Search This Site
Forest on Twitter

TFS on Twitter

Join Forest On Facebook

Featured Video

Friends of The Free Society

boisdale-banner.gif

IDbanner190.jpg
GH190x46.jpg
Powered by Squarespace
« Forest by the sea | Main | A little something for the weekend »
Saturday
Sep192009

Up yours, Hockney tells Brown

The Politics Show (Yorkshire and Humberside only) will tomorrow feature interviews with Greg Knight MP, who is leading our campaign to amend the smoking ban, and David Hockney, a member of Forest's Supporters Council, who believes that smokers should still have the right to light up when they go for a drink.

Describing how the smoking ban has left people "frightened", Hockney says:

"This is England now, and Blair and Brown have done that and I loathe them for it. I mean, I'm not that interested in politics. I normally keep out ... Mrs Thatcher, Mr Major, they didn't interfere with my life but these do, these are really interfering with it."

A preview of the interview has been posted on The Politics Show website HERE. Worth watching if only for the magnificent moment when Hockney reveals what he would like to say to Gordon Brown, if he had the chance.

The accompanying hand gesture is self-explanatory!

Reader Comments (83)

Simon, I’m glad you’ve come across this item about the David Hockney interview.
Even though I live in Nottinghamshire, I do not receive Central local news, but the local Yorkshire news.

I saw this interview and listened carefully to what was being said…but when I saw the BBC website interview there was a poignant sentence missing.

In the Look North interview, David Hockney said that he never believed in the Second Hand Smoking nonsense for a single moment. Curiously this sentence is missing in the BBC website version – why?

I would like to know why this important comment was edited out. I suspect that because someone as high profile as David Hockney, saying this didn’t go down too well with the Beeb.

Can you find out the answer for us?

September 19, 2009 at 13:07 | Unregistered CommenterChris

Thanks for that, Simon.

You gotta love this man............!

But Auntie STILL couldn't resist, could she ?

"In Scotland there's been an even bigger effect with heart attacks down 14 per cent."

'Even bigger EFFECT' ?

Note from Ed: shouldn't this read 'CLAIMED...effect' ?

"Smoking is still allowed outdoors, at home, in prisons, care homes and designated hotel rooms."

Note from Ed: shouldn't this read 'SOME care homes....etc'?

Jeeeeeez...............

September 19, 2009 at 13:28 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

I saw this and I noted how the news station began by saying - "... and this despite the fact that thousands have given up smoking since the ban..." .

The report ended with a quote from an anti-smoking group that said choice wouldn't work --- of course not because they don't believe we should have a brain to think for ourselves! - now that is the legacy of BLiar and Brown!

September 19, 2009 at 14:53 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

"...an anti-smoking group that said choice wouldn't work..."

This is what annoys me about these anti smoking groups. They speak as if people were smoking everywhere before the ban. They have been blind to it, because they do not smoke, so never really noticed.They didn't look to see if there were ashtrays or no smoking signs. For example, My local shopping precinct has two cafes and two coffee bars. For as long as I can remember, only one cafe allowed smoking inside. So there was choice. If I wanted a smoke I went to the cafe with a smoking area inside. Nobody smoked in the other ones, they were non smoking. No law was needed.

I genuinly believe that a lot of these non smokers do not remember choice. They only noticed smoking where there were a lot of smokers and/or bad ventilation. If you asked them, did people smoke in such a place? if it wasn't a pub they most likely wouldn't remember.

September 19, 2009 at 15:47 | Unregistered Commentertimbone

David Hockney, genius.
Gordon Brown ,incompetent, wreaker of the economy,
Tony Bliar, liar,grabber.
Who would you believe ?
Hockney is right, get off our backs ,monkeys.

September 19, 2009 at 17:02 | Unregistered CommenterSpecky

THey are still repeating the 14% drop in heart attacks in Scotland! This is outragious as it has been exposed as nonsense many times. This should be brought home, in no uncertain terms, to the public, and in every interveiw you do Simon.
As for the Libdems, most are even more fanatical about the ban than NuLabour.

September 19, 2009 at 18:31 | Unregistered CommenterZitori

Good grief. Pravda still using the utterly-discredited Pell "study"; unreferenced but presented as fact. God, I hate these people.

September 19, 2009 at 19:19 | Unregistered CommenterBasil Brown

Zitori - even ASH have denounced the recent press releases over the heart attack figures in Scotland. MSM stinks and is way out of order.

I think the Pell report will always be quoted even though it must now have the Guiness Book of Records as the worst piece of scientific junk ever published by MSM.

Now I know why I don't buy newspapers anymore, nor watch the propaganda machine on the BBC.

September 19, 2009 at 23:36 | Unregistered CommenterMary

What struck me most about David Hockney's interview was THE FEAR that he observed. Publicans are afraid, café owners are afraid. In fact, the whole population of England is afraid,

Why are we all afraid?

Let me ask this question: when I go to Manchester Airport, I can stand outside and have a last cigarette before I check in. Once I have checked in and go through Security, I am locked in. It may be two hours before my flight departs, but there may be a delay. On one trip, recently, there was a five hour delay. Could I have a fag? No!

Now, why did I not say,"Oh, sod it. I will light up"

Why? Because I was afraid. Why was I afraid?

I was not afraid because of the possibility that a policeman might come and arrest me. I was afraid because a person who was not a policeman might come and stop be from boarding my flight and stop me from going on holiday. But why should an airport employee come looking for me, in case I might be smoking? BECAUSE A FELLOW TRAVELLER WILL REPORT ME! And that is why we are afraid. We are afraid of our fellow citizens.Somehow, the government have managed to turn citizens against each other.

Sooner or later, citizens have to stop this. Sooner or later, citizens have to come to their senses and say that smokers may be the target now, but who will be next? Maybe it will be me.

The poem, "First they came for.., and I did nothing...and then they came for....and I did nothing and then they came for me....", as was mentioned elsewhere, is very relevant.

What is to be done?

I think that there is only one answer. One way or another, the bluff has to be called.
It must be so. There is no other way. The People of England cannot go on being afraid.

Oddly enough, there is a simple way to start to call the bluff, but it requires some organisation. I do not think that it is in any way criminal.

One needs to pick a hospital, any hospital, which has declared the whole hospital grounds to be 'non-smoking'. One needs to organise a group of people to gather at this hospital, right outside the front entrance. All the members of the group light up and defy the hospital authorities to do their worst. The people in the group have to be people like me - retired, or otherwise unworried about gaining a 'criminal record' (I'm 70 years old and don't give a shit about having a criminal record).

If an opportunity occurred for me to take part in such a demonstration in my locality, I would grab it with both hands.

September 20, 2009 at 2:36 | Unregistered CommenterJunican

Pell did not say 14 per cent. She said 17 per cent. If the official version is now 14 per cent someone has changed the goalposts. I wonder if it was Pell.

September 20, 2009 at 9:51 | Unregistered CommenterBelinda

This will be the last government that makes the mistake of persecuting smokers. The are 11 million of us and we all have the vote.

September 20, 2009 at 12:10 | Unregistered Commenterterence patrick hewett

In reality, I cannot see the ban ever being over-turned in it's present form. We live in a society obsessed with being smoke-free, germ free, additive free but not FREE. The BBC make me puke; they are transparently an arm of the Government (whichever party is in power) and of the "A recent research shows that born is bad for you" lobby. At least they broadcast Hockney's interview, but that was probably just to show that they are being "impartial". Yeah, right; by then having some harridan from ASH or similar at the end of the bulletin basically saying that Hockney's view is bo***ocks. Very impartial. Christ, I work,pay income tax, fag tax and whatever else tax and also a licence fee to these turds.

September 20, 2009 at 12:16 | Unregistered CommenterMax D

I would you be greatfull to see the introduction of smoking rooms.I AM a smoker. The ban is destroying “bohemia”? If I cannot avoid going out in a pub, restaurant for me no long conversation about life, economy politic, or others with my friends because I am going out to smoke.I do not see the point of spending my money to NOT enjoyed the time out and be wet or freezing. Not pub, restaurant or nightclub manager ,the Ban has affected my life.I avoid going out unless it's warm and there is terrace

September 20, 2009 at 12:30 | Unregistered CommenterFrderique Dupont

I am a non smoker,always have been,I think that smoking should be banned in eating areas such as restaurants etc,but I cant see why there cant
be smoking lounges/rooms in pubs and clubs for people who wish to smoke.I think hockney is right about this interfering nanny/police state
style of government,I would also like to tell both blair & brown (and a few other idiots in parliament) to ****** off!

September 20, 2009 at 12:43 | Unregistered Commenterkarlos

Those who are saying "Choice does not work" - come with me this winter to Spain.
Apart from the benefit to my health and saving my money on excessive heating costs - I can sit in a bar with a pint and a smoke, and the bars are full- unlike in the UK now.

September 20, 2009 at 13:23 | Unregistered CommenterRoy Fox

Personally, I don't see why choice cannot extend to restaurants and cafes as well as pubs. I haven't enjoyed any meal out - and not even a quick sausage buttie and a cup of tea - since the ban. A cigarette at the end of the meal makes it so much more enjoyable.

I understand that some people hate smoking in food places more than pubs, but I still maintain that both those who fear and loathe smoke and those who enjoy it, can be accommodated in separate venues. Market forces should decide not a puritanical Govt whose job is not to tell people how to live their lives.

September 20, 2009 at 14:16 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

Hi - as owner of very large family pub and live music venue my takings have been halved since the smoking ban. I have tried everything to bring in customers from meals at £1.99 (was £4.99) to house spirits at 69p (was £1.80) as well as now do not charge an entrance fee on any night - (was £5) just to entice customers to come in! No other trade has had to drop their prices so dramatically or work so hard just to carry on trading, & keep a roof over my 4 children head and keep 12 staff in jobs. I am dreading the winter as I will probably not be here next year, after 28 years in the trade, my dream which I have spent a lifetime learning about perfecting and now have will be broken and I will most definately be found hanging from a nearby tree with many others like me!!!! Fact. Just because of a smoking ban. Politicians - wake up - how would you feel if, after years of study, extreme hard work, your lifelong career was taken from you, with no chance of another job in that career because that industry had died!! Help us please.

September 20, 2009 at 14:32 | Unregistered Commenterjacqui clapp

Smoking bans based on anti-smoking Junk Science about Second Hand Smoke have lost UK my tourist spending, which included at the Pubs. I'll NOT return until mutual common sense, accommodation, and tolerance, return to the UK. Steve Hartwell, Toronto Canada.

September 20, 2009 at 16:33 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Hartwell

Sorry mate I think the politicians ,(filth) are are too busy snorting coke and helping themselves to help you.

September 20, 2009 at 16:35 | Unregistered CommenterSpecky

This smoking ban should be over turned to allow smokers in pubs again in rooms set aside for them, without any children.Eg in Weathersspoons they dont care about kiddies being near the Bar yet smoking TUT TUT !!!! Its so so Sad that so many pubs are closing down each week and each day.The sooner Mr Brown and Mr Blair realize that ENGLAND is a broken country the better.

September 20, 2009 at 18:03 | Unregistered Commenteramandah

I've posted twice on this BBC HYS but nothing published yet. I've also gone through and recommended all the pro-smoking posts - yours too Pat (if it was you). I suggest you do the same if you're registered.

I suppose the BBC will pull this one before everything is published and before too many people side with smokers.

September 20, 2009 at 18:08 | Unregistered CommenterChris Oakham

The BBC are just a propaganda mouthpiece for Zanulabour.
Amazing is it not the ban was caused by a small minority of very vocal anti smoking bigots, and the dumb politicians were either complicit ,(bribed),or just dumb ,I favour dumb.

September 20, 2009 at 18:14 | Unregistered CommenterSpecky

Well said Mr Hockney!

Please bring back the rights of a sizeable minority in this country and allow us to simply smoke indoors - is that so much to ask in this society of technology? Can we not accomodate everyone?
Is it really neccessary to shut us out of society "for our own good"? For over two years now, I've felt that I am living in "One flew over ths Cuckoo's Nest" - perhaps that will be the health fascists next law, a frontal lobotomy for the non-conformists!

September 20, 2009 at 18:41 | Unregistered CommenterColin

I did leave a comment Chris.

Incidentally, a search of what does the internet say about the smoking ban shows that 92% of it is against. I'd really like to know the true figure of those with no objection to smoking rooms/designated areas, and those who support a blanket ban.

I suspect that if proper research and "consultation" was employed, then the majority view would support choice!

September 20, 2009 at 18:51 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

Come the election. I'll vote for the first party with a manifesto commitment to amend this law.

September 20, 2009 at 19:27 | Unregistered CommenterUncle

Surely no one doubted that once the ASHITES achieved their aim of banning smoking inside pubs, clubs etc., they'd be complaining about the 'clouds' of smoke they have to walk through and calling for a ban outside. It was odds on what they were going to do.

I am so sick of hearing 'now I don't have to wash my hair & clothes after a night out in the pub'. What does this say to me, well these people now don't bother washing their hair/clothes, therefore they're just dirty Bs, and a threat to my health just being near their unhygenic bodies, especially now the public health establishment have recommended blowing noses into elbows, just imagine a non-smokers elbows touching you, arg, filthy people.

What this has always been about is a personal hatred of smoking by select groups who grabbed a headline and was carried along on a roll by the Lame Stream Media, who have much to answer for. The rabid zealots don't like the smell and find smoking a nuisance. They don't even argue the claim of SHS much anymore because they feel they have won the public argument, even though their argument was based on lies and phoney science. And the government found another source of taxes via fines, and using health as a way of controlling a large section of the population without it looking too much like control. After all who could complain about the government looking after peoples health. Though I do believe many non-smokers are waking up to the fact this smoking ban experiment wasn't about health at all.

And now we have the zealots who don't like drinking or people eating food they don't think is healthy, and are now in the throes of using the same tactics on alcohol and the overweight as they did on tobacco, and what do the Lame Stream Media do, use the press releases from these self-righteous health freaks by reporting their propaganda & garbage as fact. There's not a day goes by when there isn't a couple of stories where it says so and so smokes, drinks or is overweight, even though whether someone drinks, smokes or eats burgers isn't relevant to the story. The worst paper for this is the The Daily Health Journal (Daily Mail).

Instead of reporting important facts about how politican have lied to us about the malicious EU they're too busy printing who's smoking & drinking and who isn't.

It can't go on as it is, smokers have to do something collectively or the ASHITES will end up demoralising so many of them that they won't be capable of fighting back. And this is what the antis are counting on.

Smokers really should give the government an ultimatum, either make tobacco illegal immediately or get off our backs.

Smokers won't go without, cigarettes will always be available from other sources, just like alcohol did in th US through prohibition. In fact it'll probably overtake drugs & people trafficking as the biggest money earner.


Decomocracy Institute

Outcasts
The Obese & Other Victims of Denormalisation
MARCH 2009

http://www.democracyinstitute.org/pdfs/DI%20Denormalisation%20Study.pdf

Well worth a read.

September 20, 2009 at 20:26 | Unregistered CommenterRosie

The votes in favour of posts recomemendment are way ahead. Someone get a screenshot and watch what happens tomorrow!

September 20, 2009 at 20:27 | Unregistered CommenterBelinda

recommending an amendment, I meant to say.

September 20, 2009 at 20:28 | Unregistered CommenterBelinda

I quite like the post on grumpyoldsod's website, which he attributes to Hitler -

The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.

It says it all, really.

September 20, 2009 at 21:11 | Unregistered CommenterChris Oakham

Well, I've just posted by two bob's worth on Auntie's site.

Let's see what the Censor - sorry, 'Moderator' - does about it.

Or not............(gosh, I'm SUCH a cynic).

In any case: GOD BLESS DAVID HOCKNEY !!!

September 20, 2009 at 21:50 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

My - WHAT an Embarrassment of Riches from the Antis !

"We should ban duff artists like him. He's over rated and a completely useless half-brained idiot."

Colin, London.

Better half a brain than no brain at all, Colin !

(Sorry - just couldn't resist).

September 20, 2009 at 22:16 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

I submitted a comment to the BBC article at around 19:30. Shortly afterward (20:05),their 'Debate Status' showed:
Total comments: 1587
Published comments: 847
Rejected comments: 14
Moderation queue: 726
The most recent was one posted at 18:54 (pro-ban)

I have just looked again and the latest post has not changed but the 'Debate Status' now claims:
Total comments: 1809
Published comments: 1434
Rejected comments: 27
Moderation queue: 348

587 comments missing?

September 20, 2009 at 22:28 | Unregistered CommenterTony

No Karlos, smoking should not be BANNED in eating areas! Resturants etc, should be allowed to make their own policy on that matter, then if you don't like smoke you don't go in. Plenty would stay smoke-free, but remember that smokers are being denied the great social pleasure of eating, smoking and conversing,something extremely important to millions.

September 20, 2009 at 22:43 | Unregistered CommenterZitori

I cannot see why non-smokers want smoke free pubs because within two years, if the non-smokers get their way, there won't be any pubs. So that will be the end of the argument.

Anyway, why on earth should they (non-smokers) object to smoking rooms? They don't have to go into them.

September 20, 2009 at 22:43 | Unregistered CommenterDaryl

Posted my tuppence worth. The rent-a-mob antis seemed to be out in force.

September 20, 2009 at 23:00 | Unregistered Commenteridlex

All these 'statistics' about how smoking bans are cutting the rate of heart attacks illustrate, even more emphatically than the 'evidence' of the risks of SHS, the 'it ain't science, but it's for the public good' fanatacism of the anti-smoking lobby.

The government admitted that the smoking ban would only target 5% of the total exposure to SHS. Several studies have concluded that the 5% has not been eliminated but merely shifted from pubs, etc to the home.

And yet they are claiming a 10%, 14% or 17% or whatever decrease in heart attacks after only one year!!!!!!!

The incidence of heart attacks is fairly insignificant up to the age of 55, when it rises exponentially. Are they seriously trying to convince us that one year of spending a few hours a week in a smoke-free pub repairs the cumulative 'damage' caused by 40 or more years exposure to 'lethal' SHS?

September 21, 2009 at 1:35 | Unregistered CommenterJohn Savage

My comment didn't get past moderation. No swearing, no insults, just a statement that the BBC are still peddling the discredited Pell study that even ASH don't use.

Boycott the bastards. Don't pay for state propaganda

September 21, 2009 at 3:37 | Unregistered CommenterBasil Brown

Looks like I've been 'de-moderated', too !

Quite predictably (I suppose), the ESSENCE of the Antis' argument is:

I DON'T LIKE IT - SO, THERE !!!

Having skimmed through half a dozen pages of this bilious nonsense, I haven't noticed ONE of their number's adequately dealing with the issue of CHOICE.

I suspect (though lack the statistics to 'prove' it) that this is because even THEY sense that THIS is their Achilles Heal.

Therefore, THAT is where we should strike them.

'Choice', after all, is THE Buzzword du Jour.

To be AGAINST Choice is to be against both current Fashion AND Tolerance: an impossible position to sustain for long, surely ?

And ALL the 'Yes, but' counter-arguments can be swatted like so many troublesome flies.

All the rest of it is (shall we say ?) merely a SMOKESCREEN to mask their muddle-headed intolerance..............

PS:

Simple suggestion for Auntie - as a way of avoiding the suspicion of 'editorial bias':

'If you AGREE with Mr Hockney, click HERE to comment'

'If you DISAGREE with Mr Hockney, click HERE to comment.'

Too simple ?

September 21, 2009 at 7:41 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

Rosie -

Many thanks for the Democracy Institute link.

I'd never heard of it until now.

Beautifully-presented material.

(Save it into your 'Freedom' folder, Folks !).

If ONLY the various Freedom-and-Democracy websites, institutes, think-tanks etc could come together under ONE banner, what a powerful force for Good they could be !

We could then chuck a bucket of water over the Wicked Witch of the West...........and watch her shrivel !

And turn to ASH.

September 21, 2009 at 8:02 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

<<Mrs Thatcher, Mr Major, they didn't interfere with my life but these do, >>>

That's because you were living in California, you silly old sod. They interfered with my fucking life, all right - and millions of others.

September 21, 2009 at 10:28 | Unregistered CommenterMat

'Choice', after all, is THE Buzzword du Jour.

Ah, yes. As in 'Choosing the Healthy Option'.

September 21, 2009 at 11:05 | Unregistered Commenteridlex

I told you so! The BBC HYS has been closed without publishing all the comments. Bloody censorship.

September 21, 2009 at 12:48 | Unregistered CommenterChris Oakham

Secretary's son charged with cocaine possession - I'm just saying. Apparently, Harriet's quitting Parliament now to spend more time with her family. Doing what I don't know. And also to do "charitable" work in India. All my Seikh friends love a fag or two. Maybe she's going to single-handedly make them all stop' like she did in the UK? After all,they need to keep the population going in the Asian sub-continent and in particular India. There are SO few people there......I'm off to commit suicide now. I see little point in carrying on in this life.........it's no fun.

September 21, 2009 at 13:35 | Unregistered CommenterMax D

The Smoking ban was nanny statism gone too far.

How dare our elected leaders dictate to the people and listen to a small coterie of dedicated stalinlite fascists, who seek to impose their will over others, without the benefit of due democratic process.

Choice, choice, choice, it should have been left to publicans to make the choice as to whether to be smoking or not, and if the government was serious about choice it would have approved grant aid for pubs to install decent air-con and air extraction systens to cope with a smoking environment.

However, our leaders in crime in Labour are born busy-bodies and dictators, hectoring us to confirm to their perverted ideals.

A pox and plague on the lot of 'em.

September 21, 2009 at 13:39 | Unregistered CommenterPenfold

Right; I seem to be living on here of late and I apologise for boring everyone with my vents/rants. However, with reference to Penfold's post; I must agree, it should have been choice for the publican/restauranter/caff owner/whatever e.g. that we are a total non-smoking establishment, we are a partial non-smoking establishment and make provision for smokers or that we are a full on Capstan establishment etc.

A story; a good friend of mine is a publican of many years standing and her father suffers from full-blown emphysema. Now, before my posty friends from the BBC "Have-your-Say-as-long-as-it agrees-with-us" forum get going, he contracted this disease via his work in industry over a period of 60 years i.e. pre-Health & Saferty and the era where everyone is going to live forever. NOW: at her last establishment (I must add that she is no longer is in the hospitality game - the smoking ban and credit crunch saw to that) her father would spend many a happy hour, having a couple of jars and playing dom's with his old buddies (some of whom smoked and SHOCK HORROR - in hs vacinity!) in a corner of the pub, seated below the most incredible extractor unit I have ever seen. The effect on him? Well, none that was detrimetal to his health and as I said, he had his company, his pint and his dom's and friends to talk to. Now, he sits at home, on his own at 89 years of age, safe in the knowledge that he is no longer being polluted by other people who he, frankly, loves to be with.

Ain't life under this government,the unelected NIMBY party and the equally unelected Prime Minister, grand? I conclude with that. I'm off to Camden now to see if I can find someone with a double - barrellled name and some well connected parents. Smoking's a mug's game. Class "A"'s where it's at, people..But we won't bother about that. Too many "stars" ans "influential people" do that, don't they...?

September 21, 2009 at 14:15 | Unregistered CommenterMax D

If it's true that Harridan Harman is quitting politics, then I would say it is only because she knows her party won't win the election and therefore her career is over (thank the Lord!!!)

I imagine she applied to do charity work in India by spinning her usual line - gimmie a job because I'm a woman (even if she hasn't got any talent or merit at all!)

All I can say is that if this news is true, then there really is a God! I'm just waiting for him to remove the other vultures in Parlt who are sucking the life out of us.

September 21, 2009 at 14:33 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

"I'm off to commit suicide now."

Glad you seem to have changed your mind, Max.

A Perverse Thought:

I BET that a goodly number of the faux-liberal Antis who claim that ONE of the reasons for their stance is that it-will-save-lives (and EVERY life is precious), would be the FIRST to crow if it were decided to make attempted suicide - or the use of certain 'clinics' abroad - a criminal offence again.

That, you see, would be an unconscionable attack on Personal Freedom.

Whereas smoking.............(er....um....er).

PS:

If you change you mind AGAIN, could I have your fags, please ?

I'm running a bit short this month.

Hope that doesn't make me seem mercenary.....

September 21, 2009 at 15:02 | Unregistered CommenterMartin V

It's Patsy Hewitt who's quitting, not Harperson. Patsy is leaving to spend more time with her pharmaceutical directorships. Harperson will remain active until all white men are on Control Orders.

September 21, 2009 at 16:52 | Unregistered CommenterBasil Brown

Hewitts sibling will be OK,
He'll get off lightly daddy's a Judge.

September 21, 2009 at 17:00 | Unregistered CommenterMcgraw

To Martin V - You must have heard of the joke:-

"Well I'm sorry Mr D, but we're going to have to cut your legs off. However, there is some good news. The chap in the bed opposite wants to buy your slippers".

In all seriousness, Martin, I am, shall we say, "mentally challenged" i.e. me fags - plus other meds - keep me on the straight and narrow, hence, I completely agree with others that the life-saving initative of the smoking ban lacks a little something i.e. it errs towards the Nazi side of things that "special" people, including ones like me who aren't, shall we say, the "full-ticket"" can sort of..er......just f*** off and die, basically.

Does that make sense? Sorry, it's just that I'm having a particularly bad day today lol!! (as they say and oh, yes.....:))

I'll put you down as a first comer for any leftover cigs I have, should the day come, Mr V. Hopefully that will be later rather than sooner. Jesus, I am SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO tired of everything...............

September 21, 2009 at 17:26 | Unregistered CommenterMax D

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>