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

    • But actually, replacing council housing, or more accurately adding to housing stock and doing so via expanding council estates was precisely what we should have been doing, financed by selling off old housing stock. As the population grows adding to housing built by councils is surely the right thing to do, and financing it through sales is a good model, it's the one commercial house builders follow for instance. In the end the issue is about having the right volumes of the appropriate sort of housing to meet national needs. Thatcher stopped that by forbidding councils to use sales revenues to increase housing stock. That was the error. 
    • Had council stock not been sold off then it wouldn't have needed replacing. Whilst I agree that the prohibition on spending revenue from sales on new council housing was a contributory factor, where, in places where building land is scarce and expensive such as London, would these replacement homes have been built. Don't mention infill land! The whole right to buy issue made me so angry when it was introduced and I'm still fuming 40 odd years later. If I could see it was just creating problems for the future, how come Thatcher didn't. I suspect though she did, was more interested in buying votes, and just didn't care about a scarcity of housing impacting the next generations.
    • Actually I don't think so. What caused the problem was the ban on councils using the revenues from sales to build more houses. Had councils been able to reinvest in more housing then we would have had a boom in building. And councils would have been relieved, through the sales, of the cost of maintaining old housing stock. Thatcher believed that council tenants didn't vote Conservative, and home owners did. Which may have been, at the time a correct assumption. But it was the ban on councils building more from the sales revenues which was the real killer here. Not the sales themselves. 
    • I agree with Jenjenjen. Guarantees are provided for works and services actually carried out; they are not an insurance policy for leaks anywhere else on the roof. Assuming that the rendering at the chimney stopped the leak that you asked the roofer to repair, then the guarantee will cover that rendering work. Indeed, if at some time in the future it leaked again at that exact same spot but by another cause, that would not be covered. Failure of rendering around a chimney is pretty common so, if re-rendering did resolve that leak, there is no particular reason to link it to the holes in the felt elsewhere across the roof. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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