"Give us your tobacco" demand gets "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!" reply.

Two little words. With these two words, two concepts were verbalized that have lived for nearly two and a half Millennia. They signify and characterize both the heart of the Warrior, and the indomitable spirit of mankind. From the ancient Greek, they are the reply of the Spartan General-King Leonidas to Xerxes, the Persian Emperor who came with 600,000 of the fiercest fighting troops in the world to conquer and invade little Greece, then the center and birthplace of civilization as we know it. When Xerxes offered to spare the lives of Leonidas, his 300 personal bodyguards and a handful of Thebans and others who volunteered to defend their country, if they would lay down their arms, Leonidas shouted these two words back ...  ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! (Molon Labe) They mean  “Come and get them!”

Today we echo those words in defiance of the Governments new stategy on tobacco control. The UKBA are to implement reduced guidelines on cigarettes and tobacco bought legally in the EU. Simon reports it here and the Guardian here. They will announce that the guideline of 3200 cigarettes will be reduced to 800 cigarettes and tobacco guideline amounts to be 1kg from 3kg.

Firstly it has nothing to do with duty free, it's about EU duty paid goods. Duty free remains the same as it has for years and applies to non EU purchases. MSM can't even get that right and you'll note that comments are not enabled on the Guardian article so people like us cannot inform the public as to their rights.One would thing the MSM are working for the UKBA!

Guidelines are simply guidelines and nothing more. You still have the same rights to purchase as much as you like for personal use .... this has not changed! Don't be intimidated by them!

So folks, don't let the UKBA get away with this. Stand up for your rights and fight them but make sure you are prepared for the fight and be prepared! 

Let the UKBA know the meaning of "ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! "


  1. ffs! you expect the MSM to get it wrong but 'the voice and friend of the smoker' certainly shouldnt. Who's side is he on ffs?

  2. did you notice in the Guardian it said "Tobacco sales nevertheless generate £8.8bn in tax each year for Treasury coffers." Last year they were quoting £10bn... so the tax went up and we denied them of another £1.2bn... they never learn those lessons to be learned do they?

  3. @Shinar

    That is the spirit we should have but the majority just squeak. Look at comments on Simons site and already they are squeaking. Makes me sick.

  4. "I'll give you my baccy when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"

  5. This really has nothing to do with 'duty free'. I assume that they are thinking of revising the MILs down to their 2002 levels. Doesn't really effect us, just means a whole lot more innocent and honest peoples will have their cars seized.

    The smugglers and counterfeiters must be rubbing their hands in glee!

    Simon's response was its usual 'needs crutches to get it off the page' lameness. He should be calling for a boycott of all UK ciggy purchases. Voice of the smoker? Don't make me , you'll only start me coughing! A more accurate slogan would be 'Voice Of Those Who Are Very Very Sorry That They Smoke and Enjoy Being Whipped....and Please Sir can we have some more?'.

  6. Check out the Guardian story again: " • The headline and caption on this article were amended on Wednesday 27 April 2011 to remove references to duty-free tobacco allowances."


    oh and "The Tobacco Manufacturers Association said it would not oppose the reduced guideline limits" which tells you why Simon's response was
    so weak.

  7. SBC ... love it! ... pity they didn't give us the credit! Wonder if Simon will change his headline?

    For some reason l can't post on Simon's site at the moment? :(

  8. Hah ... Simon now changed his headline too!

    I still can't post there though. :(

  9. @ SH I couldn't either the other day so I don't bother reading there anymore unless someone links to something. I suspect he's stopped his "more determined friends" commenting.

  10. Posts working again at Simon's. Squeaking is alive and well ... bah!

  11. Not just squeakings but people like 'Doug' proclaiming that these 'guidelines' are good, wholesome, full of vitamins and will give a shiny coat...or something like that. Apparently he suffers under the delusion that bringing back only the MIL or below ensures a trouble free passage and the UKBA will merrily wave anyone with 1 kg of baccy through with a cheery smile and a salute.

  12. SH asks Simon:-

    "So Simon, what's your advice to EU shoppers now?

    Keep within these new guidelines or ignore them?"

    Simon remains mute!

    That Doug has the logic of a 5yr old. He honestly believes that if you keep to these new guidelines you can make as many trips as you want and Customs will leave you alone! What a plonker.

  13. Nobody will take my tobacco off me. I will bring into the U.K. as many packs of tobacco that I want.
    I DO NOT have to prove that the goods are for my own personal use. THEY have to prove that it IS NOT.
    Bollocks to them is all I have to say.

  14. TJB, "Simon remains mute! "

    Give credit where it is due: Simon BRAVELY described the government's intentions as 'Shocking'. He will no doubt get a severe spanking from Big Tobacco for that.

    What a tower of strength and example that man is to us all!

    I mean come on, what do you expect of him more in his self appointed role as 'Voice Of The Smoker'?

  15. @ Anon 18:19

    Thing is that they DON'T have to prove anything. They can simply assume/assert. IF they even just needed 'reasonable cause' then there would be none of the problems.

  16. What irks me about the Forest site is this. Simon is only interested in certain people and only has any real time for them. He rarely responds to comments on his site, except when he perceives he’s been slighted. He has never taken criticism without getting his sphincter twisted.

    Anthony Worrall Thompson (master baker of cakes or is that masturbator) is a patron of Forest, yet when was the last time you heard him speak about the smoking ban, which of course will affect his business. This man with a wad of cotton wool in his mouth, is in an ideal position to speak up (or is that muffle up) on our behalf, but never does.

    I’m also bored with Forest not being more pro-active when dealing with this issue; instead we get Clark trumpeting his forays around the globe and telling us about the people he knows, his constant name dropping pisses me off.

    He spends too much time enjoying himself, and not enough time fighting for the rights of smokers.
    We need someone with balls – not some junket-hopper on his own personal merry-go-round!

    I'd like to know how much he gets paid for what he does.

  17. 800 fags wouldnt last me and my mrs a month. She carn't travel so l get the fags. lf the goonies try and take mine then they're in for a scrap. TBH even if they did stop us Brits bringing in fags l'd never buy them from the shops. l'd buy from whitevanman cos the real criminals are the government. cnuts!

  18. "Tax-hungry politicians and anti-tobacco zealots, who see confiscatory taxes as a tool in their moral crusade against tobacco, only benefits count. For them, the costs of their agenda are irrelevant or secondary at best. And, as novelist C.S. Lewis put it, "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

  19. SH: You're wrong here, I hate to say. Yes, you're entirely correct to point out that these are just guidelines, and that they are unenforceable. You do a fantastic job in that and I hope you continue to do so, both here and at Taking Liberties where your common sense shines out in the comments. I'm sure it is very much enlightening for the huge number of Forest supporters who don't ever take the trouble to comment.

    And there are a hell of a lot of them, so please keep banging out the message. It WILL be noticed.

    But the sniping at Simon Clark is a trifle misguided if you don't mind me saying. You must surely know that in any campaign there are differing levels of involvement and a myriad ways of skinning the proverbial cat.

    Clark is very much restricted on what he can say or do. He is a PR man funded by a tobacco industry which, in turn, is completely stuffed by gagging from HMG and the EU. He is forced to tread on eggshells every day. All he can do is raise awareness of issues concerning tobacco and get them out in the open where the MSM doesn't alow them to be. In that, I think he does a great job.

    The day trip to the continent idea was a non-starter on any number of levels. Unless, of course, the idea was to destroy Forest entirely, and with it a massive dose of pro-smoker publicity.

    Seriously, sometimes we need to look at the bigger picture. We all have roles to play, but Forest is never going to be a panacea for getting the anti-smoker rhetoric dulled. It's just one line of attack, and one which has a few very influential people to call upon at times. For instance, when was the last time any one of US managed to get questions asked in parliament, or a Westminster Hall debate called?

    If you want someone to vent anger on for the problems we have, I'd say that the lethargy of over 10 million smokers themselves is a force which has badly let itself down. One man - a non-smoker himself, of course - doing his best despite strict rules on what he can and cannot do or say, is the least of our problems.

    I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'm a realist.

    BTW, don't bother with that new supermarket at Adinkerke just under the roundabout - went there Sunday and it's about 10% or more pricier than Real Tobacco (and I don't shop around). ;)

  20. Dropping the guidelines from 3200 to 800 has no effect on those buying more than 3200, they were over the guidelines anyway. Their chances of winning are unaffected.

    It has no effect on those buying 1000 or less, of course.

    The only people affected are those carrying 1000 to 3200. Who are these people?

    They're not bloody smugglers, are they? Organised Crime? Mr Big?

    This move is blatantly aimed at discouraging small-time personal shoppers. It is a trade barrier. Protectionism. Nothing to do with smuggling.

    Anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar or a fool. Anyone. No exceptions.

  21. @ Dick

    "He is a PR man funded by a tobacco industry"

    E X A C T L Y. That's the problem,right there. He is as the mouthpiece of Big Tobacco NOT 'the voice of the Smoker' no matter how much he claims he is.

  22. Shinar: Yes, I understand your point but ... would you prefer NOT to have that pro-smoker voice? I know *I* wouldn't.

    He's either funded by the tobacco industry and says a lot, and has influence with many influential people, albeit not as radical as you would like. Or he doesn't say anything at all.

    As opposed to nothing at all, I think I prefer something whether we agree entirely or not.

    And let's get this straight. If the tobacco industry isn't funding Forest, who exactly is going to be the 'voice of the smoker'?

    Would they have funds to schmooze politicians (come on, this is the game that has to be played, sadly) and open doors which aren't unlocked to you and me? No, of course not.

    Would they be able to hold debates at party conferences and think tanks? No, course not.

    Criticise Forest by all means, but without them smokers would be truly fucked. And quite rightly too, since most of them can't be arsed to stand up for themselves.

    Sorry, but it's the truth. Lay the blame where it belongs. Apathy.

  23. @ Dick

    l mistakenly took FOREST at face value and acted in my view accordingly to that belief. lf Simon had pm'd me and informed me of the situation l would not have put him on the spot.Would that have been so difficult for him to do given l'd extended him that courtesy?
    l had recently pm'd him regarding an article that almost certainly would have brought him grief from ASH, MSM etc. The said article was removed.

    l don't think l've ever sniped at him but l have prodded him to respond. Sniping is "Nothing2Declare is unique – a single issue within a single issue group!"

    l shall now leave him in peace. By peace, l mean l shall no longer put him on the spot but will continue to pull him up on anything not factual or correct.

    However, l do not moderate the comments on this site and people are free to post what they think and believe. l shall not change this.

    lt is sad that smokers have no mainstream smokers site where there is no gagging or restrictions. Our enemies like ASH have no such limitations. Perhaps Phillip Morris will open a UK site like the Aussie one but even there l sense moderation.

    We are indeed the "Few who stand against many" ... but for how long?

  24. @ Dick

    " would you prefer NOT to have that pro-smoker voice? I know *I* wouldn't"

    I would agree with you if we, or maybe I should say 'I', the Smoker(s)didn't already have a creditable voice or rather voices.

    And who are these voices I speak of?

    Why Good Sir Dick, have you not realized that you yourself are just such a voice? You, and the Knights of The Blogosphere have become my Voice and the voice of many many 'apathetic' smokers (btw we're not apathetic just poor and weary). People like yourself, like SH, Zaphod, Legiron, Frank D, Dave, Angry Ex et al and even,yes, UKIP's Poster Girl Pat (who i GENUINELY admire greatly...her strangely heart warming trust in politicians aside).

    You and your fellows have arguable achieved far more than Forest has.

    Infact could someone please just remind me of what FOREST has actually achieved....I seem to have forgotten.

    For example, and it really is a minor example, SH helping others with their appeals or your own offer to your workforce after the Budget.

    Why did Simon not take the opportunity and bring back a car full of baccy for all his smoking friends on coming back from Switzerland? Maybe had a journalist accompany him through Customs? Would have timed nicely with today's 'shocking' announcement.

  25. SH is going to be in demand a lot more now seeing as the limit is 4 cartons. Sure as hell Customs will take your cigarettes off you if you have 5 cartons and then make a mistake answering their loaded questions.

    SH helped me with Customs and anyone who asks me about Customs l give his site. No way would l send them anywhere else.

  26. Zaphod, don't you mean 800 not 1000? :0)

  27. SH – I’m deeply ashamed at my own rottenness. My earlier comment about dear, dear Simon was thoroughly unforgivable. I’m sitting now in a darkened room in one corner sobbing almost (not quite) hysterically. You should see me sniff, sniff sniffle. Wait one moment while I blow my nose. Ah, that’s better SH.

    Why was I so beastly, beastly I tell you…to that scrumptious Simon Clark…sniff sniff. Oh no I’ve just blown this most enormous bubble from my nose – how horrid! You see I only wanted to have the smallest of pops at the man with the big shiny head. Oh, god what have I done…why didn’t somebody stop me? Why oh why? Blub blub blubbety blub…why can’t I stop blubbing SH?

    To make matters worse he must have sent one of his little helpers wearing his very bestest topper to chastise us all…and you, you brute in particular. Well I must say, you were the first you know…so there! I didn’t get started till later on. In fact you can ask Beatrice my next door neighbour…she really hates this sort of thing…she really does you know.

    Anyway – shall I send him some flowers to make up…or what about a big hug and perhaps a gentle out of sight fondle? There won’t be anything sexual in it – I promise

    You must proclaim your forgiveness of me SH, and it must be long and loud. I’m in a pit of despair right now SH. Say you’ll forgive me. Oh no! But you must, you must…how bitterly cruel of you. Listen, I’m running out of tissues…will you ask Simon to bring some for me?

    Jesus – give me fucking strength!

  28. Dick, what's the point of having the voice and friend of the smoker when he's gagged. Not much of a fucking voice is it?

  29. SH, you are a cad sir. Keep it up, wonderful stuff!

  30. JJ, dont worry bout Simon cos he's all excited with the Royal Wedding

  31. Shinar: "Why Good Sir Dick, have you not realized that you yourself are just such a voice?"

    An extremely tiny one, more's the pity, and that's exactly my point. Simon has the readership and contacts that I could only dream of. I know about three MPs on first name terms, if that. He has about 50. We can rant and scream all we like, but only by getting something across to legislators is there any chance of stemming this quite ludicrous tide.

    Yes, we can do our best, but the MSM routinely ignores the blogosphere but (occasionally) listens to Forest. By dissing Simon, and denying his weight of comment as useless, we are effectively cutting the proverbial nose off.

    Like I said, a campaign takes many forms, and many different attacks. And, sorry, Simon's is the most direct and most economically advantageous to smokers - it's free, after all.

    JJ: Don't start me, I'm welling up, so I am. Lucky I was 'sent' here, isn't it? (and if you really believe that, then ... err ... go fuck yourself) ;)

  32. Anon: "Dick, what's the point of having the voice and friend of the smoker when he's gagged. Not much of a fucking voice is it?"

    There are many you could blame for that. The EU, ASH, CRUK, even research universities, but certainly not Simon Clark.

    Play the hand we have and stop looking gift horses in the mouth FFS.

  33. We've been here before with these guidelines. l've been purchasing my cigarettes from the EU for about 20 years now. Back then l bought for myself and my partner at that time. Amounts varied as to various criteria but ranged from 50 cartons to 100 cartons. Taking the 100 cartons would be 6.25 times the current guideline of 3200, yet with the old guidelines that would be 25 times the guideline of 800.

    l've been stopped and searched, interviewed for having 25 times the guidelines and still brought them home. This has happened on more than one occasion and l've never had them confiscated. ln fact, l've never had a warning letter either. lt's all a matter of knowing your rights,the law and how to apply it.

  34. @ Dick

    As I sit here in the pub after a fine meal, contently blowing smoke contently blowing smoke rings out of the well ventilated 'Smoking' area into the faces of the Non Smokers before enjoying yet another very-fair-duty paid-uk-bought cigarette in my car while driving home with the wife and my kids (whom Social Services would never dream of taking from me simply because I'm a smoker) I *do* have to ponder WHAT HAS FOREST ACTUALLY ACHIEVED in all the years...

    What good has knowing 50 MP's on first name terms done? Hovercraft, Daytripper and, god help me, the SUPER SOAR AWAY SUN have probably achieved more. Simply compare the Forest UK and the Forest Eire sites, that says it all.

  35. One cannot comprehend how FOREST make such basic errors on factual issues they should be full conversant with. lt damages their credibility.

    Taking Liberties led the article on the new stategy on tobacco control with 'Guidlines to be cut on duty-free cigarettes'. Mr Clark was informed in the comments that it was not duty-free but EU duty-paid. The headline was then duly changed as was the incorrect Guardian headline.

    The FOREST team then publish their article on the same subject and get another aspect wrong, again corrected in the comments and l quote :

    " "The number of cigarettes smokers may bring back from Europe without attracting questions from Customs officials is to be cut by more than two-thirds."

    Sorry, but that is incorrect. UKBA say you are more likely to be asked questions if the amount you bring in is above the guidelines ... it does NOT say you won't be asked questions. People have had their goods confiscated even though they have the guideline amount or even below it. This happened when we had the guidelines of 800 cigarettes and 1kg of tobacco and will happen again.

    The guidelines are NOT a guaranteed amount you can bring in."

    By publicising basic factual errors like these, Mr Clark and FOREST invite criticism and one should not afford any blame on those who do so. lt is self-inflicted.

    Smoking Hot should be complimented on his actions, not criticised.

  36. In Australia you are entitled to bring in 250gm.
    of tobacco or the equivalent in sigarettes!!!!!!
    also we pay $36 dollars for 40gm.of pipe tobacco.
    you LUCKY POMMY !!!!

  37. Prick Piddlecunt

    Whats the matter lost your sense of humour arsehole and you can go and...err...FUCK YOURSELF!

  38. JJ: Splutter! Did you not see the winky? That's kinda accepted as a sign in most places that someone is planting their tongue firmly in their cheek. I think it's you who has forgotten the humour, mate. Chill out, FFS, you posted a comment having a pop at me which I took entirely as humour, I replied in kind. Heat and kitchens and all that. Good grief. ;)

  39. "lt's all a matter of knowing your rights,the law and how to apply it"

    This is why you are so valuable, SH. I wish more people read here as I know I was forearmed on my recent trip to Belgium, even if I was only buying a meagre amount by comparison. Keep banging that drum, fella, it's great stuff.

    I just think you're asking too much of Simon all things considered. Sadly, Forest can't do too much in this area for many reasons, and one of them is that they would rapidly lose influence if they began making enemies in government. We have few enough allies without pissing off those who are sympathetic. It's a political thing.

  40. Shinar: "What good has knowing 50 MP's on first name terms done? Hovercraft, Daytripper and, god help me, the SUPER SOAR AWAY SUN have probably achieved more."

    In the area of cross-border trade, you may be right (or not, I'm not an expert). But I'm pretty sure that without Forest we would probably be a lot worse off in general. I'm struggling to understand the logic that says an ally is somehow not worth having. Personally, I applaud anyone who dares to challenge these hideous bastards and offer a contrary view to the consensus that smoking is an evil on a par with apocalyptic visions from Revelation.

    For a start, those 50 MPs managed to get a 10 minute rule bill heard in October. If you could point to anyone else able to do such a thing I'd happily recant all the above.

    All we can do is continue to point to the fact that many smokers very much enjoy tobacco. Forest do this admirably IMHO. They could do so more forcefully, but in doing so there would be the danger of alienating politicians and losing the funding for doing anything at all.

    Whether we like it or not, all campaigns must nod to politics, and such things are a very long game. Someone once told me - just after the smoking ban had been enacted - that we had 10 months to reverse it. I remember being shocked that anyone would be so naive to believe that was possible. Tobacco control took 50 years and many billions of dollars to get to where they are now.

    As I said earlier, people power is our biggest asset, and smokers are too lethargic to do anything. 12 million turning up in London would make a difference, but you'd be lucky to get more than 100.

    At least Forest are doing something, so why are they being shot at? Haven't we enough enemies who are more deserving?

  41. @ Dick

    " I'm struggling to understand the logic that says an ally is somehow not worth having"

    I agree...thing is...I'm beginning to question whether Simon *is* an ally and I'm probably not alone in that (in fact I know I'm not).

    Maybe the tinfoil around my head is getting porous but your (and Pat's) defence of Simon has the same ring as a primeministerial 'the minster has my full confidence'

    [For those not up on political-speak that means the minister will be getting to spend a lot more time with his family in the very near future].

    Now excuse me please, I have to go recharge my Black Helicopter detector.

  42. I find it hard to understand why Simon isn’t more interactive. He doesn’t provide any feed back about his thoughts on a whole host of tobacco related issues. For instance on his own site there is virtually no feed back whatsoever to the many contributions that commenters make. Why does he not give his own thoughts rather than just respond to criticism that comes his way. Is he that busy – isn’t that part of his PR?

    He seemingly never leaves comments on other blogs to give his opinion about how the issue is progressing, he seems too aloof. He needs to take a more active interest rather than remain steadfastly passive.

    I believe the whole remit of Forest needs to be broadened to include a wider and more proactive agenda, I simply don’t think its enough to simply tread water on this issue anymore. It’s been four long years since the ban was enacted, who can honestly say we’ve made substantial progress. The ten minute rule bill recently introduced by Brian Binley, who’s to say this wouldn’t have happened anyway with or without Forest, I honestly believe it would have come about irrespective of Forest. Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who wrote to me in 2009, has I’m assured had a very active input into the ten minute rule bill.

    His letter was well informed and raised many salient points. He was only too well aware of the might and virulence of the anti-tobacco control lobby. But Forest needs to broaden its influence. What about getting in touch with our Dutch counter-parts about organizing a rally in London and gaining media exposure. I had suggested to Colin Grainger of Freedom2Choose some time ago, a couple of things to gain media exposure, but nothing came of it.

    Many of us have tried in our own small way to take things forward, but it’s like wallowing in mud – just sinking and getting nowhere, and Forest simply hiding behind the veil of ‘well we have to watch our step because of the tobacco companies withdrawing our funding’ just doesn’t cut it anymore.

    Is Forest a client of a PR company which can raise its profile and create a stronger media presence? We have to make progress and be seen to be making progress.

    I just don’t want to be sitting here in four years time more isolated than I am already, and many of us are angry at our social exclusion that this issue has condemned us to.

    Things have to change - we have somehow to go on the attack.

  43. Ooh - SBC - how lovely to be called a Poster Girl at my age.

    The bottom line of why I shout UKIP is this ; The only way the Govt is going to listen to us and act is if they really, really fear that they will lose the next election.

    If the Libertarians caused as much fear in the LibLabCon as UKIP is doing, and was as big as UKIP, then that would get my support.

    As one little person with no power, I honestly can't see what else I can do. Writing blog posts is one thing but who the fuck is listening to that except other unhappy smokers in the same boat while the antis with the all the power, money, and influence wet their knickers with laugher at our impotence.

  44. Don't be unhappy Pat ... us rebellious ones get right up the righteous noses ... with smoke too preferably!

    Enjoy the fact that you really piss them off!

  45. Pat, I'm sure your physical beauty reflects merely the beauty of your writing....or to put it in terms that the average UKIP supporter would understand it 'yer a bit of finkin man's crumpet'! :P

  46. I've got a whole lot of respect for Dick Puddlecote, (Hi, Dick!), so I'm not gonna say anything else critical of Simon.

    For now.

    But I'm not impressed.


  47. JJ me and Pat are on the attack, and the word is UKIP, it maybe a long hard slog standing for election etc, but having been involved in fighting the smoking ban since 2006, I have realised there is no other way than UKIP, with the disaster of Lib/Lab/Cons UKIP are in ideal position for the next election.
    PS High Dick and Pat

  48. UKIP-
    I've always voted Tory. I don't actually like tories, but I think capitalism works rather well, so I support it.

    The erosion of freedom that's happened in recent years, has appalled me. The new Government was going to do something about it, but they've developed a taste for control too.

    I'd like to vote Libertarian, but LPUK has a disturbing inability to choose a reputable leader.

    I do have some problems with UKIP's philosophy, but they are definitely getting my vote in future. They should hang on to Nigel F, he's a real asset.

  49. @ Zaphod

    *MS Paper Clip Voice*

    It seems you have mispelt ' They should hang on to Nigel F, he's a real asset.'

    It should read 'They should hang Nigel F, he's a real ass'.

    No, no , don't thank me. Just doing my job.


    Ok seriously though, despite Pat's (the page 3 girl of the UKIP manifesto) best efforts, even if I were foolish enough to believe a politician's promises and even vote then it wouldn't be for UKIP. Their Smoking Policy aside there is nothing I agree with them on.

  50. @ShinarsBC,
    I know, UKIP=BNPlite? I'd have to hold my nose. But the smoking thing has become a bit of an issue with me.

    The EU, which I wasn't ever keen on, has turned out to be unbelievably undemocratic and unashamedly corrupt. Nobody but UKIP shouts about it. It's not a trivial matter.

    I can't ever vote Lib, Lab, or Green. This bunch of Tories are a big disappointment.

    This is no place to argue politics, but I like Nigel F's style. I don't think I'd like his grass-roots members. I don't want UKIP to win, just to remind the Tories that they're not tax-n-spend controlling Socialists.

    Now lets discuss religion, I'll alienate some more of SH's readers?

  51. Zaphod, don't get me started on religion...just don't. Weapons grade tinfoil hat time. I'm the sort of religious extremist who gives religious extremists a bad name.



"In the eyes of the Tribunal the review letter contained several preconceptions, prejudgments and non-sequiturs"

"the absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it"

"We therefore find that Mr Sked misdirected himself as to the Policy in carrying out the review and his decision is therefore one that no reasonable review officer could have arrived at."

... commonly known here at N2D as 'Skeds' ... that is to say these are Judges comments regarding UKBA Review Officer Ian Sked's reasons for rejecting peoples appeals against seizures.

Comments are now moderated to keep out spam and those with malicious intent. The author of this blog is not liable for the content of any comments ... period!