« Breaking a stick over Maia's head | Main | No cuts for some »

February 25, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Flynn

Why?

liliana

"our Tranny's strongest point was it was international"

Just a reminder, Paul: The term 'tranny' is as offensive to many transpeople as the 'N' word - Just out of curiosity: would you feel as confident about using that word on your blog?

D.G.

"I did say "not that it matters", did I not? But see! Both of your comments are almost identical! "NOT THAT IT MATTERS"!!!!!"

Obviously it DOES matter or you wouldn't have mentioned it. You don't get to make an allegation then hide behind "not that it matters."

In this topic, Gerald and I do have common ground. On other issues, we feel very differently

http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/01/coarse-politics-tories.html?cid=6a00d8346d963f69e20147e21ad179970b#tp

"I was a great admirer of G K C in my youth. It was he who said: "The people of England have not spoken yet", wasn't it? "

He did write the Secret People, yes.

I find it kinda sad (and occasionally hilarious) when noble-minded people think they're speaking as the Voice of the Silent Majority rather than the Voice of the Vocal Minority, as is often the case.

patrick

Junican AKA James Watson

"I might mention the new idea that is going around in Government. You may not have heard of it (top secret!)."

Is it as big a secret as what your occupation is?

You obviously feel that by stating what it is will further dilute your weak arguments?

Maybe it's because all your problems of 'Smoking ban's, Alcohol prices, Englishmen's freedoms, persecution, Tax duty etc' will all amount to a reduction in money going into your till.

'Let's blame the state for the smoking ban and while we're at it alcohol prices. I know let's blame the state for eroding Englishmen's freedoms oh and persecution. Sorry i forgot to mention Tax duty........I know to cut the chase i'll blame the state for everything!'

Junican

Well, well, well, HuwOS!

But I did tell you so! But, come on! That was just a little joke, obviously.
How on earth did you remember that? I had totally forgotten it myself!

Shades of the BMJ, perhaps? Well, well, well.

@ D G and Gerald.

I did say "not that it matters", did I not? But see! Both of your comments are almost identical! "NOT THAT IT MATTERS"!!!!!

I was a great admirer of G K C in my youth. It was he who said: "The people of England have not spoken yet", wasn't it?

The people of England have not yet spoken about the 'barefaced theft'. They will eventually I should think - once they realise to what extent they have been duped decade after decade. Do you say that Government is incapable of 'barefaced theft'? If you do, then I might bring to your attention the antics of Idi Amin, Mugabe, Mubarak, and so on and so on - and that is only the known thieves - there are stratas of thieves below the known thieves. Gosh! We even have the expenses scandal! But duties are OK, aren't they, because they are LEGALISED theft. I might mention the new idea that is going around in Government. You may not have heard of it (top secret!). The new idea is A WALLET DUTY! The idea is that a Council Official in plain clothes is empowered to approach any citizen, show his ID, and demand access to a wallet. He is empowered to extract 10% of the money contents. But, be assured, it will be quite LEGAL, because the Health Dept will have proposed the law and it will have been passed by MPs. Of course, one could always emigrate to Canada - oopst! The 'wallet duty' in Canada is 20%! Damn!

And so one can see the utter stupidity of Government by hidden autocrats (healthists and zealots of this and that).

""The people of England have not spoken yet"" Nor have the people of Wales and Scotland. But that does not matter since the EU can speak for them.

Gerald

Junican I am not the same person as DG. The name I use is my actual name as it appears on the Electoral Register for Newport West.
Duty is set by and agreed by the democratically elected Government, because YOU as an individual do not agree with,or like it that does not make it 'barefaced theft'. You have the right, if you live in this country or Ireland, to form your own party or stand as an Independent, or persuade the existing Government by campaigning to change their policies on taxation and duty levels.
Of course you also have the right to emigrate to another country where the taxation and duty levels are acceptable to you.
By the way I am not blind.
Do you always automatically assume that someone who questions or disagrees with you suffers from some sort of disability such as blindness or multiple personalities?

D.G.

"Are 'DG' and 'Gerald' the same person? Let us just say that they sound very similar - not that it matters, assuming that that person is not deliberately pretending to be two different people in order to give emphasis to his one person view."

The short answer is "no". I would bet a substantial sum of money that the natural voices of Gerald and I are entirely dissimilar, even if our writing styles aren't.

"So why should not free people try, as best they can, to avoid this legalised theft?"

Because it's illegal to do so? If you don't like being bound by the rules and laws of civilised society, why don't you move somewhere where there are fewer. I hear the investment bankers are leaving soon, maybe they'll give you a lift.

"The poor object to being governed badly. The rich object to being governed at
all." G.K. Chesterton

(I'm not him either, but it does have a "G" in it, so I see why that might confuse)

HuwOS

"Is that idea 'conspiracy'? Maybe, but it does happen"

Yes it does.

http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/01/public-interest-or-private.html?cid=6a00d8346d963f69e20148c7678af2970c#comment-6a00d8346d963f69e20148c7678af2970c

Junican

Are 'DG' and 'Gerald' the same person? Let us just say that they sound very similar - not that it matters, assuming that that person is not deliberately pretending to be two different people in order to give emphasis to his one person view.

Is that idea 'conspiracy'? Maybe, but it does happen.

DJ (or Gerald), you are blind! DUTY is barefaced theft! There is no reasonable reason for petrol, alcohol or tobacco to be singled out as worthy of massive extra taxes. None whatsoever. It is legalised theft! So why should not free people try, as best they can, to avoid this legalised theft? The politicians who impose this legalised theft are here today and gone tomorrow.

""The estimated loss of revenue in the UK caused by tobacco smuggling is £2.2 Billion, in Ireland the estimated loss is 556 Million Euro or approx. £480 Million.""

Oh dear! There is an estimated loss of revenue!

Junican

@ patrick.

What strange questions!

“”Are we right to think that you couldn’t give a flying fig about either tobacco or alcohol related stats?””
Well..........erm............not a lot. Or rather, that the stats are being manipulated and exaggerated by weasel words in order to limit the freedom of free Englishmen (and that is persecution). For example, we have today a headline on BBC News On Line:
""Passive smoking 'raises breast cancer risk' ""
In actual fact, the report quoted says nothing of the sort. The study doesn’t even find any significant correlation between smoking and breast cancer, never mind passive smoking.
But there is one absolute true set of stats which is worth considering, and that is Office of Nat Stats mortality stats. I can give you the URL for the detailed mortality stats for 2009. Study them and note that there are 28 different cancers that people die from, and that there are lots of variations with those types of cancer which are not listed. There are 98 different causes of death listed. Here is the URL:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Table_2_Death_Registrations_Cause.xls

You will notice especially that there is no ‘cause of death’ listed which says ‘alcohol’.

And I am not ‘obsessed’. I simply have this facility which most, but not all apparently, humans have to reason.

Your second question makes no sense to me: “Is that black cat white?”

HuwOS

One can only assume the constituency value whatever he has brought to them
but when even being exposed as being utterly in the pocket of not just commercial interests but one man and being thrown out of your party has no negative effect on your electability you have to wonder what on earth they are on there in Tipp North.

If he had been in Fianna Fail, he'd have been Taoiseach long ago

Gerald

Huw I forgot to add that I don't know how or why but since standing as an Independent TD, after being barred as a candidate by Fine Gael's then leader John Bruton, Michael Lowry has topped the Tipperary North poll in all four elections from 1997 up to and including the recent election.

HuwOS

Well with Junican, feelings of persecution are ever present and assumes that his feelings are indicative of those of the majority of people.

Like some demented DeValera when he wants to know what the people want, he just looks into his own heart.

Gerald

Huw if you read my post you will see it is in response to the claim by Junican about the alleged feelings of persecution by Irish people.
Clearly if their feelings of persecution were that strong they would not have voted for Fine Gael.
I have no doubt that there are many different reasons why people vote for political parties both negative, to punish or vote against the incumbent Government, and positive because they support the policies of the party.
I'll have a better idea when I'm back in Ireland in May and speak to friends over there, of the various reasons behind the success of Fine Gael and the Labour Party Ireland.

HuwOS

To be fair Gerald, people in Ireland did not vote in the last election for much more reason than to punish the government.

Perceived corruption and dishonesty they didn't mind so much (Lowry got re-elected after all) but perceived corruption and dishonesty combined with the devastating fallout from the banking crisis was something they wanted to blame someone for.

They surely weren't voting on a government because of a commitment to increase sentencing for tobacco smuggling.
You cannot be seriously suggesting that was the issue that sent people to the polling stations.
A good thing too as it is a disastrous policy and Fine Gael should be discouraged from doing any such thing.
Increasing sentencing for a crime that the state is actively bringing into being is a pointless exercise.
Putting duty on tobacco is fine, but when it gets so high as to make smuggling tobacco a worthwhile exercise on a large scale then it is simply crime creation.

That is a problem that Irish and British governments need to address at the root, not simply plan to jail more people.
That costs money and will as history shows us be utterly ineffective, it will simply make the successful crime more lucrative.

The last thing the Irish need is to increase expenditure on a futile attempt to address an issue which has a clear and obvious cause, the duty on tobacco simply being too high.

There are a lot of positive steps the Irish government can introduce to help drive down the number of smokers, most of them cost little or nothing if the level of duty is going to take up police time, court time and fill prison cells then it might be worth considering lowering the duty to remove the incentive for smuggling.


Gerald

Junican you write " Unauthorised import of tobacco into Ireland has reached epidemic proportions. Sorry, much bigger than that. Tobacco prices in Ireland have reached a point where even the most law abiding citizen can see that he is being persecuted."

True the cost of tobacco is higher in Ireland but then so is the cost of beer. Indeed the cost of living in Ireland is 30% higher than the average cost of living in the EU.
The estimated loss of revenue in the UK caused by tobacco smuggling is £2.2 Billion, in Ireland the estimated loss is 556 Million Euro or approx. £480 Million.
Yet, last week the Irish people voted into Government a party (Fine Gael) that is committed to increase the sentences for tobacco smuggling to 10 years imprisonment and the instalation at ports of x-ray machines to be funded by the tobacco companies.
Why do you think the Irish people support a different solution to the criminal activity of tobacco smuggling than you appear to?

D.G.

"So, on the grounds that a very small number of people (out of a population of 60 million) kill themselves by alcohol..."

And how many people kill or injure other people, with alcohol being a factor?

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23926219-sobriety-test-called-for-as-drink-fuelled-crimes-hit-25000.do

For the record, I agree that alcohol price adjusting probably won't help.

But I'm baffled by the way you keep insisting that things that negatively affect other people's well-being - like working in a smoke-filled pub and alcoholism - aren't a problem, while simultaneously dismissing something that brings happiness to people - the Transporter Bridge - as "ugly".

patrick

Junican


Your obsession with both alcohol and tobacco is such that even the topic of the Newport Transporter Bridge enables you to ‘fight the cause.’

Are we right to think that you couldn’t give a flying fig about either tobacco or alcohol related stats ?

Are we right to conclude that it’s not even the laws themselves that keep you awake at night but their financial implications?

Junican

""According to WHO, morbidity attributable to alcohol in countries with an established market economy (10•3% of disability adjusted life years) comes second only to that of tobacco (11•7%). Liver disease is responsible for 70% of the directly recorded mortality from alcohol, and perhaps a quarter of the total attributable mortality; the true total is uncertain but is probably between 18 000 and 30 000 per year in England and Wales. Alcohol causes around 80% of deaths from liver disease, and trends ...""
So what that statement should actually read is:
““The WHO (blessed be they who worship here!) say that more people become poorly as a result of enjoying tobacco than become poorly by having a few beers. A lot of people become dead from alcohol, but nobody knows how many – it could be one or a million – who knows? Anyway, at least we know that 10800 people become dead from alcohol. We know that because we know that 7600 people die from liver disease and we know (well, we think that, maybe) that figure is 70% of all the alcohol deaths. And, what is more, we think that maybe, possibly, perhaps that 7600 could be a quarter of 10800 (sorry! I mean whatever – like 30000 or so). So, like, it doesn’t matter that, of the 7600, 1050 were over seventy five. Hang on! That’s about 15%! We can ignore them. Let’s say 80% - sounds OK to me, innit? Publish it – it’ll be all right. The Gov are happy if they have an excuse to put taxes up.””

So, on the grounds that a very small number of people (out of a population of 60 million) kill themselves by alcohol, everyone must be denormalised, demonised, criminalised and persecuted. Wow! What a plan! Beats the inquisition, communism and terrorism all ends up!

""Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics for the British Medical Association, said: "We have to start de-normalising alcohol.""

She is a bit late, isn't she? I thought that idea came to fruition in 1923. Funny how the French, Italians (even the British) didn't see what a wonderful idea Prohibition was. Think of Public Health! Think of the NHS! Think of Productivity!

It is sad, HuwOS, that such an intelligent person as yourself is so one-dimensional. Oh, forgive me, I am far to stupid to think such a thought! I am far too stupid to comprehend the niceties of the fact that the average age at death these days is 80 ish (men 77, women 82), but that this does not matter, regardless of how many very old decrepit people there are.

One dimensional. Nit picking over detail (and getting it wrong!). Just like the IPCC!

For heaven's sake, HuwOS! See the big picture! A very, very small number of people execute themselves by drinking two or three bottles of whisky per day (or something like that). These things happen. That is certainly no reason to increase artificially the price of a bottle of whisky for everyone. It is a form of prohibition.

The same is true of tobacco. Unauthorised import of tobacco into Ireland has reached epidemic proportions. Sorry, much bigger than that. Tobacco prices in Ireland have reached a point where even the most law abiding citizen can see that he is being persecuted.

Denormalisation, criminalisation, persecution. What is the problem? Easy-peasy.

HuwOS

"So I'll ask you again:

Where did the figure of 30000 come from?" - Junican

And ignore your repeated false statements about the same number?

Why should anyone move any further forward with you.

Initially you simply appeared ignorant and dim witted, but now you give all appearances of having knowingly lied and having been shown up wish to move on.
Are you sure you aren't from the very bottom of the political barrel where Tony Blair was first found?

You have claimed, indeed stated as fact and have not retracted the claim; that Gilmore said that there were 30,000 deaths a year from liver disease.
This claim of yours was blatantly untrue and demonstrated to be so.
Apparently you could care less if your claims are true or not, and whether you appear to be engaged in deliberate falsehood or not.


Once you have retracted what initially appeared to be pure ignorance but which appears to have been rather less pure deliberate falsehood then there would be room to move on.

If you were really interested you would be doing some basic research yourself looking for what causes of death are linked to alcohol, beyond liver disease; to see how Gilmore might arrive at a scale of alcohol related deaths in the range of 18,000 to 30,000.

But you won't do that will you, because you aren't interested in whether he is correct or not, you are only interested in finding anything that appears to support your bizarre conspiracy theories all predicated on the assumption that people are out to get you.

By the way if you want to see how a sane person challenges the paper
http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/deaths-alcohol-foretold
You will note they don't pretend people said other than they actually said, they don't rant on about the WHO and they actually back up their view to the extent that a reasonable person would at least consider their argument.

Junican

""Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics for the British Medical Association, said: "We have to start de-normalising alcohol.""

Funny isn't it, how the anti-alcohol zealots are following the same strategy as anti-tobacco. Demonise, criminalise then persecute.

Junican

""Liver disease is responsible for 70% of the directly recorded mortality from alcohol, and.....""

Since the ONS records perfectly specifically that there were 7600 deaths from liver disease in 2009, Then (at 70%) it must mathematically follow that there were 10800 deaths from alcohol in 2009. Right? This means that deaths from alcohol other than by liver disease, were 3200. But there is no such thing as 'death by alcohol'. The 3200 must have died from something which was recorded on a death certificate. What was recorded on the 3200 death certificates?

So I'll ask you again:

Where did the figure of 30000 come from?

HuwOS

It's got nothing to do with weasel words.
It has to do with precision in words.

"Do you think that I did not notice 'directly recorded'?"- Junican

As your comment on it was that
"the second sentence is the same as the first turned around - 'liver disease deaths are caused by alcohol' and 'alcohol causes liver disease deaths'."
with no mention of the presence of "directly recorded" in one and the absence in the other, you have yourself stated that you missed it.

So yes, I presumed you were ignorant and perhaps a bit dull, rather than assuming that you were simply lying for the sake of it.

Are you now claiming that you knew the sentences were different rather than being made up of the same words in a different order at the time you made that claim?

" All words designed to confuse." - Junican
You may be confused by precision but it is both important and necessary. A little precision from you on what Gilmore actually said rather than what you believed he said from reading 2nd hand accounts would have avoided a lot of irritation.

You seem to be beginning to use your noggin to do some thinking with, but the pity is that you are devoting all that extra effort to mendaciously shoring up and justifying your original failure to understand.

You present this
'Liver disease is the cause of 70% of deaths from alcohol'
as if it were a quote from "Projections of alcohol deaths—a wake-up call" or directly from Gilmore.
It isn't, you have created a sentence for your own purposes and then put quotes around it as if it was said by anyone other than you.
When you do that, you are simply presenting a falsehood, a lie, and unfortunately for you it is something that is checkable by anyone who cares to do so.

The actual quote, which you already posted yourself, which is why it is particularly pathetic of you to attempt to mislead people, was

"Liver disease is responsible for 70% of the directly recorded mortality from alcohol, and perhaps a quarter of the total attributable mortality"

If you fail to understand the difference between "directly recorded" and "attributable" then educate yourself.

If you wish to fashion some argument about there being no deaths relating to alcohol that are not covered in the directly recorded figures or not is an irrelevancy.

You have on numerous occasions now stated as a fact that Gilmore said that up to 30,000 die each year from liver disease.

I gave you the link to the Lancet article, so you could see for yourself that he has not made such a claim.
You saw that, copied and pasted it and continued to make the claim.

How can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously when you seem to feel you can just make it up and then stick with it in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Junican

No, Mr Weasel Words HuwOS - Your 'ad hominem' sneers will not work. Do you think that I did not notice 'directly recorded'? All words designed to confuse. The fact is that there is no such thing as 'directly recorded mortality from alcohol' - look in the stats and see if you can find 'alcohol' recorded as a cause of death.

'Liver disease is the cause of 70% of deaths from alcohol'

Liver disease caused the death of 7600 in 2009. If that figure of 70% of deaths from alcohol is correct, then the total of 'deaths from alcohol' must be 10800 ish. So where did the the 'up to maybe, perhaps, roughly 30000' come from?

The whole statement is about as scientific as water divining (or possibly less).

patrick

Junican
"I will remind you that 500 000 people died in this country in 2009. If 7600 died from liver disease, 492 400 died from something else."

Perhaps we should do more about limiting the larger (492,400) figure here.

Death due to old age (otherwise known as natural causes) will constitute a big proportion of this number.

We should start a campaign for eternal life for all (ELFA). We could demmand a guarantee from the WHO so that our families can later sue.

Far better to take action now and regard everything as a conspiracy even though God may provide both of the above services anyway.

HuwOS

Another bizarre trip inside the incomprehension of our very own anti-Sherlock.

"So it is true that Gilmore said 'up to 30 000', even if he did not use those exact words." - Junican

The important words being "of liver disease"
Unless your argument is that he at some point in his life said "up to 30,000" about anything at all.


He did not say up to 30,000 die of liver disease, he says liver disease is responsible for 70% of directly recorded mortality from alcohol but for about a quarter of the total attributable mortality. Before saying that the total mortality attributable to alcohol is up to 30,000.

What is a quarter of 30,000 Junican?


Compare that figure of 1/4 of 30,000 with the number of people who die of liver disease, do you see how they might just be similar?


Your next issue is again a problem with your inability to read and comprehend

Two different sentences
One with 70% and one with 80%
one with the words "directly recorded"
and the other without the words "directly recorded"


You then rant about WHO

Before falling back to repeating a claim that your own quotes have shown to be false.
If only you had understood them.


Junican

I read the intro to the Lancet article. Here it is:

""According to WHO, morbidity attributable to alcohol in countries with an established market economy (10·3% of disability adjusted life years) comes second only to that of tobacco (11·7%). Liver disease is responsible for 70% of the directly recorded mortality from alcohol, and perhaps a quarter of the total attributable mortality; the true total is uncertain but is probably between 18 000 and 30 000 per year in England and Wales. Alcohol causes around 80% of deaths from liver disease, and trends ...""

So it is true that Gilmore said 'up to 30 000', even if he did not use those exact words.

But do we notice something else? Look at these two sentences:

""Liver disease is responsible for 70% of the directly recorded mortality from alcohol""

""Alcohol causes around 80% of deaths from liver disease, and trends ...""

Is it 70% or 80%? But worse, the second sentence is the same as the first turned around - 'liver disease deaths are caused by alcohol' and 'alcohol causes liver disease deaths'. But we also observe that the whole statement is 'if, but and maybe' - and, of course, the WHO is GOD! Totally unelected and totally irresponsible, just like the IPCC. Why are we giving these people millions and millions of pounds to persecute us? We must be out of our minds.

Further, despite the estimates of 'up to 30 000' deaths per an from liver disease, the actual FACTS are that 7600 people died from liver disease in England and Wales in 2009 (source: ONS), and not 'up to' 30 000. I will remind you that 500 000 people died in this country in 2009. If 7600 died from liver disease, 492 400 died from something else.

Mr Flynn! You really must look at the ONS stats! They will open you eyes to the huge con trick which is being pulled by the health zealots! Here is the URL:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Table_2_Death_Registrations_Cause.xls


D.G.

"This is the proper way that a political blog should be conducted."


Junican - what makes you think that *you* get to decide how this blog should be conducted?

Paul Flynn isn't even your MP. Many of the people who post here are "regulars" who've done so for months or years - mainly because Paul IS their MP.


"For heaven's sake! It is hard to imagine a more ugly construction!"

That's a clear failure of imagination on your part.

I think it unlikely that you've ever ridden the gondola across the river with your family on a sunny Bank Holiday Monday and had a picnic in the field beyond; or caught first glimpse of her lit up green against the orange city glow on a weary train ride home.

Beauty is about more than aesthetics.

HuwOS


"As regards HuwOS, I must say that the implied sneers do not trouble me. They reflect only upon him. My comments in the past have never been anything but reasonable and sensible." - Junican


http://paulflynnmp.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/02/monster-who-sang.html#comments

'And, HueOS, please tell me why it is that so many mothers, especially in the US, insist that they would SCREAM if a person who enjoys tobacco comes within a few yards of their babies? Do not say that this is not true since NICE conducted a survey on MUMSNET asking whether or not MUMs were in favour of a ban on smoking in cars. Mumsnet was in favour by 97%. And yet we ask the question, "why should people who do not drive and do not have a car dictate?"'

Just posting an example of the level you, Junican, believe to be reasonable and sensible.

Apart from the nonsensical screaming mothers opening,
the survey you refer to which bears no relationship to mothers screaming but you for whatever reason, think that it will prove the first sentence to be true has the disadvantage of not existing.

A similar survey run by the BLF does exist, but the only place it has a 97% figure is in describing how many of the respondents to the survey were female.
Then to top off the nonsense and innacuracy you finished off with a gratuitously sexist and bizarrely dated comment.
A truly astounding comment which implies a world in which you don't believe women either own and/or drive cars.

That is just one paragraph of yours Junican and it is clearly neither reasonable or sensible, and unfortunately it is indicative of pretty much everything you write.

Need I remind you of of your imaginary construction of a special P Flynn pre-emptive censorship that prevented you, randomly from posting comments. You are clearly someone who arrives too quickly at "explanations" of why people "do you wrong" and spend far too little time checking whether your imaginary constructs might be unsupportable.
For example: In your posting problem, if you had googled the error message that you received you would have found out long ago that it had nothing to do with the individual blogger on typepad.
Instead you felt and imagined that you were being censored.
"Paul Flynn is supposed to be a supporter of free speech, but he has organised his site to censor comments which he does not like or may not like. That is what he had done. There is no doubt." - junican

These examples from your comments Junican are not examples of either sense or reason.

patrick

Junican

As you don’t want anybody to know what you do and as it’s only people involved in the licensing trade that refuse to acknowledge the harm of SHS I’ll go figure.

The science has been out there for decades. We know that people that have never smoked contact smoking related lung cancers from working in smoke filled workplaces.

Don’t take my word for it, try asking any bright Ten year old, or any GP, or go and visit your local cancer ward.

It seems that the origin of your anger is financial.

‘oh why can’t these horrible politicians stop making laws that help protect people’s health so that I can stop losing money and more people can get cancer in my pub.’


Junican

@ HuwOS.

Your suggestion worked! I copied and pasted my comment to a new tab, and it got through!

I am obliged for your suggestion.

We appreciate, do we not, that the internet at its best is an intellectual environment. If I curse your snide remarks, it is only an amusing intellectual exercise. It adds to the gaiety of the nation. What is really, really important is what politicians decide. It is not acceptable that politicians can wreck the hospitality industry because they do not like 'the stink' of tobacco, or because they do not like a few 'binge drinkers' puking. Or levy taxes, as they did with the airline industry, on people flying, just for the sake of it (on the pretence of Global Warming). We ALL have to beware.

Personally, I wish you well.

Damn it! I have just done what I said that I would not do! Mr Flynn, translate all the above into the third person.

Junican

Mr Flynn,

I note that 'patrick' has decided to use a capital 'p' to describe himself. I am glad about this and I hope that he continues to do so. We traditionally use an initial capital letter in names, do we not?

Patrick asks we whether or not I am involved in the licensing trade. I feel sure that he will have some pithy put-down comment ready whichever way I reply, and therefore I will not fall for it.

As regards HuwOS, I must say that the implied sneers do not trouble me. They reflect only upon him. My comments in the past have never been anything but reasonable and sensible.

I have decided that, in the future, I will no longer address any statement that I make to an individual directly. In future, I will address my statements to Mr Flynn - in the same sort of way that MPs address their comments to Mr Speaker. This is the proper way that a political blog should be conducted.

And so, Mr Flynn, I would be interested to know whether or not HuwOS, or even yourself, believes that the minuscule potential harm from SHS justifies the Smoking Ban, or was SHS merely a ploy designed deliberately to attack the enjoyment of tobacco.

The days of PROPAGANDA are passing away. It may be true that there is still a huge base of ignorant (lacking in knowledge) people, but the internet has given a voice to intelligent, knowledgeable people.

SHS harm needs to be proved. There is no such proof. Where are the people who became 'addicted' to tobacco as a result of SHS? Where are the deaths attributed to SHS? The average age at death is now about 80 years. All these people who are living to 80 and above must have been exposed to SHS. Why did they not die much earlier?

The whole thing is a shambles of pseudo-science. It is a disgrace to the scientific community - but no proper scientist dare say so, fearful of repercussions. It is a disgrace.

MPs need to get a grip. The Gov needs to set up a commission comprising of those scientists who are free from the influence of special interest groups.

Above all, the Gov should be mindful that we are a free people. We do not have to aquiess to the desires of the Eugenicists

Patrick

Junican

Are you a pub landord or otherwise involved in the licensing trade?

HuwOS

Yup, this 20 a day smoker is an anti smoking bigot, that makes as much sense as the vast majority of your arguments.

If your intention is to communicate privately with Paul Flynn, then privately message him.

Comments placed here publicly are likely to elicit responses from anybody who wishes to do so and it certainly is not your business or your right to tell anyone that they may or may not comment.

Junican

@ patric and HuwOS

What has what I write to Mr Flynn got to do with you two? You are anti-smoking bigots - Buzz off.

HuwOS

Junican, you are aware, I hope that Britain is not in the Honduras and I am sure they have lots of laws that are different from the laws here.
Further to that there is no reason to believe or expect that laws here will change to reflect the laws in the Honduras.

I hope you noted that even your hated WHO weren't particularly enthusiastic about that part of the Hondurans approach.

"It seems its intention is to educate by way of complaints, a move that I do not find very feasible," said Armando Peruga, a program manager at the World Health Organization's Tobacco-Free Initiative.

Patrick

Junican

It appears that your needle has stuck continually repeating itself.

You sound like a depressed tired parrot replacing 'whose a pretty boy' with 'stop the smoking ban'.

Even the topic of the Newport transporter bridge has to involve smoking.

The only connection i can see is that buying a daily packet gives the same result as jumping off the top without a bungee.

Most of the public back the ban and believe it will make us happier and healthier.

Why not tell us the real reason you are enraged about the ban?

Financial? Hitting your licensing trade?

Junican

For heaven's sake! It is hard to imagine a more ugly construction!

Be that as it may, has anyone seen the latest excreta of a smoking ban - the law in Honduras that anyone entering the home of a smoker can snitch to the police and complain?

Snitch, snitch, snitch! This is the wonderful future that you are leading us into, Mr Flynn.

Gerald

Paul you and I have spoken in the past about how 'we' tend to ignore the heritage that is on our own doorsteps. Let us hope that the Bridge gets the recognition it so richly deserves, not just as the visual attraction it is but also as a tribute to the people who built and designed it.

The comments to this entry are closed.