List of all posts by user:

David Davis voted moderately for and against the smoking ban Bill. Against the fox funting ban and against the ID scam the gov't wanted to blast through.

Exclude 15,000,000 smokers and you need a high profile company  to do a poll to tell you that which is blatantly obvious! dear oh dear.

We see all this splurb about this body and that body getting together to formulate plans to help pubs. There is only one way to stop pub closures but no one has got the balls to stand up and say what it is! The smokeban has cauterised this industry and for what reason? SHS-supposedly, suddenly, the worlds biggest health threat-utter tosh. Even the BMA have dispelled the theory that passive smoking is harmful. Smoker or non smoker, it is immaterial now, if there is not an amendment to this spiteful, restrictive and socially catastrophic ban the number of ongoing pubs will dwindle continuously. We at freedom2choose are building a powerful group from all walks of life-and yes, that does include MP's-to take this government on head first. This gov't fed the people with lies and fabrications from the start, fuelling the fear factor with our own taxes-yet they are happy to collect £10billion per annum from smokers. When are the trade papers, yourselves included going to realise that we have all been hoodwinked and are now being bullied into non existence by dictators. This is not a government that cares this is a tyranny that simply fines every objector. 1,000 stealth taxes in ten years of rule-is that democracy. beat the drum about freedom2choose.info before there are no pubss left for even the few non smoking habituees to go in! Phil Johnson Leicester

Alan, you mention freedom2choose only has 590 members! When was the last time freedom2choose got press coverage from the media? Answer: Never. The media bask in the glory of the naughty publican nicked for 'allowing' a smoker to light up but never promote the downside of this horrendous situation. because many of the local 'rag' editors are non smokers, nothing from the smokers point of view gets into print-simple as that. When the press report on things with an equal view or even a non biased view then an awful lot will be written about the 'smokers lot'. The gov't don't want it in print because they know themselves what devastation this ban has caused, hence, if it were splatted all over the tabloids they would be shown to be exactly what they are; viz, liars, fabricators, con artists and basically fraudsters! 1,600 pubs closed, yet Alan Johnson talks like a prize pillock-"we have seen no ill effects from the ban". I bet he didn't practice that speech in front of a mirror!

It is a sad, sad world we live in when freedom of speech and expression is censored by the tabloids! It is also now abundantly clear to any normal person that non-smokers have been 'given licence' to say and print whatever they feel inclined to do so. The fact that Mr Barnett's detailed account of the shambolic proceedings have been 'pulled' by an MA Moderator is proof in itself that Westminster Council have taken umbrage with the printed truth, thus quite possibly complained about that which has been printed. The greatest scourge of our hospitality sector is being trumped up as the biggest single social success since the parting of the Red Sea when in actual fact it is the biggest single disaster since Hiroshima-except the 'fall-out' from this law will never end! How many subsiduary businesses are now losing business, cutting staff, closing altogether because of this Draconian piece of legislation? Simple answer-thousands! Had there been freedom2choose for the licensees in the first place then the non smokers could have all enjoyed a non smokingh pub and the smokers-likewise. The most simple of solutions was ignored by  the most intelligent (supposedly) of people-the government. Smokers have become scapegoats of the legal system without doubt. Where else in the world would you have this situation:-  "repeat offender (Burglar) gets 100 hrs community service" - "Smoker fined £170 for dropping fag end on pavement" Which offence would you rather not be subject to? As Charles Dickens famously said, " the law is an Ass!" How true those words are today. nb:  perhaps those who read moderate piece  may like to copy/paste elsewhere lest this is subject to "moderation!"