Beer, Baccy, and Crumpet

beerbaccycrumpetWaiting for the Eastleigh by-election results, I looked through the list of candidates and came across the Beer, Baccy, and Crumpet party. Nannying Tyrants noticed it a week or so back, and put together a few nice pics, one of which I’ve shamelessly nicked.

It was started by 73 year old Ray Hall, who is described as a renegade conservative.

He’s only an occasional smoker, having given up 30 years ago. He once worked as a representative for Gitanes and Gauloises.

About smoking, he said:

Smoking obviously is a health issue. I used to be a heavy smoker myself. I previously worked for Gitanes and Gauloises. I’m not promoting smoking, but my attitude is that smoking is a legal pastime. If people chose to smoke, the Government choose to take the tax from them at an enormous rate then I think they should be treated with respect. At the moment they have to leave the pub premises, smoke in the wind, the rain, in an area that you couldn’t call a building, in an area that might have one side as a windbreak. Personally I think that smokers should be allowed in a smoke-controlled area within the building, if its possible to do that. Provided it doesn’t inconvenience other users and be adverse to the health of other people in the vicinity. It wouldn’t be suitable in restaurants, near to diners, but in the old pubs you used to get a snug, a smoke-room in some of them. If you could have a separate room that was extracted, that would be better for the  smokers and it wouldn’t affect the other people that were in there. It would also help the business of the pub, because a lot of pubs closed because people couldn’t smoke there. Old guys like myself, we like a fag and a pint and we can’t do it under the current regime. But we do pay massive taxes.

Ray Hall042A

Occasionally I smoke a cigar. I worked in the tobacco trade as a retailer and as a representative for Gitanes and Gauloises, for 12 years. I stopped smoking 30 years ago, for health reasons. I’m 73 now, fit as a fiddle, I can jump the garden gate. I do enjoy the occasional cigar. I would like to walk into a pub have a pint and have a puff on a cigar, or even my pipe occasionally. I would not class myself as an addict, just an occasional smoker. I’m standing for greater respect for smokers who pay massive taxes.

I’ll be interested to see how many votes he gets. If I was in Eastleigh, I’d have been very tempted to vote for him.

I was a bit worried to see the National Health Action Party. I thought it might be calling for smokers to be shot on sight. But in fact it’s a party of doctors concerned about the NHS being privatised piece by piece. Nothing to do with smoking at all.

English Democrats wanted to stop immigration, and leave the EU. Nothing about smoking bans, but opposition to Political Correctness.

UKIP’s candidate sounded a bit worrying:

Diane’s career spans over 30 years in the healthcare arena – both the private and public sectors; initially as a business analyst and then specialising in healthcare strategy development, innovation and business transformation. She is opposed to the creeping privatisation of the NHS orchestrated by the Conservatives without an electoral mandate.

Diane’s early career was with a succession of major pharmaceutical companies leading to her involvement in a number of key therapeutic areas including transplantation, neurology and pain relief.

Moving to the healthcare agency field in the late 80’s led Diane to establish a new business venture focused on the targeting and customer relationship management needs of the bio-pharma industry in response to then Conservative government’s healthcare system reforms. Over the next few years this led to the launch of corporate government and healthcare policy initiatives for a number of leading organisations supplying the UK healthcare system.

That’s almost the career path of a dedicated antismoker. Although UKIP wants the smoking ban relaxed.

I’m not sure I’d have trusted her. So my vote would have most likely gone to the Beer, Baccy, and Crumpet party.

Anyway the results are now in, and

………………2013…..2010
Lib Dem..13342….24,966
UKIP…….11571…..1,933
Con……….10559….21,102
Lab……….4088…….5,153
Others…..2056……500 or so
total……..41616….. 53650

The Lib Dem and Conservative votes collapsed. Labour increased its vote. And four times as many people voted for the fringe parties. UKIP could easily have won. Perhaps Beer, Baccy and Crumpet stole enough votes off them to prevent them winning? No, it didn’t. Here are the full results:

Mike Thornton (LD) 13,342 (32.06%, -14.48%)
Diane James (UKIP) 11,571 (27.80%, +24.20%)
Maria Hutchings (Con) 10,559 (25.37%, -13.96%)
John O’Farrell (Lab) 4,088 (9.82%, +0.22%)
Danny Stupple (Ind) 768 (1.85%, +1.56%)
Dr Iain Maclennan (NHA) 392 (0.94%)
Ray Hall (Beer) 235 (0.56%)
Kevin Milburn (Christian) 163 (0.39%)
Howling Laud Hope (Loony) 136 (0.33%)
Jim Duggan (Peace) 128 (0.31%)
David Bishop (Elvis) 72 (0.17%)
Michael Walters (Eng Dem) 70 (0.17%, -0.30%)
Daz Procter (TUSC) 62 (0.15%)
Colin Bex (Wessex Reg) 30 (0.07%)

Liberal Democrat majority: 1,771 (4.26%)
Swing: 19.34% Liberal Democrat to UKIP
Electorate: 79,004 Turnout: 41,616 (52.68%, -16.61%)

About these ads

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Beer, Baccy, and Crumpet

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank if you can run a daily Blog you can run a country,I suggest you announce your candidacy for Prime Minister.

    • Frank Davis says:

      In the UK you can’t run for Prime Minister like you can run for President of the United States of America. We don’t vote for our PM. We just vote for their party candidates.

      • smokervoter says:

        Thanks Frank, that clears something up for me. I’d always wondered how UKIP got damn near 1 million votes in 2010 yet no MP’s. So, that’s the total of votes for MP candidates running under the UKIP banner, regardless of whether they won or not.

        By my calcs UKIP went from 1,933 to 11,571 which is a 498% increase, not 24.20% – so I’m obviously missing something there. Don’t quite understand the SWING calculation either.

  2. Belvederian says:

    Nice photo of Leah Remini! She was often seen smoking in the comedy series ‘The King of Queens’.

  3. waltc says:

    Sorry, I don’t like Ray Hall at all. He’s one of those “with friends like these…” guys. He’s buying into and advancing the whole “smokers kill” thing even as he claims to be, what? libertarian? He also advances the notion that nonsmokers and their whims take precedence over those of smokers who, of course, shouldn’t be “allowed” anywhere near food. This is tantamount to saying that of course blacks shouldn’t be allowed in the white folks’ restaurants and swimming pools but there’s no reason they shouldn’t be allowed to have their own separately ventilated subway car. Or the American pol, frequently accused of anti-semitism, who defended himself–about a decade ago– by saying he wasn’t that because he didn’t at all object to Jews attending Ivy League colleges.

    Thanks but no thanks.

  4. beobrigitte says:

    Although the Lib Dems did win this election, the question remains whether this really is a reason for celebration:
    Mike Thornton (LD) 13,342 (32.06%, -14.48%)
    Looking at the Tories:
    Maria Hutchings (Con) 10,559 (25.37%, -13.96%)
    To me it looks like BOTH parties have lost a lot of voters.

    Mike Thornton struck me as a charismatic “blabber” who does not mention the above. There is nothing genuine in charismatic blabbers; they might as well be your local used car sales person.

    Frank, there seems an error somewhere: If in 2010 5153 people voted labour and last night only 4088 did, how can this result in +0.22% ?

    Yes, the UKIP candidate indeed sounds a little worrying.
    and then specialising in healthcare strategy development

    Perhaps UKIP could be a little clearer with respect to this.
    Haven’t we had enough “healthcare strategy” already? In the name of “health” we have been dictated a smoking ban and as I speak the BBC is rolling out the demand for minimum pricing for alcohol.

    Is UKIP, as all the others, going to let us smokers down?

    Last, but not least:

    http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTq1cup2kuUoosYJO6VtYkWX3eZ84xtnMKyc2DG5Hw26i520Z1u

    • beobrigitte says:

      With respect to UKIP’s health strategy:

      http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/2843-health-ukip-policy

      Although I still have one or two questions, I must admit that their policies read rather refreshing.

      Public Health and Preventative Health Care

      UKIP believes in giving people more control over their own lives and allowing them to make their own decisions, in health care as in other areas. As a result, public health expenditure will be limited to those areas where there is a risk to the wider population (e.g. notifiable diseases and their containment) but will not include campaigns to try to tell people what choices to make in their lifestyle. (e.g. stop smoking, 5 a day, exercise).
      Prevention or early detection, however, is almost always cost-effective and results in better outcomes. Free eye tests and dental checks will therefore be restored.

      A very much common sense directed approach! Has UKIP recognized the cost of life style interfering campaigns; money that can be put to better use within the ailing NHS?

      This, however, requires clarification:
      Access to the NHS

      Treatment on the NHS is the prerogative of British passport holders and tax payers. Those without entitlement will be strongly advised to have adequate health insurance, as British citizens do when travelling abroad.

      I am not a British passport holder but a tax payer to the British government. Will I be required to look for health insurance? I do expect a further surge of UKIP voters nation wide and the results of the next general election might well bring a breath of fresh air to this government. Am I advised to already look for a health insurance or am I eligible for NHS care?

      • lordsid says:

        For what it’s worth,I have many UKIP “friends” on FB & not one of them has said anything negative about anything I’ve written there regarding the ratz etc.Come to think of it,it was they who “friended” me.Did have one comment from 1 person once about laying off his smoking.(not sure if he was UKIP) Iirc,he mistakenly took a ratz article that I was “exposing” for my position.(quickly rectified) That being said,others are from/support pretty well all parties,from several countries.Over the years I’ve seen that political allegiance doesn’t necessarily mean that all agree with the party’s/leaders stance. Provincial parties will not agree with the federal party.The main problem we’ve had is that pols that will support us have been in opposition.(not enough votes to help) Then there’s those that offer/infer to do something for us when they get power-then don’t.

  5. Rose says:

    I thought it rather interesting that the Conservatives felt the need to send a leaflet on polling day printed in UKIP colours ,deeply embarrassing the the people who had to deliver them.
    Nigel Farage appeared rather amused, but I wonder if it did manage to fool anyone.

    If this is what it said on banner heading, then it’s very misleading indeed.

    http://order-order.com/2013/02/28/eastleigh-tories-steal-ukip-colours/

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    MORE 3RD HAND SMOKE PROPAGANDA FROM Dr Jonathan Winickoff

    http://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/news/health/third-hand-smoke-danger-1-4841349

    • beobrigitte says:

      They say that informing people about the dangers may motivate them to take the positive step of having a smoking ban in their homes.

      The emphasis being on “THEIR” homes.
      The anti-smokers must be REALLY desperate! And, I have the right to chase them off my property (that includes MY car!). I am making use of this right.
      GET LOST, anti-smokers!

    • garyk30 says:

      A baby licking the floor or furniture will get 39 times as much dead skin as 3rd hand cig smoke!!
      The percentage of the dust in your home that is actually dead skin cells is approximately 75% to 90%.

      According to The Boston Globe, 30,000-40,000 skin cells fall off you per minute, and on average 8.8 pounds of dead skin cells fall off your body per year.

      http://tobaccosmoke.exposurescience.org/abcs-of-shs/the-cigarette-is-a-major-source-of-pollution

      the average amount of PM2.5 mass emitted per cigarette is about 14 mg.
      14 mg of smoke.

      20 cigs/day = 102,200 mg per year of cig smoke.

      8.8 pounds of dead skin = 3,999,000 mg of dead skin per year.

      A smoking Mommy will produce 39 times as much dead skin per year as she does cigarette smoke.

      When her baby licks the floor or furniture, it is licking up 39 times as much of that Mommy’s dead skin as it does her 3rd hand cig smoke.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    First they came for the SMOKERS and you did nothing because you werent a smoker

    Then they came for the Fatties but you did nothing because you werent fat as per reformulated government formulas YET!

    Then they came after the ALCOHOL and you did nothing as you didnt drink!

    Then they came afterCoffee, soda pop,bagels with poppie seeds,crumpets and food of any kind but you did nothing as the government gave you SOILENT GREEN TO EAT!

    Then the government said woops your time is up,youve lived past the required age of death and its your turn into the food chain to BECOME SOILENT GREEN ie PINK SLIME!

    But remember you did nothing because you simply hated smokers to start with! From second hand smoke it all began,propaganda can kill you!
    ………………………………………………
    Caffeine is so dangerous that it should be regulated like alcohol and cigarettes, warns leading expert

    Dr Jack James claims that the stimulant is causing ‘untimely deaths’
    Says its ‘lethality’ is being underestimated as it’s widely considered harmless
    But caffeine is now in many everyday foods, drinks, medicines and toiletries, meaning we are unwittingly consuming or exposed to more than we think

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2285854/Caffeine-dangerous-regulated-like-alcohol-cigarettes-warns-leading-expert.html#ixzz2MIIFETU7
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2285854/Caffeine-dangerous-regulated-like-alcohol-cigarettes-warns-leading-expert.html

  8. Is it time for a British Unite the Right movement, and also a merger between the Conservatives and UKIP? Because if this result is replicated across the UK in 2015 there could be a large majority of votes cast for right wing parties but a massive left wing, Europhile majority in Westminster after the next election.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank something for the recipie book!

    http://thedrake01.com/2012/03/19/pink-slime-a-harbinger-of-soylent-green/

    Beef, Buffalo, Food costs, Food safety, Foods, Pink Slime
    Pink Slime: A Harbinger of “Soylent Green”?
    In General on March 19, 2012 at 10:56 am

    You may not have paid any more attention to “Pink Slime” than I have (most of us have some limit to the number of incipient catastrophes that we can track simultaneously). In case you missed Pink Slime’s 15 minutes of fame, the facts are few and the description is mercifully brief. When beef is slaughtered and a carcass is trimmed, there is some amount of fat, connective tissue, bloody effluent and miscellaneous bits of meat left over that were formerly used only for pet food. But a clever technologist figured how to collect the stuff, treat it with ammonia to kill various microbes that are frequently present, and form it into little squares to be added back to ground beef; the price of ground beef is considerably higher than that of pet food ingredients. Until this hamburger meat additive caught the attention of the media recently, we consumers were unaware of its existence.

    According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ground beef with Pink Slime filler of 25% or less is perfectly safe. The name, Pink Slime—obviously a pejorative—tells us that there are some people who don’t think much of the stuff. In fact, some literate food scientists originally called it “Soylent Pink” but fear of criticism, intellectual property theft lawsuits, or worse, triteness, caused the Soylent reference (book and 1970s movie) to be dropped. Needless to say, the manufacturers of this ground beef additive have a completely neutral marketing name that provides no hint of its ingredients.

    Now there seems to be a bit of political correctness coming out of the slime: McDonalds, Burger King, Taco Bell and other large chains fairly quickly foreswore Pink-Slime-impregnated hamburger meat in widely distributed press releases. It is likely, now that Pink Slime has been exposed to the light for a short while, that additional restaurant chains and big-name sellers of ground beef will follow. But in the meantime Soylent Pink is still alive and well in our land; and the two main producers of the stuff continue to find enthusiastic customers.

    We in the western, more-or-less-civilized world are apparently narrow in our repertoire of palatable foods. Even before exploring foods common to strange lands (insects, reptiles, etc.), we Americans demonstrate sensitivities to taste, aroma, texture, color, temperature, and—especially—the thought of certain foods. As children grow up, their tastes change a lot, as we all know. But the picky eaters discussed here are adults (in age, at least).

    At one company where I was employed we had a coworker who was extremely limited in what she would eat; in the years I knew her she never tried anything outside of her never-changing menu. When we selected a restaurant for one of our periodic department lunches it was a challenge to find an acceptable eating place (but she was a good sport, and on several occasions had coffee only with us, just to enable a little variety for the group).

    Because I grew up in a single-parent household, my sisters and I had for much of our lives a limited menu: that which was inexpensive and plentiful. As a result, when I began taking business trips (across the U. S. and beyond) there were a lot of dishes to which I had never been exposed, e.g., steaks tender and not cooked until dead, dead, dead. Within my narrow expense account limits (especially at the airline), a new world of taste sensations awaited.

    Today, very few of my food-learning experiences are worth the time it takes to tell them. Suffice to say that subjects included escargot, rattlesnake, elk, bear, chocolate-covered ants, fried grasshoppers, haggis, Scotch eggs, freshly-shot wild Belgian hares, numerous types of organ meats, and undoubtedly lots of stuff mercifully forgotten today. My memory tells me that only a very small minority were sufficiently repugnant to put on the never-give-it-a-second-chance list. But there was one consistent lesson: don’t let the thought of a new food get in the way of actually trying it.

    Luckily, I didn’t cringe at the thought of “grass-finished beef” (or grass-finished buffalo); in the past couple of years I had an outstanding steak from grass-finished beef, raised by a local rancher to the chef’s specifications (and a year or so later an excellent buffalo steak, from the same source). Soylent Pink versus Grass-finished Beef provides some interesting contrasts and a peek at our emotional responses to “almost taboos”.

    Pink Slime represents an edible food, irrespective of its palatability, whose potential value to human nutrition was previously not available. There seems to be no concern among the experts as to the taste of hamburger meat containing this additive. But there are two primary objections: (1), it is relatively new and potential long-term effects of the antimicrobial chemicals are unknown, and (2) the thoughts of “bloody effluent”, “connective tissue” (?), and “miscellaneous” (??) send our imaginations into negative overdrive. It is likely that a significant fraction of Americans would rather quickly assign Pink Slime to the same category of food as Scorpions and other such third-world delicacies.

    Grass-finished beef (often mistakenly called grass-fed beef), however, should not conjure up strange things. Grass is the natural food of cattle (although the designer of the unique bovine stomach is rarely given sufficient or frequent accolades). All cattle are grass-fed for most of their lives; grass-finished cattle have eaten nothing but grass, clear up to the point of maturity when they are slaughtered.

    Most of the beef products in the U.S. that we see in supermarkets and that we enjoy in restaurants come from cattle that have been shipped before maturity to feedlots where the animals are fed a grain diet specifically formulated to add fat quickly (beef cattle are sold by the pound to purchasers). The beef feedlot system is peculiar to the United States and is not utilized elsewhere. But it is a fact that today many large-scale beef purchasers need a balance of lean and fat meat (primarily for ground beef) that is not available domestically; therefore, more and more grass-finished lean beef is being imported from New Zealand and other countries.

    Each side in the grass-finished versus grain-finished debate seeks to convince us that their product is superior, just like politicians. The U.S. cattle feedlot industry has an enormous investment to protect, so we are more likely to be confronted with their side of the story, which is, essentially, “better taste, more tender”. The (smaller number of) producers of grass-finished cattle try to get their story before the public: “better taste, lower fat, more Omega-3, healthier”. Third parties not associated with the raising of cattle or the processing of meat occasionally get a few of their worries out to the public: corn utilization and price competition for it (because of ethanol subsidies); environmental concerns about feedlot operations; and humane treatment of the animals.

    But perhaps the media will perceive sufficient controversial content of this story to (inadvertently) introduce more of us to a “new” food alternative—grass-finished beef. Bon appetit!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Anyplace it says beef or meat simply insert HUMAN!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The (smaller number of) producers of grass-finished cattle try to get their story before the public: “better taste, lower fat, more Omega-3, healthier”. Third parties not associated with the raising of humans or the processing of human meat occasionally get a few of their worries out to the public: corn utilization and price competition for it (because of ethanol subsidies); environmental concerns about human feedlot operations; and inhumane treatment of the human animals.

      But perhaps the media will perceive sufficient controversial content of this story to (inadvertently) introduce more of us to a “new” food alternative—grass-finished humans. Bon appetit!

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

  11. Greg Burrows says:

    Frank we at UKIP will amend the smoking ban, I joined and have stood for UKIP after they hosted the TICAP meeting in Brussels in 2009, which was meant to be in the EU parliament buildings, this had been arranged by Godfrey Bloom, but was cancelled at the last minute by the EU anti-smoking brigade, luckily an alternative venue was found at the Silken Hotel, where Godfrey and Nigel Farage spoke, and Godfrey has spoken at two F2C meetings, UKIP are aware of the lies used to implement the ban, and the social division it has caused, not to mention the loss of pubs and jobs. Here is UKIP’s policy on amending the smoking ban. http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/pubs.pdf

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s