me so much to think of what sort of life the future here holds for them.
If my wife and I moved off to Spain, or anywhere else, I would feel that I was abandoning them, and there is no way I could convince our children to come with us, as their whole lives, jobs and mortgages, are all based here in the UK.
This is why I have such a lot to say about politics and the way politicians are ruining our country. I hope and pray, that in my small way, I can help to change what is happening here, and I am not talking just about the smoking ban, and I am talking about all the restrictions now being imposed upon us and our children.
Don't move out of our country and sit back and gloat at us Timbone, for you will not be just gloating at our politicians, but at all of our children and grandchildren.
The time for gloating, is when we have beaten them, and we have won a better world for our children to grow up in.
Peter. I take your comment firmly on the chin, and apologise for saying something thoughtless and insensitive. This thought has indeed crossed my mind, and my own personal circumstances are a little different. Having said that, I will always 'do my bit' to make sure that my family and close friends are alright. Also, any part of me which has not been aneasthsetised still attempts to influence the powers which are making our daily lives more and more uncomfortable.
Timbone - in the past I have not voted because there just hasn't really been anyone I have wanted to vote for, no-one worthy of my vote. Now, however, I am realising that really, as there are only 3 main parties fighting for government, then the best way to vote, if I am not happy with any of them, is to vote for whichever of the minor parties ticks most boxes for me. If more people did this, rather than not vote at all, then just perhaps one or more of these smaller parties will end up snapping at the heels of the big 3 and give them the real shake up they need to get them all out of the complacency they are currently in, where their electorate are concerned.
Peter, with regard to your comments on political correctness and certain words that we are not supposed to use any more. Whilst I was training for my HGV Class 2, we used a 'Buttie Wagon' in the area of Garrets Green, Birmingham and the lady who ran it was keen to tell people that her 'coloured' customers objected to being called coloured - their arguments were either, we are Asian, so call us Asian; or We are Black, not brown, white, pink or blue, so call us Black! It seems quite ridiculous that governments have bowed to the PC brigade, mostly all of whom, I believe, are white and have brought in legislation which is actually offensive to the people they are supposedly protecting! Of course there are always going to be those who will use it to their own advantage, especially if means a compensation pay out, but it doesn't really seem to reflect the opinion of the majority.
Just goes to show, I think, how much certain groups can influence the government, even without just cause! They must be master sales people - the sort that could sell ice to the Eskimos (or should that be Inuits?)
I agree with you Peter. This is not just about us, it is about our children. It is our duty to leave them a legacy which they can build upon, not a future based on slavery and missery.
Andrew Lansley (shadow cabinet for health) said: 'Environmental health is still important. Banning smoking in public places is undoubtedly the most significant public health measure of the last decade and it is very much an issue of environment, not just lifestyle'.
I am 67 yo and have only voted three times at General Elections, never for the same party twice. I will wait until nearer the next General Election before making up my mind which party to vote for.
Have you seen Chas, what they are saying over on F2C? As follows:
This month the conservative party have released plans for what they are calling the "Freedom Charter".
The Charter will seek to restore civil liberties by;
Overturning the fox hunting ban
Scrapping the idea for ID cards
Amending the national DNA database idea to discount those who are not convicted criminals
Curb the activities of Health and Safety
Allow exemptions to the smoking ban
Lift the smoking ban for private members clubs
Peter.
I received an email from F2C, but cannot find the article. I assume that it only on the forum and I seem to have forgotten my password.
Chas, I will be puting it on my website tomorrow, but in the meantime, we need as many people as possible to do the following, so you don't need to log onto F2C to do this, just read this:
We ask that as individuals you all write or email Conservative head office in support of the Charter. Give details of your own experiences or local problems caused by the smoking ban. Please remember to give your name and city so that they know these are genuine letters.
You can write to them here;
Correspondence
Conservative Campaign Headquarters
30 Millbank
London
SW1P 4DP
or email them directly from their website here;
http://www.conservatives.com/t.....ct.us.page
Please also encourage as many friends as possible to do the same thing; the more letters they get, the better.
That should be http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=contact.us.page
I had this from F2C as well and very promptly emailed my views! Let's just hope they really do read all of these posts, emailed or snail mailed!
It will be interesting to see what, if any, response they give!
Lyn, there's an interesting debate going on over on the Smoker's forum, regarding this. A very different view of it I must say. Have a look here:
http://www.thesmokermagazine.co.uk/
and go to the forum.
Thanks Peter
Well sorry folks, but here’s another Tory bastard for you - the very right-wing, free-market, libertarian Taxpayers’ Alliance.
Have a look at this story: even by today’s standards, it’s pretty amazing ...
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-defend-probe-cigarette-row-assault/article-305202-detail/article.html
The Western Daily Press, incidentally, devotes its main editorial today to supporting the Taxpayers’ Alliance view. This physical assault on a woman in her sixties in broad daylight is a trivial matter, apparently. (The WDP has strong evangelical Christian links, which perhaps explains its extremist position on smoking).
What the hell has this story, as despicable as it is, got to do with this subject? You really need to get a grasp of yourself Matt, if this is what the first day at your new school does to you.
The denormalisation of smoking? I should have thought it had everything to do with that subject ... we have now become so denormalised that serious people seriously believe that phsyical atacks on us should not be investigated by the police.
I am not quite with you here Matt, are you blaming the Tories for this, or "the very right-wing, free-market, libertarian Taxpayers' Alliance", or The Western Daily Press?
It's just that one minute you are calling these people, whichever one it was, the most despicable people in the world, and in your next breath, you say that they are serious people, who seriously believe in things.
I don't think it's the denormalisation of smoking that is at risk here, it seems to be more your denormalisation of anyone to the right of Karl Marx
Peter, I can't find any evidence of this charter on the Conservatives website.
Can you point me in the right direction?
Chris, I too have searched everywhere for real evidence of this "Charter", but the only thing I can find to support it, is the piece taken from The Sun newspaper, dated 18th August, this year, which you can see, reproduced on the front page here Http://www.thesmokermagazine.co.uk/
I know that a lot of people have been writing and emailing Conservative Central Office with reference to this, and saying how much they support it, etc., etc. But so far, the answers they have been receiving back, which I have seen, do nor seem to confirm anything.
I sent an email yesterday to my local Conservative office in Greenwich, asking them if they know anything about it, and if they would support it, if it is indeed true. When, and if I get an answer, I will let everyone know.
I hate to say it Chris, but I am somewhat sceptical about the origins of this "charter". Is it real, or is it an exercise put out by the Tories to test the water, or, as some are suggesting, an exercise put out by F2C., to try and force the issue onto the Tories?
What I do find strange, is the fact that no mention of it, has been made on here.
I have to say Peter, that I share your concerns...I have e-mailed my local Conservative office asking for confirmation...but I doubt there is anything in this.
This so-called charter would be several steps to far...and I'm sure the Conservatives in this current climate would'nt countenance such moves...particularly with regard to the smoking ban.
I too have 'held fire' on this for the moment. I was thinking that, even if it were a hoax, or something pre-emptive based on a 'leak', not even that, a 'drop', then it would still be good if lots of people suddenly started writing to the Consevatives. Then I thought, no, because if there is nothing of any substance in this, then the 'swarm' of correspondence, (haha, that is what Paul Flynn would call it!!), would all receive the standard reply which some of us have receieved previously when writing to the Conservatives on the issue of the SBE.
If I write to the Conservatives again about the SBE, I want to know that it is being read, and being read by a decision maker, not their PAs secretarys filing clerk.
The person who brought this subject to the fore this week, was Steve, who actually works for F2C.
There is a thread on their forum at the moment, called Email to Mr Cameron, where a number of people are showing doubts about this so called Freedom Charter, causing Steve to becoming very vociferous indeed, which looks very suspicious to me.
It is also very suspicious looking that the so called Freedom Charter's initials spell out FC, you only need a "2" in the middle, and I would say it spells out completely, where this piece of silliness came from.
There could be some truth in it as nobody has received a denial. Silence is golden?
D.B., I was not aware that anybody actually 'works for F2C', a group of likeminded people who, if they wish to become a member, pay £10 a year - goodness, you would need a lot of members for someone to 'work' for them. Anyway, I am a member of F2C, and it is only a couple of comments on here which alerted me to the fact that this possible 'Freedom Charter' hoax is being linked to F2C. As for saying the initials are similar, FC, so it is suspicious, come on, there are loads of things called 'charters' these days.
DB where the Freedom Charter comes from is from the Sun. In the political diary The Whip to be precise. If you get yourself a log in go to the Forum "News Only" page 242 and the article from the Sun has been scanned in, from the original Sun article.
Thanks Dave, I thought we were dealing with another Paul Flynn for a moment!