Carpenters Arms landlord Robert Feal-Martinez, who is planing to stand for UKIP for the second year running at the next election
A LANDLORD says UKIP is the only political party that can help the pub industry.
Robert Feal-Martinez, of the Carpenters' Arms, in South Marston, thinks UKIP offers freedom and choice to licensees.
And he says his claims are backed up by a survey in the Morning Advertiser, a trade magazine.
It states that 64 per cent of licensees believe that UKIP is the only party which would benefit
the pub trade.
Reader Poll Do you think UKIP can help the pub trade?
Yes 75.9%
No 24.1%
"UKIP would revisit the smoking ban to allow more choice to licensees," said Robert. "It would give the right to pubs to choose to be smoking and to have filtration systems in place.
"We did a survey ourselves recently where we had 60 respondents about the smoking ban.
advertisement
"Fifty-eight people said they were happy with the environment prior to the ban."
Mr Feal-Martinez also said the Office For National Statistics, which surveys household trends, found people wanted more choices in hospitality.
He said: "UKIP would put blame for binge drinking where it belongs - with the supermarkets and off-licences.
"UKIP will enable licensees to make their own decisions with minimum Government interference and maximum support.
"UKIP would allow businesses to run for the benefit of their customers."
In 2007 Robert stood for election to Swindon Council for UKIP and plans to stand again this year.
UKIP is committed to withdrawing Britain from the EU as it believes it is bad for Britain's prosperity.
Posted by: Grumpy old man, Swindon on 12:08pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Errrrm, right. No conflict of interest there then!
Surely the blame for binge drinking lies with those that are binge drinking - a little personal responsibility please!
Edit: Been in more pubs now to eat than I ever would have before the smoking ban. The only downside is they are still aloud outside so you have to walk through the stench of the smokers standing outside to get in!
Errrrm, right. No conflict of interest there then!
Surely the blame for binge drinking lies with those that are binge drinking - a little personal responsibility please!
Edit: Been in more pubs now to eat than I ever would have before the smoking ban. The only downside is they are still aloud outside so you have to walk through the stench of the smokers standing outside to get in!
pubs are so much better now.
So come on then RFM - I'm sure you are itching to add some comments. Where were these 60 people surveyed? Was it in your pub by any chance?
pubs are so much better now.
So come on then RFM - I'm sure you are itching to add some comments. Where were these 60 people surveyed? Was it in your pub by any chance?
pubs are so much better now.
So come on then RFM - I'm sure you are itching to add some comments. Where were these 60 people surveyed? Was it in your pub by any chance?
pubs are so much better now.
So come on then RFM - I'm sure you are itching to add some comments. Where were these 60 people surveyed? Was it in your pub by any chance?
So what you are saying is stuff the none smokers who have had to put up with the stentch of tobacco smoke on their clothes when they wanted to go out to a pub. I go out a lot more to pubs since the smoking ban came in, [bold]but I can tell you one pub in South Marston I wont be going to again[/bold] !
So what you are saying is stuff the none smokers who have had to put up with the stentch of tobacco smoke on their clothes when they wanted to go out to a pub. I go out a lot more to pubs since the smoking ban came in, but I can tell you one pub in South Marston I wont be going to again !
of course this survey is just a 'click here' on the Morning Advertiser's website...
http://www.morningad
vertiser.co.uk/
just like the one on this page. Very easy to hijack.
of course this survey is just a 'click here' on the Morning Advertiser's website...
http://www.morningad
vertiser.co.uk/
just like the one on this page. Very easy to hijack.
Posted by: Casual Observer, Swindon on 12:31pm Wed 26 Mar 08
I don't understand how, when being a landlord is supposed to be such a laborious job, Robert Meal-Fartinez gets the time to gather useless stats, sit down and and bang away on his keyboard trying to persuade people he is right via this website.
I don't understand how, when being a landlord is supposed to be such a laborious job, Robert Meal-Fartinez gets the time to gather useless stats, sit down and and bang away on his keyboard trying to persuade people he is right via this website.
Posted by: Ian13, Swindon on 12:34pm Wed 26 Mar 08
What RFM and UKIP appear to be offering is a choice. ie: smoking pubs and none smoking pubs as decided by the landlord. Labour promised an exemption from the smoking ban for non-food pubs - another of their lies.
I supply pubs and clubs so know how badly the industry is suffering.
Why should smokers have to stand outside just to please the minority of pub customers?
What RFM and UKIP appear to be offering is a choice. ie: smoking pubs and none smoking pubs as decided by the landlord. Labour promised an exemption from the smoking ban for non-food pubs - another of their lies.
I supply pubs and clubs so know how badly the industry is suffering.
Why should smokers have to stand outside just to please the minority of pub customers?
Posted by: swindonlad, swindon on 12:35pm Wed 26 Mar 08
oh come on adver, this is a guy from a minority political party looking for publicity as he's a wannabe MP - nothing more, UKIP will NOT win in swindon & very unlikely to get any MPs
oh come on adver, this is a guy from a minority political party looking for publicity as he's a wannabe MP - nothing more, UKIP will NOT win in swindon & very unlikely to get any MPs
Posted by: DarkAuror, Swindon on 12:58pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Polymath[/bold] wrote:
This newspaper is of poor standard and it's getting worse.[/quote] However, it's doing it's job and getting people talking. I agree that it appears to be all about non stories, sensationalism and poorly researched stories.
I wouldn't spend my money on it.
Polymath wrote:
This newspaper is of poor standard and it's getting worse.
However, it's doing it's job and getting people talking. I agree that it appears to be all about non stories, sensationalism and poorly researched stories.
Posted by: mr big, Swindon on 1:10pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Well done to all the do gooders on here I know know why I do not go to the pub much any more beacuse I will meet grumpy people like you. Get smoking back and stop the "1 pint gang" going in there.
Well done to all the do gooders on here I know know why I do not go to the pub much any more beacuse I will meet grumpy people like you. Get smoking back and stop the "1 pint gang" going in there.
Posted by: DarkAuror, Swindon on 1:27pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]mr big[/bold] wrote:
Well done to all the do gooders on here I know know why I do not go to the pub much any more beacuse I will meet grumpy people like you. Get smoking back and stop the "1 pint gang" going in there.[/quote] So are you saying to only allow people who can afford the inflated cigarette prices and who binge drink to be allowed in to pubs? ;)
mr big wrote:
Well done to all the do gooders on here I know know why I do not go to the pub much any more beacuse I will meet grumpy people like you. Get smoking back and stop the "1 pint gang" going in there.
So are you saying to only allow people who can afford the inflated cigarette prices and who binge drink to be allowed in to pubs? ;)
Posted by: Atomic_Pond, Swindon on 1:37pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Yes pubs were closing but not as fast as they are now!!!
60% of business has been lost since the smoking ban went in!!!
There will be an increase of people in the summer but at the moment coz the weather is crap people just arnt going!!!
Yes pubs were closing but not as fast as they are now!!!
60% of business has been lost since the smoking ban went in!!!
There will be an increase of people in the summer but at the moment coz the weather is crap people just arnt going!!!
Posted by: mr big, Swindon on 1:44pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]DarkAuror[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]mr big[/bold] wrote: Well done to all the do gooders on here I know know why I do not go to the pub much any more beacuse I will meet grumpy people like you. Get smoking back and stop the "1 pint gang" going in there.[/quote] So are you saying to only allow people who can afford the inflated cigarette prices and who binge drink to be allowed in to pubs? ;)[/quote] YES!!!!!!
When a smoker that drinks 3 pints a night stops going and is replaced by a person that likes to have a couple of pints a week then that is bad for the pub trade. Do you not agree.
DarkAuror wrote:
mr big wrote: Well done to all the do gooders on here I know know why I do not go to the pub much any more beacuse I will meet grumpy people like you. Get smoking back and stop the "1 pint gang" going in there.
So are you saying to only allow people who can afford the inflated cigarette prices and who binge drink to be allowed in to pubs? ;)
YES!!!!!!
When a smoker that drinks 3 pints a night stops going and is replaced by a person that likes to have a couple of pints a week then that is bad for the pub trade. Do you not agree.
Binge drinking is not usually associated with pubs. If the landlord believes that you have had too much to drink, by law he must stop serving you.
Yes pubs are more expensive than at home but then are you adding the cost of your mortgage into the cost of your cheap beer?
Likewise cigarettes sold in pubs go to over 18's and are mostly smoked on the premises. This is not the case in supermarkets where older kids buy cigs. for the younger ones.
If we get rid of pubs not only will we lose a great tradition but we will also lose the checks and controls that come with them.
Binge drinking is not usually associated with pubs. If the landlord believes that you have had too much to drink, by law he must stop serving you.
Yes pubs are more expensive than at home but then are you adding the cost of your mortgage into the cost of your cheap beer?
Likewise cigarettes sold in pubs go to over 18's and are mostly smoked on the premises. This is not the case in supermarkets where older kids buy cigs. for the younger ones.
If we get rid of pubs not only will we lose a great tradition but we will also lose the checks and controls that come with them.
Posted by: DarkAuror, Swindon on 2:02pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]mr big[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]DarkAuror[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]mr big[/bold] wrote: Well done to all the do gooders on here I know know why I do not go to the pub much any more beacuse I will meet grumpy people like you. Get smoking back and stop the "1 pint gang" going in there.[/quote] So are you saying to only allow people who can afford the inflated cigarette prices and who binge drink to be allowed in to pubs? ;)[/quote] YES!!!!!! When a smoker that drinks 3 pints a night stops going and is replaced by a person that likes to have a couple of pints a week then that is bad for the pub trade. Do you not agree.[/quote] No!!!
It just means that the pub trade needs to look at ways to encourage people to come to the pub. I know people who have given up smoking, who actually now can spend more on drink.
I think it's a poor excuse that a smoker will not go to a pub just because he has to smoke outside. Just be lucky that the UK haven't adopted the same laws as New York where it is an offence to smoke outside public buildings.
mr big wrote:
DarkAuror wrote:
mr big wrote: Well done to all the do gooders on here I know know why I do not go to the pub much any more beacuse I will meet grumpy people like you. Get smoking back and stop the "1 pint gang" going in there.
So are you saying to only allow people who can afford the inflated cigarette prices and who binge drink to be allowed in to pubs? ;)
YES!!!!!! When a smoker that drinks 3 pints a night stops going and is replaced by a person that likes to have a couple of pints a week then that is bad for the pub trade. Do you not agree.
No!!!
It just means that the pub trade needs to look at ways to encourage people to come to the pub. I know people who have given up smoking, who actually now can spend more on drink.
I think it's a poor excuse that a smoker will not go to a pub just because he has to smoke outside. Just be lucky that the UK haven't adopted the same laws as New York where it is an offence to smoke outside public buildings.
RFM and UKIP - well they are aren't they half asleep - "kip" lol!
There are many reasons pubs are in decline - not least the high cost of boozing in them - greedy brewery rents and mark ups on wet & dry sales,Darling Alistairs latest little wheeze in the budget will add 4p to a pint -remember the whinging at the £2 pint well now it's over £3 and rising - any wonder the PPP's go to Aldi Lidl etc to buy their booze rather than drink in the Leap, the Bulldog or the Moonies! 3-4 times a week drinkers from real money days are now only Fri or Sat night brigade 9 -11 or midnight if you're lucky. Agree with the post about now having to hold your breath as you walk through the blue haze gauntlet outside the door -which in itself is illegal isn't it? 15m or so from the pub entrance I thought? mind you getting home without the stench of baccy in your hair and clothes is a real bonus and to not have to suffer selfish smokers who having finished their meal would light up oblivious to the next table who'd just commenced eating - good to see the back of the "I'm alright jack!!" brigade!
RFM and UKIP - well they are aren't they half asleep - "kip" lol!
There are many reasons pubs are in decline - not least the high cost of boozing in them - greedy brewery rents and mark ups on wet & dry sales,Darling Alistairs latest little wheeze in the budget will add 4p to a pint -remember the whinging at the £2 pint well now it's over £3 and rising - any wonder the PPP's go to Aldi Lidl etc to buy their booze rather than drink in the Leap, the Bulldog or the Moonies! 3-4 times a week drinkers from real money days are now only Fri or Sat night brigade 9 -11 or midnight if you're lucky. Agree with the post about now having to hold your breath as you walk through the blue haze gauntlet outside the door -which in itself is illegal isn't it? 15m or so from the pub entrance I thought? mind you getting home without the stench of baccy in your hair and clothes is a real bonus and to not have to suffer selfish smokers who having finished their meal would light up oblivious to the next table who'd just commenced eating - good to see the back of the "I'm alright jack!!" brigade!
So far as I am concerned the main thing keeping people out of the pub is the governments relentless taxation on anything, it’s always been the same targets cigarettes, booze and petrol, that with increased home bills (council tax, fuel bills etc) – it’s no wonder pubs are losing customers.
The smoking ban alone will not deter people as most pubs have built outdoor shelters to accommodate smokers.
According to this article if we all vote UKIP and reverse the smoking ban everything will be alright – Nonsense, which is one reason why I will not be voting for them.
So far as I am concerned the main thing keeping people out of the pub is the governments relentless taxation on anything, it’s always been the same targets cigarettes, booze and petrol, that with increased home bills (council tax, fuel bills etc) – it’s no wonder pubs are losing customers.
The smoking ban alone will not deter people as most pubs have built outdoor shelters to accommodate smokers.
According to this article if we all vote UKIP and reverse the smoking ban everything will be alright – Nonsense, which is one reason why I will not be voting for them.
So far as I am concerned the main thing keeping people out of the pub is the governments relentless taxation on anything, it’s always been the same targets cigarettes, booze and petrol, that with increased home bills (council tax, fuel bills etc) – it’s no wonder pubs are losing customers.
The smoking ban alone will not deter people as most pubs have built outdoor shelters to accommodate smokers.
According to this article if we all vote UKIP and reverse the smoking ban everything will be alright – Nonsense, which is one reason why I will not be voting for them.
So far as I am concerned the main thing keeping people out of the pub is the governments relentless taxation on anything, it’s always been the same targets cigarettes, booze and petrol, that with increased home bills (council tax, fuel bills etc) – it’s no wonder pubs are losing customers.
The smoking ban alone will not deter people as most pubs have built outdoor shelters to accommodate smokers.
According to this article if we all vote UKIP and reverse the smoking ban everything will be alright – Nonsense, which is one reason why I will not be voting for them.
Posted by: The builder, Old Town on 2:17pm Wed 26 Mar 08
I have stopped going to pubs (apart from during the summer) because of the smoking ban - I used to go a couple of times a week.
It would be nice if one of the political parties allowed businesses (and people) to have the freedom to choose, but I doubt UKIP will get the vote purely because of this (would be funny though wouldn't it ?).
Non smokers should be afraid - if everyone gave up smoking, taxes would have to rise considerably to replace the lost revenue.
Exactly the sort of thing the labour government will do.
I have stopped going to pubs (apart from during the summer) because of the smoking ban - I used to go a couple of times a week.
It would be nice if one of the political parties allowed businesses (and people) to have the freedom to choose, but I doubt UKIP will get the vote purely because of this (would be funny though wouldn't it ?).
Non smokers should be afraid - if everyone gave up smoking, taxes would have to rise considerably to replace the lost revenue.
Exactly the sort of thing the labour government will do.
Posted by: DarkAuror, Swindon on 2:20pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]The builder[/bold] wrote:
I have stopped going to pubs (apart from during the summer) because of the smoking ban - I used to go a couple of times a week. It would be nice if one of the political parties allowed businesses (and people) to have the freedom to choose, but I doubt UKIP will get the vote purely because of this (would be funny though wouldn't it ?). Non smokers should be afraid - if everyone gave up smoking, taxes would have to rise considerably to replace the lost revenue. Exactly the sort of thing the labour government will do. [/quote] Flipside, think of the money saved from treating smoking related illnesses at hospitals.
The builder wrote:
I have stopped going to pubs (apart from during the summer) because of the smoking ban - I used to go a couple of times a week. It would be nice if one of the political parties allowed businesses (and people) to have the freedom to choose, but I doubt UKIP will get the vote purely because of this (would be funny though wouldn't it ?). Non smokers should be afraid - if everyone gave up smoking, taxes would have to rise considerably to replace the lost revenue. Exactly the sort of thing the labour government will do.
Flipside, think of the money saved from treating smoking related illnesses at hospitals.
Posted by: Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon on 2:29pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Lets put the record straight on this article, it was written as a result of an on-line Poll in the Pub Industry Trade Press, I was asked as an open and transparent member of UKIP, the fourth largest political party in the country for my response to the survey, given it was UKIP who were way out front. I am sure had it been the Tory's they would have been asked. Whilst the report mentions the ONS Household Survey it doesn't mention the results. This is very important as this survey has nothing to do with the hospitality Industry. In 2004 63% said they wanted choices in pubs and clubs, in 2005 the figure ws 65%. This result was deliberately delayed by the Government to avoid the embarrassment of the ban vote going against them. In 2006 after the ban had been voted in 67% said they wanted choice. UKIP openly campaigned for a vote for choice which we still believe in. Even the HSE do not believe passive smoking is a serious health risk to workers, which is what the ban was supposed to be for. Had they believed this legislation was already in place to use against employers. So once you remove the hysteria of perceived risk, then we are left with the old favourite, the smell. Modern Ventilation/filtrati
on removes 99.97% of all air borne particulates, including carcinogens, so had HMG had a Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standard the problem would have been solved with 1658 pubs and clubs closing since July 2007 with tens of thousands of job losses. In 2005 just 102 pubs closed and 204 in 2006. They are the facts as for the usual attacks on my character, just par for the course from those who hide behind nick names. One last thing of the 60 customers I asked 70% of them were non smokers. Ask any 'traditional' pub if there smoking customers have been replaced by non smokers, the answer is a resounding NO. Feel free to have a pop at my political beliefs, that's democracy, but spare a thought for the families whose lives have been destroyed by a smoking ban that has simply increased smoking. Hence the Governments latest attempts with hiding from view and removing vending machines. That is sheer desperation because their Social Engineering experiment failed. UKIP believes in democracy, that cannot be said os the other 3 parties who allowed this ban to be introduced in the first. For the record I am a life long never smoker, who wouldn't have a problem with tobacco being banned.
Lets put the record straight on this article, it was written as a result of an on-line Poll in the Pub Industry Trade Press, I was asked as an open and transparent member of UKIP, the fourth largest political party in the country for my response to the survey, given it was UKIP who were way out front. I am sure had it been the Tory's they would have been asked. Whilst the report mentions the ONS Household Survey it doesn't mention the results. This is very important as this survey has nothing to do with the hospitality Industry. In 2004 63% said they wanted choices in pubs and clubs, in 2005 the figure ws 65%. This result was deliberately delayed by the Government to avoid the embarrassment of the ban vote going against them. In 2006 after the ban had been voted in 67% said they wanted choice. UKIP openly campaigned for a vote for choice which we still believe in. Even the HSE do not believe passive smoking is a serious health risk to workers, which is what the ban was supposed to be for. Had they believed this legislation was already in place to use against employers. So once you remove the hysteria of perceived risk, then we are left with the old favourite, the smell. Modern Ventilation/filtrati
on removes 99.97% of all air borne particulates, including carcinogens, so had HMG had a Regulated Indoor Air Quality Standard the problem would have been solved with 1658 pubs and clubs closing since July 2007 with tens of thousands of job losses. In 2005 just 102 pubs closed and 204 in 2006. They are the facts as for the usual attacks on my character, just par for the course from those who hide behind nick names. One last thing of the 60 customers I asked 70% of them were non smokers. Ask any 'traditional' pub if there smoking customers have been replaced by non smokers, the answer is a resounding NO. Feel free to have a pop at my political beliefs, that's democracy, but spare a thought for the families whose lives have been destroyed by a smoking ban that has simply increased smoking. Hence the Governments latest attempts with hiding from view and removing vending machines. That is sheer desperation because their Social Engineering experiment failed. UKIP believes in democracy, that cannot be said os the other 3 parties who allowed this ban to be introduced in the first. For the record I am a life long never smoker, who wouldn't have a problem with tobacco being banned.
Posted by: Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon on 2:33pm Wed 26 Mar 08
DA tax revenues from smoking are 10 billion a year smoking related ill health costs 1.7billion (NHS). So smokers should get a rebate don't you think. Also there are no legal distances from doors just another inaccuracy spouted about the regulations.
DA tax revenues from smoking are 10 billion a year smoking related ill health costs 1.7billion (NHS). So smokers should get a rebate don't you think. Also there are no legal distances from doors just another inaccuracy spouted about the regulations.
Posted by: Ellen, Haydon Wick Swindon on 2:37pm Wed 26 Mar 08
There are various factors contributing to the decline of the traditional pub and in my experience the smoking ban is the smallest one.
The relentless taxation, high brewery prices and rents are a much larger factor. That, coupled with the cheaper supermarket and chain pub prices are putting the small tenanted pubs out of business.
The fact is, that if people think that keeping the traditional community pub open is important, they will use them. At present, we are lucky in our pub, the majority of the community do come here, much more pressure however, and that may change.
We are trying to offer new services but some help from the government and breweries wouldn't go amiss. It's a case of use it or lose it I'm afraid.
There are various factors contributing to the decline of the traditional pub and in my experience the smoking ban is the smallest one.
The relentless taxation, high brewery prices and rents are a much larger factor. That, coupled with the cheaper supermarket and chain pub prices are putting the small tenanted pubs out of business.
The fact is, that if people think that keeping the traditional community pub open is important, they will use them. At present, we are lucky in our pub, the majority of the community do come here, much more pressure however, and that may change.
We are trying to offer new services but some help from the government and breweries wouldn't go amiss. It's a case of use it or lose it I'm afraid.
Posted by: Casual Observer, Swindon on 2:56pm Wed 26 Mar 08
I think we should relentlessly punish the smoker no matter what the cost to our traditions or customs. They relentlessly punished us for years with their foul habit, now it's their turn to suffer.
Smokers: Die
I think we should relentlessly punish the smoker no matter what the cost to our traditions or customs. They relentlessly punished us for years with their foul habit, now it's their turn to suffer.
Posted by: P S Altery, Swindon on 3:01pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Casual Observer[/bold] wrote:
I think we should relentlessly punish the smoker no matter what the cost to our traditions or customs. They relentlessly punished us for years with their foul habit, now it's their turn to suffer. Smokers: Die[/quote] Nothing like the calm voice of reason to aid with a debate is there!
Casual Observer wrote:
I think we should relentlessly punish the smoker no matter what the cost to our traditions or customs. They relentlessly punished us for years with their foul habit, now it's their turn to suffer. Smokers: Die
Nothing like the calm voice of reason to aid with a debate is there!
[quote][bold]Casual Observer[/bold] wrote:
I think we should relentlessly punish the smoker no matter what the cost to our traditions or customs. They relentlessly punished us for years with their foul habit, now it's their turn to suffer. Smokers: Die[/quote] Fairly common response from the anti-smoking brigade that cannot have a sensible debate on freedom of choice!
Casual Observer wrote:
I think we should relentlessly punish the smoker no matter what the cost to our traditions or customs. They relentlessly punished us for years with their foul habit, now it's their turn to suffer. Smokers: Die
Fairly common response from the anti-smoking brigade that cannot have a sensible debate on freedom of choice!
Posted by: Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon on 3:13pm Wed 26 Mar 08
PS unfortunately the sort of rabid views expressed by Casual are all too common on any forum where the anti smokers post. They have no argument, other than smoke smells, so does curry, body odour, air fresheners, all capable of giving off harmful carcinogens. As I said the solution is RIAQS.
PS unfortunately the sort of rabid views expressed by Casual are all too common on any forum where the anti smokers post. They have no argument, other than smoke smells, so does curry, body odour, air fresheners, all capable of giving off harmful carcinogens. As I said the solution is RIAQS.
Posted by: El Colinio, Swindon on 3:21pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Smoking is on the decline, I'm not sure where a politician can claim families being put out of business causes more smokers, I'd like to see how that was researched!! The ban is a reason people are stopping, people will therefore be better in health. Doesn't matter what the cost is if people are stopping and therefore helping themselves and others from the burden and distress of lung cancer etc.
Also smokers are the minority Ian 13 not the other way. They still have a choice this way, without a ban all pubs would allow it and the majority would have to run the risk and deal with the stink!
Smoking is on the decline, I'm not sure where a politician can claim families being put out of business causes more smokers, I'd like to see how that was researched!! The ban is a reason people are stopping, people will therefore be better in health. Doesn't matter what the cost is if people are stopping and therefore helping themselves and others from the burden and distress of lung cancer etc.
Also smokers are the minority Ian 13 not the other way. They still have a choice this way, without a ban all pubs would allow it and the majority would have to run the risk and deal with the stink!
Posted by: DarkAuror, Swindon on 3:23pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Robert Feal-Martinez[/bold] wrote:
PS unfortunately the sort of rabid views expressed by Casual are all too common on any forum where the anti smokers post. They have no argument, other than smoke smells, so does curry, body odour, air fresheners, all capable of giving off harmful carcinogens. As I said the solution is RIAQS.[/quote] If there was no argument, why is it, in the country of the biggest tobacco companies, who by chance get sued by the users of their products for tobacco related illnesses, just happen to have most of their cities smoke-free.
Of course, I'm talking about the USA.
Robert Feal-Martinez wrote:
PS unfortunately the sort of rabid views expressed by Casual are all too common on any forum where the anti smokers post. They have no argument, other than smoke smells, so does curry, body odour, air fresheners, all capable of giving off harmful carcinogens. As I said the solution is RIAQS.
If there was no argument, why is it, in the country of the biggest tobacco companies, who by chance get sued by the users of their products for tobacco related illnesses, just happen to have most of their cities smoke-free.
Posted by: Casual Observer, Swindon on 3:26pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Robert Feal-Martinez[/bold] wrote:
PS unfortunately the sort of rabid views expressed by Casual are all too common on any forum where the anti smokers post. They have no argument, other than smoke smells, so does curry, body odour, air fresheners, all capable of giving off harmful carcinogens. As I said the solution is RIAQS.[/quote] Smokers [italic]transfer[/italic] the smell to other people, that's the key thing, and the harmful effects. Non-smokers didn't have the choice to avoid that if they wanted to go to a pub, now they don't have to worry and can laugh their nuts off at the smelly people skulking around the doorway.
If you think there's a way back from this by voting for a bunch of cranks, forget it.
Robert Feal-Martinez wrote:
PS unfortunately the sort of rabid views expressed by Casual are all too common on any forum where the anti smokers post. They have no argument, other than smoke smells, so does curry, body odour, air fresheners, all capable of giving off harmful carcinogens. As I said the solution is RIAQS.
Smokers transfer the smell to other people, that's the key thing, and the harmful effects. Non-smokers didn't have the choice to avoid that if they wanted to go to a pub, now they don't have to worry and can laugh their nuts off at the smelly people skulking around the doorway.
If you think there's a way back from this by voting for a bunch of cranks, forget it.
Posted by: Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon on 3:58pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[bold]Also smokers are the minority Ian 13 not the other way. They still have a choice this way, without a ban all pubs would allow it and the majority would have to run the risk and deal with the stink![/bold] An interesting observation, why do you think that would be EC.?. As it happens more and more States and Counties in the US are allowing exemptions for bars. As local Counties generate their own incomes, tax receipts from bars are falling. It's Economics against Health, apparently Economics wins. As for no choice, many pubs had gone non smoking prior to the ban, they advertised their smoke free offer, but no one came, most reverted back. The fact remains, smoking is on the increase again after years of decline, because of the smoking ban. Not what the doctor ordered. [bold]now they don't have to worry and can laugh their nuts off at the smelly people skulking around the doorway[/bold] Oh but weren't some of you complaining about having to walk through this smoke haze. As for transfer of smell have you stood next to a person who has eaten a strong curry, or been contaminated by strong perfume or cologne. All harmful to your health according to the experts.
Also smokers are the minority Ian 13 not the other way. They still have a choice this way, without a ban all pubs would allow it and the majority would have to run the risk and deal with the stink! An interesting observation, why do you think that would be EC.?. As it happens more and more States and Counties in the US are allowing exemptions for bars. As local Counties generate their own incomes, tax receipts from bars are falling. It's Economics against Health, apparently Economics wins. As for no choice, many pubs had gone non smoking prior to the ban, they advertised their smoke free offer, but no one came, most reverted back. The fact remains, smoking is on the increase again after years of decline, because of the smoking ban. Not what the doctor ordered. now they don't have to worry and can laugh their nuts off at the smelly people skulking around the doorway Oh but weren't some of you complaining about having to walk through this smoke haze. As for transfer of smell have you stood next to a person who has eaten a strong curry, or been contaminated by strong perfume or cologne. All harmful to your health according to the experts.
RFM, so you are comparing the health effects of the smell afterhsave, perfume and curry to that of smoking. OK this ought to be a laugh, lets see the impartial scientific evidence then.
You are only undermining the final shreds of credibility you have left
RFM, so you are comparing the health effects of the smell afterhsave, perfume and curry to that of smoking. OK this ought to be a laugh, lets see the impartial scientific evidence then.
You are only undermining the final shreds of credibility you have left
Posted by: westerner, OutWest on 4:05pm Wed 26 Mar 08
RF-M. Are you going to follow the example of other publicans around the UK and put up the poster banning Alistair Darling from your pub. Now that is a 'Real' vote winner. See http://www.order-ord
er.com/2008/03/barre
d-by-blogosphere-fro
m-bars-and.html
RF-M. Are you going to follow the example of other publicans around the UK and put up the poster banning Alistair Darling from your pub. Now that is a 'Real' vote winner. See http://www.order-ord
er.com/2008/03/barre
d-by-blogosphere-fro
m-bars-and.html
Posted by: oldtownbloke, Swindon on 4:14pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Hey look, it's another one of those Adver-style photos of a grumpy-looking person stood in front of the source of their grumpiness. The air looks pretty fresh in the car park though, not a smoker to be seen!
Hey look, it's another one of those Adver-style photos of a grumpy-looking person stood in front of the source of their grumpiness. The air looks pretty fresh in the car park though, not a smoker to be seen!
Posted by: The builder, Old Town on 5:01pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]DarkAuror[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]The builder[/bold] wrote: I have stopped going to pubs (apart from during the summer) because of the smoking ban - I used to go a couple of times a week. It would be nice if one of the political parties allowed businesses (and people) to have the freedom to choose, but I doubt UKIP will get the vote purely because of this (would be funny though wouldn't it ?). Non smokers should be afraid - if everyone gave up smoking, taxes would have to rise considerably to replace the lost revenue. Exactly the sort of thing the labour government will do. [/quote] Flipside, think of the money saved from treating smoking related illnesses at hospitals.[/quote] The cost of treating smokers is less than the cost of treating obesity. Further as smokers tend to die younger there is a saving in pension payments as well.
If the government taxed the obese at the same level as smokers are taxed then it would start to level the playing field.
Just think - £5 for a packet of biscuits - ha !
The government attacks and taxes smokers and drinkers because they are an easy target. Have they threatened supermarkets with taxes for excess packaging - didn't think so. Have they threatened to tax supermarkets for selling "ready" meals with high fat contents ? No. Nor will they.
DarkAuror wrote:
The builder wrote: I have stopped going to pubs (apart from during the summer) because of the smoking ban - I used to go a couple of times a week. It would be nice if one of the political parties allowed businesses (and people) to have the freedom to choose, but I doubt UKIP will get the vote purely because of this (would be funny though wouldn't it ?). Non smokers should be afraid - if everyone gave up smoking, taxes would have to rise considerably to replace the lost revenue. Exactly the sort of thing the labour government will do.
Flipside, think of the money saved from treating smoking related illnesses at hospitals.
The cost of treating smokers is less than the cost of treating obesity. Further as smokers tend to die younger there is a saving in pension payments as well.
If the government taxed the obese at the same level as smokers are taxed then it would start to level the playing field.
Just think - £5 for a packet of biscuits - ha !
The government attacks and taxes smokers and drinkers because they are an easy target. Have they threatened supermarkets with taxes for excess packaging - didn't think so. Have they threatened to tax supermarkets for selling "ready" meals with high fat contents ? No. Nor will they.
Posted by: Annie, Stratton on 5:05pm Wed 26 Mar 08
If you charged £5 for a packet of biscuits you would be penalising not just the obese but anyone who wanted to eat biscuits. Only smokers buy and smoke fags.
If you charged £5 for a packet of biscuits you would be penalising not just the obese but anyone who wanted to eat biscuits. Only smokers buy and smoke fags.
[quote][bold]El Colinio[/bold] wrote:
Smoking is on the decline, I'm not sure where a politician can claim families being put out of business causes more smokers, I'd like to see how that was researched!! The ban is a reason people are stopping, people will therefore be better in health. Doesn't matter what the cost is if people are stopping and therefore helping themselves and others from the burden and distress of lung cancer etc. Also smokers are the minority Ian 13 not the other way. They still have a choice this way, without a ban all pubs would allow it and the majority would have to run the risk and deal with the stink![/quote] I agree only 1/3 of the general population smoke, however:
57% of pub customers smoke per HM Government figures
approx 3/4 pub staff smoke
so smokers are in the majority in pubs
El Colinio wrote:
Smoking is on the decline, I'm not sure where a politician can claim families being put out of business causes more smokers, I'd like to see how that was researched!! The ban is a reason people are stopping, people will therefore be better in health. Doesn't matter what the cost is if people are stopping and therefore helping themselves and others from the burden and distress of lung cancer etc. Also smokers are the minority Ian 13 not the other way. They still have a choice this way, without a ban all pubs would allow it and the majority would have to run the risk and deal with the stink!
I agree only 1/3 of the general population smoke, however:
57% of pub customers smoke per HM Government figures
Posted by: Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon on 5:18pm Wed 26 Mar 08
DC, not at all, if you read the other posts you will see I am comparing the transfer of the smell which CO complains of. Westerner, poster's already up. OTB, I have to agree about the photo, that one was taken for another article about flooding. Guess they're saving money. PaulD, I got the issue to the High Court but sadly it was made very clear to F2C that HMG would pursue the organisation for costs. A decision was taken by the new committee to withdraw the application purely on the grounds of money. Builder you make a couple of good points. Interestingly Insurance Companies are charging less for Pensions to Smokers, drinkers and the Obese because they will live longer, as with Health Insurance as it is calculated that 'fit and healthy' people will live longer and contract expensive debilitating illness in later life. Apparently you are 50% more likely to get Parkinsons if you don't smoker and a host of other illnesses. Not that I advocate smoking.
DC, not at all, if you read the other posts you will see I am comparing the transfer of the smell which CO complains of. Westerner, poster's already up. OTB, I have to agree about the photo, that one was taken for another article about flooding. Guess they're saving money. PaulD, I got the issue to the High Court but sadly it was made very clear to F2C that HMG would pursue the organisation for costs. A decision was taken by the new committee to withdraw the application purely on the grounds of money. Builder you make a couple of good points. Interestingly Insurance Companies are charging less for Pensions to Smokers, drinkers and the Obese because they will live longer, as with Health Insurance as it is calculated that 'fit and healthy' people will live longer and contract expensive debilitating illness in later life. Apparently you are 50% more likely to get Parkinsons if you don't smoker and a host of other illnesses. Not that I advocate smoking.
Posted by: Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon on 5:38pm Wed 26 Mar 08
He is being supported by F2C, who have raised funds for him. However it is blatantly clear that Blackpool Council are doing HMG's bidding, they continue to find anyway to prosecute him over what are trivial matters. It is unheard of under the Licensing Act to have a condition requiring membership of a pub watch, this has nothing to do with the licensing objectives, the Act or the Guidance. I am amazed Licensees in Blackpool agreed to this. I bet they are now kicking themselves, what happens if a licensee gets thrown out of a group for whatever reason, they can then not have a license. Crazy.
He is being supported by F2C, who have raised funds for him. However it is blatantly clear that Blackpool Council are doing HMG's bidding, they continue to find anyway to prosecute him over what are trivial matters. It is unheard of under the Licensing Act to have a condition requiring membership of a pub watch, this has nothing to do with the licensing objectives, the Act or the Guidance. I am amazed Licensees in Blackpool agreed to this. I bet they are now kicking themselves, what happens if a licensee gets thrown out of a group for whatever reason, they can then not have a license. Crazy.
Posted by: Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon on 6:16pm Wed 26 Mar 08
PaulD. The Licensing Act has some strange quirks in it. LA Licensing Authorities are not allowed to add conditions to a Premises License. However if there is a representation by a responsible authority at the time of application the LA should consider this in relation to every single application. They cannot have such a blanket condition at belonging to a pub watch. Therefore if this has been forced on Licensees it is the Council who are breaking the law. But the quirk is once it's on the license it becomes a 'relevant condition' which them becomes a Criminal Offence under the ACT. This is why when I was delivering seminars on the ACT across the South West I strongly urged licensees not to agree to extra conditions which would come back to bite them, as in this case.
PaulD. The Licensing Act has some strange quirks in it. LA Licensing Authorities are not allowed to add conditions to a Premises License. However if there is a representation by a responsible authority at the time of application the LA should consider this in relation to every single application. They cannot have such a blanket condition at belonging to a pub watch. Therefore if this has been forced on Licensees it is the Council who are breaking the law. But the quirk is once it's on the license it becomes a 'relevant condition' which them becomes a Criminal Offence under the ACT. This is why when I was delivering seminars on the ACT across the South West I strongly urged licensees not to agree to extra conditions which would come back to bite them, as in this case.
Posted by: TW, Wrong Planet on 6:20pm Wed 26 Mar 08
[quote][bold]Annie[/bold] wrote:
If you charged £5 for a packet of biscuits you would be penalising not just the obese but anyone who wanted to eat biscuits. Only smokers buy and smoke fags.[/quote] And only biscuit eaters eat biscuits - your point is ??
Annie wrote:
If you charged £5 for a packet of biscuits you would be penalising not just the obese but anyone who wanted to eat biscuits. Only smokers buy and smoke fags.
And only biscuit eaters eat biscuits - your point is ??
Posted by: Terence, Swindon on 6:47pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Typically regressive views from the primitive UKIP. The smoking ban is as close as you can get to a genuinely progressive act, it would be lunacy to repeal it. The benefits to public health far outweigh the loss of smokers' liberties. Publicans must realise that their interests cannot always come first.
Typically regressive views from the primitive UKIP. The smoking ban is as close as you can get to a genuinely progressive act, it would be lunacy to repeal it. The benefits to public health far outweigh the loss of smokers' liberties. Publicans must realise that their interests cannot always come first.
Posted by: Robin Harris, Swindon on 7:08pm Wed 26 Mar 08
We don't half get some rubbish on here.
Non-smokers don't like to breath in the smoke. Anti smokers don't like the smell of smoke mind you most of them stink so much BO or antipersperant I'm surprised they can smell the smoke.
If all the tobacco tax was given to the NHS then we'd have a premier service, No prescription charges, No waiting and free dental and optician care.
If anti smokers do not want smokers to impose on them then by what right have they got to impose their views on smokers. There should be an opt out clause in the smoking ban.
We don't half get some rubbish on here.
Non-smokers don't like to breath in the smoke. Anti smokers don't like the smell of smoke mind you most of them stink so much BO or antipersperant I'm surprised they can smell the smoke.
If all the tobacco tax was given to the NHS then we'd have a premier service, No prescription charges, No waiting and free dental and optician care.
If anti smokers do not want smokers to impose on them then by what right have they got to impose their views on smokers. There should be an opt out clause in the smoking ban.
Posted by: Robin Harris, Swindon on 7:14pm Wed 26 Mar 08
Terence. What a dam cheek. Who are you to say health benefits outweigh the loss of smokers liberties????
There are many things that could be banned on public health grounds but are to sensitive for the government.
Terence. What a dam cheek. Who are you to say health benefits outweigh the loss of smokers liberties????
There are many things that could be banned on public health grounds but are to sensitive for the government.
Posted by: littlesister, Swindon on 7:23pm Wed 26 Mar 08
In a nutshell, I think there should be "smoking pubs" and "non-smoking pubs". If the non-smokers don't like smoke, they wouldn't need to go in..somehow though, I think they would just so they could moan about the smoke.
In a nutshell, I think there should be "smoking pubs" and "non-smoking pubs". If the non-smokers don't like smoke, they wouldn't need to go in..somehow though, I think they would just so they could moan about the smoke.
Posted by: Mumstheword, Walcot on 8:39pm Wed 26 Mar 08
One of our governments aims is to decrease child poverty in this country. By putting up the price of cigs, parents on low incomes will struggle. Kids will suffer. Some of these people will give up. What about the parents who don't?
Just for the record I am an ex smoker, although god knows how I managed to give up!
I think non smoking and smoking pubs would work.
One of our governments aims is to decrease child poverty in this country. By putting up the price of cigs, parents on low incomes will struggle. Kids will suffer. Some of these people will give up. What about the parents who don't?
Just for the record I am an ex smoker, although god knows how I managed to give up!
[quote][bold]El Colinio[/bold] wrote:
Smoking is on the decline, I'm not sure where a politician can claim families being put out of business causes more smokers, I'd like to see how that was researched!! The ban is a reason people are stopping, people will therefore be better in health. Doesn't matter what the cost is if people are stopping and therefore helping themselves and others from the burden and distress of lung cancer etc. Also smokers are the minority Ian 13 not the other way. They still have a choice this way, without a ban all pubs would allow it and the majority would have to run the risk and deal with the stink![/quote] Are you really so sure that smokers are in a minority? Do you really believe the figures spouted by governments? If you do you are very naive.
Many people are so sick and tired of being dictated to not only by the government but by their cohorts the medical profession that they no longer go near a doctor. Whether you smoke or not, what is the first question you are asked if you go to see your doctor? [italic]"Do you smoke and how much?"[/italic] You get asked that even if you've just jumped on a rusty nail!
Many smokers are now buying their cigarettes abroad rather than pay the extortionate taxes on a packet of cigarettes here, so of course, on the surface it would appear that there are less people smoking. In my workplace, out of a staff of about 50, only 4 are non-smokers. Of my friends and relatives just over half smoke. Walk down the street and see how many people are smoking. Lots. Of those walking down the street not smoking, probably about half of them smoke.
In other words, statistics are flawed and can be made up to suit whatever group is trying to promote whatever.
[bold]There are lies, damned lies and statistics.[/bold]
Your last paragraph, and particularly the last few words "...would have to run the risk and deal with the [italic][bold]stink[/bold][/italic] !" sums up the nastiness of the anti-bigots.
You have no interest in anyone's health - and in any case, other peoples' health is of no concern to you or anyone else. What you make very clear is that you and your ilk don't like the smell of tobacco smoke so you're quite happy with the ban.
The last time I went into a pub was last year at a funeral. The stench of stale alcohol, stale vomit was disgusting. Before the smoking ban, that vile smell wasn't noticeable. It is now.
I don't go to pubs a lot and never did as I don't like alcohol so in some ways the ban in pubs doesn't affect me but I still, for the life of me, can't see why there couldn't have been smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs so everyone was catered for. For every pub opened one would have to be non-smoking and the next smoking so that all people would have been given a choice.
No-one ever forced non-smokers into pubs that allowed smoking. They went in willingly of their own volition. Equally, no-one has ever forced a smoker - until now that is to go into a non-smoking pub.
While on the subject of the smoking ban, it isn't only the pub trade that's suffering, so are cafes. One of my favourite cafes shut up shop a couple of months after the smoking ban came in.
I also no longer go to cafes and will continue to boycott all pubs, clubs, cafes and restaurants until this vindictive ban is overturned.
On the plus side, I make a better cup of coffee myself anyway - at a fraction of the cost :)
El Colinio wrote:
Smoking is on the decline, I'm not sure where a politician can claim families being put out of business causes more smokers, I'd like to see how that was researched!! The ban is a reason people are stopping, people will therefore be better in health. Doesn't matter what the cost is if people are stopping and therefore helping themselves and others from the burden and distress of lung cancer etc. Also smokers are the minority Ian 13 not the other way. They still have a choice this way, without a ban all pubs would allow it and the majority would have to run the risk and deal with the stink!
Are you really so sure that smokers are in a minority? Do you really believe the figures spouted by governments? If you do you are very naive.
Many people are so sick and tired of being dictated to not only by the government but by their cohorts the medical profession that they no longer go near a doctor. Whether you smoke or not, what is the first question you are asked if you go to see your doctor? "Do you smoke and how much?" You get asked that even if you've just jumped on a rusty nail!
Many smokers are now buying their cigarettes abroad rather than pay the extortionate taxes on a packet of cigarettes here, so of course, on the surface it would appear that there are less people smoking. In my workplace, out of a staff of about 50, only 4 are non-smokers. Of my friends and relatives just over half smoke. Walk down the street and see how many people are smoking. Lots. Of those walking down the street not smoking, probably about half of them smoke.
In other words, statistics are flawed and can be made up to suit whatever group is trying to promote whatever.
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
Your last paragraph, and particularly the last few words "...would have to run the risk and deal with the stink !" sums up the nastiness of the anti-bigots.
You have no interest in anyone's health - and in any case, other peoples' health is of no concern to you or anyone else. What you make very clear is that you and your ilk don't like the smell of tobacco smoke so you're quite happy with the ban.
The last time I went into a pub was last year at a funeral. The stench of stale alcohol, stale vomit was disgusting. Before the smoking ban, that vile smell wasn't noticeable. It is now.
I don't go to pubs a lot and never did as I don't like alcohol so in some ways the ban in pubs doesn't affect me but I still, for the life of me, can't see why there couldn't have been smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs so everyone was catered for. For every pub opened one would have to be non-smoking and the next smoking so that all people would have been given a choice.
No-one ever forced non-smokers into pubs that allowed smoking. They went in willingly of their own volition. Equally, no-one has ever forced a smoker - until now that is to go into a non-smoking pub.
While on the subject of the smoking ban, it isn't only the pub trade that's suffering, so are cafes. One of my favourite cafes shut up shop a couple of months after the smoking ban came in.
I also no longer go to cafes and will continue to boycott all pubs, clubs, cafes and restaurants until this vindictive ban is overturned.
On the plus side, I make a better cup of coffee myself anyway - at a fraction of the cost :)
Posted by: Grumpy, Swindon on 10:42pm Wed 26 Mar 08
CK wrote:
[quote]I also no longer go to cafes and will continue to boycott all pubs, clubs, cafes and restaurants until this vindictive ban is overturned.[/quote]
Good, you'll be staying indoors forever then.
I've never read such a load of twaddle as the ill informed and inaccurate tirade from you.
CK wrote:
I also no longer go to cafes and will continue to boycott all pubs, clubs, cafes and restaurants until this vindictive ban is overturned.
Good, you'll be staying indoors forever then.
I've never read such a load of twaddle as the ill informed and inaccurate tirade from you.
Posted by: Hi Ho Silver!, Swindon on 11:36pm Wed 26 Mar 08
CK wrote
[quote]In my workplace, out of a staff of about 50, only 4 are non-smokers. Of my friends and relatives just over half smoke. Walk down the street and see how many people are smoking. Lots. Of those walking down the street not smoking, probably about half of them smoke.
In other words, statistics are flawed and can be made up to suit whatever group is trying to promote whatever.
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.[/quote]
So your scientific method of statistical analysis is an off the cuff estimate via your friends and colleagues!
Dosen't it occur to you that as you obviously come from a family of smokers and smokers tend to make friends whilst going outside to smoke then you survey is totally flawed. All you have proved is that smokers tend to socialise with fellow smokers!
My own off the cuff survey based on ny own friends and colleagues totally contradicts yours.
I also note that, you object to a method of getting some sort of unbiased statistics:
[quote]Whether you smoke or not, what is the first question you are asked if you go to see your doctor? "Do you smoke and how much?" You get asked that even if you've just jumped on a rusty nail![/quote]
CK wrote
In my workplace, out of a staff of about 50, only 4 are non-smokers. Of my friends and relatives just over half smoke. Walk down the street and see how many people are smoking. Lots. Of those walking down the street not smoking, probably about half of them smoke.
In other words, statistics are flawed and can be made up to suit whatever group is trying to promote whatever.
There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
So your scientific method of statistical analysis is an off the cuff estimate via your friends and colleagues!
Dosen't it occur to you that as you obviously come from a family of smokers and smokers tend to make friends whilst going outside to smoke then you survey is totally flawed. All you have proved is that smokers tend to socialise with fellow smokers!
My own off the cuff survey based on ny own friends and colleagues totally contradicts yours.
I also note that, you object to a method of getting some sort of unbiased statistics:
Whether you smoke or not, what is the first question you are asked if you go to see your doctor? "Do you smoke and how much?" You get asked that even if you've just jumped on a rusty nail!
Posted by: Terence, Swindon on 5:26am Thu 27 Mar 08
Robin Harris. Many things could indeed be banned on public health grounds, but smoking is a particular case with its own factors for consideration.
The smoking ban is an excellent step in promoting public health; protecting non-smokers and discouraging smokers. Sure it's annoying for those with nicotine addictions but they'll just have to adapt.
The UKIP put forward particularly unsophisticated policies based upon crude ideas of libertarianism and a misunderstanding of modern governance. There are many problems that require attention in domestic and international politics but the UKIP has misdiagnosed these and offers no viable solutions.
PS I'd imagine they were typing errors but you misspelt **** and also TOO.
Robin Harris. Many things could indeed be banned on public health grounds, but smoking is a particular case with its own factors for consideration.
The smoking ban is an excellent step in promoting public health; protecting non-smokers and discouraging smokers. Sure it's annoying for those with nicotine addictions but they'll just have to adapt.
The UKIP put forward particularly unsophisticated policies based upon crude ideas of libertarianism and a misunderstanding of modern governance. There are many problems that require attention in domestic and international politics but the UKIP has misdiagnosed these and offers no viable solutions.
PS I'd imagine they were typing errors but you misspelt **** and also TOO.
Posted by: Robert Feal-Martinez, Swindon on 7:06am Thu 27 Mar 08
Having read the posts, the usual pattern has formed. Anti smokers believe Government spin, pro choice people do their own research. Terences last comment proves how little he knows of the modern UKIP, we have some of the top brains, in Industry, Commerce, Law, Social Policy, Armed Services etc now working with and members of UKIP. This is the reason the National Press are so keen to find stories about us. The main parties are running scared. But on the smoking issue read this below. This is what can and is happening. You won't read this in a national news paper.
Non-smoker jailed for attacking deaf smoker
[bold]
Mar 19 2008 by Our Correspondent, Western Mail
A NON-smoker was jailed for two years yesterday for attacking a “deaf and mute” man who refused to stub out a cigarette.
Robert Russo, 35, asked Glyn Robbins to stop smoking while they were waiting at a bus stop. But he didn’t realise Mr Robbins, 56, couldn’t hear him, and thought he was being rude.
Cardiff Crown Court heard Russo then punched him in the face and kneed him as he fell to the floor. CCTV footage was played to the court showing Russo kick Mr Robbins as he lay on the floor. A witness called police and Russo was arrested.
Russo, of Snowden Road, Ely, Cardiff, admitted wounding with intent and unlawful wounding.
He told police, “I told him to stop smoking and I thought he was going to have a go at me so I hit him.”
Mr Robbins was left bleeding from the nose and ear after the attack at Cardiff Central bus station.[/bold]
And just for good measure look at the tone of the report, it was the 'deaf guys fault'. Is that what our society has come to. Two years, what a joke.
Having read the posts, the usual pattern has formed. Anti smokers believe Government spin, pro choice people do their own research. Terences last comment proves how little he knows of the modern UKIP, we have some of the top brains, in Industry, Commerce, Law, Social Policy, Armed Services etc now working with and members of UKIP. This is the reason the National Press are so keen to find stories about us. The main parties are running scared. But on the smoking issue read this below. This is what can and is happening. You won't read this in a national news paper.
Non-smoker jailed for attacking deaf smoker
Mar 19 2008 by Our Correspondent, Western Mail
A NON-smoker was jailed for two years yesterday for attacking a “deaf and mute” man who refused to stub out a cigarette.
Robert Russo, 35, asked Glyn Robbins to stop smoking while they were waiting at a bus stop. But he didn’t realise Mr Robbins, 56, couldn’t hear him, and thought he was being rude.
Cardiff Crown Court heard Russo then punched him in the face and kneed him as he fell to the floor. CCTV footage was played to the court showing Russo kick Mr Robbins as he lay on the floor. A witness called police and Russo was arrested.
Russo, of Snowden Road, Ely, Cardiff, admitted wounding with intent and unlawful wounding.
He told police, “I told him to stop smoking and I thought he was going to have a go at me so I hit him.”
Mr Robbins was left bleeding from the nose and ear after the attack at Cardiff Central bus station.
And just for good measure look at the tone of the report, it was the 'deaf guys fault'. Is that what our society has come to. Two years, what a joke.
Posted by: emmylou83, Stratton on 9:33am Thu 27 Mar 08
When I smoked (havent had one in nearly 2months now yay me!!) I stillwent to my local pub which was a non smoking pub even before the ban came in, if I wanted a cig I just went outside for one, I fail to see what the problem is.
When I smoked (havent had one in nearly 2months now yay me!!) I stillwent to my local pub which was a non smoking pub even before the ban came in, if I wanted a cig I just went outside for one, I fail to see what the problem is.
Even as a non-smoker (never have and never will) I believe in choice, if someone wants to go to a local pub, have a quiet drink and cigerette then so be it, who are we to limit someone's fundamental right of "freedom of choice". I for one like going out to a pub/club that is non-smoking, but end up standing out in the cold with my friends whilst they have a cigarette.. More fool me?? I don't think so.. once again it comes down to choice.
I have read suggestions that there should be smoking and non-smoking pubs.. I for one would be very highly interested to see which pubs/clubs do better... I believe that is the best solution to peoples uneducted anti-smoking opinions.
I would probably go to non-smoking venue's myself because I dislike the smell when I get home from a night out.. but unless I have the [bold]choice[/bold] I can't tell for certain.
Moving on to health grounds... Smoking ban was for health... I have worked in a bar and a bingo hall previously where smoking was permitted... I [bold]chose[/bold] to work their knowing full well that it was a smokey atmosphere.. People chose to do their jobs, and accept certain risks that go along with it.. A person joining the Army on the front line, a fire fighter, policemen/women, boxers, the list goes on.. Perhaps I shouldn't have used the professions where they're protecting us and trying to save lives, but the priniciple is there.
I for one thank the smokers out there for paying the high tax rates and reducing how much tax I pay... But would like a couple of people to quit so that they can do more things with the money saved haha.
I have rambled on somewhat, but I'd like to re-itterate, that to take away someone's choice is to violate their human rights.. which convicts and illegal immegrants get more of?!?
Even as a non-smoker (never have and never will) I believe in choice, if someone wants to go to a local pub, have a quiet drink and cigerette then so be it, who are we to limit someone's fundamental right of "freedom of choice". I for one like going out to a pub/club that is non-smoking, but end up standing out in the cold with my friends whilst they have a cigarette.. More fool me?? I don't think so.. once again it comes down to choice.
I have read suggestions that there should be smoking and non-smoking pubs.. I for one would be very highly interested to see which pubs/clubs do better... I believe that is the best solution to peoples uneducted anti-smoking opinions.
I would probably go to non-smoking venue's myself because I dislike the smell when I get home from a night out.. but unless I have the choice I can't tell for certain.
Moving on to health grounds... Smoking ban was for health... I have worked in a bar and a bingo hall previ
Print
Email this
Comment