|
|
 Up |
|
  |
Author: Dave Plowman (News)Dave Plowman (News) Date: May 31, 2008 18:54
In article ,
dennis@home killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:>> I used to be a smoker. I'm not now. I don't particularly defend people
>> who want to smoke. It's a stupid thing to do, as I well know, but by
>> the same token, I don't vilify them either, which I think that the
>> new law *does*.
> The new law doesn't stop smokers smoking.. it stops them smoking in some
> of the places they shouldn't have done in the first place. The laws are
> not wide enough IMO as smokers can still pollute the air.
When they apply the same laws to alcohol - no drinking under any
circumstances in a public place or the workplace - and confine it to home
only, I'll believe the non smoking laws were for the proper reasons.
--
*Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?
Dave Plowman dave@ davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Mary FisherMary Fisher Date: May 31, 2008 20:29
"Dave Plowman (News)" davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fa8307fc8dave@davenoise.co.uk...> In article ,
> dennis@home killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:>>> I used to be a smoker. I'm not now. I don't particularly defend people
>>> who want to smoke. It's a stupid thing to do, as I well know, but by
>>> the same token, I don't vilify them either, which I think that the
>>> new law *does*.
>
>> The new law doesn't stop smokers smoking.. it stops them smoking in some
>> of the places they shouldn't have done in the first place. The laws are
>> not wide enough IMO as smokers can still pollute the air.
>
> When they apply the same laws to alcohol - no drinking under any
> circumstances in a public place or the workplace - and confine it to home...
|
| Show full article (0.96Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Andy ChampAndy Champ Date: May 31, 2008 20:41
dennis@home wrote:
>
> Where is this pub shelter you use that is open on one side as its
> illegal and I want to report it.
> The law states >50%% of the "wall" area being closed is illegal, that
> would make at least two sides being open to comply.
>
OK, so I haven't read the law (it isn't relevant to me) however I don't
see why Mary has to have a sign saying it isn't legal to smoke, but not
one saying it isn't legal to take heroin.
>>
>> ... and anyway, why isn't there a sign on the front door of Number 10
>> Downing Street?
>
> Its a house.
> Have you got a sign on your house?
>
|
| Show full article (1.38Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: The Medway HandymanThe Medway Handyman Date: May 31, 2008 21:21
dennis@home wrote:
>> ... and anyway, why isn't there a sign on the front door of Number 10
>> Downing Street?
>
> Its a house.
> Have you got a sign on your house?
Its a place of business. Brown should be fined immediately.
>
>>
>> The second thing is that I think there should have been a licencing
>> scheme in place to permit smoking in certain enclosed spaces. The
>> obvious ones are the cigar shops in London that can't let their
>> customers try the product.
>
> Why?
> The law is to protect employees, there is no option to sign away the
> right to protection even if you don't want it.
> Just imagine the consequences of an employer being able to remove your
> rights to protection at work.
|
| Show full article (1.53Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: May 31, 2008 21:38
The Medway Handyman wrote:
> dennis@home wrote:
>>> ... and anyway, why isn't there a sign on the front door of Number
>>> 10 Downing Street?
>>
>> Its a house.
>> Have you got a sign on your house?
>
> Its a place of business. Brown should be fined immediately.
>
>>
>>>
>>> The second thing is that I think there should have been a licencing
>>> scheme in place to permit smoking in certain enclosed spaces. The
>>> obvious ones are the cigar shops in London that can't let their
>>> customers try the product.
>>
>> Why?
>> The law is to protect employees, there is no option to sign away the
>> right to protection even if you don't want it. ...
|
| Show full article (1.02Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Clive GeorgeClive George Date: May 31, 2008 21:46
"Claw Hammer" i......nvalid.com> wrote in message
news:6adnq4F34kfanU1@mid.individual.net...
> No it's not, it is a fact. You're just too bone headed to admit the fact.
>
> Tanner-'op
>
> Who has changed his 'handle' to avoid your 'killfile'
Regardless of TMH's blindness wrt smoking, morphing is something done by
idiots.
> Just can't stand the pace Dave can you?
And where did that come from?
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Bob EagerBob Eager Date: May 31, 2008 21:56
On Sat, 31 May 2008 18:41:33 UTC, Andy Champ nospam.com> wrote:
> OK, so I haven't read the law (it isn't relevant to me) however I don't
> see why Mary has to have a sign saying it isn't legal to smoke, but not
> one saying it isn't legal to take heroin.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: May 31, 2008 22:12
"Cerberus ." thegatesofhell.com> wrote in message
news:12ojo7xivxmum.1h86ui5w68uuy.dlg@40tude.net...> On Sat, 31 May 2008 15:43:24 +0100, dennis@home wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The new law doesn't stop smokers smoking.. it stops them smoking in some
>> of
>> the places they shouldn't have done in the first place.
>> The laws are not wide enough IMO as smokers can still pollute the air.
>>
>>>
>>> Arfa
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> For good measure, why not bring in a few more laws;
>
> Make it illegal to: ...
|
| Show full article (1.03Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: May 31, 2008 22:15
"Dave Plowman (News)" davenoise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4fa8307fc8dave@davenoise.co.uk...> In article ,
> dennis@home killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:>>> I used to be a smoker. I'm not now. I don't particularly defend people
>>> who want to smoke. It's a stupid thing to do, as I well know, but by
>>> the same token, I don't vilify them either, which I think that the
>>> new law *does*.
>
>> The new law doesn't stop smokers smoking.. it stops them smoking in some
>> of the places they shouldn't have done in the first place. The laws are
>> not wide enough IMO as smokers can still pollute the air.
>
> When they apply the same laws to alcohol - no drinking under any
> circumstances in a public place or the workplace - and confine it to home...
|
| Show full article (1.01Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Date: May 31, 2008 22:16
Clive George wrote:
> "Claw Hammer" i......nvalid.com> wrote in message
> news:6adnq4F34kfanU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> No it's not, it is a fact. You're just too bone headed to admit the
>> fact. Tanner-'op
>>
>> Who has changed his 'handle' to avoid your 'killfile'
>
> Regardless of TMH's blindness wrt smoking, morphing is something done
> by idiots.
Well I though that my signature at the bottom of the post would indicate who
I am in the context of this group.
As a matter of education to you, the actual change of posting name was
simply a method of getting around a killfile filter to see if it gets a
response - and besides, you could accuse anyone using a nickname or munged
address (such as you have done to prevent spam) as being a morpher.
|
| Show full article (1.21Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
