Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
"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 |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Clearly designed to harass smokers. Good. Smokers have been harassing those of us who are not addicts for long enough. |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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. |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
"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 |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 =================================== |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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. |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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. |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
"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. |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
"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 |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
"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. |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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? |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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. |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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. |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#24
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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? .... |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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. |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 . |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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. |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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. |
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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 |
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
|
#38
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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. |
#39
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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." |
#40
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
OT; It had to happen.
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
How did this happen ? | Electronic Schematics | |||
wat happen? only ........... | Home Repair | |||
RCD - Why does this Happen? | UK diy | |||
Why did 9-11 happen? | Metalworking |