Hulver's site || Pros And Cons Of Going Drinking In Central London

Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Pros And Cons Of Going Drinking In Central London

By jump the ladder (Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 07:31:54 AM EST) (all tags)

After the gay pride march on saturday.

Pros

* Lots of ladies getting their tits out for the girlies

Cons

* Spending an hour thinking you are getting somewhere with a couple of fitties and they turn out to be lesbian gym teachers.

Poll: are you glad cigarettes have been banned from all clubs and pubs in the UK?

Crap terrorism

Highly trained Al-queda operatives these guys are not. The Register has a good article on the hysteria. The only people they managed to hurt is the one of the would-be bombers setting himself on fire.

Cigarette ban effects so far

Not a lot as I couldn't smoke inside the building at work anyway, I don't tend to smoke while cycling to work and I haven't been to the pub since the cigarette ban. Was at a private party on saturday night/sunday morning so it wasn't affected by the ban.

< Modern Life is Rubbish | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >

Login

Poll

Votes: 28
Results	\|	Other Polls

Related Links

- cigarettes have been banned
- these guys are not
- good article on the hysteria
- jump the ladder's Diary

Google

Comment Controls

Pros And Cons Of Going Drinking In Central London | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

plspostpixkthx by anonimouse (4.00 / 1) #1 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 07:54:33 AM EST

Girls come and go but a mortgage is for 25 years -- JtL

: Didn't have the prsense of mind by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #2 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:20:32 AM EST

To take photos, too busy drooling :)

[ Parent ]

highly trained doesn't mean highly competent by lm (2.00 / 0) #3 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:42:19 AM EST

A guy on the radio on my morning commute made the point that in 2005, the respective individuals making the devices for both the 07 July and 21 July attacks had attended the same training camp at the same time. But the devices used on 07 July worked flawlessly while the devices used on 21 July failed. So it wasn't a question of training, but of individual ineptitude.

This should be no surprise to anyone in the IT industry. I've a cow-orker who would definitely qualify as highly trained and who has Cisco certifications out her wazoo. Yet, I'd rate her as the most inept person we've got on staff.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic

I think it's time for a complete overhaul by Herring (4.00 / 4) #6 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:50:33 AM EST

of the qualifications. I mean, these terrorists may be able to pass the multiple choice exam, but until a practical element is added to the assessment, I don't think they can really call themselves qualified.

We were discussing this earlier in the office. As I pointed out, the IRA were able to regularly produce proper explosions and they were, allegedly, far less scary.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

: I fully support more rigorous testing by lm (4.00 / 3) #7 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:54:20 AM EST

Clearly the world would be a better place if training for suicide bombers included a practice run with live ordinance at the training camps.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
: Make them do citizenship tests by cam (2.00 / 0) #9 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:03:09 AM EST

that will get their 'qualifications' up.
cam
Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic
[ Parent ]
: Indeed the IRA were very competent by dmg (4.00 / 3) #13 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 04:47:54 PM EST

the IRA were able to regularly produce proper explosions
Perhaps slightly too competent? Considering how thoroughly infiltrated they were, one has to wonder how much of that expertise came courtesy of Her Majesty's intelligence services?
Likewise, aforementioned infilterators were prone to sabotaging IRA's terrorist events at the last minute. So that is another option to consider.
Either way, don't assume incompetence when you can blame shadowy forces!
--
STFU UP ALL OF YOU. I haven't seen this many assholes in all my life.
[ Parent ]

Re ciggie ban by TPD (2.00 / 0) #4 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:44:44 AM EST

at the time of posting I'm still the only yes vote on the board.

I'm not that bothered either way but most people I know who have tried to give up and failed, have done so first through the occasional lapse at the pub leading back to a full blown habit.

Also after a night out I would prefer to come home reeking of just beer.

Rock Hard Abs are just a sw-sw-swivel away!

I smoke by Phage (4.00 / 3) #5 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:48:08 AM EST

But can't stand the smell - especially the next day. So, I'm pleased, but then I hardly ever go to pubs and clubs.

I would have preferred to see private clubs where membership is restricted being left alone. I view that as an extension of smoking in private.

Founder member Golgafrinchan 'B' Ark
[ Parent ]

Exactly by motty (2.00 / 0) #14 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 05:06:28 PM EST

It's not the ban itself as such which is annoying, as there are fair points to be made about effects of smoke on barstaff and such (not that I've met a non-smoking barperson in about a million years but that's by the by). It's the all-inclusive nature of it extending to stopping me from finding and joining a private smoking club that pisses me off.

On the other hand I'll probably drink less now.

I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T
[ Parent ]

It's still someone's workplace by ShadowNode (4.00 / 1) #15 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:15:57 PM EST

Regardless of their admittance policy.

[ Parent ]

With all due respect by motty (4.00 / 1) #16 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 06:54:50 PM EST

I don't give a fuck. It is perfectly legal to effectively require people to sign away parts of their legal rights in various employment contracts here, and I don't see why the same trick couldn't apply in a case such as this. There are plenty of barstaff who smoke who would be more than happy to be able to smoke at work and see it as a perk.

Similarly, long distance lorry drivers who smoke are now going to be in charge of those vehicles while desperate for a cigarette. Fucking brilliant move, that.

I amd itn ecaptiaghle of drinking sthis d dar - Dr T
[ Parent ]

In that case... by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #18 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:00:32 AM EST

Why not apply the same logic to all workplace safety regulation? Why bother having any of them if employers can just veto them at will?

[ Parent ]

Bzzzt by Phage (2.00 / 0) #21 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:20:03 AM EST

Not employers - employees.

Founder member Golgafrinchan 'B' Ark
[ Parent ]

Issue by Herring (4.00 / 2) #23 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:19:03 AM EST

Employers put pressure on employees to sign stuff (e.g. EWTD opt-outs).

BTW, the regulation on company vehicles says that if the vehicle is used exclusively by one employee, then they can smoke in it. Don't know if this works with HGVs.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

: Agree to some extent by Phage (4.00 / 1) #25 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:33:48 AM EST

However, this is bar staff - not profesionals. There is far greater liquidity in the job market. Also a "Smokers Lounge" (as in airports) would have no staff in it.

Founder member Golgafrinchan 'B' Ark
[ Parent ]

So? by ShadowNode (2.00 / 0) #33 Wed Jul 04, 2007 at 02:28:20 AM EST

Why not let employees sign away all their health regulations? Why should tobacco smoke be given special treatment?

[ Parent ]

Signing away legal rights by TurboThy (2.00 / 0) #19 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 02:09:47 AM EST

Perhaps you ought to do something about that, then.
__
You can't fix anything, you can't change anything, so just tell them that everything is A. The Fuck OK. —Rogerborg
[ Parent ]

Not necessarily by Phage (2.00 / 0) #20 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 03:18:34 AM EST

Smoking lounge anyone ?

Founder member Golgafrinchan 'B' Ark
[ Parent ]

Everyone in my dad's office smokes by jump the ladder (2.00 / 0) #30 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:58:00 AM EST

It's a showroom open to the public and the manager/owner hasn't bothered putting up a stupid sign. Fair fucks to him. Don't now how long that's going to last until the anti-smoking gestapo comes around to "re-educate" them.

[ Parent ]

I'm curious as to what the definitions by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #24 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:29:21 AM EST

actually mean. I've not been able to make sense of the ones I've read so far.

For example: You're still allowed to smoke outside, right? And you're allowed to put up canopies and roofing so as to keep the rain off your outside-sitting patrons. Well; let's say that we support the canopy / roof with a couple of walls left and right, then maybe add a small wall at the front to protect them from the wind, then perhaps we could add a door or two. Yeah: facetious; but you probably see my point.

A guy I know was looking into this and he hasn't been able to get a straight answer yet, as it apparently leads into a maze of construction-related statutes.

----
18 days left ...
[ Parent ]

Yeah by Phage (2.00 / 0) #26 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:37:24 AM EST

My train station looks like the scene where Cary Grant gets off the bus in North by Northwest. It's just a concrete platform surrounded by trees and fields.
Apparently I am not allowed to smoke on it.

Founder member Golgafrinchan 'B' Ark
[ Parent ]

That's not statute-related, though, is it? by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #27 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:39:11 AM EST

Isn't that just "company policy"?

----
18 days left ...
[ Parent ]

Yes it is by Phage (2.00 / 0) #29 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:45:10 AM EST

It supports your point that no-one has a clue what an enclosed space is defined as. So, they are putting in a blanket ban to be on the 'safe' side, even though it's patently inappropriate.

Founder member Golgafrinchan 'B' Ark
[ Parent ]

: Yes and no by Cloaked User (4.00 / 1) #34 Fri Jul 06, 2007 at 09:03:04 AM EST

I think that's part of it, of course - err on the side of least exposure and least effort. It also clears up any possible ambiguity; you can't "forget" that you had a lit ciggie as you enter the station, there's no question whether it's ok on a covered platform with no walls, etc.
It also reduces the amount of cleaning required - no more paying people to pick up fag butts. On the other hand, judging from the state of some stations, I don't suppose cleaning was ever a particularly large drain on their finances...

--
This is not a psychotic episode. It is a cleansing moment of clarity.
[ Parent ]

I heard the answer on the wireless by Herring (2.00 / 0) #28 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:44:43 AM EST

Apparently, if more than 50% is enclosed by walls, then it counts as enclosed for the purposes of the legislation.

This has, apparently, lead to some interesting actions. I heard of one company who had provided a bus shelter type affair for smokers. Post-legislation, they had to take half the walls out to comply - leaving it open to the elements.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

50% of *what*? by yicky yacky (2.00 / 0) #31 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 05:59:06 AM EST

"Surface area" seems problematic as it implies an unambiguous Platonic space from which you are subtracting material, which is an indefinable and fairly stupid argument. For example: If you have a perfectly square "room" which has a floor, a roof, and three walls (thus leaving one side open), this would presumably violate the 50% rule on the basis that 5/6ths of the hypothetical cube's sides were walls. But on what basis are we using a cube? Couldn't we equally define the hypothetical space to be a cuboid of almost infinite length extending in the direction of the open face? This gives the enclosure an infinitesimal fraction of one percent. Stupid? Yes.

If it is instead related to the dimensions of the longest wall defining the boubaries of the space, that can be used as a loop hole (very long wall; small room at one end). And are we mandating cuboid rooms now on the basis of simplifying measurement? It's a mess.

----
18 days left ...
[ Parent ]

: It is by Herring (2.00 / 0) #32 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 06:06:18 AM EST

50% of the wall is also confusing. If you have a plane at 45 degrees to the horizontal, is it a roof (allowed) or a wall (not allowed)?

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

Fact! by Herring (4.00 / 5) #8 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 08:58:04 AM EST

The Al Qaeada website does not feature the Investors In People logo anywhere. QED.

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey

I've heard that by yicky yacky (4.00 / 1) #10 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:03:30 AM EST

they're rather cavalier when it comes to their environmental footprint, too; although their privacy policy is one of the more rigorous. Just don't ask them about their ethical foreign policy.

----
18 days left ...
[ Parent ]

: mailto:csr_mailbox@alqaeda.net [n/t] by Herring (4.00 / 1) #11 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 09:24:04 AM EST

I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. - Bill Bailey
[ Parent ]

Homosexual gym teachers by hulver (4.00 / 4) #12 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 03:17:32 PM EST

I'd have been fairly shocked if you'd met a straight gym teacher.
--
smart, pretty, sane. pick two - georgeha

: Stranger things have happened by OAB (2.00 / 0) #17 Mon Jul 02, 2007 at 07:14:55 PM EST

I know a straight female football player.

[ Parent ]

cigarette ban by 256 (4.00 / 1) #22 Tue Jul 03, 2007 at 04:22:18 AM EST

when it happened in toronto, i never could really figure out where i stood on the issue.

i don't smoke, so it greatly increased my enjoyment of pubs and clubs.

on the other hand, i think it's outside the ideal purview of the government to tell you what sort of substances you can consume within the bounds of a private establishment.

in the end, i just settled down to enjoying it, but were there a referendum to repeal it (not that such things happen in ontario), i don't know how i would have voted.
---
_{I don't think anyone's ever really died from smoking. --ni}

Pros And Cons Of Going Drinking In Central London | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback