Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK politics - Hamsterwheel

Old 3rd Jul 2010, 12:32
  #1501 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chez Sprog
Posts: 493
My god, Alan Clarke lives!
Sprogget is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2010, 12:53
  #1502 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 67
AC was anti-hunting and Mrs SO is only nine years younger than I, not fifteen Moreover, I don't have a bloody castle. Yet.

Clare Fat cunningly managed to get away with suggesting that he was intoxicated by describing him as 'incapable' - and he subsequently admitted as much. I wonder how many times George Brown could have been accused of similar conduct

Oh, and it's Clark, not Clarke, unless you are referring to someone else.

SO
sea oxen is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2010, 13:09
  #1503 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chez Sprog
Posts: 493
One was referring less to the policy than the pomposity, which was tres Alan, as Alan would have said.

Probably.
Sprogget is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2010, 13:17
  #1504 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 67
Sorry, thats how posh ppl speak innit.

Back on topic. Bring back meow meow. What a senseless, brainless, knee-jerk reaction to a quark of remote danger in Gordon Brown's buttocks.

SO
sea oxen is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2010, 17:18
  #1505 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,433
His "workplaces" are the homes he visits; he has the right to refuse to attend to the needs of patients who insist on smoking in his presence.
Too right. That's the whole point of the legislation - your employer can't force you to die of lung cancer if you decide you don't want to.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2010, 17:49
  #1506 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 67
The chap who came up with the correlation between smoking tobacco and lung cancer did not agree with you. But he's a thicko, isn't he?

If the laws introduced in 2007 have made some sort of impact, where is it? Moreover., where are all these non-smokers snuffing it from lung cancer not snuffing it from lung cancer?

In your world, there is a ground for everything. Rectal cancer - poof. Uterine cancer - slut. Pancreatic cancer - drunk. Liver cancer - drunk. Cardiovascular disease - fat bastard.Anything to do with lungs (which happen to be a rather large organ, and ingests all sorts of rubbish - CIGARETTES

I'll not call you a fool, nor shall I call you a blackguard.We are far too friendly in here. I would, however, call into question your "we're all gonna get cancer" statement, and ask just how jolly relevant this is when all the staff at my local smokes.

Feel free to elucidate just how many non--smokers snuff it from so-called second-hand smoke. If alarmists like you were correct, people would be showing all sorts of black spots on their chest X-rays. Which they are not.

I would like to know what grounds someone objects to my smoking in a place where it is designated that I might do so.Being bullied at school does not count.

SO
sea oxen is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2010, 18:40
  #1507 (permalink)  
419
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 403
If the laws introduced in 2007 have made some sort of impact, where is it?

UK.
Heart attacks fall after smoking ban

And just in case you think the UK study may be biased, here's a few more from around the world.

Ireland.
Heart attacks tumble after Irish smoking ban | Reuters

Switzerland.
Smoking ban linked to drop in heart attacks - swissinfo

USA.
The impact of a smoking ban on hospital admissions... [Prev Med. 2007] - PubMed result

Smoking ban lowers heart attacks in one U.S. city | Reuters

Smoking bans do protect nonsmokers' hearts - Health - Heart health - msnbc.com
419 is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2010, 19:36
  #1508 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 57
In your world, there is a ground for everything. Rectal cancer - poof. Uterine cancer - slut. Pancreatic cancer - drunk. Liver cancer - drunk. Cardiovascular disease - fat bastard.Anything to do with lungs (which happen to be a rather large organ, and ingests all sorts of rubbish - CIGARETTES
Actually there are grounds for most things like this - though not quite the reasons you give. In fact of the legitimate causes of cancer, the one carcinogen that is more robustly associated with any form of cancer is cigarettes. It is possible to contract lung cancer through other routes such as industrial causes or radon exposure but these are extremely small numbers of cases.

As well as the reductions in a number of conditions outlined above, the number of people giving up smoking increased following the smoking ban. Which can also only be positive.

As Gertrude the Wombat said - it is every employees right not to contract fatal illness at work. We regulate other carcinogens so why should smoking be exempt?
Shropshire Lad is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2010, 19:39
  #1509 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,433
Ta, 419. It'll take a few more years before the lung cancer figures are blindingly obvious, of course, as it takes a while to develop.
It is possible to contract lung cancer through other routes
Yes, I believe my next door neighbour was one of those rare-ish cases.

Hearing him screaming at night through the party wall for the last several months was definitely an encouragement to me to avoid lung cancer, and the way to avoid the biggest risk is to avoid smoke.
Gertrude the Wombat is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2010, 22:20
  #1510 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 57
Hearing him screaming at night through the party wall for the last several months was definitely an encouragement to me to avoid lung cancer, and the way to avoid the biggest risk is to avoid smoke.
Indeed - which is why it mystifies me that knowing this is a more than likely consequence of smoking, that people argue for the right to do it so vociferously.

I admit to being an ex-smoker (youthful indiscretions!) and now work in public health and the arguments for allowing people to expose others to the risks of developing lung cancer are, to me, bizarre. Having had a close relative die with the disease and seeing the suffering it causes - the fact that some people argue for the "right" to expose others to this risk is strange in the extreme.

Still, money talks, and apparently the fact that business may suffer seems of more concern than the fact that people suffer. Tragically this is a sad indictment on society today and is currently manifesting itself in many ways.
Shropshire Lad is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 00:01
  #1511 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
The issue is not really whether smoking causes a horrible lingering death, it is to do with the government interfering with people's right to run the risks of their own life and the commensurate rewards which goes with those risks as they see fit. Whether it be the pleasure of smoking, the freedom to choose not to wear a seat belt, not to wear a crash helmet, and..what next? not to rock climb? not to bungee jump? not to (heaven forfend) fly private aircraft?

All risk can be eliminated by elimanating the associated pleasures or benefits . Do we want to be governed by these kinds of edict which will not permit us to weigh up our own risk/reward scenarios, and to make our own choices? And lets not have that spurious crap about not smoking because of the financial drain in causes on the health service etc. So does any form of inessential pleasure pursuit of the type I describe.
flybymike is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 06:06
  #1512 (permalink)  
419
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: London
Posts: 403
the freedom to choose not to wear a seat belt, not to wear a crash helmet, and..what next? not to rock climb? not to bungee jump? not to (heaven forfend) fly private aircraft?
Which when carried out by other people and "by the book", none of the above will affect my health and comfort nor that of anyone around me. The same cannot be said of smoking.

What would the public reaction be if a major pharmaceutical company released a new drug which was destined to be in common usage by the general public (say an over the counter painkiller), which had a warning on the packet stating that it was highly addictive and even if used at the recommended dosage it would reduce your average life expectancy by 10 years and would affect the health and comfort of your family, friends and work colleagues if you took the tablets in their presence?

People can argue freedom of choice all they like, but until someone can give a rational explanation as to why their lifestyle choices should be allowed to affect the health and comfort of others, I think the ban on smoking in public is totally justified.

it is to do with the government interfering with people's right to run the risks of their own life
Do we want to be governed by these kinds of edict which will not permit us to weigh up our own risk/reward scenarios, and to make our own choices
On 3 occasions above you have stated that the ban affects your lifestyle choice and nothing about how it affects other people, which is why the ban was introduced in the first place.

So why haven't the government totally stopped you smoking?
All they have done is to interfere in your right to run risks with the lives of others.
419 is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 12:18
  #1513 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
So why haven't the government totally stopped you smoking?
All they have done is to interfere in your right to run risks with the lives of others.
I have already demonstrated how the legislation could have been drafted to keep all of the risk to the smoker and not to those around him.
flybymike is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 13:03
  #1514 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
mike,

Just a thought but as I have also suggested if smokers and landlords had ever given a thought for non smokers legislation would not have been needed
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 14:26
  #1515 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,118
I certainly agree that it would not have been needed and perhaps smokers share some of the blame themselves (I am not one) but I suspect that the Nanny State would have insisted on legislation whether it was needed or not.
flybymike is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2010, 15:28
  #1516 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: England
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by Sea Oxen
The chap who came up with the correlation between smoking tobacco and lung cancer did not agree with you. But he's a thicko, isn't he?

If the laws introduced in 2007 have made some sort of impact, where is it? Moreover., where are all these non-smokers snuffing it from lung cancer not snuffing it from lung cancer?

In your world, there is a ground for everything. Rectal cancer - poof. Uterine cancer - slut. Pancreatic cancer - drunk. Liver cancer - drunk. Cardiovascular disease - fat bastard.Anything to do with lungs (which happen to be a rather large organ, and ingests all sorts of rubbish - CIGARETTES

I'll not call you a fool, nor shall I call you a blackguard.We are far too friendly in here. I would, however, call into question your "we're all gonna get cancer" statement, and ask just how jolly relevant this is when all the staff at my local smokes.

Feel free to elucidate just how many non--smokers snuff it from so-called second-hand smoke. If alarmists like you were correct, people would be showing all sorts of black spots on their chest X-rays. Which they are not.

I would like to know what grounds someone objects to my smoking in a place where it is designated that I might do so.Being bullied at school does not count.

SO
Ohhhh I cringed at how ignorant you are.

Why is it that the completely uninformed and ignorant have the strongest opinions? You blatantly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about yet you say it with such authority?

10 minutes of research would completely and utterly destroy everything you've said, but you won't do that, because you're obviously more intelligent than the past 30 years of international medical research.

Crawl back into your hole.
Skittles is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2010, 18:01
  #1517 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London
Age: 58
Posts: 67
Skittles

Well, thank you for your compelling and lucid deconstruction of what I said. Rather than address the points I made, you just called me a fool. So be it.

<elided>
See? It's that easy. Play the man, not the ball. It is really quite tiresome, not just for us, but for everyone else.

But all of this is going off-topic, and we have a wet-pants/smokers conflict every six months. I'd like to see the 50% tax rate done away with, and the increase in CGT being torn up. IR35 - the bane of my life - begone!

SO

Last edited by sea oxen; 5th Jul 2010 at 18:03. Reason: That was far too harsh and rude
sea oxen is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2010, 18:49
  #1518 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 62
Posts: 1,941
ox

You have to admit he has a point tho, quite a bit of research from both sides of the fence you have poo poo'd

Smoking & Health Issues - Philip Morris USA

Have a little wander through the above site as it might give you a more balanced appreciation of smoking issues
Seldomfitforpurpose is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2010, 23:03
  #1519 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: England
Posts: 116
Sea Oxen why would I take the time to enlighten you?

Every medical study in the past 40 years will enlighten you.

I suppose you think the world is flat and that every medical condition can be relieved by drilling a hole in the skull?
Skittles is offline  
Old 7th Jul 2010, 15:55
  #1520 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: here, there, everywhere
Age: 43
Posts: 119
I suppose you think the world is flat and that every medical condition can be relieved by drilling a hole in the skull?
YES and YES.
Now can we all get of our high horses and back on topic.
CathayBrat is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.