What, exactly, are property rights?

Dick Puddlecote posts an interesting video, one that repeats the question of the heading to this post. Is it not right that the owner of a property or business should decide what can and cannot take place within the confines of which the government - and the law - maintain is 'theirs'?

From this post three years ago and the 2005 'manifesto' (page 67) of the Labour Party:

"The legislation will ensure that all restaurants will be smoke-free; all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free; and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free. In membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free." (Emphasis mine)

Yet another manifesto 'promise' that became but ASH(es) as a result of a government funded pressure group - but I digress. Neither will I delve into the Conservative Party opposition towards this policy.....

Anyways, back to the video that DP posted and the question posed therein.

This subject, as with so many others, begs the question whether 'government' has the right to impose a blanket policy on the country, or should not - within the policy of devolution and invoking the belief in 'Big Society', assuming of course they actually believe in those policies - decisions such as this be left to local people to decide?

With regard to the last paragraph, I suppose my message to our politicians is if they believe in direct democracy - which they must do if they wish to devolve power and believe in a 'Big Society' - either implement it or stop talking about it!

Did you know smoking can cause blindness?

More a subject for Chris Snowden (Velvet Glove Iron Fist) or Dick Puddlecote (Dick Puddlecote) - but anyway........


While waiting for a neighbour for whom I had provided a lift to our local doctor's surgery, I pondered all the notices and leaflets exhorting us not to do this that or the other for health reasons. One that caught my eye was headlined as this post and dealt with 'Age-Related Macular Degeneration (AMD). The leaflet advises that studies have shown that smoking more than doubles the risk of developing AMD and that smokers are more likely to suffer from all types of AMD. It then goes on to state that an estimated 53,900 UK residents over 69 may have AMD attributable to smoking. (my emphasis).


From the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) we are informed that: "At the moment, the exact cause for AMD is not known". Medical News Today advises: "In summary, while controlling for other factors, smoking appears to be related to the incidence and progression of AMD in our population". (again, my emphasis).


Cmon chaps, either smoking does cause AMD, or it appears to cause AMD, or the exact cause for AMD is not known. Just make up your damn mind - please?


Just asking..................




Afterthought: Scared to Death, a book by Richard North and Christopher Booker, had a chapter on smoking and is well worth a read - not just on this subject, either.

This is freedom?

Dick Puddlecote posted recently on a move, in Sweden (do read the link provided):

"Landskrona municipality in southern Sweden is mulling introducing a ban on staff smoking during working hours, even if they are working from home. The ban under consideration by Landskrona will mean that staff are not allowed to go outside onto the street during, for example, the group coffee breaks in the morning and afternoon which are common practice in many Swedish workplaces."

This raises all sorts of questions, such as is not your home your home; should an employer have the right to dictate your behaviour during you time away from the workplace; and can an employer likewise dictate how you spend your time during recognised 'work-breaks' (lunch?).

One comment is worthy of repetition:

"A little bit off-topic, I admit, but sort of linked – something which has been swirling about in the back of my mind for some while which some of the more legal-y types on here might like to comment on.

If a person is obliged to adhere to workplace rules and regulations outside of their working hours or during their “free” time (such as during breaks or lunchtimes), then doesn’t that mean, essentially, that they are still “working” during those times – albeit at a much less busy level than normally? And thus, aren’t employers who enforce such rules in danger of exceeding the legislation on working hours? The legislation, after all, specifically states that employers must allow their employees to take their statutory breaks away from their normal workstations – thus giving the nod to the fact that a break should mean just that – a break, not just interrupting the flow of work by swigging down a quick coffee or a hastily-purchased sandwich from M&S at your desk.

So surely, then, imposing any workplace rules in free time that should be demarcated by a contract of employment (which has to state specific starting and finishing hours) must surely be the same? Insisting that employees are “non-smokers” or – as will no doubt shortly be the case – “non drinkers” (i.e. that they don’t undertake those activities in their private time in the evenings and at weekends) must surely be tantamount to insisting that they stay “working” for 24 hours a day? Even if they wouldn’t normally want to undertake such activities voluntarily, it’s still a violation of their right to genuinely free time to deny them the choice to do so if they wish. I’m sure there’d be a case if employers started insisting that employees be “on call” at all times, or if they insisted that employees maintained the same standards of dress at home as they did at work (such as wearing makeup or a suit or wearing their hair tied back etc), so there’s no reason why other workplace rules shouldn’t be the same.

Just a thought for the future which might get round the fact that whereas it is illegal to advertise using discriminatory wording and to employ using discriminatory policies in any other area than race, age, sex, religion etc, it is still legal to discriminate in any other areas, including lifestyle ones ...

Thoughts from legal types welcomed!"

That such an idea, which is both insidious and invidious, can even be entertained demonstrates just how much 'progressive' ideas, instigated by the 'behaviour-police' are beginning to infiltrate our day-to-day lives. 

The Sutton example that DP quotes may well be 5 years old, but the principle of 'people control' by others is still alive and well. Should not people who wish to 'picnic' whilst having a day on the beach not be allowed to so do? Over 55s have been banned from drinking in their communal grounds, yet is not the communcal grounds part of their home environment? Why should one set of anti-social behaviour be used to implement a ban based on an unfounded and unproven belief? ".....which they believe is fuelled by alcohol"

This is but one example of how the continual drip of control over the people is being used.

As an aside, it is also used by the European Union. Take a look at this and follow the link provided about 'conditions of entry'. Whilst it does not say so, you can bet that another condition will be the requirement that a logo is included in any company paper/literature that wins, one that advertises the award - thus promoting the 'benefits' of EU membership.

The sooner we are able to introduce some form of direct democracy into this country, the sooner we, the people, will regain the control of our country - and our lives.