Chalk one up for our side, scorer.
Click Here for all previous articles on the Stony ban proposal.
UPDATE: Just to add a little more on this.
I first heard a rumble that Bartlett had ditched his plan yesterday afternoon, but thought it best not to tempt fate until there was confirmation. As always, AMA/MK11 proves to be a top quality local news source, as they did before and during the 'Standoff' in July.
If we had the luxury of a peer into Bartlett's confused and heavily-jumbled mind, I suspect the withdrawal of his motion was more due to his coming down from the high of national publicity than his respect for the residents of Stony Stratford, or their overwhelming rejection of his daft proposal.
It would appear that a video spot on BBC local news, a visit from Rod Liddle, and his 'tired and emotional' rant on TalkSport convinced him that he had somehow been catapulted into the big time. Like some political X-Factor wannabe who stubbornly refuses to notice the thinly-veiled smirks of those judging him.
In the intervening couple of months, he has talked of a 'national debate' in the media - heavily involving him, of course - and even at one point suggested that Tuesday's meeting should be televised for the nation!
If any individual - or organisation - has been encouraging his sad delusions of grandeur, they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Because what has become patently clear from the report stage of the Localism Bill is that Bartlett's idea of the police enforcing his little scheme was pure fantasy. There are no powers afforded to councils for such initiatives, only primary legislation - it would seem - is able to offer the kind of big boot required to make a localised outdoor smoking ban stick.
What his supporters may have wished for, though, was a cause to hang their anti-smoking hat on. Something to point to as 'proof' that the public are ready for bans on smoking in the open air.
As his plan lies in smouldering ruins (it's OK, that smoke doesn't harm anyone), so too does Bartlett's political career if local reports are to be believed. He himself has admitted to being subject to insults, and one has to wonder how long he will be able to hang on to his post on Stony's Town Council - perhaps something which he has previously found to be quite life-enhancing.
For a brief while, he was the cause célèbre of the anti-smoking community, but he'll now be left friendless and without support as they forget Stony Stratford and move on to somewhere else to get their kicks.
I suppose that's politics and he partly has himself to blame for being an utter fool, but a little word to the wise - from professional bansturbators who knew full well he was setting himself up for a massive failure on a futile exercise - should have been offered a long time ago.
Of course, those of us who were targeted by Bartlett's prejudices are pefectly entitled to blow the short-arse a hefty raspberry. C'est la guerre, doncha know.
10 comments:
Woo Hooooo!
Maybe Bartlett doesn't have the balls to go mano a mano with the number five libertarian blogger?
;-) Good result, DP. Highest you've been, isn't it?
agreed on both counts. Congrats DP x
perhaps just deferred until the localism bill is passed.
Excellent. However, anon does sound a reasonable note of caution...
Although it's good news to hear he has dropped the proposal, I would still never trust anti-smoking to be still planning to get away with it somehow through other means. It might not be Stony Stratford and it might not be in the next month or two, but it could still be some other location postponed a little down the road, or through the localism route. If anti-smoking hasn't a wooden stake in its heart, then never assume the monster isn't still alive and breathing, somewhere, somehow, in wait. But bravo - good news on Stony's outdoor ban being withdrawn. It was an excellent example of what coming together on this issue against anti-smoking can accomplish.
Personal congrats to you, DP. There's no doubt in my mind that without your stalwart efforts in calling up the ranks to the front line this little weasel would have continued with his motion (what an appropriate word!) even despite opposition from local residents and his fellow councillors. I strongly suspect that, despite the article, he won't be putting it forward for consideration again - he's been soundly whipped and he knows it. I take the point that others of his ilk may raise similar suggestions elsewhere, but this whole incident, along with the ensuring publicity (and thus very public humiliation) should at least give them pause for thought. And that, if nothing else, is a first for the anti-tobacco lobby.
AE: Oh, he's been fronting up by e-mail, but most of it is unintelligible rambling tbh. As for the TP poll, yes, highest I've been but just look at how many stopped writing in the last year! I'll write something about it when they've finished churning the results out. :)
Anon: True, just about to update with a bit more as I was busy earlier when posting this.
It might have been better IF
the ban had been introduced,
it could have stirred a few more
apathetic ,cringing,cowardly,
lick spittles out of their pathetic
coma not to mention the cap doffing,back stabbing publicans,
whose cowardice is a disgrace to the English people.
If more drinkers had boycotted the
turncoat taverns ,the weasel featured landlords might have stirred of their fat arses and
done something instead of "quoting" the LAW like Judas
and Adolph Eichman.
Embarassed to be British
Thanks for this, Dick, and for your efforts in Stony Stratford.
May the Localism Bill come to nought.
Hearty congratulations on your 2011 ranking in the UK Libertarian blogs! Well deserved!
Churchmouse
Post a Comment