General rant about cig bans & tax issues.

[The Flying Mouse]

Originally Posted by Deb

You said: If you are getting annoyed, frustrated, or bored with a thread, it is your own fault for reading it in the first place.

What I meant to say was If you are getting annoyed, frustrated, or bored with a thread, it is your own fault for continuing to read it in the first place.

Still, you have my most humble apologies for mixing up three words in a sentence.


I've already apologized for that small error once, this post makes it twice (two out of three ain't bad), but i'll continue to apologize a third time if it means that much.

Originally Posted by Deb

Thank you for reopening the thread Andy.

Actually, Andy didn't lock or reopen the thread.

Andy was in the act of posting as I posted and locked the thread.

Andy then went offline without knowing the thread was locked.

Choosing to concur with Andy in his absence, I decided to reopen the thread, so if you wish to say thanks for reopening the thread, you're more than welcome



Now can this thread go back on topic in the near future please folks?

[Deb]

OK, Thank you for reopening it.

And thank you Andy for tidying it rather than locking it

[Pudding]

Originally Posted by RadioMaster

basically that's true, but you forget that you do not only pay for the drink itself, but for the oportunity to spend the time in the pub with your friends, etc.

I don't need an opportunity to spend time with friends, they can come to my house anytime and vice versa. That said, I am going to the pub on Friday because the landlord is a friend and I can get cheaper beer

Pud

[djfierce]

Originally Posted by RadioMaster

You dont want lets say 15 friends staying half the night at your house, totally pissed, probably smashing some dishes and wracking the toilet.

<<<books a hotel for RJ

[Pudding]

Originally Posted by The Flying Mouse

I'm merely pointing out the simple truth that if something bugs you, you should stop reading it.

Forum members are not required to read and comment on every thread, only on the ones they choose too, so if you find a thread that you find boring/annoying/irritating, you don't have to read it.
Just leave it alone.

That's a good point, so why do threads get locked so often then? because a thread would naturally run its course and eventually end up redundant. People would have either stopped reading it or posting in it and over-zealous moderators wouldn't feel the need to make themselves noticed at ever slight opportunity.

Just a thought.

Pud

[Hypnobabe]

Originally Posted by djfierce

<<<books a hotel for RJ

[rabblerouser]

I can say that it is nicer to go out when there is eough money ( which is not every often).
BUT who will the govenernment pick on NEXT?
Pepole who drink.
Pepole who drive.
Fadt food places.
What next!

[Pudding]

It's not a case of the government picking on anyone. In society there's a certain freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility, unfortunately some people can't cope with responsibilty or think of others and how things affect them, that's why we have laws.

It's OK for people to bemoan the government and how they're infracting on their civil liberties, but what about the civil liberties of the people they're surrounded by, or the civil liberties of society at large?

I'm betting we all know some lazy-arsed git who drinks, smokes, bets on the gee-gee's almost daily, yet they sponge dole off the government weekly and refuses to work. Then they'll have some chronic illness because they're over-weight, have a disease due to smoking or have pickled their liver through drink. Then they'll clog up the health system but moan about the waiting list and how medical staff are under-paid and then expect a pension at the age of 65 without actually contributing much to paying taxes to help pay for all the things they've abused over the years.

So if the government decideds to make things a little harder for some, so it makes things a lot easier for most, then I'm all for it.

Pud

[daveake]

Originally Posted by rabblerouser

I can say that it is nicer to go out when there is eough money ( which is not every often).
BUT who will the govenernment pick on NEXT?
Pepole who drink.
Pepole who drive.
Fadt food places.
What next!

They've done all those. It'll be people that can't spell next ...

Dave

[AndyK]

Originally Posted by daveake

They've done all those. It'll be people that can't spell next ...

Dave

So it bloody should be

[Pudding]

I'm all for a law on bad spelling and one for fat women who wear lycra pants and crop-tops

Pud

[Paul191]

Originally Posted by wolfy35

Strangely enough I do remember Neils first post and I take offence to your reference that I would not.

Yes pub closures have accelerated but at nowhere near the rate that sales by supermarkets have increased. Unfortunately again it all comes down to people voting with their wallet. People who really like pubs will always go there but the vast majority of people will go where they can get the best value for money experience.

Yes, unfortunate but true. It's ashame it took the smoking ban before most of the general public realised that supermarkets are cheaper. I have to be honest if I'd ever planned a heavy night of drinking down the pub i'd usually have got a few cans down the local supermarket before-hand for that exact reason.

[Paul191]

Originally Posted by Pudding

It's not a case of the government picking on anyone. In society there's a certain freedom, but with freedom comes responsibility, unfortunately some people can't cope with responsibilty or think of others and how things affect them, that's why we have laws.

It's OK for people to bemoan the government and how they're infracting on their civil liberties, but what about the civil liberties of the people they're surrounded by, or the civil liberties of society at large?

I'm betting we all know some lazy-arsed git who drinks, smokes, bets on the gee-gee's almost daily, yet they sponge dole off the government weekly and refuses to work. Then they'll have some chronic illness because they're over-weight, have a disease due to smoking or have pickled their liver through drink. Then they'll clog up the health system but moan about the waiting list and how medical staff are under-paid and then expect a pension at the age of 65 without actually contributing much to paying taxes to help pay for all the things they've abused over the years.

So if the government decideds to make things a little harder for some, so it makes things a lot easier for most, then I'm all for it.

Pud

Well said. I would like to add to it though. I'm not 'for' the government putting infringments on everyday law abinding people. My answer to the problems in your statement would be to get everyone out to work. That's a great solution because you don't get the fat lazy gits not contributing. The laws should be to get people motivated and i'm sorry but if that hard working civilian then want's to go to the pub and have a relaxing smoke, (Whether it's in a designated smoking area or not) they should be able too.

[Pudding]

Unfortunately the average hardworking civilian can't afford to go to the pub these days, not when they've got a mortgage, fuel and rising food bills to pay for. Plus they're working their grollies off paying taxes, so lazy dolite shits CAN afford to go to the pub

Pud

[Paul191]

Originally Posted by Pudding

Unfortunately the average hardworking civilian can't afford to go to the pub these days, not when they've got a mortgage, fuel and rising food bills to pay for. Plus they're working their grollies off paying taxes, so lazy dolite shits CAN afford to go to the pub

Pud

That's how the system works mate and that's why there is uproar in this country at the moment.

[Hypnobabe]

Originally Posted by Paul191

That's how the system works mate and that's why there is uproar in this country at the moment.

The same thing could be said for the smoking ban.

[samurai7]

the only problem I hqave with the ban is that I wasn't asked for my opininon before it was imposed. Neither was anyone I know. Democracy? My arse...