Bazooka_From_Viduka

and Fop, to break you out of your paradox, since you claim passive smoking is harmless, please explain this report: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups.../dh_4101475.pdf I suspect you will dismiss it, but this is the evidence that MP's took a free vote on, so these are the facts you need to refute if you want to retain even the slightest piece of dignity in this thread

In the first few pages. Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything. I don't see it Ah that'd be the £10,000-£20,000 for blindness then (and pray for the masturbation ban ASAP). fine, I don't really care. you've proven time and again incapable of holding a logical argument or even answering basic points, seemingly intent rather to act like a complete tosser Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then , and everyone has to make the most of it before the ban. you havent answered a single point from me, you've just come back with random wierd references *rolls back time* Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then you're only proving my point really

the problem is, you think you're making a point by being sarcastic and convoluted, when you actually forget to include any facts or examples to back yourself up

In the first few pages. Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything. I don't see it Ah that'd be the £10,000-£20,000 for blindness then (and pray for the masturbation ban ASAP). fine, I don't really care. you've proven time and again incapable of holding a logical argument or even answering basic points, seemingly intent rather to act like a complete tosser Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then , and everyone has to make the most of it before the ban. you havent answered a single point from me, you've just come back with random wierd references

In the first few pages. Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything. I don't see it Ah that'd be the £10,000-£20,000 for blindness then (and pray for the masturbation ban ASAP). fine, I don't really care. you've proven time and again incapable of holding a logical argument or even answering basic points, seemingly intent rather to act like a complete tosser

In the first few pages. Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything. I don't see it

Again I do, you just don't seem to know what I am talking about (no great surprise though perhaps). find me the relevant passage that bans private smoking clubs then Find me the relevant passage that exempts them first and I will.... oh wait. no exemption required it's the whole point of the bill No exemption exists, although it would have done under the original proposed ban. Out of interest why was it only food serving pubs then in the first place? (before the scare and lies got into it) and not non-food pubs and private members club? Or do they just not count like miners and motorcyclists (and the senile and blind?) once again you lose me with your irrelevant throwbacks to long gone references. seriously, what have the miners got to do with this point? I'm expecting you to just say, it's your point and a stupid smiley, but you've seriously lost me tbh I'm beginning to think you have something again miners tbh. More by accident (and propaganda) than design. Not what I'm talking about. Still not quite. Actually what I insist is that second hand smoke is a non-issue, but you agreed with me on that ages ago. where did I do that then?

Again I do, you just don't seem to know what I am talking about (no great surprise though perhaps). find me the relevant passage that bans private smoking clubs then Find me the relevant passage that exempts them first and I will.... oh wait. no exemption required it's the whole point of the bill No exemption exists, although it would have done under the original proposed ban. Out of interest why was it only food serving pubs then in the first place? (before the scare and lies got into it) and not non-food pubs and private members club? Or do they just not count like miners and motorcyclists (and the senile and blind?) once again you lose me with your irrelevant throwbacks to long gone references. seriously, what have the miners got to do with this point? I'm expecting you to just say, it's your point and a stupid smiley, but you've seriously lost me tbh the excemption was for working mens clubs, which have STAFF, so again, what's your point? how is the fact that wmc's were eventually included make this a bill not about workers? go and gather a group of smokers together and call yourselves a club. perfectly legal have an employee present, illegal but you still insist this bill is not about worker protection?

channel 4 now, all about the history of smoking and the media hilarious some of the absolute crap peddled about smoking by the tobacco companies, and the government is being accused of being sneaky?

Again I do, you just don't seem to know what I am talking about (no great surprise though perhaps). find me the relevant passage that bans private smoking clubs then Find me the relevant passage that exempts them first and I will.... oh wait. no exemption required it's the whole point of the bill but that would make it a bill protecting workers and not an anti smoking human rights issue wouldn't it, so that can't be right surely.....

Again I do, you just don't seem to know what I am talking about (no great surprise though perhaps). find me the relevant passage that bans private smoking clubs then

Aye it's fine if you go blind or go senile if it costs "too much" money. Just so long as it doesn't cost too much treating smokers, eh? I thought we made more money out of smokers than we spent? do you have a clue what the costs of all these applications are or was this a daft off topic post for the hell of it?

Funny smells, I think. discrimination in the workplace actually Hehe yes, now that every other "argument" has been shot down in flames you seem to have settled on that (except for miners for which "discrimination" is clearly fine you believe ). Via the revolution, the workers should not be stinky!!! Again, nope. Not unless it's simply a group of people in someones house, there could have been an exemption but they rejected it IIRC. what other definition have you got for a smokers club then? You must have lead a sheltered life if you don't know what I'm talking about. A personal private party in ones own home, yes. But that isn't what I'm talking about. Nope even in premises owned by said club. Yes that'd be why your comment after my first comment would be: Dissemble all you like, we both know your crusade ain't about workplace discrimination. christ you don't even know the law that you are arguing about I suggest you go read it, a private smoking club is perfectly legal

I still want to know what this 3 weeks has to do with it

considering a nearby sewage plant flooded, I would think there is a high likelihood that lake contains a few turds

got any figures for the amount of money it would cost if NICE approved every single drug that has been appearing in stories from 'campaigners'?

Aye, it's a shame we didn't go for Henry when we had the chance....! for £16.5m he would have been a steal looking at the market today

Funny smells, I think. discrimination in the workplace actually Hehe yes, now that every other "argument" has been shot down in flames you seem to have settled on that (except for miners for which "discrimination" is clearly fine you believe ). Via the revolution, the workers should not be stinky!!! Again, nope. Not unless it's simply a group of people in someones house, there could have been an exemption but they rejected it IIRC. what other definition have you got for a smokers club then? I think you'll find a private party for smokers is perfectly legal. Anything that precludes say hiring a hall for a 'smoking club', will be down to pre-existing bans by the establishment in question, and not the nasty government and I haven't 'settled' on discrimination, it's been the whole point since the start, go back and re-read

Funny smells, I think. discrimination in the workplace actually any progress on researching 'smoking clubs' yet? perfectly legal, despite the nasty government and their wicked sneaky ways

I don't even know what I'm protesting against tbh

That bit was probably more important in what Mozza was trying to get across. My main grind with the media and its nothing to do with coverage of some nutters trying to ram buildings with gas cannisters or whatever...Is the way they manage month after month to avoid talking about the real issues that face us as a country. And having studied it in the past how this agenda is unfolded purposefully to keep us distracted and worried. Which is what? little green men? Sorry thought you were actually interested in proper ans... I am very interested to know what is a bigger issue to this country than lunatics driving carbombs round the streets. Clearly right at this moment it is deservedly making headlines (if a little hysterical) and it would be churlish to try and critique this. Part of the bigger issue is how it is reported and how the debate flows later. There has been a habit since 7/7 to deliver on the hoof journalism regarding terrorism, that has often imo failed to delianate truth from fiction and there seems little desire to develop the debate beyond 'the enemy within' format and 'links with al quaida' more spurious the better. In many ways the U.K. is at a crossroads regarding race/identity and also how the EU will develop (this also carries with it issues reg Turkey's entry). Profiling of the 'home grown' terrorists and developing a dialogue with the Muslim community and the interchange of ideas that comes with that ought to be at the forefront yet is strangely missing from vast sections of the reporting. From the commons report what we now know is that there is no consistant profile of British terrorists. They are from a wide range of backgrounds and even in some cases ethnicity iirc Kamel Bourgass had one Afro Caribbean parent. The debate would be better developed by the media in looking at the triggers and root causes of this new danger to our culture. IMO the continued 'them and us' style reporting is missing the key point - one where we need to address the grievances (Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon etc) and further needs to be done to understand the inner workings of this new 'militant identity' of young British Muslims. Practical counter-terrorism has always been prevention and that is facilitated by understanding the behaviour and also as mi5 have been quite successful in doing - infiltration. The ideation of successful dismantling of this nub of danger (and it is and still remains a tiny minority) will reauire the full understanding of why British muslims are identifying with this wider cause and we also at the same time need to take the British public along with the debate, because if WE aren't all along for the ride the alienation and ghettoism and misunderstanding continues. The dabate still continues regarding the foreign policy blunders, but now we really need to understand what has driven people who we live with and have done peacefully for many years to have turned on us. New Labour have been very good at steering the focus and debate away from own goals and also criminally simplifying the links with terrorism and id cards for one. And have continued to lie with reagard to how id cards will be used in the future. There are some topics that politicians love to brief journalist on, often the 'do something about it' kind. Cause the sure as hell don't want to dwell on the fact that the pensions is fucked, energy will be fucked in the next decade and that Britain has the highest amount of personal debt on the planet. Far easier to brief and agenda set on banning smoking, building a couple of schools, or the 'War on Terrah'. Peace. I expect to see as much effort from government/society going into understanding extremism as there is into understanding the causes of crime, addiction, charverism, rising house prices etc etc i.e. fuck all

I think you're Vic. Victoria Beckham? Queen Victoria? Viceroy of India? throw me a bone here

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. 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. 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? 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. 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. Possibly, although visible ducting would be an option, or even (shock horror) a voluntary no smoking policy! 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

Of course there is (even ignoring general passive smoking ), whether it would be practical or technically smoking is another issue however. 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? 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

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. 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. 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? 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. 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?