Signatures 3597 total
-
1
Name: David Cheetham on Apr 20, 2006Comments: This law is not needed or wanted. We should be able to enjoy ourselves without excessive government intrusion into our private lives.Flag
-
2
Name: Charlotte Barrett on Apr 20, 2006Comments: Yes, I don't want any new social outcasts to be made in this country! Smoking bans are a complete abuse of human rights!Flag
-
3
Name: Donal McCarthy on Apr 20, 2006Comments: Adults require that the govenrment address them as adults. Its called "respect", Mr. BlairFlag
- 4
-
5
Name: Alison Piearce on Apr 20, 2006Comments: Law based on fraudulant statistics and propaganda has no place in a Democracy.Flag
-
6
Name: Sharon Donald on Apr 20, 2006Comments: I am totally against this smoking ban. The decision as to whether smoking is allowed in public houses should be the owners and not the governments.Flag
- 7
- 8
-
9
Name: Loraine McGregor on Apr 20, 2006Comments: lets all do something positive about this Nanny State GovernmentFlag
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
-
14
Name: Alastair Elliott on Apr 21, 2006Comments: Fight for choice, what a cracking organisation the Big Debate is.Flag
- 15
-
16
Name: Eleanor Quinn on Apr 21, 2006Comments: We must all stand together against this dictatorial government to prevent future erosion of our rights.Flag
-
17
Name: Lallie Sullivan on Apr 21, 2006Comments: I do not need a nanny thank you. I do not need to be told what to do in my leisure time. However, I do need somewhere with a social atmosphere where I can drink and smoke - at the same time! Whatever happened to this country - people died so that we would be free. Hitler banned smoking........Flag
-
18
Name: Rob Crawford on Apr 21, 2006Comments: Civil Liberties When they arrested Walter Wolfgang, Under the prevention of terrorism act, I remained silent; I am not a terrorist. When they broke up the unions, I remained silent; I am not a member of a union. When they destroyed the pension fund, I did not speak out; I am not a pensioner. When they came for those on disability allowance, I did not speak out; I am not disabled. Then they came for the smokers how can I now expect the non-smoker to speak for me, I do not deserve it. Who will speak for you, when your turn comesFlag
-
19
Name: John Monteiro on Apr 21, 2006Comments: We are aghast the goverment has prepared itself to impose it's harsh conditions upon our business. What other business would put up with this dictatorial attitude Our livelihood depends on our customers loyalty & their good-will. The goverment are passing the buck to us, making us ban a product we are legally permited to sell but not permitting our customers to consume on our premises. Over the years we invested time, money, sweat and tears, working 80 to 120 hours a week, foregone holidays & did our best to run our business properly, legally & abided by all the laws, on tax (and there too many to list here), paid our way in the world, all done by the book. Anyone who has or had children as we do, will know the difficulty we both faced while working! We have been battered and bruised over the past years by those who have been granted monopolies to rip us off (SKY for instance). We knew what we were getting into and being a publican is just not being a back-office pen-pusher, and "mine host", it is a way of life. We chose this life and enjoyed it, until 3 years ago when SKY and all the other hangers-on decided to milk us for every penny they could get, from various licenses & taxes, rents & other overheads such as PPL/PRS (anyone know the difference). The moment you show you a profit someone is out there to grab a piece of it. It doesnt happen in any other line of business. WHAT has happened to this trade over the years, have we been too lethargic & allowed all & sundry to walk over us, now there is no future in this trade anymore! We are planning to pack it up and will be out of the trade BEFORE the new legislation comes into force. This is not about no-smoking in MY premises, it is UP TO ME to decide whether or not MY customers wish ALL of the pub to be smoking or partially, in one bar only, or no smoking in the evenings, etc. MY DECISION to run MY BUSINESS legitimately. I am permitted to purchase a legally produced product and am permitted to legally SELL it, but I will not be able to permit anyone to consume it on my premises. I am all for choice, IF I wanted to change my pubs to no-smoking then I would do so, it makes business sense if there is a call for it. I would save hundred of pounds every day, if not thousands on carpets, curtains, wooden tables, clogged urinals, you name it, its not just that, it is a choice, and this ought to be be up to me, not the government to impose its wishes upon my business. I have requested upon my demise, to be buried in quicksand. I also invite Mr Blair, Mr Brown and others to come & dance on my grave then! Im too old at 56 to fight you TB & GB, now unwell due to the extra stress headaches and generally to over-worked, so I am leaving the trade, making room for the younger, fitter ones to fight the battles. We may have lost this particular battle Mr Blair, for now but the war is not over, not by a long chalk (oops I mean gipsum). I have requested, upon my demise, to be buried in a quicksand pit and invite Mr Blair & Mr Brown to come dance on my grave then. Until then, the fight goes on, with or without me, THE GIFT OF CHOICE in a free country has already been earned, the last 2 world wars has seen to that! CHOICE ought to be a right, not one that has to be begged for. Now the fight continues, and I wish you all good luck.Flag
-
20
Name: Pamela V Monteiro on Apr 21, 2006Comments: I am opposed to the goverment interferring in our business and telling us how to run it, or not. My husband and me entered the pub trade because we have worked in pubs for years and loved it. We saved for years and years & sold our house to get a pub of our own. Now all we put in it is about to be lost, because the goverment will not give us or our customers the CHOICE of whether or not to permit smoking on our premises. WE pay the rent & ALL the overheads and this cannot be done if WE stop our customers from making a choice of whether they wish to smoke or not in our premises. I wish the goverment would spend as much time and effort on REAL CRIME and THE NEEDS of the ELDERLY, on SCHOOLS as well as the HOSPITALS. Stop telling us what to do with OUR business.Flag
-
21
Name: PETER HORLER on Apr 21, 2006Comments: Just keep on doing the brillaint work. If somking is banned in all public places i'll never vote again ! And i'll find my own answer to them.Flag
-
22
Name: Rob Simpson on Apr 21, 2006Comments: This law goes far beyond health concerns, or even allowing non-smokers to drink and eat in smoke free environments - it's draconian to say the least.Flag
- 23
-
24
Name: E.B.CANT on Apr 21, 2006Comments: OUR FATHERS & THEIR FATHERS FOUGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY, TO BE FREE FROM DICTATORSHIP, CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN WHAT DICTATORSHIP MEANS, I REMENBER MY FIRST PINT WITH MY DAD, I HELPED HIM ROLL HIS OWN, WE WERE SITTING AROUND WITH HIS MATES, WHO MENTIONED THE WAR & SAID WE YOUNGSTERS OF TODAY HAVE GOT IT LUCKY, THEY FOUGHT FOR US TO BE FREE, I WONDER WHAT THEY WOULD THINK OF THESE SPINLESS PEOPLE WE HAVE IN POWER NOW IF THEY WERE ALIVEFlag
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
-
30
Name: Tim Knowles on Apr 21, 2006Comments: This ban will spoil millions of social lives and destroy thousands of livelihoods. It is based on junk science, it is contrary to the Labour manifesto and has only come about because of hysterical and misleading propaganda. Most importantly of all, it will only be the thin end of the wedge when it comes to attacks on the liberty of the citizenFlag
-
31
Name: RAY ASKEW on Apr 21, 2006Comments: there is a lot of talk about human rights.what about the smokers rights the original proposal was fair to everyone there is no need or demand for a total ban.alot of my customers are non smokers and they agree.our atmosphere is conrolled ny filters which the goverment said that if we install them there would be no ban.Flag
-
32
Name: RAY ASKEW on Apr 21, 2006Comments: there is a lot of talk about human rights.what about the smokers rights the original proposal was fair to everyone there is no need or demand for a total ban.alot of my customers are non smokers and they agree.our atmosphere is conrolled ny filters which the goverment said that if we install them there would be no ban.Flag
-
33
Name: Paul Davies on Apr 21, 2006Comments: smoking is in a natural decline. Non-smokers are in the majority, it will only be a matter of time and legislation will not be required. This action is only to make the government be seen to be doing something. What else will they targetFlag
- 34
- 35
- 36
-
37
Name: Paul Carlyle on Apr 21, 2006Comments: Banning smoking is ludicrous when you consider there is a very workable alternative. It just proves the antis are not concerned with health so much as a political agenda to wipe out smoking at all costs, regardless of any opinion different to their own!Flag
-
38
Name: Fiona Kidd on Apr 21, 2006Comments: The proposed smoking ban is based on pure LIES. Where is the medical profession's proof that so-called passive smoking causes diseases The government also quotes "public opinion". Strange that I know of no-one - smoker or non-smoker alike who have been asked for their opinion, so yet again, this government, backed by the greedy pharmaceuticals hoodwink the people of this country.Flag
- 39
- 40
-
41
Name: Mel Case on Apr 21, 2006Comments: I am a smoker but my wife is a non-smoker. She too is banned from pubs and clubs. What is this government doing. We will never again vote labour.Flag
-
42
Name: William Carlyle on Apr 21, 2006Comments: I fully support your actions and sentiments. I am sick and tried of overbearing government intrusion into our lives.Flag
-
43
Name: Frances Winner on Apr 21, 2006Comments: The government do not understand the statistics upon which their policy is based, and they have no right to discriminate against tens of millions of people on the word of organisations that are inherently anti-smoking. This is undemocratic and they have failed to give fair weight to an argument that has TWO sides. They have also broken the manifesto pledge on which they were voted in. I would suggest that governments abandon pre-election manifestos in future, if they are incapable of honouring the trust placed in them by their voters. I will be content to leave this country of my birth, should this illiberable and malicious smoking ban be brought into ahead against the wishes of the majority of the population. If they were to restrict their viewing of opinion polls to impartial sources, they might begin to realise what the public are really thinking.Flag
-
44
Name: Peter Vaivars on Apr 21, 2006Comments: If the ban comes the result is the loss of a community pub and three more on the dole. Thank you to the nanny state politicians, you do not live in the real world, but you will be helping the large supermarket chains to make more profits selling cheap beer.Flag
- 45
-
46
Name: John Morris on Apr 21, 2006Comments: Government sponsored smoking bans in privately-owned establishments is another step towards totalitarianism. We can't lose this fight!Flag
-
47
Name: Colin Grainger on Apr 21, 2006Comments: This attempt at social engineering is vile. The ban is based on lies from ASH, junk science, blatantly biased members of SCOTH, and shows a weak and ineffectual government. Do the right thing and reverse this stupid decision now.Flag
-
48
Name: Stephen Doy on Apr 21, 2006Comments: What happened to the government promoting a country which wanted to stamp out social exclusion.Flag
- 49
-
50
Name: Stephen Hunt on Apr 21, 2006Comments: if the government still wants to collect duty and v.a.t. on legal substances why attempt to kill the golden gooseFlag