Bring back...

[Nini]

My central belief is that the government should interfere in people's private lives as little as possible. There is something wierdly neo-Puritan about this government - 3,000+ new laws since 1997. 3,000 things the last government and governments before them trusted us to do but this lot think we are too stupid/childish to work out for ourselves.

I like to ask people who want a smaller government what areas they mean when they say "private" as sometimes they mean they just want to do certain things without someone having a peek over their shoulder.I would ask this time but that could go on for a while so I won't. A few western governments do seem to be going a bit neo-puritan and it seems "the terrorists are winning" to paraphrase something missing the point. Doubt all or even a majority of those 3,000+ new laws are there to crush your liberties under a jackboot of oppression but that sorta talk was how Nazi Germany started. Nonetheless for the most part I appreciate your opinion on things and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Spain or Cyprus? You really are of a working class background aren't you? I'd counter what Sput says down below and say for you to move to a more distant expat country like Canada or New Zealand, both offering the sort of non-interfering gov and libber lifestyle you want. Not exactly flying daily in and out of Newcastle Airport I'll grant you...

[Sput]

All I ask: Be more enlightened than to move to an expat colony jb!

[johnnyboy]

Nonetheless for the most part I appreciate your opinion on things and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

I've often considered starting my own religion, like L Ron Hubbard. As soon as I get those high-price courses together, you'll be the first to know.

Spain or Cyprus? You really are of a working class background aren't you? I'd counter what Sput says down below and say for you to move to a more distant expat country like Canada or New Zealand, both offering the sort of non-interfering gov and libber lifestyle you want. Not exactly flying daily in and out of Newcastle Airport I'll grant you...

I'm not sure why, but North America and Australasia have never appealed to me. Not even to visit. For example, I like the USA and its people a lot (hate its government even more) but I genuinely have no desire to even visit.

All I ask: Be more enlightened than to move to an expat colony jb!

The reason they appeal to me is that there would be some element of Britishness there (I do love the country) but it would be sufficiently diluted by a dominant culture.

That said, I hear that certain parts of the Costas are getting our charva problem, so I wouldn't go there. Somewhere like Ibiza sounds very nice.

[all new Phil]

Here's a crazy (and probably unworkable) idea... why can't half of all pubs be designated as smoking, and the other half non-smoking? That way, if someone has an overwhelming desire to go to a pub where they can smoke, they can do so, and likewise for someone who wants to go to a smoke-free pub. Even if it was just for a year or so, it would be interesting to see which of the 2 groups was most popular, and would probably be by far the best way to judge what effect the smoking ban will have.

What I think is a more realistic option, however... why can't a small number of pubs apply for a certain license that would allow smokers to smoke inside them?

My main argument, however... if there was such a huge demand for a smoking ban, then why were non-smoking pubs not more common before it? Surely this huge demand must have been there? Wetherspoons flirted with the idea, but the one nearby changed their mind and allowed smoking once again, a short time before the ban came in.

[Stuart*]

What I think is a more realistic option, however... why can't a small number of pubs apply for a certain license that would allow smokers to smoke inside them?

Understandable, and there are provisions for such from what I've read above. Although I am I smoker I wouldn't welcome such a move. I am quite happy with the current arrangements for smokers, I just wished pubs were forced to introduce plug-in air fresheners.

I can't say I have been to pubs/clubs any more or less since July 2007, but I can say I wasn't happy since then with the smell I encountered (especially in clubs later on in the night). I have enjoyed the new pastime of smirting, both at work and when out socially.

I also find I smoke less of a cigarette standing outside in cold weather because the change from warm to cold air makes me hiccup.

[Gavin Scott]

I also find I smoke less of a cigarette standing outside in cold weather because the change from warm to cold air makes me hiccup.

Me too. Every puff = *hic*

[Mr Q]

Spain or Cyprus? You really are of a working class background aren't you? I'd counter what Sput says down below and say for you to move to a more distant expat country like Canada or New Zealand, both offering the sort of non-interfering gov and libber lifestyle you want. Not exactly flying daily in and out of Newcastle Airport I'll grant you...

Well, I'm not sure anywhere in Europe would be safe - the EU seems to genuinely revel in imposing more rules and regulations to govern people's lives. Although I'll admit I have a certain penchant for Barcelona.

As for Canada - I can't say much since I'vehave never been there. But I laugh at your suggestion New Zealand would be any better. Lawmakers there have tried to ban parents from smacking children for godsakes - it's as much a nanny state as anywhere else. And I say that as someone originally from New Zealand.

[Stuart*]

But I laugh at your suggestion New Zealand would be any better. Lawmakers there have tried to ban parents from smacking children for godsakes - it's as much a nanny state as anywhere else. And I say that as someone originally from New Zealand.

They tried to ban smacking here a couple of years ago. Parents are only allowed to:

...discipline their offspring with "reasonable force", but not smack them hard enough to leave visible red marks.

But even this is said to be in breach of the Human Rights Act.

[johnnyboy]

Australia is definitely off the cards.

They've already banned the safe smell of tobacco from just about everywhere. Now, the next war is on the humble "deadly peanut".

PEANUT butter sandwiches have been banned from a Government building because of concerns the smell could trigger a deadly allergic reaction.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission building in Sydney's CBD has outlawed all peanut products from the building for fear an employee could go into shock and die from the fumes.

Taking the nanny state mentality to the extreme, the commission has begun erecting signs in hallways, kitchens and conference rooms declaring them a "Peanut Free Zone".

The ban, which came into effect this week, is believed to have followed a situation where a staff member became concerned after free peanut butter samples were handed out on Town Hall train station...

...As well as the peanut butter sandwiches, the ban prevents staff from eating chicken satay, Pad Thai, Snickers bars, Crunchy Nut Cornflakes and anything else containing peanuts at work...

...Royal Prince Alfred Hospital's Rob Loblay said it was impossible to trigger an allergic reaction from smell but a sufferer could become "extremely distressed and anxious".

What's sad about this whole thing is that anti-smokers have willingly helped the government ban a simple pleasure that causes no-one else any harm which is enjoyed by 10-12m people.

What they don't realise is that there will be other targets for the neo-Puritans - drink, food, sex they don't approve of.

[Gavin Scott]

What's sad about this whole thing is that anti-smokers have willingly helped the government ban a simple pleasure that causes no-one else any harm which is enjoyed by 10-12m people.

Neither you nor I (who both enjoy a smoke) can say with ANY certainty that it causes "no-one else any harm".

As there is zero doubt as to the deleterious effects to the *actual* smoker I would sooner err on the side of caution when it comes to the health of others.

[Stuart*]

...Royal Prince Alfred Hospital's Rob Loblay said it was impossible to trigger an allergic reaction from smell but a sufferer could become "extremely distressed and anxious".

It seems rather over-zealous to ban peanuts on the basis of research about the toxic effect of the "smell" from products containing peanuts. However, the distress and anxiety of any other employee/visitor should be avoided. Some people obviously believe that there is a percieved threat, whether real or imaginary.

I doubt anyone will actually claim they are suffering any great loss by being denied their Snickers. :roll: