Kevin Carr's Gloves

What not even a little bit of sting anywhere?

It looks brilliant. After the the trailer for it had finished when we went to see Shrek, you could hear our friend Emily say: "I'll bet Tom wants to see that." The wife turned to me and said you can find someone else to go see it with. Now all I need is an 18 year old with big jugs who likes transformers.

So we can drip anything else in there then? as long as it doesnt sting like sweat does. It does sting. Let us just say an aquaintance of mine got a right blast in her left eye and had to go to the eye infirmary it was hurting so much. WOre a patch for a week. I know it's bad of me but I pissed myself laughing whenever I saw her.

So we can drip anything else in there then?

Sheffield Utd. This pisses all over the premier leagues argument that it was all sorted out. Blatant lying hoping Tevez would stay at WHU.

Took Mrs and Miss hips to see Shrek 3. What a load of absolute shite. I slept through most of it, it was that bad. 1/10 on the hips scale. The trailers look dreadful. Bad sign. Saw it this afternoon. It's absolute turd. I loved the first one, enjoyed the second, but this one just wasn't funny in the slightest. What's worse is it's a U, so there were loads of kids running along the aisles and people chatting. Cunts. Isn't that the only reason you got in now you're beardless.

Wont let her take me with a strap on but thats pretty much it. Variety is the spice of life.

and asking you to find someone for them Anyone else think SMO looks like Disco Stu? never seen his face but in my imagination...yes What you doing up at this time. You not got a man to go to? funnily enough he was on night shift ... The fleet in again?

A couple of people on here would rather we had Van Der Valk.

Organise prisoner movements across Scotland and escorts for Prisoners in hospital.

This week I am mostly wearing penguin attire. That's the brand not a tux. Also bought my first wife beater today.

and asking you to find someone for them Anyone else think SMO looks like Disco Stu? never seen his face but in my imagination...yes What you doing up at this time. You not got a man to go to?

and asking you to find someone for them Anyone else think SMO looks like Disco Stu?

8 tonight 10 tomorrow and 12 Saturday. Then off to Turkey Monday woohoo!

Die hard 4.0. Quite good enjoyable actually. As soon as I saw Kevin Smith's name and realised the plot I knew exactly what kind of character he would play.

3 nights anyone with insomnia feel free to let me know.

But these pubs were popular. Also the reaction of the smoking NAZI's would put anyone off. And lastly if you live in Ireland what has it got to do with you? Actually I'm kinda interested in whether a kinda reverse gas mask (which you could smoking inside but nothing got out) would be legal. And if not why not? Patent one.

But these pubs were popular. Also the reaction of the smoking NAZI's would put anyone off. And lastly if you live in Ireland what has it got to do with you?

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. ....that's cause you know cars are worse right? I want all cars to be powered by a non polluting fuel. I also want public transport to be improved so it is a more viable option. I also would like the introduction of real enforced cycle routes to stop cyclists being nearly killed by idiot drivers. If you looked at the thread start you would see that the thread is about smokers who believe the ban is an infringement of their rights without taking into account the rights of others. Thus enforcing my personal opinion that some smokers are the most selfish people in the world.

What about alcohol? People are attacked because of people under the influence, families can be torn apart because of alcoholism, the NHS spends millions each year on alcohol related illnesses, so let's ban it too. While we're at it why not ban chocolate, crisps and fried food, it would certainly help with the obesity problem. Where do we stop? Yeah but more importantly does any of it makes yer clothes smell? Again a moronic comparison they aren't banning smoking just in certain places. The same as alcohol is banned in certain places. You should really think before you type.

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.