Yet more hyprocrites.........

Simon Cooke, The View from Cullingworth, posts on the fact that an Early Day Motion (EDM) has been raised in which it calls for the Chancellor to suspend the beer duty escalator to help reduce pub closures.

It is generally acknowledged that what hastened pub closures more than any other factor was the blanket smoking ban affecting all enclosed public places. It should also be remembered that when originally proposed the ban on smoking in enclosed public places in England had exemptions for clubs and pubs not serving food. (BBC)

Simon Cooke has discovered that of the 97 signatories to this EDM (at the time of his post) 47 of those signatories were MPs who had voted to ban smoking in pubs - and he lists those 47.

We are constantly informed that smoking is bad for our health - and that may be so; however, I would suggest that there is a greater risk to the population's health when one considers our system of democracy which allows our political elite to dictate to us as they do, wherein they demand our obedience in everything that we do, say or speak. This greater risk is one that our political elite both national and local together with their sycophants at every level and in every organisation, would do well to remember.

As Boris Pasternak has Yurii say in Doctor Zhivago, "Your health is bound to be affected if, day after day, you say the opposite of what you feel, if you grovel before what you dislike... Our nervous system isn't just fiction, it's part of our physical body, and it can't be forever violated with impunity."

'Care' Homes & Smoking

On twitter @DickPuddlecote has drawn my attention to this article from deadlinenews, one relating to a 83 year-old man who will be forced to go outside as the smoking-room is being closed for the reason that the health and well-being of other residents is an "utmost priority" of the care home in question,


The care home in question, Canmore Lodge Care Home in Dunfermline, Fife is one of many owned by Barchester Healthcare who pride themselves on "treating everyone as individuals..........and ensuring every day is thoroughly enjoyable."; whilst also priding themselves on the fact they consider "their dedication can be seen 'across the board' where their hospitality is concerned". The Barchester website also proclaims that "......you can be assured of the best quality care tailored to meet your individual needs; home environments that are warm, friendly and leading-edge....."


It has to be said that depriving an individual of the freedom to enjoy what can be assumed is one of a few remaining pleasures that remain in this man's life is not treating him as an individual, nor ensuring every day is thoroughly enjoyable. It also brings into doubt their claim about 'hospitality', whilst also casting doubt on their claim to provide home environments that are warm and friendly. I would have thought that in the last years of our lives those looking after us would do everything to ensure that those last years are enjoyable and thus free from sorrow. Yet the situation of the two men involved in this article means they are subjected to a life that will not be enjoyable and free from sorrow - and it is being decided by those with a belief in political correctness and their decisions being those based on highly questionable 'scientific' findings. It has to be said that when those making the decisions of today become subjected to the world they have/are creating - they ain't going to like it much!


My mother, who has attained her century, is also in a care home, one run by West Berkshire County Council. Where the level of care and dedication of the staff who work there is concerned, neither can be faulted. The story, related above, made me dig out' the brochure I received when I was touring the choice of care homes available at the time it became necessary that I ceased acting as her carer because I felt uncomfortable attending to her personal needs. This brochure stated that "We understand that living in ones own home may be preferable, so we aim to create a homely atmosphere." and "Smoking is only allowed in your own bedroom and the grounds of the home". West Berkshire have recently announced that not only is smoking not allowed in bedrooms (ones that they maintain is the residents own room) but also within the grounds of the care home.


Which reminds me, I must start asking a few questions.....................

The cry goes out: Its for the children (again)

Alex Cunningham, the MP behind the proposed bill to ban smoking in cars, has been given space on PoliticsHome in order to gain support. With regard to the question of toxins, Raedwald 'did the maths' in his post here (follow the link to the March post). Likewise, on the question secondhand smoke,  Christopher Booker and Richard North debunked any claims in that area, here (follow link to post of 24th March 2010).

Cunningham writes that quite simply, this is a serious public health issue; that we have a duty to protect children from such harm, and the most effective way we can do that is through a ban on smoking in cars. In the interests of fairness and equality, perhaps Cunningham would also permit the electorate to point out that they, too, have a similar serious, public health issue. That is that we have a duty to protect ourself from the harm that politicians do - and the only way we can do that is to ban all politicians and their practices.

Just saying......................

Here we go again - Smokin'

The question of a ban to make it illegal to smoke in one's car has reared its head again with the latest demand by the British Medical Association - and one which is but a repeat of that made last March by a letter which appeared in the Times signed by 20 'senior doctors'. I can but refer readers to my post of 24th March 2010 and the comments about passive smoking.

Michael White has an article on the Guardian website and this doyen of British journalism - aka the cut 'n paste industry - blithely writes that: "It's not a case in which the medical facts are open to much dispute any longer. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for one's health and bad for those close to a smoker whose smoke they may inhale". With a view to increasing White's education perhaps he would do well to refer to this post from Raedwald, following the link contained therein, coupled with the extract from Booker and North's book 'Scared to Death' (pages 269-270) quoted in my post mentioned above.

A car is an extension of one's home, namely a private place in which it should be possible to smoke or not. If this ban were to be enacted - leaving aside the question of how it could be policed - then how much longer would it be before these health zealots demanded and received a ban covering one's home? I may be mistaken but I do not recall such a proposal being included in any political party manifesto last year, which leads me back to the argument that our present system of democracy allows for dictatorial decisions without any consultation of the people affected by said decisions.

Update: On the point the BMA makes about 'toxin levels being 23 times higher than in a smoky bar', yet another article pours scorn on this claim, one that appears to have been 'doctored' somewhat.