BOLTON WANDERERS
Have Bolton Wanderers dipped into the transfer market? What plans does the club have next season? Click here »
|
|
|
|
Pub boss demands licence back
11:09am Tuesday 25th September 2007
Comments (424) Have your say »
FURIOUS landlord Nick Hogan has instructed his legal team to contact Bolton Council to demand they reinstate him as the licensee of two town centre bars.
The rebel pub boss found himself locked out of The Swan Hotel and Barristers bar on Friday when the owner of the buildings took action.
Paul Kylie called in bailiffs to break in and change the locks, claiming Mr Hogan had breached the terms of his lease - which states he must abide by all UK laws - by allowing customers to smoke.
A notice was placed in the window claiming any attempts by Mr Hogan to re-enter the pubs would result in criminal or civil action being taken against him.
The rebel landlord - who has been in the news recently for allegedly flouting the smoking ban - went to the High Court in Manchester and claimed he was not a law breaker because he had not been convicted in connection with his reported smoking ban breaches.
He won the right to get back into the two pubs, but as the case was being heard, Mr Kylie and his son, Ryan, visited Bolton Council's licensing department, where they changed the tenancy of The Swan and Barristers, naming Ryan as the new licensee.
Mr Hogan, who opened the pubs as usual over the weekend, has contacted his solicitor.
He has written to Bolton Council demanding they reinstate him as licensee - or face being ordered to do so by the courts. Mr Hogan said: "These are still my pubs and I have no intention of going anywhere."
The controversial landlord has repeatedly allowed drinkers to smoke in the two bars.
He is now awaiting trial after pleading not guilty to five counts of failing to prevent people from smoking and four of obstructing council officers.
A council spokesman said: "We will need to consider the information that has been sent to us."
Your Say YourThe Bolton News
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
11:35am Tue 25 Sep 07
You should applaud Nick Hogan, not because of his anti / pro smoking ect, but because of his stance on what are your civil liberties and the erosion of them. As said, it's nothing to do with pro or anti smoking.
The erosion started with this ban and will slowly creep into areas of your life whereby, you wont have even noticed. This Government have created the most watched society in the World..Why ?
boris, west sussex says...
11:41am Tue 25 Sep 07
Agreed.
blue, Lancs says...
11:41am Tue 25 Sep 07
Smokers (and I include myself in this) never ask everyone in the pub "does anyone mind if I light up?"
And even if someone had the guts to stand up and say yes, in a pub they would have been laughed at nine times out of ten.
Most people who chose not to smoke had to breathe in the fumes like it or not. Where's the choice there?
Aside from that though, I agree that we have more CCTV, tap more phone calls, and have the worlds largest DNA database! Indeed we are moving ever closer to a big brother state.
I do support the smoking ban however.
bachor, over there says...
11:42am Tue 25 Sep 07
cow-head wrote:Allow smoking in pubs only if I am allowed to urinate in your pint - smoke and urine are both sterile fluids so why could you possibly complain about ingesting/inhaling another person's waste?
Keep fighting Nick,dont let the anti-smoking Nazis beat you. From an ex-smoker who believes in civil rights.
boris, west sussex says...
11:47am Tue 25 Sep 07
Nick Hogan was not preventing you from going to other pubs, why should he not have a pub for smokers. I would ask, is there anyone with legal knowledge, it does seem the Council have acted illegally. Nick Hogan has not been found guilty at this present time.
blue, Lancs says...
11:49am Tue 25 Sep 07
King Eric, ......... says...
11:49am Tue 25 Sep 07
He deserves to be placed in the pantheon of great freedom fighters like Che, the Tolpuddle Martyrs,Wolfie Smith, Ghandi...the list goes on.
bachor, over there says...
11:51am Tue 25 Sep 07
I would be more impressed if people used the 'erosion of civil liberties' argument to attack the appalling DNA database rather than preventing death due to exposure to toxins and carcinogens...
blue, Lancs says...
11:52am Tue 25 Sep 07
King Eric, says...
11:53am Tue 25 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
11:54am Tue 25 Sep 07
I would be more impressed if people used the 'erosion of civil liberties' argument to attack the appalling DNA database rather than preventing death due to exposure to toxins and carcinogens...
Ban the bloo.y car then, and those evil planes, what would you think a plane spews outin toxins.
blue, Lancs says...
11:55am Tue 25 Sep 07
I don't think Nick Hogan is a man who defends civil liberties becuase he passionately believes in them.
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
11:55am Tue 25 Sep 07
Good to see after only 5 posts, the anti smoking brigade are out to hijack once again the story, which if you have a problem understanding is, he's demanded his licence back.
If all we read is true, it would appear the Council have acted outside of the law, which in turn knowing of the folks involved, both in forefront and those lurking in the background, makes you think.
bachor, over there says...
11:56am Tue 25 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
11:57am Tue 25 Sep 07
You don't believe in protest do you. Authorities always right. Remember all those law breakers with the poll tax.
blue, Lancs says...
11:57am Tue 25 Sep 07
Boris your right, ban anything that pollutes the atmosphere. Newborn babies are found to have chemicals and toxins, PCB's etc, in thier blood stream as soon as they are delivered. Man made chemicals in the blood of newborns, we will not have long left if we continue to pollute.
chas, suffolk says...
12:00pm Tue 25 Sep 07
If Nick was to ban all non-smokers from his pubs he would be protecting the non-smokers from second hand smoke.
boris, west sussex says...
12:01pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue, Lancs says...
12:06pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Bit distasteful to compare imposing a tax that penalised the poor, to a law designed to improve public health. I think the motivations are very different whatever you may believe.
King Eric, ......... says...
12:10pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
12:10pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Bit distasteful to compare imposing a tax that penalised the poor, to a law designed to improve public health.
Tell that to the landlords loosing in some cases thousands of pounds a week.
Tommy, says...
12:17pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I'm not part of this anti smoking brigade, I'm part of the anti- naive, sulky, arrogant, ex-landlord brigade.
Serves him right.
Carlos Em, London says...
12:17pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue wrote:Well he is voicing his opinion with those notices. Its his property and the law is unjust and an infringement on civil liberties. Immagine there's two venues venue A which allows smoking and venue B which doesnt- even a kid could figure out where to go if they want to avoid smoke! God I mean are antismokers/probanne
Boris, living in West Sussex, I don't know if you've seen the letters on the wall in barristers and the swan with wording to the effect that the ban is unjust in his opinion so please feel free to smoke. He wanted a day in court and encouraged members of the public to pick up the fine so he could do so. He has knowingly broke the law to get more business through his doors, reasoning all smokers will simply use his pub only. This is unfair on the licencees that do repect the rule of law.
rs really that thick?
blue, Lancs says...
12:18pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Carlos Em, London says...
12:19pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue wrote:No- but all this ban is is a group of people IMPOSING their views down other people's throats.
I don't see 200,000 fighting with the police in trafalgar square to defend smoking. Bit distasteful to compare imposing a tax that penalised the poor, to a law designed to improve public health. I think the motivations are very different whatever you may believe.
Carlos Em, London says...
12:19pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue wrote:Still no defence of this obscene law!
In all honesty since before the millenium the number of pubs shot up, this was particularly true in bolton. Living and working in one, we noted that in 2001, people increasingly having too much debt on credit cards, combined with cheaper beer from the supermarkets, that there were too many pubs and bars in bolton to sustain the trade. People could no longer afford to go out every night, week whatever they had previously. On Churchgate, one bar (forgot the name) only opened thur fri and sat nights. In 2005, the number of pubs shutting a week in the UK was put at 50. I think that the rot set in well before the smoking ban.
RagReader, Horwich says...
12:22pm Tue 25 Sep 07
King Eric wrote:Don't worry,there'll be yards of cut and paste rubbish on here soon.
I'd be very interested in hearing the views of the freedomtochoose organisation on this matter.
Carlos Em, London says...
12:22pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue wrote:Which of course ETS is unproven to be harmful. ETS is an invention of the antismoking brigade who have their clear connections with Nazi Germany
Anyway Tubby Scruff asked, lets not turn this into a thread on the dangers or health benefits of ETS. I don't think Nick Hogan is a man who defends civil liberties becuase he passionately believes in them.
blue, Lancs says...
12:23pm Tue 25 Sep 07
"The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke,"
World Health Organisation Director General Dr Margaret Chan.
I prefer to take my lead from someone who knows what she's talking about, not a bunch of disgruntled smokers.
We are talking about the actions of this man. Unjust law your talking crap.
boris, west sussex says...
12:25pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Posted by: boris, west sussex on 4:01pm Tue 4 Sep 07
Pubs are losing thousands of pounds in takings each week since the smoking ban started. At the Bricklayers Arms in Wool Lane, Midhurst, landlord Paul Blackmun has seen takings slump by around £3,500 per week - the equivalent of more than £180,000 a year. He has had to cover running costs from his own pocket for the first time since he took the pub over. advertisement Mr Blackmun is working 100-hour weeks to try to cut down on overheads and believes he may have to give up the business. He said: "In the two years we've been here we've seen trade go up by 80 per cent, but since the beginning of the month we've seen no new people through the doors and our regulars are not coming in as much. "For example I had one customer who would spend £20 to £30 per day on wine but he won't come in anymore because he can't light up his pipe. People are staying at home instead. "We had a live music night this week which went really well, but whereas before the ban it would have meant our takings were well up, now it's just put us on an even keel." No proof, Erica you idiot.
Pubs are losing thousands of pounds in takings each week since the smoking ban started.
At the Bricklayers Arms in Wool Lane, Midhurst, landlord Paul Blackmun has seen takings slump by around £3,500 per week - the equivalent of more than £180,000 a year.
He has had to cover running costs from his own pocket for the first time since he took the pub over.
advertisement
Mr Blackmun is working 100-hour weeks to try to cut down on overheads and believes he may have to give up the business.
He said: "In the two years we've been here we've seen trade go up by 80 per cent, but since the beginning of the month we've seen no new people through the doors and our regulars are not coming in as much.
"For example I had one customer who would spend £20 to £30 per day on wine but he won't come in anymore because he can't light up his pipe. People are staying at home instead.
"We had a live music night this week which went really well, but whereas before the ban it would have meant our takings were well up, now it's just put us on an even keel."
cow-head, westhoughton says...
12:25pm Tue 25 Sep 07
kerry, says...
12:26pm Tue 25 Sep 07
bachor wrote:you breathe in petrol fumes every day why arent you complaining about that
cow-head wrote:Allow smoking in pubs only if I am allowed to urinate in your pint - smoke and urine are both sterile fluids so why could you possibly complain about ingesting/inhaling another person's waste?
Keep fighting Nick,dont let the anti-smoking Nazis beat you. From an ex-smoker who believes in civil rights.
what about the incinerator at the hospital ?????
keep fighting Nick you have a lot of people on your side
you are in inspiration
King Eric, ......... says...
12:28pm Tue 25 Sep 07
antismoking brigade who have their clear connections with Nazi Germany
Fully agree, the people oposing smokers have their roots in concentration camps, the Holocaust, the SS, the abusing of minorities, gays, gypsies, trade unionists.
In fact I'd say making someone have a cig at a pub door is one of the greatest examples of man's inhumanity to man.
blue, Lancs says...
12:30pm Tue 25 Sep 07
"The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke,"
World Health Organisation Director General Dr Margaret Chan.
If you need further defence of this obscene law, Carlos, I'll refer you to the makers of Malboro cigarettes, website, http://www.philipmor
risinternational.com
Now please read carefully,
"Philip Morris International believes that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers."
Unjust ocscene law. Bollards. Everyone from the Director General of the World Health Organisation, to the makers of the worlds most popular brand Malboro agree....
"The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke,"
Thank you and goodnight. Your argument is lost as even the people who make your precious bloody cigarettes agree with me on this one.
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
12:31pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Good to see after only 5 posts, the anti smoking brigade are out to hijack once again the story, which if you have a problem understanding is, he's demanded his licence back.
If all we read is true, it would appear the Council have acted outside of the law, which in turn knowing of the folks involved, both in forefront and those lurking in the background, makes you think.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
12:31pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Gloria, Bolton says...
12:32pm Tue 25 Sep 07
As a licensee you have to uphold the law....he is refusing to do so, and has admitted as much. Therefore, he must face the consequences.
Kerry - two wrongs dont make a right!!!!
blue, Lancs says...
12:32pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
12:33pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Erica :
In fact I'd say making someone have a cig at a pub door is one of the greatest examples of man's inhumanity to man.
Actually it is, it's creating an underclass.
Which cant be fair in this so called just society ?
boris, west sussex says...
12:35pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Once again you make a silly point about pubs closing before the ban, I give you proof of a pub suffering since the ban, you then refuse to answer.
RagReader, Horwich says...
12:38pm Tue 25 Sep 07
cow-head wrote:???
Dear Rag Reader, From your comments it is quite obvious that the only rag that you read is the looonie left-wing one. I.E. The Guardian
blue, Lancs says...
12:39pm Tue 25 Sep 07
There'll always bea market for pubs, just how many is another question.
Fwed, Bolton says...
12:41pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue, Lancs says...
12:42pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Iain, says...
12:42pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Really? Must be the only thing that doesn't have a safe level of exposure.
This is so obviously a false statement to anyone with an ounce of sense.
Has anyone ever seen anyone drop dead due to exposure to this substance?
There is no safe level of public health misinformation. That's all the ban was brought in on, pure scaremongering. And you don't need to quote anyone on this, just use your own brains and experience of life.
Where are those thousand of bodies supposedly killed by passive smoking every year? Who are these people dropping like flies after being exposed to this deadly substance that has no safe level of exposure?
It's a myth and it's about time it was exposed as a myth in this country in a court of law.
blue, Lancs says...
12:43pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue, Lancs says...
12:47pm Tue 25 Sep 07
http://www.philipmor
risinternational.com
/PMINTL/pages/eng/sm
oking/Secondhand_smo
ke.asp
Just cut and paste the above into your link bar.
It really is simple and how you believe you are a more credible authority on public health than the Director General of the World Health Organisation staggers me. Find me a non smoker, someone who has never smoked, that will defend it as vigourously as someone addicted to the drug. There isn't. So a desperate crazed smoker with no medical background is an authority on the medical effects of tobacco smoke? No way. No. Never.
chas, suffolk says...
12:49pm Tue 25 Sep 07
They could go into well ventilated pubs or drink in outside gardens like they do now with their friends who smoke.
boris, west sussex says...
12:50pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I'm sorry a business is suffering, and I've no doubt many are, but thats no excuse to resume smoking. If there's no money in it do something else.
You arrogant sod, if it was your livelyhood, you wouldn't be saying...ha ha ha, I'll go and do something else.
Phil Williams, Norfolk says...
12:51pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I'm sure he's very understanding about your intollerance of him.
JoePublic, Bolton says...
12:51pm Tue 25 Sep 07
It's a myth and it's about time it was exposed as a myth in this country in a court of law.
Then Hogan's prosecution is the ideal opportunity. Those of you against the ban: you now have your martyr. Organise, fundraise but above all support him. Prove to the rest of us that this ban is unjust and does not have the support of the majority of the population.
I have always said that other than a few hardliners such as Mr Hogan it is no more than a minor inconvenience to smokers. Now is the chance to prove me wrong. The ball's in your court.
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
12:52pm Tue 25 Sep 07
With respect, I don't suppose you and many others will know much about Philip Morris Inc ?
A few years ago, PM were involved in a number of high profile legal cases in the U.S. and I think France. I don't recall if they lost, I think they did and it cost them an awful lot of money, more than the Euro millions jackpot this week.
Of course, PM will say publicly they support the ban, though in reality if they did, why can you still buy PM products across the world ?
They say they support it, to exonerate themselves from any future cases which may come their way. In other words, they've taken a leaf (no pun) out of the Governments book..it's spin and lies..but it looks good to say it.
kieanders, bolton says...
12:53pm Tue 25 Sep 07
chas wrote:and the tables have turned. the majority get to sit in the warm, the minority in the rain for a couple of minutes an hour! scandalous!
Non-smokers have always had a right not to take in others peoples smoke. They could go into well ventilated pubs or drink in outside gardens like they do now with their friends who smoke.
lets have it right, darwen says...
12:58pm Tue 25 Sep 07
mercy, bolton says...
12:59pm Tue 25 Sep 07
King Eric wrote:You're mother wouldnt be called -jackie these days would she?
I'd be very interested in hearing the views of the freedomtochoose organisation on this matter.
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
1:00pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
1:00pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Yes.
mercy, bolton says...
1:02pm Tue 25 Sep 07
King Eric wrote:Not quite! Got asmall life to go with your mind havent you?
antismoking brigade who have their clear connections with Nazi GermanyFully agree, the people oposing smokers have their roots in concentration camps, the Holocaust, the SS, the abusing of minorities, gays, gypsies, trade unionists. In fact I'd say making someone have a cig at a pub door is one of the greatest examples of man's inhumanity to man.
Horwich Allstars, Horwich says...
1:04pm Tue 25 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
1:04pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I don't know what pubs you go to, but I find my locals have the MAJORITY outside and the sad minority inside. Could this be that the majority of drinkers like a cigarette or lovely cigar with their drink?
boris, west sussex says...
1:05pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Not quite! Got asmall life to go with your mind havent you?
That's not all that is small that's why he's now Erica,
mercy, bolton says...
1:08pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Carlos Em wrote:what about these smokers, imposing their cancer sticks and pollution down other peoples lungs, we all remember Roy Castle - never smoked yet worked in clubs and died from lung cancer, that passive smoking for you. He chose not to smoke - yet others imposed their filthy cancer sticks into his lungs via pollution - and killed him. Smokers collectively murdered Roy Castle. There must be others out there, what about the respitary problems casued to others because of it? Those non smokers with Asthma? Not really fair it is, theres are legitimate law enforced reason for this - think!
blue wrote: I don't see 200,000 fighting with the police in trafalgar square to defend smoking. Bit distasteful to compare imposing a tax that penalised the poor, to a law designed to improve public health. I think the motivations are very different whatever you may believe.No- but all this ban is is a group of people IMPOSING their views down other people's throats.
blue, Lancs says...
1:08pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Yes they are protecting against future class action suites etc, by claiming we told you all along, BAT also supports the reguilation of smoking in public places because they know one day there will be a case to answer.
So being exposed as a myth in a court of law is certainly not what the cigarette makers are expecting, quite the opposite, but enough, no one will ever coninve you otherwise and I accept that.
Lets face it sex is more satisfying than a cigarette and we're not allowed to do that in a pub are we?
As for arrogance, Boris I'm not taking you on as your a hypocryte. You say smoking doesn't harm others yet state you don't smoke around your children - prey tell me why? You won't 'cos everytime you get asked an awkward question, and its true I've thrown many at you, you simply reply with an inane question.
RTS, says...
1:10pm Tue 25 Sep 07
bachor wrote:Ironically I don't think there's anything on the books to prevent you from opening a pub that cetered to your particular predeliction. I doubt you would be allowed to sell your own urine to customers but there's nothing to stop the customers from exchanging urine providing they do it in a discreet manner. I would choose to have my beer urine-free and so not frequent your establishment.
cow-head wrote: Keep fighting Nick,dont let the anti-smoking Nazis beat you. From an ex-smoker who believes in civil rights.Allow smoking in pubs only if I am allowed to urinate in your pint - smoke and urine are both sterile fluids so why could you possibly complain about ingesting/inhaling another person's waste?
Incidentally, urine can carry disease - which smoke can't. My objection would be personal but I wouldn't have my head so far up my own arse as demand that no one be allowed to do it. Each to their own is my opinion, sadly that seem to be a minority these days.
blue, Lancs says...
1:10pm Tue 25 Sep 07
OldBoltonian, says...
1:10pm Tue 25 Sep 07
No- but all this ban is is a group of people IMPOSING their views down other people's throats.
Yes - that's called democracy (a greatly misundertood policitcal system) - basically it is the tyrannny of the majority clothed in legitimacy. Not a lot of people earning 6 figure salaries think it's right we should have to pay over 40% to the government so they can spend it on loony left wing policies we didn't vote for - but guess what? There is an even bigger group of people - bascially all those who don't earn that much - who think we should, so their views are the ones that count. For once, there are now more people who recognise that smoking is a vile disgusting anti social habit practised by weak willed addictive personalities who will only ever change if they're forced to. Deal with it. And as for the idolaters who think Hogan is some kind of freedom fighter - hilarious.
mercy, bolton says...
1:12pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris wrote:@-@
Mercy wrote about Erica Not quite! Got asmall life to go with your mind havent you? That's not all that is small that's why he's now Erica,
blue, Lancs says...
1:13pm Tue 25 Sep 07
"I have always smoked away from my children"
Can I ask why if its harmless?
Jan Gibbons, Manchester says...
1:13pm Tue 25 Sep 07
sharonMarie, Deane says...
1:16pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
1:16pm Tue 25 Sep 07
You are a very poor debater. If I choose not to drink alcohol around my children is that mad??. Does this mean I think the alcohol I'm drinking will effect them, you poor soul.
mercy, bolton says...
1:19pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue wrote:Fortunately there are now laws protecting those in the workplace from passive smoking, hence smoking outside,and using smoking shelters. The Late Roy Castle would paoobily be still here today as he lived quite a healthy lifestyle all that running he did. He wasnt forced to work int hose clube - you are right when you say that -= however he was FORCED to inhale their smoke.
I wouldn't mention Roy Castle, as some kindly soul will tell you he wasn't forced to wrok in those clubs, that he did of his own free will. Funnily enough no person who has never not smoked would make that comment
boris, west sussex says...
1:22pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue, Lancs says...
1:22pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Again though you won't answer a question and come out with a silly statement. People don't nip out at wrok for a beer or a shot (well some do) and alcohol consumption is an entirely different matter.
So please answer a simple question or can you not?
blue, Lancs says...
1:24pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Can you tell us why Boris?
No cos you dare not say to protect their health. People smoke round the clock, it is a habit, and from what you say I'm thinking your drinking is to, but please do explain why you have "always smoked away from my children"
Or dare you not confront what everybody knows?
blue, Lancs says...
1:25pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Your class mate, and you call me an arrogant sod!
boris, west sussex says...
1:26pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Millions of old people have been subjected to passive smoking in heavy degrees through their lives. Why are they all not dead, for that matter, long since dead. Remember, better medical help won't cure their lung cancers.
Iain, says...
1:27pm Tue 25 Sep 07
If you're so fond of quoting the WHO, why not quote from their report on passive smoking, where they found the only statistically significant result was that children exposed to passive smoking had a decreased risk of lung cancer ?
How can this be the case when there is no safe level of exposure? What's the WHO angle there then?
chas, suffolk says...
1:34pm Tue 25 Sep 07
mercy, states that he did a lot of running. If that is true and he ran near to diesel fumes that may have been the cause.
I don't believe anybody knows the exact cause.
boris, west sussex says...
1:35pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I enjoy sex with my wife, but not in front of the children.
Have sworn in adult company, not in front of the children.
Have told dirty jokes, not in front of the children,
Have watched adult films, not in front of the children.
I smoke, not in front of the children.
Get it, Soldier Blue??
boris, west sussex says...
1:41pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue, Lancs says...
1:43pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Taken from www.who.int - look it up if you are possibly able to stomach it.
"29 MAY 2007 | GENEVA -- The World Health Organization (WHO) signalled the urgent need for countries to make all indoor public places and workplaces 100% smoke-free with the release of its new policy recommendations on protection from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke in advance of World No Tobacco Day (31 May), which focuses this year on this theme.
The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke," said the WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan. "Many countries have already taken action. I urge all countries that have not yet done so to take this immediate and important step to protect the health of all by passing laws requiring all indoor workplaces and public places to be 100% smoke-free."
There are about 4000 known chemicals in tobacco smoke; more than 50 of them are known to cause cancer. Exposure to second-hand smoke causes heart disease and many serious respiratory and cardiovascular diseases that can lead to premature death in adults. It also causes diseases and worsens existing conditions, such as asthma, in children. The new WHO policy recommendations are based on the evidence of three recent major reports, which all reached the same conclusion: Monograph 83 Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the United States Surgeon General's Report on The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke and the California Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant."
So the links for the three papers that the WHO quoted, you know to help you along Iain dearest,
http://monographs.ia
rc.fr/ENG/Monographs
/vol83/volume83.pdf
www.surgeongeneral.g
ov/library/secondhan
dsmoke/
http://www.oehha.ca.
gov/air/environmenta
l_tobacco/2005etsfin
al.html
These are the three lates papers that form the basis of the WHO policy.
Furthermore feel free to smoke around your kids if you wish, however I think I and most of the Uk would prefer you not to around ours.
Iain, again if your evidence is so complelling, why do all the major tobacco companies agree that ETS should be banned in public places due to the health effects it has?
After all surely with all the cash they have available, they could fight this in court. No they won't becuase they know it kills and laugh all the way to the bank at the idiots making them rich, even when they promise some nasty illnesses.
You can call me an idiot but I don't willingly buy a product that the maker advises me harms me and those around me.
boris, west sussex says...
1:47pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Don't take a blind bit of notice of Soldier Blue, or should I say poodle blue.
blue, Lancs says...
1:49pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I used this in a quote box last time I had to correct you but the simple fact is you don't like losing your argument and will resort to anything, even pathetic cheap stunts.
Like I promised before I can quote the foillowing all day long if you like...and I'm aware that this simple quote won't be enough for you, but...
29 MAY 2007 | GENEVA
"The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke,"
World Health Organisation Director General Dr Margaret Chan.
It is clear and simple. If you wish to present yourself as being more of a credible authority in this matter than the Director General of the World Health Authority, please identify yourself, with relevant credentials and qualifications.
If not I'll always leave the last word to her as really I think she is more credible than a disgruntled smoker desperately quoting obscure reports from the University of Warwick or whatever. The makers of your cancer sticks have no srguments, why do you?
29 MAY 2007 | GENEVA
"The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke,"
World Health Organisation Director General Dr Margaret Chan.
29 MAY 2007 | GENEVA
"The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke,"
World Health Organisation Director General Dr Margaret Chan.
29 MAY 2007 | GENEVA
"The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke,"
World Health Organisation Director General Dr Margaret Chan.
29 MAY 2007 | GENEVA
"The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke,"
World Health Organisation Director General Dr Margaret Chan.
blue, Lancs says...
1:50pm Tue 25 Sep 07
29 MAY 2007 | GENEVA
"The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke,"
World Health Organisation Director General Dr Margaret Chan.
Now don't try and be clever with semantics, the fact remains the makers of the bloody things agree it should be banned in allpublic places. Malboro cigarettes carry the health warnings even in countries where not required to do so by law.
blue, Lancs says...
1:53pm Tue 25 Sep 07
And please no more spurious posts about my grandad smoking 100 a day and living to 112 or such like. Neither dig up random anomalyous reports or papers showing X,Y,Z, I'm afraid there simply aren't enough of them to challenge the overwhelming evidence against.
boris, west sussex says...
1:54pm Tue 25 Sep 07
WHY ARE THERE MANY OLD PEOPLE ALIVE.
Is this question difficult blueberry.
mercy, bolton says...
1:54pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris wrote:not really and a really goodexample of a non smoker who died with lung cancer due to the smoking of others.no need for pomp
Billions of people over the years, and what do the morons do, mention one name Roy Castle, utter madness.
boris, west sussex says...
2:02pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue, Lancs says...
2:02pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris wrote:29 MAY 2007 | GENEVA
Blueberry WHY ARE THERE MANY OLD PEOPLE ALIVE. Is this question difficult blueberry.
"The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke,"
World Health Organisation Director General Dr Margaret Chan.
blue, Lancs says...
2:03pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Tich, Nanny Britain says...
2:04pm Tue 25 Sep 07
As for Roy Castle his cancer was one that is more strongly associated with inhalation of silcate particulates such as found in Fullers Earth (now considered a class 1 carcinogen), a substance used in films to create dust clouds. Something he came into contact with in large quantities on the set of Carry On Up The Khyber.
blue, Lancs says...
2:04pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue, Lancs says...
2:05pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
2:07pm Tue 25 Sep 07
WHY ARE THERE MANY OLD PEOPLE ALIVE, WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO HIGH LEVELS OF PASSIVE SMOKE.
Remember you can't paste, you must give an answer.
Carlos Em, London says...
2:07pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/he
Sorry but my friend always tries to drag us into the Swan so he can puff away, sometimes we say yes, sometimes we meet him elsewhere. If this pub respected the law, we would not be faced with this dilemma. Unjust is your opinion Carlos. "The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke," World Health Organisation Director General Dr Margaret Chan. I prefer to take my lead from someone who knows what she's talking about, not a bunch of disgruntled smokers. We are talking about the actions of this man. Unjust law your talking crap.
alth/story/2007/05/0
7/who-evidence.html
What about this? http://www.data-yard
.net/43/1057.pdf
Largest study ever conducted on ETS.
Wow such a dilemma- respect your friend's choice if he is a true friend to you or otherwise find some antismoking ones. I support his actions for standing up for the truth.
boris, west sussex says...
2:09pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I did answer, here it is again, you little simpleton.
Let's help out Soldier Blue.
I enjoy sex with my wife, but not in front of the children.
Have sworn in adult company, not in front of the children.
Have told dirty jokes, not in front of the children,
Have watched adult films, not in front of the children.
I smoke, not in front of the children.
Get it, Soldier Blue??
Iain, says...
2:10pm Tue 25 Sep 07
The "opinion" of tobacco companies or that of the director of the WHO doesn't matter.
Use your own sense. If there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke, then everyone who ever came into contact with it would be dead.
No one knows anyone who died from passive smoking, yet the WHO tell us thousands die from it.
What's it to be Blue? YOur own real world experience or the words of the director of the WHO.
Again I'll ask this of you please.
Why did the WHO study into passive smoking find the only statistically significant result to be that children exposed to passive smoking reduced the risk of lung cancer?
What's your opinion on that one?, your opinion, not the WHO or PM tag line but your own.
Rick S, London says...
2:11pm Tue 25 Sep 07
A "really good example"? No, the only one anyone can ever come up with, which immediately casts a certain amount of doubt on the theory (which is all it is).
Carlos Em, London says...
2:13pm Tue 25 Sep 07
mercy wrote:Anmy evidence it caused it- NO! It was probably genetics that caused Mr Castle's lung cancer.
Carlos Em wrote:what about these smokers, imposing their cancer sticks and pollution down other peoples lungs, we all remember Roy Castle - never smoked yet worked in clubs and died from lung cancer, that passive smoking for you. He chose not to smoke - yet others imposed their filthy cancer sticks into his lungs via pollution - and killed him. Smokers collectively murdered Roy Castle. There must be others out there, what about the respitary problems casued to others because of it? Those non smokers with Asthma? Not really fair it is, theres are legitimate law enforced reason for this - think!blue wrote: I don't see 200,000 fighting with the police in trafalgar square to defend smoking. Bit distasteful to compare imposing a tax that penalised the poor, to a law designed to improve public health. I think the motivations are very different whatever you may believe.No- but all this ban is is a group of people IMPOSING their views down other people's throats.
blue, Lancs says...
2:19pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I'm the one that vigourously defends those little cartons on that tell you they'll kill you, harm babies, etc etc.
But they're made to put that on by the government.
Why then in countries where not required to do so by law do they carry the warnings?
Why do the manufacturers own websites tell you that smoking kills and ETS is detrimental to public health? Why do you still ignore them?
Any why Boris when I told you this morning that better medical care means not only is infant mortailtiy lower, but people can live longer, do you ignore me and bleat the same question on and on?
I answered in this manner at halt ten this morning but you chose to ignore.
Sex in front of kids - well I should hope not, what makes you think people do?
Not swearing in front of kids is setting a good example - so are you showing them not smoking is better?
You don't smoke in front of your kids becuase you don't want to run the risk of them developing some repiratory complain then having to face up to the guilt.
You won't moke in front of your kids but are happy to light up in a pub even if people aren;t smoking, maybe because they're not smnokers. Your the arrogant one.
Addict Boris I pity you and forgive you.
blue, Lancs says...
2:21pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Anyway your an addict Iain, your also forgiven!
chas, suffolk says...
2:21pm Tue 25 Sep 07
It states there is now a strong genetic component to lung cancer.
Gloria, Bolton says...
2:21pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
2:25pm Tue 25 Sep 07
what is repiratory and moke and smnokers??
boris, west sussex says...
2:28pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Carlos Em, London says...
2:28pm Tue 25 Sep 07
chas wrote:Precisly and thats probably what caused his.
I have just read on the 'Roy Castle lung cancer research programme.' It states there is now a strong genetic component to lung cancer.
boris, west sussex says...
2:29pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Why did you tell us you were boring???
Kerry, Little Lever says...
2:29pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Carlos Em, London says...
2:30pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue wrote:Im sorry occasionally huh? Unlike the regulars that dont mind the smoke.
Well Iain, when my friend with Chronic Asthma occasionally ventured out into the pubs and clubs of bolton he would be using his little blue inhaler every hour or more. When not in a smoky environment he did not need to but hey, f**k him right, he does't have to go out does he? Anyway your an addict Iain, your also forgiven!
Ok I suppose he uses his inhaler and he's fine right?
bachor, over there says...
2:30pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris wrote:having lost a ridiculous argument you now resort to childishness. Congratulations. Next week... 'the earth is flat, says Boris', 'Prove me wrong - if it were round we'd all fall off'.
Blueberry, why not paste everything in future, after you have spellchecked.
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
2:30pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Long live Civil Freedom, long live democracy, long live the right to freedom of choice !!!!!!
Carlos Em, London says...
2:31pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris wrote:If she says boring she shouldnt be posting on this thread.
Gloria Why did you tell us you were boring???
boris, west sussex says...
2:31pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Blueberry has forgiven a couple of us smokers. Confession so good for the soul.
bachor, over there says...
2:32pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Kerry wrote:Kerry, We have succeessfully proved that smoking makes you gay. Boris, Carlos Em and Iain chain smoke. On Hampstead Heath as a rule.
I can't really be bothered reading thru everything that everyone has written, can someone just give me the jist of whats going on and I'll make a comment. Ta.
JoePublic, Bolton says...
2:32pm Tue 25 Sep 07
chas wrote:But it also says:
I have just read on the 'Roy Castle lung cancer research programme.' It states there is now a strong genetic component to lung cancer.
approximately 90% of lung cancer cases can be attributed to smoking and environmental (namely occupational) exposures
We could all do this all day but it won't help Nick Hogan. His battle is almost lost.
boris, west sussex says...
2:33pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I lost did I, another moron.
Tich, York says...
2:33pm Tue 25 Sep 07
RESULTS: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval = 0.64-0.96). The OR for ever exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.93-1.44). No clear dose-response relationship could be demonstrated for cumulative spousal ETS exposure. The OR for ever exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17 (95% CI = 0.94-1.45), with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. No increase in risk was detected in subjects whose exposure to spousal or workplace ETS ended more than 15 years earlier. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. Risks from combined exposure to spousal and workplace ETS were higher for squamous cell carcinoma and small-cell carcinoma than for adenocarcinoma, but the differences were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.
DaveA, London says...
2:33pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Roy Castle died of adenocarcinoma lung cancer. Squamous cell carcinoma is exclusive to smokers. Roy Castle could not of died from tobacco. Dr Nillson of Sweden this year has estimated that passive smokers breathe in the equivelent of 1 cigarete a week to 2 cigs a year. I have also read that you breathe in 1/500th of the smoke that an BTW Benzine is a chemical in Cigs, but the average petrol station level is 200x that of a cigarette.
Iain, says...
2:33pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Using that logic then anyone who finds that perfume worsens there asthma should, by law, be protected from perfume in all enclosed public places.
Still waiting for an answer on why the WHO report on passive smoking found the only statistically significant finding was that exposure to passive smoking protected children from lung cancer.
What's the answer to that one when the same WHO say there is supposed to be no safe level of exposure?
boris, west sussex says...
2:35pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I'm gay, thanks for telling me. Remember brush removal, ask Erica. There again you probably remove it for him/her.
DaveA, London says...
2:37pm Tue 25 Sep 07
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent
THE world's leading health organisation 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 even have a protective effect.
The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.
Enjoy the rest of truth supression.
http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/htmlContent.j
html?html=/archive/1
998/03/08/wtob08.htm
l
Tich, York says...
2:37pm Tue 25 Sep 07
tinyurl.com/24matr
blue, Lancs says...
2:37pm Tue 25 Sep 07
With your regard to the ageing population question I can expand; when in nursing homes you'd be suprised at how many of the little old ladies (not all of them no) have never smoked. Ladies didn't frequent pubs for a large part of the century, so were not exposed to second hand smoke in anything like the doses their recently deceased other halves were. I was involved in a vascular research programme so its a question I've asked many many times.
Tich, York says...
2:40pm Tue 25 Sep 07
DaveA, London says...
2:40pm Tue 25 Sep 07
The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.
Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.
The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."
It actually found a 20% protective effect.
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
2:40pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
2:42pm Tue 25 Sep 07
One of are relations owns a nursing home. Many of your old ladies smoke.
blue, Lancs says...
2:46pm Tue 25 Sep 07
DaveA wrote:March 8th 1999 - yes bang upto date.
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent THE world's leading health organisation 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 even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Enjoy the rest of truth supression. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/htmlContent.j html?html=/archive/1 998/03/08/wtob08.htm l
The IARC Monograph on involuntary smoking was last updated 2002.
The surgeon general report was dated 2006.
The california Environmental Health protection agency I quuted was published 2005.
Don't try take me on with old out of date research.
The WHO position as of May 2007 was made using the latest published research. So Shove your ten year old newspaper report from the telegraph in with the next cancer stick.
blue, Lancs says...
2:47pm Tue 25 Sep 07
All you poor addicts are of course excused to nip out when needed.
boris, west sussex says...
2:49pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
2:50pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue wrote:What a pillock !
You can't smoke in our pubs anymore so get used to it. Lets all drink to good health. All you poor addicts are of course excused to nip out when needed.
DaveA, London says...
2:51pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Don't drink too much or you will die of cirrhosis of the liver.
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
2:53pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Even the Nazis didn't go as far as to ban it in pubs!
bachor, over there says...
2:53pm Tue 25 Sep 07
DaveA wrote:Fairytale. To quote a WHO follow up...
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent THE world's leading health organisation 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 even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Enjoy the rest of truth supression. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/htmlContent.j html?html=/archive/1 998/03/08/wtob08.htm l
'It was later discovered that the controversy over the WHO's alleged suppression of data had been engineered by Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, and other tobacco companies, in an effort to discredit findings which would harm their business interests.'
It was also reported, in the American Journal of Public Health, that Philip Morris had launched a public relations campaign to "shape the standards of scientific proof to make it impossible to 'prove' that secondhand smoke... is dangerous.
blue, Lancs says...
2:55pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris wrote:are relations???? Your as bad as me
Blueberry One of are relations owns a nursing home. Many of your old ladies smoke.
Tich your 1998 paper equally as irrlevant as opposed to the ones published this century/millenium.
Again Boris, thanks for your tenuous vague hearsay. A nursing home where every little old lady smokes. Yes right, could you put the name on here so I can call and verify?
I have spent two years in nursing homes asking if they smoked, I think I have a better idea then you of the reality.
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
2:56pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue wrote:Please list the relative risks that these studies elicited.
DaveA wrote:March 8th 1999 - yes bang upto date.
Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent THE world's leading health organisation 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 even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Enjoy the rest of truth supression. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/htmlContent.j html?html=/archive/1 998/03/08/wtob08.htm l
The IARC Monograph on involuntary smoking was last updated 2002.
The surgeon general report was dated 2006.
The california Environmental Health protection agency I quuted was published 2005.
Don't try take me on with old out of date research.
The WHO position as of May 2007 was made using the latest published research. So Shove your ten year old newspaper report from the telegraph in with the next cancer stick.
Did any of them conclude a pooled metanalyses RR of above 2? Remember, 3 is the level typically required to legislate.
Thought not.
Carlos Em, London says...
2:57pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Tim Clarke wrote:Yup cos they were defeated before they could!
I admit it is a little unfair to compare the smoking ban with Nazism. Even the Nazis didn't go as far as to ban it in pubs!
boris, west sussex says...
2:59pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Even if the report is 9 years old, to believe everything in it is wrong, sais a lot about you.
Carlos Em, London says...
3:00pm Tue 25 Sep 07
bachor wrote:Oh really bachor? Can you provide a link please? Or are you going to use the usual "big tobacco" mention used by the antismokers all the time?
DaveA wrote: Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent THE world's leading health organisation 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 even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Enjoy the rest of truth supression. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/htmlContent.j html?html=/archive/1 998/03/08/wtob08.htm lFairytale. To quote a WHO follow up... 'It was later discovered that the controversy over the WHO's alleged suppression of data had been engineered by Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, and other tobacco companies, in an effort to discredit findings which would harm their business interests.' It was also reported, in the American Journal of Public Health, that Philip Morris had launched a public relations campaign to "shape the standards of scientific proof to make it impossible to 'prove' that secondhand smoke... is dangerous.
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
3:02pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris wrote:I'd also like to know how its age invalidates it.
Blueberry one mistake I grant "are" not the half dozen or more of yours.
Even if the report is 9 years old, to believe everything in it is wrong, sais a lot about you.
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
3:03pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Carlos Em wrote:I think it's from that well-known bastion of peer reviewed academia - wikipedia.
bachor wrote:Oh really bachor? Can you provide a link please? Or are you going to use the usual "big tobacco" mention used by the antismokers all the time?
DaveA wrote: Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent THE world's leading health organisation 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 even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Enjoy the rest of truth supression. http://www.telegraph .co.uk/htmlContent.j html?html=/archive/1 998/03/08/wtob08.htm lFairytale. To quote a WHO follow up... 'It was later discovered that the controversy over the WHO's alleged suppression of data had been engineered by Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, and other tobacco companies, in an effort to discredit findings which would harm their business interests.' It was also reported, in the American Journal of Public Health, that Philip Morris had launched a public relations campaign to "shape the standards of scientific proof to make it impossible to 'prove' that secondhand smoke... is dangerous.
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
3:03pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Take Blue, or King Eric as examples. They are so full of their own importance, that they sit quietly at home at Christmas opening presents that they have sent to themselves, and attend frequent yoga classes in order that they may have the ability to pat themselves on the back. The selfishness of these people is mind boggling ! What kind of morons have we created in our society ?
blue, Lancs says...
3:04pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I have been challenged with 2 papers carried out in 1998. I have provided the links to the three more upto date papers, which have formewd the basis of the WHO's 100% smoke free initiative.
I know you addicts find it hard to accept, yet even the makers of the cigarettes with all their resources can no longer use court action. The evidence is damning and overwhelming....
"The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke,"
World Health Organisation Director General Dr Margaret Chan.
Its banned, its welcome, and its for the best. To clutch at straws is sad and pathetic. Give it up!
DaveA, London says...
3:06pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I have also included a table on various carcinogens found in cigarettes and how many you need to be exposed to reach government safety/danger levels, I hope it formats correctly. The basics are that you are in an unventilated and sealed room 20' x 20' x 9'.
For example Benzene the ETS output is 0.24 mg/cigarette, the safety limit is 32mg per metre cubed. You would need to be exposed to 13,300 cigarettes before you approach a danger level. You could not get 13,000 people in the room. I have also read that the average petrol/diesel garage forecourt contains 200x more benzene than a cigarette.
FIGURE 1. Estimated number of cigarettes required to reach OSHA safe exposure limits from secondhand smoke emission of selected chemicals in a sealed and unventilated 20' x 20' x 9' enclosure (Gori & Mantel, 1991)
ETS Component ETS Output (mg/cig) Safety Limit (mg/m3) Cigarettes Required
Methyl chloride 0.88 10.30 1,170
Acetaldehyde 1.26 180.00 1,430
Nitrogen oxides 2.80 50.00 1,780
Phenol 0.25 19.00 7,600
Benzene 0.24 32.00 13,300
Dimethylamine 0.036 18.00 50,000
Benzopyrene 0.00009 0.20 222,000
Polonium 210 0.4pCi 3pCi/l 750,000
Toluene 0.000035 375.00 1,000,000
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
3:07pm Tue 25 Sep 07
And not a single one of them proves categorically that passive smoking is a problem. Only speculation and assumption !
boris, west sussex says...
3:08pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue, Lancs says...
3:10pm Tue 25 Sep 07
It used to be all pubs now its none. Jethro, christmas presents??? What are you talking about? I don't care if you have one pub or ten. All of them no, and do not try tell me that smoking is harmless. You can insult me but I'm not the one buying a product that the manufacturer warns will kill me, and also supports the ban!
BAT, PM, et al all support a ban on smoking in public.
Again though, Jethro, your an addict and as such can't help yourself. I forgive you.
LARGEBURNDENBILLY, BOLTON says...
3:13pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Iain, says...
3:15pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Why miss out the largest study ever conducted and one that ran for 39 years from your list? You know the one which concluded thus?
No significant associations were found for current or
former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke
before or after adjusting for seven confounders and
before or after excluding participants with pre-existing
disease."
Why not tell everyone that in order to obtain the results they wanted (still pisspoor in any other field) the Californian EPA had to drop studies from their meta analysis?
I'm still waiting for an answer on my question about the WHO study.
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
3:16pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue wrote:How very pious of you to forgive him.
Cherry picking data from the odd paper here or there does not begin to combat the overwhelming data that has shaped public opinion and policy.
It used to be all pubs now its none. Jethro, christmas presents??? What are you talking about? I don't care if you have one pub or ten. All of them no, and do not try tell me that smoking is harmless. You can insult me but I'm not the one buying a product that the manufacturer warns will kill me, and also supports the ban!
BAT, PM, et al all support a ban on smoking in public.
Again though, Jethro, your an addict and as such can't help yourself. I forgive you.
We're not cherry picking though. I've ask you to show me that the studies you mentioned consistently display an RR of 2 or more, which is the only possible epidemiological level in which it could be anything resembling danger.
SCOTH found 1.25, in its extensive metaanalyses of evidence between 1998 and 2006. That would not be considered sufficient evidence to legislate against the usage of any other product.
And even if you don't want to breathe in others' smoke, you are ignoring the superior ventilation technology available nowadays, which can remove all particles from the air, including viruses.
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
3:16pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Blue - democracy is not one of your strong points then ? Blue has his opinions, and no one must tell him otherwise. Your own words paint a picture of the type of character you are !
I say again - pillock !
blue, Lancs says...
3:18pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris wrote:Not my report the three latest ones. One of the best and most unequivocal studies was by a Takeshi Hirayama published in 1981, demonstrating that second-hand smoke increased the risk of lung cancer in non-smoking Japanese women married to men who smoked compared with non-smoking women married to non-smoking men. Moving well beyond its usual efforts to create controversy about scientific studies that reach bothersome conclusions, the tobacco industry responded with a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign designed specifically to discredit Hirayamas paper. The controversy generated by the tobacco industry attracted the attention of other epidemiologists who sought to see who was right. As a result, by 1986, 13 studies had been done on passive smoking and lung cancer, and the evidence was strong and consistent enough for the US Surgeon General to issue the first report dealing entirely with the effects of passive smoking. Almost two decades have passed since publication of Hirayamas wor and, despite the tobacco industrys best efforts, his conclusion that passive smoking causes lung cancer has stood the test of time.
Blueberry, you,ve done it again. You pick your report which must be correct, and ignore others.
So even papers in 1981 can be right. Age isn't an issue, but the latest research, and bulk of research reach the same conclusions. It is your right to choose to ignore and discredit all this work, however not to the detriment of others. And now the law agrees.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
3:19pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Phil Williams, Norfolk says...
3:20pm Tue 25 Sep 07
And just to get this Roy Castle nonsence out of the way, Roy Castle died of lung cancer, true, Everything else is conjecture.
blue, Lancs says...
3:21pm Tue 25 Sep 07
If those three papers I have given you links to are flawed in their conclusion, why have neither you nor the tobacco companies taken them to court?
LARGEBURNDENBILLY, BOLTON says...
3:24pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue, Lancs says...
3:25pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue, Lancs says...
3:30pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Its banned and its going to stay that way.
Iain, says...
3:36pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Imperial tobacco, in the Mctear case, have a read.
blue, Lancs says...
3:38pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Iain, says...
3:38pm Tue 25 Sep 07
It'ss now outside, train staions, football grounds, outdoor concerts, the next one is going to be cars, then the home.
blue, Lancs says...
3:40pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Mr first memories of Burnden Park were of aromatic pipe smoke. If i smell it now thats what I think of.
The NHS comment was a joke btw.
Gloria, Bolton says...
3:42pm Tue 25 Sep 07
And what is boring is reading the back and forth arguments and name calling, rather than a sensible reasoned debate.....Its such a shame that as soon as someone is losing an argument they start belittling their "opponent"
Fwed, Bolton says...
3:45pm Tue 25 Sep 07
DaveA, London says...
3:50pm Tue 25 Sep 07
PM were fighting the goodv fight. I have in front of me a poster that went into newspapers. It is entitled "Second hand Smoke in Perspective". It goes on to quote the RR of contracting lung cancer from various foods etc. I can't format it for this forum so you have to take me on my word.
Smoking RR = 1.19
Drinking 1-2 glasses of whole milk = 1.62
(Internation Journal Of Cancer)
Frequently cooking with rape seed oil = 2.8 (Internation Journal Of Cancer)
A highest diet in saturated fat = 6.14
(Journal Of National Cancer Institute)
PM are covering their backside for lawsuits.
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
3:51pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Fwed wrote:Obviously stated by someone who knows nothing ! I take it you know Nick Hogan well then ?
Nick Hogan would have had a non-smoking pub if he thought there was money in it. He is a man who considers himself to be a millionaire just because he owes a million! He is not some kind of knight on a charger defending an opressed minority - he is an obnoxious and ignorant man who sees himself as above the law and has therefore has flauted the law for self gain but who will soon find himself found guilty in court, possibly be in prison +/or heavily fined, facing bankrupcy - and it all could not happen to a more deserving guy. Hope his friends in the tobacco industry pull his funding.
Fwed, Bolton says...
3:52pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
3:53pm Tue 25 Sep 07
DaveA, London says...
3:57pm Tue 25 Sep 07
.int/bulletin/2000/N
umber%207/78(7)class
ics.pdf
I also include the RR figures he came up with. Also bear in mind that Japan has 2 times more smokers than the UK but half the incidence of lung cancer. Is diet a greater influence on lung cancer? You will see the RR is below 2 and the RR he comes up with is in line with drinking 1-2 galsses of whole milk a day. Not bery conclusive eh?
Hirayama (1, 9, 10) 1981 Japan
119 cigarettes a day 1.61 1.092.39
20 cigarettes a day or more 2.08 1.393.11
US Environmental Protection 1992 USA 1.19 1.011.39
Agency (20)
National Research Council (13) 1986 USA 1.34 1.181.53
Surgeon General (12) 1986 USA 1.53 na
California Environmental 1997 USA 1.20 na
Protection Agency (21)
National Health and Medical 1997 Australia 1.32 1.101.69
Research Council (22)
Scientific Committee on 1998 UK 1.201.30 na
Tobacco and Health (23)
a Confidence intervals are two-tailed 95%, except US EPA which is one-tailed
King Eric, :-))))))))))))))))))
))))))))))))))))) says...
3:58pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
3:58pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue, Lancs says...
4:06pm Tue 25 Sep 07
A major component of the industry attack was the mounting of a campaign to establish a "bar" for "sound science" that could not be fully met by most individual investigations, leaving studies that did not meet the criteria to be dismissed as "junk science." The campaign also included attempts to characterize relative risks of 2 or less as highly questionable and not amenable to investigation by epidemiologic methods.
These efforts were largely abandoned by the tobacco industry when it became clear that no independent epidemiological organization would agree to these standards.
and the paper, Ong EK, Glantz SA (2001). "Constructing "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiology": Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms". American Journal of Public Health
So Tim, no independent epidemiological organization agrees with you on your assertion that an RR of less than 2 is sound.
DaveA, London says...
4:11pm Tue 25 Sep 07
King Eric, Nine Prem Titles says...
4:11pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Oh no ! The lunatic fringe is back !!!!!!!
Mass protest Jethro is in the house
Gloria, Bolton says...
4:16pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Jethro Tull wrote:Ive never seen his hair cut so am not in a position to judge the relative merits of his fringe
Oh no ! The lunatic fringe is back !!!!!!!
blue, Lancs says...
4:17pm Tue 25 Sep 07
bachor, over there says...
4:22pm Tue 25 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
4:25pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I'd love to, but do you know of any pubs with customers inside?
cow-head, westhoughton says...
4:25pm Tue 25 Sep 07
King Eric, ......... says...
4:30pm Tue 25 Sep 07
All this verbiage is irrelevant, I maybe wrong but someone said smoking in pubs is banned ?
Can't believe it.
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
4:32pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue wrote:I take it you are in a position to discredit the work of medical professionals who disagree with Dr Hirayama?
I take it Tim that you are in a position to discredit Dr Hirayama's work then? What is your medical/scientific background?
If those three papers I have given you links to are flawed in their conclusion, why have neither you nor the tobacco companies taken them to court?
You cite a paper by STANTON GLANTZ? Degree in Mechanical Engineering and founder of the California Non-smokers' rights group? Hardly unbiased.
Oxford Uni's Sir Richard Peto agrees on the problematic nature of RRs between 1 and 2. He stated as much in his book The Causes of Cancer: when relative risk lies between 1 and 2 ... problems of interpretation may become acute, and it may be extremely difficult to disentangle the various contributions of biased information, confounding of two or more factors, and cause and effect.
As does Robert Temple, Director of Drug Evaluation at the FDA - seen as you like quoting American sources: "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." He is also on the record as saying that RRs of between 1 and 2 are problematic.
And seen as you like to quote the sensationalist Surgeon General's Report, I suggest you have a look at these words from Dr Elizabeth Whelan from ACSH:
While one might think that a 30% increased risk translates into a person having a one in three chance of developing the disease, this is not the case at all. A 30% increase in lung cancer in a nonsmoker refers to increasing a risk that is very low to start with to a risk slightly higher. Dr Whelan is no friend of tobacco companies. In fact, they loathe her, believing she helped divert attention from the industrial causes of cancer to the more visible problem of smoking (see sourchwatch).
So, in putting such nugatory impediments to health into perspective, do you still stubbornly believe that the only way to eradicate the infinitesimal risks was a blanket ban? Or should we have followed our European neighbours, such as Spain, Finland, Luxembourg and Italy in adopting a partial ban?
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
4:33pm Tue 25 Sep 07
King Eric wrote:Tobacco in the spliff eh?
Wouldn't mind a spliff.
All this verbiage is irrelevant, I maybe wrong but someone said smoking in pubs is banned ?
Can't believe it.
So you're a self-loathing smoker?
chas, suffolk says...
4:38pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
4:41pm Tue 25 Sep 07
chas wrote:I don't see why, with all the clean air loving health fanatics we were told were going to flock to pubs in droves as soon as the ban came into force.
I forgot Nick's pubs have customers. He ought to prosecuted for unfair competion. Allowing his customers to smoke (allegedly) must mean that his pubs have an unfair advantage.
hatemanu, bolton says...
4:45pm Tue 25 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
4:52pm Tue 25 Sep 07
david partington, says...
4:54pm Tue 25 Sep 07
RW, says...
4:58pm Tue 25 Sep 07
http://banzhaf.net/o
besitylinks.html
Scary, eh?
boris, west sussex says...
5:05pm Tue 25 Sep 07
I agree with you, Blueberry shouldn't resort to name calling when loosing the argument.
King Eric, ......... says...
5:08pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Nuff said.
boris, west sussex says...
5:10pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
5:15pm Tue 25 Sep 07
King Eric, rastaman says...
5:18pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Posted by: Tim Clarke, Wigan on 4:33pm today
King Eric wrote:
Wouldn't mind a spliff.
All this verbiage is irrelevant, I maybe wrong but someone said smoking in pubs is banned ?
Can't believe it.
Tobacco in the spliff eh?
So you're a self-loathing smoker?
Herbal, man.
Gloria, Bolton says...
5:19pm Tue 25 Sep 07
cow-head wrote:What a self opinionated and ridiculous little person you are.
Gloria are you thick as well as boring?
I know humour will be a foreign word to you.
Get a life
King Eric, ......... says...
5:21pm Tue 25 Sep 07
There speaks the voice of Trannyism.
This from one of the freedomtochoose leaders.
I'm stunned.
Your great organisation has gone down in my estimation and that of us proud Boltonarians.
Carlos Em, London says...
5:23pm Tue 25 Sep 07
LARGEBURNDENBILLY wrote:Sorry you make no sense- so apartheid was a law then?
This guy is flouting the law and should be breaking rocks in Canyon Creek. Theres no such thing as bad laws and good laws, just laws. You leave the door open to honour killing, child molestation and anything else you wish to mention.
boris, west sussex says...
5:24pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Shall I post your slanderous comments about the Bricklayers Arms again.
King Eric, ......... says...
5:28pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Carlos Em, London says...
5:29pm Tue 25 Sep 07
King Eric wrote:Yes the facts about the council's bullying tactics.
When the real facts about Sulk Hogan come out, a lot of those who regard him as a martyr will hang their heads in shame. Nuff said.
Carlos Em, London says...
5:32pm Tue 25 Sep 07
hatemanu wrote:Nick's doing it for what he believes in. Dont worry he'll get more money back when he's finished suing the council and the owner of the Flying Fox, Mr Miller.
joe public , is spot on again . All you who surport mr hogan , why dont you help pay for is legal costs . This man ,will with out doubt , bankrupt himself . All because he cant admit defeat. . It is a shame that is family will lose out . Just admit you will never win and save your money for your children . What a waste of money . Alot of smokers anyway dont mind at all, going smoking in a beer garden . Instead of backing him with your words, put your money where your mouth is .
King Eric, ......... says...
5:33pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Trust me, you will be sorely embarrassed.
Now can you leave this thread for us locals please ?
chas, suffolk says...
5:39pm Tue 25 Sep 07
What Eric doesn't appreciate is that we live in a democratic society (well, we used to). We used to have the right to demonstrate, if it is peaceful, more than can be said for the council.
Carlos Em, London says...
5:45pm Tue 25 Sep 07
cow-head, westhoughton says...
5:46pm Tue 25 Sep 07
King Eric, ......... says...
5:52pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Accept democracy or accept chaos.
Lollipop, Muddy Duct says...
5:54pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue wrote:No matter where you are if you need to use your blue inhaler more than 3 times a week then the Asthma isn't under contraol and needs to be assessed and medication changed until it is under control. From a chronic athletic asthma sufferer
Well Iain, when my friend with Chronic Asthma occasionally ventured out into the pubs and clubs of bolton he would be using his little blue inhaler every hour or more. When not in a smoky environment he did not need to but hey, f**k him right, he does't have to go out does he? Anyway your an addict Iain, your also forgiven!
boris, west sussex says...
5:55pm Tue 25 Sep 07
We do live in a democracy, A democratically elected government passed a law which banned smoking in pubs.
Accept democracy or accept chaos
A democratically elected government passed a law which brought in the poll tax.
King Eric, ......... says...
5:55pm Tue 25 Sep 07
We know the war is over.
We are all from Manchester anyway, it's Bolton, Greater Manchester.
chas, suffolk says...
6:01pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Are you saying that we are not allowed to demonstrate?
RagReader, Horwich says...
6:28pm Tue 25 Sep 07
david partington wrote:Ignorant smokers blocking the pavement is not the fault of the council,what grounds do you have for suing them?
Having the smokers inside a pub that allows smoking is better for myself in a wheelchair than trying to get passed a crowd of smokers blocking the pavement of a pub that sticks to the law.Maybe theres a case here under the invalid access law of blocking the public right of way.I think i will consult my lawyer with a view to sueing the council.
Ask the smokers to move,problem solved.
Chris N Amos, Sharples says...
6:37pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris wrote:sorry to repeat but these samw pubs were losing thousands of pou nds a week long before the smoking ban - FACT!!!!
Sorry to repeat this everyone, but Blue doesn't understand. Posted by: boris, west sussex on 4:01pm Tue 4 Sep 07 Pubs are losing thousands of pounds in takings each week since the smoking ban started. At the Bricklayers Arms in Wool Lane, Midhurst, landlord Paul Blackmun has seen takings slump by around £3,500 per week - the equivalent of more than £180,000 a year. He has had to cover running costs from his own pocket for the first time since he took the pub over. advertisement Mr Blackmun is working 100-hour weeks to try to cut down on overheads and believes he may have to give up the business. He said: "In the two years we've been here we've seen trade go up by 80 per cent, but since the beginning of the month we've seen no new people through the doors and our regulars are not coming in as much. "For example I had one customer who would spend £20 to £30 per day on wine but he won't come in anymore because he can't light up his pipe. People are staying at home instead. "We had a live music night this week which went really well, but whereas before the ban it would have meant our takings were well up, now it's just put us on an even keel." No proof, Erica you idiot. Pubs are losing thousands of pounds in takings each week since the smoking ban started. At the Bricklayers Arms in Wool Lane, Midhurst, landlord Paul Blackmun has seen takings slump by around £3,500 per week - the equivalent of more than £180,000 a year. He has had to cover running costs from his own pocket for the first time since he took the pub over. advertisement Mr Blackmun is working 100-hour weeks to try to cut down on overheads and believes he may have to give up the business. He said: "In the two years we've been here we've seen trade go up by 80 per cent, but since the beginning of the month we've seen no new people through the doors and our regulars are not coming in as much. "For example I had one customer who would spend £20 to £30 per day on wine but he won't come in anymore because he can't light up his pipe. People are staying at home instead. "We had a live music night this week which went really well, but whereas before the ban it would have meant our takings were well up, now it's just put us on an even keel."
Only the shrewdist landlord business man has been able to make pubs work.
You quote landlords from the first month of trading, what about now - 3 months later??? Can the same be said now? Can we now have more up to date information instead of so-called facts from 2-3 months ago!!!
bachor, over there says...
6:38pm Tue 25 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
6:41pm Tue 25 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
6:42pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Love to see you go bust, loose everything, you heartless tos.er.
chas, suffolk says...
6:48pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Is that another FACT or another lie like passive some?
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
7:05pm Tue 25 Sep 07
And you support manu ? How dare you associate with us true Boltonians, who are not glory seekers. What a two faced scumbag you are !
Book yourself a flat in Trinity church quickly - it's just opposite your favourite pub !
cow-head, westhoughton says...
7:09pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
7:19pm Tue 25 Sep 07
King Eric wrote:A democratically elected government which went against the manifesto it was elected on.
We do live in a democracy, A democratically elected government passed a law which banned smoking in pubs.
Accept democracy or accept chaos.
Besides, the first past the post system is inherently flawed. We will not have genuine democracy until we have proportional representation. What we currently have is just a British democracy.
Iain, says...
8:30pm Tue 25 Sep 07
The WHO director claims "there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke"
Yet there own study into passive smoking and health found that the only statistically significant result was that children exposed to passive smoking had a reduced risk of lung cancer.
Both of these statements can't be true so which one is false?
King Eric, ......... says...
8:35pm Tue 25 Sep 07
We are simple people in Bolton.
All we know is that smoking is banned in pubs.
All the sh-ite you post is irrelevant.
The law will not be repealed.
There is no Hogan Hero.
We are happy.
Goodnight.
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
8:39pm Tue 25 Sep 07
King Eric wrote:You never know - it could happen under a (God forbid)*spits* Tory government.
Basically no Iain.
We are simple people in Bolton.
All we know is that smoking is banned in pubs.
All the sh-ite you post is irrelevant.
The law will not be repealed.
There is no Hogan Hero.
We are happy.
Goodnight.
not-in-my-name, In the Area says...
8:39pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Rick S, London says...
8:56pm Tue 25 Sep 07
All he's actually done is made his customers happy by allowing them to carry on doing what they had been doing until July the 1st this year, and what people in this country had been doing for hundreds of years. He may (or may not - let's wait for the decision) have been breaking this new and deeply contentious law, but as far as I know he hasn't done anyone any harm.
Some people are incredibly, and pointlessly, vindictive.
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
8:56pm Tue 25 Sep 07
In my opinion that is wrong".
Where your concerned, yes.
It appears to me you don't know if your Arthur or Martha with all your various alter ego's.
I see you've done your normal cowardly trick of not replying to post where your caught once again making a complete tosser of yourself, only to wait for some 100 post's later to pop up with your bile.
And your bet, I'll take you on but want to see the colour of your money first and not pink pounds.
Though I guess it's my money anyway via my taxes which you collect in your benefits.
Iain, says...
9:23pm Tue 25 Sep 07
You may think the science behind passive smoking is Sh-ite and I'd agree with that.
But remember it was this sh-ite science that resulted in the ban being enacted in all enclosed and partially enclosed public spaces.
Therefore there is no need for the ban because it has no basis on scientific evidence.
Any law brought about by using sh-ite science needs to be brought to the attention of the public and the Mp's who voted for it.
Maybe Nick will manage to do this in court.
Let's hope so, for both him, and all the other people whose lives are being ruined by a sh-ite piece of legislation that appears to be being enforced more ruthlessly than any other law I've ever seen.
Chris N Amos, Sharples says...
9:32pm Tue 25 Sep 07
not-in-my-name wrote:Wrong - it is not HIS private property. a public house is open for public use and granted a licence by the local public governing authority. In other words public house = public area. If it was his private property then it would be a private house and then the law does NOT apply!
Oh Ive laughed my socks off reading the anti smoking posts here. What difference does it make to you if Mr Hogan allows smoking in his pub, ITS HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY you dont have to go there. Shut up winging and whining what a load of mardy kill joys. Good luck to you Mr Hogan, stand up for your private property rights, this government and its supporters are all Reds under the Beds, communisum by any other name.
DaveA, London says...
10:16pm Tue 25 Sep 07
Ever read the sign "Management reserve the right of entry". Seems you can be denied access at anytime or ejected at anytime.
Belinda Cunnison, says...
10:46pm Tue 25 Sep 07
mandy vincent, says...
10:59pm Tue 25 Sep 07
freedom2choose.info
for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike, help us to amend theis unwanted ban to include ventilation/air filtration for those pubs/venues who wish to choose this way forward.
Next it will be alcohol, food and maybe fishing?
Landlord fury after attacker given a caution
By Paul Keaveny
Comment | Read Comments (46)
BADLY BEATEN: Ray Sutton is angry his attacker was handed a police caution
A PUB landlord spoke of his fury last night after a teenage thug who attacked him was given a police caution.
Ray Sutton, aged 55, was left with two black eyes and a badly bruised face after being punched to the ground and kicked by a 17-year-old who had been refused drinks earlier in the evening.
The youth then lay in wait with a group of friends outside Mr Sutton's Last Orders pub in Halliwell last Saturday night and set on him as he returned from taking his dog for a walk.
Mr Sutton said he was furious when the police told him that he had been arrested but only given a caution.
He said: "The police told me he only got a caution because it was his first offence. I couldn't believe it.
Derek Launch, London says...
11:01pm Tue 25 Sep 07
blue wrote:Having trawled through all the posts here, there is one that stands out like a beacon with its ineptitude. And I'm not even going to consider mentioning all the questions this muppet ignored on the way LOL
No but since Takeshi's paper in 1981, over 50 papers have been published demonstrating the dangers of second hand smoke. I have been challenged with 2 papers carried out in 1998. I have provided the links to the three more upto date papers, which have formewd the basis of the WHO's 100% smoke free initiative. I know you addicts find it hard to accept, yet even the makers of the cigarettes with all their resources can no longer use court action. The evidence is damning and overwhelming.... "The evidence is clear, there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke," World Health Organisation Director General Dr Margaret Chan. Its banned, its welcome, and its for the best. To clutch at straws is sad and pathetic. Give it up!
Blue, you quote Takeshi from 1981 but rubbish studies from 1998, are you serious? LOL
You quote WHO regularly, but ignore statements from WHO that state that they haven't a clue really. There was a report recently that said WHO themselves are so worried about their poor science being taken lightly, that they have "issued guidelines about issuing guidelines". They are THAT crap!
You mention tobacco companies offering views that fall in line with anti-smoking lobbyists, which shows you have NO clue about the Master Settlement Agreement (look it up).
You also mention you going into Nick Hogan's pub along with your WHO statement about "no safe level of exposure". So why aren't you dead? Do you not see the contradiction?
Quite stunning ignorance, and all from one poster.
Anyway, back on the subject that has been ignored by Blue as it doesn't fit his Sun-reader agenda.
Nick Hogan has been wronged in law twice here. Bolton Council have broken the law & so has Mr Kylie. As previous posters have said "a law is a law" so I'm sure he will successfully sue the backside off them. And rightly so.
Anyone who cares about fairness & democracy in our country should be right behind him. Those selfish enough to want to roam the Earth free of people that disagree with their opinion will obviously get the hump.
Go Nick :-)
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
12:11am Wed 26 Sep 07
I don't really see the point, unless they think they're going to smoke on WHO property.
If hospitals over here introduced such a discriminatory policy,the NHS would have collapsed by now.
blue, Lancs says...
9:07am Wed 26 Sep 07
Iain wrote:Iain was referring to reports that were falsely exaggerated by the tobacco companied lead by PM in 1998. Since then 3 more recent studies have formed the basis of the WHO 100% smoke free initiative, adopted in 2007. You can always argue that they simply kept going til they had the evidence they wanted, again if this is your standpoint then nothing anyone could show you would ever convince you otherwise - save possibly ending up in Christies yourself.
Since Blue couldn't answer this one, would any other intellectual giant care to have a go. The WHO director claims "there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke" Yet there own study into passive smoking and health found that the only statistically significant result was that children exposed to passive smoking had a reduced risk of lung cancer. Both of these statements can't be true so which one is false?
Medical and scientific opinion will always be divided on practically everything, and there will always be ways to prove anything you wish to prove.
On the conspiracy theories etc, Tobacco is a massive business, like oil, with addicts willing to pay a fortune to fund their habit. If there really was a conspiracy, it would be from rich financiers who would do anything to protect such a lucrative industry. Unfortunately though, tobacco kills, though less harmfull in smokeless forms such as swedish style snus, it is nontheless accepted by the vast majority that tobacco smoke is detrimental to health, and kills. Therefore instead of there being a conspiracy to keep milking money from an easy to grow and cheap to manufacture addictive product, you have us believe that rich finaciers and politicians, shadowy governments etc have more to gain from banning it? Ludicrous. Someone in another thread accused the pharma industry that I work in, well I can tell you as long as there are addicts there will be a market for very expensive cancer drugs, nicorettes etc. Again knowing the pharma industry to keep smoking alive would be financially very rewarding. So do not tell me there is a nazi anti-smoking conspiracy.
It is true it has been very difficult to conclude the exact biological mechanism by which tobacco smoke causes cancer in humans, etc, however I would also point out that althought Ibuprofen was granted patent in 1962, it is only recently we are being able to prove how it works, ie by the exact biological mechanism it is a cox 2 inhibitor. Another good example of this is fisherman putting seaweed on fresh wounds for centuries. The seaweed contains clacium alginate compounds, similar to what your dentists puts in your mouth, yet we still are unsure exaclty how it achieves haemestasis (stops bleeding) we just know it does. Similarly lead in petrol (tetraethyl) was known to be harmful straight from its conceptions and it was 60 years later before we banned it.
Unfortunately in vivo evidence on biological effects comes mostly from studies on mice exposed to second hand smoke, and I agree, animal studies whilst useful never complete the whole picture. Still we already know enough from the amount of evididence the ill effects of tobacco smoke, its almost plainly obvious to all but the most blinded; believe me there is no conspiracy, the conclusive evidence is not far away, and the ban is a good thing.
Finally I would also like to point out there will almost certainly be as much, and probably more, danger to health and cost to the NHS from atmospheric pollution from cars, industry etc, and feel that these are areas that equally need urgent restrictive legislation.
King Eric, Bully Free Bolton says...
9:11am Wed 26 Sep 07
When the real facts about Sulk Hogan come out, a lot of those who regard him as a martyr will hang their heads in shame.
Nuff said.
The King is right again.
RagReader, Horwich says...
9:18am Wed 26 Sep 07
King Eric wrote:http://www.boltoneve
As I posted yesterday When the real facts about Sulk Hogan come out, a lot of those who regard him as a martyr will hang their heads in shame. Nuff said. The King is right again.
ningnews.co.uk/displ
ay.var.1714519.0.exl
andlord_on_trial_ove
r_assault.php
Today's fact.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
9:20am Wed 26 Sep 07
JoePublic, Bolton says...
9:22am Wed 26 Sep 07
cow-head wrote:It took place on 31 March - three months before the smoking ban came into force.
Nick Hogan - victimised - if the bastar*s can't get you one way they will try another - saddos
cow-head, westhoughton says...
9:25am Wed 26 Sep 07
RW, says...
9:27am Wed 26 Sep 07
This would lead to the interesting prospect of humans being denied the use of fire on a daily basis, which is a rather unique milestone in the dumbing down of Western civilisation.
I intend to invest in a crate of lighters, should be like gold dust for when there is no reason for them to be made.
King Eric, . says...
9:28am Wed 26 Sep 07
Yes, but probably fabricated and would not have arisen if Mr Hogan has accepted the fascist anti-smoking laws, instead of standing up to the Nazis.
You really don't have any grasp on history or perspective do you ?
boris, west sussex says...
10:16am Wed 26 Sep 07
King Eric, . says...
10:17am Wed 26 Sep 07
I can now accuse all people that have barbecues and bonfires as murderers
You have the right to that view Boris, so can we await your first private prosecution of someone ?
boris, west sussex says...
10:23am Wed 26 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
10:26am Wed 26 Sep 07
joe public, lincoln says...
10:38am Wed 26 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
10:41am Wed 26 Sep 07
Don't have a barbecue and don't have a bonfire. This is now murder, ask QC Blueberry.
chas, suffolk says...
10:48am Wed 26 Sep 07
You obviously support the smoking ban and go to the pub much more often now. How many times have you drunk at a pub this week?
King Eric, . says...
11:09am Wed 26 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
11:19am Wed 26 Sep 07
King Eric, . says...
11:28am Wed 26 Sep 07
How's Dave ?
cow-head, westhoughton says...
11:37am Wed 26 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
11:38am Wed 26 Sep 07
You have let me down, as I thought that you had a answer for everything.
boris, west sussex says...
11:40am Wed 26 Sep 07
King Eric, :-))))))))))))))))) says...
11:44am Wed 26 Sep 07
aka
Curley, Larry and Moe.
boris, west sussex says...
11:45am Wed 26 Sep 07
The only answer Erica has, is yes please, when someone is holding a brush.
King Eric, :-))))))))))))))))) says...
11:50am Wed 26 Sep 07
The Anal retentive personality is stingy, with a compulsive seeking of order and tidiness. The person is generally stubborn and perfectionist.
The Anal expulsive personality is an opposite of the Anal retentive personality, and has a lack of self control, being generally messy and careless.
chas, suffolk says...
11:53am Wed 26 Sep 07
By not answering the SIMPLE question you have admitted that you don't go to pubs.
Perhaps you are an anti-drinker and would like to see all pubs closed down?
boris, west sussex says...
11:54am Wed 26 Sep 07
King Eric, , says...
12:04pm Wed 26 Sep 07
The Strawbery Duck
Thomas Egerton
Howcroft
Lime
Lead Station
Royal Oak
Dimitris
Cask
are some of the places from the last month.
Being from Suffolk where hedgehog is considered a delicacy you won't have heard of any of them....
RagReader, Horwich says...
12:05pm Wed 26 Sep 07
cow-head wrote:How do you arrive at this conclusion?
Chaz, just ignore Erica. He/she doesn't actually go to the pub, but just wants to ruin it for all the smokers than used to enjoy a drink before the draconian ban was introduced. That is just how pathetic Erica and several of the other anti-smoking bigots on this site are.
Perhaps the same way you arrived at this one - 'Dear Rag Reader, From your comments it is quite obvious that the only rag that you read is the looonie left-wing one. I.E. The Guardian'
Not that it adds anything to this debate,but I read the Daily Express.
boris, west sussex says...
12:10pm Wed 26 Sep 07
Are you trying to be as stupid as Erica??
boris, west sussex says...
12:16pm Wed 26 Sep 07
A group that think smokers are murdering people, fanatics, what's more dangerous people.
King Eric, . says...
12:17pm Wed 26 Sep 07
One that renders every comment they make superfluous.
I/we are not anti-smoking.
I/we don't campaign against smoking. We just don't want smoke around us in our pubs and restaurants.
Lots of my friends smoke. I live and let live. They live and let live, and are happy to come for a beer, and when they need a cig, pop to the door.
Apart from the assorted barmpots from around the UK who populate this site (and the same names do it across the UK media, just google their names) every sensible person accepts this status quo.
For the nth time,this law will never be repealed.
I didn't like it when legislation banned standing at football stadia, but guess what ? I still go to football matches.
And smokers can still go to the pub .
RagReader, Horwich says...
12:25pm Wed 26 Sep 07
boris wrote:Sticks and stones etc...back to name calling,how witty.
Rug Rat Are you trying to be as stupid as Erica??
Gloria, Bolton says...
12:30pm Wed 26 Sep 07
boris wrote:They probably aren't its just the hackles go up when cow-head starts. read the posts they put up.....can only verbally abuse and name call.....so people automatically get defensive
Rug Rat
Are you trying to be as stupid as Erica??
chas, suffolk says...
12:39pm Wed 26 Sep 07
Hedgehogs are not a delicacy in Suffolk. Did you get this fact from the ASH website?
boris, west sussex says...
12:43pm Wed 26 Sep 07
It's not name calling, it's a fact. You and your cohorts are fanatics. You would of been one of the henchmen during apartheid.
boris, west sussex says...
12:48pm Wed 26 Sep 07
King Eric, ......... says...
12:51pm Wed 26 Sep 07
Superb.
The Pro Cancer lobby are running out of regimes to use as an insult.
How about Ming the Merciless ?
cow-head, westhoughton says...
12:57pm Wed 26 Sep 07
RW, says...
12:59pm Wed 26 Sep 07
Sorry, I never objected at the time, mostly because the news programmes of the time were portraying ALL football fans as a bunch of violent maniacs, which had I given it a moments thought, clearly wasn't true.
Phil Williams, Norfolk says...
1:00pm Wed 26 Sep 07
Why is it also so difficult for these morons to grasp the fact that freedom of choice is a fundamental human right not to be stolen or discarded lightly. If a pub allows smoking then we should all be free to choose whether or not to enter.
If the demand for non smoking pubs is as high as the antis claim then most pubs would eagerly adopt such policies to satisfy such market demand. But the fact is, they did not becuase there was not.
You can whine all you like about passive smoke and smelly clothes but the simple truth is you were never forced to go into places you didn't like. you had a choice.
If you don't want to suffer serious injury don't complain after you've voluntarily jumped off a cliff.
If you don't want to smell like sh#t, don't complain after you've volunterily jumped in a sewer.
There it is, plain and simple for even a chimp to understand. Now stop whining and wake up to the fact that you have been granted by law something that is not yours by right. The power to dictate your requirments over others.
Nick Hogan refuses to bow down to little dictators that wish to order him how to run his own business. If this gives him an unfair advantage over other pubs then they should do likewise. But according to the antis, the vast majority want smoke free pubs so there shouldn't be an unfair avantage.
King Eric, ......... says...
1:01pm Wed 26 Sep 07
When the heroic Boris, Chas and his friends land on the planet Mongo, they find it ruled by the evil Emperor Ming, a despot who quickly becomes their enemy.
The capital of his empire is named "Mingo City" in his honour. In addition to his army, Ming has access to a wide variety of gadgets, ranging from rocket ships to death rays to robots. He also has a fanatical follwing of evil anti smokers, who barbecue at weekends.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
1:03pm Wed 26 Sep 07
Gloria, Bolton says...
1:03pm Wed 26 Sep 07
boris wrote:would have, dear boris, would have
Rag
It's not name calling, it's a fact. You and your cohorts are fanatics. You would of been one of the henchmen during apartheid.
chas, suffolk says...
1:06pm Wed 26 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
1:08pm Wed 26 Sep 07
Posted by: boris, west sussex on 12:25am Tue 25 Sep 07
Pherhaps proof is needed. Posted by: King Eric, . on 5:03pm Tue 4 Sep 07 A tiny pub losing £3500 in a week because of the ban ? Nonsense. This from a recent review of the pub : I came here with my girlfriend to see in 2007 around 11ish. Rubbish, despite the merits described in my previous post. A complete disaster was only averted by the TV screens being switched on to show the impressive fireworks display in Central London. The so called "disco" was dark, dull and deplorable. There was more atmosphere at a Welcome Break service station than in here. Awful. A tiny pub losing £3500 in a week because of the ban ? Nonsense. This is the site http://www.beerinthe evening.com/pubs/s/1 4/14038/Bricklayers_ Arms/Midhurst Now you will see what a fraud Erica is. Link to Erica mistake below, scroll well down. http://www.thebolton news.co.uk/search/di splay.var.1658919.0. battle_over_right_to _run_rebel_smoking_p ub.php
david partington, says...
1:16pm Wed 26 Sep 07
RagReader wrote:If you are ever unfortunate enough to be in a w/chair you will realise its not as simple as asking people to move o/wise i wouldn,t be ranting.The problem is most will move but a minority look at you as if you shouldn,t be there in the first place.My reason for blaming the council is if they had refused and a lot more had done the same this stupid law would not have been passed in the first place.Now i am a person who used to smoke in excess of 70 cigs a day but stopped 20yrs ago,but i dont begrudge a/body else a fag.I accept you should not be smoking in certain areas,shops,hospital
david partington wrote: Having the smokers inside a pub that allows smoking is better for myself in a wheelchair than trying to get passed a crowd of smokers blocking the pavement of a pub that sticks to the law.Maybe theres a case here under the invalid access law of blocking the public right of way.I think i will consult my lawyer with a view to sueing the council.Ignorant smokers blocking the pavement is not the fault of the council,what grounds do you have for suing them? Ask the smokers to move,problem solved.
s,restaurants etc.but can see nothing wrong with having smoking and non smoking pubs.The way things are at the moment it is totally chaotic and has to be altered.Just a final point,if you go outside for a smoke you can,t drink outside so you have to leave your drink inside,in this day and age who,s to stop s/one tampering or even pinching your drink.Rant over
King Eric, ......... says...
1:23pm Wed 26 Sep 07
Erica, when I go into any of the eight pubs that you mentioned and I see "Billy no-mates" at the bar ordering a half-pint of shandy I will know that it is you. What a pathetic wimp you are.
Cowpoke, highly unlikely, none of them are in your universe in Westhoughton.
And you will certainly never gain admission to my private members club in Manchester,
I occasionally see some of your players in there.
Phil Williams, Norfolk says...
1:30pm Wed 26 Sep 07
King Eric, Nine Prem Titles says...
1:44pm Wed 26 Sep 07
One that renders every comment they make superfluous.
I/we are not anti-smoking.
I/we don't campaign against smoking. We just don't want smoke around us in our pubs and restaurants.
Lots of my friends smoke. I live and let live. They live and let live, and are happy to come for a beer, and when they need a cig, pop to the door.
Apart from the assorted barmpots from around the UK who populate this site (and the same names do it across the UK media, just google their names) every sensible person accepts this status quo.
For the nth time,this law will never be repealed.
I didn't like it when legislation banned standing at football stadia, but guess what ? I still go to football matches.
And smokers can still go to the pub .
boris, west sussex says...
1:56pm Wed 26 Sep 07
Erica won't answer your point. He has no thought for people with disabilities.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
cow-head, westhoughton says...
11:25am Tue 25 Sep 07