Discussion of the UK Government
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Bones McCoy
Membership Days Posts
#396194
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Jane Ellison, the public health minister, has banned smoking in cars with children. Facing down the pseudo-libertarian bores on her own side. She also seems keen to take plain packaging forward. They might have stalled her on plain packaging though. Hope not.
Crosby's "other customers" aren't going to be at all happy.
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Posts
#396198
Tubby Isaacs wrote:Jane Ellison, the public health minister, has banned smoking in cars with children. Facing down the pseudo-libertarian bores on her own side. She also seems keen to take plain packaging forward. They might have stalled her on plain packaging though. Hope not.
Teens being forced to carry birth certificates or passports on the school run or for a trip down to Tesco's for fear of the whole family being marched off to get sworn statements and DNA records. That'll be a laugh a minute.

In other news, I spent a very pleasant last Saturday evening taking six fifteen year olds to their first ever proper grown-up gig because we knew that half would be id'd although the others would be fine without a chaperone. And lo, it came to pass.

My call. Populist, middle-class, unworkable bollocks albeit possibly well-intentioned, which is doubtful given that she is of the vermin persuasion.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#396212
More Labour than Tory voted for it.

The police aren't going to be hanging to catch parents out, any more than they stop cars to check everyone's wearing a seatbelt. But it'll be illegal, there'll be (provided Frankie Maude hasn't cut it all) some advertising about it, and it'll happen far less.
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Posts
#396216
Tubby Isaacs wrote:More Labour than Tory voted for it.

The police aren't going to be hanging to catch parents out, any more than they stop cars to check everyone's wearing a seatbelt. But it'll be illegal, there'll be (provided Frankie Maude hasn't cut it all) some advertising about it, and it'll happen far less.
If a public education programme reduces the occurrence and/or prevalence, then who could argue against that? The only question could be as to why that wasn't undertaken beforehand.

The point is that this is an absurd piece of legislation that should never have eaten up so much limited parliamentary time. Effectively, if you as a parent go and collect your seventeen year-old daughter after a tough and grueling stint in the armed forces and you are both assuaging the tension with a fag on the way home, one of you is a criminal in the (blind) eyes of the law.

All along, this should have been a matter of public health and not have been offered the easy way out via the criminal justice system (Look! We're doing something!) where the potential for miscarriage is ripe and the Paps have been offered a payday for snapping slebs smoking in the proximity of their teenaged offspring.
 
By Tubby Isaacs
Membership Days Posts
#396220
Relatively minor things often eat up parliamentary time. Not really the fault of the people pushing it.

The chance of your soldier getting nicked is the square root of zilch. Chance of his daughter saying "Oi dad, it's illegal" and not having to inhale his shit, is enhanced considerably.
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#396234
I can see the Mail line already - 'decent' people wouldn't need a law to enforce 'common sense', chavs will just ignore it anyway.
 
By Kreuzberger
Membership Days Posts
#396251
lord_kobel wrote:Why are you bringing soldiers into it? Smoking around kids has always been a fucked up idea and I'm glad to see something might be done about it.
It was a simple example to illustrate a general point and the broader point is that this is a piece of legislation that has angst hardwired in to it. Basically, anyone smoking in a car with others aged anywhere between 15 and 20 is ripe for a pull because you just simply can't tell the precise age of a teenager (or anyone else other than an infant) just by looking at them.

That's the very reason why kids need ID to buy booze.

I agree wholeheartedly that active steps should be taken to discourage smoking of any sort and certainly in the presence of children but this is a half arsed way of going about it. There is no law against running with scissors because we learn from an early age that is dangerous.

As I said earlier, education should be the priority - an educated, self-regulating people is better than a legally corralled one - but, if that doesn't work, it would be cleaner to simply ban smoking while driving and be done with it.
#396257
That moment when you chuck a lit dog end out of the window and realise that it was shut...
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#396260
Or realise its blown back in the car.

A friend of mine was hitching many years ago and a well known 70s comedian stopped to pick him up. Eyes bulging he handed him a half made joint and ask him to finish skinning up as it found it tricky while he was driving on the motorway.
By Silkyman
Membership Days Posts
#396270
lord_kobel wrote:I'm suprised it isn't banned. Didn't they make it illegal to eat or use a phone while driving? I can't see how having something on fire in your hand is safer than a sandwich....
I'm sure having an open flame three inches from your face when lighting up wouldn't be in the least bit distracting.
Priti Patel

Already agreed that the Common Travel Area will co[…]

Jeremy Corbyn.

But unfortunately, in practical terms, it won't[…]

Richard Littlejohn

Comments present a glimpse into the confused psych[…]

Labour, Generally.

Brexit isn’t a deal breaker for swathes of v[…]