Saturday
Aug312013
Oh, what a circus!
Saturday, August 31, 2013 at 10:40 Yesterday was the deadline for a so-called "consultation" on smoking in cars carrying children in Scotland.
Submissions had to be sent direct to Jim Hume MSP who is proposing a Smoking (Children in Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill.
Since Mr Hume took the trouble to write to Forest inviting us to submit our views we felt it would be rude not to, but we are under no illusion about the nature of the report that will follow.
If Mr Hume wants to dispel even a little of our cynicism perhaps he could publish a list of everyone he invited to participate in this charade exercise.
Meanwhile I am tempted to launch yet another consultation, submissions to contact@forestonline.org.
Independent, impartial? You bet!
Reader Comments (5)
Yes, a Forest consultation might be a very good idea but it should pull no punches at all. If the Jim Hume "consultation" really does turn out to be a charade then it should be called one without any hesitation. And yes again, Hume should be made to publish a list of the people and organisations he has had input from - would it be possible to subject him to a freedom of information request?
If Jim Hume MSP is proposing a Smoking (Children in Vehicles) (Scotland) Bill in the first place why would he listen to any dissent?
No amount of opposition would make any difference to this bill being brought in. Even if there was an overwhelming majority against (remember the 'plain packaging' 2 to 1 against here in England which was never reported in the MSM) we wouldn't hear about it.
Hume may well win and get his law but the victory won't be sweet partly because the proposed law is pointless and virtually unenforceable but mostly because the rewards of petty illiberal authoritarianism tend to turn sour in the long run. The possibility of his success is a sad consequence of the rise of gesture politics and intellectually feeble ideological posturing that blights our society.
Just a FYI. I have just heard that the University of Worcester is implementing a smokefree policy across its "Riverside Campus" - this means not only inside, but ALL outside areas including car parks, patios etc. They also intend to, at some point in the future, implement a smokefree policy on its main campus which is currently non-smoking everywhere (including outside) apart from one patio area. They want this (tiny) patio area gone. Is this the first UK university to implement such a draconian policy?
In principle, I have no objection to them doing this - it's their property after all. What I find disgusting is that I can find no mention of this on the University website. Such a policy needs to be widely publicised - I know I wouldn't choose to study somewhere which had such a policy. By not publicising it they are simply enticing students in, and then, once they have paid and are locked in to studying there, bullying them into accepting a lifestyle choice that the University deems "acceptable."
Disgusting behaviour. Oh for such caring, "progressive" policies, eh? Good job they find being gay acceptable or they'd be hounding them off for their lifestyle choices, too.
Oh just as a side note - in 2008 they gave an Honorary degree to Lord Faulkner of Worcester for his work with the Roy Castle Foundation. Oh, and he's an ASH Trustee, too.
http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/3817938.print/