More anti-smoking Miscellany

I thought the last post of mine was daft, concerning that fact that pregnant mums who smoked were likely to give birth to criminals.

Now “experts” believe that second hand smoke makes you deaf. Well it didn’t affect my kids. They can hear my wallet open from 300 miles.

People who are exposed to the second-hand smoke from others' cigarettes are at increased risk of hearing loss, experts believe.

Doctors already know that people who smoke can damage their hearing.

The latest study in the journal Tobacco Control, involving more than 3,000 US adults, suggests the same is true of passive smoking. (Emphasis mine)

Of course it is the usual culprits who are spouting this drivel. Tobbacco Control. As is usual in the above quoted paragraph, they come out with the weasel words, believe and suggests. In other words hypothesis and not proof.

And they continue

This revealed that people exposed to second-hand smoke were far more likely to have poorer hearing than others, and to a degree where they might struggle to follow a conversation in the presence of background noise.

Now. I’ve been smoking for over forty years, and a fair bit of that time worked in Engine rooms where the levels of noise are extreme. How come my hearing is not reduced to nothing then?

And they finish with this.

"Before you next light up a cigarette, consider how it could impact not only on your own long-term hearing but your friends' and relatives' too."

And I’ll finish with this you miserable control freaks. Just Bugger off.

On a final note, the pic accompanying the article is this.

Please will someone help the poor little Cheeeeldren?

Don’t even think about buying property in Wales.

Not if your a smoker.

Dr Tony Jewell, chief medical officer for Wales, said that stopping people lighting up in their own homes would protect their children from the dangers of passive smoking.

and.

'It could be seen as the final piece of the protection picture or at least adding to the growing public consensus on the social acceptability of smoking.'

I suspect they will do one of those surveys in Wales in the near future. One of those that is phrased like this.

“Should smoking be banned in homes for the sake of the cheeeldren?”

Of course they’ll get an 80% yes vote for that.

So then they’ll produce a law which they won’t have a hope in hell of enforcing.

I don’t live in Wales but if I did I’d just love a state sponsored, No smoking enforcement officer, to just try it on. It is my property and it is nothing to do with the state with what I do within it within reason. (Obviously murder is slightly over the top).

What has become of this country?

I need to sit down in a darkened room.

With a cigarette.

Thanks to the Angry Exile for this

Sandwell council v 70 year old lady.

I wrote a week or two ago, about Sheila Martin, a 70 year old pensioner, who had been given a fixed penalty notice for dropping cigarette ash in the street.

Well the time to pay has now expired and she is facing going to court. If she is convicted she could be fined up to £2,500 and gain a criminal record.

However, hope is not lost. She has some help. Please read about the case over at Anna Raccoon’s blog and maybe we can avert the travesty of justice that could unfold in the coming months.

It's not just Police that harass Photographers (part two)

I recently posted how another blogger was removed from a South Eastern train for photographing two "Rail Enforcement Officers". See Here.

Oh quelle surprise. Look what appeared in his Blog comments.

 

At first sight it would seem to be an anonymous Blogger venting bile.

However. The IP address that the comment came from

The CW-GO-AHEAD-GROUP is part of the group that runs the train company.

I wonder who it is?

I did send South Eastern this missive. I wonder if they will reply?

 

I’m somewhat perturbed about an incident doing the rounds of the Blogosphere where two of your REO’s detained one of your customers unlawfully, for taking photos of them. This could be construed as “false imprisonment”

“The crime of false imprisonment can be committed when the victim is restrained physically, like being locked in a car. It can also be committed simply by words, as where intimidation or commands are used, if the victim submits.”

I presume that the REOs that you train will be reminded of their duty to obey the law the same way that you would expect your fare paying passengers to do so.

And this little missive from the Go-ahead-group doesn’t help your cause.

“You could of course go and get a life.
Instead of looking for trouble, why not spend the time doing something worthwhile, like hanging yourself?”

Allegedly sent from Go-ahead group. I’ll give you the IP address for your interest. 194.205.143.128-159.

Yours Sincerely in anticipation of a reply

FE

How unreliable do you have to be to get a job?

I couldn't believe the article that I read this morning. It would seem that it is non PC to advertise for a "reliable" worker.

When it comes to hiring staff, there are plenty of legal pitfalls employers need to watch out for these days.

So recruitment agency boss Nicole Mamo was especially careful to ensure her advert for hospital workers did not offend on grounds of race, age or sexual orientation.

However, she hadn't reckoned on discriminating against a wholly different section of the community - the completely useless.

Is your mind boggling yet? If not read on.

When she ran the ad past a job centre, she was told she couldn't ask for 'reliable' and 'hard-working' applicants because it could be offensive to unreliable people.

I feel sorry for the people who have such idiocy to put up with.

'Even the woman at the jobcentre agreed it was ridiculous but explained it was policy because they could get sued for being discriminatory against unreliable people.'

The advert is here.

And of course we have the usual weasel words:

Yesterday the Department for Work and Pensions said it could not comment on the conversation Mrs Mamo had with the member of staff at Thetford.

Read the whole article here in the Mail

Jobsworth alert, Ducky

It's about time this sort of thing stopped.

A mother has been fined £75 for feeding ducks in a park with her toddler son.

Vanessa Kelly had taken 17-month-old Harry on his weekly visit to the to feed ducks when she was approached by a council warden.

The reason being given that it would attract vermin. It certainly did that.

I really am losing the will to live when I read articles like this. Bloody jumped up little Hitler.

Read it for yourself if you don't mind high blood pressure.

Oh so plain

They're still banging on about how plain packaging of cigarettes will stop youngsters smoking.

As many commentators on this article stated, "This will just mean that many customers will ask for the cheapest, thus starting a price war and driving down the price."

I do not think this is a good idea, if all cigarettes came in identical packaging it wouldn't make me stop smoking. I also think that taking brand loyalty out of the equation will cause a price war between the tobacco companies. I would no longer go and ask for a specific brand but for the cheapest. This would cause the price of cigarettes to plummet and young people would by them because they are so cheap. Sorry ASH i think your shooting yourself in the foot here!

Time for a fag.

Multiculteral is OK then?

We've brought on ourselves by not standing up and saying, NO, not in my name.

Binge drinking?

Just been pointed to an article in the Times back in late 2007 relating to safe levels of drinking.

The Times reveals today that the recommended weekly drinking limits of 21 units of alcohol for men and 14 for women, first introduced in 1987 and still in use today, had no firm scientific basis whatsoever.

That's the bad news. But then comes this:

Subsequent studies found evidence which suggested that the safety limits should be raised, but they were ignored by a succession of health ministers.

Gets even better:

One found that men drinking between 21 and 30 units of alcohol a week had the lowest mortality rate in Britain. Another concluded that a man would have to drink 63 units a week, or a bottle of wine a day, to face the same risk of death as a teetotaller.

Well that's me out to the Offie to stock up then.

It looks like the bansturbators have been running with this for some time, as the end of the article comes up with this gem:

In a further attack on Britain’s drinkers, it was revealed yesterday that a coalition of health organisations is mounting a campaign to force a 10 per cent increase in alcohol taxation.

The group, headed by the Royal College of Physicians, is also seeking to secure the support of MPs for stricter regulation of the drinks industry and warnings on alcohol advertising. A total of 21 bodies, including Alcohol Concern and the British Liver Trust, will form the Alcohol Health Alliance, according to Harpers Wine and Spirit magazine.

Nazis

Whisky galore

I see that the Scottish parliament want to raise the price of booze to prevent too much drinking. They might as well piss into the wind as most drink loving Scots that I know, will grin and bear it, and carry on. Why are they going to punish the whole population for the fault of the few?
Once they've as always tested it out on the Scots (remember they had the smoking ban first), then it'll be the turn of the English and the Welsh.

They might do well to remember that there will be an election and would do well to bear that in mind before they get carried away in their own self importance.

As someone else has bagged the franchise rights to start up an alcohol superstore in Berwick-on Tweed, I'm requistioning the right to set up in Gretna.

USB Wine, telechargez vos vins en direct des domaines !
by zs2creative

When are we going to be rid of this sanctimonious drivel? The Brown Broadcasting Company ran it as their top story this evening. We will need a dram or two to get through the next few years.

Sorry about the vid.