Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 19th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Young Tories spark Holyrood alert after smoking in toilets



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

A GROUP of young Tory students sparked a security breach at the Scottish Parliament – by smoking in the toilets.
The students were guests at a Burns Supper hosted by MSP Liz Smith for the Edinburgh University Conservative and Unionist Association, where the guest speaker was Lord Douglas Hurd.

However, the event was interrupted when officials were called in to investigate smells of tobacco smoke wafting through the building.

A Holyrood source was reported as saying: "There was a stand-off and the whole party was warned about the smoking ban. It was very embarrassing for people like Lord Hurd to be involved in something like this."

A Scottish Parliament spokesman confirmed that a warning was issued to party-goers over a suspected smoking breach.





The full article contains 133 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

AJ Fife,

20/02/2008 10:44:28
Typical of the uppercrust Tories to think they're beyond any rules!

Take their lands off them and banish them to Drumchapel, that'll sort the Hooray Henrys right oot!
2

Highland Mighty,

20/02/2008 11:11:47
I suppose all the nats spraypainting 'End London Rule!' and 'England out of Scotland!' on our walls are within the rules then?
3

Highland Mighty,

20/02/2008 11:14:51
Sorry but how was this a 'security breach' anyway?
4

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

20/02/2008 11:16:42
We should be glad they were just smoking in the toilets if past history tells us anything
5

AJ Fife,

20/02/2008 11:27:08
Highland#2,

So you don't like modern urban art either! Is there anything that tickles your cookies or are you just an auld misery guts?

6

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/02/2008 12:20:20
Security breach for smoking????

Who dreamed that one up? They are definately living in cloud cuckoo land.

Anyway, if they had a proper smoking room---which they should have---then there would be no need to smoke in the toilets in the first place.
7

Doh,

20/02/2008 12:29:30
#6 Octane

You assuming that your Tory chums were smoking tobacco and not the Eton-weed as smoked by David Cameron.

I know, dont critise, one law for the rich and another for the poor.

They should smoke non-dom.

8

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/02/2008 12:53:09
It wouldn't matter less if they were smoking crack cocaine. That does not constitute a security breach.

Anyway, what is "non-dom"?
9

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 20/02/2008 14:20:55
Good for them. I'm glad to see someone striking a blow for freedom.

It almost tempts me to vote Tory for the first time ever!
10

TheTerminator,

20/02/2008 17:23:43
Have they removed the 100 MSP's killed by the passive smoke.
11

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/02/2008 17:30:37
It really has come to something that whenever someon dares to light up a simple cigarette it becoms headline news.

If only they enforced the laws that really matter as efficiently. Laws against such activities as burglary, assault, theft, vandalism and threatening behaviour could do with a much needed boost in enforcement.

No. They'd rather victimise people as in the smoking ban or make as much money as possible as in speed cameras. Both of these pointless, draconian measures need to be scrapped immediately.
12

Doh,

20/02/2008 18:05:03


I dont want to fan the flames on this one ...

but perhaps they mean security breach - as in fire hazard - a very real threat to public security.

But I guess the point of the story is the willful breaking of the law by young tories.

They should have been charged.

Supercharged if they were smoking high octane.
13

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/02/2008 18:33:26
#13:

Fire hazard???

Now I have heard it all!

Of course the stone floor in the toilets is quite likely to burst into flames if they stub their fags out on it. Likewise the water in the traps, should they chuck their dog-ends into them.

In any case, a fire hazard is not a threat to security. A fire MAY be a threat to safety, but not security. In a building like the parliament, a security issue would be something like someone getting in without being authorised, or someone removing documents or computer disks without authorisation. It never has included and never will include smoking a fag.
14

Duncan in Edinburgh,

20/02/2008 22:01:16
#14 Oh for pity's sake. Is it beyond your wit to see past your jerking knee for one second and read the article?

"There was a stand-off". Perhaps *this* was the security breach - people failing to comply when security staff asked them to do something? You think? Oh no, silly me, of course you don't think.
15

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 20/02/2008 22:52:42
#15:

A stand off????

What? With pistols at dawn?

This is a complete and utter over-reaction to the most trivial of issues.
16

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville. 20/02/2008 23:23:01
Petrol Man, #16 et al,.seems to overlook the fact that these young turds, sorry Turks, apparently chose to act as if they were above the law, and were dealt with accordingly. They were perhaps fortunate not to be doused by water cannons.
I thought Burns Night was in January?
17

Murray in Canada,

Salt Spring Island 21/02/2008 00:24:47
There should be a special place set aside for smokers [of any sort of weed].
Someone should look at the air ventilation system, if smoke from the toilets can waft through the building.
And since Burns Night is in January, why has it taken so long for this news item to appear?
18

Scot Student ,

Edinburgh 21/02/2008 01:06:36
This Tory bashing is appalling and irrelevant.

I witnessed the "stand-off" which was a lot less interesting than the article would make out. The offenders were caught smoking (tobacco) told they were naughty, told they were going to receive a fine, and kicked out of the loos, they were dealt with as they should have been.

It makes no difference which political party they support (many people who attended that evening were there for the night not for the politics anyway).

AJ Fife says: "Typical of the uppercrust Tories to think they're beyond any rules!". Well obviously he hasn't caught a double decker bus at night in our fine city, on which you can see a healthy number of non upper crust, and definitely non Tories smoking and drinking away as if there were no laws at all.
19

BIG EYE,

Paisley 21/02/2008 10:36:42
Thank goodness it was a Tory event, if it had been Labour someone would have set fire to the curtains!
20

Big Eddie,

Edinburgh 21/02/2008 11:14:09
So High Octane now thinks that the smoking ban is "the most trivial of issues". You could have fooled me, the way he's been frothing at the mouth about it for the past couple of years.

It's good to hear that you've finally managed to put the whole issue into some kind of perspective, Octane. Welcome to the real world.
21

DaveA,

Forfarshire 21/02/2008 12:49:47
AJ of Fife: If they were working class oiks smoking in their labour club that would of been better. I must say the smoking ban is one thing that seems to untite us all rich and poor, it is an afront to democracy and property rights.
22

GGrant,

Edinburgh 21/02/2008 14:04:04
As someone who was there, I can confirm it was definitely tobacco and not cannabis that was smoked judging from the smell in the loos afterward.

But three further points:

1. It was certainly wrong, as, regardless of personal views about the ban, smoking indoors is now against the law. However,

2. It would unlikely have happened at all if, in the name of 'security', they hadn't sealed off the entire parliament building from 8:45pm, meaning that you couldn't smoke outside at all, even on the levels inaccessible from the ground, and even if accompanied by a guard, if you didn't want to be shut out for good.

3. If they really were so concerned about 'security', they wouldn't have let, in the name of 'national dress', half the participants straight through the doors and security with six-inch knives in their socks.
23

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville,U.K. 21/02/2008 19:10:48
#22, Dave one star to-night.
Some would say that the effect of smoking restrictions is to "untite" us all in a smoke free, pleasant atmosphere. I,like many other correspondents on these forums, am in no way "afronted".
24

David from New Mills,

U.K. 21/02/2008 19:26:53
#23,GGrant,Edinburgh.
We are indebted to GG for his on the spot reportage, but:-
2. That would be the nicotine addicts' problem.
3. "Concerned of Watford" or any points south will be relieved to learn that GG is referring to the skean dhu, a form of dagger or dirk that fundamentalist Scots wear with their frocks to split their nuts.
Anyone know yet why a Burn's Night story has surfaced late in February
25

Calum Crubag,

22/02/2008 17:40:36
#19 - I agree, these 'Toerags' should be dealt with like any other anti-social ned. Just cos they're posh doesn't mean they're not neds. Why not let them 'hang out' in nearby Dumbiedykes? That would teach them to 'keep it real' as their toff leader keeps saying.
26

David from New Mills,

U.K. 23/02/2008 19:19:35
#26, Calum Crubag.
Can only agree, but can anyone yet explain why a 25th January episode was not reported until 20th February? Was the cub reporter so very sloshed?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Holyrood parliament building

More Holyrood parliament building >>

Today's Vote

Do we need a granite sign costing £20,000 to recognise the Scottish Parliament?
Yes, the sign needs to be of good quality
Yes, the sign needs to be of good quality
No, it’s a waste of money and no sign is needed
No, it’s a waste of money and no sign is needed
Yes, but a cheaper sign would be adequate
Yes, but a cheaper sign would be adequate

Web Links:

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.