Andrew May wrote:
Maria wrote:

Being a poster to politics groups, I've wearied of the argyument now!
My position is simply that a pub is private property and it should
have been a matter of freedom of choice for landlords whether their
pub was smoking or non-smoking.


Just out of interest would you also extend this argument to other
private property? Say, to the factory owner, who should have the freedom
of choice to decide whether to provide safety equipment on machinery.

Although probably not the true reason I was always under the impression
that banning smoking in pubs was as much about, if not mostly about,
providing a safe workplace for the bar staff.

Andrew

Most of whom are out in the rain with the customers when they get half a
chance

I have been to countries where roofers just walk up ladders - no
safety helmet or scaffolding or anything.

I think aerial erectors still do here.


As it is, it has gone far too far in places - for example, I have a 16
year old daughter who cannot find part-time work - there are plenty of
cleaning jobs around, but they won't employ her because by law, she is
not allowed to clean toilets. Sorry, but it's just nonsense.

Why should anyone be prevented from cleaning a toilet?

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:07:44 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Maria" wrote in message
.. .

Having said that I think it's a good thing that we have safety
measures in place to protect workers, but at the end of the day,
people negotiate their own workplace conditions and can choose to
leave to work somewhere safer.

That's ********. The balance of power doesn't permit it.

It does, but people do not choose to exercise that power. They are
afraid of being hurt, but are also frightened to lose money.

"Choose to leave to
work somewhere safer" doesn't work unless there's quite a shortage of
workers, and there isn't one at the moment.

We could argue about that all day! Government says there is,
unemployment figures say there isn't, judging by the number of factory
jobs in my local rag at the moment I would say there is.
Even so...if people didn't have job for life mentality, they might
have the courage to walk away from workplaces which are dangerous. If
everyonr could shed the job-for-life mentality, then no worker would
agree to work in a dangerous workplace and the owner of the dangerous
workplace would be forced to upgrade in order to attract workers.

If they are injured in the workplace,
there is always tort law by which they can claim compensation, which
would naturally cause employers to be careful about any dangers posed
by their machinery..

You'd think - but it's not the case.

Well I can't speak for people who don't bother to pursue it - you can
try to get redress through the courts for anything - even a neighbours
fence that falls down and injures you.

Ed Sirett wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 07:24:00 -0800, Man at B&Q wrote:


House prices aren't the only issue here though. You also have to
consider the rental returns

Agreed.

...(which are suffereing)

Not from my perspective rents are generally moving up as people find that
have to rent because they still can't afford to buy. Interest rate rises
have compounded the unaffordability of buying and so demand for rental is
waxing.


and whether your
money would be better somewhere else.

Probably, but property is
1) (At least most of ) it's own collateral.
2) less volatile that other investments


But highly illiquid.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
Maria wrote:

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.
The anti smoking fascists would lead you to believe that it increases
custom. But since they lie about everything else.......

Sorry, no sympathy from this corner, I gave up over two years ago

You haven't given up - its just a longer break between fags.


I give up every night.

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:17:57 GMT, Stuart Noble
wrote:


I have been to countries where roofers just walk up ladders - no
safety helmet or scaffolding or anything.

I think aerial erectors still do here.

Some of the roofers here do also!
In fact. if I could find a roofer that walks up the roof that doesn't
have a waiting list a mile long, I'd use one myself - other than that,
I need to pay £500 to get scaffolding erected to replace one single
broken roof tile...


As it is, it has gone far too far in places - for example, I have a 16
year old daughter who cannot find part-time work - there are plenty of
cleaning jobs around, but they won't employ her because by law, she is
not allowed to clean toilets. Sorry, but it's just nonsense.

Why should anyone be prevented from cleaning a toilet?

I have no idea I'm afraid. Dangerous chemicals? Inability to
understand which sponge or mop you are supposed to use for which job?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article 4733df83@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
Typical anti smoking fascist. Remember when people had a choice?

There still is choice. People who want to smoke can do so outside.

Fine on a pleasant summer evening - but not when there's a cold wind and
driving rain. The stupid legislation banns any form of effective shelter.

I would prefer it if they do so some way away from the building and
certainly away from the entrance area so that it's not necessary to
walk through it on th way in and out.

I'd also prefer not having to mix with drunks on the street etc. Many find
those rather more threatening/unpleasant than smokers.

As a sideline, my local rail station constantly plays a message saying
smoking is banned there due to government legislation. Yet more than half
of each platform is totally open - no roof or walls. They must have got
together with CORGI.

Basically since no pub is within walking distance, and there are no
taxis or public transport, and te drnk drive lws are strict (and I
probably agree with them too) and we cook better food than they do by
and large, the fact that you can't smoke in em is just one more reason
never to go in one again.

I think the last pub I went in was the village one, to buy fags...a year
ago.

Andrew May wrote:
Maria wrote:

Being a poster to politics groups, I've wearied of the argyument now!
My position is simply that a pub is private property and it should
have been a matter of freedom of choice for landlords whether their
pub was smoking or non-smoking.


Just out of interest would you also extend this argument to other
private property? Say, to the factory owner, who should have the freedom
of choice to decide whether to provide safety equipment on machinery.

Although probably not the true reason I was always under the impression
that banning smoking in pubs was as much about, if not mostly about,
providing a safe workplace for the bar staff.


Well that was the stated reason, yes.

But like foxhunting,in fact is was really about a vociferous lobby
wanting to impose their sets of values on the country.



Andrew

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:34:16 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andrew May wrote:
Maria wrote:

Being a poster to politics groups, I've wearied of the argyument now!
My position is simply that a pub is private property and it should
have been a matter of freedom of choice for landlords whether their
pub was smoking or non-smoking.


Just out of interest would you also extend this argument to other
private property? Say, to the factory owner, who should have the freedom
of choice to decide whether to provide safety equipment on machinery.

Although probably not the true reason I was always under the impression
that banning smoking in pubs was as much about, if not mostly about,
providing a safe workplace for the bar staff.


Well that was the stated reason, yes.

But like foxhunting,in fact is was really about a vociferous lobby
wanting to impose their sets of values on the country.


Indeed. This was self-evident when on the run up to the smoking ban,
someone invented a nicotine gel you could rub in your hands to satisfy
your cravings if you were going out - the health lobby was up in arms
about it. They said the idea was to stop people smoking, not for
smokers to get their nicotine addiction kick some other way. So there
we have it.

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:00:16 GMT, "Mark" wrote:


The Medway Handyman wrote in message
news:9YNYi.103463
Entirely possible to have smoking & non smoking pubs/bars/areas.

It's called freedom to choose.

Smokers still do have a choice, they can stand outside under a
pergola and freeze to death if the lung cancer doesn't get them first
It keeps them from infecting everyone else inside with their second
hand smoke.

Two points. First of all, passive smoking is a complete myth.

Yes im bound to take your word for that

Agreed it
might be unpleasant for non somokers, but we could easily have 'smoking'
pubs & 'non smoking' pubs. Its called choice.


Good thinking, I don't smoke no of the bar staff smoke over 90% of
drinking customers don't smoke
So im going to open a pub just to cater for 10% of the possible Dying
clientele who will soon end up in the local hospice.
Fact, more people are using the restaurant in the evenings because the
entire pub is now smoke free.


I think in pubs which are not restaurants, I saw figures touted that
66- 75% of clients were smokers. You are catering to a different
market (which is why I thought you had a good chance of success!).

On 8 Nov 2007 11:43:54 -0800, Anita Palley
wrote:


..

Anyway, my understanding of the original post what that he has only
raised the deposit through the remortgage, the bulk of the money will
be raised through a loan secured over the place to be let out. All the
interest on all the money he borrows to buy the property (via both
loans) is deductible (as are loan interest payments for any business).

Hi Anita
You are correct on all of the points you made re finance.

I have decided to go ahead with the purchase nothing ventured as they
say.

Thanks to everyone else who replied and took the trouble to point out
their opinions.

On Nov 9, 11:39 am, Maria wrote:
providing a safe workplace for the bar staff.

Who always have had a choice about where they work, just like asbestos
workers,

Who didn't always have the choice of being told the dangers of the
work they were doing and so carried on in blissful ignorance until it
was too late.

MBQ

In article ,
Andrew May wrote:
Although probably not the true reason I was always under the impression
that banning smoking in pubs was as much about, if not mostly about,
providing a safe workplace for the bar staff.

You believe those lies too? ;-)

H&S legislation is rarely about providing a safe work place but more about
helping prevent employers being sued - provided there is little or no cost
to them to implement it. Of course the two sometimes overlap.

But of course there's no reason for bar staff to enter an enclosed smoking
area anyway - except to clear up etc. And that could be after closing and
when the ventilation/filtering had reduced the tiny risk anyway. Or they
could clear up during one of their fag breaks. ;-)

--
*To err is human. To forgive is against company policy.

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

normanwisdom wrote:

Nobody seems to have mentioned the ethics of BTL - the fact is that
it's a low form of capitalistic parasitism - hoping to earn money
merely by owning something that other people need. Providing a service
which nobody wants. Nobody loves a landlord, and BTL is a big factor
in cranking up house prices. Be warned - the bubble may burst at any
time and everybody will have a good laugh at the landlords in
difficulties.

Different if you were building new - that could be a useful thing to
do.

cheers
Jacob

Better to let those that cant buy live on the streets then? Methinks
Norman has gotten separated from his wisdom.

If there's a parasite in the works, its government regulation. In
most
countries those unable to buy can erect a cheap building for very
little cost (under 1kif necessary), but here one has to jump through
a mass of very very expensive hoops.


NT

"Owain" wrote


I know they're usually execrably styled, but the 1970s were probably
fairly good for houses.

I have one and the build quality is distinctily average and the upstairs
"stud" walls have no studs - paramount panels.
So sound transmission between rooms is high!
I would look to the 80's at least for better construction standard and
cavity wall insulation during build etc.
All depends on the builder of course

Phil

wrote in message
ups.com...
normanwisdom wrote:

Nobody seems to have mentioned the ethics of BTL - the fact is that
it's a low form of capitalistic parasitism - hoping to earn money
merely by owning something that other people need.

You mean like food retailers - are they similar low forms? It's impractical
for everyone to grow their own food or they don't want to, so retailers form
to provide the food at a cost which the consumer accepts and which benefits
them. Some can't buy property or don't wish to, others fulfil the need by
sourcing the property and letting it out at a cost the consumer accepts and
which benefits them. The more landlords the better for the consumer as the
letting prices will drop.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

normanwisdom wrote:

True there are those who need to rent in that sense but most do it
because they can't afford to buy - which is made worse by BTL boosting
prices. And many can't afford a 3 or4 figure deposite - and of those
that can many don't see it again. I've had 3 kids at Uni at various
times and they have all been ripped off by landlords not returning
deposites.

cheers
Jacob

The BTL market will affect price to some degree, but primarily prices
depend on the cost to build new, which in this country is
excessively high. Removing btl would not reduce the cost of new
build any.

Removing btl would also not make those that cant buy suddenly
able to.

As for tenants not having the deposit, maybe they need to learn
basic financial responsibility so they can afford what they need in
life. Its a pretty poor show to blame someone else for that. Doubly
so in a country where minimum wage brings in 3x a single persons
living cost.

And for the last myth, it is surely genuinely naive to believe that
every young person that loses their deposit has been done a wrong.
Unless you believe all youngsters 100% sensible & responsible.

The landlord is demonised by people that dont want to take
responsibility for themselves, but IRL landlords provide a very
necessary service for the many unable to buy. Landlords are
essential service providers.


NT

normanwisdom wrote:
On 8 Nov, 20:31, Ed Sirett wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 09:06:45 -0800, normanwisdom wrote:

Nobody seems to have mentioned the ethics of BTL - the fact is that
it's a low form of capitalistic parasitism - hoping to earn money
merely by owning something that other people need.

My tenants probably earn more than me but I own
more than they do. So I TRADE their income for my property.

Providing a service which nobody wants.

Many people like to have a home.

Nobody loves a landlord,
I don't do it to be loved.

and BTL is a big factor

in cranking up house prices.

Yes and no. If it fuels a BTL bubble then yes. In practice the demand
(brought on by demographic and migration effects) is much more to do with
it.

Be warned - the bubble may burst at any time

I'm really rather the opposite of gung ho over business decisions.

and everybody will have a good laugh at the landlords in

difficulties.

All my properties are paid for, I doubt I will be in trouble, I have
relatively little sympathy for a short term BTL landlord who is not
committed to the long haul.

It is a useful activity managing rental property. I, say, manage housing
for a group of twenty somethings these are people who need a home but have
not yet acquired the skills or capital own or run a home of their own.

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is athttp://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQhttp://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQhttp://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

I've no prob with people with skills running rental property in a
professional way. My objection is to the substantial number of new
entrants who just see it as easy money and an alternative to a pension
- they are also the ones who will bleat loudest when things don't work
out and probably expect handouts like Northern Rock investors.

cheers
J

Those ones usually leave the business after a couple of years
having made nothing, and unhappy with their experience. This same
phenomenon occurs in most business sectors of course.


NT

wrote in message
oups.com...

The BTL market will affect price to some degree, but primarily prices
depend on the cost to build new, which in this country is
excessively high. Removing btl would not reduce the cost of new
build any.

Um, in recent years the cost to build the place has been a rather small
proportion of the total cost - the cost of the land is the main one, which
is directly related to house prices rather than building prices.

cheers,
clive

Andrew May wrote:
Maria wrote:

Being a poster to politics groups, I've wearied of the argyument now!
My position is simply that a pub is private property and it should
have been a matter of freedom of choice for landlords whether their
pub was smoking or non-smoking.


Just out of interest would you also extend this argument to other
private property? Say, to the factory owner, who should have the
freedom of choice to decide whether to provide safety equipment on
machinery.
Although probably not the true reason I was always under the
impression that banning smoking in pubs was as much about, if not
mostly about, providing a safe workplace for the bar staff.

The smoking ban is about the pharmacuticle companies making a fortune out of
patches and a few voiciferous pressure groups. No link between passive
smoking & cancer or asthma.

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

Phil Gardner wrote:
On 8 Nov 2007 11:43:54 -0800, Anita Palley
wrote:

Anyway, my understanding of the original post what that he has only
raised the deposit through the remortgage, the bulk of the money will
be raised through a loan secured over the place to be let out. All the
interest on all the money he borrows to buy the property (via both
loans) is deductible (as are loan interest payments for any business).

Hi Anita
You are correct on all of the points you made re finance.

I have decided to go ahead with the purchase nothing ventured as they
say.

Thanks to everyone else who replied and took the trouble to point out
their opinions.

Do you wish to share with us what sort of percentage return you
expect to get, after taking all the costs and vacant times into
account?


NT

wrote:

The BTL market will affect price to some degree, but primarily prices
depend on the cost to build new, which in this country is
excessively high. Removing btl would not reduce the cost of new
build any.

In economic terms it is pretty much the other way around. The secondhand
market is the price-setter, the new build the price follower. If the
price of second-hand property falls then builders will be forced to
lower their prices in order to sell. To maintain some semblance of
profit and given the relatively fixed costs of building this will result
in a fall in the price of land - which has no intrinsic value other than
a value based on what one can do with it - usually build houses.

Andrew

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

If you want to breath in toxic fumes,
[snip]
then do it where it doesn't affect me - like
in your own home.

You'll


Please eff off as you are vacant in the head.

Maria wrote:
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007 12:07:44 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:
"Maria" wrote in message
.. .

Having said that I think it's a good thing that we have safety
measures in place to protect workers, but at the end of the day,
people negotiate their own workplace conditions and can choose to
leave to work somewhere safer.

That's ********. The balance of power doesn't permit it.

It does, but people do not choose to exercise that power. They are
afraid of being hurt, but are also frightened to lose money.

"Choose to leave to
work somewhere safer" doesn't work unless there's quite a shortage of
workers, and there isn't one at the moment.

We could argue about that all day! Government says there is,
unemployment figures say there isn't, judging by the number of factory
jobs in my local rag at the moment I would say there is.
Even so...if people didn't have job for life mentality, they might
have the courage to walk away from workplaces which are dangerous. If
everyonr could shed the job-for-life mentality, then no worker would
agree to work in a dangerous workplace and the owner of the dangerous
workplace would be forced to upgrade in order to attract workers.

To understand it properly one has to appreciate that the situation is
different for different workers. At the bottom end there are workers
that no-one wants trying to get jobs. For these people there is no
ability to bargain in the way you say, if they get a job theyre
lucky,
and they dont really have other options. H&S laws are needed for
these people mroe than the others.

For workers who are in demand its the other way, and yes one has
the power to negotiate. However as you semi-suggest, that doesnt
necessarily mean that some aspects of working conditions are the
most important issue, and IRL many choose to stay in
unsatisfactory situations because its their best option in their eyes.


If they are injured in the workplace,
there is always tort law by which they can claim compensation, which
would naturally cause employers to be careful about any dangers posed
by their machinery..

You'd think - but it's not the case.

Well I can't speak for people who don't bother to pursue it - you can
try to get redress through the courts for anything - even a neighbours
fence that falls down and injures you.

But this doesn't motivate employers enough. Due to human factors
some think they'll get away with it, or don't spot the risks present.

Failure to understand the risks is also an issue with the idea of
workers walking out of anywhere where they're not happy with
safety. Raw capitalism sounds ok in principle, but doesnt really
work adequately in practice. OTOH the other options are far from
satisfactory either.


NT

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andrew May wrote:
Maria wrote:

Being a poster to politics groups, I've wearied of the argyument now!
My position is simply that a pub is private property and it should
have been a matter of freedom of choice for landlords whether their
pub was smoking or non-smoking.

Just out of interest would you also extend this argument to other
private property? Say, to the factory owner, who should have the
freedom of choice to decide whether to provide safety equipment on
machinery.
Although probably not the true reason I was always under the
impression that banning smoking in pubs was as much about, if not
mostly about, providing a safe workplace for the bar staff.

The smoking ban is about the pharmacuticle companies making a fortune out of
patches and a few voiciferous pressure groups. No link between passive
smoking & cancer or asthma.


It's just another ban. Pretty soon no one will be allowed to do anything
in case it affects somebody else.
4x4 drivers have the freedom to see the whole road, but that reduces my
visibility in a normal car. When everybody has rights, no one has any.

In article , Clive George
scribeth thus
wrote in message
roups.com...

The BTL market will affect price to some degree, but primarily prices
depend on the cost to build new, which in this country is
excessively high. Removing btl would not reduce the cost of new
build any.

Um, in recent years the cost to build the place has been a rather small
proportion of the total cost - the cost of the land is the main one, which
is directly related to house prices rather than building prices.

cheers,
clive


Quite..

But no one wants anything built in their back yard, next door, their
village, in their bit of green and pleasant land so they all wonder why
prices are so high with building land in such short supply!....
--
Tony Sayer

On Nov 9, 2:05 pm, Phil Gardner wrote:

I have decided to go ahead with the purchase nothing ventured as they
say.

Thanks to everyone else who replied and took the trouble to point out
their opinions.

Might be worth seeing what sort of price an equivalent BTL property
goes at auction.

cheers,
Pete.

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Typical anti smoking fascist. Remember when people had a choice?

I am all in favour of freedom of choice, although in this case one has
to accept that in many cases your choice is imposed on others whether
they choose it or not.

Entirely possible to have smoking & non smoking pubs/bars/areas.

With regard to smoking "areas" it is fine in principle, but often
seems to be implemented with the finesse of a "peeing area" in a
swimming pool.


--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

If you want to breath in toxic fumes,
[snip]
then do it where it doesn't affect me - like
in your own home.

You'll


Please eff off as you are vacant in the head.

Oh the irony. Please seek help again. Hopefully they'll lock you up away
from a computer once more and give us all a break.

--
*If they arrest the Energizer Bunny, would they charge it with battery? *

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
With regard to smoking "areas" it is fine in principle, but often
seems to be implemented with the finesse of a "peeing area" in a
swimming pool.

It wouldn't be difficult or particularly costly to provide proper
ventilation and filtering. For smoking areas that is.

--
*I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public

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

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
The Medway Handyman wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
Maria wrote:

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.
The anti smoking fascists would lead you to believe that it increases
custom. But since they lie about everything else.......

Sorry, no sympathy from this corner, I gave up over two years ago
You haven't given up - its just a longer break between fags.

I give up every night.

but we're talking about smoking ...

--
geoff

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:

If you want to breath in toxic fumes,
[snip]
then do it where it doesn't affect me - like
in your own home.

You'll


Please eff off as you are vacant in the head.

Oh

Please eff off as you are vacant in the head.

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
The Medway Handyman wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
Maria wrote:

No...my brother-in-law is just getting out...big pub on a
working-class estate. There just isn't the business anymore and the
smoking ban is the final straw for proifts.
The anti smoking fascists would lead you to believe that it increases
custom. But since they lie about everything else.......

Sorry, no sympathy from this corner, I gave up over two years ago
You haven't given up - its just a longer break between fags.

I give up every night.

but we're talking about smoking ...

tres drole..

Owain wrote:
Maria wrote:
Indeed. This was self-evident when on the run up to the smoking ban,
someone invented a nicotine gel you could rub in your hands to
satisfy your cravings if you were going out - the health lobby was
up in arms about it. They said the idea was to stop people smoking,
not for smokers to get their nicotine addiction kick some other way.

What's the difference between nicotine gel and nicotine gum?

You can't blow bubbles with the gel.

Or

About £3 a packet.


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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew May wrote:
Although probably not the true reason I was always under the
impression that banning smoking in pubs was as much about, if not
mostly about, providing a safe workplace for the bar staff.

You believe those lies too? ;-)

The entire anti smoking hysteria is based on lies. Fudged scientific
evidence that doesn't stand up, massaged statistics & outright lies.

But of course there's no reason for bar staff to enter an enclosed
smoking area anyway - except to clear up etc. And that could be after
closing and when the ventilation/filtering had reduced the tiny risk
anyway. Or they could clear up during one of their fag breaks. ;-)

Entirely simple to filter out tobacco smoke, not a problem at all. Assuming
it was a health risk in the first place.


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

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
Owain wrote:
Maria wrote:
Indeed. This was self-evident when on the run up to the smoking ban,
someone invented a nicotine gel you could rub in your hands to
satisfy your cravings if you were going out - the health lobby was
up in arms about it. They said the idea was to stop people smoking,
not for smokers to get their nicotine addiction kick some other way.

What's the difference between nicotine gel and nicotine gum?

You can't blow bubbles with the gel.

nice gels don't blow bubbles

michael jackson won't let them

--
geoff

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:48:39 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
Owain wrote:
Maria wrote:
Indeed. This was self-evident when on the run up to the smoking ban,
someone invented a nicotine gel you could rub in your hands to
satisfy your cravings if you were going out - the health lobby was
up in arms about it. They said the idea was to stop people smoking,
not for smokers to get their nicotine addiction kick some other way.

What's the difference between nicotine gel and nicotine gum?

You can't blow bubbles with the gel.

nice gels don't blow bubbles

michael jackson won't let them

I think he's a bit challenged in the Bubble-Mix dept.

DG

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
. uk...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew May wrote:
Although probably not the true reason I was always under the
impression that banning smoking in pubs was as much about, if not
mostly about, providing a safe workplace for the bar staff.

You believe those lies too? ;-)

The entire anti smoking hysteria is based on lies.

It isn't at all. Smoke is horrible and stinks. The cigarettes cause fires
and all sorts of disgustingness and kill people en-mass.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:13:39 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
.uk...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew May wrote:
Although probably not the true reason I was always under the
impression that banning smoking in pubs was as much about, if not
mostly about, providing a safe workplace for the bar staff.

You believe those lies too? ;-)

The entire anti smoking hysteria is based on lies.

It isn't at all.

It is *so*.

Smoke is horrible and stinks

Well, just don't go there.

The cigarettes cause fires

Not according to the fire brigade.They say matches and 'Uman Beens are
worse.

and all sorts of disgustingness and kill people en-mass.

You are confused. That's the incense.

Now, ciggy smoke keeps flies away, it's fragrant too get some today.

apologies to "Pepsodent"

DG

Maria wrote in message


I think in pubs which are not restaurants, I saw figures touted that
66- 75% of clients were smokers. You are catering to a different
market (which is why I thought you had a good chance of success!).



It hasn't been at that high a percentage here for some years most sensible
people had already quit before the ban, since then about half the regular
die hard smokers have kicked the habit which only leaves about four or five
who have to go outside for a fix. I have to say the type of shelter you are
allowed to erect for smokers is stupid for pubs that depend heavily on wet
sales for their income, as these pubs always seemed to have highest number
of smokers
it was definitely turning brass monkeys outside tonight.



-