smoking in your car?

[RogerC]

HE....In all my life I have never ever come across anyone, either in real life or other means of communication, who is perfect.  That is until I had the misfortune to drop across this forum and run into you. You Mr HE are perfect.  A perfect example of  a totally boorish, pompous, insulting, self opinionated, rude, arrogant and grossly opinionated individual that I wish never to meet for real.

 

If your writings on here are an indication as to how you conduct yourself in real life I am extremely sorry for your family and anyone who has the misfortune to come into contact with you.  You really are akin to the school playground bully.  Judging by your insulting diatribes I might venture that your intellect is equal to that school bully.  Maybe you should have your expensively educated daughter censor your raving posts before she allows you to hit the 'post' key.  I'm sure she would be disgusted to find her father is such a nasty, vindictive individual. 

 

For God's sake man GROW UP!!!  You really do not need to be so insulting, or is it the bravado of hiding behind the keyboard that gives rise to this despicable trait of yours?  because despicable it is in the strongest possible way.

 

I do find some of your juvenile name calling amusing to the extent that apoplexy is well and truly not on the horizon.  I find it impossible to get apoplectic whilst laughing so much.........your ravings are often very very funny.  I find them funny because you purport to be a very successful business man yet you write with the acumen of a juvenile delinquent.....or is it a case of Tourettes disorder that drives your irresistible urge to insult.....now that's funny.  The fact that you obviously either can not or do not read posts in their entirety, or seemingly fail to understand what is written supports my considering you as an ill educated juvenile.

 

As for what I do first thing in the morning......you assume too much you cretin.

 

To reiterate what I have written previously because you obviously didn't read that far....maybe so many words were taxing your capacity to digest writings properly:

 

Quote:

Oh and as far as the smoking/kids in cars law is concerned.............in principle a good idea but, and I emphasise BUT........we have an insufficient police presence to make it work. Unquote.

 

Strangely Nick Clegg has only today said:

Mr Clegg  told his weekly LBC radio phone-in: "Of course it's a stupid thing to do to smoke when a child is in the back of a car but you don't always have to have a law to fix things you don't like."

 

Strangely enough a large number of politicians, whom you seem to hold in such high regard are in agreement with Mr Clegg.  Looks like you are on the losing side regarding the sensibility of imposing and enforcing such a 'nanny state' law.  But then you do come across as something of, nay a complete, control freak.  Then again that's what bullies are isn't it?

 

As you are returning, sadly, from Morocco maybe you could detour to the House of Commons and put him/them straight.  I'm sure he would value your arrogance.  You could bully your way in, take a stand at the despatch box and pontificate on how wrong the honourable members are to disagree with your high and mightyness.  God forbid poor Mr Speaker if he dares to interrupt you.

 

Anyway thanks for the laugh............Oh and I would think if your behavior in the Moroccan taxi was anything like as disagreeable as it is on here your driver was trying to get advice on how to get rid of you pronto.  Maybe letting go of the steering wheel was to try and grab his gun :-D....and as for letting go to change gear....wow naughty man.  I bet you told him off good and proper...............like hell you did because you are a cowardly keyboard warrior.  A simple, and I emphasise simple playground, loudmouth bully.

 

ma'a salama

 

 

[malc d]

pepe63 - 2014-02-04 7:21 PM

 

That's an impressive list of personnel Clive..

 

But I wouldn't mind betting that you've rubbished most of them at one stage or other...So it's odd how their opinions are so valid to you now all of a sudden... ;-)

 

 

 

...and why would you publish a list of people who have similar views to yourself ?

 

 

;-)

[CliveH]

pepe63 - 2014-02-04 7:21 PM

 

That's an impressive list of personnel Clive..

 

But I wouldn't mind betting that you've rubbished most of them at one stage or other...So it's odd how their opinions are so valid to you now all of a sudden... ;-)

 

They are politicians - so I have outlined my views on them certainly. But I have not "rubbished" them. Called their honesty and integrity and abilities into question MOST certainly. But just because they are what they are - does not mean that their analysis of any one issue is not worth hearing.

 

In the same way - yet another Strawman argument here by way of your trying to suggest that because of my views on politicians - somehow my quoting their views prior to a vote in the HoC on the subject in hand is somehow compromised?

 

Are you serious Pepe?

 

 

[CliveH]

malc d - 2014-02-04 7:39 PM

 

pepe63 - 2014-02-04 7:21 PM

 

That's an impressive list of personnel Clive..

 

But I wouldn't mind betting that you've rubbished most of them at one stage or other...So it's odd how their opinions are so valid to you now all of a sudden... ;-)

 

 

 

...and why would you publish a list of people who have similar views to yourself ?

 

 

;-)

 

I didn't

 

I posted an article that cited a range of views - including:-

 

"Prime Minister David Cameron: ‘Whatever people have done in the past, the facts show that they really should change their behaviour. I am not sure whether it is possible to legislate in that area - we need a change in attitudes.’ (March 2011)

 

Defence Minister Anna Soubry, an ex-smoker: ‘I would ban smoking in cars where children are present. I would see it as a child welfare issue. I think it is something we should at least consider as government.’ (February 2013, when public health minister)"

 

Perhaps rather than jumping on the keyboard as well to conclusions - some people could possibly READ what is there?

 

Or is that asking too much?

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

RogerC - 2014-02-04 7:30 PM

 

Oh and as far as the smoking/kids in cars law is concerned.............in principle a good idea but, and I emphasise BUT........we have an insufficient police presence to make it work.

 

I don't think you like me! But it doesn't worry me in the slightest as it's clear that you don't like anyone! MPs, councillors, anyone in public service - LIARS, THIEVES! SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH!

 

Still, it's fun warming you up! ;-)

 

But I'm just going to concentrate on one quote from your wild rant (are you on something by the way, medication of some kind? If you're not you need to see the doctor to arrange a check).

 

We have an insufficient police presence to make it work! Wow, brilliant! Why didn't I think of that?

 

Have we an insufficient police presence to enforce not wearing seat belts, drinking and driving, talking on mobile phones? If not why have we bothered making laws to ban these things?

 

What is different about this proposed law to any of the others?

 

But what this thread has done is highlighted the few people who can think beyond a simple gut reaction.

 

It's all been explained so many times that enforcement is a minor part and that it's about changing attitudes. Laws on drinking, talking on phones have changed attitudes and most people obey the law so simply enacting it begins the change.

 

It's clear that there are at least two people on here who simply can't take this in.

 

Clive has now given up trying to make his case using logic and brains and has now resorted to desperately finding a few people to support his view. He thinks that we'll forget that for every MP who isn't keen on this law there'll be three who are. Anyone want a small bet on the outcome of the vote if it comes to the Commons? Clive likes betting against me, let's have another go!

 

Just stop for a minute, try to calm down and think it through! Think of the simple consequences of the publicity if this becomes law. Think how much safer our children will be if the driver isn't fiddling about getting a fag from a packet, think how healthier they'll be. Don't you care?

 

But if there's one attitude that sums up your brain power it's this: If a law is difficult to enforce, we shouldn't enact that law!

 

Ah well, let's start scrapping a few laws now chaps, I can think of dozens that are difficult to enforce!

 

Oh, and as for calling me a bully, you really should read your own posts!

 

 

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2014-02-04 6:12 PM

 

This law is "gesture politics" - and is typical of the useless laws thought up by useless people and supported by people who feel that "something must be done!" .

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10613282/Smoking-in-cars-two-Tory-cabinet-ministers-plan-to-vote-against-ban.html

 

It matters not a jot that what is proposed is about as useful as a fart in a spacesuit - as long as those that want a gesture get a gesture.

 

The one I would suggest is a hand with the forefinger and thumb together waved up and down.

 

 

*-)

 

 

 

Wow! TWO Tory ministers oppose it. How many ministers are there in total? ;-) It's nice to see Clive praising MPs and ministers though! It turns out that if one or two of them agree with him that they're really not so bad after all! (lol) (lol)

[Guest Had Enough]

Trawling the web to find a few people who agree with you is easy. But of course they never publish all the evidence that they find which contradicts them!

 

Here's one from a real expert!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8079357.stm

 

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 8:57 AM

 

Trawling the web to find a few people who agree with you is easy. But of course they never publish all the evidence that they find which contradicts them!

 

Here's one from a real expert!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8079357.stm

 

 

Nah!...that probably doesn't count, as it comes from the BBC..

(...and apparently you can't believe a word that bunch Public Sector Lefties print/broadcast.. (lol) ).

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2014-02-04 3:46 PM

 

malc d - 2014-02-04 3:33 PM

 

capcloser - 2014-02-04 3:26 PM

 

................,but why do you have to be so bloody sarcastic and rude with your posts,all you do is antagonise some people who may actually agree with you!

(lol)

 

 

 

What we need is a law against sarcastic postings.

 

Then he wouldn't do it any more.

 

 

;-)

 

Don't be bloody silly! It couldn't possibly be enforced! And then the law would look to be an ass and there'd be rioting in the streets and the whole population would lose faith in our legal system and civilisation would collapse.

 

I don't know, where do you get these daft ideas from eh? ;-)

 

They'll be banning Frank baiting next 8-) ...................at least its a non contact sport ;-).........

[Symbol Owner]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 8:57 AM

 

Trawling the web to find a few people who agree with you is easy. But of course they never publish all the evidence that they find which contradicts them!

 

Here's one from a real expert!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8079357.stm

 

 

That is an extremely good article, Frank, put very succinctly. Says all you need to know to make the case, really.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin.

 

[Guest Had Enough]

Symbol Owner - 2014-02-05 9:40 AM

 

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 8:57 AM

 

Trawling the web to find a few people who agree with you is easy. But of course they never publish all the evidence that they find which contradicts them!

 

Here's one from a real expert!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8079357.stm

 

 

That is an extremely good article, Frank, put very succinctly. Says all you need to know to make the case, really.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin.

 

It certainly does and when some of the politicians who've come up with the knee-jerk 'nanny state' objections that we've seen on here read the full evidence, minds will be changed.

 

However, I can guarantee that there'll still be a couple of people on here who will know better than Professor Terence Stephenson, President, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. ;-)

 

Facts - 500,000 children are subject to passive smoke in cars each week. 300,000 children have to see their doctor for treatment for the problems arising. Toxic fumes in a car are eleven times more concentrated than in a more open space.

 

When this was debated properly in the Upper Chamber the Lords voted by 222 to 197 for it.

 

But as we've been told, it's pointless enacting laws anymore as we simply haven't got the police available to ensure that they're enforced. So better not bother eh? (lol) (lol)

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 7:57 AM

 

RogerC - 2014-02-04 7:30 PM

 

Oh and as far as the smoking/kids in cars law is concerned.............in principle a good idea but, and I emphasise BUT........we have an insufficient police presence to make it work.

 

 

 

Clive has now given up trying to make his case using logic and brains and has now resorted to desperately finding a few people to support his view.

 

 

 

 

Frank - you really are an arse............

 

These are politicians that will vote in the HoC on the issue.

 

You know - the ones you normally like to brown nose.

 

If you wound back the bile and the antagonism - you might just be able to see what the real world is like.

 

You know....... where people on this earth are ALLOWED to have differing views to Frank!

 

I am really not sure what your problem is Frank - but I doubt you could pronounce it.

 

 

*-)

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 8:01 AM

 

CliveH - 2014-02-04 6:12 PM

 

This law is "gesture politics" - and is typical of the useless laws thought up by useless people and supported by people who feel that "something must be done!" .

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10613282/Smoking-in-cars-two-Tory-cabinet-ministers-plan-to-vote-against-ban.html

 

It matters not a jot that what is proposed is about as useful as a fart in a spacesuit - as long as those that want a gesture get a gesture.

 

The one I would suggest is a hand with the forefinger and thumb together waved up and down.

 

 

*-)

 

 

 

Wow! TWO Tory ministers oppose it. How many ministers are there in total? ;-) It's nice to see Clive praising MPs and ministers though! It turns out that if one or two of them agree with him that they're really not so bad after all! (lol) (lol)

 

Again Strawman nonsense from Frank - Errr these people will be voting on this - whatever I think of them re other matters is irrelevant - if you had two synapses capable of communication you would understand this Frank.

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

pepe63 - 2014-02-05 9:14 AM

 

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 8:57 AM

 

Trawling the web to find a few people who agree with you is easy. But of course they never publish all the evidence that they find which contradicts them!

 

Here's one from a real expert!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8079357.stm

 

 

Nah!...that probably doesn't count, as it comes from the BBC..

(...and apparently you can't believe a word that bunch Public Sector Lefties print/broadcast.. (lol) ).

 

Bugger! I'd forgotten that! It's probably all made up! Public servants eh! LIARS, THIEVES, SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH! I'll try to find something from the Daily Mail next time! ;-)

[Guest Had Enough]

Clive's still given up on producing a winnable argument I see and is resorting to his usual insulting tripe in an attempt to divert the fact that he's in a very deep hole here! (lol) (lol)

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 10:40 AM

 

Clive's still given up on producing a winnable argument I see and is resorting to his usual insulting tripe in an attempt to divert the fact that he's in a very deep hole here! (lol) (lol)

 

I guess it depends on ones view of holes Frank ;-) ...................

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2014-02-05 10:35 AM

 

If you wound back the bile and the antagonism - you might just be able to see what the real world is like.

 

You know....... where people on this earth are ALLOWED to have differing views to Frank!

 

*-)

 

That's really made me smile! We all know from your never-ending [pronouncements on everything that we don't need a Treasury Department and a Chancellor of the Exchequer. We don't need a Governor of the Bank of England or a Department of the Environment. These people are all idiots and muppets (except of course when a couple of them agree with Clive's view, then they're wise and brilliant!).

 

All we need to run this country, make us all rich, solve flooding and enhance our well being is one Great Leader - CliveH, the font of all knowledge!

 

Clive is an expert on every subject that comes up on this forum!

 

And Clive, don't accuse me of not being able to pronounce anything. I know the difference between except and accept, which you failed to demonstrate a few days ago and I know that plurals don't have apostrophes as in your pro's and con's and Isuzu's and BMW's etc. etc.

 

You're on very sticky ground Clive if you want to challenge me on the English language. (lol)

 

Ps I'm sure that we're all waiting for him to pronounce on the article by Professor Terence Stephenson, President, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

 

But he's probably another of Clive's muppets and idiots eh? ;-) Or is he a 'strawman'? (lol)

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 10:34 AM

 

Symbol Owner - 2014-02-05 9:40 AM

 

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 8:57 AM

 

Trawling the web to find a few people who agree with you is easy. But of course they never publish all the evidence that they find which contradicts them!

 

Here's one from a real expert!

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8079357.stm

 

 

That is an extremely good article, Frank, put very succinctly. Says all you need to know to make the case, really.

 

Cheers,

 

Colin.

 

It certainly does and when some of the politicians who've come up with the knee-jerk 'nanny state' objections that we've seen on here read the full evidence, minds will be changed.

 

However, I can guarantee that there'll still be a couple of people on here who will know better than Professor Terence Stephenson, President, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. ;-)

 

Facts - 500,000 children are subject to passive smoke in cars each week. 300,000 children have to see their doctor for treatment for the problems arising. Toxic fumes in a car are eleven times more concentrated than in a more open space.

 

When this was debated properly in the Upper Chamber the Lords voted by 222 to 197 for it.

 

But as we've been told, it's pointless enacting laws anymore as we simply haven't got the police available to ensure that they're enforced. So better not bother eh? (lol) (lol)

 

Yes why bother making a law that cannot or will not be enforced?

 

And even if it does get enforced - your notion that magistrates will take the word of a policeman seems rather naive.

 

And why criminalise individuals because of their lack of common sense.?

 

As I said earlier - this is gesture politics - that is all.

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 10:50 AM

 

CliveH - 2014-02-05 10:35 AM

 

If you wound back the bile and the antagonism - you might just be able to see what the real world is like.

 

You know....... where people on this earth are ALLOWED to have differing views to Frank!

 

*-)

 

That's really made me smile! We all know from your never-ending [pronouncements on everything that we don't need a Treasury Department and a Chancellor of the Exchequer. We don't need a Governor of the Bank of England or a Department of the Environment. These people are all idiots and muppets (except of course when a couple of them agree with Clive's view, then they're wise and brilliant!).

 

All we need to run this country, make us all rich, solve flooding and enhance our well being is one Great Leader - CliveH, the font of all knowledge!

 

Clive is an expert on every subject that comes up on this forum!

 

And Clive, don't accuse me of not being able to pronounce anything. I know the difference between except and accept, which you failed to demonstrate a few days ago and I know that plurals don't have apostrophes as in your pro's and con's and Isuzu's and BMW's etc. etc.

 

You're on very sticky ground Clive if you want to challenge me on the English language. (lol)

 

Are yes - now we see the alter ego Francis Graham.

 

Sad!

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 10:50 AM

 

CliveH - 2014-02-05 10:35 AM

 

If you wound back the bile and the antagonism - you might just be able to see what the real world is like.

 

You know....... where people on this earth are ALLOWED to have differing views to Frank!

 

*-)

 

That's really made me smile! We all know from your never-ending [pronouncements on everything that we don't need a Treasury Department and a Chancellor of the Exchequer. We don't need a Governor of the Bank of England or a Department of the Environment. These people are all idiots and muppets (except of course when a couple of them agree with Clive's view, then they're wise and brilliant!).

 

All we need to run this country, make us all rich, solve flooding and enhance our well being is one Great Leader - CliveH, the font of all knowledge!

 

Clive is an expert on every subject that comes up on this forum!

 

And Clive, don't accuse me of not being able to pronounce anything. I know the difference between except and accept, which you failed to demonstrate a few days ago and I know that plurals don't have apostrophes as in your pro's and con's and Isuzu's and BMW's etc. etc.

 

You're on very sticky ground Clive if you want to challenge me on the English language. (lol)

 

Ps I'm sure that we're all waiting for him to pronounce on the article by Professor Terence Stephenson, President, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

 

But he's probably another of Clive's muppets and idiots eh? ;-) Or is he a 'strawman'? (lol)

 

It would be nice if you botherred to understand what a Strawman argument is Frank.

 

I have said before that the idea behind this legislation is entirely sensible.

 

But you cannot legislate for Common Sense.

 

All what would happen in this case would be that if anyone is taken to court then you have criminalised an idiot.

 

Look up what a Strawman argument is Frank - and then reconsider some of you postings.

 

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

I've been waiting for someone to bang on about 'criminalising' individuals. ;-)

 

If a parent is fined for not wearing a seat belt, or being caught by a speed camera, has he or she been criminalised?

 

And if there's no paper trail as with a cellphone how on earth have we ever prosecuted anyone for not wearing a seatbelt, or littering etc. etc.

 

Maybe it's because magistrates know that the police aren't going to just invent such a crime to liven up their day!

 

It's not really too difficult to understand! Well, it clearly is for one man! ;-)

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2014-02-05 10:57 AM

 

 

But you cannot legislate for Common Sense.

 

Yes you can to utter idiot! First you make it illegal and then you educate by advertising and by convicting some who flaunt the law.

 

How have we all suddenly become much more sensible about drink driving, wearing seatbelts, smoking in bars and restaurants, talking on phones when driving?

 

The mind boggles Clive - you really are struggling now and you're making yourself look utterly stupid.

 

Or perhaps in CliveLand the population would all become very sensible about everything without any interference from the state?

 

God, this is just getting incredibly silly. Time to give up Clive if this is what you're reduced to!

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 11:03 AM

 

 

God, this is just getting incredibly silly.

 

 

 

Blimey Frank said something I agree with 8-) 8-) 8-)........................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah..............the ALIENS have got me...........HEEEEEEEEEEEEEELP 8-) 8-) 8-)

[CliveH]

Frank - you are expert at spin

 

I say clearly that those that smoke in front of children are idiots.

 

In fact i think that people who smoke are idiots. And this is from an ex smoker.

 

Therefore your spin and manipulation of the truth whereby you infer that i would disagree with medical opinion on the dangers of smoking is pure fabrication on your part.

 

You are a poor excuse for a human being in my opinion Frank - but one thing you are excellent at is manipulation and spin.

 

Now I am not sure this is deliberate or because of an underlying condition.

 

But do try to read what is there - not what pops up in your minds eye. Other people can not be responsible for your lack of cognitive abilities - whatever the aetiology.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 11:03 AM

 

CliveH - 2014-02-05 10:57 AM

 

 

But you cannot legislate for Common Sense.

 

Yes you can to utter idiot! First you make it illegal and then you educate by advertising and by convicting some who flaunt the law.

 

How have we all suddenly become much more sensible about drink driving, wearing seatbelts, smoking in bars and restaurants, talking on phones when driving?

 

The mind boggles Clive - you really are struggling now and you're making yourself look utterly stupid.

 

Or perhaps in CliveLand the population would all become very sensible about everything without any interference from the state?

 

God, this is just getting incredibly silly. Time to give up Clive if this is what you're reduced to!

 

 

Oh dear!

 

"you cannot legislate for Common Sense"

 

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/06/the-government-needs-to-stop-trying-to-legislate-for-manners-and-common-sense/

 

Why because some people are born stupid, some have stupidity thrust upon them and some just like to be stupid.

 

Take your pick Frank!

 

 

(lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)