Slashdot Mirror
UK Copyright Extension in Exchange for Censorship?
Awel writes "The UK opposition leader, David Cameron, says in a speech to the British Phonographic Industry that his party would work to extend the copyright term to 70 years and crack down on piracy. But in return, labels would have to agree to bear more 'social responsibility', which appears to translate into avoiding lyrics that glorify 'an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny'. He doesn't spell out how this would be achieved in practice.
This follows the publication in December of a UK government report recommending that the standard copyright term in Europe remain at 50 years (and not be raised to 70 or 95 years)."
Looks like copyright is returning to its roots..
Does it say something about me that when I glanced at the article I thought it said Pornographic industry?
So Cameron is basically promising to do his part to make speech less free, so long as the labels promise to do their part to make speech less free? Score.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
The BPI really has to get with the times and change its name. Otherwise, every time there is a /. story about it someone will say: "Did anyone else read that as the British Pornographic Industry?!". In this case, this is that post.
So....did anyone else read that as the British Pornographic Industry?!
Thank you for your time, you may now return to an actual discussion, if you want...
Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
We all know how that first sentence actually reads and what your twisted little mind makes it out to be.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
so the government decides what may hear, and the recording industry what we may listen to. great.
Look at what music has become. A great way to express your opinion huh?
Think about it! The whole thing is ridiculous. The labels decide what the artists sing so it's not really the artists opinion and the labels just make them sing what gives the most money.
If they sing about anarchy then it's no ones opinion? It might just affect the listeners but what if the listeners know it's not the artists opinion?
+1 Agree -1 Disagree
Well, this puts me right off David Cameron.
What's up with the UK recently? It's bizarre. People complain like hell about the EU imposing laws on the UK, but if it is the UK gov doing it, nobody bats an eyelid.
For example, smoking. I hate smoking, it's horrid. But if people want to do it, they should be able to go to pubs where it's allowed. If people want to listen to music that glorifies "an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny" then they should be able to. And if people want to copy music or books or whatever of an artist that is well dead and buried then they should be able to do that too.
Let's be clear here - cameron is doing this because he wants the money.
The BPI were pinning their hopes on the Labour government doing this and now that it is clear they won't, he's after campaign donations from the industry and has-beens like Cliff Richard.
His arguments are patently absurd - how does it encourage digitisation of recordings to maintain copyright in the performance? Quite the opposite applies.
And, of course, the claim that this would encourage innovation is mince.
To all the people who doubt the social relevance of the "copyright reformist" debate... here is a perfect example of why we should be concerned. Not only is there yet another push for copyright extension, but this extension is being used to bargain for government censorship too.
The irony, of course, is that one of the main problems with effectively-perpetual copyright is the many restrictions it places on open commentary and free speech. Perpetual and rigidly-enforced copyrights essentially produce a chilling effect in the domain of free public discussion. Since copyright is a government-granted monopoly, it is hard to not label this as censorship.
So we get a double-dose of censorship: copyright extensions limit our ability to freely discuss and produce derivative art of the culture we are a part of... and these same extensions are used as a lever to enforce a government-mandated version of decency. In my mind this seriously calls into question the notion that copyrights are there as a service to society, encouraging distribution of artwork to the people... or have we given up on that interpretation of copyright entirely?
which appears to translate into avoiding lyrics that glorify 'an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny'.
I have only one question: What are knifes and why is someone glorifying them?
Well, considering he was at the British Phonographic Industry trying to drum up votes any politician worth his salt would tell them what they want to hear and therefore why they should vote for his party.
I hope he's lying to them as usual as per UK ministers' standard operating procedures. If this makes it into the manifesto then I cannot support the party, and if there are enough likeminded people that will cost them more votes than pandering to the racket.
Apologies if I come over as a bit bitter and twisted, but a poll of my peers (8 of us, professional, 40 years old-ish) has indicated that none of us believe either of the two main parties represent our wishes.
-- Don't believe everything you read, hear or think
His offer is that if the recording industry will give up some of their own free-speech rights, the government will reward them by curtailing citizens' free-speech rights?
music about "anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny" is street music which, gasp, is sold on the street
by the time it gets in the hands of the kids of these fine legislators, it has been picked up by a label and redistributed. stopping that part of the process won't lead to the death of street music, it will just mean that street music will get distributed by other means
kids are stupid. they listen to stupid things. then they grow up. and become responsible. and become members of the house of commons. i wonder how many of this guys peers, if not himself, were getting stoned in the back of a car listening to "we don't need no education..." and other wonders of pink floyd's "the wall" 25 years ago
you can't stop teenagers from being retarded. that's just what teenage years are all about
hey david cameron: "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Tis a glorious day indeed when the artists are told by the "record labels" that because of "nasty little law" they'll have to choose their lyrics from a small set of "acceptable words." Of course, the record labels get 70 years on the copy right so all is well. Oh yes! All of those "oldies" will (hopefully) be "grandfathered" in so that we can still get our violent antisocial pron music, but only because it already exists. Those new artists will have to conform to the new "standard of acceptable music" which will probably sound much like "Yet another boy band" singing the lyrics to the Barney song.
I guess death metal will have to skip the lyrics and go all "Muzak" on us.
The artist, of course will have to find alternative means of getting their music out to the masses. Good thing there is this internet thingy.
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
Fortunately the majority of British voters see Cameron for what he is; someone who'll do and say anything to get back into power. It will be a sad election that sees his greasy mug in Downing St.
That said, Brown doesn't exactly make me jump for joy either. Guess I'll carry on doing what I've done for the last 10 years, vote for apathy and stay at home.
Can it go the other way too? Can they lower the copyright term in exchange for reducing censorship?
This only covers the first 1/4 of the speech. Again, I'm disgusted by the skewed view of the entire debate that is being presented. This results from either paying little to no attention to what is going on, or an intentional misrepresentation in order to garner the favor of a particular industry. In either case, it's not a good place from which to start setting social policy.
Translation: "We will limit the public's rights to creative works if you help us run our nanny state." Who does David Cameron work for again?
And here comes this, a gift from heaven pointing out his opponent as a right fool. Coincidence? I think not. A PR firm worth the hefty fees and future House of Lords appointments they will get? That's more like it!
So, if an artist transgresses any of those rules, all his works forfeits copyright? Sounds good to me...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Yeah, lets have none of that Misogyny, us straight dudes much prefer philogyny.
I think political parties should be much more disturbed by misanthropy personally.
No knifes (or knives) in songs, regardless of the most dangerous weapon in widescale use across the UK being the car; it sounds like you're hip and trendy picking on something in the news at the moment and anyway, you dont need them because its finger licking good down at the KFC!!
What next? No sticks or bricks? that'll help the UK economy immensely as we all live in holes after deforesting the whole country.
Perhaps the press release was put together by a summer work placement, rather than by a possible leader of the country. One hopes...
-- Don't believe everything you read, hear or think
I may have passed of Copyright extensions in return for no DRM, but copyright extensions and more censorship, that's a great way for them to get my vote.
BTW the conservatives are the opposition and aren't in government.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
And assuming this doesn't please you greatly, do what I did this morning...
m eron.contact.page
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=david.ca
I'm not naive enough to think he's reading every message personally, but some Slashdot weight in there could mean someone realises this could matter enough to swing a few votes... which is of course all they care about.
They are offering money, he's offering services. It straight supply-demand economics.
The 'less swearing' is just to make them feel less like he's a bought and paid for politician.
Still, that generally only pumps up your profit for an additional 5-10 years.
After 20 years on sale, your profit is practically nothing ... UNLESS you wrote a masterpiece.
But if you wrote a masterpiece then:
1. You probably got rich by then anyway.
2. The public wants you to WRITE ANOTHER ONE
3. A sequel/new book would earn a ton more money and also can pump up sales of the first thing.
Net Net, it is in the PUBLIC'S interest that after just 10 years, copyrights run out. AND it does not significantly affect any creator's income.
The real reason why we have copyright laws over 10 years is not for the writer, but instead for the major corporations that can make money lots of tiny sales 15, 20 or 50 years after creation of the author. It is pretty much ONLY them that really benefit, at the expense of society by a LOT.
Now, there is one other factor - derivative work. Movies based on books etc. That kind of thing it is reasonable to allow the original writer to retain. But honestly it should ALWAYS be the original writer, i.e. the right should not be saleable. That prevents them from selling it to a corp for a quick profit and then having the corp. massacre their work. By requirin the original actual author to give always give consent, we can increase the quality of the work.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
The English government already glorify s
....
an anti-learning culture: By not funding public schools properly.
truancy: Because the schools and teachers are so bad, kids just run away. Mainly due to lack of funding.
knifes, violence, guns: Government makes money selling guns, knives, along with violent behavior.
misogyny: What form of misogyny, Women, Religion, Philosophy
David Cameron, is just another toffey nosed tit, with silver rod up his arse.
What other name would grab people's smutty little attentions as effectively?
BPI along with FCUK [sic] are doing very well with the names they have.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
> work to extend the copyright term to 70 years and crack down on piracy
...Sir Cliff Richard, The Who and Sir Paul McCartney backed the campaign to extend the 50-year term
...enough said
Right... because the first thing to do in the fight against piracy is to broaden the definition of piracy to include twenty years worth of extra music. In other news, Cameron announced that as the first step in a crackdown on murder, the definition of "murder" will been expanded to include drunk-driving. He said that government claims that this would increase reported cases of murder by 12000% as "exagerated".
> He argued that extending the term would give an "incentive to the music industry to digitise both older and niche repertoire which
> more people can enjoy at no extra cost".
Right... so, extending the copyright term to include works which are currently in the public domain, and thus free and legal to use for any purpose will help people enjoy these works at "no extra cost"? In other news, as part of a campaign to try and get kids to exercise more, Cameron announced plans to put all public playparks into the hands of private companies that will charge for their use.
> Mr Cameron said: "Most people think these are all multimillionaires living in some penthouse flat. The reality is that many of
> these are low-earning session musicians who will be losing a vital pension."...
>
I don't get it...how is this an exchange? It sounds like there are two things this type of person wants, longer copyright and censorship, so why is one being offered "in exchange" for the other? The two go hand-in-hand, making it harder to distribute material and harder to produce material about what you want. This looks like a sock puppet job. Now if it was "decrease copyright term for increased censorship" or vice versa, that would be an exchange.
~Eien no Inori wo Sasagete~ Searching for my Hatsumi...
So the music industry want to retroactively change the terms of the license. Thing is we already have already aggreed a contract. In particular I have a number of spoken word audiobooks, the original text of which is long out of copyright. I had a reasonably expectation when I purchased those audiobooks that the copyright on the recording of the books would lapse 50 years after it was made. I have made special note of the dates, and fully intend when the 50 years is up to release these professionally made recordings by leading performers on the internet (or equivalent) free for all.
What gives them the right to change the terms of that implied contract, and can I demand my money back? Alternatively if they have broken the contract can I just ignore it as well?
Can have songs about knives, truancy and all that other stuff while still benefiting from the copyright extension?
Why are there so many fucking idiots in politics?
Well, I'm glad someone's going to do something about piracy. It's that North Sea that's the worst. Just last year, we were boarded three times at gunpoint and my wife repeatedly ra... Oh... you mean sharing. Yes, those nasty selfless people out there should be locked up indeed.
enjoy =]
e lated&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_rNEPIgc8&mode=r
"We'll allow you guys to soak up even more money that you don't deserve, as long as you contribute to our Big Brother-like atmosphere!" Should I take solace that this will almost certainly get laughed off by Labour?
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
This illustrates to me the symbiotic relationship governments and businesses have with each other in democracies. In their words it's protecting the consumer from themselves while making music more available. In the double-think tradition of Orwell this makes sense. Too bad it doesn't seem like there is a choice nowadays in democracies. You get to vote for different people, but it's all the same basic ideology; the corrupt supporting the corrupt. That is, businesses supporting politicians, and your average voter being fed the same old FUD, appeals to emotion, etc. without any De facto choice or say in the matter. The popular vote really doesn't seem to be supporting anything popular. Career politicians supporting career business people who support career politicians. It's the mobius strip of Western progress.
now it's being taken away, and the everyday sheeple dont see it coming.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Economic benefits in return for social responsibility. Read: more profit if you apply (self-)censorship to ensure the restoration of Victorian values. The next step will be ofcourse to ban anything that is critical, obscene, rebellious or hurtful to the feelings of the majority. I can recall at least two other regimes from the last century that offered benefits to individuals, companies and organisations, when they would apply censorship and spy on family, friends, neighbours and employees. This is all very much in-line with recent developments in the UK. Oher examples are: many in the UK think, supported by populist politicians, press and media, that there are terrorists and child molestors on every street corner (ofcourse all non-British). Consequently, there are more and more calls to ditch human rights legislation and to cut freedom of speech, all in the name of fighting terrorism and anti-social behaviour. People get political positions through cash donations (cash for honours). Police kill innocent people and no one gets charged. Two-year old in a pram cannot enter a supermarket wearing a hoodie. Fourteen-year old girl gets arrested for chalking love signs and butterflies on a pavement. Father gets arrested for making pictures of his son playing football, not having a license. All social-economic problems here are caused by artists, scientists, immigrants, teenagers or the European Union, so they should and will be punished. The true culprits, politicians, laywers, the popular media and greedy business people walk free and get rewarded for their opportunism.
-- Neminem laede, immo omnes, quantum potes, iuva.
To achieve the aim of maximizing the quality of the culture transmitted by copyrighted works, the term of copyright should be shortened, and the rights of citizens to make certain types of copies even within that term should be expanded. Why? Because the larger portion of the crassness in our culture is there in service of commercial interest - commerce whose shape and nature is in part determined by the ecological niche allowed it by our extravagant copyrights and other legal structures which are designed to amplify the profits of our largest corporate players.
The proof of this? Compare the musical offerings of small, independent labels to that of the majors. There is proportionately far less lowest-denominator sexuality, gangsta worship, women-hatred - and there's far more actual aural art as compared to the cheap sonic wallpaper the big labels prefer to sell us. The same differences can be found between the offerings of the small presses and the big publishing houses. And when the small recording labels and presses do release something with sex or violence featured, it's usually of much greater artistic worth, and doesn't trivialize either the sex or the violence the way the big corporations prefer to.
Unfettered capitalism by smaller players is the cure to our cultural failings. But they will not prosper as long as government regulation tilts the field towards the largest corporate interests. Long copyright terms are one brick in the wall preventing the free flourishing of the arts. And it's the lack of better-done art which leaves the public hungry enough to accept the empty calories the large, government-favored firms want to sell. Those empty calories will inevitably be dressed up in sex and violence, because the higher, more mindful forms of expression require levels of art largely incompatible with corporate packaging, and in any case tend to contribute to unwelcome challenges to the dumbed-down public mentality which proves so pliable to our political and corporate masters.
You'd think a Conservative in Britain would realize that this current regime is playing mostly into the hands of New Labor, and that a return to the more conservative form of capitalism, where small players are encouraged to do their entrepreneurial best, and corporations towards the monopolistic end of the spectrum are restrained or even broken up by government, rather than treated as its special partners - which is the very neo-fascism that New Labor has led Britain into.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Having said that, there's no reason why politicians should feel the need to ask industries if they please, wouldn't mind, curbing some of their more extreme behaviour. If the public voted for them, just pass a law.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
1) Lie through your teeth to the whole country
2) Gain Power
3) ???
4) Profit!!
Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
avoiding lyrics that glorify 'an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny'.
no brit punk?
DON'T PANIC
But in return, labels would have to agree to bear more 'social responsibility', which appears to translate into avoiding lyrics that glorify 'an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny'
What ever happened to equality between the sexes? Misandry would be ok then?
I was going to point out that this wouldn't fly in the US because of its 1st amendment to the Constitution, but then I realized that if the Supreme Court can say "limited times" (article 2 section 8) means "whatever Congress says it means", then the first amendment also says whatever it says it means.
I envy you Europeans. We Americans seem to be no longer a nation of laws. Despite the 4rth amendment, The local Springfield police opened my unlocked garage and had a look around on, ironically, Memorial Day; the day we celebrate those who died defending the Constitution. Despite the fact that there was nothing illegal in there, ever since then I've felt as if I lived in a lawless police state.
-mcgrew
So basically, I, the consumer, get screwed both by what he is barganing for and what he is barganing with. Wonderful.
.there is enough of everything for everyone.
The existence of copyright isn't only exists as a service to the public! If it works against the common people it needs to be changed! They can't say, "Oh well, we'll LET you guys have more socially acceptable material if you let us make copyright even worse than it is." What bullshit!
How about "We the people will LET you keep any copyright so long as you quit peddling shit music!"
-Derick
If indeed all of this censorship were to occur at the control of the labels, I think we'll find that artists will stop using the labels and use other means of publication and distribution.
I've already said that copyright is not a pension plan. If your music goes out of fashion the royalty cheques stop coming. Suggesting to musicians that they don't have to put part of todays royalties into a pension plan because copyright lasts a long time is a cruel deception. The musician faces not just the ignominy of falling from public regard when musical tastes change and his music is no longer played, his pretend pension gets cancelled.
Now that New Labor ... er Labour has glommed itself right up against the Conservatives, where does that leave the LibDems -- wedged between Labour and the Greens?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"Is some music, are some lyrics, are some videos and are some artists, helping to create a culture in which an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny are glorified?
Yes."
Let's try again:
Is some music - sample-based music - are some lyrics - rap lyrics - are some videos - hip hop T&A party videos - and are some artists - black artists - helping to create a culture - street culture - in which an anti-learning culture - street culture - truancy - street culture - knifes, violence, guns - gansta rap - misogyny - black music - are glorified? Yes.
So there you have it in one simple package: music based on 'piracy' and other forms of criminality glorified by a 'fringe' element in society.
The Conservatives say, "We'll help you extend your corporate ownership of the culture if you help us keep down the blacks.
(We've worked so hard to keep them poor and crush their dreams, and they *still* keep causing trouble!"
The UK sucks!
Then this MP is proposing to steal decades worth of material from the public domain.
Why should the public wish for that? In what way is it to their benefit to change the terms of the deal?
Copyright holders *owe* for the time they have had exclusive rights to their works protected by law and government. It was a deal. At the *very* least, it should not be retroactive if the deal is changed decades later, when the bill is just about to come due.
You're assuming politics are 1 dimensional, left -> right. Not the case.
Liberals believe in personal liberty, which includes doing what you want with your own money. It seems to confuse people that they believe in reduced government involvement in both business and personal lives. They confuse reduced involvement and taxation as conservatism and assume only reduced involvement in personal lives is the liberal philosophy.
In fact, of the major parties in the UK, the Liberals are the only ones with a consistent philosophy.
The Labour party's belief in government responsibility for the redistribution of wealth inevitably impinges on personal liberty, and the conservative party's belief in social conservatism inevitably increases taxation.
The fact is, financial and social liberty are intimately intertwined. You can't really have one without the other. It's a bit like geocentrism. Your models and equations get more and more complex to account for little differences and variations until you have a large unwieldy and clumsy system full of exceptions and special cases. Then someone comes along and points out that everything "just works", elegantly and simply if you just change your point of view and use a heliocentric model instead.
Deleted
oh wait...
You never had it!
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Should I take solace that this will almost certainly get laughed off by Labour?
I'd like to suggest a fix: s/laughed off/co-opted and embraced/
I mean, this is exactly the sort of "third way" buddy-buddy up to business + nanny state garbage that Labour LOVES as far as I understand. You won't see any disagreement between Labour and the Tories over this. Gah. They make me as sick as the DLC, "New" Democrats in my own country.
It's practically the definition of fascism too: you agree to suspend any "abuse" of your civil rights that doesn't conform to our ideals of a morally pure society, and we'll extend your business monopoly and crack down on average citizens who threaten it.
I'm not fond of the coarseness of a lot of TV and music today, but I don't exactly want to see the government getting involved in preventing it, much less at the direct expense of the people's rights. However, if I were a media company, I'd be all over this. After all, once the copyrights are extended, it should be pretty easy to wiggle out of the self-censorship side of the deal with no repercussions.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Is some music...helping to create a culture in which an anti-learning culture, truancy, knifes, violence, guns, misogyny are glorified?
David Cameron probably thinks Aaron Carter is a badass and that his smash hit "Aaron's Party (Come Get It)" was a politically dangerous teenage counterculture anthem.
Just to clarify, the "Liberals" you mean in this context are the "Liberal Democrats," correct? (Not being snarky, I'm not clear.)
I find U.K. politics interesting, but as an American I'm not entirely clear on the platforms of the various parties involved. The Liberal Democrats seem to be bordering on what I'd probably categorize as Libertarianism in the U.S., except that they also seem to favor a welfare state, which is a solidly leftist position in the U.S., and not generally favored by people who seek as a stated goal to minimize state interventionism in private life. (At least in any of the major parties; I'm sure there are individuals who have philosophies like that, but I've never seen a major party with that platform.) It strikes me as being something of a fine line to walk, to advocate a welfare state without being redistributivist, although they seem to be managing it.
Compared to U.S. politics (at the Federal level), which have all the variation of trench warfare -- with occasional forays across no-man's-land to broker deals that are to nobody's benefit in particular -- U.K. politics seems rather spirited.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
not the funders!
No - (re-reads post) oh God! its more of a single meaning in US English, isn't it... Sorry - rest assured that if I'd intended that as an offensive joke it wouldn't have passed quality control.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
My lifestyle doesn't give people cancer. Smokers do.
Why should you be able to force your smoking on others? Why should people not doing negligent harm to others have to rearrange their lives around those who are? What in your mind gives a smoker the superior rights when the right to enjoy yourself and the right to not be harmed by others come into conflict?
If smoking only harmed the smoker, then it wouldn't be anyone else's business, but that's not the case, and you know it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Man, I hate hippies.
So, you managed by completely specious fiat to start at 730 (owing to narrowing "accident" to "DIED") down to 80, most questionably by accepting 402 could be thrown out because 'excess' was defined as not one but TWO pints. I've known a lot of limeys, but I've never known a single one to sit down for ONE pint.
i tions_associated_with_alcohol_admissions&deaths_03 04_1.xls
But, getting back to the point--accidents due to alcohol--let's not go all out to busted indicator, let's just go to injuries sustained in alcohol-related traffic accidents that resulted in hospital addmission:
http://www.lho.org.uk/Download/Public/9948/1/Cond
6,386 -- AND THAT'S JUST LONDON.
So, using your method, what markup do you think we should use for "traffic accidents not requiring hospitalization?" So far, I've been in four accidents. I've never required so much as a band-aid, so I think I'll just arbitrarily say you're dealing with a number more like 30,000--again, just for London. So, the UK being about 60M people, London only being about 8M of them, that's a rough per 352:100k, so nationally, we need to up it to about 211,200. There. That's better.
Because David Cameron is such an evasive little rat, it's hard to point at any one thing to disagree with him on, and I didn't before I saw this. Personally, I only care about 4 political issues, Copyright, "Extreme Pornography", Weed and ID cards. He has now concretely shown himself to be opposed to the Slashdotter*, and as a constituent of his (Whitney, Oxfordshire) I now have a reason to vote, and encourage others to do the same.
Andy
*(Can an Anonymous Coward consider themselves a Slashdotter?)
Keep finding excuses for the filthy addiction that smoking is.
Two wrongs don't make a good; a bigger evil does not justify a lesser one.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
People that do not have the most basic decency to respect others should be constrained to their own home, where they can kill themselves and their "loved" ones (what kind of love is that?) at their own pleasure.
The ridiculous argument that there should be smoking only places would mean you have to discriminate against non smoking workers, since you could not hire them to serve in a smoking place. This clearly is not possible in a modern society.
Smokers, and people defending their "freedom" (freedom to do what exactly? Kill others?) show the typical signs of addiction: denial and wanting more of the same that is killing them, disregarding the consequences. I do not think a modern society should submit to the desires of such groups of people.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Or in my clothes.
It is now a lifestyle choice. Is health and life preservation.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Trying to go to eat or drink in Barcelona is a complete pain.
Full of cigarette smoke, filthy and stinky.
Now that smoking is banned in the UK and Ireland, many tourist places in Spain will find that people claiming their lungs back will not look kindly at the high tolerance of the filthy addiction.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
http://www.davidcameronmp.com/
From there:
"
David is always keen to hear from his constituents and will gladly respond to any concerns that you wish to raise.
Write to:
David Cameron M.P., House of Commons, Westminster, London, SW1A 0AA
Telephone:
020 7219 3475 and 0207 219 1945
Fax:
0207 219 1506
Email:
camerond@parliament.uk
"
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I guess he only cares about votes (what kind of non-principled politician would not be?) so how does this make him more electable?
If you are an average male geek, avoid reading this organisation's name aloud, especially if you are in front of an audience of respectable members of society.
Sounds like I won't be voting for him then.
Not that I was planning on voting anyway.