The problem is enforcing the law. And you can argue that many other common practices are child abuse. So where do you stop?
My parents smoked around me but I don't feel I was abused. It might actually be quite helpful because although I don't smoke myself, others smoking around me has never bothered me at all because I grew up used to it.
Labelling it 'child abuse' is hysterical nonsense. Frankly. If it was that dangerous then nobody born in the 1970s would've made it to their teens. And if it's that dangerous, then the Government would ban it. But they don't, because the taxation revenue benefit of keeping it outweighs the public health benefit of banning it.
I believe the smoking ban of 2007 is the most draconian and illiberal laws passed in my lifetime. I remember huge discussion about this in 2006 (ish) and at that time, the Government assured people (pubs in particular) that it'd only apply to public places which serve food. Remember that?
I remember asking all sorts of people who ran various establishments what they were going to do. Every pub landlord I spoke to said they'd ban food when the ban comes in, because they'll go under if the smokers stop coming in. When the Govt discovered this, they went even further and announced it's to apply to pretty much everywhere.
The fact it even applies to private members clubs surely strikes at the very heart of 'freedom of association.' A key principle of this country.
Edited by jamie745 on 11/04/2014 at 23:40
|
|
And I deserve the freedom then to use my shotgun for the purpose its designed for. To kill things. So do you support my right to kill as many people in my local supermarket.
|
|
Well that's ridiculous isn't it Ben. A waste of internet bytes.
Do better or don't bother.
Edited by jamie745 on 12/04/2014 at 18:37
|
|
I was going to comment on Jamie's post, but it's all been said before. He does sometimes seem like the tyrant of this forum.
|
|
I prefer to think of myself as 'the personality.'
Anyway, by commenting to say you're not commenting, you've commented.
Muwahah.
|
|
"...by commenting to say you're not commenting, you've commented."
Oh, please. I was about to comment on your previous post, but decided not to. And I did not comment on your post - I commented about you.
I know you like to think you're superior to the rest when it comes to dealing with what people mean and how good their arguments are. Your post is a good example of that and also of your childishness.
I realise I don't have to read what you put - and I don't, not most of it, anyway - but there are acres and acres of your tediousness on this forum.
|
|
|
|
And I deserve the freedom then to use my shotgun for the purpose its designed for. To kill things. So do you support my right to kill as many people in my local supermarket.
Being pedantic, shotguns are not designed for killing people, but for hitting small, fast moving targets like birds, rabbits and clay pigeons.
|
|
I was being a little flippant and ironic to Jamies post my friend. You obviously didn't read the two posts side by side. I think FP got it. ;-)
|
|
You insult flippancy and irony.
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the smoking ban of 2007 is the most draconian and illiberal laws passed in my lifetime. I remember huge discussion about this in 2006 (ish) and at that time, the Government assured people (pubs in particular) that it'd only apply to public places which serve food. Remember that?
I remember asking all sorts of people who ran various establishments what they were going to do. Every pub landlord I spoke to said they'd ban food when the ban comes in, because they'll go under if the smokers stop coming in. When the Govt discovered this, they went even further and announced it's to apply to pretty much everywhere.
The fact it even applies to private members clubs surely strikes at the very heart of 'freedom of association.' A key principle of this country.
If you think it even scores on a draconian/illiberal richter scale then you need to get out more.
Look at some of the 'anti-terror' legislation that in various ways restricts free association or the right to demonstrate without giving notice of route etc. The Police tried to use the latter to stop 'Critical Mass' - essentially a protest over the domination of Central London by motor traffic. The easing of extradition to the US was pushed through on the basis of 'terror' - the first extradees were alledged to be involved in a financial scandal (Enron).
Look at current attempts to restrict access to Judicial Review, a key means of challenging legality/reasonableness of the executive acts of Ministers. The furore over the Human Rights Act has, in practice, nothing to do with 'foreign courts' and everything to do with the act's place as a virtual constitution allowing enforcement of rights against the state.
Further back we had restrictions on SInn Feinn voices being heard on the telly.
As for the smoking ban its real justification was the health and safety of bar staff. I wonder if, were the ban repealed, a smoking permitted pub could get employer liability insurance?
The ban may, or may not, be a factor in the decline of the pub trade. Other, almost certainly much bigger, factors are cheap supermarket booze, social change, 24/7/365 multi channel TV etc.
And the real Elephant in the Lounge Bar is the ownership of pubs by 'pubcos' and wholesale price of tied ales.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 13/04/2014 at 18:05
|
If you think it even scores on a draconian/illiberal richter scale then you need to get out more.
Says who?
What fact backs that up?
You say you only stick to facts, but that sounds like an opinion to me.
Look at some of the 'anti-terror' legislation that in various ways restricts free association or the right to demonstrate without giving notice of route etc.
Oh for sure, Government has got away with far too much erosion of our liberties in the name of 'stopping terrorism.' In almost every case, the legislation being passed in it's name would not have prevented 9/11 or 7/7 had they been in force.
As for the smoking ban its real justification was the health and safety of bar staff.
What fact backs that up? Again, sounds like an opinion and 'something written in the Guardian' isn't fact.
Even if that is the case, I'm sure the thousands of bar staff made unemployed by the smoking ban are incredibly grateful for your help, considering four pubs a week have closed since the smoking ban came in. Those people of course had the choice of whether or not to work there, if they didn't like it they could've gone to KFC instead.
The idea of Government banning an activity absolutely everywhere for the benefit of a select group of workers sounds very silly to me. Hardly a fact.
I wonder if, were the ban repealed, a smoking permitted pub could get employer liability insurance?
As long as we've got people like you in the bureaucratic dead hand of our country?probably none. Thanks for that. Maybe you can pay the bills of everybody you've put out of work? Sounds fair.
The ban may, or may not, be a factor in the decline of the pub trade.
Well out in the real world son, it's pretty obvious to the man in the street that the ban is a massive factor. You're generous enough to stretch to 'maybe' but if you got out of the public sector, where you've never had to earn your money and into reality, you'd soon learn how things work.
Other, almost certainly much bigger, factors are cheap supermarket booze, social change, 24/7/365 multi channel TV etc.
Again, where are the facts that back this up? And again, an opinion piece in the Guardian doesn't count as fact. All of those things you mention had been with us for a very long time before the ban came in without 4 pubs a week closing, so you put forward a weak argument.
The furore over the Human Rights Act has, in practice, nothing to do with 'foreign courts' and everything to do with the act's place as a virtual constitution allowing enforcement of rights against the state.
Well it actually is plenty to do with foreign courts. You can declare it isn't and I'm sure you genuinely believe it but you are simply wrong. I'm sure some middle class journalist at the Guardian has a different take, but that's not fact. That's opinion.
We all know you make - or have made - considerable money out of the Human Rights Act. Peoples ability to argue for their own financial interest is very strong, I get that. As Upton Sinclair said, you cannot make a man see something if his salary depends upon his not seeing it.
The fact Britain had Magna Carta 783 years before the Human Rights Act makes your opinion of it being necessary look very silly.
Anyway, I don't believe in the concept of 'rights.' I prefer the British tradition of freedoms whereby everything's legal unless elected representatives says otherwise. If your precious HRA worked, the State wouldn't be able to infringe our liberties in all the ways you described earlier, so it clearly doesn't work - except for murderers, terrorists and peadophiles.
The Human Rights Act has never benefitted me, but it'd benefit somebody who burgles my house and stabs my family. It may be a good money spinner for your friends in the giant bureaucracy dragging this country down, but it's time we ended it and time people like you were put out of work.
|
|
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz
|
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz
I think you hit the spot there.!!
Edited by Bromptonaut on 14/04/2014 at 00:36
|
|
Jamie,
I'l debate the HRA another time. My point, opinion in this case - there's no accepted scale , was simply that the smoking ban was very small beer. And it wasn't just about pubs either, it applied to pretty much all enclosed publicspaces.
Finally stopped folks smoking in the office.
As to effect on pubs it's very difficult to find any independent data - I was hoping for something for a Parly Commitee or similar. In fact Google turns up results from 'libertarian' groups and the tobbacco campaign group FOREST.
A Camra forum discussion barely gives it a look in. Another article in The Commentator posits a more definite link with pub closure numbers rising rapidly after the ban came in in 2007. Previously the numbers had bumped along the bottom or 20yrs. Unfortunately it seems to confuse co-timing with causation as the downturn bit from 2007 and might just have a role.
Wetherspoons experimented with no smoking in 2005/6 and lost trade, so it's probably true that, given a choice, smokers will go to a pub that permits their habit.
What's perhaps more fruitful is to look at the pubs that have adapted to the ban. The modern Wetherspoons is a case in point. Nicholsonsis another and outfits run by micro brewers also do well - according to Camra. Landlords have to decide how to market their pubsand put some effort in. The days when working men went down the boozer of a night are long gone.
A good undercover smoking area kept warm with patio heaters will help keep the smokers coming in and get them mixing. My mate from work met her husband to be in just such a place.
Can a good 'local' with a welcoming host, well kept ale, cheerful staff and a bit of entertainment still suceed? Of course it can.
OTOH a package of surly service, worn carpets, smelly bogs, poorly kept or even worse solely keg beer and a limited offer of formulaic food spells failure. Losing pubs that way doesn't bother the PubCos - there'll be another mug lining up to sink his savings into the 'pub dream'.
If that doesn't work then, at least in cities, sale and conversion to flats is VERY profitable.
Round here we have three local hostelries. One is a reltively old fashioned pub. No food but decent beer and an established clientele. Public bar has pool, darts, jukebox and the local 'skittles' game. Spices it up with quizes, music nightss, a weekly meat raffle etc. There's also a lounge for those wanting calm and comfort.
The second has exploited its canal side location and majors as a restaurant including narrow boat moorings. Not cheap but excellent quality and very popular evenings and weekends. Good bar/beer too.
Third is a Pubco Owned enigma. Twenty years ago it was thriving as a 'pub that does food'. Reasonable prices for good grub. Retained a public bar and was well used by local groups and societies, bell ringers after Monday practice etc. Then managers (or maybe they owned it and sold to PUbCo) developed it and ceased to encourage local use - they could fill it with people driving in to eat.
They split up and since then it's been run by transient managers with no clear idea of its USP. Only one hit a market - youngsters - but he was a relief between formal tenants and it's now back in the half empty neither local nor restaurant rut. Five years tops and it will be a site for 20 4/5 bed executive dwellings.
|
Finally stopped folks smoking in the office.
Smoking in the office was mostly phased out long before 2007, I've never encountered it and even if some people were still doing it, a national ban wasn't necessary to stop it. A self employed plumber doesn't need to be banned from smoking in his own van in order to stop smoking in offices, does he?
The original plan of only banning smoking in places which serve food made limited sense I suppose. If I was forced to implement anti-smoking measures, I'd have probably rolled it in with the licencing laws in some way, so as only places serving alcohol and private members clubs could have smoking.
That'd stop it in places like McDonalds, which is fair enough, but don't you think it's ridiculous that pipe smokers clubs have to go outside to smoke? I mean that's something out of Monty Python.
As to effect on pubs it's very difficult to find any independent data...Google turns up results from 'libertarian' groups and the tobbacco campaign group FOREST.
Do you particularly dislike libertarians?
Whose data would you call independent? I'm not sure any data can ever be independent because it involves people. It depends on the people researching it and the people funding the study. If it's Government data - which I presume you're looking for - then it's funded by people with an interest in making out their legislation has no negative impact.
Maybe it sums up the difference between us. I don't go onto the internet and hunt for some very dull data in order to reach a conclusion. I've worked in the private sector for all of a couple of years since I was 16. I've worked for all sorts of companies, bought and sold myself and obviously spoken to all sorts of people who run and work in companies.
The people on the ground whose data consists of the tills takings are far better placed to tell me the impact of something than some civil servant data report. Those people tell me the smoking ban is a problem. Whenever I discuss problems facing any business, it usually comes back to something being banned or something being taxed - the council or the Government are the route of most of the problems.
If that doesn't work then, at least in cities, sale and conversion to flats is VERY profitable.
Who'd have thought you'd be lauding the virtues of aggressive property development and I'd find it a bit crass?
Look in one sense you're right. Places will adapt. Many establishments simply now sell different things and I've been in some terrific places since 2007, but I just feel a lot of places have been forced to close for no good reason.
|
|
Smoking in offices carried on right up to 2007. In most places I worked after 98/9 it was restricted, for those in large open plan rooms, to a 'smoking room' Individuals with a room of their own still smoked there and teams working in smaller rooms could agree to designate it a smoking area. You could still identify those rooms by smell when the building was decommisioned in 2003 after being empty for a year..
For a few months in 2002 I was based at a building on on Kingsway where at least four people smoked in their own offices. The whole floor was rank with the smell - it hit you as soon as you walked in and reminded me of my Father's office in sixties Leeds. We moved to new premises later that year and agreed a no smoking policy. There was a room upstairs shared with other occupants for the smokers to use up to the ban in 07. Not pleasant for those near its entrance.
No reason at all to ban a self employed plumber smoking in his own van and that's not the effect. OTOH if he shares it with other people (and self -employed does not equal sole practitioner) then absolutely it should be smoke free.
No better source for this than Wiki but the proposal to limit the ban in pubs to areas where food was served was opposed by the licenced trade as they thought it impractical and thought if there was a ban it was better of total.
Libertarians, in the political and economic sense, are entitled to their views. Their writings however are strongly reflective of that view and lack objectivity. The publication 'The Commentator' I linked to is a case in point. Judging by the side panels it's strongly pro Israel. Would you regard it as an objective source on the Arab/Zionist conflict?
I like facts as a base for opinon and debate, Polemicism of the sort you excel at writing is entertaining but, for me at least, not a good basis on which to base opinion, never mind decisions.
Government data is useful because on the whole it will be objective or at least rigorously tested - even it it's used counterfactually do justify a political policy that's barking and utterly impractical. I had a recollection that one of the Commons Select Committees had looked at the subject in which case witnesses from the licenced trade would have given evidence. The inquiry I had in mind was looking at the PubCos, not closures as such.
In spite of your constant denigration of my former career you can surely see that evidence matters. The private sector is surely equally rigorous in making decisions to spend shareholders money fact based.? I know there are people on the ground who say trade dropped after the smoking ban and the facts show they did but co-incidence is not causation. Falling or static trade in 'traditional' boozers is a long term trend and since the smoking ban pretty wel co-incided with the deepest recession since WW2 it's a bit difficult to isolate.
On the point about redevelopment of pubs I merely observe. Licenced premises are not alone in being susceptible to sale in this way. If the current, massively inflated, value of the site (with or without the building) is large multiple of annual profit as a going concern then owners would be daft not to try. Whether that's a good thing in the long term is another question.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 15/04/2014 at 09:27
|
|
IMO the death of the pub trade was the proliferation of booze being sold in almost every corner shop and supermarket, charging rock bottom prices. The pubs that have shut couldn't compete. This rot set in more than a decade ago and doesn't seem to be relenting. I've lost count of the pubs that have shut in and around my area. It's funny how the very same supermarket chains responsible for shuting pubs, now buys their empty carcases and turns them into mini marts, selling booze!
What should have been done to slow the acceleration of closures is that corner shops should have been stopped from supplying booze in any form. The genie was let out of the bottle and no-one attempted to do anything about it. Well we are in a capitalist system where the market dictates what flourishes or flounders. It's too easy to buy booze outside the old pub environment. It is an industry of yesteryear. So we get the "market" dictates arguement on how we buy our alcohol.
But if we are encouraged in the wrong direction we reap what we sow. The smoking ban had little to do with the rapid demise of local pubs. If the capitalist system is thrown up as the free choice for all selling of booze then the government didn't support the pub industry with sale of alcohol and went forward with the nanny state smoking ban. And good to.
I used to go to the pubs as a teenager and 20 something. I hated the smoke in them then. I never go into a pub now. A sign of the times, but it is not the smoking ban that has changed my habit.
Edited by Ben 10 on 15/04/2014 at 14:54
|
IMO the death of the pub trade was the proliferation of booze being sold in almost every corner shop and supermarket, charging rock bottom prices
Maybe, but that's not the only thing that's grown in the last decade or so. The Government have been waging war on pubs via taxation ever since Labour got in in 1997.
Aside from the odd tabloid pleasing cut, the beer taxes go up every year above inflation, under the radar. Combine that with ever increasing business rates, increasing minimum wages, all sorts of other costly employment regs and even simple things like doubling fuel tax in 15 years all adds to the price a pub has to charge.
What should have been done to slow the acceleration of closures is that corner shops should have been stopped from supplying booze in any form.
I don't agree with Government attacking the pub trade, but I don't agree with the idea of Government banning its competitors from selling alcohol either. You lament the 'capitalist system' many times in your post but are arguing for protectionism, as though that's any better.
|
|
Ben's analysis is spot on and reflect my own life experience as a child of the sixties.
Up to my late teens/early twenties 'off' sales were (a) beer by the can from a pub or (b) a wider range from a wine merchant/off licence chain such as Peter Dominic or similar local independent. Not always on your doorstep, closed by 20:00 weekdays and more restricted on Sundays.
Supermarkets like Morrisons began to sell beer/wine in seventies but, amazingly looking back, they closed at 18:00 (maybe 20:00 on Friday). Again, nothing on sunday, Good Friday etc.
During the eighties small grocery stores began to get licences and they stayed open until 22:30/23:00. A move in 86 to Watford where Mr Ishaq and his lovely daughters ran such a place just over the road meant we never even found the local pub. I suspect deregulation under Mrs T allowed this. A good thing for those who gain, me included, but, like so much else of the same ilk, bought at a social cost.
Other changes like decline of the male sole breadwinner, ever increasing home entertainment, central heating etc etc also contributed but availability of supermarket/corner shop alcohol, almost 24/7 now, is the biggie for sure.
You cannot turn back the clock though. Pubs need to adapt to survive and those that find a selling point, unique or not, remain busy and profitable. The big challenge now is to retain premises so that innovators or community schemes at least have a last chance to keep the 'local' going.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 15/04/2014 at 22:07
|
|
Your descriptions of growing up in the 70s is all full of state control. Things being managed, banned or restricted, which sounds horrible to me. I was born in 1984 so I can't imagine Britain in a time where the Government controlled practically everything.
What a horrible thought.
Ben's analysis is flawed because he totally ignores the tax and regulatory cost burden heaped upon pubs in recent years. Every time the minimum wage goes up, every time the beer tax goes up, every time some new employment regs come in, every time the business rates go up, the pub is forced to charge more.
Surely even you can recognise that?
|
Your descriptions of growing up in the 70s is all full of state control. Things being managed, banned or restricted, which sounds horrible to me. I was born in 1984 so I can't imagine Britain in a time where the Government controlled practically everything.
What a horrible thought.
I've not got time to research the history of state control by licensing of alcohol sales. Suffice to say it wasn't some post war Labour construct in way you imply. The imagery of Hogarth's 'Gin Lane' and (much later) worry about WW1 munitions workers to drunk to make shells were the drivers. More a moralistic cause than socialistic one I think.
Ben's analysis is flawed because he totally ignores the tax and regulatory cost burden heaped upon pubs in recent years. Every time the minimum wage goes up, every time the beer tax goes up, every time some new employment regs come in, every time the business rates go up, the pub is forced to charge more.
Tax and regulation - rates, min wage, employment regs etc apply equally to village stores and, only in so far as they cannot evade them to the supermarket chains too.
Thirty years ago I couldn't have dreamed of sitting at my PC having a remote but entertaining conversation with a stranger about how pubs survive. Even if the beer in the pub was £1/pint I'd still be indoors with a glass of off licence lager by my side. Substitute multi-channel TV for the PC and you've captured most of the population.
Surely even you can recognise that?
Why the need for a personal barb?
|
No reason at all to ban a self employed plumber smoking in his own van and that's not the effect.
Sorry Brompt but it actually is. Smoking is not permitted in any place classed as a place of work, which includes the self employed plumber in his own van which nobody else uses. Obviously the vast majority ignore the law, smoke anyway and thankfully the Police usually show some common sense and don't bother wasting their time with such nonsense.
You talk about shared vans but I take a more liberal view. Let's say the plumber has two or three employees, they all smoke or none of them have a problem with smoking in the van. What business is it of the Government to tell them they can't smoke in it? Surely it's up to the people in question?
the proposal to limit the ban in pubs to areas where food was served was opposed by the licenced trade as they thought it impractical and thought if there was a ban it was better of total.
That's just one pub not wanting another pub to score an advantage over them. They want everybody to be screwed over equally. Remember very few business people are actually capitalists. They all want a monopoly to themselves.
Libertarians, in the political and economic sense, are entitled to their views. Their writings however are strongly reflective of that view and lack objectivity.
Well maybe so but who is objective in their views? I'd argue nobody, because everybody has their own outlook. You're certainly not objective because you've happily identified yourself as soft left, Labour supporting Guardian reader. How can you possibly be objective?
Finding somebody with literally no opinions, no views and no prejudices is impossible.
I like facts as a base for opinon and debate
As do I, the problem here is the vast majority of what we both say probably is true. Credibility (or otherwise) of a viewpoint isn't based in the facts you include, but more in the facts you don't. Journalists do it all the time by only using the facts which support their view and leaving out the facts which don't.
They're all facts though, so ultimately it's arguments which eventually shape your opinion.
I know there are people on the ground who say trade dropped after the smoking ban and the facts show they did but co-incidence is not causation
The people put out of work by the smoking ban couldn't give a flying fornication whether it's co-incidental or not. To the people affected, it doesn't matter. It may matter to people like you, but to them all that matters is it happened.
Edited by jamie745 on 15/04/2014 at 18:30
|
Sorry Brompt but it actually is. Smoking is not permitted in any place classed as a place of work, which includes the self employed plumber in his own van which nobody else uses.
Sorry Jamie but you're wrong.
Both the Health Act 2006 (Section 2 regarding premises) and the Smoke-free (Exemptions and Vehicles) Regulations 2007 (Part 3 regarding Vehicles) specify that they apply to premises or vehicles used by more than one person .
|
|
Well whatever, it doesn't matter.
The self employed people I've met were mistaken then, but that's beside the point. You may have time to sit and read all four trillion pages of legislation the Government spews out every year. I don't.
My point still stands. The legislation goes too far and it's not necessary.
|
Well whatever, it doesn't matter.
The self employed people I've met were mistaken then, but that's beside the point. You may have time to sit and read all four trillion pages of legislation the Government spews out every year. I don't.
My point still stands. The legislation goes too far and it's not necessary.
Seriously, it took a trip to Google followed by less than thirty key depressions. I go direct to legisaltion 'cos that was my job for 35yr, I'm at ease using it and it's conclusive.
Of course it's not everybody's cup of tea though.
The same information is replicated on dozens of other sites including those pitched at self employed who want to know what's legally OK or not
|
|
Well I've never been on the legislation site, I doubt I'd find it that riveting.
The problem is there's just too much stuff. Only people who never have to do any work could possibly have the time to know it all. I bet workplaces up and down the land break many regulations every day without knowing it, because they don't know they exist.
For my job I know some of the basics. I'm not an expert and I'm not a lawyer, so my head will hurt if I read too much of it. I'm up to speed with all the stuff around maximum lifting weights, how holiday pay is worked out and where you have to put fire extinguishers. Stuff like that, but far from an expert.
Anyway, that's still all irrelevant because I still don't see any need for the legislation to exist. So what if the van is used by two people? The second person is free to not use it if they have a problem.
|
|
Jamie,
What is your profession?
My attitude is not that different to what you describe. But once you've looked up the regs on say appeals to a benefit tribunal and a few others in same vein serching legislation seems pretty easy so you use it to inform non work discussions like this one.
|
|
I manage a furniture company. Running one shop and overseeing two others.
|
You talk about shared vans but I take a more liberal view. Let's say the plumber has two or three employees, they all smoke or none of them have a problem with smoking in the van. What business is it of the Government to tell them they can't smoke in it? Surely it's up to the people in question?
If I get a job with a plumbing company, and the boss smokes, am I likely to tell the boss not to smoke in his own van? Of course not. The law protects me, and gives me more freedom. A law might both add a restriction, and create more freedom. The ban on hand guns, and the freedom to live without being shot is an example.
|
If I get a job with a plumbing company, and the boss smokes, am I likely to tell the boss not to smoke in his own van? Of course not
Eddzakery - where's the like buton in this place.
|
The law protects me, and gives me more freedom. A law might both add a restriction, and create more freedom. The ban on hand guns, and the freedom to live without being shot is an example.
For information, gun crime has increased very substantially since handguns were banned. Criminals are not affected by legal restrictions, remember that in Northern Ireland a Firearms Certificate was needed to posses an air gun, but the various paramiltary organisations never seemed short of handguns or even machine guns.
The ban was a typical political knee jerk reaction to "something must be done", just as the smoking ban was an excessive reaction to propaganda about "passive smoking".
|
|
The ban was a typical political knee jerk reaction to "something must be done", just as the smoking ban was an excessive reaction to propaganda about "passive smoking".
While it's probably true that reactions to Dunblane etc were 'knee jerk' the US and SA provide us with ample evidence of need for some control of firearms. Whether Pistorious shot her by intent or accident it wouldn't have happened if carrying guns was not so easy.
And whatever the 'propaganda' was about passive smoking sharing someone else's ciggy smoke was never a positive experience. Even non permanent effects like triggering asthma are unpleasant. One lass I knew died prematurely (in her twenties) from an attack albeit smoking was not the trigger.
Since smoking beame a minority pursuit years ago any pretence that its effects should be tolerated by others has long lost any rationale.
|
If I get a job with a plumbing company, and the boss smokes, am I likely to tell the boss not to smoke in his own van? Of course not.
Maybe not, but you're also incredibly unlikely to take the boss to court should he smoke in the van anyway, because he'll sack you at the first opportunity. Exactly the same result as if the law didn't exist and you complained.
A law might both add a restriction, and create more freedom. The ban on hand guns, and the freedom to live without being shot is an example.
Remind me, how often were people shot in Britain before the ban? Banning handguns was a kneejerk response to one shocking incident. A typical instance of Government believing 'something must be done!!' and now the olympic shooting team has to go to France to practice. Another example of simply going too far.
Criminals tend to not adhere to the law so a handgun ban would not have prevented Dunblane anyway. In America, instances of innocent members of the public being shot by sane, law abiding citizens are practically zero. Most gun deaths in America are suicides, with second on the list being gang related.
Violent crime has actually risen in the UK in recent years. Due to it being relatively hard to obtain firearms here (far from impossible, you can get an M-16 in Manchester if you know where to look) we've instead got knife crime and now a worrying trend of eastern European grenades making their way onto the streets. Guns are traceable, grenades aren't.
|
I have never seen a company flout smoking laws.
Regarding hand guns, the number of deaths per year is tiny, with no hand gun massacres since the ban. I think almost all the deaths are due to criminal gangs. There is a problem with gangs, I believe they are of Jamaican origin. A flood of weapons from Ireland due to the peace process has not helped. These murders are independent of any ban. We have one of the lowest gun death figures in the world. Should we have banned handguns stored in shooting clubs? Dunno.
|
|
Jamie,
Can I just make two points about US and handguns?
Firstly there are plenty of occasions where innocent people are shot by sane law abiding citizens. People who keep a gun under the pillow are prone to shoot 'intruders' first and ask the body questions later. Wives/kids get shot that way with monotonous regularity.
Secondly massacres of the innocent by crazy gunmen are incredibly comon.
Also you mention Dunblane as though it were an utter one off. There was in fact at least one other UK mass shooting beforehand - Hungerford in 1987. Subsequently Derek Bird went on a spree in Cumbria. While I tend to agree that subsequent restrictions were over the top doing nothing was simply not a political option. As you reminded me re HS2 we live in a democracy.
|
|
Words like 'plenty' and 'incredibly common' need to be kept in perspective when talking about a nation of 300 million people. Most gun deaths in America are suicides with most of the rest being gang related. Whenever there's a mass shooting, the British media go into overdrive as it gives the commentariat the chance to take the moral high ground about how we Brits know best, obviously. It gets sychophantic after a while.
doing nothing was simply not a political option
What was the political response to Hungerford? You mention two incidents and Derek Bird is irrelevant because he used a shotgun. Not a handgun.
Doing nothing is not an option is a popular phrase in politics, sometimes it's the equally snappy something must be done, often accompanied by exclamation mark, but it's almost always untrue.
Doing nothing is an option 98% of the time, but politicians like to look busy, because it makes them feel good. Most of the time they're responding to pressure either from the media or affected relatives, which is why I say any law named after dead children is a bad law.
There's a reason we don't let victims parents sit as the judge.
Look, I agree with some of the sensible arguments put forward about gun control in America. It's true that most people don't know what the first half of the second amendment actually says and it's also true it was written before they had Police forces or street lights. What I admire though is the respect for the constitution and the fact Barack Obama by himself can't change it. That's pretty special if you think about it.
|
|
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzz
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is enforcing the law. And you can argue that many other common practices are child abuse. So where do you stop?
My parents smoked around me but I don't feel I was abused. It might actually be quite helpful because although I don't smoke myself, others smoking around me has never bothered me at all because I grew up used to it.
Labelling it 'child abuse' is hysterical nonsense. Frankly. If it was that dangerous then nobody born in the 1970s would've made it to their teens. And if it's that dangerous, then the Government would ban it. But they don't, because the taxation revenue benefit of keeping it outweighs the public health benefit of banning it.
You make absurd statements, using extremes to 'prove' something. It was actually quite hard to prove that smoking kills. Passive smoking does not kill everyone. But it causes organ damage, dependent on exposure, age, genetic susceptibility and other factors.
I believe the smoking ban of 2007 is the most draconian and illiberal laws passed in my lifetime. I remember huge discussion about this in 2006 (ish) and at that time, the Government assured people (pubs in particular) that it'd only apply to public places which serve food. Remember that?
I am grateful to the smoking ban. Pubs are now pleasant places to be. In the past I would emerge with stinging eyes and stinking clothes. It was not possible to eat in a pub due to the disgusting fumes.
I remember asking all sorts of people who ran various establishments what they were going to do. Every pub landlord I spoke to said they'd ban food when the ban comes in, because they'll go under if the smokers stop coming in. When the Govt discovered this, they went even further and announced it's to apply to pretty much everywhere.
The fact it even applies to private members clubs surely strikes at the very heart of 'freedom of association.' A key principle of this country.
I have a right not to be poisoned by someone else's 'pleasure'.
|
|
Sorry about the format, the forum is too hard to use.
|
|
From the length and regularity of your posts, your furniture business isn't that busy lately I take it.
|
|
If i bought a chair of him Ben I wrap it around his head.Leify boy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
