thebees Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Tsk tsk tsk. Seems like the whole of society wants to tell other people off for being different to them, it figures ofc but Im feeling a bit sad about it. You'd probably get a bigger fine for smoking than you'd get for assault - it's all gone a bit wrong and noone seems to be noticing. So many rules made by people I do not know and who do not know me - kinda bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 crying little bitch Damn you know me so well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 You make me sad you anti-smokers, you hide behind actions without analysing them, mainly to justify your own intolerance and lack of understanding of the risk of the world around you. Little wonder the UK/IOM is subject to all this legislation against civil liberties (smoking, ID cards, anti-terrorism etc. etc.) - simply because of the lack of understanding of risk probability and all catering for the highly improbable and the control freaks. Now you are trying to move the debate to cover smoking in the open air, using pseudo-scientific fear mongering. You're just fascists - ignorant, innumerate, selfish bullies and control freaks, plain and simple, and you can bluster your way around the arguments as much as you like, but it won't change that fact. Let's hope there is someone left to fight for you when you finally realise that you have handed total control of your lives over to the all intolerant-state, and finally realise what you have given away through fear and ignorance. You don't deserve a liberal democracy, and make a mockery of the people that fought and died to create it. You would have all done well in Eastern Europe in the 60s/70s/80s - the same Eastern Europe we used to point guns at then. FFS Albert, get a grip man. I have got a grip thanks...are you really telling me that you see no evidence that such a path has been followed over the last 10 years, led by the UK? FYI, I am fundamentally a Liberal Democrat, I know what I believe in, stand-for, and would fight for. I am consistent, principled and tolerant in my beliefs - e.g. even if I don't believe that certain activities are correct - an example would be allowing homosexuals in the forces - and maybe smoking in the open air if I was a non smoker- I would still fight to defend their rights. Unlike you John, I stick to those principles and I don't cherry pick. Moreover, I see the seriousness of where people with your attitude are 'leading' us. Albert what are you are going on about ?? Mostly stuff that has nothing to do with smoking.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Tsk tsk tsk. Seems like the whole of society wants to tell other people off for being different to them, it figures ofc but Im feeling a bit sad about it. You'd probably get a bigger fine for smoking than you'd get for assault - it's all gone a bit wrong and noone seems to be noticing. So many rules made by people I do not know and who do not know me - kinda bizarre. Its not about difference Bees, its only about when they affect the health off others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Yeah because that smoke must really hang around in the air when travelling at 30 kts. I can't be arsed reading the whole thread but one good thing at least about this ban is you won't have to worry about a discarded & still burning ciggy going at 30knots towards your face/clothes any more. I've seen it happen on that boat. It’s only 3 hours or so, how do smokers manage on long haul flights? For long-haul flights, interminally boring all-day meetings etc etc my Scandawegian mates all use this. Works for them... I remember a Mike Strutter "Strutter Gear" sketch where he had a big, transparent plastic ball over his head for smoking & drinking inside. SmokeTank I think. Maybe there's a market.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Albert what are you are going on about ?? Mostly stuff that has nothing to do with smoking.... That was my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Now you are trying to move the debate to cover smoking in the open air, using pseudo-scientific fear mongering. You're just fascists - ignorant, innumerate, selfish bullies and control freaks, plain and simple, and you can bluster your way around the arguments as much as you like, but it won't change that fact. I suppose that you're not going to be friends with us anymore and you're not going to play nicely and you're gonna tell your Dad and he's gonna get real mad and he's bigger than ours..... You can't counter the fact that a business has the legal and legitimate right to prevent people from smoking on or in their property. I really have lost any respect for your opinions as they've just decended into dire attempts to recover from a very ill thought out argument. I'm not an anti-smoker but if it makes you sad that you can't smoke on the boat then it makes me sad that you're so addicted to something so shallow that you can't see further than your own cravings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I'm not an anti-smoker but if it makes you sad that you can't smoke on the boat then it makes me sad that you're so addicted to something so shallow that you can't see further than your own cravings. Read the thread again numbnuts. You'll see that's the last thing my points were about. You are not seeing the wood for the trees (or the smoke in your case). This is really about what kind of a country we want to live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Nah, you are doing a fine job of looking like school bullies yourselves, all on your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 If there is a certainty or high likelihood that non-smokers will inhale even small amounts of smoke then something should be done to prevent this. A ban is a big inconvenience to me as I am a smoker and I would rather a different solution was found than banning smoking, but having thought about it I don't see what else you can do on the Seacat given the small space outside. However, if a non-smoker has no chance of breathing in smoke when you step outside then it is undoubtedly wrong. Though from my experience I do remember that on windy days some smokers tend to gravitate towards the doorways to shelter themselves which means people have to walk past them and through their smoke. I don't think this is fair. I would prefer that signs are placed up to appeal to the consideration of the smokers and ask them to move their arse from such places to where they limit to the upmost degree their chances of making others breathe in their smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 I can't be arsed reading the whole thread but one good thing at least about this ban is you won't have to worry about a discarded & still burning ciggy going at 30knots towards your face/clothes any more. I've seen it happen on that boat. That would be my guess. Someone has either been burnt or their clothing has or a lit ciggy has been blown back into the saloon somehow. No-one is stopping anyone from killing themselves with cigarettes. They're just not letting you do it on their boat. And as it is their boat it's fair enough. If you don't like it then make good your freedom of choice and don't use their service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Read the thread again numbnuts. You'll see that's the last thing my points were about. You are not seeing the wood for the trees (or the smoke in your case). This is really about what kind of a country we want to live in. Proves my point. Thread title and content: 'Steam Packet Smoking Ban' It's got nothing to do with the country we want to live in, fuckwit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 They're just not letting you do it on their boat. And as it is their boat it's fair enough. If you don't like it then make good your freedom of choice and don't use their service. How bad do things have to get before people start saying 'you can always emigrate'? People are pissed off with the nanny state direction this country is going and more than ever before are emigrating. It would be no hardship to cater for both in the open air on the deck space that is available (as I said port or starboard, top deck only etc.). Yes it is their ship, but we are their customers - and without customers there would be no ship. I don't like drunken passengers, football fans or otherwise. One staggered and fell on me when I was sat in my seat a few weeks ago. Morally, if not for health reasons, shouldn't they also ban drinking on board? Cherry picked intolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 Read the thread again numbnuts. You'll see that's the last thing my points were about. You are not seeing the wood for the trees (or the smoke in your case). This is really about what kind of a country we want to live in. Proves my point. Thread title and content: 'Steam Packet Smoking Ban' It's got nothing to do with the country we want to live in, fuckwit! Isn't lunchbreak over? Haven't you got double history this afternoon? Let's hope you learn something from it. Your intolerance, and your willingness to accept intolerance generally, has everything to do with the country we want to live in, and the fact that such a thread title even appeared in the first instance. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 20, 2009 Share Posted March 20, 2009 How bad do things have to get before people start saying 'you can always emigrate'? People are pissed off with the nanny state direction this country is going and more than ever before are emigrating. It would be no hardship to cater for both in the open air on the deck space that is available (as I said port or starboard, top deck only etc.). Yes it is their ship, but we are their customers - and without customers there would be no ship. I don't like drunken passengers, football fans or otherwise. One staggered and fell on me when I was sat in my seat a few weeks ago. Morally, if not for health reasons, shouldn't they also ban drinking on board? Cherry picked intolerance. Sorry Albert but I think that your "People are pissed off with the nanny state" is totally inaccurate. It should surely read "Some people are pissed off with the nanny state" and that's the point. You always bang your "Big Brother" drum as though you are speaking for this vast, silent majority that support your views. It never occurs to you that one reason the majority are silent is because they don't actually disapprove. Sure there have been H&S PC loads of nonsense that we are all aware of that has simply served to make those expounding it look very foolish. This smoking ban is an excellent case in point. The Racket have a "duty of care" towards all of their passengers NOT just those who smoke. To take it to the n'th degree they could interpret their duty of care to extend to preventing you killing yourself with cigarettes whilst they are responsible for your safety. So you can put that one in your pipe and smoke it - but not on a fast craft.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.