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

"Huge" wrote in message
...
On 2007-11-11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article 473742ce@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
The ban makes it possible to go to said pub. It doesn't guarantee
them the business. They have allowed a major deterrent to persist
for decades. Now that has gone. But.... they still need to win the
business.

There was nothing to stop a pub banning smoking before this law.
Restaurants too. In fact many of the latter did.

But even when pubs were non smoking - or had non smoking bars - they
were
the empty ones.

Garbage.

I agree. Total garbage. Once the word got around that some pubs/bars
were non-smoking they were full. The problem was that it took time
for word to get around and in the meantime the place lost some money
so they dropped the idea in many. It took too long for word to get
around. In one local pub they banned smoking at the bar and allowed
smoking only in one end. It half worked as when you walked in you
could still smell the stinking stuff and the smoke did drift over.
The partial ban inside only relieved matters for proper people - not
eliminate it.

SMOKING IS BANNED. These half-wits should live with it and accept it,
and realise it is for their own good. Many of them clearly need
therapy.

You are a nasty little control freak.

The

You must eff off as you are a smoking idiot!

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:47385d29@qaanaaq...
On 2007-11-12 09:53:43 +0000, "Doctor Drivel" said:


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

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


I think its you who have misssed the point Andy. We could have 'A'
only locations, or 'A+B' locations - and the customers could
choose. It's really very simple.

If the market chooses 80% A only thats fine. Its called free
choice.

A pub local to me has reacted by advertising 'the best smoking area
in Medway. Roof, heaters, lights, nice furniture, table service
etc - and is packed out.

I would hose the *******s out!

Lets be honest - you wouldn't

you're not man enough to show your face

Maxie, I would have the fire brigade out to them.

As I said - coward to the end

Maxie, I would hold the hose!

I suspect that you spend rather too much time holding your hose.

Others hold that for me.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:47385d8e@qaanaaq...
On 2007-11-12 11:08:35 +0000, Tony Bryer said:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:41:59 GMT The Medway Handyman wrote :
A pub local to me has reacted by advertising 'the best smoking area
in Medway. Roof, heaters, lights, nice furniture, table service etc
- and is packed out.

At one energy conservation conference I was at earlier this year, a
speaker comments that at his local more energy was now being used for
patio heaters than in the building.

So the next step is to ban outdoor smoking areas like this, on ecological
grounds, of course.

Matt, I agree!!! One local pub had these heaters when they came out around
15 years ago. People would sit under them and drink. They stopped them as
it was too expensive to run to what extra business they brought in. I can't
see these heaters offsetting the gains in smokers being under them.

If the heaters are not there the smokers will just be in the pub not smoking
anyway.

On 2007-11-12 10:27:40 +0000, Andrew May said:

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?

Schipol airport has (or had) small smoking booths with extraction.
Actually seemed quite effective in as much as there was no smell of
smoke outside the booth. From memory they were sponsored by someone
but I don't remember who. I expect that the sponsorship was probably
aimed at smokers though.

Andrew

You could smell the results anywhere within about 20m of them just as
you could with the ones in Heathrow Terminal 1 before they were
decomissioned.

On 2007-11-12 10:49:03 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andrew May wrote:
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?

Schipol airport has (or had) small smoking booths with extraction.
Actually seemed quite effective in as much as there was no smell of
smoke outside the booth. From memory they were sponsored by someone but
I don't remember who. I expect that the sponsorship was probably aimed
at smokers though.

Of course it can be done. Or provide a detached area purely for smokers.
But that wouldn't be putting the boot in.

It's interesting that other countries - like Spain - have similar laws
which are largely ignored.

Actually that culture is changing rather quickly. Many places really
have become smoke free.

You are a nasty little control freak.

I am quite tall. Control? Yes. Control our freedom. Freedom from
being poisoned.


Controlling freedom is about your mark

"Stuart Noble" wrote in message
...

You are a nasty little control freak.

I am quite tall. Control? Yes. Control our freedom. Freedom from being
poisoned.


Controlling freedom is about your mark

Yes, controlling the maintenance and upholding our freedoms.

Huge wrote:

I can only speak for the pubs I've visited. As can you.

I agree.

The pubs I've visited are at least as busy as they were before the ban,
and the bar staff and owners are very happy with the change. Especially
in the numerous "gastro-pubs" in London.

Please explain why - if the smoking ban was going to be good for overall
business in the licence trade - their trade body was so much against it as
implemented?

I have no idea. And what's more, I don't care.

I'd have a guess that it was fear of the unknown. Some publicans look
out into the lounge, see the thick smoke and assume that every customner
is smoking and that a ban will lose all of those customers. In truth the
smokers were a minority with an influence on the majority. When they
stop smoking more people feel able to visit the pub in comfort.

I've certainly started to make more use of pubs for food when away from
home, they're cheaper than most restaurants, better food than many
restaurants and pleasant places now that I no longer feel the need to
heave over my dinner.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:05:02 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-11-12 11:08:35 +0000, Tony Bryer said:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:41:59 GMT The Medway Handyman wrote :
A pub local to me has reacted by advertising 'the best smoking area
in Medway. Roof, heaters, lights, nice furniture, table service etc
- and is packed out.

At one energy conservation conference I was at earlier this year, a
speaker comments that at his local more energy was now being used for
patio heaters than in the building.

So the next step is to ban outdoor smoking areas like this, on
ecological grounds, of course.

At the pub that I most frequently frequent, there's a large canopy
fitted at the front by the door, with a large halogen heater on the
wall.
Sadly to go into the pub you have to hold your breath as you pass
under the canopy.
There's also a transom window under the canopy and this is usually
open, so that smoke wafts its way into the pub...

--
Frank Erskine

In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I suspect that you spend rather too much time holding your hose.

Others hold that for me.

Sad that you now need your nurse to do this for you. Perhaps you should
give her possession of your keyboard too?

--
*Gun Control: Use both hands.

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

In article 47385fe3@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
It's interesting that other countries - like Spain - have similar laws
which are largely ignored.

Actually that culture is changing rather quickly. Many places really
have become smoke free.

Not when I was there a few months ago. Or likely to be.

--
*The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread *

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

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
The pubs I've visited are at least as busy as they were before the ban,
and the bar staff and owners are very happy with the change. Especially
in the numerous "gastro-pubs" in London.

You're welcome to your smoke free 'gastro-pubs'. I was referring to proper
pubs - a bit thin on the ground these days, but they do still exist.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
The pubs I've visited are at least as busy as they were before the ban,
and the bar staff and owners are very happy with the change. Especially
in the numerous "gastro-pubs" in London.

You're welcome to your smoke free 'gastro-pubs'. I was referring to proper
pubs - a bit thin on the ground these days, but they do still exist.


Yes, it's amazing how publicans become chefs overnight. Most of it is
straight out of the freezer IME. It's yer ambience that's important, and
internet access of course.
Spent 7 hours in Wetherspoons at Victoria Station the other day, where
you can't even go outside for a smoke.

On 2007-11-12 17:46:07 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
The pubs I've visited are at least as busy as they were before the ban,
and the bar staff and owners are very happy with the change. Especially
in the numerous "gastro-pubs" in London.

You're welcome to your smoke free 'gastro-pubs'. I was referring to proper
pubs - a bit thin on the ground these days, but they do still exist.


Yes, it's amazing how publicans become chefs overnight. Most of it is
straight out of the freezer IME. It's yer ambience that's important,
and internet access of course.
Spent 7 hours in Wetherspoons at Victoria Station the other day, where
you can't even go outside for a smoke.

Oh dear. You must have been desperate. You should have said. I'd
have bought you lunch.

On 2007-11-12 17:04:30 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 47385fe3@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
It's interesting that other countries - like Spain - have similar laws
which are largely ignored.

Actually that culture is changing rather quickly. Many places really
have become smoke free.

Not when I was there a few months ago. Or likely to be.

Where did you go?

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-12 17:46:07 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
The pubs I've visited are at least as busy as they were before the ban,
and the bar staff and owners are very happy with the change. Especially
in the numerous "gastro-pubs" in London.

You're welcome to your smoke free 'gastro-pubs'. I was referring to
proper
pubs - a bit thin on the ground these days, but they do still exist.


Yes, it's amazing how publicans become chefs overnight. Most of it is
straight out of the freezer IME. It's yer ambience that's important,
and internet access of course.
Spent 7 hours in Wetherspoons at Victoria Station the other day, where
you can't even go outside for a smoke.

Oh dear. You must have been desperate. You should have said. I'd
have bought you lunch.



Nah, I prefer to drink on an empty stomach.

I normally refrain from getting involved in these l-o-n-g debates but
couldn't resist dipping my toe in he

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...

New Liebour seems to fund black paraplegic lesbian theatre workshops?
Discrimination is relative.

A racist too.


and then...


Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Maria" wrote in message
...
You can't prove that there is no evidence for something.

That sounds Irish!


S'pose I'd better eff off now, being a complete plantpot and totally
vacant in the head.

David

geoff wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
Clue : cough comes on when breathing in smoke.

If someone coughs its in response to an irritant

And hawking up a load of phlegm in the morning is your body's way of
telling you that whatever lies your mind is telling you, the body's
not happy with that intake of tar and other dangerous substances you
inflicted it with the previous evening

But we are not talking about an active smokers response, we are talking
about so called passive smoking.

I'm not suggesting that active smoking is wonderful, although it
does have some benefits (the evidence isn't PC so is therefore
suppressed).

We're all ears ...

Thats one of the benefits actually - smoking prevents excessive ear growth
:-)

Rather than clinging to an idea, I would suggest that I am able to
see the wood for the trees.

I really don't think so

SNIP

Stop making excuses for what is basically an anti-social pastime with
no redeeming features

Please pay attention. I'm simply making a case for separate smoking
establishments. Choice. If you dislike smoking you could choose not to
patronise tham.


An addiction absolutely controls you, you can't turn it off, you can't
live without it you are a slave to it's power over you

be man enough to break the dependency

I bet you can't

Gambling is also an adiction.


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

Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message o.uk...

A clue. Coughs can be triggered by many things. Non smokers also
cough.

Clue : cough comes on when breathing in smoke.

If someone coughs its in response to an irritant - that can be
cigarette smoke granted, but a cough can be triggered by traffic
pollution, pets, allergies, pollen, cooking fumes whatever - it
doesn't mean its a health risk. Typically you choose to demonise
cigarette smoke as being the only cause.

You chose to claim that cigarette smoke can't be a cause.

No I simply said that it was one of many causes. It is an irritant, but
that doesn't mean its a health risk. See above.

Have you now
changed your position - do you now agree that passive smoking is a
health risk, at the very least by the smoke being an unnecessary
irritant?

No I don't, because passive smoking isn't a health risk. It may be
unpleasant to some, it may be irritating to some, but it is not a health
risk. An irritant of any sort is an irritant - not a health risk.


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

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Clive George wrote:
You chose to claim that cigarette smoke can't be a cause. Have you
now changed your position - do you now agree that passive smoking is
a health risk, at the very least by the smoke being an unnecessary
irritant?

I think the point being made is that the dangers of passive smoking
have been *vastly* overestimated by the anti-smoking brigade.

Indeed they have Dave. Lies, damn lies, statistics & anti smoking
proaganda.

Roy Castle's relations have a lot to answer for. There are lots and
lots of other entertainers who worked in exactly the same conditions
and didn't smoke - and the meja would be sure we knew if they died of
the same type of cancer.

If non smokers contract lung cancer (and they do) it is a different type of
lung cancer to the one smokers may contract and it occurs in a different
part of the lung.

I'm not saying anyone who wants to avoid passive smoking shouldn't be
able to. But that forcing smokers into draughty outside areas
adjacent to pubs etc simply isn't necessary, and in fact is a
punishment for smoking. What annoys me most is that the powers that
be don't just admit this.

Nicely said.


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

On 2007-11-12 18:40:40 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-12 17:46:07 +0000, Stuart Noble
said:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
The pubs I've visited are at least as busy as they were before the ban,
and the bar staff and owners are very happy with the change. Especially
in the numerous "gastro-pubs" in London.

You're welcome to your smoke free 'gastro-pubs'. I was referring to proper
pubs - a bit thin on the ground these days, but they do still exist.


Yes, it's amazing how publicans become chefs overnight. Most of it is
straight out of the freezer IME. It's yer ambience that's important,
and internet access of course.
Spent 7 hours in Wetherspoons at Victoria Station the other day, where
you can't even go outside for a smoke.

Oh dear. You must have been desperate. You should have said. I'd
have bought you lunch.



Nah, I prefer to drink on an empty stomach.

Who said anything about solids?

"Frank Erskine" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:05:02 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:

On 2007-11-12 11:08:35 +0000, Tony Bryer said:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 23:41:59 GMT The Medway Handyman wrote :
A pub local to me has reacted by advertising 'the best smoking area
in Medway. Roof, heaters, lights, nice furniture, table service etc
- and is packed out.

At one energy conservation conference I was at earlier this year, a
speaker comments that at his local more energy was now being used for
patio heaters than in the building.

So the next step is to ban outdoor smoking areas like this, on
ecological grounds, of course.

At the pub that I most frequently frequent, there's a large canopy
fitted at the front by the door, with a large halogen heater on the
wall.
Sadly to go into the pub you have to hold your breath as you pass
under the canopy.
There's also a transom window under the canopy and this is usually
open, so that smoke wafts its way into the pub...

Report them.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
I suspect that you spend rather too much time holding your hose.

Others hold that for me.

Sad

Please eff off as you vacant in the head.

On 2007-11-12 19:21:26 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message o.uk...

A clue. Coughs can be triggered by many things. Non smokers also
cough.

Clue : cough comes on when breathing in smoke.

If someone coughs its in response to an irritant - that can be
cigarette smoke granted, but a cough can be triggered by traffic
pollution, pets, allergies, pollen, cooking fumes whatever - it
doesn't mean its a health risk. Typically you choose to demonise
cigarette smoke as being the only cause.

You chose to claim that cigarette smoke can't be a cause.

No I simply said that it was one of many causes. It is an irritant, but
that doesn't mean its a health risk. See above.

Have you now
changed your position - do you now agree that passive smoking is a
health risk, at the very least by the smoke being an unnecessary
irritant?

No I don't, because passive smoking isn't a health risk. It may be
unpleasant to some, it may be irritating to some, but it is not a health
risk. An irritant of any sort is an irritant - not a health risk.

Even if it were only that, it would be worth eliminating it from public places.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message news:4738987d@qaanaaq...
On 2007-11-12 17:04:30 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 47385fe3@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
It's interesting that other countries - like Spain - have similar laws
which are largely ignored.

Actually that culture is changing rather quickly. Many places really
have become smoke free.

Not when I was there a few months ago. Or likely to be.

Where did you go?

He looked at the brochure.

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
I normally refrain from getting involved in these l-o-n-g debates but
couldn't resist dipping my toe in he

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message .uk...

New Liebour seems to fund black paraplegic lesbian theatre workshops?
Discrimination is relative.

A racist too.

and then...

Doctor Drivel wrote:

"Maria" wrote in message
...
You can't prove that there is no evidence for something.

That sounds Irish!

S'pose I'd better eff off now, being a complete plantpot and totally
vacant in the head.

That's a good boy.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
o.uk...
Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message o.uk...

A clue. Coughs can be triggered by many things. Non smokers also
cough.

Clue : cough comes on when breathing in smoke.

If someone coughs its in response to an irritant - that can be
cigarette smoke granted, but a cough can be triggered by traffic
pollution, pets, allergies, pollen, cooking fumes whatever - it
doesn't mean its a health risk. Typically you choose to demonise
cigarette smoke as being the only cause.

You chose to claim that cigarette smoke can't be a cause.

No I simply said that it was one of many causes. It is an irritant, but
that doesn't mean its a health risk. See above.

Have you now
changed your position - do you now agree that passive smoking is a
health risk, at the very least by the smoke being an unnecessary
irritant?

No I don't, because passive smoking isn't a health risk. It may be
unpleasant to some, it may be irritating to some, but it is not a health
risk. An irritant of any sort is an irritant - not a health risk.

He seems to think that if he says it often enough it will be true that
smoking is harmless and is not a health risk. Talk about being brainwashed.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-12 19:21:26 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message o.uk...

A clue. Coughs can be triggered by many things. Non smokers also
cough.

Clue : cough comes on when breathing in smoke.

If someone coughs its in response to an irritant - that can be
cigarette smoke granted, but a cough can be triggered by traffic
pollution, pets, allergies, pollen, cooking fumes whatever - it
doesn't mean its a health risk. Typically you choose to demonise
cigarette smoke as being the only cause.

You chose to claim that cigarette smoke can't be a cause.

No I simply said that it was one of many causes. It is an irritant, but
that doesn't mean its a health risk. See above.

Have you now
changed your position - do you now agree that passive smoking is a
health risk, at the very least by the smoke being an unnecessary
irritant?

No I don't, because passive smoking isn't a health risk. It may be
unpleasant to some, it may be irritating to some, but it is not a health
risk. An irritant of any sort is an irritant - not a health risk.

Even if it were only that, it would be worth eliminating it from public
places.


Can we also ban cheap perfume then? gives me asthma every time I sniff
some fat old bag in the supermarket q.

Oh and busses. Does the same.

And grass ..that's pretty lethal stuff. Not "Grass" tho. Thats GOOD for
asthma. Thats why they banned it of course.

On 2007-11-12 20:09:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher said:

Andy Hall wrote:

Even if it were only that, it would be worth eliminating it from public places.


Can we also ban cheap perfume then?

Absolutely.


gives me asthma every time I sniff some fat old bag in the supermarket q.

Try looking for old bags with more class.



Oh and busses. Does the same.

Better to avoid busses anyway.


And grass ..that's pretty lethal stuff. Not "Grass" tho. Thats GOOD for
asthma. Thats why they banned it of course.

Best really.

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 20:09:25 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


Can we also ban cheap perfume then? gives me asthma every time I sniff
some fat old bag in the supermarket q.

That's what becomes of re-using your old bags at the supermarket.

--
Frank Erskine

Doctor Drivel wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message o.uk...
Clive George wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message o.uk...

A clue. Coughs can be triggered by many things. Non smokers
also cough.

Clue : cough comes on when breathing in smoke.

If someone coughs its in response to an irritant - that can be
cigarette smoke granted, but a cough can be triggered by traffic
pollution, pets, allergies, pollen, cooking fumes whatever - it
doesn't mean its a health risk. Typically you choose to demonise
cigarette smoke as being the only cause.

You chose to claim that cigarette smoke can't be a cause.

No I simply said that it was one of many causes. It is an irritant,
but that doesn't mean its a health risk. See above.

Have you now
changed your position - do you now agree that passive smoking is a
health risk, at the very least by the smoke being an unnecessary
irritant?

No I don't, because passive smoking isn't a health risk. It may be
unpleasant to some, it may be irritating to some, but it is not a
health risk. An irritant of any sort is an irritant - not a health
risk.

He seems to think that if he says it often enough it will be true that
smoking is harmless and is not a health risk. Talk about being
brainwashed.

Talk about being brain dead. I'm claiming that PASSIVE smoking is harmless.

Anyway, how did you get past my blocked senders list?


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

In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
If someone coughs its in response to an irritant

And hawking up a load of phlegm in the morning is your body's way of
telling you that whatever lies your mind is telling you, the body's
not happy with that intake of tar and other dangerous substances you
inflicted it with the previous evening

But we are not talking about an active smokers response, we are talking
about so called passive smoking.

Ah, but I was simply looking for a place to jump in and start a rant


--
geoff

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Can we also ban cheap perfume then? gives me asthma every time I sniff
some fat old bag in the supermarket

Way too much information there - If you suddenly stop posting we'll know
that you've just been arrested


Oh and busses. Does the same.

Don't forget in swimming pools - nothing worse than a mouthful of cheap
eau de cologne laden water

Yuck !

--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Can we also ban cheap perfume then? gives me asthma every time I sniff
some fat old bag in the supermarket

Way too much information there - If you suddenly stop posting we'll know
that you've just been arrested


Oh and busses. Does the same.

Don't forget in swimming pools - nothing worse than a mouthful of cheap
eau de cologne laden water


I NEVER swim.

Except in dulcet tropical waters.

Yuck !

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:11:06 +0000, Phil Gardner wrote:

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 02:25:43 -0800, wrote:

On Nov 8, 12:36 pm, Phil Gardner wrote:
cut


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

Thanks yes
I have calculated that I can withstand an interest rate rise to 7.5%
without any income from the property any higher then this and im close
to losing my shirt.
I still remember the problems my parents had when interests rates
rocketed to over 15% my prime concern was how the recent US subprime
problems would effect the UK economy short term as this is the period
when I will be most vulnerable.
Im also all too aware that no investment is risk free a friend of my
father was a Lloyds outside Name
Look were that got him

It sounds as if you have done your homework. It looks as if the govt and
BoE as trying to maintain house prices and might even contemplate an
interest rate reduction to achieve this.
I have plenty of experience in letting but not so much in financial
matters other than some educated common sense.

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

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
geoff wrote:
In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Can we also ban cheap perfume then? gives me asthma every time I
sniff some fat old bag in the supermarket
Way too much information there - If you suddenly stop posting we'll
know that you've just been arrested


Oh and busses. Does the same.

Don't forget in swimming pools - nothing worse than a mouthful of
cheap eau de cologne laden water


I NEVER swim.

1km at 9am is good for the body, spirit and soul


Except in dulcet tropical waters.

Tropical waters are for relaxing by, not swimming in


--
geoff

geoff wrote:
In message , The
Medway Handyman writes
If someone coughs its in response to an irritant

And hawking up a load of phlegm in the morning is your body's way of
telling you that whatever lies your mind is telling you, the body's
not happy with that intake of tar and other dangerous substances you
inflicted it with the previous evening

But we are not talking about an active smokers response, we are
talking about so called passive smoking.

Ah, but I was simply looking for a place to jump in and start a rant

Can't be arsed to reply, I'm off for a fag.......


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

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 22:52:44 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , The Natural
Philosopher writes
Can we also ban cheap perfume then? gives me asthma every time I sniff
some fat old bag in the supermarket

Way too much information there - If you suddenly stop posting we'll know
that you've just been arrested


Oh and busses. Does the same.

Don't forget in swimming pools - nothing worse than a mouthful of cheap
eau de cologne laden water

Once upon a time I used to go swimming at a public pool where Age
Concern organised a session just before a small group of us. The water
absolutely reeked of Ralgex before we went in.

--
Frank Erskine

In article 4738987d@qaanaaq,
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2007-11-12 17:04:30 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article 47385fe3@qaanaaq, Andy Hall wrote:
It's interesting that other countries - like Spain - have similar
laws which are largely ignored.

Actually that culture is changing rather quickly. Many places
really have become smoke free.

Not when I was there a few months ago. Or likely to be.

Where did you go?

Campoamour, Orihuela.

--
*The problem with the world is that everyone is a few drinks behind *

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

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:37:28 +0000, Frank Erskine
wrote:

Once upon a time I used to go swimming at a public pool where Age
Concern organised a session just before a small group of us. The water
absolutely reeked of Ralgex before we went in.

Is that what you call it ?

DG