Welcome to Communist Britain

Basically it meant that "Lazy & Greedy" people are the biggest proponents of "Nannyism", because they want someone (anyone) else to do everything for them, no matter the "Shared" cost, because they know for "Damn Sure", they had-have-will have "NO INTENTION" of doing anything for themselves.

Their Motto:

Those above shall serve those below

 

So what about the smoking ban over here? Is that Nannyism? I mean sure cigarettes annoyed a lot of people but if someone was smoking what were you supposed to do? Of course you could ask the smoker in question to stop, that is your right, but they could equally tell you to get lost. Interesting question that...

 

Anne Widdicombe (that well known commie) was a member of the anti-hunting group and Kate Hoey (card carrying Tory) is very much in favour of it............

Right wing pressure goups are very active. They just use cover of 'Consultant' and 'Lobbyist'. Follow the funders to find out just how active and insidious the pro-smoking groups are.
As we are talking priciples here can we take it that ANY drug taken in private should be free from Government intervention?

 

The task was to NAME a few right-wing pressure groups. You managed two individuals, one of whom was notoriously fickle enough to have converted to Roman Catholicism because her own religion didn't offer enough opportunities for self-aggrandising guilt trips.
Tobacco isn't illegal, neither is alcohol. As for insidious:
1) Maureen Moore, ex-Chief exec. of ASH(Scotland) is a reformed smoker; the WORST kind of anti-smoking fanatic.
2)At a meeting with the Scottish Parliament in September 2001, one of Moore's minions was minuted telling Jack McConnell (former First Minister) that she had evidence of tobacco being a gateway drug to harder ones. When challenged to produce this evidence at the next meeting, she was minuted as apologising for misreading someone elses reports. This is available in the Holyrood archives online.
3) In 1999 a total of 800 British GPs signed an open letter to Blair demanding that he legalise Heroin; how many them were among the 800 GPs who also signed an open letter to Blair in 2001 demanding that he ban smoking?
4) Anti-smoking groups claimed 30,000 people a year allegedly die in Scotland from "passive smoking"; according to adverts recently screened on British TV by the European Parliament, this is allegedly around 40% of the total number of EUROPEANS who die from smoking related diseases. You tell me which one is wrong, since they can't both be right.
5) On April 8th 2006, a week after the ban came into force in Scotland, Scotland on Sunday carried an interview with the personnel department of the Sheraton Hotel in Edinburgh, who publicly announced their intention to discipline any member of staff who turned up for work even smelling of smoke. Go look it up in the The Scotsman archives.
6) Also in April 2006, West Dunbartonshire council announced they would prosecute anyone found smoking within 100 yards of a children's play area. Even advice from the Law Society of Scotland that they didn't actually have this power failed to impress them.
7) Last year the Charities Commission started an investigation into charities who abuse their position by acting as political groups; ASH(Scotland) was one which lost charity status as a result, Maureen Moore mysteriously took 'early retirement', and her successor is about as prominent as a mineshaft. I would LOVE to read that Charity Commission report.
This ban had NOTHING to do with public health, and EVERYTHING to do with pandering to the obsessions of a minority of attention-seekers- the same kind of tossers who go around with a tape measure making sure everyone's new home extension "complies with the regulations".

 

Stefan,
It works BOTH ways. Around 20 years ago my first wife and I were sitting in the smoking area of a local cafe (she did, I didn't) when two old dears came in, bypassed at least half a dozen empty tables and plonked themselves down next to us. One them then began to make pathetic choking noises and comments about dying of cancer from cigarrette smoke.
She called over the manageress, who asked US to move. We pointed out it was a smoking area, and refused. This jobsworth then called the Police, who were actually more sympathetic, but asked us to move so as not to cause a scene. I immediately went into Mr Angry mode, and only narrowly avoided being arrested for breach of the peace. We eventually HAD to move, while the old bastard sat there smirking. I wrote a letter of complaint to the cafe's head office, and didn't even get the courtesy of a reply.
Fast forward a few years and I was standing at the bar in my favourite Edinburgh pub one lunchtime, with only the barman for company. A young Australian bloke came in and started throwing tantrums about the 'smoke pollution' and demanded to know why we were trying to kill him! Neither of us smoked; what he was referring to was the VERY faint smell of smoke from the previous night, so faint that no-one else had noticed it. The barman tried to reason with him, then lost his temper and bodily threw the little twat out into the Royal Mile. Naturally I sided with the barman and pleaded ignorance when Her Majesty's Constabulary turned up. The cops knew the score, since the guy had been every bit as arrogant with them while he was making the complaint!
I cannot stand Nicotine Nazis, and this smoking ban was the worst piece of jobsworth-creation that any IDIOT ever thought up.

 

Two points,
I'm not saying Nannyism exists only one place, or isn't as mobile as an airborne virus, or as quick to grow.
I'm not saying disregard the law, just be careful what you make into a law.
Theft
Destruction
Injury should be covered.
(If)...
Holding
Doing
or have done, bust em !

Don't "Bastardize" the law into
Feelings
Appearances
Desire
& other touchie-feelie impossibly subjective/diverse/unwritable trash just to provide jobs for unemployable twits in an ever growing (all but useless) social (of) service (to no one but themselves) society, that basically stays busy chasing it's tail at your expense, while non providing any essentials, and over providing (gotta love that word (to whom?)) annoying nonsense.

new law for them....Suicide is now against the law. A fine of XXX$ will be assessed against the surviving family members,
That ought to keep more "politico" nepotism opportunists assuaged (temporarily).

See it turning into this ? below

 

I agree Gordon (as a part time smoker myself), however my point is that all this talk of people not being willing to do things for themselves is dubious at best. Smoking was just an example, but if a law preventing smoking tobacco in certain areas is nannyism, what about drinking at certain ages? Is that nannyism? How about class A drugs? I know it's a bit of a 'reductio' but at what point does a law stop being nannyism? Surely if people are going to complain about laws because they are there to save citizens from having to look after themselves, what about laws against theft? Murder? See what I mean? Just interesting to ask where people feel the line should be drawn.

 

Religion ............Next you will be telling me a King would change an entire countrys religion because he couldnt get a divorce. I think perhaps you view that as the right move?

I can remember years ago where every pub in the UK had a permenant fog due to all the smokers. Today the boot is on the other foot. Smokers are a minority and though you may think otherwise the stink of tabacco or stale ash is disgusting. Only a non-smoker understands how awful it smells. You can always tell a smoker by the smell on their clothes-that's if you don't catch a whiff their breath as they start talking to you.

I won't bother with the rest of the 'Mr Angry' rant. You obviously have a bee in your bonnet.

 

Unfortunately in quite a few pubs the smell of tobacco has been replaced by the poor personal hygiene standards of the customers.

 

"Ah Smoke Een Your General Deerection!"

​

 

Irrelevant.

I don't smoke. I said so in the last reply to you. The rest of your diatribe is EXACTLY what I was referring to you; your own personal obsession with smoking has taken over any slim chance of acknowledging anyone elses viewpoint..

You mean I quoted too many examples for you to be bothered looking for evidence to refute.

 

Stefan,
The whole point is that the smoking ban wasn't instituted at the request of smokers, it was DEMANDED by people with a pathological hatred of smoking who think the world should dance to their tune. The press was full of tossers claiming they 'could now visit a pub for the first time in years'. So where the hell are they, since no pub outside major cities is more than half full at weekends now, and hundreds have shut down?
It should have been voluntary; publicans and breweries should have been able to decide whether they wanted to attract smokers or not. Grants should have been available for decent airconditioning. It should have been MANDATORY then for ALL licensed premises to:
a) Display a sign at the front door and inside telling customers what kind of atmosphere they were about to enter.
b) Only recruit staff appropriate to the pub's status (ie only smokers or nonsmokers), and SAY so in recruitment adverts.
What you now have is a minority of anti-smoking fanatics who are now demanding a ban on smokers outside pubs too; exactly what was predicted to start with. And if they get away with that one I'm not taking money on them demanding a dress policy for pubs next...to keep the 'wrong sorts' out.
The nanny state isn't reacting to a general demand to 'save people from themselves', it's reacting to self-righteous twats demanding that everyone should live according to their rules. Over-regulation is a feature of Left-wing governments, which is what started this thead.

 

Really? I thought (or hoped) you may now realise that the stink of nicotine does not have the same effect on a non smoker as it does on a smoker. Perhaps that was asking too much. You obviously believe you have the only valid opinion on the subject. When your whole world outlook seems to be 'it's all the fault of left-wingers' I should have realised it was an uphill struggle.
This smoking ban is of no interest to me. It is not my fight but I see no prospect of it ever being reversed. Rant and rage and fume all you want- just but don't do it indoors!

Sorry but I chose how to 'waste' my time. This is not imprtant enough for me. If you wish to take this as proof of an unanswerable argument then I am happy to add to your feeling of superiority.

Straw man argument taken to absurdity.

A lot of forums are too..........give the man a mirror.

Grants? Grants from a nanny state? Surely not...........

What planet do you live on? This is standard practice in most pubs today. It happens all the time but as the people excluded are in your words' the wrong sort' you don't give a toss. It is the fear that you may become one of the excluded that you are really complaining about.

I would say it is a reaction to those 'twats' who continue to believe that smoking is 'choice' rather than a drug habit. I suggest you read up on how the manufacturers ensure you get a good sized hit with every draw on a cigarette

Ah the good old days when you were allowed to send kids up your chimmney.. I think the rot set in when they gave women the vote!
I am curious as to how you would react if say a travellers camp were started a few yards from your house. I bet you would be the first to reach for the book of regulations.

 

What part of "I don't smoke" didn't you quite understand?

In other words, you have nothing either intelligent or relevant to add. So, no surprises there then....

And yet again, it doesn't seem to have stopped you trying.

Ah, the classic m kenny personal attack. Overdue, but better late than never. Amazing how you are never seen here for months at a time, and then pop up out of nowhere to have a go at me. And fail miserably.

No, it isn't. What planet do YOU live on?!

Since I live in the middle of a housing scheme, please calculate the chances of that happening.
Don't feel you have to prove your own stupidity on my account.

 

Thats right I pop up from nowhere-Apart from posts on ;

Feb 14th, 15th, 27th.
March 1st(x2) 8th.
May 14th (x2), 15th,17th(x2), 22nd(x2) 23rd, 25th (x2), 27th, 28th and 30th.

You could have found that out with one simple click but why spoil a good story with the facts?

I prefer to stay away from rabble rousing rant threads and only indulge myself when things are slack. I am far too busy with actual historical fact to devote much time to Sun-reader types of argument. I was particularly impressed with the way you dealt with those two women. 'two old dears .......pathetic choking noises ........ the old bastard sat there smirking'.
Fearless in the face of oppsition aren't you?

 

So by your own admission, you only entered this thread to stir up trouble and offer personal attacks to hide your inability to offer intelligent comments.
Says it all really, doesn't it?