Contact us
Send us your news tips, photos and videos Text LT and your message to 80360 or click here for more ways to contact us »
Smoke rebel's court date
8:29am Wednesday 22nd August 2007
Comments (336) Have your say »
A TOWN centre pub boss has become the first licensee in Bolton to be taken to court for defying the smoking ban.
Nick Hogan, who owns The Swan Hotel and Barristers bar in Bradshawgate, has been summonsed to appear before magistrates in September.
He faces nine charges - five of failing to prevent people from smoking in his pubs and four of obstructing council officers.
If he is found guilty he could face a fine of £16,500 - £2,500 for each of the smoking offences and £1,000 for the obstruction charges.
Mr Hogan is believed to be only the second person in the country to be brought before the courts for flouting the new laws, which were introduced on July 1.
He received his summons yesterday and said last night: "I'm over the moon that I've finally received my summons and we can now get on with the court process.
"I will be defending all of the charges vigorously."
Mr Hogan has publicly defied the smoking ban since it was introduced and made it clear he would not prevent smokers from lighting up in his bars.
Council officers visited both the Swan and Barristers on a number of occasions in response, but on two occasions were asked to leave.
Mr Hogan was invited to a meeting with environmental health bosses to answer the complaints brought against him.
He did not attend and Bolton Council wrote to him with a list of 45 questions which would have been put to him had he attended. But he refused to answer them.
Mr Hogan, a smoker, claims he is simply offering fellow smokers the right to chose whether or not they smoke in his pub.
The new ban has been widely embraced by licensees, many of whom have built special shelters outside their pubs and clubs.
But some landlords who had been abiding by the new laws voiced their frustration over Bolton Council's apparent lack of action at Mr Hogan's disregard for the rules.
One man, Gerad Hart, has already been given a fixed penalty notice for smoking inside Barristers.
Bolton Council declined to comment on the summons. A spokesman said: "This is now a legal matter."
Mr Hogan will appear at Bolton Magistrates' Court on September 14.
Your Say YourThis Is Lancashire
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
8:43am Wed 22 Aug 07
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
8:48am Wed 22 Aug 07
GC, Turton says...
8:50am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tubby Scruff wrote:Yes, I want to drive down Bradshawgate at 90 miles per hour. Unfortunately it is against the law. What about my human rights? These do-gooders who prevent me having a bit of fun should be shot.
Correct Tom. It should be about freedom of choice..and I don't smoke !
JoePublic, Bolton says...
8:52am Wed 22 Aug 07
GC, Turton says...
8:53am Wed 22 Aug 07
Jethro Tull wrote:Jethro you are quite clearly,'Living in the pa-ast' We used to have bear baiting at one time. Luckily we are now more civilised and have moved on. Personally, I hope they lock this guy up and throw away the key. Same for anybody who thinks that they are above the law.
Well, i personally wish Nick all the very best. He has vowed to take this all the way to the European Courts if necessary, and hopefully, common sense will prevail, and this stupid law will be overturned.
harry, bolton says...
8:59am Wed 22 Aug 07
harry, bolton says...
9:01am Wed 22 Aug 07
GC wrote:Speed limits are for safety... smoking ban is silly. Smoking is legal speeding is not
Tubby Scruff wrote: Correct Tom. It should be about freedom of choice..and I don't smoke !Yes, I want to drive down Bradshawgate at 90 miles per hour. Unfortunately it is against the law. What about my human rights? These do-gooders who prevent me having a bit of fun should be shot.
JoePublic, Bolton says...
9:05am Wed 22 Aug 07
Smoking is legal
Not in pubs it isn't, that's why he's in court.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:15am Wed 22 Aug 07
GC wrote:I perhaps wouldn't see you driving at 90 mph but I would perhaps see you smoking and therefore would have the option to avoid your episodic nonsense.
Tubby Scruff wrote:Yes, I want to drive down Bradshawgate at 90 miles per hour. Unfortunately it is against the law. What about my human rights? These do-gooders who prevent me having a bit of fun should be shot.
Correct Tom. It should be about freedom of choice..and I don't smoke !
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:15am Wed 22 Aug 07
GC wrote:I perhaps wouldn't see you driving at 90 mph but I would perhaps see you smoking and therefore would have the option to avoid your episodic nonsense.
Tubby Scruff wrote:Yes, I want to drive down Bradshawgate at 90 miles per hour. Unfortunately it is against the law. What about my human rights? These do-gooders who prevent me having a bit of fun should be shot.
Correct Tom. It should be about freedom of choice..and I don't smoke !
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:18am Wed 22 Aug 07
GC wrote:WE also used to have the freedom to CHOOSE .
Jethro Tull wrote:Jethro you are quite clearly,'Living in the pa-ast' We used to have bear baiting at one time. Luckily we are now more civilised and have moved on. Personally, I hope they lock this guy up and throw away the key. Same for anybody who thinks that they are above the law.
Well, i personally wish Nick all the very best. He has vowed to take this all the way to the European Courts if necessary, and hopefully, common sense will prevail, and this stupid law will be overturned.
CHOOSE wether we smoked or not.
Choose wether we frequented a smoky pub.
Remember the poll tax?
People choose to relent against an unfair law then and it worked.
heatonmess, says...
9:31am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb wrote:The difference is that the vast majority of people wanted the poll tax overturned, just as a majority are in favour of clean air in enclosed public spaces. It is just the vocal minority who moan about the smoking ban; after all, smokers represent less than 30 per cent of society these days and, as shown yesterday by the reported drop in cigarette sales, their numbers are gradually dwinding even further.
GC wrote:WE also used to have the freedom to CHOOSE .
Jethro Tull wrote:Jethro you are quite clearly,'Living in the pa-ast' We used to have bear baiting at one time. Luckily we are now more civilised and have moved on. Personally, I hope they lock this guy up and throw away the key. Same for anybody who thinks that they are above the law.
Well, i personally wish Nick all the very best. He has vowed to take this all the way to the European Courts if necessary, and hopefully, common sense will prevail, and this stupid law will be overturned.
CHOOSE wether we smoked or not.
Choose wether we frequented a smoky pub.
Remember the poll tax?
People choose to relent against an unfair law then and it worked.
GC, Turton says...
9:32am Wed 22 Aug 07
JoePublic wrote:Correct. And the smoking ban is for safety too. Just like speeding ban.
Smoking is legalNot in pubs it isn't, that's why he's in court.
GC, Turton says...
9:39am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:41am Wed 22 Aug 07
heatonmess wrote:1. I'm a non smoker not a vocal minority.
Tom Thumb wrote:The difference is that the vast majority of people wanted the poll tax overturned, just as a majority are in favour of clean air in enclosed public spaces. It is just the vocal minority who moan about the smoking ban; after all, smokers represent less than 30 per cent of society these days and, as shown yesterday by the reported drop in cigarette sales, their numbers are gradually dwinding even further.
GC wrote:WE also used to have the freedom to CHOOSE .
Jethro Tull wrote:Jethro you are quite clearly,'Living in the pa-ast' We used to have bear baiting at one time. Luckily we are now more civilised and have moved on. Personally, I hope they lock this guy up and throw away the key. Same for anybody who thinks that they are above the law.
Well, i personally wish Nick all the very best. He has vowed to take this all the way to the European Courts if necessary, and hopefully, common sense will prevail, and this stupid law will be overturned.
CHOOSE wether we smoked or not.
Choose wether we frequented a smoky pub.
Remember the poll tax?
People choose to relent against an unfair law then and it worked.
2. There is no evidence to support passive smoking causes cancers or any other lung disorder. In fact there is evidence to the contrary.
There are more people in the freedom to choose category than there are in the anti smoking lobby.
Gloria, Bolton says...
9:41am Wed 22 Aug 07
harry wrote:No Smoking is not legal in public places anymore....thats entirely the point !!!
GC wrote:Speed limits are for safety... smoking ban is silly. Smoking is legal speeding is not
Tubby Scruff wrote: Correct Tom. It should be about freedom of choice..and I don't smoke !Yes, I want to drive down Bradshawgate at 90 miles per hour. Unfortunately it is against the law. What about my human rights? These do-gooders who prevent me having a bit of fun should be shot.
kieanders, bolton says...
9:44am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb wrote:before the smoking ban, i never had the choice of entering a smokey pub or not, if i wanted to go to the pub, i had to brave the smell, fog and coughing that smoking pubs breed. now i choose which pubs i like, and smokers i am out with can still smoke, just not near me or other people. you smokers keep on about your human rights, what about mine?
GC wrote:WE also used to have the freedom to CHOOSE . CHOOSE wether we smoked or not. Choose wether we frequented a smoky pub. Remember the poll tax? People choose to relent against an unfair law then and it worked.Jethro Tull wrote: Well, i personally wish Nick all the very best. He has vowed to take this all the way to the European Courts if necessary, and hopefully, common sense will prevail, and this stupid law will be overturned.Jethro you are quite clearly,'Living in the pa-ast' We used to have bear baiting at one time. Luckily we are now more civilised and have moved on. Personally, I hope they lock this guy up and throw away the key. Same for anybody who thinks that they are above the law.
kieanders, bolton says...
9:44am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb wrote:before the smoking ban, i never had the choice of entering a smokey pub or not, if i wanted to go to the pub, i had to brave the smell, fog and coughing that smoking pubs breed. now i choose which pubs i like, and smokers i am out with can still smoke, just not near me or other people. you smokers keep on about your human rights, what about mine?
GC wrote:WE also used to have the freedom to CHOOSE . CHOOSE wether we smoked or not. Choose wether we frequented a smoky pub. Remember the poll tax? People choose to relent against an unfair law then and it worked.Jethro Tull wrote: Well, i personally wish Nick all the very best. He has vowed to take this all the way to the European Courts if necessary, and hopefully, common sense will prevail, and this stupid law will be overturned.Jethro you are quite clearly,'Living in the pa-ast' We used to have bear baiting at one time. Luckily we are now more civilised and have moved on. Personally, I hope they lock this guy up and throw away the key. Same for anybody who thinks that they are above the law.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:46am Wed 22 Aug 07
GC wrote:Im in the same category as you.
Its absolutely amazing how many people have discovered the concept of 'human rights' and 'civil liberties' when it affects them. My human rights have been infringed for years by smokers who have insisted that they smoke whenevr they feel like it. Just before the ban I was in a town centre pub with six mates. None of us smoke. One person came and sat near us and lit up and his smoke covered the seven of us. Result we were all made really uncomfortable. Before the 'well you could have gone somewhere else' cry goes up, it should be remembered that the word 'pub' comes from public house. Open to ALL the public, not just those who want to smoke.That is the basis of the landlords license.
I hate smoke on my clothes I hate it in my hair and I hate smoky pubs BUT .
When we start to allow government to dictate to us how we live our life then we start to allow the orwellian society that we have all read about.
IF we had smoking and non smoking pubs the choice would be simple.
That is what it should be about CHOICE.
Why would you want this goverment to legislate to put additives in your bread and flurides in your water yet are happy to moan at the fact you had a choice to go in a pub where people smoked?
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:48am Wed 22 Aug 07
kieanders wrote:So are you going to want a ban fast food and alcohol because people who eat fast food or drink alcohol might throw up on you?
Tom Thumb wrote:before the smoking ban, i never had the choice of entering a smokey pub or not, if i wanted to go to the pub, i had to brave the smell, fog and coughing that smoking pubs breed. now i choose which pubs i like, and smokers i am out with can still smoke, just not near me or other people. you smokers keep on about your human rights, what about mine?
GC wrote:WE also used to have the freedom to CHOOSE . CHOOSE wether we smoked or not. Choose wether we frequented a smoky pub. Remember the poll tax? People choose to relent against an unfair law then and it worked.Jethro Tull wrote: Well, i personally wish Nick all the very best. He has vowed to take this all the way to the European Courts if necessary, and hopefully, common sense will prevail, and this stupid law will be overturned.Jethro you are quite clearly,'Living in the pa-ast' We used to have bear baiting at one time. Luckily we are now more civilised and have moved on. Personally, I hope they lock this guy up and throw away the key. Same for anybody who thinks that they are above the law.
Gloria, Bolton says...
9:49am Wed 22 Aug 07
karen, says...
9:50am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:51am Wed 22 Aug 07
THAT IS THE WHOLE PEOPLE DO YOU NOT GET IT?
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE.
Gloria, Bolton says...
9:52am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb wrote:No Its YOU THAT DOESN'T GET IT
Indeed the whole point is if you had choice you would be able to CHOOSE if you went in a smoking or NON SMOKING pub.
THAT IS THE WHOLE PEOPLE DO YOU NOT GET IT?
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE.
You can't pick and choose which laws you abide by.
Will you fight for a mans right to choose to steal from the till??
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:52am Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria wrote:Passive smoking isn't proven to kill people and more in depth studies prove that there is no evidence that passive smoking is harmful.
Hang on a minute, lets not forget that smoking is a killer, its bad for you. If you can't protect yourself and your family then someone has to do it for you.
I hate smoking just as much as you but refuse to be programmed by this government or the media.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:53am Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria wrote:SO were you happy to pay the poll tax?
Tom Thumb wrote:No Its YOU THAT DOESN'T GET IT
Indeed the whole point is if you had choice you would be able to CHOOSE if you went in a smoking or NON SMOKING pub.
THAT IS THE WHOLE PEOPLE DO YOU NOT GET IT?
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE.
You can't pick and choose which laws you abide by.
Will you fight for a mans right to choose to steal from the till??
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:54am Wed 22 Aug 07
IF you did YOU were in a Very very small minority.
Gloria, Bolton says...
9:55am Wed 22 Aug 07
Whether I was happy with it or not, I still paid it because I had to. Now I don't have to.
I can't see thousands of people rising up against the smoking ban, only Nick Hogan!!!!
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:56am Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria wrote:There is a difference.
Tom Thumb wrote:No Its YOU THAT DOESN'T GET IT
Indeed the whole point is if you had choice you would be able to CHOOSE if you went in a smoking or NON SMOKING pub.
THAT IS THE WHOLE PEOPLE DO YOU NOT GET IT?
EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE.
You can't pick and choose which laws you abide by.
Will you fight for a mans right to choose to steal from the till??
Stealing from the till is ILLEGAL where ever you do it.
AS far as I know smoking isn't yet completely outlawed and illegal.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:57am Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria wrote:It has everything to do with the smoking ban.
What on earth has the Poll Tax got to do with the price of fish???
Whether I was happy with it or not, I still paid it because I had to. Now I don't have to.
I can't see thousands of people rising up against the smoking ban, only Nick Hogan!!!!
It WAS AN UNFAIR LAW as is the smoking ban.
Answer the question were YOU HAPPY TO PAY THE TAX WITHOUT MOANING?
Gloria, Bolton says...
9:58am Wed 22 Aug 07
It IS illegal in public places, therefore if you want to smoke, do it at home - simple.
Its still a law !!
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:59am Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria wrote:Were you happy to pay the poll tax without moaning,complaining or voicing your disgust at how it was an unfair law?
Thats Geography.
It IS illegal in public places, therefore if you want to smoke, do it at home - simple.
Its still a law !!
Gloria, Bolton says...
10:00am Wed 22 Aug 07
Nick Hogan and the smokers who go into his pub DO BREAK THE LAW.
What do you think you have proven??
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:00am Wed 22 Aug 07
RagReader, Horwich says...
10:01am Wed 22 Aug 07
OldBoltonian wrote:That really added to the debate!
The BN phantom sub-editor strieks again:Darren Miller, who owns The Flying Flute in Bradshawgate, said: "QUOTE TO BE ADDED HEREPerhaps we should just make it up and add our own quote - good for exercising the imagination eh?
Mr Hogan has broken the law, he should have had his licence withdrawn when he first broke it, he'd been banging on about it for weeks before.
Gloria, Bolton says...
10:01am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:02am Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria wrote:RIGHT THEN
I still don't see the connection Tom, but okay if you want an answer, NO I wasn't happy with the Poll Tax, but I did pay it, because I do not break the law.
Nick Hogan and the smokers who go into his pub DO BREAK THE LAW.
What do you think you have proven??
SO HOW are ALL OF US ANY DIFFERENT?
ARE WE WRONG FOR FIGHTING AGAINST AN UNFAIR LAW?
BTW I DONT SMOKE.
Gloria, Bolton says...
10:04am Wed 22 Aug 07
And one pub of smokers in little old Bolton is hardly going to do it !!!
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:04am Wed 22 Aug 07
RagReader wrote:Yeah and if it wasn't for people like us you would still be paying an unfair poll tax.
OldBoltonian wrote:That really added to the debate!
The BN phantom sub-editor strieks again:Darren Miller, who owns The Flying Flute in Bradshawgate, said: "QUOTE TO BE ADDED HEREPerhaps we should just make it up and add our own quote - good for exercising the imagination eh?
Mr Hogan has broken the law, he should have had his licence withdrawn when he first broke it, he'd been banging on about it for weeks before.
Never mind when they ban your alcohol or put the congestion charge in for you simply getting in your car then you might sit up and start thinking OH my I didn't realise the government were dictating to me about the choices I have.
Gloria, Bolton says...
10:06am Wed 22 Aug 07
If it makes you feel better, I admonish you from fighting for MY rights on this one, as you claim you are doing.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:06am Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria wrote:Gloria,
I didn't say you couldn't fight against it, I simply said you can do it without actually breaking the law.
And one pub of smokers in little old Bolton is hardly going to do it !!!
Different people will take different courses of action or inaction.
At the end of the day if the end RESULT is FAIRNESS FOR ALL.
Then I'm All in support of it.
I might not want to partake myself but I will support the actions of those who fight the cause in their own way.
THAT IS THEIR CHOICE that is the beauty of having CHOICE.
I MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY BUT I WOULD FIGHT TO THE DEATH FOR YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:08am Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria wrote:So it doesn't affect those pensioners having to stand out in the cold and wet who might to go out for a drink in their local?
What you are conveniently forgetting Tom is that the Poll Tax affected EVERYBODY, this does not !!!
If it makes you feel better, I admonish you from fighting for MY rights on this one, as you claim you are doing.
Gloria this sounds like the ME brigade.
What about everyone ?
WHY CANT WE HAVE SMOKING AND NON SMOKING PUBS?
PLEASE TELL ME!
Gloria, Bolton says...
10:09am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:11am Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria, Bolton says...
10:13am Wed 22 Aug 07
bignut, bolton says...
10:14am Wed 22 Aug 07
kieanders, bolton says...
10:14am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb wrote:ok, if it was inevitable that i was going to be puked on every time i entered macdonalds, then i would agree with banning it, or whenever somone had a pint they blew chunks on me, then yeah, ban drinking. but it is inevitable that i will smell of smoke, inhale second hand smoke and be subject to smokers coughs when i enter a building (not just pubs) that allow smoking!
kieanders wrote:So are you going to want a ban fast food and alcohol because people who eat fast food or drink alcohol might throw up on you?Tom Thumb wrote:before the smoking ban, i never had the choice of entering a smokey pub or not, if i wanted to go to the pub, i had to brave the smell, fog and coughing that smoking pubs breed. now i choose which pubs i like, and smokers i am out with can still smoke, just not near me or other people. you smokers keep on about your human rights, what about mine?GC wrote:WE also used to have the freedom to CHOOSE . CHOOSE wether we smoked or not. Choose wether we frequented a smoky pub. Remember the poll tax? People choose to relent against an unfair law then and it worked.Jethro Tull wrote: Well, i personally wish Nick all the very best. He has vowed to take this all the way to the European Courts if necessary, and hopefully, common sense will prevail, and this stupid law will be overturned.Jethro you are quite clearly,'Living in the pa-ast' We used to have bear baiting at one time. Luckily we are now more civilised and have moved on. Personally, I hope they lock this guy up and throw away the key. Same for anybody who thinks that they are above the law.
Gloria, Bolton says...
10:16am Wed 22 Aug 07
When you can discuss and debate rather than name call and abuse, come back and enjoy.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:17am Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria wrote:Never Gloria..
You just couldn't do it could you??
But please tell me why we cannot have smoking and non smoking pubs?
Gloria, Bolton says...
10:20am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb wrote:I'd love to, but I really must get on with some work !!!!!
Gloria wrote:Never Gloria..
You just couldn't do it could you??
But please tell me why we cannot have smoking and non smoking pubs?
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:21am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tubby Scruff wrote:Small steps tubby some peoples thinking are not as advanced as that but lets not refer to people as dimwits because they do not understand the bigger picture.
Amazing how many dim sh*its a story like this brings out.
None of this is about to smoke or not to smoke, Hogans argument is about freedom of choice, something it would appear many of you are quite happy to dwindle away ?
Millions have died to exercise the right of freedom and freedom of choice, it's called democracy ? Though it would appear also, many of you are quite happy to live under this elected Stalinist Government ?
No doubt some of you'll be in favour of DNA samples at birth, tracking implants and God only knows what they'll think of next.
Society has become, I'm all right jack and as long as it doesn't affect me, I don't give a damm.
Your all ready asked to "grass" folks up..is this not what folks were encouraged to do in the Adolf Hitler era ? Appalled at this thought ? What's the difference today ?
Hogans fight again, is not about to smoke or not to smoke..it's about freedom.
I know this is off topic but Have you noticed how the EU have suddenly started telling Texas they should stop executing?
My point being My question would be why does the EU allow countries in the European Union to have non smoking and smoking pubs yet Britain doesn't
Mr Hogan I feel will win on this point.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:23am Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria wrote:Awww dont leave the debate now it was just getting interesting.
Tom Thumb wrote:I'd love to, but I really must get on with some work !!!!!
Gloria wrote:Never Gloria..
You just couldn't do it could you??
But please tell me why we cannot have smoking and non smoking pubs?
And you were about to tell us why we cannot allow non smoking and smoking pubs as they do in other EU countries.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:26am Wed 22 Aug 07
kieanders wrote:Thank you for showing us how feeble your thinking is.
Tom Thumb wrote:ok, if it was inevitable that i was going to be puked on every time i entered macdonalds, then i would agree with banning it, or whenever somone had a pint they blew chunks on me, then yeah, ban drinking. but it is inevitable that i will smell of smoke, inhale second hand smoke and be subject to smokers coughs when i enter a building (not just pubs) that allow smoking!
kieanders wrote:So are you going to want a ban fast food and alcohol because people who eat fast food or drink alcohol might throw up on you?Tom Thumb wrote:before the smoking ban, i never had the choice of entering a smokey pub or not, if i wanted to go to the pub, i had to brave the smell, fog and coughing that smoking pubs breed. now i choose which pubs i like, and smokers i am out with can still smoke, just not near me or other people. you smokers keep on about your human rights, what about mine?GC wrote:WE also used to have the freedom to CHOOSE . CHOOSE wether we smoked or not. Choose wether we frequented a smoky pub. Remember the poll tax? People choose to relent against an unfair law then and it worked.Jethro Tull wrote: Well, i personally wish Nick all the very best. He has vowed to take this all the way to the European Courts if necessary, and hopefully, common sense will prevail, and this stupid law will be overturned.Jethro you are quite clearly,'Living in the pa-ast' We used to have bear baiting at one time. Luckily we are now more civilised and have moved on. Personally, I hope they lock this guy up and throw away the key. Same for anybody who thinks that they are above the law.
Okay, so as not to confuse you, let me try at make this as simple as possible for you !
IF you knew you were going to get puked on in a particular fast food outlet would you avoid it?
Ron, Bolton says...
10:26am Wed 22 Aug 07
Laws protect children from being sent down mines and up chimneys. Laws protect my employer from using mercury or asbestos that would harm me.
This law is no different.
JoePublic, Bolton says...
10:27am Wed 22 Aug 07
To all the people who support Hogan and oppose the ban - what were you doing in the 15 months since the ban was passed by a majority of over 200 in a free vote in Parliament? (Even the Tory's Health Spokesman said that there "had to be a culture that encourages better health".)
Now is not the time to throw your toys out of the pram and oppose the ban. You had your chance. You stayed quiet.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:30am Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron wrote:Ron.
Quite simply the law exists to protect workers from SHS. There is no reason why a barperson at one pub has to risk there life, when the one at the next pub doesn't.
Laws protect children from being sent down mines and up chimneys. Laws protect my employer from using mercury or asbestos that would harm me.
This law is no different.
Go look it, look at past stories on the Bolton News website. There is NO evidence to prove or show passive smoking is dangerous LET ALONE kills people .
It is a misnomer.
IN FACT some studies show the complete opposite.
Stop letting yourself be programmed by government hype.
Go read the studies and the facts.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:32am Wed 22 Aug 07
Do not let yourself be hoodwinked.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:34am Wed 22 Aug 07
yz73m
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:35am Wed 22 Aug 07
op6r3
harry, bolton says...
10:35am Wed 22 Aug 07
GC wrote:Oh yes i can see your point because landlords are now safer too.... thats why about 4 have been battered in last few weeks for asking people not to smoke in pubs
JoePublic wrote:Correct. And the smoking ban is for safety too. Just like speeding ban.Smoking is legalNot in pubs it isn't, that's why he's in court.
Ron, Bolton says...
10:36am Wed 22 Aug 07
Doctors know it.
Scientists know it.
Even the tobacco companies now admit it.
The only ones who doubt it are conspiracy theorists and fundamental pro-smokers for whom it fits their agenda.
harry, bolton says...
10:37am Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria wrote:yes but so is beer. So is that next to get banned
Hang on a minute, lets not forget that smoking is a killer, its bad for you. If you can't protect yourself and your family then someone has to do it for you.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:37am Wed 22 Aug 07
It is about people waking up and realising they are being dictated to by unjust and unfair laws.
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
10:39am Wed 22 Aug 07
To quote:
"All political power is primarily an illusion... Mirrors and blue smoke, beautiful blue smoke rolling over the surface of highly polished mirrors... If somebody tells you how to look, there can be seen in the smoke great, magnificent shapes, castles and kingdoms, and maybe they can be yours."
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:39am Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron wrote:And what about the studies done by CANCER RESEARCH that proved that passive smoking wasn't harmful?
Excepting some tobacco funded PR studies from years ago, the dangers of SHS is now well known. It causes death and disease in non-smokers.
Doctors know it.
Scientists know it.
Even the tobacco companies now admit it.
The only ones who doubt it are conspiracy theorists and fundamental pro-smokers for whom it fits their agenda.
Are their studies flawed as well?
JoePublic, Bolton says...
10:43am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb wrote:But that is exactly my point. The pro-smoking lobby had 15 months to wake up before the ban was implemented. It's too late now.
Joepublic it isn't about people staying quiet. It is about people waking up and realising they are being dictated to by unjust and unfair laws.
Ron, Bolton says...
10:43am Wed 22 Aug 07
King Eric, . says...
10:44am Wed 22 Aug 07
And :
I know this is off topic but Have you noticed how the EU have suddenly started telling Texas they should stop executing?
Does this apply to all DIY shops ?
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:44am Wed 22 Aug 07
The link between passive smoking and lung cancer and coronary heart disease may be "considerably weaker" than generally believed, according to a controversial new study.
For nearly 40 years, researchers followed 35,500 non-smokers in California who were married to smokers. The team has now concluded that there were no statistically significant associations between the second-hand tobacco smoke these people were exposed to and deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Journal reference: British Medical Journal (vol 326, p 1057)
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:45am Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron wrote:So it cannot "prove" passive smoking kills then either?
It's extremely unlikely that Cancer Research would claim to have 'proved' anything, much less that SHS isn't harmful.
Ron, Bolton says...
10:45am Wed 22 Aug 07
I suppose it's their freedom2choose not to?
harry, bolton says...
10:46am Wed 22 Aug 07
harry wrote:There is no evidence that second hand smoke causes cancer!! Alot of people believe there is because they are mislead.
Gloria wrote: Hang on a minute, lets not forget that smoking is a killer, its bad for you. If you can't protect yourself and your family then someone has to do it for you.yes but so is beer. So is that next to get banned
JoePublic, Bolton says...
10:46am Wed 22 Aug 07
The ban is here and it is here to stay. There isn't a single political party willing to overturn it.
harry, bolton says...
10:47am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:48am Wed 22 Aug 07
King Eric wrote:No they are unfair and unjust when the majority disagrees.
So they are only unjust and unfair when you disagree with them. Fantastic reasoning.
And :
I know this is off topic but Have you noticed how the EU have suddenly started telling Texas they should stop executing?
Does this apply to all DIY shops ?
Eric were you the one who claimed the freedomtochoose website was funded by the tobacco industry? and was shown to be a LIAR
harry, bolton says...
10:48am Wed 22 Aug 07
JoePublic, Bolton says...
10:49am Wed 22 Aug 07
No they are unfair and unjust when the majority disagrees
I think you'll find that in the case of smoking, the majority doesn't smoke and doesn't care.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:51am Wed 22 Aug 07
Didn't the government claim a majority when in fact it was a minority who were totally against smoking pubs?
JoePublic, Bolton says...
10:52am Wed 22 Aug 07
Secondhand tobacco smoke kills at least 3600 people a year in the UK, according to a new study, including the death of one pub or bar worker every week.
Konrad Jamrozik at Imperial College, London, UK, says exposure to secondhand smoke in all workplaces leads to the deaths of around 700 people a year.
He examined all deaths in 2002 from lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease and stroke in British people under the age of 65, and combined this data with data on exposure to smoking at home and work.
Source: http://www.newscient
ist.com/article/dn49
98
cow-head, westhoughton says...
10:53am Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron, Bolton says...
10:54am Wed 22 Aug 07
Over 100 peer-reviewed independent studies have shown that SHS causes death and disease in non-smokers. A view shared by WHO if anyone wants to check their site.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:54am Wed 22 Aug 07
Always a fearsome sign of some manipulation.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:55am Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron wrote:The British medical Journal do not publish things that are not peer reviewed.
Thanks for the quotes from the tobacco company funded studies that have been disowned by even the tobacco companies themselves.
Over 100 peer-reviewed independent studies have shown that SHS causes death and disease in non-smokers. A view shared by WHO if anyone wants to check their site.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:56am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:56am Wed 22 Aug 07
harry wrote:Oh you mean this WHO do you Ron?
Finally, some truth is coming out on the secondhand smoke scam. An article in the Telegraph from the U.K. published on Sunday, March 8 breaks the news: "The world's leading health organization has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could have even a protective effect."
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
10:58am Wed 22 Aug 07
melody shaw, bolton says...
11:03am Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron, Bolton says...
11:03am Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron, Bolton says...
11:06am Wed 22 Aug 07
kieanders, bolton says...
11:16am Wed 22 Aug 07
Tom Thumb wrote:feeble?
kieanders wrote:Thank you for showing us how feeble your thinking is. Okay, so as not to confuse you, let me try at make this as simple as possible for you ! IF you knew you were going to get puked on in a particular fast food outlet would you avoid it?Tom Thumb wrote:ok, if it was inevitable that i was going to be puked on every time i entered macdonalds, then i would agree with banning it, or whenever somone had a pint they blew chunks on me, then yeah, ban drinking. but it is inevitable that i will smell of smoke, inhale second hand smoke and be subject to smokers coughs when i enter a building (not just pubs) that allow smoking!kieanders wrote:So are you going to want a ban fast food and alcohol because people who eat fast food or drink alcohol might throw up on you?Tom Thumb wrote:before the smoking ban, i never had the choice of entering a smokey pub or not, if i wanted to go to the pub, i had to brave the smell, fog and coughing that smoking pubs breed. now i choose which pubs i like, and smokers i am out with can still smoke, just not near me or other people. you smokers keep on about your human rights, what about mine?GC wrote:WE also used to have the freedom to CHOOSE . CHOOSE wether we smoked or not. Choose wether we frequented a smoky pub. Remember the poll tax? People choose to relent against an unfair law then and it worked.Jethro Tull wrote: Well, i personally wish Nick all the very best. He has vowed to take this all the way to the European Courts if necessary, and hopefully, common sense will prevail, and this stupid law will be overturned.Jethro you are quite clearly,'Living in the pa-ast' We used to have bear baiting at one time. Luckily we are now more civilised and have moved on. Personally, I hope they lock this guy up and throw away the key. Same for anybody who thinks that they are above the law.
of course i would avoid somewhere i was going to be puked on, and obviously i would avoid somewhere i get smokey and smelly and coughed on.
the smoking ban means i have a choice, i can go in any pubs i like, and don't have to worry about "possible" SHS problems, smelly clothes/hair and fag burns, cig ends on my shoes etc.
yet smokers don't have a choice, do they? they can't smoke anywhere, there are no smoking shelters for them, no ashtrays attached to the outside of pubs. get real tom, the ban is here, its staying and it is as fair for all parties as it could ever be!
and if you think you made your point simple, you need to think carefully about how you just justified my point!
Amosc99, Bolton says...
11:18am Wed 22 Aug 07
Jethro Tull wrote:so does Nick Hogan vindicate people for smoking in an office, on a train, on a bus etc...
Well, i personally wish Nick all the very best. He has vowed to take this all the way to the European Courts if necessary, and hopefully, common sense will prevail, and this stupid law will be overturned.
I to beleive in freedom of choice but law is law and it should be upheld.
He WILL lose his licence, then what will happen - nothing, I presume. He will whingw and whine but will be able to do nothing becuase he has BROKEN the Law.
It may be a stupid law, but its here and its here to stay - just like in Ireland, NOrthern Ireland, Scotland Wales, some other EU countries and from, you won't belive this, April next June the ban will also apply in The Netherlands (Holland to the uneducational!)!
Amosc99, Bolton says...
11:21am Wed 22 Aug 07
SO get your views in now before they start squabbling amongst themselves!!!
kieanders, bolton says...
11:21am Wed 22 Aug 07
melody shaw wrote:and that, my pro-smoking chum, is why drink driving, fighting, drunk and disorderly are all illegal. but drinking only harms yourself.
Is the Government going to ban drinking as well. Alcohol consumption kills as well! Either you kill yourself by damaging your liver or someone gets killed in a fight or a crazy drunk driver ploughs into someone at 60mph!! Alcohol has just as much potential to kill as smoking!
the smoking ban is not to protect smokers, how could it, they still smoke, be it outside. no, it is to protect the majority of the population who are non-smokers, who previously had no repreive from suffering smokers waste!
if you want to join the argument, think carefully about the reasons why the smoking ban was intorduced and then address those points!
Sun Tzu, Bolton says...
11:22am Wed 22 Aug 07
Our laws should be used to combat major crimes. Such as, people being stabbed to death, people being beaten and robbed, children being raped and murdered. By cloging our court system up with the nonsense of smoking bans and the like, we undermine our legal system, and make our country a worse place to live for everyone.
Unless the PC crowd is brought to heel, no one will be smoking in pubs soon. But it wont be because of any ban, it will be because it's too dangerous to set foot outside your front door after dark.
harry, bolton says...
11:23am Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron wrote:Who says??
Smoking kills far more people than murder, accident, drink driving, alcohol etc etc PUT TOGETHER!!
IF PEOPLE ARE TOLD A LIE OFTEN ENOUGH THEY BELIEVE IT!!!
King Eric, . says...
11:23am Wed 22 Aug 07
Eric were you the one who claimed the freedomtochoose website was funded by the tobacco industry? and was shown to be a LIAR
No I was the one who wound them up for a few days with my own invented 'facts' to point out the flaws in their arguments.
Talking of liars , aren't you the guy who told us he was boycotting the Bolton News ?
In your case, it may not be lies. It's just that you attention span is similar to that of a moth.
Ron, Bolton says...
11:26am Wed 22 Aug 07
It's a revolution in health protection that's sweeping the globe. The tobacco companies have given up pushing their lies in developed countries as modern medical research and legislation has been their undoing.
Unfortunately they are now turning to developing countries to push their insidious products, where health and legislation is not yet able to defend the population against the evils of tobacco.
kieanders, bolton says...
11:26am Wed 22 Aug 07
harry wrote:and if people continue to use capitals to try to make a point, others get tired of reading the post drivel!
Ron wrote: Smoking kills far more people than murder, accident, drink driving, alcohol etc etc PUT TOGETHER!!Who says?? IF PEOPLE ARE TOLD A LIE OFTEN ENOUGH THEY BELIEVE IT!!!
Ron, Bolton says...
11:28am Wed 22 Aug 07
harry wrote:The statistics are clear enough, do your own research.
Ron wrote: Smoking kills far more people than murder, accident, drink driving, alcohol etc etc PUT TOGETHER!!Who says?? IF PEOPLE ARE TOLD A LIE OFTEN ENOUGH THEY BELIEVE IT!!!
King Eric, Smoke Free UK says...
11:28am Wed 22 Aug 07
Journal reference: British Medical Journal (vol 326, p 1057)
Absolute barmpot.
Rattle on all you want pal, the ban is in, it's great for the majority of us socialites, the smokers can still smoke outside, and the nation gets healthier.
We all win.
harry, bolton says...
11:29am Wed 22 Aug 07
kieanders wrote:Were is the solid evidence that SHS causes cancer?? Alcohol damages families more than smoking. Alcohol can cause violent behaviour leading to fights and murder. Smoking doesnt. Like i have said before there is no solid evidence that passive smoke causes cancer. People believe lies if they are told the same one often enough. When cigs were first mad they were not harmful and they used to be advertised on TV. now they kill millions?? So in 20-30years will they be harmless again? The news is Controlled by people who use it to make people believe what they want them to believe. If scientists and goverments said smoking doesnt cause cancer then everyone would believe it. Alot of people believe what they are told.
melody shaw wrote: Is the Government going to ban drinking as well. Alcohol consumption kills as well! Either you kill yourself by damaging your liver or someone gets killed in a fight or a crazy drunk driver ploughs into someone at 60mph!! Alcohol has just as much potential to kill as smoking!and that, my pro-smoking chum, is why drink driving, fighting, drunk and disorderly are all illegal. but drinking only harms yourself. the smoking ban is not to protect smokers, how could it, they still smoke, be it outside. no, it is to protect the majority of the population who are non-smokers, who previously had no repreive from suffering smokers waste! if you want to join the argument, think carefully about the reasons why the smoking ban was intorduced and then address those points!
harry, bolton says...
11:30am Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron wrote:Statistics that are released by companies that want us to believe this. Statistics that are not released are the ones that prove they are wrong.
harry wrote:The statistics are clear enough, do your own research.Ron wrote: Smoking kills far more people than murder, accident, drink driving, alcohol etc etc PUT TOGETHER!!Who says?? IF PEOPLE ARE TOLD A LIE OFTEN ENOUGH THEY BELIEVE IT!!!
Ron, Bolton says...
11:33am Wed 22 Aug 07
I'll let you think about that sentence until you can see how ridiculous it sounds.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
11:38am Wed 22 Aug 07
kieanders, bolton says...
11:38am Wed 22 Aug 07
i never said that smoking caused cancer. but where is the proof that it does not, i have not seen any proof that totally proves or disproves, and until that day i will avoid the risk.
i agree, alcohol can affect families more than smoking, it does cause violence, and can lead to murder/manslaughter. but drinking is not to blame, people drink too much, and they are to blame.
as for your point, cigs were not harmful, of course they were, society just didn't know. in the same way heroine was used as a pain killer.
King Eric, Smoke Free UK says...
11:40am Wed 22 Aug 07
And the publicity seeking Sulk Hogan ?
The guy will 'reluctantly'give in to save face in a few months.
Ron, Bolton says...
11:43am Wed 22 Aug 07
Before tobacco was smoked widely, lung cancer was almost unheard of. Now, 9 out of 10 cases of lung cancer occur in smokers, despite only 25% of the population smoking.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
11:46am Wed 22 Aug 07
Horwich Allstars, Horwich says...
11:47am Wed 22 Aug 07
As a licence holder, Mr Hogan should use democratic process in order to get the ban overturned. The law to ban smoking in enclosed public places was passed by parliament, and prior to it's passage had been through all the usual process of any bill - allowing all interested parties to put thier views forward. We elect the MP's (and if you don't vote, don't complain when a law that you don't like isn't passed), and we elect them because we trust thier judement on issues such as this. If you do not like what has happened use your democratic rights to make your views know -breaking the law will get Nick Hogan nowhere, apart from out on the street when he looses his licence.
If there are so many pro-smokers, and all the issues about SHS are lies then let them stand for election... it will become clear what the popular mood is then.
As I said the way to deal with things like this is via the democtratic process, not random law breaking
Gloria, Bolton says...
11:48am Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head wrote:excuse me, how am I one of Erics cronies?? some days I agree with his comments, other days I don't.... I don't even know the guy.
Eric (and all of your cronies: Gloria, Ali etc) There are probably around 12 million smokers in this country who do not agree with a the ban. Should they not have a choice?
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
11:53am Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron wrote:facts and figures please. You can not possibly believe that we can accept such a stupid statement without them ?
Smoking kills far more people than murder, accident, drink driving, alcohol etc etc PUT TOGETHER!!
King Eric, . says...
12:00pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Eric, This may just be a debate to you, but to smokers it is a threat to their way of life. Wouldn't you get upset if drinking was banned?
I know your grasp on reality is slim, but can I point out that smoking has not been banned ?
And do you seriously think any Government will ban drinking ?
kieanders, bolton says...
12:00pm Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head wrote:way of life? you need to take a look at how tobacco companies are taking a hold of third world countries, how children work in sweatshops, how fast food outlets chop down rainforests to graze cattle.
Eric, This may just be a debate to you, but to smokers it is a threat to their way of life. Wouldn't you get upset if drinking was banned?
having to walk a few feet and smoke outside does not affect your way of life. you still smoke!
Ron, Bolton says...
12:02pm Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head wrote:Threat to their way of life is less important than a threat to someone's life.
Eric, This may just be a debate to you, but to smokers it is a threat to their way of life. Wouldn't you get upset if drinking was banned?
King Eric, King of the Hills says...
12:06pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Loads of press, fake rebels, mass protests threatened (the freedom2choose one attracted a massive 150 the other week), daft comparisons with Nazi Germany...etc
The fuss dies down,the smokers go outside for a cig and life goes on.
Tomorrow's chip papers...with pea wet.
Mmmmm chips..and pea wet.
harry, bolton says...
12:08pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron wrote:take it your a non smoker.... People are just asking the question, why cant we have smoking and non smoking pubs? Then everyone is happy.
quite right kieanders. Before tobacco was smoked widely, lung cancer was almost unheard of. Now, 9 out of 10 cases of lung cancer occur in smokers, despite only 25% of the population smoking.
harry, bolton says...
12:11pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron, Bolton says...
12:13pm Wed 22 Aug 07
harry wrote:Though it's been said a thousand times before and is the very basis for which this law was enacted:
Ron wrote: quite right kieanders. Before tobacco was smoked widely, lung cancer was almost unheard of. Now, 9 out of 10 cases of lung cancer occur in smokers, despite only 25% of the population smoking.take it your a non smoker.... People are just asking the question, why cant we have smoking and non smoking pubs? Then everyone is happy.
This law will protect workers from the dangers of SHS.
THAT'S why separate pubs won't work.
harry, bolton says...
12:14pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Bill1, Lancs says...
12:14pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Come on now, let's hear it from the "ban the car" brigade.
harry, bolton says...
12:14pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron wrote:workers will also have the choice of working in smoking or non smoking pubs
harry wrote:Though it's been said a thousand times before and is the very basis for which this law was enacted: This law will protect workers from the dangers of SHS. THAT'S why separate pubs won't work.Ron wrote: quite right kieanders. Before tobacco was smoked widely, lung cancer was almost unheard of. Now, 9 out of 10 cases of lung cancer occur in smokers, despite only 25% of the population smoking.take it your a non smoker.... People are just asking the question, why cant we have smoking and non smoking pubs? Then everyone is happy.
Ron, Bolton says...
12:29pm Wed 22 Aug 07
You could try the argument that people can also choose not to work with mercury, asbestos, benzene etc. Unfortunately it is down to governments to enact laws to protect workers (as most employers will always put profit before the health of their employees, otherwise their would not be the need to legislate against such hazards).
Ross, Ex-Bolton says...
12:29pm Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head, westhoughton says...
12:31pm Wed 22 Aug 07
RW, Leeds says...
12:33pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ban on hunting with dogs Germany 1933
Ban on gun ownership for civilians Germany 1938
Ban on Smoking in public places, offices, public transport because of the threat of "Passivrauchen" Germany 1939 - 41
Nazis Eric, Nazis!
I'll admit I didn't notice the first two, because I didn't do pistol shooting and I rather like foxes, but I've certainly noticed this one.
If history is repeating itself the next ban is on alcohol, but though very unpleasant for a while with all manner of scaremongering and junk science, that one should fail.
King Eric, . says...
12:38pm Wed 22 Aug 07
That plight is, to smoke outside a pub.
You compare that with Belsen etc ?
You should be ashamed.
GC, Turton says...
12:40pm Wed 22 Aug 07
King Eric wrote:Ah! Now you're talking. Pea wet. Did everyone know that according to the little known 1894 Pea wet control act, it is an offence to eat pudding, chips and peas with excessive pea wet in pubs? Research into the BEN archives will show that in 1895, when the act came into effect the landlord of the Swan went to court because he refused to prevent his customers eating meals covered in pea wet on his premises. He said it infringed their human rights.He was found guilty and lost his license. He was ordered to sign the Pea Wet offnders' register upon his release from prison.
They had all this fuss in Eire, Italy etc. Loads of press, fake rebels, mass protests threatened (the freedom2choose one attracted a massive 150 the other week), daft comparisons with Nazi Germany...etc The fuss dies down,the smokers go outside for a cig and life goes on. Tomorrow's chip papers...with pea wet. Mmmmm chips..and pea wet.
kieanders, bolton says...
12:46pm Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head wrote:you are quite right cow head, i am absolutely wrong to compare the plight of millions of people, struggling to make a living, eyt being encouraged to smoke, be addicted to smoking and being used as a money making machine by western tobacco companies (because they realise people in the west understand the dangers of smoking) to the life changing effects that a smoking ban has on your overly important, globally determining life. so the answer, surely is nothing.
Kieanders, Please tell me what third world countries have got to do with a smoking ban here.The answer is absolutely nothing.
their plight doesn't affect our smoking ban. but it does demonstrate your petty arguments that the smoking ban has a life changing affect!
cow-head, westhoughton says...
12:52pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Smoking Stones leave O2 fuming
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The Rolling Stones left anti-smoking groups fuming last night, after they defied the smoking ban and lit up on stage during their gig at the O2 arena, London.
Aged rockers, Keith Richards and Ronnie Woods were the culprits, impressing fans who cheered at their on stage rebellion.
Stewards at the 20,000 fans gig were sent into a flap, patrolling the crowd and warning revellers who followed suit that they would be ejected.
An audience member at the concert said: 'It was a great rock'n'roll moment.'
'Keith looked around nonchalantly, lit up a fag and had it dangling from his mouth as he played a solo.'
'He didn't seem to care and smoked the fag for at least five minutes.'
'People around me started saying, 'Well if he can do it, why can't we?' But the stewards warned them they would be turfed out?'
Greenwich Council say they plan to make an example of the arena's owners AEG, who now face a possible £ 2,500 fine.
A spokesman for Anti-smoking group ASH lambasted Richards, saying: 'Unless Keith Richards is going to claim that smoking is an integral part of his performance, he has no defence.'
It's not the first time Richards has dodged punishment for smoking on stage, after he flicked buts into the crowd in Scotland's Hampton Park last year. Glasgow Council did fine him either.
An O2 spokesman said: 'A band member appeared to have a cigarette on stage. We're sure it was an oversight and are grateful for the co-operation.
The Stones were kicking off the first UK leg of their A Bigger Bang tour. It was the first time they performed indoors in the UK since 2003.
Gloria, Bolton says...
12:55pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
12:59pm Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head, westhoughton says...
1:00pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
1:00pm Wed 22 Aug 07
I think people should give you respect, you are an ex smoker, but rather than the holy than now act, you put forward reasoned arguments, well done, wish there were more like you.
RW, Leeds says...
1:09pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Eric, I was born not long after the war, we were shown so many programmes on the depredations of the Nazis that it verged on child abuse, they were so graphic that they would not been shown now. It was drilled into us that we should never forget lest it started happening again.
Governments must always be watched and questioned.
And as for your comment about those that fought for freedom (smokers mostly), the few that remain are being made to stand in the rain outside their service clubs by the very law you so fervently admire.
Gloria, Bolton says...
1:16pm Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head wrote:I would love you to explain how I am a bigot, and how you have connected me with Eric?
Yes Gloria, I have much more respect for people that stand up for what they believe in rather than for narrow minded bigots like you and Eric.
Some days I agree with his arguments, others I don't....that is known as a democratic debate.
Oh I forgot....only you have an opinion.
boris, west sussex says...
1:19pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Horwich Allstars, Horwich says...
1:35pm Wed 22 Aug 07
As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Godwin%27s_
Law
GC, Turton says...
1:37pm Wed 22 Aug 07
RW wrote:I think it is an absolute disgrace that you should denigrate the memories of those who fought and died in two world wars by comparing the smoking ban with fighting fascism. The two are hardly comparable at all. This government was elected and has a majority in parliament. It has simply passed a law that prohibits smoking in enclosed public spaces. It is not a fascist dictatorship engaged in genocide. Grow up. And stop hiding behind pseudo- human rights/libertarian claptrap just because you have been inconvenienced a little. If you were being herded into a gas chamber you would be right to draw comparisons. You are not, so show some respect for all those who lost their lives so tragically.
So there you are cow-head, the quiet pursuits of 14 million people must be sacrificed in someone elses crusade against multinational companies, you and your friends may feel distressed but its all for the greater good and nothing personal. Eric, I was born not long after the war, we were shown so many programmes on the depredations of the Nazis that it verged on child abuse, they were so graphic that they would not been shown now. It was drilled into us that we should never forget lest it started happening again. Governments must always be watched and questioned. And as for your comment about those that fought for freedom (smokers mostly), the few that remain are being made to stand in the rain outside their service clubs by the very law you so fervently admire.
boris, west sussex says...
1:42pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Go and play with your cctv cameras, for your information fascism didn't start with gas chambers, and the people voted in the Nazi Party, with as you put it, A MAJORITY.
harry, bolton says...
1:44pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ross wrote:Know the land lord isnot tell non smokers they cant work there... they are just saying its a smoking pub and the choice is up to the staff if they want to work there. non smokers can work in a smokin pub if they want too. its call choice.
Having smoking pubs means that when they advertise for staff, they can only employ smokers. The Equal Opportunities Commission would then get involved.
harry, bolton says...
1:46pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron wrote:Yes bu t there is no evidence passive smoking causes cancer so why would they have to protect them? protect them from what?
Sorry Harry, but that is exactly where the pro-smoking argument completely fails. You could try the argument that people can also choose not to work with mercury, asbestos, benzene etc. Unfortunately it is down to governments to enact laws to protect workers (as most employers will always put profit before the health of their employees, otherwise their would not be the need to legislate against such hazards).
RW, Leeds says...
1:47pm Wed 22 Aug 07
First rule , never permit any references to similar events in history, pretend that this is all new.
Always try to demean and humiliate anyone who questions even the smallest part of the legislation, lose one small part and the rest comes into question.
If all else fails resort to insult to shock them offline.
Block the thread with diversions and attacks so that debate can not continue.
Ron, Bolton says...
1:48pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Pro-smokers have been spewing out this filth for months. The freedom that they enjoy in this country seems to escape their comprehension.
Jan Gibbons, Manchester says...
1:53pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
1:54pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ask Dr David Kellys family about freedoms in this country. Are you a CCTV camera polisher????????
RW, Leeds says...
1:56pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Why?
Tich, York says...
2:02pm Wed 22 Aug 07
JoePublic wrote:Maybe something to do with a lying government.
If the pro-smoking lobby had got their act together before the ban came into force they could have put together a coherent campaign to explain why the ban should be overturned. They didn't. Now that the ban is in force and people have got used to it the chances of it being repealed are slim.
To all the people who support Hogan and oppose the ban - what were you doing in the 15 months since the ban was passed by a majority of over 200 in a free vote in Parliament? (Even the Tory's Health Spokesman said that there "had to be a culture that encourages better health".)
Now is not the time to throw your toys out of the pram and oppose the ban. You had your chance. You stayed quiet.
From the Labour Party Manifesto
Labour will legislate to introduce a ban on smoking in all public places and workplaces, but not in licensed premises. Those premises serving food will be smoke free and other pubs and bars will choose whether or not to be smoke free.
They 'said' that there would be a CHOICE - so it was not a problem.
READ AND UNDERSTAND
Ron, Bolton says...
2:04pm Wed 22 Aug 07
That SHS damages the body is certain. Tie that in with the increased incidence in cancers, heart disease, copd and other respiratory/circulat
ory diseases that are symptomatic of the aforementioned dangers and it is obvious that SHS is the culprit.
But don't listen to me, listen to every doctor, surgeon, scientist and health professional alive today.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
2:05pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
2:07pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Free country, I think not.
Gloria, Bolton says...
2:11pm Wed 22 Aug 07
SIMPLE
RW, Leeds says...
2:12pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
2:15pm Wed 22 Aug 07
They are being considered, they can stand outside or go home.
SIMPLE
WOULD YOU STAND OUTSIDE, IF SOMEONE SAID YOUR DRINKING ALCOHOL OFFENDED THEM.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
2:21pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron, Bolton says...
2:22pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
2:26pm Wed 22 Aug 07
I don't know how old you are, but think of this.
30-40 years ago most people smoked, in cars everywhere, kids were subjected to it all the time.
HOWCOME THEY ARE NOT ALL DEAD FROM PASSIVE SMOKING????
Ross, Ex-Bolton says...
2:27pm Wed 22 Aug 07
harry wrote:So a non-smoking barman might have to work at a smoking bar should that be the only available bar job?
Ross wrote:Know the land lord isnot tell non smokers they cant work there... they are just saying its a smoking pub and the choice is up to the staff if they want to work there. non smokers can work in a smokin pub if they want too. its call choice.
Having smoking pubs means that when they advertise for staff, they can only employ smokers. The Equal Opportunities Commission would then get involved.
Some choice.
boris, west sussex says...
2:34pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Your fathers and family would have smoked.
It's all a LIE.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
2:35pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ross, Ex-Bolton says...
2:38pm Wed 22 Aug 07
harry wrote:So a non-smoking barman might have to work at a smoking bar should that be the only available bar job?
Ross wrote:Know the land lord isnot tell non smokers they cant work there... they are just saying its a smoking pub and the choice is up to the staff if they want to work there. non smokers can work in a smokin pub if they want too. its call choice.
Having smoking pubs means that when they advertise for staff, they can only employ smokers. The Equal Opportunities Commission would then get involved.
Some choice.
Ross, Ex-Bolton says...
2:38pm Wed 22 Aug 07
harry wrote:So a non-smoking barman might have to work at a smoking bar should that be the only available bar job?
Ross wrote:Know the land lord isnot tell non smokers they cant work there... they are just saying its a smoking pub and the choice is up to the staff if they want to work there. non smokers can work in a smokin pub if they want too. its call choice.
Having smoking pubs means that when they advertise for staff, they can only employ smokers. The Equal Opportunities Commission would then get involved.
Some choice.
boris, west sussex says...
2:41pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Did you know
Dr david Kelly committed suicide.
How do I know this is true.
THE GOVT TOLD ME.
This is the mindset of the British people, it must be right, they told me so.
Ross, Ex-Bolton says...
2:44pm Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head wrote:The demand for labour should be bound by equal opportunity in labour supply.
Ross that's called supply and demand and it is quite an important theory in economics, get a life !!!
You are right.
Tich, says...
2:45pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
2:47pm Wed 22 Aug 07
equal opportunity.
Yes
SMOKING AND NON SMOKING PUBS.
boris, west sussex says...
2:49pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Hello
No it's his brush session time.
Ron, Bolton says...
2:49pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Nobody said SHS has a 100% mortality rate to those exposed to it.
boris, west sussex says...
2:52pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Name one person that's died from passive smoking??
Don't say Roy Castle.
kieanders, bolton says...
2:52pm Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head wrote:they are allowed to smoke. just not if it affects other people. why do you take the ban so personally when it is obviously not there to irritate you but to protect others!
Ron you are the one with the disgusting opinion, there should be both smoking and non-smoking pubs. There are still over 20% of the population that smoke, surely they deserve some consideration. From an ex-smoker that doesn't like to see people wrongly treated.
Ross, Ex-Bolton says...
2:53pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:I was on about equal opportunity in the labour market.
Ross writes
equal opportunity.
Yes
SMOKING AND NON SMOKING PUBS.
Do you always totally miss the point?
And using caps lock to make a point? Are you old enough to smoke?
cow-head, westhoughton says...
2:54pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
2:57pm Wed 22 Aug 07
I get the point, your a daft bigot.
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
2:57pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron wrote:What an utter Prat !
Harry, despite the outdated studies (many from the era of the tobacco companies trying to disprove SHS dangers) you may have read, modern studies (i.e. in the last few years) have seen a huge amount of research done in the area of SHS. That SHS damages the body is certain. Tie that in with the increased incidence in cancers, heart disease, copd and other respiratory/circulat ory diseases that are symptomatic of the aforementioned dangers and it is obvious that SHS is the culprit. But don't listen to me, listen to every doctor, surgeon, scientist and health professional alive today.
As we all know full well, there is not one single report worldwide that proves SHS is a problem. For Gods sake wake up and look at facts before you post drivel.
Boltonbloke, The Haulgh says...
3:00pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
3:00pm Wed 22 Aug 07
I don't want to get into an argument with you.
I find piano wire very uncomfortable.
Ron, Bolton says...
3:00pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Again another "non-question". I'm sure you'll want 'passive smoking' to appear on the death certificate before you'll consider it proof too?
It's estimated that exposure to SHS leads to the deaths of around 600-1000 people each year.
kieanders, bolton says...
3:01pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
3:01pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Chief spokesmen for HMG.
kieanders, bolton says...
3:03pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Boltonbloke wrote:it isn't common sense to flout the law, its daft, and illegal! he deserves what he gets for challenging a law that was democratically passed. why didn't he make his protests before the law was set?
Good Luck Nick. Lets have a victory for common sense for once.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
3:03pm Wed 22 Aug 07
kieanders, bolton says...
3:04pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:notice you're not using the capitals boris, you obviously listened!
Ron Chief spokesmen for HMG.
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
3:04pm Wed 22 Aug 07
kieanders wrote:and why does the Govt spend approx £160 billion per year on quangos ?
ca i ask all you knowledgable enough to be posting today. if there is no proof that SHS harms people, not even a chance that might ppen, why do the government spend millions on trying to stop people, introduce a ban to protect people and enforce measures to stop smoking companys from advertising when it is a big money spinner for any government? why do cig packets all carry health warnings, surely it would be in tobacco industries best interests to prove there is no link between smoking and illnesses, and they could definatively prove they have nothing to hide!
kieanders, bolton says...
3:06pm Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head wrote:that would, in an ideal world, be a good compromise, but we both know it wouldn't work.
Kieanders if there were both smoking and non-smoking pubs there wouldn't be a problem. It seems that a very small proportion want 100% non-smoking pubs. This is what I object to.
firstly, landlords would choose to be a smoking pub.
secondly, if there was no choices, and licences were needed, how would the council decide which pubs should be non smoking.
finally, how can we protect workers if some will be working in a smoking atmosphere, and some won't.
kieanders, bolton says...
3:07pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Jethro Tull wrote:i was asking a serious question, give me a reason why the govt wants people to stop smoking?
kieanders wrote: ca i ask all you knowledgable enough to be posting today. if there is no proof that SHS harms people, not even a chance that might ppen, why do the government spend millions on trying to stop people, introduce a ban to protect people and enforce measures to stop smoking companys from advertising when it is a big money spinner for any government? why do cig packets all carry health warnings, surely it would be in tobacco industries best interests to prove there is no link between smoking and illnesses, and they could definatively prove they have nothing to hide!and why does the Govt spend approx £160 billion per year on quangos ?
Carlos Em, London says...
3:09pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Carlos Em, London says...
3:10pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron, Bolton says...
3:11pm Wed 22 Aug 07
"Using an evidence-based approach reveals a substantial burden of passive smoking in terms of CHD mortality and morbidity reflected by six CHD deaths and 10 incident CHD cases every day in Germany."
This was published in May 2007 and is one of over a hundred that exist to show the damage that passive smoking does.
http://eurheartj.oxf
ordjournals.org/cgi/
content/abstract/ehm
151v1
boris, west sussex says...
3:13pm Wed 22 Aug 07
firstly, landlords would choose to be a smoking pub.
How can this be true, surely landlords would want the 75-80% majority of non smokers. Or are you saying non smokers are tight fisted wingers.
Gloria, Bolton says...
3:16pm Wed 22 Aug 07
And it has been shown that many thousands of new "quitters" have emerged since the ban. If it saves one person, its been well worth it.
And to the guy who posted about kids who grew up in the 60s and 70s with smoking parents - I was one, and I have had asthma all my life. I never grew out of it like many other children did, and whilst it is well controlled and I lead a normal life, my father directly attributes it to his and my mothers smoking.
Driving around on holidays in Europe as a child were heaven in the back of a smoke filled car!!!!
boris, west sussex says...
3:18pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Asthma and diabetes are on the increase. Smoking is on the decrease, please explain???
Ron, Bolton says...
3:19pm Wed 22 Aug 07
"It's not fair! Here we are, stuck in our poxy laboratories getting paid £90K a year, when those crazy smokers get to lounge around all day looking cool and smoking and drinking in pubs! What can we do to get revenge? I know! Why don't we launch a 50-year campaign against smokers that will cost millions so eventually we can get them to smoke outside in the cold!"
Seriously, you couldn't make this rubbish up.....
boris, west sussex says...
3:22pm Wed 22 Aug 07
If we had our own smoking pubs that did not effect you. What's the problem.
By the way Oswald did it.
Diana, certain it was an accident.
Gloria, Bolton says...
3:23pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron, Bolton says...
3:25pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:Ooh, good one boris! Ask Gloria (who clearly isn't a doctor) a medical question that (even if it's true) would take the worlds experts to answer. Then, we she can't answer it say it proves that SHS is harmless.
Gloria, Bolton Asthma and diabetes are on the increase. Smoking is on the decrease, please explain???
Lunacy!
boris, west sussex says...
3:28pm Wed 22 Aug 07
This was not thought out. Other countries have found smoking rates dipped when the ban started, but recovered to ealier levels, in the case of Italy rose.
The other big issue is noise levels. Many residents are now complaining about shelters and the noise coming fom them. Police are threatening to close pubs where people accumulate outside. Many non smokers on other threads have said, it was better before the ban, we could sleep then.
boris, west sussex says...
3:31pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Are you saying diabetes and asthma are not on the increase???
melody shaw, bolton says...
3:35pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron, Bolton says...
3:36pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Saving lives is the priority, inconvenience is secondary.
Gloria, Bolton says...
3:38pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Melody - you argued our case for us - drink driving is bad for you and is illegal, smoking is bad for you.......etc etc etc
boris, west sussex says...
3:38pm Wed 22 Aug 07
You idiot, I didn't bring up asthma, Gloria did.
Tich, York says...
3:45pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron wrote:These are all what are known as Meta-analyses. They are not new studies - they take a number of existing studies and try to extract the data. It is known to be an unreliable method as no two studies use the same sampling methodologies.
As mentioned before, the studies showing the harm that SHS does is legion and new ones come out every month. Here's one that shows:
"Using an evidence-based approach reveals a substantial burden of passive smoking in terms of CHD mortality and morbidity reflected by six CHD deaths and 10 incident CHD cases every day in Germany."
This was published in May 2007 and is one of over a hundred that exist to show the damage that passive smoking does.
http://eurheartj.oxf
ordjournals.org/cgi/
content/abstract/ehm
151v1
Some may for example allow for confounders while others will not. By altering such things as the confidence interval you can raise or lower the RR of the data. A Relative Risk (RR) of less than 3 would not even be considered as proof. The ASH meta-analysis which most of these so called studies are based around 'cherry-picked' 32 studies from some of the 150 or so that have been done world wide. Even by lowering the Confidence interval to 90% (epidemiological standard is 95%) they could not get the RR above 2.
Now does anyone want to discuss statistics - I've got a few days spare
boris, west sussex says...
3:48pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Fact: A RR of less than 2.0 is usually written off as an unimportant result. An RR of 3.0 or higher is considered desirable.
Fact: As a rule of thumb, an RR of at least 2.0 is necessary to indicate a cause and effect relationship, and a RR of 3.0 is preferred.
"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine"
"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.
"Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." - The National Cancer Institute
"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist.
http://www.davehitt.
Tich, York says...
3:50pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
3:50pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Carlos Em, London says...
3:52pm Wed 22 Aug 07
harry, bolton says...
3:53pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:How true
Ron, Bolton I don't know how old you are, but think of this. 30-40 years ago most people smoked, in cars everywhere, kids were subjected to it all the time. HOWCOME THEY ARE NOT ALL DEAD FROM PASSIVE SMOKING????
harry, bolton says...
3:57pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ross wrote:Not at all. Its there choice to work there!! Listen you obviously have your head so far up your back side that you can even smell the smoke never mind inhale it so what are you bothered about. I am a smoker and to be honest i dont mind going outside, its not just about smokers its about pub owners loosing money and even there pubs as well as getting battered and getting fines for the noise smokers make outside. The landlords are suffering not us smokers.
harry wrote:So a non-smoking barman might have to work at a smoking bar should that be the only available bar job? Some choice.Ross wrote: Having smoking pubs means that when they advertise for staff, they can only employ smokers. The Equal Opportunities Commission would then get involved.Know the land lord isnot tell non smokers they cant work there... they are just saying its a smoking pub and the choice is up to the staff if they want to work there. non smokers can work in a smokin pub if they want too. its call choice.
kieanders, bolton says...
4:00pm Wed 22 Aug 07
melody shaw wrote:you do have a choice, your house, your friends house or outside the pub. you are not banned from smoking, just from smoking in public places
Kieanders drink driving etc may well be illegal but people still do it! Therefore drinking is as harmful as smoking. Instead of banning smoking from public places the Government should allow us a choice of where to go!
Horwich Allstars, Horwich says...
4:01pm Wed 22 Aug 07
kieanders, bolton says...
4:02pm Wed 22 Aug 07
melody shaw wrote:and, if drink driving is illegal, yet people still do it, should we turn a blind eye, let them do it, even though we know it will kill people?
Kieanders drink driving etc may well be illegal but people still do it! Therefore drinking is as harmful as smoking. Instead of banning smoking from public places the Government should allow us a choice of where to go!
boris, west sussex says...
4:02pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Don't forget Ash, Big Pharma's buddy.
It's all about profit. Big Pharma want their cut, they will get it, replacement therapies are addictive.
Ron, do you really believe in your wildest dreams the government gives a sh.t about you, and want you to live longer. The longer people live, the more it costs the economy. The govt would like nothing better than if we all snuffed it at 60. Think about it man.
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
4:13pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron, Bolton says...
4:19pm Wed 22 Aug 07
"New studies Ron- yes but they are meaningless and all funded by Big Pharma."
Well Carlos, if you think "all studies are meaningless" That's fine, but it's not the view taken by world governments; wonder who's correct?
The glaringly hopeless attempts at "amateur epidemiology" are trotted out again. Remember: The point of view you have is that of which used to belong to the tobacco companies during their "SHS is OK" campaign from a few years back. It wasn't valid then and it's even less valid now in light of the latest research (of which you can't refute as the tobacco companies have stopped funding scientists to refute it!).
boris: There you go, when all else fails say it's a conspiracy that you can't disprove due to the the "Government" (wasn't that the excuse used by that nutcase in the Oklahoma bombing?) and really I have no answer for such conspiracies so it's best left to those websites with black backgrounds and red jazzy writing that cover those sort of topics.
Gloria, Bolton says...
4:21pm Wed 22 Aug 07
democrat debate is a good thing, we don't all have to agree all the time.
I personally enjoy a good debate with liek minded and non-like minded individuals, however, it is the likes of yourself who have to be-little people because they don't agree with you, who spoil things.
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
4:23pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
4:25pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria, Bolton says...
4:25pm Wed 22 Aug 07
I wasn't playing for sympathy, just pointing out that reasoned debate is a good thing, slanging matches aren't
boris, west sussex says...
4:28pm Wed 22 Aug 07
How can you have a reasoned debate, when you want smokers to have no rights??
cow-head, westhoughton says...
4:32pm Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head, westhoughton says...
4:33pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron, Bolton says...
4:34pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Your evidence is outdated and discreditted. The smoking laws are far more popular than you ever imagined. The rallying support of the general public never came, only their ridicule.
All you have left is a few websites where you can go and slap each other on the back and say "well we tried".
To be honest you were doomed from the start, the overwhelming support from businesses during the consultations should have told you that.
I can't imagine that smoking will ever be banned so you'll always be able to have the freedom2choose to do that.
But now, everyone can be protected from your damaging toxins if they so wish. This is a huge step forward for the liberty of the non-smoking majority.
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
4:34pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
4:35pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria, Bolton says...
4:39pm Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head wrote:So you keep saying, but never explain. I have asked you three times today.
Boris, haven't you realised that Gloria is one of Erica's group of morons.
I do not know Eric, other than to read his postings on this site. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I do not.
Likewise, sometimes I agree with your postings, sometimes I do not....Does that make you one of the morons too?
Gloria, Bolton says...
4:40pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:I never, ever said I didnt want smokers to have rights......our debate comes in where those rights lie.
Gloria, Bolton
How can you have a reasoned debate, when you want smokers to have no rights??
cow-head, westhoughton says...
4:42pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
4:42pm Wed 22 Aug 07
A straight question
Would you object if smokers could use some pubs????
Gloria, Bolton says...
4:44pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Jethro Tull wrote:Why are you connecting my postings with King Eric...they have nothing whatsoever to do with one another.
Gloria - reasoned debate is always welcome, but when has the likes of King Eric used reasoned debate ? We most likely have all lost loved ones due to cancer, and that is very sad, but there seems to be many reasons for cancer, and cigarettes is certainly not a major one. As i have stated before in the past, there is not one single report worldwide that proves CONCLUSIVELY that SHS is a problem. So, the real question here is why have so many people fallen for it ? The answer is of course propaganda from the Govt. Just like now, we are getting global warming rammed down our throats - even ads on tv promoting carbon free insurance !!! Despite the fact that the scientific community are split on global warming, and the fact that really accurate results on global warming are only a very recent thing, the Govt tells us it is real !!! Sorry, but i credit myself with sufficient intelligence to be able look at both sides of the argument, and if doubt exists, then really the Govt should not be acting on assumption, and hypothesis.
And I don't have to believe so called propganda to know that I don't want to breath it or smell of it. I am happy for you to do it, and you should be happy for me not to, and then we have to find a happy medium.
We could, as others have suggested have smoking and non-smoking puns! but then that assumes that smokers and non-smokers never mix. Therefore, we have to find a happy medium....
boris, west sussex says...
4:45pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Gloria, Bolton says...
4:46pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:See me response to Jethro above!!!
Gloria
A straight question
Would you object if smokers could use some pubs????
King Eric, ......... says...
4:48pm Wed 22 Aug 07
The usual freedom2lose barmpots turn up (interesting they all check out the Bolton News at the same time?) and as they take a hammering they resort to abuse.
Big Pharma ? Are they related to those big Lizards that David Icke warned us about ?
cow-head, westhoughton says...
4:48pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
4:49pm Wed 22 Aug 07
We could, as others have suggested have smoking and non-smoking puns! but then that assumes that smokers and non-smokers never mix. Therefore, we have to find a happy medium
They don't mix, they have been segregated. This has already happened.
Ron, Bolton says...
4:49pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:..and there we go back around to the nazi conspiracy theory again. Any hope you had of being taken credibly is long gone.
The people of Germany believed their leaders were right. Many anti smokers have the same philosophy.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
4:50pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
4:50pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Your a gloating basta.d, go and play with your brush.
boris, west sussex says...
4:51pm Wed 22 Aug 07
I accuse you, you are a fascist.
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
4:53pm Wed 22 Aug 07
King Eric, ......... says...
4:54pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
4:55pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Tich, says...
4:58pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
5:02pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Erica quote
"Why would we do what the Spanish do, they throw goats off towers".
Ron, Bolton says...
5:05pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:..and thus any attempts at sensible debate ends with name calling.
Ron I accuse you, you are a fascist.
Goodbye boris, for you my friend, ze var is over!
Gloria, Bolton says...
5:07pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
5:09pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Not name calling. I accuse you of being a fascist.
King Eric, Goat Facts says...
5:11pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Spanish ceremony gets Lorelay's goat
Lorelay is hurled out of the church steeple
Villagers in northern Spain have ignored pleas from animal rights groups and hurled a goat from the top of their church tower.
Hundreds of people, many in fancy dress, descended on the sleepy village of Manganeses de la Polvorosa to witness the annual ritual in honour of the local patron saint.
Lorelay emerged unscathed from the 15-metre (50-foot) plunge after tipsy revellers caught her in a canvas sheet and paraded her through the tiny village on their shoulders. Some of her predecessors have not been so lucky.
Lorelay on her way down
Animal rights groups have demanded the end of the San Vicente de Martir festival, one of many animal-based ceremonies that take place across Spain.
"They used to throw a dummy but the village decided it wasn't funny enough and switched to live goats," said Eva Vallejo, spokeswoman for the National Association for the Defence of Animal Rights.
"They should throw an inanimate object, or better still one of themselves."
Villagers have clashed with both police and animal rights activists at the festival in former years.
Local authorities officially banned the festival in 1992 and have tried unsuccessfully to fine the villagers.
One year a German woman even paid local residents 300,000 pesetas (£1,200 or $2,000) to free the two goats after their descent.
Shaken but unhurt
But villagers showed little sign of relenting. "I completely agree with (the activists), but I don't think they should meddle with our fiesta because the goat doesn't suffer at all," said one villager dressed in a friar's habit and a face mask.
"This is our tradition. Why should we give it up? The goat is only a bit shaken afterwards," added one elderly resident, who said the fiesta was now a celebration of the coming of adulthood in the village.
Villagers who have recently turned 18 organise the festival and are responsible for launching the goat from the top of the bell tower.
The origin of the festival remains a mystery. Some say it dates back hundreds of years, others just 20.
Local legend says the festival was born "long ago" when an intrepid goat scaled the steps of the 18th century church to eat food the village priest had left for doves.
When the priest discovered the goat it leapt from the belfry and ran off into the hills, the legend goes.
Lorelay will have to wait before she can dash for the hills. She is the guest of honour at a dance the villagers have organised to crown the fiesta.
boris, west sussex says...
5:20pm Wed 22 Aug 07
King Eric, ......... says...
5:24pm Wed 22 Aug 07
King Eric, ......... says...
5:36pm Wed 22 Aug 07
He owns other pubs (e.g. in Chorley). Is smoking banned there ?
Publicist for failing pub ? Yes.
Rebel ? He's taking the mick.
Tich, York says...
5:36pm Wed 22 Aug 07
King Eric wrote:Anybody got any idea what eric is on about ??
One Nation under a Goat.
No change there then
RW, Leeds says...
5:37pm Wed 22 Aug 07
k/1/hi/50360.stm
I check my sources
boris, west sussex says...
5:49pm Wed 22 Aug 07
King Eric, Having a Spliff says...
5:54pm Wed 22 Aug 07
When smoked, the effects are usually felt fairly quickly with people feeling more relaxed, happy and generally laid back.
Strong cannabis can also lead to pointless giggling, loss of inhibitions and an enhanced appreciation of music and colours.
Marijuana has also been reported to ease the pain, nausea and vomiting in advanced stages of cancer, AIDS and other serious illnesses.
Like most drugs, the effects of the drug can vary wildly from one person to another, with factors like where you are, who you're with and your general state of mind all influencing the experience.
Most cannabis is pretty mild, although recent varieties such as skunk, northern lights and purple haze can have a very strong - and sometimes hallucinogenic - effect.
Cannabis can be smoked with or without tobacco, filtered through water, cooled or inhaled using all manner of drug paraphernalia, or simply eaten. If eaten, it's hard to calculate when it will take effect - especially if you've wolfed down a Billy Bunter sized Vegeburger beforehand.
The physical effects of too much dope can result in bloodshot eyes, a dry mouth and sloth-like reflexes and some people have reported feeling anxious and paranoid after a heavy session.
Side effects: For many, smoking dope is as natural and everyday as a brew of hot tea, and they find the drug helps make their life a little less stressful without unduly affecting their judgement or abilities.
For others it can have quite the opposite effect, turning ordinary folk into unbearable, spaced out, lazy hippies. A night of industrial strength spliffing can transform you into a giggling oaf who will burst into laughter at wholly unamusing incidents and find deep intellectual depth in the Spice Girls' lyrics.
Your trousers and sofa will become riddled with burn marks from dropped spliffs, and you will have to face the regular dilemma of being hit with the munchies at 3am only to find that you were too out of it to get the shopping in.
This can result in regular users turning into lazy gits whose crap diet turns their body into a most unattractive proposition.
Tich, York says...
5:57pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Amosc99, Bolton says...
6:39pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:In fact you are quite wrong there - the French gvt are proposing to introduce a smoking ban - along the lines of the forthcoming Dutch law and are hoping to introduce it as soon as possible after the Dutch - if not same month, next year!
There's one thing for sure, the French will ignore the ban, as the Spanish are doing. Portugal was going for an outright ban then modified it, even New York has cigar bars, good old UK the most draconian of the lot. Free country, I think not.
King Eric, Smoke free Dude says...
6:42pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Most are from the freedom2tolose party so they'll know nothing of this area anyway but there must be some local pro cancer wallahs ...?
sarahm154, bolton burnden park says...
6:50pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Amosc99, Bolton says...
6:52pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Ron wrote:The thing is if you look at the history of the period. The people of Germany WERE right. The NAZI (the working people's party) did bring work to the masses - did reduce the need for payouts, did reduce costs across the board. The time it started to falter was when the German economy, long with most of the worlds economy, started to dip and hence Hitler et al HAD to find an excuse - so they used the Jews (completely wrong, I know!!) and from thereonin Hitler followed his manifesto (ein Kampf - My Struggle). Remember if it wasn't for the NAZI party there would be no motorways, no cloning, no ingenious ways of creating cobbled roads up steep hillsides etc. etc. and most of all there would be no Volkwagen and hence no VW Beetle!!!!
boris wrote: The people of Germany believed their leaders were right. Many anti smokers have the same philosophy...and there we go back around to the nazi conspiracy theory again. Any hope you had of being taken credibly is long gone.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
6:55pm Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head, westhoughton says...
6:58pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Amosc99, Bolton says...
6:58pm Wed 22 Aug 07
At least the French banned the Bhurkah (or however you spell it) and the Dutch are doing the same. That would be one law I would totally agree with - completely demeans a woman and most importantly cannot have the eye contact with the person you are talking to, plus you never know whether its a man or a woman!!!!
Off topic, I know, but at last got it off my chest!!!
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:01pm Wed 22 Aug 07
cow-head wrote:no but there was the concentration camps of South Africa and spreading across the world - where the people were traeted just as bad - and guess what the oncentration camp was actually created by the British to fights against the Afrikans - so what's the difference???
Amosc99, There wouldn't have been Belsen, Auschwitz, Treblinka, Ravensbruck, Dachau & Sobibor either.
Hitler just borrowed the idea from the Brits
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:02pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Anyway The oncentration camp is still not yet dead - Guantanamo Bay?
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:03pm Wed 22 Aug 07
:-)
boris, west sussex says...
7:05pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Christ you talk a pile of crap.
sarahm154, bolton burnden park says...
7:06pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Amosc99 wrote:what has this got to do woth a guy who obviously doesnt understand it is illegal you know the opposite of legal i hope they lock him up and set a trend!!!!
Ron wrote:The thing is if you look at the history of the period. The people of Germany WERE right. The NAZI (the working people's party) did bring work to the masses - did reduce the need for payouts, did reduce costs across the board. The time it started to falter was when the German economy, long with most of the worlds economy, started to dip and hence Hitler et al HAD to find an excuse - so they used the Jews (completely wrong, I know!!) and from thereonin Hitler followed his manifesto (ein Kampf - My Struggle). Remember if it wasn't for the NAZI party there would be no motorways, no cloning, no ingenious ways of creating cobbled roads up steep hillsides etc. etc. and most of all there would be no Volkwagen and hence no VW Beetle!!!!boris wrote: The people of Germany believed their leaders were right. Many anti smokers have the same philosophy...and there we go back around to the nazi conspiracy theory again. Any hope you had of being taken credibly is long gone.
boris, west sussex says...
7:09pm Wed 22 Aug 07
i hope they lock him up and set a trend!!!!
That's what they said about Mandela.
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:12pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:At least I studied the subjects and don't quote from reports that have been taken from reports that have been taken from other reports and on and on..
Amosc99 Christ you talk a pile of crap.
And anyway, If I am talking carp (so that BEN doesn't censor) - what on earth do you talk - winding people up, no solid evidence, ending up with just name calling people when you have no argument at hand, no belief in other people's opinion.
The list goes on and yet you call other bloggers/posters bigots.
Best thing to do is just look in a mirror and I am sure that you would actually have an argument with yourself with countless cut and pastes and non-sensible so-called reports.
With regards to the NAZI's and concentration camps - look up the history books and then tell me if I am talking carp!
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:15pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:they also said that about the Nazi leaders, about anti-communist people within the old USSR, about the Afrikaans against the British during the 2 Boer wars (during Queen Vic's reign) - again the list can carry on for more or less forever - but who is to say whats right or wrong - apart from the law at the time!!!
sarahm154 writes i hope they lock him up and set a trend!!!! That's what they said about Mandela.
Who knows sometime in the next 50 years views could change again - then maybe you will be happy!!!
boris, west sussex says...
7:15pm Wed 22 Aug 07
My fathers German, knew Nazi people, said they were pure evil.
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:17pm Wed 22 Aug 07
It like saying the Labour are pure evil - but they were voted in by the masses just like the Nazi party was!
boris, west sussex says...
7:18pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Don't talk about things you don't understand.
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:22pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Hey I did world war history at univeristy - how it all came about - the period just before and the outcome after the war - so yes I do know what I'm talking about more than someone I could mention with regards to certain smoking law.
Anyway to bring the synopsis back on topic - it basically mena sthat the masses voted for the party, the masses agree with the law and so in a democratic society the majority rules.
boris, west sussex says...
7:23pm Wed 22 Aug 07
remember the Nazi's were in power for at least 4 years before the war started and people prospered.
How did they prosper, money was already being extorted from the Jews.
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:23pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
7:32pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Anyway to bring the synopsis back on topic - it basically mena sthat the masses voted for the party, the masses agree with the law and so in a democratic society the majority rules.
Labour 35.3% of the vote. Don't call that masses.
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:40pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Using percentages or any other peice of spin tools like numbers etc... can work both ways. Hence the reason a good discussion doesn't use figures but real life stories and things learned both in real life and from text books and from interviewing/talking to people.
The percentage game is a load of rubbish. E.g the general election before the one Labour won the outisde polls suggested that Labour would win by more or less a landslide - what happened the Tories won yet again.
I never put my faith, as should anyone else, in figures.
boris, west sussex says...
7:43pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Using percentages or any other peice of spin tools like numbers etc... can work both ways.
Then you can apply this to passive smoking figures.
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:45pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:and from the Catholics, Protestans, and other religions.
Amosc99 writes remember the Nazi's were in power for at least 4 years before the war started and people prospered. How did they prosper, money was already being extorted from the Jews.
It wasn't just the Jews!!!
But money was going back to the people by a more fairer means and people WERE better off. In fact the system, to begin with was a quasi system between communism and capitalism - and it worked until greed sets in - just like in any sort of equal social system - greed kills it off
boris, west sussex says...
7:47pm Wed 22 Aug 07
remember the Nazi's were in power for at least 4 years before the war started and people prospered.
How did they prosper, money was already being extorted from the Jews.
Still waiting. Or do you refute this.
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:47pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris, west sussex says...
7:48pm Wed 22 Aug 07
You are a bloo.y Nazi.
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:50pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:sorry, actually had to go and do something more interesting, such as going to the toilet, instead of having to advise truth over much rumours - although the fight that the Jews endured in the end was real and very much dispicable!
Amosc99 writes remember the Nazi's were in power for at least 4 years before the war started and people prospered. How did they prosper, money was already being extorted from the Jews. Still waiting. Or do you refute this.
boris, west sussex says...
7:52pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Sounds like you admire them.
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:52pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:54pm Wed 22 Aug 07
boris wrote:I admire the initial ideology, but completely abhore what the ideology literally turned into during financial crisis and weak leadership! One should never blame troubles on race or religion but should seek help from others in trying to solve such social crisis
Amosc99 Sounds like you admire them.
boris, west sussex says...
7:55pm Wed 22 Aug 07
Sending you early xmas present, a copy of Mein Kampf.
Amosc99, Bolton says...
7:59pm Wed 22 Aug 07
oh and btw, Mein Kampf is what the Nazi party turned into, but the initial period was nothing of the sort - it was a very social re-awakening of all people and races where everything was shred and equal but the social ladder was still in place - thus not totally a non-marxist style communist style leadership
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
8:35am Wed 22 Aug 07
What a load of codswallop.
IT is a law and therefore those that own pubs have had to enforce it sometimes to their own detriment.
It is an unfair law and landlords should have the freedom to choose if they want to be a smoking or non smoking pub then the public have the freedom to choose if they want to go into that pub or not.
IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT.