Wednesday 15 July 2009

The Ban That Isn't

Via Old Holborn, I see that Lord Darzi has obviously done all the lying he was asked to perform for Labour and has now fucked off, on a fat salary and with a permanent peerage for his trouble.

But before we finally wave a happy adieu to this healthist fudge-packer from the Lords front benches, let me just point out one of his last pronouncements before the Woolsack.

Lord Laird (Crossbench)

To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to ensure that people do not have to smoke tobacco passively in public places which are in the open.

Lord Darzi of Denham (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Health; Labour)

There is no intention at this time to extend the smokefree law to any outdoor places. To make any non-enclosed place smokefree would require new regulations to be made; that would usually happen only after a process of public consultation.

Really Darzi? Are you sure? Cos the Corrupt Borough of Tower Hamlets* has done just that, apparently.

A PARK in the East End is to become the first outdoor public place in Britain to be made smoke-free.

Parts of Mile End Park in Tower Hamlets will be off limits to smokers from Monday 20 July, with warning signs appearing around the park this week.

Tower Hamlets council will therefore be the first local authority in the UK to extend the smoking ban to open public places**.

All about health, they always said. So, considering there isn't a shred of evidence of harm from secondary smoking outdoors (nor will there ever be), what is the reasoning behind this?

The Mile End Park ban will apply to the children’s area, and is aimed at preventing children from taking up the habit, as well as protecting them from the effects of "passive" smoking.

Beg pardon? Are we talking about the same Mile End Park which extends over the Mile End Road?

And these righteous cocks are worried about a few wisps of smoke? Good grief with frigging bells and whistles on.

This is the kind of hysterical over-reaction that Darzi and his ilk have helped to foster in the feeble minds of empire-builders and bigoted rubber band flickers the length and breadth of the country.

Presumably, the 'preventing children from taking up the habit' bit is that kids seeing people smoking will make them want to do so as well. An insignificant concern at the time of implementing the smoking ban which necessitated hundreds of thousands of smokers being thrust into the view of kiddywinks nationwide, but now vitally important, it would seem. Nothing like a consistent line of argument, is there?

Of course, what the Corrupt Borough of Tower Hamlets failed to mention in their triumphant piss release is that the measure is entirely unenforceable in law. It is therefore an oxymoron, a voluntary ban. On that score, Lord Darzi was correct.

Having travelled through Tower Hamlets just last month (it's a toilet, sorry), one would have thought they would have more to tackle than something so irrelevant, pointless and arrogant as this. But then, while the money is being chucked their way by Darzi's righteous, socialist cock-munching pals, for such schemes, they're going to spend it, aren't they?

* Readers of Private Eye will be well aware of how council leader Lutfur Rahman is turning Tower Hamlets into an exclusively Bangladeshi Borough, and other abuses.

** Not strictly true. A Lib Dem London Borough have already been
as stupid.


timbone said...

Like the open air car parks at South Trafford College which extend to about 2 mins walk from the buildings, which have signs saying "It is against the law to smoke on this site"

Helen said...

Anti-smokers are wrecking the health of our nation.

I'd love to know how many would still be alive today if we hadn't spent so much on social engineering.

BTW - beware anyone who pulls me up for breaking a law that doesn't even exist - I know my hugely limited rights whether the nannies like it or not.

banned said...

"Really Darzi? Are you sure?"

Like the many 'bans' in the open grounds of Hospitals that are completly unlawful but are probably enough to get a PCSO feeling your collar ( or "getting medievel on your ass " as our American friends might say ) enforcing a "law" that is not a law.

The only people who obey these bans are employees for whom open air smoking within the grounds would be a disciplinary offence.

banned said...


Home Office ID card roll-out to be accelerated

So much for backing down

Mark Wadsworth said...

Good photo.

haddock said...

Bournemouth has had a "No Smoking" beach for several years now.... so Tower Hamlets are not a first. Tory Bournemouth seem to have got in first with their totalitarian nonsense.

Witterings from Witney said...

DP - Tower Hamlets is not a toilet! It is a s**thole!

This is, methinks, just preempting an EU Commission proposal.

Anonymous said...

Dick Puddlecote So, considering there isn't a shred of evidence of harm from secondary smoking outdoors (nor will there ever be), what is the reasoning behind this?

Quite simple Dick…the antis are on a roll, they’re on a feeding frenzy against smoking and smokers.

Clearly from looking at the photo, you can plainly see the number of cars on the road pumping out pollution. Many moons ago I asked the British Heart Foundation, ASH, CRUK and the Dept Of Health this simple question.

How many people were killed last year by ‘passive carbon monoxide poisoning’ from vehicle emissions, how are these deaths recorded, and how can they be validated with autopsy evidence.

Of course, I didn’t get an answer…because as we know with ‘passive smoking’, there is no intrinsic medical or scientific evidence, nor has there ever been.

I call it collective gullibility…where so-called ‘experts’ make pronouncements for the supposed good of everyone else, and we basically just fall into line because generally we are happy with what others tell us to do.

After all, if we demonstrated in the street every time a law we didn’t like was passed – then the world just wouldn’t go around now would it?

We need a wealthy benefactor, or a well-resourced pro-smoking group, who will drag these nipple-flippers into court where they have to present evidence, that smoking in public is harmful to the general public. How it would be possible to prove that it is harmful beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law…quite simply escapes me.

A couple of cases of this kind would do immense damage to the antis. But don’t expect help from the Pubco’s…they’ve been nicely brainwashed and put back in their box.

As for Lord Darzi…shit comes out of his mouth, and he speaks through his arsehole…all the same really!

Anonymous said...

How will this ban be enforced. Physical removal of the offending cigarette or the smoker ??

Surely this is worth testing as thee could be a nice claim for 'compensashun' from this council if they assault anyone in the line of their persecution of smokers with a policy that is not legal.

banned said...

Report in Thursdays Telegraph, Addenbrooks Hospital Cambridge conducted research to find out why staff had flouted its' No Smoking rules.
Conclusion> 'They are addicted to nicotine ', brilliant, 10 out of 10 for stating the obvious; seems the outdoor ban has been LIFTED after staff protests.