Night of fear

BBC Wales today presented vivid memories of a night that I will never forget. I wrote about it in my book the Unusual Suspect.

 

"The air raids were events of wonder for me aged five and my brothers 

Mike, six, and Terry, nine. They were nights of terror for my mother. 

My sister Mary was born on 29 December 1940. The first major air raid 

struck Cardiff six days later on 3 January 1941. We scampered the 100 yards 

to the communal shelter in Clive Street weighed down with blankets and 

overcoats, my mother clutching the tiny baby. 

 

It was midnight but the sky was bright with golden flares that burned 

and crackled as they fell from the sky. In our naivety we mistook the 

dropping flares for bombs. We were running through a cauldron of noise: 

the German bombers braying a characteristic engine throb, augmented 

by the howling banshees of the air raid warnings and the shouts of ARP 

wardens to ‘get to the shelter, quick now’. 

 

The communal shelter was a line of simple buildings that stretched 

down the centre of the unusually broad Clive Street. It gave psychological 

protection only, constructed of fragile brick with a concrete roof. The 

two hundred mortals jammed into a single shelter were more exposed to 

bomb strikes than they would have been in the houses they had deserted. 

The threadbare consolation was that there was more chance of being 

killed outright in the shelter and less of being buried alive under the 

collapsed debris of a house. That night a shelter at the rear of Hollyman’s 

bakery in Stockland Street, a few streets away from Clive Street, was 

bombed. It was a direct hit and at least thirty-three people were killed. 

Most of them were parishioners from St Patrick’s Church who had rushed 

to the shelter from the church. The bodies were never recovered and a 

hardware store now stands on their unmarked graves. 

Private or public interest?

Is there a sinister underbelly to the latest NHS story?

It was claimed that  NHS is wasting more than £1 billion of taxpayers' money a year as managers spend vastly differing amounts on the same supplies. The accuser is the head of a government-backed healthcare efficiency drive.

It was reported that "John Neilson, managing director of NHS Shared Business Services (NHS SBS), said cash was being needlessly squandered by health trusts who are paying multiple prices for identical equipment - ranging from stationery to surgical instruments."

Maybe so. A correspondent says the story should be balanced with this allegation. "John Neilson has links to a company that supplies IT and administration outsourcing services, in the UK and India, the company being "Steria". Prior to his current post in the NHS, up until 2009 John Neilson was previously Director for the UK and India of the Steria Global Delivery Unit (GDU), responsible for providing infrastructure and outsourcing solutions in the UK and India."

This crucial interest was not made obvious in the original story. I am sure that there are some checks and balances in the system that prevents Mr Neilson seeking any advantage for his own company.

If not this could be a possible new brand of insider trading. I await a full explanation with interest. 

Unpolluted air 

They are a strange obsessed group.  

My blog of the 28th December provoked 208 comments mainly from opponents of the smoking ban. I printed a typical exchange below in response to my observation that smoking is less prevalent now in the UK.  Like the global warming deniers the anti-ban brigade regularly quote reports that they have not read or do not understand. I have taken only a small role in the discussion. Regular commenters have squashed those who are anti-ban.

Wales lead in the UK with a smoking ban. It made life more pleasant. It was a pleasure to see England, France and many other countries following suit. Today Spain joined the club.  It will spread worldwide as its advantages are understood.

 

Comment:

--------

Paul Flynn needs a bit of educating ... go to page 11 of this document which clearly shows UK smoking rates to be 28%

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_332_en.pdf

I would like to know how he believes that smoking has declined when his masters in the EU say otherwise

Commenter name: Bill Gibson

 

Comment:

--------

Bill Gibson - You're hoist by your own petard! Even the report you refer to shows that smoking has declined in the UK - from 33% in 2006 to 28% in 2009!!!

Don't try to come up with a conclusion by comparing one statistic from one source from another statistic from a different source.  That is completely phoney use of stats. 

 

Commenter name: Rollo

 

Comments

[Kay Tie]

"Nobody could possibly continue to do something as stupid without there being a benefit, surely?"

It's enjoyable, like an espresso is enjoyable. And given the costs, it must be quite enjoyable (although maybe not as enjoyable as an espresso, which usually costs £1 a hit)

[Patrick]

Junican
People who smoke a pack a day die on average 7 years earlier than people who have never smoked.
Cigarette Smoking means you are giving to yourself a slow poison treatment.
Cigarette smoking does not only affect the smoker’s health but also affects the nearby standing individual like your kids as their organs are on developing stage.
Cigarette smoking is the main agent of avoidable and premature death rate. Cigarette smoking results in one in five deaths in United States.
Cigarette smoking acts as a catalyzing agent in coronary heart diseases, lung cancer and chronic airway obstruction.
Approximately 6.4 million children will loose their lives prematurely, if this pace of consummation of tobacco goes on in this way.
Cigarette smoking has direct relation to the sources causing the chronic bronchitis, emphysema and lung cancer.

Etc etc etc………………………………….

We all know that a nicotine addiction will degrade your health, shorten your life, cost you a fortune and make tobacco companies rich.

I expect us all to agree that our health is important, and that we all hope to live long lives. Money is important to us all and nobody likes to throw it away.

So please enlighten us, there must be many positive aspects to smoking that I have missed or else why would you bother?

Nobody could possibly continue to do something as stupid without there being a benefit, surely?

It can’t all be about cancer, death, disease and harming the unborn can it?

[Junican]

Junican is still here.

[James Watson]

Where has this person, Junican, gone? He/she was making so much sense.

[James Watson]

@ Kay Tie.

Ah well. I suppose that you are right.

[Kay Tie]

"Have you nothing to say about that statement, Kay Tie? C'est vrai, n'est pas?"

No. Just because something isn't medically harmful doesn't give you the right to do it anyway. You wouldn't urinate in a public park next to someone's picnic. You wouldn't play your boombox on the bus at full volume. You wouldn't drink to excess and then vomit in the street. Well, actually, maybe you'd do all those things to assert your freedom to infringe the freedom of others.

[Junican]

""I'd hate to be your wife hoping for Chanel Number 5 at Christmas and getting Eau de Fumée Refroidie.""

My wife would never consider using that filthy, stinking Chanel No 5. She knows that every time she has used it in the past, it has aggravated my skin and brought out eczema. I had to wash my clothes and bedding. She uses Anais Anais - that's ok. Oh, and she suffers from multiples sclerosis. I didn't see it on your list of smoking caused ailments. Don't you think that you should add it? Might as well - it would go well with the bacteriological and viral diseases (which cannot possibly be caused by tobacco smoke) that you list.

""In this matter, everyone is arguing in circles. There is one and only one quantity of any importance, and that is:

"Is environmental tobacco smoke dangerous?" (Note the word 'dangerous'). There is very little evidence that it is. In fact, the WHO's own major study indicated that the statistical evidence was insignificant.""

Have you nothing to say about that statement, Kay Tie? C'est vrai, n'est pas?

[Kay Tie]

"I do wish people would stop referring to 'stinks' and 'filth'. One person's stink is another person's fragrance."

I'd hate to be your wife hoping for Chanel Number 5 at Christmas and getting Eau de Fumée Refroidie.

[Junican]

I do wish people would stop referring to 'stinks' and 'filth'. One person's stink is another person's fragrance. We would not wish to ban ladies from going into pubs wearing perfume or men wearing aftershave no matter how much we might not like the stink/fragrance, would we? But one could envisage a person entering a pub smelling badly of poo, couldn't one? We would certainly not like that, and rightly so. But who would have the right to tell the ponger to leave? It would have to be the publican and no one else.

In this matter, everyone is arguing in circles. There is one and only one quantity of any importance, and that is:

"Is environmental tobacco smoke dangerous?" (Note the word 'dangerous'). There is very little evidence that it is. In fact, the WHO's own major study indicated that the statistical evidence was insignificant.

Even if one allows the possibility of some marginal harm, is that a good reason for not allowing ANY indoor areas for smokers to use? And is that a good reason for overturning centuries of common law regarding property rights? And is that a good reason for denying people their right to assemble by forbidding private smoking clubs?

If your answer to those questions is Yes, then I will ask you again - where will this attack on our freedom end?

[fjw]

Patrick: I accept Richard Doll's London Hospital and Doctor's figures with qualification i.e. increasing risk of LC with length of time smoking reaching @16% after 50 years, overall a lifetime risk of 7.9%. I regard all epidemiology as a guide that requires further study and not Religious zealotry jumped on by those who e.g. just don't like the smell of fags. I'm sceptical of the rest.

SHS is a much different matter as I've quoted above. Each survey I've seen can be shot down on the basis of verifiable data as it's base without even going into their 'indicated' conclusions. I have difficulty accepting this.

One hopes you understand I'm quite prepared to debate evidence based and verifiable data not finger in the air stuff. I also believe all should be catered for and neither set excluded allowing free movement between the 2 as wished by the individual. I will not tolerate any selfishness as seen by the likes of Kay Tie. Nor do I take kindly to 'Govt. approved lifestyles' being inflicted on us either by diktat or 'nudge'. Neither do I like the way this ban was machinated by the HoC. And if anybody has an eye to the future, neither should they.

[fjw]

A shop may refuse access, as well. Maybe not a lot realise it. No, DG, the Licensee is legally responsible for the conduct of the establishment and may refuse or allow at their discretion. If you are allowed in, you are deemed to be entering by invitation of the licensee who may withdraw it at any time. I'm sure you've seen people asked to leave. The Licensee sets the rules. This is where the complaint of interference in private property, which they are, originates.

[patrick]

fjw
Do you accept that smoking is harmful?

[Kay Tie]

"I'd guess it was banned on the grounds that people were employed in them"

Yes, it was.

"(can't imagine toffs - despite their love of DC's BS - washing their own glasses or wiping a bar down)"

You don't need to bring class into this. There were far more Working Mens Clubs that were affected than by the stereotyped leather-chaired clubs of Mayfair.

I don't see that bona fide clubs needed to be brought into the ban, but the fear was expressed that the rules would be exploited to restore the status quo ante. And since hardcore smokers like fjw don't accept any form of restraint on their personal desires you can be sure this is a valid fear.

[D.G.]

"It's a 'house' where the public are invited at the discretion of the Licensee."

No, I think that would be a private dwelling.

A public (there's that word again! ;) ) house is a place of business, offering goods and services to the public; it's regulated accordingly and treated like any other business. The fact that they can refuse service or entry in the way you describe is immaterial - so can a corner shop, but you wouldn't argue that people only enter a corner shop at the invitation/discretion of the owner. They're both public places.

I'm still very interested in how the legislation applies to private members clubs, though. I'd guess it was banned on the grounds that people were employed in them (can't imagine toffs - despite their love of DC's BS - washing their own glasses or wiping a bar down) but if it were staffed by volunteers... hmmm.

[Kay Tie]

"But if we can't express negative opinions about pieces of legislation or discuss ways of amending them, we might as well be living in a feudal state."

Ah but we have, and fjw has refused to accept anything that counters what he wants to do. He even thinks he knows the effect he's having on other people, and has judged the benefit he obtains to be worth the price other people pay. There is nothing further to be gained by dialogue with this type of person.

[fjw]

Patrick: Looks good, doesn't it. The confounder in all that, of course, is that if nobody smoked they would still occur.

When it comes to SHS, you may buy it. From what I've seen, I don't.

[fjw]

The public have access to a Pub at the invitation of the Landlord/Lady and only that. I'll repeat that nobody can demand access in the same way as a Park for instance. It may well be illegal to refuse access on grounds of Race, Religion, Disability, Gender etc. but a Lanlord may still refuse entry even on those grounds if he considers it and it can be shown to be a danger. There are many other Legal reasons and none to be refused service which can be used and are. The public cannot demand access to a Pub. It's a 'house' where the public are invited at the discretion of the Licensee.

Yes, it is the Law at the moment. Many of us argue it shouldn't be.

[cirrusminor]

"You still don't get it. You never will. So I will tell you that you must do one simple thing: obey the law. So simple even you can understand it."

We all know that there's a blanket smoking ban in place - this debate wouldn't be happening otherwise. But if we can't express negative opinions about pieces of legislation or discuss ways of amending them, we might as well be living in a feudal state.

[patrick]

List of Diseases Cause by Smoking Cigarettes

There is no such thing as a safe cigarette. It does not matter if it is a light or ultra light, the effects are still the same. Smoking causes cancer and other chronic diseases...period, end of story. Still people continue to smoke and tobacco companies continue to profit. If you need more reasons to quit smoking, not that it will be easy by any means, below is a list of diseases that are cause by smoking cigarettes. These diseases include:

Emphysema

Bronchitis

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease

Coronary artery disease

Peripheral artery disease

Colorectal cancer

Liver cancer

Prostate cancer

Erectile dysfunction in men

Stomach cancer

Bladder and kidney cancer

Abdominal aortic aneurysm

Acute myeloid leukemia

Cataracts

Cervical cancer

Kidney cancer

Pancreatic cancer

Periodontitis

Pneumonia

Isn't it incredible that these lemmings are arguing for the rights to give these diseases to others?

[D.G.]

"A Landlord/Lady controls the property, in many cases, owning it and may refuse entry for any reason whatsoever, even none."

No, that's not true. They can't refuse access on the grounds of race, religion etc. When you operate a business, you operate in the public sphere.

"a Landlord/Lady may not even smoke in their own living areas. Even antis must admit that to be way over the top."

That does seem over the top, but I suspect the ban would be unenforceable if it were otherwise.

[Kay Tie]

"A Landlord/Lady controls the property, in many cases, owning it and may refuse entry for any reason whatsoever, even none."

You think that's how it is, but it isn't, as a quick scan of the newspapers will relate the story of the B&B owners being prosecuted for refusing bookings by gay couples.

If I were you (and I thank the Lord that I'm not) I should spend less time trying to pretend the world is the way I want it to be and more time finding out about how it is.

"The debate is essentially whether a legal act should be censored and criminalised, on private grounds."

And a pub isn't private grounds. It's a place to which the public have access. Hence the name "pub" (short for "public house"), as opposed to "private house" (you see the way the words go there, no?)

[Kay Tie]

"that must concede for you, any time, anywhere and everywhere you like"

You must concede for everyone and you must do this now and forever. That's how it goes when you are infringing the freedom of other people.

You still don't get it. You never will. So I will tell you that you must do one simple thing: obey the law. So simple even you can understand it.

[fjw]

Kay Tie: Yes. it's the 'obnoxious smokers' that must concede for you, any time, anywhere and everywhere you like. 'I'll go here today, stop smoking everyone, I'm on my way'. I think we've got that point.

[fjw]

Take your point, DG, although the 'surveys' such as they are are there to see and that's all they are. We don't have to be 'experts' to see if a conclusion is both logical and supported. I've found most of them to fall on very basic grounds and epidemiology is mistrusted by the rest of science, anyway, at best treated as a guide.

A Landlord/Lady controls the property, in many cases, owning it and may refuse entry for any reason whatsoever, even none. They are not Public in the sense of a Public Park for instance. Nobody can demand access. Smoking is also a legal (and profitable for the exchequer) activity. The debate is essentially whether a legal act should be censored and criminalised, on private grounds. To add to this nonsense, a Landlord/Lady may not even smoke in their own living areas. Even antis must admit that to be way over the top.

[cirrusminor]

"merely for obnoxious smokers, who are a minority"

It's true that obnoxious smokers are a minority, just as obnoxious non-smokers are. Most people, whether they smoke or not, are pretty much OK.

[D.G.]

"You're welcome to a debate on 'health' grounds, anytime."

Appreciate the offer fjw, but I find that layman discussions on science (smoke and climate change being perfect examples) generate more heat than light.

I don't mean that disrespectfully - I'm a layman myself - but in the end, we all pretty much end up taking a faith position based on which scientists we trust the most. And human nature being what it is, we tend to trust those who support our views.

On the matter of landlords deciding what goes on in their pub... I think the key there is in the word "pub". It's a *public* house, not a private one. What happens in private is nobody's concern, providing it's legal - but what happens in public is everyone's concern.

[Kay Tie]

"is the Landlord/Lady's business, even who he/she chooses to admit to the premises"

That's not true. It's evidently not true because the law says that they can't permit smoking. You might like it to be otherwise because it suits you, of course.

"it is NOT beholden on the rest of the populous to make up for it"

It's not the rest of the "populous" that have to "make up for it": merely for obnoxious smokers, who are a minority, to cease their anti-social behaviour. Since you're incapable of even understanding this very simple concept I shall make it even simpler: just do as you are told and obey the law.

"But if you and your like consider this matter to be over, you're very wrong."

Whatever. Since there's nothing else you are capable of understanding, let's leave it here with you obeying the law and me having the wonderful new experience of being a regular pub goer. Have a nice life!

[fjw]

You see, Kay Tie, that you are not understanding or, at least, accepting 2 things. 1)That what goes on in a pub, provided it is legal, is the Landlord/Lady's business, even who he/she chooses to admit to the premises and 2)That if he/she considered that smoking should be allowed on HIS/HER premises for the furtherance of sociability and profit, then that is his/her choice. And this last one is what you are afraid of. That you know very well, with choice, most pubs would choose to allow smoking.

You have perfectly demonstrated the typical bigotry and intolerance of anti smokers. It is unfortunate that you suffer(ed) from a raw throat and whilst we may sympathise and attempt to help mitigate, it is NOT beholden on the rest of the populous to make up for it, whether you like it or not.

As an anti smoker, your views will not be altered. You, simply, don't like it and don't want it, QED. But if you and your like consider this matter to be over, you're very wrong.

[fjw]

DG: The smell only bothers those who don't like it. On bothered or not bothered we'll have to disagree.

You're welcome to a debate on 'health' grounds, anytime.

[Kay Tie]

"Arguing against the smell"

The word "smell" doesn't come close. Stink or stench is more germane. And you're forgetting a raw throat, which is even more unpleasant.

[D.G.]

"Non smokers are, generally, not bothered either way."

My experience is that non-smokers generally *are* bothered (to a greater or lesser degree), but are too polite (or wary of an adverse reaction) to say so.

I'd like to argue more on health grounds, but that doesn't end well on the internet. Arguing against the smell is effective because it can be demonstrated beyond doubt, even to those most deeply in denial.

[Kay Tie]

"I find it difficult to believe that you wouldn't see a bloody big sign that said 'Smoking Allowed' or are we now expected to make up for either your lack of concentration or poor eyesight?"

It's not the signage, it's the every pub that's the problem. But if you insist on this non sequitur then I shall merely point out that all the pubs now do have no-smoking signs on display, so you shouldn't therefore have a problem.

You have nothing new to say and were unable to offer any convincing counter-arguments ("I want to!" is, for avoidance of doubt, not a counter-argument). Therefore you should take your comments to another forum, perhaps one where you can discuss the Illuminati Conspiracy with other like-minded sociopaths.

[fjw]

Kay Tie: "Because somewhere you walk in off the street casually shouldn't be a place where you get assaulted by smoke. What would then happen is that smokers would monopolise all the public spaces as they did before the ban, leaving non-smokers with no choice but to be assaulted by smoke if they dared to want a drink in a pub."

I find it difficult to believe that you wouldn't see a bloody big sign that said 'Smoking Allowed' or are we now expected to make up for either your lack of concentration or poor eyesight?

[fjw]

Patrick: GW deniers, conspiracies, etc. What are you talking about? I thought this was related to smoking or more specifically, the ban.

Given your recent post in reply to Junican, I suggest you lie down for a while.

[Patrick]

Junican
"The history of mankind has been one of slavery of the ordinary people imposed by an elite, until very recently."

So by sucking little nicotine filled dummies we can take back control from our Jedi captors.

"Don't let a few elite, unelected people take that freedom (little though it is) away - it has been hard fought for."

The Jedi (cleverly disguised as politicians, NHS staff and policemen) are taking away all our rights and freedoms.
This is only the beginning. They have already put us on a self regulating spinning globe.Surrounded by water and sky we are unable to escape.Ours is to toil away our days , trapped on this little blue planet and denied all freedoms.

[fjw]

Sorry, Patrick, it was directed at HuwOS.

[Patrick]

Global Warming deniers, Twin Towers conspiracy, Smoking ban deniers, Anti speed cameras, Foxhunting ban deniers.....

Put these overlappers together and what have you got?

Paranoia

[Patrick]

fjw
I don't smoke.

[Kay Tie]

Huw, that prediction was fulfilled so quickly that I'm wondering if you've been sock puppeting us :-)

[fjw]

Forget the smugness and righteousness, Patrick, what's your point? or do you feel you know something the rest of us don't?

It must be desperate to hate smoking so much yet still be 'addicted'. You kid nobody.

[Junican]

(Offensive language- deletion)

[HuwOS]

thanks for the immediate confirmation fjw.

[fjw]

Patrick: Non smokers are, generally, not bothered either way. They have preferences, of course, but are normally fair minded. It's the nasty little anti's who are the problem and, as usual in such cases, are the active, bitter, intolerant and vicious minority, this being well exemplified by Kay Tie.

HuwOS: World Govt.? check out the members of the Bilderburg Group. You'll be surprised. We know Hitler banned smoking and was about to ban meat eating before other things took over. Don't think the Templars were much interested in smoking. Anything else?

[Kay Tie]

Sorry Huw, you are right. It was unfair of me to be so sweeping.

[HuwOS]

I'm waiting for the connection between the smoking ban to Hitler, the Templars and One World Government to come anytime now.

[Kay Tie]

Yes, I know they are coming after alcohol and chocolate and everything else. Neopuritans.

[HuwOS]

KayTie, I do wish you would not castigate all smokers when arguing with these eejits.
You are more representative of the average person than these anti-ban whiners are of smokers in general.

This lot are simply people who will not face up to the fact that they have and are controlled by an addiction.

Most smokers do acknowledge that simple fact and the attitudes towards smoking survey shows that.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/smoking2008-9.pdf

It shows that the vast majority of smokers do not even allow smoking within their own home (69%) never mind crying and carrying on about not being allowed to smoke in your face.

80% at least modify their smoking in the presence of non smoking adults (smoking less or not at all)
With the difference between not smoking at all (50% of respondents) or just smoking less, relating to level of addiction.

77% of smokers said they would not smoke at all if they
were in a room with children an increase from 54% in 1997,
again with the heavier smokers having more difficulty than those who smoke less than 20 a day.

As I smoke myself, I do feel some of the comments made have been rather unfair to the majority of people who smoke, who are not the selfish self aggrandising fantasists that attempt to conflate the ban on smoking in public places with prohibition of tobacco.

Denormalisation of smoking is a continuing and worthwhile process which has already brought benefits to the population as a whole and will continue to do so, with my full endorsement and approval and that of the majority of the population, including the majority of smokers.

[Junican]

Oh, and there is another 'Framework Convention' on its way regarding alcohol. No doubt another Treaty will be secretly signed by the Health Dept on similar lines. No need for the Government of the United Kingdom to decide its laws - the WHO is in charge! And then watch out for the harmful effects (especially on children) of women's fragrances. "Studies have revealed..." And then there is harmful effects on children of mobile phone microwaves.......

Even the most violent anti-smoker should be aware that the denormalisation of tobacco is only the beginning. Lots more to come. We should ALL be fighting against denormalisation and demonisation in any form whatsoever.

The history of mankind has been one of slavery of the ordinary people imposed by an elite, until very recently. Don't let a few elite, unelected people take that freedom (little though it is) away - it has been hard fought for.

[Junican]

"It's interesting that no main political party is in the slightest bit interested in removing the smoking ban. Why?"

Here's why:

Anne Milton, Health Minister, in a recent reply to question in the House of Commons:

""Government engagement with the tobacco industry on public health matters is governed by Article 5.3 of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and its supporting guidelines. The guidelines specifically state that meetings with the industry or its proxies should take place only when strictly necessary.""

The reader of the above should understand that this Article 5.3 also prohibits the Government of the United Kingdom from taking into the account the opinions of other 'organisations and individuals'.

Because the stupid Health Dept in the last Government signed up to this Treaty, all political parties are stuck with it, which, of course, therefore applies to all MPs, unless they are independently minded.

The last Government PERMANENTLY gave authority to the WHO to decide our laws.

And why? Because a few people do not like the smell of tobacco smoke. Good grief!

Do you know about this, Mr Flynn? Did you vote for it, Mr Flynn?

[Patrick]

"I just don't see it possible to discuss free will and choice, Landlord's or customers, with people whose definition of 'harm','consequences' or 'distress' ends with smell and because they see it that way, the world must be made to accommodate it. Both these views are infantile and immature."

Free will and choice have both been denied to non-smokers since the invention of the fag. But now all of sudden you are interested in both of these concepts perhaps it's a financial concern?

I've never really been that concerned about the smell of fags.My concern is more focused on the number of death's in my family through smoking and the potential health problems it offers my children.But by all means belittle that down to an 'infantile' reaction to a 'smell'.

Nobody including myself likes to see pubs closing down and no doubt the smoking ban has made a contribution. There are surely many more factors, the price of a pub pint in comparison with cheap supermarket prices, the popularity of reality TV (watched by millions),not being able to drink and drive, anti-social behaviour etc etc.

Society is comprised of the public.The public (that's all of us) vote for the politicians they choose(free choice and will). Politicians bring about changes to society.

If politicians make unpopular decisions then society can remove them.

It's interesting that no main political party is in the slightest bit interested in removing the smoking ban. Why?

Quite simply because the majority of society, on health grounds alone, are delighted with it!

[Kay Tie]

"Let's have smoking clubs where these vile people can be excluded!"

If it hastens the end of you sociopaths then I'm all for it.

[Kay Tie]

"I can guarantee that any parent who had found her child dead in its cot would gladly sit in a smoky room for an hour a day in exchange for bringing that child back to life."

I have no idea how you segued into this bizarre Sophie's Choice.

"I did this in an attempt to avoid responses like your hysterical rant of 02.21"

Thank you for such a sneering response. It's quite clear that smokers are slowly rotting their brains. I agreed with you about your private club suggestion, yet you seem to think I am ranting at you.

I think at this point that we can draw these proceedings to a close. I've learned just how astonishingly arrogant smokers are - borderline sociopaths, in fact. I don't think there's anything more to be said since nothing is sinking through the rhino skin hides.

[Junican]

@ Jonathan B and fjw.

I do so agree with what you say. Frankly, the idea of mixing in an place of entertainment with the likes of Kay Tie and D G fills me with horror. I would come out of the place with my brain stinking of obnoxious, poisonous, filthy, nazi, eugenicist, selfish, intolerant, lying ideas.

Let's have smoking clubs where these vile people can be excluded!

[Kay Tie]

"with people whose definition of 'harm','consequences' or 'distress' ends with smell"

Forget my raw throat, why don't you? How dare you decide what is and isn't trivial for other people. You are an arrogant bastard. There is no common ground with people like you, and it is quite clear to me that the ban was absolutely necessary. Stay at home and smoke yourself to death.

[Jonathan Bagley]

KT, It surely is a grey area. There are two widely held points of view and it was debated for an hour on the radio this morning. If asked, many people would struggle to decide whether our national broadcaster should show this programme. For what it's worth, I wouldn't want it banned.
You then conflate "offended" with "distressed". Let's stick to distressed. I can guarantee that any parent who had found her child dead in its cot would gladly sit in a smoky room for an hour a day in exchange for bringing that child back to life. However, you are bringing up irrelevant points. I repeat that I am talking about private smoking clubs staffed by volunteer members.
I did this in an attempt to avoid responses like your hysterical rant of 02.21

[D.G.]

Private smoking club - interesting thought. I suspect the argument has already been made and resolved when considering how the ban would impact membership-only clubs like the posh ones in London, though. Does anyone know how that works? I'm far too common to move in such circles ;)

[fjw]

Jonathan Bagley: I take your point but I'm long past trying to be reasonable with these people. I treat them as they seem to want to treat me. I just don't see it possible to discuss free will and choice, Landlord's or customers, with people whose definition of 'harm','consequences' or 'distress' ends with smell and because they see it that way, the world must be made to accommodate it. Both these views are infantile and immature.

These people simply do not accept that increased closures are a direct result of the ban preferring to blame Tie, Rents and/or price as though these never existed previously. They don't accept a Landlord's right to decide what he wants or does in his own premises nor, apparently, the wishes of a large number of customers. They don't accept the basics of business i.e. if a market for non smoking pubs had been thought to exist prior to a ban, it would have happened and didn't and their attitude to a whiff of smoke as almost nuclear fallout defines a hypochondriac.

They accept nothing that gets in the way of their own view and I wish you luck. My own efforts are directed at the All Party Committee of the House of Commons who use ASH as their secretariat and tend to the view of 5.3 of the FCTC which states that Tobacco interests - which includes both retailers and Individuals (i.e. you and me)shall be discounted in any decision. In fact Ann Milton - Junior MoH - stated recently that we would only be 'consulted' when 'strictly necessary' This is what you are dealing with.

[Kay Tie]

"There isn't that problem with private smoking clubs, as the smokers are separated from those who might be distressed. "

Agreed.

"even though the media coverage alone is distressing many victims' parents illustrates that this is a grey area."

I don't think so. Being offended by a plot line or a joke isn't anywhere near the same as the physical harm of smoke. I certainly don't hold to the 'right' not to be offended. In fact, there's a very entertaining comedy clip that makes the point far better than I could:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pjrVohm2nE#t=3m23s

[Jonathan Bagley]

D.G., Please read my post of 02.26. I am talking about private clubs, not Council leisure centres or university lecture theatres. Smoking in a private smoking club, by definition, cannot cause distress. More generally, it would depend upon whether this "distress" should be taken seriously. There isn't that problem with private smoking clubs, as the smokers are separated from those who might be distressed. However, today's debate about whether viewers of Eastenders should be free to enjoy a cot death/baby swop story even though the media coverage alone is distressing many victims' parents illustrates that this is a grey area.

[D.G.]

fjw "D.G: Give proof of harm to others"

I said *consequences*, not harm. To re-iterate Kay Tie's point, the disgusting *consequences* of a night out when smokers were allowed to stink the place up willy-nilly were clearly demonstrable with a simple sniff-test the next morning. It'd be in your hair, your clothes... even the pillowcases if you didn't wash your hair before going to bed, for god's sake.

The only possible drawback to most people is that they no longer have a reeking shirt or top on hand to frighten their kids off the fags with.

My son still vividly remembers the "Sniff that, and see what you'll smell like if you ever start smoking" lesson.

Jonathan Bagley - very happy to argue on the grounds of choice and free-will. Do you accept the premise that one person's right to enjoy themselves ends at the point where it causes distress to others?

[Jonathan Bagley]

Fjw, I talked about private clubs and volunteer staff because otherwise my points would have been obscured by irrelevant objections. Rather than argue about the claimed health risks of passive smoking - God knows, I've done enough of that over the last five years - it is simpler and more productive to argue on grounds of choice and free-will (after pointing out that our health, tax and pension systems ensure that money flows from smokers to non-smokers, rather than in the other direction).

[Kay Tie]

"Why only Private? What is wrong with Public provided it's clearly advertised both to staff and customers? Why the difference?"

Because somewhere you walk in off the street casually shouldn't be a place where you get assaulted by smoke. What would then happen is that smokers would monopolise all the public spaces as they did before the ban, leaving non-smokers with no choice but to be assaulted by smoke if they dared to want a drink in a pub.

"D.G: Give proof of harm to others. Clearly show it, please."

I've already explained to you at length how cigarette smoke contaminates hair, clothes, and anything they then touch (such as pillows and furnishings). And after an evening in a pub a non-smokers throat is rubbed raw by the smoke. It's extremely unpleasant.

You, of course, don't accept this as 'harm' and like all smokers, belittle the effects you have on others. You probably don't consider playing your music from a boom-box loudly on the beach as 'harm' either. Nor indeed yelling and shouting at 2AM while walking home from a nightclub. Nor dozens of other acts of anti-social behaviour that don't actually result in immediate death from cancer. You, in other words, are a selfish bastard who will never learn and needs to be prevented by law from coming into contact with decent people. Hence the need for the ban.

Is that a good enough explanation for you?

[Kay Tie]

"Kay Tie, ventilation has never been forbidden"

I didn't mean that. I meant that with the right ventilation technology there could be no smoke at all and therefore no need for the ban in those establishments, but that the legislation doesn't permit this.

[fjw]

Why only Private? What is wrong with Public provided it's clearly advertised both to staff and customers? Why the difference?

D.G: Give proof of harm to others. Clearly show it, please. The most recent report shows that only 13% of surveys re: SHS show the possibility of an RR averaging 1.2 (i.e. statistically insignificant)and those with reduced CI. I'm not talking of a Labour led HoC or any other Govt. or Pharma funded quango, not of 'opinion', 'indication', 'points to' or any other weak assertion or the sort of thing the likes of Jill Pell produces but plain, substantiated, proof.

Whilst you look it up, take a look at the WHO Framework Convention on tobacco Control, signed by Blair in 2004 without any indication, particularly article 5.3. If you count yourself fair minded, your opinion would be valued.

[Jonathan Bagley]

Kay Tie, ventilation has never been forbidden. Even smokers find a very smoky atmossphere unpleasant and these days would be less likely to accept it than previously.
Ecigs work by vapourising a solution of medicinal grade nicotine (same as that used in gum and inhalators) and propylene glycol, which is widely used in the food industry and also as "stage smoke" in theatrical productions and is not considered harmful. I have tried ecigs and don't find them satisfying, but many people have given up smoking by using them and many others have cut down. Nevertheless, most of the anti tobacco industry wishes to ban them - I would guess because they look like cigarettes - as do the drug companies which make massive profits from gum, patches and inhalators. They have already been banned in some countries. In my opinion, those who campaign for the banning of these devices will ultimately have to accept responsibility for many lung and other cancer deaths and heart attacks: just as those who, in 1992, managed to restrict the sale of the oral tobacco product, snus, to Sweden are doing now.

[Kay Tie]

"Kay Tie, perhaps one measure that would please just about all reasonable people would be to permit smoking in private smoking clubs staffed only by volunteers, rather than paid workers? This would ensure that that anti smokers were not unjustly deprived of employment in the hospitality industry. There are now several thousand disused pubs available for use as smoking clubs."

If they are bona fide private clubs then I don't see why not: they aren't public buildings. I'd also like to see ventilation technology to be permitted too: if the smoke is eliminated then there's not a problem either.

I'm also interested in hearing more about electronic cigarettes that just emit water vapour. I wonder if anyone has tried to ban those?

[Jonathan Bagley]

Kay Tie, perhaps one measure that would please just about all reasonable people would be to permit smoking in private smoking clubs staffed only by volunteers, rather than paid workers? This would ensure that that anti smokers were not unjustly deprived of employment in the hospitality industry. There are now several thousand disused pubs available for use as smoking clubs.

[Kay Tie]

"Kay Tie: 'My pub'. Well said, describes you nicely."

That you jump on a common turn of phrase tells us quite a lot about you, too. Would it be better if I said "my local"? Or would that still provide you with an opportunity to twist words?

[fjw]

Kay Tie: 'My pub'. Well said, describes you nicely.

I've no idea what evidence you're talking about relating to price. There is plenty of evidence of increased pub closures since the ban - nearly 25% (1500) in Ireland alone PW provided a survey a few months ago showing the increased rate.

Has price only been a problem since the ban?

[Kay Tie]

"Denial of consequences (to themselves and others) of their behaviour"

It's the "others" bit I care about most: if people truly want to harm themselves then I don't think we should stand in their way.

"is a defining feature of addicts, whether their poison of choice is nicotine, alcohol or heroin."

I wonder if there's s strong correlation between smokers and other anti-social behaviour? That would be an interesting piece of research to see if complaints about noise were disproportionately about smokers.

[D.G.]

"Why do you smokers constantly belittle the harm you do?"

Denial of consequences (to themselves and others) of their behaviour is a defining feature of addicts, whether their poison of choice is nicotine, alcohol or heroin.

[Kay Tie]

"I do know how many pubs are closing and how that massively accelerated following the ban."

Where we do have evidence - that you dismiss because it doesn't suit you - it shows that smokers monopolised pubs. The fact you don't like Whetherspoons does not counter the argument that pubs are losing business because of price.

Your style of debate is to dismiss things you don't like to hear. This is very much the way smokers have operated for years, so it's no surprise. Quite frankly, I don't give a toss how you choose to rationalise things to yourself. Belittle the effects you people had, make up evidence, dismiss concerns, do what you like: you're not smoking in my pub any more, and that's not going to change, and you'd better get used to it.

[fjw]

The Hotel trade has a completely different 'dynamic' to the pub and club trade. Not comparable.

Pubcos and the like will cover investment for an initial and variable period before expecting returns, depending on their investment capability. I repeat, if they had considered the market to be there, it would have been invested in. They didn't, in fact they were the ones lobbying for a 'level playing field' frightened at the prospect of losing trade with a partial wet led and food led ban. And this is the very reason it will be difficult (other than the FCTC) to obtain amendments. That when choice is given, we know what will happen.

I don't know how Wetherspoons are doing, I don't use that sort of establishment. I do know how many pubs are closing and how that massively accelerated following the ban. We don't need 'complex dynamics'. William of Ockham will do.

[Kay Tie]

"And if you're the one now going into pubs because of the ban, then treasure yourself, you're gold dust!"

The troubles of the pub industry are more to do with prices than smoking: the costs of pubs have been driven up by taxes, property prices and licensing. Look at how well Whetherspoons are doing: when the price is right, the punters are there.

[Kay Tie]

"Kay: Why were there so few, if any, non smoking pubs pre ban? Maybe you don't understand what motivates business? i.e. if a market exists, bet your life somebody will grab it."

Complex dynamics meant the market wasn't working: non-smokers were largely excluded so were not habitually using pubs, meaning that any pub couldn't afford to lose regular custom by abolishing smoking while no widespread non-smoker usage.

You can see the true demand for smoking vs smoking space by looking at how many smoking rooms hotels allocate.

[fjw]

Kay: Why were there so few, if any, non smoking pubs pre ban? Maybe you don't understand what motivates business? i.e. if a market exists, bet your life somebody will grab it.

And if you're the one now going into pubs because of the ban, then treasure yourself, you're gold dust!

[Kay Tie]

" I mean, according to what you say, the place would have been totally intolerable!"

Ta da! Finally the penny begins to drop. It was intolerable. Which is why smokers virtually monopolised pubs.

"Propaganda, Kay, propaganda."

And an excellent example of the self-centred mind of a smoker. You never read what I wrote because I never cited health issues at any point: I am sure that this was used as a pretext for banning your disgusting offensive behaviour. Your ilk persistently refuse to accept the effect younhad on other people and evidently still cannot conceive of how horrible you have been. I suspect it's a mental defence mechanism: if that penny ever dud drop you'd have to realise what you've been doing and this would contradict your core belief that you are a "good person."

"would you please tell me again why the owner of a property and a business cannot allow an activity which is legal OUTSIDE of his property to occur INSIDE his property and business"

Because outside the smoke disperses and doesn't affect other people but inside it concentrated and causes the harm I talked about. Are you genuinely unable to see this? Please try to imagine what it is like for someone else other than yourself.

"At a deeper level than the government thought of at the time, this prohibition is unconstitutional."

On the contrary, it's corrected a wrong that was inflicted on non-smokers while you were in the majority.

[Kay Tie]

"And drinking is intrusive too. It sets a bad example to children,"

Oh stop being so childish yourself. If you can't see that smoke causes more irritation and than the background murmur of a conversation then you're mentally retarded. Why do you smokers constantly belittle the harm you do? You are so arrogant as to think that you get to define the effect you have on others. I am so glad that finally you have been brought under control, since you lacked the manners to restrain yourselves. Just accept that you have been anti-social and shut up whining about your bogus rights.

[Frank Davis]

"They have their own unread sites to play on."

Yeah. It's a crying shame that nobody reads or comments on my blog.

I guess it must be the tedious repetitive irrationality of it all.

[Junican]

@ Kay Tie.

Kay.

I have been reading your comments and, quite honestly, I found myself giggling! I mean, have you really ever stepped foot inside a pub? You can't have! - or, at least, for not more that a second or two. I mean, according to what you say, the place would have been totally intolerable!

Gosh! It is so sad to hear people trumpeting the propaganda.

It is clear from what you say that you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about - and neither does Mr Flynn, I fear. Here is an example of the propaganda taken from a World Health Organisation statement:

""No safe threshold levels have been established. This means that substances in tobacco and tobacco smoke may cause harm even at low levels of exposure.
WHO is at the forefront of the global campaign to curb the tobacco epidemic.""

Erm...but there are OFFICIAL safety level for most of the chemicals found in tobacco smoke which are hundreds of times greater than the levels found in Environmental Tobacco Smoke, so why is there no safe level? BECAUSE SUCH A FINDING WOULD NOT SUIT THE PROPAGANDA OF THE WHO! And note in the second sentence the word 'MAY'. Does that not clearly indicate UNCERTAINTY? If there is uncertainty, then there is no merit in the words '...cause harm even at low levels....' Propaganda, Kay, propaganda.

I do not really mind the propaganda - what really annoys me is that this propaganda is being used to create vindictive laws.

And, despite your own personal opinions about the enjoyment of tobacco, would you please tell me again why the owner of a property and a business cannot allow an activity which is legal OUTSIDE of his property to occur INSIDE his property and business? At a deeper level than the government thought of at the time, this prohibition is unconstitutional.

[Frank Davis]

"Your examples of drinking, playing pool, using the jukebox and voicing opinions are interesting ones. They don't inherently intrude on the freedom of others unless you are thoughtless and selfish (for example, drinking to excess and loudly voicing your opinions by yelling at strangers). Smoking indoors inherently intrudes on the freedom of others because once the smoke has left your mouth it goes everywhere."

But when my opinions leave my mouth, they also "go everywhere", just like tobacco smoke, and far more rapidly. That inherently intrudes on other people. Everyone has had the unfortunate experience of listening to what's being said at an adjoining table. Same for the juke box, to a far greater extent, because it's louder. (God am I sick of hearing Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody!)

And drinking is intrusive too. It sets a bad example to children, for a start. And alcohol is a Class A carcinogen, and it evaporates into the air from every alcoholic drink. You may not notice it, but it's killing everybody else in the room just as surely as tobacco smoke.

As for pool, well, there have been any number of times when I've had to duck to avoid the butt end of a pool cue in a cramped pool room (and they always are cramped).

Also those darn fruit machines are intrusive too, even when nobody's playing them, and they're whirring and beeping.

I'd say that _absolutely everything_ that happens in a pub is intrusive.

[Kay Tie]

"I suppose that smoking is one of life's simple pleasures. Much like having a beer or two. Or listening to the music playing on a juke box. Or playing a game of pool."

Indeed. And I support the right to that. But when you take your boombox to the park and piss everyone else off with your music being played loudly, or you leave piles of puke in the street because you've drunk too much, or you contaminate other people's clothes and make their throat raw with your smoke, you've intruded into other people's freedom to enjoy their pleasures unmolested by yours.

Your examples of drinking, playing pool, using the jukebox and voicing opinions are interesting ones. They don't inherently intrude on the freedom of others unless you are thoughtless and selfish (for example, drinking to excess and loudly voicing your opinions by yelling at strangers). Smoking indoors inherently intrudes on the freedom of others because once the smoke has left your mouth it goes everywhere. If an arrangement could be had to install a positive pressure ventilation system that immediately sucked the smoke away, you'd be able to enjoy a cigarette peacefully without harming others. It's sad that the legislation doesn't allow for even that possibility, but that says more about the thoughtless way Parliament operates, dictating solutions rather than desired outcomes.

Maybe one day, when you've given up smoking, got back your sense of smell, and detest the effects of smoke on your clothes and throat, then maybe you'll visit a smoky bar in another country and maybe, just maybe, you'll understand what non-smokers have suffered all those years prior to the ban. Until then your psyche won't allow you to see the disruption you've caused and so you will continue to belittle the effects you've had on people.

[Frank Davis]

"what do you think is advantageous about smoking for the rest of your life?"

I suppose that smoking is one of life's simple pleasures. Much like having a beer or two. Or listening to the music playing on a juke box. Or playing a game of pool.

I'm not sure that there's anything 'advantageous" about such activities. They are not undertaken with some longer term goal in mind. They are done for their own sake.

"Maybe it’s the selfish bigot that has selfishly contaminated other people for years, that is still at liberty to poison himself, that is indeed selfish?"

There can be no doubt that pleasure of any sort is inherently selfish in nature. When one 'does as one pleases', one is taking thought for oneself.

It used to be my custom to go into a pub, and selfishly buy myself a drink, and selfishly light myself a cigarette, and selfishly sit on a bar stool, and sit there selfishly expressing my own (selfish) opinions, occasionally starting up the jukebox with my own selfish music selection, and playing a few games of pool (which I always selfishly played to win, of course). And, amazingly, everybody else behaved exactly the same way as I did.

I'm told now that this was all very inconsiderate of me, and that the smoke from my cigarette, and the alcohol evaporating from my beer, and the opinions I voiced, and the music I played, were all unwelcome intrusions on other people's enjoyment. In fact, my very presence in the pub, occupying a bar stool, was itself an unwelcome intrusion.

I haven't been to one of the new 'unselfish' pubs that are said to have sprung up since I was banned from them. But I believe that everybody drinks ginger beer. And they only buy other people drinks. And they only express opinions that are 'acceptable' to the majority of other people present. And they only play music on the jukebox that the majority of other people want. And they play it very quietly, lest it be intrusive. And when they play pool, they always help the other guy to win. And they all stand up all the time.

Something like that. Obviously no place for someone as selfish as me.

[D.G.]

Much as I enjoy the classics, "I didn't mention your name*" doesn't really address Kay Tie's point about the limits of freedom.

*also known as the "Nobody asked you, Smarty-pants" retort, Playground Put-downs for Dummies, page 35.

[Trooper Thompson]

Paul Flynn,

if you don't want to argue, then don't start the argument. Don't give it out if you can't take it.

Kay Tie,

"I'm not telling you what to do"

I didn't mention your name.

Adios

[Kay Tie]

"No, we just hate control-freaks telling us what to do."

I'm not telling you what to do: you're free to smoke where it doesn't affect other people. The essence of freedom is to do what you wish provided it doesn't harm others, but you've chosen to conveniently forget that last bit.

[Paul Flynn]

Some of the anti smoking ban zealots are trying to abuse the hospitality of this site by making untrue allegations. They have had a fair run but their tedious repetitive irrationality is no longer welcome.
They have their own unread sites to play on. This site is for an exchange of views between intelligent people.

[Paul Flynn]

Trooper Thompson is obsessed and irrational. the smoking ban has the approval of all main parties. Anti ban candidates have had derisory votes when they stood for elections. The Iraq War was backed by all Tory MPs except six and opposed by 139 Labour MPs. You live in a fantasy world of your own creation. Get real

[Trooper Thompson]

"They are a strange obsessed group."

No, we just hate control-freaks telling us what to do. I was brought up in the 80s, and thought the tories were authoritarian. Little did I know at the time just how bad labour would be, and if you think that the smoking issue is not important, I see that same self-satisfied, sanctimonious, righteous self-assurance in your war in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis is your party's most telling legacy, Mr Flynn.

The smoking ban was only a symptom of your fanatical zeal for a police state, with your ID cards, and your 'anti-terror' laws, 90 day detention plans and all the rest.

You and your party are a danger to freedom, because you have no concept of any limitation on the power of the state.

Besides all that, there are molluscs with a better grasp of economics.

[Kay Tie]

"So what, exactly, are you suffering from as a result of the impact of "filthy smokers"?"

Nothing at all now, thanks to the ban. It's wonderful: I go to pubs now.

[cirrusminor]

"Filthy smokers refuse to recognise that they have any serious impact on others."

So what, exactly, are you suffering from as a result of the impact of "filthy smokers"?

[Zaphod]

l have not bought cigarettes in the UK for over 10 years. lndeed, l know of no-one in my circle that does. Recently called in to see my brother in London and went for a drink. The pub had a good smoking area. l noted that everyone was smoking cigarettes or tobacco bought from outside UK.

There's absolutely no way of accurately putting these smokers in official UK stats. Sales in UK can be monitored whereas EU etc sales cannot.

Imperial Tobacco profits were up again in 2010 ... prob due to less smokers. eh?

[Patrick]

Frank Davis

As a victimised and ‘bullied’ smoker that is now ‘fighting a war’, what do you think is advantageous about smoking for the rest of your life?

Also, in what ways do you feel teenagers taking up the habit will benefit?

We all know that there is a direct link to a multitude of disease through both smoking and SHS, it poisons unborn children, it costs a fortune, and makes tobacco companies rich at the expense of mainly the poor.

Perhaps the people that you feel are selfish in banning the drug are actually interested in the health of both the general public, their families, and their own children. The ‘selfish’ are indeed acting in a most altruistic way.

Maybe it’s the selfish bigot that has selfishly contaminated other people for years, that is still at liberty to poison himself, that is indeed selfish?

Just a thought Frank!

[DG]

I read your spirited defence of people's right to breathe clean air on the other thread, Kay Tie - thanks for fighting the good fight

[Kay Tie]

"A person's right to enjoy themselves ends at the point where it's seriously impacting those around them."

Filthy smokers refuse to recognise that they have any serious impact on others. They belittle the harm they do us and then complain bitterly about their rights. It can of course be explained by natural selection: those smokers with empathy and sensitivity long ago stopped, leaving a hard core of thick-hided curmudgeons who will seize on anything to justify their oppressive behaviour.

[DG]

" For others it made life much, much more unpleasant."

I'm sorry that life is more unpleasant for some smokers post-ban; but not nearly sorry enough to invite their filthy, stinking habit back into my life.

A person's right to enjoy themselves ends at the point where it's seriously impacting those around them.

[Kay Tie]

"I wonder if there is an overlap between the opponents of the smoking ban, climate change deniers and opponents of speed cameras? There certainly seems to be in the press."

I think you're letting your imagination run ahead. It's not helpful to caricature people by first putting them into a tribe. For example, calling for an end to control orders does not make you a "friend of terrorists" or a "Muslim lover" or "for immigration" (all things I've been accused of). Similarly, calling for a sane approach to immigration does not make you a racist nor a supporter of forced deportations of British-born Muslims.

Although I'm in favour of the smoking ban, I'm against speed cameras: they have unpleasant unintended consequences (not least is that they lead to a reduction in traffic police and an increase in other motoring offences going undetected).

And as for climate change denying, the whole "debate" is degenerating to the level of the debate on immigration. Every good scientist should be a climate change skeptic: to take each report or discovery with a pinch of salt until robustly checked and tested. But we know that the vast sums of money and politics surrounding it have caused corruption and I don't trust that the reports I read (having been filtered through journalists) are in any way credible. That's not to say that we don't address CO2: I'm in favour of a taxation scheme that moves the burden of tax from jobs (i.e. national insurance and income tax) to consumption (releasing CO2). The consequences of such a tax would be to stimulate behaviour into finding alternative ways of doing things with lower CO2 emissions, but be no more harmful to the economy than taxes on jobs currently are.

[Frank Davis]

The supposed medical risks from secondhand smoke are a fabrication. The chemical contents of tobacco smoke are no different from the chemical contents of wood smoke in a garden bonfire or the fire burning in the hearths of many houses. But those aren't banned.

And one of the disadvantages of smoking bans is that they destroy communities, as smokers and their friends stay away from pubs. And, when that happens, lots of pubs also close.

"overlap"

Yes, there probably is. All those people are sceptical about supposedly authoritative claims of one sort or other. They don't believe everything they're told. And all of those people just want the government to get off their backs.

[Richard T]

I wonder if there is an overlap between the opponents of the smoking ban, climate change deniers and opponents of speed cameras? There certainly seems to be in the press.