On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:53:31 +0000, Salad Dodger
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:37:20 +0000, "sweller"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>SteveH wrote:
>>
>>> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/dri...cle7061168.ece
>>>
>>> First, they came for the smokers.... then they came for the drinkers....
>>>
>>> Exactly as predicted by the smokers, then.
>>
>>You sound quite stupid with the utterly irrelevant Pastor Niemoller quote
>>- As an aside the railway has been "zero" since 1992, do you think train
>>drivers are being persecuted?
>
>Last time I checked, train driving was a voluntary activity.

Poor choice of words, I agree.

Just because a "zero" policy works for train drivers, it does not
automatically follow that such a policy is necessary/desirable for the
wider population.

A similar conclusion based on the incidence of crash helmet wearing
within motorcyclists, for example.

Or the need for child-care professionals to be vetted/licensed before
they have any contact with children ... oh, hang on.

Andy Bonwick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:35:39 +0000, Catman
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>wessie wrote:
>
> snip>
>
>>> http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=118454 has the final
figure
>>> at 28% of total sales and that was in 2003.
>>>
>>
>>So not a majority then. OTOH don't people notoriously under report how
>>much they actually smoke when asked. To say nothing of those that are
>>rolling their own and then using some kind of random personal factor to
>>convert their usage into British Standard Cigarettes.
>
> It'd be interesting to see more up to date figures because duty free
> tobacco has certainly become more readily available with the increased
> number of East Europeans coming in and out of the country. They're
> ****ing up the governments tax predictions, the bastards.

It's not only East Europeans. When I worked at Xerox the NL drivers coming
from our plant in Venray often had loads of the stuff for sale. IIRC from
what BGN says, the price of tobacco in Belgium makes it worthwhile for him
to make a trip over once every 3 months, as he only pays about £5 for the
ferry.

--
wessie at tesco dot net

BMW R1150GS

Salad Dodger wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:44:39 GMT, "Jérémy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Salad Dodger <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>>> Why doesn't that work for a motorbike?
>>>
>>> It did, in the eighties.
>>
>> Funnily enough, that's when I was cycling in London.
>
> I'm surprised we didn't bump into each other.

You probably did but were too ****ed to remember

--
Malc

Rusted and ropy.
Dog-eared old copy.
Vintage and classic,
or just plain Jurassic:
all words to describe me.

Monkey wrote:
> "The Older Gentleman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message news:1jfcvop.kxda381skgg2uN%totallydeadmailbox@yah oo.co.uk...
>> I can't help thinking that if you're going to have a drink-drive
>> policy, that should be: "No booze at all. Zero."
>
> Personally I think you should be able to drink as much as you like,
> drive as fast as you like, and take as many drugs as you like, as
> long as you're still capable of controlling a motor vehicle safely.
> Unpolicable, but the only truely fair way of doing things, IMO.

I agree but as you say totally unpolicable.

--
Malc

Rusted and ropy.
Dog-eared old copy.
Vintage and classic,
or just plain Jurassic:
all words to describe me.

wessie <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Considering your occupation, I would expect you to have a better
> understanding of the socio-economics of the on-licence trade. Your
> employer and its peers has had a bigger impact on the local boozer than
> the smoking ban.

Bit of both, I suspect.

Pubs getting quieter and putting up prices, plus a smoking ban, meant
people have more reason to buy supermarket booze.

When a pint of Boddingtons (straight from Strangeways) was £1.10 in my
local, I rarely saw the point of buying 4 cans for £1.50 at 'Liquor
Save'. Now it's pushing 3 quid for a pint of John Smiths, I have very
little reason to wander down the pub.

--
SteveH

(E-Mail Removed) (SteveH) wrote:

>We are seeing one law after another brought in or amended, all of which
>seem to be aimed at dividing and grinding down the population.

You think that changing the amount of alcohol inside people driving
cars is "dividing and grinding down"?

What an odd fish you are.

vulgarandmischevious <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> (E-Mail Removed) (SteveH) wrote:
>
> >We are seeing one law after another brought in or amended, all of which
> >seem to be aimed at dividing and grinding down the population.
>
> You think that changing the amount of alcohol inside people driving
> cars is "dividing and grinding down"?
>
> What an odd fish you are.

Call me a foil-hat wearing lunatic, but we do seem to have a government
on a mission to introduce as many laws as they possibly can in order to
gain further control over the population. This, to me, appears to be yet
another one of those. Aside from the fund-raising potential of it.
--
SteveH

SteveH <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Call me a foil-hat wearing lunatic, but we do seem to have a government
> on a mission to introduce as many laws as they possibly can in order to
> gain further control over the population.

An average of one new law per day while they've been in power, according
to today's Sunday Times.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

(E-Mail Removed) (SteveH) wrote:

>vulgarandmischevious <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> (E-Mail Removed) (SteveH) wrote:
>>
>> >We are seeing one law after another brought in or amended, all of which
>> >seem to be aimed at dividing and grinding down the population.
>>
>> You think that changing the amount of alcohol inside people driving
>> cars is "dividing and grinding down"?
>>
>> What an odd fish you are.
>
>Call me a foil-hat wearing lunatic, but we do seem to have a government
>on a mission to introduce as many laws as they possibly can in order to
>gain further control over the population.

This isn't the first Government to do it, and it won't be the last.

> This, to me, appears to be yet
>another one of those.

You dont think there coud be a *teeny* little element of
"drink-driving is something we should discourage"?

>Aside from the fund-raising potential of it.

The fact that youconsider this to be a significant factor in this
decision tells people a very great deal about the value of your
opinions.

(E-Mail Removed) (The Older Gentleman) wrote:

>SteveH <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Call me a foil-hat wearing lunatic, but we do seem to have a government
>> on a mission to introduce as many laws as they possibly can in order to
>> gain further control over the population.
>
>An average of one new law per day while they've been in power, according
>to today's Sunday Times.

Which compares with the average, over, say, the last hundred years?