My recent post about the success of the smoking ban mentioned a reception by Forest, the pro-smoking group at a private members club in Belgravia. And today they're having a champagne tea party for MPs in the Commons. Kind of bears out what Libby Brooks is saying in today's Guardian.
The article on Amsterdam's smoking ban, and its impact on coffee shops, is quite entertaining, especially this quote: "It's absurd. In other countries they look to see whether you have marijuana in your cigarette, here they'll look to see if you've got cigarette in your marijuana."
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Labour Candidate for Bristol East
Trolls have decamped to Twitter...
Kerry McCarthy
Labour Candidate for Bristol East
A Future Fair for All
My blog = my rules!
As Monica says in Friends, "rules are good, rules help control the fun!"
First: if you're after a detailed response, please email or write to me. If you're a constituent (or perhaps a very special case), I'll respond; if you're not, you'll have to contact your own MP. Ditto if you want to introduce a subject which bears no relevance to my original post.
Second: I don't have a problem with trenchant criticism of me or the Government, or vociferously expressed opinions, but if I regard your comments as offensive I won't allow them to appear. (I don't like having to moderate comments, but have reluctantly come to the conclusion that people cannot be relied upon not to abuse my good nature!)
First: if you're after a detailed response, please email or write to me. If you're a constituent (or perhaps a very special case), I'll respond; if you're not, you'll have to contact your own MP. Ditto if you want to introduce a subject which bears no relevance to my original post.
Second: I don't have a problem with trenchant criticism of me or the Government, or vociferously expressed opinions, but if I regard your comments as offensive I won't allow them to appear. (I don't like having to moderate comments, but have reluctantly come to the conclusion that people cannot be relied upon not to abuse my good nature!)
Thirdly: I might just randomly delete comments from certain people because I'm getting thoroughly fed up with them and want them to go away and annoy someone else for a while. You know who you are.
That's all - although I reserve the right to create new rules as and when I feel like it. My blog = my rules!From under the floorboards
News from my website
Kerry's troll tolerance count
Trolls have decamped to Twitter...
Labour List
If you're bored with me...
- A Blog from the Backroom (Hopi Sen)
- Alastair Campbell
- And Another Thing... (Tom Harris MP)
- Ben Brogan
- Bloggers4Labour
- Bristol West Paul
- Chris Paul: Labour of Love
- Cllr Tim
- Conservative Home
- Don Paskini
- Fair Deal Phil
- Grace Fletcher Hackwood
- Guardian politics blogs
- Guardian: Comment is Free
- House of Twits
- Ian Cawsey MP
- Kerron Cross
- Kevin Maguire (The Mirror)
- Labour List
- Labour Outlook
- LabourHome
- Liam Byrne
- Luke Akehurst
- Mrs Blogs blogs
- New Statesman: Best of the Politics Blogs
- New Statesman: Bright's Blog
- Nick Robinson
- Olly's Onions
- Open House (the Independent)
- Paul Flynn MP
- Political Betting
- Politics Home
- Progress
- Red Box (The Times)
- Richard Corbett MEP
- Sadie's Tavern
- Spectator Coffee House
- Stuart Bruce
- The Audacity of Pope
- The Bristol Blogger
- The Daily Mash
- The Stilettoed Socialist
- Tom Watson MP
If you're not bored with me...
- May (7)
- April (26)
- March (31)
- February (18)
- January (28)
- December (41)
- November (34)
- October (36)
- September (20)
- August (49)
- July (44)
- June (34)
- May (26)
- April (65)
- March (71)
- February (59)
- January (62)
- December (103)
- November (84)
- October (59)
- September (58)
- August (71)
- July (72)
- June (60)
- May (38)
- April (42)
- March (22)
- February (6)
- December (8)
- November (29)
- October (21)
- September (4)
- August (17)
- July (2)
241 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 241 of 241To all the tobacco industry trolls on here - you would say that wouldn't you.
And I see that the spoof antismoking Frankie is really prosmoking Joyce
Dear Ms McCarthy MP,
Your blog answers have actually not addressed (avoided) the core points. Central to them all is that you are trumpted the "success" for the ban which is deeply misleading, one-sided and based on dishonest figures. The ban has actually failed in reality, damaged business and social lives and communities.
The give up rate claimed by the NHS and the heart attack reduction claimed by Cancer Research UK are both garbage. Fact 1. Fact 2. Your political skill appears to be taking in garbage, ignoring facts and putting garbage out!!
You also fail to understand this legislation is undemocratic, abuses 10M peoples rights and you had no popular public mandate (no even bothered to ask for one).
Some questions for you;
1. Name 1 pub or club that asked you to ban smoking?
2. Name 1 public building that asked you to ban smoking?
3. Name 1 or more bar staff that asked you to ba smoking?
4. Who influenced you. Was it the public and the trade (the people of this country). Or was it extremists in ASH and Cancer Research UK (minorities, unelected and unaccountable)?
My own smoking since the ban has resulted in an increase from 26 to 36 ciggies a day. Bans don't work, have you got the message? Please let this fact sink in as apposed to the indefenceable stance of your current strategic position which further highlights Labours deserved reputation as Nannies, bullies which as you know has left their/your reputation in tatters across the country.
Regards your points;
"I was merely noting that these were people (Forest et al.) who already had a very fixed position on this issue, rather than representing a cross-section of views"
- what do you descirbe your position as, 'fleible' maybe?
- the "cross-section of views" was 70% against the ban. Are you deaf or just pretending to play the populist game??
"Incidentally, it's interesting to note that recent press articles about the success of the smoking ban, citing the figures on heart attacks, public support, etc, have attracted only a handful of comments."
- read our comments again. We've posted that there is no "success" and your agent provocateurs are misleading the Press and public. Your figures are fraudulent and your ban is a miserable failure.
- Can you confirm if we are using the same language?
"The references to Nazis, etc are appalling. We're talking about a ban on smoking in pubs and clubs which means people have to stand on doorsteps - possibly in the cold and rain, admittedly - if they want to have a cigarette.."
- Do you go out to stand in the rain 9 months of the year then?
- What precisely don't you get or understand about smoking rooms/areas and flexibility?
- the ban is abusive, barbaric and destructive and stupidly inflexible. Yes/No?
"And - arguably - some pubs and clubs closing down."
- no "argument" about it. It's crystal clear, your researcher may need replacing!
- Are you accountable?
- Will you compensate pubs and staff damaged by the ban?
"And that's comparable to millions of people being rounded up and sent to concentration camps and starved and gassed and shot?"
- No you are extrapolating an extreme. We compare you to Goerbils who started the "repeat a lie often enough" propoganda your Party has wrapped itself in that the ban was "good for the nations health".
"Third point - the scientific evidence on passive smoking was debated and discussed at great length before Parliament voted on the ban."
- Your consultation was rigged and one-sided (aka WMD/Iraq and Sir Richard Stern climate change junk science).
- The foxes got 40 hours debate. Smokers got 3 hours debate. Is that fair?
"I considered it carefully, particularly the evidence on.. ventilation or smoking areas would achieve the same objective. I was, and remain, convinced that passive smoking is a genuine risk to public health."
- When you "considered carefully" did you consult the 70% of the public against a blanket ban?
- Did you consult 10M smokers (more people that put your Party into office?
- You had no public mandate for a blanket ban. Do you agree Yes/No?
- passive smoking, even by ASK UK's figures present no public health risk.
"To summarise, I haven't changed my mind about (a) the dangers of smoking.."
- I've a 40 in 10,000 chance of dying from a smoking related cancer, passive smokers a 12.5 chance in 100,000. You've a 1 in 300 chance of damage to health (illness or death) from an Labour NHS hospital. Shall we put up large "NHS HOSPITALS ARE EXTREMELY DANGEROUS TO PUBLIC HEALTH" on hospital entrances?
- Name 1 person in the UK that's died from passive smoking?
"(b) the health benefits of giving up smoking"
- are you admitting the smoking ban was a fraud, namely about stopping rather than passive?
- Smokers Live Longest. Madame Jeanne Claument lived pass 121 and is the worlds oldest person ever. Henry Allingham is Britians oldest man ever. Both smokers. Can we put that on fag packets soon please just to be accurate?
"(c) the dangers of passive smoking. You will no doubt accuse me of ignoring the evidence; I haven't, I just don't think it's authoritative or compelling."
- Who asked you to protect passive smokers except for an extremist minority?
- Did you have a national vote?
"Fourth point - for me, passive smoking and its effect on bar/ restaurant staff was only one of the factors.. but I subscribe to the view that smoking is something that should be discouraged. Can any of you argue that smoking is a good thing, that it ought to be encouraged?"
- Firstly you've put over 10,000bar staff out of work. How proud of 'protecting' them?
- name 1 staff member in Britain that's had ill health?
- Smoking clubs and pubs are considerably more successful than non-smoking when people had freedom to choose. Yes or No?
- I smoke. I want to smoke until I want to give up. Who asked you to get involved?
- Isn't banning ads, false killer messages on ciggy packs and stupid TV adverts enough - if they've failed why don't YOU 'give up'?
"Are you comfortable with the fact that British American Tobacco are now pushing their wares on children in the developing world, selling single cigarettes in a bid to get them hooked?"
- are you comfortable with nicotine gum being freely available to children in shops?
- the Ad bans, pack messages and F1 ad bans have all failed here. How do you possibly imagine you can influence smoking in a foreign country (who asked you to?) when you fail to achieve results here?
"..my priority is young impressionable people who I don't want to see taking up smoking."
- if your "priority is children" why are you bullying adults?
- kids my age taught me to smoke aged 6. Shall we ban kids grouping and socialising too as you've done with the Pub ban?
"(Mum) died at 73; her 3 sisters died at 98, 100 and 101."
He (Dad) was 56. So that's where I'm coming from."
- Madame Jeanne Claument and Henry Allingham out-lived all your Aunties. What's your point?
- Who asked you to extend peoples lives?
- Spain, Japan etc all have higher smoking rates than Britain and all have longer life expatancy. Is life expetancy your priority or making life itself miserable for smokers by bullying them?
"Fifth point - I was involved in.. 2005 election manifesto; in fact I argued for a full ban... I agree it would therefore have been wrong ..to have pushed the full ban.. given that it wasn't a manifesto commitment.. Parliament votes all the time on issues which aren't in the governing party's election manifesto.. so we were pledged to introduce a partial ban, and had a free vote on whether to take it further."
- you renaged on your manifesto pledge. Yes or No?
- you have deceived your core Labour voters. Yes or No?
- you had no public mandate, and did not seek it, for theban. Yes or No?
"Sixth point - John Reid frequently made the 'class' point, describing smoking as one of the few 'working class pleasures'. I didn't agree with him then, and I didn't agree with him now. I actually think it's just as patronising to say you're defending a working class pleasure as it is to say that the working class need to be saved from themselves. I don't draw a distinction between who smokes. I just think it's a bit disingenuous of Forest to push this line.."
- are all your figures about success not "a bit disingenuous". Yes or No?
"Seventh point - public support for the ban. I was quoting figures widely reported in the press, and I don't think in any case you are saying you have majority support? I can only base it on published figures.."
- do you believe everything you read?
"..shop owners tell me that 25% of their profits are based on cigarette sales. I have some sympathy with them.. We can't continue to promote cigarette sales just to keep them in business. I think this also answers the point about why I don't think separate bars for smokers is a good idea."
- who asked you to decide about private property. Why can't they decide in their on premises?
- Your Govt takes £7bn a year off smokers. How about showing them some "sympathy" and respect?
- Why not give back the £7bn in smoking taxes from 2007 to compensate and allow Pubs, Clubs and public buildings to re-open and refurbish with smoking rooms?
"As I said, I'm not prepared to allow this blog to be hijacked by proponents of a single cause, especially not one with which I so vehemently disagree."
- Wether you agree or not, your job is to represent the people, inc. 10M smokers (1 in 4 of your constituents) and not abuse your position for personal prejudices, trample over adults lives, civil rights and businesses with no permission, with no public mandate to do so and by contuining to mislead aout "success" when it is failure that's the reality.
What harm would a balanced, responsible, honest view be? The ban is a miserable failure and will continue to fail (and actually increase smoking). Fact. The truth hurts sometimes doesn't it?
This legislation needs amending to allow landlords and public buildings to decide what's best as clearly politicians have shown they have behaved destructively and are incapable of carrying out their duties responsibly or democratically or achieve anything. Pass the power back to the people - that was a Labour manifesto pledge of Blairs to "do more for people" wasn't it?
Nigel, what I want to know is: Who is Nigel Saint a cipher for? A real ASH troll wouldn't resort to such a simplistic slur in lieu of reasoned argument... would they?
Dear Kerry,
You, most obviously are an anti-smoker and worse still, an anti human rights crusader! Smoking is a legal activity, it is also a pleasurable experience for millions of people and it is also a freedom of choice whether you wish to smoke or not!
Please take note of the following situation within my married family:-
3 people on my wife's side have died of cancer, one was only 34 yrs old.
None of them smoked nor drank-yet they died of cancer. Why?
Because it emanates from the genes, the human 'make up' of cells, both good and bad, both healthy and unhealthy. Now, we have the sad situation that my mother-in-law has inoperable cancer and has only weeks/months to live. She has never smoked in her life and has, to date, had the
audacity to have one glass of brandy wine each and every Christmas Day since I can remember. Now with none of them smoking, can you please explain to me why one family of NON smokers has been so blighted by that
which you supposedly introduced this law to save from the perils of smoking?
It is said by gov't that this law is working as intended! So Kerry:-
Did this gov't intend 2,000 businesses to shut forever?
Did this gov't intend to put over 10,000 people into unemployment?
Did this gov't intend to force bankruptcy upon once hard working people?
Did this gov't intend to make people homeless?
Did this gov't intend to slaughter share prices to such an extent that some are now beyond recovery?
Incidentally-why have tobacco shares risen?
You talk about "98% compliance with the law" Kerry-well, you have made the penalties so unrealistic that licensees are frightned to death to conscientiously object! Mind you, that not dissimilar to many of the other 1000 new stealth taxes your mob has introduced in its 10 year reign of dictatorship!
Licensees are struggling Kerry, because the non smokers this
'spinmaster' of a gov't promised would march-never did! Smokers drink far more often than non smokers Kerry, that is a fact, yet you and your gov't used kidology to convince the unwary of an untruth-not for the first time either!
back to my mother-in-law. I have her full permission to send you this 'comment' for your blog, for she is a very poorly 78 yr old woman who, despite her terrible condition, still believes in human rights and furthermore, that people should have the freedom2choose in order to save their businesses.
Hitler started all this off and all your party has done is to adhere to Hitlerite policies to control even the pensioners who defeated Hitler to maintain human rights. You have even thrown them out into the cold!
Congratulations to you and your party, enjoy what little time you have in the echelons of power for it is limited. My mother-in-law will be 'gone' before your gov't but don't you dare have the temerity to count her passing as one of your cancer statistice due to smoking; in fact remove the other 3 in her family from your dreampt up figures while you
are at it.
Yours sincerely
Phil Johnson
Leicester.
To handymanphil
Wish we were local, well said i could not agree more. My patrner an ex-smoker now tolerant to smokers is outraged how we the british public are being treated, to my shock he know complains about not complaining about his smoke filled clothes, but other worse smells. There is no doubt SHS was a good air freshner.
But seriously life have been ruined JM
Kerry
Are you going to wake up and smell the coffee at some point or are you going to continue to hide your head in the sand and hope we go away? We won't - and we want your answers. We deserve your answers. We have an absolute right to know what those we elected think of our opinions. Given your complete disregard of those on this blog and the fact that you are clearly not brave enough to engage with us in debate you will clearly be much happier after the next election when you are consigned to oblivion like the rest of your corrupt and obnoxious cronies. I have voted Labour all my life but never again - I cannot allow my trust to be abused again.
Dear Saintly Nigel,
Neither you nor Kerry or anyone else will be able to ignore us for much longer. Things are changing worldwide as the public becomes better acquainted with the economic damage caused by smoking bans and the ETS scam that enabled them to happen.
People like you you are about to receive a rude awakening over the next few months as to just how arrogant, and hence stupid, you are. Moreover, this government's days are numbered and many of those currently in office will never have the responsibility of heading up this country again. What Kerry is experiencing here is the cold hard slap of reality, something she and her colleagues should experience more often as it would do them so much good.
Welcome to the British public and its opinions presented unfiltered by the media and the public health and parliamentary spin machine.
Love,
Blad.
I'm in love with a big blue frog
A big blue frog loves me
It's not as bad as it appears
He wears glasses and he's six foot three
Well I'm not worried about our kids
I know they'll turn out neat
They'll be great looking 'cause they'll have my face
And great swimmers 'cause they'll have his feet
I'm in love with a big blue frog
A big blue frog loves me
He's not as bad as he appears
He's got rhythm and a Ph.D.
Well I know we can make things work
He's got a good family since
His mother was a frog from Philadelphia
His daddy an enchanted prince
(instrumental and froglike bubbling)
The neighbors are against it, it's clear to me
And it's probably clear to you
They think value on their property'll go right down
If the family next door is blue
Well I'm in love with a big blue frog
A big blue frog loves me
I've got a tattoo on my chest
That says P-H-R-O-G, that's frog to me
P-H-R-O-G
I just figured that if, as a representative of the people, you're not going to respond until they stop talking to you, I'm going to provide you with some inspirational lyrics from The Muppets.
Okay, so it's a cover..
BTS (and probably more likely to get a seat at the next election)
Law of unintended consequences:
The actions of people (and especially of governments) always have effects that are unanticipated or unintended. These often outweigh the intended effects.
The mass closures of pubs, clubs, bingo halls, etc.
An increase in parents smoking at home in front of their kids.
An increase in uncontrolled drinking at home.
An increase in uncontrolled gambling, especially, bingo on the internet.
Were these consequences of the smoking ban unanticipated or unintended? Bloody obvious ones in my opinion!
Dear Kerry
The purpose of the smoking ban was to save the lives of thousands of people from SHS. Smoking is permitted House of Commons bar as it's said that it would be too dangerous for them to go outside. Does this mean MP's and the like, live's are more important than those people who have to work in the bar? What if anything is going to be done to protect the health of the workers there?
Be brave, Kerry.
Admit that the smoking ban is not having its desired effects. Admit that the adverse consequences far outway any benefits
Table a motion to relax the ban - a partial ban as pledged in your election manifesto. Give the leisure industry and its employees a glimmer of hope in these ever increasingly difficult times.
You may win back some of the millions of votes you have lost.
I'm conducting a mental health survey of politicians and anti-smokers in Britain (the EEC and UN are next). Please help by completing the following;
Air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University (for the American Cancer Society) in a peer reviewed study published in the British Medical Journal proves secondhand smoke (a smokey room) is 2.6 to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational/workplace clean air regulations. Que 1. Is second hand smoke;
a) no danger to public health or b). A figment of minority interest health campaigners vivid imagination.
It is impossible outside of a laboratory to create levels of second hand smoke that are harmful to health. Que 2. Are Labour politicians capable of reading facts and;
a). ignoring them for personal prejudices or
b). incapable of reading or have severe memory loss
Get your microscopes out now class. Your risks of getting a smoking related cancer are 10 in 100,000 as a non-smoker, 12.5 in 100,000 as a passive smoker and 40 in 100,000 as a smoker. Should Laws on health and passive smoking be based on odds that a Betting Shop would write off as "a blind horse with a broken leg with no chance of winning.. but you can bet on it if you're a real idiot"
a). Sounds like a bad basis for legislation
b). Sounds like a good bet to me
Your chances of your health being damaged in an NHS hospital are 1 in 300 or 40 in 100,000 if you stay away from NHS hospitals and smoke 40 a day for decades. Should health warnings be;
a). slapped on all NHS hospital entrances
b). removed from cigarette packets
as deeply misleading and extremely offensive
The smoking ban was introduced to "protect staff and public health". Can you;
a). name 1 person in the last 100yrs that died from passive smoke b). name 1 persons who's life has been saved in the past year of the ban
c). name a single smoker that's died from a smoking related disease that was not caused by their genetics (family tree), pollution, diet, asbestos, where they live (location) or another major cause of cancer
An NHS quit programme includes Pfizers quit drug Champix/Chantix approved by 'NICE' the Govts' drug approval agency. It's been banned in America by the pilots and truckers associations and has over 3,000 known side-effects including 50 suicides, mental depression and suicidal thoughts, muscle spasms (inc causing traffic accidents), heart seizures (1 quitter suffered 2 heart attacks on Day 13 of Champix) and more problems than I can list. Which is more dangerous to your health;
a). 40 years smoking 40 a day or
b). 2 weeks on an NHS Quit programme
Madame Jeanne Claument is the oldest person that's ever lived (121) who enjoyed gourmet food, cheap local red wine, port and strong French cigarettes. Henry Allingham is Britains oldest man, 112 last month, who's tip for longevity is "cigarettes, whisky and wild women". Ned Hughes is 108 and Britains oldest pipe smoker. Can you;
a). name a non-smoking, non-drinking vedgetarian that has outlived Madam Claument
b). Tell these meat eating smokers and drinkers what they don't know about health
My results so far, as you'd expect from Labour MP's, suggests they should all spend time in a mental health hospital and get treatment - where smoking is banned by them for some strange reason!!
Well Kerry, it looks like it may be slowing down enough for you to
finally post some sort of half hearted response no doubt written for you by an ex-tory spin doctor. Will your answers be honest? I doubt it but if you try to be a normal human being for a few minutes you may realise that the 200 odd posts on here are only a very small percentage of the ill feeling being bred at the moment in this country.
The smoking ban is the tip of a very large iceberg of high taxation, immigration, legislation and control freakery that HMG are foisting upon us. You set great store in your protection of children but remember that most children grow into self thinking adults which are in no need of Nanny. Also remember that strict parenting often suffers a huge backlash and that bad parents (or governments) make bad children
(or citizens).
Please believe when I say that more lies and deceipt will just convince us even more that your manifesto pledges to be transparent and open, to not be what you accused the last Tory government of - a party of lies, spin and sleaze.
It is time to decide whether 25% of the electorate gets a fair deal, it's hard enough being mugged without being told it's for our own good.
I posted a response on Sunday - I did it as a separate post so that people would notice I'd done it. Obviously unsuccessfully in your case. See 'Cigarettes and alcohol'.
Kerry,
With respect, if you call that "an answer" you obviously missed a good two dozen of the questions!!
Remember Labour Party officials couldn't stop themselves after the Council Election hammering on BBC TV saying they'd return with their tails between their legs, heads hung low and "LISTEN". At about 3am and after a constant barrage of how much Labour were going to "listen" (we got to Labour oficial No.20) David Dimbleby lost it a bit and told him to shut up!
So you don't gave to spend 2 hours anwering here are the core 6 questions you've got to listen to and answer ;
1. Are you and the Govt aware of the economic (2,00 Pubs/Clubs and 10,000 job losses) the ban has brought?
2. Are you and the Govt aware of the social damage (devisiveness, inconvenience, changes to social lives, loss of community Pubs etc) the ban has brought?
3. Why are you and other Labour members painting this as "a success" with false figures?
4. Are you (now) aware that passive smoke is no danger to public health?
5. Are you (now) aware passive smoking does not infringe any clean air regulations?
6. Will you/Labour take action (wave) asap to allow Landlords (Pubs, Clubs, Venues, Bingo Halls, Restaurants etc) and all public buildings to choose if their establishments are smoke free, smoking or a mix of both?
You should also be aware of the legal issues. ASH UK threatened Pub Co's and business employers that they were facing legal action from employees 'damaged' by second hand smoke. This was a gas filled bluff (like their entire campaign).
Check the McTear v Imperial Tobacco (Scotland 2005) legal case where a smoker (repeat 'smoker') who died of lung cancer lost claiming tobacco had caused his death (the wife moved the case to court). The Judge stated in no uncertain terms the considerable evidence still could not attribute tobacco smoking to lung cancer because there are over a dozen possible causes.
Similarly the EPA case in America was thrown out regarding smokey air being a danger to public health. In fact the Judge heavily criticised the EPA for peddling junk science.
Both smoking and passive smoking cannot be attributed causation of health problems. This leaves your Government, already quite severly 'economically challanged' wide open to legal challange withot any health reasons as a viable or credable defence.
Namely you're in deep, deep trouble (totally exposed) if a case is brought against you and your legislation, which is based on an extrapolation of an extreme (a phantom science), for any reason (damage) it has caused.
Ignorance is not bliss Ms McCarthy.
Now you've got the 'whole truth' on this Blog, as apposed to the one-eyed vested interests orgy of the governments consultation process before the ban, you can carry out your official duty to the country in a more informed, responsible and broad minded way.
I fear it will not save you and your colleagues from 15-20 years in the wilderness but it is possible to save more peoples jobs and livelihoods by continuing to ignore the problems as your colleagues have done to date.
And smokers are happy to see our massive taxes go toward a compensation fund to reimburse those owners and members of staff that have lost their jobs since July last year. About £300-£400M of our £7bn in taxes should cover the damage to date.
The smoking ban was imposed to supposedly protect barstaff in pubs from SHS. Yet, in the kitchens of those pubs, in which the food upon which many pubs' survival now depends is cooked, the workers' health and safety is at a far greater risk than that of the barstaff before the ban.
Cooking fumes, particularly those from charcoal grills, contain significantly higher levels of toxins and carcinogens than SHS. There are also the risks from extremely hot liquids and surfaces and the risks of cuts or more serious injuries from knives and cleavers.
When are these workers going to be given the same level of protection as their customer-facing colleagues and you achieve your apparent objective of closing every single pub in the country?
Kerry,
You and your fellow MPs were elected to represent your constituents. Yet the people most important to our future did not have a vote and have no say - the children of the nation.
How many of our children's parents have lost their businesses, jobs, even homes because of the smoking ban?
How many are being exposed to even greater levels of SHS, or being exposed to SHS for the first time, because their parents have nowhere else to indulge in their legal habit? How many more will continue to be exposed because their parents were among the hundreds of thousands that may have quit but did not, had the pre-ban rates of quitting prevailed? How many more will take up smoking themselves due to the 'copy cat' effect? How many more will start or have already started smoking because of the 'forbidden fruit' effect?
How many more will witness domestic violence, or be victims themselves, as a result of the increase in uncontrolled drinking at home?
How many more will not have a proper meal placed in front of them because their parents have lost money they never had on uncontrolled on-line gambling?
Pubs are now having to provide food and attract families to survive. Does the 'copy cat' effect not equally apply to alcohol abuse as it does to smoking? The food on a typical pub's children's menu is pure junk. Isn't this the very same food that is banned from school meals and for which TV advertising is banned?
Put aside your party loyalty, political dogma, not wanting to 'rock the boat' or whatever it is that is preventing from seeing reason. Do something to protect the kids of the nation, the VICTIMS of this ill-conceived legislation. Or do you wish to be remembered (by a few) as just another of the spineless rats that went down with the sinking NL ship?
Johnny.Savage, you're as guilty as Kerry of not looking at the science. There's no dangers to kids from passive smoking as both the UN's 1998 WHO study and the Enstrom & Kabat 39 year long study demonstrate. Both show increased immunity to children from parents who smoke. Period.
I agree with your other points but really my skin crawls when we bring kids into the adult political arena. Please leave the kids out of political ping-pong. Parents actually do a very good job in the vast majority of cases and don't need or want advise.
I'd also respectfully request you don't bring alcahol into the arena when again the vast majority of consumption is perfectly sociable and without its known side-effects (wobbly legs and slurred speech when taken in excess).
When Labour politicians have had 15yrs to run the health service and invested £Billions extra that have 'gone AWOL' they don't need their attention deflected on minor issues.
An NHS hospital has a 1 in 300 chance of seriously damaging public (your) health which the British Medical Association and Labour politicians need to address by slapping health warnings on before they chase miniscule health risks like smoking and alcahol.
jpboxer:
I don't believe the scientific 'evidence' either (and I have an honours science degree). Why didn't the H&SE step in years ago and are only paying 'lip service' to the ban even now? However, the politicians appear to have been brainswashed into believing it - hence my IMPLIED belief.
Even forgetting the SHS issue, kids are still the major victims of the ban. They should be the ones targeted - to prevent them starting in the first place. But not by restrictions curtailing the personal liberties of responsible and consenting adults, but by education and 'carrots' rather than 'sticks'.
As for alcohol ABUSE, this is a far greater problem to innocent third parties than smoking. The government has its priorities completely wrong. But we all know how the problem will be tackled - by restrictions on all drinkers, including the overwhelming majority of responsible drinkers.
We stand united on the insanity of the smoking ban. Our numbskull politicians may not be prepared to admit their failures in this one case but hopefully we can prevent them from dictating how we live our lives, what we eat, what we drink, etc. in the future
JS, we're back on the same wavelength but I'm still not sure how the kids are involved or if they even if they should be in a debate!!
Kerry highlights the futility of politicians actions with her concerns for tobacco in far and away places when Labour actions in this country (Ad bans, health warnings on ciggy packs, smoking ban itself etc) have already proved futile.
Tther futile action they've trumpeted "success" about are the Council inspectors (Nu Labour Gistapo) inspecting (hassling) pubs, clubs, hotels, taxis, public vehicles and restaurants. 2 regional newspapers have trumpeted 99% and 97% "compliance" with the ban.
I make that 97-99% of taxpayers time and money being a complete waste of time and money and grounds for staff reductions of 97-99% in these jobsworths numbers - or has Labours expansion of the Petty and Trivia Police been to pay for alienated voters?
Which brings me to the subject of obesity. When Govt under Labour has grown to 50% of GDP is it not time again for Labour to look to itself and prioritise massive cuts in its Govt consumption and Govt fat rather than point at taxpayers piling on the pounds?
I think all Labour targets seem to be finding fault with the public and pointing their fat fingers at voters when in fact the biggest faults rest with them as bankrupt (in every sense) politicians who can't go on a public health diet.
There is so much damaging evidence; on this site to clearly indicate "The Smoking Ban Bill" should have been thrown out by The House of Lords. Maybe we have a constitutional angle here or even a law suit.
Any good barrister or University Professor out there who is willing to assist?
Great relevance and importance are attached to the words of the government's Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, concerning the 'success' of the smoking ban in 'persuading' smokers to quit. Yet, as I have shown conclusively in a previous posting, the numbers of 'quitters' in the nine months either side of the ban have DECREASED SIGNIFICANTLY, by HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, compared to the official NHS rates for 2005/6.
This man is clearly a clown and totally unfit for his job. To further back this up, may I remind you of what he said in October 2005.
"A bird flu pandemic will hit Britain - but not necessarily this winter, the chief medical officer has said.
Sir Liam Donaldson said a deadly outbreak would come when a strain of bird flu mutated with human flu.
He told the BBC's Sunday AM show it would probably kill about 50,000 people in the UK, but the epicentre of any new strain was likely to be in East Asia."
Failing sacking him, perhaps his post should be retitled Chief Medical Disinformation Officer. But then he is not exactly brilliant at that either. Will anyone believe a single word he says in the future? Does anyone believe a word he says now? Remember, he is supposedly responsible for the health of the nation.
In the words of the great John Lennon - "gimme some TRUTH".
I would suggest that you get out and see the success the smoking ban has had. Once thriving pubs and clubs devoid of customers and atmosphere. The staff all agree that this started after 1st July 2007. Nothing to do with supermarket beer prices or the credit crunch.
Nobody wanted a total smoking ban except for the extremists and you allowed them to pull the wool over your eyes. Even the fanatics from ASH could not believe that MP's voted for a total ban. You promised us a mixture of smoking and non-smoking venues and that is what we voted for at the election. Once again New Labour have broken a promise to the electorate. I will never vote Labour again because you are all power mad and will lie through your back teeth for votes. If you want to serve the people try finding out what they really want. Being constantly dictated to is the one thing we will not tolerate in this once free country.
Mark -
You don't HONESTLY imagine that people like Mizzzz McCarthy actually GO to pubs, do you ?
Frightfully common, and frightfully non-New Labour......(it's full of those dreadful 'working' types one sees on the telly). Yuk...........!!!
Sushi bars, now - that's a different story !!
15th July 2008
I too am a lifelong Labour supporter. Not any more. I am appalled at the way in which this draconian legislation was enacted (make it look as though it was a free vote").
I will be voting for the opposition, whoever it may be in my constituency - Ms Kelly's. She has no chance next time, but, being a minister, she will probably be patachuted in somewhere else. Will you?
Oh Dear Gordon 'bankrupt' Brown quoted the Cancer Research UK statistics in Parliament today at PM's Question Time.
It was in answer to a Labour MP's fully loaded (bent) question about "the success of the ban" which, like Ms. McCarthy, painted rice paper thin success over the huge cracks of abject social, economic and democratic failure of the ban.
'Balls-Up' Brown added his rice papering over the colossal hole this out-of-touch Govt is digging itself on this issue by saying the ban "is increasing in popularity".
Well Brown is adding another survey to the CR UK survey which also remains to-date unpublished and non-peer reviewed. So that's 2 surveys we all need sight of to add to the Scottish Health Ministers claims of a 17% reduction in heart attacks which has already been crushingly debunked as garbage.
Labour crusades on issues like smoking, WMD/Iraq, 'Speed Kills' and climate science riding with 'Junk Science' banners as their battle flag. We must congratulate Labour in avoiding any open democratic (public) debate on all 4 issues and not being held accountable for the damage (social and economic) caused by their policies based on wind bags with garbage statistics.
Parliamentary reforms are essential for these costly national and global errors not be able to recur. In addition to the dozen questions you've failed to address Ms McCarthy could you answer if you'd support reforming the Govts consultation process and opening the junk-stats process to democratic scrutiny?
Guys'n'Gals;
It ought to be abundantly clear to all of us by now that Kerry is neither listening, or willing to change her jaundiced opinions by taking a look at {never mind comment on} mere "inconvenient truths" such as facts.
The very best we can hope for here {while being accused of being an organised group who are "hijacking her blog" with our "single issues"} is to perhaps hammer the message home that everything isn't quite as shiny & bright as she imagines it to be, and that a LOT of people are here because they've had ENOUGH of being treated like children.
Isn't it a pity they can't just smack us any more......
No Kerry - it quite definitely ISN'T "just" about the smoking ban, although that's the thread which provoked so many responses as JPBoxster and many others have tried to point out to you.
It's about Labours' entire attitude of contempt and disregard for the wishes of the people, and while the smoking ban is a prime and very pertinent example, it's only one of an increasingly offensive and insulting number of intrusions into our personal lives while you fritter away billions of pounds on "issues" and "initiatives" which leave the majority of British people shaking their heads in sheer anger, dismay, and disbelief.
You "observed” that nobody had much to say about the so-called successes of the ban, or the reported health benefits.
Fair comment – so exactly how many references would you like?
The truly miraculous claims of reductions in heart attack admissions {for an acquired disease which takes many years to develop and which certainly isn't instantly reversible} following smoking bans has already been thoroughly debunked on a number of occasions, for example in the case of the Helena Study “Miracle”:
{I've copied & pasted the article below; however I've also included the original link should you wish to verify it, or follow any of the clickable links}.
The Helena Study
In June of 2002 a smoking ban was implemented in the town of Helena, Montana. Six months later the ban was lifted due to a judicial ruling.
In April, 2003, two researchers made an astounding claim: the ban had lead to an immediate 60% drop in heart attacks. They further claimed that when the ban was lifted the number of heart attacks returned to normal levels.
This study has received widespread distribution and acceptance, and has been used to "prove" that bans improve public health. But it doesn't take much digging to see that the study was a complete fraud; a shameful exercise in junk science.
Fact: In 2002 the city of Helena, Mt. passed a ban on smoking for all business. Six months later the ban was overturned by a judge, and smoking was once again allowed in public places.
Fact: In 2003 Dr. Richard P. Sargent and Dr. Robert M. Shepard announced to the press they had done a study which showed a 60% decrease in acute myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) during the period the ban was in place.
Study results are usually announced when a study is published. "Science by Press Conference" is not highly regarded in the scientific community.
Fact: When the study was published in the British Medical Journal, a year later, they claimed a 40% reduction in heart attacks.
Why did they give one number to the press, and an entirely different, much lower number to the BMJ?
Their original PowerPoint presentation is available here (pdf). Note the 60% claim on the last page.
Fact: Sargent and Shepard enlisted the aid of Dr. Stanton Glantz (whose doctorate is in applied mechanics, not medicine or biology), an active and prominent leader of the anti-smoker movement in the US.
Fact: BMJs web site includes a "Rapid Responses" section, where respondents can comment on a study. Dr. Glantz posted there, ignoring all of the criticisms and questions that had been posted. He said their study "reported a 42% (95% CI 1% to 79%) statistically significant drop in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarctions (AMI)"
Fact: The confidence interval cited by Glantz does not appear any where in the original study.
Studies with wide confidence intervals are suspect. Studies where the CI is close to 1.0 are very suspect. (See Statistics 101 for more details.) Assuming the CI Glantz cites is accurate, one less heart attack or one misdiagnosis could have pushed the lower boundary of the CI below 1.0, which would have made the results statistically insignificant.
Fact: The researchers claimed that the isolated community, which resulted in a very small sample size, was a positive factor.
Fact: In statistical studies, large sample sizes across various populations are usually considered desirable.
Fact: Compliance with SHS laws is an important factor in SHS exposure.
Fact: In the study the researchers reported, "We did not make any direct observations to measure how much exposure to secondhand smoke was reduced during the months when the law was in force. We do not know the prevalence of smoking in venues covered by ban, though the city-county health department reported that all but two businesses complied."
Fact: On April 7, 2003, Sargent and Shepard attended a meeting of the Montana Senate where they heard testimony from business owner Laura Fix that smokers were driving outside town to patronize venues that allowed smoking. The minutes from this meeting are available here.
Fact: At the same meeting Rich Miller of the Gaming Industries Association, testified that three of Helena's five casinos never complied with the ban.
Fact: It was well known that some of the casinos were ignoring the ban, and many bars (at least nine according to this article) were not in compliance.
Fact Worth Repeating: Sargent and Shepard were present at the meeting where the widespread non-compliance was discussed, yet still claimed, in their study, that only two business were non-compliant. At the same meeting they learned that smokers were making the short trip out of town to smoking venues, but ignored that fact in their study.
Fact: 38% of the patients in this study were smokers, 29% were ex-smokers, and 33% were life long non-smokers. This was mentioned in the study, but was not taken into account or used to adjust the final numbers.
Fact Worth Repeating: Only a third of the patients in this study were non-smokers.
Fact: Although the study claimed to be about the effects of second hand smoke, the researchers did not interview a single patient about their SHS exposure.
Not one! If they wanted accurate information, wouldn't they have interviewed as many patients as possible? There were only 40 of them.
Fact: A similar dip in heart attacks occurred in 1998. The researchers ignored this fact.
Fact: No confounders were considered, checked for, or used to adjust the results.
In any legitimate statistical study, confounders must be accounted for and used to adjust the data. (See Statistics 101 for more information.) In this case, confounders would have included the patients smoking status (smoker, ex-smoker, never smoker) exposure to any conditions, substances, physical activity or environments that could cause or contribute to heart attacks, and recent changes to those exposures.
Fact: The authors of this study claimed they had no competing interests.
Fact: Richard Sargent and Robert Shepard were anti-tobacco activists before conducting this study. When asked about this Shepard said, "They can say what they like. The bottom line is, the data speaks for itself. We don't have to apologize for our particular bias." (Emphases added.)
Fact: Stanton Glantz is one of the leading anti-tobacco and anti-smoker activists in the United States. He has brought millions of dollars of anti-smoking grant money to the University of California, San Francisco, which eventually awarded him a chair as Professor of Medicine despite his lack of a medical degree. He is the founder of Americans for Non Smokers Rights, Smoke Free Movies and has personally received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants for anti-tobacco studies. In addition, he has generated tens of millons of dollars in anti-smoking grants for his university.
Fact Which Shows Fraud: Although the researchers claimed heart attacks dropped for the six months the ban was in place, the only drop was during the first three months. For the last three months the rate returned to normal. This can be seen in their own chart.
Fact Worth Repeating: "We did not make any direct observations to measure how much exposure to secondhand smoke was reduced during the months when the law was in force."
Fact: All of the funding for this study came from anti-smoking organizations.
Fact: The American Cancer Society awarded Sargent Shephard the Ted Marrs Award, which recognizes individuals that consistently demonstrate excellence in the area of public issues. They cited the 60% claim from their original press conference, not the 40% claim made in the actual study.
Responses to the Study
The following comments about the study were published in the BMJs Rapid Response page. (Note: Some of the original comments were quite long, and have been edited for space reasons. You can see the responses in their entirety here.)
These numbers are far too small. The study surveyed at most 40 admissions across a six month, or 26 week period. So, even an increase/decrease of one per week makes a huge impact. It is also claimed that the increase of 5.6 in outside Helena admissions was insignificant, however it is a near 50% increase.
- Ben Hirsch, Research Assistant
University of Massachusetts
The attempt to make claims about the effects of smoking bans based on this very weak ecologic study raises disturbing questions about our ability to distinguish between sound science and wishful thinking.
- Geoffrey C Kabat
Epidemiologist
This is, in my opinion, gross misrepresentation designed to provide maximal public impact in furthering the biased and unscientific opinions of these authors. . . This so called study does not even come close to meeting the basic criteria of a properly executed scientific study.
- Henry F Mizgala
Emeritus Professor of Medicine
University of British Columbia
Smoke-free workplace legislation protects workers and the public from cardiac, respiratory, and cancer risks associated with second-hand smoke and facilitates cessation among smokers. However, unrealistic expectations can hinder efforts to expand smoke-free workplace laws. The 40% decline in acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) associated with a smoke-free ordinance in Montana is neither biologically nor epidemiologically plausible.
- Farzad Mostashari, MD MSPH,
Assistant Commissioner
NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
We previously presented data showing that the Helena observations are consistent with random variation because of the small number of observations on which they are based
Brad Rodu
Professor, Department of Medicine and Endowed Chair,
Tobacco Harm Reduction Research
Original Link:
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/helena.html
Disclaimer: I'm the same guy who originally posted as "Ex-Labour Voter" - stupid system won't let me log in again with the same username and password, so I assume I'm barred for trying to use the term Ex-Labour, ex-labour, ex labour, ex labour voter, etc!
I fear Ms. McCarthy, instead of grasping this opportunity to converse happily with never before seen numbers of visitors to her otherwise empty Blog is instead packing her bags as she knows Labour are facing a firestrom at the next election.
As one of the leading advocates of this destructive and anti-democratic legislation have you a job lined up in health or some pharmaceutical quango after you lose your job Ms. McCarthy?
Can Gordon 'the Gormless' Brown be impeeched for his 'performance at PM's Question Time in parliament yesterday when the Cancer Research figures are exposed to be garbage?
I say that with confidence because if you knew the figures surroundng smoking risks, which are not the ones you claim to be credable, you would know that smoking increases risks to 40 in 100,000 over a LIFETIME compared to 10 in 100,000 as a non-smoker.
So Cancer Research UK (and Gordon Brown) extrapolating 400,000 quitters into 40,000 lives saved over 10 years we KNOW doesn't add up. We await their study with massive interest as it looks like yet another hole in the ground for 'garbage over real science' anti-smoking crusade.
Here's the other whopping big hole in Scotland over the 17% reduction in heart attacks claim made by their junk science Health Ministers for your info;
The Scottish study showed a fall in heart attacks for the year from March 2006 - not of the 17% claimed, but less than half as much of 8%. ... The percentage falls in the three years before the ban were 5.1%, 4.7% and 5.7%. ... The figures make clear that even an 8% fall in heart attacks is not unprecedented as there was another, larger drop between 1999 and 2000 of about 11%. This seems to demonstrate significant variability around the trend, suggesting that 2006's 8% drop might even be the result of chance. It is conceivable.. that the smoking ban had no effect at all. The figures could be a result of no more than ordinary ups and downs of statistical variation from one year to the next.
Link. http://tinyurl.com/638d6e
Similarly the Cancer Research UK press release claims the smoking ban in England caused 400,000 to quit resulting in 40,000 fewer deaths over the next 10 years.
It's based on extrapolating figures from interviews with 32,000 people in England over the 9 months before and 9 months the ban took effect on July 1.
The decline in smoking prevalence for the nine months pre-July was 1.6% compared to an impressive 5.5% in the 9 months post July. Based on the findings researchers estimate that at least 400,000 people quit smoking as a result of the ban."
The rest of the story is that although Cancer Research UK released its conclusions from the study, it refused to release the actual study itself, including details about the study methodology and results (this happened in Scotland too!!). Thus, there is no possibility for anyone to review the methodology and determine whether the conclusions are valid or not.
Ms McCarthy will of course demand the Cancer Research UK claims are valid and sound so she will of course demand CR UK releases the study as she does not want to be embroiled in fraudlent health claims as happened in Scotland last year.
So Ms. McCarthy when will Cancer research UK be releasing the study to validate their national claims???
Next pile of garbage to sift through;
Labour Health Ministers have filed a document on the Smoking Ban in England 1 Year On as "an offical record" of the impacts including repeating the claim the legislatio was to protect workers (non-smokers) health.
Que.1. Does the study document passive smoking lives saved or health improvements (if you understand passive smoking is harmless you'll also understand there is not health improvements possible)?
Que.2. Why does the study not document the devisive impact on the social lives of 10m citizens (smokers) in this country?
Que.3. Why does this study not document any economic impacts and the significant damage to workers jobs and landlords livelihoods - your govt did make great play that there would be no such damage, just economic growth?
Que.4. Does the study document anything whatsoever on the impact on communities up and down England of this devisive legslation and/or attribute any blame to Govt legislation that forces people outside to smoke while other Govt legislation forces landlords to keep their community area quiet - I refer to cause and effect of Govt legislation (smoking ban and noise levels) pushing people around pillar to post?
Harriet Harmen MP, pretender to Gordons throne and pretender of Health, is lodging draft legislation in 5 months to 'unbrand' cigerette packets all in white boxes and further mangle a consumer market (already rife with inept Govt health graffiti) with where not to sell or promote cigarettes in order to "eradicate smoking in Britain".
Que.5. Has Harriet (or Labour) got a public mandate for getting smokers to quit?
Que.6. Does Harriet (or Labour) plan to put this policy clearly (ie. not hidden in generalised sentances) in Labours 2010 manifesto?
Que.7. Has the Labour conference voted on this manifesto commitment?
Que.8. How does a policy get to parliament without Labour members first being consulted, secondly being a able to vote on it?
Que.9. How DID this policy become a policy. Namely who came up with the idea and who in the Labour Party actually approved it (names please) through to a policy?
You will understand my last few questions are aimed at establishing how 'government for the people, by the people' has brken down in Britain into 'government by an extremist, opinionated minority, exerted over an unconsulted and unconsenting vast majority'.
I know you're listening because Labour couldn't stop saying how much they'd listen after being hammered at the Council Elections right?
Yes JPBoxster I agree with all you say. I have also just trawled the Internet about the -ve health impact on non-smokers by passive smoking. It is such a low risk I do not know what all the fuss is about. Hence why The Total Smoking Ban. The Gov has certainly deceived their voters. This is not a conspiracy theory as the facts are there for all to see. They have been caught with their pants down. They will probably loose the next General Election over this isssue alone.
Oppressed, indeed the risks for passive smoking are miniscule. They're almost not there for smoking so by the time smoke has dissipated from your ciggy by 6 inches their dangers to non-smokers is as slight as the risk of fresh air being a damage to health (I'm not kidding either and the facts are readily available to Ms McCarthy and her misinformed colleagues).
But just as bad as the junk science they peddle is the 2further issues of how policies can be formed without consultation and consent from the public and the other charge levelled at Labour and Ms McCarthy of how politicians show complete denial of the fact by only trying to paint this act of democratic vandalism as "a success".
When people say Labour are out-of-touch I would say their words and actions (and studies filed in Westminster) are so far from the real impacts of the ban that they need a visit to the Doctor on grounds of mental health!
Showing complete contempt, no concern and continuing on a brutally undemocratic path demonstrates pathalogical illness as well as a derrogation of their duty in public office.
Ignoring 10m smokers opinions (many of whom have no intention of giving up - which is their democratic right) is rubbing Labour up against a body of people larger than will vote for them at the next election. It shows once again Westminsters disgracefully arrogant behaviour to act for minorities against considerably larger groups (1 in 4 adults).
You could not have a bigger inditement of the state of our democracy and why it seriously needs major reforms to prevent minority policies being forced on people who have neither been consulted or given their approval.
May I bring your attention to the case of Mario Labate, reported in the press last week.
Mrs Kay Labate, the widow of a former official Mario Labate, has gone to the European Court of Justice, which has a special tribunal for EU functionaries, to contest the Commission's refusal to recognise her husband's lung cancer as an occupational disease. Mr Labate was an official with the Commission for 29 years, during which time he was exposed to a large amount of second-hand tobacco smoke.
"He was declared permanently invalid following the discovery of the lung cancer which subsequently led to his death. He submitted a request for recognition of the illness as an occupational disease," reads an ECJ paper.
The conclusion from the European Commission's in-house medical body stated:
"While acknowledging Mr Labate's exposure to second hand tobacco smoke and finding no other cause for his lung cancer, the Medical Committee in its decision nonetheless stated that it could not establish with certainty the connection with his professional activities."
"The Commission accordingly denied the request, following the finding by the Medical Committee that the connection between the disease and Mr Labate's professional activities was not sufficiently established."
And, thus the judgement from the EU court tribunal: "The claims for compensation... by Mrs Labate are dismissed as manifestly unfounded".
The Commission, of course, is a supporter of mandatory workplace smoking bans (that means pubs, bars and restaurants) across the EU on the basis that ETS kills 79,000 people every year.
Heads they win, tails we lose!
I have only three words to say to you Kerry {and sincere apologies for mis-typing your name as 'Kelly' in an earlier post}:
The Glasgow East by-election result.
OK, so I lied: that's more than three words, but so what - Kerry & Co only ever seem to listen to grossly exaggerated numbers.
The question is, are you listening now? Even the staunchest of Labour supporters must surely be hearing the clinking sound of pennies dropping, and finally getting the message that the overwhelming majority of British people WILL NOT TOLERATE your idiotic policies and behaviour any longer.
No, I'm not suggesting for a second that the astonishing results we've seen in the traditionally Labour strongholds of Glasgow East, Nantwich, and Crewe are entirely an expression of outrage over the smoking ban alone; however they ARE indicative of a voting population who have had enough of your lies, profiteering, horrific and shameful abuse of public money, and sheer neglect and contempt for the grass-root working people who put their faith and belief in you.
The tide has quite resoundingly turned on you Kerry, and while you continue to sit there like King Canute demanding that it turns back again {and yeah, I know: he allegedy only did that to demonstrate that he wasn't all-powerful}, your one and only hope now is to LISTEN to the people, and convince us that you actually WILL honour your promises to us.
The smoking ban is only one example of where you've got things completely wrong, but it's one area where you could begin to regain just a shred of credibility by admitting you fell for a very costly crock of BS, and announce your intention to put things right.
Together with a whole spectrum of other "initiatives" which have brought the entire country to its knees, now is the time you need to either LISTEN to, and more importantly act upon, the wishes and concerns of the electorate, or suffer the consequences and be consigned to the dustbin of political history.
I don't doubt your sincerity and commitment Kerry, but even you must by now surely be questioning the wisdom of pursuing your own personal goals, ideals, and beliefs above the hopes and aspirations of the people who put you into the very highly privileged position you're in.
You apparently don't see it that way, but the cold hard reality is that if you bull-headedly and obstinately continue on your current path, you'll find it leads you straight down to your local Job Centre, where you can rub shoulders with all the lower {non}working classes who don't matter a jot to you at the moment.
Sorry to take another cheap Nazi shot {actually, I couldn't care less}, but it really is time to wake up and smell the Zyklon B, Kerry.
PS: Anyone else had problems submitting comments? I had to create a new username once again, which leads me to wonder if my two previous ID's have been barred from posting. Just another paranoid conspiracy theory perhaps, but I'm certainly getting used to them.
Just to say - I've not blocked anyone from posting. I had trouble posting myself at the weekend, so I assume it's the site. There are several other posts on smoking in July, which is why I haven't come back on this one lately. I think I will have to close comments on this one at the end of July though, as I can't keep track of what's happening on old posts. Also, the topic has kind of been done to death now...
Before you close this blog, Kerry, we would appreciate your responses to the many points raised. You do claim to be the 'listening' government.
I personally would very much appreciate your thoughts on the case of Mario Labate.
Done to death, Kerry?
Try asking the 25% of smoking voters if they think the subject is done to death!
Until government open their eyes and admit they have been completely hogwashed by the likes of ASH and are also, in fact, being ruled directly from Brussels, and then decide to stand on their own for their own people in their own country and decide to amend the total ban to one that has some choices, then this subject is nowhere near done to death!
OK Kerry, I suppose it's reasonable enough that you can't be expected to keep this particular blog going forever; however it would also be reasonable to expect that instead of simply dismissing everyone who has posted, you might at least respond with some concrete evidence to support your views and claims.
That said, and putting opposing views aside, surely it's time to at least acknowledge the reality that voters are turning away from Labour in their tens of thousands.
For heavens sake Kerry, just LOOK at what's happening - even the BNP are now making significant gains at your expense: isn't that enough in itself to wake you up to the fact that people have had enough?
And it certainly isn't the case that the BNP, Greens, or UKIP etc, have anything substantively better or innovative - this is merely an expression of growing dissatisfaction with a government which has gone 'way too far in completely the wrong direction, and continues to fail to LISTEN.
What really staggers me personally Kerry, is that despite all the indicators, party members not only flatly refuse to accept that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are two of the most hated and despised figures in recent history {marginally ahead of Jack McConnell}, you reckon that "more of the same" is exactly how you're going to turn the whole sorry shambles around?
When - not if - you suffer the most humiliating defeats at the polls, you're going to spend a VERY long time in the political wilderness clawing desperately just to try to get back to where you are right now.
And that's really what ordinary people like me just cannot get to grips with: you ARE in a position to take some positive steps to re-establish your credibility, and yet no. You continue to bury your head in the sand in the fond belief that all of this will somehow magically "go away", and you'll {somehow} emerge triumphant.
Whatever the 'rights or wrongs' of smoking, the fact is that when people are under severe stress, they have always - and always will - seek comfort and solace in both tobacco and alcohol.
Under this government, stress levels have rarely {I certainly won't say 'ever'} been so acute.
Personal debt, bankruptcies, and repossessions are all running at unprecedented highs, fuel and energy prices are crippling even the relatively "well off" never mind those already on the breadline, food prices are consequently spiralling out of control, and all of this Kerry - together with the many other issues such as crime, immigration, social benefits and stealth tax outrages, lack of homes/mortages for young people, etc, etc, etc, and all of the steadily increasing Health & Safety, 'PC' and 'nannying' intrusions into every single aspect of our lives - are all the kind of things which seriously concern, affect and impact on all of us.
And what do you do? Rubber stamp the approval of even MORE draconian measures to ban smoking, tackle alcohol abuse {which YOU continue to contribute to by denying other civilised social opportunities}, obesity, and promote "healthy living" despite the recommended "Five a day" being farcically beyond the reach of most families.
Coupled with wage freezes and pensions and savings crises, is it really any wonder that most of us
will now vote for ANYONE who appears to offer us just a modicum of hope?
Once again Kerry, no: it definitely ISN'T 'just' about the smoking ban, but that's one area where you could at least begin to undo some of the damage you've done - and without even losing face - by "permitting" the people of this country to have an element of freedom of choice again, and help to reverse the appalling carnage you've inflicted upon pubs, clubs, bingo halls, and restaurants.
I don't think even we smokers would want to see a return to the "good ol' days"; however while we openly agree that non-smokers have an inalienable right to smoke-free public places, trains, taxis, cinemas, shopping malls, planes, hospitals, pubs, clubs, bingo halls, and restaurants, etc, you have never yet presented any credible or coherent defence for your complete alienation and legalised harrassment of such a sizeable sector of our society, without any mandate whatsoever either by the people or even your own manifesto pledges.
Enough. The "debate" may well be over as far as you're concerned Kerry, but unless you start NOW to admit you've got things completely wrong lately and begin to show us that you're a party with a genuine social conscience again, then I'm afraid there really is no hope for you at all.
It's sad that Labour are rushing headlong {wearing earplugs and blindfolds} towards political oblivion, and even sadder that even when presented with a whole range of evidence-based opportunities to restore public confidence, you continue to support a leader who has demonstrably led you to the edge of this precipice, and continue to applaud policies which are actively harming and enraging the people who believed you would represent them.
Emperors and {lack of} clothes springs to mind here.
Smokers - Selfish drug addicts who blow their smoke in other people's faces and drop litter all over the place. Their opinions can be ignored, having been brainwashed by the world domination of Big Tobacco.
Drinkers - Noisy, violent people who lose control of themselves, their bodily functions, and are a danger to themselves and others, sometimes causing death.
Don't worry about their opinions, closing all the pubs should take care of them as well as pleasing any muslims.
Foxhunters - Cruel toffs who get their jollies from torturing defenceless animals.
These people usually work in farming; plus there aren't too many of them.
These can safely be ignored as, living mostly in the countryside, the electorate won't be too bothered by their complaints.
People who like their privacy - Obviously up to no good. Probably involved in crime or extra-marital affairs. Or paedophiles, as most men are.
Whatever these people may say they must be watched wherever they go.
If they have nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear.
All the above groups, and others, may safely be insulted, ostracised, fined or imprisoned unless they knuckle under.
So don't worry about their votes, they are only minorities.
The trouble with this kind of thinking is that these groups don't necessarily overlap, i.e. there aren't many paranoid, smoking, drinking, hunters. But collectively they make up a voting majority.
So are you surprised that Labour are on the skids?
Hi, guys.
One might wish to consider that, while claims that righteously forcing smokers to quit on a global basis - this agenda orchestrated, enforced and funded by global industry, as has been frequently pointed out - is supposedly for reasons of reducing health risks, the globally enforced addition of the toxic RIP cigarette, contaminated by law with toxic fire retardant (and potentially other) chemicals, is also orchestrated, enforced and funded by global industry.
Claims are also made that industrial chemicals producing direct/heritable deleterious health effects through identifiable mechanisms are 'safe' while naturally produced nutrients/chemicals in long-used traditional food plants/herbs (despite historically failing to achieve such effects as are caused by the produce/processes of toxic industry and others benefitting by such claims and transference of blame/liability) purportedly produce such effects in, apparently, often reverse proportion to exposure levels, as also noted by many.
This somehow makes such addition of 'RIP' industrial toxins to a product already claimed unacceptably toxic by 'our betters' 'acceptable', if not to us.
This aptly named RIP cigarette substitution is supposed to 'save lives' by reducing the risk of fires potentially produced by those passing out while smoking on inflammable (petrochemical-based) materials/furnishings, which also continually outgas hazardous chemicals (often including damaging fire-retardant chemicals typically even more toxic when combusted) known to adversely affect health.
While the various permutations are too involved to pursue at necessary length in this forum, please note that this 'fire-safe cigarette' agenda is being progressively enforced country by country - globally, by global industry - at a time and in areas when few can any more smoke indoors, let alone in bed or on the sofa while drunk, pharma-drugged, or exhausted to the point of unexpectedly dropping off in mid-drag.
(And apparently, as Googling shows, flammability safety testing of such furniture required several burning cigarettes to be applied at once in order to initiate smouldering, as a lit cigarette is typically inefficient at starting fires even when dropped on furnishings...)
What's next - a new market for toxic fire retardant chemicals in cooking oils, to prevent kitchen blazes?
Such endocrine-disrupting chemicals are already in animal fats in the general food supply, as well as stored in ours, yet bacon fat burns...
Such bizarre, health-damaging claims and laws are produced and enforced by those commercial interests who benefit at endless public and environmental cost, being supposedly better able to 'rule' than are we, the public, through our own established agencies existing ONLY to represent the public interest - i.e. democratic governance - where legitimate democratic government and law is defined as 'rule by the ruled' (the people, through elected government enacting representation of their interests, the only actual 'mandate' issued, rather than the 'right to' totalitarian power falsely claimed of late by some) with each individual entitled to equal rights, treatment and opportunity - NOT conceding all power/autonomy to various industrial/financial/religious power groups, or to any exclusory/restrictive self-interests, against which we are to be specifically protected by the very concepts of democracy in an egalitarian society.
Please also note that Constitutional protections, Democratic principles (not 'mob rule', but that ensuring maximum freedom to each individual human, where not unduly infringing upon the rights and freedoms of others, and with ideals of tolerance, reason, civility and compromise providing the solid base of civilization) and acceptance of basic human rights were established as being entailed for future generations and not merely to remain in effect until powerful interests or those in government sympathetic to their aims decided to do away with them.
No-one can vote away, sell, or in any manner relinquish the rights of others, even together with their own - that's one 'right' nobody has.
The 'right to smoke' may not be specifically listed, as it was felt in certainly some cases (such as by U.S. 'founding fathers') that such individual listing of all (then-conceived) protected rights would be used by self-interests to limit the freedoms of the public as a whole.
Enough was, however, specified to ensure that freedom of individual personal choice, self-determination and some concept regarding the 'pursuit of happiness' by the pacific and law-abiding formed the purpose/definition of democracy.
One is not born solidified into a religion or a political party as a physical characteristic - either can be changed at the drop of a hat - and, according to anti propaganda claims that only inborn,immutable physical characteristics (thereby denying the established right, and very concept, of free will, thought and independent life to all individuals) are protected under civil rights laws, no such human choices as religious or electoral freedom are protected, anymore than are those of smoking, drinking, reading, attire, freedom of thought, speech and of movement, and endless et cetera - all of the sometimes unnumerated basic rights of which some disapprove (for others), for which individuals fought in concerted effort to gain and retain until now...
However, the right to self-determine historic personal choices by pacific and law-abiding adults is assured in any democracy through the ideals and principles so enshrined within the democratic concept itself.
The alteration of law or the amendment of Constitutions to rescind democratic rights and traditional human freedoms has never (by the reasoning) in modern times been considered an acceptable loophole for tyranny, and it cannot become so, no matter how often excuses and propaganda are repeated, or with what force.
Protections exist to defend the public, consisting of individual humans, (not inhuman and inhumane corporate fictions given individual rights above humans) against the powerful - NOT to be used by the powerful against the public, however deceptive the presentation of industrial polluters (having already caused irreparable damage to the earth's ecology as well as human health) seeking to eliminate the legal/civil rights of the general population by increments, under the pretext of micro-managed control over the 'incompetent' public by global commercial interests being necessary for the good of 'global health' and 'cost-saving/prosperity' referring actually to corporate results already seen and expressed in the progressively increasing draining of the public and all global resources in every conceivable way on an organized - global - basis.
And unfortunately, we are being programmed to regard free choice as linked with the industry-controlled 'marketplace', rather than with individual democratic freedoms.
We are not a 'marketplace', subsumed by business needs - we are human individuals, (predominately) within our own democratic civilizations, with accepted civil/human rights independent of corporate demands, as must also by legal neccessity be our (non-traitorous) political representatives, in defiance of those presenting 'Globalization' - totalitarian global control by the most powerful global commercial interests - as an inevitable process as unstoppable as the Nazis were once thought to be.
We always knew this 'smoking issue' wasn't about 'health' - and a sicker concept can hardly be imagined, or one in which life on Earth would be less likely to ultimately survive such unrestrained industrial pollution and profiteering.
Only humanity - in both senses - and sense itself can save us now.
We can survive nicely, thank-you, in fact much better, without global corporations - but what's a global corporation once there's no life left to profit from?
To paraphrase a koan: What sound's produced by a legal construct using one fictive hand in patting its own back, in a dead and ruined forest when none remains alive to hear?
And will this - despite the last corporate construct standing holding all toys extant in the other never-living hand - matter?
Even to the ghosts of long-displaced journalists and other short-sighted manipulators of public opinion, dissipating weakly once unneeded and unpaid, invisible forever in voiceless lament among the black and rolling smog?
What this Government really doesn't seem to understand is the sheer frustration of so many people.
Not just smokers (understandably), but non-smokers (most of my friends) who complain at the lack of atmosphere in pubs, now (well, in those pubs that are still open).
Of scientists, who are outraged at the way junk science is being used by pressure groups like ASH to shape political parties. I understand that epidemiologists are particularly disturbed by the way that their branch of research has been discredited by many of these junk reports.
Of Libertarians, who are outraged at the way the Government is dictating what people can and cannot do on privately-owned property (let us remember that that is what pubs are).
Of business-people, who are seeing their investments of both time and money vanish into thin air, their businesses going bankrupt, their employees having to be made redundant.
They forget that it isn't just the 25% of the voting population they have marginalised. It is their non-smoking friends. It is tolerant non-smokers.
The sad thing is that this Government really seems to think that this is a minority issue and that the landslides of outrage it receives on the (rare) occasions it allows people to be heard on it is the result of tobacco-company stooges posting or special interest groups. No! Sadly, it is the people. People who have had enough and are showing their displeasure at the ballot box, with record high turnouts (no "apathy" in Glasgow or Crewe!).
They really don't seem to understand that by trumpeting the Ban as a success they are not persuading people to their cause. They simply appear as laughable and deserving of contempt as "Comical Ali" who claimed the Allies were being driven back into the sea even as US tanks hoved into view behind him. People can see the pubs closing! People can see previously bustling pubs limping along with a handful of people! And with your continued proclamations of "success" the general voters contempt for the Government increases. As does its belief that it is out of touch.
I voted Labour in 92, 97 and 2001.
Never, EVER again.
I fear that this issue, which many Labour MPs seem to think is a minority issue - is one that will topple this Government more surely than the Iraq War or any economic mismanagement.
Sadly I doubt that many Labour MPs will recognise this, even as they pack their suitcases and pick up their P45s.....
Post a Comment