If it's true, this government really does stink
Friday, March 13, 2009 An early topic of conversation last night was the story that the government is to lift the smoking ban at the at the Excel Exhibition Centre in London next month. According to reports, visiting G20 dignitaries will be allowed to use specialist smoking rooms.
To be honest, when I first read the report in The Whip, the Sun's political gossip column, yesterday morning, I scarcely believed it. It seemed too far-fetched. How could they? What sort of government bans ordinary people from lighting up in every pub and club in the country and then - faced with a bunch of angry foreign VIPs gasping for a fag - calmly authorises a warm, comfortable room where they can puff away to their hearts' content?
It's a great story but we still don't know whether it's true because the authorities have yet to confirm or deny it. That in itself is suspicious but until it's confirmed I'm reluctant to really put the boot in.
There's another reason. Someone posted a comment on this blog (yesterday?) suggesting that Forest should go to court and get an injunction to stop it. Why would we do that?! Think about it. The government's behaviour is outrageous. However, too much criticism now and the smoking room could be shut down.
And that's the last thing we want. If a smoking room has been authorised by a senior member of the government it becomes a precedent for future concessions - that, and a permanent stick with which to beat this appalling, pathetic government.
Moreover, if the smoking room exists when the conference begins next month, I am sorely tempted to commission a full page advertisement. (The New Statesman has just rung me on this very subject.) It could feature a picture of British smokers (those poor, huddled masses forced to stand outside, cold and wet) with the headline: CAN WE HAVE A SMOKING ROOM TOO, MR BROWN?
PS. Dave Atherton has kindly sent me the following information (which I confess I didn't know). According to the 2006 Health Act exemptions to the smoking ban can be granted with the permission of the "appropriate national authority (eg Secretary of State)". Needless to say, pubs and club needn't apply.
In the meantime I would love to know who, if anyone, authorised the G20 smoking room. I think we should be told.
Reader Comments (28)
Simon, I mention the possibility of an injunction, but agree with what you say. Below is a quote from my post.
"It's tempting to suggest Forest applies for an injunction to forbid smoking in the building through the duration of the conference, but I'd rather see it go ahead with some covert film footage taken of smoking going on. The ban would be toast. People would be lighting up in pubs all over the country".
If the whistleblower is reading this, perhaps he can contact Simon and elaborate on the situation?
Please don't make too much of this Simon, or anyone else come to that.
This could be the goose that lays the golden egg we have all been looking for.
Too much bad publicity for the government and they will stop it, and that would mean we would have nothing to beat them about the head with.
Simon, hat tip to Tango of F2C for the info.
Sorry, Jon, I obviously took a bit of your post out of context.
I think that it is absolutely excellent that they wish to provide smoking facilities for G20 delegates and most certainly should go ahead. After all, what is good for the goose.......!
If it's not true, why don't the authorities say so?
I say throw 'em outside and hope it's freezing on April 2nd. Might make them think twice about implementing such disgusting bans in their own countries.
It's a win/win scenario. ;-)
Some interesting points of view here on both sides, it's actually catch 22!
If they go ahead we can crucify them, make their lives a living hell then ensure they spend generations in the political wilderness.
If they don't they could lose all the prestige and the revenue these conferences bring with them! Organisers may say we'll go to countries that will accomodate delegates smoking inside after all we are dignitaries.
The best I will offer you all is wether they do or do not we can crucify them, make their lives a livig hell and still consign them to the political wilderness!
Simon said: "I am sorely tempted to commission a full page advertisement. (The New Statesman has just rung me on this very subject.)"
I too got a phone call from The New Statesman asking if Freedom2Choose wanted to take out a full page spread all about us and our aims/considerations blah de blah. With a cost of £1300 for a full page spread don't you think the smoking ban is a money making racket? Would putting a full page advert make FORREST more attainable to MP's and, more importantly, would these 'adverts' make them sit up and think or see the truth? I think not. The smoking ban experiment is just a cash cow to some! Is it the same for you and the tobacco companies, the latter sponsoring FORREST.
As you already know Simon, Freedom2Choose is made up of concerned citizens, not all of them smokers, who have no funding from anywhere but the members themselves.
When, oh when will the tobacco companies stick up for their customers, and not pay lip service. And when will you?
John H Baker
Office
Freedom2Choose
The cost of hosting these junkets outweighs their benefits so I would not be too bothered about that. I do agree with those who believe it should be publicised and these people shown as the hypocrites that they are. It would be great to see what ASH would say if they found out, as it would put them on a collision course with the government who use our money to finance them.
Dick is right. Try and throw them outside and when the government do not back down on security reasons or any other drivel, a precedent has been set. I do not believe that the government will change their minds and close the smoking room so Simon you have to put the boot in.
The man on the street has no time for these junkets and these bloated bureaucrats so compare their treatment to that of old soldiers
standing freezing outside the Service's Clubs.
it's actually catch 22! - soapy
I think it is indeed catch-22. If they go ahead and permit smoking, then they're hypocrites. If they don't permit smoking they incur the wrath of the attendees, who will include Barack Obama and Nicolas Sarkozy. They're hardly likely to be prepared to huddle outside in the wind and rain. It's unthinkable!
Given this, I imagine the government will try to pretend that smoking isn't permitted, while actually allowing it. i.e. they will engage in duplicity. They'll say one thing while they do another.
Somebody MUST get into that smoking room with some sort of camera to reveal the duplicity.
Michael - this is what ASH has had to say about it:
Editorial Note: The Department of Health said "The simple fact is that the Health Act 2006 does not make any exemptions for diplomats or diplomatic events."
The people responsible for the premises (which are enclosed public premises and workplaces and therefore should be smokefree at all times) are responsible for making sure that no smoking takes place. The relevant local authority (Newham) is responsible for enforcement for premises within their borough.
Those responsible for this event should be aware that there are no exemptions under the Health Act 2006 for this type of event. If there is a breach of the regulations the local authority enforcement officers will need to consider appropriate enforcement action.
...and that is another thing I could enjoy, seeing friends fighting - HMG and ASH.
Hello, I'm a member of F2C and have just read your comments on the G20 Smoking Room.It would be GREAT to catch them in the act! BUT, I'm very worried - is this page secure? We don't want a 'mole' from the opposition tipping off the 'powers that be' and thereby scuppering our plans to expose the Government. Do we? Just a thought.
Jo
I think this is a golden opportunity for us banished smokers.
Let them go ahead with their conferance and fingers crossed that they do have an indoor smoking room for the VIP's.
It would be better to say nothing until after the conference then look at what evidence there is and then go the inequality and fairness for all route.
Me thinks that the patches/gum and all the anti smoking devices are not bringing in the bread any more in these recessionary times and big pharma are getting worried, so their govt lackies need to get the fag revenue back to keep them happy.
It is a cast iron certainty that the various security agencies involved will not permit their charges to smoke on the street, on a rooftop or anywhere else that is accessable to J.Q Public or Frederick d'Terroriste, they will have smoking rooms and the powers that be will try to keep it quiet.
My argument is that when they do so then I have an equal right to government protection from terrorists, there are anti smokers out there who have publically wished us harm and are a viable threat to the safety of a section of the public under the terrorism act 2000.
I claim that right of protection from my government if you use an internal smoking room to protect foriegners (diplomats, heads of state or not) then I demand the same rights as a citizen of the U.K. Further if I do not recieve the protection I desire then I will consider the terrorism act 2000 as not fit for purpose and lawfully lobby for its amendment until it is.
I could swear I read a comment by the singer Eamonn Mallon ("The Jackboot") on this thread on the death of Gian Turci.
It's an enormous loss. He was a titan in the fight against antismoking. There wasn't anyone quite like him. Maybe soon there'll be a lot more who are quite like anyone else.
Idlex i dont think Obama smokes anymore i think i read he gave it up unfortunately.I think its a bloody disgrace if this story is true, that a smoking room will be available for this G20 summit.When every day we hear that people are losing their jobs in the pub and club industry, and people are losing their buisnesses.I really hope their is a mole in there that shares the news with the national newspapers that a smoking room has been used. If indeed this is true i really feel like getting out my fags and just smoking away in any building i happen to be in and i hope many feel the same as i do. If it is true they are a load of bloody hypocrites one rule for them and another for us.Thats what it will always be until another government takes over hopefully very soon.
The G20 are meeting in Sussex today. I believe it's in an hotel and I wonder if smoking is restricted just to bedrooms or if they have other 'smoking rooms'.
Idlex i dont think Obama smokes anymore i think i read he gave it up unfortunately. - pat
It's not that simple. His wife demanded that he gave up smoking if he was going to get her help in his presidential bid. And so he gave up. Or said he'd given up. But there were nuerous reports that he was carrying on smoking. and he eventually said that he'd "fallen off the wagon" and smoked one or two now and then.
Now he's president. What on earth is the point of being the most powerful man in the world if you can't do what you would like to do? I'll bet that, facing an economic nightmare, Obama is probably utterly indifferent to all the screeching harpies (his wife included) who demnd this petty thing of him.
if it is true obama has gone back on the fags its utterly stupid to be dictated to from other states in america who have now got a smoking ban. I agree he is the most powerful man in the world now so hopefully if true he does smoke then i hope he overturns the smoking ban as we have to copy america and scotland in what they decides best for us.And im sick of it. We elect our MP s to represent all of us and once elected they do what they bloody well like on their own views on things. That is wrong i will never vote labour ever again
Mr Clark, if I may be so bold, I don't do diplomatic, I say it as I see it. You ask "What sort of government bans ordinary people from lighting up in every pub and club in the country and then - faced with a bunch of angry foreign VIPs gasping for a fag - calmly authorises a warm, comfortable room where they can puff away to their hearts' content?"
I'll tell you. One that is as bent as a three bob boomerang. For a start they may not be angry VIP's, but it would be rude to invite these people without showing a modicum of hospitality.
As for "However, too much criticism now and the smoking room could be shut down." and "CAN WE HAVE A SMOKING ROOM TOO, MR BROWN?" Please pretty please.
Forest needs to show a bit of backbone and "Tell this pious unelected piece of brown dung to shove it in a pipe and smoke it." If this smoking room is illegal - it should be shut down and our leaders should insist on it, after all it's only another jolly for a few power people, - people who neither know nor care how real individuals have to scrape through life paying for these parasites to 'enjoy' their dignitary status.
I apologise for my anger but these bottom wipes have peed on my party for the last 20 months and I for one would be happy to pee on theirs.
Yes, Gian Turci has died and I notice nothing on this blog to mark the event!
I see Sir Liam Know it all Donaldson is up to his old tricks again, telling this incompetent government that they now should introduce a minimum price rise on alcohol.First it was cigerettes now its alcohol. I did not vote for this man at the last election and I strongly object to him making up the rules for this incompetent government to follow through.I dont drink myself but there are plenty that do and also drink sensibly so why should we all face a price rise because of a few silly fools that like to binge drink.
Next. Minimum price per calorie to reduce obesity?
There's no need for a minimum price whatsoever. As you say Pat, this penalises everyone.
If they'd just enforce the existing laws, then binge drinking would immediately start to fall.
Liam Donaldson:
There's been some very good pieces about this on Devil's Kitchen lately; including a lovely pic of the pasty-faced fascist killjoy.
The nulabor method of control via fake-charities and sham-consultations has been exposed.
Nulabor lobby themselves with our money then tell us that 80-90% of us support whatever stinking control-trip they've cooked up to dump on us via cooked polls.
We pay. We obey. They take. They exempt themselves.
May I make a few observations from various information about Obama and his cigarettes. As Idlex has already pointed out, Obama attempted to quit when his position in the race for the White House was beginning to look good. I understand he used nicotine gum. It seems that total abstinence did not last, and he adopted something which has become fairly common in these times, he used gum when he was 'out and about', and enjoyed a relaxing cigarette in privacy at the end of the day. He said one or two occasionally, which most likely translates to five or six a day.
I don't know what the position is now. I think it is important to remember that if a person who smokes chooses to quit, they do not become a non smoker, they become a smoker who does not smoke. I am not aware of Obama having made any anti smoking comments, is this because he still partakes in private? I don't know.