It's quite understandable amongst local rag article commenters who have always relied on anti-tobacco cliches to avoid the obvious, but one would have thought that local columnists might actually read the question before writing nonsense ... unless that is what they didn't do at journo camp to end up at provinicals like the Bridlington Free Press, like Paper Clip here.
SO lots of people in Brid are backing our MP Greg Knight's idea to have smoking reintroduced in pubs and clubs.
They argue the smoking ban in public places is killing the pub trade and is an infringement on their human rights.
I say smoking is killing thousands upon thousands of people in this country every year and that the filthy habit is an infringement on the human rights of non-smokers who have to breathe polluted air.
1) They don't argue that a ban is an infringement on their human rights (would love to know where he got that from).
2) The campaign doesn't ask that any poor flower should be forced to breath 'polluted air', either.
Anyway, let's go with it. See what happens, eh?
Recent talk of a ban in people's own cars when children are inside gets my support.
If the use of mobile phones at the wheel can be banned then surely so can smoking!
Err ... has the wire wally not noticed that the law on using mobile phones has been distinctly unenforceable? As would be a ban on smoking in cars. In fact, it would make things worse. Hands openly hanging out of the window to keep fumes out on a long drive would be replaced with blacked out windows firmly shut on long journeys. It's a shame that Mr Clip didn't factor this into his one-sided bullshit.
But then, what does he care? He's a cast-iron ban fan. He even agrees with previously-ridiculed prosecutions on eating in cars.
Are drivers in full control if they are smoking? Less so than if they are eating a bar of chocolate and motorists have found themselves in trouble for snacking at the wheel.
One can only assume that when the worthless office expendable read about drivers being prosecuted for eating a kit kat, laughing, taking a sip of a bottle of water, eating an ice cream, eating a banana, and brushing one's hair in slow-moving traffic he must have thought it a right wheeze.
If not, he would be a hypocrite, no?
Of course, if he did, he's a righteous twat with no right to be entertained in civil society. Still, I digress.
He is evidently incapable of understanding the written word, as exhibited again later in the article.
If I wanted to risk my health and have my mouth tasting of an ash tray I would smoke – but I don't, so I shouldn't have to put up with smoke when I go into a pub or wherever else selfish people want smoking reintroduced.
Hey. Clippy-boy. Have you even read the web-site regarding the amendment? Because, you see, I always assumed that those who write for newspapers were supposed to research before banging the keys. If you are one of the fabled million monkeys, then I apologise, but one would have thought someone further up the evolutionary scale would have noticed that you wouldn't have to put up with any smoke under the measures proposed.
That's the second example of not understanding the subject matter. I hope there won't be a third. That would make you look rather fucking stupid.
I don't want to sit on a table in a non- smoking part of a restaurant 10ft away from the smoking part because I will still smell it.
Err ... the clue is in the title of the campaign. It's called "Save Our Pubs And Clubs". Where did you get the restaurant bit?
Admit it, you're just a bigoted pratt who has no clue about the campaign. You are writing a piece on apples when the article to which you refer talks of oranges.
Labour educated, yes?
I don't think we need to go into the rest of his garbage, do we? Especially the bit about being able to smell smoke in a different room, in an establishment he quite simply wouldn't go to in the first place.
I love this new campaign, it's flushing selfish morons out of the woodwork like nothing before. They simply can't handle it, they're flummoxed.