Chavs who hang out in Saisburys and push the automatic doors shut on you.
Made a huge mistake doing it to me, I put his head through the partition wall!
[cite]Posted By: millaphile[/cite]Chavs who hang out in Saisburys and push the automatic doors shut on you.
Made a huge mistake doing it to me, I put his head through the partition wall!
[cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]'Blimey, here we go again. It is undemocratic because the Labour party manifesto on which they were elected clearly stated that pubs would have the choice whether to be smoking or non-smoking. They then did what they liked, with no mandate from the electorate whatsoever. That is not democracy JM'.
The problem I have with this thread is that people are whinging about stuff that doesn't do them any harm.
My take on life is that people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't do any harm to others.
Smoking does harm others and you can not give pubs the choice as that would be discrimination in the workplace.
Frankly it is better to worry / discuss matters that actually matter. For starters on the subject of The Labour Party there were far more bigger and important lies told than that to people who force others to breath their smoke.
(And please don't give the argument that you are not 'forced' to go in a pub)
JM, you challenged golfie over the question of democracy, I answered the question, the correct response is "Thanks for putting me right", not going into another area to support your particular bug-bear.
I have no idea what the "discrimination in the workplace" bit is all about, and why on earth shouldn't I put accross the argument that you are not forced to go in the pub? It's true, so why not use it? Cars harm people through emmissions and by running people over, so I take it they should be banned too, going by your logic?
1. It's discrimination in the workplace because the position can only be taken by a smoker (unless a non-smoker is willing to harm his/her health which they should not be expected to do)
2. The 'not forced to go in a pub' argument is a non-starter on the basis that everyone should be free to go anywhere one pleases without having to put their health at risk.
3. Cars don't harm people by running people over - it's the careless driver - hence the arguments Salad Spinner has been making.
4.. Cars do harm people with their emissions - you're right on that and I agree with you. That's why I believe in the total electric car. They are (maybe) slower but that would go someway to solving problem 3 too.
5. If the Labour Party stated that they wouldn't do it in their manifesto and then went ahead and did it then yes you're right again. I just wouldn't agree with the manifesto in the first place due to my reasons in 1&2.
[quote][cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Algarveaddick[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: jimmymelrose[/cite]'Blimey, here we go again. It is undemocratic because the Labour party manifesto on which they were elected clearly stated that pubs would have the choice whether to be smoking or non-smoking. They then did what they liked, with no mandate from the electorate whatsoever. That is not democracy JM'.
The problem I have with this thread is that people are whinging about stuff that doesn't do them any harm. My take on life is that people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't do any harm to others. Smoking does harm others and you can not give pubs the choice as that would be discrimination in the workplace.
Frankly it is better to worry / discuss matters that actually matter. For starters on the subject of The Labour Party there were far more bigger and important lies told than that to people who force others to breath their smoke. (And please don't give the argument that you are not 'forced' to go in a pub)[/quote]
JM, you challenged golfie over the question of democracy, I answered the question, the correct response is "Thanks for putting me right", not going into another area to support your particular bug-bear.
I have no idea what the "discrimination in the workplace" bit is all about, and why on earth shouldn't I put accross the argument that you are not forced to go in the pub? It's true, so why not use it? Cars harm people through emmissions and by running people over, so I take it they should be banned too, going by your logic?[/quote]
1. It's discrimination in the workplace because the position can only be taken by a smoker (unless a non-smoker is willing to harm his/her health which they should not be expected to do)
2. The 'not forced to go in a pub' argument is a non-starter on the basis that everyone should be free to go anywhere one pleases without having to put their health at risk.
3. Cars don't harm people by running people over - it's the careless driver - hence the arguments Salad Spinner has been making.
4.. Cars do harm people with their emissions - you're right on that and I agree with you. That's why I believe in the total electric car. They are (maybe) slower but that would go someway to solving problem 3 too.
5. If the Labour Party stated that they wouldn't do it in their manifesto and then went ahead and did it then yes you're right again. I just wouldn't agree with the manifesto in the first place due to my reasons in 1&2.[/quote]
If I may join in your debate, while agreeing on your topic of electric cars, the life expectency of a set batteries is 3 years, prius batteries will cost approximately 3 grand to replace god knows what they`d cost on a lexus 4x4 hybrid, the disposal of the old ones will be added the cost of replacements making it not very cost effective, scrap merchants are no longer interested and will charge you for collection, the lead and copper plus the acids have to safely disposed of, I expect to see a lot of hybrid cars entering the used car trade in 3 or 4 years minus the electric drive option.
If I may join in your debate, while agreeing on your topic of electric cars, the life expectency of a set batteries is 3 years, prius batteries will cost approximately 3 grand to replace god knows what they`d cost on a lexus 4x4 hybrid, the disposal of the old ones will be added the cost of replacements making it not very cost effective, scrap merchants are no longer interested and will charge you for collection, the lead and copper plus the acids have to safely disposed of, I expect to see a lot of hybrid cars entering the used car trade in 3 or 4 years minus the electric drive option.
All the more reason for full electric cars. There are lots of better options than what we have now. Pay a visit to:
Oversharing public mobile phone calls (part of the ohmydays generation)
Young girl and her boyfriend on a bus in Dartford last night, he sitting down with baby in buggy, she, sitting on other seat talking loudly down here phone about ohmydays, innit, fake Facebook profiles, biiitch, blah blah blah. Suffice to say, she's so engrossed in her loud conversation they sail past their stop (neither had pressed the button) she then loudly berates her boyfriend AND the Bus driver for missing her stop
There is a perfectly good logic to this. If you have any significant amount of walking as part of your commute doing this in smart shoes for a month will not only destroy your feet but it'll also cost you lots of money in replacing your shoes regularly. Simple solution to both keep your shoes at work and wear trainers for the commute.
And women who wear flat shoes to work and then change into high heels. You just walk from your desk to the printer/coffee machine/toilet why have you got to change into high heels?
There is a perfectly good logic to this. If you have any significant amount of walking as part of your commute doing this in smart shoes for a month will not only destroy your feet but it'll also cost you lots of money in replacing your shoes regularly. Simple solution to both keep your shoes at work and wear trainers for the commute.
I except the logic but jeans should also be worn and changed back into trousers at the office. It looks weird
There is a perfectly good logic to this. If you have any significant amount of walking as part of your commute doing this in smart shoes for a month will not only destroy your feet but it'll also cost you lots of money in replacing your shoes regularly. Simple solution to both keep your shoes at work and wear trainers for the commute.
Buy decent, English made shoes (& not just one that pass themselves off as having been made in England). And get ones that fit, not ones that have to be broken in.
And women who wear flat shoes to work and then change into high heels. You just walk from your desk to the printer/coffee machine/toilet why have you got to change into high heels?
I think you'll find it's the rules in a lot of offices that heels have to be worn. There was a recent legal case about this.
There is a perfectly good logic to this. If you have any significant amount of walking as part of your commute doing this in smart shoes for a month will not only destroy your feet but it'll also cost you lots of money in replacing your shoes regularly. Simple solution to both keep your shoes at work and wear trainers for the commute.
Buy decent, English made shoes (& not just one that pass themselves off as having been made in England). And get ones that fit, not ones that have to be broken in.
Or just wear trainers. Who gives a shit if someone else doesn't like seeing you wear them.
People who get 'offended' over someone else's opinions.
You're offended, so fecking what? Get over it.
People who get offended on behalf of others is worse... If the original recipient isnt bothered by a comment then the issue instantly ends.
Dont poke your nose in and get offended because you weren't part of the exchange!!
Exemplified by his whole "Ladies and Gentlemen" tube announcement thingy - I bet you would be hard pushed to find 1 person in 500 from the LGBT community who gives a shit. At the end of the day changing it doesn't do anyone any harm as such, but what a storm in a teacup...
People who get 'offended' over someone else's opinions.
You're offended, so fecking what? Get over it.
People who get offended on behalf of others is worse... If the original recipient isnt bothered by a comment then the issue instantly ends.
Dont poke your nose in and get offended because you weren't part of the exchange!!
Exemplified by his whole "Ladies and Gentlemen" tube announcement thingy - I bet you would be hard pushed to find 1 person in 500 from the LGBT community who gives a shit. At the end of the day changing it doesn't do anyone any harm as such, but what a storm in a teacup...
People who get 'offended' over someone else's opinions.
You're offended, so fecking what? Get over it.
People who get offended on behalf of others is worse... If the original recipient isnt bothered by a comment then the issue instantly ends.
Dont poke your nose in and get offended because you weren't part of the exchange!!
Exemplified by his whole "Ladies and Gentlemen" tube announcement thingy - I bet you would be hard pushed to find 1 person in 500 from the LGBT community who gives a shit. At the end of the day changing it doesn't do anyone any harm as such, but what a storm in a teacup...
People who get 'offended' over someone else's opinions.
You're offended, so fecking what? Get over it.
People who get offended on behalf of others is worse... If the original recipient isnt bothered by a comment then the issue instantly ends.
Dont poke your nose in and get offended because you weren't part of the exchange!!
Exemplified by his whole "Ladies and Gentlemen" tube announcement thingy - I bet you would be hard pushed to find 1 person in 500 from the LGBT community who gives a shit. At the end of the day changing it doesn't do anyone any harm as such, but what a storm in a teacup...
Look on the brightside... Put someone in a job to make that decision at least
Comments
Made a huge mistake doing it to me, I put his head through the partition wall!
lol
how do you push the automatic doors shut?
1. It's discrimination in the workplace because the position can only be taken by a smoker (unless a non-smoker is willing to harm his/her health which they should not be expected to do)
2. The 'not forced to go in a pub' argument is a non-starter on the basis that everyone should be free to go anywhere one pleases without having to put their health at risk.
3. Cars don't harm people by running people over - it's the careless driver - hence the arguments Salad Spinner has been making.
4.. Cars do harm people with their emissions - you're right on that and I agree with you. That's why I believe in the total electric car. They are (maybe) slower but that would go someway to solving problem 3 too.
5. If the Labour Party stated that they wouldn't do it in their manifesto and then went ahead and did it then yes you're right again. I just wouldn't agree with the manifesto in the first place due to my reasons in 1&2.
The problem I have with this thread is that people are whinging about stuff that doesn't do them any harm.
My take on life is that people should be able to do what they want as long as it doesn't do any harm to others.
Smoking does harm others and you can not give pubs the choice as that would be discrimination in the workplace.
Frankly it is better to worry / discuss matters that actually matter. For starters on the subject of The Labour Party there were far more bigger and important lies told than that to people who force others to breath their smoke.
(And please don't give the argument that you are not 'forced' to go in a pub)[/quote]
JM, you challenged golfie over the question of democracy, I answered the question, the correct response is "Thanks for putting me right", not going into another area to support your particular bug-bear.
I have no idea what the "discrimination in the workplace" bit is all about, and why on earth shouldn't I put accross the argument that you are not forced to go in the pub? It's true, so why not use it? Cars harm people through emmissions and by running people over, so I take it they should be banned too, going by your logic?[/quote]
1. It's discrimination in the workplace because the position can only be taken by a smoker (unless a non-smoker is willing to harm his/her health which they should not be expected to do)
2. The 'not forced to go in a pub' argument is a non-starter on the basis that everyone should be free to go anywhere one pleases without having to put their health at risk.
3. Cars don't harm people by running people over - it's the careless driver - hence the arguments Salad Spinner has been making.
4.. Cars do harm people with their emissions - you're right on that and I agree with you. That's why I believe in the total electric car. They are (maybe) slower but that would go someway to solving problem 3 too.
5. If the Labour Party stated that they wouldn't do it in their manifesto and then went ahead and did it then yes you're right again. I just wouldn't agree with the manifesto in the first place due to my reasons in 1&2.[/quote]
If I may join in your debate, while agreeing on your topic of electric cars, the life expectency of a set batteries is 3 years, prius batteries will cost approximately 3 grand to replace god knows what they`d cost on a lexus 4x4 hybrid, the disposal of the old ones will be added the cost of replacements making it not very cost effective, scrap merchants are no longer interested and will charge you for collection, the lead and copper plus the acids have to safely disposed of, I expect to see a lot of hybrid cars entering the used car trade in 3 or 4 years minus the electric drive option.
Men who don't drive and women who do!
I have got nothing against Arsenal at all. I respect their history and their roots. Can't see what the problem is.
All the more reason for full electric cars. There are lots of better options than what we have now. Pay a visit to:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/
Young girl and her boyfriend on a bus in Dartford last night, he sitting down with baby in buggy, she, sitting on other seat talking loudly down here phone about ohmydays, innit, fake Facebook profiles, biiitch, blah
blah blah.
Suffice to say, she's so engrossed in her loud conversation they sail past their stop (neither had pressed the button) she then loudly berates her boyfriend AND the Bus driver for missing her stop
You're offended, so fecking what? Get over it.
Dont poke your nose in and get offended because you weren't part of the exchange!!
There was a recent legal case about this.
Think that case was for a receptionist or something where heels were part of the uniform.