List of all posts by user:

List of all the 115 posts by Michael J. McFadden:
UKIP warning on smoke ban extension > RE: UKIP warning on smoke ban extension

So, Lord Darzi said "there are no plans to extend the smoking ban to outdoor public places in the UK" ? . - . - . Wasn't there a VERY similar comment made about four years ago by a notable MP claiming that "there are no plans to extend the smoking ban to all pubs in the UK" ? Or has Winston Smith dutifully edited that out of existence? . - . - . Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

UKIP warning on smoke ban extension > RE: UKIP warning on smoke ban extension

It just occurred to me that although it may be a little bit dated, my "Day Of Defiance!" booklet from two years ago might be helpful here. Go to: http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html and print out the "Day Of Defiance!" brochure you'll find there. If you'd like an updated "Generic" copy that's not quite as UK/DoD specific just email me at Cantiloper over on the aol system and I'll be happy to send you one. . - . Michael J. McFadden, Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

UKIP warning on smoke ban extension > RE: UKIP warning on smoke ban extension

Halliday and Janet have it right. The ban would never have stood if people had simply ignored it. The government however, under the direction of ASH et al, found a way to make people obey by holding the licensees responsible. By a legislated enslaving of those licensees, forcing them to act as Enforcers, the customers who were often their friends simply meekly cooperated so as not to cause problems. For now though, I note that Nick Bish, chief executive of the Association for Licensed Multiple Retailers, said "It's good to see UKIP's on the case!" The ALMR and other such groups need to start funding UKIP and whatever other organizations over there are fighting the ban rather than just wishing them good luck. If the pubs had contributed even one-tenth of the money they've lost to the ban to such groups the ban would be history by now and they'd be 90% better off financally for their investment. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

RE: Pub closures survey: it’s grim up north > RE: Pub closures survey: it’s grim up north

Alan wrote, "Michael, I have no doubt that the Daily Mail and politics.co.uk printed the story without checking that it was true. The story din't run and run like it would have done if it was true, it fizzled out apart from on forums like this where it is repeated despite being untrue." Fair enough. I agree that I would have expected somewhat more coverage so it's possible the story was bogus. I guess contacting the reporters involved might yield some answers but I'll leave that up to you guys! :) Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Pub closures survey: it’s grim up north > RE: Pub closures survey: it’s grim up north

Alan Thompson, you say the story about the smoking ban giving foreign dignataries an exemption is not true? Do you believe the dailymail.co.uk just made it up? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1161419/Labour-double-standards-smoking-ban-lifted-G20-world-leaders.html or that politics.co.uk is wrong? http://www.politics.co.uk/news/health/g20-exempt-from-smoking-ban-$1279775.htm OK... that being said, it's certainly at least *possible* that an initial source had the story wrong and it's simply been repeated as fact, but I think we would have seen some solid exposure of that by now. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Pub closures survey: it’s grim up north > RE: Pub closures survey: it’s grim up north

So roughly 4,000 pubs closed since the smoking ban. And the politicians and antismoking groups assured everyone that the ban would be "cost-free." Think about the tens of thousands of jobs lost (along with the enormous impact such loss has had upon the health of those workers and their families) and think about the costs involved. Those politicians and those antismoking groups should be held legally responsible for what they've done... not the taxpayers. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

151% more pubs go bust over Christmas > RE: 151% more pubs go bust over Christmas

4,000 pubs, 40 per week. That's up from an average of 3 per week in the two years before the smoking ban. So how is this massive increase explained by the Morning Advertiser? "a combination of negative factors" No mention of the smoking ban at all. Ewan, you've been fair minded in the past... why the stunning dismissal of what you MUST know to be the single, most overwhelming "factor" of them all in this mess? Is the Advertiser under some sort of pressure to "Be a Responsible Media Organ" or something? Ignoring the factor of the smoking ban when it has so clearly been the preeminent influence over the past few years goes beyond oversight and seems to step into the realm of "socially managing the news." If you have good data showing WHAT relative contribution "other factors" have made that would make you completely omit any mention of the smoking ban in this story will you share them with us? And "people deciding to drink more at home" doesn't cut the mustard without addressing WHY they suddenly and independently, at the same time as the ban, decided that "drinking more at home" was the thing to do. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Break smoke ban and lose your licence > Break smoke ban and lose your licence

George Baker wrote, "The smoking issue is done, dead, past, history, end of. No UK government will reverse or modify the ban" and if it's not out of line to repeat what I just posted in another thread here, the Great Alcohol Prohibition Experiment lasted for about fifteen years in America, and the Prohibitionists felt much the same way then as they do now. The Great Smoking Prohibition Experiment will probably fall within five years rather than fifteen, but time will tell. The weakness of the smoking ban is that it was founded on lies, and once those lies are commonly exposed, the support for it will wane. With alcohol prohibition, the support was a combination of fact and morality - neither of which was exposed as being incorrect, but both of which were eventually held to be inadequate in justifying the government excess. Antismokers whinged on for years over their issue, but once they've won for the moment they hold that their opponents should instantly throw in the towel and "move on." That's the kind of attitude promoted by every conquering army in the history of the world: sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Time will tell. And drastic punishments such as Howitt's are a double-edged sword. Yes they deter other freedom fighters, but they also serve to create martyrs to win the sympathy of the wider population that does NOT want to see smoking treated as being the same as gun-running. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Will 2009 be a better year for pubs? > Will 2009 be a better year for pubs?

The article said, "It is no good continuing to moan on about the smoking ban, which is now a fixture of British life." - - - Well, one could say the same thing about the beer tax, but for some reason the MA seems to feel that one can be changed, but not the other. Alcohol Prohibition was a "fixture" of American life for fifteen years... a bit longer than the fifteen or so months of the English smoking ban... and yet somehow that was changed when people just refused to put up with it. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Pub beer sales down 8.1% > Pub beer sales down 8.1%

This is like entering the Twilight Zone. "Credit Crunch" ? "Cheap Supermarket Booze" ? "Rough economic times" ? You *do* realize this isn't limited to the UK I hope? That it hasn't just been happening over the last few months? That it's not simply the pub industry? You've been killed by the smoking ban and instead of fighting back half of you have simply picked up the battle flag of your murderer and joined in waving excuses in the air. Want some evidence of my point? Pop across the pond to the midwestern US and visit the casinos in an average midwestern US State. The Gvt. of Minnesota has been open enough to make its figures public over the last five years and they paint a picture so crystalline clear that not even an Antismoker can fail to see it: http://banthebanwisconsin.com/Documents/MNGraph.pdf At least over here the small pubs have fought back with resistance and stayed largely alive. Noncompliance rates are estimated to range from 25 to 50%, pubs set up phone trees to warn of gestapo raids, descriptions of Informers and Stoolies are shared and they're made to feel quickly unwelcome, there are at least signs of life against the Vichy government... but what's happening over there? After over a hundred posts warning of what a smoking ban would do your pubs ( http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/forum.ma/user-posts/191751?PagingData=Po_0~Ps_10~Psp_Id~Psd_Desc ) it appears that the only effect they've had is to have me removed from notifications about articles here. I wander back over and see exactly the same excuses that were being thrown around in early 2007. It's sad. And while I realize that there are a good number of you who ARE fighting, I wonder just what the rest of you are thinking. How many of you have joined F2C? How many of you are resisting to whatever extent you can? And how many of you are simply playing the role of kapos? Credit crunch.... sheesh. Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

© William Reed Business Media Ltd 2008. All rights reserved. William Reed Business Media Ltd. Registered Office: Broadfield Park, Crawley RH11 9RT. Registered in England No. 2883992. VAT No. 644 3073 52.