17 April 2008

Boris To Scrap Smoking Ban.

Boris Johnson has been paid a lot of money by Tobacco lobbyists and has promised to repay them by scrapping the smoking ban. He floated some vague idea of a internet referendum on the issue in the Sun. For someone who calls postal voting corrupt, it takes the biscuit to destroy people's health in such a dismissive (and easily fiddled) way.

The smoking ban was voted against by most Tory MPs, so it is no surprise that right-wingers like Johnson want it repealed. Boris gives us an insight to what a future Tory government will be like.

The smoking ban is probably the single most effective legislation that will improve people's health over generations since Labour set up the NHS.

If you like the ban and want to save your lungs then vote for Ken. Boris must be stopped.

If you think this is a civil liberties issue (it isn't) and if you think Boris is some sort of libertarian, remember that he also wants to ban drinking alcohol on the tube.

*update* It seems Boris's minders are now typically trying to deny the whole thing - Boris just cannot control his tongue - imagine this guy trying to promote London - what a mess!


33 comments:

  1. It typical of the anti-smoking brogade to accuse people of being in the pay of Big Tobacco, when they advocate choice. Yes, a choice whether smoking is allowed in pubs, clubs or restaurants.

    This smoking ban was enacted on one of the biggest lies this century and last - passive smoking is virtually harmless and does not cause the carngage the propaganda suggests.

    Vote Boris and rid London of the most notorious, vile politician on the planet.

    Bill C

    ReplyDelete
  2. You mention that Boris has been paid by big tobacco, but the amount (between 5 and 10 grand for speeches) is a drop in the ocean compared to the amount paid into the coffers of the Labour party by NRT makers Novartis, the real beneficiaries of the smoking ban legislation.
    Remember the old saying...those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Neil, the Mayor doesn't have the power to rescind the smoking ban. You say that Livingstone's attitude to ID Cards is irrelevant as he doesn't have any power over the policy. Then the same must apply to Johnson's opposition to the smoking ban.

    passive smoking is virtually harmless and does not cause the carngage the propaganda suggests

    Sorry, anon, but my lungs tell me a different story and I am likely to believe them over some know-nothing anonymous troll who assures me that breathing carcinogenic gas is harmless.

    NRT makers Novartis, the real beneficiaries of the smoking ban legislation

    Being able to go out for a meal without coming back stinking of smoke makes me a beneficiary of the smoking ban.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I be all them vegetarians would like the hospitality trade to stop serving meat, all those passive smells they have to put up with,
    Bangers and mash are a threat now, someone needs to stop this madness.
    How many are in the pay of the big drug companies, they have not got the best of records either.
    I hope Boris wins, he would be a breath of fresh air.
    Tony Blair went to war on a lie, nothing could be worse than that!!
    Way to go Boris, go get em

    ReplyDelete
  5. Its good to see some frank speaking by politicians giving their own personal views - gosh its what we dream of - a politician not hiding behind spin. Boris knows that he would not have the power to involved himself in decisions of this nature. I like the sound of local referendums though and his wish to see as many people as possible involved in local decision making from the on-line community to the traditional ways of expressing your vote. This is just what we need - a politician who is open, frank and honest.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Stephen: "the Mayor doesn't have the power to rescind the smoking ban".

    Boris has said he would push the government for the powers. True, he wouldn't have a hope under a Labour government, but under Cameron from 2009/10? The majority of Tory MPs including Boris voted against the ban. Boris would soon get the powers in 2010 just 2 years into his reign. Vote for Ken if you value your lungs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Smoking ban is clearly bad for public health, because smokers have to go outside in all weathers ergo are more likely to catch and transmit cold and 'flu etc.

    So there. And I am not in the pay of Big Tobacco.

    Are you going to jump aboard the 'assice drinking' bandwagon as well?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Don't you, 'i dont like my clothes smelling of smoke', people get it yet. the smoking ban is not about smoking it is about 'control' and 'money' - it IS about 'Civil liberties'-- to say anything other is either naive or attemted deception. Give your heads a shake and think about the future repercussions not about selfish preferences like 'I dont like.... whatever!'-Your rights are being taken away too. I do not want to live in a sectarian society - do you? The truth will always win through.
    It is such a shame that Labour and Ken have to revert to attempted humiliation and character smears such as the cynical attempt to make Boris look foolish above - sorry to tell you - it failed!! It is so transparent! Make no mistake.... BORIS will be Mayor.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mark, Kin-Free, Non-smokers (and even some smokers) that want a smoke-free pub, have rights too, you know.

    For many many years people have been FORCED to tolerate stinking of smoke and having their health damaged simply because they wanted a meal or drink in a pub etc or happen to be working there.

    People saying there wasn't the demand for non-smoking pubs are missing the point (and the popularity and success of the smoking ban proves that the market was not providing smoke free to those who wanted it). If you want to make a 'civil liberties' issue out of this then you have to consider those of us who want to work in a pub or have a drink or meal without stinking of smoke.

    The Labour government tried its cowardly best to find a compromise on this (pubs not serving food etc) but they all proved impractical and/or unethical. Once you accept that workers have a right to reasonable health and safety, the smoking ban is the only way to protect them. This measure was long overdue and the fact it is so successfully self-regulating shows that even most smokers think it reasonable. Boris's minders have had to get him to backtrack on his comments because they know scrapping the smoking ban will lose him votes. But don't be fooled, Boris may now have to hide his real views on a whole range of subjects, but his deriding of the scientific evidence linking cigarette smoke with cancer and his tobacco pay-cheques are all on record.

    At the end of the day it comes down to smokers having to spend a few minutes nipping outside to have a cigarette, against denying the majority the right to enjoy their food and drink without damaging their health in an unpleasant smoky carcinogenic atmosphere. This is a no-brainer - to call it a suppression of civil liberties conveniently ignores one set of rights while championing another.

    At the end of the day - if you believe in democracy (and I am beginning to think a lot of so called 'libertarians' don't at all), society has to make a reasoned judgement on these issues because they are not black and white. They have to weigh up the advantages and disadvantages. If someone is harming another in society (even if the one party is tolerating this harm - toleration is not the same as not minding) then society has to make a judgement on whether this is reasonable. Sometimes it is, the smoking ban is one example where the harm was unjustifiable.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's about freedom. If you don't like the smoke, get out of the kitchen, but leave the rest of us the freedom to stay in there if we want to. Well done Boris for standing up against state control, PCism and for saying what we all think.

    ReplyDelete
  11. watervole: You are denying me (and millions of others) the right to have a meal or drink in a pub. Some champion of freedom you are!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Neil,
    Please tell me how you would be denied anything if you were given the choice to go into a smoking pub or a non smoking pub. If you dont want to have your clothes smelling of tobacco simply choose not to enter smoking pubs or areas where smoking is allowed!
    A democracy is defined by it's tolerance and inclusivity. When you exclude certain sections of society from a legal activity on the basis that the majority demand it, you are not living in a democratic society - you are living in a sectarian society!
    It is no different to apartheid whether you like that connection or not.
    Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do and allow others to do what they want to do, provided that neither are disadvantaged.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kin: But I wouldn't be given the choice would I? There were no non-smoking pubs before the ban. Also what about the health risks to workers?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I be all them vegetarians would like the hospitality trade to stop serving meat, all those passive smells they have to put up with,
    Bangers and mash are a threat now, someone needs to stop this madness


    I'd like to take you up on that bet as I've known quite a few vegetarians in my time and none of them have indicated that they find meaty smells offensive. On the other hand quite a few non-smoking vegetarians have said to me how much they dislike breathing second hand smoke.

    Don't you, 'i dont like my clothes smelling of smoke', people get it yet. the smoking ban is not about smoking it is about 'control' and 'money' - it IS about 'Civil liberties'-- to say anything other is either naive or attemted deception.

    Your 'civil liberties' stop where my lungs start. We don't have the 'civil right' to spit where we like, either. If you want to campaign on civil liberties issues then worry about real threats to security and liberty, such as the national identity register or the universal DNA database. Having to go outside for a fag isn't on the radar.

    It's about freedom. If you don't like the smoke, get out of the kitchen, but leave the rest of us the freedom to stay in there if we want to

    So what about my freedom to go into the kitchen to cook a meal with having to breath smoke?

    Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do and allow others to do what they want to do, provided that neither are disadvantaged

    Well that's the crux of it. For decades non-smokers have been disadvantaged by the absence of smoke free areas. And every extension of the right to be smoke free has been fought tooth and nail by smokers. Sorry, but it's a bit too late to be worrying about 'inclusivity' now.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Why should smoking be banned in private premises!?!

    By all means ban it in Government buildings to protect the lives of 'key' workers.

    Why doesn't the Government go the whole hog and ban cigarettes?

    Neil, you have no "right" to a meal or a drink in the pub. It's the free market in operation. Why aren't you calling for all pubs to be nationalised so the state can decide what you can eat / drink, when and where!?! The state knows best!

    ReplyDelete
  16. There were no non-smoking pubs before the ban

    Well there were some, but very very few. But what gets me about the smoker-libertarian argument is that it's all 'why can't we have smoke free and smoking areas and allow people to choose' but when it is pointed out that in practice this choice didn't exist for non-smokers they say 'tough, that is the market'. We can see that they don't give a damn about choice for anyone but themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why doesn't the Government go the whole hog and ban cigarettes?

    There is no logic to that at all! There are loads of things that are restricted or illegal to do in public places but which are legal to do in private.

    Neil, you have no "right" to a meal or a drink in the pub. It's the free market in operation

    No you have no right to be served but that does not mean that pubs are regulation free places. Their kitchens are governed by ordinances to ensure cleanliness. The dispensement of drinks is governed by weights and measures legislation. And as places of business they are also covered by H&S legislation. Regulation of smoking is no different in kind to other such regulations.

    ReplyDelete
  18. By the way Neil ; The smoking ban has been successful in protecting the health of thousands workers - now on the dole!(based on the deception of second hand smoke) Pubs closing at an unprecedented rate, old people marginalised.
    Savvy Non smokers are becoming more aware and many want less draconian smoking restrictions (similar to those open to Labour, that were rejected, before the ban) rather than total bans.
    Check out the natural progression from the smoking issue here:-

    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=143372&in_page_id=34

    You may find that your pint and meal in a smoke free pub will cost you substantially more until, thats is, your rights to have a drink is eventually taken away altogether.
    One positive note - Prohibition in USA failed(not before many undesirable unintended consequences) just as the mistaken smoking ban laws will fail eventually. Surely your free choice to boycott smoking pubs is better than not having that option at all.

    Stephen,
    "For decades non-smokers have been disadvantaged by the absence of smoke free areas.... Sorry, but it's a bit too late to be worrying about 'inclusivity' now."


    This comment is very similar to the view of one highly principled politician by the name of Hitler; 'These jews have had their own way for decades, taking over all our businesses, they smell and have squinty eyes and threaten our way of life'- (not a true single quote but all relevant). Why then should they complain when they are sent to the gas chamber - they deserve everything they get! don't they?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Neil,
    There were plenty of non-smoking pubs before the ban, it is just that non-smokers did not frequent those pubs, many preferring to go to smoking pubs - their choice! I do have some sympathy with this argument however, but would argue that restrictions in pubs would not be wrong - smoking/non smoking areas -supplemented with decent ventilation systems would be desirable and achievable - dont say there arent any. Hospitals have used them to isolate many deadly viruses etc, for decades, before the improvements in the associated technology

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment is very similar to the view of one highly principled politician by the name of Hitler

    Give me a fucking break. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Hitler didn't like smoking so anyone else who doesn't like smoking must be like Hitler? Hitler also built some of the first motorways and initiated the development a small affordable car. Are VWs and motorways also tainted?

    Your comparison with Prohibition is flat wrong. Cigarettes can be still be bought and sold; they can still be smoked; and there is absolutely no chance that in the foreeable future that will change. 12 years ago I lived in California, which was far more liberal than Britain then or Britain now. They had a smoking ban and the dire predictions of the smoking lobby did not come true there.

    ReplyDelete
  21. smoking/non smoking areas -supplemented with decent ventilation systems would be desirable and achievable - dont say there arent any. Hospitals have used them to isolate many deadly viruses etc, for decades, before the improvements in the associated technology

    To be honest, that would have been my preferred compromise. To have a licence to permit smoking. The only way to get that licence would have been to demonstrate that appropriate ventilation was in place. This would have focussed pub owners on the the costs of implementing clean air and they would have had to weigh that up against the potential revenue from keeping smoking custom. I think the effects would have been the same as the ban but it would have allowed the pub owners some control over what they wanted to do.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Have you checked out the Metro article yet? - Take a moment to look at the phraseology, the emotive language - bring in the victims; wife beating, childrens health, the outrageous statistics based on someones guess, etc. Then look at the pathetic attempts by the anti-smokiers to argue that its not the drink - it is the individual and the lack of real response to those who abuse alcohol,That passive smoking and passive drinking are opposites.(it is exactly the same!) Give your head a shake again.- It is not about drinking - it is about control (sound familiar)just as smoke ban law isnt about smoking.
    This is the start of a campaign that mimics the smoking campaign almost word for word - just replace 'smoking' with 'drinking'.
    If you do not fight against the smoking ban you will not be able to fight against the drinking ban!
    Both are issues of Freedom!!

    ReplyDelete
  23. "To be honest, that would have been my preferred compromise. To have a licence to permit smoking. The only way to get that licence would have been to demonstrate that appropriate ventilation was in place. This would have focussed pub owners on the the costs of implementing clean air and they would have had to weigh that up against the potential revenue from keeping smoking custom. I think the effects would have been the same as the ban but it would have allowed the pub owners some control over what they wanted to do."

    That is more like it - a reasponsible view - and you are not alone in that view - that is in fact the majority view (smokers and non-smokers alike). Right from the very beginning- when given a choice, 68% agreed with you and only a small minority of anti-smokers wanted an all out ban. I also believe that widespread smoking will never be allowed. There has to be some compromise from both sides of the argument. I would never agree to smokers being penned in a small pig hole - that is no different to the present ban, but some restrictions would be needed, and desirable.

    My comment re Hitler was the correlation between his view and yours. His view on, and treatment of, jews - not smoking (although they are linked). He did not like jews for what they represented, just as anti-smokers see and want to treat smokers. - both are examples of bigotry and intolerance.

    ReplyDelete
  24. One other point - USA were the instigators of these vile smoking laws - But even here you will find that they are starting to see the light with some states repealing draconian laws or refusing to implement them (Fayett county, Michigan state, etc) Spain, Germany and other european countries are starting to do the same. Even China has moved to ease their laws and that is a country that is famed for it's human rights breaches.
    Free Britain is being strangled to death by deception and lies, too much faith in flawed scientific study and allowing itself to be dictated to by pseudo puritans. I want this country to be great again but until the above is recognised we will continue into the abyss (very emotive, dont you think? - but true)

    I am Kin_Free and I want to stay that way!!

    ReplyDelete
  25. As a drinker, I am not too worried by the Metro article. There are costs associated with drinking and the abuse of alcohol so recovering some of those costs through taxation on alcohol seems fair enough. Of course the devil is in the detail and would judge any regulation by whether it was reasonable and proportionate. Just as I don't consider the obligation to go outside for a fag to be an outrageous denial of liberty. In the same way I don't see it as an outrageous denial of liberty not to be able to have drink in an 'alcohol control area' *provided* that such local ordinances are sensibly implemented, which they aren't always.

    As for the 'correlation' of my opinions with Hitler's view of Jews, I don't know whether to be offended or to laugh out loud. I think laughing is better as such comparisons show you to be completely mad. It's no wonder that 'smokers right' has no political leverage at all when its exponents over-state their case so absurdly.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bit like antismokers with passive smoking typical overstatement!! The same chemicals are found in diesel engines, factories etc. except at a much greater level than SHS.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Stephen - you're waffling - what on earth does 'alcohol control area'..'sensibly implemented' mean?
    You have already given an idea what sensible implementation is in relation to smoking. Forcing smokers outside so your clothes dont smell IS NOT 'reasonable implementation'. What makes you think that alcohol control will be sensibly implemented when all the evidence of social control to date is quite the contrary?
    I'm not sure of the exact figure but it is something like 70% of the cost of your pint of beer is already taxation! How much more would be reasonable to pay for the damage caused by morons who are unable to control their drinking and behaviour? You are doing the old ostrich bit there!!

    I'm sure that the decent, ordinary, population of Germany in the 1930's would have considered mad, anyone who even suggested that their conduct of persecuting Jews then, would end in the holocaust and millions killed within 10-15 years. Its easy with hindsight isnt it, not quite so easy before or even during the event though? An extreme example, I'll give you that, but only too relevant!

    Feel free to have a laugh if you wish. That is the usual response when the point cannot be challenged, but it may be preferable to be offended if you cannot understand the concept or appreciate the correlation.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Heres a perfect description of antismokers as the "beacons of morality":

    ... And talking about antismokers being whores …

    http://forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=918

    21st March 2008


    Here is a big one for you!


    These are just some of the things we have done with your money…




    DO YOU LIKE WHAT YOU SEE?...

    Then help FORCES!

    Become a member

    Donate money

    Donate your skills

    Act now! Click here!

    In another commentary on our page today, we discuss Tobacco Control and antismokers being prostitues of Big Pharma, but try this for size, regarding New York Governor Eliot Spitzer. Most of our readers across the globe know that Spitzer resigned his office days ago following an FBI probe which uncovered his history of high-priced whore-mongering. In a recent blog, which appeared shortly before Spitzer's resignation from the governor's office, Doctor Michael Siegel noted Spitzer's gargantuan hypocrisy (emphases added):

    "Former attorney general and current governor of the state of New York — Eliot Spitzer — tried to set a good example for our children through his successful efforts to get cigarette ads out of school magazine editions and to convince R.J. Reynolds to eliminate its marketing of candy-flavored cigarettes.

    Spitzer is the recipient of the 2005 Excellence in National Civic Leadership Award, presented by the National Human Services Assembly.

    According to lawhawk over at 'A Blog for All,' Spitzer 'conducted several prostitution ring busts while New York Attorney General and spoke of his revulsion to prostitution.'

    And in his inaugural address, Governor Spitzer emphasized his commitment to ethics."

    It's typical. Antismokers are whores and hypocrites. They’ve always been, and will only become more and more disgusting, as they gain more power. All the crusaders and "purifiers" are hypocrites. They’ve always been. What is incredible is that people are stupid enough to believe them — repeatedly in history!

    history!
    Those who thump on the Bible are the first to spit on it. Remember Jim Bakker?
    Those who “protect” children from tobacco tend to like the tykes a little too much. Remember Alfred Muller, mayor of the Maryland village of Friendship Heights, who gained international notoriety because he engineered a ban on smoking outdoors to “protect the children”? Too bad that he was found molesting one near a urinal (in the men's room of the National Cathedral in Washington, DC). The outdoor ban was lifted, but Muller continued as mayor. Clearly, for Bible-thumping Friendship Heights, protecting kids from passive smoking is more important than protecting them from molestation. So goes antismoking "morality."

    Those who are disgusted at the tobacco lobbies get payola from Big Pharma when they are in office, sometime as ministers of “health.” Remember Italian Minister of Health Sirchia? He recently got about three years in a 10' x 10' smoke-free room for just one of the eight counts of pharmaceutical corruption. Are you surprised that Italian "tobacco control" and assorted antismokers still hail him as the “hero” who conned 60 million Italians with a law based on a fraud and forbade public smoking. Don't be surprised. So goes antismoking "morality".

    Those who "educate" against the corporate corruption of Big Tobacco are likely to have a criminal record such as that of Jefferey Wigand:

    http://www.data-yard.net/10/wigaward.htm , http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/insider.htm and http://www.data-yard.net/10/fbi.htm

    The "hero" of the tobaccophobic Hollywood production The Insider. A violent individual with a long history of blackmailing, not only did he become a hero in a movie, but he was hired by the Canadian Ministry of "Health" with a lavish paycheque to lie to children in schools on the effect of tobacco on health. Sensational carping and lying merits a job educating our kids. So goes antismoking "morality." http://www.data-yard.net/10/np.htm



    Professor Simon Chapman from Australia was caught and judicially cited for the manipulation of data that showed that passive smoking did not harm people in one of his junk studies: http://www.data-yard.net/historic/files/austcort.htm . As a reward, the World Health Organization endorsed his "study" and made him one of its advisors. Certified fraudulence equals career advancement. So goes antismoking "morality."

    Reminiscent of the case of Mayor Alfred Muller, though in some respects more egregious, is the Massachusetts case of Timothy Downey, Chairman of the Board of Health of North Adams. This early ban implementer "for the children" was convicted of molesting numerous boys he had plied with porno, booze, and also reefer: smoking, you see, is okay when it facilitates a tobacco controller's "higher purpose." At link, scroll down to "The Monsters Behind the Anti-smoking Masks", that is, if you have the stomach for it. Tobacco is the only sin. So goes antismoking "morality." http://www.forces.org/Archive/index.php?s=50&q=massachusetts&order=

    Those who are ready to accuse any dissenter or defender of science of being paid off by the tobacco industry are the greatest recipients of dough from the pharmaceutical industry. Just look at Stanton Glantz and his gang, one group of frauds, amongst many. In fact, there is a dose-response relationship between their finger-pointing and the size of the cheques the whores get from Big Pharma. Big bucks for big lies. So goes antismoking "morality". http://www.data-yard.net/pharma_annual-reports/9_8_mil.htm

    We could go on and on. There are so many examples, the history of Tobacco Control is full of shame, to bursting. The point is the holier-than-thou "purifiers" have no shame. Why then should we be outraged at Spitzer? He was a fraud on personal ethics, and a big antismoker: no more needs to be said. As Siegel points out, “setting a good example for our children: getting rid of school cigarette ads, eliminating candy flavored cigarettes, and hooking up with a call girl.”

    Nice example indeed, but perhaps we should rejoice, as it could have been worse: he could have been hooked up with an underage call-boy high on pharmaceutical nicotine inhalers: in that case a medal from "public health" would be in order.

    ReplyDelete
  29. No Kin_free, I am not waffling. I am discussing social policy like an adult, which you appeat to be incapable of doing. I suggest first of all you look up what a Alcohol Control Zone is, for they have been in existence for some time now. They were devised to reduce social disorder in public spaces caused by drinking alcohol. By law they may only be imposed where "disorder has been associated with the consumption of intoxicating liquor in that place". There are criminal sanctions if someone does not stop drinking and surrender alcohol to a constable if asked to do so. If policed reasonably I see no problem with them. In Tunbridge Wells there is an zone which covers Calverley Park, where people are known to picnic. I've not yet heard of law-abiding picnickers having bottles of wine confiscated.

    There are some real civil liberties issues in this country. Thousands of peaceful political demonstrators have been targetted by the 2000 Terrorism Act. People have been jailed for possessing 'terrorist propaganda' - since when has propaganda killed anyone? A man who heckles Jack Straw is beaten up and instead of arresting the thugs who beat him up, the police arrest their victim under the Terrorism Act. And there are dozens more examples. These are real threats to liberty. Some immature selfish cunt who wants to poison others with his smoke doesn't even register on the radar.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Once a debate is reduced to abuse and profanity - the argument is over! Your credibility is lost!

    I have no wish to trade insults with you when the best you can come up with is; "selfish cunt", even if it is written with such eloquence!

    I refer you to my previous arguments above as to who is the real "selfish cunt" - no further explanation necessary.

    Your comments and the hatred that you clearly have for smoking, only serves to highlight how the smoking ban, and the propaganda surrounding the issue, has turned man against man, creating hysteria and fracturing society.

    'Alcohol control zones' - waffle -and totally unrelated to the article! Other than to say that there have been, for many years, 'no smoking areas' in places where they could reasonably expected to be, no problem! But, that was not enough for the anti-smokers, nor will your 'control zones' be enough for anti-alcohol activists!

    'Civil liberties issues' - yes, there are plenty of them around today, and I will challenge them too, but don't insult anyone’s intelligence by picking and choosing which ones YOU prefer. Minor civil liberties issues have a habit of becoming major ones if they are not challenged, worse still if they are championed by people like yourself and a government intent on control and passive compliance of the population by coercion and deception.

    'Terrorist Propaganda', 'heckling' - do not mistake these for 'Criminal Incitement', there is a big difference!

    'Propaganda never killed anyone' - re-read what I said about Hitler above. Then look up what propaganda actually means, how it can engender hysteria and the result thereof.

    Now go away and spout your bigotry to someone who is stupid enough to listen to such rubbish.

    Oh - and Have a nice day

    ReplyDelete
  31. Once a debate is reduced to abuse and profanity - the argument is over! Your credibility is lost!

    A stupid cunt who compares me to Hitler has no moral high ground from which to preach. I didn't realise that idiot libertarians had such thin skin.

    ReplyDelete
  32. NEED I SAY MORE after that desperate outburst of affection!!

    Now that you have nothing more of relevance to say - and have lost all semblance of credibility - game over!!

    go away and multiply.

    Oh... and have a nice day!

    ReplyDelete
  33. It's not about scraping smoking ban but amending it!!!! There must be non smoking pubs and clubs for those who want a smoke free atmosphere and smoking establishments for those who smoke or those who used to go out with smokers before the ban (when people lived together!). People don't spend all their time in pubs and clubs so I don't understand the smoking ban!! If we want to protect peoples' health , what about launching a driving ban (cars pollute the air day and night...) and a drinking ban ( alcoholic beverages are responsible for violence,liver cancer...): this is nonesense just like the smoking ban !!!!!!!!!
    PLEASE MR JOHNSON DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE SMOKING BAN, PUBS AND CLUBS ARE LEISURE PLACES NOT HOSPITALS....

    ReplyDelete