Topic: Another Step Towards A Total Nanny State – Erosion of Liberties

[AndyH]

This article in yesterdays EA.

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/4889349.Smoking_ban_may_extend_further/


I find it incredulous that Blue Labour are planning yet further liberty-eroding measures in their efforts to eradicate smoking and gain votes from the ever increasing anti-smoking lobby.

The quote from health secretary, Andy Burnham, “One day, in the not too distant future, we’ll look back and find it hard to remember why anyone ever smoked in the first place” idiotic to say the least.

Many people, and I include myself, smoke because they want to. For many it is a pleasure that relieves the stresses and strains of the day.

There are many proven arguments about health risks and associated illnesses, but likewise there are the same proven arguments about the risks from alcohol and high fat/cholesterol foods. However you don’t see the constant attacks on these similar “high health risk” commodities nor the level of taxation that is imposed on tobacco. 

All the arguments about smokers being an increased costs to the NHS would hold a little more credence if it were not for the high levels of tax imposed on a smokers pleasure because of the health risk.

If the billons the government takes in excise duty alone was invested into the NHS, smokers would be the benefactors of the NHS and not the burden they are so often accused of being.

http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx

The constant corruption of the law, which was originally aimed to protect workers from secondary smoking whilst working in “CONFIDED” spaces, has now become totally draconian and out off all proportion for that which the law was intended.

[kecl]

Personally, as a non smoker I welcomed the smoking ban in pubs etc, having to breathe in dirty smoke and going home after enjoying a few pints stinking of smoke was something I always found unpleasant.

However everyone to their own and if people find a pleasure in smoking and it is not having a detrimental effect on myself, then smoking outside in the open air isn't a problem to me.

Unfortunately the present government has been on a mission since it was first elected 12 odd years ago, to spend as much dosh as they can on poking into and controling as many aspects of our lives as they possibly can - w kers. I just wonder what they are scared of!

[Tobes]

I find it incredulous that Blue Labour are planning yet further liberty-eroding measures in their efforts to eradicate smoking and gain votes from the ever increasing anti-smoking lobby.

I don't. It fits in with a continuing interventionist agenda, bordering on fascism - one which has been rolling out since 1997. I'm a non smoker. I don't like cigarette smoke - but I respect THE CHOICE of others to harm themselves if they so wish. The government's attitude is one of a clique - a bunch of pseudo intellectuals who honestly believe they know whats best for us mere sheep-like proles. If they can't convince us to do what they want, they'll compel us. State control is seecond nature to them becasue they don't have the skills or the case to use persuasion, debate or the power of argument to convince us.

Burnham's got form for this sort of State intervention remember - very much involved in the roll-out of failed and discredited ID card / NIR policy.

[Mart]

The leaked files reveal by The Daily Telegraph that he was embroiled in a secret eight-month battle with the Commons fees office over £16,000 worth of renovations and work on a London flat he was buying. The claims, which included a new kitchen, had been repeatedly rejected.

Mr Burnham, who is married to Marie-France van Heel, wrote three notes asking for the money to be paid, including one at Christmas 2005 in which he pleaded: "Otherwise I might be in line for divorce!" His persistence paid off, with the fees office backing down and agreeing that taxpayers would foot the bills.

The minister's claims included £19.95 for a bath robe from Ikea, which was rejected by officials. His spokesman said it was a "genuine oversight".

His expenses became more controversial when he moved out of a rented flat in Dolphin Square and bought a flat in Lambeth for £215,000 in September 2005. He submitted expenses of £16,644 for obtaining and renovating the property, including £1,845 for the kitchen, legal fees of £822 and £2,150 for stamp duty.In June 2006, when Mr Burnham was promoted to Treasury minister, with a brief that included bearing down on wasteful public spending, the fees office threw out a claim for mortgage interest on both the Lambeth flat and his constituency home, because the rules only allowed one second home to be claimed for.

TWAT.

[Geoff Reid]

 

I'll see your TWAT and raise you a FUCKWIT 

[Mart]

The Daily Telegraph published an interview with Burnham on 13 October 2007 in which he stated that: "I think it’s better when children are in a home where their parents are married" and "it’s not wrong that the tax system should recognise commitment and marriage", which created some controversy because following through this argument would replicate the current policies of the Conservative Party

Burnham is married to Marie-France van Heel, whom he wed in 2000 after 11 years together[their son attended the wedding

I note your fuckwit and respond with TWO FACED HYPOCRITCAL SHITBAG.

[Geoff Reid]

Christ, the stakes are getting ludicrously high....

...so I have no option but to see your TWO FACED HYPOCRITICAL SHITBAG and raise you all the way to a HOON

  "I take full responsibility for what happened. That's why the person who was responsible went immediately."

[Mart]

Dear me, a bloody Hoon, that's a bit excessive. However I feel my Morley might just keep me in with a shout.

“I think withholding the resettlement goes against natural justice. In effect it turns common law around, which judges me guilty until proven innocent. It is one of the many ways I have not been treated fairly. I would point out I have repaid in full and do not owe any money in relation to expenses.”

I must warn you, the Millibands haven't been dealt yet.

[Mart]

Burnham's Top Twat trump factor slides up another notch.

Health Secretary Andy Burnham has challenged the Conservatives to join cross-party talks on free care at home for elderly people in England.

Free? Excellent, can't wait to get elderly meself now that the spectre of Kitekat for Christmas dinner has been lifted, oh, hang on though.

Mr Burnham has called a conference to discuss how to fund the care, promising to invite the main political parties.

Now why on earth would you want funding for free care?

No, don't worry. I'll tell you. The Governments of this country all think they have money, their own money, which they dispense with considerable largesse. There is a complete mental block in their little noggins about the source of this money, as it happens I think looking after wrinklies is an admirable use of funds. The problem is that those who are busy squirrelling away what they can on an average income will, once again, find someone has been at their nuts.

Those who scoffed all their nuts, or couldn't be arsed to acquire any, will get nuts given to them in nine languages and with complimentary baseball caps, those who have more nuts that they could consume in a lifetime will remain unaffected.

Those who through poor luck and circumstance were denied access to nuts during their productive years will receive a picture of a nut which they can redeem after filling in 28lbs of paperwork, which will then be lost, and generally being fecked around to within an inch of their sanity.

Hmmm, now will he, and his fellow political professionals dig deep into their considerable personal resources (or divert some of the £6 million it is going to cost to try and stop himself, Mr Ikea dressing gown, and his cohorts from being thieving scum) which used to be ours or will he come for your nuts?

Whjat we need is a ruling class with a nut intolerance.