Another One Down

Over the weekend I discovered that yet another pub near me has closed (pictured above), and is currently being converted into a house. Nothing special in that given the current climate, but this pub has personal resonance for me not least because it was where my best man took me to have a couple of liquid refreshments before the wedding ceremony itself.

It also means the village in question has now lost its only pub, joining the ever growing list of dry villages.

No flowers.

A Waste Of Space

Underdogs Bite Upwards highlights a Daily Mail article showing (photoshopped) pictures of children smoking. But as one of his commentators points out the Daily Mail is 2 months behind - and depressingly that's an improvement - only 2 months? We've been here before, sometimes it's taken nearly a year.

Not just on news, but right across the board the MSM is failing. Seriously, what's the point of newspapers?

Celebrating The Rebellion

One of the consequences of the smoking ban is that the gents' toilets in sports stadiums, particularly football grounds, have become the equivalent of bike sheds at schools - somewhere to go for a 'crafty half-time fag'. Completely illegal of course but often the stewards take the view that they would be significantly outnumbered in a confined space if they raised an objection, so they leave well alone.

Usually, in my experience, most who use the toilets are ok with the situation - probably because the reason for a large number of us being there is to empty our bladders as a consequence of a consumption of copious alcoholic beverages. A complaint on health issues would be highly improper.

But... you always get one. And so it proved yesterday - the classic father and 'think of the kids' complaint. Which would all be plausible if said kid didn't look like he ate too much and also decided not to move about a lot. Needless to say the father was left in doubt regarding the general sentiment.

Anyway the point of this post is a tribute to classic British obstinacy. The Government may like to tell us what to do but the power resides with us - we only have to choose to use it.

Update: Just spotted this over at the Filthy Engineer's blog

Facts - Up In Smoke

I, personally, don't smoke, never have - my vice of choice is ale. My wife does though or more accurately she did until she gave up for the second time a couple of months ago. I don't like my wife smoking, she knows that but ultimately it's her decision and I leave it at that.

Yet it was with some irritation to both of us that BBC Breakfast this morning had as their main headline news a report from the British Medical Association that smoking should be banned in cars. Funnily enough when it comes to smoking, any civil liberty or freedom is too much - we've been here before. As Velvet Glove, Iron Fist correctly predicted yesterday, it's ground hog day:

Word has it that the British Medical Association is going to have another stab at campaigning for a smoking ban in cars today. This is turning into an biannual crusade and I don't have any more to say about it than I did in all these previous posts.

Yep, an organisation with vested interests on a regular basis releases a press statement that is regurgitated verbatim and with enthusiasm by the BBC without critical comment. The same old weary pattern seen with many other issues such as minimum pricing on alcohol and obesity. As VGIF points out, the report is inaccurate at best.

It really is pathetic. And not just the BBC, the lies were repeated right across the MSM. It's no wonder why me and many others have stopped listening to them. It's bloggers - the voices of little (unpaid) guys that are filling the void - the MSM is becoming irrelevant and are writing themselves out of the script.

Stony Stratford (Update)

It seems that the jolly last Saturday against idiot Councillor Bartlet's attempt to enforce a complete smoking ban has had an effect:

It would appear that rumours of a withdrawal of Herr Bartlett's motion were correct. The reason given for this change of tack, though, are the special kind of Bartlett bonkers we've come to expect.

"The motion to ban smoking in Stony Stratford will not take place at tomorrow's town council meeting (Tuesday) and will now be discussed at the next meeting in September.

As reported in last week's MK NEWS, Councillor Paul Bartlett was planning to postpone his motion as he believes his opponents' arguments are 'flimsy' and they need more time to prepare."

So apparently Councillor Bartlet is happy to postpone to help his opponents because their arguments are flimsy? With excuses like that, is he a MEP?

No doubt in September he will try again to impose the ban but hoping no-one will notice.

Stony Stratford

The Boiling Frog has spent most of today partaking in the jolly at Stony Stratford, making our feelings known against the idiot that is Councillor Paul Bartlett - who wishes to ban smoking in all public places (the vote is on Tuesday). Needless to say that Barlett, who did not stand for election on this issue, has decided to defy the wishes of his electorate to force through his personal desire of a smoke free Stony Stratford.

I'm not a smoker myself - and no doubt Barlett won't be the last - but yet again, this is a clear case of; "first they came for the smokers, then they came for..."

I'm pleased to say that there was a good turnout and it was great to meet the Fuel Injected Moose, Dick Puddlecote, Misanthrope Girl, Dave Atherton, Roger Helmer, Anonymong and other fellow bloggers.

Let's see how the vote goes on Tuesday.

Voting On Smoking Ban In Pubs

Voting is currently taking place (12:54) on Tory MP David Nuttall's Ten Minute Rule Motion on smoking in pubs. Given the difference in the level of noise for Noes against Ayes, I think it will be defeated, but we shall soon see.

Update: Ayes 86 Noes 141. Defeated

Smoke Free Europe?

In an interview to the German paper Die Welt, the EU health commissioner John Dalli has announced his intentions to intensify the campaign against smoking across the EU (via Google Translate, my emphasis):

The European Union will next year intensify the smoking laws. "Will be the target of new legislation on tobacco products, smoking, making in all EU countries less attractive and less harmful," said the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Affairs, John Dalli, 62, WELT ONLINE. "We must strengthen our efforts in the fight against smoking. The ideal is a smoke-free Europe, "the conservative politician from Malta.

The Commissioner proposes "a significant reduction of toxic and addictive ingredients in cigarettes, like nicotine" in front. He also think about it, cigarettes make it even harder to access, they may be issued by not more visible in a store. He praised the ban on the sale of cigarettes in Britain's supermarkets in 2011 as "exemplary." The Commissioner further said: "Even changes in cigarette packaging are desirable: the more uniform and bland, the cigarette packaging, the better. The cigarette should eventually look so simple that they are not tempted to buy. "Could also appear deterrent warning pictures and detailed information on harmful ingredients on the packaging.

Dalli, who in his own country first finance and then was Minister of Social Affairs, also calls for the consistent enforcement of smoke-free environments. A "complete ban on smoking in all public spaces, transport and the workplace is necessary. Exceptions for corner bars and beer tents I do not think makes sense, because this is not just about the health of visitors, but also the employees." The economic arguments that would temporarily run as a reason for exemptions for smoking in the field were not convincing . "It can not be that the economic benefit is more important than the health of people," said Dalli.

In short the anti-smoking measures by the UK is likely to be enforced in an update of the Tobacco Products Directive, rendering any smokers' campaigns in this country redundant; effectively disenfranchising them.

The EU's public consultation on updating the Directive can be found here, and you can make your feelings known to the Commissioner here.

Another Medway Council Update

On the 6th September I blogged the following in regard to a less than comprehensive response by Medway Council to a complaint:

I'm currently writing a response, I will post it on here when I can.

On reflection I've changed my mind. I've decided to keep my powder dry. Ciggy busters were apparently organising another 'event' this month and so far nothing has happened and Rachael's twitter account has not been updated since I complained. My instinct is that the blogosphere's reaction has prompted an about-turn, despite us being universally fobbed off by the relevant authorities. The school, council and maybe the police have been taken aback by the reaction. Good.

So if no more ciggy busters' activities take place then, for me, it's job done. If however there are more 'demonstrations' - in the same format as before - then a second complaint will go in referencing my first.

Medway Council Update

In the nick of time I've had a reply. Surprise surprise they don't uphold my complaint - of course they don't:

Re: Formal Complaint – Rachael Noxon

I refer to your recent email about the Ciggybusters project.

We have checked with the organisers and all the people who had cigarettes taken off of them, and they were actors or willing participants. At no point did any smokers have their cigarettes taken without their permission.

This project, which looks at the dangers of smoking, was funded through a Community Chest grant by A Better Medway – a health campaign run by Medway Council and NHS Medway. Singling out the Tobacco Control Strategy Co-ordinator specifically as focus for your complaint is therefore inappropriate.

This project was something that was arranged and managed by the people that made the film, but neither Medway Council or NHS Medway would have condoned any activity that could cause offence.

The young people making the film, and the adults overseeing it, carefully stage-managed this to make sure that relevant organisations and participants were aware of the event in advance.

Everyone who took part knew what was happening and were not in any way offended. At no point were members of the public approached without their permission.

For these reasons I do not uphold your complaint.

Yours Sincerely

Naturally I'm being fobbed off. The main thrust of my complaint is that a Medway employee was, by encouraging the video (whether simulated or not), potentially guilty of incitement. The subsequent ambiguous statements by the participants since and lack of clarity in the video make this clear. At no point in the reply has this been addressed. Not only a criticism by me but also indicated by this Lib Dem councillor:

To get back to the facts of the case, the key questions were:

1/ Q: Were Ciggy Busters funded/ part-funded by Medway Council?
A: From press-reports, Yes

2/ Q: Were Ciggy Busters's plans approved by the police?
A: From press reports, yes, providing it involved only group members not unsuspecting members of the public.

3/ Q: Did Ciggy Busters involve unsuspecting members of the public?
A: From the statement by Gramenga, Yes

4/ Q: Would a resonable person have approved of Ciggy Busters project methods (surrounding people in the street and snatching their property)
A: No

5/ Q: Would a resonable person think that the actions of Ciggy Busters were illegal, if it was shown that they took property from members of the public?
A: Yes

6: Q: Were the member of the public doing anything illegal themseleves?
A: No - they were smoking in a public place (CHatham High Street)

7: Q: Even if all the people filmed in the video were actors/ members of the group, would a resonable person have approved of Ciggy Busters project methods (surrounding people in the street and snatching their property)?
A: No

8: Q: Do the actions of this group warrant further investigation?
A: Yes

I'm currently writing a response, I will post it on here when I can.

All Quiet On The Blogging Front

I'm taking a short blogging sabbatical as I head towards Torquay for a jolly the serious business of a party conference.

Just a quick update on my complaint to Medway Council. No response yet. They gave me a 5 day target via their email auto response, but their guidelines give a 10 day one:

We will acknowledge your complaint within three working days of us receiving it and will aim to provide you with a full reply within 10 working days. If this is not possible we will contact you to explain the reason for any delay and give you a new reply date.

I've had it confirmed that the 10 day target takes precedence and this is due this weekend. I don't expect a response, but if they think that means I'm going away quietly then they will be wrong.

Presumptions From Medway

Oh dear, it seems that the negative reaction to the 'ciggy busters' stunt has incurred the misguided ire of Labour blogger Tristan Osborne:

'Ciggy Busting' attracts right wing wrath.

As well they might, the actions of the students and teacher are potentially illegal. He continues - linking to me twice, as the token UKIP view:

The 'ciggy busting' campaign run by Hundred of Hoo students last week to highlight the health risks surrounding smoking, is being savagely attacked by the right wing blogosphere, and on sites closely associated with the Libertarian and UKIP political vantage.

Individual bloggers have been writing letters to the Police and Council to attack school pupils for trying to highlight a real and remaining health problem which blights parts of Medway.

No, Tristan, the blogosphere weren't attacking school pupils for trying to improve people's health. They are criticising this particular campaign because it was, and still is, legally dubious. Don't take my word for it, here's the words of one of the participants:

“I was scared about doing something so crazy on the street - I mean you can get arrested."

But to him the finer point of legality is irrelevant - to condemn this stunt in anyway must mean you support smoking and the repeal of the ban. So by using the complaints as an excuse to deploy a straw man of leviathanic proportions he tries to reinforce his self-righteous views on smoking and the smoking ban, including this astonishingly puerile comment:

The Libertarian argument that someone has the right to smoke in a confined public space, where it can harm others is mad, just as the argument that someone has the right to rape, hit or harm someone else by violence.

Aside from the fact that smoking is a legal activity and the others aren't, a point again overlooked (he's not very good at technicalities is he?) I don't think he fully appreciates what he is actually saying. By linking smokers to rapists he is arguing that rape and passive smoking are similar crimes which means the logical extension of that is the impact on the victims must be the same also. In effect he is telling a rape victim; "I know how you feel because I suffered from passive smoking once".

He continues:

Perhaps those Libertarian and UKIP individuals should reflect on their own environment before passing comments on our hard working young people who are trying to highlight the harm to health of smoking to our community.

Perhaps Mr Osborne should stop passing off assumptions. Either he hasn't been bothered to read my blog in detail or he has ignored the inconvenient parts which don't fit in with his view. I've made it clear on this blog that I'm a non-smoker, disagree with my wife doing so and support anyone's right to campaign within the law. I've never made any comment on the smoking ban either for or against. But to him this point is irrelevant, just mere inconvenient detail. Criticism of this particular stunt according to the simple uncomplicated world of Tristan Osborne must automatically mean we criticise all anti smoking campaigns per se.

He concludes:

Right wing bloggers calling for a relaxing of the smoking ban have it totally wrong.

As I pointed out earlier I haven't made any such assertions. No matter, the 'ciggy busters' get his full support:

Smoking Kills. Passive Smoking Kills. Well done our young people.

So buoyed by his own sense of moral superiority, legality is unimportant, and the law is just an a la carte menu where he can pick and choose which bits of it he doesn't agree with; he argues it's not right to hit someone but then endorses just that view if it's against smokers. Ends justifies the means even if illegal you see.

Interestingly he's been selected to stand in Luton & Wayfield for the local elections in 2011. I wonder what potential voters will think when they discover that he apparently supports the incitement of theft, mugging, assault, steaming and happy slapping?

hattip:Corrugated Soundbite

Medway Council (Sort Of) Update

As yet no response to my complaint; they have a 5 day target which expires today, so I have the escalation procedure primed and ready to go. So while we're waiting here's another gem about Medway Council courtesy of former councilor John Ward:

Today, [Councillor David Craggs] has resigned!

The reason for the resignation is given in a statement from Mr Craggs in YourMedway, which has just appeared while I was writing this post:

"People will know that I have served as a volunteer special constable on behalf of the people of Kent for the past 17 years, a role that I have held with pride. In the hope that I could expand my community service I stood as a councillor for Medway.

I did not believe there was any conflict between these roles and was unaware that police regulations prevent anyone from holding political office whilst also serving the police."

Like John Ward I wasn't aware that Special Constables were "politically restricted". However he later highlights this below (my emphasis):

... since this story broke on Conservative Home, it has become clear that other councillors and even MPs have been allowed to be Special Constables at the same time, as HERE and HERE. I suspect the reason the Kent Police Authority's policy has been left unclear is to allow for politically-motivated manipulation. I could be wrong; but I do wonder whether the same would have happened if (say) a Labour or Green candidate had been in exactly the same situation...

Medway Council and Kent Police are not very good are they?

Update: John Ward has further information on his blog with a press release, from which this extract comes from:

Kent Police were incorrect, and arguably unlawful. They had even threatened disciplinary action against David Craggs. Because the statutory �Notice of vacancy‘ has now been issued, acting upon David Craggs resignation letter, the electoral cycle is started and cannot be retracted, despite the resignation now clearly being unnecessary, based on wrong advice and arguably extracted under duress.

This means that another election may need to be held, because Kent Police got the law wrong. The situation is virtually unbelievable. Kent Police must bear full responsibility for this situation, and for the extra costs to be borne by the council, candidates and political parties. No explanation or apology has been forthcoming.

His conclusion is:

Yes, this was almost certainly a case of political manipulation, as the timing and other details show sufficiently clearly that a jury would very probably come to that conclusion.

The terms 'Medway', 'cosh' and 'under' come to mind.

Ciggy Busters Update

Not for me yet unfortuantely, 2 days left to respond to my letter, but Freedom-2-Choose has this:

I received an amazing phone call about half an hour ago from a gentleman by the name of Jim. Now 'Jim' is a reporter working for the Medway newsgroup, I assume the Medway Messenger (?) I was amazed because he had phoned to enquire why we were so angry about the 'Ciggy Busters' article & video-he wanted our side of the story.

Sorry, I'll repeat that for the benefit of the dazed & bewildered...

HE WANTED OUR SIDE OF THE STORY.

I informed him very politely that all smokers would find it offensive for the simple reason that it was portraying smokers as 'fair game' for any type of vigilante abuse. (Oh!) It was sending out the message that we agreed with 'wolf packs', ie gangs of kids, marauding the streets taking any chance to intimidate people not of their liking/persuasion. (Oh!)

I then explained that this would not be tolerated if it was aimed at gays, muslims or the disabled. (No. Well of course not Phil)

Then why can a minority faction, smokers, be subject to random attacks when gays, muslims & the disabled are obviously exempted? (Well they are...[pause]...I see...yes...hmm)...

Safe to say 'Jim' is now a lot wiser as to smokers temperament, reasoning & feelings so I think the article will be a fair reflection of what was said this afternoon. He seemed mortified at the thought of a smoker objecting to such treatment and 'smacking' one of these idiot youths 'in the mouth'. He did not answer when I asked what HE thought the police would do in such a circumstance?

Which is a bit different to Kent Police's reply

Medway Council

The endorsement by Medway Council of the conduct of these students has annoyed me to the extent that I've decided to write to them via their complaints procedure. The full text of my email is as follows:

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to you to express my concerns regarding Medway Council’s apparent endorsement of potentially illegal activity by some students from The Hundred of Hoo School based in Rochester.

Some students have formed an anti-smoking campaign group who call themselves ‘CiggyBusters’ which, as this article makes clear, involves running through the streets removing cigarettes from members of the public while filming them and the subsequent video has been put on the internet. The organizers, and the teacher, appeared to have confirmed that some members of the public were targeted at random.

As I’m sure you are acutely aware, removing items from people without consent constitutes a criminal act (in this case more than one). Therefore it should be of great concern to Medway Council, that one its employees: Tobacco Control Strategic Coordinator, Rachael Noxon, not only condones this behaviour, but is actively promoting it, as seen by her website and her Twitter feed.

In addition I’m sure you are aware, encouraging criminal activity is also a serious offence; it’s incitement. It contravenes sections 44, 45 & 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 (even if the criminal activity featured in the video on the internet is ‘simulated’)

As a non-smoker, I support the involvement of anyone involved in campaigns by means of methods such as; leaflets, T-shirts & posters etc, but the conduct of these students clearly oversteps the mark both morally and legally. It does not take a lot of imagine to appreciate the distress a vulnerable person may feel when approached by gang of young people shouting and taking items from them.

Another ‘campaign’ is planned for September, again with the full endorsement and encouragement of a Medway Council employee.

I trust you will investigate Rachael Noxon’s conduct in this case with the utmost urgency and I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours faithfully

Let's see how they like them apples.

One wonders how long it will be before smokers have to wear yellow stars. Certainly if I had produced a video showing people ripping veils off Muslim women, even if stage-managed, as a protest about Burqas, I would have a visit from Mr Plod very quickly.

It looks like however the students in question are trying to back-track rapidly as they frantically try to remove their names and videos from various websites (the wonders of Google cache). The hostile reaction seems to be scaring them. Good.

Update: I have an auto mail reply confirming they've received it. They have a target of 5 working days to respond.

First They Came For....

I don't smoke, unfortunately my wife does (despite me advising her not to, but hey ho her choice) however activities like this only encourage me to take up the activity in defiance:



Sadly the only astonishing thing about this, is not that it happened, but that someone (i.e. a victim) didn't respond in a ...erm...more robust manner.

hattip: Corrugated Soundbite

Smokers

I'm not a smoker myself (I discovered beer first as my main vice) but my wife is, much to my annoyance. Even so, not only is my wife entitled to choose whether to smoke or not, but the smoking ban has been devastating to the local pubs near me that I used to frequent, but now have closed. This doesn't seem to stop Labour's relentless attack on smokers' liberty:

Measures being considered include removing branding from packets and banning cigarette vending machines, as will happen in Scotland next year.

As is typical with this Labour government these measures have been announced before. What is interesting, however, is that, despite Gordon Brown's pledge to help small businesses, especially acute during this recession, he proposes more regulation in regard cigarettes which means it will be much harder for smaller businesses such as corner shops and newsagents to compete with the likes of Tesco who can absorb the costs. Now I wonder which Labour party Tesco's donate to the most?

Anyway it gives me a chance to play a great clip from Yes Prime Minister (oh how nothing changes)