Car smoke ban

First published in Letters

I WELCOME the joint statement by the first minister and minister for health and social services that the Welsh Government is preparing to legislate to ban smoking in cars carrying children. I have been putting pressure on the Welsh Labour Government to act on the overwhelming medical evidence about the harm to children caused by passive smoking for a considerable time and I look forward to legislation now. The British Lung Foundation is clear that the effect on children of passive smoking in a confined area such as a car or van is very harmful. In fact, 82 per cent of the public said they supported prohibition of smoking in cars carrying children and the same percentage said they would comply with a ban if one was introduced. This law will not be an assault on adults’ freedom to smoke. It will be a law upholding the rights of children to be free from harm.

Lindsay Whittle, Plaid Cymru AM,

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:20pm Mon 21 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Conflicted.

On the one side, surely people should be free to do what they like without it being legislated by the nanny state.

On the other, surely kids should be protected when they aren't able to protect themselves.

...I think I'd have to come down on the side of the kids on this one but it's getting close to my threshold of personal liberty vs nanny statism.
Conflicted. On the one side, surely people should be free to do what they like without it being legislated by the nanny state. On the other, surely kids should be protected when they aren't able to protect themselves. ...I think I'd have to come down on the side of the kids on this one but it's getting close to my threshold of personal liberty vs nanny statism. mkaibear1
  • Score: 5

3:12pm Mon 21 Jul 14

landyman3030 says...

There are not enough police or resources to deal with the massive percentage of people who use hand held devices whilst at the wheel. This has been proven to slow reaction times worse than drink or drugs. I think a policeman has other things on his mind then spotting a cigarette and then looking for child occupants. I applaud this viewpoint of no smoking anywhere near children but wish there were more resources for this sort of policing.
There are not enough police or resources to deal with the massive percentage of people who use hand held devices whilst at the wheel. This has been proven to slow reaction times worse than drink or drugs. I think a policeman has other things on his mind then spotting a cigarette and then looking for child occupants. I applaud this viewpoint of no smoking anywhere near children but wish there were more resources for this sort of policing. landyman3030
  • Score: 5

5:29pm Mon 21 Jul 14

smokintheweed says...

However much I find this beneficial to children, one would have to wonder how long it will be before the powers that be start telling us what we can and cannot do inside our own houses.
However much I find this beneficial to children, one would have to wonder how long it will be before the powers that be start telling us what we can and cannot do inside our own houses. smokintheweed
  • Score: 5

8:03am Tue 22 Jul 14

Bobevans says...

It should be a total ban on smoking in car's. There is an even stronger case for banning the driver from smoking
It should be a total ban on smoking in car's. There is an even stronger case for banning the driver from smoking Bobevans
  • Score: -4

8:39am Tue 22 Jul 14

Mervyn James says...

landyman3030 wrote:
There are not enough police or resources to deal with the massive percentage of people who use hand held devices whilst at the wheel. This has been proven to slow reaction times worse than drink or drugs. I think a policeman has other things on his mind then spotting a cigarette and then looking for child occupants. I applaud this viewpoint of no smoking anywhere near children but wish there were more resources for this sort of policing.
This is why it won't work, you cannot police it, they still cannot get the idiots off the phone while driving. In Japan they had a system connected to the dashboard, if people smoked in a car you would get a verbal warning to stop or the engine would be disabled . Might be a bit dangerous half way down a motorway but..... another idea was a mobile phone detector also wired into a car system if the engine was running, it would disable/block the mobile phone in a car rendering it unsuable.
[quote][p][bold]landyman3030[/bold] wrote: There are not enough police or resources to deal with the massive percentage of people who use hand held devices whilst at the wheel. This has been proven to slow reaction times worse than drink or drugs. I think a policeman has other things on his mind then spotting a cigarette and then looking for child occupants. I applaud this viewpoint of no smoking anywhere near children but wish there were more resources for this sort of policing.[/p][/quote]This is why it won't work, you cannot police it, they still cannot get the idiots off the phone while driving. In Japan they had a system connected to the dashboard, if people smoked in a car you would get a verbal warning to stop or the engine would be disabled . Might be a bit dangerous half way down a motorway but..... another idea was a mobile phone detector also wired into a car system if the engine was running, it would disable/block the mobile phone in a car rendering it unsuable. Mervyn James
  • Score: -1

12:33pm Tue 22 Jul 14

harleyrider1777 says...

BMA Lying Again, Say Their Friends ... Again!

Posted: 18 Oct 2012 01:46 PM PDT

Following the recent re-opening of the drive to ban smoking in all cars (yes, all cars, the children have ceased to be that relevant as predicted here 3 years ago), Wasp did some excellent digging which is worth a read in full.

On finally tracking down the research referenced by the BBC - but not linked to as the BBC had promised was going to happen back in 2010 - he found a very interesting footnote.

For background, you may remember that the last time this subject cropped up, Vivienne Nathanson of the BMA lied on BBC radio. No, really, quite comprehensively in fact.



This was demonstrably untrue, as she should have known very well if she is to describe herself as an 'expert'. It was thoroughly debunked by her own side a long time before that transmission. After a few stiff e-mails from certain, ahem, sections of the blogosphere, the BMA were forced to issue a humiliating retraction just a couple of days later.

Please note, there is an error in the BMA briefing paper: Smoking in vehicles. On page 4, in the 3rd paragraph, the following sentence is incorrect:
“Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle is 23 times greater than that of a smoky bar, even under realistic ventilation conditions”.
THIS SENTENCE HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH: "Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle could be up to 11 times greater than that of a smoky bar”.
We apologise for this error.
This week, via the source of the BBC's story, it seems that they've been taken to task on that, too .

The recent BMA briefing paper on smoking in vehicles initially stated that “the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle is 23 times greater than that of a smoky bar, even under realistic ventilation conditions” and cited studies from controlled conditions.Our data do not support this claim nor the BMA’s retraction issued the following day changing the text to “the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle could be up to 11 times greater than that of a smoky bar.” Our study of a large number of real-life smoking journeys suggests that SHS concentrations measured over the duration of the journey are, on average, between one-half and one-third of the average levels measured in UK bars prior to smoke-free legislation.
Now, even that figure I would say is highly debatable. But it's quite clear that Nathanson was spouting utter **** on national radio and dishonestly insisting that a figure 15 times larger than that was "peer-reviewed" and uncontested, when it wasn't.

Et tu, Semple of Aberdeen?

This should, of course, mean that no-one can ever take Nathanson or the BMA seriously again but you know that won't happen.

Is there anyone in the tobacco control industry who isn't an agenda-driven, dishonest incompetent?

UPDATE: How prescient was this from Brendan O'Neill last year?

Nowhere can I see hard evidence that smoking in cars generates 11 times the toxicity of a smoky bar.
That's because, as we now know thanks to Dr Semple, it was quite clearly fabricated.

It's time for the BMA to admit that its report demanding a ban on smoking in cars was a career low, a true jumping-of-the-shark for this busybody outfit determined to lecture the British populace. This is what happens when you opt for moralism over medicine and become more concerned with socially re-engineering the feckless masses than with boosting medical services. The BMA needs to butt out of our private lives and choices and go back to doing proper medicine, and the media should be more critical of nanny-state demands dressed up in pseudoscientific garb.
Amen to that.
BMA Lying Again, Say Their Friends ... Again! Posted: 18 Oct 2012 01:46 PM PDT Following the recent re-opening of the drive to ban smoking in all cars (yes, all cars, the children have ceased to be that relevant as predicted here 3 years ago), Wasp did some excellent digging which is worth a read in full. On finally tracking down the research referenced by the BBC - but not linked to as the BBC had promised was going to happen back in 2010 - he found a very interesting footnote. For background, you may remember that the last time this subject cropped up, Vivienne Nathanson of the BMA lied on BBC radio. No, really, quite comprehensively in fact. This was demonstrably untrue, as she should have known very well if she is to describe herself as an 'expert'. It was thoroughly debunked by her own side a long time before that transmission. After a few stiff e-mails from certain, ahem, sections of the blogosphere, the BMA were forced to issue a humiliating retraction just a couple of days later. Please note, there is an error in the BMA briefing paper: Smoking in vehicles. On page 4, in the 3rd paragraph, the following sentence is incorrect: “Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle is 23 times greater than that of a smoky bar, even under realistic ventilation conditions”. THIS SENTENCE HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH: "Further studies demonstrate that the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle could be up to 11 times greater than that of a smoky bar”. We apologise for this error. This week, via the source of the BBC's story, it seems that they've been taken to task on that, too [opens pdf]. The recent BMA briefing paper on smoking in vehicles initially stated that “the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle is 23 times greater than that of a smoky bar, even under realistic ventilation conditions” and cited studies from controlled conditions.Our data do not support this claim nor the BMA’s retraction issued the following day changing the text to “the concentration of toxins in a smoke-filled vehicle could be up to 11 times greater than that of a smoky bar.” Our study of a large number of real-life smoking journeys suggests that SHS concentrations measured over the duration of the journey are, on average, between one-half and one-third of the average levels measured in UK bars prior to smoke-free legislation. Now, even that figure I would say is highly debatable. But it's quite clear that Nathanson was spouting utter **** on national radio and dishonestly insisting that a figure 15 times larger than that was "peer-reviewed" and uncontested, when it wasn't. Et tu, Semple of Aberdeen? This should, of course, mean that no-one can ever take Nathanson or the BMA seriously again but you know that won't happen. Is there anyone in the tobacco control industry who isn't an agenda-driven, dishonest incompetent? UPDATE: How prescient was this from Brendan O'Neill last year? Nowhere can I see hard evidence that smoking in cars generates 11 times the toxicity of a smoky bar. That's because, as we now know thanks to Dr Semple, it was quite clearly fabricated. It's time for the BMA to admit that its report demanding a ban on smoking in cars was a career low, a true jumping-of-the-shark for this busybody outfit determined to lecture the British populace. This is what happens when you opt for moralism over medicine and become more concerned with socially re-engineering the feckless masses than with boosting medical services. The BMA needs to butt out of our private lives and choices and go back to doing proper medicine, and the media should be more critical of nanny-state demands dressed up in pseudoscientific garb. Amen to that. harleyrider1777
  • Score: -5

12:35pm Tue 22 Jul 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Another Junk Study from CDC most likely funded by a grant from big pharma like their 9 states economic harm study on smoking bans!
Below explains how the Junk science of car bans is so JUNKY!
Thats why CDC didnt include any measurements of anything in their study.Its normal tobacco control propaganda,questiona
ires to get a science by headline story tossed out there for the liberal media to spread like poison.

Chris Snowden does an excellent job debunking the junk science of car ban science!

Just open the window!

http://velvetgloveir
onfist.blogspot.com/
2010/03/just-open-wi
ndow.html
Another Junk Study from CDC most likely funded by a grant from big pharma like their 9 states economic harm study on smoking bans! Below explains how the Junk science of car bans is so JUNKY! Thats why CDC didnt include any measurements of anything in their study.Its normal tobacco control propaganda,questiona ires to get a science by headline story tossed out there for the liberal media to spread like poison. Chris Snowden does an excellent job debunking the junk science of car ban science! Just open the window! http://velvetgloveir onfist.blogspot.com/ 2010/03/just-open-wi ndow.html harleyrider1777
  • Score: -4

12:36pm Tue 22 Jul 14

harleyrider1777 says...

This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

http://vitals.nbcnew
s.com/_news/2013/01/
28/16741714-lungs-fr
om-pack-a-day-smoker
s-safe-for-transplan
t-study-finds?lite

Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

“I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study...............
............

Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!
This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke: http://vitals.nbcnew s.com/_news/2013/01/ 28/16741714-lungs-fr om-pack-a-day-smoker s-safe-for-transplan t-study-finds?lite Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds. By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News. Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe. What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none. “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study............... ............ Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it! The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered: Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year. 146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY. A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose. Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -4

1:19pm Tue 22 Jul 14

harleyrider1777 says...

None of this has anything to do with the protection of others. The whole secondhand smoke argument was created as a tool to manage smokers — not smoke.”

Is it any wonder that it was the Nazi's who created the passive smoking myth to further their own hatred of smoking and also used as a key component in corrupting the public mindset to accept socialist ideologies of the Reich and to set in motion a mindset that willingly accepted further social criminalization of certain other portions of the populace like euthenasia of the mentally ill,removal of jews from society and onward to the final solution.

The government are walking on dangerous Historical ground if they accept more Nazi laws by history.

The people should study History rather than repeat it!
None of this has anything to do with the protection of others. The whole secondhand smoke argument was created as a tool to manage smokers — not smoke.” Is it any wonder that it was the Nazi's who created the passive smoking myth to further their own hatred of smoking and also used as a key component in corrupting the public mindset to accept socialist ideologies of the Reich and to set in motion a mindset that willingly accepted further social criminalization of certain other portions of the populace like euthenasia of the mentally ill,removal of jews from society and onward to the final solution. The government are walking on dangerous Historical ground if they accept more Nazi laws by history. The people should study History rather than repeat it! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -6

1:57pm Tue 22 Jul 14

harleyrider1777 says...

Bobevans wrote:
It should be a total ban on smoking in car's. There is an even stronger case for banning the driver from smoking
Theres no case for any smoking bans anywhere! Unless your a Nazi and want to reinstitute Hitlers anti-smoking laws again like whats already happening now!
[quote][p][bold]Bobevans[/bold] wrote: It should be a total ban on smoking in car's. There is an even stronger case for banning the driver from smoking[/p][/quote]Theres no case for any smoking bans anywhere! Unless your a Nazi and want to reinstitute Hitlers anti-smoking laws again like whats already happening now! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -1

2:00pm Tue 22 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

Oh dear. Four ranty posts then calling someone a Nazi.

Godwin's law fail I think...
Oh dear. Four ranty posts then calling someone a Nazi. Godwin's law fail I think... mkaibear1
  • Score: 2

2:40pm Tue 22 Jul 14

harleyrider1777 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
Oh dear. Four ranty posts then calling someone a Nazi.

Godwin's law fail I think...
Naa historical factoid.............
.....

Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign

One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

http://constitutiona
listnc.tripod.com/hi
tler-leftist/id1.htm
l
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: Oh dear. Four ranty posts then calling someone a Nazi. Godwin's law fail I think...[/p][/quote]Naa historical factoid............. ..... Hitler's Anti-Tobacco Campaign One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel -- upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast -- liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League. http://constitutiona listnc.tripod.com/hi tler-leftist/id1.htm l harleyrider1777
  • Score: -5

3:07pm Tue 22 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

So, you don't know what Godwin's law is, then?

Broadly paraphrased as "As a conversation on the internet lengthens the chance someone will call someone else a Nazi tends towards 1"

Whether or not your comparison is historically justified, calling someone a Nazi means you've regressed to the basest form of ad hominem and as such your posts are, effectively, facetious. Certainly that is how I intend to treat them. Good day sir!
So, you don't know what Godwin's law is, then? Broadly paraphrased as "As a conversation on the internet lengthens the chance someone will call someone else a Nazi tends towards 1" Whether or not your comparison is historically justified, calling someone a Nazi means you've regressed to the basest form of ad hominem and as such your posts are, effectively, facetious. Certainly that is how I intend to treat them. Good day sir! mkaibear1
  • Score: 1

3:17pm Tue 22 Jul 14

harleyrider1777 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
So, you don't know what Godwin's law is, then?

Broadly paraphrased as "As a conversation on the internet lengthens the chance someone will call someone else a Nazi tends towards 1"

Whether or not your comparison is historically justified, calling someone a Nazi means you've regressed to the basest form of ad hominem and as such your posts are, effectively, facetious. Certainly that is how I intend to treat them. Good day sir!
When the subject so closely resembles the subject at hand that it copies the same tactics and carbon copies the same laws and junk science the Moniker is owned!

You cant talk your way out of the exact same laws and political similarities!
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: So, you don't know what Godwin's law is, then? Broadly paraphrased as "As a conversation on the internet lengthens the chance someone will call someone else a Nazi tends towards 1" Whether or not your comparison is historically justified, calling someone a Nazi means you've regressed to the basest form of ad hominem and as such your posts are, effectively, facetious. Certainly that is how I intend to treat them. Good day sir![/p][/quote]When the subject so closely resembles the subject at hand that it copies the same tactics and carbon copies the same laws and junk science the Moniker is owned! You cant talk your way out of the exact same laws and political similarities! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -5

3:26pm Tue 22 Jul 14

mkaibear1 says...

So you don't actually read people's responses you just continue to spout your party line?

Hush now. Bad troll is bad at trolling.
So you don't actually read people's responses you just continue to spout your party line? Hush now. Bad troll is bad at trolling. mkaibear1
  • Score: 3

8:02pm Tue 22 Jul 14

harleyrider1777 says...

mkaibear1 wrote:
So you don't actually read people's responses you just continue to spout your party line?

Hush now. Bad troll is bad at trolling.
When Responses factually debate the subject at hand yes.........otherwis
e your the troll with absolutely nothing of content to add. Your simply side stepping the issue as usual for smokefree activists who have no leg to stand on but JUNK SCIENCE!
[quote][p][bold]mkaibear1[/bold] wrote: So you don't actually read people's responses you just continue to spout your party line? Hush now. Bad troll is bad at trolling.[/p][/quote]When Responses factually debate the subject at hand yes.........otherwis e your the troll with absolutely nothing of content to add. Your simply side stepping the issue as usual for smokefree activists who have no leg to stand on but JUNK SCIENCE! harleyrider1777
  • Score: -5

12:52pm Thu 24 Jul 14

welshmen says...

Smoking kills, smoking in cars with children can give them cancer, because of their age children wont tell you to stop killing them with your car smoking, but the WAG can, anyone, even jimmytheidiot2 with his one brain cell can see the damage smoking can do to children in a car, or for that matter in a room, the Government have gone to a lot of trouble to minimise omissions from diesel engines in our towns to protect our Children, the least anyone can do is not smoke in front of Children....
Smoking kills, smoking in cars with children can give them cancer, because of their age children wont tell you to stop killing them with your car smoking, but the WAG can, anyone, even jimmytheidiot2 with his one brain cell can see the damage smoking can do to children in a car, or for that matter in a room, the Government have gone to a lot of trouble to minimise omissions from diesel engines in our towns to protect our Children, the least anyone can do is not smoke in front of Children.... welshmen
  • Score: -2

4:34pm Fri 25 Jul 14

jimmytheone2 says...

welshmen wrote:
Smoking kills, smoking in cars with children can give them cancer, because of their age children wont tell you to stop killing them with your car smoking, but the WAG can, anyone, even jimmytheidiot2 with his one brain cell can see the damage smoking can do to children in a car, or for that matter in a room, the Government have gone to a lot of trouble to minimise omissions from diesel engines in our towns to protect our Children, the least anyone can do is not smoke in front of Children....
I quite agree Welshmen, smoking in cars with children is irresponsible and not to be encouraged. So to is voting for UKIP. So I'm pressing for a ban on that as well. Children should not have to share cars with UKIP voters - it is bad for their health and will give them nasty diseases and nasty thoughts.
We're agreed that banning smoking in cars containing children is bad, and I know you think it really impressive that Plaid Cymru have campaigned for this.
[quote][p][bold]welshmen[/bold] wrote: Smoking kills, smoking in cars with children can give them cancer, because of their age children wont tell you to stop killing them with your car smoking, but the WAG can, anyone, even jimmytheidiot2 with his one brain cell can see the damage smoking can do to children in a car, or for that matter in a room, the Government have gone to a lot of trouble to minimise omissions from diesel engines in our towns to protect our Children, the least anyone can do is not smoke in front of Children....[/p][/quote]I quite agree Welshmen, smoking in cars with children is irresponsible and not to be encouraged. So to is voting for UKIP. So I'm pressing for a ban on that as well. Children should not have to share cars with UKIP voters - it is bad for their health and will give them nasty diseases and nasty thoughts. We're agreed that banning smoking in cars containing children is bad, and I know you think it really impressive that Plaid Cymru have campaigned for this. jimmytheone2
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Sat 26 Jul 14

welshmen says...

Like I've said before Mr Green, a punnet of strawberries is like Party Policies, you find a good one doesn't mean the rest are ok, find a bad one doesn't mean you have to chuck the rest away, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so for Plaid Cymru and piddlypoo, well done they got one right in my opinion....
Like I've said before Mr Green, a punnet of strawberries is like Party Policies, you find a good one doesn't mean the rest are ok, find a bad one doesn't mean you have to chuck the rest away, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, so for Plaid Cymru and piddlypoo, well done they got one right in my opinion.... welshmen
  • Score: -1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree