Jump to content

At last some sense re the smoking ban in Britain

LizzygotDizzy

By LizzygotDizzy
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

atila the gooner

atila the gooner

Posted
Posted

The thing is *Bob* it's not just about how it impinges upon me but upon society as a whole. An example I've given previously concerns kids. My youngest son was told by his school, a few years back, that he and all the other children weren't allowed to run during break time. When I asked the head why this was, I was told it was because of the dreaded Health & Safety concerns. So we keep telling kids that they must eat healthy foods but actively discourage physical activity. Not only that but they put a stop to competitive sports in an attempt to ensure that kids who weren't any good at sports didn't feel left out.


For gods sake, life, whether we like it or not, is competitive. And what about the kids who are good at sport, don't they count?? Don't we want kids to have any exercise at all for fear that they may fall over and hurt themselves?

macroban

macroban

Posted
Posted

> Go to any pub/bar in ED on a Friday night and see how empty they are. Well OK the CPT.


Since Christmas they certainly seem to be very quiet on Monday-Thursday nights, but this probably has nothing to do with the smoking ban. My impression is that there has been a sharp drop in turnover.

Alan Dale

Alan Dale

Posted
Posted

*Bob* Wrote:

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

> What about you, Alan?

> Where does Big Bruvva cramp yo style?


F*cking nanny state says I can't share my bird's annual CGT allowance unless I marry her. Similar if I want to use her nil rate band for IHT. Also says that if I give her any of my shares then I have to realise a gain and pay CGT unless I marry her. Basically the bloody nanny state is always pestering me to get married.


Luckily the nanny state overlooked the fact that as separate individuals we get two principal private residence elections. So now that we plan to buy a flat then I can put that in my name and live there on and off so that we pay no CGT on either property.


I don't see why they want me to marry her? What do they care? Interfering nanny state w@nkers..

atila the gooner

atila the gooner

Posted
Posted

Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> It stops him smoking Cigars in pubs *Bob*.



Alan you sound like a real pompous twat, which means you're right at home in ED. So you are without any vices, you don't drink, smoke or eat fatty foods and have the physique of an olympic athlete. Yeah right. And by the way I'm not a greedy fat loafer, I don't smoke cigarettes, and don't eat too much fatty food. Keep your insults to yourself and we might, just might get along. You sound very brave when it comes to throwing insults around when noboby knows who you are, but wouldn't say boo to a goose face to face. Possibly you were bullied as a child?

*Bob*

*Bob*

Posted
Posted

I agree on the competetive sports thing, Atila. There was an entertaining thread on 'non-competetive sports' some time ago which you would have loved.


There was 'no running' at my school (where sport was held as key and integral to development). No running in corridors, no running on tarmac or patio. But plenty of running on the field. Perhaps a tad too much for my liking. Is this a similar rule to your son's place?

Alan Dale

Alan Dale

Posted
Posted

atila the gooner Wrote:

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

> Alan Dale Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > It stops him smoking Cigars in pubs *Bob*.

>

>

> Alan you sound like a real pompous @#$%&, which

> means you're right at home in ED. So you are

> without any vices, you don't drink, smoke or eat

> fatty foods and have the physique of an olympic

> athlete. Yeah right. And by the way I'm not a

> greedy fat loafer, I don't smoke cigarettes, and

> don't eat too much fatty food. Keep your insults

> to yourself and we might, just might get along.

> You sound very brave when it comes to throwing

> insults around when noboby knows who you are, but

> wouldn't say boo to a goose face to face. Possibly

> you were bullied as a child?


I have no interest in getting along with you my fat friend.


I was, as you guessed, mercilessly bullied as a child.


I live in Camberwell by the way.


My point is that I should be allowed to smoke, drink and do what the hell I want because I can be trusted to do it in moderation.


Others need the help of the nanny state.

macroban

macroban

Posted
Posted

> So now that we plan to buy a flat then I can put that in my name and live there on and off so that we pay no CGT on either property.


HMRC may see your "principal residence" in a different light.


Why not write to HMRC in advance and seek their advice?

Jah Lush

Jah Lush

Posted
Posted

Alan Dale Wrote:


> My point is that I should be allowed to smoke,

> drink and do what the hell I want because I can be

> trusted to do it in moderation.


I like your style Alan. This is how I feel to. Moderation in all things but with the occasional over-indulgence when one really needs to let their hair down is good for you.

Cassius

Cassius

Posted
Posted

Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> Who wants to marry anyone? They all just do it

> 'cause of the interfering nanny state and the tax

> breaks..


I agree with you (especially the tax breaks part) but I think that lots of people actually do want to get married.

Keef

Keef

Posted
Posted

lozzyloz Wrote:

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

> The current ban on smoking in buildings means empty bars. Rubbish. That would mean that only smokers drink. Go to any pub/bar in ED on a Friday night and see how empty they are. Well OK the CPT.Well you are talking about bars on a busy London Street, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of pubs around the country were a bit empty. And why is everyone picking on the poor CPT this month, talk about kick a place when it's down.


> Smokers go outside in the cold, and often the non-smokers join them rather than be left behind. I have smoking friends but I dont go outside with them. Also I find a lot of smokers smoke less and stay in the pub and be more sociable rather than standing in the wet and cold.I have been outside places for a smoke and found quite big groups out there because a couple of them smoke.


> I believe that I have a right to fresh air, and that smokers have a right to smoke. Agreed. Agreed too


> In a mature society, we have to find the best balance between those rights. AgreedAlso agreed


> One obvious solution would be to ensure that in all but the smallest catering and leisure facilities, there are clearly-marked smoking and non-smoking zones. So by enforcing this wouldn't it be a nanny state intervention? Who covers the cost of maintaining the smoke free zone stays smoke free?I don't think we should ensure anything, I think each venue should get a choice, simple as that. I think a large amount of pubs would stay smoke free, and some wouldn't. Either way we'd all have somewhere to go and keep happy.


> Most pubs have more than one bar. Why not a non-smoking lounge and a smoking snug? Why not if the space permits?Quite.


> The balance has tipped so far against the smoker that it becomes a real issue of freedom. What about the freedom of children, pregnant women, workers and other non smokers? Their health doesn't have to be harmed just because a smoker wants to damage themselvesWhat about them? He has already said that there should be seperate areas for smokers, so in keeping with his arguements this wouldn't be an isse... Besides, we all know kids shouldn't be in pubs! >:D I believe that government is right to ensure that the facts about smoking, and the harm it can cause, are well known and after that they should back off and leave us alone. Why don't we apply the same rules to Paedophiles, drunk drivers, racists etc. What bollocks.I'm sorry but not one of those is genuinely comparable.


Not setting out to disagree with all that you say Loz, I think the whole nanny state thing is bo!!ocks, it's just too easy and simplistic an arguement. However, some of your arguements, especially the last one just had to be replied to in their own right.

Cassius

Cassius

Posted
Posted

Alan Dale Wrote:

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

> You mean girls?

>

> Not their fault they are conditioned from a very

> early age...


I've always contended that it was simply the women that wanted to get married, but have never had the guts to ask - although in my case I was talked into it by my ex.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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