On 2007-11-18 14:36:36 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 4740212d@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Why? There are types of employment where exposure to hazard is a
necessary part of the job - for example, emergency services, coal
miners and so on. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the place of work
is not a necessary hazard because there is no need for it to be there.

Then why are some health and prison workers still exposed to it?

Very good question. Give it a little more time and those anomalies
can be addressed as well.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-18 13:03:42 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

It's all very silly indeed, as you well know.

No more silly than people sticking a paper tube containing dried
vegetation into their mouth and lighting said paper tube. It amazes
me why anybody would ever want to do that.

Cue the classic Bob Newhart "Sir Walter Raleigh explains tobacco" routine:

http://www.jibjab.com/view/195773

David

Steve Firth wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:

It's all very silly indeed, as you well know.

Why is someone trying to kill me "silly"?

If your constitution is that feeble, you could be killed by a variety of
everyday events.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-18 13:03:42 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:



Then you will need to ban smoking in people's homes in case a meter
reader comes calling.

Good reason for the meters to be outside.


You will also need to display a certificate on the door to state that
smoking has not taken place for the last 10 years so that the
appropriate protective clothing can be worn.
It's all very silly indeed, as you well know.

No more silly than people sticking a paper tube containing dried
vegetation into their mouth and lighting said paper tube. It amazes
me why anybody would ever want to do that.



It might well amaze you, but people have always smoked vegetation.
You'll be telling me you've never had a joint next. My, what a sheltered
existence!

Stuart Noble wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
Stuart Noble wrote:

It's all very silly indeed, as you well know.

Why is someone trying to kill me "silly"?

If your constitution is that feeble, you could be killed by a variety of
everyday events.

Umm no, that observation is "silly".

On 2007-11-18 16:16:31 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-18 13:03:42 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:



Then you will need to ban smoking in people's homes in case a meter
reader comes calling.

Good reason for the meters to be outside.


You will also need to display a certificate on the door to state that
smoking has not taken place for the last 10 years so that the
appropriate protective clothing can be worn.
It's all very silly indeed, as you well know.

No more silly than people sticking a paper tube containing dried
vegetation into their mouth and lighting said paper tube. It
amazes me why anybody would ever want to do that.



It might well amaze you, but people have always smoked vegetation.
You'll be telling me you've never had a joint next.

Would you believe me if I told you that that is indeed the case, as is
not having ever smoked anything else? It would be true.

That's why it amazes me why anyone would want to do either.

My, what a sheltered existence!

Hardly. There's no connection between them.

It isn't really the same as never having had sex, now is it?

In message , Lobster
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Stuart Noble
writes
OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so
quite easily. That's somewhat inequitable....



That's very silly
Why? There are types of employment where exposure to hazard is
a necessary part of the job - for example, emergency services, coal
miners and so on. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the place of
work is not a necessary hazard because there is no need for it to be there.


Then you will need to ban smoking in people's homes
They've already started doing that in parts of california (according
to New Scientist)

ISTR it's happening already happening here in some areas, where social
service staff have to come in and care for individuals who smoke in
their own homes - aren't they being told they can't smoke within an
hour of the carer's arrival or something? Pretty sure I read it right
here last time there was a major row about smoking...!

Oh, and another claim by ASH and BHF

exposure to cigarette smoke for half an hour puts you as much at risk of
a heart attack as the smoker

nothing quoted as an authoritative source, but it sounds like a bit of a
strong statement to make unless you have some backing


--
geoff

Lobster wrote in message

No more silly than people sticking a paper tube containing dried
vegetation into their mouth and lighting said paper tube. It amazes
me why anybody would ever want to do that.

Cue the classic Bob Newhart "Sir Walter Raleigh explains tobacco" routine:

http://www.jibjab.com/view/195773

Christ that brings back memories
I remember hearing that on the BBC for the first time in the late 50s
That and the Goon show, happy days!


-

Lobster wrote in message
news

Then you will need to ban smoking in people's homes

They've already started doing that in parts of california (according to
New Scientist)

ISTR it's happening already happening here in some areas, where social
service staff have to come in and care for individuals who smoke in
their own homes - aren't they being told they can't smoke within an hour
of the carer's arrival or something? Pretty sure I read it right here
last time there was a major row about smoking...!


Yep
http://www.shropshirestar.com/2007/0...s-smoking-ban/
another good idea
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G2244


-

geoff wrote:
In message , Lobster
writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Stuart Noble
writes
OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so
quite easily. That's somewhat inequitable....



That's very silly
Why? There are types of employment where exposure to hazard is
a necessary part of the job - for example, emergency services,
coal miners and so on. Exposure to tobacco smoke in the place
of
work is not a necessary hazard because there is no need for it
to be there.

Then you will need to ban smoking in people's homes
They've already started doing that in parts of california
(according to New Scientist)

ISTR it's happening already happening here in some areas, where
social service staff have to come in and care for individuals who
smoke in their own homes - aren't they being told they can't smoke
within an hour of the carer's arrival or something? Pretty sure I
read it right here last time there was a major row about smoking...!

Oh, and another claim by ASH and BHF

exposure to cigarette smoke for half an hour puts you as much at risk
of a heart attack as the smoker

nothing quoted as an authoritative source, but it sounds like a bit
of a strong statement to make unless you have some backing

Prime example of the anti smoking brigade making up claims as they go along.
Trouble is they can lie & get away with it.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

What a plantpot!!!!! A pub is for the consumption of alcohol,

or food, or gambling, or games, or chat...

You buy chat? The prime purpose of a pub is purchase of alcohol.

smoking. The two are mutually excusive. A man who wishes to drink alcohol
has the right to go into any licensed premises and not be poisoned by
toxic fumes.

but can be poisoned by toxic alcohol... or sugar...

That he purchased and affects no one else?? Boy you really are a dumb Chav.

What a sirry irriot!!!

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article
,
wrote:
Leaving aside what the government might want to do, it opens up
choice for non smokers to be able to go to places that weren't
possible before, while maintaining the ability for smokers to
continue to be able to go to them

I think you've missed the point. Most smokers like to supplement one
drug with another - ie alcohol and nicotine. And that 'right' has
been
removed.

Trouble is that isnt what smokers are doing. As well as enjoying or
struggling with their own habit theyre also smoking those of us that
dont wish to shorten our life expectancy with the revolting stuff.

Why would you want to go into a pub or club that clearly stated it
allowed
smoking?

What a plantpot!!!!! A pub is

...a public house where members of the public meet for various pastimes

Maxie, read my other post.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Why would you want to go into a pub or club that clearly stated it
allowed smoking?

What a plantpot!!!!! A pub is for the consumption of alcohol, NOT
smoking. The two are mutually excusive. A man who wishes to drink
alcohol has the right to go into any licensed premises and not be
poisoned by toxic fumes.

Please

You must eff off as you are a plantpot.

Andy Hall wrote:

OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so quite
easily. That's somewhat inequitable....



Well, if I was the landlord, I wouldn't want my barman sneaking outside
every so often for his fix. So, only if they could give up...

Andy

In message , Andy Champ
writes
Andy Hall wrote:
OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so
quite easily. That's somewhat inequitable....


Well, if I was the landlord, I wouldn't want my barman sneaking outside
every so often for his fix. So, only if they could give up...

Yes, I'm experiencing that problem

I have several who smoke, they are constantly nipping out for a quick
one

--
geoff

On 2007-11-18 20:03:31 +0000, Andy Champ said:

Andy Hall wrote:

OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so quite
easily. That's somewhat inequitable....



Well, if I was the landlord, I wouldn't want my barman sneaking outside
every so often for his fix. So, only if they could give up...

Andy

That would be fine as well since you would be helping them to improve
their health prospects.

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 20:30:29 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Andy Champ
writes
Andy Hall wrote:
OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so
quite easily. That's somewhat inequitable....


Well, if I was the landlord, I wouldn't want my barman sneaking outside
every so often for his fix. So, only if they could give up...

Yes, I'm experiencing that problem

I have several who smoke, they are constantly nipping out for a quick
one

Lock the goat in the shed during working hours..

DG

Derek Geldard wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:38:55 GMT, "Mark" wrote:

Yes.I was another of those parents in the late 70s it all worked out ok
in
the end, very character building but not something I would recommend.


So was I. Those days were good for the soul but bad for the digestion.

We bought our first house in 1972

What gets me is when the current generation (not our own kids, of
course) start calling us "Baby-Boomers" who have been made
"Millionaires" out of the property boom, whereas the truth is we were
beggared into penury by paying the interest on our mortgages which
went up from the 6.5% we signed up to (we only paid 1 month at that
rate) to over 11% within less than 6 months and then on up to 15%+

Those years, when our kids were toddlers should have been the best
years of our lives but we were abso ****ing lutely skint (no car, no
holidays, no carpets, many families broke up) because the government
couldn't run the economy properly.


I was on my 3rd house by that time, I had overextended my finances to buy a
property unseen at auction
with eyes and dreams much larger then our means of paying for it.
We had to live and sleep in one room as this was the only habitable room in
the house, part of the roof was missing, all the services had been cut off
so we had no electricity or running water as we could not pay for them,
the bank were trying to foreclose on us and social services were voicing
concerns as to the childrens welfare.
Gave me a cold shiver just writing and remembering that period.



-

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-17 18:19:02 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Frank Erskine wrote:
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:38:49 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Talk to a brick wall Dave - you get more chance of a rational
answer.

Apart from the health risks, what about the discomfort caused to
non-smokers? And the smells that impregnate their clothing?

Nobody is saying that non-smokers should suffer any irritation,
discomfort or smell. The point is that smokers have the right to
enjoy a perfectly legal activity in venues where the owner so
decides. Smoking Pubs & Non Smoking Pubs. Simple concept innit?

You wouldn't go to a Smoking Pub, I wouldn't go to a Non Smoking Pub.
Everybodys happy.

But what of non smokers who would like to work in one of these smoking
pubs? They wouldn't be able to do it.

OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so quite
easily. That's somewhat inequitable....

Oh dear. I thought you believed in market forces Andy?

Assuming that 25% of the population smoke, roughly that percentage of pub
goers smoke, and therefore 25% of bar staff smoke.

So its safe to assume that 25% of pubs would allow smoking, so the 25% of
bar staff who smoke could work in those venues.

No brainer really - if you are prepared to allow free choice?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

geoff wrote:
In message , Andy Champ
writes
Andy Hall wrote:
OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so
quite easily. That's somewhat inequitable....


Well, if I was the landlord, I wouldn't want my barman sneaking
outside every so often for his fix. So, only if they could give
up...
Yes, I'm experiencing that problem

I have several who smoke, they are constantly nipping out for a quick
one

Just think Geoff - if we had sensible legislation, which allowed smoking or
non smoking venues, you could insist on employing smoking or non smoking
staff - in other words you could choose.

As it is, there is a 100% smoking ban, but if you tried to employ only non
smokers, or tried to sack a smoker you could have all sorts of trouble.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:27:04 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

You mean you could afford to have a mortgage and kids?

Yes, erm, err, No !

Don't get me confused !

What I mean is I couldn't.

I never could.

Neither could I but we'd signed up to both (as it were) before the
rates went up !

8-((

DG

In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
geoff wrote:
In message , Andy Champ
writes
Andy Hall wrote:
OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so
quite easily. That's somewhat inequitable....


Well, if I was the landlord, I wouldn't want my barman sneaking
outside every so often for his fix. So, only if they could give
up...
Yes, I'm experiencing that problem

I have several who smoke, they are constantly nipping out for a quick
one

Just think Geoff - if we had sensible legislation, which allowed smoking or
non smoking venues, you could insist on employing smoking or non smoking
staff - in other words you could choose.

Well, I personally don't mind if they smoke at work or not, it's a
factor which would be way down my list of criteria

My wife smokes

Having broken a 50-60 / day addiction, I know how difficult and
ultimately how easy giving up can be

I do see how stupid smoking is from any angle you look at ur




As it is, there is a 100% smoking ban, but if you tried to employ only non
smokers, or tried to sack a smoker you could have all sorts of trouble.



--
geoff

In article ,
geoff wrote:
In message , Andy Champ
writes
Andy Hall wrote:
OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so
quite easily. That's somewhat inequitable....


Well, if I was the landlord, I wouldn't want my barman sneaking outside
every so often for his fix. So, only if they could give up...

Yes, I'm experiencing that problem

I have several who smoke, they are constantly nipping out for a quick
one

I've got a good solution. Employ dribble - he doesn't smoke. I'm sure he
would soon sort out your business for you...

--
*This message has been ROT-13 encrypted twice for extra security *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:48:13 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:



OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so quite
easily. That's somewhat inequitable....

Oh dear. I thought you believed in market forces Andy?

Assuming that 25% of the population smoke, roughly that percentage of pub
goers smoke, and therefore 25% of bar staff smoke.

So its safe to assume that 25% of pubs would allow smoking, so the 25% of
bar staff who smoke could work in those venues.

No brainer really - if you are prepared to allow free choice?

Leaving all the semantics aside it's absolutely clear beyond any doubt
whatsoever that it would have been possible to cater for smoking
drinkers in premises set aside for smoking drinkers, manned/womanned
by staff who could chose whether to work there or work somewhere else
or even go on the 'dilly* or live on benefits.

If there were no staff prepared to work there then the smoking
drinkers would get no beer.

I don't smoke. That outcome seems fine to me.

*live on the earnings of prostitution.

'dilly = Euphemism for Piccadilly, a nice green and pleasant open-air
square and focus of routes in the centre of Manchester where much
bescabbed hookers hang out knee deep in used condoms and Mc Burger
packaging on the site of the original Manchester Royal Infirmary.

It's nice. )

HTH

DG

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 00:27:09 GMT, geoff wrote:


My wife smokes


Before, or after ?

Be careful she doesn't burst into flames.

They'll blame you for it, whatever ...

DG

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
geoff wrote:
In message , Andy Champ
writes
Andy Hall wrote:
OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so
quite easily. That's somewhat inequitable....


Well, if I was the landlord, I wouldn't want my barman sneaking outside
every so often for his fix. So, only if they could give up...

Yes, I'm experiencing that problem

I have several who smoke, they are constantly nipping out for a quick
one

I've got a good solution. Employ dribble - he doesn't smoke. I'm sure he
would soon sort out your business for you...

I might just give that offer a miss, thanks


--
geoff

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I've got a good solution. Employ dribble - he doesn't smoke. I'm sure he
would soon sort out your business for you...

He may not smoke, but there is a fair chance a few PCBs would not long
after getting dribbled!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Derek Geldard wrote:

'dilly = Euphemism for Piccadilly, a nice green and pleasant open-air
square and focus of routes in the centre of Manchester where much
bescabbed hookers hang out knee deep in used condoms and Mc Burger
packaging on the site of the original Manchester Royal Infirmary.

It's nice. )

You should work for the tourist board!


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 2007-11-18 23:48:13 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:

But what of non smokers who would like to work in one of these smoking
pubs? They wouldn't be able to do it.

OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so quite
easily. That's somewhat inequitable....

Oh dear. I thought you believed in market forces Andy?

I certainly do.



Assuming that 25% of the population smoke, roughly that percentage of pub
goers smoke, and therefore 25% of bar staff smoke.

So its safe to assume that 25% of pubs would allow smoking, so the 25% of
bar staff who smoke could work in those venues.

No brainer really - if you are prepared to allow free choice?

Ah but what about the choice of the 75% of bar staff who would like
freeom of choice over where they can work? They are in the majority
and yet couldn't work in smoking bars without being pickled..

There is a difference between free choice that affects only the person
making the choice and "free choice" that affects others as well.

Since we live in a civilised environment (allegedly), the principle of
freedom to do what I want to do as long as it doesn't affect the equal
right of my fellow individual to do what he wants to do, does
reasonably transcend a market force argument.

The Medway Handyman wrote:

As it is, there is a 100% smoking ban, but if you tried to employ only non
smokers, or tried to sack a smoker you could have all sorts of trouble.


Does the legislation actually prevent someone from employing a
non-smoker? Don't know.

However I'm sure there would be no problem with firing an individual who
repeatedly ignored warnings not to smoke in non-smoking areas; it might
be more problematic to sack someone for not working while spending 5
mins per hour outside having a drag - would be interested to know.

David

In article 474134b2@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
No brainer really - if you are prepared to allow free choice?

Ah but what about the choice of the 75% of bar staff who would like
freeom of choice over where they can work? They are in the majority
and yet couldn't work in smoking bars without being pickled..

Strange. The majority of your posts suggest worker's rights aren't high up
on your agenda. Apart from when it suits your argument, of course.

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-18 23:48:13 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:

But what of non smokers who would like to work in one of these smoking
pubs? They wouldn't be able to do it.

OTOH, a smoker wishing to work in a non smoking pub could do so quite
easily. That's somewhat inequitable....

Oh dear. I thought you believed in market forces Andy?

I certainly do.



Assuming that 25% of the population smoke, roughly that percentage of pub
goers smoke, and therefore 25% of bar staff smoke.

So its safe to assume that 25% of pubs would allow smoking, so the 25% of
bar staff who smoke could work in those venues.

No brainer really - if you are prepared to allow free choice?

Ah but what about the choice of the 75% of bar staff who would like
freeom of choice over where they can work?

Yes, all those non-smoking bar staff desperate to work in a smoking pub.
This really is a silly argument.

They are in the majority and
yet couldn't work in smoking bars without being pickled..

There is a difference between free choice that affects only the person
making the choice and "free choice" that affects others as well.

Since we live in a civilised environment (allegedly), the principle of
freedom to do what I want to do as long as it doesn't affect the equal
right of my fellow individual to do what he wants to do, does reasonably
transcend a market force argument.

On 2007-11-19 10:04:31 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 474134b2@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
No brainer really - if you are prepared to allow free choice?

Ah but what about the choice of the 75% of bar staff who would like
freeom of choice over where they can work? They are in the majority
and yet couldn't work in smoking bars without being pickled..

Strange. The majority of your posts suggest worker's rights aren't high up
on your agenda. Apart from when it suits your argument, of course.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "worker's rights".

If it's a collective thing as in a group of workers, then that is low
on my agenda. If it's the right of an individual, while working, not
to have to breathe toxic fumes unnecessarily, then it's very important.

On 2007-11-19 11:56:47 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Yes, all those non-smoking bar staff desperate to work in a smoking
pub. This really is a silly argument.

I know. To be honest, the thought of working in a pub, period is
pretty horrible, but compounding it with smoke doesn't bear thinking
about.

Anyway, the argument is not so much silly as academic. The game is
over anyway.

"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Stuart Noble wrote:

It's all very silly indeed, as you well know.

Why is someone trying to kill me "silly"?

Yeah, sounds very sensible to me :-)

On 2007-11-19 13:37:02 +0000, "PM" said:


"Steve Firth" wrote in message
.. .
Stuart Noble wrote:

It's all very silly indeed, as you well know.

Why is someone trying to kill me "silly"?

Yeah, sounds very sensible to me :-)

Perhaps it's like that guy I see when I occasionally watch UK TV with
sauce bottle glasses wanting to quote people happy or some such
nonsense. Perhaps he does happy slapping on the side, I'm not
really sure.

In article 47418d22@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Yes, all those non-smoking bar staff desperate to work in a smoking
pub. This really is a silly argument.

I know. To be honest, the thought of working in a pub, period is
pretty horrible, but compounding it with smoke doesn't bear thinking
about.

Anyway, the argument is not so much silly as academic. The game is
over anyway.

I suspect it's a law which will soon fall out of use - like so many others
- and it will be left to the individual to decide. Like in other countries
that have similar laws.

--
*I just got lost in thought. It was unfamiliar territory*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article 47418d22@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Yes, all those non-smoking bar staff desperate to work in a smoking
pub. This really is a silly argument.

I know. To be honest, the thought of working in a pub, period is
pretty horrible, but compounding it with smoke doesn't bear thinking
about.

Anyway, the argument is not so much silly as academic. The game is
over anyway.

I suspect it's a law which will soon fall out of use - like so many others
- and it will be left to the individual to decide. Like in other countries
that have similar laws.


I don't think so somehow. For a nation of yobs we're remarkably law
abiding, unless we're in our cars of course....

On 2007-11-19 14:39:15 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 47418d22@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Yes, all those non-smoking bar staff desperate to work in a smoking
pub. This really is a silly argument.

I know. To be honest, the thought of working in a pub, period is
pretty horrible, but compounding it with smoke doesn't bear thinking
about.

Anyway, the argument is not so much silly as academic. The game is
over anyway.

I suspect it's a law which will soon fall out of use - like so many others
- and it will be left to the individual to decide. Like in other countries
that have similar laws.

Well....

It hasn't in the U.S.


They began with smoking and non smoking sections in restaurants some 25
years ago.

Smoking went altogether in restaurants some 10 years ago and in hotels
at least 5 years ago along with public buildings.

They have a litigious society as we know. However, aspects of that
are appearing here as well for right or wrong.

Liability insurance will be one factor in defining how this pans out,
but I don't think that we will see a falling out of use.

Our culture is one of following legislation for the most part even if
we don't agree. Smoking legislation has rather higher visibility
than Part P.


Personally speaking, if I do go into a public place and find smoking
going on, I am quite prepared to report it and to pursue action being
taken.

On 2007-11-19 14:53:52 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article 47418d22@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Yes, all those non-smoking bar staff desperate to work in a smoking
pub. This really is a silly argument.

I know. To be honest, the thought of working in a pub, period is
pretty horrible, but compounding it with smoke doesn't bear thinking
about.

Anyway, the argument is not so much silly as academic. The game is
over anyway.

I suspect it's a law which will soon fall out of use - like so many others
- and it will be left to the individual to decide. Like in other countries
that have similar laws.


I don't think so somehow. For a nation of yobs we're remarkably law
abiding, unless we're in our cars of course....

You should visit some Mediterranean countries. In comparison, our
driving is that of a Sunday school teacher