| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| just so you know my postion, i don't. i like freedom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marky wrote;
| Quote: | | again if they walk through my door it is MY home, NOT their workplace. |
I believe at this point, others would resort to insults or derogatory phrases, but this is me, so to help you understand what you currently do not appear to, this may help;
Let’s imagine you own a shop. You are the owner of a shop and you put it up for rent. I come along and rent it from you. You own the shop, I rent it. I fit it out and hire staff. You own the shop, I rent it from you and people work there being paid by me. You own it, but it is their place of work, their workplace, just like countless current scenarios with regards to business premises. Easy so far?
You also own a house in which you live. The hot water system goes wrong and you call out the Gas Board and an engineer turns up, enters your house and diagnoses that you need a new boiler. Two days later, he turns up together with another a colleague and over the course of a day they install a new boiler.
You own the property but this is where the gas employees are w.....g (can you guess the missing word?). Clue - this is their place of work, albeit a temporary one.
Taken further. A window cleaner knocks on your front door and you agree to let him clean the windows of your home. He puts his ladder up against the front of your house in the front garden, but falls off it breaking his back. He has no insurance – did you know he can make a claim off your HOUSEHOLD insurance. Can you guess why?
No-one is questioning the OWNERSHIP of property, it is about the relationship it takes on to different individuals. If a tradesman comes to your house to work - then that is their place of work.
My point is that these 'places of work' are not covered by the Health Act 2006, but are nonetheless still encompassed by the Health and Safety at Work Act and all employers have a duty of care to ensure their employees are not physically compromised in any way.
You will find this enlightening (no pun);
http://www.smokefreeengland.co.uk/files/guidance-for-people-working-in -the-home.pdf
| Quote: | | its not against the law to feed children sweets, but i have complained many times to the school for feeding my children additional sweets, as i find they never eat their tea due it when it occures, plus i am unable to monitor their intake of nonsense. |
This is because your children haven’t yet learned to say ‘No thank you’. It is common amongst children and adults alike. Watch any group of smokers.
| Quote: | | you should of complained to the restaurant about being seated 4ft away from smokers or took your custom to a restaurant who respected none smokers and arranged the seating areas better. |
Complain? I have complained countless times about smoking in all kinds of events and venues, but to no avail. There was no legal requirement to meet my demands – but HOORAH!, now there is – that is what complaining brought about. However, you don’t seem to like it. You tell people to complain then when something is done you get upset and whine about rights when their complaining is acted upon? See the dichotomy you face?
| Quote: | | some places have banned it outright, but at least we can agree smoking at work is fine and so far restaurants not fine. |
Are you saying smoking should be allowed at work?
| Quote: | | i agree and it dos'nt bother me, what i find disgusting is none smokers being bothered when smokers are smoking in a totally different room to the one they are sat in, ie: just a thing against smokers. take away their rights! whooo but i want to keep mine! |
Strewth and there’s you moaning about kids out in the street having fun that you want to stop, but isn’t that exactly wha……………?
Hopefully.
| Quote: | | im all for none smokers not breathing smokers smoke, but it has gone to far interms of infringing on peoples rights. |
You are citing the rights of people. What you don’t appear to grasp is that smokers want to smoke, non-smokers don’t want to inhale that smoke. The status quo used to be either;
1. The non-smoker stays and inhales the smoke.
Or
2. Leaves.
Where is the third option that allows the non-smoker the RIGHT to stay and enjoy the event with no smoke in the air? This is not freedom of choice, this is the smoker polluting the air – take it or leave it. What gives the smoker the monopoly? However, it should be ‘gave the smoker the monopoly’, because that is now history. Sense prevailed and if you want to smoke, out you go you naughty little rascal, out in the cold with all the other druggies.
| Quote: | maybe these people feel the same way you do about smoking.
do you hope they get their own way? |
I don’t have a view on a drinking ban, I couldn’t care less either way.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I believe at this point, others would resort to insults or derogatory phrases, but this is me, so to help you understand what you currently do not appear to, this may help;
Let’s imagine you own a shop. You are the owner of a shop and you put it up for rent. I come along and rent it from you. You own the shop, I rent it. I fit it out and hire staff. You own the shop, I rent it from you and people work there being paid by me. You own it, but it is their place of work, their workplace, just like countless current scenarios with regards to business premises. Easy so far?
You also own a house in which you live. The hot water system goes wrong and you call out the Gas Board and an engineer turns up, enters your house and diagnoses that you need a new boiler. Two days later, he turns up together with another a colleague and over the course of a day they install a new boiler.
You own the property but this is where the gas employees are w.....g (can you guess the missing word?). Clue - this is their place of work, albeit a temporary one.
Taken further. A window cleaner knocks on your front door and you agree to let him clean the windows of your home. He puts his ladder up against the front of your house in the front garden, but falls off it breaking his back. He has no insurance – did you know he can make a claim off your HOUSEHOLD insurance. Can you guess why?
No-one is questioning the OWNERSHIP of property, it is about the relationship it takes on to different individuals. If a tradesman comes to your house to work - then that is their place of work.
My point is that these 'places of work' are not covered by the Health Act 2006, but are nonetheless still encompassed by the Health and Safety at Work Act and all employers have a duty of care to ensure their employees are not physically compromised in any way.
You will find this enlightening (no pun);
http://www.smokefreeengland.co.uk/files/guidance-for-people-working-in -the-home.pdf
Quote:
its not against the law to feed children sweets, but i have complained many times to the school for feeding my children additional sweets, as i find they never eat their tea due it when it occures, plus i am unable to monitor their intake of nonsense.
This is because your children haven’t yet learned to say ‘No thank you’. It is common amongst children and adults alike. Watch any group of smokers.
|
no tele it is you who don't get it, i understand everything you have said.
what im saying is NOBODY dictates to me what i can and cannot do in my own home.
| Quote: | This is because your children haven’t yet learned to say ‘No thank you’. It is common amongst children and adults alike. Watch any group of smokers.
|
ok if that is thrown back onto me as a parent then you have your answer don't you.
you should of taught your daughter not to get lifts in cars with smokers or strangers.
| Quote: | See the dichotomy you face?
|
no, i already agreed restaurants should be no smoking or any place where food is served. but was it the smokers fault he lit up in a smoking area? or the restaurants?
| Quote: | Are you saying smoking should be allowed at work?
|
in brake times or lunch times, outside or in a room away from others, yes.
are you suggesting smokers should have every right taken away?
work places producing food should not employ smokers or have the right to refuse smokers work, just to cover that area.
| Quote: | Strewth and there’s you moaning about kids out in the street having fun that you want to stop, but isn’t that exactly wha……………?
|
no i was'nt moaning, i was giving examples how we could all be nazi's and demand the abolishment of our rights, i did'nt say kids having fun either, i said teenagers out of their face on alcohol.
| Quote: | Where is the third option that allows the non-smoker the RIGHT to stay and enjoy the event with no smoke in the air? This is not freedom of choice, this is the smoker polluting the air – take it or leave it. What gives the smoker the monopoly? However, it should be ‘gave the smoker the monopoly’, because that is now history. Sense prevailed and if you want to smoke, out you go you naughty little rascal, out in the cold with all the other druggies.
|
i don't think you quite grasp the idea of having smoking area away from everyone else do you? and i mean away from anyone else.
the only way a none smoker could breathe smoke in that way is if they wonder in to a smoking area.
i don't believe ayones rights should be effected.
if i want to go out somewhere and whilst there need a smoke or just want one to piss people like you off, i should have the right to do so as long as it effects no one else ie: smoking area
| Quote: | | I don’t have a view on a drinking ban, I couldn’t care less either way. |
of course you don't. well unleast not untill its something that infringes your rights anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | Telecasterisation wrote: | | A blanket ban was the only sensible way forward. |
So, do you think there could have been any latitude in the legislation that could have provided for folk who are members of private clubs, for example ?
You will recall that, at one time during the bill's passage this was supposedly being considered. |
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | Mark Gobell wrote: | | Telecasterisation wrote: | | A blanket ban was the only sensible way forward. |
So, do you think there could have been any latitude in the legislation that could have provided for folk who are members of private clubs, for example ?
You will recall that, at one time during the bill's passage this was supposedly being considered. |
|
No latitude.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 10:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
The possibility that private, members only clubs would have been allowed to determine their own smoking / non-smoking arrangements reduces the passive, non-consensual argument to a big fat zero.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
marky 54 etc
| Quote: | no tele it is you who don't get it, i understand everything you have said.
what im saying is NOBODY dictates to me what i can and cannot do in my own home. |
No marky, YOU still have no clue what you are being told.
I am saying that nobody can tell you not to smoke in your own home - that is EXACTLY what we are both saying. If someone is visiting your home for the purposes of supplying a service, then they have no right to tell you not to smoke when they are working. We are in agreement although you are acting so high and mighty you just don't see it. So we agree that you can smoke in your home and that is my point - a workplace NOT covered by the new legislation.
The whole point I clearly made, there are workplaces that exist where smoking IS still allowed. You then exploded into a diatribe about property ownership which had nothing to do with the subject.
If you insist on having this debate - at least read the responses.
Although there are a number of things that you cannot legally do in our home. For example, rape, levels of assault, murder etc. So just putting you straight. You can do them if you choose to - but they are by definition - illegal wherever you do them and as they are arrestable offences, the police can enter if you want them to or not.
As for my daughter and the car thing. She has had lifts from the father perhaps 50 times over the past year and he lives less than 100 yards away. He has even been inside my home - so not a stranger. Neither of us knew he smoked. Apparently he split up with his wife and restarted.
| Quote: | | no, i already agreed restaurants should be no smoking or any place where food is served. but was it the smokers fault he lit up in a smoking area? or the restaurants? |
Fault? I would say who experienced the drug related craving? The smoker, not the restaurant. The smoker is the weak willed addict who acted upon it. There was no legislation to stop them smoking and the restaurant merely gave them the facility - so if 'fault' is the term, then the smoker allowed themselves to be encouraged to start smoking in the first place and then become addicted, so that is their fault no-one elses.
| Quote: | | in brake times or lunch times, outside or in a room away from others, yes. are you suggesting smokers should have every right taken away? |
Every right? No, just smoking in the workplace and it has been. Your suggestion about a room has already been dealt with. How exactly are you going to supply something you haven't got? There would be countless businesses without the space available - impossible to police, so a blanket ban is the only thing that works for everyone. Unless of course you want the smoking police to visit every business?
| Quote: | | work places producing food should not employ smokers or have the right to refuse smokers work, just to cover that area. |
Should not employ smokers? So you are saying all chefs that smoke should be banned from working with food? I am for freedom and you are removing their right to work in the field they are trained in.
| Quote: | | no i was'nt moaning, i was giving examples how we could all be nazi's and demand the abolishment of our rights, i did'nt say kids having fun either, i said teenagers out of their face on alcohol. |
They would see this as having fun, you see this as being out of their face. It is called perspective.
| Quote: | | i don't think you quite grasp the idea of having smoking area away from everyone else do you? and i mean away from anyone else. |
Been there, dealt with that. How would a tiny business supply 'an area' with only a stockroom and toilet?
| Quote: | | of course you don't. well unleast not untill its something that infringes your rights anyway. |
So in one sentence you want drunks fighting and shouting in the street stopped and then you complain about rights being infringed??
However, alcohol is a completely different subject and one of any number of subjects that come under the parentheses of 'rights infringement'. I would prefer to discuss the rights of climbers who cannot climb areas of mountains that are deemed too dangerous - what about their rights?
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 10, 2007 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | The possibility that private, members only clubs would have been allowed to determine their own smoking / non-smoking arrangements reduces the passive, non-consensual argument to a big fat zero. |
You asked for my opinion about private clubs, I merely answered the question you asked. If it makes you happier, then let them all smoke, it doesn't impact me in any way.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
ive delayed my reply to think over some of the points you have made so far. although you accuse me of not understanding some of your points i think you misunderstood some of mine to. my points on drinking were not to complain about people drinking, they were to point out it is'nt just smoking that can effect people without them having a choice.
maybe your right about smoking and maybe the ban is better for most.
all i wanted to do is explore if:
a)freedoms are effected as a result.
b)if anything else can apply to the none smokers arguement, and none smokers only complain because they don't do it.
because im against:
1) abolishment of civil libertys
2) molding freedoms to fit each persons preferences
i beileve in freedom of choice and freedom in general for all and equally, so needed to explore if there were any solutions.
but where smoking is concerned i concede there is no solution which gaurentees a none smoker not being effected. however outside should always remain a place where it is fine IMO, as its no different to car fumes.
the only thing i disagree with is that you cannot compare other things to it.
if the none smokers main arguement is having it enforced on them and having no choice but to breathe it then there are comparsions, which car fumes fits under perfectly.
the but its outdoors arguement is fine as long as it remains fine to smoke outdoors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
the other thing to remember is the goverment allows tobacco sales in this country, it is simply legal to smoke, yet smokers are treated as criminals.
that IMO is unfair, if the goverment was serious about smoking they would ban it outright, but they are to cowardice to do such a thing as they don't want to lose out on the tax income, so rather than ban it they want to sell it to us legally whilst demonising smokers and treating them differently to the rest of the populous.
if it is a bad thing to smoke then at least ban it outright so that if i do smoke i deserve the "your a criminal" treatment, the same as people who smoke weed etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mr-Bridger
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 186
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Ban on drivers smoking in tunnel sparks confusion
Smokers have been left confused over signs banning them from smoking in the Tyne Tunnel. Transport officials have warned motorists who smoke in their cars that they could be fined up to £200. Newcastle council claims the rule applies to other UK tunnels. But operators of the Mersey and Dartford tunnels say they won't enforce it. |
Good idea.
Just in case any of the drivers ended up ill after breathing second hand smoke, in a road tunnel.
Heavens, there's enough pollutants in those things already.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
