Ssshhh ... don't mention "amendments"
Friday, February 20, 2009 Addressing a meeting of around 40 licensees this week, LibDem MP Adrian Sanders said that none of the three leading parties would ever amend the smoking ban. "There is no desire at all in this Government or the other parties to bring any alterations to the smoking ban."
He added: "Even mentioning amendments so members at private clubs can decide to bring any change on their premises has become unacceptable."
Let me get this straight. A member of parliament believes it is now "unacceptable" to even mention amendments to the smoking ban?! Did I miss something? When did that happen? So much for free speech.
Meanwhile, at the same meeting, police Inspector Adrian Leisk confirmed that "despite police having to deal with the hundreds of pub goers and clubbers being forced to stand outside on the pavement, there would not be any U-turn".
He said: "Having to deal with 100 people standing outside for a cigarette is a real challenge for us in term of policing. There is no way out of that."
Wrong. There is a way out of that, and it involves the police giving a full account of the problems - not telling the government what it wants to hear (ie the ban has been a huge success) - so that MPs can, in turn, amend the ban to allow, for example, indoor smoking rooms.
As for U-turns, that's a matter for parliament not the police (or am I living in a different country?).
Full article HERE.
Reader Comments (11)
On this issue, I knew there was no point in voting for any of the 3 main parties, they are all as glib and useless as each other!
'Unacceptable':
To whom?
By whom?
Why?
"'Unacceptable'...that's what this is."
Like most of his crashingly ineffective parliamentary party, Mr. Sanders needs to remember the word preceding "Democrat" in his party name.
Unacceptable is it by an 'MP'? Good! because by hell I can't wait to see some of them on the dole.
Lets see if they find that'unacceptable'.
Another over used word I detest besides health.
liberal person: somebody who favours tolerance or open-mindedness
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Hmmm!
I think the MP was being realistic. I haven't heard much opposition to the smoking ban among politicians. What I don't understand is why not?
What drives the majority of MPs is getting voted back in again, and allowing smoking pubs and cafes, or even just private clubs, would seem to be a net vote winner given that the number of smokers whose lives have been made pretty miserable far outweighs the number of fanatical anti-smokers. They may be worried that there isn't enough custom to support non-smoking pubs, but before the ban, a significant number of pubs were already going non-smoking; and smoking and non-smoking cafe chains existed in a state of equilibrium.
I very much doubt that the typical MP believes that the reduction in the exposure of non-smokers to passive smoking since the ban is great enough to justify it on health grounds. What else are they thinking? Do they have in mind that the ban will cause smokers to give up in droves? They must now realise it's not going to happen. Have they realised that smokers cost less in health care over a lifetime? The recent press concentration on the increase in dementia due to greater life expectancy must be making that clear.
I don't understand how politics works, but there are people reading this who do. Maybe even some MPs. If so, please can you explain why we have the strictest smoking ban in the Western world. Smoking is even allowed in the European Parliament buildings. Pubs are shutting at the rate of 35 a week. Residents and pedestrians are affected by smokers standing in the street. Mental patients, who use tobacco for self-medication are forbidden to smoke. Children see far more smoking now than before, when, outside the home, it mainly went on in pubs and smoking rooms. What was the intended outcome? If I had to give an answer, I'd say that it is nothing to do with passive smoking, but an attempt to get people to give up. My reason is the wording of the act. Volunteers are classed as employees, and this prevents smokers getting together and forming a smokers club staffed on a voluntary basis. This would be my guess, but really I'm at a loss. Can somebody in the know enlighten me?
Indoctrination Jon. It's not only the public who have been brainwashed by the fraud, perpetrated by Big Pharm.finance,and it's billions in the US led anti-smoking crusade. Politicians and all the way down to the petty, power crazy councils, have swallowed the propaganda completely, and those who haven't are scared to bring the subject up, for being ridiculed.
To go against this law is now on a par with uttering the word 'nigger' to many of these lunatics. It's little wonder that there's been silence from most, even if they disagree.
It shows just what small minded cowards we are being ruled by.
If there is not enough custom to support non-smoking pubs / cafes etc... then the people running these establishments shouldn't be running their own business.
It is quite possible if you are a non smoker and not looking for it, to miss the fact that there are boarded up pubs left right and centre. As a non smoker, you would not miss being able to have a smoke with a coffee or in a gastric pub. You would not notice that people are not smoking in shops, malls, hospitals, churches, office blocks, because they havn't smokes there for years, decades, even centuries. As a non smoker, you would not see the alarming figures of weekly pub closures and see it as anything to do with smoking, because you don't smoke.
Here is an analogy. If they banned football in the same way as they have banned smoking, I would not notice it. I would not be looking for anything untoward. I would not know about professional and amateur footaball clubs closing. I would not notice no sky tv in the pubs showing football. I would not know about people being unemployed because of it. Why? because I do not know anything about football, I don't follow it, I don't watch it. I am not an active or passive footballer, so I wouldn't know.
A different link to the same story, with different comments including one from Adrian Sanders
http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/news/Licensees-dismayed-U-turn-stance/article-711687-detail/article.html
or try this:
http://tinyurl.com/dme8a9