And They Wonder Why Voters Are Deserting?

H/T JJ for this:

Ban on smoking in cars will be passed into law within weeks and come into force in October 2015
Health ministers are expected to unveil details of the new law in December
MPs backed the ban in a vote in February, giving government power to act
Supporters say new law is needed to protect children from passive smoking
But critics have condemned it as a ‘victory for the nanny state’
Smoke fumes in a car are 11 times more concentrated than in open space

In the small print:

The small print of the consultation paper suggested drivers who fail to stop passengers smoking in front of a child face fines of up to £10,000 – a much higher penalty than the maximum £800 fine for the passenger who lights up.

So we’re now supposed to police each other. The smoking ban was bad enough with landlords becoming unpaid law enforcers. This is much, much worse.

And according to Chris Snowdon:

In the least surprising news of the century, ASH wants smoking banned in cars whether children are there or not.


And they wonder why voters are deserting them for UKIP?


About Frank Davis

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

41 Responses to And They Wonder Why Voters Are Deserting?

  1. castello2 says:

    They are really pushing the limits. Keep up the great blog Frank.

  2. Lord Galleywood says:

    Hang the 650 #whendowewantitnow

  3. legiron says:

    Just goes to show – it was never about ‘the children’.

    They use children the same way as Hamas use them. As sacrificial human shields to hide behind.

    What a bunch of utter scum we have in parliament and all through Public Health now. Hanging is far too quick and far too gentle for them.

    • beobrigitte says:

      I still do wonder how this “bunch of utter scum” made it into parliament and all through Public Health. Perhaps they just could not hold down a real job?

      Under NO circumstances would I advocate for them to hang. (I do remember, the number of people asking Clegg in 2010 for re-introducement of hanging was miniscule)
      I would like to do them a massive favour. They are screaming for fresh, smoke-free air, aren’t they? I am sure Mr. Putin could oblige and offer a long term holiday in the famous Gulag-Hotel in Siberia for them.
      Alternatively, the clusters of rocks and small (< 100 m long) islands in the antarctic could prvide a second option.
      There is a third option: a one way ticket to Mars. No-one smokes there, not even a volcano.

  4. jaxthefirst says:

    The hugely disproportionate fine for a driver failing to stop someone else from smoking is clearly the zealots’ version of fining a landlord for the same thing in his own pub – they know damned full well that it was that part of the law which has made smokers stick so rigidly to the smoking ban in pubs. If smokers themselves were the only ones risking a fine, you can bet your bottom dollar that there would have been thousands of them lighting up and risking getting fined, because it was “their money, their risk.”

    It’s yet another, but a surprisingly unremarked-upon, “slippery slope” started by the smoking ban – yet another consequence unforeseen by both the drone-minded public and, worse still, the politicians who make the laws we have to adhere to. Greater legal minds than mine may correct me, but I think I’m right in saying that the Health Act 2006 was, to my knowledge, the first Act of Parliament to make one person punishable for actions committed by another person. Yes, I know all the mealy-mouthed wording around “making it a crime to allow smoking” but in reality, effectively, one member of the public is expected to police other people and will be fined if he/she fails to do so. This was a dangerous, dangerous precedent. I was amazed at the time that the law was passed that august institutions like the Law Society didn’t raise at least a few worried questions about it but, no, even they didn’t seem to see the departure away from the centuries-old legal principle that the only person who can be punished for a crime is the person who committed it. Either that or they didn’t care.

    But, given past experience, it was entirely predictable that the zealots would want to repeat the same wildly successful (if legally terrifying, when you think about it) mechanism to ensure obedience to their latest edict. My solution? Simple. I’m never, ever, under any circumstances – no matter how dire, dangerous or unpleasant the alternative might be (for them) – going to allow anyone under 18 in my car again. Ever. Whether I intend to smoke during the journey or not.

    • waltc says:

      It’s even worse in a car than in a bar. The bar owner doesn’t necessarily know,let alone have complex relationships with, his customers, but the driver is driving either family or friends so this can bust friendships and split families. Explain to the cops how you couldn’t order your mother in law to put out her cigarette on account of your 17 year old ( rugby-playing weed-smoking) son was aboard. Imagine the pitched fights between husband and wife. Or the power handed to a bratty teen over his smoking parents. Worst of all, however, is this giant step on the road to 1984, to Maoist hall monitors, nazi youth, neighbor against neighbor. Christ, what an ugly world they’re creating. And, yes, all teens should be denied rides and told the reason. Maybe it’ll train them to hate the nannies and, once they get to vote, to vote accordingly.

      • Jay says:

        Unfortunately, they’ll just hate the smoker – they’ve been brainwashed. Their own prejudice and selfishnesas will overcome any rational thought (if they’re capable of it) and the smoker will be treated with contempt for being unable/unwilling to “just do without a fag for five minutes” :(

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    Ed Miliband leadership crisis damaging election chances, party figures say

    Daily Telegraph · 4 hours ago

    The leadership crisis facing Ed Miliband risks losing Labour the general election and is fuelling voters’ concerns that he is not fit … And in a further…

    Poor poll rating heaps pressure on UK opposition leader Miliband

    Reuters · 12 hours ago

    Labour ‘committing political suicide’: Now 42% of the party’s voters say Miliband is not fit to be PM… and his rivals are far more popular

    Daily Mail · 19 minutes ago

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Nick Clegg begs voters for a second chance in a keynote … › News › UK › UK Politics

      Oct 08, 2014 · Nick Clegg presented the Liberal Democrats as the party that will stand up to the … Nick Clegg begs voters for a second chance in a keynote … ©

    • smokingscot says:

      I sincerely hope Mr. Miliband continues to show us the stuff he’s made of, sticks to his guns and proves his dissenters right!

      He’s often said that he and the Labour Party would listen to their voters, so when I read this:

      “A total of 376 voted for the Labour-led plans for a ban while just 107 were opposed, despite the opposition of Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, and several Tory Cabinet ministers.”


      I have to conclude that the Labour Party is indeed doing a sterling job of listening to…

      “More than 700 senior doctors last week backed a legal ban, saying that being in an enclosed space like a car significantly worsened the harm done to children by cigarette smoke.”

      (same source as above)

      Far be it from me to predict which party the 700 will vote for, though, to date, doctors don’t exactly fit the Labour Party profile.

      However it seems Edward may indeed be trying to cuddle up to the very substantial number of people employed in the NHS, “senior doctors” included.

      “The NHS in England is the biggest part of the system by far, catering to a population of 53 million and employing more than 1.35 million people. The NHS in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland employs 153,427 – 84,817 and 78,000 people respectively.”

      That – if my calculations are correct – amounts to 1,666,000 or thereabouts.

      By introducing a “windfall tax on tobacco companies” to “fund the NHS”


      Hence we’ll have a system that’s not terribly different to what you have in the States. Tobacco companies funding health services.

      The chaps at the Spectator did a wonderful frisk of Edward’s concept, as indeed did those who commentated.

      However we know from the USA that the tobacco tax is in decline and there are billions of Dollars borrowed using bonds backed by that revenue source that simply will not be paid.

      The same is true here, except it’s far easier for tobacco companies to move their corporate headquarters – and most of their shareholders will insist they do.

      So, in a way, I (sort of) would like to see how this all pans out. If they’re to keep their revenue stream going, they want profitable tobacco companies with an astonishing level of patriotism and a desire to be fleeced.

      Nope, I think our Edward’s doing a splendid job and as the election date inches ever closer, I very much look forward to more his initiatives and as well as those of his Chancellor, who happens to be another Edward.

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Ban on smoking in cars will be passed into law within weeks and come into force in October 2015
    Health ministers are expected to unveil details of the new law in December
    MPs backed the ban in a vote in February, giving government power to act
    Supporters say new law is needed to protect children from passive smoking
    But critics have condemned it as a ‘victory for the nanny state’
    Smoke fumes in a car are 11 times more concentrated than in open space

    Read more:

    Comments (700)
    Share what you think

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      TimeForRevolution, Glasgow, United Kingdom, moments ago

      It wont be passed into law. Thats a bit of news speak right there. It will be signed into legislation. Legislation is not law. Parliament does not have the authority to sign anything into law, they can only authorise new legislation. Regardless of what politicians might tell you, there is a difference.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Who dunnit to WHO?

    Friday November 7, 2014

    Chris Oakley considers how the World Health Organisation has lost sight of its mission and become religiously extreme about tobacco.

    I find it odd that people of all political persuasions are vociferous about the slightest perceived loss of UK sovereignty to the EU, which is arguably a partially democratic institution, but very few people express even mild concern about the UK government’s surrender to an unaccountable and undemocratic body as a signatory to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

    This legally binding agreement not only determines how tobacco products can be sold, packaged and advertised, but also dictates the manner in which our elected representatives are allowed to relate to the tobacco industry.

    Under the guise of preventing industry lobbying, the WHO has ostracised tobacco manufacturers, and the FCTC has been routinely interpreted by health lobbyists as a blanket ban on government ministers talking to tobacco companies on any level at all. It has placed the tobacco companies outside the normal political process and has perversely given them a licence to make money without the expenses that they might for example have been obliged to spend on R&D into safer nicotine products.

    From the narrow, deranged perspective of the public health industry this is enormously useful on two levels. Firstly, it helps create an environment in which healthist voices dominate the discourse creating a false impression of general consensus. Secondly, by effectively signing government up to a conspiracy theory it helps extremists to dismiss the few voices that are raised in opposition to their authoritarianism as industry stooges or paid lackeys.

    I cannot understand why the government of any supposedly free society would think it reasonable to sign up to anything so obviously undemocratic and potentially counterproductive, especially when its origin is an organisation that has no mandate and no credibility outside the confines of an establishment elite that is increasingly despised by the majority of people.

    The WHO is hopelessly bureaucratic and, as recent events have demonstrated, not very good at what most people would like to think is its job. Its incompetent handling of the Ebola outbreak, which earned it widespread criticism even from normally pro-establishment media such as the BBC, is but one line in a lengthy list of failures that blight the organisation’s record on communicable diseases.

    The fact that the WHO was staging a secretive convention on tobacco control at a critical point in the Ebola epidemic is a powerful illustration of the gulf between the lofty principles on which the organisation was founded and the twisted politicised ideology that now drives it.

    The WHO has never been an unqualified success but the appointment of Gro Harlem Brundtland as its head in 1998 appears to have catalysed its transformation from a corrupt, useless but mostly harmless waste of tax payer’s money into an ideologically driven, discriminatory organisation increasingly obsessed with tobacco and rather weirdly, mobile phones.

    Brundtland is a highly successful socialist politician and former premier of Norway who is obsessed with the health impacts of tobacco and mobile phones. Her relatively brief reign at the WHO was critiqued by the New York Times in an article that essentially concludes that she failed to reform a corrupt organisation but increased its prominence mostly by waging war on tobacco. Her “crowning achievement” according to several commentaries was the FCTC.

    As crowning achievements go, the FCTC isn’t all that impressive. Persuading ambitious politicians to sign up to an authoritarian charter that costs them nothing, makes them feel that they are doing something, is risk free in that it targets a politically enfeebled industry and a minority group of consumers who cannot fight back is not especially difficult.

    Reducing the incidence of malaria or doing something about the millions who needlessly die from tuberculosis is much harder and had the WHO succeeded in such tricky and noble endeavours, it might have earned the right to be taken seriously. It hasn’t for a number of reasons, one of which Frank Davis highlights in his excellent post about WHO funding. Having failed to convince governments to waste even more money than they already do the WHO is increasingly dependent on voluntary donations and the vested interests that come with them.

    Whilst I can muster a soupcon of sympathy for the WHO’s frustration at not being able to spend the money of corporations and wealthy donors on anything that it feels like, the lack of global political will to tackle communicable diseases in the developing world is no excuse for misappropriating the language and the kudos associated with that worthy cause in order to justify an ideological campaign that is effectively a modern eugenics programme aimed at extending longevity in the developed world, whatever the social costs. Describing behaviours such as tobacco smoking or alcohol consumption as “epidemics” is a propaganda exercise that, in my view emphasises rather than disguises the institutional healthism at the heart of the post Bruntland WHO.

    The depths of the WHO’s descent into ideological extremism can be observed in its policy of not employing anybody who refuses to renounce tobacco in any form at any time, a stance that as far as I am concerned is as vile as refusing to employ someone based on their ethnicity or religion. The WHO offers no reasonable justification for this policy, which appears to be based on a quasi-religious hatred of a plant. It is not hard to imagine an organisation capable of such irrationality further extending its interference in its employee’s private behaviour in order to ultimately employ only the “medically pure”.

    I accept that the WHO was set up with laudable aims and I am sure that it employs many people who are well intentioned, but it is a corrupt politicised failure whose increasingly sinister influence ought not to be tolerated in a free society. If we are to use UK taxpayers’ money to help combat genuine epidemics, then surely we would be better off funding more nimble organisations that employ people based on their ability to do their job rather than their compliance with healthist diktat.

  8. Pingback: Of cars and children. | underdogs bite upwards

  9. All the ‘great’ politicians have used children to further their causes: Hitler, Saddam, Obama.

    Even Nick Clegg is against this ban.

    And as someone in the comments wrote, the government basically tells twelve year-olds it’s all right to have sex (and gives them the ‘health’ advice, etc.). We know how much successive governments care about the cheeeldren. So much that they make sure their parents are in deeper and deeper debt. So much that they deliberately dumb down education. So much that they pack off young people to one of their fabricated wars a few years out of short trousers. So much that they encourage half of school-leavers to seek tertiary education and land themselves with £10,000s in debt. So much that they use the climate con to deindustrialise and leave them with little else to do but flip burgers and stack shelves.

    Sure, next it will be private houses where there are children. As far as I’m aware, smokers can’t adopt now, at least in some council areas. How long until children are removed from their natural parents due to this ‘child abuse’?

    I would say that this government is now totally out of control. A couple of weeks ago, Theresa May announced “Extremism Disruption Orders”: Sharia law or gay marriage critics would be branded ‘extremists’ under Tory plans, atheists and Christians warn.

    That’ll be the end of my blog then. These ‘EDOs’ would allow judges to ban people deemed extremists from broadcasting, protesting in certain places or even posting messages on Facebook or Twitter without permission.

    How to finally silence opposition to cultural Marxism.

    • Frank Davis says:

      That’ll be the end of my blog then.

      Mine too, obviously.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        It will actually be enuf to finally start people openly shooting at government officials…..

        It would be the same as the complete abolishment of civil liberties and freedom……..

        The people will then fight!

        • beobrigitte says:

          People will fight – by now, thanks to bloggers like Frank et al and organisations in various countries (e.g. Netzwerk Rauchen) news pass across borders very quickly. All we need to do is: be there. Regardless where it is the antiz get trounced on for good.
          The first to fall is the spark that hits the rest.

  10. The same thing is happening in Ireland. See if you can spot the clue as to possibly the real reason for the the obsession with smoking (in Ireland, at least):

    “When James Reilly was finally defenestrated from the health portfolio and became Minister for Thinking About The Children, smokers may have thought that they had heard the last of their long-time nemesis.

    “After all, this was a man who seemed to have decided that because the health service was unfixable, he could at least concentrate on socially engineering tobacco out of existence. That was reiterated on a near constant basis, with regular sinister warnings about his plans to “denormalise” smoking and smokers, while his determination to make Ireland the world’s first “tobacco-free zone” simply smacked of madness.

    “But like many single-issue zealots, it didn’t take long for the Helen Lovejoy of Irish politics to come back and have another snipe at smokers. His latest stunt is the plan to introduce fines for anyone caught smoking in their car while there is a child present in such an “enclosed space.”

    “Anyone caught doing so faces an on-the-spot charge of €80, rising to a cool €1,000 if the case goes to court….”

      • waltc says:

        Here’s the part I hate in the above link to the Independent: ” After all, even the most belligerent defender of smokers’ rights would be reluctant to say that smoking in cars with kids is a particularly good idea. In fact, if we can all agree on one thing, it is surely that people shouldn’t smoke when there’s a kid in the back seat.”

        File that in your “With friends like these” file. If you don”t agree on that one thing, it’s obviously simply because you’re “belligerent “

        • That comment is wrong on a number of levels. My childhood peers and myself – each and every one of us – had one or both parents who smoked and that meant in the car too. That was in the 60s and 70s and hey – we’re still here and (to my knowledge) in fine physical shape. One sadly committed suicide in his 30s, but I can’t imagine it being due to his parents ‘belligerently’ exposing him to their smoke in the car.

          But I think that even sympathetic ‘journalists’ feel the need to be a bit belligerent towards smokers/smoking as they probably feel that it gives more credibility to their sensible points. Even Simon Clark of pro-smoking group ‘Forest’ seems to like admitting that smoking is bad, as Frank discovered on this TV discussion about the BMA’s plans for anyone born after AD 2000 to be disallowed from buying tobacco in the UK, so eventually, a 59 year-old would have to ask a 60 year-old to buy cigarettes for them.

        • prog says:

          I think, more or less, Forest’s kowtowing opinion. Totally counter productive. We witnessed similar when ‘reasonable’ people suggested separate smoking rooms in pubs as a compromise. No, nothing will really change until the public realise that the original smoking ban legislation was based on a crock of shit. Yet, now we find ourselves facing outdoor bans that are almost totally justified by a moral crusade.

          Let’s face it, in the eyes of Public Health and its converts we are scum.

        • melinoerealm says:

          As a kid, I often used to visit, along with my cousins, the local cafe one of our relatives owned. It was always full of smoke. It never ever bothered us, and it never crossed our minds to even feel any distressed. And I always remember my grandpa (a 3-pack-day smoker, who died of old age at 101yrs) with a cigarette on his lips – and I remember I never found the smell unpleasant. Characteristic, unique… but never unpleasant.

          I still smoke normally (it’s small cigars now) at home and car and everywhere. My 8-yrs old daughter never showed any signs of bothering, either.

          Exploiting “chiiiiiildren” has gone too far, and they’ve played that card too many times. They are psychopaths, and it’s about time for a long-term strategy against antismoking. One that includes among its chief goals the classification of antismoking as a mental illness. Let’s see how many decades it’ll take to achieve this. :-)

      • Frank Davis says:

        My dad smoked while he was driving. Back then every car had an ashtray, usually up on the dashboard. As the 5-year-old sitting in the back seat, I didn’t give a damn. And neither did my brother. I know because I asked him recently. None of us kids gave a damn about people smoking..

        So, no, I I’m never going to agree that people shouldn’t smoke when there’s a kid in the back seat. Just like I’m never going to agree that people shouldn’t chew toffees when there’s a kid in the back seat.

        • Rose says:

          I haven’t smoked in car with children since my young daughter objected.
          What concerns me is all these theoretical children “without a voice” being used as an excuse to legislate on the use of private property, in my experience children never shut up.

          In fact children are such a distraction that I have stopped the car and refused to drive any further until they stopped misbehaving on the grounds of safety.
          I have never tried smoking while driving and keep the radio turned off as I am very aware of my responsibility when in charge of a ton of metal moving at speed.

          If all that concerns our government in such a situation is exhaled smoke passing out of an open window you can’t help but laugh.

          The majesty of the Law, eh?

          I wonder how many man hours this trivia has cost us in tax funded lobbying and parliamentary discussions?

        • beobrigitte says:

          My dad smoked while he was driving.

          I really can’t remember if the drivers in the numerous cars I sat in when being a child, smoked. It wasn’t important, anyway, we were too busy giggeling or looking out the window.

          I haven’t smoked in car with children since my young daughter objected.
          Many years ago one of my children piped up: “Mum, could you please open the window a bit more?”
          So I did. Only to be startled by the smarties they were trying to throw out the window over my head. I immediately was stopped by the police car behind me – they thought I had started to drive erratically and wondered if something was wrong…. The officer glared at the children and the problem of my ‘erratic’ driving was solved.

          I have always maintained that CHILDREN INSIDE a car are a distraction!!!

  11. Here’s another cracker from Ireland: Government ‘should consider banning cigarette sales after 6pm’

    It’s part of a 1,100 page report.

    What happened to laid-back Ireland? Like the old joke:

    A Spanish singer chatting on television used the word ‘mañana’. When asked what that meant, he said it means “maybe the job will be done to-morrow, maybe the next day, maybe the day after that, next week, next month or next year. Who cares?” An Irishman in the conversation, Shay Brennan, was then asked if there’s an Irish equivalent. “No. In Ireland we don’t have a word to describe that level of urgency”.

  12. waltc says:

    -when I’m back on my computer (on iPad now) I’ll give you some links on DeFranza if you’re interested. His Joe camel study was busted as a fraud along with his up-front promise to his funders to produce the results they wanted, which he then played open fast-and-loose to get. It would be interesting to compile a documented list of all the bought and paid for chicanery in Tobacco Control. Making the point that the fraudulent whole is merely the sum of its fraudulent parts.

    • Rose says:

      Yes please, Walt.

      His nonsense is so blatant it’s a wonder anyone dare publish it.
      America has had a head start on this and I’m still catching up.

  13. It is definitely safer to smoke in a car with children on board with the windows shut than to open the windows while they are in the car. You can taste the diesel on most busy roads.

    • Rose says:

      Yes, but the denormalisation of fossil fuels comes under Climate Change policy.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Rose – *priceless*

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        That big ass solarcell farm in the desert here in America they show in those green enrgy commercials as the wave of the future just went bankrupt and they are begging for investment from anywhere to keep running,meanwhile fracking is killing the oil prices and America is now an exporter instead of an importer of energy in fossil fuels……….

        These Greens are in MELTDOWN and the anti-smoking Nazis in a last ditch effort to get anything done at whatever cost even if it means total political suicide to them and everone else within that party or even connected to it………….

        Is like the battle of the Bulge their last stand before its all over!

  14. beobrigitte says:

    Ban on smoking in cars will be passed into law within weeks and come into force in October 2015
    Health ministers are expected to unveil details of the new law in December

    Now, THIS will be “interesting”!! I cannot wait for the BBC to give Lansley et al a full morning’s coverage for part of the [in SECRET] FCTC meeting in Moscow decided new LAW.

  15. beobrigitte says:

    I did post too early, I just remembered something:

    With continuing child abuse by tobacco control for it’s gratification the subject of plain packaging will be tagged onto that (repetedly presented and rejected) smoking ban in cars (not necessarily with children present). Naturally they size of the ‘health’ pornography print will increase, too.
    Prof. Rohpohl has suggested that we all start collecting these until we have got enough for a full deck.
    We shuffle them and then deal the pack. Then each player puts a healthporn card into the middle. The player who put an identical healthporn card to the last one down, gets the pack that has accumulated in the middle. Bets are optional.

    Off topic: yesterday I spotted an empty russian cigarette packet in the bin of an airport. The leg ulcer looks like a scene out of ‘Itchy and Scratchy’….

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank my computer came under attack moments ago viewing your blog and every story I had open commenting on. It was more like electronic warfare jamming. My screen just kept bouncing and bouncing everywhere for about 20 minutes and nothing would stop it not even a refresh……….

  17. Pingback: Smoking in Cars with Kids bla bla | Bolton Smokers Club

  18. Warning
    No Under-18s Allowed
    This is a Smoker’s Car. The Government does NOT allow under-18s to ride in this car.
    Get a ride from someone else

    I’ve just printed two copies of this sign on A4 paper, I’ve laminated them both and placed one in each rear-door window. On the signs the text is centralised, with appropriate underlining and with the first and last lines in red.

No need to log in

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

You are commenting using your 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.