Jim Wells (DUP)
There are, of course, the naysayers, or, as someone called them, the pseudoJeremiahs, who say that you cannot enforce [a ban on smoking in cars]. We could not have enforced the ban on smoking in restaurants and public houses — the public houses, by the way, which I do not go to. We could not have done that. However, when you see loyalist paramilitaries on the Shankill Road, with studs in their ears, tattoos on their arms and scars on their faces, standing out on the Shankill Road smoking because they know that they are not allowed to smoke in the local bar, the Rangers supporters club, it tells you something. It tells you that the community is enforcing this. The community has decided that it is totally unacceptable and is self-policing.
Therefore, we have not had to have police or environmental health officers raiding bars and restaurants in Northern Ireland. That has not happened, because the law set public opinion on this issue and the people, as a community, believe that this is the right thing to do and have self-policed.So, nothing to do with the threat of huge fines, ruination of their business, and possible imprisonment imposed by central government on publicans who won't police the ban, no?
I presume, then - seeing as the 'community' is 'self-policing' the ban - that Jim would be quite confident in publicly announcing the removal of enforcement powers from local authorities, and once again letting publicans and the community decide what they allow in their pubs and restaurants (that Jim doesn't go to).
Nah, didn't think so.
Don't politicians talk utter cockwaffle sometimes.
12 comments:
Yup, in cars you don't have prison shy publicans sitting in the back seat to tell you to put your lovely ciggies out. Hence, white van man has been free to completely ignore the smoking ban as any car journey will show. I hardly ever wear my seat belt and I have never been pulled up for not wearing it. I often see people smoking in car parks, bus stops and sometimes in pubs after closing time. .
The anti smoking hysterical propoganda is so sophisticated even the most murderous elements of society are compelled to bow to the "INDOOR BAN".
even meetings where instructions on "how to castrate homosexuals","how to
decapitate Jews","how to destroy Christians","how to hack to death Infidels"
are hammered into the heads of 8-14 year olds,yet the teachers troop out
at tea break for a smoke,their concern most paramount with the effect of second smoke on their pupils.Thanks to the BBC ,Guardian et al
The anti tobacco neurosis has now reached new sinister levels and should be treated as a disease similar to the Bubonic Plague spread by rodents,the obvious cure being the identification of the nests of rats and proportionate
treatment of the infestation.
Reminder to the "not bothered" non smokers and fellow bleeding hearts
Rats are'nt fussy
It's the same in cars. The law imposes a fine on any driver who fails to prevent smoking in his car.
They don't fine the passenger, the dog or Little Duwayne in his baby seat for smoking. The driver is the unpaid enforcer and if he fails in his 'duty', he gets hammered.
Whether he smokes or not.
Good excuse in the event of an accident though isn't it.
"Your honour I am pleading not guilty to causing death by reckless driving as at the time of the accident I was busy enforcing the law banning smoking in a vehicle with children."
A statutory defence it seems to me.
Only sometimes?
And as a driver, I will not be enforcing any smoking bans in my vehicle. I am not a state enforcer and never will be. When the law becomes immoral, moral men have to be prepared to stand up to it and refuse to comply. I refuse.
Yes, the “driver must enforce” line is clearly an indication that they know – they damned well know, as we all do – that it was only the “publican must enforce” part of the smoking ban which has obliged people to adhere to the
ban. People don’t want to get their local landlord into trouble if for no other reason than because to do so (or to risk it, if you have a really grumpy landlord) could well get you barred from your local altogether.
But it isn’t going to work quite as well in cars, is it? It’s a whole different relationship from that of a landlord with his customers. That’s business; cars are personal. In a pub the landlord is the “guvnor.” It’s his
gaff, so it’s his rules (even if he’s only limp-wristedly applying the rules which he’s been instructed to). In a personal space like a car no-one is the “guvnor,” unless the relationship is already so dysfunctional that one half bosses the other around all the time. People in good relationships won’t take a blind bit of notice of this rule – they’ll either agree that whoever is smoking
will pay the fine (even if it is imposed only on the driver) or take care to smoke discreetly when together; people in bad relationships may well split up because of it, but then they’d probably have split up over something else
anyway. But either way, it won’t work anywhere near as well as the pub-style “landlord responsibility” does. The template just doesn’t fit this model, no matter how much campaigners might like to think that it will.
You won't have a pub landlord and neither will you have 20 anti smoking customers, bringing pressure to bear, tut-tutting in the back. The ban on hand held mobile phones doesn't work terribly well does it? You see it all the time. Nearly 600,000 people have points on their licence for using them and being otherwise distracted (mind boggles) and that's just the ones they manage to catch! Next will be hands free phones, followed by no sweeties, no nose picking, no stereos in case you're tempted to warble a tune and the ultimate goal ...... absolutely no talking! Nada!! The Anti Talking Control Industry see it being phased out by the year 2025. £30 million in government grants for research studies led by Deborah Arnott; after being moved sideways and down a bit in the wake of her failed attempts to ban ecigs, say so. If the police see your lips moving, you've had it!
Wait until the local rags Names and Shames offenders, my daughter has a 4ft doll and it will be put to good use when they do actually enforce the "law", lol
Seen the gigapixel images used for security with facial recognition? They will be able to pick up a dark thought before long.
And, as a lot of people have said, until government stop robbing us blind for owning and driving a car (mostly to enable us to get to work), then they stick their stupid ban! The vehicle is the property of the owner who pays heavily in taxes every which way for the necessary privilege of owning that vehicle, therefore it is up to the owner whether or not smoking, eating, drinking, etc, go on in said vehicle!
If petty minded neighbours start snitching on people, then I can see some very nasty incidents arising in some neighbourhoods!
The point about smoking discreetly is fine, unless it is the driver smoking. This ridiculous law will cause drivers to try and hide the fact that they are smoking, which is likely to cause far more accidents!
Wouldn't it be wonderful if our limp wristed, pathetic excuse for government and politicians in general could actually open their eyes and see that the wool is being pulled very firmly over them by the rabid antis, who have their own financial agenda and nothing else to consider.
How do truckers get away with smoking these days? They open windows and by the time they return the truck and the next driver gets in, the air is clear and there is no evidence that anyone was smoking in the cab!
Apart from which, most of us should be dead by now as most parents smoked all the time in cars with children present back in the 50's and 60's and still a fair few in the 70's and 80's! As we are not, then I believe that is proof enough that there is no risk to life from smoking in cars. There is, however, more likely to be risk to life by preventing drivers from smoking, as stress levels can get quite high on todays' roads and without the calming effect of a smoke, I can see a lot more road rage causing accidents! But, I guess the rabid antis will just call that collateral damage!!
Of course, the first thing to ban with regards to distractions in vehicles, is CHILDREN!! They kick you in the back, argue, fight and scream and, legally you cannot gag them and truss them up so they are quiet and still!
Post a Comment