"Oh Brave New World..

..that has such people in it"

New world order

Rising to the mighty opportunity of Obama, Gordon Brown added to new hope for a transformation in world politics. There were ambitions for a peace dividend in 1990 but they turned to ashes.

The excitement at the prospect of an Obama leading the world increases. Even the right-wing American TV companies are warming to the enthusiasm of the rest of the world for an American President that the world respects. One American woman said, “ In future, I do not have say when I am abroad that I come from Canada.’

The bleak cold-war bellicose neurosis of Bush has inhibited idealism in Western Europe. Eastern Europe, long used to quivering under the threat of their super power neighbour transferred their subservience to another Super Power. This time its is a benign one led by a brilliant intellectual.

‘Westward look! The land is bright!

PLP Joy

Tonight’s meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party was the happiest since the post election one in 2005.

Whichever way the Glenrothes result is examined, it’s a tremendous victory. Better than any by-election result for a sitting Government in living memory. More votes, and a bigger share of the poll for Labour than the 2005 result even though fewer voted. The swing away from the SNP in the local result was huge.

The meeting planned the canonisation of Gordon Banks MP who masterminded the campaign. The fascination of politics is the unexpected. When Thatcher was in deep trouble the Falklands War rescued her.

Could the credit crunch and the election of an American President who shares Labour values be the saviour for Gordon Brown?

His Mansion House speech tonight proves that he is out to seize the opportunity of pursing the ideals that he holds dear.

Overdone

All MPs were recently sent a copy of George Orwell's 1984.

It appears to be a fresh stunt by those who want to bring smoking back into pubs. A note with the book vainly tries to draw a comparison between a very popular health reform with the terror methods of Big Brother. It's irksome for the inveterate smoker to use designated areas but it is hardly torture by rats.

The point fails because of  gross exaggeration.  I have not noticed any political party raising the battle cry, 'Put the stink back into pubs.'

Comments

[John]

I am not a smoker it killed my Grandfather yet I feel vaguely drawn tot he smokers cause!!
I main thing that I have noticed since the ban is that on the rare Saturday night that I go out those once busy albeit smelly pubs are now eerily quiet yet smoke free.
Pubs are the heart of a community they encourge responsible drinking and social interaction of a community. It seems that we may have inadvertantly ripped the heart out of many communities by destroying the pub trade by this smoking ban. The landladies and landlords that I speak to lay the blame squarely on the smoking ban hwo am I to argue.
I ma not suggesting that we reverse the ban to return thing to as they where but surely we need to take steps to revitalise our pubs. What about reducing considerably the duty on draught beers and lagers and increasing the duty on shop bought alcohol.
I would like to see a £1.50 pint in my loacl and a £1.50 pint from my supermarket maybe then we will get people back in our pubs.

[valleylad]

I'm not a smoker either, and broadly concur with John. Smoke-free pubs have been around for a long time, the smoking ban however has killed many locals. The family/food type establishments were already non-smoking. Whether smoking is banned or not does not affect me, but I disapprove strongly of the ban. It shows the socially conservative and controlling nature of the govt.

[Graham Marlowe]

One of the reasons I disliked Blair, apart from the camp self-importance and hypocrisy (how can a man who acted as bag carrier for George Bush possibly be taken seriously as a "peace" envoy?) was the way he seemed to turn into the headmistress of St Trinians and treated the rest of us like naughty schoolchildren. "Nanny knows best": be it smoking, or any of the other "you-musn't be-naughty" measures. We now have local councils carrying on with encouraging neighbours to spy on their neighbours in case they putr their dustbin out a day early.

Brown is no improvement: like Blair he is far too willing to take up any and every tabloid cause. We now have the Dutch auction going on about tax cuts. Just how they are paid for without reducing public services...God alone knows. Of course we'll borrow but it will all have to be paid back some day. - the former "Iron Chancellor" turns out to be made of plaster of paris.

[Paul Flynn]

Would you John and Valleylad really want the ban reversed?
Pubs have had their old smelly carpets and furniture thrown out and replaced. They are all more pleasant than before. Pub drinking has been slowly replaced by home consumption in recent years.

It is fashoinable Daily Mail moan about the nanny state. The smoking ban in the Welsh Assembly was approved by a majority of all parties. When it is reviewed in 2010 I believev a majority of all part will vote for it to continue here. It is encouraging to read that one of the results of the belief among young people that smoking is naff has been a reduction in cannabis use.

The ban is supported by public opinion

[Paul Flynn]

Beer sales are the lowest they have been since the 30s depression. The smoking ban is one factor. It has accelertaed the process that was already happening. But there are more important ones such as the greed of the main pub owners. .One of the main drivers of closures is the current churn in pub operating companies: the giants such as Enterprise Inns and Punch are swallowing middling companies, with smaller ones grabbing their leftovers and the occasional Free House. Most of this activity is driven by private investment groups and banks.

A current example is Enterprise Inns, which has become the UK's largest pubco (over 9,000 pubs) upon taking over the Unique Pub Company. To satisfy competition rules, they have to sell 250 pubs: the usual rule is to own no more than 25% of pubs in any licensing area.

Enterprise Inns is selling the pubs to a new group, Admiral Pub Company, for £62.6M. The Evening Standard (19-Mar-2004) said 155 of the pubs will immediately be sold on to County Estate Management, a pub and property company, with the rest turned into apartments and other uses.

[Graham Marlowe]

I don't read or like the Daily Mail, paul if you are getting at me. I have never smoked myself, but I do think adults should have the freedom to do so if they wish.

Smoking relaxes some people: alcohol others, Diazepam still others - let's face it, people need all the help they can to get through life in this dull, grey, damp miserable petty-minded country, where in the 21st century we still go through the absurd ritual of "putting the clocks back" (by an hour but lately it seems we've put them back to about 1950), and we are saddled with a Tory government disguised as "New Labour" where public schoolboy "toffs" tell the rest of us how to behave - without bothering to practice what they preach.

[Paul Flynn]

What are saying Graham. The smoking ban does not deny anyone the freedom to smoke. I have advocated that adults should have the freedom to use any drug of their choice.

All it does is restrict pollution in public places that gives the rest of us the freedom to breathe clean air. That's a minor restriction for smokers that will produce health benefits for non-smokers.

[Graham Marlowe]

Well you could always have a smoking and non-smoking section, like you used to get in trains. I might add, I don't and never have smoked, but I think it reasonable that people should be able so to do if they wish in comfort.

But what might New Labour ban next? They are far too fond of telling people what to do.

By the way Paul have you any comment to make on the proposal to make council tenants second-class citizens (even more!) by giving "fixed term contracts", which is yet another two fingered gesture to poorer people?

[Old Holborn]

Hello Paul,

You were sent 1984 because you are an authoritarian buffoon.

You and your 645 colleages need reminding that for every one of you, there are 92,500 of us. And we are reaching tipping point with your endless legislation. WE are your masters, YOU are our servant.

Children are now being taken into the States care because they are overweight. You are now telling us that we can't eat what we want to eat. You are telling us that we are not fit to control our own lives and make our own decisions. We must leave them all to you and your 645 colleagues.

Over my dead body Paul.

Let's have a look at what you've been up to:
Voted against a transparent Parliament.
Voted strongly for introducing a smoking ban.
Voted a mixture of for and against introducing ID cards.
Voted a mixture of for and against introducing foundation hospitals.
Voted moderately against introducing student top-up fees.
Voted moderately for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
Voted very strongly against the Iraq war.
Voted a mixture of for and against an investigation into the Iraq war.
Voted very strongly against replacing Trident.
Voted strongly for the hunting ban.
Voted very strongly for equal gay rights.

People should never be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.

[darren]

At least the government has now recognised the fact that the smoking ban is a material change to the trading position of pubs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/3405482/Pub-trade-suffering-from-smoking-ban.html

It's just a shame that the VOA are keeping quiet about the possibility of a reduction in their business rates.

At least the conservatives are trying to bring this to the publics attention.

this reduction may not save all the pubs that are in danger of closing, but it might save a few, which in my opinion is better than nothing.

[Leg-iron]

If your sender commented on the smoking ban, that was an example. It's not about the smoking ban at all - indeed, in the book, smoking isn't banned. The book didn't come to you from a pro-smoking group. While it was organised by the Libertarian Party, many of those who sent books were not members of that or any other party. Like me. I didn't send yours but I did send one, and signed it.

You did not receive the books because of the smoking ban which applies to everyone except criminals. While that removal of choice (if I owned a pub, I could not allow smoking on my premises whether I wanted to or not. Forget smoking. Think 'choice') is an example, that's not what the sending of the book was about.

It's about schools infiltrated by Fabians. It's about children spying on adults. It's about people watched by councils in case they put one bag too many in their bins or put them out ten seconds too early. It's about photographers stopped and searched, even arrested, by police officers and PCSO's who make up their own laws and enforce them. It's about fifteen-year-olds made to sign the terror-legislation forms for taking a photo on a school trip. It's about councils installing cameras in homes in order to spy on neighbours. It's about a thirteen-year-old girl being pressured by the threat of law to have a transplant she doesn't want.

It's about being ordered what to do, what to eat, how to speak and how to think. It's about reducing the educational level of this country to the point where the BBC news spells 'wreath' as 'reef'. It's about censorship of the media and the internet. It's about control of the population, full stop.

Those are only a few examples from recent reports. Just a sampler.

The smoking ban is a distraction. Please, read the book. You might still laugh it all off afterwards, that's your choice.

It's a free book. That's really all you have there. Go on, open it. I dare you.

[Graham Marlowe]

Paul, Could you tell us please WHY you are against "a transparent Parliament", because you seem very concerned that the rest of us should toe the line. Sauce for the gander, and all that. When you were having a pop at benefit claimants yesterday you said they played the system. Well, until a few months ago, an MP could claim expenses of up to £250 without producing a receipt. Most of us would not be able so to do with our employers. Why would you not want Parliamentarians to face a transparent Parliament?

Also how can you be both for and against an investigation into the Iraq war?

I don't wish to sound as simplistic as George Bush, but surely you either want one or you don't?

[Obnoxio The Clown]

See that thing way up there over your head, Paul?

That was the point of the gift.

[Guthrum]

Let me see- you were sent a copy of 1984 and YOU think it was sent by some pro-smoking group ??

I suppose you don't know how the Green card system works either do you

1984 was a warning by Orwell as to what would happen if the State and the ' Party' started invading the private space of the citizen. CCTV cameras,monitoring where people are, thought crimes- is any of this starting to ring any bells in your head now ??

I will go on- perpetual war, control of the media, the eternal threat of terrorism etc etc

We knew that MP's were out of touch, but you think that being sent a copy of 1984 by members of the public and the Libertarian Party is about smoking ??

The quality of lobby fodder is not what it was

[Ian Shephard]

Oh dear. The tactic of reducing the 1884 campaign to nothing more the 'smoking debate' is surely no more than a disrespectful means to defect the true meaning of the 'gift'; which I've no doubt would've been made clear to you by the sender.

The 'drip-drip' erosion of our freedoms; the interference by government encroaching more and more into or everyday lives; the realisation that the political class now beleive its for THEM to tell US what to do regardless of public opinion; rather than for THEM to represent what WE want as constituents.

Have you forgotten that you're elected to serve; not to govern? 1984 was sent to you as a reminder that the totalitarianism contained within, is the 'sure-fire' destination for us all, if you continue your odious authoritarian ways.

Please have the courage to face the REAL debate head on; without the flippant diversions.

The pub issue is a 'no brainer' anyway; each landlord should decide his or her own policy; to allow smoking or not; then staff and customers; in full knowledge of the policy, can freely enter (or not) at their own risk...It is called freedom. And I do not smoke; but I'd rather breathe other peoples smoke than see the landlords/patrons freedoms eroded.

[Old Holborn]

Paul,

Can you still smoke in the Strangers Bar at the House of Commons?

Yes, you can.

Maybe I'll send you a copy of Animal Farm next.

[darren]

@Graham Marlowe,

I don't want to bring this back round to the smoking ban, since only the willfully blind could imagine that was the message behind this gift.

However, I do take issue with your comment about it only affecting smoking in public places. Public Houses, despite the name, are in fact the private property of the owner and people can choose whether they frequent them or not. That is the travesty of this ban: Government dictating what lawful activities people can partake of on their own private property.

[swindon_alan]

So that's now three out of three MPs who don't get it.

Now that you have the information that your receipt of the book was not about smoking in public, but a statement about ever increasing authoritarianism, would you be so kind as to address that please Paul?

[CyprusGrump]

Pathetic…

If it wasn’t the day when we honour our dead that fought for the country it would be hilariously funny…

646 members of the public send their elected representatives a copy of 1984.

Only three (so far) actually acknowledge receipt and are completely dismissive of the gesture.

The media refuse to cover the story although it was sent to them – presumably they didn’t receive permission to do so.

We have a lot of work to do.

[Paul Flynn]

my reaction to the suggestion, Cyprus Grump, that UK 2008 is similar to Orwell's 1984 is that it is such a ludicrous comparison, it is meaningless.

Previously, the anti-smoking ban people have traded on the concept of 'freedom' rather than the ban.

Reading the document that came with the book I formed the impression from the final sentences that the smoking ban was the main complaint.

[Paul Flynn]

Very interesting and revealing old Hoborn. I assure you that you are not my 'master, nor I yours. It says a great deal about you that think that you are.

I have never voted against a trasparent parliament. The rest of the stuff is pretty accurate and a record that I am proud of.

[ekalf]

A* for doublethink, Paul:

"The smoking [ban] does not deny anyone the freedom to smoke. I have advocated that adults should have the freedom to use any drug of their choice.

All it does is retrict pollution in public places that gives the rest of us the freedom to breathe clean air. Tha's a minor restriction for smokers that will produce health benefits for non-smokers."

F for spelling, typing, and independent thought. Explains your baffling response to the receipt of 1984, I guess.

Are all Labour MPs useless?

[Paul Flynn]

Legion, I read the book 54 years ago. A local hip-hop group New StaTe radio recently produced a song based on it.

The list of things that worry you seem to be very rare occurences (if they happened at all) or tabloid exaggerations. The one I agree with is surveillance of neighbours who might be 'from hell.' What's wrong with that?

As it was proved today, people as young as twelve have the autonmy to refuse hospital treatment.

If all your claims are true, what has this got to do with 1984? I think it's you that should (re)read the book.

This is still the best country in the world in which to live.

Get a sense of proportion.

[Guthrum]

Very interesting and revealing old Hoborn. I assure you that you are not my 'master, nor I yours. It says a great deal about you that think that you are.

We are your masters to dismiss as we surely will, this was a phrase used in 1945 by a Labour member of Parliament Hartley Shawcross 'WE ARE THE MASTERS NOW'- you may think you are our masters by telling us what we can do,think, smoke drink, fine us, watch us take our fingerprints and DNA. You simply do not get it do you, at all

[Guthrum]

As it was proved today, people as young as twelve have the autonmy to refuse hospital treatment.

Thirteen, What are you talking about!, a child dying of cancer, her parents were taken to the High Court by the Health Authority !! to try to force her to have a heart transplant against her will. The State knows best

Ye Gods

[Old Holborn]

Leadership is required in most part I.e. the smoking ban, but also ensuring a balance is struck, i.e. the 42 day issue.

But the point is there is no balance. That tipping point was passed several years ago.

42 days is not required any where else in the world, so why here?
42 days is not a balance, its an abomination, and it will not just apply to terror suspects, it will apply to anyone a chief constable wishes to apply it to.

Smoking ban, merely forcing a point, and people to comply, based upon bad science and figures plucked from thin air, as admitted by government.

It is a matter of record that by banning anything, the result is merely to push it underground, into the hands of the criminal world. So these multitudes of bans create the problems, not fix them.

It is very easy to formulate an argument for single items, for things that only affect a very small proportion of the population, which is how the salami slicing works.

However, when we put it all together, 26,000 new laws, 3000 new criminal offences, then the laws are not for the good of the people, or for their protection but for the good of the state.

That is the balance that needs to be redressed.

For those who have not yet joined up all the dots, here is a list, albeit incomplete showing how you have eroded our rights and freedoms, for a perceived security that we have never needed before, and one that we do not believe we need now.

The 2006/2007 report by Privacy International tells us that The UK is now joint 1st place as the most surveilled country in the world, alongside Russia, China, Singapore and Malaysia.

Then we have the databases. UKLiberty tells us these are just the major ones, there are loads more public sector databases:

1. ContactPoint is to record our interactions with state agencies from the day we are born until we are 18;
2. the National Identity Register takes over at 18 (even earlier if the child is given a passport), recording our names, addresses, and so on, as well as every interaction that requires us to prove our identity (from collecting a parcel at the Post Office to getting a new job to using non-emergency health care to crossing international borders) - also we will each be assigned an identity number, which will be used as an index in other databases (that is, if I am 10365 in the NIR, someone could draw together all the data on 10365 from all the other databases to find out everything about me - precedent suggests this isn't a good idea);
3. the Department for Work and Pensions Longitudinal Study links tax, social security, benefit, pension, ISA, TESSA, PEP information with names and addresses;
4. the Intercept Modernisation Programme is to record every detail of our communications (except for the content, probably only because this would be practically impossible), who we talk to, when, for how long, and using what (see Article 5 European Data Retention Directive);
5. the ANPR is to record all our vehicle journeys nationally and the PNR (see also this and this) is to record all our international journeys (currently its just journeys by air);
6. the NHS medical records database, with our names, addresses, medical issues, health care workers etc;
7. the CRB database and the Independent Safeguarding Authority database, which not only have details of our proven convictions (which I have no problem with) but also unsubstantiated allegations;
8. the National DNA Database, which is recording the DNA of not only convicted criminals and suspects, but also innocent people including volunteers and witnesses, along with other details.

All adding up to an almost complete picture of our lives - and all for our own good, of course.

Do not forget that the information collection for marketing purposes by Corporate institutions, whether Google or Tesco, is a further part of the erosion of the liberty of action with unseen monitoring or intervention. The using of private companies to collect this data is just insidious.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC ORDER ACT 1994
Abolishes a suspect's right to silence (by permitting Courts and Juries to draw inference from a suspect's refusal to disclose matters to the Police at the time of arrest.

POLICE ACT 1997
Allows the police to break into property and install electronic surveillance.The chief constable can make such authorisations.

The occupier of the property need not be under suspicion of a crime. The decisions can be taken without a warrant. (Sections 91 to 108)

CRIME AND DISORDER ACT 1998
First facilitation of ASBO's and the conception of causing Harassment, which makes everyday perfectly legal activities illegal for the target subject.

Distress or Alarm. Introduction of Parenting Orders and Curfews on Offenders released on Licence.

IMMIGRATION AND ASYLUM ACT 1999
Among other matters, facilitating the establishment of Detention Centres.

TERRORISM ACT 2000
Definition of "terrorism" close to catch-all..
The government can proscribe organisations or persons without having to prove that they have committed any offence.

REGULATION OF INVESTIGATORY POWERS ACT 2000
Authorises Surveillance and disclosure of Communications largely without warrant.

Authorities able to do so range from any Police Force to include any Local Authority and the FSA. (now extended to over 700 organisations).

FOOTBALL (DISORDER) ACT 2000
Enables courts to place banning orders on people, prohibiting them from travelling when a football match is on, without proving they committed an offence.

Allows the police to prevent a person without a banning order from leaving the country if the police have "reasonable grounds" for believing the person may cause trouble at a football match.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE ACT 2001
Enables the Health Secretary to authorise disclosure of confidential patient information to anyone he chooses if he believes it is in the public interest or will improve patient care.

ANTI-TERRORISM, CRIME AND SECURITY ACT 2001
Allows government departments and public bodies to disclose confidential information to police forces for the purposes of investigations of any crime anywhere in the world.

Permits the Home Secretary to certify any foreigner as an "international terrorist" if he/she decides that they are a risk to national security.

Terrorism is defined as in the Terrorism Act 2000.
Section 29 prevents courts from challenging the detention of foreigners under sections 21 – 26,.

SOCIAL SECURITY FRAUD ACT 2001
Officials authorised by local councils and the Department of Work and Pensions can demand that banks, credit card companies, utility companies, any company providing financial services and phone companies hand over any data they think is necessary for the purposes of preventing or detecting benefit fraud, without a warrant.

These officials can also demand that telecommunications companies tell them who owns a particular account, when given only a number or electronic address associated with the account, again without a warrant.

THE PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002
Under this Act, the Criminal Assets Recovery Agency is set up and in Part 5, it is given the power to seize a person's assets via civil procedures in court. (now updated to allow police to seize assets and bank accounts BEFORE charge or conviction).

This law applies civil proceedings to a dispute between the state and an individual, with the state as the adjudicator.

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ACT 2003
Extends the thinking behind ASBOS and includes premises closure,
obligations on landlords, parenting orders, dispersal of groups, public assemblies (the 1986 Public Order definition of an assembly reduced from 20 to 2).

EXTRADITION ACT 2003
Part 2 - unratified treaty with USA. No prima facie evidence required for extraditions from the UK to the USA, but still required for USA to UK extraditions.

Part 1 of the Act implements the similar European Arrest Warrant extraditions.

There is no requirement for evidence to be heard before a UK Court.
Also refer to the Home Office website.

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003
Facilitates the elimination of Juries from complex fraud cases.
Removes "double jeopardy". Permits hearsay evidence.

THE CIVIL CONTINGENCIES ACT 2004
Authorises any cabinet minister to make "emergency regulations" Emergency regulations may make any provision that can be made by Royal Prerogative or Act of Parliament.....

the FIRST of the real shifts towards Enabling Act thinking.

THE PREVENTION OF TERRORISM ACT 2005
Under this Act, the government can impose "control orders" on anyone they suspect might be involved in "terrorism-related" activity.

The person subjected to a control order does not get a trial, is not charged with anything, and may have the evidence or accusations against them withheld from them or their lawyers.

Terrorism is defined as in Section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000

THE SERIOUS ORGANISED CRIME AND POLICE ACT 2005
Sets up the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA).

All offences, no matter how trivial, are now arrestable, granting powers to obtain DNA, intimate samples, fingerprints and photographs of those arrested, to be retained on file regardless of whether the suspect is charged with or convicted of an offence. (Don't discard your cigarette butt).

Protesters, even a single protester, must apply at least 24 hours (and more normally 6 days) in advance for a permit to protest within 1km of Parliament, or any other designated place.

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 2006
Originally drafted in terms which would have made this an Enabling Act, the diluted text with some safeguards introduced remains the second part of Enabling Act thinking.

By this, Ministers can, with minimal Parliamentary scrutiny, modify and enact regulations, interpretations, resources targeting and law.

IMMIGRATION, ASYLUM AND NATIONALITY ACT 2006
Further powers tor restrict the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers.

Sections 56 and 57 modify the British Nationality Act (1981) to permit the Home Secretary to deprive a person of citizenship or the right of abode.

TERRORISM ACT 2006
Further clarification of offences of glorification etc.
Extends detention period. (currently 28 days, government planning further attempt at 42 days).

IDENTITY CARDS ACT 2006
Well publicised. Read and weep.

I could go on, and on, there is just so much more.

If I began to start listing all the abuses of the above legislation, being used for purposes other than it was designed then this posting would be so long......

I could mention the Orwellian Newspeak introduced by NuLabour, I could mention the Targeted Messaging and propaganda, I could mention the perpetual war against an ever changing enemy, I could mention the big brother TV Licencing warning ads, I could mention that every Government department now encourages you to shop your neighbour, I could mention government sponsored health facists telling us what to eat and drink, how to live, I could mentioned a lost count of bans for things from fox hunting to smoking, I could mention local authorities using children to spy on parents, I could mention that we may no longer simply live by the rule of law, but by legislation for everything we do, legislation for everything we cannot do, and legislation for what we might do. No longer free thought, the state will do that for you.

Are you are so far removed from reality that you cannot see what harm you do.

The State does not need this information, the State abuses this information, and the State has no right to this information.

If I am not your master, why am I paying you?

[Dick Puddlecote]

"reading the document that came with the book I form the impression from the final sentences that the smoking ban was the main complaint."

The final sentence was a paraphrase of a popular eBay seller's cliche, personalised to you and your anti-smoking obsession.

[Dick Puddlecote]

... so you skipped the 30+ abuses of Government authority listed previous to that and instead focussed on a one liner at the end which obviously went way above your head.

[Paul Flynn]

THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THE CLAIM THAT SMOKING IS ALLOWED IN THE BARS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS>

Three comments have ended up in the Spam because of the intemperate languages. they have been un-spammed.

[Old Holborn]

Oooo, you've started deleteing posts!

How very Ingsoc

[Obnoxio The Clown]

Is that sophistry, ignorance or a lie, Paul?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9wFD8TBvbQ

[Leg-iron]

Mr. Flynn,

It was not my intention to browbeat or insult. I hoped my comments would come across as reasonable. It seems this was not so.

To read, to not read, to hear the concerns expressed here, to not hear them,is your choice and yours alone. It's your choice to dismiss as irrelevant, or as the shrieking of a hysterical few, the comments in response to your post.

There are a lot of those very rare occurrences. There are more each day. Are they all the inventions of the press? If so, what in the press can we trust, and why are your government so keen to impose controls on it? You might say they are not, that it is something else the press made up, but who do we believe?

I am rereading the book. In it, in the first few pages, children are uncontrollable monsters who are encouraged to spy on adults. I can breathe a sigh of relief that it's not like that here. I could go on but since you see my approach as nothing more than the ravings of a lunatic, I won't.

Thank you for your time. I see no purpose in my occupying any more of it, so goodbye.

Leg-iron

[Katabasis]

Another MP who simply doesn't get it and provides an off the cuff, disingenuous response. That's 3 for 3 so far. You're all responding almost identically.

I actually had some expectation beforehand that the MPs receiving the copies of 1984 might have had a better idea why they were receiving them and have more magnanimity to engage with people's concerns, but no.

Paul, I'm a non-smoker and *I* sent one of those books. There is a great deal at stake here, and the thinking behind, and application of, the smoking ban are simply one symptom of a terrible and systemic underlying disease.

[David Smith]

Dear Mr Flynn

Was my one simple polite question beyond your ability to answer, or were you choosing simply to delete it without deigning to respond?

[David Smith]

Dear Mr Flynn

Was my one simple polite question beyond your ability to answer, or were you choosing simply to delete it without deigning to respond?

[patrick]

Old Holborn
Had a look at your list. They seem like good ideas most of them. Was just thinking that if you don't like it you could-
A - stand for parliament and change the laws.
B - sod off to another country of your choice.

[Andy]

Flynn
"This is still the best country in the world in which to live":

I don't think most of us think that now; once maybe, but now, with children being stabbed and killed and with no consequences to the perpetrators. With our liberties being taken day by day, slice by slice. With the state attempting and failing to save even the most vulnerable such as Baby P.

No, you've had your go, You've failed, as Obama has it, its time for change

Even Tony Benn, no doubt one of your heroes has said, on record that New Labour has systematically demoraised and frightened people in order to control them. He's right

[Matt Davies]

3 in a row. 3 self righteous control freaks, who wouldn't look out of place in the Borg collective.

I can't believe we are forced to pay these people's wages.

They aren't listening. They still think they are special.

It's time to take them down a peg.

[John Pickworth]

"I have not noticed any political party raising the battle cry..."

My dear Sir,

This may come as something of a complete surprise to you, but you are not paid to look over your shoulder or strive to stay ahead of the 'other lot' - although that does seem to be a common trait of self-serving MPs in general and the modus operandi of the Government in particular. In fact, you're supposed to 'notice' our views sometimes too... you know, the public. Remember them? The impoverished folk who actually pay your wages?

While the gift of the 1984 book might have been organised by another political organisation (although I suspect largely financed by unaffiliated members of the public), its a 'stunt' that has huge and grewing support from ordinary people unable to have their voices heard any other way. And its not from a lack of trying either.

Sir, we're not irrelevant nor will we continue to remain silent - much as you might wish we were. If you don't understand the very real fear that people are beginning to have about your Government then I respectfully suggest you stop spending so much time with your friends and others within the political class and start actually listening to the man and woman on the streets of this country.

There's trouble brewing and so far you and your righteous colleagues seem so oblivious to it.

What I cannot figure out is if you're ignoring us on purpose or you're just casually out of touch with the public mood?

Tell you what. Instead of pushing your personal or party agenda or merely smoozing the masses with 'initiatives' and pointless drivel; how about using your blog to write a piece about how YOU personally, in your highly previledged job, might seek to increase the freedom and liberty of your fellow citizens? Go on, give it a try? You can even use a dictionary if you want to. Prove to the nation you're not out to simply ban or legislate our lives away.

Who knows, you might actually be the first MP to engage with the public instead of taking the sneery, evasive and dismissive route recently adopted by Tom Harris and Kerry McCarthy. The choice is yours, you can either raise to the debate or, like the above examples of so called Members of Parliament, attempt to shut it down?

I look forward to your response.

[Paul Flynn]

With so many issues of importance in the world, it's a suprise that a group of people can get so worked up by a perceived loss of liberties. There are good reasons for surveillance cameras and a DNA database. It's right that new technogy should be used to deter crime and to capture criminals.

It was the elected parliament that voted for these things by substantial majorities. Few if any will be changed if there is a change of Government.

I have always (in spite of what it says on They work for you.com) voted against the 90 and 42 days and ID cards and I have never voted against a transparent parliament.

Is this Liberation party in favour of legalising all controled drugs for adults? that is cause worth fighting for.

Meanwhile, there's global warming, international peace, developing world poverty, future world food and water shortages..etc. etc. These are all cause worth campaigning about.

But sex educatioon in schools?, surveilliance of neighbours from hell? Daily Mail propaganda exaggerations? Fabian infiltrating schools. Fabians?

C'mon get a life.

[Paul Flynn]

Graham, I have always voted for an investigation of the Iraq War and asked for one on a score of occasions.

I voted against a political stunt by Adam Price which was gesture politics with no chance of success.

This is why these reports from They work for you.com are very misleading.

[Paul Flynn]

No posts have been deleted. Obscenties and insults are deleted because they are only answered by further insults.

Your questions are absurd David Smith. It's foolish to blame Government for every bad news story in the papers. Will you give Government credit for the good news stories?

I see most of them are from Tory rags not objective sources.

[Paul Flynn]

The daftest accusation is that I do not respond to the public. I can claim to do so more that all but half a dozen others MPs.

Get around this site. The proof is there.

You are living in a fantasy world.

[Obnoxio The Clown]

"This is still the best country in the world in which to live.

Get a sense of proportion."

With your John Lewis list and your expenses and your gold-plated pension, you're OK, aren't you? It must be hard for you to fathom what the rest of us are on about.

Get out of your insular bubble, Mr Flynn. Apart from your sycophantic coterie, people are not happy.

[Matt Davies]

"This is why these reports from They work for you.com are very misleading."

The most misleading part on that site, is its title.

[Matt Davies]

"This is why these reports from They work for you.com are very misleading."

The most misleading part on that site, is its title.

[Paul Flynn]

WHAT A PATHETIC STUNT OLD HOLBORN

Two people WHO ARE NOT MPS have a few puffs out of sight of the bar staff in a corner of the Strangers' bar.

The film stops before they were noticed. Confess Old Holborn. You are trying to deceive your readers.

SMOKING IN NOT ALLOWED IN ANY BAR IN THE COMMONS.

YOU SHOULD EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE VIDEO WAS TAKEN. YOUR CREDIBILITY IS FINISHED.

The MINISTRY OF TRUTH?

[Baneswell boy]

There is a very real dilema for government at the heart of this 'debate'. (I'm refereing to the 'Big Brother' charge, not the smoking ban.)

People/ citizens, quite rightly, want joined-up, intagrated, public services. They also, quite rightly, require government to exploit modern technology in the delivery of public services. We all benefit from being able to access services and information on-line, form example.

But digital technology (and technialogical platforms) are now able to transfer data and 'talk' to each other in a way that has never been possible before.

Also, government is a fairly sophisticated organisation in 2008. Whatever problems people tell politicians they have there is usually a technological solution.

Put this all together and you have 'solutions' such as the NHS database - which should solve some very real problems - but inevitably leads the government open to the 'Big Brother' accusation.

The problem with the debate is that both sides are right.

[Paul Flynn]

Who are these people?

One of them called Kerry McCarthy a Fascist.

Hilarious.

[CyprusGrump]

Pathetic…

If it wasn’t the day when we honour our dead that fought for the country it would be hilariously funny…

646 members of the public send their elected representatives a copy of 1984.

Only three (so far) actually acknowledge receipt and are completely dismissive of the gesture.

The media refuse to cover the story although it was sent to them – presumably they didn’t receive permission to do so.

We have a lot of work to do.

[patrick]

The reason these clowns swarm MP'S websites is that NOBODY will listen to them.
'Let's all go online mob-handed with our stupid names and even more pathetic views and bug some MP'S because let's face it we're not achieving anything'.
Idiots!

[scumbag]

"It appears to be a fresh stunt by those who want to bring smoking back into pubs"
Oh dear.... You really are out of touch and full of contempt for us proles.

Dismiss us at your peril - you feed from the public trough thanks only to the votes of the people - what we give we can take away

[Guthrum]

Meanwhile, there's global warming, international peace, developing world poverty, future world food and water shortages..etc. etc. These are all cause worth campaigning about.

You are a British MP, you cannot walk on water. Why and this the question you will not answer do you not trust the British People of which you are a mere representative, need to shackle us and deprive us of freedoms won since 1645

[Katabasis]

"With so many issues of importance in the world, it's a suprise that a group of people can get so worked up by a perceived loss of liberties."

- PERCEIVED loss of liberties? I did read that right then...... perhaps when you're no longer an MP you will start explicitly feeling the pinch like the rest of us. Others have already pointed out in detail the ACTUAL loss of liberties taking place.

"There are good reasons for surveillance cameras and a DNA database."

- Yes I'm sure there are good reasons, although I notice none of this pervasive paranoia came through in the legislation of the Thatcher years despite the IRA almost successfully blowing her and the cabinet up.

- There are a lot of valid concerns about the DETAIL of how surveillance cameras and DNA are used. It appears to be function creep all of the way....why are you being disingenuous (again) and ignoring these?

- Aside from everything else, it is eminently clear that the government is the very last institution we can trust with sensitive data.

"It's right that new technogy should be used to deter crime and to capture criminals."

- Not sure what to make of this statement. You realise, on a normative level, there is no such thing as "just" a technology? I'd recommend the 'Information Society Reader' if you want to get up to speed on such issues.

"It was the elected parliament that voted for these things by substantial majorities. Few if any will be changed if there is a change of Government."

- And here you highlight one of the key issues. You're right. It doesn't matter who is in charge anymore as you're all in hoc.

"I have always (in spite of what it says on They work for you.com) voted against the 90 and 42 days and ID cards and I have never voted against a transparent parliament."

- I am very pleased to hear this. Perhaps you might want to have words with the people running the aforementioned site?

"Is this Liberation party in favour of legalising all controled drugs for adults? that is cause worth fighting for."

- You mean 'Libertarian Party'? And for the record - can you please state clearly that what you are saying here is that you support the legalisation of all controlled drugs for adults? (And also define what you mean by "controlled drugs").

"Meanwhile, there's global warming, international peace, developing world poverty, future world food and water shortages..etc. etc. These are all cause worth campaigning about."

- Yes, plenty beyond our borders to do some mighty fine hand wringing over (much of which our own successive incompetent, short termist governments have contributed directly towards causing) - what about getting our own house in order though?

"But sex educatioon in schools?, surveilliance of neighbours from hell? Daily Mail propaganda exaggerations? Fabian infiltrating schools. Fabians?"

Pffft. Talk about picking out straw men to knock down...

What about:
- The literacy and numeracy CATASTROPHE in this nation (50%+ adults with sub level 2 skills in literacy and numeracy).
- The official cultures of insane political correctness, control of language - and perhaps most damaging of all - the "targets" based culture that has hollowed out so many institutions (the police, NHS, primary and secondary schools - I even see it creeping into Higher Ed now - bang goes the world respected British University degree....)
- The inability and unwillingness (personally witnessed dozens of times) of the police to tackle violent and organised criminals - in particular those that are non-white.
- A higher than ever tax burden, with a correspondingly poor level of public service provided in "return". And a burden that is likely to increase as we're now in hoc to future debt thanks to the £500 billion bailout / loan package.
- An intelligence (and customs) service that appears to work hand in glove with terrorists and high level criminals (get yourself a copy of the confidential Customs report from 2005 on one Mr. Peter Griffin if you don't believe me).

I could go on and on.....

I've got a life thanks Paul. However, sometime ago I cancelled my pension as I don't think I'm going to reach pensionable age, thanks to your lot.

[Matt Davies]

Your overlords allow themselves smoking over at the EU. I doubt you lot are any different; considering your snivelling hero worship and surrender to your Commie heros.

http://www.sadireland.com/euro_parliament_abandons_smoking_ban.htm

European Parliament Abandons Smoking Ban
(18/02/07)

The European Parliament has abandoned it's smoking ban after only 43 days. The ban was introduced last month at the parliament's two buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg. However, MEP's and staff infuriated by the removal of their 'smoking area's began smoking everywhere in the buildings and forced the abandonment of the ban.

[The Secret Person]

Hi Paul.

I think we agree that the UK is not as bad as 1984.

I don't think either of us wants it to get as bad as 1984.

So why don't we all stop moving further and further towards 1984?

[Nick]

Paul,

We, the public, your employers, (Do Not forget that) are becomong increasingly aware that we are moving to a totalitarian state. The powers of the state over the individual have become increasingly overwhelming. The average person in the street is totally bemused about what he can do, or not do. You harp on about the smoking ban as if it was the most precious single issue, only goes to show that you do not understand the monster that you have unleashed.

Smoking ban passed. What next? Fattie foods, alcahol sales, you can't die unless we say so. The list will be worthy of 1984.

[jaymason]

it has nothing to do with smoking and everything to with a surveillance society anda government that is becoming increasingly totalitarian in all aspects, an unelected leader who criticises people for unfunded tax cuts one day and then 2 weeks later announces his own and criticises funded tax cuts. Talk about ministry of truth. This I think is the point of supplying you with a copy of 1984

[The Secret Person]

Oh and the smoking ban thing was because everyone who contributed to this grassroots campaign was encouraged to send a personal message.

No doubt some MPs would find the idea of thinking for themselves, beyond what the whips say or the soundbites they are fed, hard to understand. From your voting record it seems that you are not one of those MPs, so I hold out some hope.

The originators of this campaign simply organised that each MP recieved a copy, whoever volunteeres yours obviously thought the smoking ban was a prime example.

[Jeremy Hummerstone]

"It's irksome for the inveterate smoker to use designated areas.". There is no "designated area" in a pub. You have to go outside, and can't even lean against the door frame. I am not a smoker but support smokers; I still can't quite believe that the little Hitlers have been given in to without a struggle, in a country that used to be free.

[Sub_Wrath]

"As it was proved today, people as young as twelve have the autonmy to refuse hospital treatment."

It was only "proven" in the first place because that same twelve year old had to suffer the indignity of being dragged before the courts in the first place.

In a sane country, faceless unaccountable busybodies wouldn't be able to demand this child has an operation because they think they know best.

Tell me, if she had lost, would someone now be holding her down while they fired up the operating equipment?

[John Pickworth]

Patrick said...

"The reason these clowns swarm MP'S websites is that NOBODY will listen to them.
'Let's all go online mob-handed with our stupid names and even more pathetic views and bug some MP'S because let's face it we're not achieving anything'.
Idiots!"

First of all, I've posted using my real name (and email address)... I will also provide my home phone number if Paul requests it.

Second, I presume Paul has produced this website for a reason? Surely its not merely an electronic soapbox for the faithful? If Paul doesn't welcome a 'swarm' of visitors he'd be just about the only interneteer in the entire world with that view.

Thirdly, you're quite wrong that NOBODY will listen to us (us being the public by the way - not some loony faction as you're trying to imply). A great many ordinary folk are talking about this Government everyday and how their lives are being affected by the snooping, the endless form filling, the arrogant dismissive tone from civil servants and MPs, the banned this that and the other, the endless red tape at work, the health and safety culture, the penalty/fine grab for every minor infraction of pointless edicts and... here's the biggie, the feeling that ever more of our lives centre around the Government's wishes and desires.

Personally - and I'm in the majority here - we just want to go to work, pay our bills (including minimal taxes), live our lives and leave the Government to do the big stuff. Frankly though, you've all gone completely insane. Unless I'm a really one of the bad boys, my life should never cross the path of the Government's but suddenly we find ourselves dodging anti-terror laws, Police spot checks, overt suspicion, cameras dotted everywhere, money laundering rules, the fear of kids incase we're suspected of being in Glitter's gang, intimate searches at the ports, overbearing authority and jobsworths. Its utterly endless... and its impacting every damn single day of our lives.

So no, I'm not an idiot and nor are those desperate souls trying to get our elected representatives to hear what is wrong out here in the real world.

Paul makes the point above that 'its right that technology should be used against the criminal', the problem is its being increasingly used against everybody and I'm not convinced there is a right or need to go as far as we have! Although I am pleased to hear he's against ID Cards - there's hope after all.

And while we're on the subject, I will never sign up for an ID Card as long as I'm a British subject. Nor will I willingly give my DNA (or allow it to be retained) as an innocent man.

As for bugging MPs? Sorry to inform you but that's pretty much top of their job description. If we couldn't bug them (and its getting worryingly like we can't) then there is no point having them.

Seriously, all we crazy citizens ask is that someone with guts actually takes the time to listen to us before enacting anymore clever ideas. You're killing our collective identity, the thing that makes us unique in the World and so very British.

[J Stewart]

Hello again, Paul. Isn't it somewhat embarrassing to find that there are actually people who are worried about the numerous examples of erosion of civil liberties who recognise that the smoking ban is an example - I seem to recall that you dismissed 'freedom2choose' as representing a small bunch of silly people whose brains were addled by smoking?

It struck me when I was watching the Remembrance Service on Sunday that the veterans who marched past the cenotaph would, minutes later, be criminals if they used a legal product within the four walls of the pub to which they'd repaired to reminisce with their chums. As veterans of a war fought against an overmighty, authoritarian regime they are saluted; as elderly smokers they are of so little account that they are denied use of a legal product in comfort. Instead they must stand outside in the bitter cold to be sneered at by sanctimonious prigs who have been groomed by s government which has decided that smoking is to be 'denormalised' using the lie that smokers endanger others' health.

Redbridge Council has now decided that smokers should be banned from fostering: people are to be defined by their use of a legal product; no other consideration is of account, it is enough that they are smokers. Rather as at one time it was enough to be Jewish to be discriminated against.

At last the various groups who each have a particular area of interest are coming together to stand up to your government, Paul. God help you when the drinkers climb on board.

[Sub_Wrath]

"With so many issues of importance in the world, it's a suprise that a group of people can get so worked up by a perceived loss of liberties."

"Perceived"? Remind me again why politicians and, oh dear, "celebrities" aren't having their full details placed onto ContactPoint but the rest of us are, regardless of whether we want to or not?

I won't retread old ground already covered regarding ID Cards and national databases stuffed to bursting point with information that'll no doubt end up on the floor of a taxicab on a USB stick so let's move on.

"There are good reasons for surveillance cameras and a DNA database."

Because assuming everyone is guilty by default is enough justification for what's currently going on in England with regards our "perceived" loss of liberties, isn't it?

"It's right that new technogy should be used to deter crime and to capture criminals."

Define "right". You're not using it to deter crime and capture criminals, you're using it to build up a gigantic profile of every single person that lives in this country for no other reason than "because we can".

Who ARE these people that keep coming up to Jaqcui Smith telling her they "really want ID cards"? Can she actually give specific examples, or are we actually supposed to take her entirely anecodtal evidence at face value?

For the record, I'm no crank or loony or ranting political activist.

Prior to the point where Labour decided to try and control every aspect of our day to day existence, I was a two time Labour voter, couldn't imagine voting for anyone else.

How wrong I was! I stumbled upon the news of people sending copies of 1984 to politicians entirely by accident, and I've stuck around to see the results. Other than this, I don't tend to bother with politics, or read political websites or MP blogs.

However. I have huge misgivings about what's currently happening in this country as we wander further and further into a surveillance state, and as a DIRECT result of that, I won't be voting Labour at the next election.

I *will* be voting for the party that pushes away from this disgraceful abuse of technology and surveillance as much as possible.

Again, I'm not some hardcore nutcase foaming at the mouth about politics, something I fear a lot of people engaged in this debate are being unfairly dismissed as.

I'm just regular joe public, an ordinary voter who (a few years ago) would have been quite happy to vote Labour.

I'm simply here to point out, at this point, there's an awful lot of people like me that you're losing. And it's going to get worse...

[Graham Marlowe]

"This is still the best country in the world in which to live"

Not any more, paul.

As a former Labour voter, I am appalled by this limp excuse of a Labour government. I think many of us are fed jup with the pretence.

For example, the decision on a third runway at london Airport is not yet supposed to be made, yet Hoon, surely one of the most pompous and useless ministers (how has he survived - he was terrible at Defence, not an especially good LOTH) made it pretty clear the governments "mind", such as it is, is already made up - then they have the sauce to go on about cutting carbon emissions etc.

We have been fooled by Blair/Brown and their toadies for far too long

[wonderfulforhisage]

Mark my words, the worms are turning. And when they do...........the very thought brings a smile to my face.

[J Stewart]

Graham, I'm sure that you've twigged by now that when this government talks about 'consultation' they mean that they consult with only those who will agree with them. They will even rig outcomes by soliciting the 'right' response from the public. This is what happened in the recent 'consultation' ahead of review of current tobacco control measures. I wouldn't believe a word of the results of their consultations.

[Mr Ecks]

NuLabs endless tripe about dumping our freedoms to combat terrorism is vile. Jacqui "Boot" Spliff and all the rest of your hierarchy leave out one little fact Mr Flynn. Over the past 100 years all the worlds terrorists have murdered tens of thousands of people.Very bad BUT over that same 100 years the worlds political scum assisted by their cop and "security" service henchmen have murdered 200 million human beings. That does NOT include victims or participants in warfare. That is just the total of those those rounded up, shot,gassed, beaten to death,starved and generally exterminated. That, of course, does not included millions more who did not die but were imprisoned, tortured, exiled and/or reduced to the status of slaves. Nor does it include the emotional agony of millions more who had to watch the suffering and often death of those they loved and lost forever thanks to the kindness and solicitude of arrogant power-seeking political vermin.Does all this horror belong to a bygone time?--ask the Burmese protesters who were sentenced today to 65 years in jail for daring to resist the state.

Could never happen here?. Well I and the others here see the signs of your Governments arrogant disdain for freedom growing by the day.

[Mr Ecks]

NuLabs endless tripe about dumping our freedoms to combat terrorism is vile. Jacqui "Boot" Spliff and all the rest of your hierarchy leave out one little fact Mr Flynn. Over the past 100 years all the worlds terrorists have murdered tens of thousands of people.Very bad BUT over that same 100 years the worlds political scum assisted by their cop and "security" service henchmen have murdered 200 million human beings. That does NOT include victims or participants in warfare. That is just the total of those those rounded up, shot,gassed, beaten to death,starved and generally exterminated. That, of course, does not included millions more who did not die but were imprisoned, tortured, exiled and/or reduced to the status of slaves. Nor does it include the emotional agony of millions more who had to watch the suffering and often death of those they loved and lost forever thanks to the kindness and solicitude of arrogant power-seeking political vermin.Does all this horror belong to a bygone time?--ask the Burmese protesters who were sentenced today to 65 years in jail for daring to resist the state.

Could never happen here?. Well I and the others here see the signs of your Governments arrogant disdain for freedom growing by the day.

[Paul Flynn]

This is all very interesting.

Can the 30 or so people who have written to me really believe that UK 2008 is similar to Orwell's 1984? Possibly Zimbabwe, Myanmar, North Korea could be compared with some aspects of 1984.

But Britain? Many of the Liberation Party may be opposed to this Government and thy are having a go which they are entitled to do on the shaky basis of a threat to Liberty. Some quote isolated idiocies that occur and are reported in lurid terms by the Tory Press. But they are not typical or significant. They are certainly not Government policies, they are rare aberrations that are blown up into absurdities. The absurdities are then attacked.

As an MP I have opposed ID cards, 90 and 42 days and drugs prohibition. Not on the grounds of Liberty because I do not think it is threatened. I have been against these because they do not work and do more harm than good.
.
This Government has given away more power than any other Government ever, with devolved government in Wales, Scotland and NI and a transparency of central power with FOI. Tonight the now fully independent National Statistics Authority had a presentation in the Commons. To their great credit, The Government has given them full autonomy to research and publish vital statistics. They deserve great credit for giving freedom to the Authority.

They will be before the PASC Select Committee today. We will work with them to restore faith in National Statistics.

I can understand anti-Government zealots attacking the Government using liberty as an excuse. But there is little substance in their arguments. There are advantages in all the changes listed. Yes even a national DNA database would be very valuable resource. Why let criminals get away with it because of a mild harmless infringements of liberty?

Is this really a major issue? I cannot see it.

[Dave Atherton]

I never thought as an ordinary working class person outraged at the smoking ban that we would in a small way light the blue touch paper and we all stand back. Depsite not being a natural Labour supporter, I nevertheless, WMD in Iraq or not, approved of Blair's involvement initially and I will not be a hypocrite to condemn Brown now. On the credit crisis I have spent 10 weeks unemployed from May to September and found out that there was another meaning of UB40, other than as a pop group. Again I do not hold Labour accountable for my demise.

The way Labour have chipped away at civil liberties I find alarming. Again I will be generous and I do not believe there is malice of forethought, more clumsy reactions to current politics. However the fly swatting reaction to our concerns I find very disappointing and there is an instinctive anti libertarian streak, bossy, nannying, bullying, we know best for you attitude which really gets my back up.

As you may remember I posted before on your blog on the smoking ban. I am a moderate drinker who will please nanny Johnson <20 units a week. However my poison is niccotine and everytime I go for a drink once an hour I have to interrupt my conversation and stand out in all weathers. My burning resentment of Labour knows no bounds.

[Sub_Wrath]

"Yes a national DNA database would be very valuable resource. Why let criminals get away with it because of a mild harmless infringement of liberty?"

Collecting as much of your population as you can into one huge grab-bag is NOT "harmless", especially when that grab-bag encompasses so much more. It's not "just" a DNA database, is it? Its building a picture of someone the moment they're born via ContactPoint, then switching them over to the proposed national-database-of-everything once they hit 18.

It's local councils abusing RIPA for the sake of catching out parents whose kids are in the wrong school catchment area, its trumped up bureaucrats dragging dying children into the courts. It's routinely seeing up to 15 police standing in a line pulling over motorists while you can't get a single policeman for love nor money should you be burgled or attacked in the street.

It's all of these things and a whole lot more.

"Is this really a major issue? I cannot see it."

And that's precisely the attitude that's driving your own VOTERS such as myself away from your party come the next election.

[J Stewart]

Paul, if you 'can't see it' and you are an honourable man who does care about the electorate of this country, then please stand down before you do any more damage.

Before you do, please lobby the Government to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. The Government won't listen to us and they've reneged on their promise. In fact, please hold a referendum on whether to withdraw from the EU. We proles, if given a truthful, plain English account of the issues, are quite capable of making up our own minds. Now that would be democracy.

[Anon]

I am nothing to do with the libertarian party, or this whole thing about 1984, but I do feel we are entering a "surveillance society".
Isn't it weird that people are always willing to give away freedoms they don't use in order to secure their own comfort, while defending freedoms they do use?

I also feel that Paul Fyln seems to be somewhat detatched from reality in his defence of our surveillance society. But then, he IS in parliament, and doing anything to expand the state's power is pretty much his job.

[f0ul]

One day, you will be out of office and will find that all the laws that you and your crazy 645 colleagues have placed on the public over the last 11 years will finally effect you.

Your ability to smoke in a public place will be the least of your problems - 1984 mirrors so many of the governments attitudes to the general public.
I would suggest you read it and imagine that you are not an MP, exempt from many of the laws and regulations which have made like in the UK so miserable for so many - and don't worry, nobody is suggesting the Tories are any better - they just wear a different colour Rosette and also received a copy!

[Matt Davies]

I look forward to Labour running on the ticket that Liberty is not that big a deal, as seems to be the consensus so far.

Unless you want the serfs to and blow up some 3rd world country that is. Then it's the most important thing ever right?

I'm just sad you probably won't be around to see the results of your disregard for freedom.

[James Burkes]

I am the only smoker in my social group. Yet I can inform Mr Flynn that, yes, ALL of my friends want the Ban reversed.

While I am concerned about the legal implications of the Ban (is it right that someone can be fined thousands for allowing someone to smoke? There is no legal requirement to interfere if one sees any other crime being committed, even murder), and the Big Statism of the Ban (are Pubs really "public spaces"? Is it right for the Government to dictate what happens on private property?), my friends are more pragmatic.

Indeed, they have now all started smoking (cigars, and only when out, but that's still more than before the Ban) and want it repealed for a few simple reasons. A few local pubs have closed. And the ones that are left are never more than half full and have all the atmosphere of a cinema foyer on a Sunday morning.

I think if Mr Flynn looked into this he'd be surprised to see how many non-smokers are against the Ban, and how many had never even thought about smoke in pubs until the Ban came in. Certainly my friends would prefer more people, more girls to chat to and more craic than the rancid aroma of air freshener, bleach and body odour that seems to permeate so many pubs nowadays.

[Tom Stickland]

"It appears to be a fresh stunt by those who want to bring smoking back into pubs."

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I imagine that the stunt is to make a point about the threat to civil liberties from "thought crimes" and more surveillance.

[Dick Puddlecote]

Good to know that I am not alone in objecting to your arrogance in authority. But what's THIS?

"Can the 30 or so people who have written to me ..."

So, it's just 30 people that think this way. Not just 30 people who are the tip of a huge iceberg. In the land where news is easily avoidable these days, 30 that have found your blog through the vastness of the internet, with those most affected not even knowing what the internet is, is a massive response. Ignore it if you will, but you're no socialist if you do.

"shaky basis of a threat to Liberty"

Whatever basis they believe, it is they who matter, NOT you. They are the voters, you work for THEM. You've been in Gov since 1987, have this escaped your attention?

"they are not typical or significant"

Paul, you are wrong that they aren't typical, you show yourself up as naive with that comment. Plus, how DARE you say that any voter is not significant. You pompous ... (trying hard not to swear and incur your arbitrary censorship). Seriously, take that back.

"They will be before the PASC Select Committee today. We will work with them to restore faith in National Statistics."

Good. Let's start with the utter lies about your specialist subject. The ONS has stats on support for a smoking ban, your Government not only ignored them but made up new ones. YOU believed your own lies.

Physician, heal thyself.

"Why let criminals get away with it because of a mild harmless infringements of liberty?"

There is no such thing as a mild harmless infringement of liberty, only infringements of liberty.

I was going to point out a dozen examples of criminals (off the top of my head) getting away with it under your shoddy regime, but what's the point when you are so blinkered?

"Is this really a major issue? I cannot see it."

YES. And good grief!

[Dick Puddlecote]

I must say that this 1984 initiative was inspired beyond belief. One MP after another avoiding public concerns in favour of their own hide.

I fully expected at least one to break rank (even if only for the votes) and admit that there are lessons to be learnt. But no, arrogant, evasive and insulting to a man (or woman).

Never have so many been served so badly by so few.

[Graham Marlowe]

"Many of the Liberation Party may be opposed to this Government and thy are having a go which they are entitled to do on the shaky basis of a threat to Liberty. Some quote isolated idiocies that occur and are reported in lurid terms by the Tory Press."

Paul: Can you not see that you are being extremely patronising to us?

Yoou seem to think that we all have no opinions of our own, but have been whipped up by the "Tory press".

I am not influenced by the press of any colour, but my own observations.

Can you not see, for example, that local councils, embolndened by encouragement from central government, are increasingly spying on people?. Encouraging people to report their neighbours for the most trivial reasons. Even the BBC (hardly the Tory Press) have reported on people being fined because they left the lid of their wheely bin propped up with an extra bag of rubbish.

Beckett is considering giving council tenants "fixed term contracts" to "solve" the paucity of council housing, when any idiot could tell her that the solution to the lack of council housing - which ha sshrunk over the past 10 years - is to BUILD MORE.

You yourself are influenced by the Tory Press when you beat the drum for Purnell, implying, as he does, that people on benefits exploit the system. Isn't that what the EXpress, Sun and Mail do?

I wouldn't mind if you were as quick to condemn those ministers and MPs who exploit the system, like Balls and Cooper. We have also seen disgraced ministers return to the fold, and there are constant reports that the otiose Blunkett may return next year.

But, speaking for myself, I don't allow myself to be influenced by the Tory Press: I am just disgusted by New Labour hypocrisy - how you praise measures proposed by clever-clever little right wing ministers of NL which you would eb the first to condemn if a Tory minister had proposed the same thing (you are not alone - most of you do it).

I could never bring myself to vote for Labour again, until the party returns to it's values and stops trying to be a cheap copy of the Tory party. As for Brown, he seems to be determined to bankrupt the country just so he can cling on to office till the last min ute - hence bring back rejects like Mandelson

[david]

How on earth can the likes of Paul claim to have improved the freedoms and human rights of the average citizen? Policies such as the smoking ban merely pander to the ill informed, self righteous nu-middle class. Unsurprisingly, these appear to be the so called floaters. This group prospered under recent governments (including the Tories) - they felt secure, important (smug) and worthy.Indeed, not unlike their political leaders. The result of a shallow, decadent culture, ill educated and selfish. They are not feeling quite as secure now, are they?

[patrick]

Thank God for the smoking ban.
At last we are taking seriously the poison available in our local shops.

What this debate again highlights is the desperate nature of the swarmer.Your only form of attack is to all hit a chosen target on the same day making the same points, cowards!
At the next election you have a choice to vote for several parties. This is a problem for these above swarmers because there is'nt one to represent their idiotic views. So they adopt tactics designed to appear as if they have a big support. They may even form a very weak fringe party and lose their deposit in every seat they stand in.
To the many above posters (that appear to have so much time on their hands)have you formed a party to fight for what you so strongly believe in or are you just a bunch of mob-handed , swarming, bags of wind?

[John H Baker]

You just don't get it Paul, do you. You are just trying to play dumb to what you and your cohorts in government are doing to this country! As a fervent Labour (now ex) supporter I can't believe how anti working class my beloved (ex) party has become and are now doing to it's people!

And since you were determined to bring the smoking ban into it then so shall I.

http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd69/TheBigYinme/Membership-26-10-0806.jpg

These posters are in much demand in the pub and club industry so you are not alone.

John H Baker
Proud smoker and member of Freedom To Choose

[mike (defender)]

"To the many above posters (that appear to have so much time on their hands)have you formed a party to fight for what you so strongly believe in or are you just a bunch of mob-handed , swarming, bags of wind?"

Yes patrick, you got it. Many of us now dont have any more faith in party politics. We do not seem to get what we elect MP's for, to represent the voters, to do as we ask. Dishonourable manifestoes, lies, spin, traitorus actions, criminal activities, etc etc.
So it's getting to a situation of them against us. Time to pick a side.
Swarming, now there is an idea. So far I have been "swarming" on my own, perhaps we should really get together a swarming, mob handed, bag of wind and see who really has the say.

[david]

I really can't understand the anti tobacco lobby. On the one hand they bombard smokers with dire health warnings, graphic images, draconian bans etc etc etc.....but they never, ever demand a total ban on tobacco.

For goodness sake, if it's that bad the government should completely outlaw it's use, immediately. After all, all other legal drugs have to undergo years of clinical trials before they are approved for public consumption, then often only on prescription. Yet, we are constantly being told that tobacco is more addictive and more life threatening than heroin (a class A substance). Yet, it is not illegal to sell or use it. Why, like other drugs, is it not banned? Why can anyone over 18 legally and easily buy it from a corner shop or supermarket?

I'm totally confused, Paul - could you cast any light on this seemingly bizarre paradox?

[Stuart]

"This is a problem for these above swarmers because there is'nt one to represent their idiotic views."

Exactly. Some of us know how to use 'google alerts' and RSS readers and we care passionately about our hard-won liberties. Especially yesterday.

When I was at school I was in the CCF and was taken to the East German border in uniform. Hardly a radical. I was photographed by the Stasi. A few days ago I was photographed by Special Branch as I strolled around Parliament Sq. I know what I care about. I'm not a 'swarm'.

I care that politicians want to boss me about. I care that Guildford Council (Tory) won't licence a burger van unless it sells Tofu. I care that you think that this is reasonable.

Watch out for the silent majority. We have had enough.

[Stuart]

"This is a problem for these above swarmers because there is'nt one to represent their idiotic views."

Exactly. Some of us know how to use 'google alerts' and RSS readers and we care passionately about our hard-won liberties. Especially yesterday.

When I was at school I was in the CCF and was taken to the East German border in uniform. Hardly a radical. I was photographed by the Stasi. A few days ago I was photographed by Special Branch as I strolled around Parliament Sq. I know what I care about. I'm not a 'swarm'.

I care that politicians want to boss me about. I care that Guildford Council (Tory) won't licence a burger van unless it sells Tofu. I care that you think that this is reasonable.

Watch out for the silent majority. We have had enough.

[david]

Patrick - will you be branding those who question ridiculous alcohol and 'unhealthy' food controls as idiotic, swarming bags of wind?

[Paul Flynn]

To totally confused David,

Prohibition of tobacco would create an illegal market. Addicts will not go away, they will need their fix, an illegal market would produce poor quality dangerous cigarettes, gangs would divide areas into their own territories, turf wars will follow, fortunes will be made by the drug pushers, police, custom and jail warders will be corrupted, rich smokers will get their drug easily, the poor will suffer and become criminals to get supplies.

In fact exactly the same as now in the prohibition of controlled drugs.

[John H Baker]

Paul said:
Prohibition of tobacco would create an illegal market.

And smoking bans don't create illegal markets???

All prohibitionists, like yourself, create illegal activities.

[Tony]

I'm glad wou were sent a copy of '1984' because lets face it I think politicians need to be reminded that the book is a warning not a manual or play book that Jacqui Smith seems to want to run through.

But on the positive side if we scrapped the ID cards . the DNA database , Trident we'd save billions of pounds - just when we need it the most

And I agree entirely - ask yourself this ? how many people have died through terrorist attacks this year ? Hundreds maybe (and each one a waste..)
How many die however through
a) malnutrition
b) dehydration
c) on the roads
d) lack of medical facilities ?

Methinks we have our priorities wrong ..

[david]

Thanks for the raid response Paul, but you haven't really answered my question.

Surely, the reasons you give can't be the main ones? Anyway, a substantial percentage of tobacco is acquired illegally, simply because HM Revenue and Customs are levying disproportionate amounts of duty from smokers. You could, of course, argue that high taxation is designed to discourage smokers, although the duty was high even before the current anti smoker onslaught. Not high enough to warrant rampant smuggling - most smokers were happy and willing to pay fair duty. This was, of course, before they were treated as second rate citizens, alienated and ostracised by government decree, aided and abetted by pharmaceutical companies and rabid anti smoking lobby groups (and paying maybe £1500 additional taxes pa, based on a 20/day habit).

Do you seriously expect intelligent people to accept that the huge tobacco revenue earned by government has nothing to do with NOT banning it completely? Why not just admit it? What are you frightened of - being regarded as a drug pimp, profiting from the weakness of others?

Let's turn the argument on its head. Why not legalise all prohibited substances so that the exchequer has an even bigger vested interest in addictions? Not sure that that would be much of a vote winner, of course (not with Middle England, anyway). Besides, taxing these wouldn't solve much - users would opt for the cheaper option, just like many smokers already do (particularly the hand rollers).

I guess I have figured it for myself, it's all about money....so long as there's a market we may as well exploit it.

[Nitro]

Paul as we all know Labour are taking the full brunt of the smoking ban, the Conservatives and Lib Dems etc appear to be unscathed.

I am not sure why we are not publicly stating the Smoking ban is being revisited, this at least may bring back on board some of our disenfranchised voters.

Personally I am fed up with having non smoking ads etc forced on me at every opportunity, it is not even based on any true scientific facts.

Why is every uk taxpayer paying out over £200 per year in extra taxation to keep up the barrage of anti smoking sound bites, this money would be better spent by wage earners on their energy bills etc.

[Paul Flynn]

There will be a new look at the Smoking Ban in 2010.

I'd bet my mortgage that public support will have increased since the ban was introduced.

[Paul Flynn]

David, I have been arguing for 20 years that prohibition does not work. It incresaes drug use and deaths and subsidies an illegal criminal fraternity that pays no tax

[david]

Paul - loads of smokers deal with what you might regard as unsavoury characters. Tobacco smugglers may well offer other 'goods' as well.

I repeat - if smoking is as dangerous as you believe, why is it not totally prohibited? Surely it is your duty to ensure that tobacco is not sanctioned in any way by the authorities. Any crack down on drug dealers is also your responsibility. It's not the general public's problem - you make and (should) enforce the rules.

BTW, what happened to all the anti drug adverts? Why are all resources targeted at smokers? Maybe the anti drug campaign hasn't been very cost effective. The anti smoking campaign certainly hasn't. In fact, smoking rates have increased in Ireland since their ban (up to about 30%).

Given that this blog concerns '1984', I have to say that leaders of this administration wouldn't last five minutes in that scenario. Too naive, and too easily led by a very small minority of non elected fanatics. Have you never studied 20th century history? Do you think that totalitarianism is a thing of the past?

[Tim Le Clerc]

"I'd bet my mortgage that public support will have increased since the ban was introduced."

Well, with only 33% favouring a total ban in pubs at the time the ban was voted on in Parliament, I suppose 'the only way is up'.

Re: "Nineteen-Eighty-Four": One thing which gives me comfort is that the current crop of politicians and MPs are simply not self-aware enough to realise a totalitarian state akin to Orwell's Oceania. Government will never be able to retain easily accessible personal information on every citizen if the woeful record of its IT projects is anything to go by. Chronic disorganisation will mitigate the worst excesses of centralised power. Also, while the current politicians couch their authoritarian streak with the self-justification of it being 'for peoples' own good' (many of them even believe this) they fail to meet the most basic requirement of ushering in Orwell's nightmare regime. Simply, to paraphrase O'Brien, they fail to recognise that they crave power for its own sake.

Of course, this could all change within a generation or two, so it is incumbent upon us to fight against authoritarianism where ever it may lie.

[Nitro]

Pauls Comments:- There will be a new look at the Smoking Ban in 2010.

I'd bet my mortgage that public support will have increased since the ban was introduced.

Paul will we be allowing the general public to be consulted on the smoking ban to put your wager to the test?

Or will only ASH, NHS and other Stakeholders be allowed to contribute to our debate.

[Chris W]

Paul,
Do you honestly think public support will increase for the Smoking ban when up to now 2,500 pubs have closed ! with 100,000 jobs lost and millions of people now just staying at home and not socialising ,angry people I might add !,how many pubs ,Bingo halls ,cafes and restaurants etc., will be closed and jobs lost by 2010 I wonder ?