Your freedom, his choice - part two
Monday, July 19, 2010 
I can't be alone in being cynical about the Government's Your Freedom website which, in my eyes, is a re-branding of the previous Government's e-petition website and equally useless apart from allowing people to let off steam.
Then again, it has allowed a lot of people to express their feelings about the smoking ban and that is undoubtedly helping to keep the issue alive politically, so perhaps I should be a bit more positive.
Anyway, hats off to my old friend NHS anaesthetist Dr Phil Button who has posted a Personal Message to Nick Clegg in response to the deputy PM's dismissive attitude to all those people who have called for amendments to the smoking ban - a response I previously described as Your Freedom, His Choice.
Phil writes:
There are several suggestions put forward asking you to consider amending the smoking ban. They have provoked many comments and much interest. Despite this I hear you are in danger of ignoring widespread public opinion on this matter. You will be seen to prefer listening to vested interests and bigoted self interest groups. In doing so the Your Freedom initiative will be exposed to ridicule and as a thinly disguised sham, created to convince you that you have some sort of influence as a minority segment of a Conservative government.
Conversely if you listen to the outcry you will see that the courageous action, the common sense stand and one that carries massive public support, is to control the influence of unrepresentative and unscientific self interest groups. The amendment of the smoking ban to allow smoking in ventilated, segregated areas in hospitality venues where the owner chooses is an idea for Our Freedom that does not merely encompass but engulfs the three aims stated within your initiative.
Let's give the Your Freedom initiative the benefit of the doubt (although I still think a letter posted to Nick Clegg's office is more likely to attract his attention, especially if you request a reply).
Phil Button has articulated what many of us are thinking so click HERE and add a comment.
See: Dr Phil Button - The "Lost" Interview
Simon Clark
I notice that the idea 'Ban' smoking ban in pubs, give the landlord/landlady the choice, currently rates fourth in terms of the number of comments (327 to date).
I suggest that you comment on this idea so that it remains high on the list. At the same time make sure that you rate it so that it also appears in the list of highest rated ideas. At present it rates three (out of five) stars.
Reader Comments (24)
Good piece of initiative by Phil Button.
There is however, one very important issue that does need clearing up.
Within our "movement" for want of a better word, we do seem to be somewhat split on what we are actually calling for.
Phil talks of "an amendment of the smoking ban to allow smoking in ventilated, segregated areas in hospitality venues where the owner chooses"
I for one, and I know of a great deal of others, do not want segregated areas. It just will not work!
To "segregate" leads not to freedom, but to a loss of freedom!
Have a look at the definition of the word "segregate":
1. To separate or isolate from others or from a main body or group.
2. To impose the separation of (a race or class) from the rest of society.
3. To become separated from a main body or mass.
4. To practice a policy of racial segregation.
Do we really want to be separated from the main body or mass? I certainly don't, and I know many, many others who agree with me on this.
To separate us (smokers) in this manner, is to accept that in some way, we are outcasts, like the lepers of old, who were cast aside to leper colonies so as not to inflict their disease on the rest of society.
Can you ever imagine the absolute fuss it would create when the door to this segregated area within the pub/club/restaurant etc, is thrown open to allow a leper, sorry, smoker, into the main area of the venue? There would not be just the pathetic hand waving from the antis, there would be verbal abuse, leading to possible physical abuse. It just would not work?
The only workable and reasonable idea is for smokers and non smokers to have 100% equal rights to venues. In other words, venues which allow smoking, and others that do not. This way everyone, smokers and non smokers alike have an equal choice, and can mix freely with each other if they choose.
The way I see it is that all these forums and websites set up by the 'new regime' is just a saving face con after their half promises to amend the smoking ban to get their asses elected and now that they have pulled it off, are just making a token gesture by 'feeling our pain' and giving us the 'oppurtunity' of venting our spleens on their gerrymandered web sites.
No siree, smokers are not allowed to have a voice, we just dont matter, just keep fobbing them off with promises and platitudes, there's no profit there, is the attitude.
Howsever, if we were burka wearing muslims with just our eyes visible, we wouldnt have to open our mouths in protest about the banning of the burka that they brought in in France yesterday, before a govt spokesman would rise up to defend our civil liberties, as the MP Mr Green did yesterday, when he told the world and France that England would not tolerate such a draconian ban that would go against their equality laws and freedom on choice.
In my opinion there is something going on here way beyond what is obvious.
I would prefer the ban to be scrapped completely. It is founded on baseless waffle and I see little reason to concede this point. However, given the fact that to achieve this involves parliament accepting that they were conned, plain wrong or showing that they voted for their own preferences as opposed to the wishes of the people they represent - an unlikely event - I would concede to smoking and non smoking pubs. No doubt smoking pubs would become tarred as the 'cancer pubs' but we've lived with worse.
This will only be achieved by continual pressure such as is happening at the moment. I also believe that a Tory majority would have been more beneficial but we must live with the situation as it is.
Howsever, if we were burka wearing muslims with just our eyes visible, we wouldnt have to open our mouths in protest about the banning of the burka that they brought in in France yesterday, before a govt spokesman would rise up to defend our civil liberties, as the MP Mr Green did yesterday, when he told the world and France that England would not tolerate such a draconian ban that would go against their equality laws and freedom on choice.
Good point and one that I hope Simon will press MP's on. It would be interesting to see how they square this one Simon.
Although the wearing or not wearing of the burka is worthy of debate, I don't see what it possibly has to do with Phil Button's excellent article on here about amending the smoking-ban.
All it will achieve in doing is to distract from the original debate, and make us look like a bunch of racists!
I haven't seen many people getting so angry about hoodies or young guys wearing ski-masks!
All it will achieve in doing is to distract from the original debate, and make us look like a bunch of racists!
That's the whole point in a nutshell Pete. Rules for one debate and distinctly different rules for another. A debate about the burka COULD make us look like racists, what about a group of MP's who segregate smokers? What are they known as Pete?
My point exactly, Mark.
Seems to me the weenies in this coalition are no different from the weenies in the Labour govt.
Afraid of their lives to mention the R word.
Us smokers are sure stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Is there any hope for us at all, or are we just fooling ourselves.
Kazikstan anyone?
The issue of the Burka is relevant given that Damien Green said last night that "freedom of choice and tolerance" are the British way. I have always been against the Burka Ban because it denies choice.
My open letter to Karl McCartney who will not support Brian Binley's EDM is here and it mentions Mr Green's view on the "British way"
http://patnurseblog.blogspot.com/2010/07/open-letter.html
Hi Simon, Just a thought but could you make it clear somewhere prominently on this blog that this your personal blog, and that we readers and posters are ordinary members of the general public?
Simon,
You are a nice man, but far to soft for this fight. You would be the one saying, "Oh, I say - please don't do that," as the jackboots marched your family out the door.
Then what would you do to get them back? Hold a "Free My Family Cruise"?
"too" soft, of course.
Good reply to Karl McCartney Pat, very well put.
And I am very pleased to see that you also support liberty and freedom, unlike some of the more extremists on here, that this subject has been hijacked by.
Hi Patsy, I hope you are well. I have just posted this on your website.
I think you maybe a bit too hard on Karl. He does say in his letter that he does support an amendment to the smoking ban.
I bumped into Philip Hollobone MP last Wednesday who is vehermently pro choice and asked him about EDM 406 and said the same as Karl, in that there is not much point in signing one.
Phil Button - a National Treasure !
And - like Peter T above - I, too, have gone off the idea of 'smoking rooms'.
The Government would be bound to hedge their use around with all sorts of daft restrictions about size, access, ventillation etc etc. The net result would simply be an indoor version of the Smoking Shelter.
No thanks !
Only dangerous animals should be put in cages.
The other advantage of resorting instead to smoking and non-smoking venues would be that it would give Joe Public the chance to vote with his feet, and to demonstrate once and for all how 'popular' the Ban was.
A thought which has obvioulsy occurred to the Antis.........................
Denormalisation: our local main supermarket makes you grovel for tobacco and if it's pipe tobacco you have to help the assistant by pointing to it. There's very little choice. In another supermarket today I spotted St Bruno Flake. They don't usually sell it. I bought some. It was dry as tinder and split into hard brittle fragments. I took it back and explained to the assistant what was wrong with it. She called her supervisor. I explained again. She had to call her manager. While I waited for him I protested a bit at this rigmarole and was told it was because it was 'tobacco'. Earlier a young man in the queue,clearly in his twenties, took an interest in the exchange and told me he was fed up with what he called 'health and safety'. He had to carry ID if he did not look 25. I repeat 25. He pointed out mildly that it was HIS body. The manager agreed to an exchange of the Flake for Ready Rubbed. I opened this. It was fine and explained why. I buy my tobacco from an excellent on line specialist. This was a one-off today. The manager apologised and said they had changed warehouses. I wonder how long this flake had been languishing there. Moral: there is a very great deal of resentment, even if not visible by such as not long ago thought the OAP was £30 a week.
I know this is a bit off subject Norman, something that I have been complaining about on this particular thread, but your mention of the condition of the tobacco, firstly makes me think of Spain, where all tobacco shops have their rolling tobacco and cigars inside tempurature controlled cabinets (like a humidor) but obviously larger. It is a disgrace here to even try and sell a product that hasn't been kept under proper conditions, you wouldn't bne allowed to do that with food-stuffs.
Getting back to tobacco, whilst I was at Simon's boat party last week, I met a pipe smoker there. I asked him what he was smoking as it did have a particularly nice smell, and he showed me his tobacco, which was pure black and unlike any I had ever seen. He did tell me the name of it, but as I am not a pipe smoker and did not write the name down I have forgotten it. I think he said it was Irish, and he buys it from that marvellous little tobacco shop in Charing Cross Road, which has been there forever, and in my opinion should be given a preservation order (as should tobacco in general).
Have you ever seen or heard of such a tobacco?
Yes, Peter, I know the shop and remember it from the 60s when a colleague bought his snuff there. Sandalwood was his favourite as I remember. We worked as sub-editors in the House of Common press gallery and in the bar there was a snuff horn bequeathed by a former MP who also left funds for a permanent supply of SP snuff, which some of the old hands in the Gallery regularly visited. As I recall, the snuff horn eventually disappeared - long before the current national tobacco terror. Snuff was a great help in all-night sittings and, though I never saw it I believe there was a similar horn at the entrance to the Chamber, to which the Doorkeepers resorted. Re the black tobacco, the old fashioned Twist and plug brands are still available on line, I discovered. The one I sampled was a very pure taste. Perhaps it was my fault but when it rubbed down it did not go very far. But that is no criticism of the tobacco.
"a snuff horn bequeathed by a former MP ....................."
Now THAT's what I call Style.
Hate to think what sort of bequests the current crop of Vestal Virgins will be making over the coming years.
Activia on tap, perhaps.........................................
Elaborating on a couple of points already made.
About five years ago Sale Conservative Club had a state of the art ventilation/air conditioning system installed so that smokers and non smokers could socialise together happily. All members and visiting cabaret singers were very happy. Ironically, a non smoking member said to me that the smoking ban made no difference at all to the air quality.
As for the idea of amendement and segragation. What happened ion 2007 was in effect a ban on smoking in pubs, clubs and bingo halls. It was also a ban in the hotels, restaurants and cafes who had not already banned it voluntarily. Oh yes, and it was an instruction to all other indoor public places, shops, transport, hospitals etc where smoking had not happened for years, decades, even centuries, to be obligated to errect an unnecesary sign.
“Gentlemen, you may now smoke”.
I was at the Golf Club gents’ dinner last week. It really was quite funny. After the dining was complete, the Chairman pronounced the above famous words, but added, “but not in here obviously”. Everyone had a good laugh and about 30% stepped out onto the balcony (which really ought not to be smoking, and is not ordinarily, because it has a back, two sides and a roof – even though it is about twenty metres long). Smoking my fag, I thought, “Why on earth, are we putting up with this nonsense? Why do we not just do what we have always done – bring ashtrays to the tables, light up and enjoy our social occasion, as we have always done?” And then I realised. There were one or two people there who would have taken great delight in calling the Chairman’s attention to the fact that people were smoking inside.
Every group of people has its arseholes. These are the people who know every rule and every byelaw and every equity decision. They are right even when they are wrong. They write letters to Council. They cause investigations to take place. They waste time and cause trouble. But is it not a most odd thing that they personally always walk away without censure?
This is the reason that Phil Button and Binley MP are right to push for only a slight amendment – separate rooms for smokers that will not impinge upon bar staff. Such an arrangement adequately cuts the ground from under the feet of the workplace ‘harm’ scenario. No contact, no harm. It might just be the straw which does not break the camel’s back – rather it supports the camel’s back and keeps pubs open.
But most importantly, the idea is to put the zealots onto the back foot. It brings smokers in from the cold. It renders outside smoking shelters redundant. It makes the zealots prove that they deserve the space reserved for them. Gradually, it will become obvious that they do not deserve the space reserved for them since the zealots do not go to pubs and there are few people in that space. And so the smoking space will expand until the whole idea of a non-smoking space goes away. This will happen. I say this with confidence because I remember my local, a few years ago, having a room which was a non-smoking room. It was almost always empty. There was nothing wrong with the room – it was not enclosed or separated from the pub as a whole at all. It was a simple fact that no one wanted to go in there. Smokers and non-smokers alike preferred to be in the smoking area where people were enjoying themselves.
I agree totally with everyone that the ban is an affront to our freedom and private property, but I really, really think that a small amendment now (that gets us out of the rain and cold) will be the beginning of the end for the ban.
I also disagree that the Your Freedom site is a waste of time. Let’s face it. If the smoking ban had not been such a big thing on the site, would Clegg have gone out of his way to say what he said? I think not. It seems clear that the powers-that-be are trying their best to sideline the subject (the disappearance of the smoking tag, the difficulty of finding the sites with most votes and comments, etc), but we must not be deterred. Let us find new ways to introduce the ban and new ways to suggest amendments. It can be done as we have seen from Phil Button’s idea.
I am going back there now.
To be honest, the burka comparison will get nowhere. The response is obvious, that 'passive burkas' do not damage health.
Yes, we must continue to use the website, gathering facts where possible, showing how baseless and conniving the likes of ASH are and we must continue to lobby MP's (in my case, even Stephen Pound, waste of time that it is). It is obvious how sensitive an issue to Parliament this matter is and we must continue to show this. Our MP's will only react if they see we are serious.
Its not easy, as any breach of this abominable act will lead to collapse and the antis know it. It would also cause embarrassment to Parliament but we have no choice.
'The burka comparison will get nowhere', very true Frank.
At the risk of being labelled racist again, but the fact that an MP could speak out so quick about this particular ban, spewing on about freedom of choice and tolerance and how England would never even consider it.
Then in comparison to when the smoking ban was introduced, leading to our massive loss of freedom of choice and no tolerance at all, not to mention the loss of jobs and business, when all we got was Omerta,
Makes me realise that health and safety are stronger than any government and are running the country.
Okay, okay -
How, then, about Smoking Burkas ?
With the assistance of modern technology, such a concept should surely be given serious consideration.
A battery-operated internal ventillation system and 'reverse osmosis' face-mask, combined with the latest thing in carbon-capture science, should deal with most objections.
And a burka would probably not qualify as a 'smoking shelter' within the meaning of the Act, and certainly not as a public space.
You could even attend the opera in one.
Or visit friends in hospital.
And the beauty of it is that no-one would DARE to challenge you.
The Perfect Solution ?
Brilliant Martin, but I bet the Health Dept would then ban the burka quicker than you could say Nicholas Sarkozy, as they seem to be running the govt.