My recent article about the "consultation" by Nanny, re what else she should do to target smokers, provoked some interesting and diverse expressions of opinions.
Therefore to add a little more fuel to the fire, let me give you an example of just how daft Nanny's anti smoking legislation really is.
Eva and I perchanced to visit our local pub, The Bedford, recently and observed that all the customers were sitting outside.
For why?
Many of the customers were smokers.
Fair enough you might say, because the legalisation was designed to also protect the bar staff from second hand fag fumes.
Aha...hoisted upon your own petard!
For you see, dear readers, the barmaid was also a smoker and she was outside too having a fag.
Call me a recidivist if you will (and if you can), but doesn't this make Nanny's anti smoking legislation (and Nanny herself) look a little ridiculous?
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Yes, the bar staff who have lost their jobs as a result of the ridiculous ban are now fully protected - as they stand in the dole queue. The pub trade is now in such crisis that a group has been meeting to discuss interventions to save it. Is the group considering the sensible step of amending the ban in a way that will accommodate smokers while not inconveniencing those who dislike smoke? Oh no, it's considering a Government subsidy!
ReplyDeleteIf ever there was an example of foolish government, surely this must be it: it listened to an aggressive, over-zealous lobby, rife with vested interests which cynically presented an over-stated case, decided on a comprehensive ban in breach of its manifesto commitment on the empty assurance of this lobby that non-smokers would flock to the pubs and now refuses to acknowledge clear evidence that the ban has played a significant part in the current crisis preferring, instead, to consider adding to the tax burden under which people are struggling.
Smoking has become an extremely emotive issue, not least in part because of the Government's campaign of demonisation which, as you rightly highlight, Ken, it is eagerly continuing in accordance with suggestions by the tobacco control lobby despite there being absolutely no evidence that proposed measures make a jot of difference to the take up of smoking in the young (the cause du jour). Those who welcome the continued war on smoking because of personal dislike should bear in mind that you can't pick and choose the areas of authoritarian government intervention - you either accept or reject it on principle. If you reject, it you find other ways to resolve personal differences - once upon a time in this country good manners served this purpose.
Jay
Jay:
ReplyDeleteI dislike smoke but, I dislike Nannyism even more....The sensible thing to have done would have been smoking and non smoking bars. Most pubs have a lounge and a public bar, many also have a snug, one of these could have been for smokers...That was the sensible and simple answer however, Nanny does neither sensible nor simple!
I cannot imagine any smoker or non smoker objecting to the fair, sensible and simple suggestion mooted above, but everything Nanny touches with her anti-Midas touch turns to soft brown stuff.
Nanny has all but destroyed the pub trade, record numbers are closing, is this down to the smoking ban? I don't know but it hasn't helped.
In this country, we give too much weight to single issue interest and lobbying groups....Many of the new knee jerk pieces of legislation and policies do not have the support of the majority of the people....That to me, goes against the fundamental principles of democracy, then again, socialisism in all its forms, have never liked democracy.
The problem with any single issue group is that they wish to impose their view on all and most of these groups do not have the support of all people.
Another thing that has happened in this country is that we have turned into a nation of "Tell Tale Tits" or "Grasses."
ReplyDeleteIt seems Nanny is empowering more and more jobsworth snoops and ecouraging people to grass on others, Nanny is even encouraging children to grass up their parents.
We have seen such a change in the national traits of the British under this Nanny that is in cahoots with Euro Nanny....I for one don't like it!!
Did you know that Nanny has paid thieves and other criminals for information about British citizens that hold off shore bank accounts.....What ever happened to the principle that no criminal should gain from the fruits of their crime?
Seems like Nanny does not have a budget for enough snoopers to support her addiction to 'information' from all possible sources so now wants volunteers.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1050738/Now-citizen-snoopers-Councils-recruit-unpaid-volunteers-spy-neighbours.html
Now Local Councils are constructed from people whose personal profiles suggest to the public that they wish to 'serve the community' and these days probably even 'make a difference'.
Whilst for some that may be entirely true and morally worthy it is mote likely that form many their real motivation is the exercise of personal control over others and the feeling of power that brings. Some may have more nefarious reasons to seek influence.
On balance it seems likely that a number of people who put themselves forward for the roles are themselves closet 'snoopers' of one sort or another and more than willing to justify their own addictions by co-opting others with a similar need to unpaid activities from which they achieve gratification.
Perhaps an army of volunteers closely monitoring the activities of the Local Councils and their elected representatives would redress some of the balance. Or maybe one just has to stand for election in order to gain insight into the inner workings of these increasingly authoritarian instruments of state policy. Such an insight may uncover ways to counteract the current erosion of society.
I note from a recent press release that by 2050 the population of the UK is predicted to rise by about 10+ million and the population of Germany to fall by about the same amount. Germany will have fewer people than the UK despite being a much larger land area. Too late for me of course but I might suggest to the kids that they consider revisiting the German Language lessons they experienced in their school years. (Mostly forgotten now I am sure ... the exams were passed, objective achieved.)
Grant
Tonk,
ReplyDelete'Cheap supermarket booze' and the decline in pub trade are cited as the culprits for the crisis but those factors were in place before the ban. There is no doubt, however, that the ban has been the most significant factor: if you were to look at a graph you would see a sudden, sharp drop in pub trade last winter as smokers, rather understandably, preferred the comfort of their own or friends' homes rather than exposure to Britain's weather.
As for the empowerment of jobsworths, I read in the 'Daily Mail' only yesterday that Mzz Smith is proposing to create another tier of enforcement - a sort of second division of 'plastic bobbies' which will be licensed and paid for by LAs and have powers to demand personal details and issue - yes, you've guessed - fines. Prepare to have the local thugs, who are otherwise unemployable, enjoy exercising their state-sanctioned power.
I just wonder how much more people are prepared to accept under a Government which is so undermining freedom and fairness. Is everyone just waiting for the General Election? The awful truth is that it will be difficult to undo the damage wreaked by this Government.
Jay
Jay:
ReplyDeleteAlthough a life long Conservative....I do not think our current party leader is really any different from what we have in now......He has already stifeled debate within the party and he is as green and daft as Blair...I suspect the best thing for anyone young enough to do it, is to leave this cesspit and start a new life outside of the EUSSR.....I wish I was younger and healthier!!
I havent been in a pub since the smoking ban. I like to smoke a fag when I drink beer. But out of interest I asked my kids what it was like in publand since the ban, my son says the non-smokers are standing outside wit their mates who are having a fag, my daughter (bless her) said, " pubs used to smell of smoke and beer, but now they smell of BO and fart!". Eww
ReplyDeletePatriciaUK
The real answer is to treat everyone as grown adults and respect property rights. A pub is not a public place, it is a private business. As such, the owners should be free to decide whether the pub is smoking, non-smoking or a mix. The owners will do what their patrons want because that is what is good for business. Within the pub, all those concerned are adults (or in the charge of adults) who can choose whether or not they stay. Noone outside of the pub is in anyway at risk.
ReplyDeleteWe still persist in the notion that emplyees need protecting. Grown adults can choose to work where they wish. Anyone who doesn't like smoke is not obliged to work in a pub, anymore than someone who doesn't like the smell of fish is obliged to work in a fishmongers.
Sorry for lagging a bit but I’m only just catching up on the last month’s worth of blogs. I noticed a comment under Ken’s first “Fight Back” article.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 7:13 AM said:
“For those of you who need to look a little harder and think a little more when confronted with the "evidence" cause and effect works like this.
When X happens Y always happens
and Y never happens in the absence of X.
Not too difficult is it. ”.
I assume you were being cynical but felt that the context was sufficient such that you didn’t need to spell it out explicitly to your audience (perhaps bloggers need something like curly brackets to denote - “I’m being cynical now so don’t interpret this literally”).
If you were being cynical then I agree: that’s not how cause & effect works.
If you weren’t being cynical then I suppose I’ve started an argument.
Either way, the important thing our lords and masters in power need to realise about cause and effect is (assuming X implies Y and excluding time lags):
When X happens Y always happens
but Y can still happen in the absence of X
(because it could be caused by Z).
If Y is not happening then X is not happening.
If Y is happening then X may or may not be happening.
It’s one of the first lessons to be taught in any formal logic course and might seem very esoteric. However, the number of times politicians draw erroneous conclusions (as mentioned by Anonymous) simply because they don’t understand the basics of cause & effect, is phenomenal.
In their defence though …
If X = smoking and Y = lung cancer,
for an individual - X does not imply Y.
Many people smoke all their lives without ever suffering from lung cancer.
For a government - X does imply Y.
The percentage of the population that smokes will dictate the extra cost to the NHS for cancer treatment. It’ll also dictate the extra revenue for the Treasury from cigarette tax.
This does not make Nanny's anti smoking legislation (and Nanny herself) look at all ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that smoking is banned in The Bedford is so that I (and others) can go there for a drink and not come out stinking. I can go to bed without washing my hair and wake up without me and my pillow stinking of stale tobacco smoke.
Something that never seemed to be considered prior to the smoking ban was the question of equality. A smoker in a pub always had the choice of causing other people to smell or not. A non-smoker in the pub never had that choice. Now, at long last, we are equal. Neither of us can make anyone else smell.
The biggest problem with the smoking ban inside pubs is that more of those who do smoke now do so outside, in the pub garden or yard, thus making it harder for me to get to enjoy a beer outside without having smoke wafted over me.
I suspect that the closure of pubs is nothing to do with the ban on smoking but a change in social habits. As a teenager I grew up with the pub as the centre of my social life. This does not appear to be how it works today. Also, many areas where local pubs were supported by the local community have now become populated with people who, in a similar way to today's young people, do not use their "local" as the centre of their social life and would not do so even if they could smoke (in fact they would probably be less likely to do so if smoking was allowed) - thus the pubs cannot survive and close down. Of course, the fact that the owners of these pubs can make more money by selling the land to residential property developers for yet more flats to be built also has some effect, although hopefully if the property market continues to decline this will happen less often.
"The biggest problem with the smoking ban inside pubs is that more of those who do smoke now do so outside, in the pub garden or yard, thus making it harder for me to get to enjoy a beer outside without having smoke wafted over me."
ReplyDelete--Anonymous.
...and that, ladies and gentlement, is the way that the non-smoking fascists' minds work.
Just waiting for the "now beer drinkers have to go outside, I can barely cross the street with my lemonade without smelling their awful beer breath".
Please, wake up. Or perhaps just read the article without prejudice.
For the record, I do not smoke, yet I will fight to the death for your right to do so.
Anonymous
ReplyDeleteI never thought I would see the day when, I would defend the rights of smokers!!
QUOTE:
“The reason that smoking is banned in The Bedford is so that I (and others) can go there for a drink and not come out stinking. I can go to bed without washing my hair and wake up without me and my pillow stinking of stale tobacco smoke.
Something that never seemed to be considered prior to the smoking ban was the question of equality. A smoker in a pub always had the choice of causing other people to smell or not. A non-smoker in the pub never had that choice. Now, at long last, we are equal. Neither of us can make anyone else smell.” END QUOTE.
Your use of the term equality appears to have a different meaning to that which everyone else believes to be the accepted meaning of the word. What you actually mean is that your right should take precedence over all other people’s rights.
You use Nanny’s own meaning of the word equality where she gives extra rights to her preferred groups, often to the detriment of other groups, in order to promote her version of equality.
Consider this, using your logic as quoted above:
I have a condition that makes me very sensitive to noise, I also like football. In order for me to enjoy a live game at a ground, in the name of “equality” would it be right for me to legally be able to force the rest of the crowd not to make a noise as it has a detrimental affect on my well being?
What would be wrong with a smoking and a separate non smoking bar?
I have never smoked and never will and I too find the air in pubs more pleasing since the ban however, I have not come across such a bigoted and fascist attitude than the one displayed above by yourself. Nanny has clearly got to you....What happens when Nanny decides to ban something that is legal that you enjoy? For example, Yoghurt knitting, if we don’t make a stand soon, Nanny will turn out a band of mindless drone robots that will just accept any old dictate without looking at the bigger picture.....Opppps Too late, they’re already here!!
Anon 11.01am,
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm afraid that the ban was NOT brought in to save you the inconvenience of washing your hair or clothes. If you take your viewpoint to its logical conclusion, society would break down altogether: legislators, in the interests of equity, would have to ban all smells as different people dislike different smells. Laws are not framed to pander to the many and varied personal preferences of individuals in society.
Since you don't want smokers either inside or outside what would you suggest society does with them? Let me guess - you'd ban smoking altogether and have tobacco products go the way of illegal drugs.
When the day comes - and it's heading this way - when the barmaid won't serve you another alcoholic drink because your swiped ID card says that you've exhausted your ration, remember how it all began - with the smoking ban, which people like you supported because you can't see further than the end of your own nose.
Jay
Anon 11:01AM,
ReplyDeleteIf every time you went to a friend’s house you came away with your clothes stinking and your hair stinking, it would be a sure-fire way of concluding: “Get the hell out of there and don’t go back!”.
Your experience in the pub is nature’s way of saying: “Find yourself some less-smelly friends”. It happens many times in many places.