TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

Mark Carver wrote:
On Apr 10, 10:26 am, Owain wrote:

I think the patrons of some lower-class pubs would regard the smell
of smelly toilets as the welcoming scent of home.

Or, pubs get the clientele they deserve ?

There are some dreadful places, and there always will be. There's a
Wetherspoons in my town, the staff are so inept I don't think any of
them have ever heard of a cloth. Every surface, and the bar itself, is
just sticky.

In any case over the last few months quite a few local pubs have
already gone smoke free. I don't detect any (net) reduction in
business for them.


Basingstoke is hardly a northern working class area where 50% of the adult
population smoke, is it?


--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

Colin Stamp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:15:13 GMT, "DAB is the Betamax of digital
radio" [email protected] wrote:



I'm sure you won't lose sleep over it, but I think those supporting
the full ban should stop and consider why they're supporting a full
ban when they wouldn't have had to set foot in another smoking pub
ever again.

Presumably, you're advocating some lesser measures to make that
situation come about. All very interesting, but I can't see anything
being done other than the ban as discussed,


I'm not saying anything will change, Einstein. The Nazis have got their full
ban.


and when it comes into
force, the situation will improve vastly over the present one.


For YOU it may be vastly improved, but it will be vastly worse for smokers,
not that you care about them, because you're a Nazi.


And if we're going to ban activities that carry some risk,

Where on earth did that come from? No-one is banning smoking. Smokers
will still have the right to stuff their lungs full of ****e with gay
abandon - as long as they avoid forcing their smoke into others' lungs
as some people believe they're entitled to do at the moment.


This full smoking ban only got through due to the health Nazis trying to
make the case that a partial ban would result in bar staff dying.

The risk of dying from passive smoking is tiny, and a lot of people dispute
the supposed evidence that it even causes any deaths. But obviously AIDS
kills people, and you can get AIDS from having unprotected sex if your
partner has been playing away from home - hence why unprotected sex should
be banned for people advocating the full ban on smoking in pubs.


then I propose
that all non-smokers proposing this full ban should be banned from
having unprotected sex, as there's a possibility that their partner
in sexual activies might have AIDS. Not to do so would be
hypocritical.

For a start, it's not all about risk. The basic disgusting nature of
it is important too, but since you're on about risk...


The reason the bill was passed was due to the risk of passive smoking - try
passing a bill through parliament because people were complaining about the
smell of cigarettes and see how far it'd get...


It's not about risk to the smoker. It's about smokers forcing other
people around them to take the risk along with them.


Non-smokers would never be forced to enter a smoking pub. Thus your argument
falls flat on its face. Bar staff don't have a gun pointed at their head
forcing them to work behind a bar in a smoking pub, so there's actually no
good reason to ban smoking from all pubs other than the health Nazis want it
to be so.


If you want to
modify your analogy so that it actually works, then they should ban
raping people without using protection. Perhaps we should check, but
I'm fairly certain that's already illegal.


For your deeply offensive analogy to work the person being raped would have
the opportunity to not be raped you moron.

I object most strongly to being linked with rapists just because I want to
have a cig with a pint if I so choose without some Nazi stopping me from
doing so even though the Nazi would have the choice to only drink in pubs
with fellow Nazis party members.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

On Apr 10, 3:18 pm, "DAB is the Betamax of digital radio"
[email protected] wrote:
Mark Carver wrote:

In any case over the last few months quite a few local pubs have
already gone smoke free. I don't detect any (net) reduction in
business for them.

Basingstoke is hardly a northern working class area where 50% of the adult
population smoke, is it?

No, you're right. I'm feeling better about my much maligned town
now :-)

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

Pyriform wrote:
DAB is the Betamax of digital radio wrote:
I worry about the smell.

What a stupid thing to worry about.

Not at all- especially if you hate the smell.

People jump out of aeroplanes for pleasure every day, and you
actually worry about smell?

I'm having trouble following the logic of your argument. People
choose to jump out of aeroplanes. I'd like to be able to choose to go
to the pub without coming back reeking of your stale tobacco smoke.


Erm, you can't use the "choice" argument when smokers will not be able to
choose to go to a smoking pub - that was the compromise solution, if you
remember, but the Nazis overturned it.


Soon I'll get that choice. Best piece of legislation for years!


Selfish ****.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

Find the cheapest Freeview & DAB prices:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/fr..._receivers.php
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/dab/dab_radios.php

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

"DAB is the Betamax of digital radio" [email protected] wrote:

[]
I object most strongly to being linked with rapists just because I want to
have a cig with a pint if I so choose without some Nazi stopping me from
doing so even though the Nazi would have the choice to only drink in pubs
with fellow Nazis party members.

You object to being linked with rapists, yet you call people who don't
want to breathe second hand smoke Nazis? Your behaviour here explains in
part why MPs voted readily for the ban, and why the public
overwhelmingly support it.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:
If there were non-smoking pubs then you would have been free to go to
one of those.

There are hardly any, due to laziness on the part of pub owners mostly.

Round here most of the pubs have had non smoking bars for many years.
Which are far less busy than the smoking ones.

The fact that smoking bars tend to be more empty than the smoking ones
is probably down to factors like the best bar is the smoking one and
folk go out with their mates and if only one of them is a smoker he or
she will carry the way and so there will be lots of groups of non
smokers in the bar with a token smoker in each group fugging it up for
everybody else.

I tend to believe in freedom of choice. In a village where there is only
one pub then it might be ok to make it non smoking. But in most towns
there are more pubs than needed - hence the numbers closing. So I really
can't see why it can't be left up to the owner. And staff can choose to
work in the type of pub that suits them - as now.

Except that they will all go to the lowest common denominator. A
smoking pub dare not go non smoking whilst others remain smoking.

And the same with restaurants. No one *has* to eat in one.

You don't *have* to drink in a bar but where elee is a man to go with
his mates and escape the missus?
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:56:49 +0100, Phil Cook
wrote:

MPs have lost their battle to stop next year's ban on smoking in
England affecting the House of Commons.

Because the precincts of parliament are technically a royal palace, it
is exempt from the law that will see smoking outlawed in pubs,
restaurants and other public places from next July.

However, it is shortly expected to announce that the ban will be
introduced throughout parliament, including in MPs' private offices.

Quite right too. It would be absurd for the seat of a democratic
government to adopt a stance that effectively meant "Do as we say, not
as we do". Anyone who thinks they have any justification for objecting
to it isn't fit to run the country. We want names....

They were there in the Observer article:

Tory backbencher Derek Conway had opposed the parliamentary ban,
alongside Tory committee members Greg Knight and Andrew Robathan and
Labour's Brian Donohoe.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

Jim Mason wrote:

In article , [email protected]
cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk says...

Except that they will all go to the lowest common denominator. A
smoking pub dare not go non smoking whilst others remain smoking.

Not the case. In Glasgow many pubs went non-smoking long before the ban came
into place.

Hardly any have gone non-smoking here in Manchester. I can think of
three, and they went smoking before the ban was voted on.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
David Horne- http://www.davidhorne.net
(don't email yahoo address) usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

In article ,
David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:
Jim Mason wrote:

In article , [email protected]
cook.RfErMeOeVsEeCrAvPeS.co.uk says...

Except that they will all go to the lowest common denominator. A
smoking pub dare not go non smoking whilst others remain smoking.

Not the case. In Glasgow many pubs went non-smoking long before the ban
came into place.

Hardly any have gone non-smoking here in Manchester. I can think of
three, and they went smoking before the ban was voted on.

our amateur theatre has now been no smoking for 18 months. We can now get
volunteers to work behind the bar. We also get a better rate from our
insurance company.

--
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

TOT Smoking Ban 2007
 

In message , Roderick
Stewart writes
Quite right too. It would be absurd for the seat of a democratic
government to adopt a stance that effectively meant "Do as we say, not
as we do".
OK. Look at the pensions package they've voted for themselves, then
look at the intrusion into our pensions by Gordy. We've got an "absurd
government".
--
Clive.