0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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.
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!
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.
Postal workers who drop red rubber bands used for bundling letters in the street are being targeted by anti-litter campaigners.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The very low price of supermarket booze is more of a factor in pubs closing than the smoking ban
Gwyneth Paltrow claims that shampoo can cause cancerIf 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?
Perhaps we should also ban stupid celebrities?