Remove requirement for top level football grounds to be all-seated

Section 11.1 of the Football Spectators Act provides the Secretary of State with the power to stipulate that certain football grounds are all-seated, a power that is currently applied to the top two divisions. This section should be repealed.

Practical experience shows that the all-seater rules are unenforceable. Every week, thousands of people stand in front of their seats for the duration of the game. Many who would like to sit down are unable to use their seats, as they find their view blocked. Varied and repeated attempts to tackle this practice have failed.

The evidence demonstrates that when those who wish to stand are provided with designated Safe Standing areas, the issue of standing in seated areas largely goes away. This benefits everyone.

In England and Wales, Safe Standing areas are permitted at rugby union and rugby league venues, as well as at speedway and horse racing events. Safe Standing is also allowed at football grounds outside the top two divisions, subject to the stringent standards laid down in the Government's Green Guide. The idea that the safety of an stadium depends on the type and quality of event happening on the pitch is absurd. This anomoly can best be tackled by removing section 11.1.

Why is this idea important?

Section 11.1 of the Football Spectators Act provides the Secretary of State with the power to stipulate that certain football grounds are all-seated, a power that is currently applied to the top two divisions. This section should be repealed.

Practical experience shows that the all-seater rules are unenforceable. Every week, thousands of people stand in front of their seats for the duration of the game. Many who would like to sit down are unable to use their seats, as they find their view blocked. Varied and repeated attempts to tackle this practice have failed.

The evidence demonstrates that when those who wish to stand are provided with designated Safe Standing areas, the issue of standing in seated areas largely goes away. This benefits everyone.

In England and Wales, Safe Standing areas are permitted at rugby union and rugby league venues, as well as at speedway and horse racing events. Safe Standing is also allowed at football grounds outside the top two divisions, subject to the stringent standards laid down in the Government's Green Guide. The idea that the safety of an stadium depends on the type and quality of event happening on the pitch is absurd. This anomoly can best be tackled by removing section 11.1.

Remove the rule that prevents students choosing their own snacks!!!

In our 6th form college cafe, we are no longer allowed to have a vending machine for snacks.

The reason, apparently, is because we are considered part of the school which we 'came from' and they wanted a 'healthy schools' status.

Firstly, in what world does removing snacks from a place where people are for less than 1% of their week (their lunch/break times) make them magically become healthy?

Secondly, how does removing snacks from the 6th form make the younger student (hence, the school) healthy?

Thirdly, the cafe is used only by students aged 16-19 and occasionally staff as well (who, believe it or not, are adults) who should be permitted to choose whether to buy chocolate from the vending machine every day, or salads and fruit etc from the cafe.

Why is this idea important?

In our 6th form college cafe, we are no longer allowed to have a vending machine for snacks.

The reason, apparently, is because we are considered part of the school which we 'came from' and they wanted a 'healthy schools' status.

Firstly, in what world does removing snacks from a place where people are for less than 1% of their week (their lunch/break times) make them magically become healthy?

Secondly, how does removing snacks from the 6th form make the younger student (hence, the school) healthy?

Thirdly, the cafe is used only by students aged 16-19 and occasionally staff as well (who, believe it or not, are adults) who should be permitted to choose whether to buy chocolate from the vending machine every day, or salads and fruit etc from the cafe.

Share Undreground Ducting to offer many services.

Why cant Cable TV providers share BT ducting or even sewers or lay cables next to water supply mains pipes?  Soon the Analog TV is to be phased out and Millions of homes with no cables have to go for unsightly Dishes and Ariels and lining the pockets of one main Satelite broadcaster.

 

Surely makes sense to make it law to share underground ducting which were layed at the cost of Tax payers in the days of Public ownership.

Why is this idea important?

Why cant Cable TV providers share BT ducting or even sewers or lay cables next to water supply mains pipes?  Soon the Analog TV is to be phased out and Millions of homes with no cables have to go for unsightly Dishes and Ariels and lining the pockets of one main Satelite broadcaster.

 

Surely makes sense to make it law to share underground ducting which were layed at the cost of Tax payers in the days of Public ownership.

Repeal/Amendment to the Smoking Ban

As an ex Publican I saw first hand the destruction of a once thriving industry. I lay 90% of the blame at the feet of the Smoking Ban. To this end I have a solution.

All pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere that serves alcohol has to, by law, have a premises licence to trade alcohol. My solution to the smoking ban would be to do the same thing – licence it! The government could use it as a stick to beat the industry with in terms of tax generation, however that would be offset by the turnover that would undoubtedly be increased.

With the licensing would obviously come restrictions; pubs and restaurants with x% turnover on food (say for instance a pub with a 50/50 split on food against drink) would not be eligable for the licence. The scheme in my mind would be for the pubs with the greatest dangers – the drinkers pubs, or the pubs with kitchens too small to give a suitable food offering. Also, the requirements would have to mean that pubs taking part would have to have a set standard of air filtration and extraction, which would again mean investment. However, with the proposition of bringing supermarket alcohol prices in line with the rest of the industry it would offer a greater level of choice.

All my idea is, is a chance to give a bit of choice back to people, there wouldn't be a requirement for every pub to take this on as a compulsory measure, indeed, if pubs felt they were better off catering to the non smoking community then there would be no requirement for it. However, many of the smaller, drinkers pubs have found serious hardship and difficulty in maintaining revenue due to the lack of choice afforded to a large percentage of customers.

Why is this idea important?

As an ex Publican I saw first hand the destruction of a once thriving industry. I lay 90% of the blame at the feet of the Smoking Ban. To this end I have a solution.

All pubs, bars, restaurants and anywhere that serves alcohol has to, by law, have a premises licence to trade alcohol. My solution to the smoking ban would be to do the same thing – licence it! The government could use it as a stick to beat the industry with in terms of tax generation, however that would be offset by the turnover that would undoubtedly be increased.

With the licensing would obviously come restrictions; pubs and restaurants with x% turnover on food (say for instance a pub with a 50/50 split on food against drink) would not be eligable for the licence. The scheme in my mind would be for the pubs with the greatest dangers – the drinkers pubs, or the pubs with kitchens too small to give a suitable food offering. Also, the requirements would have to mean that pubs taking part would have to have a set standard of air filtration and extraction, which would again mean investment. However, with the proposition of bringing supermarket alcohol prices in line with the rest of the industry it would offer a greater level of choice.

All my idea is, is a chance to give a bit of choice back to people, there wouldn't be a requirement for every pub to take this on as a compulsory measure, indeed, if pubs felt they were better off catering to the non smoking community then there would be no requirement for it. However, many of the smaller, drinkers pubs have found serious hardship and difficulty in maintaining revenue due to the lack of choice afforded to a large percentage of customers.

Ban Party Lists at Elections

For some types of election votes get to choose between Party LIsts. This is profoundly undemocratic. Voters who are, say, left-leaning, cannot diffrentiate between a hard left idealist and a compromising pragmatist, whatever their preference.

Instead of decisions about which person is elected being made by 30,000 voters (or whatever), the decision is made by a selection committee of perhaps 12. Worst case the reality is that the Selection Committee Organiser effectively puts the list together on his or her own. The top candidate is guaranteed to be elected. The 20th placed is guaranteed not to.

If a prospective candidate upsets the wrong person a jumped up Party Discipline rule is invoked to get them suspended, and Hey Presto, they don't get on the list. Party machines have favourites and will do anything to displace who is at the top of the list and gettheir candidate there. Thatcher and Blair were outsiders would never have been high on a List (OK, bad example). Churchill was seen as a troublemaker past his prime – a List system would have put Chaimberlain clones above him.

It's a scheme that Danton would have loved during The Terror period of the French Revolution. Or Stalin.

Why is this idea important?

For some types of election votes get to choose between Party LIsts. This is profoundly undemocratic. Voters who are, say, left-leaning, cannot diffrentiate between a hard left idealist and a compromising pragmatist, whatever their preference.

Instead of decisions about which person is elected being made by 30,000 voters (or whatever), the decision is made by a selection committee of perhaps 12. Worst case the reality is that the Selection Committee Organiser effectively puts the list together on his or her own. The top candidate is guaranteed to be elected. The 20th placed is guaranteed not to.

If a prospective candidate upsets the wrong person a jumped up Party Discipline rule is invoked to get them suspended, and Hey Presto, they don't get on the list. Party machines have favourites and will do anything to displace who is at the top of the list and gettheir candidate there. Thatcher and Blair were outsiders would never have been high on a List (OK, bad example). Churchill was seen as a troublemaker past his prime – a List system would have put Chaimberlain clones above him.

It's a scheme that Danton would have loved during The Terror period of the French Revolution. Or Stalin.

Improve local choice for parents to send their children to non-faith, co-educational schools

In some areas almost half the local schools are either faith schools or single-sex. This restricts the choice for parents who wish their children to attend a non-faith, co-educational school. Camden and Hackney are two examples. Often these schools are successful leaving parents with a small choice of less good schools. It has been proven that faith schools discriminate against non-middle class families, increasing social division. The state education system should ensure full choice for all by limiting the number of faith and single-sex schools and ensuring a balance of boys’ and girls’ schools in each area, if indeed we need them at all. Non-faith, co-educational schools attracting fewer applicants should be supported financially to improve, until parents no longer feel the need to pretend to go to church to get their children into a better school.

Why is this idea important?

In some areas almost half the local schools are either faith schools or single-sex. This restricts the choice for parents who wish their children to attend a non-faith, co-educational school. Camden and Hackney are two examples. Often these schools are successful leaving parents with a small choice of less good schools. It has been proven that faith schools discriminate against non-middle class families, increasing social division. The state education system should ensure full choice for all by limiting the number of faith and single-sex schools and ensuring a balance of boys’ and girls’ schools in each area, if indeed we need them at all. Non-faith, co-educational schools attracting fewer applicants should be supported financially to improve, until parents no longer feel the need to pretend to go to church to get their children into a better school.

Scrap the compulsory BBC tax (licence fee)

At a time when essential public services are being taxed, there can surely be no justification for continuation of compulsory public funding for an organisation that has equivalents, that would be more than adequate if the BBC was to be scrapped in its present form. If people had the choice whether to  use the BBC or not, I'm sure that many of us wouldn't think that the BBC represented value for money as individual consumers. If people want to use the BBC, how about a "pay as you go" system?

Why is this idea important?

At a time when essential public services are being taxed, there can surely be no justification for continuation of compulsory public funding for an organisation that has equivalents, that would be more than adequate if the BBC was to be scrapped in its present form. If people had the choice whether to  use the BBC or not, I'm sure that many of us wouldn't think that the BBC represented value for money as individual consumers. If people want to use the BBC, how about a "pay as you go" system?

Freedom to choose male doctor

Currently, where there are group practices, a woman patient can choose to see a woman doctor where the problem is female-only (and sometimes even when it isn't).

But there are also problems that are male-only. Sometimes a male patient would feel more comfortable discussing his issue with a man because a woman — purely because of her female sex and for no other reason — would be out of touch.

This choice should be available to men.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, where there are group practices, a woman patient can choose to see a woman doctor where the problem is female-only (and sometimes even when it isn't).

But there are also problems that are male-only. Sometimes a male patient would feel more comfortable discussing his issue with a man because a woman — purely because of her female sex and for no other reason — would be out of touch.

This choice should be available to men.

Smoking Ban – Let’s have a referendum!

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Moderators – this thread is NOT the same is the other smoking threads, so please don't delete it!

It doesn't matter if you are for or against the smoking ban, what matters is that the public are asked what THEY think and want, through a fair referendum.

Let the public decide what should be done about the smoking ban and allow the government to follow the wishes of its electorate. No other decision is lawful or in any way appropriate if this country is, as it proclaims, a democracy.

The referendum could give 4 options to vote on:-

1. Keep and extend the current smoking ban, to include all public places.

2. Keep the existing smoking ban as it is, with no further changes.

3. Relax the smoking ban to allow private business' (pubs, clubs, cafe's and restaurants etc) to decide on their own smoking policy, or have inside separate ventilated smoking areas etc.

4. Reverse the smoking ban completely, i.e. to how it was in the 1970's.

 

 

 

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking Pubs ….simples

Some adults CHOOSE to smoke. Some adults CHOOSE not to smoke. We all unfortunately inhale second hand fumes and pollutants because of the car obsessed part of world we live in. However, if a publican and his/her staff are happy to allow smoking on their premises then they should be allowed to. Common sense, tongue in cheek and 21st century choices to make this a viable option are…

1) Compulsory and standardised air filtration systems fitted in smoking pubs to minimise or eliminate supposed (I say this because of the lack of real scientific evidence of passive smoking causing harm) passive smoking by non smokers who CHOOSE to attend these premises. In fact all publicans could have had one of these fitted 3 years ago instead of buying shelters, awnings, gazebos etc. to accommodate outdoor smoking.

2) Smoking Pub or Non-smoking Pub  signs to be clearly shown outside, so no anti-smokers or innocent children can accidentally stray into the building. Anti-smokers (please note these people are different from non-smokers) can enjoy smoke free moaning without the rest of us having to suffer second hand whinging.

3) Smoking Pubs to be for adults only so no child is exposed to even filtrated second hand smoke, not because I think it is dangerous but to stem the inevitable objections from anti-smokers that even if they were willing to risk this environment 'what about the children'.  Actually, this is win win for smokers, a quiet drink, smoke and a child free environment.  (By the way good air filters would provide a less polluted environment than being on the pavement next to any road so your child would be better off in the pub).

4) Selected pubs to be designated as palaces, then just as at Westminster all smokers rather than just MP's who are smokers can CHOOSE to smoke in a civilised adult environment.

5)  The enormous tax revenue from smokers to go straight to the NHS to cover almost 10 times the cost of smoking related illnesses . Or we could share it out between education and health then smokers would be helping save lives and improve the educational standards of the populace. The economy would boom due to our abundance of scientists, engineers and business whizz kids so we could all get self-cert super high mortgages again and kid ourselves that we are all one class now.  (This idea would mean that working smokers were paying tax twice toward these public services but we are an easy going bunch and wouldn't mind).

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking pubs….simples.

Why is this idea important?

Some adults CHOOSE to smoke. Some adults CHOOSE not to smoke. We all unfortunately inhale second hand fumes and pollutants because of the car obsessed part of world we live in. However, if a publican and his/her staff are happy to allow smoking on their premises then they should be allowed to. Common sense, tongue in cheek and 21st century choices to make this a viable option are…

1) Compulsory and standardised air filtration systems fitted in smoking pubs to minimise or eliminate supposed (I say this because of the lack of real scientific evidence of passive smoking causing harm) passive smoking by non smokers who CHOOSE to attend these premises. In fact all publicans could have had one of these fitted 3 years ago instead of buying shelters, awnings, gazebos etc. to accommodate outdoor smoking.

2) Smoking Pub or Non-smoking Pub  signs to be clearly shown outside, so no anti-smokers or innocent children can accidentally stray into the building. Anti-smokers (please note these people are different from non-smokers) can enjoy smoke free moaning without the rest of us having to suffer second hand whinging.

3) Smoking Pubs to be for adults only so no child is exposed to even filtrated second hand smoke, not because I think it is dangerous but to stem the inevitable objections from anti-smokers that even if they were willing to risk this environment 'what about the children'.  Actually, this is win win for smokers, a quiet drink, smoke and a child free environment.  (By the way good air filters would provide a less polluted environment than being on the pavement next to any road so your child would be better off in the pub).

4) Selected pubs to be designated as palaces, then just as at Westminster all smokers rather than just MP's who are smokers can CHOOSE to smoke in a civilised adult environment.

5)  The enormous tax revenue from smokers to go straight to the NHS to cover almost 10 times the cost of smoking related illnesses . Or we could share it out between education and health then smokers would be helping save lives and improve the educational standards of the populace. The economy would boom due to our abundance of scientists, engineers and business whizz kids so we could all get self-cert super high mortgages again and kid ourselves that we are all one class now.  (This idea would mean that working smokers were paying tax twice toward these public services but we are an easy going bunch and wouldn't mind).

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking pubs….simples.

NHS Money Wasting

Please stop wasting money in the NHS on infertility treatments.  Some women have had to forego having children ever since time began and have had to get on with it.  Some adopted other people’s children and others did not.  Women do NOT have a right to have children and the State has no role in trying to help them have them.  If they want to have fertility treatment then they should pay for it.  State intervention by the NHS in this treatment is extremely expensive and not a role of Government.

 

 Similarly, the NHS should stop doing sex change and sex adjustment treatments.  Again if people want it they should pay for it- not the taxpayer.

Why is this idea important?

Please stop wasting money in the NHS on infertility treatments.  Some women have had to forego having children ever since time began and have had to get on with it.  Some adopted other people’s children and others did not.  Women do NOT have a right to have children and the State has no role in trying to help them have them.  If they want to have fertility treatment then they should pay for it.  State intervention by the NHS in this treatment is extremely expensive and not a role of Government.

 

 Similarly, the NHS should stop doing sex change and sex adjustment treatments.  Again if people want it they should pay for it- not the taxpayer.

Education should not be compulsory – at any age

Education should not be compulsory – at any age.

The fact that it is complusory until the age of majority speaks volumes about how unsuitable and unpalatable it is.

Why is this idea important?

Education should not be compulsory – at any age.

The fact that it is complusory until the age of majority speaks volumes about how unsuitable and unpalatable it is.

Categorise Smoking in pubs

The smoking ban should be repealed and the right to smoke or not in a pub should be at the landlord/ladies' discretion.

Why not introduce categories for pubs, for example

Cat. A , No smoking allowed on the premises.

Cat. B, Generally no smoking inside but a room is provided for smokers.

Cat. C, Smoking pub , but a no-smoking room is provided.

Cat. D. Smoking allowed throughout the pub.

Of course smoking should still be permitted in external areas.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban should be repealed and the right to smoke or not in a pub should be at the landlord/ladies' discretion.

Why not introduce categories for pubs, for example

Cat. A , No smoking allowed on the premises.

Cat. B, Generally no smoking inside but a room is provided for smokers.

Cat. C, Smoking pub , but a no-smoking room is provided.

Cat. D. Smoking allowed throughout the pub.

Of course smoking should still be permitted in external areas.

Help Britain to see the light

Could we please be allowed to choose for ourselves whether we use incandescent bulbs that cost pennies to make and pennies to buy and provide superb lighting, or low energy bulbs that cost pounds to make and pounds to buy and pounds to recycle and force us to grope around in semi darkness. To ban the sale of 'real' bulbs on a staggered basis has forced many of us to stockpile 'bulb mountains'; a luxury that only those with the cash to buy them and the space to store them can take advantage of. For the rest of the population, buying light bulbs at up to £5 each which are particularly unattractive, often too large for the lamp that they are fitted to, and which provide little more than a dim glow is an unecessary imposition.

Please reverse this restriction. Please also impose a target on light bulb manufacturers to develop a low cost, low energy light bulb in the near future that is more acceptable to the public. When such a bulb is developed, the transition will still take place, but it will be our choice.   

Why is this idea important?

Could we please be allowed to choose for ourselves whether we use incandescent bulbs that cost pennies to make and pennies to buy and provide superb lighting, or low energy bulbs that cost pounds to make and pounds to buy and pounds to recycle and force us to grope around in semi darkness. To ban the sale of 'real' bulbs on a staggered basis has forced many of us to stockpile 'bulb mountains'; a luxury that only those with the cash to buy them and the space to store them can take advantage of. For the rest of the population, buying light bulbs at up to £5 each which are particularly unattractive, often too large for the lamp that they are fitted to, and which provide little more than a dim glow is an unecessary imposition.

Please reverse this restriction. Please also impose a target on light bulb manufacturers to develop a low cost, low energy light bulb in the near future that is more acceptable to the public. When such a bulb is developed, the transition will still take place, but it will be our choice.   

Keep the Right to Homeopathy on the NHS

The Royal Homeopathic Hospital and some others provide a good service that is, in my experience, as effective as conventional medication. There has been a witch hunt against homeopathy in recent years and it is under threat. I wish to  protect my right to homeopathy on the NHS, and l propose that it should be available nationally, not just a postcode lottery.

Why is this idea important?

The Royal Homeopathic Hospital and some others provide a good service that is, in my experience, as effective as conventional medication. There has been a witch hunt against homeopathy in recent years and it is under threat. I wish to  protect my right to homeopathy on the NHS, and l propose that it should be available nationally, not just a postcode lottery.

let milk be milk – repealing pasteurisation laws

To allow organic farmers to sell their milk unpasteurised once again – as far as I can tell, this is due to economic pressure by the FSA (food standards authority)

Why is this idea important?

To allow organic farmers to sell their milk unpasteurised once again – as far as I can tell, this is due to economic pressure by the FSA (food standards authority)

smoking ban

it is crazy we as a publican we should have the right to allow or not allow smoking in our premises as long as there are signs people have the choice to come in or not.most of my customers are  older and have to stand outside in winter its a joke.the people who decided this are ex smokers not non smokerswe most definitely have not seen this rush of non smokers coming to our pubs.and why oh why do we have to display signs for no smoking when it is the law of the land,we dont have signs for no stabbing,no murdering,because we know its the law take this stupid law away

Why is this idea important?

it is crazy we as a publican we should have the right to allow or not allow smoking in our premises as long as there are signs people have the choice to come in or not.most of my customers are  older and have to stand outside in winter its a joke.the people who decided this are ex smokers not non smokerswe most definitely have not seen this rush of non smokers coming to our pubs.and why oh why do we have to display signs for no smoking when it is the law of the land,we dont have signs for no stabbing,no murdering,because we know its the law take this stupid law away

Eliminate Bonfire Night legislation

Eliminate the fuzzy Health and Safety legislation which prevents us from enjoying the warmth of a bonfire on Bonfire night.  The fears around  "Health and safety" have produced a situation in which our children can no longer play with sparklers and we all stand around freezing  on a cold November evening while watching the bonfire from the edges of an exclusion zone. This is ridiculous.  

Why is this idea important?

Eliminate the fuzzy Health and Safety legislation which prevents us from enjoying the warmth of a bonfire on Bonfire night.  The fears around  "Health and safety" have produced a situation in which our children can no longer play with sparklers and we all stand around freezing  on a cold November evening while watching the bonfire from the edges of an exclusion zone. This is ridiculous.  

Amend Part 1 of Chapter 28 of the Health Act 2006 (The smoking ban).

This bit of HA 2006 banned the enjoyment of tobacco in all enclosed places to which the public have access or where people work. The Act needs to be amended in order to exclude PRIVATE PROPERTY.  I would define ‘private property’ as a building or an area of land which does not belong to the state (in its various forms): ‘belong’ means owning or leasing or renting, or similar. In my opinion, the enjoyment of tobacco on private property is not something in which the state should be interested, unless there is a risk of contagion, in the sense of diseases.

The imposition of these rules in or on PRIVATE PROPERTY is unreasonable. There is no risk of contagion of some DISEASE resulting from the enjoyment of tobacco, because there is no such thing.

The smoking ban is, frankly, silly and stupid. Anyone who has risked his live as a member of the Armed Forces will know that there is a VAST difference between real and present danger, and the putative dangers of passive smoking (which, by the way, have been proved to be non-existent).

If there are reasons that my suggestion cannot be realise in its entirety, then at least give the owners of private property permission to have ‘smoking rooms’.

There is one more thing. By law, pigs have to have adequate shelter from the elements. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 require that Human Beings who enjoy tobacco MUST not.

Why is this idea important?

This bit of HA 2006 banned the enjoyment of tobacco in all enclosed places to which the public have access or where people work. The Act needs to be amended in order to exclude PRIVATE PROPERTY.  I would define ‘private property’ as a building or an area of land which does not belong to the state (in its various forms): ‘belong’ means owning or leasing or renting, or similar. In my opinion, the enjoyment of tobacco on private property is not something in which the state should be interested, unless there is a risk of contagion, in the sense of diseases.

The imposition of these rules in or on PRIVATE PROPERTY is unreasonable. There is no risk of contagion of some DISEASE resulting from the enjoyment of tobacco, because there is no such thing.

The smoking ban is, frankly, silly and stupid. Anyone who has risked his live as a member of the Armed Forces will know that there is a VAST difference between real and present danger, and the putative dangers of passive smoking (which, by the way, have been proved to be non-existent).

If there are reasons that my suggestion cannot be realise in its entirety, then at least give the owners of private property permission to have ‘smoking rooms’.

There is one more thing. By law, pigs have to have adequate shelter from the elements. The provisions of the Health Act 2006 require that Human Beings who enjoy tobacco MUST not.

LIFT SMOKING BAN IN PUBS & CLUBS at management’s discretion

Let publicans decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments. Let CIU Clubs decide whether to lift the ban in their establishments. Give Pubs & Clubs, Bingo Halls, Betting Shops and other adult establishments the power to decide whether they want to lift the ban in adult over 18 establishments. Get rid of Nanny State Politics. Let the people decide.

Why is this idea important?

Let publicans decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments. Let CIU Clubs decide whether to lift the ban in their establishments. Give Pubs & Clubs, Bingo Halls, Betting Shops and other adult establishments the power to decide whether they want to lift the ban in adult over 18 establishments. Get rid of Nanny State Politics. Let the people decide.

Ban the smoking ban

The smoking ban is ridiculous.  The facts are quite clear: pubs and clubs have been going out of business at an alarming rate.  In addition to this, it is discrimination in its worst form, in that it encourages other people to bully smokers.  As an individual, I believe I have the right to decide what I do and when I do it, not be told by a nanny state that I cannot.

Why is this idea important?

The smoking ban is ridiculous.  The facts are quite clear: pubs and clubs have been going out of business at an alarming rate.  In addition to this, it is discrimination in its worst form, in that it encourages other people to bully smokers.  As an individual, I believe I have the right to decide what I do and when I do it, not be told by a nanny state that I cannot.

Licensed smoking pubs

Public houses could be allowed to apply for a smoking licence – for a fee. The licence to be granted subject to the provision of a separate, enclosed smoking area serviced by air conditioners/washers. Standards for the performance of the air con/washers would be set (in a similiar fashion to car emissions ratings) and any failure to meet the required level would result in a hefty fine and possible loss of licence.

Staff for the area are either to be smokers or non-smokers, who are not bothered by smoking.  These staff would be required to sign a voluntary statement to the effect that they are prepared to work in the licenced areas, so long as the air purity meets requiements.

No smoking to be allowed in 'no smoking' areas and dining areas.

Why is this idea important?

Public houses could be allowed to apply for a smoking licence – for a fee. The licence to be granted subject to the provision of a separate, enclosed smoking area serviced by air conditioners/washers. Standards for the performance of the air con/washers would be set (in a similiar fashion to car emissions ratings) and any failure to meet the required level would result in a hefty fine and possible loss of licence.

Staff for the area are either to be smokers or non-smokers, who are not bothered by smoking.  These staff would be required to sign a voluntary statement to the effect that they are prepared to work in the licenced areas, so long as the air purity meets requiements.

No smoking to be allowed in 'no smoking' areas and dining areas.

Freedom of Choice, at what cost ?

Freedoms of all sorts usually have a down side,   such as freedom to smoke , the down side is pollution of the air for others , so preventing them having the freedom of clean air.
So can we decide that freedoms are expensive always for someone else who has to suffer the consequences of other "Freedoms".
Freedoms should cost , in some way so as to help put measures in place to provide some protection from some of the "Freedoms" we all enjoy, such as cars, travel, smoking, noise, smells etc .
We are as society already doing a lot  in regulations and laws, but is it not time to really make the user or consumer pay for the polluting choices they make in the services and goods they purchase.
Remove all taxes and replace with a  natural resource tax  taxed at as near source as possible  at a level determined by the environmental impact it has on  planet life and man at a rate determined by the welfare and public needs of the time.

 

Why is this idea important?

Freedoms of all sorts usually have a down side,   such as freedom to smoke , the down side is pollution of the air for others , so preventing them having the freedom of clean air.
So can we decide that freedoms are expensive always for someone else who has to suffer the consequences of other "Freedoms".
Freedoms should cost , in some way so as to help put measures in place to provide some protection from some of the "Freedoms" we all enjoy, such as cars, travel, smoking, noise, smells etc .
We are as society already doing a lot  in regulations and laws, but is it not time to really make the user or consumer pay for the polluting choices they make in the services and goods they purchase.
Remove all taxes and replace with a  natural resource tax  taxed at as near source as possible  at a level determined by the environmental impact it has on  planet life and man at a rate determined by the welfare and public needs of the time.