Jump to content

At last some sense re the smoking ban in Britain

LizzygotDizzy

By LizzygotDizzy
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Keef

Keef

Posted
Posted

For the record, it's not worth getting married for the tax breaks, they don't exist.


RE: The running in schools thing, that's not so much the state, as the fear of the teachers about what could happen to them should an accident happen. Mrs Keef was in a school last week, and told me the previous head teacher was in jail as he had allowed a child to jump off a couple of steps (nothing compared to what they'd get up to in a park playground), the child had done so, fallen, cracked it's head and died.


The head is in for manslaughter I believe. Sorry, but whilst it seems ludicrous to stop kids running around, I think I'd consider it if it meant me going to jail when 2 of them bumped in to each other and a bone was broken.

Alan Dale

Alan Dale

Posted
Posted

Keef Wrote:

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

> For the record, it's not worth getting married for

> the tax breaks, they don't exist.

>


The definitely do exist if you have a combine death estate of over ?300,000 or annual capital gains in excess of ?10,000...

*Bob*

*Bob*

Posted
Posted

I remembered this story from when I lived in Tooting, about Peter Boddington, the owner of Tooting Market.


(From The Independent)


Sixty-a-day smoker Peter Boddington said yesterday that he would rather go to jail than obey a High Court injunction banning him from lighting up on the London to Brighton train.

His rebellion came after Connex South Central, whose BR predecessors prosecuted him in the criminal courts, succeeded in a civil action aimed at ending the commuter's habit of smoking in the buffet car of their trains where there is now a complete ban.

The injunction was imposed until Mr Boddington's challenge to his ?10 fine for smoking is either heard or rejected by the House of Lords. Mr Boddington, the owner of Tooting Market in south London, is now standing as an independent parliamentary candidate in Tooting, and says in his election literature that a vote for him will "help stop people being sent to prison"


He got 161 votes - more than doubling the 73 polled by the Natural Law Party candidate, whose party manifesto promise is "to establish a group of 7,000 Yogic Flyers in Britain, who will create a highly coherent national consciousness, bring the support of the evolutionary power of Natural Law to national life, and create an atmosphere in which everything will be right, positive and harmonious in our government".

mockney piers

mockney piers

Posted
Posted

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.Overall there is a small downturn, noticeable now that it's january as a it's cold and b its january. But overall most people seem positive about the change, except a few whingers who'll perk up again come spring



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 sometimes find myself all lonely because I'm the only one who doesn't smoke. Buggered if I'm going to stand outside like a lemon though.



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



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



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 happyLiking the change as I do, I'm also inclined to allow venues to choose. If it is the be all and end all then people wil vote with their feet. Now that I have experienced the pleasure of smoke free pubs I would exercise the democratic right no to go into smoking ones. That's not to say that the selfish tospots who say like my smoke or don't come, aren't solipsistic, selfish arseholes of course.



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



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 themselves What 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! As above, I like the idea of each venue chosing on a smoking policy, and this would show people from these groups the places that they might like to avoid... Although they would obviously have the choice to go in if they so chose.I believe the balance is tipping too far against knives and guns. I've such a nice Squad Automatic Weapon and samurai sword combo, it seems a pity that the nanny state prevents their usage. If people don't want to be cut down in a hail of bullets then they don't have to step outside their front doors after all.



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.Yep, taken too far, but it's clear that having facts available doesn't really sway people to be healthy or sensible does it...and that second hand smoke can kill.



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.I was really just trying to see how many colours we could get up here in this uber-fisking.

 

Alan Dale

Alan Dale

Posted
Posted

Weeks Lizzygotdizzy.


To be fair, by the time I die (unless Atila The Gooner gets me in the next couple of weeks) then the average house in London will be worth more than a single IHT nil rate band.


The average house in ED must already be over that...

*Bob*

*Bob*

Posted
Posted

LizzygotDizzy Wrote:

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

> Cor Alan, and how long have you been waiting to

> accidentally on purpose slip your earning

> capacity/amount of savings you have in to a thread

> on here? Lol! Joke! ;-)


He does it all the time Lizzy. He's a real snob - steer well clear.

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...