Park Life

Your right to smoke cannot impinge on my right not to smoke. I can't believe Fop is bemoaning a tactic that was created to stem the tide of the Aids spread. The Government shouldn't have to tell us that smoking is bad for us, it's bad for others (Irrespective of the proportionate danger), but unfortunately people don't seem to take heed. If someone proves that, by smoking I'm putting my health at sever risk, then I'd stop. Yet the people who still smoke aren't listening or don't care. great, fine. But they can't complain when people who aren't daft enough to suck on noxious fumes refuse to join them in their apathy. This whole "big bad Government" fear would hold more water if our honest to goodness freedoms were being taken from us. But the amount of difference the average Joe Smoker will experience after this comes to pass is positive. The difference the average Joe Non-Smoker is also positive. The Government aren't going to herd into pens and force us all to watch X-Factor until our will to fight tyranny seeps from our listless bodies. We do that fine by ourselves. If Fop and Parky really want to see injustice, and nanny states, they should cast their eyes about the rest of the world and realise that in this country and in these cases Nanny does actually know best. Smoking is bad for you. Anything, ANYTHING that makes it more difficult to continue is a good thing in my eyes. Brainwashed?

So you agree that second hand smoke is pretty much a non-issue for the majority of non-smokers then? (out side of smell of course) Although as I said with current biofuels you are talking about a quite serious health issue with the current number of cars, scarily very similar to being mustard gassed. I thought they were working on hydrogen drive or summat?

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? You don't compalin about cars and pollution as against smoking cause you are morally and psychologically bankrupt.

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) runways across Euro packed with unsold brand new cars to keep prices high.....cars that have a hefty pollution cost per build even if you discount the chemicals used in the process...

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.

Sounds like they were meant to be found. Exploding tanks of fuel is not easy and doesn't cause much of an explosion just a bit of a fireball. Ooooooooooooh hark at Red Adair here I despair at the public these days. A nation that lived through the days of the ira now cowering over a car with some petrol in it or whatever. What next? Take baked beans off the shelf?

YOu party in the graveyard?

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. Good post Fop. But surely way over their heads as they load the washing machine for more lovely smelling clothes.

I'd be in favour of a city wide ban on non-commercial or public transport vehicles. I understand many people think that they need to park in town because of shopping for bulky items etc. But to be fair if there is something too big to carry to a park-ride stop the shop will provide a delivery service. I'd like to see the entire city pedestrianised. Not so bothered about this, the governemnt can already track movement, collate data on spending patterns of the individual, and "spy" on us so the "Civil Liberty" argument doesn't really wash with me. the only problem seems to be the price. My dad was quite involved with the whole ID Card idea stage and states quite confidently that the money we'll save from tax and benefit fraudsters will pay off the cost and maintenance of the system. He's not a right wing nut, he's not in favour of a nanny state, he just sees the ID Card as a solution to a problem. Prevention is better than punishment in his eyes. and while I agreee I wish the government was straight with the public. I wish they gave us the real reason why they are willing to stride into Iraq to dispose of a despot, but leave so many African nations in the hands of fanatical warlords. I wish they'd admit the reasons behind the Fox Hunting Ban. But I'm aware that the government has to convince the Sun readers, not the rest of us. I think politicians underestimate the mood and motives of the English people. Getting people to use public transport in the center or indeed walk has to be good on so many levels, its not even worth debating. The amount of charges for a car in London now are so high, might as well just go the next step. Paris banned 4x4 from the city center not so long ago iirc. I think you're dads cost analysis and benefit is comepletely whack, even before you factor in fraud using the card data or whatever new scams come with them.

Depends how you look at it - you could argue that they're empowered single mothers. Everytime I hear something from them they just sound like dessicated husks who have long forgotten what it is to be even remotely human.

80k?!! No.

Sounds like they were meant to be found. Exploding tanks of fuel is not easy and doesn't cause much of an explosion just a bit of a fireball.

yet I suppose you would have sauntered over to it, looked inside, and declared the all clear? ....better to light joshsticks and do a little hippie dance surely..?

Almost amateur.

Well ignoring the fact their are basically lying to everyone (I guess people simply expect that from their elected officials these days). The only downside is really IF they use the same methods (silly scare tactics and science misconstrued to the point of being a lie - it's a bigger public deception than the dodgey dossier ever was) to ban something else (motorbikes, abortions, chips, whatever - it's actually quite amazing how draconian this legislation is if you look at it out of the direct context). Of course the British government would never do anything like that would they. quite apart from the fact it wasn't government policy at all but a free vote of the commons, won by an unprecedented majority as it happens Again a vote based largely upon scare tactics and lies. Many quite terrible things have been "democratically" won by a "free" majority, that's got little to do with anything (look at the Iraq vote, same thing [scare tactics and lies], was that therefore "right"?). As I said the smoking ban itself I'll enjoy, I'm just sensible enough to understand I should be concerned about how exactly it's has been pushed though. Id cards anyone?

We'll be looking for your vote when we ask for a major city wide car ban at weekends....Now that is a real nasty air/smell issue.

In all honesty, much as I'll prefer a smoke free atmosphere, the second hand smoke hysetria maybe the most over egged nonsense in history. Outside of young children at home and people that work 30+ hours a week in (preivously) smoky bars/pubs the actual increase in incidence of anything second hand smoke related (over and above your average pollution/every day lifestyle issues) is very, very small. The thing that worries me is if they'll basically make all this stuff up (which is what they are doing, very, very loosely basing it on science and then exaggerating everything to the nth degree) about second hand smoke to push though an agenda what will they use it on next? Aye Fop. What next eh? I'm looking forward to the next 'intervention' (I've got some ideas like). They'll be looking to plug the shortfall from smokers tax.

I too reckon Martins is gone.

smoking at work comes under employee perks, not rights you need to see your HR department and ask to see the company policy on work-time smoking I am HR and the policy allows them to smoke without keying out, other area's such as Ragina's (assume she's Inland Revenue) have to clock out. ...maybe you should ask them if it is appropriate if you 'key back in' every time you are home thinking about work related issues or infact doing work at home.

Got to be candidate for most misleading news story of the year. It should read: "Car found abandoned by drunk driver with camping gas in boot."

...with no lives.

I take fucking Forrest Whittaker ahead of that clown Carr. I'd take Forrest Gump over Carr. In fact make that Kielder Forest.

Not a huge surprise that Sam is cleaning house. Carr has never been ths same since his injury.

Thought it was going to be low budget porn.

I joined recently. ...and Chez Given is on there and 4/5 others...