On 2007-11-09 19:05:26 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

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.

That was tried in the U.S. It doesn't really work, any more than
the cubicles that were installed in office.. The smell still
permeates the surrounding area.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

Can't recall ever have seen it done though, can you?

--
Cheers,

John.

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

In article ,
Mark wrote:
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

I'm afraid for the majority of those it will be a temporary thing. Smoking
is an extremely addictive habit and stopping for a few months doesn't mean
that addiction is broken.

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.

Yes - the law seems designed to punish smokers. One of the few laws of
this type I can think of. Must have been drafted by an ex-smoker. An
outsider must consider the wisdom of this parliament which enacts such
swinging legislation for one anti-social drug while positively encouraging
the use of another - alcohol - which has at least as many if not more
undesirable effects on individuals and society at large.

--
*The modem is the message *

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

In article 47350eea@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
It wouldn't be difficult or particularly costly to provide proper
ventilation and filtering. For smoking areas that is.

That was tried in the U.S. It doesn't really work, any more than
the cubicles that were installed in office.. The smell still
permeates the surrounding area.

If the room is allowing smoke to escape it is badly designed. There are
plenty of labs etc where it is essential air from them doesn't get to the
building in general.

--
*'Progress' and 'Change' are not synonyms.

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

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
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.

Can't recall ever have seen it done though, can you?

Yes - one place I work at used to have a couple of such rooms. Large vents
for fresh air and a large extractor fan venting to the roof. Ventilated
corridor for access.

--
*When the going gets tough, the tough take a coffee break *

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

On 2007-11-10 07:55:09 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 47350eea@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
It wouldn't be difficult or particularly costly to provide proper
ventilation and filtering. For smoking areas that is.

That was tried in the U.S. It doesn't really work, any more than
the cubicles that were installed in office.. The smell still
permeates the surrounding area.

If the room is allowing smoke to escape it is badly designed. There are
plenty of labs etc where it is essential air from them doesn't get to the
building in general.

They may well have been. I imagine that most restaurants don't
really want to make their customers sit in a fume cupboard.

However, in the U.S. the implementations of separate areas, which was
tried for many years, simply didn't work which is why eventually
smoking was banned within buildings to which the public has access and
in many places now within a certain distance of buildings.

Toilets are in separate locations to where people congregate and eat
and drink and usually have air extraction. Of course, toilets are
involved in dealing with necessary bodily function, whereas smoking is
not a necessary bodily function.

Nobody would really suggest the idea of people crapping on the floor of
a restaurant. However, the smell from smoke does permeate from
practical implementations of separate smoking areas and to a non
participant is as offensive in combination with eating as someone
having crapped on the floor. It really is that bad.

Clive George wrote:
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

.... which is one of the costs of building a house ITRW.


NT

Maria wrote:
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.

To say that individuals who support that do so for the full variety
of
reasons would surely be stating the obvious.


NT

The Medway Handyman wrote:
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.

Is there further info to back this up?


NT

On Nov 8, 12:36 pm, Phil Gardner wrote:
I know this is a bit OT but
I am about to exchange contracts on my firstbuytoletproperty in
the next 3 weeks and im getting cold feet.

I have re-mortgaged my house to release the equity to pay for this its
something I have always wanted to do.

Due to the turmoil in the housing and finance market I am beginning to
question my judgment and timing
Is anyone on this forum in this business that could offer advice.

Yes the housing market is a bit shaky at the moment but buying an
investment property is exactly the same as any other investments -
they rise and they fall. On average, house prices double every 7.5
years - but past performance is no indicator for the future. Providing
you have done your due dilligence and buying as a long-term investment
(and not to make a quick buck) then you should be OK. Local
Authorities are crying out for private landlords and they pay the
market rent so if you can't find a private tenant then this is an
option.
Also if it is at the lower end of the rental market you will also find
tenants easier than the luxury ones because you will be capturing all
those who would otherwise be first-time buyers.

As a nation we have a huge influx of immigrants and expect another
million over the next 10 years - these people all need to live
somewhere!

Finally, the current climate is due to the callapse of the US market
and not like the one we had back in the early 1990. Yes, property
prices will dip - possibly by up to 10% but I doubt we will have a
crash because the BOE is monitoring things closely - remember the BOE
hasn't raised interest rates, it's the lenders' SVR which have gone up
and that has been purely down to the fact that they can't buy in money
to lend back out so they are raising their rates because there is more
demand than supply.

One of my clients phoned me in a panic because he had heard that
property prices would drop by around 40% - I don't have a crystal ball
but if that was to happen the the country will be bankrupt because the
knock-on effect on other industries will be huge - people love to
create headline news which cause panic - as happened with Northern
Rock - someone had it in for NR because other banks did the same but
they didn;t receive the same media exposure.

The other angle is. If property prices do dip (say by 10%) then 1st
time buyers will not want to buy - but they need to live somewhere.
This again will have "supply and demand" on the rental market - more
demand pushes the rents up.

In a nutshell - don't let one single article persuade you one way or
the other, do your homework and make an educated decision. You are
either an invester and as such take measured risks or you are not - in
which case keep your money in the bank.

Hope this helps

In article 473573ac@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
If the room is allowing smoke to escape it is badly designed. There
are plenty of labs etc where it is essential air from them doesn't get
to the building in general.

They may well have been. I imagine that most restaurants don't
really want to make their customers sit in a fume cupboard.

I don't think anyone here was suggesting it's a bad thing to ban smoking
from eating places. But it would be the smokers who sit in a fume cupboard.

However, in the U.S. the implementations of separate areas, which was
tried for many years, simply didn't work which is why eventually
smoking was banned within buildings to which the public has access and
in many places now within a certain distance of buildings.

They do many strange things in the US without any logic - like murdering
some convicted criminals. Due to pressure groups.

Toilets are in separate locations to where people congregate and eat
and drink and usually have air extraction. Of course, toilets are
involved in dealing with necessary bodily function, whereas smoking is
not a necessary bodily function.

No - but I'd guess you'd be pretty upset if toilet smells were present in
a restaurant.

Nobody would really suggest the idea of people crapping on the floor of
a restaurant. However, the smell from smoke does permeate from
practical implementations of separate smoking areas and to a non
participant is as offensive in combination with eating as someone
having crapped on the floor. It really is that bad.

The discussion was really about pubs and clubs. Although if a restaurant
made it plain smoking was allowed those who didn't like this could just go
elsewhere. You are never forced to eat in a restaurant anymore than you
are forced to drink in any pub.

It seems strange you are so keen on market forces and freedom of choice on
other matters - why not this?

--
*Arkansas State Motto: Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Laugh.

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

On 2007-11-10 11:36:05 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 473573ac@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
If the room is allowing smoke to escape it is badly designed. There
are plenty of labs etc where it is essential air from them doesn't get
to the building in general.

They may well have been. I imagine that most restaurants don't
really want to make their customers sit in a fume cupboard.

I don't think anyone here was suggesting it's a bad thing to ban smoking
from eating places. But it would be the smokers who sit in a fume cupboard.

Smokers are people too, though....



However, in the U.S. the implementations of separate areas, which was
tried for many years, simply didn't work which is why eventually
smoking was banned within buildings to which the public has access and
in many places now within a certain distance of buildings.

They do many strange things in the US without any logic - like murdering
some convicted criminals. Due to pressure groups.

Toilets are in separate locations to where people congregate and eat
and drink and usually have air extraction. Of course, toilets are
involved in dealing with necessary bodily function, whereas smoking is
not a necessary bodily function.

No - but I'd guess you'd be pretty upset if toilet smells were present in
a restaurant.

Of course. The point was really that one facility is necessary
without discussion and the other isn't at all




Nobody would really suggest the idea of people crapping on the floor of
a restaurant. However, the smell from smoke does permeate from
practical implementations of separate smoking areas and to a non
participant is as offensive in combination with eating as someone
having crapped on the floor. It really is that bad.

The discussion was really about pubs and clubs. Although if a restaurant
made it plain smoking was allowed those who didn't like this could just go
elsewhere.

The trouble is that if one is in a strange place, this can involve a
lot of running around to find the desired type of venue.



You are never forced to eat in a restaurant anymore than you
are forced to drink in any pub.

That is true, although again when one isn't at home one is forced to
eat and drink in such places.




It seems strange you are so keen on market forces and freedom of choice on
other matters - why not this?

Actually it's consistent.

Freedom of choice is tied up with personal freedom, in essence.

Personal freedom in the short version is the ability to do whatever you
like without let or hindrance *provided that* it doesn't impact on the
equal right of the next person to do the same.

This one crosses the line of that definition.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:36:05 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article 473573ac@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
If the room is allowing smoke to escape it is badly designed. There
are plenty of labs etc where it is essential air from them doesn't get
to the building in general.

They may well have been. I imagine that most restaurants don't
really want to make their customers sit in a fume cupboard.

I don't think anyone here was suggesting it's a bad thing to ban smoking
from eating places. But it would be the smokers who sit in a fume cupboard.

Mheh. Last time I went abroad (a couple of years ago), we departed
from Gatwick. The last time before that I had gone there were smoking
areas upstairs, but these had now been replaced with a sort of large
cubicle walled-off from the other waiting area, slap bang in the
middle in public view. I am really terrified of flying and and we had
to wait an extra six hours for the flight as it was delayed, so I gave
in a went off the the 'cubicle' for a smoke to calm me nerves - I have
never felt so self-conscious in my life! There were no seats so people
were just standing there, in the middle of Gatwick waiting lounge,
chuffing away, like cattle in a shed or something, Also the shed was
not bif enough so the smokers were falling out of the doorways trying
to stay within the area. With the glassy walls, everyone could look on
like you were some kind of freak, and I'm sure we certainly looked
like freaks. I don't know if humiliation is part of the 'treatment'
but it worked for me - I made sure I never went back there again!

NB - the shed didn't even work - it didn't have a roof on as far as I
can recall, so the smoke just wafted around the rest of the concours!

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article 473573ac@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
If the room is allowing smoke to escape it is badly designed. There
are plenty of labs etc where it is essential air from them doesn't get
to the building in general.

They may well have been. I imagine that most restaurants don't
really want to make their customers sit in a fume cupboard.

I don't think anyone here was suggesting it's a bad thing to ban smoking
from eating places. But it would be the smokers who sit in a fume cupboard.

However, in the U.S. the implementations of separate areas, which was
tried for many years, simply didn't work which is why eventually
smoking was banned within buildings to which the public has access and
in many places now within a certain distance of buildings.

They do many strange things in the US without any logic - like murdering
some convicted criminals. Due to pressure groups.

Toilets are in separate locations to where people congregate and eat
and drink and usually have air extraction. Of course, toilets are
involved in dealing with necessary bodily function, whereas smoking is
not a necessary bodily function.

No - but I'd guess you'd be pretty upset if toilet smells were present in
a restaurant.

Nobody would really suggest the idea of people crapping on the floor of
a restaurant. However, the smell from smoke does permeate from
practical implementations of separate smoking areas and to a non
participant is as offensive in combination with eating as someone
having crapped on the floor. It really is that bad.

The discussion was really about pubs and clubs. Although if a restaurant
made it plain smoking was allowed those who didn't like this could just go
elsewhere. You are never forced to eat in a restaurant anymore than you
are forced to drink in any pub.

It seems strange you are so keen on market forces and freedom of choice on
other matters - why not this?


Exactly. If Andy smoked, the argument would be that smoke free venues
would become the norm automatically if the majority preferred it that
way. The fact is, jackboots were used to override the free market

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:33:02 +0000, 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?


Not certain, but I think the gum is designed to be chewed regularly to
maintain nicotine levels in the body and smoking as well as chewing
the gum would probably result in a nicotine overdose - the gel is
designed to replace smoking for a short period of time. Other than
that, there isn't any difference AFAIK. I suspect the health lobby
likes gum because it is a tool for giving up, but hates the gel
because it is a temporary tool for getting through one evening
without a smoke.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:08:47 -0800, wrote:

Maria wrote:
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.

To say that individuals who support that do so for the full variety
of
reasons would surely be stating the obvious.


Indeed, but the stated reasons for outlawing smoking in public places
was in order to prevent people from being exposed to second-hand
smoke. If they had publicly stated that it was because they just want
to control what people choose to put in their own bodies, it would not
have had half the support because people do not like to be dicated to
by the state.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:10:44 -0800, wrote:

The Medway Handyman wrote:
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.

Is there further info to back this up?

You can't prove that there is no evidence for something.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:19:15 +0000, Maria
wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:08:47 -0800, wrote:

Maria wrote:
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.

To say that individuals who support that do so for the full variety
of
reasons would surely be stating the obvious.


Indeed, but the stated reasons for outlawing smoking in public places
was in order to prevent people from being exposed to second-hand
smoke. If they had publicly stated that it was because they just want
to control what people choose to put in their own bodies, it would not
have had half the support because people do not like to be dicated to
by the state.

NB The BMA (like Hitler) would like to ban smoking, full stop. Now
all you non-smokers, I do have some sympathy with - even as a smoker I
find the smell of second-hand smnoke repulsive - I smoke roll-ups so
they don't give off much smoke as factory made ciggies. However, now
the BMA have got their way on this, alcohol is next. It does far more
damage to your body than smoking. If people are duped into believing
that the smoke-ban is for other people's health and so it is worth
supporting, they *will* have the courage to do the same with alcohol.
In that case, they cannot use a 'passive drinking' as an excuse, so
they are using young people harming themselves through drink.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/n...rticleid=52433

On 2007-11-10 14:15:29 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Exactly. If Andy smoked, the argument would be that smoke free venues
would become the norm automatically if the majority preferred it that
way.

That doesn't pass the test of freedom to do as one chooses provided
that it doesn't impact on the same freedom afforded to others

On 2007-11-10 14:14:36 +0000, Maria said:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 11:36:05 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article 473573ac@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
If the room is allowing smoke to escape it is badly designed. There
are plenty of labs etc where it is essential air from them doesn't get
to the building in general.

They may well have been. I imagine that most restaurants don't
really want to make their customers sit in a fume cupboard.

I don't think anyone here was suggesting it's a bad thing to ban smoking
from eating places. But it would be the smokers who sit in a fume cupboard.

Mheh. Last time I went abroad (a couple of years ago), we departed
from Gatwick. The last time before that I had gone there were smoking
areas upstairs, but these had now been replaced with a sort of large
cubicle walled-off from the other waiting area, slap bang in the
middle in public view. I am really terrified of flying and and we had
to wait an extra six hours for the flight as it was delayed, so I gave
in a went off the the 'cubicle' for a smoke to calm me nerves - I have
never felt so self-conscious in my life! There were no seats so people
were just standing there, in the middle of Gatwick waiting lounge,
chuffing away, like cattle in a shed or something, Also the shed was
not bif enough so the smokers were falling out of the doorways trying
to stay within the area. With the glassy walls, everyone could look on
like you were some kind of freak, and I'm sure we certainly looked
like freaks. I don't know if humiliation is part of the 'treatment'
but it worked for me - I made sure I never went back there again!

NB - the shed didn't even work - it didn't have a roof on as far as I
can recall, so the smoke just wafted around the rest of the concours!

That's why it's far better for the areas to be outside, out of view.
It avoids all of this embarassment.

On 2007-11-10 14:28:57 +0000, Maria said:

NB The BMA (like Hitler) would like to ban smoking, full stop. Now
all you non-smokers, I do have some sympathy with - even as a smoker I
find the smell of second-hand smnoke repulsive - I smoke roll-ups so
they don't give off much smoke as factory made ciggies. However, now
the BMA have got their way on this, alcohol is next. It does far more
damage to your body than smoking. If people are duped into believing
that the smoke-ban is for other people's health and so it is worth
supporting, they *will* have the courage to do the same with alcohol.
In that case, they cannot use a 'passive drinking' as an excuse, so
they are using young people harming themselves through drink.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/n...rticleid=52433

I can't find the paragraph where it talks about a ban.


However, I was intrigued to participate in their survey regarding
hosting a stripper night to boost takings. It seems that 51% would
do that.

"Maria" wrote in message
...

NB The BMA (like Hitler) would like to ban smoking, full stop. Now
all you non-smokers, I do have some sympathy with - even as a smoker I
find the smell of second-hand smnoke repulsive - I smoke roll-ups so
they don't give off much smoke as factory made ciggies. However, now
the BMA have got their way on this, alcohol is next. It does far more
damage to your body than smoking. If people are duped into believing
that the smoke-ban is for other people's health and so it is worth
supporting, they *will* have the courage to do the same with alcohol.
In that case, they cannot use a 'passive drinking' as an excuse, so
they are using young people harming themselves through drink.

Won't happen - doesn't stand even a miniscule chance of doing so. Alcohol is
used at all levels of society as a social lubricant, and TPTB aren't going
to give that up, and we've also got the disaster which was prohibition in
the US to demonstrate how it doesn't work.

Also, I'm fairly sure alcohol isn't nearly as addictive as nicotine - yes,
if you're addicted to it, you're stuffed, but it's rather easier to not get
that far in the first place.

(Alcohol is trivially easy to make for yourself, so attempts to ban it are
doomed to failure.)

cheers,
clive

In article ,
Maria wrote:
NB The BMA (like Hitler) would like to ban smoking, full stop. Now
all you non-smokers, I do have some sympathy with - even as a smoker I
find the smell of second-hand smnoke repulsive - I smoke roll-ups so
they don't give off much smoke as factory made ciggies. However, now
the BMA have got their way on this, alcohol is next. It does far more
damage to your body than smoking. If people are duped into believing
that the smoke-ban is for other people's health and so it is worth
supporting, they *will* have the courage to do the same with alcohol.

I doubt it - too many doctors are alcoholics. And I'm willing to bet most
of the BMA or whatever are drinkers.

--
*When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds*

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

Clive George wrote:
"Maria" wrote in message
...

NB The BMA (like Hitler) would like to ban smoking, full stop. Now
all you non-smokers, I do have some sympathy with - even as a smoker I
find the smell of second-hand smnoke repulsive - I smoke roll-ups so
they don't give off much smoke as factory made ciggies. However, now
the BMA have got their way on this, alcohol is next. It does far more
damage to your body than smoking. If people are duped into believing
that the smoke-ban is for other people's health and so it is worth
supporting, they *will* have the courage to do the same with alcohol.
In that case, they cannot use a 'passive drinking' as an excuse, so
they are using young people harming themselves through drink.

Won't happen - doesn't stand even a miniscule chance of doing so. Alcohol is
used at all levels of society as a social lubricant, and TPTB aren't going
to give that up, and we've also got the disaster which was prohibition in
the US to demonstrate how it doesn't work.

Also, I'm fairly sure alcohol isn't nearly as addictive as nicotine - yes,
if you're addicted to it, you're stuffed, but it's rather easier to not get
that far in the first place.

(Alcohol is trivially easy to make for yourself, so attempts to ban it are
doomed to failure.)

cheers,
clive

yeah. Nicotine is also easy to make.


NT

wrote:
On Nov 8, 12:36 pm, Phil Gardner wrote:
I know this is a bit OT but
I am about to exchange contracts on my firstbuytoletproperty in
the next 3 weeks and im getting cold feet.

I have re-mortgaged my house to release the equity to pay for this its
something I have always wanted to do.

Due to the turmoil in the housing and finance market I am beginning to
question my judgment and timing
Is anyone on this forum in this business that could offer advice.

Yes the housing market is a bit shaky at the moment but buying an
investment property is exactly the same as any other investments -
they rise and they fall. On average, house prices double every 7.5
years - but past performance is no indicator for the future. Providing
you have done your due dilligence and buying as a long-term investment
(and not to make a quick buck) then you should be OK. Local
Authorities are crying out for private landlords and they pay the
market rent so if you can't find a private tenant then this is an
option.
Also if it is at the lower end of the rental market you will also find
tenants easier than the luxury ones because you will be capturing all
those who would otherwise be first-time buyers.

As a nation we have a huge influx of immigrants and expect another
million over the next 10 years - these people all need to live
somewhere!

Finally, the current climate is due to the callapse of the US market
and not like the one we had back in the early 1990. Yes, property
prices will dip - possibly by up to 10% but I doubt we will have a
crash because the BOE is monitoring things closely - remember the BOE
hasn't raised interest rates, it's the lenders' SVR which have gone up
and that has been purely down to the fact that they can't buy in money
to lend back out so they are raising their rates because there is more
demand than supply.

One of my clients phoned me in a panic because he had heard that
property prices would drop by around 40% - I don't have a crystal ball
but if that was to happen the the country will be bankrupt because the
knock-on effect on other industries will be huge - people love to
create headline news which cause panic - as happened with Northern
Rock - someone had it in for NR because other banks did the same but
they didn;t receive the same media exposure.

The other angle is. If property prices do dip (say by 10%) then 1st
time buyers will not want to buy - but they need to live somewhere.
This again will have "supply and demand" on the rental market - more
demand pushes the rents up.

In a nutshell - don't let one single article persuade you one way or
the other, do your homework and make an educated decision. You are
either an invester and as such take measured risks or you are not - in
which case keep your money in the bank.

Hope this helps

I notice the OP didnt respond regarding percentage return. This
really is the key to deciding whether it can be made to work or not.
Of course I'm not denying the other skills aslo needed, both general
business and the property & landlord specific ones.

Return wise, a key real q is can the buyer make it through a patch
of high interest rates and mediocre returns. Buying a house is a long
term deal, one has to be able to stick with it long term, else there
isnt going to be a gain, just a lot of costs. Its very hard to make
btl
add up today.


NT

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:01:13 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Maria" wrote in message
.. .

NB The BMA (like Hitler) would like to ban smoking, full stop. Now
all you non-smokers, I do have some sympathy with - even as a smoker I
find the smell of second-hand smnoke repulsive - I smoke roll-ups so
they don't give off much smoke as factory made ciggies. However, now
the BMA have got their way on this, alcohol is next. It does far more
damage to your body than smoking. If people are duped into believing
that the smoke-ban is for other people's health and so it is worth
supporting, they *will* have the courage to do the same with alcohol.
In that case, they cannot use a 'passive drinking' as an excuse, so
they are using young people harming themselves through drink.

Won't happen - doesn't stand even a miniscule chance of doing so. Alcohol is
used at all levels of society as a social lubricant, and TPTB aren't going
to give that up, and we've also got the disaster which was prohibition in
the US to demonstrate how it doesn't work.

Also, I'm fairly sure alcohol isn't nearly as addictive as nicotine - yes,
if you're addicted to it, you're stuffed, but it's rather easier to not get
that far in the first place.

(Alcohol is trivially easy to make for yourself, so attempts to ban it are
doomed to failure.)

They are taking a different approach to banning it though - they are
insidiously making it socially unacceptable as they have with ciggies.
And yes, nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man IIRC,
and yet it does a fraction of the damage that heavy drinkers sustain.
Heavy smoking can knock 5 years off your life - most heavy drinkers
are dead by 60-65 and very poorly for at least of those years (as well
as abusive and violent)..

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:14:39 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Maria wrote:
NB The BMA (like Hitler) would like to ban smoking, full stop. Now
all you non-smokers, I do have some sympathy with - even as a smoker I
find the smell of second-hand smnoke repulsive - I smoke roll-ups so
they don't give off much smoke as factory made ciggies. However, now
the BMA have got their way on this, alcohol is next. It does far more
damage to your body than smoking. If people are duped into believing
that the smoke-ban is for other people's health and so it is worth
supporting, they *will* have the courage to do the same with alcohol.

I doubt it - too many doctors are alcoholics.#

They'll ethnically cleanse them first.

And I'm willing to bet most
of the BMA or whatever are drinkers.

Possibly. Depends if the politics is stronger I suppose. Hypocrisy has
never got in the way of politics before - that's why they can still
smoke in the House of Parliament bar!

In article 4735c4a5@qaanaaq, Andy Hall scribeth
thus
On 2007-11-10 14:28:57 +0000, Maria said:

NB The BMA (like Hitler) would like to ban smoking, full stop. Now
all you non-smokers, I do have some sympathy with - even as a smoker I
find the smell of second-hand smnoke repulsive - I smoke roll-ups so
they don't give off much smoke as factory made ciggies. However, now
the BMA have got their way on this, alcohol is next. It does far more
damage to your body than smoking. If people are duped into believing
that the smoke-ban is for other people's health and so it is worth
supporting, they *will* have the courage to do the same with alcohol.
In that case, they cannot use a 'passive drinking' as an excuse, so
they are using young people harming themselves through drink.

http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/n...rticleid=52433

I can't find the paragraph where it talks about a ban.


However, I was intrigued to participate in their survey regarding
hosting a stripper night to boost takings. It seems that 51% would
do that.



What I can't understand is that our French relatives smoke those bloody
Gaulioses or whatever their called, drink like fish, and eat ham and red
meat and yet if their dead before their 90 odd they think thats
premature!.....
--
Tony Sayer

In article , Maria
scribeth thus
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:01:13 -0000, "Clive George"
wrote:

"Maria" wrote in message
. ..

NB The BMA (like Hitler) would like to ban smoking, full stop. Now
all you non-smokers, I do have some sympathy with - even as a smoker I
find the smell of second-hand smnoke repulsive - I smoke roll-ups so
they don't give off much smoke as factory made ciggies. However, now
the BMA have got their way on this, alcohol is next. It does far more
damage to your body than smoking. If people are duped into believing
that the smoke-ban is for other people's health and so it is worth
supporting, they *will* have the courage to do the same with alcohol.
In that case, they cannot use a 'passive drinking' as an excuse, so
they are using young people harming themselves through drink.

Won't happen - doesn't stand even a miniscule chance of doing so. Alcohol is
used at all levels of society as a social lubricant, and TPTB aren't going
to give that up, and we've also got the disaster which was prohibition in
the US to demonstrate how it doesn't work.

Also, I'm fairly sure alcohol isn't nearly as addictive as nicotine - yes,
if you're addicted to it, you're stuffed, but it's rather easier to not get
that far in the first place.

(Alcohol is trivially easy to make for yourself, so attempts to ban it are
doomed to failure.)

They are taking a different approach to banning it though - they are
insidiously making it socially unacceptable as they have with ciggies.
And yes, nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man IIRC,
and yet it does a fraction of the damage that heavy drinkers sustain.
Heavy smoking can knock 5 years off your life - most heavy drinkers
are dead by 60-65 and very poorly for at least of those years (as well
as abusive and violent)..

Though the point is you don't consume other peoples alcohol unlike you
can breathe their smoke....

Them drinking affects their body not yours..
--
Tony Sayer

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 00:13:39 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
o.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.

Go where? Pubs? Pubs are for consuming alcohol not inhaling toxic fumes.
I have the right to go into any public place and not be exposed to toxic
fumes.

People should expect a safe and hygenic envirnoment. Just because in the
past, this was overlooked and not taken into account does not mean it was
right. Things like inflicting toxic substances upon people because it became
common practice for the recipient to have to just shut up and bear it or not
bother applying for those jobs in that environment didn't make it correct.

It's like saying to the bloke who falls off a crane or scaffolding, well you
knew it was going to be high up and there was a risk. All aspects of H&S
have to accounted for employees and customers. I would stand well away from
the man or woman who was blissfully unaware that whilst they looked one way,
daydreaming into thin air, they were in fact pointing their ciggie in my
direction where the smoke merrily drifted well away from them down the bar
to me.

I've always said that the residue of my pleasure ina pub is pee so if anyone
should impose their residue of their pleasure on me in the form of toxic
fumes would they like some of mine in return.

The cigarettes cause fires

Not according to the fire brigade.They say
matches

Matches light ciggies too, so even worse.

SMOKING IS BANNED!!! At last!!! LIVE WITH IT AND SHUT UP!!!!

"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. 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.

You are clearly barking mad!!!! IT IS BANNED!! GET USED TO IT AND SHUT
UP!!!!

"Maria" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:10:44 -0800, wrote:

The Medway Handyman wrote:
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.

Is there further info to back this up?

You can't prove that there is no evidence for something.

That sounds Irish!

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:
They are taking a different approach to banning it though - they are
insidiously making it socially unacceptable as they have with ciggies.
And yes, nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man IIRC,
and yet it does a fraction of the damage that heavy drinkers sustain.
Heavy smoking can knock 5 years off your life - most heavy drinkers
are dead by 60-65 and very poorly for at least of those years (as well
as abusive and violent)..

Though the point is you don't consume other peoples alcohol unlike you
can breathe their smoke....

Them drinking affects their body not yours..

Until you get assaulted by some drunk in the city centre.

--
*Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder...

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:
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

I'm afraid for the majority of those it will be a temporary thing.
Smoking is an extremely addictive habit and stopping for a few months
doesn't mean that addiction is broken.

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.

Yes - the law seems designed to punish smokers. One of the few laws of
this type I can think of. Must have been drafted by an ex-smoker. An
outsider must consider the wisdom of this parliament which enacts such
swinging legislation for one anti-social drug while positively
encouraging the use of another - alcohol - which has at least as many
if not more undesirable effects on individuals and society at large.

It cost the NHS twice as much to treat alcohol related accidents as it does
to treat smoking related diesease - and the latter has a very 'wide'
definition these days within the NHS e.g. anything they might possibly
connect with smoking.


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

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-10 11:36:05 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 473573ac@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
If the room is allowing smoke to escape it is badly designed. There
are plenty of labs etc where it is essential air from them doesn't
get to the building in general.

They may well have been. I imagine that most restaurants don't
really want to make their customers sit in a fume cupboard.

I don't think anyone here was suggesting it's a bad thing to ban
smoking from eating places. But it would be the smokers who sit in a
fume cupboard.

Smokers are people too, though....



However, in the U.S. the implementations of separate areas, which
was tried for many years, simply didn't work which is why eventually
smoking was banned within buildings to which the public has access
and in many places now within a certain distance of buildings.

They do many strange things in the US without any logic - like
murdering some convicted criminals. Due to pressure groups.

Toilets are in separate locations to where people congregate and eat
and drink and usually have air extraction. Of course, toilets are
involved in dealing with necessary bodily function, whereas smoking
is not a necessary bodily function.

No - but I'd guess you'd be pretty upset if toilet smells were
present in a restaurant.

Of course. The point was really that one facility is necessary
without discussion and the other isn't at all




Nobody would really suggest the idea of people crapping on the
floor of a restaurant. However, the smell from smoke does
permeate from practical implementations of separate smoking areas
and to a non participant is as offensive in combination with eating
as someone having crapped on the floor. It really is that bad.

The discussion was really about pubs and clubs. Although if a
restaurant made it plain smoking was allowed those who didn't like
this could just go elsewhere.

The trouble is that if one is in a strange place, this can involve a
lot of running around to find the desired type of venue.



You are never forced to eat in a restaurant anymore than you
are forced to drink in any pub.

That is true, although again when one isn't at home one is forced to
eat and drink in such places.




It seems strange you are so keen on market forces and freedom of
choice on other matters - why not this?

Actually it's consistent.

Freedom of choice is tied up with personal freedom, in essence.

Personal freedom in the short version is the ability to do whatever
you like without let or hindrance *provided that* it doesn't impact
on the equal right of the next person to do the same.

This one crosses the line of that definition.

It does in a restaurant but not in a bar surely? One could easily have
smoking or non smoking premises.

As it stands The Oxford Pipe Club can't smoke pipes in their own building.


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

wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
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.

Is there further info to back this up?

The burden of proof is on the claiment and there is no credible evidence
that links passive smoking with a health risk.


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

On 2007-11-10 17:27:42 +0000, tony sayer said:

What I can't understand is that our French relatives smoke those bloody
Gaulioses or whatever their called, drink like fish, and eat ham and red
meat and yet if their dead before their 90 odd they think thats
premature!.....

Well...... it's not really true any more.

I go to France quite a lot and one doesn't see the level of smoking of
say 10-20 years ago.

I'm not sure that the drinking like fish thing is that true either,
other than th ever popular red wine, but then that is supposed to be
beneficial. Let's say that one shares a bottle of wine equally with
one other person. That's 375ml each and about 4 units of alcohol.
That's two pints of ordinary strength beer or 1.5 of stronger.
Binge drinkers in the UK are reputed to drink perhaps 6-8 pints of an
evening, so one would be talking the equivalent of 2 bottles of wine
per head which is a fair bit.

The DoH, (not that I set huge store by govrnment guidelines) recommends
that men should not drink regularly mor than 3-4 units a day - surprise
- half a bottle of wine.

The other thing that one notices with food in France is the smaller
portion sizes and the structure of many meals. I am not
particularly talking about fine dining places either. Food is then
often structured separately into the major food groups so that one
doesn't get the plate piled high with carbohydrate syndrome that has
tended to typify the UK.

I also notice that the quality of basic ingredients seems to be better.
Even the major supermarkets such as Carrefour, Auchun and E. Leclerc
have excellent presentations of fresh foods. Then there are the
traditional shops specialising in one food type each - boulangerie,
boucherie, epicerie and so on, and most will deliver locally.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-10 14:15:29 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Exactly. If Andy smoked, the argument would be that smoke free venues
would become the norm automatically if the majority preferred it that
way.

That doesn't pass the test of freedom to do as one chooses provided that
it doesn't impact on the same freedom afforded to others



I'm free to smoke, and so is everyone else. What kind of test is that?

You still don't say why the free market shouldn't be left to sort this
one out.

Huge wrote:
On 2007-11-09, The Medway Handyman
wrote:

No link between passive smoking & cancer

I normally have a gret deal of time for your opinions, David, but
this is utter crap.

The facts are that smokers die of one specific type of cancer which occurs
in one specific area of the lung.

Non smokers can also die from lung cancer, but its an entirely different
type of cancer in a different specific area of the lung.

They are unrelated. Its also been accessed that a person exposed to passive
cigarette smoke inhales the equivalent of six cigarettes per year. The
poison is in the dose.

Not crap I'm afraid. Sir Richard Doll the scientist who discovered the link
between active smoking & cancer has publicly stated that he finds the
passive smoking & cancer 'link' ridiculous.


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

Maria wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:14:39 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Maria wrote:
NB The BMA (like Hitler) would like to ban smoking, full stop. Now
all you non-smokers, I do have some sympathy with - even as a smoker I
find the smell of second-hand smnoke repulsive - I smoke roll-ups so
they don't give off much smoke as factory made ciggies. However, now
the BMA have got their way on this, alcohol is next. It does far more
damage to your body than smoking. If people are duped into believing
that the smoke-ban is for other people's health and so it is worth
supporting, they *will* have the courage to do the same with alcohol.
I doubt it - too many doctors are alcoholics.#

They'll ethnically cleanse them first.

And I'm willing to bet most
of the BMA or whatever are drinkers.

Possibly. Depends if the politics is stronger I suppose. Hypocrisy has
never got in the way of politics before - that's why they can still
smoke in the House of Parliament bar!

This can't be true...can it?