Jump to content

Recommended Posts

enough with the fag talk - it's not banned in public places - just enclosed spaces. There is a difference


And even if Steph is a no show, that doesn't excuse you two - get down there or face humiliation-by-forum


(I couldnt seem to inject humour into those two sentences so feel free to add your own.. ;-) )

TillieTrotter Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

I object to having to listen to coked

> up assholes all night..


Maybe, but small particles of cocaine don't generally tend to fly out of said C.U.A.'s noses and lodge themselves up your own nose, whether you want them to or not.

If they do, let me know where you drink.

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> spadetownboy said:

> "you obviously havnt succeeded so try again."

>

> nah, can't be bothered if that's the level of your

> argument

>

> 23% of people smoke so therefore and if my maths

> is correct, 77% don't.

>

> http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42442000/gif

> /_42442244_smoking203x224.gif

>

> Do you really think it's worth having a

> vote/referendum on whether smoking should be

> banned in a public place?


well its obviously a bit late now isnt it, but i think if it had been put to the vote it would have been a lot closer than what your kiddies drawing shows.

I appreciate that for a non smoker, a smokey place wasn't nice. However, it was always my opinion that they knew a pub was a smokey place, and they could either go there or stay away... They had the option, something that us lepers haven't had.


Yesterday sucked balls, having to leave my party to go and smoke, and having 2 at a time to make the trip seem worth it, I smoked more than I usually bloody do!!!!


There could have been a decent compromise, and there wasn't.


Oh, and Mark, just because someone doesn't smoke, I don't think you can assume that they'd automatically vote for a ban on it... That's like saying that all vegetarians would ban the use of meat in restaurants.

They seemed to have adapted well in those countries with a ban that I have visited - Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Estonia. The stories of pubs going out of business are rather exagerated and I cant help thinking that a pub that is reliant on its cigarette sales alone for its profits is doomed anyway.


As for civil liberties I think that the right to life outweighs the right to light up.

I agree about the ban in public places which people 'need' or 'have' to use. This is simply a continuation of pre-existing bans in obvious places such as public transport etc.


But I do think that places such as pubs, clubs and bars should be left to decide their own policy. If the management of a pub or club has the right to refuse admission, then it's not a 'public place' which everyone has a right to enter, is it?


If the majority of people were hankering for non-smoking pubs, clubs, restaurants etc, then surely it would follow that it would make more financial sense for such places to have banned fags years ago and reaped the financial benefits. So why didn't they?

Keef - loving your work as much as I do, you wrote


"However, it was always my opinion that they knew a pub was a smokey place, and they could either go there or stay away... They had the option, something that us lepers haven't had."


"Either go or stay away" doesn't sound like much of a choice to me. But as you believe it is, the good news is that the choice is now passed on to smokers. You know pubs are smoke free so you can choose to go there or stay away....

Yes, but the non smokers used to have the option of staying away from a smokey place and going somewhere non smokey... The smokers however can't choose to go somewhere smokey, so it is no choice at all.


I'm starting to confuse myself :-S


Like I say, there could have been a decent compromise... I don't want to contribute to anyone else's untimely demise, and I'm glad that some people I know will be more likely to come down the pub now... However, when it's pi$$ing down with rain, I want somewhere dry to have a fag!


Heed my words, in 5 years time figures will show that pneumonia and hypothermia have overtaken heart desease and lung cancer as the biggest killers of smokers!!!!! :-S

Yes, the Castle had a similar smell, as did the backbar at the CPT. I'm guessing most pubs will have a faintly stale urine-like whiff for the best part of a month or so according to my contacts in Ireland.


The other thing to watch for is the effect of beer on the human digestive system and the smells that ensue that won't be masked by the aforementioned fug.

My favourite are the smokers I know who have never given a toss about human rights / civil liberties / democratic principles in this or any other country, and probably don't even vote, who have now suddenly become 18th century libertarian political philosophers, discoursing effusively on freedom and the rights of the individual, just because they can't smoke in pubs. Priceless.

This is quite interesting

http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500668_761579162_-1_1/Prevalence_of_Smoking_by_Country_in_the_World.html


Vietnam's quite nutty, over half the men smoke and almost none of the women.



Does the smoking ban mean we'll never get another series of The Smoking Room?

Pity, it was very funny.

Brendan, dearest - just for clarification, guv, could you please sign a sworn, written statement, in triplicate, that i did not make the statement that you quote me as saying in your last post. I was quoting someone else for everyone's amusement. A certain case of misrepresentation.


cheers, citizen.


Are you a jouralist BTW?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Which is exactly why Rayner had to go - don't be the sleaze attack dog and then not keep your own house in order - the really shocking fact is she didn't go the moment this came to light because she knew what advice, and the advice to seek proper tax expertise that was given to her in writing by the very people she was trying to throw under the bus - she clearly thought she might be able to spin her way out of it. When you look at the facts, the advice she was given and when and her behaviour in the last few days it has been scandalous and just shows the contempt for the public intelligence some politicians have. Interesting to see a very unscientific vox pop on BBC News last night but a lot of her own constituents seem to want rid of her as well and to be honest if you have to lose your cabinet role for this breach of the rules then you should probably lose your seat too. That is the hypocrisy here and why a lot of people don't like politicians because they're all the same.
    • Hi all, I’m after a stereo amp in working condition. Not necessarily anything fancy, as long as it works. Thanks
    • You are missing my point, there are a few here who are rabidly anti Labour.  And have lost sight of the many scandals associated with their party.  I've not made excuses for Rayner, rather I am inferring that it is hypocritical to go on about one of the major parties whilst ignoring your own dirty washing.   You are not making sense.  I expect half the country likes a drink and a sizeable number likes a vape.  What is your point?
    • If you read the article posted above, it is all very carefully worded. However I've found this: https://uknip.co.uk/news/uk/uk-news/peckham-rye-park-attack-man-seriously-injured-august-2025/  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...