BOLTON WANDERERS
Have Bolton Wanderers dipped into the transfer market? What plans does the club have next season? Click here »
|
|
|
|
Hogan back behind pumps
5:40pm Thursday 27th September 2007
Comments (324) Have your say »
REBEL landlord Nick Hogan has been reinstated as the licensee of The Swan hotel and Barristers bar.
Bolton Council's licensing department has confirmed it is amending the licence of the town centre pubs, once again naming Mr Hogan as the landlord.
He was shut out when the owner of the buldings, Paul Kylie, had his son installed as the new landlord after a meeting with licensing chiefs at Bolton Council.
But Mr Hogan launched a battle against the decision and his solicitor, Andrew Haffner, is expecting to receive the new licence tomorrow.
Mr Hogan, said: "I'm delighted and this just shows that I haven't done anything wrong . I thought I was going to be out of here on September 21, but I'm still here on September 27 because I'm an honourable, decent businessman."
Mr Hogan was locked out of The Swan and Barristers last Friday when the owner of the buildings, Paul Kylie called in the baliffs and changed the locks, claiming the terms of the lease had been broken because the landlord had allowed customers to smoke.
The pub boss - who has been making headlines for allegedly flouting the smoking ban - went to the High Court in Manchester and claimed he had not broken the law because he had not been convicted in connection with his reported smoking ban breaches.
Mr Hogan 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.
But following a letter from Mr Hogan's solicitor, the council have reversed their decision and he has now been reinstated as landlord.
His solicitor, Mr Haffner, said: "We were very concerned regarding the circumstances surrounding how the license got transferred into Ryan Kelly's name last Friday. We asked the licensing authority to investigate matters and we put in an application for the transfer of the license back into Nick's name and they have now granted that application."
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.
Mr Hogan was due to appear at the High Court in Manchester this morning to determine whether he has breached the terms of his lease.
Your Say YourThe Bolton News
kerry, says...
5:49pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Dont let them grind you down
i smoke in the swan its packed, because we can smoke other landlords can learn a lot from you
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
5:50pm Thu 27 Sep 07
In other words they were in the WRONG.
Brilliant news for democracy.
kerry, says...
5:50pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tom Thumb wrote:and me lol
And the first person down there celebrating will be..................
..................
King Eric
Chris N Amos, Sharples says...
5:53pm Thu 27 Sep 07
ny other authoratative figure to uphold the law or face the consequences.
hatemanu, bolton says...
5:54pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
5:55pm Thu 27 Sep 07
There's something about this that stinks to high heaven and it ain't fags.
Good Luck Nick..and I don't smoke !
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
5:55pm Thu 27 Sep 07
This is a LIE.
He has only been deemed to have broken the law, it remains an accusation.
We do still have innocent until proven guilty in this country.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
6:06pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
6:14pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Chris N Amos, Sharples says...
6:18pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tom Thumb wrote:People have been caught smoking in his pubs, and some openly admit to smoking in his pubs on here - ipso facto he has broke the law by not making people stub it out in his pubs - as the law (sorry to say this word but it is true for every law in every country on this planet) dictates!
Chris, This is a LIE. He has only been deemed to have broken the law, it remains an accusation. We do still have innocent until proven guilty in this country.
mercy, bolton says...
6:19pm Thu 27 Sep 07
kerry wrote:yes and its revolting, its disgraceful that when you go out anywhere non smokers hair and clothes come back stinking of fags, theres nothing quite as wonderful at having a bath a 3.30am and having the washing machine going after a night out.
good luck Nick xxx Dont let them grind you down i smoke in the swan its packed, because we can smoke other landlords can learn a lot from you
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
6:19pm Thu 27 Sep 07
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
6:20pm Thu 27 Sep 07
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
boris, west sussex says...
6:20pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Big_Andy, Farnworth says...
6:20pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
6:21pm Thu 27 Sep 07
I'll be down the Swan this weekend celebrating a victory for common sense !
After all your stupid comments earlier King Eric, is that you I spy hiding in your shell ??????
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
6:23pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Chris N Amos wrote:IF someone breaks the law in a public place are those that administer the running of the place responsible for their crime?
Tom Thumb wrote:People have been caught smoking in his pubs, and some openly admit to smoking in his pubs on here - ipso facto he has broke the law by not making people stub it out in his pubs - as the law (sorry to say this word but it is true for every law in every country on this planet) dictates!
Chris, This is a LIE. He has only been deemed to have broken the law, it remains an accusation. We do still have innocent until proven guilty in this country.
I think not otherwise we would have Bolton Council being fined for peoples adverse behaviour on their premises.
boris, west sussex says...
6:24pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
6:26pm Thu 27 Sep 07
mercy wrote:Indeed, I have to put up with some cheap women's perfumes that are far more toxic and eye watering than any fag smoke.
kerry wrote:yes and its revolting, its disgraceful that when you go out anywhere non smokers hair and clothes come back stinking of fags, theres nothing quite as wonderful at having a bath a 3.30am and having the washing machine going after a night out.
good luck Nick xxx Dont let them grind you down i smoke in the swan its packed, because we can smoke other landlords can learn a lot from you
And I'm a non smoker.
boris, west sussex says...
6:28pm Thu 27 Sep 07
King Eric, . says...
6:28pm Thu 27 Sep 07
He's got the right to the licence as before, he hasn't got the right to flout the smoking ban.
Simple really.
Tom Thumb, glad you are happy to see the same regime back in place where you alleged an incident against your daughter.Strange set of standards when you value a publican over the wellbeing of your daughter.
Anyway, it's a democracy it's your choice.
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
6:30pm Thu 27 Sep 07
mercy wrote:So, in essence, what you are saying is that smoking bans are making people wash less?
kerry wrote:yes and its revolting, its disgraceful that when you go out anywhere non smokers hair and clothes come back stinking of fags, theres nothing quite as wonderful at having a bath a 3.30am and having the washing machine going after a night out.
good luck Nick xxx Dont let them grind you down i smoke in the swan its packed, because we can smoke other landlords can learn a lot from you
Chris N Amos, Sharples says...
6:36pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tom Thumb wrote:The law covers public buildings so in the case of building the building management whether a manger, landlord or even the council would be libel. The law does not cover public open spaces and as such no law is being broken - but if you are trying to suggest that if a law in=s committed anywhere outside then its the councils fault - firstly it depends on what law is broken and secondly its down to the cps. If you said it for arguments sake then it is just far to ambiguous to justify your statement and is basically a non-starter.
Chris N Amos wrote:IF someone breaks the law in a public place are those that administer the running of the place responsible for their crime? I think not otherwise we would have Bolton Council being fined for peoples adverse behaviour on their premises.Tom Thumb wrote: Chris, This is a LIE. He has only been deemed to have broken the law, it remains an accusation. We do still have innocent until proven guilty in this country.People have been caught smoking in his pubs, and some openly admit to smoking in his pubs on here - ipso facto he has broke the law by not making people stub it out in his pubs - as the law (sorry to say this word but it is true for every law in every country on this planet) dictates!
boris, west sussex says...
6:40pm Thu 27 Sep 07
joe public, lincoln says...
6:54pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Smoking's cool, always has been, always will be.Even cooler since July 1...extra cool in parts of Bolton today.
Nothing you say or do will alter that.
What's it like to be stuck in the mud?
mercy, bolton says...
6:59pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tom Thumb wrote:cheap perfume - YYUUKK, I NEVER wear cheap or revolting perfume,in fact I almost had a bunmch pr flowers from a neighbours husband I smelled that nice wearing my gorgeous christian dior perfume! What revolts me in the aftershave JOOP, and the copy is disgusting, always makes me want to heave - its so disgustng - also old spice,denim and naff sets- still better than B.O. Thats the worst. I always use lovelly deodourant that doesnt clash with any perfume I wear. - Youve brought up an excellent point and Im glad a man brought it up, cheers
mercy wrote:Indeed, I have to put up with some cheap women's perfumes that are far more toxic and eye watering than any fag smoke. And I'm a non smoker.kerry wrote: good luck Nick xxx Dont let them grind you down i smoke in the swan its packed, because we can smoke other landlords can learn a lot from youyes and its revolting, its disgraceful that when you go out anywhere non smokers hair and clothes come back stinking of fags, theres nothing quite as wonderful at having a bath a 3.30am and having the washing machine going after a night out.
mercy, bolton says...
7:03pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tim Clarke wrote:I hope not! Its much easier after a nightout toset the washer off in the morning, have a wash then a bath in the morning, still depends how many hours youve been out for, in fact some peopel woulnt even consider a shower or bath after a night out - even after the morning after - -yyukkky.
mercy wrote:So, in essence, what you are saying is that smoking bans are making people wash less?kerry wrote: good luck Nick xxx Dont let them grind you down i smoke in the swan its packed, because we can smoke other landlords can learn a lot from youyes and its revolting, its disgraceful that when you go out anywhere non smokers hair and clothes come back stinking of fags, theres nothing quite as wonderful at having a bath a 3.30am and having the washing machine going after a night out.
chas, suffolk says...
7:23pm today Thu 27 Sep 07
WELL DONE NICK.
boris, west sussex says...
7:23pm today Thu 27 Sep 07
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
7:27pm Thu 27 Sep 07
King Eric wrote:ERM I don't hold the publican responsible for the actions of a perverted doorman.
The battle for the tenancy of the two little bars is irrelevant to the issue of the smoking laws being disobeyed.
He's got the right to the licence as before, he hasn't got the right to flout the smoking ban.
Simple really.
Tom Thumb, glad you are happy to see the same regime back in place where you alleged an incident against your daughter.Strange set of standards when you value a publican over the wellbeing of your daughter.
Anyway, it's a democracy it's your choice.
Proving such is very hard if no one saw it.
Glad your not a JP or magistrate anyway.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
7:31pm Thu 27 Sep 07
There you go again supporting an illegal action this time by the council.
You must have been brought up in the old soviet union.
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
7:33pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tom Thumb wrote:In Soviet Russia, Hogan give council their license back!
Oh and Erica,
There you go again supporting an illegal action this time by the council.
You must have been brought up in the old soviet union.
boris, west sussex says...
7:34pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Erica gets cheap brushes from the council. But I'll tell you one thing, they are not recyclable.
hatemanu, bolton says...
7:38pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
7:40pm Thu 27 Sep 07
hatemanu wrote:Hmmmm yes ... was he prosecuted?
well done nick , keep beating people up , your such a great example to everyone . Keep up the good work .
not-in-my-name, local says...
7:43pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
7:43pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Chris N Amos wrote:What about someone smoking in a substantially enclosed alley way - is that not the fault of the local authority for 1) allowing the alley way to be substantially enclosed and 2) not stopping the person smoking there?
Tom Thumb wrote:The law covers public buildings so in the case of building the building management whether a manger, landlord or even the council would be libel. The law does not cover public open spaces and as such no law is being broken - but if you are trying to suggest that if a law in=s committed anywhere outside then its the councils fault - firstly it depends on what law is broken and secondly its down to the cps. If you said it for arguments sake then it is just far to ambiguous to justify your statement and is basically a non-starter.
Chris N Amos wrote:IF someone breaks the law in a public place are those that administer the running of the place responsible for their crime? I think not otherwise we would have Bolton Council being fined for peoples adverse behaviour on their premises.Tom Thumb wrote: Chris, This is a LIE. He has only been deemed to have broken the law, it remains an accusation. We do still have innocent until proven guilty in this country.People have been caught smoking in his pubs, and some openly admit to smoking in his pubs on here - ipso facto he has broke the law by not making people stub it out in his pubs - as the law (sorry to say this word but it is true for every law in every country on this planet) dictates!
A prosecuting authority which allows breaches of the law on a daily basis does not have the moral authority to prosecute a dissenting landlord.
lets have it right, darwen says...
7:46pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Chris N Amos, Sharples says...
7:56pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tim Clarke wrote:an alleyway is only built up on 2 sides so that argument does not comply with the law as it stands - an enclosed place is 4 sided - hence reason that smoking shelters only have 3 sides!!! Again know the law properly before even trying to use examples like that!!!
Chris N Amos wrote:What about someone smoking in a substantially enclosed alley way - is that not the fault of the local authority for 1) allowing the alley way to be substantially enclosed and 2) not stopping the person smoking there? A prosecuting authority which allows breaches of the law on a daily basis does not have the moral authority to prosecute a dissenting landlord.Tom Thumb wrote:The law covers public buildings so in the case of building the building management whether a manger, landlord or even the council would be libel. The law does not cover public open spaces and as such no law is being broken - but if you are trying to suggest that if a law in=s committed anywhere outside then its the councils fault - firstly it depends on what law is broken and secondly its down to the cps. If you said it for arguments sake then it is just far to ambiguous to justify your statement and is basically a non-starter.Chris N Amos wrote:IF someone breaks the law in a public place are those that administer the running of the place responsible for their crime? I think not otherwise we would have Bolton Council being fined for peoples adverse behaviour on their premises.Tom Thumb wrote: Chris, This is a LIE. He has only been deemed to have broken the law, it remains an accusation. We do still have innocent until proven guilty in this country.People have been caught smoking in his pubs, and some openly admit to smoking in his pubs on here - ipso facto he has broke the law by not making people stub it out in his pubs - as the law (sorry to say this word but it is true for every law in every country on this planet) dictates!
DaveA, London says...
7:59pm Thu 27 Sep 07
What is tranny for scedenfreude?
DaveA, London says...
8:08pm Thu 27 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
8:16pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tim Clarke, Wigan says...
8:27pm Thu 27 Sep 07
chas wrote:Indeed - and there are alleyways which do not comply.
Substantially enclosed means more than 50% enclosed.
Phil Williams, Norfolk says...
8:32pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Show this bullying council that sides with property fraudsters over honest business men where to go. Congratulations on todays victory and the bigger victory to come.
chas, suffolk says...
8:34pm Thu 27 Sep 07
If it is a covered walkway, it is likely to be more than 50%.
boris, west sussex says...
8:43pm Thu 27 Sep 07
With dresses all stubby and brown
And the other humans said in so many words
Get out of town
Get out, get out, get out of town
And he went with a quack and a waddle and a quack
In a flurry of eiderdown
That poor little ugly Erica
Went wandering far and near
But at every place they said to his face
Now get out, get out, get out of here
And he went with a quack and a waddle and a quack
And a very unhappy tear
All through the wintertime he hid himself away
Ashamed to show his face, afraid of what others might say
All through the winter in his lonely clump of wheat
Till a flock of Trannys spied him there and very soon agreed
YouÂ’re a very fine tranny indeed!
A tranny? Me a tranny? Ah, go on!
And he said yes, youÂ’re a tranny
Take a look at yourself in the lake and youÂ’ll see
And he looked, and he saw, and he said
I am a tranny! Wheeeeeeee!
IÂ’m not such an ugly Erica
No dresses all stubby and brown
For in fact these trannys in so many words said
The best in town, the best, the best
The best in town
Not a quack, not a quack, not a waddle or a quack
But a glide and a whistle and a snowy white back
And a head so noble and high
Say whoÂ’s an ugly Erica?
Not I!
Not I!
lets have it right, darwen says...
8:57pm Thu 27 Sep 07
cow-head, westhoughton says...
9:02pm Thu 27 Sep 07
King Eric, ......... says...
9:18pm Thu 27 Sep 07
It may disappoint you people but the fact this guy is the licensee of two bars in Bolton is neither here or there.I don't care how many pubs he is the licensee of, I don't care if smoking is not allowed in the other pubs (Chorley) he is involved in, I don't care about dirty little bars that (you're quite right) I don't frequent.
It's all irrelevant.
What will happen is that whoever is the licensee of these bars wil have to comply with the law, either now or after the court case.
What could happen, which won't be nice, is that eventually council enforcement officers, acting with police back up, will issue fines to individual smokers.
Again, I don't care. If you want to prove a point etc light up (in the dirty bar) refuse to pay etc.
After he goes to Court you will have to obey the law.
The one person I do care for is Tom Thumb's daughter. He tells us, true or false ? , that she was touched in an appropriate manner by a member of Nick Hogan's staff. How does the father react ? He applauds Nick Hogan to score points off an internet poster - me.
Sad.
We all have different priorities.
King Eric, ......... says...
9:21pm Thu 27 Sep 07
The one person I do care for is Tom Thumb's daughter. He tells us, true or false ? , that she was touched in an inappropriate manner by a member of Nick Hogan's staff.
boris, west sussex says...
9:51pm Thu 27 Sep 07
You never give up. Now your trying to accuse Nick Hogan of brutality.
King Eric, ......... says...
9:59pm Thu 27 Sep 07
A guy called Tom Thumb said that his daughter had been touched in an inappropriate manner by one of Hogan;s staff.
I do not believe that in anyway.
The girl must have been mistaken as any proper father would have taken action against the (alleged) perpretrator ?
I don't know, she may have had a few drinks and been mistaken...who knows ?
Still Tom Thumb can't have been that bothered about the incident :
"But following a letter from Mr Hogan's solicitor, the council have reversed their decision and he has now been reinstated as landlord."
In other words they were in the WRONG.
Brilliant news for democracy.
Not great news for little Ms Tom Thumb
Ray Willis, Birmingham says...
10:17pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Cat, manchester says...
10:22pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Yes Nick, you are. This is excellent news, well done.
JoePublic, Bolton says...
10:38pm Thu 27 Sep 07
JoePublic, Bolton says...
10:39pm Thu 27 Sep 07
JoePublic, Bolton says...
10:42pm Thu 27 Sep 07
melody shaw, bolton says...
10:54pm Thu 27 Sep 07
melody shaw, bolton says...
10:54pm Thu 27 Sep 07
mercy, bolton says...
11:22pm Thu 27 Sep 07
JoePublic wrote:did it take you 3 identical messages to get your point across?
I wonder if the guy who owns the building has changed the locks back.
mercy, bolton says...
11:25pm Thu 27 Sep 07
boris wrote:a bit tasteless - isnt it? Honesty you lot are like a pack of wolves - and judging from your address- youre not even local
There once was an ugly Erica With dresses all stubby and brown And the other humans said in so many words Get out of town Get out, get out, get out of town And he went with a quack and a waddle and a quack In a flurry of eiderdown That poor little ugly Erica Went wandering far and near But at every place they said to his face Now get out, get out, get out of here And he went with a quack and a waddle and a quack And a very unhappy tear All through the wintertime he hid himself away Ashamed to show his face, afraid of what others might say All through the winter in his lonely clump of wheat Till a flock of Trannys spied him there and very soon agreed YouÂ’re a very fine tranny indeed! A tranny? Me a tranny? Ah, go on! And he said yes, youÂ’re a tranny Take a look at yourself in the lake and youÂ’ll see And he looked, and he saw, and he said I am a tranny! Wheeeeeeee! IÂ’m not such an ugly Erica No dresses all stubby and brown For in fact these trannys in so many words said The best in town, the best, the best The best in town Not a quack, not a quack, not a waddle or a quack But a glide and a whistle and a snowy white back And a head so noble and high Say whoÂ’s an ugly Erica? Not I! Not I!
boris, west sussex says...
11:26pm Thu 27 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
11:28pm Thu 27 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
11:32pm Thu 27 Sep 07
Tasteless, try this
The one person I do care for is Tom Thumb's daughter. He tells us, true or false ? , that she was touched in an inappropriate manner by a member of Nick Hogan's staff
That is an Erica post, no longer talking about the smoking ban, but insinuating.
DaveA, London says...
12:05am Fri 28 Sep 07
What is tranny for scedenfreude?
Derek Launch, London says...
12:13am Fri 28 Sep 07
an alleyway is only built up on 2 sides so that argument does not comply with the law as it stands - an enclosed place is 4 sided - hence reason that smoking shelters only have 3 sides!!! Again know the law properly before even trying to use examples like that!!!
Errr ... No, you are wrong. It's quite funny that you are telling others to 'know the law' when you quite obviously don't.
Bus stops with three sides and a roof are 'enclosed spaces under the law. Check it out.
This law is idiotic already without idiots like you that don't understand it quoting it's idiotic rulings wrongly.
Go and read the law again & come back when you contribute with an educated response.
Good grief!
Derek Launch, London says...
12:16am Fri 28 Sep 07
What a disgusting and fascist council Bolton are.
boris, west sussex says...
12:18am Fri 28 Sep 07
Agree fully.
bigsteveO, oshkosh WI USA says...
12:20am Fri 28 Sep 07
GOOD LUCK Nick Stand up and fight to the bitter end.Bad pun I know......
Bill1, Lancs says...
12:29am Fri 28 Sep 07
Derek Launch wrote:Smoking shelters can't have 3 sides. The one where I work has had one panel removed so it only has 2 sides. But you were close.
Chris N Amos, Sharples said this
an alleyway is only built up on 2 sides so that argument does not comply with the law as it stands - an enclosed place is 4 sided - hence reason that smoking shelters only have 3 sides!!! Again know the law properly before even trying to use examples like that!!!
Errr ... No, you are wrong. It's quite funny that you are telling others to 'know the law' when you quite obviously don't.
Bus stops with three sides and a roof are 'enclosed spaces under the law. Check it out.
This law is idiotic already without idiots like you that don't understand it quoting it's idiotic rulings wrongly.
Go and read the law again & come back when you contribute with an educated response.
Good grief!
boris, west sussex says...
12:32am Fri 28 Sep 07
Tubby Scruff, En route via vodafone says...
1:00am Fri 28 Sep 07
It's Schadenfreude and according to the dictionary means :
'pleasure taken from someone else's misfortune'.
So I guess, you hit the nail on the head Dave describing Erica.
Who claims he will be at the Brierfield (?) Blackburn Road Bolton, Friday night with his new chum, Glamorous Glenn(ys).
Now then chaps, wouldn't it be very nice to have a little get together there and have some fun with the
amante raro y fijar los perros en la poca mierda. Podemos entonces alimentar qué se deja a los cerdos.
King Eric, I repeat says...
6:28am Fri 28 Sep 07
He's got the right to the licence as before, he hasn't got the right to flout the smoking ban.
Simple really.
King Eric, The Swan's Song says...
6:32am Fri 28 Sep 07
A mother duck hatches her eggs and, while most of her ducklings are normal, one is gray, too large, and too clumsy to fit in among the others. Though she tries to accept him, the entire barnyard realizes that he simply does not belong and after a period of harassment he leaves to fend for himself. He wanders for the entire summer and fall, for no one will take him in, and he nearly freezes to death in an icy pond. Though he is rescued by a human, he cannot live in captivity, and he goes back to the wild.
By the end of winter he is miraculously still alive. He comes to a pond in a park or garden, where beautiful white swans are swimming. He is drawn to their beauty, though he has no reason to think that they will treat him better than anyone else has. Still, he thinks, even if they kill him, he must approach them. To his surprise, the beautiful creatures welcome and accept him; gazing at his reflection, he sees that he too is a swan. The children declare that he is the most beautiful swan of them all, yet he is not proud, for a good heart is never proud. Because of all that he suffered he now appreciates his happiness so much more.
mannyrd58, horwich says...
7:27am Fri 28 Sep 07
King Eric, ......... says...
7:34am Fri 28 Sep 07
One, Hogan is the licensee of these two bars.
Two, he is breaking the law by allowing smoking in them.
The first is irrelevant to the second. There will be two separate legal battles. Nobody cares about the first unless he is ousted.
The second is the major battle for Hogan and his supporters.
A couple of rough pubs with assorted people smoking and bouncers on the door is nothing in the great scheme of things.
The ban is in and will be enforced in the immediate future.
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
8:14am Fri 28 Sep 07
Why do you once again attempt to hijack this thread with your anti smoking drivel ?
I'll do it in big letters for you.
The story and thread in case you cant quite comprehend, is about Nick Hogan being given his license back after the victimisation and illegal action of Bolton Council.
King Eric, Judge Dredd says...
8:26am Fri 28 Sep 07
That is a dispute about licences.
The smoking issue is separate.
And will be judged in another Court.
And if you keep persisting with the fallacy that I/we are anti-smoking you will continue to be wrong.
Smoke where you want, just not in a pub or a restaurant.
Simple.
Tubby Scruff, En route via vodafone says...
8:33am Fri 28 Sep 07
What is all this I/WE, who is I/WE.
King Eric, ......... says...
8:37am Fri 28 Sep 07
We = the majority of the UK who support the smoking ban in pubs.
Simple enough for you ?
Tubby Scruff, En route via vodafone says...
8:42am Fri 28 Sep 07
cow-head, westhoughton says...
8:55am Fri 28 Sep 07
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
9:03am Fri 28 Sep 07
He'll go quiet now as he normally does, then when his medication kicks in, will pop up in the same manner Little Weed did on Andy Pandy.
King Eric, ......... says...
9:11am Fri 28 Sep 07
Good to see one of you knows about nursery TV though.
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
9:13am Fri 28 Sep 07
A trillion apologies,Erica, et al.
I've just been informed by one of the fillys from the stables, it was The Flowerpot Men !
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
9:16am Fri 28 Sep 07
Deary me, Calpol must be strong stuff !
King Eric, ......... says...
9:21am Fri 28 Sep 07
One, Hogan is the licensee of these two bars.
Two, he is breaking the law by allowing smoking in them.
The first is irrelevant to the second. There will be two separate legal battles. Nobody cares about the first unless he is ousted.
The second is the major battle for Hogan and his supporters.
A couple of rough pubs with assorted people smoking and bouncers on the door is nothing in the great scheme of things.
The ban is in and will be enforced in the immediate future.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
9:31am Fri 28 Sep 07
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:31am Fri 28 Sep 07
King Eric wrote:Even when you are wrong you think you are right.
No it was about the owner of the property seeking a change of licensee because he thought the licensee was breaking the terms of his licence .
That is a dispute about licences.
The smoking issue is separate.
And will be judged in another Court.
And if you keep persisting with the fallacy that I/we are anti-smoking you will continue to be wrong.
Smoke where you want, just not in a pub or a restaurant.
Simple.
Maybe you should change your name to Gunga Din.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
9:39am Fri 28 Sep 07
cow-head wrote:Excellent point.
Erica, If a couple of rough pubs with assorted people smoking is irrelevant to you why are you making such a fuss about it? The draconian ban is in and will probably be enforced fairly soon, but that doesn't mean that we should all lie down and accept it.
Its so important he flies of the handle at any mention.
Tubby Scruff, In the stables says...
9:41am Fri 28 Sep 07
The story and consequent thread for comments is about, once again for you :
Nick Hogan being given his license back after the victimisation and illegal action of Bolton Council.
Little One, it will do you no favours to continue, attempting to goad people into your little obsession.
Your little band of Anti Smoking Mafia are like many other emancipated group. They work to achieve equality (if this the right term), then spoil it by pressing for inequality in their favour.
Now, I don't really expect you, Little One to understand such big words or even the meaning behind the paragraph and so, I'll put in simple terms for you.
You give the Anti Smoking Mafia an inch, they'll want a mile. You ban smoking in pubs and public places, it wont be enough, they'll want more and more and more again.
This is what happens when you have a State that will not reason, but appeases.
I said to you the other day (still waiting for a reply by the way.)
It cant be right as it is creating a Social Underclass, akin to the very people you support i.e. Gay's, Lesbians, black folks, prostitutes and others. Yet, your happy for smokers to be classed the same ?
There should be a limited ban, yes of course. But more than anything, it should be about choice, smoking/non smoking, Landlords Choice, Your chioce.
Now be a good boy Little One, don't come back to me with I don't smoke, where's my choice crap, as I simply refer you to the paragraphs above.
joe public, lincoln says...
9:46am Fri 28 Sep 07
'We= the majority of the UK who support the smoking ban in pubs.'
I'm not categorically disputing this claim, but could you provide the source for this ?
Also, does any one know if a poll was taken amongst pub regulars? Since the ban, whenever the topic has arisen in or out the pubs I've used, I get the impression that most non-smoking drinkers don't really have strong opinions either way, although there are some who abhor the ban because they are far sighted enough to recognise its implications.
Some of the smokers actually welcome it because they want to quit. I've also encountered the 'odd' smoker who verges on being totally anti. They say that all smokers must consider the rights of others. I'm not sure where these people stood before the ban (certainly not outside).
The point is, of course, that I suspect that the majority of the UK don't give a monkey's.
If there is one thing that we're good at, its apathy...
Even when we do bother -a lot of people did get worked up about the war in Iraq and the hunting with dogs ban. Tens of 1000's descended on London and other cities in protest. Fat lot of good that did. And don't forget, they were organised (can't imagine smokers mobilising like that).
Is this really a democracy?
One more thing. why can't smokers have a well-ventilated/air filtered smoking room?
No one seems to be able to answer this. After all, how can it affect those who don't like tobacco smoke? Mercy wouldn't need to do her ablutions in the middle of the night, others wouldn't suffer an allergic response. This system has been in place for years in most pubs anyway. There are always (often totally)separate non smoking areas for diners. 99% of people respected this.
What is the problem?
Is it because anti- smokers are frightened that they might be stuck in the smoke free zone by themselves?
This actually happened to me. Someone told me that he was looking forward to the ban for the usual reasons (sore eyes, smelly hair etc etc etc). But He was also opposed to a separate smoking area because 'its not fair - all my mates will be in there smoking without me'. Who's the most selfish?
He now has to follow them outside.....sorted
King Eric, ......... says...
10:02am Fri 28 Sep 07
The story and consequent thread for comments is about, once again for you :
Nick Hogan being given his license back after the victimisation and illegal action of Bolton Council.
How can anyone be so wrong with a simple news story ?
As is clear from the article, the owner of the building instigated the action. He applied to Bolton MBC for a change of licence. Given the information they were given (from an inside source) they had no choice but to change the licence. When Hogan challenged that decision he was granted the licence.
Simple.
As for Bolton MBC victimising Hogan, you are wrong again. They are carrying out their statutory duties in enforcing the smoking legislation.
What makes me laugh is that the people who call for stiffer penalties for law breakers, and are the first to complain when they are the victims of crime are supporting a law breaker.
Police and Court resources, which are already over stretched, have to waste their time and our money in prosecuting a pub landlord.
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
10:08am Fri 28 Sep 07
Excellent to see once again, you cant maintain your concentration long enough without, going off on tangents irrelevant to the story but leaning to your obsessions.
Again Little One : The story is not about Hogans ALLEGED law breaking.
Even you, cant be so stupid ?
boris, west sussex says...
10:10am Fri 28 Sep 07
Police and Court resources, which are already over stretched, have to waste their time and our money in prosecuting a pub landlord.
Well that's proof, it's a mad law. Authorities have got more important things to do, so you agree.
King Eric, ......... says...
10:21am Fri 28 Sep 07
* Court action will take place as we know in regard to him flouting the law
* Licences issues are ongoing
* He is of course facing an assault charge
* Economic action will happen (can't say more as it will defeat the action ;-)) )
All this means that his days
as a law breaker are numbered.
OK off for a beer in the sun.
Ciao.
boris, west sussex says...
10:26am Fri 28 Sep 07
cow-head, westhoughton says...
10:28am Fri 28 Sep 07
King Eric, ......... says...
10:36am Fri 28 Sep 07
Posted by: boris, west sussex on 10:26am today
I think Erica is trying to accuse Nick of cooking the books. Erica you will stop at nothing.
Absolutely not.
so if you are prepared to drink Beer in a smoking bar abroad, wht won't you do this in Bolton?
Because it is against the law.
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
10:39am Fri 28 Sep 07
The truth is, it's a cop out, he cant answer the questions or win his "argument".
IF, he is in places far away, which I doubt very much, he's proved himself a lying toerag by only yesterday, claiming he will be at the Brierfield with his new chum Gynnis.
boris, west sussex says...
10:40am Fri 28 Sep 07
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
10:45am Fri 28 Sep 07
It's conjecture and innuendo.
If he was a Lawyer, he would have been struck off long ago and jailed for perverting the course of justice.
chas, suffolk says...
10:47am Fri 28 Sep 07
10.36. He back on.
No doubt he's drinking wine at home again!
Does he know that drinking wine can be harmful to his health.
boris, west sussex says...
10:51am Fri 28 Sep 07
LL, Bolton says...
10:59am Fri 28 Sep 07
I donÂ’t normally agree with any of King EricÂ’s posts, but unfortunately in this instance I think heÂ’s spot on. Once Hogan is convicted of flouting smoking laws then heÂ’ll lose the license, anyone who thinks otherwise has blinkers on. All I can suggest is keep puffing in the Swan while you can I donÂ’t think it will lastÂ…Â…..
boris, west sussex says...
11:05am Fri 28 Sep 07
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
11:06am Fri 28 Sep 07
Should that happen, the owner would be obliged to compensate Hogan.
And the word is if convicted. We don't know what's round the corner so shouldn't pre judge.
kieanders, bolton says...
11:09am Fri 28 Sep 07
boris wrote:how can you say "so-called" flouting of the ban?
Hogan obviously doesn't think he will be convicted. His legal team worked swiftly on this incident, one would assume they have given him legal advice about, the so called flouting of the ban. He has wanted Court action, interesting.
chas, suffolk says...
11:16am Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
11:22am Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
11:30am Fri 28 Sep 07
Gloria, Bolton says...
11:37am Fri 28 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
11:40am Fri 28 Sep 07
The truth is there is a lot of money to be made out of smoking. Not just from the tobacco companies.
boris, west sussex says...
11:42am Fri 28 Sep 07
Not sure about others, only know that our one was set in the recreation ground field. The field itself measures something like, 200/200 metres.
boris, west sussex says...
12:02pm Fri 28 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
12:08pm Fri 28 Sep 07
The sun causes cancer.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
1:01pm Fri 28 Sep 07
cow-head, westhoughton says...
1:28pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Post subject: Re: Nick Hogan - BORING
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
Gloria,
Yes Gloria - COMPLETELY bored with it - but not neccesarily the story of the pub / smoking ban / licences etc. I'm bored with the pain in the Rse "pro smoking" lobbyists from the south hijacking the comments to paste their piece in. Also, if you look at the latest thread it has just become a personal attack against King Eric and has actually sod all to do with the real story anymore - now that is boring!!!
(P.s. - before you southern jessies start - BRUSSELS, I know, is in Belgium, as I am Monday to Friday, but I'm Bolton born and bred, BWFC supporter, live there, pay my taxes there and bring my children up there - and these comments aren't aimed at the ex boltonians now living down there, its aimed at the gobsh*t*s who persistently post on the stories of Sulk Hogan when they probably don't even know where Bolton is, let alone Bradshawgate!!).
cow-head, westhoughton says...
1:31pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
1:44pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
1:51pm Fri 28 Sep 07
He has tried on many occasions to demean people that post, thinking he is above their intellect, Erica you are not sunshine. Now don't suck your thumb for too long, it will wear away.
chas, suffolk says...
1:57pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Must not loiter.
Must not obstruct highway.
Must not litter (fag butts).
Must not obstruct entrances and fire exits.
Must not cause noise outside.
Must not congregate in large crowds.
Must not drink outside.
The news today now says must not smoke while driving.
Soon must not breath.
Rich, Bolton says...
2:02pm Fri 28 Sep 07
If anyone else is in agreement, do the same. I think the address is The Swan, 2-4, Churchgate, Bolton Lancs. Sometimes words alone are not enough.
boris, west sussex says...
2:04pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Now that's not nice is it. 4 kids old bean, so a vigorous jessie.
boris, west sussex says...
2:06pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Any legal person with an ounce of salt would have warned their client long ago. One can only assume, the legal team feel they have a case.
chas, suffolk says...
2:13pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Hamish Howitt in Blackpool (another 'rebel') is making a fortune out of T-shirts etc. I hope Nick is doing the same.
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
2:26pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Once this matter goes to europe is where the crux of the matter lies. This law, effectively removes the rights of some 30% of the population, and as such, flies in the face of the modus operandi of the European Court of Human Rights.
This court, will therefore have no option but to rule the law "illegal", or words to that effect.
Of course, those Govts in Europe who realise this have introduced only partial bans.
We affectionately term some of these countries "Degos", "Wops" and "Spics" etc, but, intelligence wise, they are streets ahead of our Govt. I am ashamed !
boris, west sussex says...
2:29pm Fri 28 Sep 07
You are correct, don't forget though, the Spanish throw goats off towers, compliments of Erica.
Gloria, Bolton says...
2:34pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris wrote:Boris, I am not trying to fall out with you here, we have come to an understanding on other threads, however, I would point out that Eric (a) is not the only one who reduces him / herself to abusing others when they are losing, or even not taking part in, and argument.
Erica should learn something very important, if you are going to dish it out, you must be able to take it.
He has tried on many occasions to demean people that post, thinking he is above their intellect, Erica you are not sunshine. Now don't suck your thumb for too long, it will wear away.
Many people are guilty of that in here
boris, west sussex says...
2:41pm Fri 28 Sep 07
If you look back on many of Ericas posts you will see terms like, ranchpot, he uses this everytime someone makes a point he doesn't agree with.
Now if a non smoker asked me my opinion it would be this.
Should the majority of workplaces be smoke free..yes
Should non smokers be able to wine and dine in smoke free enviroments...yes
SHOULD THERE BE SOME PUBS, OF THE LANDLORDS CHOOSING, WHERE SMOKERS CAN GO...YES.
Now Erica wants nothing short of humiliation for smokers, if there were some smokers pubs, it would not effect his life, so he is being malicious .
chas, suffolk says...
2:41pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Could mean -
Overturn Ban Europe.
Obstinate Bolton Eric.
Any thoughts?
Tubby Scruff, Alderley Edge says...
2:42pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Before we see this in Europe, don't be too surprised to see Brown "undo" the ban and bring it in line with the rest of Europe.
Joe Publics post earlier was a very good way of telling it how it is.
The anti smokers, have had their inch and I see only today, it's not enough for them, they want it all. For the good of me, you ?
No,by pressing for inequalities in their favour.
brusselsprout, Europe says...
2:46pm Fri 28 Sep 07
You really are a kn*b!
I don't feel the need to hide behind someone elses identity. I am a smoker ( not non smoker like Eric), I support BWFC (not Man Utd like Eric), but I think that a lot of the time Eric talks sense. Far more than you and these morons from Suffolk and west sussex who are just on here promoting their anti establishment bullsh1t and thick, inbred, lobotomy candidates like yourself decide to follow them.
I have watched the 'debates' between you and Eric - he always has the last laugh. I personally think its cruel entering into a battle of wits against you when you are unarmed but so be it.
You've probably never been to westhoughton - the name is obviously a reference to your bovine appearance and intellect.
Anyway, having slagged you off I'm off to do something worthwhile (Like having a fag - Outdoors!!!) having previously commented how mind numbingly boring you lot on this thread are : )
boris, west sussex says...
2:50pm Fri 28 Sep 07
I have watched the 'debates' between you and Eric - he always has the last laugh.
Rubbish
Where's Erica now then, hiding in the corner.
When someone tries to debate, as Erica does, with A NO COMPROMISE MENTALITY, he will loose every time.
Gloria, Bolton says...
2:55pm Fri 28 Sep 07
I was not debating the relative merits of Eric (a)....merely pointing out that he is not the only one......Cows Head does it on many, many occassions
Jethro Tull, Bolton says...
2:56pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Thank God there are still some of us who understand the British sense of fairplay !
cow-head, westhoughton says...
2:56pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
2:59pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Agreed.
Jobsworthsprout.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
2:59pm Fri 28 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
3:00pm Fri 28 Sep 07
If you have incorporated me into your name calling, go ahead. It has no effect on me.
Name calling is very childish. It's a long time since I went went to school, but I still remember a saying starting 'sticks and stone....
Gloria, Bolton says...
3:02pm Fri 28 Sep 07
cow-head wrote:And so, Boris, I rest my case.
Gloria, Please shut your face and give your ar*e a chance.
boris, west sussex says...
3:02pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Could I please correct you, it's jobsworthsprout.
boris, west sussex says...
3:04pm Fri 28 Sep 07
I respect cow-heads comments, it would be easy for cow-head to jump on the jobsworth bandwagon, but cow-head provides excellent points, as a NON SMOKER.
Gloria, Bolton says...
3:06pm Fri 28 Sep 07
...so its okay for him but not for anyone else????
chas, suffolk says...
3:06pm Fri 28 Sep 07
If we are that boring why do you read the comments on this site? I'm not under the thumb, I'm allowed to smoke INDOORS.
boris, west sussex says...
3:09pm Fri 28 Sep 07
If you read jobsworthsprouts comments, they are comments of a disgruntled mummies boy, they attack us, southern jessies etc Erica with his ranchpot comments, cow-head doesn't start, only retaliates.
Gloria, Bolton says...
3:10pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Why did he feel the need to post what he did to me????
cow-head, westhoughton says...
3:11pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Gloria, Bolton says...
3:24pm Fri 28 Sep 07
hatemanu, bolton says...
3:35pm Fri 28 Sep 07
cow-head, westhoughton says...
3:37pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Gloria, Bolton says...
3:39pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
3:43pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Here is an example of an extremist
posted by Katmandu
The thug will be in prison soon or bankrupt.Then we will see who as the last laugh . Great example some of you say . Remember that, if you get beat up doing your jobs .yes such a great man
So, I now say, Katmandu, you are a silly little prat.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
3:46pm Fri 28 Sep 07
cow-head, westhoughton says...
3:48pm Fri 28 Sep 07
King Eric, ......... says...
3:53pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Stopped for a few beers, people smoking outside, very pleasant.
Now, what have I missed ?
King Eric, I'm free says...
3:55pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Sounds like a gay Welsh dream....
chas, suffolk says...
3:55pm Fri 28 Sep 07
joe public, lincoln says...
3:57pm Fri 28 Sep 07
I asked some very simple questions, in a civil manner, and without resorting to the kind of bitchiness that defines this discussion group (I regret resorting to this tactic on earlier posts).
I'll try again:
1)You say ' We= the majority of the UK who support the smoking ban in pubs.'
Could you provide the source for this?
And more significantly:
2)What's your problem with a separate well ventilated/filtered smoking area, where non-smokers won't be affected by secondary smoke?
You keep reiterating that you/we(?) are not anti-smoking and that you have friends who smoke. Given this, you also intimate that you are quite happy to see them humiliated on the street so that you can exercise your rights.
Question 2 is open to all supporters of the ban.
Any chance of a sensible response?
From anyone?
King Eric, ......... says...
4:00pm Fri 28 Sep 07
joe public, lincoln says...
4:07pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
4:07pm Fri 28 Sep 07
kieanders, bolton says...
4:09pm Fri 28 Sep 07
joe public wrote:i don't honestly think i would have a problem with totally seperate and weel ventilated rooms for smokers, if those rooms didn't need/have to be accessed by staff or non smokers, ie to get to the bar/toilets etc. however, i do have a problem with people flouting the law as it stands. if the law was, smokers must use seperate rooms, and not inflict smoke on people, then i would support that.
Eric I asked some very simple questions, in a civil manner, and without resorting to the kind of bitchiness that defines this discussion group (I regret resorting to this tactic on earlier posts). I'll try again: 1)You say ' We= the majority of the UK who support the smoking ban in pubs.' Could you provide the source for this? And more significantly: 2)What's your problem with a separate well ventilated/filtered smoking area, where non-smokers won't be affected by secondary smoke? You keep reiterating that you/we(?) are not anti-smoking and that you have friends who smoke. Given this, you also intimate that you are quite happy to see them humiliated on the street so that you can exercise your rights. Question 2 is open to all supporters of the ban. Any chance of a sensible response? From anyone?
what nick hogan is doing, along with other landlords who do nothing to prevent smoking, is jeopardising the businesses of others by attempting to take their trade by breaking the law!
Eric makes a lot of sense, when people react to his comments, they obviously do so through the red mist, as the seem to think he has said things he hasn't.
I also don't think smokers should be humiliated on the streets, and would support smokers in the abolishment of de bagging them, whipping and tortuting them in public. but give them a shelter, and let them smoke there, humiliation isn't what you think it is.
i am not anti smoking! i am pro choice. you choose to smoke, do it outside.
i choose to take a crap, i do it outside, sorry in the loo.
quid pro quo!
Merlin, Cornwall says...
4:11pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Well I have done this, only last friday night.
My local pub was full of smokers and non smokers albiet most people were outside in our landlords covered area, we asked everyone if they agreed with the TOTAL ban or should there be seperate controlled areas within the pub itself ( the restaurant would remain totally smoke free)
The results were a 95% agreement that the TOTAL smoking ban was over the top and breaking down social interaction and that there should be areas within the pub for smokers and non smokers ( un staffed if necessary)
Over the past months I have noticed a general sway towards the partial ban from non smokers who now feel they are being alienated because the pub is empty! I appears to be a no win situation for the smokers and non smokers, afterall we are the same people that mixed with each other on 30th June aren't we?
I'm not going to get into bitchy slanging matches with anyone, but totally pledge my support to Mr Hogan or anyone else who is brave enough to stand his/her ground for common sense.
boris, west sussex says...
4:18pm Fri 28 Sep 07
The reason you are wrong about Erica is this, he has no room for compromise. To quote one of his comments on an earkier thread, "if you smoke around children, you are child murderers".
Now kieanders, please, how can one have a rational debate, with mad comments like that.
joe public, lincoln says...
4:20pm Fri 28 Sep 07
you may well be decent, law abiding and considerate to others. You are certainly witty, appear to have intelligence.
Frankly, your talents are wasted batting for the puritans. Why don't you join us... you don't have to be a smoker to oppose this silly ban(I'm not). You don't even have to break the law - when was the last time you saw someone smoking in a British pub?
chas, suffolk says...
4:21pm Fri 28 Sep 07
You say you agree to smoking in well ventilated rooms and agree with freedom of chose, then say smokers should smoke outside. Make up your mind.
kieanders, bolton says...
4:22pm Fri 28 Sep 07
i find it hard to have a serious debate with people who continuously call some one the feminine equivalent of their actual name because they don't agree with them. its like a school yard. sorry, but if you want to be taken seriously, don't call names! ( or at least make it funny)
boris, west sussex says...
4:22pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Erica is a blod.y puritan.
boris, west sussex says...
4:24pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Ranchpot, is mature is it???
kieanders, bolton says...
4:25pm Fri 28 Sep 07
chas wrote:i thought my post was well structured. sorry you didn't understand.
Kieanders You say you agree to smoking in well ventilated rooms and agree with freedom of chose, then say smokers should smoke outside. Make up your mind.
the law states smokers should smoke outside, so they should. if the law stated the should have a seperate room, then i would support that. before the ban, smokers could smoke anywhere, i didn't support it, but i chose not to frequent overly smokey establishments.
that clearer?
boris, west sussex says...
4:26pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
4:27pm Fri 28 Sep 07
In other words, you are a JOBSWORTH.
kieanders, bolton says...
4:29pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris wrote:i don't think its particularly mature, but if its taken in the context its meant, (and i think he makes it pretty obvious) it is funny, and fairly tongue in cheek. (as are all erics witty observations and insults) when people are calling eric erica (not very original it has to be said) it is usually meant with malice. that is far less mature, and rather futile!
kieanders Ranchpot, is mature is it???
boris, west sussex says...
4:31pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Do you service Erica, regularly.
chas, suffolk says...
4:34pm Fri 28 Sep 07
You say you disagreed with smoking in pubs before the ban, but agree with the ban on smoking now.
You have made it very clear. You are an anti-smoker.
kieanders, bolton says...
4:34pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris wrote:possibly. i like to think i am pretty open minded, and can base an argument around the facts i have seen/read and my own beleifs. i don't call names, i call facts. if you wanted a slanging match, i could oblige, but as i finish work in 6 minutes and 32 seconds,(being a jobsworth i couldn't possibly stay longer than my allotted hours) i probably won't have time.
kieanders In other words, you are a JOBSWORTH.
boris, west sussex says...
4:35pm Fri 28 Sep 07
cow-head, westhoughton says...
4:37pm Fri 28 Sep 07
kieanders, bolton says...
4:38pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris wrote:if i was that way inclined, i would be less likely to catch something from eric than you, bertha! get a grip son, keep it in context!
kieanders Do you service Erica, regularly.
boris, west sussex says...
4:39pm Fri 28 Sep 07
joe public, lincoln says...
4:39pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Would you support this compromise - a choice between totally smoking and totally smoke free pubs?
chas, suffolk says...
4:40pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
4:41pm Fri 28 Sep 07
kieanders, bolton says...
4:41pm Fri 28 Sep 07
seems to me, if i can't make someone agree with me, i'll call them names!
boris, west sussex says...
4:43pm Fri 28 Sep 07
joe public, lincoln says...
4:43pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
4:44pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Time and a half now, you naughty little conman.
kieanders, bolton says...
4:48pm Fri 28 Sep 07
joe public wrote:before the ban, i probably would have said no, as most publicans would have panicked and chose to be a smoking pub. but now, or maybe in a few months, if pubs could apply to be smoking premises, i wouldn't oppose it. each to their own. there would have to be some kind of monitoring though, to ensure the amount of pubs applying wasn't too big of a percentage, and some kind of compromise on staff recruitment.
Kienders Would you support this compromise - a choice between totally smoking and totally smoke free pubs?
however, as a non smoker, (not anti smoker) with a largely non smoking group of friends, i am happy with the ban, and would be totally unhappy if the abn was totally reveresed.
thanks for the structured and appropriate question joe. makes a change on here!
chas, suffolk says...
4:49pm Fri 28 Sep 07
When you leave work wear your face mask to protect yourself from all those exhaust fumes.
I'm thinking of your health.
kieanders, bolton says...
4:51pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris wrote:haha, maybe you are right, but i am actually taking toil for the last half an hour, and was using the 'puter to look for a venue for my daughters birthday. great deductions though boys, top notch.
kieanders Time and a half now, you naughty little conman.
see ya joe and other sensible posters. gotta go now.
boris, west sussex says...
4:52pm Fri 28 Sep 07
You keep missing the point, if you are part of the majority (75% non smokers) why would too many pubs become smoking. You make no sense.
kieanders, bolton says...
4:55pm Fri 28 Sep 07
chas wrote:one last post before i go. i will try my best to avoid the car and factory fumes, the dog mess in the streets, the litter on the ground, the poisonous insects the harmful suns rays and all the nasty little blighters that might try to mug me, while i venture to the pub for a fairly risk free pint in a fresh atmosphere!
kieander When you leave work wear your face mask to protect yourself from all those exhaust fumes. I'm thinking of your health.
thanks for your concern, duly noted!
RAbbit Rabbit Rabbit! (sorry)
boris, west sussex says...
4:58pm Fri 28 Sep 07
In the second year of his 5 year, I want to be Erica apprentership.
chas, suffolk says...
5:00pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Kieanders has said that she would not object to some pubs being smoking. She knows that if given the chose ALL pubs would allow smoking. She also said that she loves this ban and that she is not ant-smoking. Somehow I don't believe her.
boris, west sussex says...
5:02pm Fri 28 Sep 07
kieanders is a she??
chas, suffolk says...
5:03pm Fri 28 Sep 07
joe public, lincoln says...
5:04pm Fri 28 Sep 07
At least Kiender would accept a compromise, as we suspect would 95% of drinkers (backed by Merlin's poll)
I'd be happy with 25% smoking venues..less even...don't lets get greedy
chas, suffolk says...
5:06pm Fri 28 Sep 07
I don't know. It's the impression I got. If it's a he I will apologise myself. Perhaps he/she will let us know.
boris, west sussex says...
5:10pm Fri 28 Sep 07
You misunderstand me. If 75% of the popualtion don't smoke, why would kiender worry about there being too many smoking pubs. This makes no sense, surely the landlords would want to cater for the 75%, so what is kiender worried about, or is it, the non smokers spend sod all.
chas, suffolk says...
5:17pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Most non-smokers don't go to pubs. They are so tight they buy their drinks from supermarkets. That's why pubs are empty inside.
Ask Eric.
boris, west sussex says...
5:30pm Fri 28 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
5:36pm Fri 28 Sep 07
hatemanu, bolton says...
5:57pm Fri 28 Sep 07
cow-head, westhoughton says...
6:02pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
6:15pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Another state poodle.
chas, suffolk says...
6:15pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
6:20pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Gordon Brown is looking for a shoe shiner, you can do it while he sipps tea with Maggie.
boris, west sussex says...
6:25pm Fri 28 Sep 07
King Eric, ......... says...
6:28pm Fri 28 Sep 07
what have I missed ?
Let me guess, I'm now 7 different people, Boris is insulting people who disagree with him, the intellectual giant that is Cowpoke is saying 'get a life tosser', and someone else is posting statistics from the 1984 Fiji Journal on Tobacco.
Marvellous.
chas, suffolk says...
6:31pm Fri 28 Sep 07
There's me thinking you had been to one of your locals.
I knew I must be wrong.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
6:35pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
6:42pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Where do you think Erica is??
boris, west sussex says...
6:43pm Fri 28 Sep 07
apart from up someones a..e
King Eric, :-))))))))))))))))))
))))))))))))))))) says...
6:52pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Erica, I am so glad that you took your lap top on holiday with you because life wouldn't be the same if I couldn't insult you. You must lead a very miserable existence.
Working leave...which means I get to sit in the sun, do some work, have a beer and comment upon the usual inanities.
boris, west sussex says...
7:07pm Fri 28 Sep 07
We are still waiting
Erica
Joe public post
I asked some very simple questions, in a civil manner, and without resorting to the kind of bitchiness that defines this discussion group (I regret resorting to this tactic on earlier posts).
I'll try again:
1)You say ' We= the majority of the UK who support the smoking ban in pubs.'
Could you provide the source for this?
And more significantly:
2)What's your problem with a separate well ventilated/filtered smoking area, where non-smokers won't be affected by secondary smoke?
You keep reiterating that you/we(?) are not anti-smoking and that you have friends who smoke. Given this, you also intimate that you are quite happy to see them humiliated on the street so that you can exercise your rights.
Question 2 is open to all supporters of the ban.
Any chance of a sensible response?
From anyone?
Now see if you can answer.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
7:24pm Fri 28 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
7:26pm Fri 28 Sep 07
King Eric, ......... says...
7:35pm Fri 28 Sep 07
2) Impossible to work in the majority of pubs and restaurants, and would not be cost effective, lead to 'crossover' issues - smoke - non smoke area
2) of course a smoking area is available to smokers -outside of the pub & restaurant
King Eric, ......... says...
7:45pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Boris read this, I'm starting to have doubts about the smoking ban, maybe you ere right all along ?
A One World Government?
During the heady days of the Persian Gulf War, President George Bush dusted off an ancient phrase that immediately set teeth on edge - that is, the grinding teeth of conspiracy trackers.
"I hope history will record that the Gulf Crisis was the crucible of the new world order," Bush intoned in the wake of his greatest triumph, the American-led victory against Iraq. New World Order. The phrase had tripped from the president's lips at least half a dozen other times before and after American smart bombs had transformed the former "wimp" into a short-term war hero.
Of course, the real meaning of the term - bandied about for decades by a phalanx of elite bankers and industrialists - couldn't have been clearer to ultra-right-wingers of the John Birch Society ilk. Simply put, New World Order was code for "one-world government," a megalomaniacal communist plot to enslave the planet. In the words of the late Gay Allen, the prolific Birch Society author, "Communism is an arm of a bigger conspiracy to control the world by power-mad billionaires." Bush, the ultimate establishment insider, was clearly an agent of these crypto-capitalist/co
mmunist forces - as had been every sell-out president since FDR.
Lest we dismiss such concerns as the ranting of survivalist kooks, it's important to note that the New World Order is an equal opportunity conspiracy theory. Left-wingers were just as exercised by Bush's words, although progressives tended to see the preppy president more as a champion of capitalism run amok than as a creeping commie.
In fact, right-wing or left, suspicions about the New World Order are actually quite rational. The champions of the "NWO" are indeed a cadre of powerful industrialists, bankers, academics, and politicians who for three quarters of a century have been a gray eminence behind the governance of Britain and America. More to the point, perhaps, they are the governors of the Western world. Call them what you will, they are they "Establishment." Through vastly influential organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, these elites formulate tomorrow's public policy today and staff the ship of state with their own.
If this network is something less than the Red devil depicted in many a right-wing conspiracy theory, it is nonetheless a kind of big business cabal that helps the elite of the private sector, if not "rule the world," then at least run it like a business.
The self-appointed historian of this power brokerage was Georgetown University professor Carroll Quigley, a distinguished scholar whom right-wingers regard as a smoking gun personified. In his massive history of the modern era, Tragedy and Hope, the late Professor Quigley wrote that there "does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way that the radical Right believes the Communists act."
Quigley admitted that he "had been close" to this "semisecret organization" of international manipulators - indeed, admired its goals - and had been allowed to examine its "papers and secret records."
According to Quigley, the network's benevolent aim is "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole" - thereby assuring peace and prosperity and, of course, profit.
This network grew out of secret political societies hatched by diamond baron/stealth fanatic Cecil Rhodes (Rhodesia, Rhodes scholarships) and a clutch of bleeding-hear imperialists resolved to prevent the sun from setting on the British Empire. By 1908, Rhodes was dead, but his dream and vast wealth lived on to sire the furtive Round Table Groups.
During the early part of this century, the aristocratic Round Tablers - who set up franchises in South Africa, Australia, the United States, and Canada - yearned to "civilize" native subjects of the British dominion. If properly instilled with liberal Oxford values and presumable an appreciation of cricket, even the most "backward" races could lean to be contented, perhaps "autonomous," citizens of empire. A connected dream was to yoke all of the English-speaking nations (America included) into a confederation of Atlantic states, with the capital in Washington, D.C.! (To Birchers' ears this is an early echo of the dread "one-world government.") If Their grander schemes flopped rather obliquely, the Round Tablers achieved a failure of spectacular proportions when they led the drive to appease Hitler.
In America, the Rhodes groups and J. P. Morgan banking interests incorporated the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in 1921 as a Round Table "front." According to Quigley, CFR and other Round Table cutouts became "a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy" in both countries. This is the famous "Eastern Establishment" that continues to hold sway over the U.S. government, academia, Wall Street, and major American media outlets, including the New York Times and Washington Post.
The American arm of the network flourished under the patronage of billionaire benefactors, including the Morgan and Carnegie interests - and of course the ubiquitous Rockefeller family.
Ah, the Rockefellers! Dons of the financial underworld! Godfathers of the commie/capitalist internationale! That, anyway, is what many a right-wing conspiracist believes. In Bircher fulminations, the four R's - Rhodes, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Reds - are demons that turbocharge the dry facts or Professor Quigley.
The radical-right theories were never synthesized more impressively than in Gary Allen's 1971 call to arms, None Dare Call It Conspiracy. Mergiing nativist strains of anticommunism, antielitism, and "gold standard" conservatism, Allen argues that the Rockefeller-CFR-Esta
blishment cabal - dubbed the "Insiders" - had toiled for decades to "abolish the United States" and establish an "all powerful world socialist super-state."
Allen wasn't suggesting that supercapitalists like the Rockefellers were sincere Marxists, but rather that they used socialism "as the baitÂ… the excuse to establish the dictatorship." According to Allen, the Rockefellers, the British Rothschild clan, and their carious corporate agents had not only financed Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution, but David Rockefeller may have been the "paymaster" who later fired his employee, Soviet premier Krushchev! How did "the Rockefeller Foreign Office" keep unruly Moscow in line? Allen muses that the Insiders might have used "SMERSH, the international Communist murder organization described in testimony before congressional committees and by Ian Fleming in his James Bond Books."
Allen's vision was nothing if not dramatic. In a successful effort early in the century to hijack the American economy and political arena, he repots, the Insiders established a central bank (the Federal Reserve System), lorded over by international bankers; they followed up by saddling citizens with the income tax, thereby fulfilling two key planks of Marx's Communist Manifesto. The Insiders then "scientifically engineered" the stock market crash of 1929. They managed to top that feat by starting World Wars I and II (the latter through their appeasement of Hitler) and the Vietnam debacle, profiteering in all cases by arming both sides. Oh yeah, they also invented the nefarious United (communist) Nations as the keystone of their relentless New World Order.
In a rare instance of giving the Rockefellers a bit of a break, Birchers revived the old right-wing theory that the real powers behind the Insider throne - both communist and "cartel capitalist" - were those standby conspiracy bugaboos, the illuminati, a secret freemasonic society that definitely existed, albeit in eighteenth-century Bavaria.
(In an effort to cast the Illuminati as a "Zionist" cabal, anti-Smites - and Allen wasn't one - often invoke the Jewish Rothschilds and the old lie that the Bolshevik revolution was all a Jewish plot. Allen dismissed that "thinking," and typically had a more interesting angle: The Insiders themselves covertly promoted such anti-Semitic falsehoods in an effort to tar all their critics as racists. Of course, Allen offered no evidence for this theory, but perhaps he was onto something. More than one modern blowhard of the "there-are-no-conspi
racies" school has offhandedly broadbrushed conspiracy theorists by yoking them with Holocaust apologists.)
Although the conspiratorial tapestry woven by the Birchers was a bit, well, busy, even the staid Professor Quigley grudgingly acknowledged that it contained "a modicum of truth." For one thing, the so-called Insiders "had no aversion to cooperating with the Communists," per Quigley. After all, big business is big business, and what better way of acquiring access to untapped natural resources than being neighborly? Likewise, the CFR-dominated U.S. Department of State was indeed very influential in midwifing the UN. And the Round Tablers did push for the income tax and the Federal Reserve.
As for the Rockefellers, the family has played a major role in the network since its early days. David Rockefeller, chairman of the CFR board, founded the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970s (same Euro-American "internationalists" but with the additional membership of Japanese power players). Another Rockefeller-Insider group arose as the retiring Round Tables passed the torch to the CFR (either that, or went deep under-ground, a hunch of many conspiracy theorists): This was the Bilderberg Group, named for the location of its first annual meeting, the hotel Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Netherlands.
As we've seen, the CFR-Trilat-Bilderber
g membership rolls were brimming with American official and politicians eager to suck up to the power establishment. Even Richard Nixon, whose animus for the Eastern Elite was famous, joined the CFR and later hired Rockefeller protégé Henry Kissinger. (Birchers haven't forgotten that President Nixon invoked the spooky phrase "new world order" during his trip to Red China.) Other U.S. presidents who were Insiders included Gerald Ford (CFR, Bilderberg), Jimmy Carter (CFR, Trilat), George Bush (CFR board director, Trilat), and even Bill Clinton (CFR, Trilat, and Bilderberg).
During the Carter era 284 CFR/Trilats held administration positions. Key Insiders included Vice President Walter Mondale, national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (director of the Trilateral Commission), Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and CIA Director Stansfield Turner. By the end of Reagon's two terms, the number had risen to 313. Reaganite Insiders included Secretaries of State Al Haig (a favorite candidate for Watergate's Deep Throat) and George Shultz (the tenth consecutive CFR alumnus to hold that job) and CIA director William Casey.
Under Bush, "the conspiracy president," the number skyrocketed to 382, including national security advisor Brent Scowcroft and the attorney general, Richard Thornburgh.
As for the Clinton administration, little has changed as far as CFR faces go. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, all five of his undersecretaries, and many of their underlings are CFR-ites. So are Clinton's national security adviser and CIA director, and so is his Republicrat aide, David Gergen.
Gergen is only one point of light in a constellation of media stars absorbed into the CFR. A partial list included the late Walter Lippman (a CFR director in the 1930s), CIA propagandist/Life magazine publisher C. D. Jackson (who helped set up the Bilderberg Group), New York Timesman Leslie Gelv (current CFR president), Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Jum Lehrer, the non-Canadian half of the Macneil/Lehre NewsHour.
Though the CFR/Trilat connection runs deep into the blue veins of the Establishment, predictably its members scoff at the suggestion that they hold excessive influence over American "democracy" and world affairs. David Rockefeller once sniffed at what he called these "foolish attacks on false issues." With perhaps excessive modesty, he assured the skeptics that his Trilateral Commission is just "a group of concerned citizens interested in fostering greater understanding and cooperation among international allies."
Well, apparently all groups of concerned citizens are not created equal. As journalist Bill Moyers put it in a 1980 TV documentary: "David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the flow of its capital. Rockefeller was born to it, and he has made the most of it. but what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life and just another day's work."
If the New World Order isn't a blueprint for the "world super-state" of Bircher nightmares, it may simply mean a world more "orderly" for transnational big business. The implications are just as ominous, for although Trilats don't aim to raze Capitol Hill to make way for a U.N. high rise, they have made it clear that democracy often hampers their terribly important work. Not only have the Round Table progeny pushed for "limited," strongman "democracy" in third world countries, they have openly complained about the surfeit of liberty for the little people in this country.
A 1975 Trilateral Commission report concluded that the United States was plagued by an "excess of democracy," when "what is needed is a greater degree of moderation in democracy," to improve "governability." Trilat co-founder Brzezinski recommended a study on "Control Over Man's Development and Behavior" to devise "new means of social control," especially "in advanced societies."
In the Coming New World Order, the natives apparently have yet to be civilized.
One of the first steps is the banning of commonly used drugs like tobacco. In 2007 the UK imposed a smoking law on taverns and inns across the land.
It is to be seen if these restrictions on freedom will stop there.
A new world order ?
RW, Leeds says...
7:50pm Fri 28 Sep 07
The great majority, 86 per cent, feel that the smoking situation in pubs, clubs and bars has improved over recent years with 75 per cent expressing the need for more improvements.
Not quite the same
JoePublic, Bolton says...
8:04pm Fri 28 Sep 07
King Eric, ......... says...
8:07pm Fri 28 Sep 07
It was 2005 actually.
The only evidence you will accept is if its yesterday and its 100% in your favour.
RW, Leeds says...
8:10pm Fri 28 Sep 07
RW, Leeds says...
8:13pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Nazi researchers were the first to prove conclusively that smoking was the major cause of lung cancer. Indeed, as early as 1936the year that the young Richard Doll was attending the lectures in Frankfurt of the SS radiologist Professor Hans Holfelder
King Eric, €€€€€€€€€€€ says...
8:13pm Fri 28 Sep 07
RW, Leeds says...
8:23pm Fri 28 Sep 07
RW, Leeds says...
8:28pm Fri 28 Sep 07
King Eric, :-))))))))))))))))))
))))))))))))))))) says...
8:30pm Fri 28 Sep 07
I'll have some wine, the company of a beautiful woman and a spliff made from Jamaica's finest.
I do miss dear old Blighty though, the rain, the pound shops,the Woodbine smokers in the Swan.
And they say England is dying......
RW, Leeds says...
8:31pm Fri 28 Sep 07
joe public, lincoln says...
9:16pm Fri 28 Sep 07
thanks for the reply
The trouble is, of course, that they didn't conduct the poll in a pub. Of those 730 people, how many actually used a pub. I won't hazard a guess, but I'd wager its not 730.
Questions posed by Polls can be, and frequently are, rigged to produce a result favourable to those who have commissioned them - I'm sure we can agree on that. Misinformation, cherrypicked results and manipulation of nonsignifcant statistics lies at the heart of the anti smoking campaign. Those evangelical crusader known as Ash (government backed, financed by £m's and $m's) are very, very good at this. Hence our ban and others world wide.They eat the likes of me for breakfast. If the results don't favour their cause, they merely ignore them.
Of course, the more intuitive amongst us are not easily duped and can see through this 'smokescreen'. I'm surprised you haven't -you seem to have alot of facts to hand. Are you, by any chance, a fully subscribed member of ASH?
I've already recommended the book 'Dissecting Anti Smokers Brains, (by Michael Macfadden, a tenner on Amazon). You should read it.
Try Dave Hitt's site as well. His 'Name Three' (people who have died of passive smoking)is a real eye opener.
PS You'll smoke a big fat spliff but then object to a whiff of fag smoke escaping into a 'cross over' area in a pub?
Do you read the Guardian?
joe public, lincoln says...
9:30pm Fri 28 Sep 07
'2) Impossible to work in the majority of pubs and restaurants, and would not be cost effective, lead to 'crossover' issues - smoke - non smoke area'
You are, of course, joking. Or clinging to straws? Anyway, you at least to concede that a minority of pubs could provide separate areas
I'm not categorically disputing this claim, but could you provide the source for this?
PS Would you support this compromise - a choice between totally smoking and totally smoke free pubs?
Take your time.....
Zimmy, Skagen Court says...
9:33pm Fri 28 Sep 07
A 1975 Trilateral Commission report concluded that the United States was plagued by an "excess of democracy," when "what is needed is a greater degree of moderation in democracy," to improve "governability." Trilat co-founder Brzezinski recommended a study on "Control Over Man's Development and Behavior" to devise "new means of social control," especially "in advanced societies."
In the Coming New World Order, the natives apparently have yet to be civilized.
One of the first steps is the banning of commonly used drugs like tobacco. In 2007 the UK imposed a smoking law on taverns and inns across the land.
It is to be seen if these restrictions on freedom will stop there.
A new world order ?
This is like crazy sh.it.
Bloody worried man.
joe public, lincoln says...
9:52pm Fri 28 Sep 07
don't forget for a mere £10 you get a life size picture of the King in his leotard, a one paragraph guide to Cowpoke's jokes, and a 415 page study of 'The Correlation between the Smoking in pubs Lobby, and the ID'.
All this for £10!
Has your growth been stunted?
Zimmy, Skagen Court says...
10:01pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Kind of funky. You guys know each other ??? seems to be a lotta laughs as Cilla Black said. Is she still alive.Fred Dibnahs dead they are making a statue in the town. Respect. Top man.
mandy vincent, says...
10:02pm Fri 28 Sep 07
King Eric, posted "They are carrying out their statutory duties in enforcing the smoking legislation".
Really? who polices the EU parliament, I believe they still smoke in there. We should have also been allowed a voice to get out of the EU also, but that's another democray and choice, we seem to have lost.I always thought MPs work for the people who voted them in. As the ban is based on lies and scaremongering, it is a ban that needs banning. It certainly needs amending.
When people speed, so they go after the garage that sold you the car? would they be responsible for a drivers actions.
BO smells, it does not cause cancer. Your lovely perfume Mercy that you happily shove down others throats, may do? Not that I want them banned, asthmatics may be happy about that though.
http://www.ourlittle
place.com/chemicals.
html
3. BENZYL ACETATE (in: perfume, cologne, shampoo, fabric softener, stickup air freshener, dishwashing liquid and detergent, soap, hairspray, bleach, after shave, deodorants)
Carcinogenic (linked to pancreatic cancer); "From vapors: irritating to eyes and respiratory passages, exciting cough." "In mice: hyperanemia of the lungs." "Can be absorbed through the skin causing systemic effects." "Do not flush to sewer."
http://www.mamasheal
th.com/doc/cleanprod
.asp
Here is one that was removed strangely enough.
8th August 2006 the HSE in their document OC 255/15 article9 state
" HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to second hand smoke to the raised risk of contacting specific diseases".
9 The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in
exempted premises will be hard to establish. In essence, HSE cannot
produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to SHS to the
raised risk of contracting specific diseases and it is therefore difficult to prove
health-related breaches of the Health and Safety at Work Act.
The antis will not fill all the venues, they ARE THE MINORITY.
Pubs,clubs ect should have had a choice.
A blanket ban was NOT, wanted by the majority
If you think this ban is wrong and you would like a voice,
Please go to www.freedom2choose.i
nfo/
WE NEED TO FIGHT THIS TOGETHER
http://petitions.pm.
gov.uk/PublicSmokeRo
om/
We need to get this ban amended to include ventilation,
Please help us, with your support and donations are very welcome, large or small
Jan Gibbons, Manchester says...
10:07pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Zimmy, Bolton says...
10:17pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Who is Nick seems a sound guy.
Mandy you seem sound. You got a bloke in Bolton ???
boris, west sussex says...
10:19pm Fri 28 Sep 07
Zimmy, Bolton says...
10:32pm Fri 28 Sep 07
But what do you mean by extremists ??thats the sort who did the Twin towers. they wont be bothered by smoking although they do smoke some of them. Theres pipes.
Just realised Nick is the boss of the Swan. Top top pub.
boris, west sussex says...
10:38pm Fri 28 Sep 07
What i mean is people on here, with one agenda, the humiliation of smokers, and in their ideal world, the eradication of smoking.
Many of them find it funny, you poor saddo they think, stand outside with your filth, hence..
I CALL THEM EXTREMISTS.
Zimmy, Bolton says...
10:46pm Fri 28 Sep 07
emma carter, withernsea says...
12:10am Sat 29 Sep 07
but how much as it cost the council
King Eric, ......... says...
10:42am Sat 29 Sep 07
You all seem to blame Bolton Council and worry about the money this affair is costing.
Well it's down to a persistent law breaker.
If you want real freedom fighters look at the monks in Burma, not a Bolton law breaker.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
11:29am Sat 29 Sep 07
RagReader, Horwich says...
11:38am Sat 29 Sep 07
cow-head wrote:Which laws are the Burmese monks breaking?
Erica, Nick Hogan ia a freedom fighter in my eyes,he is standing up for other peoples rights just like the Burmese Monks. Yes he is breaking the law here, but they are breaking Burmese laws. Irrespective of whether the laws are right or wrong.
I thought they were simply holding protest marches?
cow-head, westhoughton says...
11:45am Sat 29 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
11:49am Sat 29 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
11:59am Sat 29 Sep 07
Should I stop donating my blood?
RagReader, Horwich says...
12:04pm Sat 29 Sep 07
cow-head wrote:So it's not fair that Mr Hogan is being punished for breaking the law but it's OK
Rag-Reader, If the Burmese monks were not breaking Burmese Laws they would not have been attacked by the Burmese Police. Which would suggest to most people that Protest Marches are illegal in Burma. Now do you understand that or do I need to explain it further?
to beat Burmese monks for breaking the law by holding a protest march?
I suppose you also admire the Burmese policemen who shot a Japanese journalist who was taking photographs of the marchers
chas, suffolk says...
12:14pm Sat 29 Sep 07
So it's OK for Burmese to protest, but not Britains?
boris, west sussex says...
12:18pm Sat 29 Sep 07
You really are a prat, the point cow-head is making is, if you are not to be a LAWBREAKER, THEN YOU FOLLOW THE LAW. So the Burmese are lawbreakers, as everyone keeps saying on here, well it it the law.
boris, west sussex says...
12:29pm Sat 29 Sep 07
You really are a prat, the point cow-head is making is, if you are not to be a LAWBREAKER, THEN YOU FOLLOW THE LAW. So the Burmese are lawbreakers, as everyone keeps saying on here, well it IS the law.
RagReader, Horwich says...
12:38pm Sat 29 Sep 07
Quote from your posting - Rugrat
You really are a prat, the point cow-head is making is, if you are not to be a LAWBREAKER, THEN YOU FOLLOW THE LAW
Have you told Mr Hogan?
You'll be glad to know this is my last posting on the subject of Nicked Hogan,I'm sure everybody's bored with him now.
boris, west sussex says...
12:43pm Sat 29 Sep 07
You are the hypocrit, not me. I support the monks,even if it's law breaking. You support some law breakers (monks), but others (Nick Hogan) you want locked away.
HYPOCRIT.
chas, suffolk says...
12:49pm Sat 29 Sep 07
Please don't go. I/we (sorry Eric) know it's hard for anti-smokers to accept the truth, but I/we admire you for trying.
I/we will miss you.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
1:13pm Sat 29 Sep 07
King Eric, ......... says...
4:16pm Sat 29 Sep 07
You are comparing the plight of the Burmese people, tortured, murdered, their democratically elected leader under house arrest with a few thousand people in the UK being asked not to smoke in a pub, or whilst others are having a meal ?
You are your own worst enemies.
If this was put to a poll the vast majority of UK citizens would be appalled at your breathtaking lack of judgement.
boris, west sussex says...
4:29pm Sat 29 Sep 07
You are the one against protest. Try 15 million smokers, not a few thousand. You have said, the law is the law, and shoudn't be broken. So are the monks breaking the law, by marching.
King Eric, ......... says...
4:50pm Sat 29 Sep 07
I bet your comrades wince when they see your posts.
Here's a test. Which of you smoking lobby thinks Boris (and others) is right to compare real human rights abuse e.g. in Burma with the ban on smoking.
I pray at least one of you has the bal.ls to disown such statements ?
Some of you may go up in my estimation as people.
boris, west sussex says...
5:04pm Sat 29 Sep 07
You are a lier and a cheat. I can expose your lies again, if you so wish.
boris, west sussex says...
5:06pm Sat 29 Sep 07
I support the monks fully.
boris, west sussex says...
5:43pm Sat 29 Sep 07
Erica comments repeated again, this is libel.
And you Eric mock hard working people. Once again
Erica thinks he is witty, but he is a fraud. In order to justify the ban, he posted this.
From what I remember about New Years Eve, 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. The decision to have a ticket only policy - unlike the nearby Swan and Crown - was as clueless as the West Ham performance away at Reading on New Years Day. We left shortly after Midnight to happily return to the nearby Swan. What a contrast from St Patricks Day.
Report this for removal
This would indeed vindicate him. But hold on this was 25% of the opinion.
Here's the other 75%
Nice little pub, though yo uhave to park in the main town car park a few streets away. Very friendly, very busy, andyet the landlord always seemsto have time to talk to locals and strangers alike. Knows his beer, and serves a most quaffable pint! Used to be much lamented King and Barnes of Horsham, but isevery bit as good now! Traditional pub food and sandwiches also worth investigating, though not particularly cheap! In an old and interesting town of many pubs, this one will not disappoint!
Spot on !!!!!
I was here St Patricks Day 2006. Brilliant small boozer, friendly staff, cheerful atmosphere and cheap drinks. I appreciate that in a relatively small town like Midhurst everyone knows each other, but I was in the Bricklayers with my girlfriend and had a fantastic night! Can get a bit smoky, but did not ruin my time as a non-smoker. Beer garden is useful in the summer sun as well!
This is the pub loosing £3500 a week since the ban.
Now did Erica post all comments, no, I found the site he used for his example, and now give you the full story.
Erica, you can't put up, so shut up.
chas, suffolk says...
6:13pm Sat 29 Sep 07
We are also allowed to drink and smoke during the game.
Oh for freedom, instead of acting like sheep.
joe public, lincoln says...
6:39pm Sat 29 Sep 07
Wouldn't cost too much, maybe a bit extra for a license, new ashtrays and one or two extra walls (and a door for those cold wet windy January evenings).
Of course, there'd have to be a disclaimer in this type of pub
POLITE NOTICE Management do not accept responsibility for slightly watery eyes, runny noses nor for the cost of washing hair/clothes
and dry cleaning.
Hell, lets be reasonable. I'm sure we could all rotate venues: Monday-NSpub, Tuesday - Spub, etc etc.
Smokers stand outside on Monday, Non-smokers on Tuesday etc....you get the drift.
Brilliant, even though I say it myself - Good compromise, all happy, all friends again.
What do you think Eric (as a non smoker who claims not to be anti)?
chas, suffolk says...
7:02pm Sat 29 Sep 07
You are being unreasonable.
You know that freedom to choose means that ALL pubs should be smoke free so we anti-smokers can choose which pubs we can go to.
joe you are selfish!
joe public, lincoln says...
7:17pm Sat 29 Sep 07
It was unreasonable, I don't know what happened, just sort of lost it. Sorry, I'll try to a bit more considerate to others.
Think I might stay in all winter anyway - public enclosed spaces are still dangerous. You never know if the bloke behind you at the bar is a flu carrier, although a dead giveaway might be the watery eyes/runny nose. Us older folks have to be careful, passive breathing can be very risky, sometimes fatal .
I'm sure that WHO/eric have all the relevant supporting paperwork/statistics
.
chas, suffolk says...
7:26pm Sat 29 Sep 07
Please be more considerate to eric and others in future.
The flu can be very contagious and you MAY die, but remember if you go within a mile of a smoker you WILL die.
RW, says...
7:43pm Sat 29 Sep 07
Take away the smoke and you can't see the air quality.
joe public, lincoln says...
7:44pm Sat 29 Sep 07
Do you know where he was?
He was posting his opinion about some girl who'd battered someone over the head with a pig (the swine, I hope she gets the chop!).
He must be bored in his paradise hidehole.
Keep it to yourself.... but I think he's living in cloud cuckoo land....
joe public, lincoln says...
7:53pm Sat 29 Sep 07
Anyway must dash-we're going to an outsidepub quiz tonight.
chas, suffolk says...
7:58pm Sat 29 Sep 07
joe public, lincoln says...
8:05pm Sat 29 Sep 07
Well I'll be...(naw, probably too old)
chas, suffolk says...
8:16pm Sat 29 Sep 07
King Eric, says...
8:19pm Sat 29 Sep 07
And guess what, not one of you had the compassion, the sympathy and the **** to do it.
So I may come back to this debate but only out of anger at people who do not have a clue about the wider world. I honestly thought one of the intelligent pro smokers would break ranks and point out the sheer stupidity of the comparison.
Well I/we all live and learn.....
chas, suffolk says...
8:29pm Sat 29 Sep 07
'So may I come back to this debate' Good luck Nick.
joe public, lincoln says...
8:33pm Sat 29 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
8:36pm Sat 29 Sep 07
joe public, lincoln says...
8:41pm Sat 29 Sep 07
we're desperate for news from the wider world.
(And I'm meant to be at a quiz)
chas, suffolk says...
8:57pm Sat 29 Sep 07
I think Eric lives in a world of his own.
joe public, lincoln says...
9:03pm Sat 29 Sep 07
Back to business.
Before I go
I repeat:
what about separate 'licensed to smoke premises'? No cross over problems, all welcome, fun loving non/antismokers could (if so desired)nip outside for some fresh air, flirt with similar. They could even have a shelter with THREE (no, that would be vindictive, make it FOUR) sides if they wanted. Might even throw in a door and a lightbulb. Who knows, some of the smokers might even join them.They'd only need to be there for 5 minutes, they would barely notice it. I suppose putting on/taking off your coat would be a bit of a pain, but it'd only be for 6 months or so.
Wouldn't cost too much, maybe a bit extra for a license, new ashtrays and one or two extra walls (and a door for those cold wet windy January evenings).
Of course, there'd have to be a disclaimer in this type of pub
POLITE NOTICE Management do not accept responsibility for slightly watery eyes, runny noses nor for the cost of washing hair/clothes
and dry cleaning.
Hell, lets be reasonable. I'm sure we could all rotate venues: Monday-NSpub, Tuesday - Spub, etc etc.
Smokers stand outside on Monday, Non-smokers on Tuesday etc....you get the drift.
Brilliant, even though I say it myself - Good compromise, all happy, all friends again.
What do you think Eric (as a non smoker who claims not to be anti)?
joe public, lincoln says...
9:16pm Sat 29 Sep 07
Before you ask - I've got one of those fancy email phone thingys.
Trouble is - we're all struggling with Question 1 and I immediately thought 'Eric will know the answer, he knows everything'
Anyway here goes
'name three people who have died from passive smoking'
I'm relying on you (be quick though)
boris, west sussex says...
9:27pm Sat 29 Sep 07
I may come back to this debate but only out of anger at people who do not have a clue about the wider world.
This from an idiot who
1: Calls smokers, child murderers
2: Lies about hard working Landlords With families who built a successful buiness over many years
(bricklayers arms)
I could go on all night. Don't moralise Erica, you call inocent people child murderers, and try to discredit hard working Landlords.
And if anyone wants an update, the landlord of the bricklayers is still loosing this amount with winter around the corner. It was a busy pub before the ban, to add insult to injury it has no garden. HOW DARE YOU LIE ERICA, ABOUT PEOPLE YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW, SHAME ON YOU.
chas, suffolk says...
9:28pm Sat 29 Sep 07
Eric,ragreader and kieanders. Best of luck at the quiz.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
10:03pm Sat 29 Sep 07
King Eric, says...
10:17pm Sat 29 Sep 07
King Eric, ......... says...
10:28pm Sat 29 Sep 07
Posted by: cow-head, westhoughton on 10:03pm today
Erica, I love it when you are angry, HaHaHa.
Well as others have commented you do have a fascination with me.
Erica, I love it when you are angry,
Hmm.
Anyone else want to comment?
Cowpoke, all this time you spend with me. replying to my every post..how can I put this ? Does your wife not get a teeny little annoyed with your obsession with me ?
boris, west sussex says...
10:47pm Sat 29 Sep 07
You've been exposed as a lier and cheat, except your defeat, and move on.
King Eric, ......... says...
10:49pm Sat 29 Sep 07
No comment
boris, west sussex says...
11:07pm Sat 29 Sep 07
LIER AND CHEAT.
Erica, demeans hard working people, to score points.
Come on you little sh.t, answer your accuser.
You should be done for libel.
boris, west sussex says...
11:16pm Sat 29 Sep 07
http://www.johnloves
ning.com/
Here you will see Erica.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
10:19am Sun 30 Sep 07
chas, suffolk says...
11:05am Sun 30 Sep 07
He gave us the tobacco plant.
Praise God.
chas, suffolk says...
11:59am Sun 30 Sep 07
Thou shalt not smoke in pubs.
Thou shalt not allow others to inhale your smoke (let them buy their own).
Thou shalt not drink in public places.
Thou shalt not congregate in large numbers.
Thou shalt not make a noise.
Thou shalt not throw away cigarette ends.
Thou shalt not smoke in cars.
Thou shalt not have freedom of chose.
Thou shalt believe all the lies from ASH.
Thou shalt not protest.
cow-head, westhoughton says...
12:18pm Sun 30 Sep 07
11) Thou shalt not dispute anything that Erica says.
chas, suffolk says...
12:37pm Sun 30 Sep 07
Instead of ASH insert erica and rugrat.
boris, west sussex says...
2:43pm Sun 30 Sep 07
boris, west sussex says...
2:44pm Sun 30 Sep 07
RagReader, Horwich says...
4:16pm Sun 30 Sep 07
chas wrote:I said I wasn't going to post on here again but I can't let that pass,please quote one of my lies.
Sorry. Instead of ASH insert erica and rugrat.
I am assuming the the childish rugrat name refers to me.
Tom Thumb, Louisa Street says...
5:48pm Thu 27 Sep 07
..................
King Eric