Wetherspoon pubs to ban smoking

This is how smoking bans should be – driven by the economy, not Governmental edict. This is a very brave decision for Wetherspoons to take, but I think it will improve their sales in the long term. If given the choice, I’d always eat in a no-smoking place, so certainly that plank of their business shouldn’t be harmed, and could be improved. And I don’t think the boozy side will be particularly hit either, personally.

Hopefully, this will encourage others to follow, and we’ll have a naturally introduced smoking ban, just as I’ve often suggested. And then I’ll be happy.

Springer opera is offensive, says Springer

What a bizarre story. Jerry Springer doesn’t like Jerry Springer: The Opera. So why the heck did he stick his name on it?

The fact that he uses the word “don’t” may possibly suggest that he’s on the defensive, don’t you think? My favourite quote, though:

I don’t make religious jokes…
I don’t know if they should have had it on television but, good Lord, if you don’t like what’s on television, that’s why God gave us remote controls.

But I must thank Jerry for clearing up a huge point of confusion:

I don’t own the BBC

As I say, this is the one of the most bizarre interviews I’ve ever read.

Firefox heads for five per cent share

This is a good thing. Microsoft has been stationary and unimaginative since it beat Netscape into submission. A bit of competition from Firefox might make them innovate once again – and maybe even consider building a secure browser.

Firefox is a brilliant browser, and I do use it from time to time. But unfortunately some sites I use require Active X controls, and I’m far too lazy to use different browsers for different sites. So I would urge the sites that require Active X to updated themselves, and really open up the competition.

The Death of Yesterday (Observer)

This is a fascinating read about a man who has an extremely short memory, and his relationship with his wife. Well worth a click.

Flu feared more than terror attack (Guardian)

Oh how I love saying ‘I told you so’. You heard it on this site back on Saturday, both here and here.

Does this mean that it was an exclusive?

‘Sometimes it’s impossible to stay totally objective, as the tsunami showed’ (Independent)

As much as I respect what Sky News were doing for their audience, it does seem strange for a reported who was in Phuket to defend editorial decisions that were, presumably, taken at HQ in London.

The head of BBC News 24, Rachel Attwell, said that Sky News concentrated its effort in Thailand because it is where the tourists were missing. It’s true that Sky had two full teams and satellite systems in Thailand, but given that it was the scene of the largest number of British deaths in peacetime since the Second World War, the move was perhaps understandable.

I think it was wrong for Rachel Attwell to go after Sky on this one. Sky have a different audience who want different, arguably parochial, coverage. And Sky do very well providing it. If these two different news channels could just concentrate on their audiences and stop the bitching, perhaps both of them would improve.

This should be ridiculous, and completely unfunny. Particularly as it’s not really made of genuine homophones, the words sounding different to the originals. But for some reason I can’t quite put my finger on, it’s hilarious.

Is this the rear wife?
Is this just Pharisee?
Cortina landslide,
fire escape from reality.

Opener ice,
loo cup to the skies and see…

The moral minority (Guardian)

An interview with Stephen Green, director of Christian Voice, on the subject of his crusade to stop this ‘tidal wave of filth’ and Jerry Springer: The Opera.

I’ve not chuckled to myself for this long in ages.

“Nobody can deny that the last 50 years of legislation have turned us away from the laws of God. We say that God knows best and if we go away from God we’re going to bring judgment upon ourselves.” What kind of judgment? “Read Deuteronomy 28 – that tells you.” Deuteronomy 28 says many things. Verse 17, for example, says that if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees, “your basket and your kneading trough will be cursed” – not something that would compel many 21st- century sinners to adhere to the straight and narrow.

Perhaps Mr Green isn’t as familiar with The Bible as he claims?

How many members do they have? “We’re bigger than David’s band, but not as big as Biblical armies,” says Green, gnomically … According to 1 Samuel 29:6, David, the future king of Israel, had a 600-strong band of followers, though their leader was not, as the Christian Voice is, based in Surbiton.

It surprises me that this group has more than 600 members. Who are these people?

The website also complains that Britain has “abolished the death penalty but legalised the murder of children in the womb, enacted no-fault divorce on demand and forced mothers out to work, legalised trading on the Lord’s day and instituted a national lottery, legalised pornography and homosexual acts and taught evil to our children in school, and given away the Queen’s sovereignty – owed to Almighty God alone – to the EU …

The spur for Christian Voice’s establishment was Edwina Currie’s 1994 amendment to reduce the age of consent for gay sex to 16, the same as for heterosexual sex.

He should be a Daily Mail columnist! Or maybe he is Melanie Philips in disguise!

New kid on the newsstand (Observer)

The only magazine I read on a regular basis (I am, in fact, a subscriber), is not Nuts. I cannot imagine why any self-respecting male would want to read that magazine. I would be embarrassed to be seen glancing at it on the newsstand, let alone buying it and reading it. It makes me ashamed to be one of the males of the species. If, indeed, I am the same species as the people who read this junk. I suppose it’s not really that junky, if you’re into that kind of thing… But I’m not.

Nor is it GQ. I don’t have the same level of aversion to GQ as I do to some of the other ‘male’ magazines, but I still don’t read it. But I wouldn’t think any less of someone who did, because I’m sure it’s something interesting to read when you want to give your brain a rest.

So now we’ve established that this post has, essentially, nothing to do with the article it’s linked to, I can tell you that the only magazine I read on a regular basis is The Week, which I thoroughly enjoy reading on a, erm, weekly basis. I suppose I also read the Student BMJ, but I’m not sure that counts as a magazine in this context. If I ever read anything else (which is a rare occurence), it’s generally either Word, or very occasionally one of the cheap computer mags (ComputerActive, WebActive, or Web User).

So there you have it.

Howard raises fears of race riots
Last week, things were beginning to look good for Mr Howard. He was looking good, making sensible pledges, and Labour were in self-destruct mode. If only he’d continued in that style, he could easily have made a significant dint in the election results.

And then he goes and says something like this. Why? He’s gone into self-destruct mode himself! I don’t know who he’s trying to appeal to with this announcement (other than the winner of ITV’s Vote for Me), but these terrible proposals are just draconian and unnecessary. There’s nothing logical about quotas.

A quota would also be slapped on how many refugee seekers Britain is prepared to take, and once the limit was reached even those with genuine claims of persecution would be rejected

With everything that is going on in the world, Mr Howard wants to turn the genuinely desperate away from Britain’s door. That isn’t just bad electioneering, it’s just wrong.

The Tory leader’s decision to go on the offensive over asylum and immigration – with a newspaper advert today listing his beliefs about immigration, claiming that Britain has ‘reached a turning point’ and only his party has the ‘courage to act’ – will inevitably bring charges of playing the race card.

There’s no need to ‘accuse’ Mr Howard of playing a race card here. He’s effectively saying ‘I don’t want so many foreigners in our country’. And it’s a sick thing to say. Particularly for the son of Romanian immigrants.

And if he’s trying to reach the Daily Mail readers, I think he’ll find that they have a new minority group to incite hatred against of late: Gypsies.

Making people apply for asylum from their home countries is one of the most ludicrous suggestions I’ve heard from Mr Howard. Just imagine that there are people coming after you, trying to kill you, and you genuinely fear that you’re not going to see another day. No longer will you be able to fly to England, and be assured of help in your time of desperation. Instead, you are expected to sit in your home and fill in forms, send them off, and wait for a response. That just is not practical in the situation.

I understand that it can be perceived that there is a problem with immigration in this country, with the rate being rather higher than the ideal. I’m not a great believer in this. I think that the main problem with immigration and asylum in this country is that we don’t help the people seeking immigration or asylum enough, so they end up feeling isolated and not a part of the community. If Mr Howard wants to restrict immigration slightly in order than more GBP per person can be spent on extra help for these people, then I think that this could be a positive move. But I’m more confident that Mr Howard proposes to use the ‘savings’ from this policy to cut tax.

Quotas on asylum are definitely not the answer. If Michael Howard genuinely beleives there is a problem with the number of new citizens entering our country (a problem which I’m not convinced exists at the moment), then by all means restict immigration if you must, but please don’t stop helping genuine refugees.