http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to harass
smokers.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to harass
smokers.

He should appeal. As a self-employed person with no employees, his vehicle
is not required to be smoke-free.

Colin Bignell

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Clearly designed to harass smokers.

Good. Smokers have been harassing those of us who are not addicts for
long enough.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:21:47 +0100, (Steve Firth) wrote:

Clearly designed to harass smokers.

Good. Smokers have been harassing those of us who are not addicts for
long enough.

Don't be too smug. Something you enjoy like drink or fatty foods will be next on
the list of banned substances.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to harass
smokers.


Dave

It's my van and I will smoke if I want to.

And I do.

Adam

Andy Cap wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:21:47 +0100, (Steve Firth) wrote:

Clearly designed to harass smokers.
Good. Smokers have been harassing those of us who are not addicts for
long enough.

Don't be too smug. Something you enjoy like drink or fatty foods will be next on
the list of banned substances.


Not quite the same thing. The equivalent would be if the eater or
drinker threw up the semi-digested food or drink over a bystander. Don't
get me wrong, I detest the increasingly legalistic approach in this
country. I must break at least three laws every day and only some of
them by accident. But smoking is different in that a smoker makes other
stink or die.

Peter Scott

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:59:19 +0100, "nightjar" cpb@ wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message m...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to
harass smokers.

He should appeal. As a self-employed person with no employees, his
vehicle is not required to be smoke-free.

Colin Bignell

==================================
My local paper (Wolverhampton Express & Star, 25/07/08) reported,

"...and his 16 year old passenger who had been helping him at work was
also smoking a cigarette".

The fixed penalty notice was number 0001 so it's quite likely to appear
on Ebay as a first issue item pursued by collectors - rather like Nazi
memorabilia.

Cic.
--
===================================
Using Ubuntu Linux
Windows shown the door
===================================

Peter Scott wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I detest the increasingly legalistic approach in
this country. I must break at least three laws every day and only
some of them by accident. But smoking is different in that a smoker
makes other stink or die.

Just stink.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Andy Cap wrote:

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:21:47 +0100, (Steve Firth) wrote:

Clearly designed to harass smokers.

Good. Smokers have been harassing those of us who are not addicts for
long enough.

Don't be too smug. Something you enjoy like drink or fatty foods will be
next on the list of banned substances.

Eating food and drinking alcohol while driving was banned long before
banning smoking while driving a work vehicle. If the law were to be fair
all smoking in cars would be banned rather than the current half-arsed
law.

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to harass
smokers.


ISTR it was well publicised when the law came in


--
geoff

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:42:26 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

smoking is different in that a smoker
makes other stink or die.

Just stink.

Tell Roy Castle that.

Andy Dingley wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:42:26 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

smoking is different in that a smoker
makes other stink or die.

Just stink.

Tell Roy Castle that.

Not that old bloody chestnut again.

Roy Castle categorically did not die from lung cancer caused by passive
smoking.

Non smokers do die from lung cancer, but it is an entirely different form of
cancer that occurs in a different part of the lung. It has nothing to do
with passive smoking whatsoever.

Not that the facts ever stop the anti smoking fascists from bending the
truth to support their arguments - far from it.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Peter Scott" wrote in message

Not quite the same thing. The equivalent would be if the eater or
drinker threw up the semi-digested food or drink over a bystander. Don't
get me wrong, I detest the increasingly legalistic approach in this
country. I must break at least three laws every day and only some of
them by accident. But smoking is different in that a smoker makes other
stink or die.

Peter Scott

Rubbish! smokers only play a very very tiny small part in polluting this
world of ours,how about...

Aviation fuel getting burnt by the minute not to mention burining a hole in
the stratosphere.
Then you have ships,boats,racing boats ect.
Then you have many countries who's cars are not catalytic converterd.
Then you have third world countries chemical plants spewing out all manner
of harmful waste.

I could go on but I'd better sit down and have a fag.

"nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to harass
smokers.

He should appeal. As a self-employed person with no employees, his vehicle
is not required to be smoke-free.

Quote from the article:
"When stopped, both Mr Williams and his male passenger were found to be
smoking. "

It doesn't say that this _wasn't_ an employee - there again it doesn't
say that he was.

I certainly wouldn't have paid the fixed penalty notice - but then I can
be a right
stroppy bitch.

--
AnneJ

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:46:30 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Non smokers do die from lung cancer, but it is an entirely different form of
cancer that occurs in a different part of the lung. It has nothing to do
with passive smoking whatsoever.

B/S.

--
Frank Erskine

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to harass
smokers.


ISTR it was well publicised when the law came in


--
geoff

The guy owned the van ie it was not a...

Company car

Stressed out sales reps should be aware that the company Mondeo will not
escape the ban. Company cars are considered to be work premises and,
therefore, should not only remain smoke-free but are required to display no
smoking signs.

This even applies where one employee has sole use of a car. If it can
potentially be used by someone else in the future, the ban applies.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 22:46:30 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Roy Castle categorically did not die from lung cancer caused by passive
smoking.

Non smokers do die from lung cancer, but it is an entirely different form of
cancer that occurs in a different part of the lung.

Shatner's Bassoon?

In message , George
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to harass
smokers.


ISTR it was well publicised when the law came in


--
geoff

The guy owned the van ie it was not a...

Company car

If he's a one man business (+ tea boi, it would seem) it's perfectly
feasible that it's a company vehicle

a decorator driving to work - I should say so

otherwise why would he have a van, not a car
- transporting work related goods and equipment to places of work aka
other peoples' houses


--
geoff

On 2008-07-26 00:13:25 +0100, "George" said:


"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to harass
smokers.


ISTR it was well publicised when the law came in


--
geoff

The guy owned the van ie it was not a...

Company car

Stressed out sales reps should be aware that the company Mondeo will not
escape the ban. Company cars are considered to be work premises and,
therefore, should not only remain smoke-free but are required to display no
smoking signs.

This even applies where one employee has sole use of a car. If it can
potentially be used by someone else in the future, the ban applies.

There are rather more aspects to the story from Mr Williams.

He says that he's a self employed decorator and the unmarked van is for
personal use even claiming that it is for personal use and getting to
and from work.

"I am dumbfounded - the van is only insured for private use and to get
me to and from work," added Mr Williams, from Llanafan, near
Aberystwyth.


He isn't an employee and so this is not the standard employee use of a
personal vehicle. Secondly, are we to believe that the van is used
solely for this purpose and never in connection with his work? How
do the tools, equipment and materials arrive at his customers? Are
they delivered by somebody else? Doesn't seem likely, does it.

In a more telling revelation, he says that the vehicle is only insured
for personal use.

Mr Williams added: "I take the wife shopping in the van. It is my
private vehicle as well as my work van."

So which is it?

On the one hand he now of course wants this to be a private only
vehicle in order to try to get out of the legitimately levied fine.

On the other, he is saying that it's also his work van.

Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring
the van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the
business?

In the general case of the legislation, it is not the ownership of the
vehicle that is the issue but the use to which it's put. For example,
employees may have a car provided by their company - becoming less
common - or may receive car allowances or mileage allowances for
business use.

The Medway Handyman wrote:


Not that old bloody chestnut again.

Roy Castle categorically did not die from lung cancer caused by passive
smoking.

Non smokers do die from lung cancer, but it is an entirely different form of
cancer that occurs in a different part of the lung. It has nothing to do
with passive smoking whatsoever.

Not that the facts ever stop the anti smoking fascists from bending the
truth to support their arguments - far from it.



Back that statement with evidence

I would defend a persons wrights to smoke if he or she wishes but why
the f**k should I HAVE to smoke someone else's fag when I am out and
about. If I farted loudly and was constantly on my mobile in the
vicinity of others I would expect a telling off but these activities do
not damage health SMOKING DOES. So if you need to smoke do so in the
privacy of your home or car.

Knotty wrote:
I would defend a persons wrights to smoke if he or she wishes but why
the f**k should I HAVE to smoke someone else's fag when I am out and
about. If I farted loudly and was constantly on my mobile in the
vicinity of others I would expect a telling off but these activities
do not damage health SMOKING DOES. So if you need to smoke do so in
the privacy of your home or car.

Thats all this guy was doing.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Knotty wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


Not that old bloody chestnut again.

Roy Castle categorically did not die from lung cancer caused by
passive smoking.

Non smokers do die from lung cancer, but it is an entirely different
form of cancer that occurs in a different part of the lung. It has
nothing to do with passive smoking whatsoever.

Not that the facts ever stop the anti smoking fascists from bending
the truth to support their arguments - far from it.



Back that statement with evidence

In a logical argument, the person making the claim supplies evidence to back
it up. Those who perpetuate the Roy Castle myth should supply evidence to
back their statement - alas they can't.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Andy Hall wrote:


There are rather more aspects to the story from Mr Williams.

He says that he's a self employed decorator and the unmarked van is
for personal use even claiming that it is for personal use and
getting to and from work.

"I am dumbfounded - the van is only insured for private use and to get
me to and from work," added Mr Williams, from Llanafan, near
Aberystwyth.


He isn't an employee and so this is not the standard employee use of a
personal vehicle. Secondly, are we to believe that the van is used
solely for this purpose and never in connection with his work? How do
the tools, equipment and materials arrive at his customers? Are they
delivered by somebody else? Doesn't seem likely, does it.

In a more telling revelation, he says that the vehicle is only insured
for personal use.

Then he is effectively not insured whilst driving to & from work - his
insurance company wouldn't pay out a claim in those circumstances.

Mr Williams added: "I take the wife shopping in the van. It is my
private vehicle as well as my work van."

So which is it?

I can see his point, it may be the only vehicle they have, so its dual
purpose.

On the one hand he now of course wants this to be a private only
vehicle in order to try to get out of the legitimately levied fine.

On the other, he is saying that it's also his work van.

But its not 'his place of work'. He doesn't carry out his trade in the van.

Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring
the van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the
business?

Indeed, see above. My van is insured for both uses.

In the general case of the legislation, it is not the ownership of the
vehicle that is the issue but the use to which it's put.

And that use is surely transport to & from his place of work - not his
actual place of work, which would be his clients premises.

For
example, employees may have a car provided by their company -
becoming less common - or may receive car allowances or mileage
allowances for business use.

So if the latter is the case, could you smoke in the vehicle.

The real point here is that the legislation is deliberately intended to
harrass smokers, nothing else. One wonders which minority group is next on
the list?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Andy Cap wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:21:47 +0100, (Steve
Firth) wrote:

Clearly designed to harass smokers.

Good. Smokers have been harassing those of us who are not addicts for
long enough.

Don't be too smug. Something you enjoy like drink or fatty foods will
be next on the list of banned substances.

Drink is already going that way. We are already seeing the health fascists
using dodgy statistics to support their point of view.

"20% increase in alcohol related hospital admissions" is the latest.

Look behind the figures & you will find there is no real increase. In the
past if the Police found a drunk he was put in a cell overnight to sleep it
off. Now they don't want the reponsibility in case they get sued for
something & call an ambulance instead.

The ambulance crew have no choice but to take the drunk to A&E to sleep it
off. That counts as an 'alcohol related hospital admission'. Ambulance
crews refer to the late Saturday shift as 'the big yellow taxi service'.

Chips next?


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Andy Hall wrote:

There are rather more aspects to the story from Mr Williams.

He says that he's a self employed decorator and the unmarked van is
for personal use even claiming that it is for personal use and
getting to and from work.

"I am dumbfounded - the van is only insured for private use and to get
me to and from work," added Mr Williams, from Llanafan, near
Aberystwyth.


He isn't an employee and so this is not the standard employee use of a
personal vehicle. Secondly, are we to believe that the van is used
solely for this purpose and never in connection with his work? How do
the tools, equipment and materials arrive at his customers? Are they
delivered by somebody else? Doesn't seem likely, does it.

In a more telling revelation, he says that the vehicle is only insured
for personal use.

Then he is effectively not insured whilst driving to & from work - his
insurance company wouldn't pay out a claim in those circumstances.
Mr Williams added: "I take the wife shopping in the van. It is my
private vehicle as well as my work van."

So which is it?

I can see his point, it may be the only vehicle they have, so its dual
purpose.
On the one hand he now of course wants this to be a private only
vehicle in order to try to get out of the legitimately levied fine.

On the other, he is saying that it's also his work van.

But its not 'his place of work'. He doesn't carry out his trade in the van.
Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring
the van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the
business?

Indeed, see above. My van is insured for both uses.
In the general case of the legislation, it is not the ownership of the
vehicle that is the issue but the use to which it's put.

And that use is surely transport to & from his place of work - not his
actual place of work, which would be his clients premises.

For
example, employees may have a car provided by their company -
becoming less common - or may receive car allowances or mileage
allowances for business use.

So if the latter is the case, could you smoke in the vehicle.

The real point here is that the legislation is deliberately intended to
harrass smokers, nothing else. One wonders which minority group is next on
the list?


I rather hoped it would be people who murder, wound, rape and in other
ways severely damage other people.

But, at least following the tabloid view of the world, perhaps they are
not now a minority?

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

Knotty coughed up some electrons that declared:

I would defend a persons wrights to smoke if he or she wishes but why
the f**k should I HAVE to smoke someone else's fag when I am out and
about. If I farted loudly and was constantly on my mobile in the
vicinity of others...

Never been on a train then?

....

On 2008-07-26 08:54:24 +0100, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

Andy Hall wrote:


There are rather more aspects to the story from Mr Williams.

He says that he's a self employed decorator and the unmarked van is
for personal use even claiming that it is for personal use and
getting to and from work.

"I am dumbfounded - the van is only insured for private use and to get
me to and from work," added Mr Williams, from Llanafan, near
Aberystwyth.


He isn't an employee and so this is not the standard employee use of a
personal vehicle. Secondly, are we to believe that the van is used
solely for this purpose and never in connection with his work? How do
the tools, equipment and materials arrive at his customers? Are they
delivered by somebody else? Doesn't seem likely, does it.

In a more telling revelation, he says that the vehicle is only insured
for personal use.

Then he is effectively not insured whilst driving to & from work - his
insurance company wouldn't pay out a claim in those circumstances.

Exactly my point. He may or may not be claiming use of the vehicle
as a business expense. If he is, then it is certainly a workplace
within the meaning of the legislation. If he isn't, then his
accountant should be fired, assuming he has one. In either case, he
can't have it both ways.




Mr Williams added: "I take the wife shopping in the van. It is my
private vehicle as well as my work van."

So which is it?

I can see his point, it may be the only vehicle they have, so its dual
purpose.

OK. So in that case, the legislation does consider it to be a
workplace and the rules apply.





On the one hand he now of course wants this to be a private only
vehicle in order to try to get out of the legitimately levied fine.

On the other, he is saying that it's also his work van.

But its not 'his place of work'. He doesn't carry out his trade in the van.

It's used in connection with his trade. For example, he might take
somebody else to a job because it's too large for him or may take a
customer to look at decorating materials. The legislation only
requires the possibility to exist.

If he wanted to argue the point that he is using it only personally it
would need the insurance details as well as demonstrating that there is
no claim for business use.

More generically.... I own my own car. I also take a monthly
allowance for running it and a fuel allowance as well. I work at home
when I'm in the UK, I visit customers in the UK and sometimes drive to
and from the airport. I don't actually *do* my nominal work in the
car - i.e. I don't read and write emails or speak on the phone. I
don't even allow smoking in it. At all. Does this mean that I need
to have a No Smoking sticker? The answer is yes. Sometimes I take
customers to lunch in it and sometimes colleagues. As a result it is a
workplace.





Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring
the van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the
business?

Indeed, see above. My van is insured for both uses.

As it should be.




In the general case of the legislation, it is not the ownership of the
vehicle that is the issue but the use to which it's put.

And that use is surely transport to & from his place of work - not his
actual place of work, which would be his clients premises.

No. He is confusing the home to work arrangements that employees
typically have whereby they can't claim business mileage (personal use)
with business arrangements.

Let me put it a different way. You use your van for going to places
that sell materials and for going to customers. You also have signage
on it. Do you factor the running of it into your prices and/or your
accounts or do you just donate the use of your personal vehicle to the
business and pay for all of the vehicle costs, upkeep and fuel. If
it's the latter, then it is a place of work.



For
example, employees may have a car provided by their company -
becoming less common - or may receive car allowances or mileage
allowances for business use.

So if the latter is the case, could you smoke in the vehicle.

No. The only exception would be if the vehicle is only *ever* going
to be used personally. Companies used to provide vehicles for
employees. Some still do. Many provide a car allowance. There are
two reasons. One is that having and using a decent car is required to
do the job. Secondly, it is part of their remuneration package and
they pay tax and NI on it. Nonethless, the assumed basis is that
the car will be used at least part of the time for business purposes.
Occasionally cars are provided for the wives of senior executives.
Arguably that is more of a perk than the main car. However, it's
possible that the wife might go and meet a client for example, thn it's
business use.


The real point here is that the legislation is deliberately intended to
harrass smokers, nothing else. One wonders which minority group is next on
the list?

It is intended to protect others in the vicinity who may not be able to
escape the fumes. Into the bargain it is discouraging people who do
smoke from doing so. For their health and possibly that of others,
that is a good thing. I don't think that I have read of anybody
recently saying that smoking is actually good for the health.

OTOH... the methods of implementation are poor. This hapless
taffy in his van was stopped because it was assumed, probably quite
correctly, that it was a trade vehicle. It's therefore easy to check.
Are the same gestapo going to do random stopping of cars? Probably
not.

Even so, there is little to complain about. It isn't as though there
is a blanket prohibition on smoking. What we have at this point is
that smokers can do so wherever and whenever they like, *provided that*
they do not impinge on the equal right of non smokers not to be
subjected to it.

That seems equitable to me.

smokers can do so wherever and whenever they like, *provided that* they
do not impinge on the equal right of non smokers not to be subjected to it.

That seems equitable to me.



So, to answer TMH's question, the next target group should be 4X4
drivers, whose extra visibility is at the cost of my reduced visibility

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:01:29 +0100, Anne Welsh Jackson
wrote:

"nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to harass
smokers.

He should appeal. As a self-employed person with no employees, his vehicle
is not required to be smoke-free.

Quote from the article:
"When stopped, both Mr Williams and his male passenger were found to be
smoking. "

It doesn't say that this _wasn't_ an employee - there again it doesn't
say that he was.

I certainly wouldn't have paid the fixed penalty notice - but then I can
be a right
stroppy bitch.

So when does a works van also used for pvt purposes not become a works
van.Just because an employee is in the van doesn't mean that he ( or
the driver) is working . He should just have told them that at that
particular time neither of them were working .

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 08:53:13 UTC, Andy Hall wrote:

It's used in connection with his trade. For example, he might take
somebody else to a job because it's too large for him or may take a
customer to look at decorating materials. The legislation only
requires the possibility to exist.

And at the time he was stopped, he had a passenger who had been helping
him with his work. The irony is that they were smoking too.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

On 2008-07-26 10:39:41 +0100, stuart noble said:


smokers can do so wherever and whenever they like, *provided that* they
do not impinge on the equal right of non smokers not to be subjected to
it.

That seems equitable to me.



So, to answer TMH's question, the next target group should be 4X4
drivers, whose extra visibility is at the cost of my reduced visibility

Simple solution. Get yourself a 4x4. You know a big diesel makes sense.

Besides... if a 4x4 is hampering your visibility you are driving too close.

On 2008-07-26 10:44:12 +0100, said:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:01:29 +0100, Anne Welsh Jackson
wrote:

"nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to harass
smokers.

He should appeal. As a self-employed person with no employees, his vehicle
is not required to be smoke-free.

Quote from the article:
"When stopped, both Mr Williams and his male passenger were found to be
smoking. "

It doesn't say that this _wasn't_ an employee - there again it doesn't
say that he was.

I certainly wouldn't have paid the fixed penalty notice - but then I can
be a right
stroppy bitch.

So when does a works van also used for pvt purposes not become a works
van.Just because an employee is in the van doesn't mean that he ( or
the driver) is working . He should just have told them that at that
particular time neither of them were working .

Doesn't matter. If it used for business purposes it is a place of work.

An office doesn't cease being an office or a factory cease being a
factory when people go home on Friday afternoon.

wrote in message ...
On 25 Jul,
"nightjar" cpb@insert my surname here.me.uk wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
m...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to
harass
smokers.

He should appeal. As a self-employed person with no employees, his
vehicle
is not required to be smoke-free.

He was carrying a passenger. (Who was also smoking).

That wasn't in the initial reports I read and it does make a difference.

Colin Bignell

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:41:00 GMT, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

In a logical argument, the person making the claim supplies evidence to back
it up. Those who perpetuate the Roy Castle myth should supply evidence to
back their statement - alas they can't.

Two admissions to the court:

* Roy Castle did a lot of passive smoking.

* Roy Castle died of lung cancer.

Now these don't _prove_ causality. But I'd require a lot more evidence
before I started to believe that passive smoking wasn't unhealthy.

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-26 10:39:41 +0100, stuart noble
said:


smokers can do so wherever and whenever they like, *provided that*
they do not impinge on the equal right of non smokers not to be
subjected to it.

That seems equitable to me.



So, to answer TMH's question, the next target group should be 4X4
drivers, whose extra visibility is at the cost of my reduced visibility

Simple solution. Get yourself a 4x4. You know a big diesel makes
sense.

Besides... if a 4x4 is hampering your visibility you are driving too close.



Nobody drives a 4x4 round here, they just leave them parked on corners

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:44:12 +0100, wrote:

So when does a works van also used for pvt purposes not become a works
van.

This van wasn't insured for works use either, merely SDP. The driver,
when interviewed, tried to use this as an excuse that it thus wasn't a
"works van". OTOH, I think he might now fnd himself with invalid
insurance and being charged for such by the police, pour encourager les
autres.

If he's insured with Admiral, the temptation to make Byng jokes would be
irresistible.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Knotty wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Not that old bloody chestnut again.


Because you are an addict you are in denial.

YOU KNOW smoking is killing you and MAY shorten the lives of people who
have to breath in your smoke.

Do you deny that smoking kills? if not how come the same (unfiltered)
smoke coming from your fag does no harm to others breathing it in?

I will always defend your right to smoke but please don't inflict it on
others.

Huge wrote:

The Wikipedia article on Passive Smoking has 144 references, mostly to peer
reviewed journals or to authoritative sources. Not one I've looked at so far
says "Passive smoking is harmless, don't worry about it."

Ah yes, but the fag smokers will tell you that this is because all those
researchers are in the evil pay of a sekrit konspiracy that is out to do
down the poor, harmless tobacco companies.

They will say this for two reasons. One is that nicotine causes
vasocontriction which, along with the carbon monoxide and other poisons
in tobacco smoke reduces the flow of blood to the brain and kills
numerous brain cells resulting in a dulling of the wits. The other
reason is that addicts are incapable of admitting that they are addicted
and that the addiction distorts their perceptions.

The same addicts denied that smoking caused *them* harm. I saw one
recently, in hospital for amputation of a leg, which was obviously
gangrenous. The surgeon had just told the addict that the leg would come
off and that they should stop smoking now, if they wanted to stand a
chance of living through the operation, let alone of keeping the other
leg.

As soon as the surgeon was out of sight the soon-to-be amputee was
reaching for her fags, saying "no ****ing poncy **** is going to tell me
what to do."

On 2008-07-26 11:32:02 +0100, stuart noble said:

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2008-07-26 10:39:41 +0100, stuart noble said:


smokers can do so wherever and whenever they like, *provided that* they
do not impinge on the equal right of non smokers not to be subjected to
it.

That seems equitable to me.



So, to answer TMH's question, the next target group should be 4X4
drivers, whose extra visibility is at the cost of my reduced visibility

Simple solution. Get yourself a 4x4. You know a big diesel makes sense.

Besides... if a 4x4 is hampering your visibility you are driving too close.



Nobody drives a 4x4 round here, they just leave them parked on corners

I'd see about getting the road widened.