« Home of fair Votes | Main | Tremble, Tory MPs »

March 28, 2011

Comments

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

D.G.

"Now, clearly, the timing (around 9.30am) vaguely suggests a work-linked situation. Is that true? Do 'the three' work at the same place? In which case, if that were true, what are the three doing messing around on the internet when they are supposed to be working?"

You put conspiracy theorists to shame.

There's also the school-linked situation; there's that lovely part of the morning when you've dropped off the kids, returned home, hung the washing out and are grabbing your first cuppa (and moments of peace and quiet) of the day before getting stuck into the rest of the housework or going off to your part-time job.

Or the retiree situation; after the novelty of staying in bed after 10am wears off (which I understand happens pretty quickly), 9ish seems to be the default time to be active. Old habits die hard.

And I believe that in work-situations, most organisations have a fairly sensible internet policy that goes something along the lines of "you can have a quick browse while you're waiting for a report to run, or for some information to come back to you, etc, as long as you don't take the mick or access anything offensive or illegal"

To the best of my belief, I don't personally know any other poster on this site. I can't say for sure if the others are personal friends, colleagues or aquaintances but, given the nature of the internet, I'd guess not.

"The fact is that the three (or four if one includes HueOS) have merely distracted attention from my main point, which is that our system of Government stinks."

I thought your main point was that the smoking ban was despotic.

"You would think that we are still governed by the aristocracy! In fact, I think that we are."

We're a constitutional monarchy whose legislation has to pass through a second chamber called "The House of Lords." Of course we're governed by the aristocracy: except where we're governed by corporate interests.

Junican

DG - Where did I say in my rant that I thought that the three people who posted comments around the same time were the same person? You are mixed up and are referring back to a legitimate suggestion that I made some time ago. The co-incidence (co-in-cidence) of the comments was odd - around 9.30am.

HueOS inferred that I was suggesting that the three rose from their beds about that time. Where did I say that? I said: ..""..you were all up and at it in unison this morning..."". The phrase 'up and at it' is not important - the important phrase is 'in unison'.

Now, clearly, the timing (around 9.30am) vaguely suggests a work-linked situation. Is that true? Do 'the three' work at the same place? In which case, if that were true, what are the three doing messing around on the internet when they are supposed to be working?

Be that as it may.

The fact is that the three (or four if one includes HueOS) have merely distracted attention from my main point, which is that our system of Government stinks. Politics seems to be about scoring points. The real 'powers behind the throne are the people who need to be elected. MPs are no longer really relevant. They are just smart talking salesmen, working for the real powers. We need to elect the real powers. How can Mr Flynn (for example) become Sec of State for Defence when he knows nothing to speak of about the matter? If that is true, and I think that it is, who is the person who is really THE KING? Who is the EMPEROR? No one knows. We need to know and those are the people who we need to have the power to elect. God! You would think that we are still governed by the aristocracy! In fact, I think that we are.

D.G.

""The smaller pubs most certainly DID object to the smoking ban in the first place."" (DG)

"NO THEY DID NOT!! They were terrified of £5000 fines and the associated persecution and prosecution." (Junican)

So... the links below... from a 2 minute Google search... presumably part of some Orwellian government conspiracy to undermine your point?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1556239/Thousands-defy-smoking-ban-in-mass-protest.html

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1008/1008017_landlord_in_cigs_ban_protest.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/5319760.stm

And the numerous (and occasionally heated) differences of opinion HuwOS and I have had on these pages (mostly over Afghanistan) over the last ...2? 3? years... this is a cunning and elaborate ruse, designed to hide the fact that we're actually the same person, yes?

I don't know if our gracious host Paul Flynn remembers meeting me on my doorstep during the May election campaign; but if he does, I have fond hopes that he wouldn't mistake me for a Huw or a Patrick, charming though the names are - on a man.

patrick

Junican
I'll take it from your silence and avoidance of the questions that you don't know.

You cannot see any advantage in a teenager either starting a life-long smoking addiction or in regularly drinking.

What's important to you is that people continue to poison themselves to help the licensing trade and tabacco companies.

What a shame for you that people are waking up to the health implications of excessive drinking and sucking expensive little ignited dummies.

HuwOS

Junican: The real issue is what nonsense of yours to challenge, there is just far too much choice.

The very fact that you question why 3 people might be awake and online within an hour of each other after 9am in the morning tells me I would be wasting my time in trying to get any sense either into or out of you.


"So you think that it is OK for 'the authorities' to quiz 11 year olds about their sexuality, do you?"

You didn't provide a link but presumably have read a daily express or a daily mail headline, heck if you were being studious perhaps you even read the entire story.

But do provide a link Junican, that way people will know what it is you've read, even if it is just a trashy tabloid piece.
Like so
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/237165/-Are-you-gay-quiz-for-11-year-olds

or

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370511/Fury-equality-watchdog-calls-teachers-ask-11-year-olds-gay.html

or even both.

Cleverer people might want to know, but not have had the time to identify the origin of the tabloid frenzy, if they had heard about it.

So for their benefit:

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/young_peoples_sexual_orientation.pdf


Junican

Gosh, chaps, you were all up and at it in unison this morning, weren't you? 9.14 am, 9.16 am and 9.55 am? What a strange coincidence!

@ patrick

""It's admirably that you are so concerned about children's welfare Junican."" (patrick)

So you think that it is OK for 'the authorities' to quiz 11 year olds about their sexuality, do you?

@ Gerald.

Silly man! (sorry, silly person)

""Junican here is an interesting quote from you, in your irrelevant rant above, "But WE note also,"" (Gerald)

Yes, Gerald...' "WE" (the readers of these words) note.....' ' "WE" (the readers) note that G mentioned alcohol'. What could possibly be wrong with that? Silly boy!

@ DG

""The smaller pubs most certainly DID object to the smoking ban in the first place."" (DG)

NO THEY DID NOT!! They were terrified of £5000 fines and the associated persecution and prosecution.

""But hey, if you've got that many people demanding a return to smoke-filled pubs, why not stage a demo?"" (DG)

Erm...remind me...which pubs were 'smoke filled' and when did the demos take place demanding smoke free pubs? In fact, prior to the ban being mooted, when did anyone ever complain about the enjoyment of tobacco in pubs?

As for 'smoking related illnesses in staff', precisely how many people are we talking about and when? Staff in pubs turn over frequently and landlords turn over frequently (now-a-days, anyway). So who is going to sue who? Your argument may apply to pubcos, but not to private publicans. But I dare say that this scare was put about zealously.

Gerald said that my post was an 'irrelevant rant'. I do not agree that giving the smoking ban as an example of our system of government falling apart is irrelevant. But there are many similar examples. But I do agree that my post was a rant - provided that you also agree that Martin Luther's speech was a rant and that Churchill's speech during the battle of Britain were rants. And, NO, before anyone cynically tries to say otherwise, I do not regard my rant as in any way equivalent to theirs.

Finally, tell me again how you three managed to time your comments within a few minutes of each other?

What has happened to Kay Tai?


D.G.

"Considering the pubs are now seeing the folly of not objecting to the smoking ban in the first place, do you noty think that the law should be amended?"

The smaller pubs most certainly DID object to the smoking ban in the first place. You couldn't turn on a TV or look at a newspaper without a sad-faced licencee predicting that they'd be out of business in a year.

The ones that didn't protest simply recognised that if the law wasn't changed, and they continued to allow smoking on the premises, they'd be open to litagation from staff that developed smoking-related illnesses. The ban was necessary to provide a level playing field, so that the pubs that gave a toss about the welfare of their staff - or about not getting sued further down the line, if you're cynical - weren't disadvantaged by their ethical decision.

But hey, if you've got that many people demanding a return to smoke-filled pubs, why not stage a demo? Ask the bar staff at every pub you frequent to join you. I'm sure they'll be right on board.

Gerald

Junican here is an interesting quote from you, in your irrelevant rant above, "But we note also,"
'WE' Junican? What next? "L'Etat c'est moi"

patrick

It's admirably that you are so concerned about children's welfare Junican.

While you are thinking about what's best for them perhaps you could ask yourself the following?

What advantages do tobacco and alcohol consumption offer the next generation of consumers?

What possible benefit will a teenager get from taking up an expensive habit that will probably end with cancer or a multitude of other diseases?

Junican

There does not need to be 'evidence'. There does not need to be 'mass support'. There does not need to be Welsh Assembly surveys. All these things are irrelevant. What does it matter if a person who never goes to pubs thinks that the enjoyment of tobacco in pubs should be banned?

The simple fact is that is that the Smoking Ban is despotic. When the majority inflicts its opinion upon the minority, that is despotism. In the face of this fact, no amount of studies or surveys matter. For example, it could be that the majority want homosexuality to be a hanging offence, but that would not count, would it? I say that only as an extreme example.

Our system of Government is falling apart. The more complex that the world becomes, the more 'out of their depth' politicians become. Whatever politician is appointed Sec of State for Health, he enters into a Dept which is incomprehensibly complex. Of course, the politician flounders about and, naturally, (as advised by the zealots) goes for the easy option - bash people who enjoy tobacco. Easy-peasy. Meanwhile, in hospitals up and down the country, people are dying or suffering from diseases endemic in hospitals or from cock-ups. Bugger all that, let's ban smoking. Much more headline generating in our favour.

But we note also, Gerald, that you mention 'drinking habits'. Here is a quote:

""Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics for the British Medical Association, said: "We have to start de-normalising alcohol"" (That from the BBC a couple of weeks ago)

So you see that the next minority to be attacked, vilified and accused of harming others is going to be drinkers, however little they drink. The despots will overcome politicians and force them to comply. It must be so with alcohol because it was so with tobacco. QED.

Our system of Government is falling apart. Unseen, unelected groups are in charge. It cannot be otherwise since politicians are lacking in knowledge. We need a new way. It is no longer acceptable that we elect MPs once every five years and reasonably expect them to know what they are doing. They are not allowed to anyway. We need to have the power to elect the real authorities - that means the people with the actual power.

Our system of Government is falling apart because despots are in control. They have sneaked up on us and taken control. They have eradicated opposition. They speak with one voice through arms-length fake charities.

I understand that another special interest group, with the full backing of the Gov, is now infiltrating our schools. This group is intent upon forcing teachers to identify the 'gender variability' of children at the age of 11. The idea is that some children, at the age of 11, may possibly be homosexually inclined and that they may be victimised in some way if they are not identified and assured that it is OK. It really is incredible that our school children are to be inflicted with thoughts that they ought not to know anything about at their age.

Our system of Government is falling apart.

Gerald

Phil J, do you live in Wales?
The reason I ask is that if you do you should be aware that the Welsh Assembly Government carried out detailed research before and twelve months after the introduction of the smoking ban in pubs in Wales among smokers, non-smokers and those who had given up smoking about their views on the ban and the potential, and actual, change in their drinking and smoking habits.
I can say that twelve months after the introduction of the ban in Wales there was increased support for the ban.
Sorry to shatter the illusions of the 'smoking' lobby but there is NO factual evidence of any mass support for the re-introduction of smoking in pubs.

Phil J

Very fair question actually! Considering the pubs are now seeing the folly of not objecting to the smoking ban in the first place, do you noty think that the law should be amended? I don't smoke myself but I certainly don't object to others doing so if that's what pleases them, just the same as I don't object to others eating mushy peas.
OR
Are governments simply going to allow bigotted 'charities' like ASH control health policies without any regard for the peoples wishes?

D.G.

"If the pubco have such a right, do they not also have the right to permit smoking?"

That didn't take long...

Junican

Isn't this just a piece of noise? BBC shows hooded protesters therefore T May says hoods should be banned. Where have we seen this before? I remember my local pubco having a ban on baseball caps BECAUSE THE CAMERAS COULD NOT TAKE PICTURES OF PEOPLE'S FACES. Who gave the pubco the right to demand pictures of people's faces? If the pubco have such a right, do they not also have the right to permit smoking? Of course, since the smoking ban, so few people go in to the pub that it is not worth photographing them. (A Spirit Group pub - on the point of bankruptcy - and the sooner the better).

The fact of the matter is that our system of government is falling apart. Our MPs are simply not sufficiently knowledgeable to be Ministers. The world is too complex. That is not to say that MPs are stupid or anything like that. It is merely that it is not possible for a person who has merely been elected to be an MP to be sufficiently knowledgeable to run, say, the Dept of Health. It is just not possible.

We need to elect the people who run these departments. Our system of government stinks.

The comments to this entry are closed.