The Mountain Of Uncertainty

As Rose said, in a comment on my last post, it is the uncertainty about what is legal an what is illegal which upsets her. I thoroughly agree. But I would add a corollary. The major concern is whether or not ‘big brother’ is checking up on everything that we do to see if we are being naughty. But we know that it is impossible for ‘big brother’ to check up on what everyone does, minute by minute. So what ‘big brother’ does is keep us in fear that he might just happen upon each one of us and shame us.

Shaming in the weapon.

So, for example, in the matter of ‘hate speech’, the whole objective of the statute law is to render the common law ineffective. As I understand it, common law requires that some harm must actually be done. Thus, speech which encouraged mutiny on Her Majesty’s ships was treason and punished vigorously. The harm was disobedience to commands. The ‘hate speech’ law does not require actual harm to ensue. The ‘speech’ itself, regardless of even potential harm, is unlawful.

But no one knows with any precision, what constitutes ‘hate speech’. The decision of what constitutes such speech is made after the speech has been uttered. And, what is most intolerable, is that the accusers (the police) are the people who make that decision – not the law.

But to make things even worse, anyone can denounce another person for ‘hate speech’. Thus, there is no reason to expect other than that the police will be inundated with such denunciations. And they have to respond.

It is lunacy. And, believe it or not, our present PM was the Minister who permitted the lunacy.

Going back ten years, the ‘elder Statesman’, Blair, who instigated the lunacy of the ‘enclosed places’ smoking ban, and the consequent lunacy of demands for outdoor bans, and hospital grounds bans, and shopping precinct bans, and railway platform bans, etc, etc, then moved on to make a complete mess of the Middle East. A complete mess. Why is it that no one talks about that complete Blair/UN mess? And now he has poked his nose into Brexit. Who the f*ck does he think he is? He would be much more usefully employed if he advocated that the WHO should concentrate on real suffering in the third world than imaginary suffering, such as obesity and the effects of global warming (not) in the healthy, wealthy west.

People like him sicken me. I do not doubt that he is sincere, but I equate that sincerity to the sincerity of ‘missionaries’ who ‘persuaded’, with a little prodding, subject peoples to convert to Christianity. I do not object to the conversions – I object the ‘prodding’.

For what else is ‘prodding’ with some force other than ‘nudging’ with force? There is no difference.

Personally, I voted for Brexit for a very simple reason. I heard a Minister of the Crown say, in Parliament, that a law had to be enacted because the EU said so. That was enough for me – in the first instance. But evidence piled up, such as Soubry’s ignorance about what the TPD did to ecigs. She voted for the TPD ecig provisions without knowing what they were. She had no idea.

How can we have any faith in such ministers? Any faith at all? For ‘trust’ depends upon ‘faith’. You have to ‘believe’ that a person is honest and wise before you place your ‘trust’ in them.

I’m not sure that ‘the mountain of uncertainty’ can be reduced to rubble because it has being built for so long. Vast swathes of bureaucracy would have to be done away with, but that could only happen if they money supporting then dried up. But the drying up could only happen via revolution.

Frankly, as I see it, such a revolution could only occur if ‘Trade Unions’ (vague entities at the moment) came to their senses and opposed such things a smoking bans on the grounds that SHS is harmless.

Trade Unions are depressed at the moment. They seem to have no purpose. But they could be reinvented, if they were prepared to support industry rather than have socialist ideals and ‘healthist’ ideals.

I personally am relaxed about Brexit and its consequences. I think that not much will change for trade and travelling. Adverse changes would be suicide.

But I cannot see any effort being put into resolving uncertainty.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “The Mountain Of Uncertainty”

  1. Rose Says:

    Frankly, as I see it, such a revolution could only occur if ‘Trade Unions’ (vague entities at the moment) came to their senses and opposed such things a smoking bans on the grounds that SHS is harmless

    Well that opened a particularly large can of worms.

    Trade unions were some of the main instigators in getting you slung out of the pub.

    Swarm effect

    “We created a coalition around our key messages. A smoke-free steering group was set up involving major health and medical organisations in alliance with the Trades Union Congress, individual politicians, local government officers and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. They ran their own effective campaigns, but remained committed to an agreed strategy originally drafted by Ash.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing

    It was hardly a free vote either.

    TUC
    MPs urged to vote for total smoking ban
    2006
    “Unions and public health officers are urging MPs to back a total ban on smoking in public places, including pubs and clubs. The calls come after the government’s decision last week to allow Labour MPs a free vote on the smoking ban proposals in the health Bill (Risks 239). The TUC has already called for a ban without exceptions. And last week GMB organiser Mick Ainsley, whose union organises casino workers, said:
    We are writing to all GMB sponsored MPs to remind them that the issue here is not about a smoker’s individual choice, it is about the right of workers not to breathe in secondhand smoke
    He added: ‘The vote in parliament will put to the test to what extent the smooth words of the new Tory leader will be translated in to effective action to enhance the health and safety of people who work in the leisure industry.’ The Chartered Institute of Environmental Health (CIEH) is urging its members – which include the local authority environmental health officers that would be responsible for enforcing the legislation in leisure facilities – to use their lobbying power to convince MPs to vote for an outright ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and workplaces.”
    https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/mps-urged-vote-total-smoking-ban

  2. Rose Says:

    GMB demonstrates for total ban
    Thursday 24 November 2005

    “Hospitality workers from the GMB union make a point about the dangers of second-hand smoke at a protest outside a Gala casino in London last week.

    The protesters were marking National Lung Cancer Day (17 November) by donning gas masks and calling on the Government to introduce a total ban on smoking in public places that doesn’t exempt private members’ clubs and pubs that don’t serve food.
    About 100,000 workers in hospitality will still be exposed to second-hand smoke under the Government’s plans.”
    https://www.thecaterer.com/articles/303643/gmb-demonstrates-for-total-ban

    So enthusiastic were they about banning smoking in pubs that the TUC even worried about people “cheating” and disguising tobacco with herbs.

    Consultation on the Smokefree Elements of the Health Improvement and Protection Bill ( Trades Union Congress )

    “The TUC is concerned that the proposed definition will allow the smoking of herbal cigarettes. This could lead to people mixing tobacco with herbal mixtures to disguise the fact they are smoking tobacco. In addition the smoke from many herbal mixtures is just as likely to trigger asthma attacks. While the evidence of harm relates only to tobacco at present, this is because no or little research has been done on the effects of herbal mixtures and we are surprised that the D of H is not taking a precautionary approach.
    We would prefer the definition to cover tobacco and other herbal products. If it is agreed to cover not only tobacco but also herbal products, we would support an exemption for the theatre, film and TV sectors for performers in cases where this is required for artistic purposes”.

    Formerly
    http: //www.smokefreeaction.org.uk/archive/consultation%20submissions/TUCsubmission.html

    Now
    http: //2017archive.smokefreeaction.org.uk/archive/consultation%20submissions/TUCsubmission.doc
    But passworded

    When things started going pearshaped, after all, ASH had assured everyone that there would be no loss of business if smokers were sent outside and threatened with prosecution, the GMB seems to have seen an opportunity to shift the blame for it’s own actions and increase it’s membership by recruiting landlords.

    GMB union urges end to beer tie – March 2009

    “That’s according to a new study commissioned by the GMB union, which is urging the Government to break up the beer tie and let licensees buy beer cheaper.
    The union has published a statement with the anti-pubco Fair Pint campaign that blames rents and the beer tie for recent pub closures”

    “Britain’s pubs survived two world wars. They cannot survive being made to be cash cows to pay off the debts of the property companies and brewers that so clearly don’t have the interests of pubs and consumers at heart.”
    https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2009/03/31/GMB-union-urges-end-to-beer-tie

  3. Rose Says:

    Harking back to the glory days of holding the country to ransom –

    GMB to ballot “thousands” of pubs on industrial action – December 2009

    “Maloney told The Publican the 3,000 tied licensees who were already members of his organisation were fully behind taking action against pubcos and the union had contacted a further 22,000 tenants to get their views on a ballot.”

    “Licensees have approached us and are looking to the GMB for leadership on this issue,” he said.

    But a source close to one of the large pub companies said the GMB ought to “come clean” about its motives. “This is no more and no less than a recruitment drive to try and get new members.

    “As usual the information offered by the GMB is totally inaccurate and dangerously misleading. Joining a union would not alter a publican’s legal contract,” he added.”
    http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/City-News/GMB-to-ballot-thousands-of-pubs-on-industrial-action
    Link no longer works but can be found on the internet by searching the title.

    But it all fizzled out.

    GMB’s grand claims were so much hot air
    2011

    “It’s not known how many tenants paid to join the GMB on the back of its big claims. But for those that did, there’s a case for asking for your money back, says Paul Charity.

    Just over 18 months ago, the GMB union rose to its full height and declared an “official trade dispute” between pubco tenants and their landlords such as Punch and Enterprise.”

    “The GMB issued a press release in which it stated: “The House of Commons BEC report identified (a) total inequality of bargaining power between pubcos and lessees as part of the problem in (this) industry.

    “This is the vacuum that GMB is filling. No amount of bluster or bullying will stop GMB in this and the courts, not the BBPA, will determine how tied tenants can exercise their rights in a trade dispute.”

    The passage of 18 months provides a perspective on the GMB’s grand claims. Has the union’s interest in the industry been maintained? Or does the flurry of activity in early 2010 look like show-boating, an opportunistic recruitment grab?

    It looks to me like the GMB has lost interest and moved on. Its website makes no mention of the tenant/landlord campaign.”
    https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2011/09/08/GMB-s-grand-claims-were-so-much-hot-air

    I do like to know exactly who set us up.

    • junican Says:

      Quite a roundup!
      I can’t help but think that Unions saw the SHS affair as a wonderful opportunity to bash employers. Sadly, they failed to see that they would bash their own members even more.
      When will the SHS fraud be exposed? I do not understand how it has gone on for so long. There has never ever been any evidence of SHS harm.

  4. garyk30 Says:

    The question of the certainty of legality is compounded by ‘acrivist’ judges that interpret the law rather than ‘administering’ the law as written.

    Thus, you get different punishments for breaking the same law; or, some might not be judged a law breaker at all.

    • junican Says:

      I think that that problem is more prevalent in the USA than in the UK. But our judges are trying their best to catch up.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: