Danny
Member
Posts: 10,274
|
Post by Danny on Apr 17, 2024 8:14:52 GMT
Is the smoking ban the smoking gun here, explaining this dramatic drop in Tory support? Again we have the problem not just who believes something, but how strongly and is it enough to influence their vote. I know people have been influenced to absolutely not vote labour by the promised imposition of tax on private schools fees. How many have been persuaded to vote for con specifically by this measure? Likewise, are there more annoyed would be smokers (in the young, labour voting demographic), than anyone persuaded to vote lab by their supporting this measure? This tax is a way to turn young voters off labour, while getting their older and more conservative parents to lean towards con. Its politically motivated, not health motivated. |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Apr 17, 2024 8:19:21 GMT
I'll be interested to read the outcry about the overburdening of the police force - presumably much worse than managing reports from the Scottish Hate Crime legislation?
Or are we putting more money in to the policing of this?
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,118
|
Post by domjg on Apr 17, 2024 8:20:33 GMT
If they started being more 'reckless' in terms of visibly greater commitment to Ukraine then I for one would welcome that. I would too I think part of the problem is we don't have that much to give - our military spending focusses on boats and nukes, not ammunition and artillery and vehicles An easy start would be not to treat Ukrainian territory and airspace as completely off-limits for western armed forces. Doing so can only give the impression that it's ceded to Russia operationally. Perhaps a slight (but only a slight) risk but land a few aircraft at Lviv or even Kyiv instead of Rzeszow. That simple act would be an enormous morale booster for the Ukrainians and would be statement of commitment to Ukraine for the Russians to digest. Not a single aircraft with it's transponder turned on has flown in Ukrainian airspace since Feb 2022. That really should change. Russians like to bluster but actually they're very cautious. They got extremely agitated when that missile fell on Polish territory and killed a local farmer. I saw a Russian airforce Il-76 flying from Kaliningrad in the Baltic on Flightradar yesterday. A Swedish airforce surveillance aircraft was in it's path but 7000 feet lower. The Russian plane took clear action to avoid going anywhere near it. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Apr 17, 2024 8:24:40 GMT
I believe there may be questions in the House about this matter of national importance. I missed it too. Did he take his ball home? Colin used to abhor flouncers, so I'd be surprised if he was indulging in this utterly contemptible form of exhibitionist discontent himself. I think he's preparing a return already, maybe on the back of an Andy Street win against the head in the West Midlands next month. This may signal a way forward for British Conservatism in his eyes. I wish old Col well from a personal point of view but I won't miss his posting one iota. Nor would he miss mine. My only regret would be that he is stopping doing something he enjoys because of others. Only he knows the answer to that. Maybe he's just had enough for a bit. Prosaic reasons. Nothing to see here, move on. What we're all doing here is very much a trivial pursuit amidst what I hope are varied and interesting lives. The temporary departure of a once regular poster is of no consequences at all. Old Col wished me on my way with very similar sentiments once and he was quite right to do so. Some people are taking this nonsense far too seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Apr 17, 2024 8:34:02 GMT
Danny - "The evidence is that S England became immune to the first wave through infection, and thats why the disease did not recur here in the autumn when schools reopened." No it isn't. I've repeatedly posted published analysis that destroys this myth with some very simple maths. Why do you keep on ignoring facts?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2024 9:11:20 GMT
Sky have just reminded us that today is, almost unbelievably, the fortieth anniversary of the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher. I'm sure steve will be particularly aware of the poignancy of the occasion. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,590
|
Post by steve on Apr 17, 2024 9:31:35 GMT
"I'll be interested to read the outcry about the overburdening of the police force - presumably much worse than managing reports from the Scottish Hate Crime legislation?"
I would presume as with most primarily age related sales point legislation there would be little to no police involvement.
Regarding public smoking as this would only impact people currently 15 or under I wouldn't have thought there would be any significant work load increase.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,590
|
Post by steve on Apr 17, 2024 9:33:08 GMT
@isa I miss my friend Yvonne to this day. And I dearly wish this wasn't the last time I saw her alive. Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Apr 17, 2024 9:55:33 GMT
Badenoch on Trans health care: "Children under the age of 25 need to be prevented from making decisions about their health care to protect them!"
Badenoch on Smoking: "It's unfair and potentially illegal to treat people under age any differently than other adults!"
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Apr 17, 2024 10:20:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Apr 17, 2024 10:22:15 GMT
jayblanc - I was thinking something very similar about Conservative double standards; This morning, many of them are attacking bans on young smokers, saying it's 'un-Conservative, even while the same people are celebrating the banning of children choosing to pray in their break time at a London school.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Apr 17, 2024 10:37:24 GMT
Re-the smoking ban, personally, I think it's very bad legislation for a number of reasons.
I was - and am - 100% behind previous measures to reduce / limit smoking (ban on indoor smoking, eg in pubs/restaurants / plain packaging / advertising ban), but, I cannot get behind this, for the following reasons....
1. It's one thing to have to be old enough to do certain things such as buying tobacco or alcohol, but, in years to come, we will be in a situation where a 37 year old won't legally be able to do something that a 38 year old can do perfectly freely. Am I the only person that finds this utterly ridiculous?
2. As well as tobacco smuggling, which happens already, you can bet there will be Delboy types buying up tobacco products in Tesco to resell at a profit to those just a few years younger who are now exclued from doing so.
While that may not inherantly be a problem (at least for government), the greater danger is the situation where some of these Delboys aren't simply people making a few quid on the side, the sort of people crate-digging in car boot sales and charity shops for things to resell, but, more sinister sellers that also do a line in heroin and crck cocaine. Anyone think that these people won't encroach onto the tobacco market?
3. The take up of smoking has long ben falling among young people anyway, this has accelorated with the advent of vaping.
4. At younger ages, it could glamourise smoking..."He's so cool! He's 19! He can smoke!". There is a risk that some could take up smoking that wouldn't have otherwise done so.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,590
|
Post by steve on Apr 17, 2024 11:33:27 GMT
@mark
Given that the issue with a 37 year old wouldn't arise until around 2050 I would have thought it highly unlikely that there would have been any significant market for fags by then anyway.
The glamour of smelling like an old ashtray is a bit limited but again the " cool" facto will have worn off by the time the youngest individual permitted was 30 I doubt their 29 year old mates who would have never legally been allowed to smoke first thought would be the coolness.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,339
|
Post by neilj on Apr 17, 2024 11:54:23 GMT
Follow the money
|
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Apr 17, 2024 12:24:22 GMT
Re-the smoking ban, personally, I think it's very bad legislation for a number of reasons. I was - and am - 100% behind previous measures to reduce / limit smoking (ban on indoor smoking, eg in pubs/restaurants / plain packaging / advertising ban), but, I cannot get behind this, for the following reasons.... 1. It's one thing to have to be old enough to do certain things such as buying tobacco or alcohol, but, in years to come, we will be in a situation where a 37 year old won't legally be able to do something that a 38 year old can do perfectly freely. Am I the only person that finds this utterly ridiculous? 2. As well as tobacco smuggling, which happens already, you can bet there will be Delboy types buying up tobacco products in Tesco to resell at a profit to those just a few years younger who are now exclued from doing so. While that may not inherantly be a problem (at least for government), the greater danger is the situation where some of these Delboys aren't simply people making a few quid on the side, the sort of people crate-digging in car boot sales and charity shops for things to resell, but, more sinister sellers that also do a line in heroin and crck cocaine. Anyone think that these people won't encroach onto the tobacco market? 3. The take up of smoking has long ben falling among young people anyway, this has accelorated with the advent of vaping. 4. At younger ages, it could glamourise smoking..."He's so cool! He's 19! He can smoke!". There is a risk that some could take up smoking that wouldn't have otherwise done so. Just out of interest @mark, do you agree with the law to make people wear safety belts in cars? I suspect that the smoking ban will save a similar number of lives, though I don't have figures. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,339
|
Post by neilj on Apr 17, 2024 13:31:50 GMT
Re-the smoking ban, personally, I think it's very bad legislation for a number of reasons. I was - and am - 100% behind previous measures to reduce / limit smoking (ban on indoor smoking, eg in pubs/restaurants / plain packaging / advertising ban), but, I cannot get behind this, for the following reasons.... 1. It's one thing to have to be old enough to do certain things such as buying tobacco or alcohol, but, in years to come, we will be in a situation where a 37 year old won't legally be able to do something that a 38 year old can do perfectly freely. Am I the only person that finds this utterly ridiculous? 2. As well as tobacco smuggling, which happens already, you can bet there will be Delboy types buying up tobacco products in Tesco to resell at a profit to those just a few years younger who are now exclued from doing so. While that may not inherantly be a problem (at least for government), the greater danger is the situation where some of these Delboys aren't simply people making a few quid on the side, the sort of people crate-digging in car boot sales and charity shops for things to resell, but, more sinister sellers that also do a line in heroin and crck cocaine. Anyone think that these people won't encroach onto the tobacco market? 3. The take up of smoking has long ben falling among young people anyway, this has accelorated with the advent of vaping. 4. At younger ages, it could glamourise smoking..."He's so cool! He's 19! He can smoke!". There is a risk that some could take up smoking that wouldn't have otherwise done so. Just out of interest @mark, do you agree with the law to make people wear safety belts in cars? I suspect that the smoking ban will save a similar number of lives, though I don't have figures. I suspect it will save many, many times more Yes some will still get cigarettes, but most won't bother |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2024 13:32:31 GMT
Danny - "The evidence is that S England became immune to the first wave through infection, and thats why the disease did not recur here in the autumn when schools reopened." No it isn't. I've repeatedly posted published analysis that destroys this myth with some very simple maths. Why do you keep on ignoring facts? Why do you keep on ignoring the fact that he isn’t going to change his mind and the rest of us couldn’t give a toss what he thinks anyway? This is all very childish. |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Apr 17, 2024 13:34:54 GMT
"I'll be interested to read the outcry about the overburdening of the police force - presumably much worse than managing reports from the Scottish Hate Crime legislation?" I would presume as with most primarily age related sales point legislation there would be little to no police involvement. Regarding public smoking as this would only impact people currently 15 or under I wouldn't have thought there would be any significant work load increase. It was a somewhat rhetorical question, but I would assume that once those 15 year olds turn 16 they will be committing an offence by smoking in public? Attachments:
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,339
|
Post by neilj on Apr 17, 2024 13:38:08 GMT
More in Common
Our latest
@moreincommon_
voting intention poll finds Labour’s lead steady at 17 points and very little change at all
🌹 Labour 43% (-)
🌳Conservatives 26% (-)
🔶Liberal Democrats 10% (-)
🟣Reform UK 11% (-1)
💚Greens 6% (+1)
N: 2,051
15/4
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,565
|
Post by pjw1961 on Apr 17, 2024 14:22:43 GMT
@mark Given that the issue with a 37 year old wouldn't arise until around 2050 I would have thought it highly unlikely that there would have been any significant market for fags by then anyway. The glamour of smelling like an old ashtray is a bit limited but again the " cool" facto will have worn off by the time the youngest individual permitted was 30 I doubt their 29 year old mates who would have never legally been allowed to smoke first thought would be the coolness. Despite years of criminalisation, illegal drugs are freely available in every city, town and village in the UK. So common are they that the price has fallen significantly. At the same time the strength and danger of said drugs has increased and a culture of violence accompanies their supply and sale. And of course, criminals pay no tax either. If I thought banning the sale of tobacco would eliminate smoking I would support it 100%. Instead I think that over the next decade or two there is a good chance we will see an increase in the use of ever stronger - a much cheaper, given it will be untaxed - forms of tobacco products. This measure could well be the beginnings of a major set-back in public health, given the great success of tobacco use reduction schemes (not least heavy taxation) over the last 50 years. I hope the impact is kept under review, with a view to repealing the legislation if it proves counter-productive. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,565
|
Post by pjw1961 on Apr 17, 2024 14:35:25 GMT
Result of the Tuesday LG by-election:
PEMBROKESHIRE UA; St Ishmaels (Con gain from Ind)
George (Con) 297 (43.4%)
Jenkins (No Desc) 242 (35.3%)
Harwood (Ind) 69 (10.1%)
Simister (Ind) 52 (7.6%)
Worsley (No Desc) 25 (3.6%)
Changes in vote share would be meaningless in this case (technically everyone would count as "new")
|
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Apr 17, 2024 14:56:43 GMT
A little clarification for how the law will work...
It will not criminalise smoking. Possession of tobacco by those born after 2009 is not going to be a crime.
What is happening is changes to the licensing of sale of tobacco and tobacco products. Anything containing Tobacco is being phased out by the year on year increase on restriction of sales. Enforcement will come on the sale and licensing end, as it already does, with the same expected levels of effectiveness. Additionally "Disposable Vapes" are being outright banned.
What it does not do is entirely ban or phase out all recreational Nicotine products due to industry lobbying. Vapes will not be entirely eliminated, and they will remain on sale without the phase-out ban, but there will be a stronger restriction on the amounts of nicotine, and how they are advertised, and a new tax levied against them. Vapes are in fact the greater concern in many ways, as they have already supplanted the Cigarette in terms of "The cool thing adults do".
|
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on Apr 17, 2024 15:01:49 GMT
A little clarification for how the law will work... It will not criminalise smoking. Possession of tobacco by those born after 2009 is not going to be a crime. What is happening is changes to the licensing of sale of tobacco and tobacco products. Anything containing Tobacco is being phased out by the year on year increase on restriction of sales. Enforcement will come on the sale and licensing end, as it already does, with the same expected levels of effectiveness. Additionally "Disposable Vapes" are being outright banned. What it does not do is entirely ban or phase out all recreational Nicotine products due to industry lobbying. Vapes will not be entirely eliminated, and they will remain on sale without the phase-out ban, but there will be a stronger restriction on the amounts of nicotine, and how they are advertised, and a new tax levied against them. Vapes are in fact the greater concern in many ways, as they have already supplanted the Cigarette in terms of "The cool thing adults do". Thanks To be honest I was too lazy to read all about it and that's a helpful summary. I am more comfortable with it being at the sale end but it does seem pretty unworkable, A 15 year old who is currently smoking will be able to get their 18 year old brother to buy them. And they can continue doing that for the rest of their lives. I used to get accosted by a homeless guy regularly at Uni asking for the price of a fag (then about 5p IIRC)outside a newsagents in Edinburgh. I have this vision of a bunch of 55 year olds in 2064 hanging around the same newsagent accosting 60 year olds to buy their fags for them... |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Apr 17, 2024 15:02:35 GMT
Result of the Tuesday LG by-election: PEMBROKESHIRE UA; St Ishmaels (Con gain from Ind) George (Con) 297 (43.4%) Jenkins (No Desc) 242 (35.3%) Harwood (Ind) 69 (10.1%) Simister (Ind) 52 (7.6%) Worsley (No Desc) 25 (3.6%) Changes in vote share would be meaningless in this case (technically everyone would count as "new") These are getting more interesting as every week goes by. Why a Tuesday and not a Thursday for polling day, and who are these "No Description" dudes making headway now? We certainly needed something like this to move the debate on from whether Deadly's propensity to exploit uncovered and rain-affected wickets flattered his bowling figures and career average. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,565
|
Post by pjw1961 on Apr 17, 2024 15:13:14 GMT
Result of the Tuesday LG by-election: PEMBROKESHIRE UA; St Ishmaels (Con gain from Ind) George (Con) 297 (43.4%) Jenkins (No Desc) 242 (35.3%) Harwood (Ind) 69 (10.1%) Simister (Ind) 52 (7.6%) Worsley (No Desc) 25 (3.6%) Changes in vote share would be meaningless in this case (technically everyone would count as "new") These are getting more interesting as every week goes by. Why a Tuesday and not a Thursday for polling day, and who are these "No Description" dudes making headway now? We certainly needed something like this to move the debate on from whether Deadly's propensity to exploit uncovered and rain-affected wickets flattered his bowling figures and career average. I had a word with the folk down in Pembrokeshire and they especially designed this by-election to provoke you. You've got the delights of the Farnham Residents tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Apr 17, 2024 16:15:05 GMT
A little clarification for how the law will work... It will not criminalise smoking. Possession of tobacco by those born after 2009 is not going to be a crime. What is happening is changes to the licensing of sale of tobacco and tobacco products. Anything containing Tobacco is being phased out by the year on year increase on restriction of sales. Enforcement will come on the sale and licensing end, as it already does, with the same expected levels of effectiveness. Additionally "Disposable Vapes" are being outright banned. What it does not do is entirely ban or phase out all recreational Nicotine products due to industry lobbying. Vapes will not be entirely eliminated, and they will remain on sale without the phase-out ban, but there will be a stronger restriction on the amounts of nicotine, and how they are advertised, and a new tax levied against them. Vapes are in fact the greater concern in many ways, as they have already supplanted the Cigarette in terms of "The cool thing adults do". Thanks To be honest I was too lazy to read all about it and that's a helpful summary. I am more comfortable with it being at the sale end but it does seem pretty unworkable, A 15 year old who is currently smoking will be able to get their 18 year old brother to buy them. And they can continue doing that for the rest of their lives. I used to get accosted by a homeless guy regularly at Uni asking for the price of a fag (then about 5p IIRC)outside a newsagents in Edinburgh. I have this vision of a bunch of 55 year olds in 2064 hanging around the same newsagent accosting 60 year olds to buy their fags for them... As possession will not be criminalised, all that will happen is that people who cannot legally buy cigarettes here will go abroad and bring them back into the country, just like the old days when they used to go to Calais to buy cheap booze up to their duty-free allowance. In Northern Ireland they will just have to drive across the border. It is also questionable whether the law will apply on ships outside the 12-mile limit. These all used to happen in the days before the UK joined the Common Market, so no reason why it shouldn't happen again. My suspicion is that the principal outcome will be a loss of revenue to the Treasury. |
|
|
|
Post by jayblanc on Apr 17, 2024 16:20:46 GMT
Thanks To be honest I was too lazy to read all about it and that's a helpful summary. I am more comfortable with it being at the sale end but it does seem pretty unworkable, A 15 year old who is currently smoking will be able to get their 18 year old brother to buy them. And they can continue doing that for the rest of their lives. I used to get accosted by a homeless guy regularly at Uni asking for the price of a fag (then about 5p IIRC)outside a newsagents in Edinburgh. I have this vision of a bunch of 55 year olds in 2064 hanging around the same newsagent accosting 60 year olds to buy their fags for them... As possession will not be criminalised, all that will happen is that people who cannot legally buy cigarettes here will go abroad and bring them back into the country, just like the old days when they used to go to Calais to buy cheap booze up to their duty-free allowance. In Northern Ireland they will just have to drive across the border. It is also questionable whether the law will apply on ships outside the 12-mile limit. These all used to happen in the days before the UK joined the Common Market, so no reason why it shouldn't happen again. My suspicion is that the principal outcome will be a loss of revenue to the Treasury. The revenue will be replaced by the new revenue on Vape duty. And the incentive to smuggle back large amounts of smokes already existed, as did the prosecutions for avoiding duty by smuggling in such smokes. It may surprise you to know that stock piling up on bulk boxes of cigarettes from France was indeed illegal duty avoidance even when the UK was part of the EU, because specially licensed products such as Tobacco are an excluded product from the Common Market. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Apr 17, 2024 17:01:23 GMT
As possession will not be criminalised, all that will happen is that people who cannot legally buy cigarettes here will go abroad and bring them back into the country, just like the old days when they used to go to Calais to buy cheap booze up to their duty-free allowance. In Northern Ireland they will just have to drive across the border. It is also questionable whether the law will apply on ships outside the 12-mile limit. These all used to happen in the days before the UK joined the Common Market, so no reason why it shouldn't happen again. My suspicion is that the principal outcome will be a loss of revenue to the Treasury. The revenue will be replaced by the new revenue on Vape duty. And the incentive to smuggle back large amounts of smokes already existed, as did the prosecutions for avoiding duty by smuggling in such smokes. It may surprise you to know that stock piling up on bulk boxes of cigarettes from France was indeed illegal duty avoidance even when the UK was part of the EU, because specially licensed products such as Tobacco are an excluded product from the Common Market. I'm not talking about smuggling, I'm talking about plain duty-free like this that Brittany Ferries are offering. |
|
|
|
Post by kay9 on Apr 17, 2024 17:04:57 GMT
A little clarification for how the law will work... It will not criminalise smoking. Possession of tobacco by those born after 2009 is not going to be a crime. What is happening is changes to the licensing of sale of tobacco and tobacco products. Anything containing Tobacco is being phased out by the year on year increase on restriction of sales. Enforcement will come on the sale and licensing end, as it already does, with the same expected levels of effectiveness. Additionally "Disposable Vapes" are being outright banned. What it does not do is entirely ban or phase out all recreational Nicotine products due to industry lobbying. Vapes will not be entirely eliminated, and they will remain on sale without the phase-out ban, but there will be a stronger restriction on the amounts of nicotine, and how they are advertised, and a new tax levied against them. Vapes are in fact the greater concern in many ways, as they have already supplanted the Cigarette in terms of "The cool thing adults do". Thanks To be honest I was too lazy to read all about it and that's a helpful summary. I am more comfortable with it being at the sale end but it does seem pretty unworkable, A 15 year old who is currently smoking will be able to get their 18 year old brother to buy them. And they can continue doing that for the rest of their lives. I used to get accosted by a homeless guy regularly at Uni asking for the price of a fag (then about 5p IIRC)outside a newsagents in Edinburgh. I have this vision of a bunch of 55 year olds in 2064 hanging around the same newsagent accosting 60 year olds to buy their fags for them... And I have this vision of a 56 year old in 2064 having to carry his/her birth certificate to prove that (s)he was born on 31 December, 2008 instead of a day later. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Apr 17, 2024 17:05:24 GMT
|
|
