Buy to lets

[Mark]

That's because your taste buds are covered in nicotine

-

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Often used to hear - 'I never go to a pub because they are so smoky' Wonder if those types now make up for those who don't go anymore because they can't smoke?

[Andy Hall]

There still is choice. People who want to smoke can do so outside. I would prefer it if they do so some way away from the building and certainly away from the entrance area so that it's not necessary to walk through it on th way in and out.

Possibly, but for me it isn't particularly the second hand smoke health risk argument because I was able to avoid exposure to that anyway by avoiding places where smoking is going on. In so far that that is places where it isn't generally *necessary* to go such as pubs, they can be avoided. However it is all of the other places to which the public have or require access where there isn't a choice or there is less choice of whether to go in them or not.

I find far more objectionable the smell from smoke in the vicinity or in places where there has been a lot of smoking and the furnishings have become saturated with the result. Even worse is the typical thing of use of heavyweight anti-tobacco air fresheners and cleaning products used in an attempt to mask it.

For example, for many years I have used availability of non smoking rooms a criterion for selection of hotels, making it clear on the booking that it is a condition of staying there. If I find that a room has been smoked in and dosed with cleaner, I ask for another. It used to be the case that hotels would only treat non smoking room as a request and didn't make too much effort - that has gradually changed. Even in countries where smoking is much more endemic such as Greece and Russia and to a great extent, Spain, it is changing as well.

In restaurants, or anywhere else that food is served, the smell of active or stale smoke is particularly objectionable -I find that it completely ruins the flavour of the food. Non smoking areas simply don't work, the smell still drifts around. This was tried in a lot of the U.S. for a number of years and it just isn't satisfactory.

Having some bars and restaurants that have smoking and others not isn't really a solution either. If one visits a place for the first time, how does one find each? A lot of time wasted wandering around finding whichever.

In countries where smoking is still permitted in restaurants, but is done on a voluntary basis because the owner sees a commercial benefit or where there is a minimum proportion of area required by law it just doesn't work. Too often, the premises are physically too small to prevent wafting of smoke or just the smell of stale stuff from entering the non smoking area. Even if tables are well spaced, if one is sitting in a non-smoking area and then somebody comes and lights up at an adjoining table, it is the same as having gone into a smoking area in the first place because of the drift and permeation of the fumes. This completely ruins the whole experience of going to the place.

Certainly when I travel, if I look into a restaurant and figure that this is likely to happen, I make a point of asking about smoking. In general, I will go elsewhere and tell them why. In cities in some countries, it's very difficult to find a restaurant where the effect of smoking going on can be avoided. In those, I end up looking for a place where one can get served quickly and get out. The problem is that these tend not to be the places with the best food - usually the worst.

It is. As a general principle, it is reasonable to describe freedom of choice as the ability to do whatever one likes provided that that doesn't impact on the equal right of others to exercise their choices.

Unfortunately, it doesn't really work in this case because smoking does have an impact on others, whether or not one accepts the passive smoking health risk argument.

If it were *necessary* to smoke, like it is necessary to eat and drink, then it would be a different matter.

[normanwisdom]

professional way. My objection is to the substantial number of new entrants who just see it as easy money and an alternative to a pension

- they are also the ones who will bleat loudest when things don't work out and probably expect handouts like Northern Rock investors.

cheers J

[tony sayer]

In that case I like eating rats:)

Ever tried the one they do at Signor Sassi in Knightsbridge, that rather fine Italian place?...

[Pete C]

What sort of property is it, a typical BTL flat for instance?

cheers, Pete.

[Man at B&Q]

Should have told them to share with a law student.

MBQ

[Dave Plowman (News)]

Fine on a pleasant summer evening - but not when there's a cold wind and driving rain. The stupid legislation banns any form of effective shelter.

I'd also prefer not having to mix with drunks on the street etc. Many find those rather more threatening/unpleasant than smokers.

As a sideline, my local rail station constantly plays a message saying smoking is banned there due to government legislation. Yet more than half of each platform is totally open - no roof or walls. They must have got together with CORGI.

[Doctor Drivel]

Yes you had a choice to kill others with toxic smoke. What laws did we have then, allowing people to do that!!! Appalling situation!!!

We had our freedom curtailed. The freedom not to inhale toxic fumes. If you want to breath in toxic fumes, litter the place with ash and butts and be fire risk with naked flames, then do it where it doesn't affect me - like in your own home.

[Man at B&Q]

I can't find the original reference I had to this (a newspaper article IIRC) so I will stand corrected, at least for now.

MBQ

[Andrew May]

Oh, I am sure you could do it but I think that any financial adviser would be far more concerned with making sure it was documented that they had pointed out the potential downsides than they would it it was BTL.

Andrew

[Doctor Drivel]

A housing bubble? No. There is still a shortage of housing. In certain housing segments things may be difficult. BTL is one, overall no.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

[snip]

You'll be siting boiler flue outlets internally, then? Only driving your van round your house?

[Doctor Drivel]

heard this and they are preying for one to get the government out. The economy has been very well run over the past 10 years which irks the opposition.

[Doctor Drivel]

Liverpool and Manchester promoted lots of new city centre blocks to get middle class, high expendable income people in the centres. It worked. There is a glut at the mo' with these. When the city centre industries catch up and demand increases, the market for these will increase. Many companies rent these out rather than stick people in hotels. Also, many of these apartments will be sold off for owner/occupation.

[Maria]

Being a poster to politics groups, I've wearied of the argyument now! My position is simply that a pub is private property and it should have been a matter of freedom of choice for landlords whether their pub was smoking or non-smoking.

Nah...working-class people only catch it and flog it - I doubt they'd recognise it on a plate. :)

[Andrew May]

Just out of interest would you also extend this argument to other private property? Say, to the factory owner, who should have the freedom of choice to decide whether to provide safety equipment on machinery.

Although probably not the true reason I was always under the impression that banning smoking in pubs was as much about, if not mostly about, providing a safe workplace for the bar staff.

Andrew

[Maria]

I really don't want to get into this argument (simply because I'm all argued out from arguments in other groups!)

I have been to countries where roofers just walk up ladders - no safety helmet or scaffolding or anything. Others go the whole hog and provide every safety measure. Freedom of choice.. Having said that I think it's a good thing that we have safety measures in place to protect workers, but at the end of the day, people negotiate their own workplace conditions and can choose to leave to work somewhere safer. If they are injured in the workplace, there is always tort law by which they can claim compensation, which would naturally cause employers to be careful about any dangers posed by their machinery..

*If* we were in a situation like 150 years ago where millions of people slaved in factories all day, usually in the same one all their life and no union, then I'd adjust my view that the law needs to intervene more to protect them. But we are not.

As it is, it has gone far too far in places - for example, I have a 16 year old daughter who cannot find part-time work - there are plenty of cleaning jobs around, but they won't employ her because by law, she is not allowed to clean toilets. Sorry, but it's just nonsense.

Who always have had a choice about where they work, just like asbestos workers, sewer workers and steeplejacks.

[Clive George]

That's bollocks. The balance of power doesn't permit it. "Choose to leave to work somewhere safer" doesn't work unless there's quite a shortage of workers, and there isn't one at the moment.

You'd think - but it's not the case.

cheers, clive

[Stuart Noble]

Most of whom are out in the rain with the customers when they get half a chance