BBC makes a mountain out of a dunghill
Friday, October 23, 2009 I missed Question Time last night. (I was guzzling champagne and stuffing my face with canapes and "light bites" at the Royal Academy of Arts, but that's another story.) Nevertheless, an article by Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail on Tuesday reminded me of something.
"Back when I had a show on Sky TV," Littlejohn wrote, "my producer thought it would be a good idea to invite Griffin to appear. After all, we'd had the Islamist headbanger Omar Bakri on the programme a couple of weeks earlier, so why not?
"Interviewing the shifty and unsavoury Griffin was like trying to nail jelly to a wall ... Afterwards, I felt rather grubby."
As it happens, I was a guest on that very same programme. So, too, was Henry Olonga, the first black cricketer to represent Zimbabwe at international level.
Henry and I were chatting in the green room when we were joined by the BNP leader. I'm not sure if Henry knew who he was, or what he represented, but Griffin's presence certainly put a dampener on the conversation!
In the event, his appearance on Sky came and went without comment. There were no protests, no editorials, nothing (as far as I can recall).
Truth is, only the BBC could make a mountain out of a dunghill.
Reader Comments (133)
Pat -
Thanks for the Andrew Neather reference (I scarcely buy 'the papers' these days).
An elderly gentleman of my acquaintance said of mass immigration - and this well over ten years ago:
"They're just trying to water us down."
Wasn't far wrong, it seems.
And it's JUST what the Globalists want, of course: the slow destruction of that subtle, hard-to-define thing that 'connects' the Citizen to his Nation.
The day may soon come when NO child in the Kingdom will ever feel - in that romantic-mythical way most of us still do - that the Saxons fighting at Senlac and the Archers at Agincourt were 'our' people.
Some will think that A Good Thing.
Others will not.
And if 'muliculturalism' means pulling down our ancient churches (whose bells rarely seem to chime these days) in order to replace them with mosques, kindly forgive me if I fail to applaud as loudly as I should.
The much-celebrated 'free movement of peoples' has rather less to do with Freedom of Choice than with Destruction of Choice - in this context, as to what KIND of country one wishes to live in.
This is one of the things, also, which excites Chloe Smith about 'Europe'.
The fact that I can now go and dig turnips in a field outside Poznan - without a work permit - leaves THIS Englishman strangely unmoved, however.
My wanton ingratitude embarrasses even me at times.
Over to you again, Mr Cameron: please tell me why I'm wrong.....................
I will never understand Africa or the Africans.
If as you say Africans dont have to be inventive because of their sunny climate and their country's resources, why are so many starving and putting their lives at risk trying to get into europe.
Oh children, children, "Any Questions" is always a contrived program. Our masters at the EU must be chuckling at us as they lean luxuriously back with glass of champagne in one hand, big fat cigar in the other.
This whole charade was created by the Beeb to bring the BNP forcibly to the attention of the "fair minded" British public. There was rumour, earlier this year, that the Tories donate to the BNP, who have massive funding behind them from "somewhere".
The Beeb also give generous air time to the Greens.
All this serves only one purpose - to split the mighty UKIP vote.
I have not been taking "grumpy pills" today Martin, but from the look of things, you just might have been taking "confusion pills" again?
You go on about "The much-celebrated free movement of peoples", and then you say "it has rather less to do with Freedom of Choice than with Destruction of Choice" I agree with you 100% on that.
But then you bring in Chloe Smith, the somewhat wet behind the ears, Conservative MP for Norwich North, saying that one of the things that excites her about 'Europe is the fact that we can now go and dig turnips in a field outside Poznan - without a work permit.
Firstly, who gives a damn what a little novice MP says or does? An idiot is an idiot, no matter what party they are from.
The part of your post that I find really confusing, is your last line, where you say "Over to you again, Mr Cameron: please tell me why I'm wrong?"
Why do you feel that Mr Cameron should give you an answer on this? Are you saying that he and his party set up "The bill for the free movement of peoples?"
If and when Mr Cameron does form a government, then we would have every right to ask him why he has done nothing about this bill, but until then, the person we should be addressing about this, is our current prime minister, Gordon Brown.
If as you say Africans dont have to be inventive because of their sunny climate and their country's resources, why are so many starving and putting their lives at risk trying to get into europe. (ann)
I'm saying that historically they didn't have to be inventive, because they had a warm environment, and abundant plant growth (and hence food). But that's just the long term trend. If there are periodic droughts, then life isn't easy during those. I'm not sure whether Africa's current problems are due to environental factors, or political ones (e.g. the behaviour of the likes of Mugabe).
And if 'muliculturalism' means pulling down our ancient churches (whose bells rarely seem to chime these days)
They still chime aplenty in Devon.
@Ann
If I can go back to my last post there were two strands. One was probaby small families and inter cooperation and how we have evolved to the internet with Facebook et al. Again because the geography and climate were so harsh, caring for ones family and other families in times of extreme danger became a social more. If someone was in trouble Europeans learnt that selfishness would result in a worse situation for everyone.
I think it is no coincidence that Social Democracy, free market captialism but socialised welfare is largely credited to the Swedes. They were the first to give the working class a vote in 1866, a year before the UK. The west and western people carry on this tradition with the third world in not only donating huge sums of money, after all there is an Overseas Development arm to the Foreign Office, private charity or simply going abroad to build a well, or be a doctor.
I read recently that Africa has more naturally ocuring minerals and arable farming land than Europe. I also read the historian Niall Ferguson researched where western aid has gone to. Between 1955 and 1995 we have donated $1 trillion (a thousand billion) in aid. Shockingly $500 billion is sitting in Swiss bank accounts.
In Africa if you attain a postion of power, if you do not favour your family and if powerful enough your tribe it is not only considered wrong but wicked.
The reason Africa is starving is corruption, incompetence and culture.
Peter -
Re:
"Why do you feel that Mr Cameron should give you an answer on this?"
Good question !
Mine was rhetorical, of course.
What I WANT Mr Cameron to say is something along the lines of:
"This European integration thing has gone TOO far, and one of the many powers that I intend to 're-patriate' - subject to referendum by the British People - is that which has taken from us OUR right to control OUR borders, and so decide WHOM we allow into the Country."
Something like that.
But when I recall his rather dictatorial behaviour towards Patrick Mercer - 'sacked' by mobile phone for merely REPORTING that the phrase 'Black bastard' was a commonplace in the Army (and he should know) - I rather suspect that I may be waiting a long time:
"Mr Cameron put out an immediate statement regretting Mr Mercer's remarks, adding: "We should not tolerate racism in the army or in any walk of life. Patrick Mercer is no longer a shadow minister."
Whoever said we SHOULD 'tolerate racism', you Kingsize Prat !!!
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..."
But,ooh, David - you're SO decisive !
Polly will be pleased.
And it's all very well dismissing Little Chloe as a mindless parvenue. Nonetheless, SHE represents the Future to some extent.
And - at the risk of rubbing salt into the wound - SHE was supposed to be on OUR side at one time. Remember ?
But that was BEFORE she drank from the Chalice.
Sorry, Peter, to 'bang on' about Cameron - but he IS the next Prime Minister.
And if HE can't (or won't) answer my 'questions', who the hell can (or shall) ?
Maybe somebody else.
From where I stand, ALL the dots are there.
Just a matter of joining them up.............
You say Martin that you are sorry to 'bang on' about Cameron - but he IS the next Prime Minister. And if HE can't (or won't) answer my 'questions', who the hell can (or shall) ?
Sorry Martin, but as I am sure you know, there is no such thing as a sure thing! If we all knew (for sure) that Cameron was going to be the next prime minister, we could all bet on it and never have to work again. The odds at this moment are in the Tories favour, but only just, and as I have said before, even if their luck at the polls does hold out until the general election, they will probably only just scrape in then.
Add to this, the many people (especially on here) who are angry about the smoking ban, and
misguidedly think that somehow or other, this is the Tories fault. I think these people must have had their eyes and ears closed off for the past two years! They are saying that because the Tories won't do anything about the smoking ban, then they all have this wonderful idea of voting for the Nazis, sorry, I meant BNP.
If these people care to reopen their eyes and ears, they will realise that firstly, no matter who gets in at the general election, they will not be able to do a damn thing about the ban, and this is because their majority will be too small. And do you know who is making it smaller still? Yes, the people who insist on depriving the Tories of votes by voting BNP.
I have said time after time, that every tick in the BNP box is a tick for Labour, and that also of course includes the UKIP box, but by the way things are going with them, they seem less of threat as each week goes by.
So in answer to your question Martin, about who could or should answer your question, maybe the answer is Nik Griffin. If the left on here get their way, it could well be Gordon Brown again....there is not a lot of chance of it being David Cameron, that's for sure!
Peter -
I don't think you're quite fair in suggesting that certain people here are BLAMING the Tories for the Ban.
Yet what I imagine many of them DO feel is a sense of BETRAYAL from someone (a potential rather than an actual 'friend', admittedly) who WILL be in a position to rescue us from all this nastiness, who they reasonably assume SHOULD, but probably WON'T.
You may include me among their number.
I have absolutely NO intention of voting for Mr Griffin.
I should have thought that much was obvious from even the little that you know of me from my scribblings here.
Of course, you're quite right in saying that Cameron is not ABSOLUTELY bound to become PM next year.
And needs to look out for No 42 buses.
But - as a betting man myself - I'd say it was near a 'certainty' as makes no difference.
Stan James is currently offering odds of 1/12 on a Conservative victory (Labour are at 7/1).
These are staggering odds - and the bookies rarely get it wrong.
My feeling (for what it's worth), is that Cameron will get in with a working majority, and enjoy the traditional 'honeymoon' for around 18 months.
And THEN things will start to get 'interesting'.
And THEN we can begin to think of a Palace Coup - and the prospect of a proper Conservative Leader for a proper Conservative Party (and one which 'traditional' Labour voters can support, too).
In my entire adult life, I have NEVER voted in accordance with the 'what's in it for me' principle. Ever.
But, quite honestly, I feel I'm SUFFOCATING in this country now.
I want someone to come and switch the oxygen machine back on again.
Not walk (regretfully) out of the bloody room with a 'Sorry, can't do anything about it, Mate.'
This time, it's personal, too.
And in the meantime - WHOEVER wants my vote will have to EARN it.
I think you know how.
Is that SO unreasonable ?
Add to this, the many people (especially on here) who are angry about the smoking ban, and misguidedly think that somehow or other, this is the Tories fault. I think these people must have had their eyes and ears closed off for the past two years! PT
I don't know anyone here who thinks the smoking ban is the Tories' fault. What people are exercised about is whether the Tories will do anything about it when, as is most likely, they form the next government. At present they show precious little sign of doing anything about it at all.
Do you ever get that feeling of deja-vu, I am sure I have been here before type feeling?
I do, in fact I get it about a dozen times a day, each time I visit this site in fact, (did I already say 'in fact'?)
I keep seeing these occurring sentences (nightmares), where people keep saying that they either want, or expect, or even demand, the next government, no not this one, but the next one, that they are guessing to be a Tory one, led by David Cameron, to do something about the smoking ban, which most of that particular party did not vote for in the first place.
The next part of my "been here before feeling" involves me, repeating time after time, after time, that it doesn't matter who gets in, unless it is Labour again, with a massive majority, which it could well be, because no one will be able to do a damn thing about the smoking ban.
The law would need a majority of "ALL" parties in the house, to vote such an amendment or overturn of the law through Parliament, and unless everyone in the house suddenly dies, or takes up chain smoking, that just isn't going to happen!
It is all very well these minor parties saying they will do something about it, but the blatant truth is, that they cannot, and they are lying when they say they can. At the very best, they can say that they recommend an amendment or the law being overturned, but they cannot just make a ruling of it on their own.
The only way in which this could possibly happen, is for a party such as the BNP to form a government, and to outlaw all other political parties, and to take away all our voting rights. Do you really want to smoke that badly?
The only way in which this could possibly happen, is for a party such as the BNP to form a government, and to outlaw all other political parties, and to take away all our voting rights. Do you really want to smoke that badly? Oh dear, here I go again...again...again..again........
As an afterthought on my last post, I would like to add a couple of things.
I more or less said that no party would be able to amend or overturn the ban. This isn't entirely true, as any governing party could recommend an amendment, but it would only go through, if all parties could see that the vast majority of the populace were behind such a recommendation.
At the moment, the smoking ban is such a touchy subject, that almost all politicians are scared to go near it. People like ASH and the BHF have done their job so well, that the very subject has become almost taboo in political circles.
As we all know, nothing is impossible, and all laws can be changed. But it take the will of the people to do this, and I fear that at the moment, the will of the people is elsewhere. We are a minority, the dirty, smelly few, who will eventually succumb to the will of the mob! (so they would like to believe)
But we don't have to, we can help to change this law to favour us and to favour freedom once again. But we won't do it by relying on political parties. We will only get the amendment we want, when we force the politicians to start relying on us, and not the other way round.
If we all sit back and keep moaning that we need help from the political parties, and yet are too frightened to get out there and try to help ourselves, then we have no one but ourselves to blame for the mess we now find ourselves in.
The ordinary (non smoker) on the street, doesn't even believe how many people still smoke, because we have been driven underground so to speak. All right they do see a few here and there outside pubs, but as pubs are fast disappearing, so to are the smokers that went with them, driven to their homes, to smoke indoors, in secret.
We need to get out there and show just how many smokers there are, and we need to voice our opinions big and loud, and get support back on our side. When we do that, and the politicians see exactly how many there are of us, and what a powerful force we could be, then, and only then, might they start listening to us.
The law would need a majority of "ALL" parties in the house, to vote such an amendment or overturn of the law through Parliament, PT
The law simply needs a majority in the house, not a majority of all parties.
...and unless everyone in the house suddenly dies, or takes up chain smoking, that just isn't going to happen!
There's an election coming up, which you seem to have forgotten about. The Labour party is likely to be reduced to a minority, taking with it many of the MPs who voted for a ban. The Conservatives, most of whose MPs voted against a ban, are likely to become the largest party. So the net result, after the next election, will be a rather different-looking parliament.
We need to get out there and show just how many smokers there are, and we need to voice our opinions big and loud, and get support back on our side. When we do that, and the politicians see exactly how many there are of us, and what a powerful force we could be, then, and only then, might they start listening to us.
I think that politicians are perfectly well aware of how many smokers there are. They constitute a quarter of the population. It doesn't matter whether we're visible on the streets or not.
My view is that smokers should simply punish those parties which don't hold them in proper respect.
That means that smokers shouldn't vote Labour. Or Lib Dem either. The Conservative party doesn't need to be punished by smokers, because most of its MPs voted against a total ban, and the leadership is saying nothing about it. But if smokers vote Tory on this basis, the Tories need to have it made clear to them that they'll get punished next if they don't take steps to undo this vindictive ban.
Take me to your leader Idlex.
Peter -
Re:
"as any governing party could recommend an amendment, but it would only go through, if all parties could see that the vast majority of the populace were behind such a recommendation."
With the greatest respect - what utter tosh !
I don't recall the 'vast majority' parading through the streets with 'Stop Smoking Now' banners before the Ban.
The 'vast majority' is now WHOLLY indifferent to most things that government does.
And, boy, doesn't 'government' know it !
Where WAS the 'vast majority' when The Junta was busily inventing over 3000 new criminal offences, for example ?
Or destroying one of the best pension systems in the world ?
Etc, etc , etc.............
Sorry, Peter - but ALL it takes is a PM with BALLS.
And if he's scared of the Donaldsons and the Arnotts of this world (and HE holds the purse-strings, remember), then he's not FIT to be Prime Minister.
The Health Lobby may be powerful - but WE fund it. And now it's got to be reminded of its place.
It's not the Wehrmacht, for God's sake
We're talking about AMENDING a law that most people of my acquaintance (almost all non-smokers) already regard as unfair.
Not slaying the First Born.
ALL it takes is the WILL.
Easy for me to say, of course.
But just as easy to DO.
PS:
"No, Margaret, it's impossible. You simply CAN'T take on the Trade Unions......or abolish Exchange Control..........or privatise the Utilitities. The Public won't stand for it. Now calm down, Old Girl, and I'll get you another Scotch. Politics is the Art of the Possible, My Dear. Never forget that................"
Well-meaning, National Trust belonging, comfortably-off (but not too much so), safely-pensioned, cautious and responsible, totally conforming, golf club-joining, charity-shop volunteering Middle England has abandoned smoking for all the reasons of which the propaganda has persuaded its members. Their allegiance to the Conservative Party is, I suspect, as tribal as that of old, industrial heartland Labour was to New Labour. Cameron's innovations may put them to the test but I suspect they'll stay loyal. They were not pub regulars as are those who stand at the door with a cigarette now. I don't suppose they would ever be in a situation where they might meet them over a cup of tea. It takes imagination to feel yourself into the role of an outcast, and outcasts they are not. I have it from clear evidence that Tory MPs representing such a world really, really are likely to believe the propaganda about 'passive' smoking. New Tories do not need to risk any adverse mass propaganda and prohibitionist hysteria which would be whipped up if they promised to look again at the smoking ban. Come to think of it a potential 'global warming' tyranny might concentrate the mind of this group. As I write this, as a fully paid up member of Middle England myself, my mind goes back to the 50s and the political mood which gave rise to 'That was the week that was.' But if we have come full circle, the opportunities for expression of this rebellious spirit seem to be fewer.
Norman -
Another lovely post from you.
I fear your analysis is correct. As a committed member of the Middle Classes myself -'class' being as much a matter of attitude as provenance - I must confess that I failed somehow to see the Anti-Smoking Revolution developing.
But that's what happens when you spend too long on the Road to Wigan Pier !
When I was reading Law at a certain West Country university, during the dark days of the Thatcher Terror - every other nineteen-year old assuring me how beautiful and untainted Life was before 1979 - I was informed by a certain young man (I being then in my Thirties) why it was that some of the students exhibited a certain wariness of me.
Clearly, I was one bundle of contradictions too many for their poor little 'A' Level intellects to master.
"It's because you're working class", he said.
Given my background and impeccable BBC accent (as we used to call it), I was somewhat taken aback by this revelation.
Leaving aside the fact that 'being working class' had long ceased to be a criminal offence anyway (since at least 1963), I responded:
"What makes you think I'm working class ?"
"Oh, it's because your hair is long, you wear a leather coat, and............you SMOKE."
Luckily, he was wholly unaware of my predilection for Chicago Blues (a sure sign of social degeneracy).
Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings......
Twenty years on, we can see the consequences of that bizarre mode of thinking - among The Cameron Generation:
To Smoke = To Be Working Class.
To Be Working Class = To Be Backward
To Be Backward = To Be Bad
Ergo:
To Smoke = To Be Bad.
Or, to put it another way: the timorous slavishness of the Bourgeoisie to current fashion (ESPECIALLY when it wears a lab coat) has now linked arms with that other sine qua non of suburban respectability - Snobbery.
Fear and Loathing in Virginia Water.
I really think it COULD be that simple.
If so,we have our work cut out in the Resistance..............
PS:
Had I been a twenty-something in the Fifties, I suspect that I, too, would have been something of an Angry Young Man (but in Michael Wharton's style). And I've always rather liked Jimmy Porter (and his creator)...............
PPS:
I'm thinking of setting up a Non-Conformist Club. But will anyone want to join, I wonder ?
I think you've put it in a nutshell there Martin V, England is riddled with class distinction, always was, and as the fashionistas like to copy their 'betters' and keep up with the trends, smoking got another hammering from that lot of bourgeoisie's.
About Africa, and I will stand corrected on this, but in my view africa's problem is overpopulation.
Back in the days of Bob Geldorf when band aid gave millions to the 14 million people starving in Etiopia which enabled them to have irrigation and grow food and everything improved.
However, fast forward 10 years later and there was 28 MILLION people starving again in Etiopa.
In my opinion, if all these do-gooder aid workers, doctors, nurses, etc (who are only getting govt jobs out of it in the long run) were to educate on contraception instead of throwing good money after bad at them, the world and our borders would be far better off.
And also, dare I mention the dreaded words, climate change!
Another blow for smokers today, is that our Europol brothers tenticles are stretching ever closer to our shores, when 129 million cigarettes valued 50 million euro were seized in the north of ireland and the 'internation agencies' are being praised for apprehending them.
Our EU masters are screaming for higher penalties for smugglers in Ireland.
The wankers are now demanding that people report on the guys selling the cheap fags.
It looks like Mr Cameron will have his work cut out for him!
Martin, to label someone's post as "utter tosh", and then to say you have done so with "great respect", is as you might put it, "utter tosh", and I do not say that with great respect!
If you really did not understand what I meant, which I do not believe for one minute, then I will explain yet again. You seem to have interpreted my statement about "the vast majority of the populace would have to be behind such a recommendation" as not possibly being so, as you "don't recall the 'vast majority' parading through the streets with 'Stop Smoking Now' banners before the Ban"
As you might have forgotten Martin, the vast majority were conned into this law by our Labour rulers. They promised us a "partial ban", a ban which would cover only places serving food (for some obscure reason). And even then, this ban would only come into force if there was a majority vote for it in Parliament.
We, and I include myself in this, were so naive that we thought, such a law would never be passed by Parliament, and at the very worse, if it did, it would not intrude on our freedom hardly at all. The Government didn't need a public mandate to get this law through, they didn't need people marching through the streets carrying 'Stop Smoking Now' banners, like you mention. It was mooted by some as a minor infringement on civil liberties, if an infringement at all.
But as we all know, the anti-smoking movement has grown since, with public money, our money, being poured into non stop propaganda, aimed not just at smokers, but at school children, in much the same way the Nazis aimed their anti-Jewish propaganda at their children.
Smoking has become such a controversial subject, like racism, that people are frightened to speak about it, let alone speak up for it. And this is why I am saying that political parties, who already have such bad press, are frightened out of their lives to mention the dreaded S-Word.
And this is also why I say that the only way in which they ever will mention it, and maybe look at changing this law in any way, is when public opinion to smoking starts to change.
When Joe Public goes home after a day's work, has his dinner and then sits down for a smoke, only to be told by his nine year old child that he is killing him, what hope do we have?
And to make matters even worse, we now have some idiots saying they will vote for a Fascist party if they promise to support an overturn to the ban. What marvellous ammunition for the likes of Ash and their Labour masters that is!
With reference to your statement on what type of Prime Minister is needed, i.e. "All it takes is a PM with BALLS And if he's scared of the Donaldsons and the Arnotts of this world (and HE holds the purse-strings, remember), then he's not FIT to be Prime Minister".
You may well say that Martin, it is so easy to point the finger of blame on someone else. Some might say that all it takes to overturn the ban, are smokers with balls, and if the smokers are frightened of the Donaldsons and the Arnotts and the Browns of this world then they should stop moaning, and accept everything their political masters throw at them.
Smoking has become such a controversial subject, like racism, that people are frightened to speak about it, let alone speak up for it. PT
Well nobody here is frightened to speak about it. But perhaps we are all a bit odd here.
As far as I can see, most people don't talk about it because most people aren't smokers and the ban has no effect on them. Indeed they hardly even noticed that there was any ban at all. It was a non-event.
Quite a few smokers don't talk about the ban either. When I get talking to them outside my local pub, they don't talk about the ban. But if I do talk about it, I almost invariably find that they don't like it. But they soldier on anyway, uncomplaining. Most of them think that there's nothing that can be done, and you just have to grin and bear it.
As for the politicians, as best I can make out they live in a propaganda bubble in which organisations like ASH keep telling them that the smoking ban has been a great success, and it's saving thousands of lives, and is reducing the numbers of smokers, and everybody loves the ban, particularly smokers. And they believe it. They haven't got the time to actually investigate it, because they're too busy making more laws to make life difficult for people in other ways.
So I don't see too many people who are frightened to speak about it. I just see lots of people who are grinning and bearing it, and grinning and bearing all the other mad things that are happening. Or people are indifferent to it. Or people live in an imaginary happy world created by ASH and co.
And again,
And this is also why I say that the only way in which they ever will mention it, and maybe look at changing this law in any way, is when public opinion to smoking starts to change.
Before the ban, 70% of the public wanted either no change in the law, or some provision for smokers. This question is no longer being asked, so we don't know what people think now. But I don't see any reason to suppose that that public opinion has changed. In fact, as far as I can see, quite a few non-smokers who approved of the ban no longer approve of it, because they've seen what it's done to their smoker friends. But that's just my impression.
It seems to me that what we have is an absolutely colossal government anti-smoking propaganda programme under way, spending billions, but not very much public support for it. The public has just battened down the hatches, and climbed into their bomb shelters, and are waiting for the storm to end.
Seen that way, public opinion about smoking isn't going to change to one of approval, because public opinion was never disapproving. It's not joe public that needs to have his mind changed. It's that the unrelenting propaganda storm has to stop. when that happens, people might come out of their foxholes, and start saying what they think.
Sorry Idlex, but the people I am speaking of, who are frightened to speak up about smoking, are not just our little crowd here, who are of course very vociferous on the subject, especially as this is seen by almost everyone as a pro-smoking site. You are hardly going to be spat at or have the cigarette torn out of your mouth for airing your views on here are you?
The people who are frightened, and ordinary men and women who invite friends to their homes, and then feel that they have to ask these friends if they mind them smoking or not; this is in their own home, and they feel they have to ask a visitor if it is all right.
They are also the young families with children, who are being taught in school that smoking anywhere near them will kill them. Because the children have been indoctrinated so strongly with this political poison, they believe it, just as they quite rightly do when their teacher tells them facts about history or geography (the teacher says it so it must be correct). These poor kids go home and unwittingly make their parents lives a misery with these unproven "facts", so much so that many parents are frightened to even admit to their children that they smoke at all, or at the very best, they only do it outside the home, where death can be kept at bay!
I lost half of my closest group of friends, just a few weeks after the smoking ban came into force, when my wife and I was invited to their home for dinner, along with a large group, and then told I would no longer be allowed to smoke there, if I wanted to smoke, it was in the garden or nowhere. I decided on nowhere and walked out. I have never seen them again to this day.
But, try bringing this subject up with the other half of the group, who do smoke or do not, but tolerate it, and they do not even want to speak about it, it has become taboo. And the reason for that is they are scared of the PC mob mentality, they do not want to be seen as "a bit odd" as you so rightly put it.
Last but not least, are the politicians, and even though many people on here don't believe it, they do inhabit the same world as we do, and if this bigotry gets through to me and people like me, then I am absolutely sure it gets through to them as well.
Would you put your job on the line if you were them, for a group of people who are never seen as trying to help themselves? I wouldn't!
Great debate here and I agree with Peter, as the same things have happened to me socially as regards smoking in friends houses.
But I'm inclined to go along with Idlex when he says that people have just battened down the hatches and climbed into their bunkers until the colossal anti smoking govt propaganda machine storm ends.
The nazi antis have succeeded in dividing and conquering us with their PC propaganda, its just relentless.
People are scared, worrying about jobs
and just being able to keep afloat in these recessionery times, but when they see that even their reduced social lives are being attacked under a similar regeime as Hitler's, I'm inclined to believe there will be a revolt sooner or later.
You are hardly going to be spat at or have the cigarette torn out of your mouth for airing your views on here are you?
Nor am I in most other places. One of the things I realised, a few months after the smoking ban came into force, was that most people continued to be as indifferent to smoking as they were before the ban. Nothing had changed. This wasn't (and isn't) a people's war on smoking, but a government war on smoking. I've not encountered any public hostility at all to my smoking. Certainly no cigarette has ever been torn out of my mouth. Nor has anyone spat on me. In fact, nobody has even gone through any hand-waving act.
But perhaps that's just Devon. I wouldn't be too surprised if it was different elsewhere. Has anyone ever torn a cigarette out of your mouth or spat on you?
I lost half of my closest group of friends, just a few weeks after the smoking ban came into force,
Me too. But for the slightly different reason that there ceased to be any pleasant, convivial environment in which to meet them after the ban came into force. There are quite a few people I've never seen since the ban.
It's not always like this. Sometimes it's been a direct head-on clash. One very old friendship (35 years old) ended when I discovered that the friend in question was working in Tobacco Control research.
They are also the young families with children, who are being taught in school that smoking anywhere near them will kill them. Because the children have been indoctrinated so strongly with this political poison, they believe it
I'm sure this happens, but I've never encountered it. I've had the quite opposite experience of having a schoolboy aged 16 or so ask me in one family home if I had any tobacco on me that he might have. I wouldn't have dreamed of doing that at his age! It made me think that that all this school anti-smoking propaganda was probably being wasted, if this was the end product. Children may be rather tougher little critters than we are led to believe by our nanny state.
The point I'd like to make is that all our personal experiences are different. Sometimes they're going to be quite contradictory. So also will be the conclusions we draw from them. But between us, by sharing our experiences, we might manage to piece together a realistic picture of what's happening.
I'd like to add that I do know quite a few people who ban smoking in their own homes. It was something that was happening long before the (government) smoking ban came into force.
The effect on me was to make me rather disinclined to visit such people, or go to their dinners or parties. But there was still the neutral ground of the pubs, when smoking was still permitted, in which to meet up with such people. Now even those have gone. And the rift has become total.
Idlex, I have not personally been spat on or had a cigarette torn out of my mouth, but I have read on this very website, of people who have been treated in this manner, and I have also read in the press of smokers being physically attacked, and in one case, I believe the smoker was killed.
A friend of mine did have a cigarette ripped from his mouth on the same week as the ban came into force, when he was collecting his luggage at Gatwick airport. Another passenger told him to put his cigarette out, and because he refused, the other person ripped it from his mouth.
This is disgusting behaviour, whether a law was being broken or not, that "person" would not have dreamed of using that type of violent behaviour prior to the law coming into force. He acted like the Nazis did once they knew the law was on their side against the Jews. Too scared to do or say anything before, and now suddenly acting the big storm trooper!
As for the way in which children are now acting, of course I cannot say how they are acting all over the country, but I can say what I encounter here in London and the south-east. I am not talking about teenagers, I am talking about the young and vulnerable, the 6 to 12 year olds. I been stared at by young children who look aghast at the sight of someone smoking. One even asked me, "why do you do that, do you want to die?"
They are so indoctrinated that smoking is only half the problem, whatever you do don't dare say the word "black" or that you think a particular black person is funny or strange, these kids will tell you outright "You mustn't say that".
This is frightening with a capital F and we are the people to blame for letting it happen, and for still standing back and not opposing it vigorously!
Peter, I know that these disgusting things happen, and that people even get killed. The question is: how widespread is it? My own experience is that it's very uncommon. But then, that's just my experience.
Earlier this summer I watched with delight as a grandfather kicked around a football on a pub lawn with his grandson, who couldn't have been more than 5 years old. Why was I delighted? Because all the time the grandfather had a lit pipe between his teeth as he ran and danced and kicked. Not a murmur of complaint came from the little lad. There are no doubt countless such scenes of happy normality taking place all over the country.
we are the people to blame for letting it happen, and for still standing back and not opposing it vigorously!
In 20x20 hindsight I think you're right. When friends of mine started banning smoking at their social occasions many years ago, I should have protested. Instead I just went along with it. Which no doubt encouraged others to ban smoking as well. I can't stand it now. And I no longer want to know people who want to dictate to others how they may behave. For what applies to smoking can apply to anything else as well. It's too late of course. But better late than never.
Martin V: an illuminating description a few posts back of your experiences at University. Re your suggested Non-Conformist Club I agree some actual centre for dissent would be very welcome. Of course, in the fifties, every pub, dive jazz club, art school, coffee bar and university common room might be a hub for rebels and outsiders. What is different now?
David Hockney, I believe, has said the ban has destroyed Bohemia. That has been its intended or unintended effect. One can only trust the human spirit will find a new way and venue to defend its freedoms.
Norman -
Re:
"What is different now?"
People, possibly ?
If only the Hunger for Freedom were as strong as the Hunger for Entertainment.
Now, what WAS that phrase the Romans used........?
Martin V: thank goodness for Wikipedia... Were you referring to panem et circenses? Meanwhile, in referring to the change from the 50s, I had in mind the effect of the ban on spontaneous'free-range' association among rebels, free spirits and outsiders, people of the kind who, perhaps, write here.
Norman -
On the money again !
Though Peter Jones is at pains to re-translate the phrase as 'Bread and (not) circuses.'
Another of my heroes - and (mercifully) still with us.
A Classical Education is NEVER wasted.Would that more of our 'modern' MPs had had one (or ANY - worthy of the name).
And, as to the agonising death of Bohemia, poor old John Osborne must be turning.
I recall a letter he wrote some 25 years ago to the 'Times' or 'Telegraph' (can't remember which), in which he declared a mischevous penchant for lighting up his favourite Turkish fags in front of some obvious smoke-haters, and savouring the look of priggish disapproval on their faces.
The Sense of Mischief is something ELSE that seems rapidly to be disappearing from public life.
I cut it out, with the intention of framing it. And then went and lost it.
It would be fun to post on this site.
I shall make it my mission to track it down.
In the meantime, I wonder whether A Land Fit For Bores is REALLY the sort of place we want to live in:
"Dear Mr Smoker,
Whilst I appreciate your obvious concern at what you regard as a minor curtailment of your liberties, I nonetheless remain convinced that the measures taken thus far will have a significant impact on Public Health, and, indeed, according to the latest research.......etc etc etc"
Oh, GET KNOTTED !
Peter -
Slow down a minute, please !
I did not describe your POST as 'tosh', but rather the cowardly SENTIMENT (previously known as 'pragmatism' in Conservative circles) which you referred to: that nothing would be done about the Ban in Parliament until 'the vast majority' of the Public etc etc..........
Such a sentiment is, I'm sure, felt by a great many of our 'representatives'. And it was to THEM - albeit rather obliquely, perhaps - that I was saying (and still say) 'What utter tosh !'
I would NEVER be so discourteous as to denigrate anything written by YOU in such a fashion.
My point is that THEY simply cannot use this 'argument' to defend their position of lethargic indifference.
HAD there been a general demand for such a ban, and HAD it been implemented largely in response to it, then there MAY have been a case for the attitude you (correctly) report.
But there was none. And thus the 'argument' fails as a matter of logic - never mind the ethics.
Of course, it suits their purpose to PRETEND otherwise. But WE know better, don't we ?
Recent history has amply demonstrated that where the Government leads (to put it politely), the Public - for all its reservations - tends to follow.
And so do all the little camp-followers on the green benches.
It's NOT Joe Public that Parliament fears - no matter how concussed he may be feeling from all that cudgelling by the ad agencies - but the Health Lobby (or certain elements within it).
And thus it is the Health Lobby, its head now spinning with the intoxicating effect of excessive power, that needs to be reminded that its place is to ADVISE government, and not to DICTATE social policy. And that, by definition, 'advice' is there to be accepted, rejected, or modified in the light of circumstances that the advisor may not have taken into account.
And when (if) David Cameron becomes PM, he can point out to Donaldson et al that he represents a NEW dispensation, and that in consequence some changes should be EXPECTED.
If the maniacally destructive (sorry, 'modernising') Blair can wipe out over seven hundred years of English history, by using the prissy, peremptory Margaret Jay to 'dismiss' the hereditary peers, then I'm sure Mr Cameron should have no trouble with a mere Civil Servant (or two). Especially if they get to KEEP their occupation.
And he did say that he WANTED the job, as I recall ?
A little Clarity of Thought and Firmness of Purpose would go a long way to dispersing all this MUSH that we've had to wade through.
For an Eton and Oxford-educated chap with a First in PPE, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
And if Mr Brown, Mr Cameron, or the Mekon requires the draft of a press statement to be read out in advance of a decision to amend the law, then I will happily write it for him - having submitted it for prior approval, criticism, and modification to all the other splendid contributors on this site.
I'm sure I could find half an hour to spare.
And I DO say that 'with respect'..............(to you and everyone else here).
I'm late on this debate, but need to add my tuppunce-worth.
I abhor Labour for what they have done to our country and smokers.
On saying that, I also despise the tories for their weakness in defending 25% of the population who are doing nothing illegal.
I do believe the tories will 'bag' the next election of the smoker's vote, but if they remain as weak as they are now, they will certainly lose it at the next.
25% of the electorate are living in hope that the tores will do something about this because they voted against the ban.
The Tory MPs and PPCs keep ramming this fact down smokers' necks - that it wasn't their fault that the ban came in. Fine then.
If the Tories gain power at the next election, let's see them do something about it. If they do not, I will abhor them as much as I abhor the labour party now.
I have had enough of spin. This is my life, and I only live once.
To me, the tory leaders are way too weak to take on the corrupt health lobby.
I will never forget how Chloe Smith changed within a matter of hours of taking position. Will all the new PCCs suffer the same fate as her and those leading her?
I'm not risking it.
Just a quicky.
My PPC (Conservative) recently put a flyer through my letterbox. I have lost it, but I am sure that he will post me again. When he does, presumably nearer the election, I will pester him about the relationship between the hunting ban and the smoking ban.
"This is my life."
That sums it up PERFECTLY, Maria.
And if Nanny INSISTS on sticking her fingers down our throats without an invitation, she mustn't be surprised if we start throwing up over her nicely-starched pinny.
Especially since some of us have a rather sensitive Gag Reflex.............
'This is my life.' Snap. Maria and Martin V. I often think the same. Everyone is different. Only recently I met an acquaintance in the street and congratulated him on his spreading beard. He said: 'I'll shave it off when I have given up smoking.' There is also someone I know who, having, contracted a cancer, was thinking of going out to buy a packet of cigarettes. In neither case have I commented. I know what I would have liked to say, i.e. that I might have questioned the decision of the one to stop smoking and I would have encouraged the other to resume smoking. But I said nothing. From my own experience of life, I would assume that what is going on in their lives is part of a delicate balance involving all the past, the present and, to use a word from psychology, their individual path of integration, of wholeness. It would have been wrong of me to give that process which I cannot see, a prod - or to disturb its balance with a hefty push.
Norman -
Re:
"their individual path of integration, of wholeness..........."
What Jung chose to refer to as INDIVIDUATION, was it not ?
And what we're ALL supposed to be about.
All rather pointless, otherwise.
Never had much time for pointlessness, myself.....
Just to cheer you all up and give an insight as to how the other half live.
On hol in Corfu last Sept a local tavern had greek dancing every night until the small hours and everyone could smoke indoors, even tho a smoking ban was in operation since July.
From time to time the bar men put on a show to liven things up.
A local standing drunk, put on a wonderful performance with any lady of the audience who had the courage to partake, he performed this dance with a whiskey in one hand and a cigarette in the other and never faultered or keeled over, it was a hoot and everyone loved it.
Later on they poured a can of petrol in a ring with said drunk in the middle with drink and fag still in hand and set it alight.
He performed the zorba dance with excellence until the flames went out to a standing ovation.
No one minded the stink of petrol that wafted for a while or the broken plates left strewn around the floor while everyone imbibed regardless.
Even the landlady who was a dutch person of 50plus, did a wonderful greek dance with the barman, at end of the night.
And not a health and safety nazi in sight!!
Martin V, I hope you write that press release.
Maria, you state that you are late on this debate, but need to add your tuppunce-worth. You go onto say "I abhor Labour for what they have done to our country and smokers. On saying that, I also despise the tories for their weakness in defending 25% of the population who are doing nothing illegal"
Thank you for joining in the debate Maria, but why are you still bring up the same old chestnut of "let's knock the Tories about this?"
I have covered that ground until I am blue in the face (see all my earlier posts here).
Please tell me Maria, what you think the Tories can possibly do to defend "25% of the population who are doing nothing illegal", as you so rightly put it?
You say you despise their weakness in defending this group. But who made them weak Maria? I'll tell you shall I, it was us, the electorate, who threw away our votes, and gave Labour such a massive majority, that the Conservatives became just annoying little blots on the Labour landscape, sort of just ignore them and they will go away type figures.
Labour can still push through any legislation they want because of their large majority. To say that the Tories aren't defending smokers, is ridiculous. What are they supposed to do, stand up in the House and say "I say old chap, play the game"? Labour would do exactly what they do with everything else that is not a part of their agenda, just laugh it off and carry on regardless.
The Conservatives are doing everything they can to become the next government of this country, and if they are going to win power and form an effective government, then they need every vote they can muster. All the clever-Dick dissenters on here, will only help to put back Labour into power again, or a very weak Tory Government.
One last thing Maria, you spoke of smokers doing nothing illegal. This is a phrase that I keep hearing from so many people. You are right of course, smokers are not doing anything illegal.........not yet anyway! But the more we keep using that phrase, the sooner the likes of ASH and their Labour masters, will propose making it just that...ILLEGAL.....then where will we be?
I even brought up this very same thing to Simon Clark, when I attended the launch of the Save Our Pubs and Clubs Campaign in June this year. I kept hearing this phrase used by speakers that day, and each time I heard it I cringed, because I thought, this could well be their ultimate weapon against smokers, their 'Final Solution'. It would be so simple for them to say, OK that's it, smoking is now illegal, tobacco is banned in this country! Labour would get it passed quite easily as a law, and that would be the end, as far as people like us are concerned.
Please don't give them any more ammunition!
Ann -
I'm awaiting the call !
And as for Greece, home of the gods........
As an 18 year-old, and having just finished my Classics 'A' Levels, I hitch-hiked across Europe with a mate, and ended up in Athens just after midnight.
All the youth hostels were closed, but we were fortunate enough to get invited into a flat belonging to a middle-aged lady and her husband. They had already laid out a HUGE spread for us on the table, and invited us to bed down for the night.
In the morning, they treated us to a splendid breakfast, and introduced us to their two daughters - one rather ugly, and the other beautiful beyond my adolescent dreams (and blonde, too !).
Maria turned out to be the First Great Love of my life (does anything later really compare ?).
And the family kept us for the next three months.
Imagine THAT happening here !
So, as you'll perhaps appreciate, Greece is a land of Happy Associations for me, too.
After England, it's always been my second Spiritual Home.
And the scent of pine resin on a hot day always takes me back.
As with SO many things these days, it seems like a million years ago now..............
...and, of course, Big Brother hates individuation. Big Brother loves the anonymity of uniformity, in thought, behaviour (even dress, because it de-humanises). It's for good reason that, in cultures where the State exercises iron control, the free-thinkers are rounded up first and ideas, suppressed.
There's not a great distance between airbrushing cigarettes from visual images and burning books.
To say that the Tories aren't defending smokers, is ridiculous. PT
Is it? Can you point to a single word that Cameron or the Tories have said in defence of smokers? There's a deafening silence on their part for 25% of the population. Just what have the Tories said they'll do for smokers? Nothing. And don't come up with individual Tories here and there.
You have taken what I said, Idlex, out of context, and I think you know it?
This is exactly what I said: "To say that the Tories aren't defending smokers, is ridiculous. What are they supposed to do, stand up in the House and say "I say old chap, play the game"? Labour would do exactly what they do with everything else that is not a part of their agenda, just laugh it off and carry on regardless"
So the ridiculous part of which I spoke about is regarding the way in which it would be received!
If you don't agree with what I say, that is fair enough, but please don't make argument out of something which was not intended in the manner you suggest in the first place.
All you need to do is read my post in its full context to see the real meaning.
Now, do you want to answer my original post in all fairness, or are you just looking to start a war about nothing?
Peter - may I wade in? You've already informed me (in no uncertain terms) that, even if the Tories win the next election, they won't be able to do anything because they won't have a large enough majority, Labour having fiddled the boundaries. Between that and the remark about the electorate being to blame for weakening the Tories, you seem to be agreeing with everyone else here that the Tories are sympathetic towards smokers but that they won't be doing anything about it. The only difference is that you say they can't while others say they could, but won't. You would vote Tory even if they wouldn't amend the ban, others wouldn't vote Tory even if they would, if there are other parties who will, additionally, represent their other concerns. With respect, Peter, so loyal are you to the Tories that you're on the point of offending others who don't share your loyalty and your belief that a vote lost to the Tories is a vote for Labour. Perhaps it would be but if people see the Tories as BluLabour then there is nothing to lose by voting to break the stranglehold.
"I say old chap, play the game"?
Isn't that what the Tories themselves have been doing since 1945 - playing the (Social Democratic) 'game' ?
There was a brief interruption in normal play during Margaret Thatcher's time - modern Conservatism's Aknehaten Moment - but she WOULDN'T play by the rules.
Daring even to CHALLENGE the Old Gods.
But the priesthhood got restive.
And her growing froideur towards the Great European Scam (about which she was always a little agnostic, anyway) was the last straw, naturally.
Poll Tax and Michael Heseltine to the rescue.
Normal play has now resumed, and the 'Labour' Party can enjoy a well-earned rest - before taking up the reins again in (say) a General Election or two.
Matthew D'Ancona - whose views I don't especially cherish, but who seems to be reliably informed on all things Cameronian - has said that we must NOT expect any great 'restorative' programme from Mr C.
It's essentially a return to the politics of the 18th Century - but without the pox.
Or the style, wit, and colour.
The great passions that animated (unsalaried) politicians for much of the 19th and early 20th Centuries - when IDEAS mattered - seem to have gone the way of Empire and 'Punch'.
And - in the Age of Harry Potter and Richard and Judy's comfy sofa - are just about as sorely missed by our New Political Class.
And probably by most of the Electorate, too.......
You have taken what I said, Idlex, out of context, and I think you know it?
In that wider context, all you seem to have been saying is that the Tories might have protested about the ban, but it would have done no good given Labour's majority. But is such powerlessness reason to not even protest? David Cameron, or any senior Tory, could have protested that the ban was a shameful, discriminatory law that was going drive smokers out of the pubs and clubs they'd enjoyed for centuries. It might not have changed anything, but it would have laid down a marker. The Tories didn't even do that.
And this isn't about Tory-bashing. The Tories are the centre of attention in this matter because there is no hope whatsoever of the Labour party undoing the ban, and so they're not worth a moment's consideration. Nor are the Lib Dems worth considering either. The Tories are the centre of attention here because they are the only party that might actually do something about the ban. And let me be plain: if I believed that they would do something about it, I would vote for them. But as time goes by, and there's no sign whatsoever of any movement, I'm being driven to conclude that they're not going to do anything, and that the reason no senior Tory has spoken out against the ban is because the Tory leadership approves of the ban. And if this is so, why on earth should I vote for them?
And I must say that I tend to agree with Joyce in her assessment of you, that you will vote Tory regardless of what they may or may not do about the smoking ban. That is, of course, your free choice. But I can only suppose that your commitment to the Tory party grows out of concerns other than the smoking ban, which you have not enlightened us about.
Idlex is quite right IMHO.
All we SEEM to be getting from the Tory Leadership (the REAL focus of all this animus, rather than the members en masse) is a great big:
"Shan't !!"
If this impression is a false one, then it's up to the Leadership to correct it.
To put it bluntly, SOME of us want to know WHOSE side they're on.
All perfectly reasonable, I'd have thought........
I agree with Joyce, that Peter is so set on the torys getting elected for the greater good, even if it means they will ignore smokers suffering.
And Idlex is right about Cameron never
having made a statement about the shameful way smokers have been treated with this all out ban.
It would have been a generous gesture and would have put down a marker and given a clear signal to smokers that the Cons had taken notice and given us some hope.
The only people I can assume that he's afraid of offending are his EU buddies!
So in that case, as it looks like Brussels is going to be the our new govenment, with their mantra of one law fits all, what difference does it make who the hell we vote for (apart from Labour).
The only good news I heard today is that Blair's candancy for european president is on the wane.
I am not sure how to answer you Joyce.
I have put my case forward on this subject so many times now, that there honestly isn't anything "new" to say!
I can answer the one point, i.e. "The only difference is that you say they can't while others say they could, but won't (do anything about the ban)".
My answer to that is that if anyone really believes that (they could but won't) they are seriously deluded. Parliament is a democratic institution, not a dictatorship, even though our present government has been running it along those lines for the last 12 years! Every law that is made or altered in any way has to go through the democratic process of being voted for or against in Parliament, which means an overall majority has to vote for that law.
When the smoking-ban law was introduced, Parliament, along with us, was conned by the Labour Party into believing the vote was going to be for or against a "partial" ban, therefore no real opposition was put into place to oppose it. The Labour Party had such a mighty majority, and the Lib-Dems, goody-goodies that they like to be seen as, joined forces with their masters, in the mistaken hope of being allowed a few extra fingers in the grubby trough, and voted a big yes! The Conservatives, as we know, voted mostly in opposition to the ban.
So here we are, over two years down the line, and the ban is still in place, still in its original form, and people on here say that is because the Tories will not promise to do anything about it. So do you think it is also the Tories fault that so many other countries around the world, still have their ban in place? Some are even worse off than we are, especially in America and Canada. Who do you suggest we blame their smoking ban on?
A government with a small majority can get things changed, but only if public opinion is with them, for only then with the opposition parties not want to be seen as going against the will of the general public!
At the moment, as someone else on here said, the general public do not seem to care one way or the other about the smoking ban. I am not saying this is right, just the opposite in fact. I think the public as a whole are a pretty pathetic lot, who won't stand up to anything and accept almost anything that is thrown at them. Until we can educate that public, and show them what is being done to their democracy and freedoms, we have no chance of doing anything about this ban. Education, education, education!