The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Another campaigning group runs out of targets  (Read 20274 times)

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« on: 06/04/2009 09:38:35 »
Having succeeded in making smoking illegal just about everywhere except the far side of Pluto, ASH, the anti-smoking group, are now targeting drivers. However, they are not the only group of do-gooders struggling to justify their existence.

The Keep Britain Tidy campaign, which is largely responsible for the possibility of a £2,500 fine for dropping a bogie in a public place, are also scraping the barrel for further targets. In their eyes the new pariahs are postmen.

From the BBC News website:

Postal workers who drop red rubber bands used for bundling letters in the street are being targeted by anti-litter campaigners.

Now, these are not huge bands capable of securing a regiment of paratroopers. They are small & thin - just standard rubber bands.

The article goes on to say:

It claimed 6% of England's streets were littered with rubber bands, as well as many private driveways and paths.

Really? Where are these mountains of red rubber bands? Admittedly, I don't go around with my eyes glued to the pavement looking for litter, but I am a pretty observant little rodent; yet I have seen no evidence of this newly-identified threat to society. I do not have to wade waist-deep through rubber bands to get a kebab. Nor have I ever noticed specially adapted snow ploughs clearing the way. Methinks there may be a teeny-weeny bit of hyperbole involved in their claim.

According to the article, KBT also say that "There are concerns that the bands could be dangerous to animals if swallowed.".

Well yes, they could swallow them; but that doesn't mean they will. I have spent my entire life in close contact with animals and I cannot recall a single case of an animal being hurt or killed as the result of swallowing a rubber band. Most animals will swallow something if they consider it to be food (and occasionally domestic pets swallow items from around the house) but not by any stretch of the imagination do rubber bands resemble the prey of any animal I know of (although I do allow that a bird could possibly mistake a rubber band for a worm with its head stuck up its own backside).

Nor would a foraging animal be interested. There are enough sources of food in our towns and cities to support an ever-increasing number of mice, rats & urban foxes.

I must admit to an amount of sympathy with the KBT brigade and others of their ilk. The threat of extinction due to sanitisation is looming and the "fight or flight" mechanism has obviously kicked in. There is nowhere for them to run, so they have chosen to fight - and their opponents are largely figments of their own imagination.

The beaver has spoken!
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 09:51:47 by DoctorBeaver »


 

blakestyger

  • Guest
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #1 on: 06/04/2009 10:40:06 »
I'd miss those rubber bands. I pick them up from our drive and save them; I have a basket full of them.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #2 on: 06/04/2009 12:43:30 »
Dr B, that's one extinction I would happily bear.

I heard a report some time ago that these red rubber bands decompose quite quickly.


While working on a show at Alexandra Palace a couple of years ago, a Health & Safety officer told me I must wear a hard hat whist operating a fork truck. I pointed out to her that if the protective steel cage I was sitting in didn't stop something smashing my brains out, then a plastic hat certainly wouldn't. Alighting from the truck, I said to her "I don't have to wear a hard hat now, do I?" "No", she replied.  ??? ??? ???
 

Variola

  • Guest
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #3 on: 06/04/2009 14:14:05 »
Quote
The Keep Britain Tidy campaign, which is largely responsible for the possibility of a £2,500 fine for dropping a bogie in a public place, are also scraping the barrel for further targets. In their eyes the new pariahs are postmen.

While I do not see anything particularly harmful about rubber bands, I think the laziness that accompanies anyone who drops litter ( purposefully) is what needs targetting. The silly outlining of postman of the KBT is just an example-making exercise. People who drop litter are one of my bug bears, I can't stand it! Cigarette smokers who throw their butts out of car windows should be lined up and squirted with sewerage in my opinion.
I am also a non-smoker, and support ASH with what they have done so far, but I do think trying to target drivers in private cars is sheer lunacy.

If people what to drop litter in their house or smoke themselves into a fog in their cars then leave them alone to do it, just make sure they don't inflict it on the rest of us!!


The Pox has spoken! LOL
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #4 on: 06/04/2009 17:05:02 »
As Don has veered into having a go at health and safety...

A particularly annoying H and S directive (although there are too many to mention) is the requirement to have these plastic lids when carrying hot drinks. At heathrow airport the other week I bought a coffee and, having had a previous experience of trying to drink through the "feeder" in the thin plastic lid and burning my mouth, I decided to remove the lid and drink as normal. Being rather encumbered with a bag I was a little careless with the amount of grip I had on the cup whilst removing the lid. I belatedly realised that much of the cup's rigidity derives from the said lid and removing it results in, as they say in Star Trek, a loss of structural integrity. I got sprayed with boiling coffee and lost much of the contents to boot. D'oh!
 

blakestyger

  • Guest
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #5 on: 06/04/2009 17:23:25 »
I wish someone would outlaw using chewing gum in a public place - those black splodges on pavements are just disgusting.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a H&S issue attached to it.
 

Variola

  • Guest
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #6 on: 06/04/2009 17:37:28 »
Quote
belatedly realised that much of the cup's rigidity derives from the said lid and removing it results in, as they say in Star Trek, a loss of structural integrity. I got sprayed with boiling coffee and lost much of the contents to boot. D'oh!

 ;D ;D Sorry I shouldn't laugh!! Thats just the sort of thing I do though, I hope you didn't get too burn't! The fault lies witht he compnay for buying cheap, poorly made plastic cups.
What gets me is if you go into a resturant and order a cup of coffee you get it in a cup, but you have just as much chance of spilling it over yourself and being burnt. But some resturants now refuse to give you a jug of hot water to heat a baby's bottle or food up with, in case you get burnt, but you can still buy a cup of tea or coffee. 
Its all litigation-motivated pedantic directives, the same sort of mindsets that determine that xmas tress maybe offensive or ordering a black coffee might be racist, when no one of any creed or culture that I have spoken to would be offended by either.
Is all done on behalf of us because apparently we cannot think for ourselves, therefore if someone does the thinking for us, then it willbe a safer world. Pfffft!  ::)
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #7 on: 06/04/2009 18:05:52 »
I wish someone would outlaw using chewing gum in a public place - those black splodges on pavements are just disgusting.
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a H&S issue attached to it.

Now that I totally agree with. Not outlawing chewing it in public places, but the discarding of such on the pavement.

Pox - Whilst agreeing with what you say about litter being horrible, saying Britain's streets are "littered" with these red rubber bands is a deliberately misleading phrase. I walked into town earlier, walked around the shops, then walked back home a different way. I was keeping an eye out for rubber bands and did not see a single 1.

You support what ASH has done, do you? Do you realise that were I still a freelance computer consultant it would now be illegal for me to smoke in my own home? It would also be illegal for me to smoke in my car. The reason? My home was my registered head office and sometimes clients would come there. That makes it a place of work. Similarly, my car was a company vehicle and as such it would be illegal to smoke in it even though no clients ever travelled in it. And who is responsible for such nonsense? ASH.

Something else ASH is largely responsible for - In 2005 & 2006 between 200 & 300 pubs closed in each of those years. The smoking ban in pubs & clubs was introduced in 2007. Guess what - over 2500 pubs & clubs closed within a year. That's a lot of people thrown out of work and in many cases thrown out of their homes. Banbury isn't a big place, yet 2 pubs and 3 clubs in or near the town centre have closed since the ban was introduced and at least 2 more pubs are really struggling to survive now. I don't know about the outlying areas.

That ban was introduced so that staff didn't have to breathe other people's smoke. Who was forcing those people to work in pubs? Were they threatened with a bullet through the head if they didn't? If they didn't like smoke they shouldn't have been working in a pub or club in the first place. That legislation is as absurd and unnecessary as banning upstairs windows so that window cleaners don't have to put themselves at risk by climbing ladders!
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 18:08:25 by DoctorBeaver »
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #8 on: 06/04/2009 18:49:58 »
Postal workers who drop red rubber bands used for bundling letters in the street are being targeted by anti-litter campaigners.

What with opening your mail up to steal the birthday / christmas money inside, I am suprised the posties have time to drop elastic bands.
 

Variola

  • Guest
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #9 on: 06/04/2009 19:50:51 »
Quote
You support what ASH has done, do you? Do you realise that were I still a freelance computer consultant it would now be illegal for me to smoke in my own home? It would also be illegal for me to smoke in my car. The reason? My home was my registered head office and sometimes clients would come there. That makes it a place of work. Similarly, my car was a company vehicle and as such it would be illegal to smoke in it even though no clients ever travelled in it. And who is responsible for such nonsense? ASH.

There are goping to be daft exceptions to every new bit of legislation,. thats just how it works unfortunately. Poimnt is it is still beneficial to those who dont smoke to to have to put up with smoke in workplaces.

Quote
Something else ASH is largely responsible for - In 2005 & 2006 between 200 & 300 pubs closed in each of those years. The smoking ban in pubs & clubs was introduced in 2007. Guess what - over 2500 pubs & clubs closed within a year. That's a lot of people thrown out of work and in many cases thrown out of their homes. Banbury isn't a big place, yet 2 pubs and 3 clubs in or near the town centre have closed since the ban was introduced and at least 2 more pubs are really struggling to survive now. I don't know about the outlying areas.

I have heard the pro-smoking lobby makes that claim lots of times. Those pubs would have closed regardless if people can smoke in them of not, people who regularly go tot he pub, the bread and butter as it were are STILL going to their local pub, and diving outside for a fag everynow and then.
If the pubs are not doing the barrelage they they should have been doing to sustain them then its an indictment of modern society with more of the younger generation chosing to drink in town rather than in some of the more rural pubs And it is  an example of the present economic climate, with people having less money to spend. Also it indicates that people are now either spending the money on supermarket or booze cruise alcohol, and staying at home to drink, or they are drinking more at home before they go out whereas before they would have gone straight to the pub.

Quote
That ban was introduced so that staff didn't have to breathe other people's smoke. Who was forcing those people to work in pubs? Were they threatened with a bullet through the head if they didn't? If they didn't like smoke they shouldn't have been working in a pub or club in the first place. That legislation is as absurd and unnecessary as banning upstairs windows so that window cleaners don't have to put themselves at risk by climbing ladders!

No it was introduced to people could go to a pub and not have to passive smoke. Why should non-smokers have to risk their health just to be able to enjoy a pint like smokers do? You would say the legislation is ridiculous as you are a smoker, all smokers do because they are the ones it affects. It means actually having to go outside for 5 mins!! No one forces non-smokers to go to the pub, but then no one forces smokers to smoke!! They can choose not to, they just dont and consider it ok to subject others to it. I consider the rights of people to be able to enjoy the pub without passive smoking far greater than those who choose to smoke. I am not against smoking as such, people should live their lives how they want without pictures of body parts on a pack or warnings, that really is completely pointless.
Until last Sept I was working part-time in a pub, so I was there when the smoking ban came in. My boss and most of the staff didnt like it as they all smoked, and it meant having to ensure adequate outside facilities for smokers. But in terms of killing trade it disn't make much differnce, there wasn't one regular pub-goer who didn't come in anymore because of the smoking ban, they just moaned a bit and went outside for a fag. That indicates that going down to the pub for social interation and drink is more important to them than being able to sit inside and smoke. A pub is a place for social interaction, it is not a smoking room. I actually think a smoking room should have been given as an alternative to outside, as long as it was seperate from the main bar and clearly designated as such.


On the elastic band point I couldn't agree more, I hardly ever see them, I always pick them up if i do as they are useful. So littered was a big exaggeration.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #10 on: 06/04/2009 21:57:16 »
Quote
I have heard the pro-smoking lobby makes that claim lots of times. Those pubs would have closed regardless if people can smoke in them of not, people who regularly go tot he pub, the bread and butter as it were are STILL going to their local pub, and diving outside for a fag everynow and then.

Not so. That is propoganda from the anti-smoking lobby and has no basis in reality. It is nothing more than an effort by those who are responsible for so many job losses in the industry to convince people they were not responsible.

Here are some facts, not spin:

The pub that used to be my local had a good crowd nearly every night. Now it's barely worth their while opening during the week and even at weekends there aren't many people in there any more.

I regularly meet people I used to drink with in there and I can't count how many of them have told me that they don't go to the pub now because they can't enjoy a ciggie with their pint. They now stay at home with a few cans.

The landlord of another pub in Banbury, 1 that has closed, reckons his custom roughly halved as a direct result of the ban. 1 of the clubs had a similar reduction in customers and it became unviable for them to stay open.

Those 2 establishments were doing well. When the ban was introduced, they died.

I also happen to know that of the 4 pubs that have closed where I used to live in Suffolk, 3 were as a direct result of the ban. The other 1 closed because the landlord turned it into a restaurant before he went broke. That means that 5 of the 6 establishments that I actually know the circumstances of have closed as a direct result of the smoking ban.

The landlord I know in Banbury told me that a lot of pubs were indeed struggling prior to the ban, but were keeping afloat. The introduction of the ban was the final straw.

This is information direct from the people who actually know what is going on. It didn't come from those who supply the bullshit the government and lobby groups churn out.

So don't tell me the ban isn't responsible for so many pubs and clubs closing when I have unequivocal proof that it is.
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #11 on: 06/04/2009 22:05:10 »
Quote
No it was introduced to people could go to a pub and not have to passive smoke. Why should non-smokers have to risk their health just to be able to enjoy a pint like smokers do?

They didn't have to. If I didn't want to breathe smoke I would go to a no-smoking pub. They existed before the ban.

I am neither pro- nor anti-smoking. I am pro-choice. It should have been left to landlords to decide whether or not to allow smoking.

Incidentally, I wouldn't call myself a smoker as such. I have 3 or 4 a week and it bothers me not 1 tad if I go somewhere smoking is not allowed.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 22:06:56 by DoctorBeaver »
 

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8127
  • Thanked: 53 times
    • View Profile
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #12 on: 06/04/2009 22:31:58 »
Here are some facts, not spin:

The pub that used to be my local had a good crowd nearly every night. Now it's barely worth their while opening during the week and even at weekends there aren't many people in there any more.

I regularly meet people I used to drink with in there and I can't count how many of them have told me that they don't go to the pub now because they can't enjoy a ciggie with their pint. They now stay at home with a few cans.



The very low price of supermarket booze is more of a factor in pubs closing than the smoking ban ...


Quote
Asda lager offer comes under fire 
Wednesday, 08 October 2008 
 
Asda has been criticised for selling packs of Skol lager cheaper than the price of water, something opponents claimed is adding to underage drinking problems.

Alcohol Concern's Don Shenker said that the deal - which sees four 440ml cans on offer for 90p - is encouraging binge drinking.
http://www.talkingretail.com/news/industry-news/11065-asda-lager-offer-comes-under-fire.html

[they'd have to pay me to drink Skol lager  [xx(] ]

« Last Edit: 06/04/2009 22:35:33 by RD »
 

Variola

  • Guest
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #13 on: 06/04/2009 23:44:17 »
Quote
Not so. That is propoganda from the anti-smoking lobby and has no basis in reality. It is nothing more than an effort by those who are responsible for so many job losses in the industry to convince people they were not responsible.

Nope if aything it is my propaganda based on what I have seen and observed over the years, not just since the ban came in.

Quote
So don't tell me the ban isn't responsible for so many pubs and clubs closing when I have unequivocal proof that it is.

What you have is anecdotal evidence, landlords, smokers and people otherwise in not in favor of the ban will always state the ban is responsible, after all no landlord will admit their pub is worse off/closed for other reasons, even if it is somehing attributable to the modern social climate of driking. Even if what they have said is 100% true, it is still only a few select cases. I could go int othe pubs in my toen and ask people how the ban has affected them, the smokers will moan, and the landlords will join in to appease their customers. No landlord is going to want the slightest chance of people being put off coming into the pub.

Quote
They didn't have to. If I didn't want to breathe smoke I would go to a no-smoking pub. They existed before the ban.

I am neither pro- nor anti-smoking. I am pro-choice. It should have been left to landlords to decide whether or not to allow smoking.

Incidentally, I wouldn't call myself a smoker as such. I have 3 or 4 a week and it bothers me not 1 tad if I go somewhere smoking is not allowed.

There were barely any, its not a matter of non-smokers not wanting to breathe in smoke ( although I doubt many if any would) its to protect non-smokers from the effects of passive smoking.
I am pro-choice, which is why I think smoking shouldn't be banned altogether, but no one has taken smokers choice away. All it means is that they smoke outside a building not inside. They can still smoke when they go to the pub, and enjoy a ciggy, if need be taking their pint out with them if it means that much! If they really find the idea of having to nip outside for 5 mins that bad they can always exercise their right NOT to smoke! No one is making them smoke after all.

As RD says the low price of alcohol is the most critical factor is causing pubs to shut, that combined with changing modern society and also different ways of socialising. It used to be that in order to meet new people, one had to get out to a pastime, social club or more commonly the pub. Now all we have to do is flick a switch and we are connected to the world. There has been an explosion of 'pre-club' and 'sports' bars, the former being noisy loud trendy places in town that attract a big crowd of 20 somethings, the latter being pubs that have the big widescreens and sky to feature all the major sporting events. Both of those have had a knock on effect on traditional pubs.


PS I anyone watching Newsnight??
 

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12656
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #14 on: 07/04/2009 00:49:45 »
Quote
The very low price of supermarket booze is more of a factor in pubs closing than the smoking ban

But if you want to believe what the government says, and there are obviously those here who do, most of the booze bought in supermarkets is consumed by younger people before they go on to pubs and clubs or it is bought for underage drinkers.

So which is it?

Heather - it's getting late & I'm tired so I'll address your latest points tomorrow. Good night everyone.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #15 on: 07/04/2009 12:28:30 »
Pubs are closing because of the smoking ban. Forget what the government says, listen to the publicans.

It would have been quite legal for any pub to have banned smoking before the law enforced it. Why do you think they didn't?

It is illegal for me to smoke in my van because it is a place of work, yet I do not employ anyone. Those whom I use to do work for me are self employed and do not travel in my van. I use my car occasionally for work, strictly speaking, it is illegal for me to smoke in my car. I use a room in my home for my bookwork, I break the law when I light up.

An owner-driver delivering parcels was recently fined for smoking in his own van also a painter & decorator has been fined despite the fact that his van is insured only for private use and journey's to & from his place of work.

Lets not kid ourselves, ASH DO want to ban smoking in all public places, including private cars.

Our freedom of choice is being eroded by these burks with nothing better to do than poke their noses into our affairs.

I find the smell of aniseed and spring onions repulsive, I demand they be banned in public places.
 

Offline Raghavendra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 835
  • Quantum
    • View Profile
    • Raghavendra
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #16 on: 07/04/2009 12:36:59 »
in india pubs are  banned  and trashed
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #17 on: 07/04/2009 12:40:39 »
http://www.holymoly.com/page/NewsDetail/0,,12643~1615221,00.html

Perhaps we should also ban stupid celebrities?

Quote
Gwyneth Paltrow claims that shampoo can cause cancer



If you're stupid enough to read Gwyneth Paltrow's online new age magazine 'Goop' then you're certainly idiotic enough to believe every word she says. So there were seven or eight people who read Gwyneth's comments about shampoo containing "environmental toxins" and immediately ran screaming from their houses and waving their arms in the air.

 

Dr. Gwyneth (currently putting the 'mental' into 'environmental') claimed that she had completed a large amount of research into the subject (which naturally makes her a bit of an expert, what with being able to read and Google things). This led her to declare that shampoos and lotions can cause asthma and cancer and warned pregnant women away from their use (just what we want, a load of smelly-haired pregnant women).

 

"Fetuses, infants and toddlers are basically unable to metabolize toxins the way adults are, and we are constantly filling our environment with chemicals that may or may not be safe."

 

Wow, it really sounds as though she knows what she's talking about, doesn't it (apart from not being able to spell 'foetus' correctly)? Luckily, here's my favourite academic of the year so far. Professor Hugh Pennington who rubbishes Gwyneth's claims and the woman herself in the process.

 

"It does annoy me when celebrities use their position to spout nonsense. They have a perfect right to their views, even if they are loopy, but they do hold a position of influence…Shampoo is perfectly safe unless you drink it in large quantities."

 

Hooray! Nice one Prof. Now, what do you think about Paris Hilton's new range of sunglasses?

 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #18 on: 07/04/2009 12:50:25 »

Perhaps we should also ban stupid celebrities?



Oh yes please!
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #19 on: 07/04/2009 14:06:52 »
I am not sure that it is true that the smoking ban is responsible for pub closures, despite anecdotal evidence of landlords. There are many factors, not the least being a no drink and drive culture which it is hard for pub landlords to publicly argue against. Many good country pubs can't be easily visited without a car and it is all very well to say that people should get a taxi or have a non-drinking driver, but this is a big deterrent. The no-smoking environment in pubs makes them a more attractive place to go for many people now, including many smokers I know. Personally I do not hanker after the days of the smoke filled room and brown (once white) walls whilst I sup a decent pint or 4.

Landlords would wish to not exclude any custom so having any rule that excludes a section of society would seem bad to them. Without the rule being enforced I doubt whether there would be many non-smoking pubs but a lot of pubs with a small room for the non-smokers. The balance has changed from the past when if you wanted to have a sociable evening with some friends you were obliged to go into a smokey area so the smokers among you could partake. Now it is the other way around. Of course as a non-smoker this is preferable to me though I do understand that this is not allowing the same freedom of choice to smokers. However I know many smokers who would never travel in the smoking carriages in trains because of the disgusting state of a floor littered with dog-ends and the stench of stale smoke. Maybe, like the introduction of compulsory seatbelts in cars or laws against racism, it needs some rules to be used as a form of social engineering to change attitudes. Generally I don't like rules and sympathise with some of the crazy consequences, but I have to grudgingly agree that sometimes they work to change people's views on issues.
 

Variola

  • Guest
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #20 on: 07/04/2009 14:11:17 »
Quote
Pubs are closing because of the smoking ban. Forget what the government says, listen to the publicans.

I dont listen to what the government says, on any issue, unless of course it is so I can ridicule them

All I am saying is that the smoking ban itself has not caused pubs to close, it may have contributed slightly, but no where near as much as smokers or publicans would have us believe, im made my thoughts as to why in a previous post so I wont repeat them.

Quote
It is illegal for me to smoke in my van because it is a place of work, yet I do not employ anyone. Those whom I use to do work for me are self employed and do not travel in my van. I use my car occasionally for work, strictly speaking, it is illegal for me to smoke in my car. I use a room in my home for my bookwork, I break the law when I light up.

An owner-driver delivering parcels was recently fined for smoking in his own van also a painter & decorator has been fined despite the fact that his van is insured only for private use and journey's to & from his place of work.

See now that I do find ridiculous, and that is where the law needs amending.
But you are still taling from a biased point of view because you are a smoker.

Quote
Our freedom of choice is being eroded by these burks with nothing better to do than poke their noses into our affairs.

But it its your choice to smoke, that hasnt been takena way from you and I would not like to see it taken away. What has been taken away is smokers being allowed to smoke in pubs and the like, and non-smokers have been given the right to enjoy the pub etc without risking their health.
Whyon earth should anyone suffer because a smoker cant be bothered to nip outside for a fag???

Quote
I find the smell of aniseed and spring onions repulsive, I demand they be banned in public places.

Again you are missing the point, its not the smell issue its the health. You smokers can ignore the health risks of smoking all you like.... thats your choice... but passive smoking is a health risk to others, and all smokers do is moan about the inconvenience of having to nip outside for a ciggie.

 

Variola

  • Guest
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #21 on: 07/04/2009 14:12:51 »
Quote
Perhaps we should also ban stupid celebrities?


On yes please!!!!! In fact ban celeb culture!!
 

Offline dentstudent

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3146
  • FOGger to the unsuspecting
    • View Profile
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #22 on: 07/04/2009 14:37:39 »
I didn't know celebs were grown in a culture, although it makes sense now that you say it...
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #23 on: 07/04/2009 14:51:00 »
I agree that it is not fair to subject non-smokers to a smoky environment. But that is no excuse for dictating when & where I can smoke. Nobody complained when smoking was allowed on the top deck of a bus, or in certain carridges of a train, so why ban it, why not have smoking & non-smoking bars in a pub?

The point is we are not being given the choice. One group or another decides they don't like something and the next thing you know is we are all compelled to do as they wish.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #24 on: 07/04/2009 15:33:19 »
I didn't know celebs were grown in a culture, although it makes sense now that you say it...

Oh yes, look, here's one emerging from a green slimy culture now!
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Another campaigning group runs out of targets
« Reply #24 on: 07/04/2009 15:33:19 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums