MPs backing call to lift smoking ban (From Bradford Telegraph and Argus)

Making money more important than health then to these MPs?

Shame on the pair of them.

what you dont realise is that due to the smoking ban , pubs and clubs have shut down !!!!.
its ok if your a non smoker and have the choice to enter any pub , but if you decide to smoke you are a outcast and cannot make your own choice as you are forced by someone to make the choice for you !.
its not the fact they are losing money but also they are losing jobs too !
the smoking ban was the worst thing to happen to pubs in the uk .
they used to have no smokng areas ! so why cant they have smoking areas ! if they choose

old speckled hen wrote:
what you dont realise is that due to the smoking ban , pubs and clubs have shut down !!!!.
its ok if your a non smoker and have the choice to enter any pub , but if you decide to smoke you are a outcast and cannot make your own choice as you are forced by someone to make the choice for you !.
its not the fact they are losing money but also they are losing jobs too !
the smoking ban was the worst thing to happen to pubs in the uk .
they used to have no smokng areas ! so why cant they have smoking areas ! if they choose

Absolute tosh! The smoking ban protects the rights of all of us to choose whether or not we are exposed to smoke. The main point of the ban is to make sure that those who work in the industry are not forced to choose an unhealthy working environment in exchange for a job, and that is something that the public as a whole should support. I have no problem with smokers - they are as entitled to their vices as I am to mine - but lets remember that there are many that work in the pub industry and in the same way that we protect workers from asbestos we have a duty to protect them from known carcinogens like tobacco smoke.
As far as I am aware, no-one is prevented from smoking - they are just expected to show some consideration for the rest of us!
These politicians are completely off the mark - one even saying we all have a right to do what we will with our own bodies - and that in some way excuses smokers who expect me to inhale their smoke! The mind boggles!

old speckled hen wrote:
what you dont realise is that due to the smoking ban , pubs and clubs have shut down !!!!. its ok if your a non smoker and have the choice to enter any pub , but if you decide to smoke you are a outcast and cannot make your own choice as you are forced by someone to make the choice for you !. its not the fact they are losing money but also they are losing jobs too ! the smoking ban was the worst thing to happen to pubs in the uk . they used to have no smokng areas ! so why cant they have smoking areas ! if they choose

What about the health of those serving and working there?
Roy Castle you remember he died from working in clubs with smoking.

I am certain that a hell of a lot of clubs and pubs have been forced to shut down, with the resulting loss of employment and in many cases the loss of the licencee's home as well.
What harm would it do to the non-smoking public if a decent, well ventilated room (possibly without a bar counter) was set aside for the use of smokers?
You can hardly expect the customers who wish to smoke to stand outside in the cold and the rain, in order to have a puff n a pint!
A lot of smokers now, are choosing to drink at home - hence there are thousands of former bar workers out of a job now in the UK.
I am a FORMER smoker, so I can see both sides of the argument.

mad matt wrote:
I am certain that a hell of a lot of clubs and pubs have been forced to shut down, with the resulting loss of employment and in many cases the loss of the licencee's home as well.
What harm would it do to the non-smoking public if a decent, well ventilated room (possibly without a bar counter) was set aside for the use of smokers?
You can hardly expect the customers who wish to smoke to stand outside in the cold and the rain, in order to have a puff n a pint!
A lot of smokers now, are choosing to drink at home - hence there are thousands of former bar workers out of a job now in the UK.
I am a FORMER smoker, so I can see both sides of the argument.

On the other hand, chains such as Wetherspoons are expanding at a rapid rate because smoking ban or not they give people what they want, Many of the pubs that shut down were just not wanted by the public anymore, if you allowed smoking the vast majority probably wouldnt re-open.
The report fails to mention those EU countries who are actually tightening their smoking regulations (Spain comes to mind).

I couldn't really care less whether it's banned or not but I was in Bingley WMC in 2008 (after the ban kicked in) and a few people were smoking in there. As far as I could see no effort was made to enforce the ban and that put me off ever going again.

Try this for size. The pubs in Keighley that are always full are the one who charge the least. A pint in Wetherspoons can be half the price of other pubs. I buy my tipple by the bottle £1.59 take home, pub price for same £3.80. Any wonder we all stay at home? I`m not blaming landlords, greedy breweries the like. They charge these prices because some of us are daft enough to pay them. Smoking ban has nothing to do with the decline in pub trade. Try fighting through the smokers outside Wetherspoons and Last Orders.

Smoking should be allowed in designated areas.
Drinking is tolerated in designated areas. Whats the difference?

bredandbuttered wrote:
Smoking should be allowed in designated areas.
Drinking is tolerated in designated areas. Whats the difference?

Passive smoking.

For a start Roy Castle was a social cigar smoker, he also worked with a hell of a lot of asbestos based props. He also 'self diagnosed' his cause of cancer, it has never been proven that SHS caused his, or anybody elses cancer-and it never will be proven. It may be a contributory factor but not a cause.
Wetherspoons, the majority, are doss holes that serve beer. The majority are not pleasurable places to go for an evening out!
Duke of Odsal:- " The main point of the ban is to make sure that those who work in the industry are not forced to choose an unhealthy working environment ..."
Odsal, I have 17 ex barmaids who would love to have their old jobs back-but their pubs have gone forever. They don't care whether there's smoking or not (and 12 of them don't smoke!) they just want jobs. This law is protecting no one as SHS does NOT kill-exhaust fumes do but SHS doesn't. Any67way, if there were choice, which there should be, only a complete idiot would apply for a job in a smoking bar if they objected to smoke. ME? I don't smoke (before you start yawping) but it wouldn't bother me if I worked in a smoking bar, in fact, I'd welcome it because smokers seem to know how to enjoy themselves whereas pubs nowadays resemble mausaleums!
Mad Matt:- Wetherspoons tried a voluntary 'smoke-free' pre ban, it was a disaster. Tim Martin soon knocked that on the head so as to get his hard core customers back in for cheap booze!
No matter what your position there should be CHOICE for licensees, how else can they run their dying businesses to the best of their abilities? What government, that supports small businesses (sic!) has the right to pass a law that directly contravenes that very window of opportunity. Why do you think Punch & Enterprise want toget ridm of a further 2,100 venues?
Think on-bars for non smokers and bars for smokers, it is the only fair way forward.

Very true handyman.

Bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers, I think we all know which would be the fullest!

rant and a rave wrote:
Very true handyman.

Bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers, I think we all know which would be the fullest!

It wont happen.

handymanphil wrote:
For a start Roy Castle was a social cigar smoker, he also worked with a hell of a lot of asbestos based props. He also 'self diagnosed' his cause of cancer, it has never been proven that SHS caused his, or anybody elses cancer-and it never will be proven. It may be a contributory factor but not a cause.
Wetherspoons, the majority, are doss holes that serve beer. The majority are not pleasurable places to go for an evening out!
Duke of Odsal:- " The main point of the ban is to make sure that those who work in the industry are not forced to choose an unhealthy working environment ..."
Odsal, I have 17 ex barmaids who would love to have their old jobs back-but their pubs have gone forever. They don't care whether there's smoking or not (and 12 of them don't smoke!) they just want jobs. This law is protecting no one as SHS does NOT kill-exhaust fumes do but SHS doesn't. Any67way, if there were choice, which there should be, only a complete idiot would apply for a job in a smoking bar if they objected to smoke. ME? I don't smoke (before you start yawping) but it wouldn't bother me if I worked in a smoking bar, in fact, I'd welcome it because smokers seem to know how to enjoy themselves whereas pubs nowadays resemble mausaleums!
Mad Matt:- Wetherspoons tried a voluntary 'smoke-free' pre ban, it was a disaster. Tim Martin soon knocked that on the head so as to get his hard core customers back in for cheap booze!
No matter what your position there should be CHOICE for licensees, how else can they run their dying businesses to the best of their abilities? What government, that supports small businesses (sic!) has the right to pass a law that directly contravenes that very window of opportunity. Why do you think Punch & Enterprise want toget ridm of a further 2,100 venues?
Think on-bars for non smokers and bars for smokers, it is the only fair way forward.

"Wetherspoons, the majority, are doss holes that serve beer." They provide what people want whatever your obviously biased opinion is.

"albion, west riding says...
2:00pm Mon 10 Jan 11

rant and a rave wrote:
Very true handyman.

Bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers, I think we all know which would be the fullest!
It wont happen.

rant and a rave wrote: Very true handyman. Bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers, I think we all know which would be the fullest!

It wont happen. "

Why do you think they wouldn't want a reasonable fair law such as that?

I see the ASH and TAG sponsored commentators have descended for a bit more astroturfing!! Are you gullible people paid by the comment or word count?

Don't you realise that supporting the perverted creatures in the anti-smoker fold, that it is YOUR health that is being threatened and YOUR freedom that is being attacked? Are you so thick that can you cannot see where this is leading? This is NOT just about smoking!

Passive smoking is a PURE SCAM, a manufactured lie, so these supercilious idiots can claim their health is threatened and then demand that EVERY place, every area, is set aside for THEM and then unbelievably and hypocritically claim that smokers are selfish and that they are causing the considerable damage to pubs and clubs etc!!!! Your main worry NOW is that more people are coming to realise that it is not just passive smoking that is based on misinformation to protect/enhance corporate interests, BUT that that misinformation originated with primary smoking!

The idiotic vocal anti-smoker majority is, in reality, a very small minority despite their claims to the contrary! The Majority of smokers and non-smokers alike want their social life back; smoking and drinking are essentially social activities! They want a return to an inclusive, tolerant society that is NOT dominated by a small group of gullible, intolerant, neurotic, self obsessed anti-smokers.

rant and a rave wrote:
"albion, west riding says...
2:00pm Mon 10 Jan 11

rant and a rave wrote:
Very true handyman.

Bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers, I think we all know which would be the fullest!
It wont happen.

rant and a rave wrote: Very true handyman. Bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers, I think we all know which would be the fullest!

It wont happen. "

Why do you think they wouldn't want a reasonable fair law such as that?

Because it would promote smoking.

Not that it would affect me personally but I don't see it happening.

Vellocatus wrote:
I see the ASH and TAG sponsored commentators have descended for a bit more astroturfing!! Are you gullible people paid by the comment or word count?

Don't you realise that supporting the perverted creatures in the anti-smoker fold, that it is YOUR health that is being threatened and YOUR freedom that is being attacked? Are you so thick that can you cannot see where this is leading? This is NOT just about smoking!

Passive smoking is a PURE SCAM, a manufactured lie, so these supercilious idiots can claim their health is threatened and then demand that EVERY place, every area, is set aside for THEM and then unbelievably and hypocritically claim that smokers are selfish and that they are causing the considerable damage to pubs and clubs etc!!!! Your main worry NOW is that more people are coming to realise that it is not just passive smoking that is based on misinformation to protect/enhance corporate interests, BUT that that misinformation originated with primary smoking!

The idiotic vocal anti-smoker majority is, in reality, a very small minority despite their claims to the contrary! The Majority of smokers and non-smokers alike want their social life back; smoking and drinking are essentially social activities! They want a return to an inclusive, tolerant society that is NOT dominated by a small group of gullible, intolerant, neurotic, self obsessed anti-smokers.

This is my home forum and I am allowed to express my opinion so long as I don't contravene the site terms.
Calls like the one in the report have been made before but I don't see them succeeding (at least at this time, who knows what will happen in the distant future).

adults to go to have a drink, smoke and chat.
Now they are awful sterile creches.
Smokers made up at least 75% of the customer base and they have now deserted the pubs in their millions. Who in their right mind would buy a drink in a pub and then go and stand in the street to enjoy a smoke.
Even non-smokers have deserted the pubs as their company of smokers have left the pubs empty.
Drinks have always been much cheaper in the supermarket and yet people preferred the pub to have a drink because of the company.
Children do not belong in pubs as they are not allowed to drink alcohol and their parents should not be taking children into pubs and then drinking themselves as they are supposed to be looking after their children.
Pubs are not to have a meal in, that is the role of a restaurant or cafe.
The pubs now stink of baby sick, dirty nappies and cheap food.
No wonder adults prefer to drink at home where they can enjoy a cigarette and chat without kids running around.
Pubs are for drinking in not social centres for families.

stevie45 wrote:
adults to go to have a drink, smoke and chat.
Now they are awful sterile creches.
Smokers made up at least 75% of the customer base and they have now deserted the pubs in their millions. Who in their right mind would buy a drink in a pub and then go and stand in the street to enjoy a smoke.
Even non-smokers have deserted the pubs as their company of smokers have left the pubs empty.
Drinks have always been much cheaper in the supermarket and yet people preferred the pub to have a drink because of the company.
Children do not belong in pubs as they are not allowed to drink alcohol and their parents should not be taking children into pubs and then drinking themselves as they are supposed to be looking after their children.
Pubs are not to have a meal in, that is the role of a restaurant or cafe.
The pubs now stink of baby sick, dirty nappies and cheap food.
No wonder adults prefer to drink at home where they can enjoy a cigarette and chat without kids running around.
Pubs are for drinking in not social centres for families.

40yrs ago, times have moved on.

The nazi style smoking ban is discrimination and bullying and we have all seen what it has done to our Pubs and Clubs,it is strange that the Industry,more and more MPs and the public are calling for a Reform of the smoking ban to allow the Industry choice yet the intolerant anti smokers still "claim" the ban to be a success.This is not about anti smokers,it is about our Clubs and Pubs,they should be the only ones to make the choice,smoking or non smoking. Time for some common sense.

tug wilson wrote:
The nazi style smoking ban is discrimination and bullying and we have all seen what it has done to our Pubs and Clubs,it is strange that the Industry,more and more MPs and the public are calling for a Reform of the smoking ban to allow the Industry choice yet the intolerant anti smokers still "claim" the ban to be a success.This is not about anti smokers,it is about our Clubs and Pubs,they should be the only ones to make the choice,smoking or non smoking. Time for some common sense.

Nazi style? The only intolerance I perceive is that exhibited by those who think that it is OK to smoke in the presence of others and resent having to remove themselves to a safe area.
Pubs are in decline for a host of reasons, but it can clearly be demonstrated that the main factor is cost. Those pubs that are given the freedom to source their products at competitive prices and offer a broader range of services are the ones that succeed. The culprits in the pub industry are the pubcos that overcharge their tenants and when they finally hand the keys back find another poor sap to pay for a new lease on equally restrictive trading terms.
Pubcos are desperate to make the majority of their estate unviable so that they can justify a change of use and sell the building for redevelopment.
Placing all the blame on a fairly straightforward law that protects health is clearly bonkers.
Also - lets dismiss the idea that it is OK for someone to be exposed at work - those that are looking for semi-skilled work like bar work will never have the luxury of choice, so it is inevitable that the state has to intervene. That is a basic tenet of H&S legislation - the protection of those whose choices are limited through financial disadvantage. Handymanphil - by your own admission you can point to unemployed barstaff that would rather have the job than avoid the smoke - that is precisely the point!
No - I am not anti smoking - on the contrary I will defend the rights of anyone to do what they want with their body - indeed I am working hard on developing liver disease; but that will be MY liver and not anyone else's! And before someone points out the social effects of booze fuelled crime, I would remind everyone that laws are there to punish the violent - its just a pity that they are often not applied to protect those who make our towns and cities unsafe.

Duke of Odsal, !
IF you are a non smoker, YOU have the choice to go into a smoking pub !!.
if someone who smokes goes in THEY DONT HAVE A CHOICE !
big diffference .
no freedom of chioce . as it has been decided by non smokers

While this may well be your 'home forum' Albion (2.50 pm), I don't see you denying any connections or vested interests!

There are always exceptions to the rule however, and there must still be one or two individuals who are too lazy to find out the truth for themselves, don't want their indoctrinated perceptions tainted, (often referred to as 'abnegation'), or worried their inconsiderate selfish interests would be curbed.

On the off chance that you are only aware of the 'official' line, here is a link where, if you really do want to educate yourself on the debase tactics of the anti-tobacco industry, this will be a good start.
http://fightingback.
homestead.com/

As anti-tobacco fanatics are more widely exposed for what they are and more people begin to realise that all they have to offer is smoking prohibition that will only ever cause social/individual pain and suffering AND set back advances in public health - you will see more and more calls for smoke ban amendments - as the Dutch, Greeks, Germans, many US states etc. have.

Surely you see the widespread public hatred of laws that seek to control every aspect of human behaviour, smoke bans are first amongst many?

Odsal, (3.57pm) - give your head a slap! This is NOTHING to do with H&S! If you are capable of understanding just one thing about this bad law UNDERSTAND THAT.

If you want to ‘defend someone’s rights’, defend those who wish to make a living in the hospitality trade, defend the employment of those who WANT to work in the hospitality trade - Stop using the pathetic excuse that anti-smokers want to ‘save’ hospitality workers from themselves or that they are forced to ONLY working in pubs.

Why not defend the rights of Firemen to NOT have work in buildings that are on fire or Soldiers forced to have to work in war zones, if you want to protect someone. Stop defending the spoilt children who won’t play the game unless they can make up their own rules!

Defend our once envied British culture and freedoms - stop being a wuz!

Vellocatus wrote:
While this may well be your 'home forum' Albion (2.50 pm), I don't see you denying any connections or vested interests!

There are always exceptions to the rule however, and there must still be one or two individuals who are too lazy to find out the truth for themselves, don't want their indoctrinated perceptions tainted, (often referred to as 'abnegation'), or worried their inconsiderate selfish interests would be curbed.

On the off chance that you are only aware of the 'official' line, here is a link where, if you really do want to educate yourself on the debase tactics of the anti-tobacco industry, this will be a good start.
http://fightingback.

homestead.com/

As anti-tobacco fanatics are more widely exposed for what they are and more people begin to realise that all they have to offer is smoking prohibition that will only ever cause social/individual pain and suffering AND set back advances in public health - you will see more and more calls for smoke ban amendments - as the Dutch, Greeks, Germans, many US states etc. have.

Surely you see the widespread public hatred of laws that seek to control every aspect of human behaviour, smoke bans are first amongst many?

Frankly I don't care, don't have any hatred of the laws, and can't see a lessening on the restrictions on public smoking.
I have no connection with any organisations be they pro or anti smoking, I just simply don't want it in my presence, Those on here who do have stated their position as have those who don't, I don't see why I should have to restrict my activities because someone wants to go to the same place and light a bonfire in their mouth, I also fail to understand why people wish to endanger their health by doing so, but whatever my opinion is or anyone else's come to that, the fact is that there are restrictions on smoking in public places and whatever anyone might wish, the only changes that I see happening are even more stringent one's.

M view is simple and solely applies to PUBS !!!!! A long established fact about landlords and pubs is the pub is their home....under established uk law re HRA 1998....EVERY PERSON has the RIGHT to FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS one such "freedom" being the right of freedom of "ASSOCIATION" so apply that and smoking in pubs has NEVER been against the law for the smoking ban violated a law that existed long before the ban eg HRA 1998 coming into force in 2000.....in truth the whole smoking ban isnt woth the paper its written on....all landlords have to do is RELY ON THE LAW !!! HRA 1998 has it .The local councils who prosecute landlords are "attacking" the fundamental freedoms of a landlord IN HIS HOME...

albion wrote:

rant and a rave wrote:
"albion, west riding says...
2:00pm Mon 10 Jan 11

rant and a rave wrote:
Very true handyman.

Bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers, I think we all know which would be the fullest!
It wont happen.

rant and a rave wrote: Very true handyman. Bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers, I think we all know which would be the fullest!

It wont happen. "

Why do you think they wouldn't want a reasonable fair law such as that?

Because it would promote smoking.

Not that it would affect me personally but I don't see it happening.

Don't you think banishing smokers onto the street in full view of everyone passing by does more to promote smoking then letting them smoke out of sight in a separate smoking room in the pub?

You wouldn't get hassled by kids trying to scrounge cigarettes if you could legally inside the pub again!

The Pub and Club Industry are calling for a Reform of the smoking Ban,because of the Lack of customers,it is very simple to understand,if Everyone had the same Free choice,Everyone would be happy,how can anyone complain about that.It is not about pro-smoking it is about Private Business being able to run their own businesses and offer choice to all.

js66 wrote:

albion wrote:

rant and a rave wrote:
"albion, west riding says...
2:00pm Mon 10 Jan 11

rant and a rave wrote:
Very true handyman.

Bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers, I think we all know which would be the fullest!
It wont happen.

rant and a rave wrote: Very true handyman. Bars for smokers and bars for non-smokers, I think we all know which would be the fullest!

It wont happen. "

Why do you think they wouldn't want a reasonable fair law such as that?

Because it would promote smoking.

Not that it would affect me personally but I don't see it happening.

Don't you think banishing smokers onto the street in full view of everyone passing by does more to promote smoking then letting them smoke out of sight in a separate smoking room in the pub?

You wouldn't get hassled by kids trying to scrounge cigarettes if you could legally inside the pub again!

No! I think it makes most of them look stupid, as for the kids, well that is another problem (they also hang out by off licences), If adults are giving children tobacco products the adults are at fault.

stonetool wrote:
M view is simple and solely applies to PUBS !!!!! A long established fact about landlords and pubs is the pub is their home....under established uk law re HRA 1998....EVERY PERSON has the RIGHT to FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS one such "freedom" being the right of freedom of "ASSOCIATION" so apply that and smoking in pubs has NEVER been against the law for the smoking ban violated a law that existed long before the ban eg HRA 1998 coming into force in 2000.....in truth the whole smoking ban isnt woth the paper its written on....all landlords have to do is RELY ON THE LAW !!! HRA 1998 has it .The local councils who prosecute landlords are "attacking" the fundamental freedoms of a landlord IN HIS HOME...

Oh! well there's no problem then, just let anyone who wants to smoke in your pub and there is no chance of prosecution?

tug wilson wrote:
The Pub and Club Industry are calling for a Reform of the smoking Ban,because of the Lack of customers,it is very simple to understand,if Everyone had the same Free choice,Everyone would be happy,how can anyone complain about that.It is not about pro-smoking it is about Private Business being able to run their own businesses and offer choice to all.

I would't be happy and I could complain about that.
Good evening Tug, back again, long time no see, still fruitlessly campaigning I see.

albion wrote:

tug wilson wrote:
The Pub and Club Industry are calling for a Reform of the smoking Ban,because of the Lack of customers,it is very simple to understand,if Everyone had the same Free choice,Everyone would be happy,how can anyone complain about that.It is not about pro-smoking it is about Private Business being able to run their own businesses and offer choice to all.

I would't be happy and I could complain about that.
Good evening Tug, back again, long time no see, still fruitlessly campaigning I see.

You'd complain about choice Albion? You said earlier that although you couldn't see any change happening, it wouldn't affect you personally - why complain then?!

Philip Davies MP is talking about allow a pub to have a dedicated smoking room - people who don't like smokers will be able to choose to use another room.

js66 wrote:

albion wrote:

tug wilson wrote:
The Pub and Club Industry are calling for a Reform of the smoking Ban,because of the Lack of customers,it is very simple to understand,if Everyone had the same Free choice,Everyone would be happy,how can anyone complain about that.It is not about pro-smoking it is about Private Business being able to run their own businesses and offer choice to all.

I would't be happy and I could complain about that.
Good evening Tug, back again, long time no see, still fruitlessly campaigning I see.

You'd complain about choice Albion? You said earlier that although you couldn't see any change happening, it wouldn't affect you personally - why complain then?!

Philip Davies MP is talking about allow a pub to have a dedicated smoking room - people who don't like smokers will be able to choose to use another room.

I would complain on health grounds.
Whatever Philip say's I don't see it happening.

albion wrote:

js66 wrote:

albion wrote:

tug wilson wrote:
The Pub and Club Industry are calling for a Reform of the smoking Ban,because of the Lack of customers,it is very simple to understand,if Everyone had the same Free choice,Everyone would be happy,how can anyone complain about that.It is not about pro-smoking it is about Private Business being able to run their own businesses and offer choice to all.

I would't be happy and I could complain about that.
Good evening Tug, back again, long time no see, still fruitlessly campaigning I see.

You'd complain about choice Albion? You said earlier that although you couldn't see any change happening, it wouldn't affect you personally - why complain then?!

Philip Davies MP is talking about allow a pub to have a dedicated smoking room - people who don't like smokers will be able to choose to use another room.

I would complain on health grounds.
Whatever Philip say's I don't see it happening.

If you don't go in the room, it won't affect you - whether on health grounds or if you just don't like smoke.

I like to chat in the pub, so avoid places with very loud music because I don't like that (and if it was excessively loud it may possibly affect my hearing). I wouldn't complain about that on health grounds though - I'd just go somewhere that catered for what I like.

albion wrote:

stonetool wrote:
M view is simple and solely applies to PUBS !!!!! A long established fact about landlords and pubs is the pub is their home....under established uk law re HRA 1998....EVERY PERSON has the RIGHT to FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS one such "freedom" being the right of freedom of "ASSOCIATION" so apply that and smoking in pubs has NEVER been against the law for the smoking ban violated a law that existed long before the ban eg HRA 1998 coming into force in 2000.....in truth the whole smoking ban isnt woth the paper its written on....all landlords have to do is RELY ON THE LAW !!! HRA 1998 has it .The local councils who prosecute landlords are "attacking" the fundamental freedoms of a landlord IN HIS HOME...

Oh! well there's no problem then, just let anyone who wants to smoke in your pub and there is no chance of prosecution?

Albion.....with respect to your goodself here.... is not so that NO PRECEDENT in LAW has been set as no landlord has relied, IN COURT. upon what is the law is.The trouble with the smoking ban actually happening in someones "home" is a complete and utter affront to thier freedoms.....Local Councils MAY NOT attack those freedoms and they clearly do should a landlord be prosecuted....it takes backbone to follow ones own convictions ....this argument is all about CHOICE on the part of the "home owner" (the landlord in this case).....oh and by the way this clearly demonstrates that MPs are NOT legal experts upon which to pass "laws" that contravene FREEDOM and apply laws RETROSPECTIVELY (enshrined in HRA statute) such is the hypocrisy of government !

Albion (4.44)-
"I just simply don't want it in my presence"

So you would be happy to have smoking/non-smoking venues where EVERYONE is catered for? That would be the reasonable position - No?
Problem solved!
**
However you really do not understand it do you:
"... the only changes that I see happening are even more stringent one's."

In the short term, I fear you may be right. As resistance against anti-smoker fanatics is growing, those naive anti-smokers will become increasingly frantic and be obliged to increase their intimidation. As each new, increasingly punitive, coercive action fails to make any difference to smoking rates so must they move to the next level. This will only serve to more deeply entrench opposing camps.(Note that smoking rates generally INCREASE when coercive smoke bans are forced on a recalcitrant public!)

How far will they be allowed to take this before tolerance is once again considered to be a better option than coercion … for EVERYONE? It is not going to end any time soon - I for one will not throw the towel in and I know of many more of the same mind. As I said, this is much more than smoke/no smoke!

My fear though, is encapsulated in a quote from John F Kennedy;
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent change inevitable"

Discrimination and stigmatization of one section of society against another has instigated much violence in history Do you think smoker discrimination, for some reason, will be different? Discrimination against those of a different race or religion is against the law - not so smokers or alcohol drinkers or the obese (the next targets) - so YES, it is cosmetically different. Of course, at one time there were no such laws, any idea why we now have laws to protect against religious and racial discrimination etc?

js66 wrote:

albion wrote:

js66 wrote:

albion wrote:

tug wilson wrote:
The Pub and Club Industry are calling for a Reform of the smoking Ban,because of the Lack of customers,it is very simple to understand,if Everyone had the same Free choice,Everyone would be happy,how can anyone complain about that.It is not about pro-smoking it is about Private Business being able to run their own businesses and offer choice to all.

I would't be happy and I could complain about that.
Good evening Tug, back again, long time no see, still fruitlessly campaigning I see.

You'd complain about choice Albion? You said earlier that although you couldn't see any change happening, it wouldn't affect you personally - why complain then?!

Philip Davies MP is talking about allow a pub to have a dedicated smoking room - people who don't like smokers will be able to choose to use another room.

I would complain on health grounds.
Whatever Philip say's I don't see it happening.

If you don't go in the room, it won't affect you - whether on health grounds or if you just don't like smoke.

I like to chat in the pub, so avoid places with very loud music because I don't like that (and if it was excessively loud it may possibly affect my hearing). I wouldn't complain about that on health grounds though - I'd just go somewhere that catered for what I like.

"If you don't go in the room, it won't affect you -" It might if the ventilation is inadequate or defective.
Noise and smoking are not like for like.

Clubs are not public places. They are for members only and members should be able to vote on how their pub is run, provided it is legal.
The same should apply for publicans. They too should be able to decide how they run their pub, provided it is legal.
SMOKING IS STILL LEGAL

Vellocatus wrote:
Albion (4.44)-
"I just simply don't want it in my presence"

So you would be happy to have smoking/non-smoking venues where EVERYONE is catered for? That would be the reasonable position - No?
Problem solved!
**
However you really do not understand it do you:
"... the only changes that I see happening are even more stringent one's."

In the short term, I fear you may be right. As resistance against anti-smoker fanatics is growing, those naive anti-smokers will become increasingly frantic and be obliged to increase their intimidation. As each new, increasingly punitive, coercive action fails to make any difference to smoking rates so must they move to the next level. This will only serve to more deeply entrench opposing camps.(Note that smoking rates generally INCREASE when coercive smoke bans are forced on a recalcitrant public!)

How far will they be allowed to take this before tolerance is once again considered to be a better option than coercion … for EVERYONE? It is not going to end any time soon - I for one will not throw the towel in and I know of many more of the same mind. As I said, this is much more than smoke/no smoke!

My fear though, is encapsulated in a quote from John F Kennedy;
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent change inevitable"

Discrimination and stigmatization of one section of society against another has instigated much violence in history Do you think smoker discrimination, for some reason, will be different? Discrimination against those of a different race or religion is against the law - not so smokers or alcohol drinkers or the obese (the next targets) - so YES, it is cosmetically different. Of course, at one time there were no such laws, any idea why we now have laws to protect against religious and racial discrimination etc?

"alcohol drinkers or the obese (the next targets)" That doesn't necessarily follow.

The comparisons in your last paragraph are totally ridiculous, Smoking restrictions were introduced because it is injurious to health.

There's always one hyperbolic anti-smoker on any thread discussing such things, and they are always hysterical in their rejection of choice for others. The fear of others enjoying themselves in places they wouldn't go seeps from every pore.

The only choice they allow is one of which they personally approve.

There are a variety of arrangements which can adequately satisfy everyone, it's just that those who disapprove of smoking will put their usual sense of reason to one side while throwing up ever more absurd arguments in opposition.

It would be more honest if they'd just admit they don't like smoke, and are selfish/prejudiced about it.

having read all these posts,there seems more anger from the non smoking lobby than the smokers who strike me as people who just want to enjoy life,no,one lives forever,and i prescribe to the theory,WHEN YOUR NUMBERS UP,thats it,so lets get back to the enjoyable night in the boozer when conversations didnt end when your company nips out for a cig,I remember in the 60s when a 50 tin of players came up with the ammunition.Happy days,a full magazine and a players.....

But don't you get it? Don't you all understand?
It might well be a pain for smokers to have to go outside but the smoking ban is extending lives - of smokers & those around them.
If the smoking ban is relaxed in Working Men's Clubs, that means that working class people, poor people are being left to their own devices & *to die earlier*.
I'm not saying this is some mad conspiracy, but think about it - the majority of smokers are from poor areas, deprived areas. These are the very people that this government wishes didn't exist & is trying to cut out of existence. Relaxing the smoking ban in specifically working class, deprived areas is playing right into their hands. The middle classes are pandered to by the Cons & the Dems & they are the ones who will start demanding that smokers & the obese aren't treated on the NHS as their conditions are self-inflicted - it's been bandied about for years but in the present conditions it might just happen.
Do yourselves a favour, keep the ban & stop smoking.

puddingandpi wrote:
But don't you get it? Don't you all understand? It might well be a pain for smokers to have to go outside but the smoking ban is extending lives - of smokers & those around them. If the smoking ban is relaxed in Working Men's Clubs, that means that working class people, poor people are being left to their own devices & *to die earlier*. I'm not saying this is some mad conspiracy, but think about it - the majority of smokers are from poor areas, deprived areas. These are the very people that this government wishes didn't exist & is trying to cut out of existence. Relaxing the smoking ban in specifically working class, deprived areas is playing right into their hands. The middle classes are pandered to by the Cons & the Dems & they are the ones who will start demanding that smokers & the obese aren't treated on the NHS as their conditions are self-inflicted - it's been bandied about for years but in the present conditions it might just happen. Do yourselves a favour, keep the ban & stop smoking.

If as you say smokers are from "poor areas"what else is there for them to do? go to the ballet,Who are you to prolong the drab exsistance of these poor people,just to look forward to a pension they may not get as too many people live to long so the state will not be able to provide for them,let people live the life they want and enjoy...

albion

You seem to sum up the anti smoking anti choice lot, separate smoking Pubs or rooms would not affect you at all or Your health, you really do follow the nazi style ban and believe the propaganda,the good news for the country is that you and the anti choice lobby are in the Minority and the Public have woken up to the passive smoke con and now demand CHOICE, that choice also extends to You but some may say you do not deserve it, we will see. Intolerance is Not a virtue.

SMOKERS OF BRADFORD!

You are being 'flamed'! This is a trick which anti-smokers use. The trick is to highlight a small bit of your post and object strenuously about that bit, and then throw in lots of irrelevant stuff like stinks and Roy Castle.

Make them stick to the point!

Here are the main points:

1. Second hand smoke is almost totally harmless.
(Insurance companies will assume that you will live seven years shorter IF YOU ARE A HEAVY SMOKER. SHS is hundreds of times weaker than full smoke - so no reduction in life expectancy from SHS).

2. The SHS scare was a con with the objective of simply stopping people smoking during working hours.

3. Children are no more harmed by SHS than adults are.

4. Neither are bar staff.

5. The smoking ban has overturned centuries of common law which gave you your private property rights.
(You cannot allow smoking in your own, wholly-owned pub)

6. The smoking ban has taken away your lawful right of assembly (people are not allowed to start up a private members' smoking club)

Distinguish between non-smokers and anti-smokers. Non-smokers are generally tolerant. Anti-smokers are obsessed by their own demons.

Albion (6.50pm)
That bubble you are living in is much smaller that I first thought.
Have you not read the papers, watched TV etc ? Never heard of the alcohol/obesity 'epidemics', binge drinkers all over the place, masses of cancer and liver cirrhosis deaths caused by alcohol abuse etc. etc.? Trans fats, parents who abuse their children by feeding them junk food etc. etc.

Ever heard of the WHO 'Framework convention on alcohol control' ? No?
Well it is basically a carbon copy of the WHO 'Framework Convention on Tobacco Control'
The same 'de-normalization' of drinkers by use the same tactics, bogus science, false polls etc. as anti-smoker nutters use against smokers is already in progress!
But you will soak it all up - "cos the expirts is alwis rite isnt them"

“The comparisons in your last paragraph are totally ridiculous”.

There’s that abnegation kicking in Albion!!

"Smoking restrictions were introduced because it is injurious to health."

Who's health would that be Albion;

Yours? - Read the links I provided earlier and learn how anti-smokers are conning YOU into believing that being a 'quitter' will give you everlasting life! IT WON"T - quite the opposite! Learn how SHS 'harm' was an invention to be used as a tool to con the gullible and stigmatize smokers.

Smokers? Don't you think individuals should decide for themselves what THEY think is good or bad for their own health based on IMPARTIAL information, rather than The anti-smoking campaign that is ram jam full of lies, exaggerations and misinformation?

WAKE UP man - don't let anti-smokers turn you into their dummy!

I do not wish to see any relaxation of the smoking ban and I hope it is robustly enforced. I am pleased to see the impact this ban has had on pubs and clubs which have proven themselves to be breeding grounds for addicts and alcoholics which are a burden on the rest of us anyway. I hope the trend continues so that the future is a safer place for all. (Think).

Vellocatus wrote:
Albion (6.50pm) That bubble you are living in is much smaller that I first thought. Have you not read the papers, watched TV etc ? Never heard of the alcohol/obesity 'epidemics', binge drinkers all over the place, masses of cancer and liver cirrhosis deaths caused by alcohol abuse etc. etc.? Trans fats, parents who abuse their children by feeding them junk food etc. etc. Ever heard of the WHO 'Framework convention on alcohol control' ? No? Well it is basically a carbon copy of the WHO 'Framework Convention on Tobacco Control' The same 'de-normalization' of drinkers by use the same tactics, bogus science, false polls etc. as anti-smoker nutters use against smokers is already in progress! But you will soak it all up - "cos the expirts is alwis rite isnt them" “The comparisons in your last paragraph are totally ridiculous”. There’s that abnegation kicking in Albion!! "Smoking restrictions were introduced because it is injurious to health." Who's health would that be Albion; Yours? - Read the links I provided earlier and learn how anti-smokers are conning YOU into believing that being a 'quitter' will give you everlasting life! IT WON"T - quite the opposite! Learn how SHS 'harm' was an invention to be used as a tool to con the gullible and stigmatize smokers. Smokers? Don't you think individuals should decide for themselves what THEY think is good or bad for their own health based on IMPARTIAL information, rather than The anti-smoking campaign that is ram jam full of lies, exaggerations and misinformation? WAKE UP man - don't let anti-smokers turn you into their dummy!

You can't wake him up, he's heavily sedated all the time.

I think the wetherspoons in keighley needs to move to the edge of town or I think in-between Braken Bank and Braithwaite would be ideal. I think the owners of these kinds of places should be made to clean up the chewing gums, spit and cigs and vomit that their customers leave behind. When you walk past the Keighley wetherspoons and there are smokers outside, you find yourself walking through alcohol breath tainted clouds of tobacco smoke whilst dodging the spittle on a footpath covered in gum. I also think cigarrete and drink makers need to compensate anybody who suffers from ill health as a result of using their products.

Duke of Odsal wrote:

tug wilson wrote:
The nazi style smoking ban is discrimination and bullying and we have all seen what it has done to our Pubs and Clubs,it is strange that the Industry,more and more MPs and the public are calling for a Reform of the smoking ban to allow the Industry choice yet the intolerant anti smokers still "claim" the ban to be a success.This is not about anti smokers,it is about our Clubs and Pubs,they should be the only ones to make the choice,smoking or non smoking. Time for some common sense.

Nazi style? The only intolerance I perceive is that exhibited by those who think that it is OK to smoke in the presence of others and resent having to remove themselves to a safe area.
Pubs are in decline for a host of reasons, but it can clearly be demonstrated that the main factor is cost. Those pubs that are given the freedom to source their products at competitive prices and offer a broader range of services are the ones that succeed. The culprits in the pub industry are the pubcos that overcharge their tenants and when they finally hand the keys back find another poor sap to pay for a new lease on equally restrictive trading terms.
Pubcos are desperate to make the majority of their estate unviable so that they can justify a change of use and sell the building for redevelopment.
Placing all the blame on a fairly straightforward law that protects health is clearly bonkers.
Also - lets dismiss the idea that it is OK for someone to be exposed at work - those that are looking for semi-skilled work like bar work will never have the luxury of choice, so it is inevitable that the state has to intervene. That is a basic tenet of H&S legislation - the protection of those whose choices are limited through financial disadvantage. Handymanphil - by your own admission you can point to unemployed barstaff that would rather have the job than avoid the smoke - that is precisely the point!
No - I am not anti smoking - on the contrary I will defend the rights of anyone to do what they want with their body - indeed I am working hard on developing liver disease; but that will be MY liver and not anyone else's! And before someone points out the social effects of booze fuelled crime, I would remind everyone that laws are there to punish the violent - its just a pity that they are often not applied to protect those who make our towns and cities unsafe.

Agree wholeheartedly that it's the pubcos that are killing our pubs, Duke. I feel sorry for smokers, and the smoking ban certainly had an impact on trade, but Enterprise, Punch and the other thieving asset-strippers are more to blame. You're spot on with that.

I just spotted a Nazi. Wow, fifty odd posts and then bang.
I really think that smoking, non-smoking venues would be the agreeable answer. Thereby giving enjoyment and employment for both sides. The question then would be which would be busier? The sterile lemonade brigade or the smoky tobacco arms? If done on an allotted basis which couldn't be reversed what would landlords prefer? We all know the answers, it does seem like freedom of choice could be applied but is being denied.

Been in a pub 4 times since the smoking ban. My reasoning is I wasn't gonna frequent pubs much after the smoking ban, and it would be worse for the landlords for their pubs to suffer a long drawn out decline in trade.

As to those who think the legislation was introduced for sake of fairness, I ask them to read the section of the Heath Act that brought the smoking ban in. It clearly states the intent was to create an unlevel field for business to operate on, as the vast majority of businesses wouldn't go none-smoking if they had any say in the matter. Fail to understand why this justification was included in the text of the act. And it says a lot about the hypocrisy of a (former) government that had repeatedly claimed "markets should self regulate/know best"

There is something inherently totally illogical about Tobacco Control, isn't there? Here we have ASH and co claiming that the merest whiff of Second Hand Smoke is akin to leprosy - once that whiff of SHS gets into a human body, nothing can stop the corrosion of the body from within. (What codswallop!)

And yet, they do not condemn football (where people kick each other), rugby (where people throw each other onto the ground with great violence) or boxing (where people hit each other violently). Lots of actual deaths have occurred in these sports - no deaths can be attributed to SHS - none. No children have been hurt by SHS and no children have begun to suffer from asthma due to SHS. Such claims are LIES.

Anti-smokers have demons in their own minds. They are terrified and thrash about to find something to blame for their terror. They find that thing in SHS.

Don't let them 'flame' you! Ridicule their claims that their clothes and hair 'stink' as a result of this 'filthy' habit! If they stink after going out to a place of entertainment, it is because they have BO - they just naturally stink. They see smoking as 'filthy' because they are conscious of their own filth.

Ask them what they will think when the 'thought police' come for them!! "You are fat and you have children, therefore you are giving them a bad example, therefore we will take your children away". What is the difference?

Unfortunatley, some of you think that you own yourselves and therefore that gives you the right to do as you wish with yourselves. How very very stup1d indeed. None of you decided to be born, none of you decided that this is how my body will develop, none of you decide when to die and none of you have any say whatsoever in the running of your feeble biological systems. So where you get the idea that you have the right to damage any parts of yourselves by doing as you WISH is beyond me. Smoking needs to be banned TOTALLY. Alcohol needs to be banned TOTALLY. Smokers and drinkers are costing the rest of us far more than we can imagine. None of you has the right to damage yourselves and by doing so you damage and cost the rest of us more than just money because it is us that ends up having to change your nappies due to the alcoholism induced incontinence. Smokers, you lot need to feel ashamed of yourselves, you lot do not realize how bad you lot stink because your nasal passages are coated in a thin layer of tar which prevents you from smelling and tasting properly. Trust me, you lot stink bad. Worse, when you get a combo, faggy-alky-druggy-ob
ese-yellow teeth-etc. So, someone as thick as me can see the dirty negative impacts of smoking and drinking surely you lot are cleverer and all that and should know better. Pub and clubs were, are and always will be filthy places with extemely dirty disgusting repulsive toilets that were a bad idea in the first place. Hoooraaayy, that they are going away!!!!! Thankfully, the next few generations of people will better choose for themselves and they will move towards a world where there is no dependency on substances and their is plenty to go round because trillions are being saved because nobody smokes and drinks and is dying from lung cancer and liver cirhossis. Thats my vision.

Second hand smoke does have the potential to lead to serious lung diseases. It hasn't travelled through a filter so contains much more nicotine and tar etc. A non smoker is capable of getting high just by sitting close enough to another smoker without realizing and if done regularly enough the potential for addiction is there and after long enough non smokers who have regularly mingled with smokers will be more susceptible to start the damned habit. Alot of you smokers can't defecate properly and alot of you need to sit there for ages and you need to light up to initiate a bowel movement. This causes incomplete evacuation of the colon and rectum causing flatulence, IBS an increased susceptiblily to colon cancer. Nobody should be allowed to do as they WISH and if smoking is that wish then that is not acceptable. Freedom to do as you wish carries a very hefty price tag.

I cannot believe that the last two comments are real! They must surely be from smokers having fun!

If these two comments (from 'likethis') are real, then anti-smokers must be hiding their faces in shame. Is it any wonder that pubs and clubs are closing left right and centre when the clientèle to be expected there are old testament ranters like 'likethis'? Gods strewth!

;-)

Junican wrote:
I cannot believe that the last two comments are real! They must surely be from smokers having fun! If these two comments (from 'likethis') are real, then anti-smokers must be hiding their faces in shame. Is it any wonder that pubs and clubs are closing left right and centre when the clientèle to be expected there are old testament ranters like 'likethis'? Gods strewth!

They are closing because people are dying from related diseases and younger people are catching on that these places are poisonous. Not just because of profiteering breweries and hypermarkets, rather, younger people are smarter and they don't want to end up like their drunk, disorderly and demented parents or guardians or foster parents. Oh and of course, all the punters are dying or not capable of 'aff dawn pub'. ha ha ha ha ha aha ah. (inhale) ha ha ha ha ha .....(sorry...think I had too much tonite)...(doesn't matter I'm a brilliant driver)...(have a drink and a drive, go out and see who is gonna die). Sorry about the twisted humour, but it is like this. Faggies and Alkies, Smackies and Crackies and Dopies are the real problems in society that fuel other types of crime and activiities that bring about serious injury, death, time off work, social and psychological problems blah blah blah. etc etc etc. I didn't mention anything about religion or da ole testament. Peace to all.

Maybe landlords should get their smokers out the back where they can't be seen. These sad characters in their tatty clothing standing around front doors aren't exactly an advert for a pub or for drinking. Anybody with half a brain looks at them and equates drinking and smoking with poverty and losers.

Vellocatus wrote:
Albion (6.50pm)
That bubble you are living in is much smaller that I first thought.
Have you not read the papers, watched TV etc ? Never heard of the alcohol/obesity 'epidemics', binge drinkers all over the place, masses of cancer and liver cirrhosis deaths caused by alcohol abuse etc. etc.? Trans fats, parents who abuse their children by feeding them junk food etc. etc.

Ever heard of the WHO 'Framework convention on alcohol control' ? No?
Well it is basically a carbon copy of the WHO 'Framework Convention on Tobacco Control'
The same 'de-normalization' of drinkers by use the same tactics, bogus science, false polls etc. as anti-smoker nutters use against smokers is already in progress!
But you will soak it all up - "cos the expirts is alwis rite isnt them"

“The comparisons in your last paragraph are totally ridiculous”.

There’s that abnegation kicking in Albion!!

"Smoking restrictions were introduced because it is injurious to health."

Who's health would that be Albion;

Yours? - Read the links I provided earlier and learn how anti-smokers are conning YOU into believing that being a 'quitter' will give you everlasting life! IT WON"T - quite the opposite! Learn how SHS 'harm' was an invention to be used as a tool to con the gullible and stigmatize smokers.

Smokers? Don't you think individuals should decide for themselves what THEY think is good or bad for their own health based on IMPARTIAL information, rather than The anti-smoking campaign that is ram jam full of lies, exaggerations and misinformation?

WAKE UP man - don't let anti-smokers turn you into their dummy!

I have already made my views on the topic known, we agree on one thing, you dont like the restrictions and neither do I, you because you dont want them and me because I think they should be tougher, I will NOT be changing my views!
So put that in your pipe and smoke it (pun intended).

albion wrote:

bredandbuttered wrote:
Smoking should be allowed in designated areas.
Drinking is tolerated in designated areas. Whats the difference?

Passive smoking.

Der I know Albion.
Pay attention.
Designated areas can be situated away from non-smokers, with good ventilation.

Also I believe there's a bigger cost to society through drink-fuelled violence and cruelty.
Passive drinking, as it were.

bredandbuttered wrote:

albion wrote:

bredandbuttered wrote:
Smoking should be allowed in designated areas.
Drinking is tolerated in designated areas. Whats the difference?

Passive smoking.

Der I know Albion.
Pay attention.
Designated areas can be situated away from non-smokers, with good ventilation.

Also I believe there's a bigger cost to society through drink-fuelled violence and cruelty.
Passive drinking, as it were.

I agree that drink fuelled violence is a problem.
But you actually asked a question and I answered it.

second hand smoke?
Well should ban fireworks too. It contains far higher quantities of the combustion products of potassium nitrate, and cause pH changes in the throat/lungs which cause sore throats, due to their caustic nature (reacts with fats to produce soaps- blowing cell walls). It's GCSE chemistry so how/why government scientists couldn't figure out that's the problem?

Well perhaps it's because cigs don't have to have potasium nitrate in them, and indeed it's only really post WW2 that British cigs had it added. It also goes someway to explain why Richard Dolls findings didn't show a consistent correlation EXCEPT with American veterans. Check the figures for Canadian veterans and British Doctors,and you'll find there are points at which the graph is level for considerable ranges of cig consumptions. I'll hazard a guess that different consumption rates, as well as different locations, mean different brands consumed.

Also with reference to Roy Castle, brasso (used to clean brass instruments, and clearly marked as do not consume/wear gloves) would also have very similar effects. Having played a brass instrument I know it can quite often be tasted on the instruments mouth piece.

i heard Roy died in a tragic tap dancing world record attempt.

bredandbuttered wrote:
i heard Roy died in a tragic tap dancing world record attempt.

Slipped off into the bath.

That is so not funny albion.

Let them get into a space-suit and smoke themselves unconscious if they wish,as long as they don't stench up the place. We need quite a few to die young anyway as there is no way we can sustain an ageing retired population. Let the kids binge-drink themselves out of a pension if they want.
As Crystal Pistol once espoused -
'Live Fast,die young
and bury my friends one by one'

ONE QUESTION? why does the T&A call a paper CITY EDITION when all its stories are about ilkley or skipton?

i just paid 45p to read stories about places that are 10 - 20 miles away from bradford!

im bringing my "CITY EDETION" down there tomorrow to get my money back.

You seem to be the masters at wasting your own money in Bradford. If you look at the Bradford Hospitals website you will see under Freedom of Information Requests for 2010, someone has asked for the salary of the highest paid consultant. The standard salary for an NHS consultant is around £90k which is too low when a GP gets over £120,00....but get this answer.


2.The highest figure currently being earned by a consultant is in the range £300,000 to £310,000 gross pay for the year 2009/10. This includes weekend/on-call activity in the range £60,000 to £70,000 and additional sessions in the range of £165,000 to £175,000. This is the highest amount earned by a consultant working for the trust.
The area where this super doc works? cardiac surgery maybe?? No.....

3.Geriatrics.

Unbelievable - you ought to look at this site there are some very good questions

I would say stop child molesters, stop wife beaters, stop drivers on mobiles slicing into people, stop politicians sucking the life out of our city, stop fat cats in the NHS laughing all the way to the bank, bomb Tescos, f**k the bankers, address immigration, give us a wage, then maybe, just maybe, send your pigs to bust the decent folk who like a fag and a pint.
I just give up caring sometimes, its so painfull to listen to.

old speckled hen wrote:
Duke of Odsal, !
IF you are a non smoker, YOU have the choice to go into a smoking pub !!.
if someone who smokes goes in THEY DONT HAVE A CHOICE !
big diffference .
no freedom of chioce . as it has been decided by non smokers

Why should those who don't smoke have to go and stand inside a smoky pub just so that everyone can have the choice? Then non-smokers would have no choice, they'd have to breath in the foul stench of tobacco, or not bother going out. If you choose to pollute your lungs with smoke, do it to yourself in your own home and not around others. I bet you think it's acceptable to smoke in front of children too...what was it Denise from the Royle Family said, something about, they can leave the room if they don't like it?

The amount of tax on alcohol, combined with the fact that there's a recession on is to blame for the decline in the pub/club industry.

The government has to put such a high amount of tax on alcohol to cover the ridiculous amounts they spend on covering their corrupt tracks. If anyone is interested in what government money has been spent on, please join Mr Jones at the Alamo in his call for a public inquiry.

http://www.thetelegr
aphandargus.co.uk/di
strict/district_ship
ley/district_shipley
_thackley/8774443.Ba
nner_battle_for_man_
in_plans_row/

ex-Bradford wrote:

old speckled hen wrote:
Duke of Odsal, !
IF you are a non smoker, YOU have the choice to go into a smoking pub !!.
if someone who smokes goes in THEY DONT HAVE A CHOICE !
big diffference .
no freedom of chioce . as it has been decided by non smokers

Why should those who don't smoke have to go and stand inside a smoky pub just so that everyone can have the choice? Then non-smokers would have no choice, they'd have to breath in the foul stench of tobacco, or not bother going out. If you choose to pollute your lungs with smoke, do it to yourself in your own home and not around others. I bet you think it's acceptable to smoke in front of children too...what was it Denise from the Royle Family said, something about, they can leave the room if they don't like it?

The amount of tax on alcohol, combined with the fact that there's a recession on is to blame for the decline in the pub/club industry.

The government has to put such a high amount of tax on alcohol to cover the ridiculous amounts they spend on covering their corrupt tracks. If anyone is interested in what government money has been spent on, please join Mr Jones at the Alamo in his call for a public inquiry.

http://www.thetelegr

aphandargus.co.uk/di

strict/district_ship

ley/district_shipley

_thackley/8774443.Ba

nner_battle_for_man_

in_plans_row/

And if your'e not interested......don'
t.

How come no one is blaming Asians for the smoking ban? You're slipping! ;-)

TirNaNog wrote:
How come no one is blaming Asians for the smoking ban? You're slipping! ;-)

With the numerous reports about Shisha lounges and Asian illicit smoking products salesmen one can hardly blame it on them as they seem to be ignoring it.