Jon

Sloth - one of the 7 deadly sins! your God will not be pleased! :winkold: Noone follows those sins guidelines or the ten commandments. you mean you also covet your neighbours wife? :winkold:

Sloth - one of the 7 deadly sins! you're God will not be pleased! :winkold:

he can dismiss what he wants on here. I don't think he's offending billions of people's beliefs, unless of course readership of this forum has suddenly mushroomed overnight. maybe it has. Must be the work of God.

so what time are you going to the dentsist today Gareth ............

Ditto but Christened Christian. Edit in reposnse to Bicks' pedantism

yeah me .... a death penalty is more fitting and more humane for the rest of us this country hasn't had a death penalty for many years now - and quite rightly IMO. Also, who of sane mind is going to Volunteer to be put to death? :winkold:

OK. Anyone think it is NOT right to chemically castrate an existing "peadophile/sex offender" who has already comitted sexual offences to children and who has him(her) self requested the procedure to stop him(her) reoffending as they think they possibly will? How can it possibly be wrong in this instance? This is what the new measures outlined are aimed at IMO.

for those that think they will be potential re-offenders without this measure. i'd imagine there will be some strict guideliness on the deployment of this, yes. But for those that say, "please help me, I'm feeling the urge to do X with a small child, can you employ this procedure on me please" then surely you'd snap their hand (or somehting else :winkold: ) off and get it done!

everyone seems to be overlooking the fact that this is voluntary! the offender has to actaully agree/volunteer for this treatment as a way of stopping them re-offending. It is not a blanket approach for all those found guilty of "molesting" children/minors.

I must add that this is indeed a VOLUNTSRY scheme: "The treatment involving libido-reducing drugs or anti-depressants would be given on a voluntary basis" source = the beeb website.

I think there is a voluntary aspect to this, is there not? some sex offenders can actually volunteer to have this done to them to stop them re-offending as they don't trust themselves .....

You think? I'd say it isn't economically viable anyway, so the point is mute. What are the 'official' reasons given for the smoking ban? passive smoking causes cancer?

IIRC Big John does miss his fair share of games through injury, and as you suggest Eidur would be an alternative rather than a compliment to him. we need that alternative/option IMO, and i really like Eidur. Not sure if he'd be happy as a back-up striker though ....

me neither Mart. I do know of some who only smoke casually when they go out for a drink who have said that this may make them stop/cut-down (which is surely a good thing?) but none of the smokers i know have said they will stop going to the boozer. I just think somkers will probably cut down a little, rather than chain smoking down the pub as many do now they will be more slective about when they choose to go outside and spark up. Can't see a problem with this myself - apart from loads more fag ends on the streets outside pubs!

It rather seems you haven't read it yourself. hardly anyone mentions the smoking ban, and just as many mention the crack down on drink driving as causing a downturn! Imagine that, cracking down on drinking and driving. Fascists. Maybe we could have "drink driving roads" and "non drink driving roads" that way, everybody has a choice. I mean, people who have been run down by drink drivers, they didn't have to walk home that way, did they? cracking riposte Mart

Indeed it is. And you still have one.

you will have choice on July 1st DV. Smoke outside, at home, or not at all. Simple, yet effective, and nobody bar the smoker themselves get poisoned/contaminated. well, unless you live with a smoker that is. Which i don't. Which is nice. you didn't expalin how someone consuming alocohol is poisoning/contaminating those in their immediate vicinity, as that was what you used in your comprison to smoking. maybe because it isn't a valid comparison?

I have no real objection to people poisoning themselves. It's the poisoning of others i object to. How is someone consuming alcohol poisoning those around them? I am not opposed in principle to having a smoking room in a bar/pub. In practice, i don't this would work that well, and also it wouldn't be feasible for some open plan bars that don't have "rooms". It would also be an expense to implement for the pubs/bars i'd guess. Also would be much more difficult to police than an outright ban. What's wrong with outside? It's well ventilated.

they still have a choice DV. Now it's one that doesn't involve poisoning others, surely a good thing in my book. The public at large want this ban, the people voting in this poll on VT want this ban, the only people who don't are a minority of smokers who feel they're being told what to do by the government, and demand that their right to poison others should not be impinged.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the English government really wanted to bring in this ban did they? They were pressured into it by the non-smoking lobby after coming up with a (not very clever admittedly) compromise about non-smoking food pubs. was in their election manifesto I believe DV, so i guess it was a policy they were keen to introduce?! and Yes, i believe a full ban was their original election aim/promise, but then for some reason there were attempts to water it down with sh*ty compromises. Glad to see the full ban introduced as per election promise, as far too few of these are ever kept.

Well of course. The point is not whether smokers are inside or outside, but whether they impose their smoke on other people. Similarly, I have no problem with people shooting up, but would complain if they leave their needles where I might injure myself on them. If they were smoking inside a pub, and doing so in a hermetically sealed bag or a wet suit or something, I really wouldn't care. That's their choice, that's their freedom. If I step outside into a cloud of noxious gas given off by smokers huddled round the door, or can't sit in a beer garden without having their smoke drifting all over me, I don't like it and wish they would go somewhere very far away. That's just common sense, isn't it? To use the farting analogy that several people have quoted, I think it's commonly acknowledged that farting in a lift is a pretty antisocial thing to do. Smoking in enclosed premises where other people are present is very similar in respect of the effect and the inability of other people to avoid it without physically removing themselves from the premises. Actually, let's cut out the crap about freedom and all the other fine principles. Smokers who oppose the ban really don't give a flying **** about anyone else and in particular other people's freedoms, and that's really all it's about. Since they have (generally) shown themselves unwilling to accommodate other people's needs on a voluntary basis, they clearly need to be compelled to do so. post of the thread Peter, amongst several worthy contenders. agree with every word. TBH even amonst smokers I know i've found some support for this, which indicates to me i hang about with people who have some sort of sicla conscience. I lose a lot of respect for those that argue they should be able simply to do what they like, where they like, with zero regard for the impacts they are having on others. The Govt is often accused of being a"Nanny". I think in this instance (and some others) they are very right to implement this law, for the benefit of the general populace ....

only smokers create an atmosphere? :? or because there are less peoeple in the pub there will be less of an atmosphere? TBH, if those that smoked stayed away and were replaced by the same amount of non smokers in the same pub, i can't see why there would be less of an atmosphere. Once the ban comes into effect, smokers are quite welcome to stay away if they wish to. they can drink at home if they wish to, it's all about personal choice. What i do/did object to was smokers polluting my immediate atmosphere with my only option of getting way from said atmosphere to leave the establishment. So in order to socialize i had to "grin & bear" this faily disgusting aroma/pullatant. That was my choice i suppose. Thankfully, the choice is now being played out the other way around, which IMO is as it should be.

Genuine question this gareth. Do you have to have "Official" no smoking signs are are you permitted to make your own, as long as they say the same thhing? I doubt many people have the facility to print on clear celluloid with adhesive on one side indeed. But i was wondering if there's anyhting stopping you simply typing up some notices on your PC and simply printing them off and sellotaping to your doors? I know it would look sh*t and tacky but if you're that upset about having to get these signs bought then it's a cheap option. I was just wondering if that was acceptable by law or not, or whther the sign has to be "official" and of a certain material.

Genuine question this gareth. Do you have to have "Official" no smoking signs are are you permitted to make your own, as long as they say the same thhing?

One could argue Bri that's is also very selfish for one to inflict their polluting and damaging smoke upon others whose only course of action should they not be overly enamoured with such harmful fumes to be to either a) not socialise with that person/persons and/or not go to pubs/bars. I think smoking in the presence of others that have no choice about inhaling your fumes is the "selfish" action, IMO.