Save the Hospitality Industry by repealing the iniquitous smoking ban.

On July 1st 2007, one of the most spiteful and vindictive pieces of legislation crawled its way onto the statute book…the iniquitous smoking ban. If you remember this was a blanket ban that Labour said it would never introduce…in fact they offered us a compromise, which I voted for and so did millions of others, only to find that we would be betrayed in the most callous way.

 

Do you remember their promise to us in return for our votes? Let me remind you.

 

LABOUR MANIFESTO PLEDGE 2005.

 

‘all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free; and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free. In membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free’.

Speaks for itself – doesn’t it?

 

Of course the reality as we all know is completely different.



 

Little did we know that the smoking ban would bring an unbridled persecution and pariah status for anyone who dared to enjoy a legal product – tobacco!

 

Social culture would be devastated; thousands of businesses in the hospitality industry would be wiped out causing mass unemployment, and millions of long lasting friendships would be desecrated at a stroke. This nasty legislation has driven a poisonous wedge between decent honourable people…setting friend against friend, creating anger and distrust where none before existed. What right has any politician got in telling me or any other smoker that I can’t go down to my local pub and enjoy a smoke with my pint…that is the domain of the landlord or landlady…not some half-wit politician.

One organisation has done more than any other to bring about this intrusive social engineering; ASH! Here what they said in 1998.  

 

Clive Bates the then director:

 

"No-one is SERIOUSLY talking about a COMPLETE ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants”. Oh, really? But these people lie as well, they say and so does the government, that ‘passive smoking’ kills…but no one can show autopsy evidence to validate such claims…they clutch at the straws of epidemiology which is nothing more than statistical conjecture and is not based on scientific or intrinsic medical proof whatsoever. I wrote to Lord Stoddart of Swindon and he told me: “According to answers to my own questions to government, smoking is not recorded as a cause of death on death certificates”.

But what have they to gain by serving up such propaganda…that’s quite simple…they need to maintain their funding from central government (taxpayers money) and pharmaceutical companies, and of course they help peddle smoking cessation products sold by big pharma.

Its time now to fight back…please support this petition – thank you.

Why is this idea important?

On July 1st 2007, one of the most spiteful and vindictive pieces of legislation crawled its way onto the statute book…the iniquitous smoking ban. If you remember this was a blanket ban that Labour said it would never introduce…in fact they offered us a compromise, which I voted for and so did millions of others, only to find that we would be betrayed in the most callous way.

 

Do you remember their promise to us in return for our votes? Let me remind you.

 

LABOUR MANIFESTO PLEDGE 2005.

 

‘all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free; and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free. In membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free’.

Speaks for itself – doesn’t it?

 

Of course the reality as we all know is completely different.



 

Little did we know that the smoking ban would bring an unbridled persecution and pariah status for anyone who dared to enjoy a legal product – tobacco!

 

Social culture would be devastated; thousands of businesses in the hospitality industry would be wiped out causing mass unemployment, and millions of long lasting friendships would be desecrated at a stroke. This nasty legislation has driven a poisonous wedge between decent honourable people…setting friend against friend, creating anger and distrust where none before existed. What right has any politician got in telling me or any other smoker that I can’t go down to my local pub and enjoy a smoke with my pint…that is the domain of the landlord or landlady…not some half-wit politician.

One organisation has done more than any other to bring about this intrusive social engineering; ASH! Here what they said in 1998.  

 

Clive Bates the then director:

 

"No-one is SERIOUSLY talking about a COMPLETE ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants”. Oh, really? But these people lie as well, they say and so does the government, that ‘passive smoking’ kills…but no one can show autopsy evidence to validate such claims…they clutch at the straws of epidemiology which is nothing more than statistical conjecture and is not based on scientific or intrinsic medical proof whatsoever. I wrote to Lord Stoddart of Swindon and he told me: “According to answers to my own questions to government, smoking is not recorded as a cause of death on death certificates”.

But what have they to gain by serving up such propaganda…that’s quite simple…they need to maintain their funding from central government (taxpayers money) and pharmaceutical companies, and of course they help peddle smoking cessation products sold by big pharma.

Its time now to fight back…please support this petition – thank you.

Smokefree needs to go further

I agree, smokefree legislation has been and continues to be a success, evidenced by the high compliance across the country.  We need to build on this and the public support and strenthen the law with regard smoking in work vehicles, which is not so successful, due to difficulty with enforcement.

Why is this idea important?

I agree, smokefree legislation has been and continues to be a success, evidenced by the high compliance across the country.  We need to build on this and the public support and strenthen the law with regard smoking in work vehicles, which is not so successful, due to difficulty with enforcement.

Stop prisoners smoking indoors (it’s a place of work too)

Prisoners get access to tobacco (at tax payers expense!) and they then smoke indoors, which is allowed, or not challenged by prison staff. Stop prisoners being given free tobacco and stop them smoking indoors.

Why is this idea important?

Prisoners get access to tobacco (at tax payers expense!) and they then smoke indoors, which is allowed, or not challenged by prison staff. Stop prisoners being given free tobacco and stop them smoking indoors.

Smoking Ban – Let’s have a referendum!

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Restructure taxation on pubs

Taxation on alcohol / pubs should be restructured according to location / type of establishment to protect rural / community pubs and ensure town centre high turnover places pay a higher contribution towards public safety, health, protection etc.

Why is this idea important?

Taxation on alcohol / pubs should be restructured according to location / type of establishment to protect rural / community pubs and ensure town centre high turnover places pay a higher contribution towards public safety, health, protection etc.

Don’t like the smoking ban? You know where the door is.

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Why is this idea important?

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Request for the government to respect our right to debate and take heed.

LoLopants I hope you read this as I first want to apologise for stealing your title.  However, I did so deliberately to get your attention when I was a bit miffed that I was unable to give your IDEA 5 stars as the moderators have cut you off after only a couple of responses because, they say, what you have written is not an idea but a general comment (or words to that effect).

So I would like to state my IDEA which is that I think elected government officials should no longer ask for IDEAS  and then go on the public record (Nick Cleggs' video undertaking blatently obvious damage control re:  an overwhelming majority wanting at least debate on the smoking ban) saying that some IDEAS will never be considered.  Never is a very long time in politics.

So, just in case the moderators are unsure here what an IDEA is, I will bullet point the main IDEA put forward by myself and originally by username LoLopants.

  • IDEA 1…. From now on in a British democracy no IDEA should be deemed unsuitable for discussion and debate among its adult voting populace. Freedom of speech in other words.

 

  • IDEA. 2…From now on no MP should laughingly deny their responsibility to listen to the ideas of the people who elected him//her, even if those IDEAS may make them nervous because they are scared of doing anything about them. 

Hope that covers what you meant to be considered and commented upon LoLo, and 5 ***** for your great comments and IDEAS.

 

 

Why is this idea important?

LoLopants I hope you read this as I first want to apologise for stealing your title.  However, I did so deliberately to get your attention when I was a bit miffed that I was unable to give your IDEA 5 stars as the moderators have cut you off after only a couple of responses because, they say, what you have written is not an idea but a general comment (or words to that effect).

So I would like to state my IDEA which is that I think elected government officials should no longer ask for IDEAS  and then go on the public record (Nick Cleggs' video undertaking blatently obvious damage control re:  an overwhelming majority wanting at least debate on the smoking ban) saying that some IDEAS will never be considered.  Never is a very long time in politics.

So, just in case the moderators are unsure here what an IDEA is, I will bullet point the main IDEA put forward by myself and originally by username LoLopants.

  • IDEA 1…. From now on in a British democracy no IDEA should be deemed unsuitable for discussion and debate among its adult voting populace. Freedom of speech in other words.

 

  • IDEA. 2…From now on no MP should laughingly deny their responsibility to listen to the ideas of the people who elected him//her, even if those IDEAS may make them nervous because they are scared of doing anything about them. 

Hope that covers what you meant to be considered and commented upon LoLo, and 5 ***** for your great comments and IDEAS.

 

 

SMOKING IN PUBS AND RESTAURANTS

Why not let the owners of the pubs and restaurants decide whether their establishments should be smoking or no smoking?

 

The businesses belong to them.

 

Tobacco is a legal substance.

 

Why is this idea important?

Why not let the owners of the pubs and restaurants decide whether their establishments should be smoking or no smoking?

 

The businesses belong to them.

 

Tobacco is a legal substance.

 

Repeal the legislation that requires no-smoking signs to be displayed at entrance to all public venues

I agree with the law that bans smoking in public places. BUT  please repeal the law that requires a non-smoking sign to be displayed at the entrance to all public venues.

Why is this idea important?

I agree with the law that bans smoking in public places. BUT  please repeal the law that requires a non-smoking sign to be displayed at the entrance to all public venues.

Request for the government to respect our right to debate and take heed.

I have just joined this site after reading that 'The Coalition Government is committed to restoring and defending your freedom – and we're asking you to participate.' However, in Nick Clegg's video, he laughingly states that issues like reinstating the death penalty or repealing the smoking ban will not be considered.

 

Why not? I am not a child. I do not expect to be told which issues are too important for me to have an opinion on.  If the Coalition Government wants our participation, then surely full and frank discussion on ALL issues is a fundamental part of this process. In the interests of fairness, I am purposefully not stating my opinion on either of these issues, the main point I am making is that by rendering some issues taboo, the government renders this whole campaign tokenistic and suggests to me that none of the ideas submitted and debated by the people with the vote will be even the least bit considered. I wait hopefully for evidence to the contrary and Nick Clegg to issue a retraction of the statement I have quoted above.

Why is this idea important?

I have just joined this site after reading that 'The Coalition Government is committed to restoring and defending your freedom – and we're asking you to participate.' However, in Nick Clegg's video, he laughingly states that issues like reinstating the death penalty or repealing the smoking ban will not be considered.

 

Why not? I am not a child. I do not expect to be told which issues are too important for me to have an opinion on.  If the Coalition Government wants our participation, then surely full and frank discussion on ALL issues is a fundamental part of this process. In the interests of fairness, I am purposefully not stating my opinion on either of these issues, the main point I am making is that by rendering some issues taboo, the government renders this whole campaign tokenistic and suggests to me that none of the ideas submitted and debated by the people with the vote will be even the least bit considered. I wait hopefully for evidence to the contrary and Nick Clegg to issue a retraction of the statement I have quoted above.

Allow smoking in pubs and clubs only if air filtering equipment is installed

so many of are much loved civil libertys have been taken from us in recents years however i think we can have a compromise with the smoking ban.

Pub land lords and club owners could install some sort of air cleaning system. maby as simple as circulating the air. so at least the air would be a lot cleaner

Why is this idea important?

so many of are much loved civil libertys have been taken from us in recents years however i think we can have a compromise with the smoking ban.

Pub land lords and club owners could install some sort of air cleaning system. maby as simple as circulating the air. so at least the air would be a lot cleaner

Set us Free

 

Repeal all laws that limit freedom of speech and freedom to read any written material. This to include all prohibitions on any aspect of 'incitement' , 'encouraging', and 'causing offence'.Outside of protecting children,It is not for the state to control what I read or say. 

Repeal the new regulations which means  an innocent citizen cannot recover all the costs they incur (legal plus other) when defending themselves. All accused should be completely reimbursed  for all costs incurred when found innocent of committing an offence. 

Repeal all laws that make it near impossible/costly to have live music in a venue open to the public.

Repeal all Health and safety legislation –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that allows ministers and others in authority to change legislation passed by parliament – the so called Henry V111 clauses.

Repeal all laws that allow government functionaries the right to forcibly enter my home –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that demand  a citizen has to prove his innocence rather than the state prove them guilty.

Repeal ASBO legislation –  and start again, so that no one can be imprisoned based solely on hearsay evidence.

Repeal all employment legislation –  and start again, so that a more just and equitable system pertains. In order that employers do not feel that it is heads they lose and tails they lose and employees aren't encouraged to think that there is no penalty for vexatious claims.

Repeal Working Time Regulations – people should be free to work overtime if they wish. This single item was the biggest extra burden on business in the last 13 years.

Repeal the anti-smoking legislation so that if citizens want to meet in a public place to smoke then it should be no business of the state to intrude – particularly if it is a private club. Equally, there should be no obstacles put in the way of people who wish to open non-smoking establishments.

Repeal Data Protection Act. Keep a requirement on data holders to look after data, and keep a citizen’s right to their data and its fair handling, but eliminate the quango and licensing regime.

Repeal the Money laundering regulations. Requiring people to supply a passport and utility bill does not stop money laundering but does create a lot of extra cost in the system and is further theft of an individual's time by the state.

Remove recent over the top regulation of herbal medicines.

Opt out of Food Supplements Directive.

Restore statutory dismissal procedures to pre 2000 position.

Restore social chapter opt out and define UK rules in these areas.

Repeal compulsory metrication.

Combine disclosure to the Inland Revenue and Companies House for smaller companies – one form fits all
Repeal IR 35.

Abolish Best Value regime for local government

Abolish Comprehensive Performance Assessment regime for Councils.

Abolish Regional Housing Boards and regional targets and Abolish Regional Development Agencies.

Repeal Legislative and Regulatory reform Act.

Amend Waste Incineration Regulations 2002 to allow more recycling

Repeal Investigatory powers Act 2000 – too intrusive.

Repeal Charities Act 2006 – too bureaucratic.

Repeal Labour’s Terrorism Acts and replace with simpler system which damages the civil liberties of the innocent majority less.

Repeal 'one size fits all' motorway speed limits. Why is there the the same limit at 10.00am in the busy morning rush as 3.00am in the middle of the night?

Repeal the SI requiring 11 million people to have CRB checks before helping children.

 

Why is this idea important?

 

Repeal all laws that limit freedom of speech and freedom to read any written material. This to include all prohibitions on any aspect of 'incitement' , 'encouraging', and 'causing offence'.Outside of protecting children,It is not for the state to control what I read or say. 

Repeal the new regulations which means  an innocent citizen cannot recover all the costs they incur (legal plus other) when defending themselves. All accused should be completely reimbursed  for all costs incurred when found innocent of committing an offence. 

Repeal all laws that make it near impossible/costly to have live music in a venue open to the public.

Repeal all Health and safety legislation –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that allows ministers and others in authority to change legislation passed by parliament – the so called Henry V111 clauses.

Repeal all laws that allow government functionaries the right to forcibly enter my home –  and start again.

Repeal all laws that demand  a citizen has to prove his innocence rather than the state prove them guilty.

Repeal ASBO legislation –  and start again, so that no one can be imprisoned based solely on hearsay evidence.

Repeal all employment legislation –  and start again, so that a more just and equitable system pertains. In order that employers do not feel that it is heads they lose and tails they lose and employees aren't encouraged to think that there is no penalty for vexatious claims.

Repeal Working Time Regulations – people should be free to work overtime if they wish. This single item was the biggest extra burden on business in the last 13 years.

Repeal the anti-smoking legislation so that if citizens want to meet in a public place to smoke then it should be no business of the state to intrude – particularly if it is a private club. Equally, there should be no obstacles put in the way of people who wish to open non-smoking establishments.

Repeal Data Protection Act. Keep a requirement on data holders to look after data, and keep a citizen’s right to their data and its fair handling, but eliminate the quango and licensing regime.

Repeal the Money laundering regulations. Requiring people to supply a passport and utility bill does not stop money laundering but does create a lot of extra cost in the system and is further theft of an individual's time by the state.

Remove recent over the top regulation of herbal medicines.

Opt out of Food Supplements Directive.

Restore statutory dismissal procedures to pre 2000 position.

Restore social chapter opt out and define UK rules in these areas.

Repeal compulsory metrication.

Combine disclosure to the Inland Revenue and Companies House for smaller companies – one form fits all
Repeal IR 35.

Abolish Best Value regime for local government

Abolish Comprehensive Performance Assessment regime for Councils.

Abolish Regional Housing Boards and regional targets and Abolish Regional Development Agencies.

Repeal Legislative and Regulatory reform Act.

Amend Waste Incineration Regulations 2002 to allow more recycling

Repeal Investigatory powers Act 2000 – too intrusive.

Repeal Charities Act 2006 – too bureaucratic.

Repeal Labour’s Terrorism Acts and replace with simpler system which damages the civil liberties of the innocent majority less.

Repeal 'one size fits all' motorway speed limits. Why is there the the same limit at 10.00am in the busy morning rush as 3.00am in the middle of the night?

Repeal the SI requiring 11 million people to have CRB checks before helping children.

 

Prevent politicians setting up pointless websites to canvass popular opinion

You see, it's a very old trick. Ask the people what they would do if they had the chance and then cherry-pick the ideas you were going to implement anyway. This gives you the chance to claim these policies come about because of popular support. Anything you disagree with, no matter how popular in the poll, you reject. I notice that the legalisation of cannabis is the most popular suggestion, but that's not going to happen is it? I see you've already ruled out re-introducing the death penalty and a repeal of the smoking ban…both popular suggestions on here.  Now I can't say I necessarily agree with these suggestions, but you can't have it both ways, can you? If you ask the people what they want and then you ignore the most popular suggestions, then what is the point? So my proposal is to bar politicians of any hue from setting up a website like this one. If you want to do it properly, have legally binding referenda on these issues….

Why is this idea important?

You see, it's a very old trick. Ask the people what they would do if they had the chance and then cherry-pick the ideas you were going to implement anyway. This gives you the chance to claim these policies come about because of popular support. Anything you disagree with, no matter how popular in the poll, you reject. I notice that the legalisation of cannabis is the most popular suggestion, but that's not going to happen is it? I see you've already ruled out re-introducing the death penalty and a repeal of the smoking ban…both popular suggestions on here.  Now I can't say I necessarily agree with these suggestions, but you can't have it both ways, can you? If you ask the people what they want and then you ignore the most popular suggestions, then what is the point? So my proposal is to bar politicians of any hue from setting up a website like this one. If you want to do it properly, have legally binding referenda on these issues….

Amend the Smoking Ban

If a group of people who are smokers wish to hire or use a licensed or unlicensed premises indoors for the purposes of recreation they should be allowed to do so. It is a basic human right of association.

I suggest that local authorities can have a quota of premises (dependant on the population of that local authority area) that can be granted conditional indoor smoking permits. Certain public houses that have met basic air quality conditions and are able to seperate non smokers from smokers (or be closed to non smokers) should be able to apply for such permits for certain advertised events organised by smokers.

I would recommend smokers had to pre-register and become members of such events to obtain admission to remove the risk that a non smoker inadvertantly entered such a venue or event.

Staff working at such a premises must sign a waiver wherein they confirm that they are either a smoker themselves or that they waive any right to protection under the public health act, much in the same way people can opt out of working time regulations designed to protect the health and wellbeing of workers at present.  

Why is this idea important?

If a group of people who are smokers wish to hire or use a licensed or unlicensed premises indoors for the purposes of recreation they should be allowed to do so. It is a basic human right of association.

I suggest that local authorities can have a quota of premises (dependant on the population of that local authority area) that can be granted conditional indoor smoking permits. Certain public houses that have met basic air quality conditions and are able to seperate non smokers from smokers (or be closed to non smokers) should be able to apply for such permits for certain advertised events organised by smokers.

I would recommend smokers had to pre-register and become members of such events to obtain admission to remove the risk that a non smoker inadvertantly entered such a venue or event.

Staff working at such a premises must sign a waiver wherein they confirm that they are either a smoker themselves or that they waive any right to protection under the public health act, much in the same way people can opt out of working time regulations designed to protect the health and wellbeing of workers at present.  

Amend the Smoking Ban

If a group of people who are smokers wish to hire or use a licensed or unlicensed premises indoors for the purposes of recreation they should be allowed to do so. It is a basic human right of association.

I suggest that local authorities can have a quota of premises (dependant on the population of that local authority area) that can be granted conditional indoor smoking permits. Certain public houses that have met basic air quality conditions and are able to seperate non smokers from smokers (or be closed to non smokers) should be able to apply for such permits for certain advertised events organised by smokers.

I would recommend smokers had to pre-register and become members of such events to obtain admission to remove the risk that a non smoker inadvertantly entered such a venue or event.

Staff working at such a premises must sign a waiver wherein they confirm that they are either a smoker themselves or that they waive any right to protection under the public health act, much in the same way people can opt out of working time regulations designed to protect the health and wellbeing of workers at present.  

Why is this idea important?

If a group of people who are smokers wish to hire or use a licensed or unlicensed premises indoors for the purposes of recreation they should be allowed to do so. It is a basic human right of association.

I suggest that local authorities can have a quota of premises (dependant on the population of that local authority area) that can be granted conditional indoor smoking permits. Certain public houses that have met basic air quality conditions and are able to seperate non smokers from smokers (or be closed to non smokers) should be able to apply for such permits for certain advertised events organised by smokers.

I would recommend smokers had to pre-register and become members of such events to obtain admission to remove the risk that a non smoker inadvertantly entered such a venue or event.

Staff working at such a premises must sign a waiver wherein they confirm that they are either a smoker themselves or that they waive any right to protection under the public health act, much in the same way people can opt out of working time regulations designed to protect the health and wellbeing of workers at present.  

RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Power Act 2000) – SCRAP!

Which Laws Should We scrap?     –  www.yourFreedom.HMG.gov.uk  by Nick Clegg

RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) – SCRAP!  

It has created a Police State, Silent Holocaust, a “Witch hunt” industry and a new Barbarism.  It robbed us of our freedom and security, has generated domestic terrorism, dismantled our constitution, common Law and nation.  

Dr. Martin Luther King:  We must be wary of those, who promise us security and ask in return for our freedom.  We must recognize, that part of the price for freedom may well be insecurity, but the price for complete security is inhumanity.

RIPA has created a global programme of torture, murder and persecution creating a mass movement of national and global phenomenon of Organized Gang Stalking with  a vast network of plain-clothed citizens informants which is used for public stalking and the use of Directed Energy Weapons, mind control etc. on targeted individuals.  All core factions of the community are involved, and everyone, from seniors to children, participates in Organized Gang Stalking.

The most targeted are those with physical, emotional and psychological traumas, peace, civil rights activists, whistleblowers, women living on their own, people who live “alternative lifestyles”, who angered the police, spiritually and morally evolved and anyone else the stalkers see as not conforming with their version of “normality”.  

Organized Gang Stalking is a POLICE HARASSMENT campaign of epic proportions.  It is done under the guise of keeping an eye on internal threats to state security and cleaning up neighbourhoods.  This is exactly what the informant networks in East Germany and Russia were told when they were recruited into these state-sponsored programs.  The victims are sabotaged in everyway, loose their livelihoods and literally gang stalked to death.

According to www.nowpublic.com  December 2009 Google hits for Community Gang Stalking 5,160,000, Group Stalking 4,210,000, Case Gang Stalking 4,880,000, Organized Gang Stalking 1,860,000, Terrorist Gang Stalking 713,000, Vigilante Gang Stalking 116,000. Who knows how many at present.

These are essentially global Psychological Warfare operations, done with the support of the civilian population, military, police, intelligence agencies and government funding. This type of operation is a torture and harassment campaign of monumental proportions – it is NOT surveillance.

Some of this may be unauthorized human subject experimentation.  This is prohibited in U.K. law and by the Nuremberg Code, internationally.
 
www.gangstalkingworld.com ;  www.freedomfchs.com

 

Why is this idea important?

Which Laws Should We scrap?     –  www.yourFreedom.HMG.gov.uk  by Nick Clegg

RIPA (the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000) – SCRAP!  

It has created a Police State, Silent Holocaust, a “Witch hunt” industry and a new Barbarism.  It robbed us of our freedom and security, has generated domestic terrorism, dismantled our constitution, common Law and nation.  

Dr. Martin Luther King:  We must be wary of those, who promise us security and ask in return for our freedom.  We must recognize, that part of the price for freedom may well be insecurity, but the price for complete security is inhumanity.

RIPA has created a global programme of torture, murder and persecution creating a mass movement of national and global phenomenon of Organized Gang Stalking with  a vast network of plain-clothed citizens informants which is used for public stalking and the use of Directed Energy Weapons, mind control etc. on targeted individuals.  All core factions of the community are involved, and everyone, from seniors to children, participates in Organized Gang Stalking.

The most targeted are those with physical, emotional and psychological traumas, peace, civil rights activists, whistleblowers, women living on their own, people who live “alternative lifestyles”, who angered the police, spiritually and morally evolved and anyone else the stalkers see as not conforming with their version of “normality”.  

Organized Gang Stalking is a POLICE HARASSMENT campaign of epic proportions.  It is done under the guise of keeping an eye on internal threats to state security and cleaning up neighbourhoods.  This is exactly what the informant networks in East Germany and Russia were told when they were recruited into these state-sponsored programs.  The victims are sabotaged in everyway, loose their livelihoods and literally gang stalked to death.

According to www.nowpublic.com  December 2009 Google hits for Community Gang Stalking 5,160,000, Group Stalking 4,210,000, Case Gang Stalking 4,880,000, Organized Gang Stalking 1,860,000, Terrorist Gang Stalking 713,000, Vigilante Gang Stalking 116,000. Who knows how many at present.

These are essentially global Psychological Warfare operations, done with the support of the civilian population, military, police, intelligence agencies and government funding. This type of operation is a torture and harassment campaign of monumental proportions – it is NOT surveillance.

Some of this may be unauthorized human subject experimentation.  This is prohibited in U.K. law and by the Nuremberg Code, internationally.
 
www.gangstalkingworld.com ;  www.freedomfchs.com

 

Replace the smoking ban with an air conditioning obligation

Replace the smoking ban in public houses and clubs with an obligation that places where smoking is permitted should have sufficiently effective air conditioning to cover any 'health and safety' obligations.

Why is this idea important?

Replace the smoking ban in public houses and clubs with an obligation that places where smoking is permitted should have sufficiently effective air conditioning to cover any 'health and safety' obligations.

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking Pubs ….simples

Some adults CHOOSE to smoke. Some adults CHOOSE not to smoke. We all unfortunately inhale second hand fumes and pollutants because of the car obsessed part of world we live in. However, if a publican and his/her staff are happy to allow smoking on their premises then they should be allowed to. Common sense, tongue in cheek and 21st century choices to make this a viable option are…

1) Compulsory and standardised air filtration systems fitted in smoking pubs to minimise or eliminate supposed (I say this because of the lack of real scientific evidence of passive smoking causing harm) passive smoking by non smokers who CHOOSE to attend these premises. In fact all publicans could have had one of these fitted 3 years ago instead of buying shelters, awnings, gazebos etc. to accommodate outdoor smoking.

2) Smoking Pub or Non-smoking Pub  signs to be clearly shown outside, so no anti-smokers or innocent children can accidentally stray into the building. Anti-smokers (please note these people are different from non-smokers) can enjoy smoke free moaning without the rest of us having to suffer second hand whinging.

3) Smoking Pubs to be for adults only so no child is exposed to even filtrated second hand smoke, not because I think it is dangerous but to stem the inevitable objections from anti-smokers that even if they were willing to risk this environment 'what about the children'.  Actually, this is win win for smokers, a quiet drink, smoke and a child free environment.  (By the way good air filters would provide a less polluted environment than being on the pavement next to any road so your child would be better off in the pub).

4) Selected pubs to be designated as palaces, then just as at Westminster all smokers rather than just MP's who are smokers can CHOOSE to smoke in a civilised adult environment.

5)  The enormous tax revenue from smokers to go straight to the NHS to cover almost 10 times the cost of smoking related illnesses . Or we could share it out between education and health then smokers would be helping save lives and improve the educational standards of the populace. The economy would boom due to our abundance of scientists, engineers and business whizz kids so we could all get self-cert super high mortgages again and kid ourselves that we are all one class now.  (This idea would mean that working smokers were paying tax twice toward these public services but we are an easy going bunch and wouldn't mind).

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking pubs….simples.

Why is this idea important?

Some adults CHOOSE to smoke. Some adults CHOOSE not to smoke. We all unfortunately inhale second hand fumes and pollutants because of the car obsessed part of world we live in. However, if a publican and his/her staff are happy to allow smoking on their premises then they should be allowed to. Common sense, tongue in cheek and 21st century choices to make this a viable option are…

1) Compulsory and standardised air filtration systems fitted in smoking pubs to minimise or eliminate supposed (I say this because of the lack of real scientific evidence of passive smoking causing harm) passive smoking by non smokers who CHOOSE to attend these premises. In fact all publicans could have had one of these fitted 3 years ago instead of buying shelters, awnings, gazebos etc. to accommodate outdoor smoking.

2) Smoking Pub or Non-smoking Pub  signs to be clearly shown outside, so no anti-smokers or innocent children can accidentally stray into the building. Anti-smokers (please note these people are different from non-smokers) can enjoy smoke free moaning without the rest of us having to suffer second hand whinging.

3) Smoking Pubs to be for adults only so no child is exposed to even filtrated second hand smoke, not because I think it is dangerous but to stem the inevitable objections from anti-smokers that even if they were willing to risk this environment 'what about the children'.  Actually, this is win win for smokers, a quiet drink, smoke and a child free environment.  (By the way good air filters would provide a less polluted environment than being on the pavement next to any road so your child would be better off in the pub).

4) Selected pubs to be designated as palaces, then just as at Westminster all smokers rather than just MP's who are smokers can CHOOSE to smoke in a civilised adult environment.

5)  The enormous tax revenue from smokers to go straight to the NHS to cover almost 10 times the cost of smoking related illnesses . Or we could share it out between education and health then smokers would be helping save lives and improve the educational standards of the populace. The economy would boom due to our abundance of scientists, engineers and business whizz kids so we could all get self-cert super high mortgages again and kid ourselves that we are all one class now.  (This idea would mean that working smokers were paying tax twice toward these public services but we are an easy going bunch and wouldn't mind).

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking pubs….simples.

Introduce a DUTY OF CARE TO SELF clause in H&S legislation

We need a 'Duty of care to self' clause in H&S legislation.  It is too easy to blame somebody else for a situation that should, with a little forethought and considration have not occurred.

Examples of where a 'Duty of Care to Self' might apply:-

If a pavement has a few uneven slabs it is encumbent on the pedestrian to make an assessment of the safety of the surface to walk on.  If the pedestrian deems the surface unsafe to use then they have a duty of care to consider an alternative route or to 'pick their feet up'.  If they trip on a slab that they have seen then it is not the duty of the council or any other body to fund an excessive fine.

If a person decides to climb on a roof of a building and falls, it is encumbent on them to have assessed the risk before they climbed on to the roof.  It should not be the responsibility of the owner of the building to install signs, fencing etc to prevent a person climbing on the roof in the first place

If a person purchases a cup of coffee, they have a duty of care to self to make sure the coffee is not too hot to drink.  If the beverage purchased is too hot at the time then they have a duty of care to self to allow it to cool before they consume it.

If a person purchases a knife and puts any part of their anatomy in front of the sharp edge it is not the duty of the manufacturer or the vendor to point out that the purpose of a knife is to cut.  The duty of care to self should ensure the purchaser knows the purpose of the impliment before they put it to any use.

If a person decides to walk across a road where the pedestrian signs shows that it is not safe to proceed and they walk in front of a car it is not the fault of the driver or any other person or body to have cut back a hedge in the vicinity.  If the road and the pedestrian signs are clearly visible then the duty of care to self would dictate that the display of signs warning that crossing a road was unsafe should suffice.

If a hole has been dug in a pavement or road or field and it has been reasonably fenced a duty of care to self would dictate that there is a hazard and it is not a sensible thing to do to walk through a small gap in the fencing. 

If surrounding a glass bottle bank there is evidence of broken glass on the floor a duty of care to self would assess this hazard and make a decision not to walk on the shards but to either wait until the broken glass has been removed or to walk more carefully so as not to tread on the glass

Anyone under the age of 50 would have no recourse to the manufacturers of cigarettes if they contract smoking related diseases. The information and smoking campaigns have been in existence longer than they have been alive so the knowledge that there is a risk involved with smoking should be part of the 'Duty of Care to Self'

If a person notices that the size of trousers/skirt they have to purchase is getting larger then under a 'Duty of Care to Self' they should assess why this is the case and adjust diet accordingly.  It is not incumbent on the manufacturers of fast food to monitor the calorific intake of their customers.

Why is this idea important?

We need a 'Duty of care to self' clause in H&S legislation.  It is too easy to blame somebody else for a situation that should, with a little forethought and considration have not occurred.

Examples of where a 'Duty of Care to Self' might apply:-

If a pavement has a few uneven slabs it is encumbent on the pedestrian to make an assessment of the safety of the surface to walk on.  If the pedestrian deems the surface unsafe to use then they have a duty of care to consider an alternative route or to 'pick their feet up'.  If they trip on a slab that they have seen then it is not the duty of the council or any other body to fund an excessive fine.

If a person decides to climb on a roof of a building and falls, it is encumbent on them to have assessed the risk before they climbed on to the roof.  It should not be the responsibility of the owner of the building to install signs, fencing etc to prevent a person climbing on the roof in the first place

If a person purchases a cup of coffee, they have a duty of care to self to make sure the coffee is not too hot to drink.  If the beverage purchased is too hot at the time then they have a duty of care to self to allow it to cool before they consume it.

If a person purchases a knife and puts any part of their anatomy in front of the sharp edge it is not the duty of the manufacturer or the vendor to point out that the purpose of a knife is to cut.  The duty of care to self should ensure the purchaser knows the purpose of the impliment before they put it to any use.

If a person decides to walk across a road where the pedestrian signs shows that it is not safe to proceed and they walk in front of a car it is not the fault of the driver or any other person or body to have cut back a hedge in the vicinity.  If the road and the pedestrian signs are clearly visible then the duty of care to self would dictate that the display of signs warning that crossing a road was unsafe should suffice.

If a hole has been dug in a pavement or road or field and it has been reasonably fenced a duty of care to self would dictate that there is a hazard and it is not a sensible thing to do to walk through a small gap in the fencing. 

If surrounding a glass bottle bank there is evidence of broken glass on the floor a duty of care to self would assess this hazard and make a decision not to walk on the shards but to either wait until the broken glass has been removed or to walk more carefully so as not to tread on the glass

Anyone under the age of 50 would have no recourse to the manufacturers of cigarettes if they contract smoking related diseases. The information and smoking campaigns have been in existence longer than they have been alive so the knowledge that there is a risk involved with smoking should be part of the 'Duty of Care to Self'

If a person notices that the size of trousers/skirt they have to purchase is getting larger then under a 'Duty of Care to Self' they should assess why this is the case and adjust diet accordingly.  It is not incumbent on the manufacturers of fast food to monitor the calorific intake of their customers.

Smoking ban ( enforcement)

We have a law relating to smoking in enclosed,( or partially enclosed ) places, workplaces etc.

What we do not have is proper enforcement of the existing law, this government, should ensure that local councils, be made to take the law seriously, and enforce the law, or be fined themselves.

The law should be tied in with the litter laws, when the enforcement of ,"one" will be effective,to a great extent on the other.

Why is this idea important?

We have a law relating to smoking in enclosed,( or partially enclosed ) places, workplaces etc.

What we do not have is proper enforcement of the existing law, this government, should ensure that local councils, be made to take the law seriously, and enforce the law, or be fined themselves.

The law should be tied in with the litter laws, when the enforcement of ,"one" will be effective,to a great extent on the other.

Smoking licenses for pubs

I know there are a lot of similar ideas to this one, but I want to make it very clear that I nor any other smokers would call for a complete repeal on the smoking ban, it has already gone to far , it is too late, in hindsight maybe we should of stood up before the ban and said "this is not right, we want equal rights" etc, anyway i digress,  My proposal is a system wear a pub owner will apply for a "smoking license" where there will be a set of regulations the pub must follow in order to attain this license, also to keep it. The license could be for either of two things or even both, A full smoke friendly premises, a non smoking premises, or a mix of the two, this would obviously include well ventilated rooms with extractor fans and other measures to prevent smoke from entering the non smoking area ( i am sure this is not beyond the technological ability of a race that sent a man to the moon lol). I am fairly sure that the only people who will object to this idea will be the Anti-smokers, having said that , lets keep this debate civil and proper. NOTE: Nick Clegg has already said that he will not be considering altering the ban, however if we are loud enough maybe we can at least trigger a debate in the commons.

Why is this idea important?

I know there are a lot of similar ideas to this one, but I want to make it very clear that I nor any other smokers would call for a complete repeal on the smoking ban, it has already gone to far , it is too late, in hindsight maybe we should of stood up before the ban and said "this is not right, we want equal rights" etc, anyway i digress,  My proposal is a system wear a pub owner will apply for a "smoking license" where there will be a set of regulations the pub must follow in order to attain this license, also to keep it. The license could be for either of two things or even both, A full smoke friendly premises, a non smoking premises, or a mix of the two, this would obviously include well ventilated rooms with extractor fans and other measures to prevent smoke from entering the non smoking area ( i am sure this is not beyond the technological ability of a race that sent a man to the moon lol). I am fairly sure that the only people who will object to this idea will be the Anti-smokers, having said that , lets keep this debate civil and proper. NOTE: Nick Clegg has already said that he will not be considering altering the ban, however if we are loud enough maybe we can at least trigger a debate in the commons.

SMOKING IN DESIGNATED AREAS

I gave up smoking 18 years ago yet I do not agree with the law that bans smoking.  Whilst it would appear that we are a liberal,  progressive and empathic nation on the whole, smokers are treated with less consideration than child molesters or murderers.

My idea is to restore the smoking laws as they were previously.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

I gave up smoking 18 years ago yet I do not agree with the law that bans smoking.  Whilst it would appear that we are a liberal,  progressive and empathic nation on the whole, smokers are treated with less consideration than child molesters or murderers.

My idea is to restore the smoking laws as they were previously.