Out of date & out of touch!

Aardvark · 28-04-2008, 01:56 PM

I agree with Matt. Having banned people from smoking in pubs there were a small, but vociferous, minority who thought banning people with children from smoking in their own homes could be the next step. Smokers already find it difficult to adopt, no matter whether they smoke indoors or not.

Once smoking is banned in private residences, as I suspect it inevitably will be, then it will be alcohol and caffeine.

Laws have to be pragmatic and serve a common good, not just fit in with the whims of a prurient minority who can get their message across.

Aardvark · 28-04-2008, 01:58 PM

Geoffrey, pubs are not like butchers, bakers or candlestickmakers. People go to pubs not just to trade with the publican, but also to meet with others. There is a social nature to pubs that doesn't exist in factories or other workplaces and they should be accorded a different status.

Westcountryman · 28-04-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

Once smoking is banned in private residences, as I suspect it inevitably will be, then it will be alcohol and caffeine.

Laws have to be pragmatic and serve a common good, not just fit in with the whims of a prurient minority who can get their message across.

I agree, and it needs to be stopped. Unfortunately I fear we can lobby Parliament until we're blue in the face, but they're going to do it anyway.

Hartlepool · 28-04-2008, 02:21 PM

Would this be the same Parliament and their buildings that are still in use as smoking areas by the MPs who made these Smoking Bans on the general voting public?

Westcountryman · 28-04-2008, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hartlepool

Would this be the same Parliament and their buildings that are still in use as smoking areas by the MPs who made these Smoking Bans on the general voting public?

I thought smoking was banned in the Palace of Westminster?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daily Mail

When the ban came into force in England and Wales in July - following similar measures in Scotland and Northern Ireland - the Parliamentary Estate, thanks to its historic privileges, was exempt.

But the Speaker, Michael Martin, ruled that the Commons should follow the "principles" of the new legislation.

Lighting up inside in the Palace of Westminster is now outlawed and all the smokers among the several thousand staff who work there are confined to a handful of courtyards.

Minister behind the smoking ban is driven from her office - by all the smokers outside | the Daily Mail

Hartlepool · 28-04-2008, 02:38 PM

And the bars they use are still smoking areas for the elite and their visitors.

Geoffrey Collier · 28-04-2008, 03:38 PM

There was a call some time ago to nationalise the Palace of Westmiinster, but it came to nothing. While I may not be entirely correct, I believe that the Palace of Westminster, is legally a Royal Palace. What have our legal gentlemen to say on this point? Should that be correct, the 'landlady' is above the law, and may not mind her tenants smoking on her premises! What other possible justification can there be for a smoking, 'exemption' in Parliament. Now let us await the 'speculative' comments.

Bob FM · 29-04-2008, 08:31 AM

Cassie I couldn't agree more, in successive years 2004/2005/2006 65%,66% and 67% voted for choices in pubs, clubs and other hospitality venues. This was in the ONS Household survey, the biggest independent survey conducted each year.

Bob FM · 29-04-2008, 08:44 AM

GC no speculative comment, just a fact, the Palace of Westminster is one of the Queens homes. As is Buckingham Palace, although in BP there are no smoking signs in the areas the public visit. As for your shall we say, version, of the role of Parliament, MP's are elected on a Manifesto which in years gone by were sacrosanct, why then should the public now not expect that same truth. Labours manifesto was about @choice', Tony Blair stated in the pre-ample to the White Paper on Improving Health in 2004 stated it wasn't the role of Government to legislate on issues of personal choice, and freedom. He stated there would not be a total ban. As late on as November 2005 there was still to be exemptions, clubs, wet only pubs etc. Then the SCoTH report came out claiming to have re-examined the issues of passive smoke. The report was no different from the 1998 report and didn't even seriously take account of the biggest piece of research ever done involving over 35000 couples, which concluded that passive smoking posed no scientifically significant risk to non smoker health. In other words the fraud of passive smoking took on a legitimacy. For those who do not know Professor Martin Jarvis (not even a medical doctor) headed SCoTH he and at least 5 other members received bursaries from the big drug companies and Jarvis is a Director and Trustee of ASH. When Governments corrupt the very system of democracy they are supposed to uphold then we are on a slippery slope to Anarchy.

Geoffrey Collier · 29-04-2008, 10:14 AM

Bob FM. There are many examples of legislation failing to take account of scientific and professional judgements. That often conferred both advantage and disadvantage. That isn't a requirement of our legislators; indeed it never should be, according to Edmund Burke.

To give you the full quote 'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.' (Letter to his constituents in Bristol. 1774).

That, good sir, has been the historic legislative basis of this country for centuries. What is a requirement, is that any legislation passed is subject to subsequent repeal or modification, should that be the will of Parliament. That, also, remains the situation. Legislation doesn't have to be popular, and it frequently isn't; it only has to be lawful. Do you want to see a fundamental constitutional change for the benefit of smokers? UKIP, supposed to be a party dedicated to our historic constitution. Are you telling me that has now been replaced by something more important? Forget your 'wicked plots' , get back to the real issue, and that has nothing to do with smoking in ale houses.

28-04-2008, 01:56 PM	#71 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 4,253	I agree with Matt. Having banned people from smoking in pubs there were a small, but vociferous, minority who thought banning people with children from smoking in their own homes could be the next step. Smokers already find it difficult to adopt, no matter whether they smoke indoors or not. Once smoking is banned in private residences, as I suspect it inevitably will be, then it will be alcohol and caffeine. Laws have to be pragmatic and serve a common good, not just fit in with the whims of a prurient minority who can get their message across. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

28-04-2008, 01:58 PM	#72 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 4,253	Geoffrey, pubs are not like butchers, bakers or candlestickmakers. People go to pubs not just to trade with the publican, but also to meet with others. There is a social nature to pubs that doesn't exist in factories or other workplaces and they should be accorded a different status. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

28-04-2008, 02:21 PM	#74 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Northern England Posts: 7,105 Party: Free England Party	Would this be the same Parliament and their buildings that are still in use as smoking areas by the MPs who made these Smoking Bans on the general voting public?

28-04-2008, 02:38 PM	#76 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Northern England Posts: 7,105 Party: Free England Party	And the bars they use are still smoking areas for the elite and their visitors.

28-04-2008, 03:38 PM	#77 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	There was a call some time ago to nationalise the Palace of Westmiinster, but it came to nothing. While I may not be entirely correct, I believe that the Palace of Westminster, is legally a Royal Palace. What have our legal gentlemen to say on this point? Should that be correct, the 'landlady' is above the law, and may not mind her tenants smoking on her premises! What other possible justification can there be for a smoking, 'exemption' in Parliament. Now let us await the 'speculative' comments.

29-04-2008, 08:31 AM	#78 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,148	Cassie I couldn't agree more, in successive years 2004/2005/2006 65%,66% and 67% voted for choices in pubs, clubs and other hospitality venues. This was in the ONS Household survey, the biggest independent survey conducted each year.

29-04-2008, 08:44 AM	#79 (permalink)
Bob FM Uber Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 2,148	GC no speculative comment, just a fact, the Palace of Westminster is one of the Queens homes. As is Buckingham Palace, although in BP there are no smoking signs in the areas the public visit. As for your shall we say, version, of the role of Parliament, MP's are elected on a Manifesto which in years gone by were sacrosanct, why then should the public now not expect that same truth. Labours manifesto was about @choice', Tony Blair stated in the pre-ample to the White Paper on Improving Health in 2004 stated it wasn't the role of Government to legislate on issues of personal choice, and freedom. He stated there would not be a total ban. As late on as November 2005 there was still to be exemptions, clubs, wet only pubs etc. Then the SCoTH report came out claiming to have re-examined the issues of passive smoke. The report was no different from the 1998 report and didn't even seriously take account of the biggest piece of research ever done involving over 35000 couples, which concluded that passive smoking posed no scientifically significant risk to non smoker health. In other words the fraud of passive smoking took on a legitimacy. For those who do not know Professor Martin Jarvis (not even a medical doctor) headed SCoTH he and at least 5 other members received bursaries from the big drug companies and Jarvis is a Director and Trustee of ASH. When Governments corrupt the very system of democracy they are supposed to uphold then we are on a slippery slope to Anarchy.

29-04-2008, 10:14 AM	#80 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	Bob FM. There are many examples of legislation failing to take account of scientific and professional judgements. That often conferred both advantage and disadvantage. That isn't a requirement of our legislators; indeed it never should be, according to Edmund Burke. To give you the full quote 'Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.' (Letter to his constituents in Bristol. 1774). That, good sir, has been the historic legislative basis of this country for centuries. What is a requirement, is that any legislation passed is subject to subsequent repeal or modification, should that be the will of Parliament. That, also, remains the situation. Legislation doesn't have to be popular, and it frequently isn't; it only has to be lawful. Do you want to see a fundamental constitutional change for the benefit of smokers? UKIP, supposed to be a party dedicated to our historic constitution. Are you telling me that has now been replaced by something more important? Forget your 'wicked plots' , get back to the real issue, and that has nothing to do with smoking in ale houses.