Club Journal: write to your MP
Thursday, August 6, 2009 
Club Journal, the official journal of the Working Mens' Club and Institute Union (CIU), has devoted a full page of its latest issue to our campaign to amend the smoking ban.
The paper reports that "The two joint chairmen of the All Party Non-Profitmaking Clubs Group have launched a cross-party campaign to amend the smoking ban in clubs and pubs across Britain."
Chris Brewis, editor of Club Journal, estimates that there are 2000 working mens' clubs in Britain, with an average of 1000 members per club - that's an estimated total of two million members.
Working mens' clubs have arguably suffered more than most from the smoking ban and Club Journal has some good advice for those who want to do something about it:
As there is strength in numbers, you should write to your own MP to ask if they will support an amendment to the ban. If they won't, then you may wish to ask why should you support them when they next seek your vote?
Remind Labour MPs that the Government reneged on an election manifesto promise to exempt private members' clubs from the ban. Explain that this is one of the reasons why you are disillusioned with the present Government.
I couldn't have put it better myself. Get writing!
Reader Comments (90)
Excellent news !
Letter to my local Mr Waste-Of-Space MP (Lab) in the post tomorrow.............
And ABOUT BLOODY TIME from the CIU............
I wrote to my MP recently asking her to bring her influence to bear on her Labour colleagues to change the smoking ban in accordance with the Labour manifesto.
My MP is Ruth Kelly. No doubt you are aware that she is standing down at the next GE.
Needless to say, I received no reply - which just goes to show how much interest she has in her job now that she has decided to resign.
Is she receiving money under false pretences?
This is great news, smokers need to get the message across that the draconian smoking ban is unacceptable and to deny their MPs a vote if they do not amend the ban.
This is not the only area that smokers can make a stand, in Bristol and as reported on Bristol.co.uk , Smokefree Southwest have teamed up with Boots the Chemist to send out a message that real beauty is “Smokefree” and you can enhance your looks by stopping smoking.
This has upset readers into commenting on line that they will be boycotting Boots the Chemist and using alternative shops, who knows this protest may even go national?.
"a message that real beauty is “Smokefree”"
Which explains why Joanna Lumley and Scarlett Johansson are so UGLY - and Deborah Arnott and Amanda Sandford so strikingly BEAUTIFUL.
It all makes sense now.............
I've wrote to my MP twice recently, Gordon Marsden - Labour Blackpool South, last letter was 2 weeks ago.
Still no reply.
A vision of tumbleweed comes to mind.
I have met my MP arch trougher Harry Cohen socialist anti smoker. Rarely replies to my letters.
While I am here if you are on Facebook I have just started a poll. 25 people have yes and a 96% approval so far. If you want to link in with me I am David Atherton.
"Should bar and pub owners be allowed to set aside a separate and ventilated room for smokers?"
http://apps.facebook.com/realpolls/results/iijoopsgo
Re your poll Dave: "Should bar and pub owners be allowed to set aside a separate and ventilated room for smokers?"
I would personally vote NO to that question.
In my opinion, the question needs re-wording, and should read: "Should bar and pub owners be allowed to set aside a separate and ventilated room for non-smokers?".
This I would agree to, as it is the non and anti-smokers who are always asking for a place unpolluted by tobacco smoke. If they had their own room I would be very happy, and I suspect that a hell of a lot of smokers would be also.
Everybody -
STAND BY YOUR BEDS !
(It's blue touchpaper time)
I've just received a reply from CHLOE SMITH MP on the subject of the Ban.
Miss Smith, you may recall, is Britain's youngest and newest (ergo brightest ?) MP.
Young enough to be my daughter - or Bill Wyman's mistress, in fact.
'The Guardian' also described her (in terms) as a Pure Cameroon.
To further her education, I also sent her a copy of Joe Jackson's essay (which says it all, really).
I think that this is the most appropriate thread to post this rather important piece (for whose length, I apologise).
At the risk of boring you all to death, but to set the reply in some sort of 'context', here is the relevant extract from MY letter to her on July 25th:
"As a True Conservative, I should like to take this opportunity to have your views on one of the more contentious issues of our time, namely the institutionalised attack on the Liberty of the Smoker (to say nothing of Liberty itself).
To that end, I wonder whether you’d be kind enough to reveal YOUR thoughts (and possibly your intentions) with regard to the following questions:
a) Do you SUPPORT – at least in principle - the current ‘Save Our Pubs’ campaign,which seeks to have the Smoking Ban amended to allow both smokers and non-smokers alike a CHOICE in clubs and pubs ?
(http://www.amendthesmokingban.com/)
b) Do you accept that the Ban has proven extremely COSTLY in terms of businesses destroyed, jobs lost, and social lives ruined ?
c) Do you also accept that any ECONOMIC arguments in favour of the ban are entirely bogus, given that smokers contribute £8 Billion over and above non-smokers to the Exchequer – net of any putative costs to the NHS, to say nothing of the massive savings to the State occasioned by our (supposedly) ‘dying younger’ ?
d) Do you adhere to the broad LIBERTARIAN principle that it is in any case NO business of the State to seek to control people in this fashion - beyond giving sensible and scientifically unbiased advice (which we may then choose to accept or reject, as Thinking Adults)?
e) Do you agree that the Health of the Nation (which includes ‘staff’ and ‘children’) is all too often used as a PLOY to force repressive measures down the throats of an increasingly infantilised electorate, when Liberty and the concept of a Free Society require that such decisions should be those of the Individual alone – rather than of ‘health care professionals’, or various trans-national agencies (with their increasingly totalitarian agendas)?
f) Finally, do you consider it ACCEPTABLE that a sizeable ‘minority’ (approx 1 in 4) should be cajoled, bullied, demonised and discriminated against in this fashion ?
I trust that YOU at least will not insult my intelligence with the usual speak-your-weight (or timidly non-committal) response of today’s Machine Politician.
Your answer may at least go some way to reassuring the doubters among us – and there are many - that a future Conservative Parliamentary Party will NOT simply prove to be an agent for the Continuation of Blairism by Other Means (from which, God spare us all).
I shall, of course, post your reply on various interested websites.
In the meantime, I wish you every success in your parliamentary career, and thank you in anticipation for taking the time to address the concerns not only of myself – but also of 11 MILLION others like me.
PS:
If only Caroline Spelman and the other Tory Quislings who voted to make me a criminal for having a cigarette with my pint realised the immense HARM that they’ve done.
‘Good Intentions’ is NO defence to FORESEEABLY Evil Consequences.
And ‘health care professionals’ worked in Auschwitz, too....................
Kindest regards,
MARTIN V "
Now prepare yourselves for HER meticulous, well-reasoned, and highly original point-by-point response to the articulated concerns of your humble poster:
"Dear Mr (Scumbag ?) -
I UNDERSTAND your concern about the effect of the smoking ban on local pubs and clubs. With nearly 6 pubs closing every day of the week, and local pubs under threat, we believe that the Government should be doing more to save the Great British Pub. Pubs are often small family-run businesses that not only provide a sense of community, but also provide jobs and support the British brewing industry.
This said, although I am greatly concerned about the longevity of the Great British pub, I HAVE YET TO BE CONVINCED THAT PASSIVE SMOKING IS NOT HARMFUL, when a considerable body of scientific evidence suggests a STRONG LINK between second-hand smoke and adverse health effects. There is also a clear indication that the ban has HELPED many people quit smoking.
Furthermore, Professor Robert West, Cancer Research UK's Director of Tobacco Studies, has recently presented FINDINGS that the smoking law will help prevent 40,000 deaths over the next ten years.
In order to help support pubs that may be struggling with the different pieces of legislation, Conservatives have called on the Government to help save our pubs and sageguard jobs by:
1. Cutting taxes on lower alcohol drinks, such as low alcohol beers, and raising taxes on problem drinks like high strength ciders and alcopops in order to use the tax system to target binge drinking, whilst ensuring that responsible drinkers and the traditional British pub are not unfairly penalised.
2. Enforcing existing laws to deal with irresponsible drinkers and premises.
3. Trusting adults to make informed choices, not punish them for the actions of an irresponsible minority.
4. Supporting the British pub as a vital part of local communities.
If (an) amendment comes to the floor as a Free Vote issue....I can assure you that I will look closely at BOTH sides of the argument....."
(My emphasis throughout).
My - WHAT a Breath Of Fresh Air !
Don't you just LOVE her free-spirited sense of rebelliousness ?
Obviously, SHE won't be taking any crap from the Whips Office................
Now if SHE is typical of those in the New Tory Party who are SYMPATHETIC to our case (as one or two alleged earlier), then GOD SAVE US ALL from those who are NOT !
Don't think I'll be letting off my fireworks JUST yet.................
I SHALL be cleaning my Smith and Wesson, though......
Thoughts, anyone ?
Well, there MUST be a few...........
PS:
Timbone - I owe you a pint (5% ABV, minimum).
PPS:
Make that TWO.
Martin, I think you will find she has been knobbled by Central Office and Andrew Lansley. At least we now know where the Tories stand and can organise a campaign accordingly.
As you might be aware Martin, I am a Conservative through and through, and I was naturally very interested to read Chloe Smith's response to your letter.
To say I was disappointed is an understatement.
She states: "I HAVE YET TO BE CONVINCED THAT PASSIVE SMOKING IS NOT HARMFUL, when a considerable body of scientific evidence suggests a STRONG LINK between second-hand smoke and adverse health effects"
She also states: "There is also a clear indication that the ban has HELPED many people quit smoking"
I know Ms Smith is young, but surely that doesn't give her an excuse to be ignorant of the law? English law states that "a person is innocent until proven guilty". Ms Smith presumes the smoker to be guilty because she is not convinced of his/her, innocence (NOT HARMFUL).
It doesn't matter one iota what Ms Smith's personal thoughts are on the subject, a politician, like a judge, should be interested in one thing only, and that is facts! "Suggested" evidence, is clearly not facts!
Ms Smith's second response to the smoking-ban, is that it has "HELPED many people quit smoking".
Whether this is true or not is irrelevant. The smoking ban law was not designed to "help people stop smoking", it was "supposed" to be all about protecting the work-force from SHS. Maybe Ms Smith should read a little more on the subject before making rash comments?
Lastly, no one should have to "convince" Ms Smith that smoking is not harmful. If she does not want the law amended, for any reason, then it is up to her to "convince" us, not the other way round.
No Dave Atherton, we do not now know where the Tories stand and we cannot organise a campaign accordingly!
We might know where Ms Smith stands at this moment in time, but I can assure you that Ms Smith's views alone do not constitute official Tory policy!
This is pure assumption on your part, which is as harmful as Ms Smith's statement, when she assumes that passive smoking might be harmful because she hasn't been convinced otherwise.
Peter, Dave (and others) -
Sorry to have messed up your day (and mine).
I DID express a certain wariness at her bustling Nu-Labour ('busy, busy, busy') Woman-Of-Today Look.
The 'Nu-Look', perhaps ?
Her youth is NO excuse: I could have demolished her NON-arguments when I was 21 - even if I wasn't yet familiar with Burke, Hayek, Mill etc.
My present reaction ?
Excuse the vulgarity, but -
"F.......NG BLOODY CLUELESS" is just about the measure of it !
Just hope others read it.............and take note.
And let's hope that she's NOT typical of the New Intake !
"Maybe Ms Smith should read a little more on the subject before making rash comments?"
Or, maybe just READ, Peter ?
And L-I-S-T-E-N, for Chrissake.............
Like Peter I've always been Conservative but I couldn't bring myself to vote at the European/local elections because no-one now reflects my views. This is only the second time I haven't voted since the age was reduced to 18 the year after I was 18. (The other time I was in Brazil on business at short notice.)
I have discussed my views with my local Conservative MP personally - rural Wiltshire is that kind of place. He's an ex-Navy surgeon so had little sympathy. That I can understand, but he couldn't support the view that BIG government is bad and telling us all what to do is tantamount to dictatorship. Just because 50 people plus one is a majority over 50 people minus one doesn't mean that the majority can impose its views in every aspect of our lives.
Frankly I despair and it's not just because I'm a 60 year old grumpy man. Or perhaps it's because I'm 60 that I can remember quite vividly the time when governments weren't obsessed with changing things all the time, introducing tens of thousands of new regulations ... and especially obsessed with making the headlines on the 6 o'clock news every day.
How did my conversation end with my MP? He asked me to say what I wanted in a sentence and I said: "I want government to get out of my face!" He didn't comment.
I'm not going to vote again until a candidate or party vows to unravel big government. Oh and none of my four children (24 to 35) vote either because they don't see the point when their views are not represented.
My point is that our political system produces people like Chloe Smith who tow the line, don't think for themselves and don't represent our views. We have professional politicians with no experience in the real world. Chloe Smith is 27 which is the same age as one of my sons. He's incredibly bright and I wouldn't trust him to run the country. Anyway he's got more sense and gone to Australia.
Interestingly the smoking ban has saved a lot of bar staff from SHS - 24,000 now don't have jobs.
"Interestingly the smoking ban has saved a lot of bar staff from SHS - 24,000 now don't have jobs".
Well said Chris Oakham!
I disagree with you however, where you said "I'm not going to vote again until a candidate or party vows to unravel big government"
Think of all the countries around the world where they fight to the death for the right to vote, think of how women in this country had to fight to be allowed to vote.
We cannot throw that away just because we do not agree with something or a particular issue.
Look at your options; you can refrain from voting, and whichever party you get after that, it will be no good moaning about it, because it will be your own fault. You can start a revolution, and pray that more than half a dozen people join you, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one if I were you, or you can vote for whichever party you think will represent your particular views more than the others.
No political party throughout history has ever won the support of all the country, not even during WWII when you would have thought that as we all had a common aim, we would have been happy with Churchill and the way he was running the country, but look what happened to him after the war!
I wish we had a Churchill figure here now, to lead us, but the very least we can do is to take a leaf out of his book, and say "we will never surrender". You will be if you do not vote!
As some of you know I had somewhat of a crisis last weekend. Whilst getting over it earlier this week I just started typing and the first words were 'Judged and spied on, denormalised and abused, dictated to what we can and can't eat, despised if we do not follow these orders and isolated.'
I had no idea really what I was going to write, but once started it just flowed until I had to sheets of A4. I will not bore you all with it here, but I will give a couple of paragraphs:
I am a normal, everyday person. I don’t have a degree, I am not that academically minded that I can take in lots of research and make sense of it, never mind retain it all. This is just my take, my perception, on the all the areas we have been lied to, bullied, nannied and dictated to by this worthless shower in government.
If MPs and politicians do not understand something that is being put before them for them to make a decision on, they shouldn’t they ask for some help to understand, or do the research themselves? How did the total smoking ban in enclosed places get through after their manifesto expressly stated to allow private members’ clubs, etc, to decide for themselves? It got through because those that counted and the likes of ASH, CRUK (by name and nature) and BHF told them you don’t need to look into this, we are telling you that just one whiff of smoke from someone elses cigarette can cause you drop dead with a heart attack almost instantly! Funny that it never happened before!
For what it is worth I have sent the whole thing to a Tory site in the hope that it will hit home with some who might read it!
Martin, see if you can spot any similarities.
Date 3/12/2008
Dear Benedict,
I am writing on behalf of David Cameron to thank you for your e-mail, about the smoking ban.
We sympathise with your concerns that this ban appears unfair, in some cases making it harder for smokers to socialise or relax, and of course regret the pressure it has put on some businesses.
We have yet to be convinced that passive smoking is not harmful, when a considerable body of scientific evidence suggests a strong link between second-hand smoke and adverse health effects.
There is also a clear indication that the ban has helped many people quit smoking; between April and December 2007 there was a 22 per cent increase in the number of people quitting with local NHS Stop Smoking Services compared to the same period in the previous year.
Furthermore, Professor Robert West, Cancer Research UK’s Director of tobacco studies, has recently presented findings showing that the smoking law will help prevent 40,000 deaths over the next ten years.
Thank you, once again, for writing.
Yours sincerely,
Lara Moreno Perez
Office of the Leader of the Opposition
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
'I have yet to be convinced that passive smoking is not harmful'
Without checking I would say these words are the same as I received from my Conservative MP getting on for a year ago.
Vote Tory, vote Dalek. Vote Labour, vote Dalek. I shall definitely vote for somebody but I won't vote Dalek.
Ben -
Thanks for sharing that with us.
As to your question, well I confess that I can find NO similarity AT ALL between the two replies.
For example:
Chloe Smith says:
"I HAVE YET TO BE CONVINCED THAT PASSIVE SMOKING IS NOT HARMFUL, when a considerable body of scientific evidence suggests a STRONG LINK between second-hand smoke and adverse health effects"
Whereas, Lara Perez says:
"We have yet to be convinced that passive smoking is not harmful, when a considerable body of scientific evidence suggests a strong link between second-hand smoke and adverse health effects."
Quite different, you see: the first says 'I' but the second says 'WE'. Not the same at all !
Again:
Chloe says:
"There is also a clear indication that the ban has HELPED many people quit smoking."
A MILLION MILES away from Lara Perez'
"There is also a clear indication that the ban has helped many people quit smoking."
No - hang on a minute...................
Question to Everybody ('cos I really want to know):
WHEN did 'politicians' CEASE to be politicians, and become CIVIL SERVANTS of the NWO ?
I suppose it'd be a complete waste of time writing a response ?
Sod it - she's GETTING one from ME, at any rate !
Chris -
I like your style (don't weaken) !
Yep, Modern Politics is rather like Modern Pop Music: bland, banal, lifeless, machine-made, emotionally vacuous - and quite DEADENING in its effect upon the Human Spirit. Utterly, utterly pointless.
"Living In The Past" ?
Yes, please....................
Peter Thurgood wrote: The smoking ban law was not designed to "help people stop smoking", it was "supposed" to be all about protecting the work-force from SHS. Maybe Ms Smith should read a little more on the subject before making rash comments?
The primary argument was indeed that a ban was needed to protect the work force. But it was also added that, incidentally, a ban might 'help' smokers stop smoking.
I think that MPs were more than willing to vote for a public health measure that would protect the work force in pubs and clubs. I doubt if they would have been willing to make a law to induce people to stop smoking.
But as far as I can see, for the public health professionals the second argument was far more important than the first. Julian Le Grand is reported as saying that he had "always been pretty dubious about passive smoking" And also in an email to Michael McFadden, Baroness Elaine Murphy wrote:
"Dear Mr McFadden, You and many others have completely missed the point about smoking and health. The aim is reduce the public acceptability of smoking and the culture which surrounds it. We know that legislation which discourages all public smoking will have the better impact on public understanding and perception of smoking as an unacceptable habit. Hence fewer people will smoke, hence health overall will improve."
Nothing about "protecting the work force" there from these two health pundits.
As I read it, the health zealots wanted a complete smoking ban simply to stop people smoking, not because passive smoking posed any sort of threat to anyone. That's the message I get from Elaine Murphy and Julian Le Grand. However, in order to get their ban through parliament, they had to sign up to a largely imaginary public health risk. They were quite happy to do this, because they were not politicians, or answerable to any constituents. The MPs then voted for what they saw as a public health measure, and the health zealots got a law that would make people stop smoking. Both were much pleased with themselves - but for quite different reasons.
It's interesting that Tory MPs are sending out the same form of words in replying to questions about the ban. It rather looks as if they've been advised to do so from on high.
But why? If the ban is such a great success, and everyone loves it so much, couldn't they be permitted to sing its praises in their own words?
P.S. If anyone finds it hard to imagine that public health advocates would ever stoop to inventing imaginary health threats, it emerged this year that Baroness Elaine Murphy (whom I quoted above) invented something called "Cello Scrotum" that got published in the BMJ in 1974. Jolly wheeze, eh? And it only took her 35 years to own up to it.
'Passive Smoking' must have been a doddle after 'Cello Scrotum'.
Idlex -
Re:
" It's interesting that Tory MPs are sending out the same form of words in replying to questions about the ban. It rather looks as if they've been advised to do so from on high."
Yep - and the HIGHER they rise, the CLOSER they get.
Very soon, we're going to have to think about overturning some Pyramids - if we want to stay 'free'.
Anyway, we could always ask Greg Knight.
I'd be very interested to see what HE had to say.............
As for:
'Baroness' Elaine Murphy: just another frumpy Know-All with-experience-in-the-health-sector.
Peter -
You say (as you've hinted at before):
"Think of all the countries around the world where they fight to the death for the right to vote, think of how women in this country had to fight to be allowed to vote."
A familiar sentiment, of course - and one that is superficially appealing.
However - and with the greatest respect - I believe that you've fallen into that old Hegelian Trap (as we all do, from time to time):
An ARTIFICIAL distinction between two APPARENT
alternatives, when - in reality - they are merely two variants of the SAME thing: your 'choice' is merely an ILLUSION.
Think of all those simple-minded intellectuals in the Thirties who sold out to Stalin - under the naive impression that COMMUNISM was the ONLY way to defeat NAZISM, whereas a victory for EITHER meant a defeat for Freedom.
Tesco Beans - or Sainsbury Beans: who cares - if that's ALL there is to eat ?
Different label - same product. Some 'freedom' !
Do you want MORE restrictions on smoking, or the same ?
Do you want MORE powers given to Brussels, or slightly fewer ?
Do you want the SAME abysmal system of 'education' for most of our children, or a somewhat less abysmal one ?
Do you want more surveillance - or just surveillance in a different form ?
THAT is the position we're in now (I'm reluctantly forced to concede). And the broad mass of the populace - most of them less articulate than most of us here (let's be honest) - senses it, too. Hence the growing sense of alienation from the Political Class, and the near-total disillusionment with our Sham Politics.
'Having the Vote' is POINTLESS without a REAL CHOICE.
After all, they have 'elections' in practically every Third World Dictatorship: it's what provides the thugs with the sheen of 'legitimacy'.
Personally, I'd sooner live under a Catherine the Great than a Robert Mugabe.
OUR Elective Dictatorship is now looking a bit tired. And a 'General Election' will merely REVIVE it. Only the faces on 'Newsnight' will change..............for a while.
Ever wondered why the 'Guardian' - of all papers - is SO soft on Cameron ?
Could it just be that they KNOW that the Blairite Revolution is in a Safe Pair Of Hands, perhaps ?
Too 'Machiavellian' ?
Too 'conspiratorial' ?
If you doubt me, then I ask one simple question:
Can you name ONE Major Policy of the Blair/Brown
Junta that Cameron will overturn COMPLETELY - a policy that said Junta would fight tooth-and-nail to preserve ?
You COULD have done so with Margaret Thatcher in 1979.
That, however, was the Old Politics......
Personally, I'd rather live under a NON-elected Aristocracy which performed the MINIMUM functions of Government efficiently, rather than enjoy the spurious advantage of an ELECTED Left- Wing or Not-Quite-So-Left-Wing party that wanted to micro-manage EVERY aspect of my life, and nibble away at my remaining freedoms like a starved rat.
I'm entirely with Chris on this one: I want government to GET OUT OF MY FACE !
He's quite correct in identifying the REAL enemy: the Moloch of Big (and even bigger) Government.
No - I DON'T have any solutions to offer at present. But I - among an increasing number of people on both sides of the Pond - HAVE identified The Problem. And that's a start, at least.
In the short term, I WOULD consider going to the ballot box once again - PROVIDED that the following box is available to receive my tick:
"I CONSIDER NONE OF THE ABOVE WORTHY OF MY VOTE"
I BET you that the turnout would rise then !
And THAT would be a start, too............
Come on, Mr Cameron - MAKE MY DAY !
Wouldn't it have been wonderful of Chloe Smith had replied,
"I cannot actually answer your questions - they are too specific.
However, what I can assure you of is that I agree that the Great British Pub is being killed off by the smoking ban.
I can also assure you that I am aware that the statistics PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT that, by and large, passive smoking is totally harmless.
As a new MP, I cannot possibly have any control over what comes before Parliament. But, be assured, that I am aware that the 'Ban' is based on false premises, and that I will wish to amend it, if the opportunity arises".
Why is it so difficult for an MP to make a statement of that nature?
The trouble with most politicians in this country is that they rely solely on their peers (not those in the other House).
If they had to rely on the wages or salaries of the majority of us, they may come to their senses.
ASH UK, Cancer Research UK are perfect examples. They need to justify their unacceptable salaries for doing next to nothing. Just like our politicians. Sod the truth! Their only interest is the income they get from us poor mortals.
It was claimed by some members of the EEC government that we have had peace in Europe for over 60 years due to this or that. Why then should they spoil it by such 'Bovine Excreta' coming from their mouths.
To market any product successfully, the first rule is to create a need for that product. Secondly, you don't explain the dangers of that product, you put emphasis only on its good points.
Why did we have world war two? It was to end the dictatorship of one Adolf Hitler who thought his ideas was the best way forward. He was against any imperfections. He didn't believe people had the right to be anything than what he considered Perfect.
Most of Europe fought against his tyranny to allow us to live the way we wanted to, Millions of service personal and civilians gave their lives to allow us to have these freedom. Why do we have remembrance services every November. Political leaders in this country lay Poppy Wreaths at the Cenotaph but don't give a damn as to why these services have continued for so long.
We shouldn't act just on behalf of smokers but on behalf of all those affected.
If we all combined for all the losses of LIBERTIES we would have larger base to get changes in our laws.
Remember - United We Stand - Divided We Fall.
Junican -
Quite so: that's exactly what I WAS expecting her to say !
But she's a young careerist, with a Brilliant Future ahead of her etc etc, and her Little Ego has been massaged into perfect conformity by the Charmers at Central Office and the Whips' Office, of course:
"Just DO AS YOU'RE TOLD, and who knows where you'll be in a few years, m'dear. Can I get you another drink................?"
This MAY be one of the reasons why political managers are now SO keen to Recruit The Young (ie those under 40 - well under if possible). We're all SO vulnerable to a bit of flattery at that age..........and so much more controllable as a result.
Gavin_C -
Absolutely !
Going to CRUK for an 'opinion' (backed up, naturally, by supporting 'statistics') on the link bewteen Tobacco and Lung Cancer is about as sensible as going to Heinrich Himmler for an 'opinion' about the (alleged) 'degenerative' effect of Jewish culture upon German..
Gimme strength............
And please don't get me on the EU ! A monstrously corrupt and authoritarian organisation - from which we should withdraw IMMEDIATELY. We can then set up an alternative, looser alliance with countries that still understand the importance and meaning of Liberty. Beginning, possibly, with the Czech Republic - whose President Klaus has had the intelligence (and the balls) to speak out against 'Global Warming'. He, at least, seems NOT to be a puppet of the New World Order
(from which, God save the World).
PS (to ALL):
For anyone who's REALLY interested in the importance of REAL Education to the pursuit of Freedom, and wonders whether the 'dumbing down' process has been accidental or DELIBERATE, do a Google search on CHARLOTTE ISERBYT - a most interesting lady, and the authoress of "The Deliberate Dumbing Down Of America". Also catch her on Youtube. As you'll see - for those who care to look - she's in a position to know EXACTLY what's been going on.
If THAT doesn't make you angry, then nothing will................(and for 'US', read also 'UK').
Emmm. Some interesting and clearly well considered postings, which make my effort look like a rant. Actually I think I did have a rant, but then I'm just an engineer.
However in my rant, and others have perhaps put it better, I was trying to point out the gap between the populous and the political classes.
To get your point home to these people and influence their thoughts and votes in Parliament, I'm not sure that arguing the minutiae will get you anywhere. That's what the fox hunting people did. They talked about jobs and the politicians talked about principles.
For smokers it's the same. If you argue about the science the politicians just wheel out a tame scientist who will say anything for a place in the House of Lords, or ASH who will say anything to get their grant renewed.
You can't win on the argument on science, or statistics, or data, or information ... or anything sensible. The way to win is to argue about principles and the principle here is freedom and choice.
In the end politicians always play safe. They don't want to be known or remembered as someone who took a wrong decision. So they play safe on smoking just in case one person dies of SHS. They play safe on emotions and the 'future of our children' is one that single-issue pressure groups wheel out regularly.
I didn't try the principles argument on my MP and I didn't try the emotional argument. Maybe I will. "Do you want to be remembered as someone who voted to take away people's freedom and choice?" "Do you want to be known as the person who voted for the closure of our village pub?" "Do you want to be the person who wanted to ban everything?"
See what I mean? They all do it - ASH, climate change, animal rights, etc. That's how they get their way.
I wrote to Barbara Follett my local MP and moaned about the smoking ban she wrote back and told me she supports the ban as her father died of lung cancer because he smoked.I wrote back and told her my father died of lung cancer AND HE DIDNT SMOKE. She wrote back and said she is fully in support of the smoking ban and her views wont change. SHE HAS LOST MY VOTE. A friends brotherinlaw went to see her and moaned about the smoking ban and she told him to go suck on his lolly. Needless to say she has lost his vote to. Together with her misuse of tax payers money i fear Barbara Follett is gone at the next election and i hope the fucking lot of them are voted out. They are nothing more then a fucking natzi party and a load of fucking parasites living off the rest of us poor bastards.We should all just ignore the ban what could they do to us all. Put us in prison well from what iv heard there are no spaces left in our prisons thats why they are letting out murderers and rapists etc. I have never in my life time experienced such a lying cheating dictating party ever and they will never get my vote again ever as i have said in the past i would rather vote for popeye then vote these incompetent load of parasites in again. And i hope every smokers and tolerant non smokers does the same.
Where have all the spies gone, or should I say spy schools.
Its dispairing to read the comments of that brainwashed quisling Chloe Smith.
What's needed is a spy school for smokers and get one of our smokers children or an enlightened young pro smoker to infiltrate the junior school of the commons and get in to Miss Smiths class and start brainwashing the grass roots.
Maybe they could get funding from the tobacco company, then maybe if the money was better on the pro smoking side the likes of Miss Smith and all her other grassroot peers might be delighted to come on board to spread a higher caliber and a harder hitting type of words (depending on the amount of funding available of course).
It just might work, after all its all about money now isnt it, its what our leaders have thought us.
But at least we would be 'honest' about it, just like they thought us!!
another thing i would like to say we vote our politicians in to represent us they dont do that most of the time they have to tow the party line and that is not representing the ordinary people on the streets views its all corrupt.And this should change to save our democracey.Otherwise we will be dictated to by a load of freeloaders.
Chris Oakham wrote: In the end politicians always play safe. They don't want to be known or remembered as someone who took a wrong decision.
But we haven't reached the end yet. And I think that when the end is finally reached, the politicians who voted for the smoking ban are going be remembered for having made a truly terrible decision. I even think there's going to be a memorial on which all their names are inscribed, lest they be forgotten. Perhaps we might start a subscription towards that monument?
Right now, of course, they're all feeling righteously proud of what they've done, and confident of their rectitude, and utterly dismissive of any disagreement. But I wonder how they'll be feeling 10 or 20 years from now? I wonder if they'll be quite so sanctimonious and smug then?
Martin V - I think that you've hit the nail on the head wrt the favouring of young candidates. I can't believe that the young outnumber older prospective candidates (how many 20 somethings do you know who are interested in politics?). The electorate, quite wisely, instead would prefer those whose opinions have been formed by themselves with the benefit of experience. Such people who can think for themselves are less malleable. I think that, to a large extent, this is at the heart of our present rotten politics: MPs who are the shills of the Party are not representing their constituents but promoting the interests of those whose primary motivation is the pursuit of power.
It's in the interests of those who want ever greater power to engineer an uneducated society. Only in what I hoped were my wilder moments has the thought crossed my mind that the dumbing down of our education system might be deliberate rather than due to incompetence. In paranoid moments I even wonder if NuLabour is actually incredibly clever and machiavellian enough to deliberately appear somewhat incompetent in order to hide a ruthless agenda. The answer is probably quite complex involving politicians sometimes deluding even themselves.
Joyce -
Re:
"It's in the interests of those who want ever greater power to engineer an uneducated society."
Only a few years ago, I would have probably sided with the Anti-Conspiracy-Theorist camp, and dismissed the above sentiment as the ravings of some left-wing student who can't get a girfriend (or get rid of his acne).
But I've learned some astonishing things about The Way The World Is Run recently.
No, Joyce - just follow the promptings of your own Intuition. Remember the wise words of Lord Gautama:
"DOUBT ALL THINGS. FIND YOUR OWN LIGHT"
And that was a man who knew a thing or two about Enlightenment.
Lest you, too, may still be harbouring doubts, please DO go and check out (as I suggested above) CHARLOTTE ISERBYT: you can download a massive pdf version of her book (FREE, too). It's meticulous, scholarly, and IMMENSELY depressing.
But if EVERYBODY read it...........
Suddenly, things that hitherto didn't make a lot of sense WOULD begin to do so.
And I just LOVE those 'Aha!' moments - don't you ?
If there's one thing I despise, it's the carefully-fostered notion that Education (for the masses, that is) is all about 'getting-a-well-paid-job'. In other words, 'train' people up to the MINIMUM level of ability and knowledge necesary to the Modern Workplace - but NO FURTHER.
Bollocks !
Education (Real Education, that is) is about LIBERATING the spirit of the Individual to his or her MAXIMUM potential of creativity, critical thinking, and originality.
And I, at any rate, would LOVE to live in a country in which it was possible to have a chat with a dustman about 5th Century Athens, or a bus driver about Renaissance Italy.
The way they choose to earn their daily bread is entirely their concern IMHO.
The problem with this view ? Why, it would be almost impossible to cheat, control, and lie to the Masses quite so convincingly, of course.
And where WOULD the Grey Controllers be, then - with nobody left willing to BE controlled ?
THAT, at any rate, is where I would begin MY Revolution...............
And me a Conservative, too............albeit one without a Party.
Funny old world !
Chris -
Re your:
"I'm just an engineer..................."
Don't you DARE apologise !
It was such people who helped to make THIS country great.
And it's my firm conviction that we are STILL the endlessly curious, inventive people that we've always been.
I just wish we could re-capture some of our bloody-mindedness, when it comes to Overbearing Authority (and I include The Medical Profession).
Perhaps the quality of education is indeed going backwards.I remember, for example, the flowing handwriting and elegant grammar of my grandfather, who left school in the 1890s, aged 13, and became a telegraph boy, after a brief stint as a watchmaker's apprentice. His standard of literacy was not at all unusual among people of his social class. A friend of mine, from the Yorkshire coalfields sometimes spoke in the 1950s of a widely-read, retired miner with whom he discussed Philosophy. Those who study family history will know that the grandparents of my grandparents' generation, were very frequently unlettered. My parents and my in-laws were what might be called 'first generation white collar'. The middle and upper middle classes for whom they worked were maybe more lucky than they deserved to have such able and conscientious people to serve them.
I imagine, Martin, that there's a spectrum of 'conspiracy theorists' with the 'hardliners' taking the view that a small group of individuals is working consciously and systematically to bring about a global NWO whereas others believe that power bases evolve as a result of technologies and people, in pursuit of their own agenda, tacitly colluding in the agenda of others. Take the UK/EU relationship, for instance. I can't understand why our politicians deny the population a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty unless it's because it suits them very well: they appear to retain power (and, therefore, justification of their existence) while shifting responsibility for difficult issues onto another body. In shifting responsibility, they can also shift blame. In short, our politicians get money for old rope. Perhaps others would see this as part of a greater strategy to create an NWO comprising two superpowers (the USA and the USE). I'm specultating wildly here, but perhaps a small group of Western leaders has met in some room, somewhere, and decided that the threat of Islamism is so great that the only way to deal with it is to create two superpowers! If this would protect Western Democracy then it would be A Good Thing - or not, if all that is meant by democracy is merely a choice of elected dictator!
"..that was a man who knew a thing or two about Enlightenment" Class
One thing politicians really fear is ridicule. But how do you send-up nulabor anymore, when their behaviour, as exemplified by Harriet Harperson this week, is so beyond parody? It's too late for Labour - the corrupt sanctimonious positive-prejudiced n' proud-of-it arseholes are toast, and rightly so. It's time to get chipping at the Cameroon weathercock strategy, in which electoral-appeal is pitched at the level of lowest common denominator beauty pageant.
I have almost as much problem with Cameron's A-Listings and "Open Primaries" as I do with all-wimmins shortlists.
At this rate, the thrill of seeing the repugnant nulabor drones losing their seats on GE night will be as good as it's gonna get before the pingpong ball gets returned five years later. There is a democratic deficit - none of the establishment parties are socially liberal. Millions of people feel unrepresented by the political class and, once the new government's honeymoon has waned, this pressure is likely to explode into action. And the fringe eco-lefty movement could be driving. They have the infrastructure.
I suggest that when writing to sitting Tories and Tory PPCs about Labour's undemocratically-imposed denormalisations, people include the Central Office Standard Response as quoted above, thus compelling the recipient to give a personal view; if only to try and shame them into:
1/ Making a statement of principle ["This is what I believe and here's why"]
2/ Showing respect for their constituents as reasoning adults unlikely to be satisfied with inhuman proforma-responses.
3/ Entering a genuine dialog - do they have the ability to balance opposing rights and freedoms? To compromise?
Labour have betrayed their core support and everybody who voted for the public version of their lunatic and repulsive agenda - sold them down the river. As a corporate body, they have failed on each of the three democratic engagement criteria I've listed. The Tories must offer something different. They must deliver a higher standard of politics and a real reduction in the size and reach of the state. They must govern as Conservatives or the Psycho-Left will return, organised and rejuvinated, all ready to punish the country anew.
I have just been going through this thread to see the latest posts and hopefully have a little input. But to be perfectly honest I didn't know where to start this time. I paused at one post and thought, ah yes, I'll answer that, and then as I scrolled down, I paused at another one, and thought the same, then another, and so on, and so on.
The big problem was that although this particular thread has still stayed more or less on course, the course itself has made quite a number of detours, passing through such stormy waters as Chloe Smith and the Conservative Party, to a poll for separate and ventilated room for smokers, to Andrew Lansley doing an apparent spot of nobbling, to refusing to vote for any political party, various letters and emails all directed to the Conservative Party, and some from various Conservative MPs, someone even mentions Barbara Follett for Christ sake? And last but not least, Education!
All very relevant to the subject, with a couple of exceptions, but, with all these detours, it seems to be taking us a hell of a long time to get to our destination doesn't it?
Someone spoke somewhere, of having a cunning plan, as Baldrick would say, to defeat our enemy now that we have clearly identified him. This sent me back over the whole lot once again, looking for some sort of sign which would point me to the perpetrator of the foul deed, but as far as I could see the usual suspects had all seemed to have been let off with a caution, as we now seemed to have a new suspect in the frame, i.e. the Conservative Party.
Before anyone starts shouting at me and says that I am defending the Tories (as usual), I would like to explain that I am not defending any Tory that comes up with such crap as Chloe Smith or any of her contemporaries did. In my opinion, she, and anyone else, from any political party, who cannot think for themselves and just dish up pre-written rubbish like that, should resign immediately.
What I am defending however, is the Tory Party as a whole. I know that Martin V made a very relevant point when he said "Tesco Beans or Sainsbury Beans: who cares - if that's all there is to eat?"
But that isn't all there is to eat Martin. It might look like that is all there is on the surface, because both companies have great marketing people working for them, but the two particular companies we are talking about, have very different ideas about the quality of their products. If you look carefully at the small writing on the tins, you will see that the Sainsbury's (Labour) beans, although looking very fat and tasty, are in fact empty inside and filled with nothing more than hot air, whilst the Tesco (Tory) beans, do exactly what they say on the tin. You just need to read the small print very carefully before proceeding to buy either brand.
So why are we all suddenly attacking the Tories, when it was Labour who implemented the smoking-ban, and Labour who say they have no intentions of amending it in any way? And this is official Labour government policy, not just some silly little girl, who doesn't seem to know her a*** from her elbow.
Another poster, Chris Oakham, said "maybe he will try the emotional argument on his MP, something along the lines of "Do you want to be remembered as someone who voted to take away people's freedom and choice?" "Do you want to be known as the person who voted for the closure of our village pub?" "Do you want to be the person who wanted to ban everything?"
Sorry Chris, but you know what they will answer to that one? They will say, "No, but I also do not want to be remembered as the MP who voted to allow children to be killed by second hand smoke"
Of course we all know that children will no more be killed by second hand smoke than they would from second hand oranges, but getting this message across is what desperately needs to be done, not engaging in fighting and name calling with our MPs.
I know that many of you have no faith in charities of any kind, especially after the way we have all seen the likes of ASH act. but it is through their charity status that ASH have got their false messages across. The general public believes them because they are seen as a charity, not a business. "Why would they say that if it wasn't true then?" How many times have we all heard that one?
So, the answer? We need a charity on our side! There is more to health than what we can all see on the outside, everyone has inner needs as well as outer, we all need to be happy and content, and if we are not, then our health suffers.
I believe I am right in saying that we have at least one person on here who suffers with mental health problems? And I know there are many charities who campaign for the needs of such people. With this in mind, is there any way we can harness the good these charities do, to our cause?
Good points, Peter. I don't have an answer, as you pointed out. But what I do know is that you can't win an argument based on science and facts. You win by saying something powerful that takes less than seven seconds.
Look at the Conservatives present thrust. They have taken a leaf out of Tony Blair's book and his sleaze campaign against John Major. It was sleaze that won the election for Tony and it'll be more Labour MPs with their noses in the trough that will win it for 'call me Dave'. He knows that dirt sticks and it's a simple, quick and powerful message.
I'm not smart enough or literate enough to come up with this simple message or the means of putting it over. But you will not win on the facts. Look at fox hunting. I don't support it, but I'd die to protect the rights of those that want to do something they have done for hundreds of years. Their message was too factual and too complex. The anti-hunt lobby had a simple powerful message and gory pictures to go with it.
Peter - I think that mental health charities would be a non-starter. Firstly, they don't deal with mental health (as a positive) but rather mental illness and if they are many in number they're probably each concerned with a particular mental illnesses, possibly just aiming to raise awareness of the condition and break down the prejudice and fear that surrounds it. They don't have the positive public image of a CRUK or BHF. And why would they (mental health charities) want to ally themselves with smokers - no-one is going to prove that smoking 'cures' the mental illness or even that the benefits to mentally ill people of smoking outweigh the disbenefits to their physical health?
I wish I could suggest that the best bet lies with getting libertarian groups on our side but I've noticed that those who profess concern about civil liberties (including David Davis) are deafeningly silent on 'smokers' rights'.
PS I sometimes daydream that the Dear Leader actually fulfils a promise and 'every' home in Britain is, indeed, online. A coalition of pro-choice groups mounts a national campaign directing people to email. Behind the scenes support is gathered for a mass lighting up in pubs and at the pre-determined time Britain's 12 million smokers just disobey the law.
When I need cheering up this fantasy alternates with the one about winning the lottery and emigrating....
Joyce -
The steady move at both national and international levels towards a NWO is no new phenomenon, and is extremely well documented.
In the modern era, its origins - as a concept - can be traced back before the Great War. Sad to say, it is essentially an Anglo-American concept in essence - with a substantial German input.
Incidentally, it is from the late 1800s in Germany that one can discern the beginning of the end for Classical Liberal Education, and the beginning of the dumbing-down process (much accelerated over the last four decades) that we lament today. John Dewey and his chums, having spent some time in Germany, took them back to America - where they've been working their malign sorcery ever since.
Quite a neat 'coincidence'.
Further, the NWO can be promoted as not only BENEFICIAL (naturally), but also INEVITABLE.
The impanted idea that a process, whose completion is yet some way in the future, is nonetheless unavoidable is what is known as 'predictive programming', and an absolutely classic use of Mass Psychology.
America's Moon Landing programme, for example, was 'predicted' in a series of films by Walt Disney from the mid-Fifties, in collaboration with the lovely Werner von Braun - an ex-SS engineer who (strangely) knew nothing about the use of slave labour at Peenamunde. Disney was extremely sympathetic to the Nazis, of course, and frequently attended meetings of the American Nazi Party in the Thirties. NASA and Hollywood are OLD friends............
Of that, I say no more.
Once something is 'obviously' inevitable, it makes it harder to oppose.
Even by the Elected Dummies in Congress and the Commons.
Think of our 'inevitable' absorption into the European Superstate, for example.
And so it is becoming with the New World Order.
The phrase trips SO easily from the lips of political leaders these days, that it scarcely merits any serious attention by the listener. I've yet to hear ANY journalist on television ask WHY we are supposed to need one, and why WE weren't consulted in the first place.
The softening-up process is facilitated by the creation of - and our unquestioning acceptance of - such supra-national agencies as the United Nations (inc the IPCC of course), the World Bank, the World Health Organisation etc, each one of which (despite the image of Smiling Beneficence) is corrupt, lazy, inefficient, positively harmful in many cases (cf the banning of DDT, for example), and WHOLLY contemptuous of any notion of 'national sovereignty' - that awkward impediment to our Return To Eden.
Add to that the frequent implanting of ‘Global’ Awareness by all the ‘Global’ Words: Global Village, Global Market, Global Warming, and (because we MUST have An Enemy) Global Terrorism.
Osama Bin Laden (widely seen as a CIA stooge in the Arab world, by the way) is the 'Goldstein' de nos jours, of course. Any previous connection between HIM and the CIA being purely accidental.............
While Al Quaida (not to mention the ENTIRE Muslim world) will stand in for Eastasia (or is it Eurasia ?) - for those of us here in Oceania.
At least OUR 'Leaders' haven't yet instituted the Three Minute Hate, thank God.
Anyway, The Smoker will do as another useful Hate Figure - for now.
I doubt very much whether WE would regard the motives of the NWO architects as benign, frankly.
But don’t take my word for it, Joyce. Do your own research, and I think you’ll come to the same conclusion as I have:
These things ain’t no accident, baby.....................
Any more than the (Global) drive against Tobacco.
But the ONE thing They COULDN’T predict was that great token of Anglo-American ingenuity - the Internet – and that may just prove to be their Achilles’ Heel.
Knowledge IS Power - and They no longer own the monopoly.
Which is why we must resist ALL attempts by ‘government’ to get its sticky paws on it, of course.................
Meanwhile, our friend Chloe has a LOT to learn.
Peter -
You say:
"We need a charity on our side!"
A BRILLIANT idea - but can YOU think of one that would play ball, even if convinced of the Rightness of Our Cause ?
Especially with the Charity Commissioners hovering in the background like the Black Riders of Mordor........
PS:
Chloe Smith MAY just be a Silly Schoolgirl - but WHO gave her the material for her cut-and-paste job ? I don't believe you can dismiss this episode quite so easily.........
So why are we all suddenly attacking the Tories, when it was Labour who implemented the smoking-ban, and Labour who say they have no intentions of amending it in any way?
So do the Tories.
Just as in Scotland, Labour brought it in and the SNP, once in charge, also did nothing.
If there is one thing that Chloe Smith's letter proves, it is that the Tories, as things stand, are publicly being expedient as they can be - in short, they think the smoking ban is a vote winner.
It's a naive and short-sighted point of view. UKIP are gaining dramatic ground by being bold. Conservatives are not.
Regarding the smoking ban, the Tories are certainly not any sort of Champion yet, however many grass roots activists and PPCs are sympathetic.
As things stand, they are riding on a big wave of hatred for Labour. If they don't come out and declare an interest in smokers before the next election, their chance will be gone for good and, as we have seen in Scotland, the whole thing equalises itself.
Your faith in undeclared support for property rights amongst the Tory party is far stronger than what can be observed rationally. Sorry.
Martin - I don't think that it's necessary that certain ideas are planted in the mass psyche. Ideas are 'viral'; but that is to split hairs. The really worrying thing is the dumbing down of education.
Joyce -
Re:
"Ideas are 'viral'..............."
Quite so - but someone has first to CREATE the virus.
And proper education is the best antidote.
So why are we all suddenly attacking the Tories, when it was Labour who implemented the smoking-ban, and Labour who say they have no intentions of amending it in any way?
Like Dick Puddlecote said, so are the Tories.
I'll vote Tory if they say they're going to amend the smoking ban to allow smokers some choice. If they don't, I won't. I'll vote UKIP instead. Like I did in the recent Euro election. And, who knows, maybe even BNP.
The Tories ought to be very worried about UKIP. Votes that they should be getting are going to UKIP instead, and in a General Election that could cut a Tory majority considerably. The Tories could boost their vote considerably if they set out to capture the smoker vote back from UKIP.
But they're probably too scared to try. They'd be accused of murdering chiiiildren. And that's how the public debate in the media (if 'debate' is the right word for something that's never discussed) is framed. Public health is everything, and freedom and choice are nothing.
There are large numbers of smokers' votes sloshing around with nowhere to go. Nowhere except UKIP and BNP, that is. The main parties are too scared to try and grab them.
The only real question is whether the Conservative party has the nerve to grab those votes. It's hardly likely that smokers are ever going to vote Labour after what this Labour government just did to them. The smoker vote is there for the taking by the Conservative party if they can just steel themselves to face down the screams and wails from antismoking zealots.
But I didn't see any attack by ASH on UKIP when they said they'd amend the ban. Nor did UKIP's share of the vote drop when shocked UKIP voters found out about UKIP's plans to kill millions of chiiiildren. No, UKIP did very well indeed. As did the BNP. If UKIP could grab smokers' votes with impunity, why can't the Conservative party? Well, because they're a bunch of wusses, that's why.
Maybe what's needed is for smokers like me to not just stop voting for the main parties, and switch to UKIP, but to go even further and vote BNP. It was a bit of a long step for a former Lib Dem voter like me to go and vote for UKIP. I'm not exactly ready to vote BNP yet, but I can see that a vote for the BNP would send the loudest possible message to the political classes.
The more I think about it, the better it sounds. Can't you just imagine all those leftie BBC luvvies working themselves up into a complete blue funk when a handful of BNP MPs get elected to parliament? It wouldn't be that I wanted the BNP; all I'll want is the blue funk that would be caused by them doing very well.
Jesus wept. All I really want is to be able to drink a pint of beer and smoke a cigarette inside a pub, but I'll probably have to vote BNP to have even an outside chance of getting anywhere near that.
Peter, I thank you for acknowledging that health is not all that is seen on the outside, but it is important to feel happy and content and even relaxed, on the inside. Can't remember those feelings too well!
Like others, I cannot see that the charities fighting for mental health would be able to take on such an undertaking as they fight hard enough as it is, just for recognition and to raise funds for the cause.
After my crisis last weekend I saw the psychiatrist during the week and explained that my mother had offered some funding for me to see a therapist privately. The psychiatrist said he can recommend someone and he will contact her, however he felt dreadful that this was the route that I now felt I had to take as I, like everyone else, has paid for my right to NHS treatment and the fact that the funding is not there for mental health and that the situation will only get worse, is at the very least distressig.
I will give a link to one source that is trying to raise awareness and acceptance of mental health problems as a true illness, I can't concentrate enough just now to know whether anything in this link will give some of you brighter people any inspiration, but I am too close to be rational on this front.
http://www.time-to-change.org.uk/
Thank you.