Dubstepforum.com

^ Just for the record - evil AND very mad.

forensix (mcr) wrote:

geiom wrote: I don't think Whistla was saying 'I hate this country' - he was pointing out the irony of the situation ?

I realise this but his avatar and posts together do give the impression that he's not Britain's biggest fan.

its not britain per say i have a problem with its the way our "leaders" are removing civil liberties at the most alarming rate (and no-one seems to give a monkeys)
i dont have a problem with the smoking age being raised, but i do question how a 16 year old can make the judgement "i want to go and die for my country" yet he is not thought mentally capable of deciding whether to smoke or not. I find that kind of governance questionable

DJ Whistla wrote:i dont have a problem with the smoking age being raised, but i do question how a 16 year old can make the judgement "i want to go and die for my country" yet he is not thought mentally capable of deciding whether to smoke or not. I find that kind of governance questionable

I think that if he wants to die for his country he's a twat to be perfectly honest. Those that want to fight for it I think are twats too obviously (seeing as we're not actually under attack, unless you include those pesky terrorists, and I think the "intelligence" services are dealing with them)

Die for oil suckers

feasible_weasel wrote:so u can have sex,but not have a cigarette afterwards
pure fukree government

The horror!!




Seems like 07' is the year of UK's big move on the smoking kill

it's not gonna be that big of a deal. never stopped any of my friends from gettign cigs when we were younger.

its the way our "leaders" are removing civil liberties at the most alarming rate (and no-one seems to give a monkeys)

yeah but nobody seemed to give a monkeys when this was going on during the Troubles either. it's been 30 years and we're still not living in an orwellian dystopia

Do people who are 16 actually fight though,

I dont know many people who went to the army, just one and he didnt go out to iraq untill he was 18. He joined when he was 16.

I just dont like people throwing the same "You can die for your country" comment, when i dont know if they actually know its true or not.

Thomas wrote:Do people who are 16 actually fight though,

I dont know many people who went to the army, just one and he didnt go out to iraq untill he was 18. He joined when he was 16.

I just dont like people throwing the same "You can die for your country" comment, when i dont know if they actually know its true or not.

i dunno, but its fun throwing it all the same

DJ Whistla wrote:

Thomas wrote:Do people who are 16 actually fight though,

I dont know many people who went to the army, just one and he didnt go out to iraq untill he was 18. He joined when he was 16.

I just dont like people throwing the same "You can die for your country" comment, when i dont know if they actually know its true or not.

i dunno, but its fun throwing it all the same

I read in the paper the other day that they raised the minimum age at which you can 'see action' to 18 shortly before we went to war in Iraq.

re: the smoking ban removing a 'civil liberty', you are still perfectly entitled to smoke - the ban was introduced to protect the rights of workers, it's part of Health & Safety law.

Essentially, once conclusive results were found following research into the link between passive smoking and health problems, the government had to act otherwise both the H&SE and employers could be found in breach of their duty of care towards employees - this could open them up to court action simply for allowing people to smoke as H&S is part of statutory law and does not require someone to suffer an actual loss (e.g. illness) before they can bring action.

Workers have the right to work in a safe environment, and banning smoking in the workplace is just another measure in the same vein as ensuring people know how to avoid getting RSI when using a computer, or putting out a yellow cone when there's water on the floor.


If the government was to ban smoking outright, or ban it in outdoor public places, I would agree that your right to smoke was being impinged. As it is, the 'civil liberty' angle is just a non-argument.

i was defending my UK = a Shithole avatar etc rather than meaning to say the smoke ban is a civil rights issue (a total ban wud be a civil rights issue totally, which is how i see the ganja ban)

I find it far more offensive that i cant go about my business without being filmed by upteen cctv cameras and if i get arrested (not even charged!) i can have my dna taken, and now there is talk of compulsory dna taking of every1!

the smoke ban is just something that pisses me off and is having an impact on my life daily, which it is meant too ofc, i can understand protecting wee kiddies and office bods, but if you own your own shop why the hell shudnt u be able to smoke a cigarette in there, people dont have to go in if they dont want surely? same with pubs/clubs wotever, but talking about the ban is mute cos its done. it just is annoying that i cant be jawed on the dancefloor and spark a cig without thinking, i now have to keep my wits about me all the time

I'm glad 16 year olds can't legally drive to be honest

ThinKing wrote:re: the smoking ban removing a 'civil liberty', you are still perfectly entitled to smoke - the ban was introduced to protect the rights of workers, it's part of Health & Safety law.

Essentially, once conclusive results were found following research into the link between passive smoking and health problems, the government had to act otherwise both the H&SE and employers could be found in breach of their duty of care towards employees - this could open them up to court action simply for allowing people to smoke as H&S is part of statutory law and does not require someone to suffer an actual loss (e.g. illness) before they can bring action.

Workers have the right to work in a safe environment, and banning smoking in the workplace is just another measure in the same vein as ensuring people know how to avoid getting RSI when using a computer, or putting out a yellow cone when there's water on the floor.


If the government was to ban smoking outright, or ban it in outdoor public places, I would agree that your right to smoke was being impinged. As it is, the 'civil liberty' angle is just a non-argument.

Spot on mate, totally agree. Either that or just have places that only employ smokers, only allow smokers in, etc and then let it run its course. Allow decent ventilation/air conditioning

If I was in someone's house and they didn't smoke and didn't want it in their house then I'd go outside, no questions. I don't really see the point in being really pro something that is so blatantly unpleasant to people that don't partake

hmm lol.. pissed.. i think its grand though.... smoking is a flithy habbit needs to be eradicated.

Shonky wrote:I think when ... smoking outside the pub in winter means getting soaked and cold, I'll probably try and give up again. Or I might just stay in and do it

We've had a winter of al fresco smoking already, it's not so bad. Just get ready to find yourself smoking entire cigarettes in under 20 seconds.

DJ Whistla wrote: i can understand protecting wee kiddies

They're wee kiddies man - they reek of piss. Should just let them be victimized and learn their lesson, yeah?

Shonky wrote:

ThinKing wrote:re: the smoking ban removing a 'civil liberty', you are still perfectly entitled to smoke - the ban was introduced to protect the rights of workers, it's part of Health & Safety law.

Essentially, once conclusive results were found following research into the link between passive smoking and health problems, the government had to act otherwise both the H&SE and employers could be found in breach of their duty of care towards employees - this could open them up to court action simply for allowing people to smoke as H&S is part of statutory law and does not require someone to suffer an actual loss (e.g. illness) before they can bring action.

Workers have the right to work in a safe environment, and banning smoking in the workplace is just another measure in the same vein as ensuring people know how to avoid getting RSI when using a computer, or putting out a yellow cone when there's water on the floor.


If the government was to ban smoking outright, or ban it in outdoor public places, I would agree that your right to smoke was being impinged. As it is, the 'civil liberty' angle is just a non-argument.

Spot on mate, totally agree. Either that or just have places that only employ smokers, only allow smokers in, etc and then let it run its course. Allow decent ventilation/air conditioning

If I was in someone's house and they didn't smoke and didn't want it in their house then I'd go outside, no questions. I don't really see the point in being really pro something that is so blatantly unpleasant to people that don't partake

thank you very much!!

used to live with people they understand this so hardly, it was really awful since i have asthma and at least expect to live in a room without smoke.

however everytime i hear Health & Safety i start to feel uneasy for some reason.
according to this the government could start to removing any civil liberties easly for so many reasons for the good, it makes me shiver!

pk- wrote:

its the way our "leaders" are removing civil liberties at the most alarming rate (and no-one seems to give a monkeys)

yeah but nobody seemed to give a monkeys when this was going on during the Troubles either. it's been 30 years and we're still not living in an orwellian dystopia

he's one of them!!

spooKs wrote:

pk- wrote:

its the way our "leaders" are removing civil liberties at the most alarming rate (and no-one seems to give a monkeys)

yeah but nobody seemed to give a monkeys when this was going on during the Troubles either. it's been 30 years and we're still not living in an orwellian dystopia

he's one of them!!

spooKs wrote: he's one of them!!