Thursday, April 26, 2007


Join the Resistance .In Cornwall they are up for it (see below) I `m up for it whose with me , who is going to join me in telling the damned state to stick their ban up their collective fundement. Look at the squirming Labour MPs pretending the end of Working Men`s Clubs and Bingo Halls is nothng to do with them , the end of centuries of convivial freedom and we roll over and let them do it. Follow the Cornish outwit the buggers if this legislation is as incompetent as the rest there ought to be a way.

em> A Cornish pub is aiming to become a tiny slice of Peru in a bid to beat July's smoking ban.Customers and staff of the Peruvian Arms public house in Penzance have appealed to the Peruvian ambassador, Ricardo Luna Mendoza, asking him to grant them special status so they can continue to light up after the ban comes into force in England.
"I met the Peruvian Ambassador in London when I was invited there for tea. He's a great bloke who will understand our predicament Manageress Debbie Trevithick.
According to, their letter says: "Due to our obvious connection with Peru, we wondered if you could grant us Peruvian status so we could continue smoking on the premises."In return you and your staff would always be made very welcome in The Peruvian Arms and of course it would give you a place in Penzance where you could smoke."

Good for you Debbie. Her customers want to smoke she wants then to smoke of what concern is this to the daamned state . NONE NONE NONE


Angry said...

I am a vociferous anti smoker. I do not like having to put up with the smoke and smell from those addicted to nicotine. BUT what the Minister has done is ridiculous.

For example, at work we have smoking shelters outside, well away from staff who wish to avoid them. Is that enough? NO, we have to remove some of the little weatherproofing to comply with the "no more that 50% walls" rule.

The nit picking detail with which they prescribe amongst other things the signs to be displayed, and where, is excruciating. They certainly have taken leave of their common sense in promoting this effort.

In summary: The end does NOT justify the means. But ... ... if they can get away with it here, what will they try it on next?

angry said...

Not trying to monopolise this thread, but I think I might have seen what comes next. Try this for size at Dizzy's:

I would put a bet on it, but as my top stake is a ten shilling note, it's been a little difficult to do that recently.

Newmania said...

I do not see that my activities should be curtailed by the likes and islikes of other people whithin reason . I do not like loud voices. Why not have alaw against shouting . I notice people often trip over whne they run , why not have alaw against that.

Why not ban drinking in Pubs or sex with strangers both are ahealth risk

I hate this law with a passion and it will do the Labour Party more damage than they think


Ed said...

Drip, drip, drip

This government is in its dying days - and three-odd years till an election!!

Frobisher said...

I saw on the local news that the council could be employing "smoke inspectors" to make sure the bans enforced (at council tax payers expense of course).

Peruvian Arms? I might go in and snort of line of coke off the bar. Well, when in Rome . . .

Newmania said...

Yes and where we are they are going to be indisguise Frobe

Ellee said...

Surely drinking is bad for you too - is the government going to ban that next? How many MPs smoke, btw? Where are they going to light up when the ban comes into force?

Paul Bristow said...

Should leave it to the market. Pubs will allow smoking if people want to do it.

If you don't like smokey pubs - then go to no smoking ones.

Simple as that!

Newmania said...

Ellee the Parliamentary Bars are exempt . No kidding they are .

Paul seriously i wouldn`t mind there being some areas but an outright ban of a pasttime enjoyde harmlessly ( to others 0 by millions ...words fail me

Electro Kevin said...

Ban smoking ... then go easy on narcotics ???

I have to say that being covered in someone else's smoke is offensive, but I wouldn't want to ban it and frequently put up with it rather than miss someone's company.

As for smoking inspectors how typical. From an establishment that seems helpless to deal with the yobs currently terrorising our local stations.

Newmania said...

I have to say that being covered in someone else's smoke is offensive, but I wouldn't want to ban it

Thats called sanity Kev . I find many things exceedingly inconvenient and irritataing .So what

gordon brown's best friend said...

On this one we only have ourselves to blame.
The answer to the smoking ban is to collectively ignore it.

If you will excuse an anecdote:

I recently partook of a meal in an Islington restaurant. This ruinously expensive establishment certainly had no objection to smoking the last time I had the misfortune to patronise it - a couple of years ago - and certainly had no signs saying it had adopted a no smoking policy. Having consumed the minuscule portions of 'nouvelle cuisine' and ordered the coffee my companion and I proceeded to light up an enjoyable postprandial cigarette. At this point the manageress positively sprinted the length of the restaurant to demand that we extinguish them. I looked at the dozen or so empty tables between us and the couple who were the only other customers on this weekday afternoon and quietly enquired of her "Do you want me to pay the bill for this meal? Then I suggest that you fuck off and mind your own business."
She did precisely that.

Newmania said...


Oddly enough I did almost exactly that myself once and in Islignotn along Upper St...hope it wasn`t the same one.

Good anecdote I liked it

Blog Archive