You can read the whole thing here.
Every item of junk science on the subject has been breathlessly reproduced, with Jimmy adding his own ignorant spin to it along the way. The result of which is that he has proposed some really illiberal shit.
I therefore propose to prohibit smoking in a vehicle while a child aged under 16 is present. The ban would apply irrespective of whether the vehicle was moving or stationary, on a road, a private driveway or any other private or public land. My proposals would also include convertible vehicles irrespective of whether the top is down but would not apply to motorcycles and sidecars.Only in the crazy world of anti-tobacco fruitcakery can second-hand smoke in a soft top at 70mph on a motorway with the roof down be deemed a potentially lethal substance to poor innocent passengers.
Still, he is giving the illusion of democracy by asking what you think ... before carrying on regardless. The questions are on page 39, but to save you some time:
1. Do you support the general aim of the proposed Bill? Please indicate “yes/no/undecided” and explain the reasons for your response.
2. Do you agree that legislation is a necessary and appropriate means of addressing the issues identified?
3. What (if any) would be the main practical advantages of the legislation proposed? What (if any) would be the disadvantages?
4. Do you agree that a ban should apply to smokers while in a car with children under 16 years of age?
5. Do you agree that the age of an offender shall be anyone aged 16 or over?
6. Do you agree with making the fine for an offence (£60) in line with offences for failing to wear a seat belt and the use of a hand-held device while driving?
7. What types of vehicles should the ban apply to? Do you believe that these proposals should include convertible cars irrespective of whether the top is down?
8. What is your assessment of the likely financial implications (if any) of the proposed Bill to you or your organisation? What (if any) other significant financial implications are likely to arise?
9. Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications for equality? If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be minimised or avoided?
10. What lead-in time should be allowed prior to implementation of the ban and how should the public be informed?
11. Do you have any other comments on or suggestions relevant to the proposal?Be nice with the last one, folks.
You have until the end of the month to answer these questions, and I heartily encourage you to do so via the means below.
You are invited to respond to this consultation by answering the questions in the consultation and by adding any other comments that you consider appropriate.Be nice with that too, eh?
Responses should be submitted by 5pm on Friday 30th August and sent to:
Jim Hume MSPM2.20The Scottish ParliamentEdinburghEH99 1SPTel: 0131 348 6702Fax: 0131 348 6705
Please indicate whether you are a private individual or an organisation.He is promising to make the responses public, so fire away and see if you get published.
17 comments:
If this man is representative of the quality of individual who can become a MSP then frankly roll on the referendum
The Scots should think very carefully about the people they are electing. Some of them appear not only to be completely unqualified to engage in logical, fact based policy making. Beyond that there are clearly those who have particular special needs as well.
That said, perhaps Holyrood is the best place to put them. At least we know where they are. Better that than loose in the community eh? :)
And before the Scots get angry with me - you bloody voted for this guy!
Done! Key words include, "illiberal", "terrifying", "astonishingly ill-informed", "mind-boggling", "preposterous", "absurd" - that should be fun when they are compiling the responses!
all I have to say about this is HA HA HA HA HA and good luck policing it and enforcing it Jim Hume. How can he say he would include convertibles but not motorbikes and sidecars??? Preposterous the man is clearly some sort of deranged garden gnome.
Bless, the porridge wogs have exactly the sort of socialist, authoritarian fuck wit MP they love so much.
He has clearly got less than an ounce of intelligence and is incapable of using Google for 5 minutes to see that all of the research by his "advisors" in the eugenics industry has already been comprehensively debunked.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone smoking on the back of a motorbike which is not stationary. True, sometime ago I had several cigarettes whilst driving a quad bike in Crete, but quad bikes are a different proposition, in terms of control, from a motorbike.
You know exactly what's going to happen when they can't police it.
As I pointed out in my reply, there's going to be problems (1) determining if a youth in a car is in fact under or over 16, and (2) you're not going to be able to argue with the policeman over the on-the-spot fine that results.
So they'll go for a 100% ban on smoking in cars. Which is what they're aiming for anyway.
Not only that, but when you're on a bike, if it's a tailor-made you're smoking it lasts about ten seconds, and if it's a rollie, it goes out. Ergo, smoking fags on motor bikes is a bit of a non-starter unless you intend to travel at less than 10mph.
Dear Mr Puddlecote
Plainly a man with too much time on his hands and only a tenuous grasp of reality.
The absurdity of his proposal and the wording reminds me of serious children aged about four playing at grown ups, one of whom takes it upon herself (it's always a girl) to boss the others around.
"While I am aware of views towards making the driver wholly responsible for smoking by anyone in their vehicle in front of a child I am not minded to include this in my proposals."
"... I am not minded to include this in my proposals." What planet is this man from?
It would seem to be OK to smoke behind a child ...
Too much time, not enough to do. Sums up the entire political and bureaucratic classes.
DP
Sadly, it's not a mania restricted to Scotland. Having said that, it's not that far away so maybe something in the northern air. ;)
Fine is doubled.
Nice one. I've been bcc'd into two other exceptional responses too. :)
You got it.
Indeed. They seem to have decided to react to our disgust with them by simply using their power to destroy society.
Perfect example: The entire country is aware that our liberties have been decimated by MPs in the past 15 years. The response: Leveson, jailing of Twitter jokers, digital economy act, criminalisation of private pictures, filters on online content MPs disagree with, and arresting friends of journos at Heathrow (to name but 10%).
Jim Hume is an Oxygen thief.
Several Scots persons of my acquaintance cringe when I mention their "parliament".
Perhaps some rascally Caledonian scamp has gotten hold of a forthcoming Rab C Nesbitt script and substituted it for a Scottish Lib-Dem policy document ? truth is often stranger than fiction you know... I mean - whodah thunk Shrek would turn pink and get to lead a Scottish political party eh?
“If this man is representative of the quality of individual who can become a MSP then frankly roll on the referendum.”
Or, alternatively, if you have to live here, not.
“...you bloody voted for this guy!”
Not guilty, m'lud.
I told 'em this would happen, back in '97. I said we'd end up being governed by a crowd of third-rate megalomaniac chancers, but nobody listened. “You don't trust the Scottish people to govern themselves!” they said. Which is a downright calumny. That's exactly what I want, people governing themselves instead of ducking that responsibility in favour of a gang of chippy spivs on the make. I wouldn't trust them to go down the shops for a pint of milk without coming back three days late with a handful of magic beans and a bill for £371.43.
No, you can't blame me. I wanted nothing to do with it. One government was bad enough. Now we have three to contend with.
Is this ridiculous muppet even aware that the car is emitting smoke? And not just any old smoke - the number one choice of suicides everywhere!
Done. - A few examples:
2. Do you agree
that legislation is a necessary and appropriate means of addressing the issues identified?
NO! There is already far too much legislation interfering in peoples’ lives in what is supposed to be a free and democratic country, although it is fast becoming more like a dictatorship. This interference MUST STOP. There is absolutely no evidence from the past 50 years that shows any harm done to anyone by adults smoking in their cars.
3. What (if any) would be the main practical advantages of the legislation proposed? What (if any) would be the disadvantages?
NO advantages whatsoever.
Disadvantages would include less safe roads and many more accidents, plus the further erosion of freedom in favour of dictatorship.
7. What types of vehicles should the ban apply to?
Do you believe that these proposals should include convertible cars
irrespective of whether the top is down?
NONE! Even if this ridiculous and dangerous legislation were to go through, including convertibles with the top down is utterly ridiculous and just proves that this is, like the smoking ban itself, nothing to do with health!
9. Is the proposed Bill likely to have any substantial positive or negative implications for equality? If it is likely to have a substantial negative implication, how might this be minimised or avoided?
Of course it will have substantial negative implications for equality – the equality of smokers, as human beings, to live their lives and go about their normal business without stress and interference from an ever increasing interfering and dictatorial governments.
There are absolutely no positives.
Post a Comment