The Loneliness Triblogology

Freedom2Choose has an important series of blog posts on loneliness. There are three of them. The first is here, the second here, and the third here.

scream

It’s my own personal conviction that the really serious damage that smoking bans do is to the very fabric of human society. I’d like to try to explain how this happens and why it matters.

Smoking bans drive smokers from pubs and bars and cafes, and one result of this is that pubs and bars and cafes close down, and this is a visible consequence – ‘closed’ and ‘for sale’ signs spring up on the bankrupted pubs. Much less visible are the human communities that are also closed down. A pub or a cafe is a centre of community, a place where people meet and make or renew friendships. When the smokers have been driven out, these bonds of community begin to be broken, because they are no longer being repaired and renewed. The entire community (and not just the community of smokers) begins to unravel. But no ‘closed’ or ‘for sale’ signs go up on these communities. The loss is invisible.

One may think of a community as a number of interconnected nodes. The nodes represent individual people, and the lines connecting them represent the relationships between them, some close and some distant, some strong and some weak. At the outset, in a vibrant pub or cafe society, there will be lots of connections between people, lots of friendships and acquaintanceships. But when smoking bans expel smokers – even by just making them stand outside – they stretch and weaken and break many of these bonds of friendship. And the result is that the little society centred around a little cafe or bar becomes less cohesive. It may even disintegrate entirely. At which point the cafe or bar closes down, and the ‘for sale’ signs go up.
disintegration
One consequence of this, for example, is that more cohesive groups of friends may set up their own little convivial sub-communities in their own homes (e.g. ‘smoky-drinky places’) where they can continue to meet to enjoy each others company. But when this happens, the community as a whole has become fragmented, broken up into small groups of families or friends.

But because these groups of families or friends exist in private, it’s difficult for anyone to join them. The original vibrant, cohesive pub community was always being renewed and revivified with new people, even while illness and old age depleted them. The new private groups, starved of new members, are likely to in turn gradually become depleted, and themselves die out.

The end point of this process is one in which society has been entirely atomised, and consists of a set of atomic individuals, who have no connection whatsoever with one another, beyond that of an occasional casual encounter.

Does it matter if this happens to a society? Does it matter if communities disintegrate? The antismoking health establishment that has been demanding ever more extensive smoking bans does not seem to think it matters at all. The only thing that seems to matter to them is “health”, by which they mean the physical well-being of individual people. In their view, smoking bans improve “health” by “helping” smokers to give up the unhealthy habit of smoking. (It does not seem to occur to any of them that, when smokers are driven out of pubs and cafes to stand outside in the wind and cold and dark and rain, they are put at far greater risk than they were while they were smoking and drinking inside. Even by this crude measure of “health”, smoking bans are far more unhealthy than the alternative.)

If we are really to make a decisive improvement in this vacuous, one-eyed notion of “health”, it has to be said that the very best thing to do would be to close down all pubs and cafes. Because it’s not just smoking that is claimed to be bad for people’s health, but also drinking alcohol, and eating crisps and peanuts. All these things are deemed to pose “health risks” of one sort or other. But even if nobody smoked or drank or ate anything, and pubs became indistinguishable from churches, there would still be a discernible “health risk” simply from people transmitting communicable diseases (colds, flu, measles, mumps, etc) to each other. The “healthiest” society is quite obviously the atomised society in which nobody knows anybody else, and everybody stays at home.

And, who knows, perhaps this is what these antismoking health professionals would really like to see?

But let’s look a little more closely at what happens when communities disintegrate. These communities do not consist solely of shared friendships, but they also provide a network of mutual support. In these communities people actively help each other out in all sorts of ways, doing shopping for each other, lending things to each other, repairing things, cooking food, checking to see how people are. It’s not all just sitting in the pub talking about football. And when a community disintegrates, a network of support disintegrates too. People are left entirely to their own devices. And in the case of the elderly, their devices may be very limited, if they can no longer walk or read or hear. For such people, the death of the community is quite likely to be the death of them.

Nor is it that friendships and acquaintanceships are not important. A marriage is probably the greatest friendship that many people find. In marriages families are bound together by strong bonds. It is in these marriages and friendships and acquaintanceships that many people find meaning in their lives. Take away their marriages and friendships, and their lives become meaningless.

And in an even wider sense, it is through language and writing and music and art that human society is bound together. When people speak, it is so that someone else may hear. And when they write, it is so that someone else may read. And when they play guitar it is so that someone else may listen. Destroy society, and there is no point in anyone speaking or writing or painting or playing music, because all these activities are essentially and inherently social activities.

Smoking bans do not just drive pubs and cafes out of business. Nor is it even that they shatter communities. Smoking bans strike at the very heart of human society itself, and all its wealth of speech and literature and art and music. Smoking bans attack the core interconnectedness of human society. They are an assault upon humanity itself.

The foundations of human society do not lie in universities or government departments or shops or cinemas. The foundations of human society lies in the networks of millions upon millions of bonds of marriage and friendship which tie communities together. Shatter these bonds, and you shatter human society just as surely as you may fell with a power saw in a single afternoon a mighty oak tree that has taken hundreds of years to grow.

It’s not just that smoking bans don’t even improve “health” (even in the narrow and dwindled sense that antismokers use that word) at all. People carry on smoking and drinking anyway. They just stand outside and do it, and catch their death of cold. But what smoking bans do achieve is the destruction of communities, and the breaking of millions of bonds of affection and aid and support which go to make up the edifice of human society.

The antismoking “healthcare” industry is no better than a band of wolves which has been unleashed upon humanity to rend and tear it apart. Or else they are vandals armed with chainsaws. We have, as a matter of dire necessity, to rid ourselves of these people and all their works. For if we don’t there will no longer be any “we” to speak of.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

100 Responses to The Loneliness Triblogology

  1. Anonymous says:

    Loneliness
    Lysistrata here.
    A superb post, Frank. Thank you.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Loneliness
    Lysistrata here.
    A superb post, Frank. Thank you.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Loneliness
    Lysistrata here.
    A superb post, Frank. Thank you.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Beware the “Big Society”
    Having destroyed the cohesiveness of society with the smoking ban the “healthists” will now seek to take control of communities. How long will it be before the power being delegated to communities by the Government results in local laws pushed through by the very Partnerships and Alliances that supported a smoking ban.
    Look out for stricter local bans on smoking, alcohol and food being implemented all in the name of “it’s what the community wants”. But it won’t be the voice of Joe Public that will be heard but the concerted and organised bleatings of the Partnerships and Alliances.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Beware the “Big Society”
    Having destroyed the cohesiveness of society with the smoking ban the “healthists” will now seek to take control of communities. How long will it be before the power being delegated to communities by the Government results in local laws pushed through by the very Partnerships and Alliances that supported a smoking ban.
    Look out for stricter local bans on smoking, alcohol and food being implemented all in the name of “it’s what the community wants”. But it won’t be the voice of Joe Public that will be heard but the concerted and organised bleatings of the Partnerships and Alliances.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Beware the “Big Society”
    Having destroyed the cohesiveness of society with the smoking ban the “healthists” will now seek to take control of communities. How long will it be before the power being delegated to communities by the Government results in local laws pushed through by the very Partnerships and Alliances that supported a smoking ban.
    Look out for stricter local bans on smoking, alcohol and food being implemented all in the name of “it’s what the community wants”. But it won’t be the voice of Joe Public that will be heard but the concerted and organised bleatings of the Partnerships and Alliances.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Hope you don’t mind but I’ve nicked this – all of it – and posted it again, here:

  8. Anonymous says:

    Hope you don’t mind but I’ve nicked this – all of it – and posted it again, here:

  9. Anonymous says:

    Hope you don’t mind but I’ve nicked this – all of it – and posted it again, here:

  10. Anonymous says:

    I’ve nicked this – all of it – and reposted it here:
    http://wiganpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/02/smoking-bans-results.html
    Hope you don’t mind.

  11. Anonymous says:

    I’ve nicked this – all of it – and reposted it here:
    http://wiganpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/02/smoking-bans-results.html
    Hope you don’t mind.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I’ve nicked this – all of it – and reposted it here:
    http://wiganpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/02/smoking-bans-results.html
    Hope you don’t mind.

  13. Frank Davis says:

    Not a bit. Give my regards to Wigan.
    Frank

  14. Anonymous says:

    Social cohesion
    Another excellent thought of the day. Having enjoyed almost a full day of aloneness after a long week I now feel much more sociable and can now either go to the pub for last orders or sit in front of my pc. As there is a cold wind outside (and a boring emptiness in my local pub) I sit in front of my pc for a little while. I know next week is going to be a very busy one with work and social outings, so I make the most of a quiet “me” time.
    …..And in the case of the elderly, their devices may be very limited, if they can no longer walk or read or hear. For such people, the death of the community is quite likely to be the death of them.
    Nor is it that friendships and acquaintanceships are not important. A marriage is probably the greatest friendship that many people find. In marriages families are bound together by strong bonds. It is in these marriages and friendships and acquaintanceships that many people find meaning in their lives.

    Friendships/acquaintances/partners are a very important part of all our lives, more so for the elderly who experience the ‘wind that blows cold on the ones left behind’.
    I have noticed one thing last year when – impatiently – stood in a queue at the supermarket; a lot of elderly people start a conversation in which “I-used-to-go-to-the-bingo-once-a-week-but-it’s-not-the-same-with-this-blimmin’-smoking-ban”.
    And, yes, I do remember the crowd of “oldies” in the village pubs who, when finally saying: “Oi, aren’t you xxxx’s youngster? Sit down and have a drink on us”, graduated us into adulthood.
    I wonder how many of these great characters are now isolated and have to expect nothing more than loneliness until “the lid is put in place”.
    All for the benefit of health, ey?

  15. Anonymous says:

    Social cohesion
    Another excellent thought of the day. Having enjoyed almost a full day of aloneness after a long week I now feel much more sociable and can now either go to the pub for last orders or sit in front of my pc. As there is a cold wind outside (and a boring emptiness in my local pub) I sit in front of my pc for a little while. I know next week is going to be a very busy one with work and social outings, so I make the most of a quiet “me” time.
    …..And in the case of the elderly, their devices may be very limited, if they can no longer walk or read or hear. For such people, the death of the community is quite likely to be the death of them.
    Nor is it that friendships and acquaintanceships are not important. A marriage is probably the greatest friendship that many people find. In marriages families are bound together by strong bonds. It is in these marriages and friendships and acquaintanceships that many people find meaning in their lives.

    Friendships/acquaintances/partners are a very important part of all our lives, more so for the elderly who experience the ‘wind that blows cold on the ones left behind’.
    I have noticed one thing last year when – impatiently – stood in a queue at the supermarket; a lot of elderly people start a conversation in which “I-used-to-go-to-the-bingo-once-a-week-but-it’s-not-the-same-with-this-blimmin’-smoking-ban”.
    And, yes, I do remember the crowd of “oldies” in the village pubs who, when finally saying: “Oi, aren’t you xxxx’s youngster? Sit down and have a drink on us”, graduated us into adulthood.
    I wonder how many of these great characters are now isolated and have to expect nothing more than loneliness until “the lid is put in place”.
    All for the benefit of health, ey?

  16. Anonymous says:

    Social cohesion
    Another excellent thought of the day. Having enjoyed almost a full day of aloneness after a long week I now feel much more sociable and can now either go to the pub for last orders or sit in front of my pc. As there is a cold wind outside (and a boring emptiness in my local pub) I sit in front of my pc for a little while. I know next week is going to be a very busy one with work and social outings, so I make the most of a quiet “me” time.
    …..And in the case of the elderly, their devices may be very limited, if they can no longer walk or read or hear. For such people, the death of the community is quite likely to be the death of them.
    Nor is it that friendships and acquaintanceships are not important. A marriage is probably the greatest friendship that many people find. In marriages families are bound together by strong bonds. It is in these marriages and friendships and acquaintanceships that many people find meaning in their lives.

    Friendships/acquaintances/partners are a very important part of all our lives, more so for the elderly who experience the ‘wind that blows cold on the ones left behind’.
    I have noticed one thing last year when – impatiently – stood in a queue at the supermarket; a lot of elderly people start a conversation in which “I-used-to-go-to-the-bingo-once-a-week-but-it’s-not-the-same-with-this-blimmin’-smoking-ban”.
    And, yes, I do remember the crowd of “oldies” in the village pubs who, when finally saying: “Oi, aren’t you xxxx’s youngster? Sit down and have a drink on us”, graduated us into adulthood.
    I wonder how many of these great characters are now isolated and have to expect nothing more than loneliness until “the lid is put in place”.
    All for the benefit of health, ey?

  17. Anonymous says:

    Thank You
    Thanks for the link, Frank – and for highlighting this side of the ban that gets forgotten.
    The most terrible thing about all this is that the people behind the bans know exactly what is happening. Rose posted some links a few days ago here, and there were links on that CAGE find (the outdoor ban ‘toolkit’) that lead to studies showing what the consequences of ‘denormalising’ smokers are: stigmatisation, isolation and embarrassment. These last two are played down as inconsequential compared with ‘real’ damage.
    Far from rethinking this evil policy the answer for the anti-smoking sociopaths is MORE smoking cessation ‘support’. If people are lonely, then health sevice providers must try harder to make them give up smoking.
    I don’t think this subject will go away any time soon.
    Karen

  18. Anonymous says:

    Thank You
    Thanks for the link, Frank – and for highlighting this side of the ban that gets forgotten.
    The most terrible thing about all this is that the people behind the bans know exactly what is happening. Rose posted some links a few days ago here, and there were links on that CAGE find (the outdoor ban ‘toolkit’) that lead to studies showing what the consequences of ‘denormalising’ smokers are: stigmatisation, isolation and embarrassment. These last two are played down as inconsequential compared with ‘real’ damage.
    Far from rethinking this evil policy the answer for the anti-smoking sociopaths is MORE smoking cessation ‘support’. If people are lonely, then health sevice providers must try harder to make them give up smoking.
    I don’t think this subject will go away any time soon.
    Karen

  19. Anonymous says:

    Thank You
    Thanks for the link, Frank – and for highlighting this side of the ban that gets forgotten.
    The most terrible thing about all this is that the people behind the bans know exactly what is happening. Rose posted some links a few days ago here, and there were links on that CAGE find (the outdoor ban ‘toolkit’) that lead to studies showing what the consequences of ‘denormalising’ smokers are: stigmatisation, isolation and embarrassment. These last two are played down as inconsequential compared with ‘real’ damage.
    Far from rethinking this evil policy the answer for the anti-smoking sociopaths is MORE smoking cessation ‘support’. If people are lonely, then health sevice providers must try harder to make them give up smoking.
    I don’t think this subject will go away any time soon.
    Karen

  20. Anonymous says:

    I remember saying to someone a long, long, long time ago – way before the smoking ban was even a twinkle in the antis’ eye (I think the conversation was about the increasing number of hours which people felt obliged to work these days even when they weren’t paid overtime, and thus how tired everyone always seemed to feel), that what “they” seemed to want for the majority of people in this country was for them to get up, go to work, go home, eat, watch some mindless TV, go to bed and then get up and do it all again ad infinitim.
    At the time this was just a sort of vague theorising, but as the smoking ban loomed closer – then arrived – and as further and further inroads are made into so many areas of our lives where we can go out, socialise, meet other people, form friendships, meet lovers, chew the fat a bit, and just – well – connect with each other, this idea now seems to be becoming a miserable reality. Even friendships formed at work – about the only place where many of us still regularly go and mix with other people – are now, often, rather disapproved-of by many employers, who seem to think that colleagues fraternising with each other is somehow a “bad thing,” as if their sole function is to keep their noses to the grindstone and that any extension to this of one’s own volition – even if in one’s own time – is somehow taking advantage! No wonder internet dating sites are springing up all over the place!
    Even non-smokers I know can’t be bothered to go out these days, and not just to pubs, either, and it’s certainly not about having to smoke outside for them. As one of my non-smoking friends said to me not long ago – nothing seems to be fun any more. No-one seems to have any “oomph” – men are terrified of talking to women because they might be accused of harrassing them, and women are afraid to talk to men in case they are secretly axe-wielding serial killers! Even when she does make the effort to go out she usually ends up wondering why on earth she went to all that bother just to sit in a different place with the same people she could have sat at home with for a quarter of the cost and much less effort. She agrees that the downturn started at pretty much the exact same time that the smoking ban came in, although she, like me, can’t quite understand exactly why that should have affected non-smokers like her in such a drastic way, and it is hard to pin down exactly what, along with tobacco smoke, was banished from social venues in 2007. As you say, it’s a sort of intangible quality that can’t be measured as such – which is probably why the anti-smokers find it so easy to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it isn’t really happening.
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the smoking ban is just part of a much, much bigger social “plan.” It is not, and never has been, about public health, employee health or even about pandering to the wishes of those who don’t like the smell of smoke. And anybody who genuinely, truly still believes that it is, or ever was, about any of those things is not only deluding themselves, but they’ve also got some nasty shocks coming their way in the not-too-distant future ……

  21. Anonymous says:

    I remember saying to someone a long, long, long time ago – way before the smoking ban was even a twinkle in the antis’ eye (I think the conversation was about the increasing number of hours which people felt obliged to work these days even when they weren’t paid overtime, and thus how tired everyone always seemed to feel), that what “they” seemed to want for the majority of people in this country was for them to get up, go to work, go home, eat, watch some mindless TV, go to bed and then get up and do it all again ad infinitim.
    At the time this was just a sort of vague theorising, but as the smoking ban loomed closer – then arrived – and as further and further inroads are made into so many areas of our lives where we can go out, socialise, meet other people, form friendships, meet lovers, chew the fat a bit, and just – well – connect with each other, this idea now seems to be becoming a miserable reality. Even friendships formed at work – about the only place where many of us still regularly go and mix with other people – are now, often, rather disapproved-of by many employers, who seem to think that colleagues fraternising with each other is somehow a “bad thing,” as if their sole function is to keep their noses to the grindstone and that any extension to this of one’s own volition – even if in one’s own time – is somehow taking advantage! No wonder internet dating sites are springing up all over the place!
    Even non-smokers I know can’t be bothered to go out these days, and not just to pubs, either, and it’s certainly not about having to smoke outside for them. As one of my non-smoking friends said to me not long ago – nothing seems to be fun any more. No-one seems to have any “oomph” – men are terrified of talking to women because they might be accused of harrassing them, and women are afraid to talk to men in case they are secretly axe-wielding serial killers! Even when she does make the effort to go out she usually ends up wondering why on earth she went to all that bother just to sit in a different place with the same people she could have sat at home with for a quarter of the cost and much less effort. She agrees that the downturn started at pretty much the exact same time that the smoking ban came in, although she, like me, can’t quite understand exactly why that should have affected non-smokers like her in such a drastic way, and it is hard to pin down exactly what, along with tobacco smoke, was banished from social venues in 2007. As you say, it’s a sort of intangible quality that can’t be measured as such – which is probably why the anti-smokers find it so easy to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it isn’t really happening.
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the smoking ban is just part of a much, much bigger social “plan.” It is not, and never has been, about public health, employee health or even about pandering to the wishes of those who don’t like the smell of smoke. And anybody who genuinely, truly still believes that it is, or ever was, about any of those things is not only deluding themselves, but they’ve also got some nasty shocks coming their way in the not-too-distant future ……

    • Frank Davis says:

      it’s a sort of intangible quality that can’t be measured as such – which is probably why the anti-smokers find it so easy to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it isn’t really happening.
      I’ll probably return to this sometime. Pub closures are real, if only because ‘for sale’ signs go up outside them. But the decimation of communities is invisible. Also a price can be put on a business like a pub. The same can’t be said of friendships. For this reason, I think antismokers more or less completely discount social damage, simply because it can’t be measured, and so isn’t happening. The blinkered way they look at the world simply excludes these things.
      The antis look at the world differently in other ways. I quite often get the strong impression that they believe that when people have been made to stop smoking, and are ‘healthier’, they will also work more efficiently. In their view, people are principally workers, and any time off they get is a sign of economic inefficiency. I suspect that they would like to close down all pubs and cafes simply because people sit around in them drinking and talking, when they could be better employed. It’s really the sort of attitude that a slave-owner might take to his slaves. He wants to see them working.
      My own view is that this isn’t how society works (except in slave societies, of course), and that what free people actually do is to work to produce the idle time in which they can do things they enjoy like sit in pubs drinking and talking. Far from being indicators of economic inefficiency, pubs and bars and cafes are indicators of economic success: people are doing what they want to, and that’s the whole point. The rather paradoxical notion of working in order to produce leisure is explored in Idle Theory.
      Should these fools succeed in creating a new slave society, the result will not be improved efficiency, even by their own measure, but something more like the collapse of the economy, simply because nobody will have any incentive to do any work, because nothing is to be gained from innovation and invention.
      the smoking ban is just part of a much, much bigger social “plan.”
      It may be. Sometimes I think it is. But I usually end up concluding that they simply don’t know what they’re doing.
      Frank

    • Frank Davis says:

      it’s a sort of intangible quality that can’t be measured as such – which is probably why the anti-smokers find it so easy to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it isn’t really happening.
      I’ll probably return to this sometime. Pub closures are real, if only because ‘for sale’ signs go up outside them. But the decimation of communities is invisible. Also a price can be put on a business like a pub. The same can’t be said of friendships. For this reason, I think antismokers more or less completely discount social damage, simply because it can’t be measured, and so isn’t happening. The blinkered way they look at the world simply excludes these things.
      The antis look at the world differently in other ways. I quite often get the strong impression that they believe that when people have been made to stop smoking, and are ‘healthier’, they will also work more efficiently. In their view, people are principally workers, and any time off they get is a sign of economic inefficiency. I suspect that they would like to close down all pubs and cafes simply because people sit around in them drinking and talking, when they could be better employed. It’s really the sort of attitude that a slave-owner might take to his slaves. He wants to see them working.
      My own view is that this isn’t how society works (except in slave societies, of course), and that what free people actually do is to work to produce the idle time in which they can do things they enjoy like sit in pubs drinking and talking. Far from being indicators of economic inefficiency, pubs and bars and cafes are indicators of economic success: people are doing what they want to, and that’s the whole point. The rather paradoxical notion of working in order to produce leisure is explored in Idle Theory.
      Should these fools succeed in creating a new slave society, the result will not be improved efficiency, even by their own measure, but something more like the collapse of the economy, simply because nobody will have any incentive to do any work, because nothing is to be gained from innovation and invention.
      the smoking ban is just part of a much, much bigger social “plan.”
      It may be. Sometimes I think it is. But I usually end up concluding that they simply don’t know what they’re doing.
      Frank

    • Anonymous says:

      The Plan
      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the smoking ban is just part of a much, much bigger social “plan.” It is not, and never has been, about public health, employee health or even about pandering to the wishes of those who don’t like the smell of smoke. And anybody who genuinely, truly still believes that it is, or ever was, about any of those things is not only deluding themselves, but they’ve also got some nasty shocks coming their way in the not-too-distant future …
      (Ellipses only have 3 dots!)
      I’m convinced that there is an old soviet influence plan coming to ‘fruition’…
      Even poison weeds ‘fruit’!
      ASH, SFC, in the (intended) end, may be just be (have been) “useful idiots”…
      (That’s very small or no confort for the bright smokers suffering their collective idiocies!)
      Krushkchev, I remember reading, said to his American counterparts at the time, something like:
      “Your children may not live under communism, but your grandchildren will”.
      [Searching to confirm my idea of that phrase, I came across this:]
      _

      FP: It does appear that communism did not really “die” in 1991 as the West portrayed and understood its death. Indeed, the Soviets did have some kind of plan and it has something to do with Putin and his gang being in power today. Expand on this for us.
      McNew: In 1959 Nikita Khrushchev boasted to a US cabinet member “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”
      As Jeff Nyquist points out, “It is noteworthy that Khrushchev did not say, “You will live under communism.” He also did not say, “Your children will live under communism.” He told his American opposites that their grandchildren would live under communism. Khrushchev was admitting that Moscow’s plan was a long-range plan, involving decades of work.”

      _
      And I used to read Jeff Nyquist, archives now sidelined here:
      (worth downloading – a few links don’t work, but it was going to disappear last November – grab what you can!)
      http://www.financialsensearchive.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/main.html
      As

    • Anonymous says:

      The Plan
      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the smoking ban is just part of a much, much bigger social “plan.” It is not, and never has been, about public health, employee health or even about pandering to the wishes of those who don’t like the smell of smoke. And anybody who genuinely, truly still believes that it is, or ever was, about any of those things is not only deluding themselves, but they’ve also got some nasty shocks coming their way in the not-too-distant future …
      (Ellipses only have 3 dots!)
      I’m convinced that there is an old soviet influence plan coming to ‘fruition’…
      Even poison weeds ‘fruit’!
      ASH, SFC, in the (intended) end, may be just be (have been) “useful idiots”…
      (That’s very small or no confort for the bright smokers suffering their collective idiocies!)
      Krushkchev, I remember reading, said to his American counterparts at the time, something like:
      “Your children may not live under communism, but your grandchildren will”.
      [Searching to confirm my idea of that phrase, I came across this:]
      _

      FP: It does appear that communism did not really “die” in 1991 as the West portrayed and understood its death. Indeed, the Soviets did have some kind of plan and it has something to do with Putin and his gang being in power today. Expand on this for us.
      McNew: In 1959 Nikita Khrushchev boasted to a US cabinet member “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”
      As Jeff Nyquist points out, “It is noteworthy that Khrushchev did not say, “You will live under communism.” He also did not say, “Your children will live under communism.” He told his American opposites that their grandchildren would live under communism. Khrushchev was admitting that Moscow’s plan was a long-range plan, involving decades of work.”

      _
      And I used to read Jeff Nyquist, archives now sidelined here:
      (worth downloading – a few links don’t work, but it was going to disappear last November – grab what you can!)
      http://www.financialsensearchive.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/main.html
      As

  22. Anonymous says:

    I remember saying to someone a long, long, long time ago – way before the smoking ban was even a twinkle in the antis’ eye (I think the conversation was about the increasing number of hours which people felt obliged to work these days even when they weren’t paid overtime, and thus how tired everyone always seemed to feel), that what “they” seemed to want for the majority of people in this country was for them to get up, go to work, go home, eat, watch some mindless TV, go to bed and then get up and do it all again ad infinitim.
    At the time this was just a sort of vague theorising, but as the smoking ban loomed closer – then arrived – and as further and further inroads are made into so many areas of our lives where we can go out, socialise, meet other people, form friendships, meet lovers, chew the fat a bit, and just – well – connect with each other, this idea now seems to be becoming a miserable reality. Even friendships formed at work – about the only place where many of us still regularly go and mix with other people – are now, often, rather disapproved-of by many employers, who seem to think that colleagues fraternising with each other is somehow a “bad thing,” as if their sole function is to keep their noses to the grindstone and that any extension to this of one’s own volition – even if in one’s own time – is somehow taking advantage! No wonder internet dating sites are springing up all over the place!
    Even non-smokers I know can’t be bothered to go out these days, and not just to pubs, either, and it’s certainly not about having to smoke outside for them. As one of my non-smoking friends said to me not long ago – nothing seems to be fun any more. No-one seems to have any “oomph” – men are terrified of talking to women because they might be accused of harrassing them, and women are afraid to talk to men in case they are secretly axe-wielding serial killers! Even when she does make the effort to go out she usually ends up wondering why on earth she went to all that bother just to sit in a different place with the same people she could have sat at home with for a quarter of the cost and much less effort. She agrees that the downturn started at pretty much the exact same time that the smoking ban came in, although she, like me, can’t quite understand exactly why that should have affected non-smokers like her in such a drastic way, and it is hard to pin down exactly what, along with tobacco smoke, was banished from social venues in 2007. As you say, it’s a sort of intangible quality that can’t be measured as such – which is probably why the anti-smokers find it so easy to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it isn’t really happening.
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the smoking ban is just part of a much, much bigger social “plan.” It is not, and never has been, about public health, employee health or even about pandering to the wishes of those who don’t like the smell of smoke. And anybody who genuinely, truly still believes that it is, or ever was, about any of those things is not only deluding themselves, but they’ve also got some nasty shocks coming their way in the not-too-distant future ……

  23. Anonymous says:

    Good article
    I’ve been thinking the breaking of ‘society’ or perhaps more accuately ‘community’ is what the smoking ban is really all about for some time but this is a very, very good article that should be sent to every newspaper and ‘politician’ in the land – if only journalists and politicians had a soul and a heart it would achieve something!

  24. Anonymous says:

    Good article
    I’ve been thinking the breaking of ‘society’ or perhaps more accuately ‘community’ is what the smoking ban is really all about for some time but this is a very, very good article that should be sent to every newspaper and ‘politician’ in the land – if only journalists and politicians had a soul and a heart it would achieve something!

  25. Anonymous says:

    Good article
    I’ve been thinking the breaking of ‘society’ or perhaps more accuately ‘community’ is what the smoking ban is really all about for some time but this is a very, very good article that should be sent to every newspaper and ‘politician’ in the land – if only journalists and politicians had a soul and a heart it would achieve something!

  26. Frank Davis says:

    Like Leg Iron, DP. Subrosa (even though she is very SNP!), Snowdon, etc you are essentially pro-freedom and anti-tyranny and anti-brainwashing and anti-ban. I am sure that that is correct.
    Yes, that’s about it. I’ve really only become ‘political’ over the past few years, and almost entirely in response to the smoking ban. As I’ve mentioned several times before, I used to vote Lib Dem, and regarded myself as a bit left wing.
    I posted my response to the Wigan chap before I’d looked at his website. It would seem that he is indeed BNP. Not that I mind. It simply makes me think that the BNP don’t like the smoking ban either (something I’ve read before). If so, good for them.
    Frank

  27. Frank Davis says:

    Like Leg Iron, DP. Subrosa (even though she is very SNP!), Snowdon, etc you are essentially pro-freedom and anti-tyranny and anti-brainwashing and anti-ban. I am sure that that is correct.
    Yes, that’s about it. I’ve really only become ‘political’ over the past few years, and almost entirely in response to the smoking ban. As I’ve mentioned several times before, I used to vote Lib Dem, and regarded myself as a bit left wing.
    I posted my response to the Wigan chap before I’d looked at his website. It would seem that he is indeed BNP. Not that I mind. It simply makes me think that the BNP don’t like the smoking ban either (something I’ve read before). If so, good for them.
    Frank

  28. Frank Davis says:

    Like Leg Iron, DP. Subrosa (even though she is very SNP!), Snowdon, etc you are essentially pro-freedom and anti-tyranny and anti-brainwashing and anti-ban. I am sure that that is correct.
    Yes, that’s about it. I’ve really only become ‘political’ over the past few years, and almost entirely in response to the smoking ban. As I’ve mentioned several times before, I used to vote Lib Dem, and regarded myself as a bit left wing.
    I posted my response to the Wigan chap before I’d looked at his website. It would seem that he is indeed BNP. Not that I mind. It simply makes me think that the BNP don’t like the smoking ban either (something I’ve read before). If so, good for them.
    Frank

  29. Frank Davis says:

    it’s a sort of intangible quality that can’t be measured as such – which is probably why the anti-smokers find it so easy to sweep it under the carpet and pretend it isn’t really happening.
    I’ll probably return to this sometime. Pub closures are real, if only because ‘for sale’ signs go up outside them. But the decimation of communities is invisible. Also a price can be put on a business like a pub. The same can’t be said of friendships. For this reason, I think antismokers more or less completely discount social damage, simply because it can’t be measured, and so isn’t happening. The blinkered way they look at the world simply excludes these things.
    The antis look at the world differently in other ways. I quite often get the strong impression that they believe that when people have been made to stop smoking, and are ‘healthier’, they will also work more efficiently. In their view, people are principally workers, and any time off they get is a sign of economic inefficiency. I suspect that they would like to close down all pubs and cafes simply because people sit around in them drinking and talking, when they could be better employed. It’s really the sort of attitude that a slave-owner might take to his slaves. He wants to see them working.
    My own view is that this isn’t how society works (except in slave societies, of course), and that what free people actually do is to work to produce the idle time in which they can do things they enjoy like sit in pubs drinking and talking. Far from being indicators of economic inefficiency, pubs and bars and cafes are indicators of economic success: people are doing what they want to, and that’s the whole point. The rather paradoxical notion of working in order to produce leisure is explored in Idle Theory.
    Should these fools succeed in creating a new slave society, the result will not be improved efficiency, even by their own measure, but something more like the collapse of the economy, simply because nobody will have any incentive to do any work, because nothing is to be gained from innovation and invention.
    the smoking ban is just part of a much, much bigger social “plan.”
    It may be. Sometimes I think it is. But I usually end up concluding that they simply don’t know what they’re doing.
    Frank

  30. Anonymous says:

    Wigan Patriot
    As a contributor to the British National Supporting Site Wigan Patriot, maybe you should take some time in checking out a few of the articles on there rather than just jump in with an ANTI- view. Even though you say your NOT an ANTI.
    Now, if you look at what has happened to our Country, Communities etc over the past New labour years you may notice that it is being destroyed.
    Those that have been destroying our Country and Communities are the same ones who demand that you all become ANTI-British National Party, ANTI-PATRIOTIC etc.
    Now that’s upto you how you respond to the calls of those that have been destroying our country.
    But before condeming us please read a few of the articles which we at Wigan Patriot have written.
    Somehow I think you will be surprised that you won’t find anything RACIST, FASCIST or NAZI on our Blog.
    If you don’t wish to find out for yourself please don’t jump in like a spoiled child. Did you think your complaint about Wigan Patriot would somehow bring derision from this Blogs Author and a great pat on the back for you ?
    Rather Childish and Immature from you junican.
    Apollogy to you Frank for my minor rant.
    Keep up the good work, all we have done is help spread your message.
    Cheers,
    Silly Kuffar.
    http://wiganpatriot.blogspot.co

  31. Anonymous says:

    Wigan Patriot
    As a contributor to the British National Supporting Site Wigan Patriot, maybe you should take some time in checking out a few of the articles on there rather than just jump in with an ANTI- view. Even though you say your NOT an ANTI.
    Now, if you look at what has happened to our Country, Communities etc over the past New labour years you may notice that it is being destroyed.
    Those that have been destroying our Country and Communities are the same ones who demand that you all become ANTI-British National Party, ANTI-PATRIOTIC etc.
    Now that’s upto you how you respond to the calls of those that have been destroying our country.
    But before condeming us please read a few of the articles which we at Wigan Patriot have written.
    Somehow I think you will be surprised that you won’t find anything RACIST, FASCIST or NAZI on our Blog.
    If you don’t wish to find out for yourself please don’t jump in like a spoiled child. Did you think your complaint about Wigan Patriot would somehow bring derision from this Blogs Author and a great pat on the back for you ?
    Rather Childish and Immature from you junican.
    Apollogy to you Frank for my minor rant.
    Keep up the good work, all we have done is help spread your message.
    Cheers,
    Silly Kuffar.
    http://wiganpatriot.blogspot.co

    • Anonymous says:

      Re: Wigan Patriot
      It has occurred to me that, while not agreeing with the policies of the BNP, it would make a bigger political impact were smokers to vote BNP as a protest instead of voting UKIP. Things like the Advocacy Toolkit show that the antis are not fighting a fair fight and the weapons at our disposal, namely logic and common sense, are easily dismissed. We must do what our enemy fears the most, and I’m sure the LibLabCon must be laughing at people (such as myself) who protest by voting UKIP.
      In war sometimes morality must take a back seat.

      • Frank Davis says:

        Re: Wigan Patriot
        it would make a bigger political impact were smokers to vote BNP as a protest instead of voting UKIP.
        Interesting point. One I thought about a while back. I believe (but I’m not sure) that the BNP is pro-smoking (or at least anti-antismoking). That makes it the enemy of my enemy. i.e. the enemy of ASH and co. These days that’s pretty much enough to get my vote. It’s the main reason why UKIP has my vote, after all. So, if the BNP were standing in my constituency, and UKIP weren’t, I’d actually be quite likely to vote BNP. Or at least I’d think very hard about doing so.
        The BNP is a pretty thoroughly publicly demonised party. And, speaking as a demonised smoker, I can well see why demonised and excluded smokers might find a natural home in the demonised and excluded BNP. The same might apply to drinkers and fat people. It would be a marriage made not in heaven, but in hell. Yes, maybe it would send a message.
        It reminds me of the suggestion that a friend of mine made a year or so back, that maybe we should start going to church again. Not because we believed in God or any of the teachings of the church, but simply to be part of their community, and be there with them. After all, the church is being demonised as well, these days. “Denormalised” was actually the word the archbishop of Canterbury used not long ago.
        Frank

        • Anonymous says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          I get the impression they’re pledging a full repeal, as opposed to UKIP’s amendment.

        • Anonymous says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          I get the impression they’re pledging a full repeal, as opposed to UKIP’s amendment.

        • Anonymous says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          I think that one of the reasons why voters are increasingly turning to the BNP is because they are pretty much the only party to “say the un-sayable” – like discussing the smoking ban. It isn’t always pretty, and their proposals to deal with things are as likely to make them enemies as much as it may win them friends, but I guess the point I’m making here is that at least they aren’t ducking issues because they are too much of a political “hot potato.” Quite frankly, people are fed up with voting for one thing and then getting the complete opposite. Where is the support for business and employers which is traditionally associated with the Conservatives? Where was the social justice and championing of the underdog which is traditionally the trademark of Labour? Where is the striving for freedom and choice and tolerance and individuality which was always the hallmark of the Lib-Dems?
          I’ll be honest and say that I really don’t like a lot of the BNP’s policies, but that’s not because of what I’ve read in the MSM because, as Frank points out, as a smoker, I know only too well how “targeted demonisation” works and I know how grossly inaccurate it can be. So whenever I read anything about the “racist BNP” or the “violent EDL” I take it with the same-sized pinch of salt as I do when I read about “selfish smokers” or “binge drinkers” or “dangerous dogs.” The thing is, I have actually taken the time and trouble to read the BNP’s website and their recent manifestoes and there is an attitude which informs their policies which I find somewhat worrying, to say the least. But the fact is that my hatred for the smoking ban, and my deep fears for its wider ramifications, is such that, like Frank, it outweighs my distaste for any party’s policies and in the absence of a UKIP (or any other ban-changing) candidate in my area, they’d get my vote. I really do think that it is that important as an issue – it certainly isn’t just about “smoking” or “not smoking.” “Any port in a storm,” as they say – and at the moment the BNP and UKIP are, quite simply, the only ports available for the storm-besieged smoking community.
          And the fact that all of the major parties would no doubt turn a deliberately “deaf ear” to such reasoning if it were pointed out to them in and of itself indicates why they are haemorrhaging support and losing voters as fast as the BNP (and, indeed, UKIP) are gaining them.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          So whenever I read anything about the “racist BNP” or the “violent EDL” I take it with the same-sized pinch of salt as I do when I read about “selfish smokers” or “binge drinkers” or “dangerous dogs.”
          Me too.
          The thing is, I have actually taken the time and trouble to read the BNP’s website and their recent manifestoes and there is an attitude which informs their policies which I find somewhat worrying, to say the least.
          Like what? I’ve not read much BNP stuff.
          But the fact is that my hatred for the smoking ban, and my deep fears for its wider ramifications, is such that, like Frank, it outweighs my distaste for any party’s policies and in the absence of a UKIP (or any other ban-changing) candidate in my area, they’d get my vote.
          I didn’t say that I actually would vote BNP. But I’ve never been put on the spot, as I would if an election in my constituency had Lib, Lab, and Con antismoking candidates, and a pro-smoking BNP candidate, and nobody else.
          I really do think that it is that important as an issue – it certainly isn’t just about “smoking” or “not smoking.” “Any port in a storm,” as they say – and at the moment the BNP and UKIP are, quite simply, the only ports available for the storm-besieged smoking community.
          I (almost) entirely agree. Because it is that important, in my view.
          Frank

        • Frank Davis says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          So whenever I read anything about the “racist BNP” or the “violent EDL” I take it with the same-sized pinch of salt as I do when I read about “selfish smokers” or “binge drinkers” or “dangerous dogs.”
          Me too.
          The thing is, I have actually taken the time and trouble to read the BNP’s website and their recent manifestoes and there is an attitude which informs their policies which I find somewhat worrying, to say the least.
          Like what? I’ve not read much BNP stuff.
          But the fact is that my hatred for the smoking ban, and my deep fears for its wider ramifications, is such that, like Frank, it outweighs my distaste for any party’s policies and in the absence of a UKIP (or any other ban-changing) candidate in my area, they’d get my vote.
          I didn’t say that I actually would vote BNP. But I’ve never been put on the spot, as I would if an election in my constituency had Lib, Lab, and Con antismoking candidates, and a pro-smoking BNP candidate, and nobody else.
          I really do think that it is that important as an issue – it certainly isn’t just about “smoking” or “not smoking.” “Any port in a storm,” as they say – and at the moment the BNP and UKIP are, quite simply, the only ports available for the storm-besieged smoking community.
          I (almost) entirely agree. Because it is that important, in my view.
          Frank

        • Anonymous says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          I think that one of the reasons why voters are increasingly turning to the BNP is because they are pretty much the only party to “say the un-sayable” – like discussing the smoking ban. It isn’t always pretty, and their proposals to deal with things are as likely to make them enemies as much as it may win them friends, but I guess the point I’m making here is that at least they aren’t ducking issues because they are too much of a political “hot potato.” Quite frankly, people are fed up with voting for one thing and then getting the complete opposite. Where is the support for business and employers which is traditionally associated with the Conservatives? Where was the social justice and championing of the underdog which is traditionally the trademark of Labour? Where is the striving for freedom and choice and tolerance and individuality which was always the hallmark of the Lib-Dems?
          I’ll be honest and say that I really don’t like a lot of the BNP’s policies, but that’s not because of what I’ve read in the MSM because, as Frank points out, as a smoker, I know only too well how “targeted demonisation” works and I know how grossly inaccurate it can be. So whenever I read anything about the “racist BNP” or the “violent EDL” I take it with the same-sized pinch of salt as I do when I read about “selfish smokers” or “binge drinkers” or “dangerous dogs.” The thing is, I have actually taken the time and trouble to read the BNP’s website and their recent manifestoes and there is an attitude which informs their policies which I find somewhat worrying, to say the least. But the fact is that my hatred for the smoking ban, and my deep fears for its wider ramifications, is such that, like Frank, it outweighs my distaste for any party’s policies and in the absence of a UKIP (or any other ban-changing) candidate in my area, they’d get my vote. I really do think that it is that important as an issue – it certainly isn’t just about “smoking” or “not smoking.” “Any port in a storm,” as they say – and at the moment the BNP and UKIP are, quite simply, the only ports available for the storm-besieged smoking community.
          And the fact that all of the major parties would no doubt turn a deliberately “deaf ear” to such reasoning if it were pointed out to them in and of itself indicates why they are haemorrhaging support and losing voters as fast as the BNP (and, indeed, UKIP) are gaining them.

      • Frank Davis says:

        Re: Wigan Patriot
        it would make a bigger political impact were smokers to vote BNP as a protest instead of voting UKIP.
        Interesting point. One I thought about a while back. I believe (but I’m not sure) that the BNP is pro-smoking (or at least anti-antismoking). That makes it the enemy of my enemy. i.e. the enemy of ASH and co. These days that’s pretty much enough to get my vote. It’s the main reason why UKIP has my vote, after all. So, if the BNP were standing in my constituency, and UKIP weren’t, I’d actually be quite likely to vote BNP. Or at least I’d think very hard about doing so.
        The BNP is a pretty thoroughly publicly demonised party. And, speaking as a demonised smoker, I can well see why demonised and excluded smokers might find a natural home in the demonised and excluded BNP. The same might apply to drinkers and fat people. It would be a marriage made not in heaven, but in hell. Yes, maybe it would send a message.
        It reminds me of the suggestion that a friend of mine made a year or so back, that maybe we should start going to church again. Not because we believed in God or any of the teachings of the church, but simply to be part of their community, and be there with them. After all, the church is being demonised as well, these days. “Denormalised” was actually the word the archbishop of Canterbury used not long ago.
        Frank

    • Anonymous says:

      Re: Wigan Patriot
      It has occurred to me that, while not agreeing with the policies of the BNP, it would make a bigger political impact were smokers to vote BNP as a protest instead of voting UKIP. Things like the Advocacy Toolkit show that the antis are not fighting a fair fight and the weapons at our disposal, namely logic and common sense, are easily dismissed. We must do what our enemy fears the most, and I’m sure the LibLabCon must be laughing at people (such as myself) who protest by voting UKIP.
      In war sometimes morality must take a back seat.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Wigan Patriot
    As a contributor to the British National Supporting Site Wigan Patriot, maybe you should take some time in checking out a few of the articles on there rather than just jump in with an ANTI- view. Even though you say your NOT an ANTI.
    Now, if you look at what has happened to our Country, Communities etc over the past New labour years you may notice that it is being destroyed.
    Those that have been destroying our Country and Communities are the same ones who demand that you all become ANTI-British National Party, ANTI-PATRIOTIC etc.
    Now that’s upto you how you respond to the calls of those that have been destroying our country.
    But before condeming us please read a few of the articles which we at Wigan Patriot have written.
    Somehow I think you will be surprised that you won’t find anything RACIST, FASCIST or NAZI on our Blog.
    If you don’t wish to find out for yourself please don’t jump in like a spoiled child. Did you think your complaint about Wigan Patriot would somehow bring derision from this Blogs Author and a great pat on the back for you ?
    Rather Childish and Immature from you junican.
    Apollogy to you Frank for my minor rant.
    Keep up the good work, all we have done is help spread your message.
    Cheers,
    Silly Kuffar.
    http://wiganpatriot.blogspot.co

  33. Anonymous says:

    Re: Wigan Patriot
    It has occurred to me that, while not agreeing with the policies of the BNP, it would make a bigger political impact were smokers to vote BNP as a protest instead of voting UKIP. Things like the Advocacy Toolkit show that the antis are not fighting a fair fight and the weapons at our disposal, namely logic and common sense, are easily dismissed. We must do what our enemy fears the most, and I’m sure the LibLabCon must be laughing at people (such as myself) who protest by voting UKIP.
    In war sometimes morality must take a back seat.

  34. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Wigan Patriot
    it would make a bigger political impact were smokers to vote BNP as a protest instead of voting UKIP.
    Interesting point. One I thought about a while back. I believe (but I’m not sure) that the BNP is pro-smoking (or at least anti-antismoking). That makes it the enemy of my enemy. i.e. the enemy of ASH and co. These days that’s pretty much enough to get my vote. It’s the main reason why UKIP has my vote, after all. So, if the BNP were standing in my constituency, and UKIP weren’t, I’d actually be quite likely to vote BNP. Or at least I’d think very hard about doing so.
    The BNP is a pretty thoroughly publicly demonised party. And, speaking as a demonised smoker, I can well see why demonised and excluded smokers might find a natural home in the demonised and excluded BNP. The same might apply to drinkers and fat people. It would be a marriage made not in heaven, but in hell. Yes, maybe it would send a message.
    It reminds me of the suggestion that a friend of mine made a year or so back, that maybe we should start going to church again. Not because we believed in God or any of the teachings of the church, but simply to be part of their community, and be there with them. After all, the church is being demonised as well, these days. “Denormalised” was actually the word the archbishop of Canterbury used not long ago.
    Frank

  35. Anonymous says:

    The Plan
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the smoking ban is just part of a much, much bigger social “plan.” It is not, and never has been, about public health, employee health or even about pandering to the wishes of those who don’t like the smell of smoke. And anybody who genuinely, truly still believes that it is, or ever was, about any of those things is not only deluding themselves, but they’ve also got some nasty shocks coming their way in the not-too-distant future …
    (Ellipses only have 3 dots!)
    I’m convinced that there is an old soviet influence plan coming to ‘fruition’…
    Even poison weeds ‘fruit’!
    ASH, SFC, in the (intended) end, may be just be (have been) “useful idiots”…
    (That’s very small or no confort for the bright smokers suffering their collective idiocies!)
    Krushkchev, I remember reading, said to his American counterparts at the time, something like:
    “Your children may not live under communism, but your grandchildren will”.
    [Searching to confirm my idea of that phrase, I came across this:]
    _

    FP: It does appear that communism did not really “die” in 1991 as the West portrayed and understood its death. Indeed, the Soviets did have some kind of plan and it has something to do with Putin and his gang being in power today. Expand on this for us.
    McNew: In 1959 Nikita Khrushchev boasted to a US cabinet member “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”
    As Jeff Nyquist points out, “It is noteworthy that Khrushchev did not say, “You will live under communism.” He also did not say, “Your children will live under communism.” He told his American opposites that their grandchildren would live under communism. Khrushchev was admitting that Moscow’s plan was a long-range plan, involving decades of work.”

    _
    And I used to read Jeff Nyquist, archives now sidelined here:
    (worth downloading – a few links don’t work, but it was going to disappear last November – grab what you can!)
    http://www.financialsensearchive.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/main.html
    As

  36. Anonymous says:

    Re: Wigan Patriot
    I get the impression they’re pledging a full repeal, as opposed to UKIP’s amendment.

  37. Anonymous says:

    The Antis
    As Frank has so well stated, we know how things have gone for many smokers; but, what has happened to the antis?
    I suspect damn little. They didn’t go to the small local pubs in the first place and the city places that they do go to are mostly bars/lounges in restaurants.
    Except for being slightly purified, their, out of home, world has changed little.
    These vile, slimy twats and pricks have ruined others lives at no cost to themselves.
    The smoking ban is a grand medical experiment fomented by the antis and put into effect by politicians; but, in medical science there are ethical concerns about hurting some people for the greater good and such experiments are considered ethically unacceptable.
    So too, smoking bans must be considered as an experiment that is ethically unacceptable.
    Gary K.

  38. Anonymous says:

    The Antis
    As Frank has so well stated, we know how things have gone for many smokers; but, what has happened to the antis?
    I suspect damn little. They didn’t go to the small local pubs in the first place and the city places that they do go to are mostly bars/lounges in restaurants.
    Except for being slightly purified, their, out of home, world has changed little.
    These vile, slimy twats and pricks have ruined others lives at no cost to themselves.
    The smoking ban is a grand medical experiment fomented by the antis and put into effect by politicians; but, in medical science there are ethical concerns about hurting some people for the greater good and such experiments are considered ethically unacceptable.
    So too, smoking bans must be considered as an experiment that is ethically unacceptable.
    Gary K.

  39. Anonymous says:

    The Antis
    As Frank has so well stated, we know how things have gone for many smokers; but, what has happened to the antis?
    I suspect damn little. They didn’t go to the small local pubs in the first place and the city places that they do go to are mostly bars/lounges in restaurants.
    Except for being slightly purified, their, out of home, world has changed little.
    These vile, slimy twats and pricks have ruined others lives at no cost to themselves.
    The smoking ban is a grand medical experiment fomented by the antis and put into effect by politicians; but, in medical science there are ethical concerns about hurting some people for the greater good and such experiments are considered ethically unacceptable.
    So too, smoking bans must be considered as an experiment that is ethically unacceptable.
    Gary K.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Another major impact has occurred in the jobs market, especially in the building trade.
    Tradesman would always go to the local pub to see what work was around. There were always other tradesman there who needed a chippie /sparks/plasterer or decorator etc.
    More work was found in pubs than the job centre.
    How many couples met in pubs ? Millions I expect as pubs were the ideal singles experience to be able to meet other people.
    No wonder there is not much work in the building trade, except for agency workers earning less for themselves and more for the agencies.
    Also not as many couples getting together like they did in the past.

  41. Anonymous says:

    Another major impact has occurred in the jobs market, especially in the building trade.
    Tradesman would always go to the local pub to see what work was around. There were always other tradesman there who needed a chippie /sparks/plasterer or decorator etc.
    More work was found in pubs than the job centre.
    How many couples met in pubs ? Millions I expect as pubs were the ideal singles experience to be able to meet other people.
    No wonder there is not much work in the building trade, except for agency workers earning less for themselves and more for the agencies.
    Also not as many couples getting together like they did in the past.

    • Anonymous says:

      The smoking ban is a grand medical experiment fomented by the antis and put into effect by politicians; but, in medical science there are ethical concerns about hurting some people for the greater good and such experiments are considered ethically unacceptable.
      It is questionable if this is really for the ‘greater good’; it would more seem that some people live out their obsession of e.g. prolonging life; health etc.etc.
      Just before I read a post on the Bavarian facebook group page; One member of this group had been to czechia and he did notice that there was no hysteria on lighting up after a meal; non-smokers and smokers sat happily together on a table, deep in conversation. Just as it used to be here.
      Then the member of the group did also spot a sign somewhere, saying:
      ‘It is not about adding years to life – it is about adding life to years’.
      —————————
      Another major impact has occurred in the jobs market, especially in the building trade.
      Good point!

    • Anonymous says:

      The smoking ban is a grand medical experiment fomented by the antis and put into effect by politicians; but, in medical science there are ethical concerns about hurting some people for the greater good and such experiments are considered ethically unacceptable.
      It is questionable if this is really for the ‘greater good’; it would more seem that some people live out their obsession of e.g. prolonging life; health etc.etc.
      Just before I read a post on the Bavarian facebook group page; One member of this group had been to czechia and he did notice that there was no hysteria on lighting up after a meal; non-smokers and smokers sat happily together on a table, deep in conversation. Just as it used to be here.
      Then the member of the group did also spot a sign somewhere, saying:
      ‘It is not about adding years to life – it is about adding life to years’.
      —————————
      Another major impact has occurred in the jobs market, especially in the building trade.
      Good point!

  42. Anonymous says:

    Another major impact has occurred in the jobs market, especially in the building trade.
    Tradesman would always go to the local pub to see what work was around. There were always other tradesman there who needed a chippie /sparks/plasterer or decorator etc.
    More work was found in pubs than the job centre.
    How many couples met in pubs ? Millions I expect as pubs were the ideal singles experience to be able to meet other people.
    No wonder there is not much work in the building trade, except for agency workers earning less for themselves and more for the agencies.
    Also not as many couples getting together like they did in the past.

  43. junican says:

    Wigan Patriot
    I don’t understand why Wigan Patriot is so touchy. I merely pointed out to Frank that the Wigan Patriot is a self proclaimed BNP blog. What have I done wrong? I would have said the same to him had it been a Labour Party blog. Wigan Patriot is a political blog.
    So I’m a ‘spoilt child’, ‘childish’, ‘immature’? Why? Is it because I DID NOT say anything whatsoever about fascists etc?
    I suppose those words are supposed to be insulting, but they are not really. I have just been over to the Wigan Patriot blog and someone there has called me ‘a RED’! Now that is insulting. I most certainly am NOT a Manchester United supporter!

  44. junican says:

    Wigan Patriot
    I don’t understand why Wigan Patriot is so touchy. I merely pointed out to Frank that the Wigan Patriot is a self proclaimed BNP blog. What have I done wrong? I would have said the same to him had it been a Labour Party blog. Wigan Patriot is a political blog.
    So I’m a ‘spoilt child’, ‘childish’, ‘immature’? Why? Is it because I DID NOT say anything whatsoever about fascists etc?
    I suppose those words are supposed to be insulting, but they are not really. I have just been over to the Wigan Patriot blog and someone there has called me ‘a RED’! Now that is insulting. I most certainly am NOT a Manchester United supporter!

    • Anonymous says:

      Re: Wigan Patriot
      Nope, It’s the way you went about it, like Frank, Frank, the Wigan patriots a nasty Bristish Natioanla Party site, you don’t want them spreading your message do you. Type of way you came across. GROW UP, what are you some 12 yr old snitch ?
      We are ALL ADULTS, nobody on here needed you to point out that we at at Wigan patriot are British National Party supporting site.
      You even had the audacity to tell us on our own site to get rid of the references and links to Nick Griffin.
      Now SOD OFF KID. And go away and grow some.
      We are in a fight for OUR FUTURES including yours.
      Silly Kuffar.
      http://wiganpatriot.blogspot.com/

      • Anonymous says:

        Re: Wigan Patriot
        Ooops,
        Nope, It’s the way you went about it, like Frank, Frank, the Wigan patriots a nasty British National Party Site.
        I must trim my damn long fingermails.
        Silly Kuffar.

        • Anonymous says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          Personally speaking; I cannot see a problem with Junican pointing out that the Wigan Patriot is a self-proclaimed BNP blog. Freedom of speech on both sides, please. And, Junican, I am “a red” – I support Liverpool (although yesterday I did support Crawley; they are “the reds”, too.)
          Freedom of speech for me, too, please.
          We are in a fight for OUR FUTURES including yours.
          Please explain in detail what exactly is meant by this.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          I cannot see a problem with Junican pointing out that the Wigan Patriot is a self-proclaimed BNP blog.
          Neither can I.
          I just think it’s interesting that a BNP website should pick up and republish something I’ve written. It suggests to me that, in this respect at least, they’re on the same wavelength as I am. Which is good. That ought to be an opportunity for a further exchange.
          Frank

        • junican says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          It is not that I have anything against the BNP – I certainly admired Nick Griffin’s courage and restaint on the TV. What bothered me was the apparent pretence of being a single person – ‘Wigan Patriot’. If individual members of the BNP are anti-ban, then that is great. But I have no trust in political parties.
          I am not sure that I should have pointed out to you, Frank, that ‘Wigan Patriot’ is a BNP blog. It is just that I thought that I knew you well enough to to alert you. As you say, ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’, but there are limits, are there not? The Smoking Community will have members of all political hues. The Community can take advantage of political parties, but political parties cannot take advantage of the Community. That is the way I feel.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          As you say, ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’, but there are limits, are there not?
          Of course there are limits. But that doesn’t mean that the BNP is beyond the pale. I realise that they’re regarded as a bunch of Nazis. But are they really that? Perhaps they’re just being demonised in exactly the same sort of way that smokers are being demonised? I simply don’t know enough about them to say one way or the other.
          Apart from that, I take your point about not trusting political parties. I sometimes think I’d vote for somebody who just said, “I belong to no party. I’m my own man.”
          Frank

        • Frank Davis says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          As you say, ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’, but there are limits, are there not?
          Of course there are limits. But that doesn’t mean that the BNP is beyond the pale. I realise that they’re regarded as a bunch of Nazis. But are they really that? Perhaps they’re just being demonised in exactly the same sort of way that smokers are being demonised? I simply don’t know enough about them to say one way or the other.
          Apart from that, I take your point about not trusting political parties. I sometimes think I’d vote for somebody who just said, “I belong to no party. I’m my own man.”
          Frank

        • junican says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          It is not that I have anything against the BNP – I certainly admired Nick Griffin’s courage and restaint on the TV. What bothered me was the apparent pretence of being a single person – ‘Wigan Patriot’. If individual members of the BNP are anti-ban, then that is great. But I have no trust in political parties.
          I am not sure that I should have pointed out to you, Frank, that ‘Wigan Patriot’ is a BNP blog. It is just that I thought that I knew you well enough to to alert you. As you say, ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’, but there are limits, are there not? The Smoking Community will have members of all political hues. The Community can take advantage of political parties, but political parties cannot take advantage of the Community. That is the way I feel.

        • Frank Davis says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          I cannot see a problem with Junican pointing out that the Wigan Patriot is a self-proclaimed BNP blog.
          Neither can I.
          I just think it’s interesting that a BNP website should pick up and republish something I’ve written. It suggests to me that, in this respect at least, they’re on the same wavelength as I am. Which is good. That ought to be an opportunity for a further exchange.
          Frank

        • Anonymous says:

          Re: Wigan Patriot
          Personally speaking; I cannot see a problem with Junican pointing out that the Wigan Patriot is a self-proclaimed BNP blog. Freedom of speech on both sides, please. And, Junican, I am “a red” – I support Liverpool (although yesterday I did support Crawley; they are “the reds”, too.)
          Freedom of speech for me, too, please.
          We are in a fight for OUR FUTURES including yours.
          Please explain in detail what exactly is meant by this.

      • Anonymous says:

        Re: Wigan Patriot
        Ooops,
        Nope, It’s the way you went about it, like Frank, Frank, the Wigan patriots a nasty British National Party Site.
        I must trim my damn long fingermails.
        Silly Kuffar.

    • Anonymous says:

      Re: Wigan Patriot
      Nope, It’s the way you went about it, like Frank, Frank, the Wigan patriots a nasty Bristish Natioanla Party site, you don’t want them spreading your message do you. Type of way you came across. GROW UP, what are you some 12 yr old snitch ?
      We are ALL ADULTS, nobody on here needed you to point out that we at at Wigan patriot are British National Party supporting site.
      You even had the audacity to tell us on our own site to get rid of the references and links to Nick Griffin.
      Now SOD OFF KID. And go away and grow some.
      We are in a fight for OUR FUTURES including yours.
      Silly Kuffar.
      http://wiganpatriot.blogspot.com/

  45. junican says:

    Wigan Patriot
    I don’t understand why Wigan Patriot is so touchy. I merely pointed out to Frank that the Wigan Patriot is a self proclaimed BNP blog. What have I done wrong? I would have said the same to him had it been a Labour Party blog. Wigan Patriot is a political blog.
    So I’m a ‘spoilt child’, ‘childish’, ‘immature’? Why? Is it because I DID NOT say anything whatsoever about fascists etc?
    I suppose those words are supposed to be insulting, but they are not really. I have just been over to the Wigan Patriot blog and someone there has called me ‘a RED’! Now that is insulting. I most certainly am NOT a Manchester United supporter!

  46. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for the link Frank
    Thank you for linking to our F2C blog Frank. the loneliness Triblogology was a collaborative effort and much of it was drawn from your blog and the heartwrending stories of loneliness due to the smoking ban.
    Once again you have excelled yourself with the blog piece above.
    Excellent.
    TheBigYin

  47. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for the link Frank
    Thank you for linking to our F2C blog Frank. the loneliness Triblogology was a collaborative effort and much of it was drawn from your blog and the heartwrending stories of loneliness due to the smoking ban.
    Once again you have excelled yourself with the blog piece above.
    Excellent.
    TheBigYin

  48. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for the link Frank
    Thank you for linking to our F2C blog Frank. the loneliness Triblogology was a collaborative effort and much of it was drawn from your blog and the heartwrending stories of loneliness due to the smoking ban.
    Once again you have excelled yourself with the blog piece above.
    Excellent.
    TheBigYin

  49. Anonymous says:

    The smoking ban is a grand medical experiment fomented by the antis and put into effect by politicians; but, in medical science there are ethical concerns about hurting some people for the greater good and such experiments are considered ethically unacceptable.
    It is questionable if this is really for the ‘greater good’; it would more seem that some people live out their obsession of e.g. prolonging life; health etc.etc.
    Just before I read a post on the Bavarian facebook group page; One member of this group had been to czechia and he did notice that there was no hysteria on lighting up after a meal; non-smokers and smokers sat happily together on a table, deep in conversation. Just as it used to be here.
    Then the member of the group did also spot a sign somewhere, saying:
    ‘It is not about adding years to life – it is about adding life to years’.
    —————————
    Another major impact has occurred in the jobs market, especially in the building trade.
    Good point!

  50. Anonymous says:

    Re: Wigan Patriot
    Nope, It’s the way you went about it, like Frank, Frank, the Wigan patriots a nasty Bristish Natioanla Party site, you don’t want them spreading your message do you. Type of way you came across. GROW UP, what are you some 12 yr old snitch ?
    We are ALL ADULTS, nobody on here needed you to point out that we at at Wigan patriot are British National Party supporting site.
    You even had the audacity to tell us on our own site to get rid of the references and links to Nick Griffin.
    Now SOD OFF KID. And go away and grow some.
    We are in a fight for OUR FUTURES including yours.
    Silly Kuffar.
    http://wiganpatriot.blogspot.com/

  51. Anonymous says:

    Re: Wigan Patriot
    Ooops,
    Nope, It’s the way you went about it, like Frank, Frank, the Wigan patriots a nasty British National Party Site.
    I must trim my damn long fingermails.
    Silly Kuffar.

  52. Anonymous says:

    Re: Wigan Patriot
    Personally speaking; I cannot see a problem with Junican pointing out that the Wigan Patriot is a self-proclaimed BNP blog. Freedom of speech on both sides, please. And, Junican, I am “a red” – I support Liverpool (although yesterday I did support Crawley; they are “the reds”, too.)
    Freedom of speech for me, too, please.
    We are in a fight for OUR FUTURES including yours.
    Please explain in detail what exactly is meant by this.

  53. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Wigan Patriot
    I cannot see a problem with Junican pointing out that the Wigan Patriot is a self-proclaimed BNP blog.
    Neither can I.
    I just think it’s interesting that a BNP website should pick up and republish something I’ve written. It suggests to me that, in this respect at least, they’re on the same wavelength as I am. Which is good. That ought to be an opportunity for a further exchange.
    Frank

  54. Anonymous says:

    Re: Wigan Patriot
    I think that one of the reasons why voters are increasingly turning to the BNP is because they are pretty much the only party to “say the un-sayable” – like discussing the smoking ban. It isn’t always pretty, and their proposals to deal with things are as likely to make them enemies as much as it may win them friends, but I guess the point I’m making here is that at least they aren’t ducking issues because they are too much of a political “hot potato.” Quite frankly, people are fed up with voting for one thing and then getting the complete opposite. Where is the support for business and employers which is traditionally associated with the Conservatives? Where was the social justice and championing of the underdog which is traditionally the trademark of Labour? Where is the striving for freedom and choice and tolerance and individuality which was always the hallmark of the Lib-Dems?
    I’ll be honest and say that I really don’t like a lot of the BNP’s policies, but that’s not because of what I’ve read in the MSM because, as Frank points out, as a smoker, I know only too well how “targeted demonisation” works and I know how grossly inaccurate it can be. So whenever I read anything about the “racist BNP” or the “violent EDL” I take it with the same-sized pinch of salt as I do when I read about “selfish smokers” or “binge drinkers” or “dangerous dogs.” The thing is, I have actually taken the time and trouble to read the BNP’s website and their recent manifestoes and there is an attitude which informs their policies which I find somewhat worrying, to say the least. But the fact is that my hatred for the smoking ban, and my deep fears for its wider ramifications, is such that, like Frank, it outweighs my distaste for any party’s policies and in the absence of a UKIP (or any other ban-changing) candidate in my area, they’d get my vote. I really do think that it is that important as an issue – it certainly isn’t just about “smoking” or “not smoking.” “Any port in a storm,” as they say – and at the moment the BNP and UKIP are, quite simply, the only ports available for the storm-besieged smoking community.
    And the fact that all of the major parties would no doubt turn a deliberately “deaf ear” to such reasoning if it were pointed out to them in and of itself indicates why they are haemorrhaging support and losing voters as fast as the BNP (and, indeed, UKIP) are gaining them.

  55. Frank Davis says:

    Re: Wigan Patriot
    So whenever I read anything about the “racist BNP” or the “violent EDL” I take it with the same-sized pinch of salt as I do when I read about “selfish smokers” or “binge drinkers” or “dangerous dogs.”
    Me too.
    The thing is, I have actually taken the time and trouble to read the BNP’s website and their recent manifestoes and there is an attitude which informs their policies which I find somewhat worrying, to say the least.
    Like what? I’ve not read much BNP stuff.
    But the fact is that my hatred for the smoking ban, and my deep fears for its wider ramifications, is such that, like Frank, it outweighs my distaste for any party’s policies and in the absence of a UKIP (or any other ban-changing) candidate in my area, they’d get my vote.
    I didn’t say that I actually would vote BNP. But I’ve never been put on the spot, as I would if an election in my constituency had Lib, Lab, and Con antismoking candidates, and a pro-smoking BNP candidate, and nobody else.
    I really do think that it is that important as an issue – it certainly isn’t just about “smoking” or “not smoking.” “Any port in a storm,” as they say – and at the moment the BNP and UKIP are, quite simply, the only ports available for the storm-besieged smoking community.
    I (almost) entirely agree. Because it is that important, in my view.
    Frank

  56. junican says:

    Well said, Mr Yin.
    Freedom2choose is an organisation which promotes the idea that free individuals can decide for themselves whether or not to be healthy. It denies the idea that the State, under the disguise of ‘Public Health’, can force people to be healthy if those people do not want to be. This idea is critically important since there are those people who want to sit in their puritanical, germ-free, isolated homes, people who never go out other than to work, who want to dictate to the rest of us. That is the essence of ‘Public Health’, as it has become to be defined. It did not used to be so. The surveys that Yougov etc conduct are worthless since they purport to suggest that all the ‘stop-at-homes’ can dictate to the rest of us how we should conduct our lives. Isn’t that the critical thought? If it were true that the ‘stop-at-homes’ can vote to arrange how the rest of us conduct our lives, would it not be true that this group could ‘vote’ to close all pubs because they do not like alcohol? And is that not precisely what happened in the USA as regards prohibition?
    The ‘Wigan Patriot’ site is trying to give me a bad time. I don’t know why. All I did was say that I was disappointed that it was not ‘an anti-ban’ site, but rather ‘a BNP’ site. I made what I thought was a good suggestion, which was that they should concentrate on injustices and avoid specifically being BNP. It is really weird that the commenters there should attack me personally.
    Anyway, I feel sure that Frank would prefer to concentrate on the ban and other stupid government dictats rather than political parties.
    One last thing. If ‘Wigan Patriot’ is a collection of people, it should describe itself as ‘Wigan PatriotS’. It should not pretend to be one individual.
    As Frank said: ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’. It does not matter to what political party an individual belongs. But I think that it is right that a political blog should declare itself to be so.

  57. junican says:

    Well said, Mr Yin.
    Freedom2choose is an organisation which promotes the idea that free individuals can decide for themselves whether or not to be healthy. It denies the idea that the State, under the disguise of ‘Public Health’, can force people to be healthy if those people do not want to be. This idea is critically important since there are those people who want to sit in their puritanical, germ-free, isolated homes, people who never go out other than to work, who want to dictate to the rest of us. That is the essence of ‘Public Health’, as it has become to be defined. It did not used to be so. The surveys that Yougov etc conduct are worthless since they purport to suggest that all the ‘stop-at-homes’ can dictate to the rest of us how we should conduct our lives. Isn’t that the critical thought? If it were true that the ‘stop-at-homes’ can vote to arrange how the rest of us conduct our lives, would it not be true that this group could ‘vote’ to close all pubs because they do not like alcohol? And is that not precisely what happened in the USA as regards prohibition?
    The ‘Wigan Patriot’ site is trying to give me a bad time. I don’t know why. All I did was say that I was disappointed that it was not ‘an anti-ban’ site, but rather ‘a BNP’ site. I made what I thought was a good suggestion, which was that they should concentrate on injustices and avoid specifically being BNP. It is really weird that the commenters there should attack me personally.
    Anyway, I feel sure that Frank would prefer to concentrate on the ban and other stupid government dictats rather than political parties.
    One last thing. If ‘Wigan Patriot’ is a collection of people, it should describe itself as ‘Wigan PatriotS’. It should not pretend to be one individual.
    As Frank said: ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’. It does not matter to what political party an individual belongs. But I think that it is right that a political blog should declare itself to be so.

  58. junican says:

    Well said, Mr Yin.
    Freedom2choose is an organisation which promotes the idea that free individuals can decide for themselves whether or not to be healthy. It denies the idea that the State, under the disguise of ‘Public Health’, can force people to be healthy if those people do not want to be. This idea is critically important since there are those people who want to sit in their puritanical, germ-free, isolated homes, people who never go out other than to work, who want to dictate to the rest of us. That is the essence of ‘Public Health’, as it has become to be defined. It did not used to be so. The surveys that Yougov etc conduct are worthless since they purport to suggest that all the ‘stop-at-homes’ can dictate to the rest of us how we should conduct our lives. Isn’t that the critical thought? If it were true that the ‘stop-at-homes’ can vote to arrange how the rest of us conduct our lives, would it not be true that this group could ‘vote’ to close all pubs because they do not like alcohol? And is that not precisely what happened in the USA as regards prohibition?
    The ‘Wigan Patriot’ site is trying to give me a bad time. I don’t know why. All I did was say that I was disappointed that it was not ‘an anti-ban’ site, but rather ‘a BNP’ site. I made what I thought was a good suggestion, which was that they should concentrate on injustices and avoid specifically being BNP. It is really weird that the commenters there should attack me personally.
    Anyway, I feel sure that Frank would prefer to concentrate on the ban and other stupid government dictats rather than political parties.
    One last thing. If ‘Wigan Patriot’ is a collection of people, it should describe itself as ‘Wigan PatriotS’. It should not pretend to be one individual.
    As Frank said: ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’. It does not matter to what political party an individual belongs. But I think that it is right that a political blog should declare itself to be so.

  59. junican says:

    Re: Wigan Patriot
    It is not that I have anything against the BNP – I certainly admired Nick Griffin’s courage and restaint on the TV. What bothered me was the apparent pretence of being a single person – ‘Wigan Patriot’. If individual members of the BNP are anti-ban, then that is great. But I have no trust in political parties.
    I am not sure that I should have pointed out to you, Frank, that ‘Wigan Patriot’ is a BNP blog. It is just that I thought that I knew you well enough to to alert you. As you say, ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’, but there are limits, are there not? The Smoking Community will have members of all political hues. The Community can take advantage of political parties, but political parties cannot take advantage of the Community. That is the way I feel.

  60. frank_davis says:

    Re: Wigan Patriot
    As you say, ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’, but there are limits, are there not?
    Of course there are limits. But that doesn’t mean that the BNP is beyond the pale. I realise that they’re regarded as a bunch of Nazis. But are they really that? Perhaps they’re just being demonised in exactly the same sort of way that smokers are being demonised? I simply don’t know enough about them to say one way or the other.
    Apart from that, I take your point about not trusting political parties. I sometimes think I’d vote for somebody who just said, “I belong to no party. I’m my own man.”
    Frank

  61. Anonymous says:

    F2C NEWSLETTER
    Frank, I hope you don’t mind, but I’d like to remind everyone that F2C issue a monthly newsletter, compiled by a small and dedicated team of volunteers.
    To subscribe by email, please visit our home page
    http://www.freedom2choose.info/
    Many thanks for your wonderful piece on the ‘Triblogology’.
    David

  62. Anonymous says:

    F2C NEWSLETTER
    Frank, I hope you don’t mind, but I’d like to remind everyone that F2C issue a monthly newsletter, compiled by a small and dedicated team of volunteers.
    To subscribe by email, please visit our home page
    http://www.freedom2choose.info/
    Many thanks for your wonderful piece on the ‘Triblogology’.
    David

  63. Anonymous says:

    F2C NEWSLETTER
    Frank, I hope you don’t mind, but I’d like to remind everyone that F2C issue a monthly newsletter, compiled by a small and dedicated team of volunteers.
    To subscribe by email, please visit our home page
    http://www.freedom2choose.info/
    Many thanks for your wonderful piece on the ‘Triblogology’.
    David

  64. Pingback: Pub Restaurant Advisor | Freedom2choose Newsletter, always an interesting read for smokers and non smokers

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.