This diatribe comes to you courtesy of a Ms Brenda Orsler, a delegate to the conference against prohibition who apparently paid to attend out of her own resources.
As far as I can make out, it is a pro-smoking event. What is even more interesting is that has been sponsored by the appalling Godfrey Bloom, UKIP MEP.
Press release:
The 1st international conference against prohibition which was scheduled for the 27/28th January in the EU parliament, Brussels, was blocked on the 15th January following a letter to the EU president from the anti smoking organisation, The Smokefree Partnership. The conference had gathered a great deal of interest and support due to the fact that eminent scientists from around the world, including some from within tobacco control, were attending to give speeches regarding the passive smoke fraud. Fortunately the organisers of the event, TICAP, anticipated underhand tactics by the anti smoking industry to prevent the conference from happening, and a contingency within a separate venue right opposite the EU parliament has now been put into place. All scientists and other participants along with live satellite links for
those unable to attend in person are available in the alternate building.
In the letter that resulted in the EU venue being withdrawn Florence Berteletti Kemp, Director of the Smoke Free Partnership, falsely claims a commercial interest for financial sponsors of the conference offering no factual evidence to back up her allegation. She also states that –
the event goes “against all of Parliament’s adopted reports and the European Community’s legislation and commitments on this topic”, and that “it violates the spirit of the International
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.” This is clearly a demand to prevent the freedom of speech of some of the most highly recognised scientists in the field; a demand that was upheld by the EU Bureau and hidden from the parliamentary sponsor of the conference,
Godfrey Bloom MEP. Kemp also stated that – “The TICAP conference purports to develop methods and strategies to end “the use of pseudo-science” in relation to tobacco control, in contrast the WHO FCTC recognizes “that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke cause death, disease and disability”. In other words, no debate will be allowed, no scientist will be allowed a platform to disagree, only those who do agree with the policies have the right to freedom of speech on this subject in the EU building. In an unprecedented move, the EU Bureau cancelled the conference with no record on their meeting agenda and without communication or right of reply to the sponsoring MEP, who was left to discover the truth by rumours almost a week later. These astonishingly undemocratic revelations were based upon unsubstantiated false claims and a demand that no debate should be allowed, and were submitted by an anti smoking group opposed to the content of the event. For decades the anti smoking industry has grossly perverted science for their own ideology; it comes as no surprise to us whatsoever that they are now perverting democracy and freedom in the very heart of the EU.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
Madam.
The person that you name is my wife.
She is not a delegate and most certainly has paid in full for her own expenses to attend this conference.
She is not 'pro-smoking'. She is an individual who believes in a society where prohibition has no place.
The conference was about being against prohibition and the fact that the conference is now prohibited proves her point.
My wife sent you a personal email and I think that your reason to publish her name on your blog is known to only yourself.
I object strongly to the fact that details sent privately to yourself be made public.
Terry
This is an unacceptable attack on free speech!! The event is NOT pro-smoking but a scientific one and the group TICAP plan more such Conferences focusing on other related issues such as Alcohol and Food.
who apparently paid to attend out of her own resources.
I quote your comments regarding Brenda and, on that subject, would like to merely comment that, merely because you rely on others to pay for what you believe in - that does not mean that others do.
Having looked through your website, I applaud your work in some areas and would even concede that, unlike most MEPs, you probably manage to get at least one weeks work in each year - something you should be proud of.
With regard to the TICAP conference, it is not pro-smoking (as you state) it is pro-choice. Naturally, I understand that this is a concept alien to you in that, pro choice, actually allows "ordinary" people to make decisions that you do not feel are "in their best interests". It is our belief that, if a landlord allows smoking in their own pub (in many cases they own the freehold), then that is the business of the landlord and not the government - regardless of what you or anyone else feels about the so called, health issues. Evene if we accepted all the bogus science surrounding this emotive issue, the case still stands - people are individuals and, regardless of what you may think, will and always have acted as such. In the same vein, if a landlord decided not to allow smoking, he should have the force of law to re-enforce that decision. Speaking for myself (as an occasional smoker), I undertand the ban in eating places (not cafes) and places that people have to go in their daily businesses and support it. What I do not support is the wholesale destruction of our pubs and clubs (where people go out of choice) - on the banner of dogy science and political dogma. I received an email last night from a lifelong non smoker who actually said (and I quote) "I don't go to the pub any more. Because, if I want to talk to anyone, they are all outside and the smoke there is 10 times worse than it ever was inside.". He also stated "I do not smoke - but I would defend to the end the rights of people who do - in their own pubs and clubs. This ban helps no-one".
I, like Brenda and everyone who has replied to this, are not "per se" pro smoking, we are pro-choice. We are also fed up with our pubs and clubs closing and our social life being decimated.
In closing, I hope that you take on board my comments. Theyy are not meant to be in any way confrontational, they are simply designed to give you an insight that there are so many people who are disgusted with the way our choices are being removed. It is nothing to do with smoking - it is everything to do with being sick of having the miriad ways we can die - but nobody ever tells us how to live. I do hope you see my point and understand that the majority of the population of the entire EU is looking for some kind of leadership - so that life had some meaning. If there is not a change, the situation will escalate out of control.
Best regards
Paul
Hello Mary
First time I've been here.
I'll be back soon. It appears I have work to do.
Care to give me YOUR side of the story?
How is that a 'diatribe'?
And how is Godfrey Bloom 'appalling'?
Because you have failed to grasp that what he said about employment legislation was right, perhaps because it would show you up as the waste of public resources that you are?
Mind you, Mary: I know from old that you're not a fan of freedom of speech. Happy to take free legal adice, though.
Mary you sink to new lows Well DONE !!
It appears to me that you haven't actually understood the Press Release.
This is about freedom of speech, underhand tactics being used to cancel a previously approved event and false accusations.
Whether you agree or disagree with the subject matter of the conference is irrelevant. This has exposed the vulnerability of EU policies if they are not allowed to be questioned or debated.
I must admit that I also find the timing of the cancellation extremely appalling, particularly when the event had been approved several months ago.
Madam,
The only 'appalling' one is you!
I quite like Godfrey Bloom, but then as a smoker and Ukipper I would say that.
Word veri: Geobbls
Ms Honeyball, can I confirm that out of my salary I have paid £70 for a return ticket on the Eurostar and have to find Eur 149 for my hotel. Unlike Labour MPs I am happy to pay my own way and publish it in the public domain.
I can confirm it is pro choice, not pro smoking. We happen to believe in free speech and democracy.
The EU and Labour's mask has slipped.
You stated Brenda 'apparently' paid to attend out of her own resources. Did you use the word 'apparently' because you find it so hard to believe that people actually pay for things out of their own resources, something that no MEP/MP seems to do.
You also state "As far as I can make out, it is a pro-smoking event". You got that one wrong lady - the title TICAP is self explanatory to anyone with a brain cell, something you are obviously lacking. You must feel that any prohibition your Government imposes upon the nation should be accepted and nobody should have the right to oppose or even discuss them. The day the likes of you get booted off the gravy train will be a day to rejoice as far as I'm concerned. The sooner the better because this country is heading deeper into dictatorship because of the likes of you and yours. I don't know if you have children, neither do I care but if you do you must be quite comfortable with the fact that they, or their children, will grow up not being able to express themselves & have their lives totally controlled by the State. You are just a puppet and you don't even know the puppet masters.
I am going to the conference and, like Brenda, I have also covered my own expenses - even though you find such an action totally alien. You should try it sometime, it's really not that hard.
Mary, what is your view on the fact that a campaign group has been denied their right of assembly in a so-called free society?
Do you believe in democracy in action or not?
Actually, forget the last bit, do you actually believe in democracy at all?
Whatever your view of Godfrey Bloom, do you agree that his views should be censored? Do you agree that a conference that was perfectly legal should have been cancelled?
In short, do you agree that viewpoints that disagree with yours should be silenced?
The conference will go ahead, simply because the organisers were fully aware that this would happen.
It's a very sad reflection of people like you that this should be the case.
Anyone else you wish to silence while you are at it?
You should be petitioning the EU to allow this to go ahead in the interests of fair debate, but instead choose to mock the idea that others may not agree with you.
You are a disgrace.
You are a disgrace woman.
You post that a lady 'apparantly' paid her expenses to attend a conference and you publish her name.
You are treading dangerous ground with regard to data protection.
The lady in question would be well advised to seek legal representation.
You have no idea if this lady is attending with a view of 'pro-smoking' and yet have portrayed her as an advocate of a 'delegation'
You certainly have created a stir with you comments that will hopefully be reported in the main stream media, especially if the lady decides to seek a professional opinion on your public remarks.
As the lady's husband states, the lady contacted you privately and gave no authorisation for her personal details to be published.
This is most unpleasant, as are your remarks directed to Mr Bloom.
This is the first time I have visited Mary's blog.
Usually when I view a blog, the blogger responds and communicates.
I'll have to await the response I suppose, otherwise what's the use of a blog?
Terry
Your wife sent me a press release, she did not write to me privately. Press releases are for free circulation, if not they are embargoed until a certain date and time. This email was not. People writing privatey write priavte on their correspondence they do not issue press releases. I have not published the text of her email just the press release, emphasising key parts in bold.
I will respond to other comments later
Just looks to me as if Goliath was getting very frightened of David!
So if this was a press release, why respond in such a derogatory manner?
The statement is clearly not a diatribe. It merely points out that a pre-arranged and legal conference was vetoed at the request of one individual. By someone who hadn't even bothered to check the facts by claiming (to all intents and purposes)that it was sponsored by the tobacco industry. Clearly this uninformed woman should not be in such an influential position. I was led to believe that the Smokefree Partnership statements were based on sound information/science. After all, they keep telling us that.
No public debate, no consultation with the organisers, no respect to any of those who had paid their own expenses. Yes, unbelievably, private citizens (and MEPs) gathering at the seat of parliament. Whatever next?
This was sent to you (as a MEP)in good faith, whereupon you responded by publicly humiliating Mrs Orsler.
And you think this is OK?
Who pays your salary and expenses?
Who, or what, exactly do you represent?
And please, oh please, don't respond to any of the posts by regurgitating Tobacco Control propaganda. E.g. 'well the majority of the public want to see this and don't want that blah blah blah'. You know the sort of thing - policy determined by public consultation. The latest one being the forthcoming ban on displaying tobacco products. Now that was a true public consultation, wasn't it?
"One of the great things about the internet is the way it can bring people with the same views and interests together whatever the geography"
It has but you deride those with a common interest and make assumptions about those who you know nothing of. You quite wrongly assume and thus insult so many of us who are not chosen to be 'stakeholders' in a specific lobby to be pro the opposite. I have never been pro-smoking but I am certainly pro-democracy, pro-freedom, pro-choice, pro-tolerance, pro-community and pro-inclusion. Sorry that you should find this worthy of such arrogant comment.
"In allowing a free vote on three of the Bill's most important clauses, the PM has failed to protect the rights of the general public... Most people obviously disagree with a Catholic morality.........."
Obviously Democracy has no place when it conflicts with your view.
"People who vote for me and my colleagues expect us to further the interests of the public at large, not those of any particular religion, church, mosque, synagogue, temple or indeed any other interest group."
How do you decide what is in the interest of the public at large? Is it by denying others the opportunity for free speech and do you not lobby vociferously for women's rights, dislexics, osteoporosis and other interest groups.
etc
So, when the forthcoming anti-smoking conference takes place in the EU parliament, will you oppse it? After all it is (as usual) funded by pahramceutical companies who benefit from prohibitive measures on tobacco use. All delegates are paid (or at least have expenses paid) to attend. It is at these functions where such ideas such as 'it is important to foster the perception that smoking harms non-smokers and children' are born. Where neglible risks are turned into 'no safe level', where politicians like you are indoctrinated by the resulting press releases. You cynically assume that the TICAP conference is a front for Big Tobacco, yet satisfy your meddling instincts by supporting smoking being replaced with depression and drugs that can kill within days, supplied by Big Pharma. Its time you opened your mind and thought outside of your authoritarian box!
Ms Honeyball,
I think you DO actually miss the point of all this. It has long been known that the figures for anti smoking are pure spin, produced by anti smoking campaigners and nicotine replacement therapy companies!
What right have you to tell me where to smoke?
What right have you to gag free speech for that matter?
You ought to be ashamed of yourself, this is a democratic country and (European Union apparently). I didn't realise free speech had been cancelled!
I have written privately to ask that my name and incorrect marital status be removed from this blog, as I gave no consent for it to be published.
I did email to inform you that the conference had been prohibited and if this email was misunderstood as me sending a 'press release' then whoever decided this was mistaken. I am a member of the public that thought that you, as an MEP would be interested to know that a conference that was meant to be against 'prohibition' was prohibited. I thought that as an MEP you would be sympathetic to the fact that ordinary members of the public wished to attend a conference at their own expense, should now not be able to attend the venue that is supported by their taxes. Disregarding your personal views on the contents of the conference, the right of freedom of speech I thought was still not against the law. The EEC building is OURS and the people that work there are paid their salaries by US and I think it reasonable for group of people that are interested in discussing a perfectly legal product wish to have a conference at the building not to be banned from doing so.
Here is my email to you, that can be seen as a private email. I signed it and added details of the 'press release' after my signature. Therefore it was obvious that the 'press release' was not coming from myself and was merely an addition to my private email to you, to show you details of what had been done by the prohibitionists.
Dear Madam,
I am writing to tell you of the underhanded way that a conference that I was attending has been 'banned.
The conference was to take place next week at the EEC building in Brussels to debate 'prohibition' and the 'freedom of choice'.
I understand that Florence Berteletti Kemp, Director of the Smoke Free Partnership has falsely claimed that this conference is backed by the tobacco companies. I can assure you that this is most definitely the case, I was attending the conference as an individual and paying for my expenses personally.
I would be obliged if you would look into this matter with the utmost urgency. A conference for the right of freedom to choose and free speech is being blocked by the very people that are intent of taking away our freedoms is a serious matter.
I intend sending the report of this prohibition to the national press and mass media should these nazi tactics by Florence Berteletti Kemp be upheld.
I was under the impression that the EEC parliament consisted of elected bodies that are paid for by the taxpayers and to be told that this important conference against prohibition has been prohibited is appalling.
Yours faithfully
Brenda Orsler (Ms)
Madam,
Before I read this post I had never heard of you.
I will now not be voting for you as my MEP in the forthcoming European Parliament elections.
Rgds
Chris Gilmour
Labour will never get my vote again, ever!
I am so angry, I cannot believe this is allowed and I do not like the direction this so called great Country is going.
If the TICAP organizers had not thought on, many people would have paid for tickets and hotels from their OWN money, for nothing. We do not all get tax payers allowance, or legalised drug money.
mandyv
I will respond to other comments later
Tum-ti-tum.
{drums fingers, checks watch}
I can’t believe that an MEP like you, paid for out of our tax payers money should belong to such a small-minded group of people. Of course it has always been known that bigots/zealots/fanatics/antis (choose one Ms Honeyball), have never believed in freedom of speech…they will do whatever they can to silence any dissenting voices that don’t hold their point of view.
On this occasion you have been successful, but you are only delaying the inevitable, and soon you will have to answer questions that you know you have no answer for.
Here are just a few of mine:
1) How many people in the UK died last year of ‘passive smoking’, and how can these figures be validated. (Not epidemiology)
2) Name just one pathologist in the UK that has recorded death by ‘passive smoking’.
3) How does second-hand smoke manifest itself in the human body whereby it is readily identifiable as an irrefutable cause of death.
4) The range of deaths suggested by epidemiological studies varies widely, why is this.
5) Is Professor Jarvis, the chairman of SCOTH, also a director and trustee of ASH ...and would this be considered a conflict of interests.
I do have many more but I know that you can’t answer any of these, so essentially it would be pointless to continue.
You call Godrey Bloom, UKIP MEP appalling, why? Is it because he is a charismatic and fair minded speaker…both qualities you seem to be bereft of! On the occasions that I have seen him interviewed he has put his case well…and with honour.
Why were you rude about Brenda Orsler, calling her perfectly reasonable e-mail a diatribe, it was nothing of the sort, she puts forward a well argued case.
How many on your site agree with your bigoted stance…have you counted?
It deeply embarrasses me that you represent anyone in the UK…when you have such a total disregard for the democratic process…which supposedly was part of the oath that you undertook in becoming an MEP. If you think debate should be stifled in this way – then perhaps it’s time for you to move on.
In the meantime…if there are any half decent brain cells rattling around in that empty bin you call a head…then perhaps you can address my questions.
Have fun!
You simply do not get this free speech lark at all do you ?, inevitably your party is going to be cast out into the outer darkness within months. Shall we move to have all Labour and Left wing gatherings banned, because they are not conducive to the public good?. You will be screaming blue murder about your rights at that point.
Enjoy your tax free trip at our expense it is goinf to come to a shuddering halt soon.
Maybe Mary Honeyball should be going up in smoke. The whole affair demonstrates what a mockery the EU makes of democracy and liberty. It is one big bureaucratic circus. There will only be no to the EU from me on every referendum.
These Nu Labour people are nothing but Animal Farm resurrects.
There are several points made in comments. Firstly, free speech.
I have published all your comments as you have your views and I have mine. As I have done this, I am unclear on how you think I tried to suppress your views? By posting them I have given a forum and publicity to your conference.
On smoking, even when I smoked, I supported ASH Action on Smoking and
Health. Some people think Elvis is alive on the moon. Others think
smoking does not cause widespread premature early death. You are welcome to your views, see free speech above, and I am entitled to disagree.
Finally libertarianism/anti-prohibition. Last time I had to deal with this it was a Tory MEP meeting with people who believed adults could have sexual
relationships with children. I am a little unclear what it is you oppose being banned. Theft? Assault? Bear baiting? Hard drugs? In a civilised society if people are stopped from smoking in public areas by the democratic processes then that's fine by me.
I know some of you disagree and you are free to campaign to change
this. But you will not change my mind.
On Godfrey Bloom click here to see why I think he is appalling.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/jul/21/uk.gender
Mary Honeyball...please answer my five questions.
If you can't - then just say so!
Thanks for the Guardian link on Bloom. I think he's quite amusing. I find feminists to be quite appalling.
I take note that a 'politician' finds it appropriate to pass any random law as long as there is a 'majority'. This means that in the UK, the power of the democratic state is absolute, and therefore in principle no less absolute than any dictatorship.
Finally libertarianism/anti-prohibition. Last time I had to deal with this it was a Tory MEP meeting with people who believed adults could have sexual
relationships with children. I am a little unclear what it is you oppose being banned. Theft? Assault? Bear baiting? Hard drugs? In a civilised society if people are stopped from smoking in public areas by the democratic processes then that's fine by me.
Is that it?
That is the considered response of a Labour MEP regarding issues of free speech in the EU building?
You start with an inference that Tories are child-molesters (where's the linked proof? Or is this just a disgusting smear?) and continue by completely missing the point.
You are unclear about what we oppose being banned? Isn't there a great big clue in the fact that a collection of taxpayers had organised a conference which non-taxpayers then managed to stop? This is, after all, what the initial e-mail was about. Did you miss that bit?
Honeyball, you talk about democratic processes and smoking bans, do you mind if I quote your own party's manifesto to you? I'm sure you've read it. But judging by your pitiful showing tonight, perhaps you didn't quite understand.
Your party was voted in at the GE 2005 on the basis of this. Scroll to page 67 where you will read ...
The legislation will ensure that all restaurants will
be smoke-free; all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be
smoke-free; and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to
allow smoking or to be smoke-free. In membership clubs the members
will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free.
So, it's quite clear that the only people who were allowed a 'democratic' vote on the ban were the 646 of those at Westminster. The other 44 million weren't given a say. In short, Labour lied. That's democratic is it?
Not that this has anything to do with the fact that a conference that was planned for a year, and was on the EU web-site up till a few days ago, has been cancelled on the say so of a few unelected charities. Without even the organisers being notified.
Now, try again. The conference was an exercise in free speech, in a building that we pay for. The EU banned it.
How is that free speech? I'll say this in capitals so you don't miss it this time - THIS IS THE PROBLEM. THIS ONE, RIGHT HERE. THE BANNING OF FREE SPEECH AND RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY. Got that?
That is what is being objected to here. Not bear-baiting, not theft or assault, no-one mentioned any of that. Seriously, where did you get that rubbish from? Did you even read the comments?
Nice office you have that I helped pay for, though.
Free speech doesn't exist now in the real sense, and the EU have just proved this without any doubt, with this dipicable display, timed for the most impact on the people attending and participating.
Free speech to these people is speech on their terms with their ideology being followed, then you can have as much as you want, and feel free. Praise the Lord!
If you can't see this is true Honey, then you should not be representing anyone , anywhere in any capacity. You comments are those of a completely uninformed, indoctrinated idiot, but perfectly suited to your present position at the EU. Well done.
@ Chris F J Cyrnik: Mary Honeyball...please answer my five questions.
Five?
Chris, she hasn't even grasped the first one yet! ;-)
Seems as though not one person in the labour party is capable of answering a question directly.
What a sham of a government! What a bunch of charlatans you are! What a shambles the UK is in as a result of your ineptitude! Shame on you!
You were meant to represent US not dictate to us.
'Finally libertarianism/anti'prohibition. Last time I had to deal with this it was a Tory MEP meeting with people who believed adults could have sexual
relationships with children. I am a little unclear what it is you oppose being banned. Theft? Assault? Bear baiting? Hard drugs? In a civilised society if people are stopped from smoking in public areas by the democratic processes then that's fine by me.'
These comments are an insult to millions of tax paying, law abiding citizens. Not only smokers, but all of those who have had enough of state bullying. No doubt, the 'democratic process' will soon be deployed to prevent people smoking in their own homes.
I suppose you supported the 'democratic process' that resulted in 100,000s of deaths in Iraq. You know, the process where the government lied so that St. Anthony could have his crusade.
You need to ask yourself one question. If we live in a true democracy, why are we subject to ever increasing numbers of rules and regulations? Can't you see where this is all heading? Remember the USSR?
Perhaps that's a little unfair. After all, it is reassuring that (some) Europeans are given the opportunity to vote twice on an issue - just in case they want to change their minds...
Mary, after reading your response It is plainly clear that we need more Brendas and far less Mary Honeyballs.
Lets consider topic areas that you have managed to introduce to pad out a totally unsatisfactory response:-
We have, Elvis, ASH, Tory MEPs, adults having sexual relationships with children, Theft, Assault, Bear baiting, Hard drugs, where did all this garbage come from?
You state that I am a little unclear what it is you oppose being banned, the clue is in Brendas correspondence, it has nothing to do with Elvis, Tory MPs etc.
As for democracy Labours manifesto promised choice for smoking in pubs and clubs, yes more broken promises from Labour.
Mary what are you going to do to put right this injustice, we need you a Euro MP to support free speech and the democratic process for the people of the UK.
Mary what are you going to do?
ODear dear dear dear. I stop turning up on this blog--where, to be fair to you, you do post all comments, whether they be from outraged constituents who can't vote for you or religious people you've insulted--for a couple of days and look what happens.
Honestly. I was going to go to that cigar conference, simply because it seemed a bit of fun and anyway, no one has any real right to tell me what to do with my lungs.
I think you should take up smoking. Get a rocking chair and a pipe, or maybe a mellow turkish cigar--and sit outside a church with a gun and your inclusive views. Honestly, you'd be happy, and the Labour Party would re-appoint you to the European Parliament.
If you keep on like this, however high they put you on their list, people will be actively going out to vote against Labour (since they can't vote for you directly).
By the way, I hope that your salary and expenses is being paid in German-issued Euros. I'd be careful about a sterling account if I were you.
Another comment I've been asked to post by someone without a Google account:
I might be mistaken and your intention was to be provocative, but your introductory remarks seem to clearly show that you have nothing but contempt for Mrs Orsler, the conference and Godfrey Bloom and that you expected this contempt to be shared by your readers.
This reader, however, shares the sentiments of others in their unanimous sympathy towards the issues raised by Mrs Orsler.
The attitude and arrogance which you display are a disgrace in a representative elected to uphold the values of a democracy and paid for by the objects of your disdain.
Thank you, however, for publicising this sorry tale which provides evidence of the ruthlessness of the tobacco control lobby, the collusion of the EU in its suppression of democratic values and your apparent lack of fitness to hold office.
Jay
I voted, in the mid seventies, in favour of joining the Common Market, as it was known then..If I knew then what I know now!
As a lifelong Labour supporter, as was my father, voted Labour in both the 1997/2005 General Elections...If I only knew then what I know now! (I should have guessed how NuLabour would not honour it's pledges just to get into office when, in 1996 the tories rushed in the privatisation of the railways and NuLabour said they would re-nationalise it once they got their noses in the trough of government...but guess what?
As one of the working classes I will never vote labour again and find myself being a floating voter..well I was until NuLabour started treating me, and people like me, as mass murderers who with their lies on SHS. Yes I am a PROUD smoker and will do everything I can to stop the Health Nazis using SMOKERS MONEY to whip me with. My vote is firmly with UKIP!
Met Godfrey Bloom at a meeting I helped to organise between Freedom2Choose and the CIU here in Northern England last year, a thoroughly nice chap.
John H Baker
Its people like this mep that have convinced me that if it was a choice between labour and bnp,bnp would get my vote.Yet another labour supported turned.
She will be pround of the essex health trust frightening nursery children about the dangers of their parents smoking and sending them home with a questionaire.How long before they are made to report on other aspects of their their parents too.
I cannot understand for the life of me, why our so-called elected representatives are so out of touch with reality.
Simple, easy to understand questions, have been asked of you Mary, and yet you can't seem to be able to give a simple, one line answer.
When a politician stands for a post, do they have a compulsory course in obsfucation before they can stand?
This is a bit like labourlist. When the content starts to be critical and informed, the owner of the site is nowhere to be seen.
Heat and kitchens come to mind.
there are to many politicians who think that they are above talking to the public. They will be mistaken. we are watching you Mary.
Ms. Honeyball,
Further to my post in which I said it was you that was appalling, I will now explain the reasons for that statement.
You state you have been in politics for 30 years, therefore you must have, under Labour Party manifestos, like Tony Blair stood for withdrawal from the EU, or EEC as it then was.
As Dick Puddlecote has demonstrated your party lied to the British electorate in its manifesto for the 2005 general election.
The party which you represent and who says they believe in democracy, signs this country up for membership to an organisation yet refuses to give the people who pay their wages and whose views they are supposed to represent a voice in that process.
And then you wonder why you suffer a 'backlash' from those who comment here?
Remember Ms. Honeyball - what goes round comes round. When events have completed their journey you will see the result - which in your case will, no doubt, commence with the letter and numbers - P45!
Mary, with respect you have allowed yourself to engage in a topic, you really know nothing about.
Post a Comment