Sunday, 28 March 2010

Slavery abolished by Labour.

A Government spokesman demonstrating how to make Government policy appear logical.

Picture hallucinated from the film 'Airplane'.

Pub landlord Nick Hogan was prosecuted, fined more than the average baby-thumper and then sent to jail for far longer than a Labour peer who flattened someone with his car. For what exactly? Because he refused to act as an unpaid enforcement officer for a law he disagreed with. Note that he was not prosecuted for smoking - he was prosecuted for not stopping other people smoking.

Why would any landlord not want to be part of the Righteous Brigade? Well, for one thing, because being one of the Righteous' unpaid and unwilling enforcers is dangerous. You want to stop a drunk smoking? He is not going to think 'Oh, it's those blasted Righteous behind it all'. He is going to turn on you. Sometimes violently.

If you don't act as an unpaid enforcer, the Righteous turn on you. Either way, you're the one who gets crapped on.

But wait, what's this?

Fresh from the unwiped bottom of MiniJust comes another dry clinker of wisdom. The same people who demand that all owners of private premises act as unpaid police and put themselves at risk so the Righteous don't have to, have come up with a new law to stop people forcing other people to do work they don't want to do... no, don't try to make sense of it, it will make your head hurt.

The new offence of holding another person in slavery or servitude, or requiring another person to perform forced or compulsory labour, is set out in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. Those found guilty face a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.

So, when the police charge you with 'allowing others to smoke', you can now immediately countercharge with 'requiring another person to perform forced labour' because that is exactly what they are doing. Act as an unpaid enforcer or face the wrath of the Righteous. Forcing landlords and other business premises operators to work for free as frontline law enforcers, at personal risk, is a direct violation of this new law.

You might get six months. They'll get 14 years.

So, who wants to let the Dreadful Arnott know? We should draw straws for the pleasure.

UPDATE: Devil's Kitchen found their get-out clause. It's another law that applies to us but not to them.


goodbye Gorgon... said...

A good anthem for anti Gorgon sympathisers....

Leg-iron said...

Joe Pasquale wrote Labour's anthem years ago.

I can't find an original but -

Junican said...

We may giggle about these things, but the matter is of the greatest importance.

The criminal law has always been about NOT doing things. The seatbelt law did not say that one must wear a seatbelt if one is driving a car, it said that one must not drive a car unless one is wearing a seatbelt. All criminal laws are prohibitions. I know of no criminal laws which say that you MUST DO something. the laws relating to the MOT test do not say that all cars must have an MOT certificate. They say that one must not drive a car on public roads WITHOUT an MOT certificate.

The principle involved here is quite simple, and that is that there is an automatic right of a person TO DO NOTHING.

As regards Public Houses, a publican has to have a licence. If he or his pub is not up to scratch, then he will not get his licence, but the legal requirements are that THE PUB CANNOT OPEN FOR BUSINESS unless certain requirements are in place. There is no compulsion for anyone actually to do anything.

As regards the smoking ban, the obligation of publicans is not to open a pub for business unless the legal requirements as regards the smoking ban are in place, ie, 'no smoking' notices, etc (although I do not know what etc is). As regards Nick Hogan, I feel that he was not properly advised by his lawyers.

In Ohio, USA, a judge has ruled that it is unconstitutional for a barkeeper to be required to FORCE people not to smoke. I am sure that it is true also in this country. The answer to this question will only become apparent when a suitable case comes before a court.

The lies, distortions and omissions being put about by politicians and others is scandalous. There is no obligation for publicans to FORCE people not to smoke.

Our public houses are critical to the health of our society. They are the only places where old people, middle-aged people and young people can come together and interact. Young people learn how to behave properly through these contacts. It ought not to be acceptable that badly thought out laws which are badly administered can be allowed to destroy this heritage. What on earth are the pubcos doing? What on earth are the physicians doing? What on earth are the politicians doing?

Anonymous said...

OH. Shut the f**k up. Let them get this law in first. Then the whole lot could end up inside.

Rogerborg said...

Reading comprehension fail. This was posted by Leg Iron, not Old Holborn. And you wonder why Libertarians can't organise a cock up in a brothel.

Further fails: it's not just "owners of private premises" who are deputised. Let me take 30 seconds to quote the law in question, since you chaps are too busy shaking your fists:

Any person who without reasonable cause fails to give to an authorised officer of an enforcement authority, acting in the exercise of his functions under or by virtue of this Chapter, any facilities, assistance or information which the authorised officer reasonably requires of him for [enforcing or investigating the ban] commits an offence.

Any person. Any facilities, assistance or information. Yes, it is now an offence to refuse to inform. East Germany indeed.

You may now return to your scheduled ranting, hopefully a little better informed about the scale of the problem.

Jock Coats said...

Yeah, I thought this one interesting piece of the egregious Coroners' and Justice Act might cover all sorts of state compulsion, howevcer they slipped in a little line that says something to the effect of "except for doing one's civic duties". And I *guess* they're just going to define that as, well, anything they want to tell us to do.


Tomrat said...

Barring Jock Coats caveat above am I the only one here who thinks this law could be used as a means of challenging all taxation? I am currently compelled to hand over vast chunks of my meager income to lay for this shower it would be interesting to see someone try this defence in court.

Angry Jock said...


Sign this petition:

I am Stan said...

So many laws...sooo little time.

Useless cunts said...

It's the many, not just the few who will be fucked.

Nulab. Working towards fucking all.

Anonymous said...

Soo little cabbage to go around...

Jock Coats said...

Tomrat that was exactly my thought, specifically:

S71, 1) (b):

[A person (D) commits an offence if] D requires another person to perform forced or compulsory labour and the circumstances are such that D knows or ought to know that the person is being required to perform such labour.

...which sounds as if it would cover any taxation.

But in the explanatory notes it states:

404.Subsection (2) requires subsection (1) to be interpreted in accordance with Article 4 of the ECHR. Article 4 of the ECHR states:
3 For the purpose of this Article the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include:
• (a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
• (b) any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
• (c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
• (d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations.

Perhaps one could argue that (d) above does not imply either taxation (which is neither work, directly, nor service, directly) or, in Legiron's suggestion in the blogpost, having to put your personal safety or that of your property in jeopardy by so doing.

Dunno. It probably needs a test case. I am very definitely *not* a lawyer and was only interested as someone highlighted to me that this was the first time we had actually passed a criminal offence of holding slaves (as opposed to trading in them for example). SO I went and looked and thought exactly the same as you did, but then read on and got depressed at what looked like the door having been closed.

Anonymous said...

I don't care if the law requires imprisonment for not assisting authority in all ways to stamp out smoking. Nor do I care if such forced assistance can be considered slavery against one's will. Nor do I care if it can be dangerous.

Most publicans would consider it an honour to assist police in tossing out the filthy smokers back into the sewers and gutters where they belong. The modern pub is coming to Britain and noone can stop it. There will be haute cuisine, room for children, books to read and high-speed internet from which to sit alone in the corner while surfing the net.

And those pubs unwilling to make the cut can be turned into vacated buildings and sold for development into council flats or quaint housing for those with money to afford it.

All I know is that smoking is bad, second hand smoke is bad, smokers are bad, pubs as they stood were bad, health is good and laws designed to enforce health are good.

From that bit of common knowledge that is readily available in any newspaper or on the television and my stern dedication to hating the filthy smokers regardless, I continue to see nothing wrong with what is being complained about on this villainous blogsite by this madman called Hobert.

I voted Labour in the past and I will vote Labour on into the long long future of Labour leading this country into the modern world, where people such as myself can be truly free and proud of the society we have helped bring about.

Vote Labour and forget all these rantings of the lunatics complaining about petty nuances in laws only affecting fitlhy smokers. It's the modern way of living. One should step up and swing with the times and support the government's good intentions and efforts.

I have and you see nothing wrong with me, nor my children who are stubbornly like minded and the ones who will inherit this lovely, more healthy, safe and secure world I wish to leave for them when I die.

cornyborny said...

Wow. Nice bit of unadulterated fascism, there. Only two possible interpretations:

1. You're trying to wind those poor, misguided libertarian types up - lor, what japes!

2. You're really the type of cretin who votes Labour despite everything and will continue to do so right up to the point when your oh-so-healthy family is loaded into a wagon bound for a death camp.

Either way, you should take a good, long look at yourself.

Lord_Ras said...

Dis blog goin' fasta down than dat boat Tititic!

Standard-Issue State-Funded Troll said...

What filthy, deranged, evil, child-murdering smokers don't realise is just how much their deadly addiction makes them stink!

I for one will be glad when Gordon Brown finally bans smoking outright. It is outrageous that in our modern world, people still think it is acceptable to light up deadly cancer-causing death sticks and blow the disgusting smelly smoke into the faces of children, pets and grandmothers.

Honestly, I can't understand why bloggers and extremists think such outdated concepts as personal autonomy, fair trials and a tolerant society have any place in our modern world.

Any publican who thinks otherwise should be shot or gassed. I, for one, think pubs are much better now that they are libraries.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain


Related Posts with Thumbnails