People who let their cats shit in other people's gardens...
I don't let my cat shit in other peoples' gardens! I just let her out and she goes and does it! I blame the people for having the audacity to have a garden; what do they expect? I drew the line though when she started going out and dumping her fag ends in their gardens; filthy bloody habit!
It's a workplace, smoking isn't allowed in workplaces, so smoking isn't6 allowed in the Valley.
Er, no. The ban is enforced for ENCLOSED workplaces or public spaces. Enclosed is deemed as having a ceiling/roof and bar doors/windows are wholly enclosed.
Therefore, a stadium, in the seated areas, generally don't fall under an enclosed space. Concourses/toilets generally do.
"Given the wide range of designs of stadiums and/or stands with overhanging roofs it will not be possible to categorically state whether stadiums generally will be exempt. Each individual stadium and/or stand will have to be considered based on its design in order to work out whether it falls within the definition of substantially enclosed. Accordingly, some clubs may simply decide to designate the whole stadium as smoke free in order to comply with the new legislation."
It's a workplace, smoking isn't allowed in workplaces, so smoking isn't6 allowed in the Valley.
You're dumb.
Slightly ridiculous and mis informed comment.
Why is it allowed at some stadia but not others?
As for saying 'smoking is bad for you and it shouldnt be allowed, well clearly you havent visited the North Upper toilets in the past few years. It's happening, so find a solution. Other places have a solution, so why not at The Valley?
Sparrows has found the appropriate terminolgy, which looks like a very subjective decision of the word enclosed.
Why should any club make provisions for smokers, drinkers and in one instance wankers. It's an hour and a half of sporting entertainment (well ok, not always) As most of us drink and smoke before and after the game it seems a nonsense argument. If your'e that much in love with your drug, then don't go to a football match.
Did you actually read the post above yours when you made this comment MB? One of the main points 1984 was making was that surely you don't want to drive potential customers away? Of course this applies equally to non-smokers being put off by the fug in bogs that started the debate in the first place. A workable solution has been suggested where no one except the most extreme wing of the ASB will be offended.
I thought 1984's whole post was very good, and I have been off the fags for over a year now.
It's a workplace, smoking isn't allowed in workplaces, so smoking isn't6 allowed in the Valley.
Er, no. The ban is enforced for ENCLOSED workplaces or public spaces. Enclosed is deemed as having a ceiling/roof and bar doors/windows are wholly enclosed.
Therefore, a stadium, in the seated areas, generally don't fall under an enclosed space. Concourses/toilets generally do.
"Given the wide range of designs of stadiums and/or stands with overhanging roofs it will not be possible to categorically state whether stadiums generally will be exempt. Each individual stadium and/or stand will have to be considered based on its design in order to work out whether it falls within the definition of substantially enclosed. Accordingly, some clubs may simply decide to designate the whole stadium as smoke free in order to comply with the new legislation."
I read that piece on the FA website and, to be perfectly honest, I can completely understand why the club made the decision to simply go non-smoking throughout. The rules are horrendously difficult to assess and would result in areas where it would be okay to smoke in one seat but not in the seat next to it, which is ludicrous.
The ban also applies to partially enclosed areas (50% plus) That could (I don't know how, exactly, they calculate it) include the West, North and East stands as they, technically, don't have open ends.
Thus it might be that no smoking is allowed in the stands, at all. If this is the case then it becomes pointless to even consider any alternative to a complete ban.
I also agree that in the end complete bans will be enforced on all football stadia so it's more a matter of when rather than if.
I'd also point out that regardless of the rules re enclosed spaces if someone lights up in the seat next to, in front of or behind you you are going to get an undesirable amount of smoke. Ignoring the health implications, most people just don't like it so the ban is probably more popular in terms of numbers of fans than it is unpopular. The club is a business and they will always tend to implement rules that are going to satisfy as many of their customers as possible.
It is clear that public support for banning smoking is getting to the point in the UK that the politicians are willing to stand up to the Tobacco lobbyists and I can see smoking being pushed more and more into private residences. Many landlords will not allow smoking in the houses they let out now. I can see a situation where we will see a residential landlord taken to court for compensation from a cancer sufferer on the basis of passive smoking in a property they own and then insurers will not provide Public Liability Insurance unless the property is let out with a ban on smoking.
Enforcing a complete public ban on smoking will be difficult, but I can see it coming!
Incidentally I can also see similar bans for alcohol once they have finished with the smokers, before anyone makes the link between them.
Twenty, or thirty, years ago it would have been unthinkable for people to be refused the right to have a cigarette, or a cigar, after a meal in a restaurant. If you'd canvassed people in a pub and asked them if they believed that they wouldn't be allowed to smoke in their boozer they would've called you a Doctor.
Just to go even more off at a tangent, I can see the high sugar carbonated drinks being attacked soon too. Taxes (duty) may well make a can of Coke so expensive that children won't be able to afford it and their parents will not be willing to buy it.
It is clear that public support for banning smoking is getting to the point in the UK that the politicians are willing to stand up to the Tobacco lobbyists...
...or in the case of the Tory party and Lynton Crosby employ them. A man up to his dangles in the tobacco pushing industry.
Incidentally I can also see similar bans for alcohol once they have finished with the smokers, before anyone makes the link between them.
Twenty, or thirty, years ago it would have been unthinkable for people to be refused the right to have a cigarette, or a cigar, after a meal in a restaurant. If you'd canvassed people in a pub and asked them if they believed that they wouldn't be allowed to smoke in their boozer they would've called you a Doctor.
Just to go even more off at a tangent, I can see the high sugar carbonated drinks being attacked soon too. Taxes (duty) may well make a can of Coke so expensive that children won't be able to afford it and their parents will not be willing to buy it.
Nanny State? Oh yes - it's coming!
I agree, and have been saying the same to anyone who will listen for years.
Why should any club make provisions for smokers, drinkers and in one instance wankers. It's an hour and a half of sporting entertainment (well ok, not always) As most of us drink and smoke before and after the game it seems a nonsense argument. If your'e that much in love with your drug, then don't go to a football match.
Did you actually read the post above yours when you made this comment MB? One of the main points 1984 was making was that surely you don't want to drive potential customers away? Of course this applies equally to non-smokers being put off by the fug in bogs that started the debate in the first place. A workable solution has been suggested where no one except the most extreme wing of the ASB will be offended.
I thought 1984's whole post was very good, and I have been off the fags for over a year now.
I didnt see 1984's post, but you know me Algarve...tongue always firmly in cheek, I find it very hard to be serious. Strangely though, this thread has really turned me off smoking, so much so that I only smoked 4 very thin rollies yesterday. Hoping to make today after dinner fag only.
Why should any club make provisions for smokers, drinkers and in one instance wankers. It's an hour and a half of sporting entertainment (well ok, not always) As most of us drink and smoke before and after the game it seems a nonsense argument. If your'e that much in love with your drug, then don't go to a football match.
Did you actually read the post above yours when you made this comment MB? One of the main points 1984 was making was that surely you don't want to drive potential customers away? Of course this applies equally to non-smokers being put off by the fug in bogs that started the debate in the first place. A workable solution has been suggested where no one except the most extreme wing of the ASB will be offended.
I thought 1984's whole post was very good, and I have been off the fags for over a year now.
I didnt see 1984's post, but you know me Algarve...tongue always firmly in cheek, I find it very hard to be serious. Strangely though, this thread has really turned me off smoking, so much so that I only smoked 4 very thin rollies yesterday. Hoping to make today after dinner fag only.
It is clear that public support for banning smoking is getting to the point in the UK that the politicians are willing to stand up to the Tobacco lobbyists...
...or in the case of the Tory party and Lynton Crosby employ them. A man up to his dangles in the tobacco pushing industry.
Or Kenneth Clark for example, taking a 6 figure salary from the tobacco industry in the 80s whilst he was the health minister.
It is clear that public support for banning smoking is getting to the point in the UK that the politicians are willing to stand up to the Tobacco lobbyists...
...or in the case of the Tory party and Lynton Crosby employ them. A man up to his dangles in the tobacco pushing industry.
Or Kenneth Clark for example, taking a 6 figure salary from the tobacco industry in the 80s whilst he was the health minister.
Indeed but that wouldn't happen now, not with that fine example of political honesty and scurge of big business Jeremy Hunt MP in the post...
Incidentally I can also see similar bans for alcohol once they have finished with the smokers, before anyone makes the link between them.
Twenty, or thirty, years ago it would have been unthinkable for people to be refused the right to have a cigarette, or a cigar, after a meal in a restaurant. If you'd canvassed people in a pub and asked them if they believed that they wouldn't be allowed to smoke in their boozer they would've called you a Doctor.
Just to go even more off at a tangent, I can see the high sugar carbonated drinks being attacked soon too. Taxes (duty) may well make a can of Coke so expensive that children won't be able to afford it and their parents will not be willing to buy it.
Nanny State? Oh yes - it's coming!
I agree, and have been saying the same to anyone who will listen for years.
I think you'll find that they are ALWAYS listening Algarve!! ;-)
Incidentally I can also see similar bans for alcohol once they have finished with the smokers, before anyone makes the link between them.
Twenty, or thirty, years ago it would have been unthinkable for people to be refused the right to have a cigarette, or a cigar, after a meal in a restaurant. If you'd canvassed people in a pub and asked them if they believed that they wouldn't be allowed to smoke in their boozer they would've called you a Doctor.
Just to go even more off at a tangent, I can see the high sugar carbonated drinks being attacked soon too. Taxes (duty) may well make a can of Coke so expensive that children won't be able to afford it and their parents will not be willing to buy it.
Nanny State? Oh yes - it's coming!
I agree, and have been saying the same to anyone who will listen for years.
I think you'll find that they are ALWAYS listening Algarve!! ;-)
Ha ha -brilliant! That put a big smile on my face Tel! :-D
Incidentally I can also see similar bans for alcohol once they have finished with the smokers, before anyone makes the link between them.
Twenty, or thirty, years ago it would have been unthinkable for people to be refused the right to have a cigarette, or a cigar, after a meal in a restaurant. If you'd canvassed people in a pub and asked them if they believed that they wouldn't be allowed to smoke in their boozer they would've called you a Doctor.
Just to go even more off at a tangent, I can see the high sugar carbonated drinks being attacked soon too. Taxes (duty) may well make a can of Coke so expensive that children won't be able to afford it and their parents will not be willing to buy it.
Nanny State? Oh yes - it's coming!
Interesting response from the various smokers;
Blame shift - it's the clubs fault./ non Smokers are fussy wusses.
Minimise - Passive smoking is not really harmful. / there are other harmful things out there etc./ same as drinking/ reminds me of football when I was a child./ only dangerous if you have weak genes.
Scare - EG posts about a bouncer getting shot for asking someone no to smoke. / it will be drinkers and coke next
Politicise - Bloody nanny state!
Magnanimous - I will respect my fellow non addicted addicks - How generous!
All classic responses of addicts.
Passive smoking is dangerous,even in small doses and even more so in confined spaces where multiple cigarettes have been smoked in a short timespan.
Smoking in enclosed public spaces is illegal and the Club is responsible. it is anti social offensive and totally inconsiderate.Smokers have the right to damage their own health and wealth but don't damage mine.
Actually having read all of the guff on here from smokers my attitude has hardened . Why should the club waste time and energy on pandering to their addiction.They should eject and ban a few of smokers who would no doubt obey the law.
Smokers - Stop making excuses and start to obey the law.
Incidentally I can also see similar bans for alcohol once they have finished with the smokers, before anyone makes the link between them.
Twenty, or thirty, years ago it would have been unthinkable for people to be refused the right to have a cigarette, or a cigar, after a meal in a restaurant. If you'd canvassed people in a pub and asked them if they believed that they wouldn't be allowed to smoke in their boozer they would've called you a Doctor.
Just to go even more off at a tangent, I can see the high sugar carbonated drinks being attacked soon too. Taxes (duty) may well make a can of Coke so expensive that children won't be able to afford it and their parents will not be willing to buy it.
Nanny State? Oh yes - it's coming!
Interesting response from the various smokers;
Blame shift - it's the clubs fault./ non Smokers are fussy wusses.
Minimise - Passive smoking is not really harmful. / there are other harmful things out there etc./ same as drinking/ reminds me of football when I was a child./ only dangerous if you have weak genes.
Scare - EG posts about a bouncer getting shot for asking someone no to smoke. / it will be drinkers and coke next
Politicise - Bloody nanny state!
Magnanimous - I will respect my fellow non addicted addicks - How generous!
All classic responses of addicts.
Passive smoking is dangerous,even in small doses and even more so in confined spaces where multiple cigarettes have been smoked in a short timespan.
Smoking in enclosed public spaces is illegal and the Club is responsible. it is anti social offensive and totally inconsiderate.Smokers have the right to damage their own health and wealth but don't damage mine.
Actually having read all of the guff on here from smokers my attitude has hardened . Why should the club waste time and energy on pandering to their addiction.They should eject and ban a few of smokers who would no doubt obey the law.
Smokers - Stop making excuses and start to obey the law.
PJW1 - you are right but unfortunately the smoking element of our fan base do not obey the law. So the club has to act in 1 of two ways to solve the problem. 1 way would be to ask the police to have a man stationed in every toilet to deter the smokers. Forget getting stewards to do it as they have no real legal power. This will have an huge on going financial implication. Or, the club could build a right shitty cold area that is open to the elements and let the smoker use that. That would involve a small one of cost and you could then use a steward to man the door. Problem solved and no more pro smoker v anti smoker argument ;-)
Incidentally I can also see similar bans for alcohol once they have finished with the smokers, before anyone makes the link between them.
Twenty, or thirty, years ago it would have been unthinkable for people to be refused the right to have a cigarette, or a cigar, after a meal in a restaurant. If you'd canvassed people in a pub and asked them if they believed that they wouldn't be allowed to smoke in their boozer they would've called you a Doctor.
Just to go even more off at a tangent, I can see the high sugar carbonated drinks being attacked soon too. Taxes (duty) may well make a can of Coke so expensive that children won't be able to afford it and their parents will not be willing to buy it.
Nanny State? Oh yes - it's coming!
Interesting response from the various smokers;
Blame shift - it's the clubs fault./ non Smokers are fussy wusses.
Minimise - Passive smoking is not really harmful. / there are other harmful things out there etc./ same as drinking/ reminds me of football when I was a child./ only dangerous if you have weak genes.
Scare - EG posts about a bouncer getting shot for asking someone no to smoke. / it will be drinkers and coke next
Politicise - Bloody nanny state!
Magnanimous - I will respect my fellow non addicted addicks - How generous!
All classic responses of addicts.
Passive smoking is dangerous,even in small doses and even more so in confined spaces where multiple cigarettes have been smoked in a short timespan.
Smoking in enclosed public spaces is illegal and the Club is responsible. it is anti social offensive and totally inconsiderate.Smokers have the right to damage their own health and wealth but don't damage mine.
Actually having read all of the guff on here from smokers my attitude has hardened . Why should the club waste time and energy on pandering to their addiction.They should eject and ban a few of smokers who would no doubt obey the law.
Smokers - Stop making excuses and start to obey the law.
Just so as to avoid any doubt I am a non-smoker and I hate smoking with a passion.
Incidentally I can also see similar bans for alcohol once they have finished with the smokers, before anyone makes the link between them.
Twenty, or thirty, years ago it would have been unthinkable for people to be refused the right to have a cigarette, or a cigar, after a meal in a restaurant. If you'd canvassed people in a pub and asked them if they believed that they wouldn't be allowed to smoke in their boozer they would've called you a Doctor.
Just to go even more off at a tangent, I can see the high sugar carbonated drinks being attacked soon too. Taxes (duty) may well make a can of Coke so expensive that children won't be able to afford it and their parents will not be willing to buy it.
Comments
People who let their cats shit in other people's gardens...
I don't let my cat shit in other peoples' gardens! I just let her out and she goes and does it! I blame the people for having the audacity to have a garden; what do they expect? I drew the line though when she started going out and dumping her fag ends in their gardens; filthy bloody habit!
You're dumb.
Therefore, a stadium, in the seated areas, generally don't fall under an enclosed space. Concourses/toilets generally do.
"Given the wide range of designs of stadiums and/or stands with overhanging roofs it will not be possible to
categorically state whether stadiums generally will be exempt. Each individual stadium and/or stand will have to
be considered based on its design in order to work out whether it falls within the definition of substantially
enclosed. Accordingly, some clubs may simply decide to designate the whole stadium as smoke free in order to
comply with the new legislation."
http://www.thefa.com/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/SmokingBan.ashx/SmokingBan.pdf
Slightly ridiculous and mis informed comment.
Why is it allowed at some stadia but not others?
As for saying 'smoking is bad for you and it shouldnt be allowed, well clearly you havent visited the North Upper toilets in the past few years. It's happening, so find a solution. Other places have a solution, so why not at The Valley?
Sparrows has found the appropriate terminolgy, which looks like a very subjective decision of the word enclosed.
I thought 1984's whole post was very good, and I have been off the fags for over a year now.
Maybe I am. But the eventual banning of smoking in all public spaces is inevitable.
Thus it might be that no smoking is allowed in the stands, at all. If this is the case then it becomes pointless to even consider any alternative to a complete ban.
I also agree that in the end complete bans will be enforced on all football stadia so it's more a matter of when rather than if.
I'd also point out that regardless of the rules re enclosed spaces if someone lights up in the seat next to, in front of or behind you you are going to get an undesirable amount of smoke. Ignoring the health implications, most people just don't like it so the ban is probably more popular in terms of numbers of fans than it is unpopular. The club is a business and they will always tend to implement rules that are going to satisfy as many of their customers as possible.
It is clear that public support for banning smoking is getting to the point in the UK that the politicians are willing to stand up to the Tobacco lobbyists and I can see smoking being pushed more and more into private residences. Many landlords will not allow smoking in the houses they let out now. I can see a situation where we will see a residential landlord taken to court for compensation from a cancer sufferer on the basis of passive smoking in a property they own and then insurers will not provide Public Liability Insurance unless the property is let out with a ban on smoking.
Enforcing a complete public ban on smoking will be difficult, but I can see it coming!
Twenty, or thirty, years ago it would have been unthinkable for people to be refused the right to have a cigarette, or a cigar, after a meal in a restaurant. If you'd canvassed people in a pub and asked them if they believed that they wouldn't be allowed to smoke in their boozer they would've called you a Doctor.
Just to go even more off at a tangent, I can see the high sugar carbonated drinks being attacked soon too. Taxes (duty) may well make a can of Coke so expensive that children won't be able to afford it and their parents will not be willing to buy it.
Nanny State? Oh yes - it's coming!
Blame shift - it's the clubs fault./ non Smokers are fussy wusses.
Minimise - Passive smoking is not really harmful. / there are other harmful things out there etc./ same as drinking/ reminds me of football when I was a child./ only dangerous if you have weak genes.
Scare - EG posts about a bouncer getting shot for asking someone no to smoke. / it will be drinkers and coke next
Politicise - Bloody nanny state!
Magnanimous - I will respect my fellow non addicted addicks - How generous!
All classic responses of addicts.
Passive smoking is dangerous,even in small doses and even more so in confined spaces where multiple cigarettes have been smoked in a short timespan.
Smoking in enclosed public spaces is illegal and the Club is responsible. it is anti social offensive and totally inconsiderate.Smokers have the right to damage their own health and wealth but don't damage mine.
Actually having read all of the guff on here from smokers my attitude has hardened . Why should the club waste time and energy on pandering to their addiction.They should eject and ban a few of smokers who would no doubt obey the law.
Smokers - Stop making excuses and start to obey the law.