Kevin Carr's Gloves

Personally I like it where the council has surveyed for a gas risk (either explosive, poisioness or even in some cases radiation gas risks - the radioactive gas kills at least 2500 people a year from lung cancer in the UK - and on the whole much more likely and risky than 2ndry smoke) and then refuses to tell anyone living there because (not surprisingly) no one would want to live there and house prices in that area would crash. I have to wonder about your opinion on this though Bazooka and Kevin for that matter (and a solution other than the councils ignore it). ....as long as it doesn't stink up their clothes they're pretty relaxed about it. Indeed. If you let me know where it has happened I will campaign against it. The same as I campaigned against building houses beneath power lines and campaigned against greenfield development. I am just not an idiot who thinks smokng is the same as using a car.

You keep saying this yet haven't answered my earlier point as to why the government should protect these people when they've chosen to take the job with the full knowledge of how it could impact on their health. because there is now a general rule in this country that no one should have to accept reducable risks to gain employment Even the H&S executive wouldn't have suggested a full smoking ban to reduce such risks. It's like saying the only way to cut car deaths is to ban cars (or as you mentioned ban mining to save miners), it would certainly work, but that isn't really the point. Again with the moronic comparisons. Smoking has no benefits at all. It is an addiction to a lethal drug. Why should people be forced to suffer the known 2nd hand dangers of someone elses addiction?

Indeed, and that's something that they've already admitted will be used for purposes they initially denied they'd be used for (which have nothing to do with preventing "terror" and everything to do with control). Much like the DNA database that's already being built by stealth. Yup see above. Don't swallow propaganda, even if it agrees with would you'd like. It's still a VERY dangerous thing. Comparatively to what they used to be true, but (and again we get to the inconvenient bit) they still pump out a lot of crap, and certainly can have as much (or much more) effect on your health than a few hours a week in a smoky pub. Actually that's also one of the biggest drawback of biofuels currently (beside raping the 3rd world and that some biofuels aren't particularly carbon saving), that they have some seriously NASTY emissions issues, stuff that if you had an LA or now Asian type car smog would do serious damage to peoples health. Although this is again something the eco-nazi's (in this case) tend to ignore or gloss over and try to forget. (and again I've all for a pollution free world with a pefect climate and many more trees [i've been growing and planting oaks and such for nearly 20 years now, long before it was trendy], but again I'm not silly enough to ignore the reality or say that the Government should be allowed to use whatever nonsense it likes to do whatever it likes) Sorry but you haven't anything which impacts the reason for the ban. Secondly comparing smoking to cars is moronic. Cars have a productive reason i.e transport. Cigarettes have no productive reason. Also would like to know where you get your info on bio fuels? Also what kind of biofuels there are quite a few?

Without a doubt, although I'd be interested to see the level of them (although carcinogens are not dose reliant, the actual % chance at most levels is so low they effectively are) and also to see the background levels in the area anyway. But the main perversions I've seen have been: 1. the issue about it being worse to breath in smoke from the burning end than through the filter. It is true that the filter takes out a significant amount of the chemicals, BUT the huge difference is nearly 100% of said chemicals go into the smokers lungs. The burning ends output if measured at the source is higher but for every millimeter away from that ignition source you get so the chemicals both dilute and in some cases degrade so even if you're sat just two feet away from the ignition source only a fraction of the chemicals are going to enter your lungs. This is true even in the most smoky of pubs, even the most lacking in ventilation, the atmosphere simply isn't going to build up to a level where (even with fairly regular short term 1-10 hours a week exposure) there's any real increase in risk (other than smelling). 2. is the related issue of that whole it's not what you can see thing. Again that is technically true, but the "smoke", that is particals that you see as it, persists in a way that the most of dangerous most chemicals do not. And again it goes back to dilution, some of the nasties that appear from cigarette smoke are dose specific toxic (ie you need a certain concentration to have an effect) and the conditions for that to occur would have to be extreme indeed. But even the non-dose toxic ones are generally so dilute that unless you're in one of the risk groups (young children with developing lungs and bodies or people that work for very long periods in such atmospheres for years and years) the increase risk isn't much at all (you'd increase your life expectancy more by not taking trains no doubt). Most of the smoking campaign groups will freely admit they use "shock" tactics, although equally most will not admit that (at least when it comes to 2nd hand smoke) they are being disingenuous to say the least, although a lot will say any means justify the end (which is scary ). So as I say for most non-smokers the net "health" benefit is basically not having smelly clothes. Actually the whole thing reminds me a bit of the whole 80's have unprotected sex and YOU WILL GET AIDS AND DIE!!!!! thing, only these days they'd probably have tried to ban sex as well. 2 issues which are not part of the argument. The reason it was banned is because of the effect of employees made to work in a smoking environment and the rights of non smokers. That is why smoking rooms were not allowed as employees would still need to work in them. I personally would like the right to sue everybody who chooses to smoke in a confined area therefore knowingly putting my healt at an increased risk. There is no argument that this is not the case as no matter what the dose it does increase the risk of certain diseases. Move to America. Why?

Without a doubt, although I'd be interested to see the level of them (although carcinogens are not dose reliant, the actual % chance at most levels is so low they effectively are) and also to see the background levels in the area anyway. But the main perversions I've seen have been: 1. the issue about it being worse to breath in smoke from the burning end than through the filter. It is true that the filter takes out a significant amount of the chemicals, BUT the huge difference is nearly 100% of said chemicals go into the smokers lungs. The burning ends output if measured at the source is higher but for every millimeter away from that ignition source you get so the chemicals both dilute and in some cases degrade so even if you're sat just two feet away from the ignition source only a fraction of the chemicals are going to enter your lungs. This is true even in the most smoky of pubs, even the most lacking in ventilation, the atmosphere simply isn't going to build up to a level where (even with fairly regular short term 1-10 hours a week exposure) there's any real increase in risk (other than smelling). 2. is the related issue of that whole it's not what you can see thing. Again that is technically true, but the "smoke", that is particals that you see as it, persists in a way that the most of dangerous most chemicals do not. And again it goes back to dilution, some of the nasties that appear from cigarette smoke are dose specific toxic (ie you need a certain concentration to have an effect) and the conditions for that to occur would have to be extreme indeed. But even the non-dose toxic ones are generally so dilute that unless you're in one of the risk groups (young children with developing lungs and bodies or people that work for very long periods in such atmospheres for years and years) the increase risk isn't much at all (you'd increase your life expectancy more by not taking trains no doubt). Most of the smoking campaign groups will freely admit they use "shock" tactics, although equally most will not admit that (at least when it comes to 2nd hand smoke) they are being disingenuous to say the least, although a lot will say any means justify the end (which is scary ). So as I say for most non-smokers the net "health" benefit is basically not having smelly clothes. Actually the whole thing reminds me a bit of the whole 80's have unprotected sex and YOU WILL GET AIDS AND DIE!!!!! thing, only these days they'd probably have tried to ban sex as well. 2 issues which are not part of the argument. The reason it was banned is because of the effect of employees made to work in a smoking environment and the rights of non smokers. That is why smoking rooms were not allowed as employees would still need to work in them. I personally would like the right to sue everybody who chooses to smoke in a confined area therefore knowingly putting my healt at an increased risk. There is no argument that this is not the case as no matter what the dose it does increase the risk of certain diseases.

I like that too. You can be pretty sure that The Verve will write their new album though and perform it with instruments themselves. Significant differences tbh OMG R33L MUSIK LOL (That said, the Spice Girls had co-writing credits on all their hits IIRC. Whether you believe they had much input is, of course, an entirely different matter...) No but gram has a point, The Verve are making new music so as a band they are contributing new material, the Spice Girls are just travelling the world miming to their old hits, they're not taking the trouble to create anything new. I read his point more as "songs are automatically better if you hold a guitar while singing them". Mind, I'm biased since I think the Verve's post-split output is about as good as that of the various Spices (i.e. not very), so both comebacks have the potential to be seriously tedious rehashes of something that was vaguely relevant ten years ago. I may change my mind if Ashcroft wears a sparkly Union Jack dress though. If thats the standard of your interpretation then you did well to knock back Barbara Striesand Want the verve's last incarnation a reform as well? I remember them as nobodies from 1990.

Wenger unhappy Real Madrid Managerless. HHHMMMMM

True, but the disturbing thing about this isn't that it is "Nanny says cigarettes are bad for you therefore we'll ban many of your opportunities to smoke them" which would be one thing (or even ban them outright which would be another). But the main thrust and scare of the current legislation is based upon the second hand smoke issue (not the smoke smokers take directly into their lungs), and as I said the science involved in that has been perverted beyond anything that even resembles the original science. Which is basically "Nanny says the big bad bogey man under the bed will get you IF you don't do what Nanny says". i.e. scare tactics and lies. You say the science has been perverted. Can you back this up with facts? From what I can remember a recent study showed that a 4 hour shift in a smoky pub increased the toxins which caused carcinogens.

we are already shivering in the smoking "sheds " matey......and we have to key out for them !!!!!!! what's your workplace smoking policy re. time etc? if you are using your own time then there is no limit.....If I want to stand out there for half an hour and smoke twenty I can do so as long as I have keyed out . But then she wouldn't have enough lung capacity to lift her arms and key back in.

we are already shivering in the smoking "sheds " matey......and we have to key out for them !!!!!!! You should be made to clean the streets while you're there imho

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20070629/tuk-...an-dba1618.html It's not fair we are not allowed to poison others lungs anymore. We have the right to cause lung cancer in others. Wankers.

If you don't like the system of govt in Britain then Vote Liberal Democrat it is the only party who will change it. Otherwise stop whining if you want change vote for it. As for new PM + New Cabinet + new govt. Yes your right however the government has always been formed by the party with the largest majority and that is Labour. Also the policies are made up by the whole party not just one person. It just so happens that the majority of the Labour executive were right up Blair's arse so acquiesced to all of his proposals. This is not a failure of a type of democracy (there is no such thing as a singular definition of Democracy) it is how our form of democracy works.

The cast of Hollyoaks

I put on my raincoat to make it rain And sure enough the skies opened up again I dreamed of you as I walked to the shops You were dancing with the wallies on top of the pops Once in a while Gennady gerasimov deops his smile And you can see that his aims A portfolio pregnant with gains Hes been up all night Moving the goalposts

God's footballer hears the voices of angels Above the choir at Molineux God's footballer stands on the doorstep And brings the Good News of the Kingdom to come While the crowd sings 'Rock of Ages' The goals bring weekly wages Yet the glory of the sports pages Is but the worship of false idols and tempts him not

See the spice girls thread.

The way i see it it's a good thing. All of them in the one place together maybe even just feet apart and you know where they are going to be. Right where did I put me rifle?

I resent that statement. I resemble that statement But Ferry is a cuntyfuckwit

Did you know what 2/3 is? Well its not fucking.666

Wanker of the highest order.

Did the last episode have a clock in the last scene? If so what was the time?

What an offer

I love Gogol Bordello remind me of Les Negresses Vertes. May have to do some downloading.

Just an observation from looking at the ready to go forum. Just they have a SAFC related forum SMB and an off topic Parsnip forum. But then just put everything in SMB. Yes I am a pedant but they are thick.

Lauren Laverne AMB (Annoying Makem Bitch) from a shite band.