Monday, 20 July 2015

Does Brighton still Rock?

Smoking bans KILL businesses - FACT! 
A little note to Brighton's 'Consultation Chairman'

Dear Daniel,

    I have read, in total disbelief actually, the proposal to 'ban' smoking on Brightons famous pebble/stone beach. The actual composition of the beach is immaterial but the proposed ban is not! Allow me to quote from a daily newspaper if you will?

a)... "Cigarettes could be banned on beaches in Brighton to keep the seaside smoke-free"
    Smoke free Daniel? How is Brighton 'smoke-free' when the place, like all busy towns/cities, is inundated with road traffic-both petrol & deisel? have you fallen for the simple histrionics created by such as ASH, CRUK, FRESH et al and consider that the merest whiff of cigarette smoke will kill - and ignored the fact the exhaust fumes do! Even the World Health Organisation has backed down from the lies, fabrications, manipulated statistics & junk science used to inaugurate these bans in the first place-simply because THEY are now in place! SHS is harmless.

"It is part of a consultation asking residents if they would support a move to extend smoke-free outdoor areas..... "
    And may I ask the obvious question regarding this 'residents quiz', "how skewed is such a questionnaire when it is known that 75% of the residents are non smokers in the first place?" Also, how you guarantee that won't get involved to ensure that the figures are even more skewed in their favour? You might not have seen the twists & turns these people are capable of (outright lying is only one of them) but I have..... on numerous occasions!

Board chairman Daniel Yates said: 'We're keen to keep people safe from the effects of smoking in public areas, especially children who are most vulnerable...."
                                                       2 weeks old & already smoking!
                                                                   (says it all really!)
     'Safe from the effects of SHS/smoking in public places???' You have already fallen into the chasm of anti smoking rhetoric as you actually think there is harm from smoker emittences whilst in the open air! Let me ask you a simple question Daniel:- "when are you going to ban buses from entering Brighton's town centre or close Pool Valley Coach Station so as to avoid all those coaches from belching out life threatening exhaust fumes? Do you, personally, have any idea how many carcinogens/dioxins burst forth from the exhaust pipe when a coach/bus is actually started up Daniel?

d)... "
Smoking is one of Brighton's leading causes of premature death, and the proposed smoke-free areas are the places where children are most likely to be present ."
   i)... Daniel, this is so easy to destroy my friend and if you are a principled man you will convey this to your committee-who obviously need educating with truth! To start with there is no such thing as a 'premature death', the reason? Simple. Look very carefully about your person Daniel, and your partner as well (with a microscope if necessary) and tell me where abouts on the body it states your predetermined D.O.D (date of death). I'll give you 100 years to find it, knowing full well that it does not exist. What does exist is a medical/mathematecal trickery of figures which has everyone thinking that if they 'peg-out' before their "three score & ten" they have been cheated of life! This of course is utter hogwash as not one person in this land has a predetermined lifespan-any of us could die at any time. Therefore the myth that smoking/SHS causes premature deaths is simply that - a myth. Ask your committe this simple question Daniel please: "why were/are the six longest ever living people on this planet smokers?" You could also ask this rather unsavoury question too: "why did Mr & Mrs Smith's baby only live for 3 minutes-even though birthed in the most sterile situation possible?" You see Daniel, no single person knows, at birth, just how long another person will live but 'the myth of those two words (premature death)' is very, very useful to all anti smoking zealots but also something that Arnott & Co won't discuss with me at length!

                                                            A truly gruesome sight!

    ii)... "where children are most likely to be present". Now Daniel, please don't tell me that you have been sucked in by the anti smokers last resort - using the 'cheeeeeldren'! let me ask you another question Daniel: "why are we living in an age where our welfare costs are reaching such monumental proportins that soon we won't be able to retire until we are actually 100(!)?" The answer my friend is very simple. All those very naughty babies born in the aftermath of the war (late 40's & 50's) have had the audacity to continue well past their aforementioned three score & ten! In other words, all those naughy babies growing up when smoking rates were in the 70% regions (oh yes they were my son) were basically immune and that is why we now have more than 10,000 centenarians in this country! The Thalidomide drug caused far more havoc than any smoking did! The 'cheeeeeldren' are trotted out at every single opportunity nowadays-and they always will do as they have nothing left in their armoury simply because no bar-staff ever dropped dead (as supposed by ASH et al initially) and never will!

e)... "
The proposed plans appear designed to make the places like parks and and beaches, often very busy during school holidays, a safer place for children to play." Note the words 'appear designed', one of their favoured buzzwords akin to 'could be', probability of', 'maybe', 'possibly be', might be' and a whole host of others designed to bend the mind! Note again, as above, the use of the 'cheeeldren' - they never stop!

Brighton and Hove's director of public health Tom Scanlon said: "Tobacco smoke typically contains more than 170 toxins including carcinogens and air pollutants." But has he told you or stated the number of such in a single 'blast' from an exhaust pipe or of the 200,000 dioxins emitted by our much loved BBQ's during the summer months? has he told you of the arsenic or formaldhyde in our drinking water or even the chlorine? I'll bet not! Mr Scanlon simply trots out the age old 'safety net' answers when needed, nothing more nothing less. he knows just how gullible people are thus talking in BIG numbers is an easy game to learn & play! One quick question for the most eminent Mr Scanlon, Daniel: "could the most honourable gentleman please tell me exactly how many people have died from actual smoking, in Brighton, in the past 100 years; ie, how many death certificates can he produce for me?"

      g)... Mr Scanlon continues with the most feeble of 'finishers' by stating: "Outdoor tobacco smoke dissipates more quickly than indoor smoke but in certain concentrations and weather conditions it still poses an additional health risk to non-smokers.' Pray ask him what these 'certain concentrations' might be and also what 'weather conditions' we might be talking about because more than 50 years of thorough research has only ever proven cigarette smoke to rise vertically and disappear altogether! The second strange thing being of course that the World health Organisation have now classified SHS as HARMLESS! Now there's a thing, for a decade ago it was deemed more toxic that 'sarin gas'-which of course is used extensively in germ warfare etc!

So Daniel, as your survey of local people continues, even though skewed, and your anti smoking/anti tobacco mobsters force regulation after regulation upon the poor beleagured smokers have a quiet word with yourself and ask the question: Can Britain/Brighton afford to lose anymore businesses (pubs, clubs, coner shops etc) and can Brighton afford to see it's valuable tourism trade diminishing on a yearly basis. Just think Daniel, this idiotic smoking ban now costs this country in excess of £1/2 bn every single month - now what could that do for the  Royal Sussex?

How many nurses/doctors could that buy? How much more urgently needed equipment could that buy Daniel? You embrace people of many sexual orientations in your town yet you wish to demonise 25% of your population simply because they choose to smoke. When do you start demonising the 99.2% that choose to enjoy sugary foods, sugary drinks, sugary sweets etc? Will they no longer be allowed to sprawl out on the stone/pebble beach that Brighton is famous for?

As for the law, well, the law clearly states that smokers must NOT smoke indoors or inside of any business premises. Therefore they have to be outside, in all elements, to enjoy their chosen smoke. I do believe that Brighton Rock beach be an outside area so how are you proposing to police such a ridiculous proposal? To police such a creation will detract from your decreasing police force from catching criminals worthy of catching! Do you reaqlly want to leave the good people of Brighton open to mass criminal abuse?

Now I know the question that is burning with you Daniel so I am sorry that I am going to disappoint you somewhat but I am a non smoker, I was diagnosed with cancer in 2010 and yes, I defend smokers rights to exert their freedom of choice. Smoking doesn't bother me in the slightest-even though the anti smoking lobby whipped up a frenzy of hatred against smokers. People still think we live in a democracy but I'm afraid that the unforgivable Mr Blair changed all that in 2006 when the so called "free vote" was forced/whipped through parliament.
I do hope that you don't succumb to the fraudulent claims of ASH et al as they have only one agenda: the complete eradication of smokers & the tobacco plant. People will still smoke if they want to, no matter what the substance used and don't forget that the war on drugs has now officially ended as the authorities have found they could not win-despite throwing some $50trillion at it.
Such a shame that Brighton might not be rocking anymore Daniel.
Perhaps more of you might like to voice your opinions to Daniel!
Best wishes

Phil Johnson

Update: we now have the link for the council consultation:


  1. We have a response from Daniel Yates esq!

    Many thanks for your email.

    This paper is simply a chance to gauge people’s opinions which are (as always on these matters) a mixture of public health versus personal freedom arguments. I strongly feel that such a significant move could only be considered even after a public consultation as people’s opinions and willingness to support such a move is entirely unknown.

    The press of course have not reported the proposed consultation entirely correctly. I won’t pass comment on their reporting.

    I hope that the Health and Wellbeing Board will approve the consultation and that the public get to have their say. I’ve had such a mixed bag of responses (smokers in favour and non-smokers against for example) that I cannot predict in any way what the final outcome would be. But I do hope that the consultation will be broad, fair and unbiased.

    It will of course also allow councillors and CCG representatives to be better informed before considering the matter further.

    Best wishes

    Daniel Yates

    Labour Councillor for Mouslecoomb and Bevendean

    Chair, Brighton & Hove Health and Wellbeing Board


  2. ..... and we have responded immediately!
    Hi Daniel - and thank you for your swift response.

    In guaging people's opinions how are you going to ensure that representation from each side is fair or even equal? When we know that 75%-76% of the population no longer smoke there cannot possibly be a fair and equal ballot! I would point out here that a consultation was held pre-2006 with regard to people's opinions on the plausibility of a smoking ban..... but, strangely enough, it was only the anti smoking action groups that were canvassed and/or informed of such 'ballot'.
    There is no debate needed, nor lining up a 'Public health' v 'Personal freedoms' debate as there simp0ly IS NO PUBLIC HEALTH issue here Daniel! As the WHO have already classified SHS as harmless there can be no argument whatsoever.
    The press never report such high profile matters correctly, and I know this from first hand experience having conducted many an 'on the street interview' with BBC TC & ITV (various regions) only to find most of it has found its way onto the cutting room floor or not even onto the TV screen because I don't always say what they want to hear! You also need to remember that the media guard their income from Gov't very closely and virtually print what they are told to print!
    The Health and Wellbeing Board will approve the consultation as it is an anti-smoking jackpot! I mean to say Daniel, getting smoking (supposedly) banned in an outdoor location, which of course is a perfectly legal place to smoke according to the law passed in 2006!
    I look forward to the next stage with great interest and it is rather sad that I can no longer travel such a distance as Brighton as I would have dearly loved to have been part of the council chamber discussion!
    Best wishes

    Phil J

  3. Just a point of note that the Royal college of physicians who were held up by the Government as the font of all statistics on deaths from second had smoke admitted that they have no knowledge of anyone dying from SHS. Their so called statistics are concocted from a hypothetical formula..

    The anti smoking crusade is just another exercise in spiteful social engineering here in a country that used to pride itself on freedoms.. B7

  4. Great article. Presumably if such a ban was introduced on Brighton's beaches it would be voluntary. Whether or not it is complied with, is neither here nor there. It is another conquest for anti smoking. Voluntary outdoor smoking bans will likely soon be commonplace in many of our cities; paving the way for outdoor bans to be made law which then would not be such a big change. Brighton's council should resist such petty spitefulness, their beach should be for everyone's enjoyment, not used as an excuse to target smokers.

  5. If the Brighton council were so concerned over the issue of public health then surely they would ban Traffic from the Town and from around schools as a measure to protect the little children.

    As all the health quangos have been made very well aware that toxic traffic fumes and other pollutants are the Real cause of problems as stated by the WHO with second hand tobacco smoke being of little concern, is it time for common sense to be shown ? I doubt it.


  6. We have now been invited to submit to the committee when they finally decide to convene :)

    1. Link:

  7. OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:

    Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition

    This sorta says it all

    These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

    So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''


    All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.

    "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.

    "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA.

    Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

  8. Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

    One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

    That's fine company are so called public health depts. keep with ehh!

    History can shed so much lite on todays own movement it just amazes the mind...........

    Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.”

  9. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) could not even produce evidence that passive smoke is significantly harmful inside, this is what they wrote prior to the smoking ban in article 9 OC255/15 9 "The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act". The reason the ban was brought in under the Health Act 2006, and not by the HSE, because no proof of harm was needed with the Health Act 2006, and the HSE have to have proof, seems the DM has lost rational thought about anything smoke related.


  10. Many interesting points herein. Well worth a read. I wasn't aware that WHO has now stated that SHS poses no risk.