Bazooka_From_Viduka

you said people go to Tescos to shop and go to pubs to relax I can't see how that excuses discrimination in who gets to work where tbh There's no discrimination in who gets to work there, just a difference in who might want to work there err. that's discrimination.... no-one willingly wants to passive smoke, and it's a risk that has nothing to do with the job why should some jobs expose workers and some shouldn't? It's got nothing to do with job conditions Just get smokers to smoke in smoky pubs. presumably you meant work, and again, that's discrimination i'm afraid I'd be all for it if you consequently got rid of every other piece of daft discrimination/rights/equality/safety legislation, but that's never going to happen is it, so pubs should be no exception just to satiate lazy smokers, who believe it or not are now the minority

you said people go to Tescos to shop and go to pubs to relax I can't see how that excuses discrimination in who gets to work where tbh There's no discrimination in who gets to work there, just a difference in who might want to work there err. that's discrimination.... no-one willingly wants to passive smoke, and it's a risk that has nothing to do with the job why should some jobs expose workers and some shouldn't? It's got nothing to do with job conditions

are you kidding? he was a fucking idiot, reckoned he could play the game, what a twat

you said people go to Tescos to shop and go to pubs to relax I can't see how that excuses discrimination in who gets to work where tbh

People don't go to Tesco to relax and have a good time, they go there to shop, people do go to the pub to have a smoke and a drink, it's socially accepted. it's a job involving exposure to people who might smoke, there's no difference from an employment perspective and as for socially acceptable, don't make me laugh, you're living in the fifties Every job exposes you to people who might smoke, there's a difference between where it is and isn't socially acceptable. what's so special about these other places then? why isn't it acceptable to smoke in Tescos? Are you telling me that it's socially unacceptable to smoke in a bar? I've never seen anyone get shit for having a cigarette in a pub. did you ever actually count the amount of smokers and non-smokers in a pub recently? I would say it was becoming increasingly unnacceptable by the day, irrespective of the ban coming in or not

we should just poach Sammy Lee aswell, just to be safe

People don't go to Tesco to relax and have a good time, they go there to shop, people do go to the pub to have a smoke and a drink, it's socially accepted. it's a job involving exposure to people who might smoke, there's no difference from an employment perspective and as for socially acceptable, don't make me laugh, you're living in the fifties

If I want to be a City trader I know that long hours and high levels of stress are involved, this could impact on my health, life and relationships but again these risks are well known so if I went into that line of work I accept these risks. Police face the chance of being killed or injured, body protection and guns for all the police would reduce the risk yet aren't issued. Soldiers face the risk of being blown up in road side bombs yet aren't all supplied with bomb-proof vehicles. Passive smoking is an occupational hazard, if you don't like it then don't work in a bar, as I have said, there are plenty of alternative jobs. I'm sorry, but as your examples show, this is a really weak argument I ask again, why do you think someone applying to stack shelves in Tescos doesn't have to put up with passive smoking? He'd be long dead from the slippery floors shirley? collapsed from the fumes in the car park no doubt

Al Qaeda obviously plan to attack us while our guard is down, as we laugh at their incompetent minions

If I want to be a City trader I know that long hours and high levels of stress are involved, this could impact on my health, life and relationships but again these risks are well known so if I went into that line of work I accept these risks. Police face the chance of being killed or injured, body protection and guns for all the police would reduce the risk yet aren't issued. Soldiers face the risk of being blown up in road side bombs yet aren't all supplied with bomb-proof vehicles. Passive smoking is an occupational hazard, if you don't like it then don't work in a bar, as I have said, there are plenty of alternative jobs. I'm sorry, but as your examples show, this is a really weak argument I ask again, why do you think someone applying to stack shelves in Tescos doesn't have to put up with passive smoking?

Well that's the way it has been for as long as pubs and tobacco has been around, as I said there are plenty of jobs with risks involved, no one has the right to have their 100% ideal job. As I already said, if there was such a demand for smoke-free bars then this would have been corrected by the free market and there would be more of them around. what are these other jobs where the risk is not related to the job at hand and nothing is done to reduce it?

As I said in my last post, it's part and parcel of the job. If they don't like it then don't work in a bar, it's not fucking rocket science. People talk of bar work as if it's impossible to find another job in different conditions. pulling pints and cleaning tables is part and parcel of the job, inhaling smoke isn't why exactly do you think you don't have to put up with smoke if you work in Tescos or an office? it's not rocket science

Well why can't they find a job in a supermarket, restaurant or any other sort of non-smokey environment, working in a bar is hardly a vocation. why should they?

11th, never in it at all crap tip

this race is about to happen on channel 4

They accept that it is a risk of the job, or at least should do. Of course they take precautions to avoid injury but shouldn't they go further to eliminate the risk? Full body armour at all times, bomb proof vehicles at all times etc etc, there is much that can be done to reduce risk of injury or illness in all jobs but many of the solutions are impractical but because the smoking ban doesn't put any of the inconvenience or cost on the government they think it's ok. why don't they go further? because it would make their jobs impossible. Does banning smoking make being a bar maid impossible? no

I've heard they are banning, fires, bullets and wars soon tbh. are they? goody goody

No it wasn't and no it is not. Any more or less unworkable than a ban? Nope not at all, much less (although again this is NOT the reason). Again lots of ventilation and gas masks if needed. Air curtains were the most unpractical "solution" of all, talk about trying to over engineer a solution failing and saying it's therefore impossible (although again this really has little to do with the smoking ban). you're rewriting history tbh and yes, I think you'll find a ban is eminently more workable than the alternatives, as already seen in Ireland, Scotland and a whole host of other countries

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 Every risk is essentially reducible. This is the sort of shit that has meant firemen can't go up ladders over a certain height. If you don't want the risk of dying in a burning building then don't join the fire brigade, if you don't fancy being shot at then don't join the army and if you don't want to accept the increased risk of smoke related problems then don't work in a bar. It's pretty fucking simple. ridiculous comparisons. I think you'll find that firemen and soldiers go to extraordinary lengths to avoid getting burnt/shot. They don't just accept it is going to happen because that's the job they signed up to do

Ok ignoring the fact that this is patent rubbish and that the whole thing was pushed on the premise of passive smoking. Assuming it was JUST to do with bar staff and they couldn't fit ventilation to negate it (they could mind). Why not just ban it from non-smoking parts, but allow sealed indoor smoking areas with mandatory high ventilation? Actually an air curtain would be fairly irrelevant with enough through ventilation. But hell they could have made them wear gas masks really, like where hard hats for going up a 1 m ladder. Although again this is by the by to what I'm talking about. it was about passive smoking of workers, they are the same thing. smoking rooms were rejected on the basis they again were unworkable, and workers would still have to enter these rooms and air curtains were tried as an alternative to impractical air conditioning systems

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

Neither have you it seems. once again, what the fuck are you on about? The scare stories and lies tactics of the smoking ban and anti-smoking lobby regarding passive smoke (I would have though you've have realised this by now). what the fuck are you on about regarding "Neither have you it seems." That you seem to have little the fuck (just thought I'd better add that to fit in) idea about what you've said (although I suspect no one does ). how is that then? do you actually have an explanation or just more generalisms?

Bar staff have to put up with smoky conditions? Well there's a shock, I bet they didn't expect that when they took the job. If they don't like it then they should fuck off and get a different job. Though in saying that I am all for no smoking at the bar where practical. can't do that see, discrimination I think you'd be hard pushed to find someone who would willingly work in a smoky environment over an alternative job kind of like the whinging miners is it? got emphesema? you should fuck off and get a different job son So they are going to ban mining now are they? (or perhaps just have already taken the needed precautions to avoid it) pretty sure they banned the idea that the miners should just put up with it because it comes with the job, yes Which is NOT the same thing at all is it? Much like most of what you seem to say in fact. how is it not the same? Because one is removing a negative effect for specific workers by protective measures, the other is a blanket ban that really has little to do with it. Again that's not the same thing as what we are (or at least I am) talking about and again there are many better ways to remove such a risk than a blanket ban, not that that is what the ban is really about however. It's just the only 3rd party justification that vaguely holds water (unless you install decent air con). the ban was always about workers, really can't see how you don't know that. It only came down to pub workers in the end because every other workplace has had the common sense to ban it already as I've already said, ventilation was dismissed by all parties, even punters. Have you ever been in one of those pubs that actually tried to install an air curtain? completely shit and unpopular with everyone

TV deal money

Neither have you it seems. once again, what the fuck are you on about? The scare stories and lies tactics of the smoking ban and anti-smoking lobby regarding passive smoke (I would have though you've have realised this by now). what the fuck are you on about regarding "Neither have you it seems."