Are we all prepared for Christmas? Panicking about last minute presents and stocking up on food and booze for the festive period?
Same here..
But whilst we’re worrying about Christmas pudding, 8000 Britons are thousands of miles away in Afghanistan. Living in a makeshift barracks in an alien country where any one person might be harbouring intentions to kill them. Putting their lives on the line every day. For what?
Whether or not the war is right or wrong is irrelevant now: these people are there just doing their job. Morale is supposedly high, but I don’t think politicians would say any anything other.
But get your life blown away by an IED whilst watching your best mate get riddled with bullets from a doped-up insurgent wielding a Kalashnikov, and what do you get? Paraded through stupid award ceremonies where “celebrities” toss faux sympathy at you to try and gain themselves a bit of publicity and a career boost. A pittance pay off and a “so long” from the Ministry of Defence. And a life depending on other people to look after you.
I think it’s appalling that the damage to a soldier’s life can be quantified by box-ticking Whitehall bureaucrats. Much publicised paratrooper Ben Parkinson who sustained 37 seperate injuries received just over £150,000 for his troubles. Clearly this isn’t a lot (particularly when a young typist can net almost half a million due to repetitive strain injury).
Ben hopes to stay in the Army as a back room staff which would presumably return a small income, but if this were not to happen for any reason it would be difficult for him to live a normal life, get a job, and so on. Any hopes and dreams he may have had were shattered and cannot be bought.
I think this system of making one-off goodbye payouts to the injured should be scrapped and a new system should be brought in whose mantra is simply to look after every need of those injured in battle – no matter the cost. I think they should receive a final salary pension too, so should they suffer injuries such as those Ben Parkinson suffered, they receive whatever they were on, per year, for life. It may not add up to a lot but it’s better than tossing them a small cheque and severing all ties.
The Government spends an awful lot of money on causes that are far less poignant than injured veterans. It pumps almost a billion pounds per year into India to feed the people whilst their government stocks up on nuclear warheads.
So whilst you’re shovelling your turkey dinner into your mouth in a few days surrounded by the fruits of fun and family, think about these British soldiers that are thousands of miles from home and could die at any moment. Think about the ones that have had their lives destroyed by instruments of war. Think about the ones that have suffered due to equipment failure and lack of support from the government. Think about the kids that have lost their mum or dad, for whom Christmas morning will be more like Christmas mourning.
Well said phil, why arent you a politician? you would get my vote.
Brilliant post Phil, we owe an awful lot to the brave men and women fighting in HM armed forces.
I have great respect for the brave people in the armed forces. In fact I know someone who will be joining the Army in March. They do a fantastic job yet they are treated appallingly by this Government. They get paid peanuts for an extremely dangerous and valuable job while overpaid BA cabin crew who earn double a soldiers wage are holding the country to ransom demanding more money. The Government wastes money paying jobsworths like Steve Broomhead (useless NWDA chairman) and now the Government organisation that lost the funding for our new college is giving bonuses to the incompetent idiots that fucked up while the forces are being given shoddy equipment if any. Excellent comment Phil, while Hamish Howitt is being given his soapbox on the frontpage of the Gazette the true heroes of this country are being ignored.
TB , what has happened to Hamish?
Well basically he has closed his doors for good and as per usual treating him a local celeb/icon the Gazette splashed the story all over the frontpage and he had a big rant calling the Blackpool regeneration works ‘a waste of money’. Yet now despite claiming he is ‘broke’ he still claiming he is fighting the ban in the European Court of Human Rights.
Hes lost the plot and any credibility he had, a shame, a sad case indeed.
Spot on, he is barking if he thinks he can win. His pathetic ‘human rights’ argument has been thrown out in the Magistrates Court and High Court and he thinks an even higher court will back him. I have studied the Human Rights Act and in no way is any article contravened by the smoking ban.
I agree a,lthough he is right to fight the authoritarian nanny state, hes doing it the wrong way,its an important issue of which he is making himself look an idiot.
I deplore Zanulabours nanny/bully state.
I agree partly about the nanny state but I am fierely strong supporter of the smoking ban. I don’t agree with other things though like all this ‘The school trip has been cancelled for H&S’ because the teachers are afraid of being sued. He has to accept he can’t go around breaking the law simply because he doesn’t agree with it. I don’t like stopping for traffic lights but doesn’t mean I drive through red lights causing accidents.
I support the ban but its IMPLEMENTATION was clumsily handled,as is always the case with Zanulabour.
Now when I go to work or in a shop, I have to go through the fumes on the way in and step on a revolting carpet of fag ash etc.
Total idiot labour.
On a slightly different note, I watched a film called ‘Harry Brown’ last week, it summed up the situation with Zanulabours law and order policies.There have been a number of these vigilante type films, eg ‘Outlaw’ made under Labour, could it be an issue that has not been dealt with here?
Frustration with the authorities, too much paper work etc?
An “inclusive” society under Zanulabour means “all inclusive”; have kids (especially disabled ones) and live off the state, its all inclusive!
Housing benefit, DLA,IS, JSA, free dentistry, prescriptions,college fees etc.
Something will have to change to provide a welfare system that does just that but doesnt provide a way of life doing nothing, spawning anunderclass.
Exactly, I am not saying the truly needy should be deprived of help, they deserve it. But it is too easy to abuse the system. I once watched Question Time and that socialist snotball George Galloway was on the panel. Fraser Nelson (Spectator editor) remarked quite rightly that there are 2.5m on Incapacity Benefit. Then in his usual playground bully style Galloway shouted over him ‘Many of them are disabled’. Then Nelson rightly said ‘disabled’ does not mean ‘disabled to hold a job’. He said how many of those 2.5m are actually beyond capability of doing any job whatsoever? The system is too open to abuse and we have these ‘professional benefit claimants’ who are making a living off benefits. A friend of mine once said and I totally agree ‘If you want to be well off and have nice cars, houses, nice lifestyle and splash out on booze and fags then you should work for it then the money is yours to spend as you like’ and I totally agree but then that’s socialism for you it promotes a culture of laziness and jealousy of those with wealth and success. I am a great believer you should work hard for success and wealth. Socialism sucks.
I have to say I’m not particularly happy about benefits claimants getting all those freebies and workers like me not getting any.
I think dental care, opticians, tuition fees, etc should be free for all, not just those that can’t be arsed to get a fucking job.
Spot on my thoughts exactly and before Labour got in we had FREE education, it was Liebour that took it away. Why should the people who contribute nothing get everything in return, which is what you get with socialism.
socialism sucks indeed!
goodbye labour 2010!
lol I cant be arsed to be a socialist…………lol
That’s good one, lol
Zaulabours Britain!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/8423265.stm
“She said she had been called to her manager’s office and told that sharing her faith with a child could be deemed to be bullying. ”
This is barmy! So what about the assemblies where hymns are sung??? Or, more particular to this time of year is it bullying non-christians to have xmas decorations up, for the kids to be singing christmas carols or shall we not even get into the whole nativity thing???
Barking Fucking Mad!!!!
Its zanulabours PC Britain, thats what it is!
Whether the bansturbators like it or not, the smoking ban is a fundamentally important issue to many people.
Perhaps not the majority.
Perhaps not those for whom ‘elf, edukayshun and Our Boys In Afghanistan are the only issues.
But for some of us, the right to earn a living, to go about our ordinary business unimpeded and to hold sovereignty over ourselves and our property are some of the things we hold most closely.
What we have here is a man who has stood up – in good conscience – to the tyranny of the state, which has trespassed on his private property to tell him how it believes he should run his business – using the intimidating threat of prosecution, loss of livelihood and imprisonment should he choose to disagree.
When you step over the doorway in to somebody’s pub or shop, you are, by extension, walking in to their home. It is only by virtue of implied invitation that you are there, and only as a guest. It’s the same if you’re an employee. Can anybody here honestly say that they’ve ever been forced in to a pub? We’re all adults – we should be able to choose how we spend our time and where we spend it. If we disagree with how somebody is running their business, is it really our place, as fully grown adults, to force them to do things our way, just because we don’t like it?
This attitude of “well, because it’s the law, isn’t it!” belongs in the 1930s. On the other side of the North Sea.
Gordon Marsden is back-pedalling now, with his vague and non-commital line about “well, maybe we could have done things a bit differently…” (paraphrased) – now that the damage has been done, people have lost their businesses and jobs and communities have fewer places to enjoy what little pleasures life has to offer. It’s all just a bit too late for the 4000 or so pubs that have closed since the smoking ban (dwarfing the 300 or so closures in the two years preceeding it). Labour and all those who cheerleaded this absolutist ban have to shoulder the responsibility for that.
But the pub is not his ‘private’ property as he is using the pub for commercial gain it is a public place and a dive at that (I have been in for my sins not by choice). But I do not feel smokers should have the choice to pollute my lungs with their filthy fumes when I am one of the 48m sensible people who doesn’t smoke that is against my rights to be healthy as far as I am concerned.
If it’s not private property, then surely he shouldn’t have to shoulder any responsibility for the place (ie, tax, insurance, maintenance…)? Because by the very definition that it isn’t private property, it must be public property. The state and the tyranny of the majority cannot have it both ways, I’m afraid.
I wouldn’t call Hamish’s actions childish – he’s well within his rights to tell anybody who seeks to deprive him of his livelihood to “fuck off” (in so many words or not). By comparison, what Humble and Marsden did by helping to ensure the ruin of thousands of businesses and the loss of thousands more jobs is absolutely malicious and calculating.
Ultimately, TB, you have a choice – nobody has ever forced you to go on to somebody else’s private property and endure the company of people whose ultimately sin is to enjoy a smoke and a drink amongst friends. When you have entered a pub in the past, you can’t honestly say that you weren’t aware of what a pub was like and that smoke was forced upon you by surprise. You weighed up the pros and cons… and decided that the benefits of being in the pub were greater than the cons of not being in the pub. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have been in the pub!
In my experience, the smoking ban has made going out a much more anti-social affair. Friends of mine smoke, so unless I want to stand on my own for ten minutes every 45 minutes or so, I go with them and stand in a crowded smoking pen where the air is thick with smoke. It’s cold, it can be wet and large numbers of people are coerced in to a space so small that a similar size and capacity would be considered illegal for accommodating cattle – of course, Mullah Coglan can only really turn a blind eye to that sort of thing, because the smoking ban makes it so impractical for licensees to treat smoking customers (and their non-smoking friends) like human beings.
I’m a non-smoker, as most of you know, and have never really liked it – but I’m a big boy and I accept that life is full of hazards. If somebody has gone to the trouble of earning a living, saving their money, investing it in a bar and then inviting me in, then I’m going to respect that – and if I don’t like it, then I’ll either keep my opinions to myself or I’ll go out, earn a living, save some money, invest in my own bar and run it my way.
I see where you’re coming from NQH but personally I find the pub a much more pleasant place not stinking of filthy smoke. I once went out for a friend’s birthday dinner at The Burlington (pre-ban) and we got shoved into the basement with football on full blast (bad enough on its own to me) and the air polluted with carcinogenic smoke while we were trying to eat. I have been back since the ban and life is so much better. I agree you accept the risk when you entered a pub but it is so much better to enjoy a smoke-free atmosphere. Personally I don’t think holding a grudge against politicians for supporting a law backed by 80% of the country is being a grown-up. Like I said I can’t stand Gordon Marsden but if he arrived in my shop/bar I would treat no differently to anyone else.
I don’t disagree that pubs are a bit more pleasant now that they are smoke-free, but that isn’t for me to make that moral choice on someone else’s behalf.
McDonald’s might be a nicer and healthier place to eat if they used finer ingredients, but I don’t see that on the cards.
I would have been much more content with a 50/50 sort of solution, rather than the bansturbators getting everything their way. It wouldn’t have been ideal, but I suppose compromise is what people try to do in those circumstances…
With regards to how Hamish has behaved… Well, look at it from a different perspective. This is his livelihood- his life, his business, his financial interests. All being taken away from him.
You consider higher education to be something close to your heart; something that should be made freely available to you but has since been taken away. That education has a financial and a personal value to it – thousands of pounds and the chance to better yourself.
How would you feel towards someone who entered your home, raided your cash box and took thousands of pounds that you’d worked for, saved and hoped to do something with one day. Would your feelings perhaps be a bit stronger than just wanting to ‘bar’ them from coming on to your premises ever again? ‘Cos quite frankly, I’d want all my money back and then I’d want the book thrown at them.
Also I wouldn’t call Hamish and the landlords of Foxhall grown adults by the childish way they ‘banned’ Marsden and Humble from their pubs. I don’t like Marsden and Humble for many reasons (not the smoking ban one of the few good things they have done) but if I ran a business I would allow them in and treat them like any other customer as I would if they were my patients. I don’t say ‘oh they voted for tuition fees so they can’t come in my shop’. Like I say I may not like them but I would not stoop to such childish measures I will let them know how I feel at the ballot box.
Hamish is running for UKIP now (and causing trouble there):
http://www.counterbalance.org.uk/latest/nosmoke.htm
I’m all for the smoking ban. My father was a non smoker but sang in a very smokey atmosphere -and died of lung cancer with no treatment or even pain relief because an arsehole of a consultant refused to check because he didn’t smoke himself. I can still taste the smoke when I remember doing CPR on him not knowing why he was dead. I’m not against people smoking if they choose to do so – just pro making them do it somewhere where it cannot impact on another person’s health. It’s not illegal to drink alcohol for adults – but you can’t drink in many streets. It’s not illegal for adults to have sex – but again you are restricted so you can’t do this in full public view and not have to face any legal consequences. I don’t hear the pro-smokers campaigning for all restrictions being lifted. I hold my breath before I get to the smokers around every entrance and don’t breathe again until I’m well inside.
Good if the pubs close if all they can offer is alcohol and smoking then they aren’t places we should be proud of. They have turned their premises into places that people that object to smoking don’t want to go. Few have anything to offer other than serving drinks, the odd probably dirty carpeted bar stool and mostly standing around smoking and drinking. There may be the odd juke box or pin ball-type machine but that’s your lot – and you wonder why people don’t want to go? A business has to make itself attractive to customers to survive. Bad food, bad furnishings, a foggy atmosphere and nothing to offer but drink that can be bought for a fraction of the price at the local supermarket (and you have to get yourself home from sober if you’re driving) isn’t going to last. Unless they make themselves into an entertainment attraction or community hub they are going to go to the wall and good riddance.
TrooBloo – Mrs F is an ex-teacher and no religious references to Christ were allowed in the hymns to be sung in her C&E school because of the vast muslim majority there. You can have “god” but certainly not Jesus, the nativity, holy ghost, in fact New Testament at all. She hears from another teacher that now they have taken to chanting Islamic verses complete with the rocking motion that is compulsory at the mosque.
What. The fuck.
That’s what I hate: they let the Muslims do whatever they want but any reference to our indigenous culture and religion is banned.
Why are we so obsessed with pandering to Muslims? The way I see it you can either have it so all religious activity is allowed, or all religious activity is banned.
Having a policy that bans one religion yet allows another to flourish is wrong, and should be banned lol.
Very interesting article NQH, thank you for posting it. I will definitely not be voting UKIP if they are becoming a pro-smoking publicans party. I agree strongly with their views on Europe but I would never back a pro-smoking party or candidate.