Comments on: Health Bill returns from Commons

By: Phil Smith

Phil Smith — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:22:07 +0000

We are the designers of the restricted access control system for cigarette vending machines demonstrated to the Lords and others. The Lords gave reasoned debate, and I beleive they rejected the ammendment because of protocol rather than actual disagreement. The commons ammendment was clearly not the mainstream view, but an opportunist making a point with very few MPs sitting. It is unreasonable to ban machines when they can only be operated after age verification. The current administration completely ignores public opinion, stage manages facts and figures to their own ends, and has ruined many aspects of British life seemingly deliberately. I beleive in years to come the Blair/ Brown years will be seen as the beginning of the end for Britain as it becomes a nation with no real values, purpose, or identity. Read the internet blogs, observe how many people are losing all interest in politics. These factors are all disturbing. Labour is a dictatorship driven by its own warped politcally correct beleifs, but the opposition dosen’t capture the electors imagination either.

By: Baronessmurphy

Baronessmurphy — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:47:51 +0000

tory boy, Yes, that is Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, now Minister in the fairly new Department of Energy and Climate Change and a Deputy Leader of the House. Chris K, Lord Davies has more hair on top!
Frank Davies, Yes, that’s my view still, sorry you don’t agree.
Chris K, franksummersbe3A, it would be wonderful if there was a technological solution to the identity of age of the purchaser before a person could buy cigarettes from vending machines but it’s likely to be prohibitive in terms of costs, presumably one would need a whole new set of vending machines which could read age ID cards. Not such a bad idea though.

By: tory boy

tory boy — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 21:27:39 +0000

Lord Hunt of Kings heath! Is the peer behind Lady Thornton.

By: Frank Davis

Frank Davis — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:32:19 +0000

Ah, Elaine Murphy. She’s the one who wrote to Michael McFadden a few years back to say:

“Dear Mr McFadden,
You and many others have completely missed the point about smoking and health. The aim is reduce the public acceptability of smoking and the culture which surrounds it. We know that legislation which discourages all public smoking will have the better impact on public understanding and perception of smoking as an unacceptable habit. Hence fewer people will smoke, hence health overall will improve.”

Still busy telling people how to live their lives, I see.

By: franksummers3ba

franksummers3ba — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:43:03 +0000

Baroness Murphy,
CORRECTION: The sentence about national ID was in the second paragraph and somehow I moved it up. I meant that the readers should read a UK ID. My apologies….

By: marbee

marbee — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 22:53:12 +0000

Organizations like the American Cancer Society, ASH, Tobacco Free Kids, etc., have become nothing but Perception Management firms. They are paid to create “truth”. Created truth is controllable. PM uses select information involving falsehood and deception. Really smoke and mirrors to get people to believe what they want the “truth” to be. Not to be confused with public diplomacy, Perception Management as a rule uses deception to influence emotions to an end. The difference between real and perception is like a stick of dynamite and the A-bomb. Wars can be created using Perception Management! Everyone, really, has seen PM in practice, and small business owners are experiencing this with legislation against their Constitutional rights. It requires absolutely no courage to support a popular position, even if completely wrong or illegal. This is a very dangerous road the public is taking in regard to enacting all kinds of smoking bans!

By: Chris K

Chris K — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:03:19 +0000

I can only think of Lord Davies of Oldham, although I can’t see any mention of his time in the DoH on Wikipedia!

I have a problem with banning vending machines, not just because inevitably it won’t just be those that children can “access easily”, but because it seems to go against the principle that most people are law-abiding and should be treated as such. Those who use cigarette machines under age are breaking the law. Why inconvenience the majority who aren’t?

By: Frank W. Summers III

Frank W. Summers III — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:44:33 +0000

Baroness Murphy,

Compared to the US does the British government require technical innovations to adress social issues very often — I do not know. You may be aware of the V-Chip required to allow parents to monitor what children watch and of course we have a rating sytem on films that exhibitors are expected to enforce. I do not think we have done this with tobacco but alcohol depends on identification. Perhaps there is a national ID which identifies the age of the holder. We have had a long running discussion at State and Federal levels over the locks on guns as well.

A technical solution might be the answer to the issues you address here. Perhaps to put a machine in a small shop one could be required to offer occasional inspection of a video record of who uses the machines (to deal with stolen cards) and in addition to and between this occasional activity there could be a reader required on such machines. The cost would drive down the total number of machines but if it were a valid business model after this investment then the operating costs would be low.