No Property is Private

So the anti-smoking nutters finally get their way. The motor car is no longer a private space. Prodnoses may now impose fines on people  who smoke with children in the vehicle. The fines extend to those who don’t prevent it. For me this has a simple solution. Although I don’t smoke, no one under eighteen will be  allowed in the vehicle. At all. Ever. That way, any adults I carry may smoke if they so wish. I don’t have a problem with it, not having been infected with the passive smoking kills cockwaffle. It doesn’t. Never did.

We then wait for the next move, which will inevitably be a total ban on smoking in all vehicles as that will be easier to spot and enforce.

Smoking in a car creates a higher concentration of toxins than in a bar, some research has put it at 11 times higher.

I see the BBC is still peddling this blatant lie long after it has been thoroughly debunked and the BMA had to back off from it.

10 Comments

  1. So let’s imagine you’re a quick learner. You pass your driving test at 17yrs 6 months.
    That day, you pop out for a drive – on your own – in your own car, and light up.

    So you’re arrested for exposing a child (yourself) to smoke, and will Plod let you call your wife (perfectly legal) to let her know what’s happening.

    Where do we get these total mental cripples from?

    • @ Ted

      And they’ll quiz the wee chappie as to how he got his dub’s as it’s illegal to sell tobacco to anyone aged under 18.

      Then they’ll arrest him – and his “supplier”.

  2. The car isn’t yours anyway. Look at the log book. It says “registered keeper.” And if there was a dispute about insurace the police would confiscate it and crush it. I even heard a copper say “It’s mine now.” to a guy suspected of having no insurance.
    The bottom line is that the Crown owns all our stuff. How so? Because in the event of a dispute the Crown ie. Court can determine who gets what, or whether something (a dog or weapon or book or whatever) gets destroyed. The power to destroy an item or to give it away is what defines ownership.
    I quit smoking 10 weeks ago because the taxes on tobacco, like all taxes, help keep these lunatics in a job.

  3. Richard beat me to the comment! The car is not your property, you are simply allowed to look after one provided you pay the taxes and don’t misuse it.
    And before you ask: I’m not at all sure that your house is yours either – I suspect the entire country belongs to the Crown – and like the car you are allowed to be custodian of a small part (but only in return for taxes and assuming they don’t want it back, as in compulsory purchase for redevelopment, and assuming you don’t want to change it, for which you’ll need planning permission)

  4. So; you’re only going to be smoking in a car when it’s moving, let’s assume an average speed of thirty mph. Let’s also assume that the vehicle is ventilated similarly to a bar. Not many bars encourage ventilation by travelling at speed. Horrible logic, tragic pun, sorry but I just have to turn all of this toot to farce. Sultan Knish has just written about the socialism of food, and how it’s really all about class, this smoking ****ocks is much the same.

  5. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. As from October anybody younger than 18 will be banned from my car as well.

    Not that I smoke, but it surely can’t be much longer before simply being male and white will be enough to get you fined for being in any enclosed space with children.

    Can’t see how this can be enforced but something tells me that the scapegoats chosen to be paraded on the anti british broadcasting commune are unlikely to be representative of the vibrant and diverse mix of cultures and colours usually thrust so smugly upon us.

  6. Minibuses have had smoking bans for years … except ours. The drivers smoke, the passengers smoke and we’ve never had a pull.
    A word of advice to those that do get pulled when this ridiculous ban comes in … deny it! … don’t admit it. They depend on your ‘confession’ … without it, they have nothing.

  7. Correct about the car and the house, Richard and Woodsy. In fact, the monarch is the only person who is permitted to own land in this country, so she owns all of it. Every last square inch. That’s why, in estate agent adverts etc, places are either described as “freehold” (i.e. held “freely” of the monarch) or “leasehold” (i.e. held for a limited time from a “freeholder.”) “Freehold” meaning simply that you “hold” the property “freely” (i.e. without a time limit, disposable as you wish) of the monarch. So, in theory, if she really wanted to, Queenie could take back all of our houses. Unlikely, true, and the legal, financial and social implications of her doing so would be huge, so it’s such an unlikely prospect that few people consider it to be any kind of a threat. In fact, no-one (to my knowledge) has ever questioned this set-up at all, apart from (I think) just one bloke who’s claimed some remote Scottish island as his own “land” and declared himself independent of the monarch. It’s historical. Back in the day when the monarch was believed to be appointed by God himself, it was seen as somewhat heretical to suggest that someone personally approved of by the Big Sky Fairy might not be entitled to claim ownership of whatever land he/she wanted. And because the monarch was generally quite generous in awarding “freeholds” to those who might otherwise stir up trouble, the reality of “land ownership” gradually got forgotten as the big land awards to nobles got chopped up and sold off as other, little, “freeholds” like your and my houses. People were quietly allowed to call themselves “home owners” because this helped to hide the fact that they were nothing of the sort. It’s one of the reasons why even we “freeholders” are still bound by the law in our own homes – we can’t murder people in our houses and then claim that we were doing it on our own land because, well, it isn’t our own land. Part of the “freeholder” deal is that we do as we wish on our properties, provided we still do as Queenie (via her Government) tell us.

    It’s one of the best arguments I know for keeping the monarchy. After all, Aunt Bessie has quite enough big houses of her own and seems like a generally pretty decent sort. With no monarchy, however, where would land ownership revert to then? Any guesses, anyone? Of course! Our lovely Government! Our lovely, caring, unintrusive, benevolent politicians who, as we know, can never have enough houses for their families and friends to live in, who have awarded themselves the authority to take as much money from us as they wish and, given the freeholder-hating inclinations of the leftie lot, wouldn’t think twice about slinging hardworking mortgage-payers out onto the street or forcing them to become lodgers entirely dependent on the Government’s goodwill for keeping a roof above their heads.

    It’s all about control, and it’s always been about control. After all, if someone “owns” – really owns – their own land, independent of and unbound from the monarch and her henchmen in Government, then in theory they can make their own “laws,” too, can’t they? And we couldn’t have people not doing as their “betters” in Parliament instruct, now, could we?

  8. And the disgusting black traffic dirt that pervades my house daily. cluttering my lungs and doing me far more damage than the fags I smoke daily, but I don’t see the prodnose brigade rushing to my defense and moaning about the 30,000 cars stood nose to tail outside my house engines running 24/7.
    I am utterly f’d off with this anti smoking bullshit.
    My sister in law’s father has mouth cancer, he is not a smoker NOR a drinker and he still got mouth cancer. Seriously it’s a box of balls and it’s driving me insane.If your going to ban smoking then ban cars, I choose to put cigarette smoke in my lungs I don’t drive I don’t want to drive so why should I have all that traffic smog clogging up my lungs, it’s an equally ridiculous point and the rabid anti smoking brigade just don’t get it. If I can tolerate their traffic dirt and toxins they can put up with my second hand smoke.
    I can tell you this when I lived in a small sea side town with 100 times less traffic my chest and lungs were fine, I could run no wheezing at all.
    Since I moved to a big city by a 4 lane busy motorway access road I now can hardly breathe and most days even walking along the road makes me feel very sick and wheezy, and truth be told I smoke much less these days than I did before, so that tells me the traffic is worse for me than the smoking was.

  9. “Prodnoses may now impose fines on people who smoke with children in the vehicle. “

    Well, damn! That’s going to make for an awkward silence when I take my mother (who smokes, but doesn’t drive) on an errand.

    Or is there an age limit? 😉

Comments are closed.