That people who wish to associate together should not be forbidden to do so.

It is one of our most basic freedoms that we can associate together in any way that we wish. If individuals wish to congregate together to discuss some imposition of the government, they can do so. But the government have made it illegal for people who enjoy tobacco to congregate, unless they comply with the government’s edict not to enjoy tobacco together, unless they are in a place which is not a place available to the general public.

 

But, it is of the greatest importance for us to understand that the government has NO authority whatsoever to decide in what circumstances citizens can congregate. The right to congregate is sacrosanct.

 

It follows therefore that the government have no right whatsoever to stop a publican providing facilities for people who enjoy tobacco to meet and talk and enjoy their tobacco. The health of the population as an amorphous mass is irrelevant.

Why is this idea important?

It is one of our most basic freedoms that we can associate together in any way that we wish. If individuals wish to congregate together to discuss some imposition of the government, they can do so. But the government have made it illegal for people who enjoy tobacco to congregate, unless they comply with the government’s edict not to enjoy tobacco together, unless they are in a place which is not a place available to the general public.

 

But, it is of the greatest importance for us to understand that the government has NO authority whatsoever to decide in what circumstances citizens can congregate. The right to congregate is sacrosanct.

 

It follows therefore that the government have no right whatsoever to stop a publican providing facilities for people who enjoy tobacco to meet and talk and enjoy their tobacco. The health of the population as an amorphous mass is irrelevant.

That unemployed people should be allowed to hunt rabbits and such.

Unemployed people are stuck. Their only income is that provided by the state, which is minuscule. Why should they not be able to hunt and fish?

Why is this idea important?

Unemployed people are stuck. Their only income is that provided by the state, which is minuscule. Why should they not be able to hunt and fish?

That those ideas which have received the most votes and comments specifically as regards the smoking ban) should not be dismissed in the new version.

On 1st July 2010, one W HOG introduced and ‘’idea’ which he entitled “Repeal and Change the Smoking Ban”. Since then, at today’s date, there have been 978 comments and 1178 votes. The comments are very largely repeat contributions, but the vast majority of the votes must surely be single, individual votes.

Most pollsters would be happy to agree that such a large number of people would provide a view of the opinion of the public with around 90-95% confidence. Thus we can say that some 60% of the people agree with the motion.

 

However, the Your Freedom site has been deliberately set up in its voting system to disallow such a conclusion since there is no possibility of voting ‘against’ the idea – you either vote a little bit ‘for’ or you vote a lot ‘for’ (one star up to five stars). Nevertheless, most people who dislike an idea vote ‘one star’ – meaning that they do not rate it, and so I think that it is reasonable to say that the majority of voters favour the ‘idea’ that the Smoking Ban should be amended at least – 60% of voters ‘rate’ the idea a good one. Also, we should note another similar idea: “ ‘Ban’ smoking ban in pubs……give landlord choice….” This idea had 413 comments and 859 votes. In this case, the vote was 80% rated as good. Also, there have been dozens of others, also rated over 80%.

 

The confidence level of the statistics indicates that the matter of an amendment to the ban is important to the people. In the consideration of the results of the consultation, these facts should be recognised.

 

Since the Smoking Ban, pub closures have accelerated. They have accelerated in turn, one after another, in Ireland, Scotland and England-and-Wales. In the face of such evidence, it is a travesty of reality for ASH to claim that their statement in 2003/4, that pub business would increase by leaps and bounds if smoking was banned, was anything other than a downright lie.  We must also bear in mind that ASH and Co were financed and directed by the unelected Professors of Physicianism who took over the Department of Health some years ago. 

Why is this idea important?

On 1st July 2010, one W HOG introduced and ‘’idea’ which he entitled “Repeal and Change the Smoking Ban”. Since then, at today’s date, there have been 978 comments and 1178 votes. The comments are very largely repeat contributions, but the vast majority of the votes must surely be single, individual votes.

Most pollsters would be happy to agree that such a large number of people would provide a view of the opinion of the public with around 90-95% confidence. Thus we can say that some 60% of the people agree with the motion.

 

However, the Your Freedom site has been deliberately set up in its voting system to disallow such a conclusion since there is no possibility of voting ‘against’ the idea – you either vote a little bit ‘for’ or you vote a lot ‘for’ (one star up to five stars). Nevertheless, most people who dislike an idea vote ‘one star’ – meaning that they do not rate it, and so I think that it is reasonable to say that the majority of voters favour the ‘idea’ that the Smoking Ban should be amended at least – 60% of voters ‘rate’ the idea a good one. Also, we should note another similar idea: “ ‘Ban’ smoking ban in pubs……give landlord choice….” This idea had 413 comments and 859 votes. In this case, the vote was 80% rated as good. Also, there have been dozens of others, also rated over 80%.

 

The confidence level of the statistics indicates that the matter of an amendment to the ban is important to the people. In the consideration of the results of the consultation, these facts should be recognised.

 

Since the Smoking Ban, pub closures have accelerated. They have accelerated in turn, one after another, in Ireland, Scotland and England-and-Wales. In the face of such evidence, it is a travesty of reality for ASH to claim that their statement in 2003/4, that pub business would increase by leaps and bounds if smoking was banned, was anything other than a downright lie.  We must also bear in mind that ASH and Co were financed and directed by the unelected Professors of Physicianism who took over the Department of Health some years ago. 

that a public enquiry should be initiated regarding the smoking ban.

I am calling for a public enquiry into the smoking ban.

A new study has revealed that The Smoking Ban has indeed been responsible for the decimation of our pubs – there is no doubt about it.

We must put this into context.

Prior to the smoking ban, ASH, funded by the Health Dept and Others, assured the hospitality trade, as a result of various studies and surveys,  that their trade would not suffer if smoking was banned. This has now turned out to be false.

Not only that, but the ban was rushed through using parliamentary tricks which belittle our nation and our democracy.

Further, various physicians have recently been quoted as accusing parents of child abuse if they smoke in the presence of their children.  

I say: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! The denormalisation and demonisation of smokers must cease!

Why is this idea important?

I am calling for a public enquiry into the smoking ban.

A new study has revealed that The Smoking Ban has indeed been responsible for the decimation of our pubs – there is no doubt about it.

We must put this into context.

Prior to the smoking ban, ASH, funded by the Health Dept and Others, assured the hospitality trade, as a result of various studies and surveys,  that their trade would not suffer if smoking was banned. This has now turned out to be false.

Not only that, but the ban was rushed through using parliamentary tricks which belittle our nation and our democracy.

Further, various physicians have recently been quoted as accusing parents of child abuse if they smoke in the presence of their children.  

I say: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! The denormalisation and demonisation of smokers must cease!

Stop the Health Dept wasting taxpayers money on television advertising.

Tonight, I saw a new anti-smoking advert of the TV. In this advert, a mum is seen smoking on her doorstep. In the house are a couple of children ((I am not absolutely sure of the facts because I only saw it once). A voice-over then says that tobacco smoke is invisible and gets everywhere. It then says "TAKE SEVEN STEPS".

There is an obvious implication in this advert that there is some danger to the children inside the house from the mum smoking on the doorstep. In reality, there is no such danger. None at all.

It is beyond my comprehension that the Health Dept can issue such garbage.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Tonight, I saw a new anti-smoking advert of the TV. In this advert, a mum is seen smoking on her doorstep. In the house are a couple of children ((I am not absolutely sure of the facts because I only saw it once). A voice-over then says that tobacco smoke is invisible and gets everywhere. It then says "TAKE SEVEN STEPS".

There is an obvious implication in this advert that there is some danger to the children inside the house from the mum smoking on the doorstep. In reality, there is no such danger. None at all.

It is beyond my comprehension that the Health Dept can issue such garbage.

 

 

That medical people should be mindful of their ‘Hippocratic oath’ and insist upon the truth, particularly as applies to the smoking ban.

The 'Hippocratic Oath' was established about 2500 years ago by the Greek philosopher and doctor, Hippocrates. Essentially, it commits a 'physician' to promise not to use his skills to do harm and to respect his teachers and to pass on the knowledge faithfully.

An ‘update’ of the Oath was created in 1964 (not that long ago really) by Dr Louis Lasagna. The Oath is essentially the same, except that it brings in the idea of ‘prevention’ being better that ‘cure’.

Here are a few quotes from the ‘modern’ Oath:

“”I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow””

“”I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism””

“”I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure””

 

“”I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery””

 

Here are my views regarding the failures of the medical profession as regards the smoking ban:

 

  1. As regards sentence number one in the Oath, physicians are distorting the truth of their elders and passing on junk science to their juniors.
  2. That physicians are using their position of trust to gain pecuniary advantage from drugs companies by ‘over treating’ smokers who want to quit.
  3. That physicians are exaggerating and distorting their knowledge of tobacco smoke and spreading untruths. And that they are allowing the spread of untruths knowingly and willingly, and not publicising the untruthful nature of information being disseminated. For example, the statement, “There is no such thing as a safe level of second hand tobacco smoke” is an absolute lie – (unless you also say that there is no such thing as a safe level of air).

PHYSICIANS MUST NOT DISTORT THE TRUTH, NO MATTER HOW DESIRABLE THEY THINK THAT THE FINAL SOLUTION (THE END OF TOBACCO SMOKING) MAY BE.

Why is this idea important?

The 'Hippocratic Oath' was established about 2500 years ago by the Greek philosopher and doctor, Hippocrates. Essentially, it commits a 'physician' to promise not to use his skills to do harm and to respect his teachers and to pass on the knowledge faithfully.

An ‘update’ of the Oath was created in 1964 (not that long ago really) by Dr Louis Lasagna. The Oath is essentially the same, except that it brings in the idea of ‘prevention’ being better that ‘cure’.

Here are a few quotes from the ‘modern’ Oath:

“”I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow””

“”I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism””

“”I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure””

 

“”I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery””

 

Here are my views regarding the failures of the medical profession as regards the smoking ban:

 

  1. As regards sentence number one in the Oath, physicians are distorting the truth of their elders and passing on junk science to their juniors.
  2. That physicians are using their position of trust to gain pecuniary advantage from drugs companies by ‘over treating’ smokers who want to quit.
  3. That physicians are exaggerating and distorting their knowledge of tobacco smoke and spreading untruths. And that they are allowing the spread of untruths knowingly and willingly, and not publicising the untruthful nature of information being disseminated. For example, the statement, “There is no such thing as a safe level of second hand tobacco smoke” is an absolute lie – (unless you also say that there is no such thing as a safe level of air).

PHYSICIANS MUST NOT DISTORT THE TRUTH, NO MATTER HOW DESIRABLE THEY THINK THAT THE FINAL SOLUTION (THE END OF TOBACCO SMOKING) MAY BE.

THAT POLLUTERS SHOULD BE THE ONES TO REMOVE POLLUTION AND NOT THE INNOCENT (PARTICULARLY AS IT APPLIES TO THE SMOKING BAN).

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

Why is this idea important?

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

that polluters should be the ones to remove pollution and not the innocent (particularly as it applies to the smoking ban).

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

Why is this idea important?

It is a commonly accepted practice that people who create pollution are the ones required by law to stop the pollution. Thus, the clean air acts required factories etc to stop issuing smoke which polluted the atmosphere. The people required to enforce these acts were government inspectors and not the owners of shops, churches, football stadiums, railway stations or, indeed, ordinary people walking about in the streets. It is not a question of the polluters PAYING; it is a question of the polluters STOPPING POLLUTING.

This principle is critical to our understanding of just laws.

 POLLUTERS MUST STOP POLLUTING – ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT POLLUTE, OUGHT NOT TO BE THE PEOPLE TO ENFORCE THE CESSATION OF POLLUTING.

that airlines ought not to be allowed to charge ‘payment’ and ‘booking’ fees on the tax content of their fares.

There is something wrong with the idea that airlines can charge 'booking' and 'payment' fees to a person using a debit card to  pay government taxes when these taxes have to be paid as part of an on-line payment for a flight. The collection of these taxes is an obligation placed by Government of THE AIRLINES. Customers of airlines have to pay to the airline the tax content of their flight cost. The Airline then passes the tax content to the Government. There is no justification for the Airlines to charge customers a fee for collecting this tax, either in cash, by cheque, by debit card or by credit card. 

Why is this idea important?

There is something wrong with the idea that airlines can charge 'booking' and 'payment' fees to a person using a debit card to  pay government taxes when these taxes have to be paid as part of an on-line payment for a flight. The collection of these taxes is an obligation placed by Government of THE AIRLINES. Customers of airlines have to pay to the airline the tax content of their flight cost. The Airline then passes the tax content to the Government. There is no justification for the Airlines to charge customers a fee for collecting this tax, either in cash, by cheque, by debit card or by credit card. 

Curtail the power of the Health Dept to worry us all to death.

I am not quite sure whether or not there is a law or regulation which permits the Health Dept to exaggerate potential health problems to the extent that very minor ailments (such as ‘catching a cold’) are seen by the public to be life-threatening. Certainly, some people will die if they ‘catch a cold’, but these people are in a very, very small minority. There is no reason that the vast majority should believe that their lives are at risk if they catch a cold. We see the Health Dept, more and more, spreading rumours that ALL the people’s lives are at risk from ANY ailment, whether it a great or a small risk. It seems to me to be true that the Health Dept has built itself into a MAGNIFICENT EDDIFICE on the basis of possible but minor risks. There are many examples, but one or two will suffice.

 

Every year, I get a letter from my doctor asking me to go for a flu jab. I am old, but not unhealthy. I believe that my body is quite capable of fighting the flu. The only effect of the letter is to scare me and to keep me scared. I do not want to live what is left of my life in a state of perpetual fear. I therefore bin the letter and try to forget it. I have also had letters asking me to go for prostate checks and other things. The same applies.

 

I believe that whatever law or regulation permits the Health Dept to waste billions of taxpayers’ money only to scare people to death and keep them scared should be repealed/amended.

Why is this idea important?

I am not quite sure whether or not there is a law or regulation which permits the Health Dept to exaggerate potential health problems to the extent that very minor ailments (such as ‘catching a cold’) are seen by the public to be life-threatening. Certainly, some people will die if they ‘catch a cold’, but these people are in a very, very small minority. There is no reason that the vast majority should believe that their lives are at risk if they catch a cold. We see the Health Dept, more and more, spreading rumours that ALL the people’s lives are at risk from ANY ailment, whether it a great or a small risk. It seems to me to be true that the Health Dept has built itself into a MAGNIFICENT EDDIFICE on the basis of possible but minor risks. There are many examples, but one or two will suffice.

 

Every year, I get a letter from my doctor asking me to go for a flu jab. I am old, but not unhealthy. I believe that my body is quite capable of fighting the flu. The only effect of the letter is to scare me and to keep me scared. I do not want to live what is left of my life in a state of perpetual fear. I therefore bin the letter and try to forget it. I have also had letters asking me to go for prostate checks and other things. The same applies.

 

I believe that whatever law or regulation permits the Health Dept to waste billions of taxpayers’ money only to scare people to death and keep them scared should be repealed/amended.

About airlines and others charging for debit card use.

 

I must first explain how this can be an amendment to an existing law.

There is a law which defines 'legal tender'; ie, a law which in effect defines what MONEY USED FOR PAYMENTS IS. Essentially, that means that only MONEY approved by the King is acceptable.  My suggestion is an amendment to that law.

A few years ago, airlines sneaked into their on-line booking systems a charge for using cards to pay for booking a flight on-line. At first, the charge was minimal – say, £1. Because the charge was so minimal, they got away with it. But, as is the case with baggage charges, they have gradually increased these additional charges/fees. Below is Jet 2's list of charges for using cards:

————————————————————————————

How can I pay?

You can pay online using a credit or debit card and also using PayPal – see charges below. For payment via the call centre you can pay using a credit or debit card only. For payment at our sales desks you can pay using a credit or debit card, cheque or cash.

Booking fees A booking fee of 3.5% (minimum charge of 4.99GBP/ 7EUR/ 10CHF/ 180CZK/ 30PLN) will be applied to all card payments except for Solo and Visa Electron which are free. For bookings made using PayPal the booking fee is 3.49GBPQuestions or/ 5.00EUR.

Payment fees Payment made by credit card or PayPal incur an additional fee of 2.25% or 1.5% respectively.

 

—————————————————————————

 

As an example, a person who books flights costing £400 and pays by debit card will incur a fee of £14 (3.5%). A person using a credit card will incur a further additional fee of £9, making a total of £23. That is the cost of paying!

 

We can understand that the cost of carrying baggage is a reasonable, competitive service, but can the same thing be said about paying the bill? I think that not.

 

Read the quote above carefully and note that payments made by cheque or cash at sales desks incur no charge. I am not definitely sure about cheques, but I know FOR A FACT that charging for payment in cash IS AGAINST THE LAW.  

 

But we must ask ourselves, is it in anyway possible to pay on-line in cash? Obviously, not. But the serious point is that, as regards on-line payments, debit cards ARE cash – or the equivalent.

 

We notice also that these demands from airlines are couched in phrases such as 'booking fee'. That is not true. What we are paying for when we book on-line is the ACTUAL COST of being transported from, say, Manchester to Majorca. What the airlines are doing, by using the phrase 'booking fee', is making us pay to pay! This is nonsense!

 

The Law which defines 'Legal Tender' must be changed to include payment by debit card. Debit card these days is the equivalent of cash. I would say that the same applies to credit cards, but – one step at a time.

 

I have no doubt that airlines would say in their defence that Banks charge them for internet transaction, but that idea will not wash. The fact is that Banks charge these airlines just as much, if not more, for cash and cheque activity. It costs airlines a lot in terms of staff costs, bank charges, etc to handle cash and cheques. On-line transactions save them MASSES of money.  

 

The Law re Legal Tender needs to be brought up to date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

 

I must first explain how this can be an amendment to an existing law.

There is a law which defines 'legal tender'; ie, a law which in effect defines what MONEY USED FOR PAYMENTS IS. Essentially, that means that only MONEY approved by the King is acceptable.  My suggestion is an amendment to that law.

A few years ago, airlines sneaked into their on-line booking systems a charge for using cards to pay for booking a flight on-line. At first, the charge was minimal – say, £1. Because the charge was so minimal, they got away with it. But, as is the case with baggage charges, they have gradually increased these additional charges/fees. Below is Jet 2's list of charges for using cards:

————————————————————————————

How can I pay?

You can pay online using a credit or debit card and also using PayPal – see charges below. For payment via the call centre you can pay using a credit or debit card only. For payment at our sales desks you can pay using a credit or debit card, cheque or cash.

Booking fees A booking fee of 3.5% (minimum charge of 4.99GBP/ 7EUR/ 10CHF/ 180CZK/ 30PLN) will be applied to all card payments except for Solo and Visa Electron which are free. For bookings made using PayPal the booking fee is 3.49GBPQuestions or/ 5.00EUR.

Payment fees Payment made by credit card or PayPal incur an additional fee of 2.25% or 1.5% respectively.

 

—————————————————————————

 

As an example, a person who books flights costing £400 and pays by debit card will incur a fee of £14 (3.5%). A person using a credit card will incur a further additional fee of £9, making a total of £23. That is the cost of paying!

 

We can understand that the cost of carrying baggage is a reasonable, competitive service, but can the same thing be said about paying the bill? I think that not.

 

Read the quote above carefully and note that payments made by cheque or cash at sales desks incur no charge. I am not definitely sure about cheques, but I know FOR A FACT that charging for payment in cash IS AGAINST THE LAW.  

 

But we must ask ourselves, is it in anyway possible to pay on-line in cash? Obviously, not. But the serious point is that, as regards on-line payments, debit cards ARE cash – or the equivalent.

 

We notice also that these demands from airlines are couched in phrases such as 'booking fee'. That is not true. What we are paying for when we book on-line is the ACTUAL COST of being transported from, say, Manchester to Majorca. What the airlines are doing, by using the phrase 'booking fee', is making us pay to pay! This is nonsense!

 

The Law which defines 'Legal Tender' must be changed to include payment by debit card. Debit card these days is the equivalent of cash. I would say that the same applies to credit cards, but – one step at a time.

 

I have no doubt that airlines would say in their defence that Banks charge them for internet transaction, but that idea will not wash. The fact is that Banks charge these airlines just as much, if not more, for cash and cheque activity. It costs airlines a lot in terms of staff costs, bank charges, etc to handle cash and cheques. On-line transactions save them MASSES of money.  

 

The Law re Legal Tender needs to be brought up to date.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Propaganda, freedom from

Many of our basic freedoms have been attacked in the recent past.. Many of these attacks have not been direct attacks but indirect attacks. For example, the traditional, downhill cheese chasing  fun activity has been blighted by two things – health and safety and the insurance consequences of health and safety. But we must realise and understand that there is no reasonable reason for officialdom to become involved. Nor is there any reason that insurance companies should become involved. It is normally understood that people who participate in these sort of activities do so at their own risk. Even if this general principle was not true, a simple declaration of personal responsibility would suffice. In other words, and this is of the greatest importance, people can DENY THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE IF THEY WISH TO.

The propaganda that I speak of is the deliberate exaggeration and twisting of the facts to justify the imposition of badly thought out rules which deny us the freedom to amuse ourselves as we wish.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Many of our basic freedoms have been attacked in the recent past.. Many of these attacks have not been direct attacks but indirect attacks. For example, the traditional, downhill cheese chasing  fun activity has been blighted by two things – health and safety and the insurance consequences of health and safety. But we must realise and understand that there is no reasonable reason for officialdom to become involved. Nor is there any reason that insurance companies should become involved. It is normally understood that people who participate in these sort of activities do so at their own risk. Even if this general principle was not true, a simple declaration of personal responsibility would suffice. In other words, and this is of the greatest importance, people can DENY THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE IF THEY WISH TO.

The propaganda that I speak of is the deliberate exaggeration and twisting of the facts to justify the imposition of badly thought out rules which deny us the freedom to amuse ourselves as we wish.

 

 

Amend the HEALTH ACT 2006 in order to restore freedom from health inequalities

Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. . These people received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that some people  who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as  compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust fumes, or any similar circumstance.

Why is this idea important?

Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. . These people received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that some people  who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as  compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust fumes, or any similar circumstance.

Amend the HEALTH ACT 2006 in order to restore freedom from health inequalities (in respect of the smoking ban)

Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. The persons that I refer to are that class of people commonly referred to as non-smokers. These people  received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that non-smokers (or indeed, smokers) who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as  compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust ‘smoke’, or any similar circumstance.

Why is this idea important?

Prior to the Health Act 2006, everyone knew where they stood – that is, ordinary persons who were not wealthy could rely upon the National Health Service to cure their health problems, if possible. Wealthy persons had access to Private Medicine and could therefore take advantage of the latest advances in medicine, even though these advances may not be effective. Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 singled out certain people who, from a Health point of view, needed to be given privileged status. The persons that I refer to are that class of people commonly referred to as non-smokers. These people  received special treatment from a health point of view, and therefore a health inequality was created by the Health Act 2006 in that non-smokers (or indeed, smokers) who go into a public enclosed place are especially privileged, as  compared to people who do not go into similar public places. This is wrong. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 should have included ALL the circumstances where people suffer from Health Inequalities. These people include anyone who walks down a street and is subjected to the Health inequality of car exhaust ‘smoke’, or any similar circumstance.

That the Health Act 2006 should be amended so as to forbid smoking in cars.

It is obvious, as has been seen by the survey conducted by The British Lung Foundation via Mumsnet (86% in favour),  that the only way to stop people smoking in cars when kids (under 18 years old) are present, is to forbid smoking in cars altogether. It really is very important, just like the ban on the use of mobiles when driving and the ban on eating while driving is important. But more so, because not only do drivers have to take their hands of the steering wheel when they are smoking, and have to peer through smoke filled windscreens (Courtesy of BRAKE, who said so), they also have to deal with unruly kids and teenagers. But most of all, of course, THESE PEOPLE ARE KILLING THEIR OWN KIDS! There is no such thing as safe exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.  But this also applies to any person in a car, whether that person is a kid or not.

Why is this idea important?

It is obvious, as has been seen by the survey conducted by The British Lung Foundation via Mumsnet (86% in favour),  that the only way to stop people smoking in cars when kids (under 18 years old) are present, is to forbid smoking in cars altogether. It really is very important, just like the ban on the use of mobiles when driving and the ban on eating while driving is important. But more so, because not only do drivers have to take their hands of the steering wheel when they are smoking, and have to peer through smoke filled windscreens (Courtesy of BRAKE, who said so), they also have to deal with unruly kids and teenagers. But most of all, of course, THESE PEOPLE ARE KILLING THEIR OWN KIDS! There is no such thing as safe exposure to second hand tobacco smoke.  But this also applies to any person in a car, whether that person is a kid or not.

Repeal the law which allows the Government to block The People’s access to selected ideas

There seems to be no doubt that certain ideas are being blocked. Since 'Your Freedom' is a coalition government idea, it is reasonable to assume that only the Government can block ideas. It can only be, therefore, that it is the Government which is blocking access to certain ideas – I refer particularly to 'the enjoyment of tobacco' ideas.  The blocking of these ideas is heinous and undemocratic.

Why is this idea important?

There seems to be no doubt that certain ideas are being blocked. Since 'Your Freedom' is a coalition government idea, it is reasonable to assume that only the Government can block ideas. It can only be, therefore, that it is the Government which is blocking access to certain ideas – I refer particularly to 'the enjoyment of tobacco' ideas.  The blocking of these ideas is heinous and undemocratic.

That any law which requires that citizens use threats in order to enforce that law be repealed.

It has been very rare in the past that persons other than the police be required to enforce the criminal law, other than in war time. The Smoking Ban requires publicans to enforce the law by 'not allowing' smoking to take place in their private premises. The only way that they can do that is by using threats.

Why is this idea important?

It has been very rare in the past that persons other than the police be required to enforce the criminal law, other than in war time. The Smoking Ban requires publicans to enforce the law by 'not allowing' smoking to take place in their private premises. The only way that they can do that is by using threats.

Amend Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 (The smoking ban).

This bit of HA 2006 banned the enjoyment of tobacco in all enclosed places to which the public have access or where people work. The Act needs to be amended in order to exclude PRIVATE PROPERTY.  I would define ‘private property’ as a building or an area of land which does not belong to the state (in its various forms): ‘belong’ means owning or leasing or renting, or similar. In my opinion, the enjoyment of tobacco on private property is not something in which the state should be interested, unless there is a risk of contagion, in the sense of diseases.

The imposition of these rules in or on PRIVATE PROPERTY is unreasonable. There is no risk of contagion of some DISEASE resulting from the enjoyment of tobacco, because there is no such thing.

The smoking ban is, frankly, silly and stupid. Anyone who has risked his live as a member of the Armed Forces will know that there is a VAST difference between real and present danger, and the putative dangers of passive smoking (which, by the way, have been proved to be non-existent).

If there are reasons that my suggestion cannot be realise in its entirety, then at least give the owners of private property permission to have ‘smoking rooms’.

There is one more thing. By law, pigs have to have adequate shelter from the elements. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 require that Human Beings who enjoy tobacco MUST not.

Why is this idea important?

This bit of HA 2006 banned the enjoyment of tobacco in all enclosed places to which the public have access or where people work. The Act needs to be amended in order to exclude PRIVATE PROPERTY.  I would define ‘private property’ as a building or an area of land which does not belong to the state (in its various forms): ‘belong’ means owning or leasing or renting, or similar. In my opinion, the enjoyment of tobacco on private property is not something in which the state should be interested, unless there is a risk of contagion, in the sense of diseases.

The imposition of these rules in or on PRIVATE PROPERTY is unreasonable. There is no risk of contagion of some DISEASE resulting from the enjoyment of tobacco, because there is no such thing.

The smoking ban is, frankly, silly and stupid. Anyone who has risked his live as a member of the Armed Forces will know that there is a VAST difference between real and present danger, and the putative dangers of passive smoking (which, by the way, have been proved to be non-existent).

If there are reasons that my suggestion cannot be realise in its entirety, then at least give the owners of private property permission to have ‘smoking rooms’.

There is one more thing. By law, pigs have to have adequate shelter from the elements. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 require that Human Beings who enjoy tobacco MUST not.

Repeal chapter 28 Part 1 of Health Act 2006.

Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 enacted the General Smoking Ban in Public Places. This chapter ought not  to have been part of an Health Act – it ought to have been part of a Safety Act, if it should exist at all. I say this because, in very broad terms, Health is about curing disease and mending broken bones and mending broken minds.It is not about prohibiting unsafe practices. Smoking in 'public places' is about Safety, and not Health. This idea is fundamentally important to the logic of our laws. Chapter 28 of part 1 of the Health Act 2006 should be repealed  and, if necessary, replaced by a new Act based upon THE DANGERS of smoking (ie. Safety), if there are any. In the present age, the logic of laws is of paramount importance.Health and Safety are two different things and ought not to have been treated as different facets of the same thing. They are different things.  

Why is this idea important?

Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 enacted the General Smoking Ban in Public Places. This chapter ought not  to have been part of an Health Act – it ought to have been part of a Safety Act, if it should exist at all. I say this because, in very broad terms, Health is about curing disease and mending broken bones and mending broken minds.It is not about prohibiting unsafe practices. Smoking in 'public places' is about Safety, and not Health. This idea is fundamentally important to the logic of our laws. Chapter 28 of part 1 of the Health Act 2006 should be repealed  and, if necessary, replaced by a new Act based upon THE DANGERS of smoking (ie. Safety), if there are any. In the present age, the logic of laws is of paramount importance.Health and Safety are two different things and ought not to have been treated as different facets of the same thing. They are different things.