smoking ban

Some Tories just can’t help themselves – see HERE.  Is it really so difficult to obey the law and not smoke in public places?

My suggestion for what the guilty Tories should do.

My suggestion for what the guilty Tories should do.

44 thoughts on “TORY SMOKERS

  1. So as a smoker I am denied freedom of assembly to consume a legal product on private property. Is it no wonder that smokers, now the Tories are sticking two fingers up at the law.

    If you think 4,000 pubs, bingo halls, working mens clubs and 50,000 people unemployed, is a price worth paying for health fascism then I will agree with you.

  2. So the three people caught smoking were pensioners smoking just inside the door. Maybe others had been smoking too but I have so little sympathy for this law that I don’t really care. What kind of law makes it *mandatory* to turn people outside if they need to smoke? The unwritten assumption is ‘people should not need a smoke, they should be able to wait’: What kind of hospitality is that? What kind of government lays down the law that all hospitality managers treat its customers like that?

    Making a party political point out of this is very silly in my view and I hope it gives you an appropriate reward on election day (I used to vote Labour too).

  3. So the EU building is allowed a smoking room, and elicits no comment, but not a UK Conservative club for its senior citizens? Nice.

    And a Labour MEP fails to see the irony in attempting to make political mileage out of a story detailing what an evil and uncaring place the UK has become under Labour?

    Your blog gets funnier by the week. Do carry on.

  4. Dick it is worse than that, they are allowed to smoke in their offices. The private bars in Brussels, if your food turnover is less than 30% of your turnover, you are allowed to have one room for smoking.

    In this case can me imitate the EU?

  5. Well said Soapy, I agree entirely. I have said for a long time it is about time these jumped up little bastards remembered, they are OUR SERVANTS, NOT OUR MASTERS!

    If the law is such that the employee (ie MPs) can dictate a different law for themselves and that is the opposite of the law for the Employer, then I would not be out of work!

  6. I wouldn’t be so smug about seeing these people prosecuted for consuming a legal product on private property, Mary.

    Your party have become despised as petty-minded interfering vindictive fascists and you face annihilation at the GE.

    This ex-party supporter and member can’t wait.

    Who tipped off the police? Wonder if I can guess…

  7. Dear Ms Honeyball,
    Conservative Clubs are not the preserve of Conservative party supporters. They are social clubs. Or rather they were, until the smoking ban. And when the Council Officer says that the three were pensioners smoking just inside the door, and that the penalty was very harsh, it does seem that your callous and obnoxious attitude fails to capture the Zeitgeist. In fact it is running in the opposite direction. You could do something useful while you are here by explaining, precisely, the smoking arrangements at work for MEP’s.

  8. Mary, listen carefully.

    The vast majority of comments here (and possibly all of them) are from people who oppose the smoking ban.

    The number of blogs and forums opposing the smoking ban is increasing.

    The number of people opposing the smoking ban is higher than the mainstream media would have people believe, and always was. It is also increasing as more people realise that it is wrong.

    The chances of all of that reversing are zero. It will continue. You will always find yourself confronted with opposition.

    Wake up. The “overwhelming majority” do not support an enforced smoking ban. They support the choice to ban it themselves if they wish, and they support the freedom to be an adult.

    You can ignore all of what ive said, or you can respond, either way it makes not the blindest bit of difference to the inescapable fact that you will always be confronted with opposition, and that opposition can only increase even more.

    Im not debating the smoking ban with you in this post, im just telling you what is happening in the world of reality.

    Always remember : You will always face opposition.

  9. btw Mary,

    I take pleasure in flouting your nasty little law any opportunity I get. I do not take moral-instruction from war-criminals for a start and neither do I accept the legitimacy of a law passed in contravention of the majority party’s manifesto-commitment.

  10. Mary perhaps you should educate youself and listen
    to the song ‘Jackboot’ by Eamonn Mallon. Hear some truth.

  11. The fact that Mary Honeywell attempts to make political capital out of a few pensioners trying to shelter in a doorway speaks volumes.
    Should we just introduce compulsory euthanasia for anyone who cant/wont comply to the proscribed Labour prescribed lifestyle, and have done with it?
    Im amazed at such a cheap shot being made, when her own colleagues are not subject to any such restrictions and infact were able to decide to revoke their own ban.
    More and more people are waking up to the lies and spin behind smoking bans, and I look forward to seeing the Labour heartland vote ripped apart at the next GE, and even sooner, the EU ballot.

  12. The majority of people support the smoking legislation, it is popular and has reduced smoking which is a good thing. I note your opposition but it is a minority view.

    I think it is wrong to allow smoking by MEPs in the Parliament building and oppose it. The Parliament has a majority of representatives on the political right and they do not apply things properly.

  13. So Mary, you don’t like minorities? Or is the fact that you don’t like people with a different view point to your own? Oh and Mary, hows about going on a diet and wearing a bit of makeup, because my god lass you look a mess!

  14. Mary – the legislation was nothing to do with reducing smoking – that is what NuLab kept telling us. The legislation was for something else. To protect the workers against an ‘alleged’ risk.

    Try again. MEPs obviously don’t believe there’s a risk, neither do our H&S Executive and independant scientists and doctors.

    Could you please advise who told you that the legislation was supported by the majority? I think I know the answer, but I’ll allow you to answer first. From where I’m standing, everyone I’ve spoken to thinks the blanket ban is appalling. They would all prefer choice. Do you actually live in the same country that I do Mary?

    I know you don’t believe me Mary, so I’ll await the next election to prove myself right. It’s not long off now though is it – only in June for the MEP’s. If you want to retain your seat, I think you’d better start speaking for the people you represent rather than the delivering the rhetoric from your paymasters.

    The public are getting a bit too wise for your liking.

  15. Mary. If the smoking ban is so popular why don’t you allow publicans the freedom to choose how they run their pubs. If the smoking ban is so popular the majority of pubs would be smoke free.

  16. maryhoneyballmep wrote:
    “[the ban]…has reduced smoking… ”

    Do you have alternative smoking figures for England that show the ban has reduced smoking?

    According to the health survey for Engalnd (2008) Smoking rates were flat or increased for men aged 16 to 34.

    If you are misinformed about this recent statistic, could you be misinformed about other aspoects of this debate?

  17. Since when was it alright to ignore the plight of minroties in this country anyway … oh .. of course .. when NuLabour got in and started to go backwards in time to the Victorian era.

    They have reveresed all social improvements that have been hard fought and won over centuries. Who would have thought that they would take us back to the dark, socially unjust days?

    If Honeyballs is the quality of policitian in Britain today, then we are well and truly F ……d . She, along with her mates, has ruined this once great country over a matter of smelly clothes. What an idiot. She doesn’t deserve the wages we pay her.

  18. Honeyball, I voted Labour for 32 years. Iraq put a stop to that. Brown confirms my decision to be right.

    So. Smoking. I’m not a smoker – gave up four years ago. Anyone who comes to our house and smokes does so outside – asI did when a smoker.

    When I were a young lad oop North, lots of pubs had smoking rooms. Lots of rooms by the 80s had no smoking signs in them. If you didn’t like smoke you went in there.

    But no, Labour knows best, and bans smoking in pubs. As ususl, they didn’t think it through.

    Guess what. Our local closed about three months ago. The next pub down the road closed a couple of weeks ago.

    So that’s jobs lost, and tax revenue to the Treasury, in a time of dire need. lost.

    All because of ideology. New Labour know best, and we must do what we are told.

    Do you know what? I’m tempted to smoke just one more cigarette. Why? To puff the smoke in your face.

    You – New Labour – make me sick. and you have all but destroyed the country I love and which many of may parents’ generation laid down their lives for- fighting to see off the likes of you.

    I hope New Labour is destroyed at the next election. Nothing could be worse than this, and no-one could be worse than the malevolent and mendacious Brown.

  19. Mary, to be on the generous side to you, lets assume that a third of smokers agree with this blanket ban.That would leave around 8 million who are against it. Every one of those MUST have at least three friends / family who agree. Almost everyone I know thinks it is ludicrous
    At a conservative estimate that would give a total of 32 million adults against the ban, out of a population of approx. 40 million adults. A very clear majority AGAINST. This I believe would be near the truth, in fact an understatement, as the ONLY ones who are for ‘no choice’ are the fanatics, like yourself, and an extremely small minority of the public. Deny this and stay fashionable.

  20. The Times: A LEAKED internal report has revealed systematic abuses by Euro MPs of parliamentary allowances that enable them to pocket more than £1m in profits from a single five-year term, writes Jonathan Oliver.
    Become a MEP and be a millionaire

  21. As usuall legislation implemented that was not properly thought through as to the implications ,try nearly 4000 pubs gone since the ban.
    Lets face it ,it was never a health issue it was just a middle class attack on working class culture.
    Problem is that was Labours core support.
    Come next election prepare to be massacred.
    As for Europe the corruption is mind boggling and ingrained to the point where it is accepted as the norm.
    Thank god Labour are finished.
    Youv’e runined this country.
    It will take decades to mend the damage they have caused.

  22. Madam,
    I never did get an apology from you for publishing a private email that I sent to you on your blog.
    You virtually accused me of being funded by tobacco company money to attend an ‘Anti-prohibition’ conference in the EU building.
    I paid my own way and went there to help fight against the type of cause that throws old people into the street to have a cigarette.
    Your cronies managed to get the conference barred due to untrue accusations that tobacco funding was being used to host the conference.
    So much for freedom of speech.
    I despise you with all my being.

  23. Brenda, I still await your promised correspondence.

    You will have seen my earlier response:

    Your wife sent me a press release, she did not write to me privately. Press releases are for free circulation, if not they are embargoed until a certain date and time. This email was not. People writing privatey write priavte on their correspondence they do not issue press releases. I have not published the text of her email just the press release, emphasising key parts in bold.”

    I am confused why you say “so much for freedom of speech.” when you want to withdraw statements you have made in the public domain. That is censorship Brenda, not freedom of speech.

    If as many assert this is such a popular issue can you tell me of any British political party that supports repeal of the legislation?

    I appreciate many of you care passionately about this issue but as far as I know no political party supports your view. That to me would indicate that all parties take the view that the majority of British people support the legislation. Happy to be told differently.

    So perhaps you could form a Party and find out how many people actually share your views?

    One forum directing a few people to comment repeatedly on my blog is not representative.

  24. Well we started off by saying that some Tories can’t help themselves and should know better than to let pensioners shelter from the weather when they are smoking, and finish by saying that this measure has cross party support. Every time I look the goal posts are in a different place.

    Thirty years ago no party would have supported a smoking ban. People were given false assurances about the likely economic impact of the ban and are slowly becoming aware of the other adverse consequences of the ban. The fact that we haven’t got any party fully on board yet doesn’t mean that we will change our minds or continued opposition.

    No good trying to shelter behind cross party consensus Mary. Many questions have been levelled at you and all you have managed to say is: because everyone believes the ban is right. Suppose no one believed the ban is good policy, how would you defend it then?

  25. Mary my dear, UKIP support an amendment to the ban and I believe the BNP do as well. Being a politician, especially in the EU, I thought you would know this. Obviously you are not doing your job properly and should be removed from your position, as any one else would due to poor performance.

    MEP my arse!

  26. Not the point Honeyball.

    The original report suggested that establishments were to be given THE CHOICE to ban smoking on their premises or stay as they were.

    The bill was amended of course, in typical totalitarian style.

    I hope you lose your seat on the gravy train come June.

  27. Also, if you answer just one thing, can you post on here the full text of the original exemption for pubs that was subsequently scrapped?

    Id be very interested in reading that, and im sure all your opposers here would like to also.

  28. Apologies to everyone else here, to whom the following is very old news now, but Mary doesn’t seem to know…

    The only opinion-poll coming up with “a majority of British people” [certainly not pub-goers or licensees] in favour of a total ban was the one commissioned by tax-funded anti-smoking “charities” and which asked the simple question: smoking-ban yes or no. Sorry for shouting, but THIS WAS NOT THE CHOICE OFFERED TO THE BRITISH PEOPLE. The 2005 Labour manifesto was very clear: a ban but with important exemptions for private clubs and non-food pubs. These exemptions were presented as a safeguard and then-Health Minister John Reid’s position was well-known.

    The polls offering this third alternative: a general ban but with exemptions to respect property-rights and freedom of choice, give majorities in this direction.

    Labour were elected on a tissue of lies. It is grotesque to claim a mandate based solely on the result of a dodgy opinion poll designed specifically to produce the “correct” result.

  29. I just don’t understand why so many people here are abusive instead of making reasonable arguments for their points of view. Posters here seems to over exaggerate everything. It’s just a bit weird to get so upset about a smoking ban when there are many more important issues in the world today. If you live in a democracy then you have to accept that the majority of people (every single political party – that can win/lose votes) don’t want to passive smoke in public places. Keep up the good work Mary!

  30. Pat. You are just saying that passive smoking causes no harm. SHOW ME the evidence that passive smoking does not cause harm.

  31. The point is not that there are many people who don’t want smoke in public places. The fact is that there are millions of people whose social life includes smoking, and their declining presence in pubs has contributed in no small part to the mess they are in just now. The non-smokers who did not want smoke did not bother turning up when the smoke was banned.

    What is reasonable about denying adults the discretion of what risks to run?

    When I was a non-smoker in pubs pre-ban I fully believed that secondary smoke is dangerous but still wanted to be there for the music, company, etc. I no longer believe this is the case. SCOTH set the elevated risk of lung cancer to exposed non-smokers at 2 in 100,000 against an underlying risk of 10 in 100,000. I can live with that kind of risk.

    Why are so many efforts being made to exclude and penalise people rather than accommodate them? Air cleaning technologies can clean air and would obviate the need for attaching penalties to smoking.

    The onus is on the accuser to demonstrate guilt. ‘Passive smoking kills’, but where are the bodies? Drunken driving kills and there is no shortage of casualties..

    Simon: you and people who believe in a ban are the ones who should produce evidence. But I would rather you explained why it is right to punish a club for not throwing pensioners out in the cold.

  32. Simon, do not open Pandora’s Box.

    Caroline Flint, then Health minister.

    “78. Given the evidence about the impact of passive smoking, we are concerned that the decision to ban smoking in public places may represent a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health concern. It may be that the unstated objective of policy is to encourage a reduction in active smoking by indirect means. This may well be a desirable policy objective, but if it is the objective, it should have been clearly stated.”

  33. Simon, Amanda Sandford of ASH.

    “”Epidemiology is not a direct science. Our business is promoting public health. It is possible that in certain cases some anti-smoking campaigners do exaggerate” and “A lot of the studies that have been done on passive smoking produce results that are not statistically significant according to conventional analysis.”

  34. Simon, Amanda Sandford of ASH again.

    “Your editorial and article highlight the dangers of exaggerating the health impact of exposure to second-hand smoke (10 November, p 3 and p 8). ASH (UK) endorses your conclusion that bad science can never be justified. ASH, unlike some organisations, has never asserted that a single 30-minute exposure to second-hand smoke is enough to trigger a heart attack, and we are not aware of any UK health advocates who have done so.”


    Try that for starters. Now you show me any study that has looked at other causes of respitory illnesses, cancer, heart diseases, etc… from other air pollutants including traffic fumes, and what effect they have on both people who smoke and those who don’t.

    It is very easy to blame smoking for all ills and target a minority group for social hatred than it is to fund studies that are not likely to result in billions of pounds in NRT products for Govt and pharmaceutical companies!

  36. Simon, Professor le Grand who was John Reid’s and the Department Of Health’s (Passive) smoking advisor and I quote:

    “When we finished, Reid turned to his senior advisor and asked: “What do you think?” Julian Le Grand didn’t hesitate. “I agree with them,” he said, nodding in our direction.(Activists from Forest) Reid thought for a moment, then said (I paraphrase): “Yes, I’ve always been pretty dubious about passive smoking.”

    “Professor Julian Le Grand, the top advisor to the Department Of Health on the health impact on smoking, in February of this year on Radio 5 Steve Nolan show was asked about the health impact of ETS and his answer in context was ‘I don’t actually think the arguments on passive smoking are all that strong.”

  37. Simon, I am sorry I could bore for England on passive smoking and what a complete fabrication the harm is.

    This is a quote from our House Of Lords from Sir Richard Peto on passive smoking. He helped Sir Richard Doll in the 1950s into the research which led to the accepted fact that ACTIVE smoking is a major contributor to lung cancer. The figures for the UK are 88% of lung cancer deaths are smokers and your risk of contracting it are 2.4% if you smoke.

    “That is definite, and the threshold arguments are often politically motivated inventions which do not have much scientific plausibility. I am sorry not to be more helpful; you want numbers and I could give you numbers by direct extrapolation, but what does one make of them? These hazards cannot be directly measured.”

  38. You should watch this Mary, bearing in mind that you and your friends assume that majority consensus (at least of those asked/selected….) is all that is required to justify social policy.

    The American Form of Government:

  39. Quit

    QUIT was a member of the SmokeFree Coalition which campaigned for the UK government to ignore its manifesto commitment to exempt ‘wet’ pubs and private members’ clubs from the 2007 smoking ban.

    According to it 2008 accounts, QUIT’s most generous donor is the European Commission with a contribution of £257,585.

    This organisation also puts you in the “Frame of shame” Mary

  40. Last but not least

    No Smoking Day

    UK Charity Number: 1006714

    Stated Aims


    No Smoking Day is a member of SmokeFree Action, which is campaigning for higher cigarette taxes, tobacco display bans, plain packaging of cigarettes and smoking bans in cars.

    According to its 2007/08 accounts, No Smoking Day received an income of £745,804. Of this, £267,793 came from the Department of Health. A further £30,000 came from the Welsh Assembly and £25,000 was donated by NHS Scotland. Most of the rest of its revenue came from the sale of No Smoking Day products. There is no record of any voluntary donations from the public.

    How does it manage to have charity status Mary?

    Seems to me to be a Goverment funded Quango

  41. Wanted, arrogant, ignorant, easily corruptible,no hopers with absolutely no experience or notion of real life. This position will be seen as highly respected and outrageously paid with the opportunity to receive perks beyond your wildest dreams. Lots of tax free freebies and a pension to die for. At least two homes with most of expenses paid. Very few real hours work per week and most of the year off for holidays. Free travel by luxury cars or first class air to anywhere you like. This is a unique opportunity to improve on your bullying skills and express your oppressive nature whilst being protected by a few thousand laws of the land many of which you will help to instigate. The job demands that you are thick skinned and have no respect for other human beings, this of course includes your colleagues. A sincere drive to be at the head of your particular department at any given time is essential, as back stabbing is a very useful tool. Because of the importance of this position only devious, corrupt and experienced liars may apply. Job description Politics.

    Do Job Centres carry the advertisements for these positions or are they kept from normal intelligent people.

Comments are closed.