'Someone should write an article about the glut of garden gnomes causing the UK to sink into the North Sea and cite this thread, and ask people how to solve the problem.'

Thanks for leaving the article open for me? Anyways, I have to agree with Canary here. You claimed that crime rates in Britain are up due to illegal immigrants and that enforcing illegal immigrant laws instead of minor laws such as smoking in non smoking places can reduce the crime rate so in reality we did not deviate from the topic, we were dead on if anything.

You have not provided any proof of your claims and I did a little bit of research and could not find any that suggested that high crime rates in Britain are related to the illegal immigration problem. But then I am not as good as some around here finding this stuff, but I should have found at least something, which I didn't.

I don't understand you. You are complaining that Britain is enforcing a law and punishing the law breaker with the punishment set for this crime. I have never heard of such a thing. People are constantly decrying that the laws here in the US are not being enforced all the time. Lets apply you logic here in the US.

Do you think that cops are not stopping people who break speed limit laws? I mean even though thousands of people get pulled over and fined for speed every day, I still see no change in the way people drive. They way I see it for every 1 person I see not exceeding the speed limit there are 20 cars that are. Do you think cops are not enforcing murder laws considering that murder rates are still too high in this country? What about rapist, thieves, drug dealer, etc.? All these people are arrested all the time, many are convicted, many are incarcerated, some are even sentenced to death; yet these crimes still happen, the rates are still too high. The same goes for illegal immigration except there are some laws not being enforced because they are conflicting with human right laws in the US.

Should a person be arrested for panhandling? Loitering? Driving 3 miles above the speed limit? Not using a seat belt? Not paying a ticket? Of course not, I don't think so. These are petty crimes, a fine is good enough, but there are States, Counties, Cities, Towns and countries where people are arrested for this. And if there is a law for these simply crimes with a punishment as harsh as an arrest not being enforced, how will I believe they will enforce other laws?

'You claimed that crime rates in Britain are up due to ...'

Thanks for your support, CharlesCS1, you make some salient points.

I would add only this. Before adnauseam starts postulating as to the causes of high and / or rising crime rates in the UK, he should demonstrate that this actually is the case. How high is 'high'? High compared to when and / or where? So far, he hasn't done so, which makes his argument entirely moot.

'Ok, I'll leave it open --for Furry Canary and CharlesSC1 --if you like.'

That's not what I suggested. What I said was this (pertinent passage underlined):

'But rather than getting shirty and storming off in a huff, why not just - gasp - leave the thread open and actually present evidence to support your position? (If you can find any, of course!)'

There is absolutely no point in our continuing to post on this thread unless you supply some corroboration for your initial position. Until you do, your arguments are entirely baseless. And unless you do, it is quite proper for me to infer that your position is based on personal prejudice and a lack of reason. So, come on adnauseam, pursue one of the three courses of action available to you:
1) Present some hard evidence to support your position;
2) Retract your claims; or
3) Admit that your position is based on personal biases, not objective data.

'Sounds to me like your problem is with black people, not smoking laws.'
Doesn't it just?

It's interesting that adnauseam has elected not to respond to my invitation to explain the basis for his position. Sometimes, to quote Murray Head, 'Silence is a strong reply'.

Let me just say that it is incredibly rude and ill-mannered to continue baiting a blogger on his own blog, especially after he has closed a thread. Whether I am right or wrong does not matter. What you are doing is contrary to Joeuser's rules and contrary to blog etiquette anywhere.

Why don't you take your incredibly arrogant attitude, your university halo and your self-opiniated grin to another JU place.

'Let me just say that it is incredibly rude and ill-mannered to continue baiting a blogger on his own blog, especially after he has closed a thread.'

For the umpteenth time, adnauseam, the thread is NOT closed. Quite apart from anything else, I refer you to what you wrote only a few contributions ago - 'Ok, I'll leave it open --for Furry Canary and CharlesSC1 --if you like.'

Besides, if it were closed, nobody would be able to add further comments. I cannot believe that you are incapable of working out how to disable the thread if that's what you really wanted. Consequently, that you have left it open suggests to me you secretly welcome the opportunity to demonstrate your 'outrage'.

'What you are doing is contrary to Joeuser's rules'
Just which rule have I broken? By all means, report me to Admin and have me reprimanded - otherwise, I'll take it as read that you apologise completely and unreservedly. Anyone reading this thread will see that all I have done is invited you - repeatedly - to provide some evidence, no matter how flimsy, to support your arguments. That you continue to refuse to do so leaves your position open to the kind of interpretation that Little Whip offers above.

'... your self-opiniated grin'
Even assuming you actually mean 'self-opinionated', how on earth can a facial expression think highly of itself?

'... your university halo'
I have never said anything about my education (or lack of) here. Anything you've read into my comments to that effect reflects far more upon you than me. However, I do notice that you describe yourself on another of your threads as a 'director' of a 'prestigious school'. I can only feel deeply sorry for its staff and students, having such an anti-education, inverted snob in a position of responsibility.

'Whether I am right or wrong does not matter.'
Now we get to the crux of the matter.

Pardon if I misquote this. It's close.

"Alcohol and tobacco kill more people every year than anything else combined, so what do we do? We ban artificial sweeteners because a rat died. And now we're talking about banning toy guns, but we're gonna keep the fuckin' REAL ones!" ~George Carlin

I'm a smoker, by the way, and highly recommend Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" episode about second hand smoke.

'The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.'
Excuse my density, LW, but you've lost me.

'Alcohol and tobacco kill more people every year than anything else combined, so what do we do? We ban artificial sweeteners because a rat died.'
Cute.

'I'm a smoker, by the way ...'
I have a huge amount of sympathy for the way smokers are treated these days. Dennis Potter once remarked (and I'm probably misquoting a little too, but the point should be clear enough), 'If you pull out a cigarette in a Los Angeles cafe, the negative reaction is usually more extreme than if you had pulled out a handgun.'

My gripe with this thread is simply that it makes claims that are unsubstantiated and / or without substance, and the author is unwilling to address either criticism.

Incidentally, I think Joe Jackson's treatise on the subject of smoking is extremely well thought out:
Link

From the "Sound Of Music":

"Let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start..."

I'm enjoying this thread (again), and (having never black-listed anyone), will not do so now. After all, if you persist in going off into tangents, that's your problem. I initially stated that Britain is more concerned about petty laws when they cannot get to grips with more serious situations such as immigration shortcomings. You can call me the biggest racist under the sun but I still assert that the crime problem is exascerbated by the uncontrolled flow of immigrants into Britain. I have already stated that many immigrants from the African /Carribean region are caught up in crime, sometimes serious crime. I invite you to disprove this.

I can also tell you that British authorities are so sensitive about crimes that are caused by the Black youth that they will not publish figures. We only have to watch Sky News to see the balance. If you, as an expert on crime, expert on immigration and expert on law, feel that I am accusing the immigants, you are wrong. I am accusing the UK authorities of being incredibly lax when it comes to assessing suitability for immigration--and worse, allowing foreigners to outstay their welcome. This is hopefully being tightened up now.

It is not a question of colour. It is a question of suitability. New laws are to be introduced that will vet potential immigrants as far as language and knowledge of the UK is concerned. If you want to get into Australia, you have to be skilled, speak English and have a few quid in your pocket. That's how it should be. The UK immigration laws are long overdue for an update but I guess you have the answer.

As for LW. I note that you catch the wind according to your feelings. Keep them within reason.

'I invite you to disprove this.'
Laugh? I've had to wring my socks out!

But (semi-)seriously, let's do what you say, adnauseam, and 'start at the beginning'.

Recap - you claim, among other things:
1) That immigration into the UK is uncontrolled;
2) That this causes discrimination against smokers;
3) That most immigrant Nigerians, Somalians, Ethiopians and Zimbabweans form gangs, claim welfare, and/or deal in drugs, prostitution and theft; and
4) That there is a damning report on the racial breakdown of prison populations on www.blink.org.uk - the website, incidentally, of an organisation that promotes the interests of black Britons. (There is no such report to be found, damning or otherwise.)

The only 'evidence' you present to support your hypotheses is to claim that:
1) On the one hand, the government is keeping all relevant data hidden; but
2) On the other, that the truth of what you say is obvious to anyone who watches 'Sky News'.

And the onus is on me to disprove your ranting?

Not until you refute, rigorously and comprehensively, my equally well-founded assertion that a surfeit of garden gnomes is causing the UK to collapse into the North Sea!

Perhaps I'll finish with a little quote of my own, also from 'The Sound of Music'. Where it says 'Maria', readers should feel free to substitute the name of an appropriate blogger.

'How do you solve a problem like Maria?
How do you catch a cloud and pin it down?
How do you find a word that means Maria?
A flibbertijibbet! A will-o'-the wisp! A clown!'   

'If you want to get into Australia, you have to be skilled, speak English and have a few quid in your pocket.That's how it should be.'

Oh, I missed this latest gem. But don't fret, I only have two things to add:
1) The first sentence is factually wrong. (But I'm sure you're getting used to that.)
2) The second sentence is, I think I can say without fear of contradiction (but you never know), not a fact but your opinion. And it explains many of your still unsubstantiated claims from earlier in this thread, adnauseam.

'Meet Matilda.'
Hey, my luck's changed! (I usually get the ugly one ...)   

Summer's here! Gone fishing.

Looking through my tackle box. Needs more hooks, Rapalas and sinkers. Up comes a message just as I load up the box and the boat:

" I can only feel deeply sorry for its staff and students --having such an anti-education inverted snob in a position of responsibility."

Whew, I thought for a while you were educated, showed moderate bias and would realise that you are blogging in the ether world. How on earth can I take you seriously now? You have become another sad blogger who makes judgements without knowing the person on the other end. You cannot judge me for what is essentially a blog expressing an opinion. Would you care to tell me what you do, how successful you are and whether you get on with your co-workers? I doubt you do. How do you justify such a statement as the above especially when I've been an educationist for over thirty years and regard my school, a good school, as a very important part of my life.

This is not a slur--it proves your ignorance--and I thought you were a "heavy" who would not lower himself. I'm off on holiday--thought I'd catch a cuda with my Rapala. Caught a fool instead.