Cigarettes must be hidden away

Swindon Advertiser: Shopkeeper Osman Khan, of Wyvern News , is against the change in legislation Shopkeeper Osman Khan, of Wyvern News , is against the change in legislation

REMOVING tobacco from supermarket shelves under new laws has not gone down well with traders and customers.

A week ago, all large shops in the country were forced to cover up cigarettes and tobacco products from public view after evidence showed that cigarette displays in shops can encourage young people to start smoking.

The Government believes covering them will help young people resist the temptation to start smoking. It is also hoped it will help adults who are trying to quit.

But around Swindon, smokers and non-smokers, shopkeepers and customers are feeling less confident.

Osman Khan is manager of Wyvern News, one of the many smaller shops which have to implement the changes in April 2015.

He said: “It is all a farce as far as I am concerned.

“If the Government wants people to stop smoking it has to stop tobacco being sold in to the country full stop. If they did that, I would agree with it. I think any retailer would stop selling them if they could, but it gets the customers in and buying other items.

“The Government makes 80 per cent profit on cigarettes but the retailers only make as little as three to six per cent. It is the most expensive investment in the shop but brings in the least amount of profit.

“As long as people know the cigarettes are behind the shutters or under the till they will still buy them.”

He added: “The biggest profit-maker for us is the e-cigarettes, which are flying off the shelves because the prices of normal cigarettes are going up and up so people are looking for a cheaper alternative. They are much healthier, so you can’t blame them.”

Smoker Brian Hutchens, 49, of Eldene, also felt the new rules would have little impact.

“If people want to smoke, they will continue to smoke regardless of whether the cigarettes can be seen or not,” he said.

“Younger people still know they can buy the cigarettes so they will keep buying them. It may have an impact a few years down the line but it certainly won’t change things for the time being.”

Cherry Jones, deputy director of public health at NHS Swindon, said: “Evidence shows that cigarette displays in shops can encourage young people to start smoking, whilst removing them reduces their overall visibility in people’s lives. Most adult smokers started smoking as teenagers and anything that can help reduce the number of young people starting to smoke will have a positive impact on the nation’s health and wellbeing.”

Comments (167)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:18am Fri 13 Apr 12

PaulD says...

People who make money from cigarettes and the addicts that use them upset at the slight inconvenience they now face in order to help save lives amongst the young shocker!

That is how I read this story.


“Younger people still know they can buy the cigarettes so they will keep buying them. It may have an impact a few years down the line but it certainly won’t change things for the time being.” - What a pillock. Isn't that the point? Shows what effect smoking has on the brain.
People who make money from cigarettes and the addicts that use them upset at the slight inconvenience they now face in order to help save lives amongst the young shocker! That is how I read this story. “Younger people still know they can buy the cigarettes so they will keep buying them. It may have an impact a few years down the line but it certainly won’t change things for the time being.” - What a pillock. Isn't that the point? Shows what effect smoking has on the brain. PaulD

9:29am Fri 13 Apr 12

dc the 2nd says...

Now i've heard the views of the emminant smoker Brian Hutchens of Eldene, 49, i feel enlightened on the key points.

Thanks SA for doing the hard yards on this one.
Now i've heard the views of the emminant smoker Brian Hutchens of Eldene, 49, i feel enlightened on the key points. Thanks SA for doing the hard yards on this one. dc the 2nd

9:33am Fri 13 Apr 12

Robfm says...

PaulD I would simply ask Cherry Jones to come to this forum and produce one peer reviewed study that confirms that display bans reduce teenage smoking. The whole point about the smoking ban was to reduce smoking, it hasn't, it has gone up.

This ban was introduced under yet more force data from ASH/CRUK/BHL/BFL.

However in another ironic move the DoH is now consulting on blank packaging. I say ironic for two reasons, 1. In this 'open and transparent' (Lansley's words) consultation only anti smoking groups are to be consulted, the tobacco companies being explicitly excluded. 2. If you are hiding the packets, what's the point.

As the shop keeper said, if this were truly about health HMG would say, 's*d' the consequences to the economy, peoples health is more important. Ban tobacco and put 5p on income tax. But we know that's never going to happen. It is the height of hypocrisy.
PaulD I would simply ask Cherry Jones to come to this forum and produce one peer reviewed study that confirms that display bans reduce teenage smoking. The whole point about the smoking ban was to reduce smoking, it hasn't, it has gone up. This ban was introduced under yet more force data from ASH/CRUK/BHL/BFL. However in another ironic move the DoH is now consulting on blank packaging. I say ironic for two reasons, 1. In this 'open and transparent' (Lansley's words) consultation only anti smoking groups are to be consulted, the tobacco companies being explicitly excluded. 2. If you are hiding the packets, what's the point. As the shop keeper said, if this were truly about health HMG would say, 's*d' the consequences to the economy, peoples health is more important. Ban tobacco and put 5p on income tax. But we know that's never going to happen. It is the height of hypocrisy. Robfm

9:38am Fri 13 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Should have been false of course.
Should have been false of course. Robfm

9:38am Fri 13 Apr 12

PaulD says...

I'd love to see tobacco banned Bob. Yesterday, I saw a set of young parents (approx 20 years old) breathing smoke into the face of a baby in a pram.

It's for the sake of that baby and the millions yet to be born that we must do what we can to protect them from this kind of abuse inflicted upon them by the idiot smokers in society.

I couldn't give a toss about current smokers, regardless of their age. It is already too late for them.
I'd love to see tobacco banned Bob. Yesterday, I saw a set of young parents (approx 20 years old) breathing smoke into the face of a baby in a pram. It's for the sake of that baby and the millions yet to be born that we must do what we can to protect them from this kind of abuse inflicted upon them by the idiot smokers in society. I couldn't give a toss about current smokers, regardless of their age. It is already too late for them. PaulD

9:41am Fri 13 Apr 12

dc the 2nd says...

ok lets turn it on its head bob, if displays have minimal effect on smoking rates and things like brand recognition (teenage people or otherwise) then why did tobacco producers bother advertising and promoting in shop displays?
ok lets turn it on its head bob, if displays have minimal effect on smoking rates and things like brand recognition (teenage people or otherwise) then why did tobacco producers bother advertising and promoting in shop displays? dc the 2nd

9:50am Fri 13 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Because people tend to brand shift, not stop smoking if they are all plain or hidden people stick to their 'standard' brand.

Now there is research on that aspect of packaging by marketing companies.
Because people tend to brand shift, not stop smoking if they are all plain or hidden people stick to their 'standard' brand. Now there is research on that aspect of packaging by marketing companies. Robfm

9:56am Fri 13 Apr 12

dc the 2nd says...

right.......good on you for believing that.
right.......good on you for believing that. dc the 2nd

10:16am Fri 13 Apr 12

Robfm says...

dc, you can think what you like, why do supermarkets put sweets at check outs, because the children pester for them, no matter what type they are.

Perhaps they should be behind blank shutters.
dc, you can think what you like, why do supermarkets put sweets at check outs, because the children pester for them, no matter what type they are. Perhaps they should be behind blank shutters. Robfm

10:16am Fri 13 Apr 12

I 2 Could B says...

Their parents' smoking is the amongst the very least of the concerns and problems facing most young children of parents these days.
Their parents' smoking is the amongst the very least of the concerns and problems facing most young children of parents these days. I 2 Could B

10:19am Fri 13 Apr 12

SockPuppet says...

“If the Government wants people to stop smoking it has to stop tobacco being sold in to the country full stop."

As a nicotine addict myself I agree, and yes I should give up but its available and I am obviously weak of will.

The government should find how to replace the income generated from cigarettes and then ban them outright!
“If the Government wants people to stop smoking it has to stop tobacco being sold in to the country full stop." As a nicotine addict myself I agree, and yes I should give up but its available and I am obviously weak of will. The government should find how to replace the income generated from cigarettes and then ban them outright! SockPuppet

10:35am Fri 13 Apr 12

Robfm says...

SocketPuppet, an honest comment. What if they banned tobacco products and increased income tax by 5p do you think the self righteous would be quite so keen to ban tobacco when it hit their pockets.

At the moment about 14 million people pay about 5 times the amount of tax as the average non smoker. That would need to be made up.
SocketPuppet, an honest comment. What if they banned tobacco products and increased income tax by 5p do you think the self righteous would be quite so keen to ban tobacco when it hit their pockets. At the moment about 14 million people pay about 5 times the amount of tax as the average non smoker. That would need to be made up. Robfm

10:48am Fri 13 Apr 12

PaulD says...

can't help thinking that if tobacco was banned, that the health of many many thousands of people would improve and take them off a variety of benefits as they get their energy and drive back. It wouldn't be immediate but it would happen eventually
can't help thinking that if tobacco was banned, that the health of many many thousands of people would improve and take them off a variety of benefits as they get their energy and drive back. It wouldn't be immediate but it would happen eventually PaulD

11:07am Fri 13 Apr 12

Robfm says...

PaulD again that is another of those 'what might be'. There really is no way of knowing how many smokers are on benefits because problems with health caused by smoking.

Let's face it not even the most rabid anti smoker could possibly believe the effects of smoking has resulted in a debilitating illness in an 18 to 25 year old to a degree that they are unable to work.
PaulD again that is another of those 'what might be'. There really is no way of knowing how many smokers are on benefits because problems with health caused by smoking. Let's face it not even the most rabid anti smoker could possibly believe the effects of smoking has resulted in a debilitating illness in an 18 to 25 year old to a degree that they are unable to work. Robfm

11:09am Fri 13 Apr 12

dc the 2nd says...

Robfm wrote:
SocketPuppet, an honest comment. What if they banned tobacco products and increased income tax by 5p do you think the self righteous would be quite so keen to ban tobacco when it hit their pockets.

At the moment about 14 million people pay about 5 times the amount of tax as the average non smoker. That would need to be made up.
do you mean 5p in the pound? where is that from?
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: SocketPuppet, an honest comment. What if they banned tobacco products and increased income tax by 5p do you think the self righteous would be quite so keen to ban tobacco when it hit their pockets. At the moment about 14 million people pay about 5 times the amount of tax as the average non smoker. That would need to be made up.[/p][/quote]do you mean 5p in the pound? where is that from? dc the 2nd

11:31am Fri 13 Apr 12

dc the 2nd says...

i have total tax from cigarettes at 11.1billion and total income tax 147.9 billion from a quick google search, without any detailed maths i can see that raising another 11.1 billion isnt going to means a 5p in the pound income tax raise?
i have total tax from cigarettes at 11.1billion and total income tax 147.9 billion from a quick google search, without any detailed maths i can see that raising another 11.1 billion isnt going to means a 5p in the pound income tax raise? dc the 2nd

11:33am Fri 13 Apr 12

dc the 2nd says...

dc the 2nd wrote:
i have total tax from cigarettes at 11.1billion and total income tax 147.9 billion from a quick google search, without any detailed maths i can see that raising another 11.1 billion isnt going to means a 5p in the pound income tax raise?
no wait i think i have that totally wrong! help....
[quote][p][bold]dc the 2nd[/bold] wrote: i have total tax from cigarettes at 11.1billion and total income tax 147.9 billion from a quick google search, without any detailed maths i can see that raising another 11.1 billion isnt going to means a 5p in the pound income tax raise?[/p][/quote]no wait i think i have that totally wrong! help.... dc the 2nd

11:56am Fri 13 Apr 12

Robh says...

It is all a load of tripe anyway. How can anyone say that the display of cigarettes promotes smoking? Who has done the research? how accurate is it? I belive it is all theoretical just like everything that is said by anti smokers.
It is all a load of tripe anyway. How can anyone say that the display of cigarettes promotes smoking? Who has done the research? how accurate is it? I belive it is all theoretical just like everything that is said by anti smokers. Robh

12:09pm Fri 13 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Ban drinking--imagine all the lives that will save.
Ban drinking--imagine all the lives that will save. itsamess

12:09pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

The actual costs of smoking to society are estimated to be £13.7 billion so £11.1 billion in tax revenue doesn't even offset the costs. It comes up £2.6 billion short.

If you extrapolate out immediate benefit vs longer term benefits of a ban of tobacco sales against the loss in tobacco tax revenue and the deficit that isn't paid for by tobacco tax, the net result is almost break even with residual costs diminishing over time as the state of health of former smokers improves and/or the numbers of people with smoking related health problems diminishes.

It's much less one-sided monologue when all the numbers are present.
The actual costs of smoking to society are estimated to be £13.7 billion so £11.1 billion in tax revenue doesn't even offset the costs. It comes up £2.6 billion short. If you extrapolate out immediate benefit vs longer term benefits of a ban of tobacco sales against the loss in tobacco tax revenue and the deficit that isn't paid for by tobacco tax, the net result is almost break even with residual costs diminishing over time as the state of health of former smokers improves and/or the numbers of people with smoking related health problems diminishes. It's much less one-sided monologue when all the numbers are present. Gestiblindus

12:11pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Robh that's exactly the point there is no science to back it up, except that written on the back of a fag packet.

dc each smoker based on your figures pays about £800 cigarette tax.
Robh that's exactly the point there is no science to back it up, except that written on the back of a fag packet. dc each smoker based on your figures pays about £800 cigarette tax. Robfm

12:21pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Robh says...

I just heard a woman on the radio state that cigarette companies were making cigarette packets shiny and attractive to attract children. This is typical of the mis-information being spouted as fact without any proof what so ever.

There seem to be so many 'facts' that have no grounding at all. they are just opinions given by idiots who have no care about other peoples rights.

If you want to stop the next generation from smoking you should give them facts and change the law to make it illegal for under 16's to smoke. as i hve said before it is not illegal for them to buy or smoke cigarettes it is only illegal for retailers to sell to under 16's.
I just heard a woman on the radio state that cigarette companies were making cigarette packets shiny and attractive to attract children. This is typical of the mis-information being spouted as fact without any proof what so ever. There seem to be so many 'facts' that have no grounding at all. they are just opinions given by idiots who have no care about other peoples rights. If you want to stop the next generation from smoking you should give them facts and change the law to make it illegal for under 16's to smoke. as i hve said before it is not illegal for them to buy or smoke cigarettes it is only illegal for retailers to sell to under 16's. Robh

12:25pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Gestiblindus straight from the ASH text book. Can we have the independent research link to this please.

We can produce the ONS figures for smoking related ill health a matter of public record, we can produce the ONS figures for the revenues directly generated from tobacco sales, but there is no ONS statistics for what is often claimed above.

These figures are loosely based on what is deemed the cost to the private sector in terms of loss of 'performance' sick days etc, which are not a direct burden on the the countries GDP and in any event are guestamets.
Gestiblindus straight from the ASH text book. Can we have the independent research link to this please. We can produce the ONS figures for smoking related ill health a matter of public record, we can produce the ONS figures for the revenues directly generated from tobacco sales, but there is no ONS statistics for what is often claimed above. These figures are loosely based on what is deemed the cost to the private sector in terms of loss of 'performance' sick days etc, which are not a direct burden on the the countries GDP and in any event are guestamets. Robfm

12:29pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Robfm says...

There you go as I said straight from the ASH text book.

http://www.ash.org.u
k/files/documents/AS
H_121.pdf
There you go as I said straight from the ASH text book. http://www.ash.org.u k/files/documents/AS H_121.pdf Robfm

12:36pm Fri 13 Apr 12

itsamess says...

I pay
0 tobacco tax
0 Alcohol tax
0 Fuel tax
0 Car tax
Get cheaper life insurance
Generate my own electricity with zero emissions.
Quids in.
I pay 0 tobacco tax 0 Alcohol tax 0 Fuel tax 0 Car tax Get cheaper life insurance Generate my own electricity with zero emissions. Quids in. itsamess

12:42pm Fri 13 Apr 12

I 2 Could B says...

itsamess wrote:
Ban drinking--imagine all the lives that will save.
The job losses alone would be so vast as to ensure it'll never happen.

Unlike smoking, virtually everyone drinks to some degree or another. It's intrinsic to almost all aspects of life.

That said, I have no doubt the government will endeavour to make drinking as miserable as they possibly can.
[quote][p][bold]itsamess[/bold] wrote: Ban drinking--imagine all the lives that will save.[/p][/quote]The job losses alone would be so vast as to ensure it'll never happen. [p] Unlike smoking, virtually everyone drinks to some degree or another. It's intrinsic to almost all aspects of life. [p] That said, I have no doubt the government will endeavour to make drinking as miserable as they possibly can. I 2 Could B

12:42pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Ah yes the Utopia that is the Land of Nania.
Ah yes the Utopia that is the Land of Nania. Robfm

12:47pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

Robfm wrote:
Gestiblindus straight from the ASH text book. Can we have the independent research link to this please.

We can produce the ONS figures for smoking related ill health a matter of public record, we can produce the ONS figures for the revenues directly generated from tobacco sales, but there is no ONS statistics for what is often claimed above.

These figures are loosely based on what is deemed the cost to the private sector in terms of loss of 'performance' sick days etc, which are not a direct burden on the the countries GDP and in any event are guestamets.
Being dismissive and feigning ignorance does nothing to defend your point of view. Perhaps this discussion has become too complicated for you?

ASH only detail the cost of smoking to the NHS. If you have read their 'text book' you would be aware of that and the consideration that has gone into ensuring that the NHS information they have gathered and presented is as accurate as possible.

The ONS is not the only valid source of statistical information, therefore you have no legitimate cause to dismiss information from any other reputable sources.

Based on your post to Robh at 12:11, you also seem to be unaware of the entire market research industry. Do you think that the layout of a supermarket is random? Do you think that packaging is simply meant to be aesthetically pleasing? You are very wrong if you do.

There is a science behind advertising and marketing that is based on information gathered on consumer habits for well over three generations.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: Gestiblindus straight from the ASH text book. Can we have the independent research link to this please. We can produce the ONS figures for smoking related ill health a matter of public record, we can produce the ONS figures for the revenues directly generated from tobacco sales, but there is no ONS statistics for what is often claimed above. These figures are loosely based on what is deemed the cost to the private sector in terms of loss of 'performance' sick days etc, which are not a direct burden on the the countries GDP and in any event are guestamets.[/p][/quote]Being dismissive and feigning ignorance does nothing to defend your point of view. Perhaps this discussion has become too complicated for you? ASH only detail the cost of smoking to the NHS. If you have read their 'text book' you would be aware of that and the consideration that has gone into ensuring that the NHS information they have gathered and presented is as accurate as possible. The ONS is not the only valid source of statistical information, therefore you have no legitimate cause to dismiss information from any other reputable sources. Based on your post to Robh at 12:11, you also seem to be unaware of the entire market research industry. Do you think that the layout of a supermarket is random? Do you think that packaging is simply meant to be aesthetically pleasing? You are very wrong if you do. There is a science behind advertising and marketing that is based on information gathered on consumer habits for well over three generations. Gestiblindus

12:50pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Robh, it's 18 and has been for some time.
Robh, it's 18 and has been for some time. Robfm

12:58pm Fri 13 Apr 12

PaulD says...

Some background info on cigarette advertising aimed at children: http://www.kidsandad
vertising.co.uk/chil
dren-cigarette-promo
tion.html
Some background info on cigarette advertising aimed at children: http://www.kidsandad vertising.co.uk/chil dren-cigarette-promo tion.html PaulD

1:08pm Fri 13 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Bob
You are incabable of understanding science as you recently showed on twitter.
You deny the science that proves toxins/particulates and addictive nicotine putrify the lungs--an organ that cannot recover from the damage. It prevents the blood being fully oxygenated and breathing is affected to the point that too much carbon dioxide is retained in the lungs to the point that a common cold could cause death.
That is scientific evidence which supports scientific/medical research.
Your self interest is purely the financial loss to you and your bigotted attempts to discredit any person/group/researc
h that goes against your claims.
Smoking kills as does alcohol-in many ways-fact--and you cannot change fact no matter how hard you try.
Bob You are incabable of understanding science as you recently showed on twitter. You deny the science that proves toxins/particulates and addictive nicotine putrify the lungs--an organ that cannot recover from the damage. It prevents the blood being fully oxygenated and breathing is affected to the point that too much carbon dioxide is retained in the lungs to the point that a common cold could cause death. That is scientific evidence which supports scientific/medical research. Your self interest is purely the financial loss to you and your bigotted attempts to discredit any person/group/researc h that goes against your claims. Smoking kills as does alcohol-in many ways-fact--and you cannot change fact no matter how hard you try. itsamess

1:55pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

PaulD wrote:
Some background info on cigarette advertising aimed at children: http://www.kidsandad

vertising.co.uk/chil

dren-cigarette-promo

tion.html
Excellent link. Accurately describes the advertising approach I know one major manufacturer to have used, and used successfully based on the consumer information that was collected on their behalf.
[quote][p][bold]PaulD[/bold] wrote: Some background info on cigarette advertising aimed at children: http://www.kidsandad vertising.co.uk/chil dren-cigarette-promo tion.html[/p][/quote]Excellent link. Accurately describes the advertising approach I know one major manufacturer to have used, and used successfully based on the consumer information that was collected on their behalf. Gestiblindus

3:48pm Fri 13 Apr 12

swindondad says...

We have all been told time and agian that,
Smoking is bad for you,
Acohol is bad for you,
Too much fast food is bad for you,
Too much red meat is bad for you,
Too much fat in the diet is bad for you,
Lack of exercice is bad for you,
The list goes on and on.
Come to think about it if you drink too much water it will kill you.
Banning the sale of a whole group of products just drives the trade into the hands of criminals.
We have all been told time and agian that, Smoking is bad for you, Acohol is bad for you, Too much fast food is bad for you, Too much red meat is bad for you, Too much fat in the diet is bad for you, Lack of exercice is bad for you, The list goes on and on. Come to think about it if you drink too much water it will kill you. Banning the sale of a whole group of products just drives the trade into the hands of criminals. swindondad

4:29pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

I think there is a distinction to be made between the various items listed above that are supposedly 'bad for you', and that all of them have some beneficial use and none of them are detrimental to your health unless used in excess.

The same cannot be said for tobacco.
I think there is a distinction to be made between the various items listed above that are supposedly 'bad for you', and that all of them have some beneficial use and none of them are detrimental to your health unless used in excess. The same cannot be said for tobacco. Gestiblindus

4:42pm Fri 13 Apr 12

PaulD says...

swindondad wrote:
We have all been told time and agian that,
Smoking is bad for you,
Acohol is bad for you,
Too much fast food is bad for you,
Too much red meat is bad for you,
Too much fat in the diet is bad for you,
Lack of exercice is bad for you,
The list goes on and on.
Come to think about it if you drink too much water it will kill you.
Banning the sale of a whole group of products just drives the trade into the hands of criminals.
none of these products is currently banned or is being banned
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: We have all been told time and agian that, Smoking is bad for you, Acohol is bad for you, Too much fast food is bad for you, Too much red meat is bad for you, Too much fat in the diet is bad for you, Lack of exercice is bad for you, The list goes on and on. Come to think about it if you drink too much water it will kill you. Banning the sale of a whole group of products just drives the trade into the hands of criminals.[/p][/quote]none of these products is currently banned or is being banned PaulD

4:55pm Fri 13 Apr 12

A.Baron-Cohen says...

I support this initiative, smoking is a nasty and dangerous habit, I just wish this governement could be more consistent when it come to hide things that may tempt our youngsters.........
I support this initiative, smoking is a nasty and dangerous habit, I just wish this governement could be more consistent when it come to hide things that may tempt our youngsters......... A.Baron-Cohen

4:55pm Fri 13 Apr 12

beach1e says...

at least with the huge amount of tax on cigarettes, benefits scroungers can feel they contribute something back for their free money
at least with the huge amount of tax on cigarettes, benefits scroungers can feel they contribute something back for their free money beach1e

5:13pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Hammer5 says...

Everybody jumps on a bandwagon,first its smokers then its drinkers then its fat people then its car drivers
and whatever your vice is it will be next!!
Life is for living and enjoying and now and again that means abit of unhealthy living.
Im not a smoker or a fat person but im pretty sure my 20,000 miles a year in my car driving has contributed towards some child developing asthma
So before you make judgements of everybody else you want to look a little closer to home!!
Everybody jumps on a bandwagon,first its smokers then its drinkers then its fat people then its car drivers and whatever your vice is it will be next!! Life is for living and enjoying and now and again that means abit of unhealthy living. Im not a smoker or a fat person but im pretty sure my 20,000 miles a year in my car driving has contributed towards some child developing asthma So before you make judgements of everybody else you want to look a little closer to home!! Hammer5

6:26pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Hammer5 sadly zealots never do.

Wow Walter Twitter, but you never use such open internet resources and I never acknowledge anyone who I don't know. So how can you be looking at my twitters. Breaking the law again, surely not.
Hammer5 sadly zealots never do. Wow Walter Twitter, but you never use such open internet resources and I never acknowledge anyone who I don't know. So how can you be looking at my twitters. Breaking the law again, surely not. Robfm

6:45pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Hmmmf says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
I support this initiative, smoking is a nasty and dangerous habit, I just wish this governement could be more consistent when it come to hide things that may tempt our youngsters.........
If the cigarettes are behind steel shutters out of sight of impressional young people, and an adult asks the shopkeep for a packet of fags while there are impressionable young people in the shop in the queue behind him... do the young people have to close their eyes while the shutters are opened, or have to leave the shop, or is the 'first come first served' social norm abandoned and the smoker obliged to wait until no impressionable young people are left in the shop?
.
Or is it for precisely this eventuality that the government are considering plain packaging for fags as well?
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: I support this initiative, smoking is a nasty and dangerous habit, I just wish this governement could be more consistent when it come to hide things that may tempt our youngsters.........[/p][/quote]If the cigarettes are behind steel shutters out of sight of impressional young people, and an adult asks the shopkeep for a packet of fags while there are impressionable young people in the shop in the queue behind him... do the young people have to close their eyes while the shutters are opened, or have to leave the shop, or is the 'first come first served' social norm abandoned and the smoker obliged to wait until no impressionable young people are left in the shop? . Or is it for precisely this eventuality that the government are considering plain packaging for fags as well? Hmmmf

7:11pm Fri 13 Apr 12

PJC says...

I think we shouldn't ban anything. If people want to remove themselves from the gene pool, that's their choice.......I tried cigs when at college. Didn't like them much, so haven't been tempted since by any advertising.
I think we shouldn't ban anything. If people want to remove themselves from the gene pool, that's their choice.......I tried cigs when at college. Didn't like them much, so haven't been tempted since by any advertising. PJC

7:25pm Fri 13 Apr 12

I Too says...

So many comparisons are irellevant.

Driving a car is not just a pointless habit.

I have never insisted that others consume my pint. The same could not be said for smokers.
So many comparisons are irellevant. Driving a car is not just a pointless habit. I have never insisted that others consume my pint. The same could not be said for smokers. I Too

7:37pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Flying aeroplanes for pleasure is extremely harmful to us all. Air pollution accounts for 5% of all pollution.

Cigarette smoke accounts for .0001%
Flying aeroplanes for pleasure is extremely harmful to us all. Air pollution accounts for 5% of all pollution. Cigarette smoke accounts for .0001% Robfm

8:27pm Fri 13 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Bob
Another reason why you would never get elected--how could you serve people you cannot agree with on absolutely everything. Money is your god and has been your downfall.
What a stupid comment about twitter--anyone can view any site and see your crazy tweets--you know how it is wrong for police to shoot and kill one of their own--on a training excercise--or more relevant that smoke is harmless because its only vapour. Lets not forget you believe its ok for police to lie to get a conviction. How long before you are banned completely from the internet--not long methinks.
Bob Another reason why you would never get elected--how could you serve people you cannot agree with on absolutely everything. Money is your god and has been your downfall. What a stupid comment about twitter--anyone can view any site and see your crazy tweets--you know how it is wrong for police to shoot and kill one of their own--on a training excercise--or more relevant that smoke is harmless because its only vapour. Lets not forget you believe its ok for police to lie to get a conviction. How long before you are banned completely from the internet--not long methinks. itsamess

8:29pm Fri 13 Apr 12

moonraker says...

In Germany ,in all supermarkets, all cigarettes are behind shutters. It doesn't stop customers asking for the shutters to be raised - and yes in full view of all ,young and old.
In Germany ,in all supermarkets, all cigarettes are behind shutters. It doesn't stop customers asking for the shutters to be raised - and yes in full view of all ,young and old. moonraker

9:28pm Fri 13 Apr 12

Robh says...

Sorry Robfm I made a mistake. Yes the legal age is 18 but it is still legal for persons under that age to buy and smoke tobacco products. It is only illegal for retailers to sell them to under 18's. Nothing to stop their peers or parents from selling to them.
Sorry Robfm I made a mistake. Yes the legal age is 18 but it is still legal for persons under that age to buy and smoke tobacco products. It is only illegal for retailers to sell them to under 18's. Nothing to stop their peers or parents from selling to them. Robh

10:04pm Fri 13 Apr 12

itsamess says...

itsamess wrote:
Bob
Another reason why you would never get elected--how could you serve people you cannot agree with on absolutely everything. Money is your god and has been your downfall.
What a stupid comment about twitter--anyone can view any site and see your crazy tweets--you know how it is wrong for police to shoot and kill one of their own--on a training excercise--or more relevant that smoke is harmless because its only vapour. Lets not forget you believe its ok for police to lie to get a conviction. How long before you are banned completely from the internet--not long methinks.
sorry should have read "how it is not wrong for police to shoot and kill one of their own"
[quote][p][bold]itsamess[/bold] wrote: Bob Another reason why you would never get elected--how could you serve people you cannot agree with on absolutely everything. Money is your god and has been your downfall. What a stupid comment about twitter--anyone can view any site and see your crazy tweets--you know how it is wrong for police to shoot and kill one of their own--on a training excercise--or more relevant that smoke is harmless because its only vapour. Lets not forget you believe its ok for police to lie to get a conviction. How long before you are banned completely from the internet--not long methinks.[/p][/quote]sorry should have read "how it is not wrong for police to shoot and kill one of their own" itsamess

10:20pm Fri 13 Apr 12

MrAngry says...

Robfm wrote:
SocketPuppet, an honest comment. What if they banned tobacco products and increased income tax by 5p do you think the self righteous would be quite so keen to ban tobacco when it hit their pockets.

At the moment about 14 million people pay about 5 times the amount of tax as the average non smoker. That would need to be made up.
Bob, I think your figures are wrong. How can the average smoker pay 5 times the tax of the average non-smoker?

A person earning £26,000 (UK average) would pay £6,000 in income tax and NI.

If they spent all of their £20,000 take home pay on cigarettes it still wouldn't amount to 5 times the income tax and NI.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: SocketPuppet, an honest comment. What if they banned tobacco products and increased income tax by 5p do you think the self righteous would be quite so keen to ban tobacco when it hit their pockets. At the moment about 14 million people pay about 5 times the amount of tax as the average non smoker. That would need to be made up.[/p][/quote]Bob, I think your figures are wrong. How can the average smoker pay 5 times the tax of the average non-smoker? A person earning £26,000 (UK average) would pay £6,000 in income tax and NI. If they spent all of their £20,000 take home pay on cigarettes it still wouldn't amount to 5 times the income tax and NI. MrAngry

10:22pm Fri 13 Apr 12

I Too says...

Robfm wrote:
Flying aeroplanes for pleasure is extremely harmful to us all. Air pollution accounts for 5% of all pollution.

Cigarette smoke accounts for .0001%
Wow.
Now people shouldn't use air travel to go on holiday if they object to beathing in benzene, formaldehyde, tar, ammonia, acetone, victorian insecticide (nicotine) and cocentrated carbon monoxide.

Incredible arrogance.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: Flying aeroplanes for pleasure is extremely harmful to us all. Air pollution accounts for 5% of all pollution. Cigarette smoke accounts for .0001%[/p][/quote]Wow. Now people shouldn't use air travel to go on holiday if they object to beathing in benzene, formaldehyde, tar, ammonia, acetone, victorian insecticide (nicotine) and cocentrated carbon monoxide. Incredible arrogance. I Too

12:45am Sat 14 Apr 12

itsamess says...

I Too
He has been shown to be bereft of any scientific knowledge-despite an attempt to suggest he understands particle science/physics. The most average of persons would know that when products that can produce toxins are mixed with natural gasses and bodily fluids different toxins are formed.
Many of these products damage the tissues in the lungs.
The easiest way to describe that is by saying in normal breathing the lungs take in fresh air they filter out the oxygen which makes its way into the blood stream--and the the remainder is exhaled as CO2.
Smokers however do not put just fresh air into the lungs they inhale less air mixed with toxins caused by burning tobacco which change by reacting to bodily fluids and elements which decrease the function of the lungs which fail to exhale the carbon dioxide from the lungs which then cannot supply the much needed oxygen to the blood and causes irrepairable damage to the lungs.
A cigarette sat in an ash tray releases the burnt product directly into the room which are the pure toxins which reduce the fresh air available to non smokers who are likely to inhale a stronger dose of those toxins.
As we have heard the argument that pubs are closing because the smokers are staying away suggest very few non smokers used pubs. However pubs that have gained are those that upped their game to attract custom.
Our very own expert who claims knowledge of the science and physics attempts to persuade the science is wrong is only interested in profits--not sure why-as he claims to be just a simple employee. Very easily checked.
I Too He has been shown to be bereft of any scientific knowledge-despite an attempt to suggest he understands particle science/physics. The most average of persons would know that when products that can produce toxins are mixed with natural gasses and bodily fluids different toxins are formed. Many of these products damage the tissues in the lungs. The easiest way to describe that is by saying in normal breathing the lungs take in fresh air they filter out the oxygen which makes its way into the blood stream--and the the remainder is exhaled as CO2. Smokers however do not put just fresh air into the lungs they inhale less air mixed with toxins caused by burning tobacco which change by reacting to bodily fluids and elements which decrease the function of the lungs which fail to exhale the carbon dioxide from the lungs which then cannot supply the much needed oxygen to the blood and causes irrepairable damage to the lungs. A cigarette sat in an ash tray releases the burnt product directly into the room which are the pure toxins which reduce the fresh air available to non smokers who are likely to inhale a stronger dose of those toxins. As we have heard the argument that pubs are closing because the smokers are staying away suggest very few non smokers used pubs. However pubs that have gained are those that upped their game to attract custom. Our very own expert who claims knowledge of the science and physics attempts to persuade the science is wrong is only interested in profits--not sure why-as he claims to be just a simple employee. Very easily checked. itsamess

8:49am Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

So the trolls have ruined what was a good thread. Proof positive they have one simple agenda.

As for flying, you can't have it both ways merely the point I was making. You can't be selective about air pollution. Should we ban open fires (some countries have), should be ban BBQ's. Both give off considerably more toxin, by volume than cigarette smoke and contain similar components.

Walter will you stop your blathering, I will be dead before any of your threats come to fruition, why, because they are fantasies.

To clarify the only way you could see my tweets Walter is by 'following' me or getting someone else too. Either way it re-enforces your stalking credentials.
So the trolls have ruined what was a good thread. Proof positive they have one simple agenda. As for flying, you can't have it both ways merely the point I was making. You can't be selective about air pollution. Should we ban open fires (some countries have), should be ban BBQ's. Both give off considerably more toxin, by volume than cigarette smoke and contain similar components. Walter will you stop your blathering, I will be dead before any of your threats come to fruition, why, because they are fantasies. To clarify the only way you could see my tweets Walter is by 'following' me or getting someone else too. Either way it re-enforces your stalking credentials. Robfm

8:58am Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Wood Smoke vs. Cigarette Smoke
Although many people associate tobacco smoke with certain health risks, research indicates that second hand wood smoke has potentially even greater ability to damage health. A comparison between tobacco smoke and wood smoke using electron spin resonance revealed quite startling results (Rozenberg 2001, Wood Smoke is More Damaging than Tobacco Smoke). Tobacco smoke causes damage in the body for approximately 30 seconds after it is inhaled. Wood smoke, however, continues to be chemically active and cause damage to cells in the body for up to 20 minutes, or 40 times longer.

Some of the components in wood smoke are free radicals, which steal electrons from the body, leaving cells unstable or injured. Some of these cells may die, while others may be altered and take on different functions. These changes lead to inflammation, which causes stress on the body. EPA researchers suggest that the lifetime cancer risk from wood stove emissions may be 12 times greater than the lifetime cancer risk from exposure to an equal amount of cigarette smoke. (Rozenberg 2001, What’s in Wood Smoke and Other Emissions).
Wood Smoke vs. Cigarette Smoke Although many people associate tobacco smoke with certain health risks, research indicates that second hand wood smoke has potentially even greater ability to damage health. A comparison between tobacco smoke and wood smoke using electron spin resonance revealed quite startling results (Rozenberg 2001, Wood Smoke is More Damaging than Tobacco Smoke). Tobacco smoke causes damage in the body for approximately 30 seconds after it is inhaled. Wood smoke, however, continues to be chemically active and cause damage to cells in the body for up to 20 minutes, or 40 times longer. Some of the components in wood smoke are free radicals, which steal electrons from the body, leaving cells unstable or injured. Some of these cells may die, while others may be altered and take on different functions. These changes lead to inflammation, which causes stress on the body. EPA researchers suggest that the lifetime cancer risk from wood stove emissions may be 12 times greater than the lifetime cancer risk from exposure to an equal amount of cigarette smoke. (Rozenberg 2001, What’s in Wood Smoke and Other Emissions). Robfm

9:07am Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

French research has shown that a 2 hour bbq releases the same amount of harmful toxins equivalent to 220,000 cigarettes.

So when we talk of serious health risks let's not just focus on an easy target. Oxford City centre leads the way as the highest polluted centre in England, with toxin levels the equivalent of 2 cigarettes every 15 minutes.
French research has shown that a 2 hour bbq releases the same amount of harmful toxins equivalent to 220,000 cigarettes. So when we talk of serious health risks let's not just focus on an easy target. Oxford City centre leads the way as the highest polluted centre in England, with toxin levels the equivalent of 2 cigarettes every 15 minutes. Robfm

9:11am Sat 14 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

Robfm wrote:
Flying aeroplanes for pleasure is extremely harmful to us all. Air pollution accounts for 5% of all pollution.

Cigarette smoke accounts for .0001%
Do you believe that no one will notice that you appear unable to enter into a discussion on the points you have posted if you respond by posting insults or trying to take the topic off on a tangent?

Perhaps you could explain why you believe that long term health problems from smoking are irrelevant?

Or you could explain why you believe that second hand smoke is harmless?

Or you could explain why you believe that smokers pay five times more tax than everyone else?

Or you could explain why you believe that packaging and visibility of a product will have no effect on the sales of that product?

Or are you just repeating what you have seen somewhere else, or making your own assumptions, and lack the basic scientific knowledge to defend those points?
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: Flying aeroplanes for pleasure is extremely harmful to us all. Air pollution accounts for 5% of all pollution. Cigarette smoke accounts for .0001%[/p][/quote]Do you believe that no one will notice that you appear unable to enter into a discussion on the points you have posted if you respond by posting insults or trying to take the topic off on a tangent? Perhaps you could explain why you believe that long term health problems from smoking are irrelevant? Or you could explain why you believe that second hand smoke is harmless? Or you could explain why you believe that smokers pay five times more tax than everyone else? Or you could explain why you believe that packaging and visibility of a product will have no effect on the sales of that product? Or are you just repeating what you have seen somewhere else, or making your own assumptions, and lack the basic scientific knowledge to defend those points? Gestiblindus

9:15am Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Gestiblindus, why would I wish to people like you swear black is white when it comes to smoking, as I pointed out your claims came almost exclusively from an ASH document.

Health pollution no matter what the source is not going off topic.

What do you ban, something that thousands of times more harmful than tobacco smoke, or tobacco smoke. Simple question even for you.
Gestiblindus, why would I wish to people like you swear black is white when it comes to smoking, as I pointed out your claims came almost exclusively from an ASH document. Health pollution no matter what the source is not going off topic. What do you ban, something that thousands of times more harmful than tobacco smoke, or tobacco smoke. Simple question even for you. Robfm

9:21am Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Just one of dozens of reports/analysis that says ETS is merely an irritant, this guy is a practising Physician whose own father died from smoking induce Lung Cancer.

http://yourdoctorsor
ders.com/2009/01/the
-myth-of-second-hand
-smoke/
Just one of dozens of reports/analysis that says ETS is merely an irritant, this guy is a practising Physician whose own father died from smoking induce Lung Cancer. http://yourdoctorsor ders.com/2009/01/the -myth-of-second-hand -smoke/ Robfm

9:40am Sat 14 Apr 12

I Too says...

Gestiblindus,
He won't explain any of that anymore than he'll explain why he took the thread off topic by talking about hardworking people using air travel for a well deserved holiday
Gestiblindus, He won't explain any of that anymore than he'll explain why he took the thread off topic by talking about hardworking people using air travel for a well deserved holiday I Too

9:45am Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

I Too, as I said air pollution is air pollution some things pollute the air more than others. ETS compared to air pollution by aeroplanes is non existent.

But of course you choose to totally misrepresent what I said.

My point was merely to illustrate what could be seen as hypocrisy from those who fly planes but condemn passive smoke, you chose to widen the point not me.
I Too, as I said air pollution is air pollution some things pollute the air more than others. ETS compared to air pollution by aeroplanes is non existent. But of course you choose to totally misrepresent what I said. My point was merely to illustrate what could be seen as hypocrisy from those who fly planes but condemn passive smoke, you chose to widen the point not me. Robfm

10:17am Sat 14 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

Robfm wrote:
Gestiblindus, why would I wish to people like you swear black is white when it comes to smoking, as I pointed out your claims came almost exclusively from an ASH document.

Health pollution no matter what the source is not going off topic.

What do you ban, something that thousands of times more harmful than tobacco smoke, or tobacco smoke. Simple question even for you.
In my post from 9:11 am Sat 14 Apr 12, I asked you questions about points you have posted. Shall I assume from your insults and further attempts to divert from the topic that you are incapable of responding to those questions?

To make it easier for you, a simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice as a response.

ASH was not the source of the information I posted, however they do detail similar on their report. They also cite 32 diverse and accredited sources for that information, from both sides of the debate. You have been very critical of anything associated with ASH but without giving any specific reason for believing that what they present is inaccurate. Would you explain why you believe that each of those sources to be fraudulent?

And do try to respond to the questions I have asked without insults or attempts to divert, you have an opportunity to show you know the topic, it would make sense for you to take that opportunity rather than continuing to demonstrate a lack of knowledge.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: Gestiblindus, why would I wish to people like you swear black is white when it comes to smoking, as I pointed out your claims came almost exclusively from an ASH document. Health pollution no matter what the source is not going off topic. What do you ban, something that thousands of times more harmful than tobacco smoke, or tobacco smoke. Simple question even for you.[/p][/quote]In my post from 9:11 am Sat 14 Apr 12, I asked you questions about points you have posted. Shall I assume from your insults and further attempts to divert from the topic that you are incapable of responding to those questions? To make it easier for you, a simple 'yes' or 'no' will suffice as a response. ASH was not the source of the information I posted, however they do detail similar on their report. They also cite 32 diverse and accredited sources for that information, from both sides of the debate. You have been very critical of anything associated with ASH but without giving any specific reason for believing that what they present is inaccurate. Would you explain why you believe that each of those sources to be fraudulent? And do try to respond to the questions I have asked without insults or attempts to divert, you have an opportunity to show you know the topic, it would make sense for you to take that opportunity rather than continuing to demonstrate a lack of knowledge. Gestiblindus

10:42am Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

I think the link I posted answers all your questions and is written by an eminent Surgeon.

As for ASH they promote drugs that are known to kill, that's enough reason not to trust anything they say. They were party to the fraudulent use of information for this display ban. I have also posted the evidence for that.

You on the other hand have merely made statements without any bibliography.
I think the link I posted answers all your questions and is written by an eminent Surgeon. As for ASH they promote drugs that are known to kill, that's enough reason not to trust anything they say. They were party to the fraudulent use of information for this display ban. I have also posted the evidence for that. You on the other hand have merely made statements without any bibliography. Robfm

10:48am Sat 14 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Bob
You are talking complete balderdash as usual with your pathetic attempt to justify your claims-the science defeats you every time.
The claims as to smoke being just an irritant is complete tosh.
Formaldehyde was for years as an embalming agent as it turned soft tissue into firm preserved tissue-the lungs need great flexibility. The other toxins kill off various tissue that even if smoking is stopped simply cannot recover. Science simply explains how combinations of toxins will increase mix to create what is clearly a deadly mix that ultimately allows carbon dioxide to be the major component in the lungs which then prevents the blood supply to be oxygenated and thus damage other vital organs.
As for your claims as to twitter-you are wholly incorrect--you only have to put in your name and banned after it and just about every site you post on will come up and all your tweets will come up--as will all the comments that prove you have been banned on numerous sites and your own posts admitting those events--unbelievable that you could deny anything with conclusive evidence like that.
Central to those claims being that you lied in the 80s and continue to lie to this day and can be used against you.
Your mentality is self evident from your tweet where you believed that when colleagues shot and killed a fellow officer and you believe they should not be prosecuted. You show complete contempt of justice.
You put profit before life.
Bob You are talking complete balderdash as usual with your pathetic attempt to justify your claims-the science defeats you every time. The claims as to smoke being just an irritant is complete tosh. Formaldehyde was for years as an embalming agent as it turned soft tissue into firm preserved tissue-the lungs need great flexibility. The other toxins kill off various tissue that even if smoking is stopped simply cannot recover. Science simply explains how combinations of toxins will increase mix to create what is clearly a deadly mix that ultimately allows carbon dioxide to be the major component in the lungs which then prevents the blood supply to be oxygenated and thus damage other vital organs. As for your claims as to twitter-you are wholly incorrect--you only have to put in your name and banned after it and just about every site you post on will come up and all your tweets will come up--as will all the comments that prove you have been banned on numerous sites and your own posts admitting those events--unbelievable that you could deny anything with conclusive evidence like that. Central to those claims being that you lied in the 80s and continue to lie to this day and can be used against you. Your mentality is self evident from your tweet where you believed that when colleagues shot and killed a fellow officer and you believe they should not be prosecuted. You show complete contempt of justice. You put profit before life. itsamess

11:04am Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

I have to thank you Walter for your reference to twitter, you have made the biggest mistake yet in identifying yourself.

I have no intention in engaging further with you on your off thread diatribes. I will wait for the knock on the door.

Strange how a historical twitter stated this month last year the same was going to happen.
I have to thank you Walter for your reference to twitter, you have made the biggest mistake yet in identifying yourself. I have no intention in engaging further with you on your off thread diatribes. I will wait for the knock on the door. Strange how a historical twitter stated this month last year the same was going to happen. Robfm

11:07am Sat 14 Apr 12

itsamess says...

There you have--everyone else is fraudulent and scientists are wrong--everyone but bobby is a liar. Do give us your analysis of aviation fuel and the vapour trail- didn't you say in a tweet very recently tobacco smoke is just vapour and harmless--you become more ridiculous with every comment.
There you have--everyone else is fraudulent and scientists are wrong--everyone but bobby is a liar. Do give us your analysis of aviation fuel and the vapour trail- didn't you say in a tweet very recently tobacco smoke is just vapour and harmless--you become more ridiculous with every comment. itsamess

11:13am Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

PC Ian Terry death: Greater Manchester Police charged http://bbc.in/wu1XrZ Tragic accidents happen, what is achieved by this prosecution.

Not exactly what Walter claimed. The prosecution is under HSE not criminal law, there being insufficient evidence of criminal negligence.
PC Ian Terry death: Greater Manchester Police charged http://bbc.in/wu1XrZ Tragic accidents happen, what is achieved by this prosecution. Not exactly what Walter claimed. The prosecution is under HSE not criminal law, there being insufficient evidence of criminal negligence. Robfm

11:21am Sat 14 Apr 12

I Too says...

Robfm wrote:
I Too, as I said air pollution is air pollution some things pollute the air more than others. ETS compared to air pollution by aeroplanes is non existent.

But of course you choose to totally misrepresent what I said.

My point was merely to illustrate what could be seen as hypocrisy from those who fly planes but condemn passive smoke, you chose to widen the point not me.
Huh?

You brought aviation into the thread At
7:37pm Fri 13 Apr 12


Who flies planes?

Aren't planes tools used for shaving wood? :):):)
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: I Too, as I said air pollution is air pollution some things pollute the air more than others. ETS compared to air pollution by aeroplanes is non existent. But of course you choose to totally misrepresent what I said. My point was merely to illustrate what could be seen as hypocrisy from those who fly planes but condemn passive smoke, you chose to widen the point not me.[/p][/quote]Huh? You brought aviation into the thread At 7:37pm Fri 13 Apr 12 Who flies planes? Aren't planes tools used for shaving wood? :):):) I Too

11:22am Sat 14 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

Robfm wrote:
I think the link I posted answers all your questions and is written by an eminent Surgeon.

As for ASH they promote drugs that are known to kill, that's enough reason not to trust anything they say. They were party to the fraudulent use of information for this display ban. I have also posted the evidence for that.

You on the other hand have merely made statements without any bibliography.
Do you believe that a weight loss surgeon from Arizona is an authority on the dangers of second hand smoking?

He is not eminent. Not in the right specialism. And not seen as a credible source of advice on smoking by any professional organisation. He does represent himself as the local expert on lap band surgery for Phoenix residents and could perhaps be used as a source of information on that topic, but not on smoking.

Do you have anything more suitable to offer or would you prefer to concede that you are unable to defend your statements?

As for ASH, I have asked you to explain why their sources are fraudulent, not offer your opinion on the organisation. The necessary information is available on the link you posted at 12:29pm Fri 13 Apr 12, they list all their sources on the pdf document. Would you answer the question that has been asked rather than diverting from it?

You are being given an opportunity to show you know the topic yet you continue to fail to do so. Perhaps it is time to admit that your knowledge is very limited. That would be a far more honourable outcome than to resort to more insults and attempts to divert from questions.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: I think the link I posted answers all your questions and is written by an eminent Surgeon. As for ASH they promote drugs that are known to kill, that's enough reason not to trust anything they say. They were party to the fraudulent use of information for this display ban. I have also posted the evidence for that. You on the other hand have merely made statements without any bibliography.[/p][/quote]Do you believe that a weight loss surgeon from Arizona is an authority on the dangers of second hand smoking? He is not eminent. Not in the right specialism. And not seen as a credible source of advice on smoking by any professional organisation. He does represent himself as the local expert on lap band surgery for Phoenix residents and could perhaps be used as a source of information on that topic, but not on smoking. Do you have anything more suitable to offer or would you prefer to concede that you are unable to defend your statements? As for ASH, I have asked you to explain why their sources are fraudulent, not offer your opinion on the organisation. The necessary information is available on the link you posted at 12:29pm Fri 13 Apr 12, they list all their sources on the pdf document. Would you answer the question that has been asked rather than diverting from it? You are being given an opportunity to show you know the topic yet you continue to fail to do so. Perhaps it is time to admit that your knowledge is very limited. That would be a far more honourable outcome than to resort to more insults and attempts to divert from questions. Gestiblindus

11:31am Sat 14 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Go on then Bobby--how in your warped mind does a tweet made by you-recently or historically as the only site i have contributed is this one.
Do just enter your full name on a search and add banned--you will see all your bans all your tweets and all your lies and malicious posts--as well as all of your claims to experise in just about every trade and profession.
Standard response from you--i wont engage with you again--plank anda very thick one.
Go on then Bobby--how in your warped mind does a tweet made by you-recently or historically as the only site i have contributed is this one. Do just enter your full name on a search and add banned--you will see all your bans all your tweets and all your lies and malicious posts--as well as all of your claims to experise in just about every trade and profession. Standard response from you--i wont engage with you again--plank anda very thick one. itsamess

11:38am Sat 14 Apr 12

Robh says...

There are a lot of confusing comments on here some based on fact and others are opinion.

Three views prevail. The anti smokers will quote any comment factual or otherwise. The smokers will poo hoo any thing the anti's say. Then we have the others who see the problems caused by smoking and recognise peoples freedom of choice.

We see them all on here slanging each other off and each having the trump card of factual information or mis-information.

Why can't you all grow up and give an honest appraisal of the subject so that anyone reading these posts can reach a considered opinion.
There are a lot of confusing comments on here some based on fact and others are opinion. Three views prevail. The anti smokers will quote any comment factual or otherwise. The smokers will poo hoo any thing the anti's say. Then we have the others who see the problems caused by smoking and recognise peoples freedom of choice. We see them all on here slanging each other off and each having the trump card of factual information or mis-information. Why can't you all grow up and give an honest appraisal of the subject so that anyone reading these posts can reach a considered opinion. Robh

11:50am Sat 14 Apr 12

itsamess says...

I Too
He brings everything into every thread--except the truth.
I Too He brings everything into every thread--except the truth. itsamess

12:07pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Phantom Poster says...

Robfm wrote:
French research has shown that a 2 hour bbq releases the same amount of harmful toxins equivalent to 220,000 cigarettes.

So when we talk of serious health risks let's not just focus on an easy target. Oxford City centre leads the way as the highest polluted centre in England, with toxin levels the equivalent of 2 cigarettes every 15 minutes.
Plane exhausts, barbecues and indeed the pollution measured in Oxford all occur outdoors. In case you hadn't realised, smoking has not been banned - it's still allowed outdoors. So you analogies make little sense.

If the running of aircraft engines and lighting up of barbecues inside pubs were allowed than I would also want those banned!
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: French research has shown that a 2 hour bbq releases the same amount of harmful toxins equivalent to 220,000 cigarettes. So when we talk of serious health risks let's not just focus on an easy target. Oxford City centre leads the way as the highest polluted centre in England, with toxin levels the equivalent of 2 cigarettes every 15 minutes.[/p][/quote]Plane exhausts, barbecues and indeed the pollution measured in Oxford all occur outdoors. In case you hadn't realised, smoking has not been banned - it's still allowed outdoors. So you analogies make little sense. If the running of aircraft engines and lighting up of barbecues inside pubs were allowed than I would also want those banned! Phantom Poster

12:08pm Sat 14 Apr 12

I Too says...

itsamess wrote:
I Too
He brings everything into every thread--except the truth.
Yes. It would appear so
[quote][p][bold]itsamess[/bold] wrote: I Too He brings everything into every thread--except the truth.[/p][/quote]Yes. It would appear so I Too

12:16pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Phantom Poster says...

Robfm wrote:
So the trolls have ruined what was a good thread. Proof positive they have one simple agenda.

As for flying, you can't have it both ways merely the point I was making. You can't be selective about air pollution. Should we ban open fires (some countries have), should be ban BBQ's. Both give off considerably more toxin, by volume than cigarette smoke and contain similar components.

Walter will you stop your blathering, I will be dead before any of your threats come to fruition, why, because they are fantasies.

To clarify the only way you could see my tweets Walter is by 'following' me or getting someone else too. Either way it re-enforces your stalking credentials.
Robfm said:
"To clarify the only way you could see my tweets Walter is by 'following' me or getting someone else too.

For someone who spends so much time online, it's surprising how little you know about how it works. We can all see your tweets quite easily without "following" you (perish the thought!):

https://twitter.com/
#!/Robfm
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: So the trolls have ruined what was a good thread. Proof positive they have one simple agenda. As for flying, you can't have it both ways merely the point I was making. You can't be selective about air pollution. Should we ban open fires (some countries have), should be ban BBQ's. Both give off considerably more toxin, by volume than cigarette smoke and contain similar components. Walter will you stop your blathering, I will be dead before any of your threats come to fruition, why, because they are fantasies. To clarify the only way you could see my tweets Walter is by 'following' me or getting someone else too. Either way it re-enforces your stalking credentials.[/p][/quote]Robfm said: "To clarify the only way you could see my tweets Walter is by 'following' me or getting someone else too. For someone who spends so much time online, it's surprising how little you know about how it works. We can all see your tweets quite easily without "following" you (perish the thought!): https://twitter.com/ #!/Robfm Phantom Poster

12:39pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

PP I note you ignore the open fires in pubs.

Gestiblindus why not believe him, is there anything wrong with the scientific data he quotes.

As for the list of so called studies on the ASH site. They are littered with words like, 'we estimate', we believe'. There is not one piece of conclusive evidence contained within the article.

So Gestiblindus links to science please that show RR of above 3 in the ETS studies.

Please also a link to any scientific study that shows display bans work.

Please provide the data that shows smoking prevalence has decreased in any of the home nations or Ireland since the respective bans.

They must be really simple things to find if they exist.

Another well argued argument from a doctor.

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/debate/articl
e-2126094/Tobacco-ci
garettes-display-ban
-Government-control-
freakery-wont-reduce
-smoking.html
PP I note you ignore the open fires in pubs. Gestiblindus why not believe him, is there anything wrong with the scientific data he quotes. As for the list of so called studies on the ASH site. They are littered with words like, 'we estimate', we believe'. There is not one piece of conclusive evidence contained within the article. So Gestiblindus links to science please that show RR of above 3 in the ETS studies. Please also a link to any scientific study that shows display bans work. Please provide the data that shows smoking prevalence has decreased in any of the home nations or Ireland since the respective bans. They must be really simple things to find if they exist. Another well argued argument from a doctor. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-2126094/Tobacco-ci garettes-display-ban -Government-control- freakery-wont-reduce -smoking.html Robfm

12:57pm Sat 14 Apr 12

I Too says...

Robfm says...
12:39pm Sat 14 Apr 12

"PP I note you ignore the open fires in pubs."

Yes open fires in pubs are pretty pointless.

And I note you ignore my comment about changing the topic and wood tools :):):)
Robfm says... 12:39pm Sat 14 Apr 12 "PP I note you ignore the open fires in pubs." Yes open fires in pubs are pretty pointless. And I note you ignore my comment about changing the topic and wood tools :):):) I Too

1:02pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

I would hazard a guess the majority of the population uses the term Plane to describe an aeroplane I Too.

You just make yourself look the 'tool' you are.

Anyway back to topic. Anyone who want's the raw data that shows smoking bans achieve nothing here it is.

http://www.pnlee.co.
uk/Downloads/ISS/ISS
-UnitedKingdom_12011
1.pdf
I would hazard a guess the majority of the population uses the term Plane to describe an aeroplane I Too. You just make yourself look the 'tool' you are. Anyway back to topic. Anyone who want's the raw data that shows smoking bans achieve nothing here it is. http://www.pnlee.co. uk/Downloads/ISS/ISS -UnitedKingdom_12011 1.pdf Robfm

1:53pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

Robfm wrote:
PP I note you ignore the open fires in pubs.

Gestiblindus why not believe him, is there anything wrong with the scientific data he quotes.

As for the list of so called studies on the ASH site. They are littered with words like, 'we estimate', we believe'. There is not one piece of conclusive evidence contained within the article.

So Gestiblindus links to science please that show RR of above 3 in the ETS studies.

Please also a link to any scientific study that shows display bans work.

Please provide the data that shows smoking prevalence has decreased in any of the home nations or Ireland since the respective bans.

They must be really simple things to find if they exist.

Another well argued argument from a doctor.

http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/debate/articl

e-2126094/Tobacco-ci

garettes-display-ban

-Government-control-

freakery-wont-reduce

-smoking.html
Again you try to cover your inability to defend your statements with insults and diversion. We are now well beyond the point of any remaining doubt of your lack of knowledge.

If you cannot, as a minimum, defend even your own statements, how can anything you offer be seen as trustworthy?

Why should the opinions of a lap band specialist be disregarded? The absence of scientific evidence makes that obvious, but it is clear that you have limited understanding of the sciences so you would fail to see that flaw in Dr. Simpson's opinions.

Just as you fail to see the lack of any supportive evidence in the opinion on retail marketing of a retired doctor who formerly treated depression and addiction. I would not expect a doctor to be a credible source of information about retail marketing and clearly he is not. A misuse of his perceived position in my opinion, but then you do not see such indiscretion as being inappropriate, do you?

You should seek the opinion of a retail marketing analyst if you want a credible opinion. Someone who works in the field and is aware of the effects of changes in display and advertising on product sales.

As for ASH, yet again you have attempted to evade the question, 32 sources were cited and you claim they are all fraudulent, yet you cannot give any reason why. Instead you have generalised on the organisation and the article. Why are you unable to defend your opinion, have you realised that it is unfounded?

Some of the sources ASH have used are the same sources you have used, does that mean you have posted information you believe to be false in order to mislead, or that you are not diligent in your research?

The opportunity for you to defend your statements is still open, should you chose not to do so then I will take that as proof of your lack of knowledge on this topic.

And may I point out yet again that diversion, insults, and evasion are not a defence.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: PP I note you ignore the open fires in pubs. Gestiblindus why not believe him, is there anything wrong with the scientific data he quotes. As for the list of so called studies on the ASH site. They are littered with words like, 'we estimate', we believe'. There is not one piece of conclusive evidence contained within the article. So Gestiblindus links to science please that show RR of above 3 in the ETS studies. Please also a link to any scientific study that shows display bans work. Please provide the data that shows smoking prevalence has decreased in any of the home nations or Ireland since the respective bans. They must be really simple things to find if they exist. Another well argued argument from a doctor. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-2126094/Tobacco-ci garettes-display-ban -Government-control- freakery-wont-reduce -smoking.html[/p][/quote]Again you try to cover your inability to defend your statements with insults and diversion. We are now well beyond the point of any remaining doubt of your lack of knowledge. If you cannot, as a minimum, defend even your own statements, how can anything you offer be seen as trustworthy? Why should the opinions of a lap band specialist be disregarded? The absence of scientific evidence makes that obvious, but it is clear that you have limited understanding of the sciences so you would fail to see that flaw in Dr. Simpson's opinions. Just as you fail to see the lack of any supportive evidence in the opinion on retail marketing of a retired doctor who formerly treated depression and addiction. I would not expect a doctor to be a credible source of information about retail marketing and clearly he is not. A misuse of his perceived position in my opinion, but then you do not see such indiscretion as being inappropriate, do you? You should seek the opinion of a retail marketing analyst if you want a credible opinion. Someone who works in the field and is aware of the effects of changes in display and advertising on product sales. As for ASH, yet again you have attempted to evade the question, 32 sources were cited and you claim they are all fraudulent, yet you cannot give any reason why. Instead you have generalised on the organisation and the article. Why are you unable to defend your opinion, have you realised that it is unfounded? Some of the sources ASH have used are the same sources you have used, does that mean you have posted information you believe to be false in order to mislead, or that you are not diligent in your research? The opportunity for you to defend your statements is still open, should you chose not to do so then I will take that as proof of your lack of knowledge on this topic. And may I point out yet again that diversion, insults, and evasion are not a defence. Gestiblindus

1:54pm Sat 14 Apr 12

I Too says...

Why are you talking about aircraft?
Why are you talking about aircraft? I Too

2:01pm Sat 14 Apr 12

I Too says...

itsamess wrote:
I Too
He brings everything into every thread--except the truth.
Have you checked out my flickr site lately.
I've added a few videos.
You'll like the new Milton Keynes one
[quote][p][bold]itsamess[/bold] wrote: I Too He brings everything into every thread--except the truth.[/p][/quote]Have you checked out my flickr site lately. I've added a few videos. You'll like the new Milton Keynes one I Too

2:34pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Phantom Poster says...

Robfm wrote:
PP I note you ignore the open fires in pubs.

Gestiblindus why not believe him, is there anything wrong with the scientific data he quotes.

As for the list of so called studies on the ASH site. They are littered with words like, 'we estimate', we believe'. There is not one piece of conclusive evidence contained within the article.

So Gestiblindus links to science please that show RR of above 3 in the ETS studies.

Please also a link to any scientific study that shows display bans work.

Please provide the data that shows smoking prevalence has decreased in any of the home nations or Ireland since the respective bans.

They must be really simple things to find if they exist.

Another well argued argument from a doctor.

http://www.dailymail

.co.uk/debate/articl

e-2126094/Tobacco-ci

garettes-display-ban

-Government-control-

freakery-wont-reduce

-smoking.html
Sorry for not going through every single one of your posts on this thread - now remiss of me!

For pitys sake, your arguments are absurd! An open fire - unless the chimney is blocked - has a pressure differential which means that only radiant heat is emitted. Likewise people are happy with gas fires being installed indoors, despite the fact that they emit carbon monoxide.

However, I do agree that there should be a ban on pub customers sticking their heads up the chimney of an open fire!

I notice that a substantial number of the links you make on these pages are from Daily Mail. That in itself totally destroys your credibility.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: PP I note you ignore the open fires in pubs. Gestiblindus why not believe him, is there anything wrong with the scientific data he quotes. As for the list of so called studies on the ASH site. They are littered with words like, 'we estimate', we believe'. There is not one piece of conclusive evidence contained within the article. So Gestiblindus links to science please that show RR of above 3 in the ETS studies. Please also a link to any scientific study that shows display bans work. Please provide the data that shows smoking prevalence has decreased in any of the home nations or Ireland since the respective bans. They must be really simple things to find if they exist. Another well argued argument from a doctor. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-2126094/Tobacco-ci garettes-display-ban -Government-control- freakery-wont-reduce -smoking.html[/p][/quote]Sorry for not going through every single one of your posts on this thread - now remiss of me! For pitys sake, your arguments are absurd! An open fire - unless the chimney is blocked - has a pressure differential which means that only radiant heat is emitted. Likewise people are happy with gas fires being installed indoors, despite the fact that they emit carbon monoxide. However, I do agree that there should be a ban on pub customers sticking their heads up the chimney of an open fire! I notice that a substantial number of the links you make on these pages are from Daily Mail. That in itself totally destroys your credibility. Phantom Poster

2:42pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Phantom Poster says...

The Daily Mail:

http://www.mailwatch
.co.uk/

I particularly like the Amanda Knox made up story.
The Daily Mail: http://www.mailwatch .co.uk/ I particularly like the Amanda Knox made up story. Phantom Poster

3:02pm Sat 14 Apr 12

King_Briz says...

oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Robbo has demonstrated again his startling level of ignorance. This thread typifies why he is an object of derision, amusement and often cases hatred. It demonstrates perfectly why he was incapable of amassing more than 100 votes when he stood for election as a Councillor. It also demonstrates why he has been ousted from UKIP and is now in the political wilderness (even more so than being a member of UKIP).

Is it anyone wonder there were fewer than 15 customers in his bar last night?
oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Robbo has demonstrated again his startling level of ignorance. This thread typifies why he is an object of derision, amusement and often cases hatred. It demonstrates perfectly why he was incapable of amassing more than 100 votes when he stood for election as a Councillor. It also demonstrates why he has been ousted from UKIP and is now in the political wilderness (even more so than being a member of UKIP). Is it anyone wonder there were fewer than 15 customers in his bar last night? King_Briz

3:20pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Phantom Poster says...

Phantom Poster wrote:
The Daily Mail:

http://www.mailwatch

.co.uk/

I particularly like the Amanda Knox made up story.
Oh look Bob, here's another Daily Mail story which you might find useful to quote some time in the future:

"How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer"

Read more: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/health/articl
e-1149207/How-using-
Facebook-raise-risk-
cancer.html#ixzz1s1Y
gLDbC

... it includes the name of a doctor, so must be true!

What a great source of reference the Daily Mail is! I can see why you use it so often to back up your arguments.

I would have thought you would have learned your lesson when a while back you fell hook line and sinker for the front page headline "BBC Turns Its Back On The Year Of Our Lord". I recall that you directly quoted that lie to back up an argument.
[quote][p][bold]Phantom Poster[/bold] wrote: The Daily Mail: http://www.mailwatch .co.uk/ I particularly like the Amanda Knox made up story.[/p][/quote]Oh look Bob, here's another Daily Mail story which you might find useful to quote some time in the future: "How using Facebook could raise your risk of cancer" Read more: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/health/articl e-1149207/How-using- Facebook-raise-risk- cancer.html#ixzz1s1Y gLDbC ... it includes the name of a doctor, so must be true! What a great source of reference the Daily Mail is! I can see why you use it so often to back up your arguments. I would have thought you would have learned your lesson when a while back you fell hook line and sinker for the front page headline "BBC Turns Its Back On The Year Of Our Lord". I recall that you directly quoted that lie to back up an argument. Phantom Poster

3:31pm Sat 14 Apr 12

I Too says...

He likes a good fib
He likes a good fib I Too

5:19pm Sat 14 Apr 12

I'm Important says...

Are you all suggesting that Robfm is a liar?

Or does Robfm represent a pro-smoking organisation?
Are you all suggesting that Robfm is a liar? Or does Robfm represent a pro-smoking organisation? I'm Important

5:43pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Oh dear the trolls are breeding, that has got to be bad for the planet.

I note scrumping has clearly been banned again after his foul mouthed attack on another poster the other night, now with the original name King_Briz .

I think you sources Briz have got it slightly wrong if you think we had 15 customers last night. It was very quiet after a very busy birthday party Thursday night. So if you are going to lie try making it credible.

So what started off as a sensible discussion has now been well and truly destroyed.
Oh dear the trolls are breeding, that has got to be bad for the planet. I note scrumping has clearly been banned again after his foul mouthed attack on another poster the other night, now with the original name King_Briz . I think you sources Briz have got it slightly wrong if you think we had 15 customers last night. It was very quiet after a very busy birthday party Thursday night. So if you are going to lie try making it credible. So what started off as a sensible discussion has now been well and truly destroyed. Robfm

5:53pm Sat 14 Apr 12

I'm Important says...

Gee thanks.
I was actually defending you, but if you want to call everyone a troll you deserve all you get.

I will be reporting your comment to the Adver
Gee thanks. I was actually defending you, but if you want to call everyone a troll you deserve all you get. I will be reporting your comment to the Adver I'm Important

6:20pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

I'm Important, my sincere apologises if I got it wrong it's just that there is a consistent pattern to categorise anyone who objects to social engineering in relation to smoking as being pro smoking. I have never been pro smoking, never smoked and never would. I think tobacco products should be banned. What I do not agree with is public bodies and charities lying to achieve a supposedly moral position whilst being in the pay of the Big Pharmaceutical companies who benefit this type of hysteria.

Even life long public health special and ardent supporter of smoker bans Professor Michael Siegel thinks the Tobacco Control Lobby has gone way to far. Any free thinking person should read his site and blog to see it is going on almost daily.

Once again if I was wrong I apologise, but I have never represented a pro smoking group, but did represent a pro choice group.

www.freedom2choose.i
nfo

http://www.tobaccoco
ntrolintegrity.com/
I'm Important, my sincere apologises if I got it wrong it's just that there is a consistent pattern to categorise anyone who objects to social engineering in relation to smoking as being pro smoking. I have never been pro smoking, never smoked and never would. I think tobacco products should be banned. What I do not agree with is public bodies and charities lying to achieve a supposedly moral position whilst being in the pay of the Big Pharmaceutical companies who benefit this type of hysteria. Even life long public health special and ardent supporter of smoker bans Professor Michael Siegel thinks the Tobacco Control Lobby has gone way to far. Any free thinking person should read his site and blog to see it is going on almost daily. Once again if I was wrong I apologise, but I have never represented a pro smoking group, but did represent a pro choice group. www.freedom2choose.i nfo http://www.tobaccoco ntrolintegrity.com/ Robfm

6:27pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

I believe it is now abundantly clear why Mr. Feal-Martinez's attempt to get the smoking ban overthrown failed without so much as an audible whimper.

Inaccurate and indefensible are words that would seem to sum it up succinctly. It is impossible to fight scientific fact with opinion and unfounded criticism. And it also appears he does not understand the difference. As demonstrated here, his habit is that of meeting every challenge with insults, diversion, and evasion.

Smoking is an emotive issue, but like so many other emotive public safety issues the laws enacted are about trying to protect the interests of those who would otherwise be unable to avoid the adverse effects, or lack the maturity to make an informed choice.

Smokers can still buy tobacco products and can still use them. They just cannot use those products where their use would affect those who choose not to smoke. What was an issue biased in favour of smokers has become more fairly balanced. I consider that a victory worth defending.
I believe it is now abundantly clear why Mr. Feal-Martinez's attempt to get the smoking ban overthrown failed without so much as an audible whimper. Inaccurate and indefensible are words that would seem to sum it up succinctly. It is impossible to fight scientific fact with opinion and unfounded criticism. And it also appears he does not understand the difference. As demonstrated here, his habit is that of meeting every challenge with insults, diversion, and evasion. Smoking is an emotive issue, but like so many other emotive public safety issues the laws enacted are about trying to protect the interests of those who would otherwise be unable to avoid the adverse effects, or lack the maturity to make an informed choice. Smokers can still buy tobacco products and can still use them. They just cannot use those products where their use would affect those who choose not to smoke. What was an issue biased in favour of smokers has become more fairly balanced. I consider that a victory worth defending. Gestiblindus

6:32pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

To lie about public safety is the biggest crime any public official can commit.

Michael Siegel in his blog highlights once again the type of junk research now deemed acceptable by the anti smoking lobby and Governments.

Scroll down to a new study in the US on heart attacks that claims major reductions being due to smoking bans and read the truth. The article is on 4th April.

http://tobaccoanalys
is.blogspot.co.uk/
To lie about public safety is the biggest crime any public official can commit. Michael Siegel in his blog highlights once again the type of junk research now deemed acceptable by the anti smoking lobby and Governments. Scroll down to a new study in the US on heart attacks that claims major reductions being due to smoking bans and read the truth. The article is on 4th April. http://tobaccoanalys is.blogspot.co.uk/ Robfm

6:37pm Sat 14 Apr 12

King_Briz says...

I'm Important wrote:
Gee thanks.
I was actually defending you, but if you want to call everyone a troll you deserve all you get.

I will be reporting your comment to the Adver
I am not suggesting he is a liar. I am categorically stating that he is a liar. I can post evidence to prove it if you so wish me to do so.
[quote][p][bold]I'm Important[/bold] wrote: Gee thanks. I was actually defending you, but if you want to call everyone a troll you deserve all you get. I will be reporting your comment to the Adver[/p][/quote]I am not suggesting he is a liar. I am categorically stating that he is a liar. I can post evidence to prove it if you so wish me to do so. King_Briz

7:19pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Briz you are like a broken record, when you get to the bit about your deluded idea that I am any poster who remotely agrees with me, please remember to point out you must be up to login 35 by now, each and everyone being banned due to your inability to construct any sentence without expletive or abuse.
Briz you are like a broken record, when you get to the bit about your deluded idea that I am any poster who remotely agrees with me, please remember to point out you must be up to login 35 by now, each and everyone being banned due to your inability to construct any sentence without expletive or abuse. Robfm

7:24pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

Robfm wrote:
To lie about public safety is the biggest crime any public official can commit.

Michael Siegel in his blog highlights once again the type of junk research now deemed acceptable by the anti smoking lobby and Governments.

Scroll down to a new study in the US on heart attacks that claims major reductions being due to smoking bans and read the truth. The article is on 4th April.

http://tobaccoanalys

is.blogspot.co.uk/
Michael Siegel has criticised the methodology of a study, but has agreed that the smoking ban has reduced the incidence of heart attack. I fail to see how that invalidates any other studies.

I would ask you to explain what your point is in posting that link but you would only respond with insults or try to divert from the question. If that is the best you can do then do not bother.

Unless you have something constructive to add I will consider your point moot.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: To lie about public safety is the biggest crime any public official can commit. Michael Siegel in his blog highlights once again the type of junk research now deemed acceptable by the anti smoking lobby and Governments. Scroll down to a new study in the US on heart attacks that claims major reductions being due to smoking bans and read the truth. The article is on 4th April. http://tobaccoanalys is.blogspot.co.uk/[/p][/quote]Michael Siegel has criticised the methodology of a study, but has agreed that the smoking ban has reduced the incidence of heart attack. I fail to see how that invalidates any other studies. I would ask you to explain what your point is in posting that link but you would only respond with insults or try to divert from the question. If that is the best you can do then do not bother. Unless you have something constructive to add I will consider your point moot. Gestiblindus

9:36pm Sat 14 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Robfm wrote:
To lie about public safety is the biggest crime any public official can commit.

Michael Siegel in his blog highlights once again the type of junk research now deemed acceptable by the anti smoking lobby and Governments.

Scroll down to a new study in the US on heart attacks that claims major reductions being due to smoking bans and read the truth. The article is on 4th April.

http://tobaccoanalys

is.blogspot.co.uk/
Bob
"To lie about public safety is the biggest crime any public official can commit."
No--i would say it was far more serious for a policeman to knowingly give false evidence in a court of law.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: To lie about public safety is the biggest crime any public official can commit. Michael Siegel in his blog highlights once again the type of junk research now deemed acceptable by the anti smoking lobby and Governments. Scroll down to a new study in the US on heart attacks that claims major reductions being due to smoking bans and read the truth. The article is on 4th April. http://tobaccoanalys is.blogspot.co.uk/[/p][/quote]Bob "To lie about public safety is the biggest crime any public official can commit." No--i would say it was far more serious for a policeman to knowingly give false evidence in a court of law. itsamess

10:12pm Sat 14 Apr 12

Phantom Poster says...

Robfm wrote:
Briz you are like a broken record, when you get to the bit about your deluded idea that I am any poster who remotely agrees with me, please remember to point out you must be up to login 35 by now, each and everyone being banned due to your inability to construct any sentence without expletive or abuse.
I'm amazed that you have the hypocrisy to criticise anyone regarding multiple logins - that's very much a case of pot-kettle. Would you like me to provide links to prove this to everyone?

It's quite obvious to everyone here that you are "bottom line Bob" - the only thing which concerns you is profit. You make money out of peoples addictions - be it alcohol or tobacco (as the latter promoted for you more sales of the former).

Get over it - the smoking ban in pubs is here to stay. Why don't you use the considerable time you spend posting on here to improve your pub and get more customers? I'm sure that your wife would be very happy if you got off your arse once in a while and gave her a hand!

You're attitude to passive smoking is exactly what the pro-smoking lobby had to primary smoking from the 50s onwards. You take advantage of the fact that the harm it causes is over decades, so it's virtually impossible to prove, other that by obvious logic.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: Briz you are like a broken record, when you get to the bit about your deluded idea that I am any poster who remotely agrees with me, please remember to point out you must be up to login 35 by now, each and everyone being banned due to your inability to construct any sentence without expletive or abuse.[/p][/quote]I'm amazed that you have the hypocrisy to criticise anyone regarding multiple logins - that's very much a case of pot-kettle. Would you like me to provide links to prove this to everyone? It's quite obvious to everyone here that you are "bottom line Bob" - the only thing which concerns you is profit. You make money out of peoples addictions - be it alcohol or tobacco (as the latter promoted for you more sales of the former). Get over it - the smoking ban in pubs is here to stay. Why don't you use the considerable time you spend posting on here to improve your pub and get more customers? I'm sure that your wife would be very happy if you got off your arse once in a while and gave her a hand! You're attitude to passive smoking is exactly what the pro-smoking lobby had to primary smoking from the 50s onwards. You take advantage of the fact that the harm it causes is over decades, so it's virtually impossible to prove, other that by obvious logic. Phantom Poster

7:29am Sun 15 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Oh dear running out of repeats I see. Michael Siegel did not support the premises that bans reduce heart attacks in his analysis he actually points out that areas that don't have bans have achieved similar if not better results than those that do have bans.

Every piece of raw data analysis correctly applied shows that health issues related to smoking have actually increased, when there had been a consistent downward trend for several decades of both smoking and ill health. That certainly doesn't imply any sort of success.

Walter so who is this policeman. If you are referring to me, please have the courage to name yourself and I will happily sue the pants off you. Once again you show what a coward, fraud and fantasist your are, hiding as all bullies and cowards do.

PP when are you going to not follow the Lemmings. I have had just 4 logins, Daniel10, Bobfm which was hijacked, and is still used occasionally, Robert Feal-Martinez used to post as a correspondent on the South Marston section and Robfm which I have used for a year or so now.

Oh and I forgot, my Google login when I forget my password.

As for obvious logic, nothing obvious at all. As for your earlier comments about indoor and outdoor pollution, I take it then you would support a campaign to stop HMG banning smoking in pub gardens and worse still in private gardens.
Oh dear running out of repeats I see. Michael Siegel did not support the premises that bans reduce heart attacks in his analysis he actually points out that areas that don't have bans have achieved similar if not better results than those that do have bans. Every piece of raw data analysis correctly applied shows that health issues related to smoking have actually increased, when there had been a consistent downward trend for several decades of both smoking and ill health. That certainly doesn't imply any sort of success. Walter so who is this policeman. If you are referring to me, please have the courage to name yourself and I will happily sue the pants off you. Once again you show what a coward, fraud and fantasist your are, hiding as all bullies and cowards do. PP when are you going to not follow the Lemmings. I have had just 4 logins, Daniel10, Bobfm which was hijacked, and is still used occasionally, Robert Feal-Martinez used to post as a correspondent on the South Marston section and Robfm which I have used for a year or so now. Oh and I forgot, my Google login when I forget my password. As for obvious logic, nothing obvious at all. As for your earlier comments about indoor and outdoor pollution, I take it then you would support a campaign to stop HMG banning smoking in pub gardens and worse still in private gardens. Robfm

7:42am Sun 15 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Well here we go, as predicted prior to the smoking ban, alcohol would be next, followed by food.

It seems the anti everything campaigners are impatient to have a go at foodies.

http://www.swindonad
vertiser.co.uk/news/
national/9649711.Exp
erts_launch_anti_obe
sity_battle/
Well here we go, as predicted prior to the smoking ban, alcohol would be next, followed by food. It seems the anti everything campaigners are impatient to have a go at foodies. http://www.swindonad vertiser.co.uk/news/ national/9649711.Exp erts_launch_anti_obe sity_battle/ Robfm

9:14am Sun 15 Apr 12

I Too says...

Oh no!
A ban on food?
We need to eat.
We're all gonna die of starvation!

Better support Robfm's campaign to make non-smokers breathe in benzene, formaldehyde, tar, ammonia, acetone, victorian insecticide (nicotine) and concentrated carbon monoxide, in an enclosed environment.

Tw@t

Still haven't been given the explanation for people using aviation.
I've never choked on aircraft fumes and I live under an airway
Oh no! A ban on food? We need to eat. We're all gonna die of starvation! Better support Robfm's campaign to make non-smokers breathe in benzene, formaldehyde, tar, ammonia, acetone, victorian insecticide (nicotine) and concentrated carbon monoxide, in an enclosed environment. Tw@t Still haven't been given the explanation for people using aviation. I've never choked on aircraft fumes and I live under an airway I Too

10:19am Sun 15 Apr 12

Robfm says...

I have never choked on passive smoke, and I've worked the confined spaces of pubs and clubs for 27 years, and used pubs and clubs for 40, as well as growing up in a house where 8 people smoked.

Oh I therefore must be dead.

Tempting fate again aren't you I Too. As I said your new employer will no doubt keep an eye out to see if you engage in unprovoked attacks like the one above.

Still if you lose this job it will be someone else's fault won't it.
I have never choked on passive smoke, and I've worked the confined spaces of pubs and clubs for 27 years, and used pubs and clubs for 40, as well as growing up in a house where 8 people smoked. Oh I therefore must be dead. Tempting fate again aren't you I Too. As I said your new employer will no doubt keep an eye out to see if you engage in unprovoked attacks like the one above. Still if you lose this job it will be someone else's fault won't it. Robfm

11:12am Sun 15 Apr 12

I Too says...

Robfm wrote:
I have never choked on passive smoke, and I've worked the confined spaces of pubs and clubs for 27 years, and used pubs and clubs for 40, as well as growing up in a house where 8 people smoked. Oh I therefore must be dead. Tempting fate again aren't you I Too. As I said your new employer will no doubt keep an eye out to see if you engage in unprovoked attacks like the one above. Still if you lose this job it will be someone else's fault won't it.
Yeah. I suppose your clothes never stank either. :):):)

"Unprovoked attack"?

Still no explanation as to why you dragged aviation into the debate of concealing cigarette displays then.

obviously don't want hardworking people to take a well earned holiday
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: I have never choked on passive smoke, and I've worked the confined spaces of pubs and clubs for 27 years, and used pubs and clubs for 40, as well as growing up in a house where 8 people smoked. Oh I therefore must be dead. Tempting fate again aren't you I Too. As I said your new employer will no doubt keep an eye out to see if you engage in unprovoked attacks like the one above. Still if you lose this job it will be someone else's fault won't it.[/p][/quote]Yeah. I suppose your clothes never stank either. :):):) "Unprovoked attack"? Still no explanation as to why you dragged aviation into the debate of concealing cigarette displays then. obviously don't want hardworking people to take a well earned holiday I Too

11:21am Sun 15 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Stop labouring a point you know all too well. Aviation is the biggest single polluter in most countries.

Strangely enough my clothes still smell from the open fire which of course is raved over by customers in many pubs. However I have never seen either as an issue, you see I change my clothes at least once a day and have a bath or shower every day.

It's called maintaining personal hygiene, doesn't everyone do that.
Stop labouring a point you know all too well. Aviation is the biggest single polluter in most countries. Strangely enough my clothes still smell from the open fire which of course is raved over by customers in many pubs. However I have never seen either as an issue, you see I change my clothes at least once a day and have a bath or shower every day. It's called maintaining personal hygiene, doesn't everyone do that. Robfm

11:54am Sun 15 Apr 12

I Too says...

So many comparisons are irellevant.

Driving a car is not just a pointless habit.

I have never insisted that others consume my pint. The same could not be said for smokers.
So many comparisons are irellevant. Driving a car is not just a pointless habit. I have never insisted that others consume my pint. The same could not be said for smokers. I Too

1:42pm Sun 15 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Robfm wrote:
I have never choked on passive smoke, and I've worked the confined spaces of pubs and clubs for 27 years, and used pubs and clubs for 40, as well as growing up in a house where 8 people smoked.

Oh I therefore must be dead.

Tempting fate again aren't you I Too. As I said your new employer will no doubt keep an eye out to see if you engage in unprovoked attacks like the one above.

Still if you lose this job it will be someone else's fault won't it.
Bob --you may seek to justify your claims--however if you have not noticed i would point out that no-one places any credibility in anything you say and all agree you are full of b/s.
Truth is something you are not familiar with as you have claimed numerous times you have been in hostelry for 30 yrs on numerous occassions-that was 3 years ago you claimed that--and if you remember-i po nted out that with your schooling -police service and years in hostelry there was no time for you to gain qualifications you have claimed teaching kids--teaching law--electrician who related his experience in RM--designing generators--build design and planning--numerous medical qualifications--hond
a--the list is endless--factually--
you do not have the years behind you.
As you cannot understand the basic difference between simple words like know/no and sort/sought and a host of others and your bungling maths suggests you have a very poor standard of education and a huge propensity to lie.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: I have never choked on passive smoke, and I've worked the confined spaces of pubs and clubs for 27 years, and used pubs and clubs for 40, as well as growing up in a house where 8 people smoked. Oh I therefore must be dead. Tempting fate again aren't you I Too. As I said your new employer will no doubt keep an eye out to see if you engage in unprovoked attacks like the one above. Still if you lose this job it will be someone else's fault won't it.[/p][/quote]Bob --you may seek to justify your claims--however if you have not noticed i would point out that no-one places any credibility in anything you say and all agree you are full of b/s. Truth is something you are not familiar with as you have claimed numerous times you have been in hostelry for 30 yrs on numerous occassions-that was 3 years ago you claimed that--and if you remember-i po nted out that with your schooling -police service and years in hostelry there was no time for you to gain qualifications you have claimed teaching kids--teaching law--electrician who related his experience in RM--designing generators--build design and planning--numerous medical qualifications--hond a--the list is endless--factually-- you do not have the years behind you. As you cannot understand the basic difference between simple words like know/no and sort/sought and a host of others and your bungling maths suggests you have a very poor standard of education and a huge propensity to lie. itsamess

2:07pm Sun 15 Apr 12

Phantom Poster says...

Robfm wrote:
I have never choked on passive smoke, and I've worked the confined spaces of pubs and clubs for 27 years, and used pubs and clubs for 40, as well as growing up in a house where 8 people smoked.

Oh I therefore must be dead.

Tempting fate again aren't you I Too. As I said your new employer will no doubt keep an eye out to see if you engage in unprovoked attacks like the one above.

Still if you lose this job it will be someone else's fault won't it.
You've admitted that you grew up in a house where 8 people smoked and have have worked in pubs and clubs for the rest of your life - so it's quite obvious why smoking or its smell on your clothing doesn't bother you - you are oblivious to it! Others aren't!

No one is saying that because of that exposure you must now be dead. That fact that you would say so shows a total lack of understanding of the issue.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: I have never choked on passive smoke, and I've worked the confined spaces of pubs and clubs for 27 years, and used pubs and clubs for 40, as well as growing up in a house where 8 people smoked. Oh I therefore must be dead. Tempting fate again aren't you I Too. As I said your new employer will no doubt keep an eye out to see if you engage in unprovoked attacks like the one above. Still if you lose this job it will be someone else's fault won't it.[/p][/quote]You've admitted that you grew up in a house where 8 people smoked and have have worked in pubs and clubs for the rest of your life - so it's quite obvious why smoking or its smell on your clothing doesn't bother you - you are oblivious to it! Others aren't! No one is saying that because of that exposure you must now be dead. That fact that you would say so shows a total lack of understanding of the issue. Phantom Poster

4:29pm Sun 15 Apr 12

Jim Royle says...

Robfm is an attention seeker and uses this site to preach his warped views. Of course he is despised by everyone but clearly loves the attention he gets and calls anyone who takes him to task a troll.
Robfm is an attention seeker and uses this site to preach his warped views. Of course he is despised by everyone but clearly loves the attention he gets and calls anyone who takes him to task a troll. Jim Royle

7:18pm Sun 15 Apr 12

King_Briz says...

The sooner the adver clean up this site and ban Robert Feral Martinez the better. As for his lie above about 4 logins he forgot to mention the foul mouthed Keepitreal and Bealieu both of whom have been outed as his logins.
The sooner the adver clean up this site and ban Robert Feral Martinez the better. As for his lie above about 4 logins he forgot to mention the foul mouthed Keepitreal and Bealieu both of whom have been outed as his logins. King_Briz

8:04pm Sun 15 Apr 12

PaulD says...

RobFM - not that I care that much, but unless you protect your tweets, then anyone can read them, whether they follow you or not...

https://twitter.com/
#!/Robfm
RobFM - not that I care that much, but unless you protect your tweets, then anyone can read them, whether they follow you or not... https://twitter.com/ #!/Robfm PaulD

9:03pm Sun 15 Apr 12

Punctured bicycle on a hillside says...

Robbo:
I have never choked on passive smoke, and I've worked the confined spaces of pubs and clubs for 27 years, and used pubs and clubs for 40, as well as growing up in a house where 8 people smoked.

Oh I therefore must be dead.

Well it wouldn't be the first time would it, those surgeons have got a lot to answer for in bringing you back to life the first time you snuffed it you loathsome herbert.

You'd better hope the mounting evidence of the harmful effects of passive smoking is wrong or you're in for another nasty disease soon Robbo :):):)
Robbo: [quote]I have never choked on passive smoke, and I've worked the confined spaces of pubs and clubs for 27 years, and used pubs and clubs for 40, as well as growing up in a house where 8 people smoked. Oh I therefore must be dead.[/quote] Well it wouldn't be the first time would it, those surgeons have got a lot to answer for in bringing you back to life the first time you snuffed it you loathsome herbert. You'd better hope the mounting evidence of the harmful effects of passive smoking is wrong or you're in for another nasty disease soon Robbo :):):) Punctured bicycle on a hillside

9:08pm Sun 15 Apr 12

Punctured bicycle on a hillside says...

PaulD wrote:
RobFM - not that I care that much, but unless you protect your tweets, then anyone can read them, whether they follow you or not...

https://twitter.com/

#!/Robfm
Good god! - I've just seen this.. it appears to be a constant stream of dreck posted by Robbo in the quiet moments between calling everyone a troll or submitting FOI requests to the council.

I cannot think of anything worse.. I just.. can't.
[quote][p][bold]PaulD[/bold] wrote: RobFM - not that I care that much, but unless you protect your tweets, then anyone can read them, whether they follow you or not... https://twitter.com/ #!/Robfm[/p][/quote]Good god! - I've just seen this.. it appears to be a constant stream of dreck posted by Robbo in the quiet moments between calling everyone a troll or submitting FOI requests to the council. I cannot think of anything worse.. I just.. can't. Punctured bicycle on a hillside

9:25pm Sun 15 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

Robfm wrote:
Oh dear running out of repeats I see. Michael Siegel did not support the premises that bans reduce heart attacks in his analysis he actually points out that areas that don't have bans have achieved similar if not better results than those that do have bans.

Every piece of raw data analysis correctly applied shows that health issues related to smoking have actually increased, when there had been a consistent downward trend for several decades of both smoking and ill health. That certainly doesn't imply any sort of success.

Walter so who is this policeman. If you are referring to me, please have the courage to name yourself and I will happily sue the pants off you. Once again you show what a coward, fraud and fantasist your are, hiding as all bullies and cowards do.

PP when are you going to not follow the Lemmings. I have had just 4 logins, Daniel10, Bobfm which was hijacked, and is still used occasionally, Robert Feal-Martinez used to post as a correspondent on the South Marston section and Robfm which I have used for a year or so now.

Oh and I forgot, my Google login when I forget my password.

As for obvious logic, nothing obvious at all. As for your earlier comments about indoor and outdoor pollution, I take it then you would support a campaign to stop HMG banning smoking in pub gardens and worse still in private gardens.
No, just shocked that someone who makes such lofty claims has made such a disappointing attempt at a discussion.

You have shown less ability than the average 12 year old in this discussion. You are unable to keep to the topic, you clearly do not vet your sources, you have not demonstrated an understanding of the subject, you struggle at simple logic, and you have not offered any defence of any point you have made. You have even failed at simple mathematics. At least you seem to think you have mastered personal hygiene, and I would hope that you are able to carry out those tasks without assistance.

The links you have posted amount to nothing more than opinions, with the exception of the blog site link which does reference a study, but you do not seem to understand the content of the blog very well because it does not support your claims.

Perhaps you should have someone with some scientific knowledge read it, and then explain it to you in simpler terms so that you can appreciate that you have made an embarrassing faux pas in using it at all.

You have been given several opportunities to defend your position and instead you have responded with insults, accusations, diversion, evasion, and excuses.

You have referred to others here by various terms such as "lemming", "troll", "idiot", "coward", "bully", "bigot", "liar", "ASHite", "cabal", "fantasist", "zealots", "tool", etc. I will stop there rather than list all the terms you have used because that is enough to show that you lack self worth and basic manners. Is every challenge such an affront to you that you must attempt to degrade the individual issuing the challenge, or is that a product of your own awareness that you are not as capable as you pretend you are?

You have also accused others of "conspiracy", "lying", "hatred", "ignorance", "stupidity", "hiding", hypocrisy", "breaking the law", "stalking", "blathering", "fantasies", "unprovoked attacks", "breeding", "abuse", "ruining a perfectly good thread", etc. Again, the list could go on much further, but that is enough to show that you see yourself as a victim and are unable to accept any challenge. Why do you find it necessary to project your own failings onto others?

Need list the threats you have made as well, or is that sufficient to show you how much of a fool you make of yourself?
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: Oh dear running out of repeats I see. Michael Siegel did not support the premises that bans reduce heart attacks in his analysis he actually points out that areas that don't have bans have achieved similar if not better results than those that do have bans. Every piece of raw data analysis correctly applied shows that health issues related to smoking have actually increased, when there had been a consistent downward trend for several decades of both smoking and ill health. That certainly doesn't imply any sort of success. Walter so who is this policeman. If you are referring to me, please have the courage to name yourself and I will happily sue the pants off you. Once again you show what a coward, fraud and fantasist your are, hiding as all bullies and cowards do. PP when are you going to not follow the Lemmings. I have had just 4 logins, Daniel10, Bobfm which was hijacked, and is still used occasionally, Robert Feal-Martinez used to post as a correspondent on the South Marston section and Robfm which I have used for a year or so now. Oh and I forgot, my Google login when I forget my password. As for obvious logic, nothing obvious at all. As for your earlier comments about indoor and outdoor pollution, I take it then you would support a campaign to stop HMG banning smoking in pub gardens and worse still in private gardens.[/p][/quote]No, just shocked that someone who makes such lofty claims has made such a disappointing attempt at a discussion. You have shown less ability than the average 12 year old in this discussion. You are unable to keep to the topic, you clearly do not vet your sources, you have not demonstrated an understanding of the subject, you struggle at simple logic, and you have not offered any defence of any point you have made. You have even failed at simple mathematics. At least you seem to think you have mastered personal hygiene, and I would hope that you are able to carry out those tasks without assistance. The links you have posted amount to nothing more than opinions, with the exception of the blog site link which does reference a study, but you do not seem to understand the content of the blog very well because it does not support your claims. Perhaps you should have someone with some scientific knowledge read it, and then explain it to you in simpler terms so that you can appreciate that you have made an embarrassing faux pas in using it at all. You have been given several opportunities to defend your position and instead you have responded with insults, accusations, diversion, evasion, and excuses. You have referred to others here by various terms such as "lemming", "troll", "idiot", "coward", "bully", "bigot", "liar", "ASHite", "cabal", "fantasist", "zealots", "tool", etc. I will stop there rather than list all the terms you have used because that is enough to show that you lack self worth and basic manners. Is every challenge such an affront to you that you must attempt to degrade the individual issuing the challenge, or is that a product of your own awareness that you are not as capable as you pretend you are? You have also accused others of "conspiracy", "lying", "hatred", "ignorance", "stupidity", "hiding", hypocrisy", "breaking the law", "stalking", "blathering", "fantasies", "unprovoked attacks", "breeding", "abuse", "ruining a perfectly good thread", etc. Again, the list could go on much further, but that is enough to show that you see yourself as a victim and are unable to accept any challenge. Why do you find it necessary to project your own failings onto others? Need list the threats you have made as well, or is that sufficient to show you how much of a fool you make of yourself? Gestiblindus

10:52pm Sun 15 Apr 12

Phantom Poster says...

Robfm wrote:
Oh dear running out of repeats I see. Michael Siegel did not support the premises that bans reduce heart attacks in his analysis he actually points out that areas that don't have bans have achieved similar if not better results than those that do have bans.

Every piece of raw data analysis correctly applied shows that health issues related to smoking have actually increased, when there had been a consistent downward trend for several decades of both smoking and ill health. That certainly doesn't imply any sort of success.

Walter so who is this policeman. If you are referring to me, please have the courage to name yourself and I will happily sue the pants off you. Once again you show what a coward, fraud and fantasist your are, hiding as all bullies and cowards do.

PP when are you going to not follow the Lemmings. I have had just 4 logins, Daniel10, Bobfm which was hijacked, and is still used occasionally, Robert Feal-Martinez used to post as a correspondent on the South Marston section and Robfm which I have used for a year or so now.

Oh and I forgot, my Google login when I forget my password.

As for obvious logic, nothing obvious at all. As for your earlier comments about indoor and outdoor pollution, I take it then you would support a campaign to stop HMG banning smoking in pub gardens and worse still in private gardens.
What a fool you are! Once you've been caught out to be so pathetic as to resort to creating fake logins then how can we believe anything else you say?

You created the 'daniel10' account and was so stupendously stupid that you were caught out! That in itself is enough for me. You seem to be saying that because you only created one fake login then it's OK!
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: Oh dear running out of repeats I see. Michael Siegel did not support the premises that bans reduce heart attacks in his analysis he actually points out that areas that don't have bans have achieved similar if not better results than those that do have bans. Every piece of raw data analysis correctly applied shows that health issues related to smoking have actually increased, when there had been a consistent downward trend for several decades of both smoking and ill health. That certainly doesn't imply any sort of success. Walter so who is this policeman. If you are referring to me, please have the courage to name yourself and I will happily sue the pants off you. Once again you show what a coward, fraud and fantasist your are, hiding as all bullies and cowards do. PP when are you going to not follow the Lemmings. I have had just 4 logins, Daniel10, Bobfm which was hijacked, and is still used occasionally, Robert Feal-Martinez used to post as a correspondent on the South Marston section and Robfm which I have used for a year or so now. Oh and I forgot, my Google login when I forget my password. As for obvious logic, nothing obvious at all. As for your earlier comments about indoor and outdoor pollution, I take it then you would support a campaign to stop HMG banning smoking in pub gardens and worse still in private gardens.[/p][/quote]What a fool you are! Once you've been caught out to be so pathetic as to resort to creating fake logins then how can we believe anything else you say? You created the 'daniel10' account and was so stupendously stupid that you were caught out! That in itself is enough for me. You seem to be saying that because you only created one fake login then it's OK! Phantom Poster

7:10am Mon 16 Apr 12

I'm Important says...

After being called a troll by Robfm just for asking a polite question, I checked Google as suggested

I entered
"Robert Feal Matinez" banned

This came up

http://m.zimbio.com/
UKIP/articles/YByXnC
N65wk/Even+more+UKIP
+snippets+Don+Ransom
+Bob+Feal

Seems even Ukip think he's antagonistic, hostile, abusive, aggressive and a liar.

Why do the Adver not ban him from these threads?
After being called a troll by Robfm just for asking a polite question, I checked Google as suggested I entered "Robert Feal Matinez" banned This came up http://m.zimbio.com/ UKIP/articles/YByXnC N65wk/Even+more+UKIP +snippets+Don+Ransom +Bob+Feal Seems even Ukip think he's antagonistic, hostile, abusive, aggressive and a liar. Why do the Adver not ban him from these threads? I'm Important

8:18am Mon 16 Apr 12

Punctured bicycle on a hillside says...

Robfm 11:54am Wed 11 Apr 12:
Get it through what is laughably, in your case, called a brain, the only login I have used for a very long time is this one.


Robfm 7:29am Sun 15 Apr 12
I have had just 4 logins, Daniel10, Bobfm which was hijacked, and is still used occasionally, Robert Feal-Martinez used to post as a correspondent on the South Marston section and Robfm which I have used for a year or so now.


This is really typical of Robbo - cover up lies and reinforce a point by spraying abuse at every other poster.

Almost all regular readers will by now be very familiar with the web of lies and deception that Robbo tries to weave but invariably becomes entangled in because of his own stupidity.

Those who require evidence of Robbo's idiocy would be advised to re-read the classic daniel10 debacle thread where he forgets who he's logged in as then tries to dig himself out by insulting everyone.

http:/www.tiny.cc/3j

w6w
Robfm 11:54am Wed 11 Apr 12:[quote]Get it through what is laughably, in your case, called a brain, the only login I have used for a very long time is this one.[/quote] Robfm 7:29am Sun 15 Apr 12[quote]I have had just 4 logins, Daniel10, Bobfm which was hijacked, and is still used occasionally, Robert Feal-Martinez used to post as a correspondent on the South Marston section and Robfm which I have used for a year or so now.[/quote] This is really typical of Robbo - cover up lies and reinforce a point by spraying abuse at every other poster. Almost all regular readers will by now be very familiar with the web of lies and deception that Robbo tries to weave but invariably becomes entangled in because of his own stupidity. Those who require evidence of Robbo's idiocy would be advised to re-read the classic daniel10 debacle thread where he forgets who he's logged in as then tries to dig himself out by insulting everyone. http:/www.tiny.cc/3j w6w Punctured bicycle on a hillside

9:43am Mon 16 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Ah nice to see the children playing happily together, perhaps you all ought to get a life, or better still a job.
Ah nice to see the children playing happily together, perhaps you all ought to get a life, or better still a job. Robfm

10:37am Mon 16 Apr 12

Punctured bicycle on a hillside says...

Stock response from Robbo when faced with the truth about his monstrous behaviour.
Stock response from Robbo when faced with the truth about his monstrous behaviour. Punctured bicycle on a hillside

11:47am Mon 16 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Punctured you wouldn't know the truth if it was gold plated.
Punctured you wouldn't know the truth if it was gold plated. Robfm

1:40pm Mon 16 Apr 12

Punctured bicycle on a hillside says...

I think by now every regular reader knows the hideous truth about you Robbo.
I think by now every regular reader knows the hideous truth about you Robbo. Punctured bicycle on a hillside

5:02pm Mon 16 Apr 12

Moth says...

Now that tobacco products are behind shutters, can we do the same to the alcohol displays? Seeing alcohol displayed must encourage children to start drinking. All that pretty colours, blues, greens, reds, pinks. So tempting don't you think?

Stop arguing about smoking for a minute and look instead at the dangers of excessive drinking.

Go to any A&E on a Friday and Saturday night and see the drunks being abusive to staff. Many of them are CHILDREN. Most will be hopeless alcoholics before they're 20.

See the carnage caused by drunk drivers, the misery of women beaten by their drunken partners (and often vice-versa).

See babies born damaged to drunken mothers.

Not pretty is it?

How much does alcohol cost the NHS? How much does the economy lose every year because of alcohol? A **** sight more than smoking ever will but the only ones that are hounded and harrassed are smokers all because the zealots hide behind their false statistics and cherry-picked studies, usually funded by the pharmaceuticals peddling their anti-smoking (useless) drugs while omitting the basic fact that the real reason is that they abhor the THOUGHT of anyone smoking and they don't like the smell of smoke.

The hard fact of life that the anti-smoking zealots can't get through their heads is alcohol causes more deaths and illness than smoking ever will.

There will always be people who don't like something and want to ram their views down other peoples' throats.

The fashion at the moment is crucify smokers at all costs in any way possible but fashions change and what's next, drinkers, sports, long hair, short hair and on and on?

We could stop everything that's supposedly bad for us but it wouldn't make us live one second longer than we are genetically meant to.
Now that tobacco products are behind shutters, can we do the same to the alcohol displays? Seeing alcohol displayed must encourage children to start drinking. All that pretty colours, blues, greens, reds, pinks. So tempting don't you think? Stop arguing about smoking for a minute and look instead at the dangers of excessive drinking. Go to any A&E on a Friday and Saturday night and see the drunks being abusive to staff. Many of them are CHILDREN. Most will be hopeless alcoholics before they're 20. See the carnage caused by drunk drivers, the misery of women beaten by their drunken partners (and often vice-versa). See babies born damaged to drunken mothers. Not pretty is it? How much does alcohol cost the NHS? How much does the economy lose every year because of alcohol? A **** sight more than smoking ever will but the only ones that are hounded and harrassed are smokers all because the zealots hide behind their false statistics and cherry-picked studies, usually funded by the pharmaceuticals peddling their anti-smoking (useless) drugs while omitting the basic fact that the real reason is that they abhor the THOUGHT of anyone smoking and they don't like the smell of smoke. The hard fact of life that the anti-smoking zealots can't get through their heads is alcohol causes more deaths and illness than smoking ever will. There will always be people who don't like something and want to ram their views down other peoples' throats. The fashion at the moment is crucify smokers at all costs in any way possible but fashions change and what's next, drinkers, sports, long hair, short hair and on and on? We could stop everything that's supposedly bad for us but it wouldn't make us live one second longer than we are genetically meant to. Moth

5:46pm Mon 16 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Moth I agree with most of your post, however they are already using the same tactics against alcohol, and now food/obesity.
Moth I agree with most of your post, however they are already using the same tactics against alcohol, and now food/obesity. Robfm

6:04pm Mon 16 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Libertarian groups unite against plain packaging
Hoops campaign enlists support of prominent think-tanks

http://www.handsoffo
urpacks.com/
Libertarian groups unite against plain packaging Hoops campaign enlists support of prominent think-tanks http://www.handsoffo urpacks.com/ Robfm

7:39pm Mon 16 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

Shall we try this again?

As you have been unable to defend any point you have posted, perhaps you could defend your attitude and actions?

You have been given several opportunities to defend your position and instead you have responded with insults, accusations, diversion, evasion, and excuses.

You have referred to others here by terms such as "lemming", "troll", "idiot", "coward", "bully", "bigot", "liar", "ASHite", "cabal", "fantasist", "zealots", "tool", "children", etc. I will stop there rather than list all the terms you have used because that is enough to show that you lack self worth and basic manners. Is every challenge such an threat to you that you must attempt to degrade the individual issuing the challenge, or trying to use aggression to hide your inabilities and insecurities?

You have also accused others of "conspiracy", "lying", "hatred", "ignorance", "stupidity", "hiding", hypocrisy", "breaking the law", "stalking", "blathering", "fantasies", "unprovoked attacks", "breeding", "abuse", "ruining a perfectly good thread", "playing", etc. Again, the list could go on much further, but that is enough to show that you see yourself as a victim and you see every question as a personal attack. Are you so desperate for sympathy that you have to create your own need for it, or is that yet another tactic to divert from your behaviour and put the blame on others?

Need I list the threats you have made as well, or is that sufficient to show you what a fool you make of yourself?
Shall we try this again? As you have been unable to defend any point you have posted, perhaps you could defend your attitude and actions? You have been given several opportunities to defend your position and instead you have responded with insults, accusations, diversion, evasion, and excuses. You have referred to others here by terms such as "lemming", "troll", "idiot", "coward", "bully", "bigot", "liar", "ASHite", "cabal", "fantasist", "zealots", "tool", "children", etc. I will stop there rather than list all the terms you have used because that is enough to show that you lack self worth and basic manners. Is every challenge such an threat to you that you must attempt to degrade the individual issuing the challenge, or trying to use aggression to hide your inabilities and insecurities? You have also accused others of "conspiracy", "lying", "hatred", "ignorance", "stupidity", "hiding", hypocrisy", "breaking the law", "stalking", "blathering", "fantasies", "unprovoked attacks", "breeding", "abuse", "ruining a perfectly good thread", "playing", etc. Again, the list could go on much further, but that is enough to show that you see yourself as a victim and you see every question as a personal attack. Are you so desperate for sympathy that you have to create your own need for it, or is that yet another tactic to divert from your behaviour and put the blame on others? Need I list the threats you have made as well, or is that sufficient to show you what a fool you make of yourself? Gestiblindus

10:06pm Mon 16 Apr 12

Jim Royle says...

Gestiblindus wrote:
Shall we try this again? As you have been unable to defend any point you have posted, perhaps you could defend your attitude and actions? You have been given several opportunities to defend your position and instead you have responded with insults, accusations, diversion, evasion, and excuses. You have referred to others here by terms such as "lemming", "troll", "idiot", "coward", "bully", "bigot", "liar", "ASHite", "cabal", "fantasist", "zealots", "tool", "children", etc. I will stop there rather than list all the terms you have used because that is enough to show that you lack self worth and basic manners. Is every challenge such an threat to you that you must attempt to degrade the individual issuing the challenge, or trying to use aggression to hide your inabilities and insecurities? You have also accused others of "conspiracy", "lying", "hatred", "ignorance", "stupidity", "hiding", hypocrisy", "breaking the law", "stalking", "blathering", "fantasies", "unprovoked attacks", "breeding", "abuse", "ruining a perfectly good thread", "playing", etc. Again, the list could go on much further, but that is enough to show that you see yourself as a victim and you see every question as a personal attack. Are you so desperate for sympathy that you have to create your own need for it, or is that yet another tactic to divert from your behaviour and put the blame on others? Need I list the threats you have made as well, or is that sufficient to show you what a fool you make of yourself?
How can repulsive Rob come back at that. You've owned him there.
[quote][p][bold]Gestiblindus[/bold] wrote: Shall we try this again? As you have been unable to defend any point you have posted, perhaps you could defend your attitude and actions? You have been given several opportunities to defend your position and instead you have responded with insults, accusations, diversion, evasion, and excuses. You have referred to others here by terms such as "lemming", "troll", "idiot", "coward", "bully", "bigot", "liar", "ASHite", "cabal", "fantasist", "zealots", "tool", "children", etc. I will stop there rather than list all the terms you have used because that is enough to show that you lack self worth and basic manners. Is every challenge such an threat to you that you must attempt to degrade the individual issuing the challenge, or trying to use aggression to hide your inabilities and insecurities? You have also accused others of "conspiracy", "lying", "hatred", "ignorance", "stupidity", "hiding", hypocrisy", "breaking the law", "stalking", "blathering", "fantasies", "unprovoked attacks", "breeding", "abuse", "ruining a perfectly good thread", "playing", etc. Again, the list could go on much further, but that is enough to show that you see yourself as a victim and you see every question as a personal attack. Are you so desperate for sympathy that you have to create your own need for it, or is that yet another tactic to divert from your behaviour and put the blame on others? Need I list the threats you have made as well, or is that sufficient to show you what a fool you make of yourself?[/p][/quote]How can repulsive Rob come back at that. You've owned him there. Jim Royle

10:21pm Mon 16 Apr 12

King_Briz says...

He is banged to rights again.
He is banged to rights again. King_Briz

7:21am Tue 17 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Very easily, so many posters come on here pretending to be objective but as with Mr Royle soon reveal their true intent.

As for Gestiblindus, typical anti smoker/smoking zealot pretends to want a debate expects others to produce evidence but claims the 'right' to state the anti smoking lobbies claims are self evident.

Those who are objective will not he/she despite being asked has provided no links to any of the claims made.

The only person banged to rights is you again Briz with yet another login.
Very easily, so many posters come on here pretending to be objective but as with Mr Royle soon reveal their true intent. As for Gestiblindus, typical anti smoker/smoking zealot pretends to want a debate expects others to produce evidence but claims the 'right' to state the anti smoking lobbies claims are self evident. Those who are objective will not he/she despite being asked has provided no links to any of the claims made. The only person banged to rights is you again Briz with yet another login. Robfm

8:08am Tue 17 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Bob
Do be clear--you cannot accept that medical science leaves no doubt that both direct and passive tobacco smoke carry severe health risks in both scenarios for different reasons.
As you ignore the science that tells you exactly how the toxins react when inhaled--after exhaling and by inhaling the smoke from a cigarette in an ash tray or indeed the particulates from ash-and how they affect the lungs.
Simply explained the more damage to the lungs prevents the lungs expelling the CO which is a by product of the oxygen taken from air inhaled--resulting in the blood and organs cannot get the oxygen needed-simple.
You embarrass yourself further in your ridiculous claim as to having to log in to google--google search requires no login as it is a seach engine supported by all internet services.
Being abusive will not change anything folk have said.
Bob Do be clear--you cannot accept that medical science leaves no doubt that both direct and passive tobacco smoke carry severe health risks in both scenarios for different reasons. As you ignore the science that tells you exactly how the toxins react when inhaled--after exhaling and by inhaling the smoke from a cigarette in an ash tray or indeed the particulates from ash-and how they affect the lungs. Simply explained the more damage to the lungs prevents the lungs expelling the CO which is a by product of the oxygen taken from air inhaled--resulting in the blood and organs cannot get the oxygen needed-simple. You embarrass yourself further in your ridiculous claim as to having to log in to google--google search requires no login as it is a seach engine supported by all internet services. Being abusive will not change anything folk have said. itsamess

8:16am Tue 17 Apr 12

Punctured bicycle on a hillside says...

Robbo your rudeness, arrogance and penchant for insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you (or doesn't like smoking) make any points you have get completely lost. You are your own worst enemy.

Still, it's great that attitudes towards smoking are changing all over the world for the better of everyone.
Robbo your rudeness, arrogance and penchant for insulting anyone who doesn't agree with you (or doesn't like smoking) make any points you have get completely lost. You are your own worst enemy. Still, it's great that attitudes towards smoking are changing all over the world for the better of everyone. Punctured bicycle on a hillside

8:28am Tue 17 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Walter showing yourself to be a complete fool again. If you want to use various Google facilities like Adwords, google places, google maps and many others in the context of a business then you need a google account.

Why do you it says at the bottom of the articles that allow comments on this site, login with Google Account.

That perhaps gives you a clue.

As for your usual waffle about ETS you didn't answer my earlier post asking if you accepted the rules of relative risk, which state a RR has to exceed 3 to show a causal association. Produce more than a handful (usually funded by the Pharmaceutical industry) of studies that come close to this.

So Punctured you now change tack, this debate has been about display bans.

No one is disputing attitudes about smoking have galvanised, however that has not resulted in a reduction in smoking anywhere where a complete ban has been introduced.
Walter showing yourself to be a complete fool again. If you want to use various Google facilities like Adwords, google places, google maps and many others in the context of a business then you need a google account. Why do you it says at the bottom of the articles that allow comments on this site, login with Google Account. That perhaps gives you a clue. As for your usual waffle about ETS you didn't answer my earlier post asking if you accepted the rules of relative risk, which state a RR has to exceed 3 to show a causal association. Produce more than a handful (usually funded by the Pharmaceutical industry) of studies that come close to this. So Punctured you now change tack, this debate has been about display bans. No one is disputing attitudes about smoking have galvanised, however that has not resulted in a reduction in smoking anywhere where a complete ban has been introduced. Robfm

8:47am Tue 17 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Bob
Anyone can search any google activity-and even use it as a home page--it is the most commonly used search engine in the world--you really do fall down on internet knowledge.
I suggest you review the medication you are on as it is clouding your brain.
Relative risk is far outweighed by scientific evidence--which you avoid as it does not suit your claims.
Bob Anyone can search any google activity-and even use it as a home page--it is the most commonly used search engine in the world--you really do fall down on internet knowledge. I suggest you review the medication you are on as it is clouding your brain. Relative risk is far outweighed by scientific evidence--which you avoid as it does not suit your claims. itsamess

9:00am Tue 17 Apr 12

Robfm says...

For heavens sake Walter you cannot have an Adwords advertising account without first starting a google account.

I am not talking about the google search bar, and never was, of course you can search the end results, say for a search term Hotels Swindon. There will then be options to click on like google maps. What you can't do is be part of that search term without an account.

As for RR, it is the fundamental tool of epidemiological medical scientific research, any scientists and for that matter non scientist should know that.

Try taking a look at http://www.davehitt.
com/facts/who.html and explain away how the WHO claim the study gives one result when the data gives another.

I know you won't but hey once again I've tried to address fact not opinion or worse still bigotry.
For heavens sake Walter you cannot have an Adwords advertising account without first starting a google account. I am not talking about the google search bar, and never was, of course you can search the end results, say for a search term Hotels Swindon. There will then be options to click on like google maps. What you can't do is be part of that search term without an account. As for RR, it is the fundamental tool of epidemiological medical scientific research, any scientists and for that matter non scientist should know that. Try taking a look at http://www.davehitt. com/facts/who.html and explain away how the WHO claim the study gives one result when the data gives another. I know you won't but hey once again I've tried to address fact not opinion or worse still bigotry. Robfm

9:06am Tue 17 Apr 12

Robfm says...

This is what the WHO study from 10 European centres actually concluded.

Conclusions: Our results indicate no association
between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.
We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship
between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and
workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
of exposure.

This study was designed to produce a causal association but the integrity of those scientists was greater than it seems later studies where scientists altered the ground rules of CI to increase RR but overall still failed to find a causal relationship.
This is what the WHO study from 10 European centres actually concluded. Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure. [J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1440–50] This study was designed to produce a causal association but the integrity of those scientists was greater than it seems later studies where scientists altered the ground rules of CI to increase RR but overall still failed to find a causal relationship. Robfm

9:42am Tue 17 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Conclusions: Our results indicate no association
between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.
We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship
between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and
workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
of exposure.
Wow bobby--even that contradicts itself.
You can access google services quite freely no login and adwords-maps--probab
ly too simple for you.
If you want ads of course you have to have an account to pay for the ads.
Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure. Wow bobby--even that contradicts itself. You can access google services quite freely no login and adwords-maps--probab ly too simple for you. If you want ads of course you have to have an account to pay for the ads. itsamess

10:35am Tue 17 Apr 12

Robfm says...

OK then Walter set up google maps, or google places without registering.

How on earth do you think the non adwords links get there.

As for the conclusion, sorry if you don't like what the scientists have said, but if you bother to read the extract let alone the full study there is no contradiction, but an explanation.

They are simply saying there is no scientifically significant link during exposure, and even the 'weak evidence of dose' disappears following cessation of exposure. IE after leaving the 'pub' or where ever.
OK then Walter set up google maps, or google places without registering. How on earth do you think the non adwords links get there. As for the conclusion, sorry if you don't like what the scientists have said, but if you bother to read the extract let alone the full study there is no contradiction, but an explanation. They are simply saying there is no scientifically significant link during exposure, and even the 'weak evidence of dose' disappears following cessation of exposure. IE after leaving the 'pub' or where ever. Robfm

1:18pm Tue 17 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Bob
You simply do not understand that once the toxins have reached the lungs the damage will be caused--that is undeniable--and that cannot be reversed other with a transplant-no surgeon would give a lung transplant--unless they had given up smoking for at least 6months and below a certain age. That shoud tell you something--but you ignore facts.
It is very simple to see any google maps and google live cams to view streets--very good views of the carps--you must be very stupid if you do not know that.
Do stop your nonsense as you really are embarrasing yourself.
Bob You simply do not understand that once the toxins have reached the lungs the damage will be caused--that is undeniable--and that cannot be reversed other with a transplant-no surgeon would give a lung transplant--unless they had given up smoking for at least 6months and below a certain age. That shoud tell you something--but you ignore facts. It is very simple to see any google maps and google live cams to view streets--very good views of the carps--you must be very stupid if you do not know that. Do stop your nonsense as you really are embarrasing yourself. itsamess

4:19pm Tue 17 Apr 12

Robh says...

This has now become a series of trite non-facts, false claims and complete rubbish.

It seems that some can't read, some can't understand what they read and some completely ignore the full content of the posts.

Why don't you all grow up and stop making fools of yourselves. I think this topic must now be exhausted.
This has now become a series of trite non-facts, false claims and complete rubbish. It seems that some can't read, some can't understand what they read and some completely ignore the full content of the posts. Why don't you all grow up and stop making fools of yourselves. I think this topic must now be exhausted. Robh

5:10pm Tue 17 Apr 12

Robfm says...

So now Walter is an epidemiologist. So tell that to Boffetta etal, experts in their particular field. Their statement about ETS is absolutely clear as is the data.

As for the Google thing everyone here will know you (the royal you) cannot set up a page to be displayed either in maps, places, adwords, etc without a google account. No one is disputing you can search the content that is there, that was never what I said, but of course Walter keeps it going long enough so as to turn the meaning around.
So now Walter is an epidemiologist. So tell that to Boffetta etal, experts in their particular field. Their statement about ETS is absolutely clear as is the data. As for the Google thing everyone here will know you (the royal you) cannot set up a page to be displayed either in maps, places, adwords, etc without a google account. No one is disputing you can search the content that is there, that was never what I said, but of course Walter keeps it going long enough so as to turn the meaning around. Robfm

6:19pm Tue 17 Apr 12

Robh says...

Give it a rest.
Give it a rest. Robh

6:22pm Tue 17 Apr 12

Robh says...

Who cares about Google or ETS etc?
Who cares about Google or ETS etc? Robh

6:28pm Tue 17 Apr 12

Robh says...

Hooray that's 5 minutes peace.
Hooray that's 5 minutes peace. Robh

7:34pm Tue 17 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Bob
Why dont you just shut up as you are talking pure garbage.
The science is as clear as crystal and i am certainly not an epedemiologist--but a very good scientist that knows poisons and poisonous gasses can kill -maim and destroy vital organs and nothing you can produce will ever change that.
I personally do not care if folk smoke--they can read the warnings on packets and should not listen to idiots like you whose only interest is to have the ban reduced in some form to bring custom to your failing business--if you do not like it get out of the business.
I would also state i have no royal connections and have never made any such claims--thats you being your very barmy self.
Bob Why dont you just shut up as you are talking pure garbage. The science is as clear as crystal and i am certainly not an epedemiologist--but a very good scientist that knows poisons and poisonous gasses can kill -maim and destroy vital organs and nothing you can produce will ever change that. I personally do not care if folk smoke--they can read the warnings on packets and should not listen to idiots like you whose only interest is to have the ban reduced in some form to bring custom to your failing business--if you do not like it get out of the business. I would also state i have no royal connections and have never made any such claims--thats you being your very barmy self. itsamess

7:40pm Tue 17 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

Robfm wrote:
Very easily, so many posters come on here pretending to be objective but as with Mr Royle soon reveal their true intent.

As for Gestiblindus, typical anti smoker/smoking zealot pretends to want a debate expects others to produce evidence but claims the 'right' to state the anti smoking lobbies claims are self evident.

Those who are objective will not he/she despite being asked has provided no links to any of the claims made.

The only person banged to rights is you again Briz with yet another login.
Yet more insults. Yet more placing the blame. Yet more behaving like a petulant child who cannot have a lollipop.

I have asked you to defend your claims, not provide evidence. Anyone who knows a subject would be able to do so easily and knowledgeably, yet you cannot discuss even the most minor points.

I asked you to defend your behaviour and justify your insults and accusations. But yet again you cannot. You just keep it up. Are you such a sorry lot that you must knock everyone else down just to come up even?

What is the next trick? Will you throw yourself on the floor, kick your legs, flail your arms, produce some crocodile tears and scream for hours because no one believes what you copy and paste off of Google?

Spend some time learning the subject, learning the science, learning how to vet your sources, and then come back when you are capable of discussing it in a respectful and intelligent manner.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: Very easily, so many posters come on here pretending to be objective but as with Mr Royle soon reveal their true intent. As for Gestiblindus, typical anti smoker/smoking zealot pretends to want a debate expects others to produce evidence but claims the 'right' to state the anti smoking lobbies claims are self evident. Those who are objective will not he/she despite being asked has provided no links to any of the claims made. The only person banged to rights is you again Briz with yet another login.[/p][/quote]Yet more insults. Yet more placing the blame. Yet more behaving like a petulant child who cannot have a lollipop. I have asked you to defend your claims, not provide evidence. Anyone who knows a subject would be able to do so easily and knowledgeably, yet you cannot discuss even the most minor points. I asked you to defend your behaviour and justify your insults and accusations. But yet again you cannot. You just keep it up. Are you such a sorry lot that you must knock everyone else down just to come up even? What is the next trick? Will you throw yourself on the floor, kick your legs, flail your arms, produce some crocodile tears and scream for hours because no one believes what you copy and paste off of Google? Spend some time learning the subject, learning the science, learning how to vet your sources, and then come back when you are capable of discussing it in a respectful and intelligent manner. Gestiblindus

8:32pm Tue 17 Apr 12

Punctured bicycle on a hillside says...

Robfm wrote:
This is what the WHO study from 10 European centres actually concluded.

Conclusions: Our results indicate no association
between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk.
We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship
between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and
workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation
of exposure.

This study was designed to produce a causal association but the integrity of those scientists was greater than it seems later studies where scientists altered the ground rules of CI to increase RR but overall still failed to find a causal relationship.
Robbo, could you please cite your source of the above statement as even a cursory glance over the actual WHO reports indicate the complete opposite.

You are a well proven liar and fraud on these forums and unless you can give a link to a reliable and trustworthy source then one can only assume you are up to your old tricks again.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: This is what the WHO study from 10 European centres actually concluded. Conclusions: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure. [J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1440–50] This study was designed to produce a causal association but the integrity of those scientists was greater than it seems later studies where scientists altered the ground rules of CI to increase RR but overall still failed to find a causal relationship.[/p][/quote]Robbo, could you please cite your source of the above statement as even a cursory glance over the [italic]actual[/italic] WHO reports indicate the complete opposite. You are a well proven liar and fraud on these forums and unless you can give a link to a reliable and trustworthy source then one can only assume you are up to your old tricks again. Punctured bicycle on a hillside

10:31pm Tue 17 Apr 12

Robh says...

Pathetic.
Pathetic. Robh

7:28am Wed 18 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Perfectly happy to answer your reasonable question Punctured. The third World Conference on Smoking and Health in 1975 set as it's goal to prove that ETS/Passive Smoker was harmful to non smokers, and stated that in this quest the demonisation of smokers and the harm to children would be a way of achieving this. Extracts from this conference can be found here.

http://www.rampant-a
ntismoking.com/

This one conference should distinguish the notion that the whole move against smokers and smoking was a 'public lead campaign' it was not.

Perhaps this one objective proves this:
'Set up committees of sophisticated politicians and economists in every country to help pursue stated goals.'

Thus the Boffetta study and others had a clear 'brief' to prove ETS to be harmful. Of course the report clearly shows they proved the opposite.

Walter for the highly intelligent man you claim to be you really are quite stupid, 'the Royal' reference is simply an expression when using a word like 'you' not in the singular but in the plural or many.

Gestiblindus perhaps you should take your own advice please indicate where in any of your posts you have done anything other than make statements or demands.

Not one single source or reference.
Perfectly happy to answer your reasonable question Punctured. The third World Conference on Smoking and Health in 1975 set as it's goal to prove that ETS/Passive Smoker was harmful to non smokers, and stated that in this quest the demonisation of smokers and the harm to children would be a way of achieving this. Extracts from this conference can be found here. http://www.rampant-a ntismoking.com/ This one conference should distinguish the notion that the whole move against smokers and smoking was a 'public lead campaign' it was not. Perhaps this one objective proves this: 'Set up committees of sophisticated politicians and economists in every country to help pursue stated goals.' Thus the Boffetta study and others had a clear 'brief' to prove ETS to be harmful. Of course the report clearly shows they proved the opposite. Walter for the highly intelligent man you claim to be you really are quite stupid, 'the Royal' reference is simply an expression when using a word like 'you' not in the singular but in the plural or many. Gestiblindus perhaps you should take your own advice please indicate where in any of your posts you have done anything other than make statements or demands. Not one single source or reference. Robfm

7:50am Wed 18 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Bob
Facts are facts--tobacco contains poisons in many forms.
Poisons kill-and maim.
Bob Facts are facts--tobacco contains poisons in many forms. Poisons kill-and maim. itsamess

7:59am Wed 18 Apr 12

Robfm says...

No they don't Walter again any good scientist will tell 'the harm is in the dose', which is why RR is vital in establishing the 'dose' relationship.

I am sure you would agree that a cancer forming risk of 2.3 would be greater than 1.17.

2.3 is the cancer forming risk of drinking 3 or more cups of coffee a day. The 1.17 as the WHO study shows is ETS.
No they don't Walter again any good scientist will tell 'the harm is in the dose', which is why RR is vital in establishing the 'dose' relationship. I am sure you would agree that a cancer forming risk of 2.3 would be greater than 1.17. 2.3 is the cancer forming risk of drinking 3 or more cups of coffee a day. The 1.17 as the WHO study shows is ETS. Robfm

8:08am Wed 18 Apr 12

Robfm says...

The dose makes the poison, a principle of toxicology, was first expressed by Paracelsus.

It means that a substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible biological system within the body in a high enough concentration (dose).

The principle relies on the finding that all chemicals can be toxic if too much is eaten, drunk, or absorbed (such as water). "The toxicity of any particular chemical depends on many factors, including the extent to which it enters an individual’s body." Bioscience 2005, American Institute of Biological Sciences.

This finding provides also the basis for public health standards, which specify maximum acceptable concentrations of various contaminants in food, public drinking water, and the environment.
The dose makes the poison, a principle of toxicology, was first expressed by Paracelsus. It means that a substance can produce the harmful effect associated with its toxic properties only if it reaches a susceptible biological system within the body in a high enough concentration (dose). The principle relies on the finding that all chemicals can be toxic if too much is eaten, drunk, or absorbed (such as water). "The toxicity of any particular chemical depends on many factors, including the extent to which it enters an individual’s body." Bioscience 2005, American Institute of Biological Sciences. This finding provides also the basis for public health standards, which specify maximum acceptable concentrations of various contaminants in food, public drinking water, and the environment. Robfm

8:10am Wed 18 Apr 12

Punctured bicycle on a hillside says...

Robfm wrote:
Perfectly happy to answer your reasonable question Punctured. The third World Conference on Smoking and Health in 1975 set as it's goal to prove that ETS/Passive Smoker was harmful to non smokers, and stated that in this quest the demonisation of smokers and the harm to children would be a way of achieving this. Extracts from this conference can be found here.

http://www.rampant-a

ntismoking.com/

This one conference should distinguish the notion that the whole move against smokers and smoking was a 'public lead campaign' it was not.

Perhaps this one objective proves this:
'Set up committees of sophisticated politicians and economists in every country to help pursue stated goals.'

Thus the Boffetta study and others had a clear 'brief' to prove ETS to be harmful. Of course the report clearly shows they proved the opposite.

Walter for the highly intelligent man you claim to be you really are quite stupid, 'the Royal' reference is simply an expression when using a word like 'you' not in the singular but in the plural or many.

Gestiblindus perhaps you should take your own advice please indicate where in any of your posts you have done anything other than make statements or demands.

Not one single source or reference.
So you are citing a third world conference held nearly thiry years ago as your source of up to date information?

Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke
There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans
Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability
The evidence on adverse effects of SHS exposure has grown substantially, supporting ever stronger and broader causal conclusions

A handful of quotes from the scientific community. Personally I'd rather believe them than a jumped-up barman who's still angry about losing his profits.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: Perfectly happy to answer your reasonable question Punctured. The third World Conference on Smoking and Health in 1975 set as it's goal to prove that ETS/Passive Smoker was harmful to non smokers, and stated that in this quest the demonisation of smokers and the harm to children would be a way of achieving this. Extracts from this conference can be found here. http://www.rampant-a ntismoking.com/ This one conference should distinguish the notion that the whole move against smokers and smoking was a 'public lead campaign' it was not. Perhaps this one objective proves this: 'Set up committees of sophisticated politicians and economists in every country to help pursue stated goals.' Thus the Boffetta study and others had a clear 'brief' to prove ETS to be harmful. Of course the report clearly shows they proved the opposite. Walter for the highly intelligent man you claim to be you really are quite stupid, 'the Royal' reference is simply an expression when using a word like 'you' not in the singular but in the plural or many. Gestiblindus perhaps you should take your own advice please indicate where in any of your posts you have done anything other than make statements or demands. Not one single source or reference.[/p][/quote]So you are citing a third world conference held nearly thiry years ago as your source of up to date information? [quote]Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke[/quote][quote]There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or 'environmental' tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans[/quote][quote]Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability[/quote][quote]The evidence on adverse effects of SHS exposure has grown substantially, supporting ever stronger and broader causal conclusions[/quote] A handful of quotes from the scientific community. Personally I'd rather believe them than a jumped-up barman who's still angry about losing his profits. Punctured bicycle on a hillside

8:19am Wed 18 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Heavens Punctured the World Conferences are people in the scientific community.

You asked me a specific question which I answered, now you don't like the answer, you quote other sources.

O merely pointed out once again that the whole background to bans was 'social engineering' nothing to do with public disquiet until the public were bombarded with headlines, most of which have little to do with the truth.

As I have said numerous times, you either accept the lies of ETS as the truth or you don't. I have expressed my view, which will not alter, you have expressed yours which one assumes won't either.

So further discussion is pointless.
Heavens Punctured the World Conferences are people in the scientific community. You asked me a specific question which I answered, now you don't like the answer, you quote other sources. O merely pointed out once again that the whole background to bans was 'social engineering' nothing to do with public disquiet until the public were bombarded with headlines, most of which have little to do with the truth. As I have said numerous times, you either accept the lies of ETS as the truth or you don't. I have expressed my view, which will not alter, you have expressed yours which one assumes won't either. So further discussion is pointless. Robfm

8:28am Wed 18 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Bob
A poison is a poison and every poison or toxin can have a variety of properties-many mutate-tobacco contains a wide variety of these--whether you like it or not it causes severe lung damage--both directly or indirectly.
Bob A poison is a poison and every poison or toxin can have a variety of properties-many mutate-tobacco contains a wide variety of these--whether you like it or not it causes severe lung damage--both directly or indirectly. itsamess

8:28am Wed 18 Apr 12

Punctured bicycle on a hillside says...

I'm perfectly happy with your answer Robbo, it just shows that you will scrape any scrap of evidence or out of context quote from the darkest corners of the net to support your flaccid arguments.
I'm perfectly happy with your answer Robbo, it just shows that you will scrape any scrap of evidence or out of context quote from the darkest corners of the net to support your flaccid arguments. Punctured bicycle on a hillside

8:45am Wed 18 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Punctured they set out their aims and objectives at that conference and carried them out, how is anything from that conference then out of context.

It was the context of their aims and objectives.

Once again Walter changing the emphasise because you got it wrong.

I could consumes cyanide or arsenic but in a smaller dose it would not kill me.

Boffetta etal make it very clear the effects of ETS are momentary, remove the source, you remove the threat. IE leave the pub and ETS is not an issue.

That must be simple enough for you to understand.

And again for the record I have never said that smoking is not a factor in lung cancer, officially it has a 23% absolute risk factor. That risk factor could be detected in the 8% of smokers who carry the gene which is susceptible to mutation aggravated by tobacco smoke ingestion.

Ask yourself why an inexpensive test is not offered to smokers. The answer is simple the Pharmaceutical Industry would lose billions in revenue because smokers would know they weren't at risk of contracting Lung Cancer, and thus not purchase cessation products.

Profit is the only motivator for the drug companies, as it has to be said it is for the tobacco industry.

As far as Big D is concerned this can be illustrated quite simply by the research being undertaken in Canada where they have found that a simple, now non patented drug could cure and/or reduce 5 cancers of the more aggressive type.

The drug companies have refused to help fund the human trials to get the necessary authority to prescribe these drugs. Put simply they would benefit financially.

http://nutritiondiet
news.com/853757/

Try telling the cancer patience that Big D and their scientists have ethics.
Punctured they set out their aims and objectives at that conference and carried them out, how is anything from that conference then out of context. It was the context of their aims and objectives. Once again Walter changing the emphasise because you got it wrong. I could consumes cyanide or arsenic but in a smaller dose it would not kill me. Boffetta etal make it very clear the effects of ETS are momentary, remove the source, you remove the threat. IE leave the pub and ETS is not an issue. That must be simple enough for you to understand. And again for the record I have never said that smoking is not a factor in lung cancer, officially it has a 23% absolute risk factor. That risk factor could be detected in the 8% of smokers who carry the gene which is susceptible to mutation aggravated by tobacco smoke ingestion. Ask yourself why an inexpensive test is not offered to smokers. The answer is simple the Pharmaceutical Industry would lose billions in revenue because smokers would know they weren't at risk of contracting Lung Cancer, and thus not purchase cessation products. Profit is the only motivator for the drug companies, as it has to be said it is for the tobacco industry. As far as Big D is concerned this can be illustrated quite simply by the research being undertaken in Canada where they have found that a simple, now non patented drug could cure and/or reduce 5 cancers of the more aggressive type. The drug companies have refused to help fund the human trials to get the necessary authority to prescribe these drugs. Put simply they would benefit financially. http://nutritiondiet news.com/853757/ Try telling the cancer patience that Big D and their scientists have ethics. Robfm

8:57am Wed 18 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Try telling anyone that you understand anything about the subject--clearly you do not.
Try telling anyone that you understand anything about the subject--clearly you do not. itsamess

9:01am Wed 18 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Walter not very good at accepting facts are you. Have you ever produced a piece of research link on any topic you claim knowledge of. Answer NO.
Walter not very good at accepting facts are you. Have you ever produced a piece of research link on any topic you claim knowledge of. Answer NO. Robfm

9:34am Wed 18 Apr 12

Jim Royle says...

Unless itsamess is actually called Walter, Robfm would be in breach of site rules by continally addressing him in that manner. I'm staggered he is allowed to continue you hog this site with his twisted views and abuse.
Unless itsamess is actually called Walter, Robfm would be in breach of site rules by continally addressing him in that manner. I'm staggered he is allowed to continue you hog this site with his twisted views and abuse. Jim Royle

10:33am Wed 18 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Bob
I do not need to give any links because as a scientist i am wholly capable of understanding airborne toxins and particulates as in my industry we do have to understand possible illness from my industry. You however do not seem to understand the difference between smoke and vapour.
Bob I do not need to give any links because as a scientist i am wholly capable of understanding airborne toxins and particulates as in my industry we do have to understand possible illness from my industry. You however do not seem to understand the difference between smoke and vapour. itsamess

10:51am Wed 18 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Changing the subject again Walter.

I also note the arrogant retort, 'I'm a scientist I don't have to prove anything'. Well Walter in the world of the internet where knowledge and facts are generally freely available that doesn't wash any more.

I have happily provided links and sources that show ETS as an irritant, I have shown that ETS doesn't defeat the rules of particle science, and that Lung cancer can be 'cheaply' cured.

What have you shown. Ziltch.
Changing the subject again Walter. I also note the arrogant retort, 'I'm a scientist I don't have to prove anything'. Well Walter in the world of the internet where knowledge and facts are generally freely available that doesn't wash any more. I have happily provided links and sources that show ETS as an irritant, I have shown that ETS doesn't defeat the rules of particle science, and that Lung cancer can be 'cheaply' cured. What have you shown. Ziltch. Robfm

10:51am Wed 18 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Changing the subject again Walter.

I also note the arrogant retort, 'I'm a scientist I don't have to prove anything'. Well Walter in the world of the internet where knowledge and facts are generally freely available that doesn't wash any more.

I have happily provided links and sources that show ETS as an irritant, I have shown that ETS doesn't defeat the rules of particle science, and that Lung cancer can be 'cheaply' cured.

What have you shown. Ziltch.
Changing the subject again Walter. I also note the arrogant retort, 'I'm a scientist I don't have to prove anything'. Well Walter in the world of the internet where knowledge and facts are generally freely available that doesn't wash any more. I have happily provided links and sources that show ETS as an irritant, I have shown that ETS doesn't defeat the rules of particle science, and that Lung cancer can be 'cheaply' cured. What have you shown. Ziltch. Robfm

11:18am Wed 18 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Bob
As stated--all you provide is very minor articles that contradict what you say rather than scientific reports.
Perhaps you should look deeper into the claims of that cure for cancer--it has nothing to do with smoking issues as the concrete proof is that smoking directly causes COPD and there is absolutely no cure for that.
Bob As stated--all you provide is very minor articles that contradict what you say rather than scientific reports. Perhaps you should look deeper into the claims of that cure for cancer--it has nothing to do with smoking issues as the concrete proof is that smoking directly causes COPD and there is absolutely no cure for that. itsamess

11:40am Wed 18 Apr 12

Robfm says...

COPD is a generic term for a number of Lung illnesses.

But what has that got to do with the fact you never provide evidence of what you claim.

You keep telling us you are the scientist prove it, show us all the studies or just one that has a RR or OR that proves conclusive causal association with regard to ETS.
COPD is a generic term for a number of Lung illnesses. But what has that got to do with the fact you never provide evidence of what you claim. You keep telling us you are the scientist prove it, show us all the studies or just one that has a RR or OR that proves conclusive causal association with regard to ETS. Robfm

11:54am Wed 18 Apr 12

Robh says...

My dad's bigger than your dad.

You're all arguing about something of nothing. Grow up and face facts (which many of you don't understand) science and data can prove anything. The old adage is 'here's the answer now what's the question'.
My dad's bigger than your dad. You're all arguing about something of nothing. Grow up and face facts (which many of you don't understand) science and data can prove anything. The old adage is 'here's the answer now what's the question'. Robh

12:25pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Robh I agree with you 100%. However what is wrong is that the data is used to impose restrictions on business as this ban does, and the smoking ban removes the democratic rights of 14 million people engaged in a lawful pursuit.

If as you say there is no 'truth' then no action should be taken.
Robh I agree with you 100%. However what is wrong is that the data is used to impose restrictions on business as this ban does, and the smoking ban removes the democratic rights of 14 million people engaged in a lawful pursuit. If as you say there is no 'truth' then no action should be taken. Robfm

8:55pm Wed 18 Apr 12

Punctured bicycle on a hillside says...

The smoking ban is here to stay Robbo, no amount of scratching together ridiculous snippets of nonsence will help you now.

Good sense has seen through.

Now get back behind the bar where you belong and be thankful that you'll probably be healthier for not breathing in other people's noxious fumes.
The smoking ban is here to stay Robbo, no amount of scratching together ridiculous snippets of nonsence will help you now. Good sense has seen through. Now get back behind the bar where you belong and be thankful that you'll probably be healthier for not breathing in other people's noxious fumes. Punctured bicycle on a hillside

6:29am Thu 19 Apr 12

Gestiblindus says...

Robfm wrote:
Changing the subject again Walter.

I also note the arrogant retort, 'I'm a scientist I don't have to prove anything'. Well Walter in the world of the internet where knowledge and facts are generally freely available that doesn't wash any more.

I have happily provided links and sources that show ETS as an irritant, I have shown that ETS doesn't defeat the rules of particle science, and that Lung cancer can be 'cheaply' cured.

What have you shown. Ziltch.
All that you have managed to prove here is that your need to dominate and degrade others far outweighs any value you place on knowing the subject or presenting credible information. By bullying and abuse you usually get others to simply leave a thread, then you post some vain message claiming a victory that you have not achieved. Only you see a victory, everyone else sees a person with a problem.

As someone pointed out on the Arkells article, you show all the classic signs of NPD. And this discussion, if you could actually call it that, has demonstrated that very well. You can and should get yourself some help.

And as for what you have written above, not true. Just because something is found on a website does not mean it is factual, and once someone has established they have knowledge and credibility on a subject then further proof is not required. A discussion between knowledgeable individuals is an exchange of ideas, not a win or lose affair. That is something you are unlikely ever to experience because you have no credibility, you are unable to defend the points you make, nor do you demonstrate any knowledge on the subject beyond copying and pasting.

I think it would be responsible of the Adver to discourage your participation in these discussions because you add nothing, you do not respect others, and it seems that you suffer from a condition that is made worse by your participation.
[quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: Changing the subject again Walter. I also note the arrogant retort, 'I'm a scientist I don't have to prove anything'. Well Walter in the world of the internet where knowledge and facts are generally freely available that doesn't wash any more. I have happily provided links and sources that show ETS as an irritant, I have shown that ETS doesn't defeat the rules of particle science, and that Lung cancer can be 'cheaply' cured. What have you shown. Ziltch.[/p][/quote]All that you have managed to prove here is that your need to dominate and degrade others far outweighs any value you place on knowing the subject or presenting credible information. By bullying and abuse you usually get others to simply leave a thread, then you post some vain message claiming a victory that you have not achieved. Only you see a victory, everyone else sees a person with a problem. As someone pointed out on the Arkells article, you show all the classic signs of NPD. And this discussion, if you could actually call it that, has demonstrated that very well. You can and should get yourself some help. And as for what you have written above, not true. Just because something is found on a website does not mean it is factual, and once someone has established they have knowledge and credibility on a subject then further proof is not required. A discussion between knowledgeable individuals is an exchange of ideas, not a win or lose affair. That is something you are unlikely ever to experience because you have no credibility, you are unable to defend the points you make, nor do you demonstrate any knowledge on the subject beyond copying and pasting. I think it would be responsible of the Adver to discourage your participation in these discussions because you add nothing, you do not respect others, and it seems that you suffer from a condition that is made worse by your participation. Gestiblindus

8:26am Thu 19 Apr 12

Robfm says...

Gestiblindus, an exchange of ideas is only possible when people have an open mind. You do not.

Punctured the article is about display bans, not smoking bans.
Gestiblindus, an exchange of ideas is only possible when people have an open mind. You do not. Punctured the article is about display bans, not smoking bans. Robfm

9:22am Thu 19 Apr 12

Always Grumpy says...

Gestiblindus wrote:
Robfm wrote:
Changing the subject again Walter.

I also note the arrogant retort, 'I'm a scientist I don't have to prove anything'. Well Walter in the world of the internet where knowledge and facts are generally freely available that doesn't wash any more.

I have happily provided links and sources that show ETS as an irritant, I have shown that ETS doesn't defeat the rules of particle science, and that Lung cancer can be 'cheaply' cured.

What have you shown. Ziltch.
All that you have managed to prove here is that your need to dominate and degrade others far outweighs any value you place on knowing the subject or presenting credible information. By bullying and abuse you usually get others to simply leave a thread, then you post some vain message claiming a victory that you have not achieved. Only you see a victory, everyone else sees a person with a problem.

As someone pointed out on the Arkells article, you show all the classic signs of NPD. And this discussion, if you could actually call it that, has demonstrated that very well. You can and should get yourself some help.

And as for what you have written above, not true. Just because something is found on a website does not mean it is factual, and once someone has established they have knowledge and credibility on a subject then further proof is not required. A discussion between knowledgeable individuals is an exchange of ideas, not a win or lose affair. That is something you are unlikely ever to experience because you have no credibility, you are unable to defend the points you make, nor do you demonstrate any knowledge on the subject beyond copying and pasting.

I think it would be responsible of the Adver to discourage your participation in these discussions because you add nothing, you do not respect others, and it seems that you suffer from a condition that is made worse by your participation.
Gestiblindus/justano
thernumber - your contribution to this 'debate' is.........?
Well, nothing really.
Pot, kettle, black springs to mind!
[quote][p][bold]Gestiblindus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Robfm[/bold] wrote: Changing the subject again Walter. I also note the arrogant retort, 'I'm a scientist I don't have to prove anything'. Well Walter in the world of the internet where knowledge and facts are generally freely available that doesn't wash any more. I have happily provided links and sources that show ETS as an irritant, I have shown that ETS doesn't defeat the rules of particle science, and that Lung cancer can be 'cheaply' cured. What have you shown. Ziltch.[/p][/quote]All that you have managed to prove here is that your need to dominate and degrade others far outweighs any value you place on knowing the subject or presenting credible information. By bullying and abuse you usually get others to simply leave a thread, then you post some vain message claiming a victory that you have not achieved. Only you see a victory, everyone else sees a person with a problem. As someone pointed out on the Arkells article, you show all the classic signs of NPD. And this discussion, if you could actually call it that, has demonstrated that very well. You can and should get yourself some help. And as for what you have written above, not true. Just because something is found on a website does not mean it is factual, and once someone has established they have knowledge and credibility on a subject then further proof is not required. A discussion between knowledgeable individuals is an exchange of ideas, not a win or lose affair. That is something you are unlikely ever to experience because you have no credibility, you are unable to defend the points you make, nor do you demonstrate any knowledge on the subject beyond copying and pasting. I think it would be responsible of the Adver to discourage your participation in these discussions because you add nothing, you do not respect others, and it seems that you suffer from a condition that is made worse by your participation.[/p][/quote]Gestiblindus/justano thernumber - your contribution to this 'debate' is.........? Well, nothing really. Pot, kettle, black springs to mind! Always Grumpy

11:13am Thu 19 Apr 12

Robh says...

Why don't you all accept defeat. No matter how many comments are made you will not top De Canio.

Just as minless and just as trivial.
Why don't you all accept defeat. No matter how many comments are made you will not top De Canio. Just as minless and just as trivial. Robh

12:05pm Thu 19 Apr 12

itsamess says...

Robh
When comments have nothing to do with the article the debate is lost.
One poster continues to raise a whole tranch of issues totally unrelated to this article and resorts to calling all and sundry a host of names.
Personally i do not agree that tobacco products should be hidden-solely as there is no breach of the law to sell such products. Health risks are clearly displayed on packaging.
The ban on smoking in communal areas has proved to be effective-despite the affect to many trades.
Drink is a cause of numerous health issues on a par with smoking with higher risks from violence and anti-social crime and of course road deaths--but there is no call to have pubs and clubs etc to cover up their products--on the contrary-the govt introduced legislation to cause responsible drinking.
The biggest difference being drinkers do not pass on fumes and toxins tobacco does.
Robh When comments have nothing to do with the article the debate is lost. One poster continues to raise a whole tranch of issues totally unrelated to this article and resorts to calling all and sundry a host of names. Personally i do not agree that tobacco products should be hidden-solely as there is no breach of the law to sell such products. Health risks are clearly displayed on packaging. The ban on smoking in communal areas has proved to be effective-despite the affect to many trades. Drink is a cause of numerous health issues on a par with smoking with higher risks from violence and anti-social crime and of course road deaths--but there is no call to have pubs and clubs etc to cover up their products--on the contrary-the govt introduced legislation to cause responsible drinking. The biggest difference being drinkers do not pass on fumes and toxins tobacco does. itsamess

11:58pm Thu 19 Apr 12

King_Briz says...

So why did the comments get erased from the Arkells thread. What did Robbo do now?
So why did the comments get erased from the Arkells thread. What did Robbo do now? King_Briz

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree