Fop 1 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 you actually think there is a safe way to smoke Of course there is (even ignoring general passive smoking ), whether it would be practical or technically smoking is another issue however. I think your credibility ends here It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. So are we banning motorbikes or not? why are we banning motorbikes again? your logic is so out there I tend to lose track of your point You were banning them because they don't kill you I think (along with miners who DO kill you). how was I banning motorbikes? it's you that's banning motorbikes. I'm banning smoking in the workplace You are, that explains a lot then. Do you do a nice side line in non-smoking signs? no idea what's going on in your head regarding miners It was your example, don't blame me because it was a stupid one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka_From_Viduka 0 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 a truth that you handily can't prove And you can "prove" your claim how exact? Oh yes you CANNOT. Ventilation is just a matter of physical, a silly air barrier that doesn't ventilate the room, but tried to make two separate atmospheres it proof of nothing, just that an over engineered "solution" often isn't best one. always was about the workers, whatever you claim Oh really...... here's what the health secretary just said about it: The new Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, welcomed the ban saying that tackling the causes of illnesses saved lives. "A smoke-free country will improve the health of thousands of people, reduce the temptation to smoke and encourage smokers to quit," he added. Yup all about there "workers" that. Anymore ass you want to spew? so why all the intricate separations in the law regarding home/work/public/private etc? why is it hundreds of people can all enjoy a bit of passive smoke until one waiter steps into the room? you're as clueless about this as you are about ventilation systems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Someone told me yesterday that it's now illegal to smoke in your own home 20 minutes before a gas engineer or electric man etc is due a visit. If this is true it's a disgrace, the bastards usually call unexpected anyway No, it's not illegal (yet anyway, but in California the first place to bring this legislation in it is or soon will be illegal to smoke in tenant blocks with shared air ducting systems). However yes, at least one council is saying that you shouldn't smoke in your home at least 1 hour before any of their staff visit. I guess the "penalty" is them simply going away if you have been (although how they tell I dunno). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka_From_Viduka 0 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 you actually think there is a safe way to smoke Of course there is (even ignoring general passive smoking ), whether it would be practical or technically smoking is another issue however. I think your credibility ends here It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. So are we banning motorbikes or not? why are we banning motorbikes again? your logic is so out there I tend to lose track of your point You were banning them because they don't kill you I think (along with miners who DO kill you). how was I banning motorbikes? it's you that's banning motorbikes. I'm banning smoking in the workplace You are, that explains a lot then. Do you do a nice side line in non-smoking signs? no idea what's going on in your head regarding miners It was your example, don't blame me because it was a stupid one. still waiting for an explanation as to why miners are different to bar staff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Classic Vic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Classic Vic there are times when its becoming classic Viz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34443 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Has this Bazooka character admitted that he's the annoying cockney student, or is he pretending that he isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 a truth that you handily can't prove And you can "prove" your claim how exact? Oh yes you CANNOT. Ventilation is just a matter of physical, a silly air barrier that doesn't ventilate the room, but tried to make two separate atmospheres it proof of nothing, just that an over engineered "solution" often isn't best one. always was about the workers, whatever you claim Oh really...... here's what the health secretary just said about it: The new Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, welcomed the ban saying that tackling the causes of illnesses saved lives. "A smoke-free country will improve the health of thousands of people, reduce the temptation to smoke and encourage smokers to quit," he added. Yup all about there "workers" that. Anymore ass you want to spew? so why all the intricate separations in the law regarding home/work/public/private etc? I would imagine because they wouldn't want to draft a law that accidentally bans smoking in peoples home, mostly because that would lose them votes and maybe even an election. I admit Labour is notorious for sloppy and creeping legislation, but even they are NOT that sloppy. Or do you think laws are something vague that people have written on the back of a bar mat? why is it hundreds of people can all enjoy a bit of passive smoke until one waiter steps into the room? Again technicality of law and the definition of "private" and "public" place. Which is why even smoking clubs are not allowed to smoke under the legislation. you're as clueless about this as you are about ventilation systems I'm still waiting for your "proof" (ignored the bit where you're shown to be an idiot as usual I see ). Any environment can be ventilated to remove almost anything, this issue is always cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka_From_Viduka 0 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I've asked a couple of times what Alex is on about and got no reply. If anyone else wants to explain, go for it please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I've asked a couple of times what Alex is on about and got no reply. If anyone else wants to explain, go for it please I think you're Vic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 you actually think there is a safe way to smoke Of course there is (even ignoring general passive smoking ), whether it would be practical or technically smoking is another issue however. I think your credibility ends here It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. So are we banning motorbikes or not? why are we banning motorbikes again? your logic is so out there I tend to lose track of your point You were banning them because they don't kill you I think (along with miners who DO kill you). how was I banning motorbikes? it's you that's banning motorbikes. I'm banning smoking in the workplace You are, that explains a lot then. Do you do a nice side line in non-smoking signs? no idea what's going on in your head regarding miners It was your example, don't blame me because it was a stupid one. still waiting for an explanation as to why miners are different to bar staff Much as I'm waiting for an explanation as to why bar staff weren't issued masks if that was the only issue, or indeed why bar staff lives are worth more than miners. Still, of course, ignoring the fact that passive smoking kill next to no one a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka_From_Viduka 0 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 a truth that you handily can't prove And you can "prove" your claim how exact? Oh yes you CANNOT. Ventilation is just a matter of physical, a silly air barrier that doesn't ventilate the room, but tried to make two separate atmospheres it proof of nothing, just that an over engineered "solution" often isn't best one. always was about the workers, whatever you claim Oh really...... here's what the health secretary just said about it: The new Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, welcomed the ban saying that tackling the causes of illnesses saved lives. "A smoke-free country will improve the health of thousands of people, reduce the temptation to smoke and encourage smokers to quit," he added. Yup all about there "workers" that. Anymore ass you want to spew? so why all the intricate separations in the law regarding home/work/public/private etc? I would imagine because they wouldn't want to draft a law that accidentally bans smoking in peoples home, mostly because that would lose them votes and maybe even an election. I admit Labour is notorious for sloppy and creeping legislation, but even they are NOT that sloppy. Or do you think laws are something vague that people have written on the back of a bar mat? why is it hundreds of people can all enjoy a bit of passive smoke until one waiter steps into the room? Again technicality of law and the definition of "private" and "public" place. Which is why even smoking clubs are not allowed to smoke under the legislation. you're as clueless about this as you are about ventilation systems I'm still waiting for your "proof" (ignored the bit where you're shown to be an idiot as usual I see ). Any environment can be ventilated to remove almost anything, this issue is always cost. your cluelessness being the fact anyone in the industry would spend that money on ventilation rather than have a ban and there are a good many pubs where fitting the neccessary false ceilings etc was in fact impossible and you can have smoking clubs under this law, strange if this is actually a private health bill no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 a truth that you handily can't prove And you can "prove" your claim how exact? Oh yes you CANNOT. Ventilation is just a matter of physical, a silly air barrier that doesn't ventilate the room, but tried to make two separate atmospheres it proof of nothing, just that an over engineered "solution" often isn't best one. always was about the workers, whatever you claim Oh really...... here's what the health secretary just said about it: The new Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, welcomed the ban saying that tackling the causes of illnesses saved lives. "A smoke-free country will improve the health of thousands of people, reduce the temptation to smoke and encourage smokers to quit," he added. Yup all about there "workers" that. Anymore ass you want to spew? so why all the intricate separations in the law regarding home/work/public/private etc? I would imagine because they wouldn't want to draft a law that accidentally bans smoking in peoples home, mostly because that would lose them votes and maybe even an election. I admit Labour is notorious for sloppy and creeping legislation, but even they are NOT that sloppy. Or do you think laws are something vague that people have written on the back of a bar mat? why is it hundreds of people can all enjoy a bit of passive smoke until one waiter steps into the room? Again technicality of law and the definition of "private" and "public" place. Which is why even smoking clubs are not allowed to smoke under the legislation. you're as clueless about this as you are about ventilation systems I'm still waiting for your "proof" (ignored the bit where you're shown to be an idiot as usual I see ). Any environment can be ventilated to remove almost anything, this issue is always cost. your cluelessness being the fact anyone in the industry would spend that money on ventilation rather than have a ban They'd be expensive, hard to enforce and police and quite simply wouldn't have the other health benefits they are hoping to achieve with the ban. and there are a good many pubs where fitting the neccessary false ceilings etc was in fact impossible Possibly, although visible ducting would be an option, or even (shock horror) a voluntary no smoking policy! and you can have smoking clubs under this law, strange if this is actually a private health bill no? No you cannot, you can have a group of friends in your own house, but that's not the same thing at all (irrespective of whether staff are involved). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka_From_Viduka 0 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 you actually think there is a safe way to smoke Of course there is (even ignoring general passive smoking ), whether it would be practical or technically smoking is another issue however. I think your credibility ends here It's better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. So are we banning motorbikes or not? why are we banning motorbikes again? your logic is so out there I tend to lose track of your point You were banning them because they don't kill you I think (along with miners who DO kill you). how was I banning motorbikes? it's you that's banning motorbikes. I'm banning smoking in the workplace You are, that explains a lot then. Do you do a nice side line in non-smoking signs? no idea what's going on in your head regarding miners It was your example, don't blame me because it was a stupid one. still waiting for an explanation as to why miners are different to bar staff Much as I'm waiting for an explanation as to why bar staff weren't issued masks if that was the only issue, or indeed why bar staff lives are worth more than miners. Still, of course, ignoring the fact that passive smoking kill next to no one a year. would you be happy to be served by someone in a gas mask? would you be happy to be forced to wear a mask to do the same sort of job that for most other people doesn't have such ridiculous requirements? clearly you have no concept of employment law and I'm pretty sure 'passive smoking' is not a legal cause of death, again if you really insist the only things we ban are things that can kill you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peasepud 59 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 How come both Fop and Parky have bother quoting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka_From_Viduka 0 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 a truth that you handily can't prove And you can "prove" your claim how exact? Oh yes you CANNOT. Ventilation is just a matter of physical, a silly air barrier that doesn't ventilate the room, but tried to make two separate atmospheres it proof of nothing, just that an over engineered "solution" often isn't best one. always was about the workers, whatever you claim Oh really...... here's what the health secretary just said about it: The new Health Secretary, Alan Johnson, welcomed the ban saying that tackling the causes of illnesses saved lives. "A smoke-free country will improve the health of thousands of people, reduce the temptation to smoke and encourage smokers to quit," he added. Yup all about there "workers" that. Anymore ass you want to spew? so why all the intricate separations in the law regarding home/work/public/private etc? I would imagine because they wouldn't want to draft a law that accidentally bans smoking in peoples home, mostly because that would lose them votes and maybe even an election. I admit Labour is notorious for sloppy and creeping legislation, but even they are NOT that sloppy. Or do you think laws are something vague that people have written on the back of a bar mat? why is it hundreds of people can all enjoy a bit of passive smoke until one waiter steps into the room? Again technicality of law and the definition of "private" and "public" place. Which is why even smoking clubs are not allowed to smoke under the legislation. you're as clueless about this as you are about ventilation systems I'm still waiting for your "proof" (ignored the bit where you're shown to be an idiot as usual I see ). Any environment can be ventilated to remove almost anything, this issue is always cost. your cluelessness being the fact anyone in the industry would spend that money on ventilation rather than have a ban They'd be expensive, hard to enforce and police and quite simply wouldn't have the other health benefits they are hoping to achieve with the ban. and there are a good many pubs where fitting the neccessary false ceilings etc was in fact impossible Possibly, although visible ducting would be an option, or even (shock horror) a voluntary no smoking policy! and you can have smoking clubs under this law, strange if this is actually a private health bill no? No you cannot, you can have a group of friends in your own house, but that's not the same thing at all (irrespective of whether staff are involved). you can gather as many people as you want and call it a smoking club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 How come both Fop and Parky have bother quoting? Macs? They're not the same person though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka_From_Viduka 0 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I've asked a couple of times what Alex is on about and got no reply. If anyone else wants to explain, go for it please I think you're Vic. Victoria Beckham? Queen Victoria? Viceroy of India? throw me a bone here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I've asked a couple of times what Alex is on about and got no reply. If anyone else wants to explain, go for it please I think you're Vic. Victoria Beckham? Queen Victoria? Viceroy of India? throw me a bone here If you aren't and you don't understand forget it. If you are however... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 26328 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I think an IP check is required. Was SSH banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I think an IP check is required. Was SSH banned? Summer hols, different IP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34443 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Not even in question IMO. It's so obviously Vic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I've asked a couple of times what Alex is on about and got no reply. If anyone else wants to explain, go for it please I think you're Vic. Victoria Beckham? Queen Victoria? Viceroy of India? throw me a bone here The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka_From_Viduka 0 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I don't even know what I'm protesting against tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 I don't even know what I'm protesting against tbh Funny smells, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now