Is Smoking banned in This Pub?

[hexagon_sun]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Feb. 15 2006,13:19)]My concern is that they may erode the presumption of innocence. Let's say your get mugged by someone who then steals a car, crashes it and flees the scene... dropping your wallet and ID car in the process.

Who's the first person the police are going to nick? You... "your ID card was found near the scene of the crime, sir..."

Far fetched? Maybe, but not entirely. OK, here are some other objections...

* What's to stop a lazy or bent copper from framing me and sending me down, just because they don't like the look of me? Have we somehow forgotten that things like the Guildford 4 or the Birmingham 6 took place?

* What's to prevent errors in data entry occuring? My name is an extremely common one - what happens if, at the point of data entry (which is done by a human... and to err is human), my personal details are confused with the DNA of someone else sharing my name? What happens if that person's DNA is found at the scene of a crime - does that mean I'll be framed?

* Besides, why do the police need to keep a record of me and my DNA?

* Finally, who is going to pay for this?

I just don't understand why we need any of this stuff. No one has explained how those cards would have cut down crime or prevented terrorism... and, at the end of the day, illegal immigrants will still come to this country and try to forge ID cards come what may. Further curtailing the personal liberties and increasing the "big brother" apparatus of government on law-abiding citizens is not going to stop that.

Matt

That's the best argument against the introduction of ID cards that I've heard yet - I'll be stealing the most salient points and using them at the next opportunity

 

[The Artful Shrimper]

If you don't get an ID card you wont be able to get a passport, and probably a driving licence, and probably access to the trains and tube networks soon after.


I wasn't aware that DNA information was going to be used?

The new laws also state that it will be an offence to glorify terror.

that's all the football hooligans stories coming to an end and ...far be it for me to say...certain sections of certain religious texts.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (The Artful Shrimper @ Feb. 15 2006,13:34)]I wasn't aware that DNA information was going to be used?

Pfff... it's only a matter of time.  Once they've got your biometrics on there (iris scan, fingerprints etc etc) then there will be a "compelling argument" in ten years' time that our DNA must be stored along with our ID records.

It appears that the only thing that George Orwell got wrong when he wrote 1984 was the date.

 

[West Country Shrimper]

It'll give me enough time to quit smoking.

But what annoys me is that they say ban smoking because it affects people's health yet why dont they stop selling the damn things in the first place over here and then they can stop Discussing. But they can't stop selling them, because of all the tax it provides for the government to spend on crap.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Feb. 15 2006,13:42)]

Quote[/b] (The Artful Shrimper @ Feb. 15 2006,13:34)]I wasn't aware that DNA information was going to be used?

Pfff... it's only a matter of time.  Once they've got your biometrics on there (iris scan, fingerprints etc etc) then there will be a "compelling argument" in ten years' time that our DNA must be stored along with our ID records.

It appears that the only thing that George Orwell got wrong when he wrote 1984 was the date.

It does appear that Orwell was a little off beam with his timing.

I am baffled by the governments arguments in the case of ID cards, but then this is the government that sent us to war on the basis of a 45 minute threat from Iraqs battery of WMD, and despite the fact that the majority of people seemed against the war. This is the government which is now trying to bring in an ill conceived anti-terror bill which can see people locked up for 90 days, on the spurious basis that the majority of the people want it. Strange that Blair and Co have become the listening government on this issue.

And finally this is the government that went into the last election without a policy for a complete ban on smoking in public places etc, and have now ended up with a bill which will give us such a ban.

So much spin that Blair and his cronies have suddenly become bloody contortionists.

 

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Feb. 15 2006,13:19)]

Quote[/b] (Upminster Blue @ Feb. 15 2006,12:59)]How exactly do ID cards restrict personal freedom?  If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to worry about.  

If (and it's a big if) ID cards are cost effective and reduce illegal immigrants, crime etc surely they can only be a good thing?

My concern is that they may erode the presumption of innocence.  Let's say your get mugged by someone who then steals a car, crashes it and flees the scene... dropping your wallet and ID car in the process.

Who's the first person the police are going to nick?  You... "your ID card was found near the scene of the crime, sir..."

Far fetched?  Maybe, but not entirely.  OK, here are some other objections...

* What's to stop a lazy or bent copper from framing me and sending me down, just because they don't like the look of me?  Have we somehow forgotten that things like the Guildford 4 or the Birmingham 6 took place?

* What's to prevent errors in data entry occuring?  My name is an extremely common one - what happens if, at the point of data entry (which is done by a human... and to err is human), my personal details are confused with the DNA of someone else sharing my name?  What happens if that person's DNA is found at the scene of a crime - does that mean I'll be framed?

* Besides, why do the police need to keep a record of me and my DNA?  

* Finally, who is going to pay for this?

I just don't understand why we need any of this stuff.  No one has explained how those cards would have cut down crime or prevented terrorism... and, at the end of the day, illegal immigrants will still come to this country and try to forge ID cards come what may.  Further curtailing the personal liberties and increasing the "big brother" apparatus of government on law-abiding citizens is not going to stop that.

Matt

Agree with all your points Matt. Also how would ID cards have stopped the homegrown bombers who struck on 7/7?

The only way ID cards would've helped was to make the emergency service's job of identifying the bombers more easy as the sifted through the post explosion debris.

Seems to me that our elected representatives have forgotten that they're public servants. They seem to be under the misapprehension that they're our masters and that gives them the right to scrutinise what we do, where we go etc.

Sadly advances in technology just seem to given them exactly what they want over the electorate which is complete control in a Big Brother Orwellian stylee.

 

[The Artful Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (West Country Shrimper @ Feb. 15 2006,13:53)]because of all the tax it provides for the government to spend on crap.

....crap like the NHS has to spend on Lung cancer and emphesymia and heart disease etc? money which could be better spent on making big bombs to blow people up with.

 

[Wessex Blue]

Blair's only legacy is going to be a war nobody wanted and the final destruction of our ancient rights to freedom & liberty.

 

[hexagon_sun]

Quote[/b] (Wessex Blue @ Feb. 15 2006,14:08)]Blair's only legacy is going to be a war nobody wanted and the final destruction of our ancient rights to freedom & liberty.

Personally, I'll always remember Tony Blair for that party he threw for all the "champagne socialists" (Alan McGee, Noel Gallagher et al - how could you?) soon after being elected. Utter c%&t.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (The Artful Shrimper @ Feb. 15 2006,14:05)]

Quote[/b] (West Country Shrimper @ Feb. 15 2006,13:53)]because of all the tax it provides for the government to spend on crap.

....crap like the NHS has to spend on Lung cancer and emphesymia and heart disease etc?

Most economists agree that the revenues raised by smoking outstrip the additional cost to the NHS from smoking-related illnesses by about 3 to 1 - the figures I heard were about £9bn raised in tax vs. about £3bn cost to the NHS.

However, I have to say that by and large, I agree with the total ban on smoking. People who work in pubs, clubs and restaurant don't "choose" to work there any more than any of us "chooses" to work wherever we may work.

On that basis, they deserve protection from second-hand smoke - which is why this is a good bit of legislation... especially because it was passed on a free vote, rather than via government whips.

 

[Wessex Blue]

Quote[/b] (The Artful Shrimper @ Feb. 15 2006,14:05)]

Quote[/b] (West Country Shrimper @ Feb. 15 2006,13:53)]because of all the tax it provides for the government to spend on crap.

....crap like the NHS has to spend on Lung cancer and emphesymia and heart disease etc? money which could be better spent on making big bombs to blow people up with.

Or massive databases that are used to spy on, track & monitor the proles every move.

What's next when they get your DNA sample. Will they analyse it and make you pay more NI contributions if your genes are susceptible to certain illnesses?

 

[The Artful Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (Wessex Blue @ Feb. 15 2006,14:48)]

Quote[/b] (The Artful Shrimper @ Feb. 15 2006,14:05)]

Quote[/b] (West Country Shrimper @ Feb. 15 2006,13:53)]because of all the tax it provides for the government to spend on crap.

....crap like the NHS has to spend on Lung cancer and emphesymia and heart disease etc? money which could be better spent on making big bombs to blow people up with.

Or massive databases that are used to spy on, track & monitor the proles every move.

What's next when they get your DNA sample. Will they analyse it and make you pay more NI contributions if your genes are susceptible to certain illnesses?

It might be a good idea, insurance companies could give you a cheaper deal if you have a decent set of helix strands.

and if you're unlucky enough to have some dodgy DNA perhaps you could be forced to take out private health care.

 

[dloman]

Quote[/b] (The Artful Shrimper @ Feb. 15 2006,14:05)]

Quote[/b] (West Country Shrimper @ Feb. 15 2006,13:53)]because of all the tax it provides for the government to spend on crap.

....crap like the NHS has to spend on Lung cancer and emphesymia and heart disease etc? money which could be better spent on making big bombs to blow people up with.

Bear in mind with that statement that smoker's tax pays for their own health treatment ten fold over the course of their life! So it also pays for your health and your families etc...


On the point of the smoking ban, strange suggestion but why not just give the landlords the choice?? smoking or non smoking pub... then people who didn't want to go into a smokey pub wouldn't have to. believe that is called a freedom of choice, kinda what the Iraq war was meant to be about.

 

[* ORM *]

Why don't they go the whole hog and ban the sale of alcohol in pubs. It makes logical sense. Drunken bastards are more likely to cause you more grief than secondary smoke ever will.

How the hell is it going to be enforced in private clubs. I'd like to see that challenged in a court of law.

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (* ORM * @ Feb. 15 2006,19:34)]Drunken bastards are more likely to cause you more grief than secondary smoke ever will.

Opinion not based on medical fact.

 

[Sebastian Weetabix]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Feb. 15 2006,19:51)]

Quote[/b] (* ORM * @ Feb. 15 2006,19:34)]Drunken bastards are more likely to cause you more grief than secondary smoke ever will.

Opinion not based on medical fact.

His got a point. Ever met anyone trying to pick a fight after 10 Bensons?

 

[Yellow Army]

i'm all for blanket ban

people saying "why should they tell us where and when we can smoke"

why they hell not

i go into the pub and i say "these smokers telling me when i can die" - why should i have to sit there and smell and breathe in smoke, when i'm in a PUBLIC place. Its so anti-social.

also i get fed up stinking of smoke when i've been out playing pool or drinking.

ORM - they will be doing check ups on the private clubs aswell to check it being enforced with a large punishment (fine?) if its not. How they will enforce this and if they bother is another question.

Personal opionin, but smoking is selfish and i cant see how smokers fell discriminated, its not a disease or something they cant change, its an addiction/habbit (being PC)

 

[Yellow Army]

Quote[/b] (dloman @ Feb. 15 2006,16:27)]On the point of the smoking ban, strange suggestion but why not just give the landlords the choice?? smoking or non smoking pub... then people who didn't want to go into a smokey pub wouldn't have to. believe that is called a freedom of choice, kinda what the Iraq war was meant to be about.

coz it wouldnt happen if it was down to them, if it was, then half of them prob would of done it along time ago

 

[Guest]

Quote[/b] (* ORM * @ Feb. 15 2006,19:34)]Why don't they go the whole hog and ban the sale of alcohol in pubs. It makes logical sense. Drunken bastards are more likely to cause you more grief than secondary smoke ever will.

How the hell is it going to be enforced in private clubs. I'd like to see that challenged in a court of law.

Surely banning bastards would be a fairer option, thereby not discriminating against non-******* drunkards?

Also, what exactly is your concern about "private clubs"? The lack of smoke filling the room should improve your view of the "stage performer" no end.

 

[* ORM *]

What I'm thinking is how can such legislation apply to a private club - surely a private club can make its own rules ? The thing I find strangest about the whole thing is that smoking is LEGAL. Why not go the whole hog and make it illegal ?

I accept non-smokers don't want to go home smelling of an ashtray but surely this is nullified by 8 pints and a rather large kebab.