Park Life

I'm all alone - DMX crew. Cylob remix.

With these attacks they are spoiling us.

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?

People love a new law these days it seems. Babylon?

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. Selfish people built the world.

Another possible attack? Another al keeda attack foiled. You Al Kidder me surely?

Eluvium The Field Fujiya & Miyagi Matthew Dear Digitalism add to that... Air Lemongrass Thievery Corp. Ben Othman

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?

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 not really me (so who is the moron again? ) Does unknowingly living in a radon filled area have any benefits? Well to anyone but the council in council tax? Same with alcohol really, it not only is bad for you, but it also massively increases your risk of others attacking you (its a known factor in a VAST amount of crime these days). BAN IT NOW I SAY!!! AGREE!! Lost days at work. Mental illness...families sufferring. Alcoholism rife in Scotland...Burden on the state and welfare...yada yada..

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.

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. Some sanity at last.

Make it simple. What is the increased rate of cancer for a smoker as against a non-smoker?

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. I dunno there were pressurized gas canisters as well, and they do go off not just like a bomb, but AS a bomb. In fact they are basically a bomb you can buy, the trick is getting them to go off (which is probably where the other stuff comes in), This is a laugh... http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/29/11274/0754 You know what you call a vehicle with 50 gallons of gas? A Cadillac Escalade. The media meltdown over this incident is simply shameful. For starters, gasoline is not a high explosive. If we were talking 50 pounds of Semtex or the Al Qaeda standby, TATP, I would be impressed. Those are real high explosives with a detonation rate in excess of 20,000 feet per second. Gasoline can explode (just ask former owners of a Ford Pinto) but it is first and foremost an incediary. If the initial reports are true, the clown driving the Mercedes was a rank amateur when it comes to constructing an Improvised Explosive Device aka IED. Unlike a Hollywood flick the 50 gallons of gas would not have shredded the Mercedes into lethal chunks of flying shrapenal. The fact that "officers courageously disabled the trigger by hand" coupled with the report of the smoke in the car leads me to believe that the mad London "bomber" tried to construct a Molotov cocktail of sorts and lit a cloth fuze. Fortunately he left the windows in the car up and there was not enough oxygen to really get the fire going. Looks like the brave British police reached in and snuffed the flame. Judging from the overreaction to this non-incident I think we can safely conclude that Osama Bin Laden will remain holed up in Pakistan and let the fear mongers at CNN, MSNBC, and FOX do the dirty business of scaring the shit out of people."

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 It's about workers....Hilarious.

I love the way that these discussions always go, the two people who have actually been brainwashed by the "conspiracy brigade" are the ones that then accuse the rest of it. It doesnt take a genius or a doctor to see that putting carcinogenic chemicals into an enclosed space is not good for anyone in that room. To see the effects go into any pub and look at the walls. If it can do that to paintwork then I dread to imagine lungs. I dont ever want to see a picture of my lungs seeing as Im an ex smoker, if however I had never smoked one in my life and then found they were fucked I wouldnt be very chuffed to say the least. That's almost a rant....Must try harder. If you're worried about carcinogens I suggest you stop living. You're surronded by them unless you live in Hawai. Run Fop!! We've run into a clique of interior decorators, clothes horses and beauticians.

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.