The Meaning of the Word ‘Crude’

I should imagine that most readers have heard the phrase ‘crude oil’. It describes the nature of the oil which is pumped out of the grounds. That ‘crude’ oil has to be ‘refined’ to a greater or lesser extent, before it becomes usable.

I think that is is reasonable to describe the initial Smoking Ban as ‘Crude’. As most of us know, the measure to ban smoking in enclosed places was deliberately wrapped up inside a parcel which was mostly about chemists’ shops. That was deliberate. Further, most of us will remember that the original Government proposal exempted ‘wet led’ pubs. That is, pubs which were not quasi-restaurants. That exception had already been objected to, and was removed in the final decision making process.

Clever though the manipulations might have been, the REALITY is that dirty tricks were used. Those Dirty Tricks were probably applauded by ASH ET AL and Tame Politicians.

Are those tame politicians still in office? If not, what are they doing, who is employing them, what are their salaries, what are their duties, and to what extent are they ripping off the taxpayer?

===

The ‘crude’ smoking ban had the affect of a bludgeon. It is still absolutely incomprehensible that pubcos did not dispute the use of their staff as enforcers. I remember it very, very well, and could not believe it. A 17 year old youths, not long out of school, and doing a part-time job temporarily, took great delight in admonishing me, as a smoker for not quite being outside. I mean, standing in the porch when it was raining. The crazy thing was that the he was a really friendly and ‘nice’ person. What is even weirder is that the Manager of that pub gave an interview to the local rag in which he applauded the smoking ban. He is a non-smoker.

What people seem to be unaware of is ‘Cruelty’.

Generally speaking, we understand that the word ‘Cruelty’ must have physical connotations like beatings, but we also recognise mental cruelty, which might involve infusing feelings of guilt etc.

—-

I must to bed.

This idea is worth exploring. It might well explain why politicians fall for the hype. and continue to pour millions of pounds into useless blatherings from certain certain female ‘professors’ who have been taking advantage of Sexism.

===

Whatever.

The end is nigh.

 

 

 

Advertisements

6 Responses to “The Meaning of the Word ‘Crude’”

  1. Timothy Goodacre Says:

    I too find it amazing that Breweries and Pub Companies rolled over and accepted the smoking ban with total disregard for their best customers – smokers. Now all we’ve got all over the country are empty, very boring pubs, those that haven’t closed that is !!!!

    • junican Says:

      It was the pubcos which fell eagerly into line. The fell for the ‘level playing field’ con and thought that they would pick up trade from closing privately owned businesses. But it didn’t happen, did it? Smokers and their families started to drift away, along with the non-smokers who enjoyed the fun created by smokers. And how are pubco shares faring?

  2. Rose Says:

    I too find it amazing that Breweries and Pub Companies rolled over and accepted the smoking ban with total disregard for their best customers

    ASH used fear and threats as usual.

    Don’t Say You Weren’t Warned Over Secondhand Smoke
    12 January 2004

    “ASH has sent a registered letter to all the UK’s leading hospitality trade employers , warning them that the ” date of guilty knowledge ” under the Health and Safety at Work Act is now past, and that employers should therefore know of the risks of exposing their staff to secondhand smoke.

    Employers who continue to permit smoking in the workplace are therefore likely to be held liable by the courts for any health damage caused.

    Employers who continue to permit smoking in the workplace are therefore likely to be held liable by the courts for any health damage caused. ASH and Thompsons intend to use the letters in any future court cases as evidence that employers have been fully informed of the issue.

    ASH and Thompsons are also planning further steps to encourage employees who believe their health has been harmed by smoking in the workplace to seek legal advice on making a claim for compensation. These will be announced shortly.”

    http://www.ash.org.uk/media-room/press-releases/ash-and-thompsons-tell-employers-dont-say-you-werent-warned-over-secondhand-smoke

    Pubcos were scared into compliance too.

    Letter to the Publican

    Managing Director of The Massive Pub Company

    “The only ultimate provision and safety for us will be a smoking ban.
    We all need to be forwarned that the next growth area for the legal system will be prosecutions of publicans for not protecting staff from the dangers of ETS.Since April 27 cases have been taken on – this is the start of a tidal wave – in my view.

    The industry, through the various trade bodies is looking for a voluntary ban with 80% of premises having smoke free areas by 2007.
    Having attended the conference I am of the clear view that far too many of us could be fighting legal battles by then, and perhaps we will be preferring a total national ban.

    We need to take a very close look at what is happening elsewhere and learn from their experiences.The clearest message from this conference is that on health and legal grounds a ban is an absolute must and an absolute certainty.
    That frightens us and requires us to change will, ultimately, be irrelevant.

    I would strongly recommend that every trade body and industry representative invites some of the speakers from this conference, or workshop.
    At least that way acknowledge of the dangers of ETS and to our livelihoods and businesses will be more widely available.”
    http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_405.pdf

    Massive Pub Company calls in the administrators

    By Hamish Champ, 28-Jan-2008

    http: //www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Operators/Other-operators/Massive-Pub-Company-calls-in-the-administrators

    That, and promising them a flood of new customers that never appeared of course.

    • junican Says:

      Yes, I have read your reports about this matter before, and you are right. What annoys me is that the pubcos did not make a huge noise and demand explanations from ASH ET AL as to what they were threatening. I note that the date of the letter was 2004. In 2005, the McTear Case revealed that there was not even sufficient evidence for tobacco companies to be held responsible for first-hand smoking harm, never mind SHS.
      Were pubcos so stupid as not to be aware of the implications of the McTear Case? Why did they not bring a private prosecution of ASH ET AL for making threats? Even if such an action did not get very far, it would have been worth the trouble to put ASH ET AL back in their place – substance-less publicity groups.

      • Rose Says:

        Why did they not bring a private prosecution of ASH ET AL for making threats?

        Because they feared it might be true? Even if they didn’t, landlords and pubcos would still have been held liable for every ailment that their staff and ex-staff might develop over the rest of their lives if they didn’t comply.
        Date of guilty knowledge and all that.

        2003

        FCTC

        Preamble

        Parties to this convention – ( amongst a lot of other things )

        “Recognising that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability, and that there is a time lag between exposure to smoking and the other uses of tobacco products and the onset of tobacco-related diseases
        http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/9241591013.pdf

        It also means that the Government have no choice about banning smoking in prisons and hospitals of all kinds or they too will be liable for anything that happens to staff, prisoners or patients in later life.

        In the Labate case the EU got in first and judged that Mrs Labate’s claim for compensation after her husband developed lung cancer allegedly due to passive smoking at work, was “manifestly unfounded”.

        http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/PDF/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.C_.2008.079.01.0035.01.ENG

      • junican Says:

        Perhaps not so much ‘true’ as ‘dangerous’. After all, if pubcos had continued to permit smoking, they were in danger of massive legal costs, even if they won, since, as in the McTear Case, the complainant had no money to pay costs.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: