smoking in your car?

[capcloser]

Could someone explain to me a strawman argument is please? Anyway i admit i thought it was another daft law when i first read the article,now i can see with the will to enforce it and education then yes less people will smoke in front of the kids,but as clive said your not prosecuting criminals your prosecuting idiots,if being stupid was a crime then i'd be in the dock sharpish,it is difficult to legislate against stupidity.If i could ban one thing it would be wearing personal stereos when walking up the road with a dog,we see a guy nearly every day as we go to work and its obvious he cant hear cars coming,and he wears dark clotbing,i have an old high viz vest in the car,i may stop and offer it to him lol.

[Guest pelmetman]

capcloser - 2014-02-05 11:16 AM

 

Could someone explain to me a strawman argument is please?

 

Its when Worzel Gumage puts his argumentative head on ;-)..................

 

 

I think its the only one Franks Mrs has packed :D...........

[CliveH]

Certainly - A Strawman argument is where one person make a point and then another person trys to make out that by saying what they do - they actually mean something else.

 

A good example is Franks manipulation of the truth to try to make out that I would disagree with the medical profession on the dangers of smoking.

 

I never said that - nor would I - I am a passionate anti-smoker.

 

I think it entirely sensible that steps should be taken to prevent children being subjected to smoke be it in a car, home - anywhere in fact.

 

My opinion is that this proposed law is unenforceable - many politicians who will vote on the issue think the same. Many think a law will help.

 

My point was that with so few police on the ground such that good legislation re tailgating and centre lane hogging is not being actioned - how can anyone think that a parent having a crafty smoke in their own car is going to be "caught".

 

Faced with the logic of my argument Frank is reduced to Ad Homs (arguments against the person not the topic) and Strawman arguments whereby he makes up what others have said, so that he can then "Burn down the Strawman" - but his "Strawman" is a figment of HIS imagination.

 

 

 

 

[RogerC]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 10:40 AMClive'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)

 

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah....that's rich coming from the most abusive, arrogant, rude, bullying, childish individual that populates these pages.  You are so immaturely pathetic as to be pitied.

 

 

 

[RogerC]

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

 

Hardly a landslide majority then............

 

[RogerC]

[

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

 

I think the 'Aunt Sally' moniker for him would be more apposite...........over inflated big girls blouse :-D

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2014-02-05 11:25 AM

 

 

My point was that with so few police on the ground such that good legislation re tailgating and centre lane hogging is not being actioned - how can anyone think that a parent having a crafty smoke in their own car is going to be "caught".

 

 

 

Er, as we've explained to you many times Clive, they'll be caught in the same way as people talking on phones or not wearing seat belts. But what is it about the following proposition that you clearly are too thick to understand?

 

If it becomes law, the very fact that it is now illegal will ensure that the majority of smokers no longer smoke when there are children in the car.

 

Why is that so hard for you and your thick mates to understand?

 

This is just unbelieveable? Are you really so dumb that you can't work out that making something illegal stops most people from doing it!

 

And just as with mobile phones the police will make examples in the early stages to ram home the message and the resulting court cases will deter others.

 

God, it couldn't be more simple!

[Guest Had Enough]

RogerC - 2014-02-05 12:04 PM

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 10:40 AMClive'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)

 

 

Hahahahahahahahahahahahah....that's rich coming from the most abusive, arrogant, rude, bullying, childish individual that populates these pages.  You are so immaturely pathetic as to be pitied.

 

 

Victor Meldrew's back! I'm getting the impression that Roger Curmudgeonly doesn't like me, along with everyone else on earth, so that's not too bad. I think I can control my disappointment! ;-)

[Guest Had Enough]

RogerC - 2014-02-05 12:07 PM

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

 

Hardly a landslide majority then............

If I had a bit more time I'd explain to you how democracy works. Perhaps you could try looking it up? ;-)

[RogerC]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 12:23 PM

CliveH - 2014-02-05 11:25 AMMy point was that with so few police on the ground such that good legislation re tailgating and centre lane hogging is not being actioned - how can anyone think that a parent having a crafty smoke in their own car is going to be "caught".

Er, as we've explained to you many times Clive, they'll be caught in the same way as people talking on phones or not wearing seat belts. But what is it about the following proposition that you clearly are too thick to understand?If it becomes law, the very fact that it is now illegal will ensure that the majority of smokers no longer smoke when there are children in the car.Why is that so hard for you and your thick mates to understand?This is just unbelieveable? Are you really so dumb that you can't work out that making something illegal stops most people from doing it!And just as with mobile phones the police will make examples in the early stages to ram home the message and the resulting court cases will deter others.God, it couldn't be more simple!

 

At it again I see Mr Abusive...........

Good God....... if there was an Olympic event for abuse and name calling you would take gold every time.

 

Your persistent resorting to name calling and abuse does nothing to further your argument, views or opinion.  You merely illustrate your inability to debate in a mature manner.  I feel sorry for you.

 

[RogerC]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 12:28 PM

RogerC - 2014-02-05 12:07 PM

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

 

Hardly a landslide majority then............

If I had a bit more time I'd explain to you how democracy works. Perhaps you could try looking it up? ;-)

 

Democracy works through the process of debate.....mature, considered, adult debate.  Therefore, basing my opinion on your juvenile and abusive writings on here, it is obvious you know nothing at all about mature, considered, adult debate ergo your ability to explain must be highly questionable.

 

Oh and yes you are correct in one thing...so we agree on something.  Although I have never met you, God forbid I ever suffer that misfortune, and basing my opinion on your online persona I would go beyond dislike.  I find you a despicable, abusive and small minded.  A highly opinionated control freak......but I do find the childishness of your postings highly amusing. 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

RogerC - 2014-02-05 12:36 PM

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 12:23 PM

CliveH - 2014-02-05 11:25 AMMy point was that with so few police on the ground such that good legislation re tailgating and centre lane hogging is not being actioned - how can anyone think that a parent having a crafty smoke in their own car is going to be "caught".

Er, as we've explained to you many times Clive, they'll be caught in the same way as people talking on phones or not wearing seat belts. But what is it about the following proposition that you clearly are too thick to understand?If it becomes law, the very fact that it is now illegal will ensure that the majority of smokers no longer smoke when there are children in the car.Why is that so hard for you and your thick mates to understand?This is just unbelieveable? Are you really so dumb that you can't work out that making something illegal stops most people from doing it!And just as with mobile phones the police will make examples in the early stages to ram home the message and the resulting court cases will deter others.God, it couldn't be more simple!

 

At it again I see Mr Abusive...........

Good God....... if there was an Olympic event for abuse and name calling you would take gold every time.

 

Your persistent resorting to name calling and abuse does nothing to further your argument, views or opinion.  You merely illustrate your inability to debate in a mature manner.  I feel sorry for you.

Perhaps in the spirit of fairness you could highlight in red all the abusive things that CliveH has said about me in this thread?No, I didn't think so! Ps You needn't fell sorry for me. I'm one of the most contented people on the planet. I certainly don't wake up every morning hating most of the country and the people in it! You really do need to step back and examine your attitude to almost everyone in the UK who's in a position of responsibility!

[Guest Had Enough]

RogerC - 2014-02-05 12:40 PM

 

Democracy works through the process of debate.....mature, considered, adult debate. 

 

You forgot the bid about abiding by the majority after a vote. Or do you only accept a decision if it's a landslide victory? ;-)

 

This is really fun! (lol) (lol)

[RogerC]

You really do need to step back and examine your attitude to almost everyone in the UK who's in a position of responsibility!

 

Actually I hold a number of 'public servants' in high regard.  Unfortunately there are those who are more interested in self aggrandisement and lining their own pockets.  If your powers of recollection were up to it you would recall my postings regarding my dislike/distrust of those 'office holders' are aimed entirely at those questionable individuals.  However with your selective powers of recall I doubt the foregoing would fit your argument. 

 

So your comment is yet another illustration of your childish vein of argument...........

 

[RogerC]

Perhaps in the spirit of fairness you could highlight in red all the abusive things that CliveH has said about me in this thread?

 

In the spirit of fairness I would consider that a travesty.  In the main all and any abuse usually stems from your persistent antagonistic attitude, so no I don't think highlighting CliveH responses to you would be fair.

 

[CliveH]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 12:23 PM

 

CliveH - 2014-02-05 11:25 AM

 

 

My point was that with so few police on the ground such that good legislation re tailgating and centre lane hogging is not being actioned - how can anyone think that a parent having a crafty smoke in their own car is going to be "caught".

 

 

 

Er, as we've explained to you many times Clive, they'll be caught in the same way as people talking on phones or not wearing seat belts. But what is it about the following proposition that you clearly are too thick to understand?

 

If it becomes law, the very fact that it is now illegal will ensure that the majority of smokers no longer smoke when there are children in the car.

 

Why is that so hard for you and your thick mates to understand?

 

This is just unbelieveable? Are you really so dumb that you can't work out that making something illegal stops most people from doing it!

 

And just as with mobile phones the police will make examples in the early stages to ram home the message and the resulting court cases will deter others.

 

God, it couldn't be more simple!

 

Yes - and herby is the nub of the issue Frank.

 

You seem only able to comprehend "simple" notions - the rest of us who have the ability to look at things from a wider perspective realise that just because something is law does not mean that populations thereby abide by that law.

 

The proof is that there is not enough police to apply the sensible and far more easily policed Centre Lane Hogging and Tailgaiting law.

 

Yes - using your mobile phone is against the law - but not if it is hands free. And I see far more people using non-hands free phones than I do police patrols! - So the law is hardly an effective deterrent.

 

Yes - smoking in front of kids is stupid. It ought not to happen - but I can see smokers keeping an "e-cig" handy to "prove" that they were "hands free"

 

And the last thing we need is stupid politicians passing laws that criminalise otherwise law abiding people - however stupid their actions may be.

 

 

 

[CliveH]

RogerC - 2014-02-05 1:04 PM

Perhaps in the spirit of fairness you could highlight in red all the abusive things that CliveH has said about me in this thread?

 

In the spirit of fairness I would consider that a travesty.  In the main all and any abuse usually stems from your persistent antagonistic attitude, so no I don't think highlighting CliveH responses to you would be fair.

Roger - You have to realise "normal" is not something Frank understandsFrank has decided that it is do as i say not do as i do!So why don't YOU list them Frank!

[Guest pelmetman]

Been out for a nice Chinese with the old man...........5.25 euro a head for 3 courses including half a litre of wine..............per person B-)............forgot to mention the Sangria and prawn crackers on arrival ;-)..........................15.75 = 14 quid'ish for 3 people........... :D.......

 

Just thought I'd throw that into the argument :-| ..................Cheap food and drink will be the death of me....................even though my parents were chain smokers............especially in the car *-)...............

[antony1969]

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 12:46 PM

RogerC - 2014-02-05 12:36 PM

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 12:23 PM

CliveH - 2014-02-05 11:25 AMMy point was that with so few police on the ground such that good legislation re tailgating and centre lane hogging is not being actioned - how can anyone think that a parent having a crafty smoke in their own car is going to be "caught".

Er, as we've explained to you many times Clive, they'll be caught in the same way as people talking on phones or not wearing seat belts. But what is it about the following proposition that you clearly are too thick to understand?If it becomes law, the very fact that it is now illegal will ensure that the majority of smokers no longer smoke when there are children in the car.Why is that so hard for you and your thick mates to understand?This is just unbelieveable? Are you really so dumb that you can't work out that making something illegal stops most people from doing it!And just as with mobile phones the police will make examples in the early stages to ram home the message and the resulting court cases will deter others.God, it couldn't be more simple!

 

At it again I see Mr Abusive...........

Good God....... if there was an Olympic event for abuse and name calling you would take gold every time.

 

Your persistent resorting to name calling and abuse does nothing to further your argument, views or opinion.  You merely illustrate your inability to debate in a mature manner.  I feel sorry for you.

Perhaps in the spirit of fairness you could highlight in red all the abusive things that CliveH has said about me in this thread?No, I didn't think so! Ps You needn't fell sorry for me. I'm one of the most contented people on the planet. I certainly don't wake up every morning hating most of the country and the people in it! You really do need to step back and examine your attitude to almost everyone in the UK who's in a position of responsibility!

Forgive me Uncle Frank but for one so content and happy with the world and everyone in it how come you chose a name that suggests suicide is a very real option ? Sorry in advance as I'm obviously reading it wrong

[Guest pelmetman]

antony1969 - 2014-02-05 2:16 PM

 

Ps You needn't fell sorry for me. I'm one of the most contented people on the planet. I certainly don't wake up every morning hating most of the country and the people in it! You really do need to step back and examine your attitude to almost everyone in the UK who's in a position of responsibility!

 

Forgive me Uncle Frank but for one so content and happy with the world and everyone in it how come you chose a name that suggests suicide is a very real option ? Sorry in advance as I'm obviously reading it wrong

 

(lol) (lol).......... ............I think you've lost your inheritance ;-)

[Guest Had Enough]

RogerC - 2014-02-05 1:00 PM

You really do need to step back and examine your attitude to almost everyone in the UK who's in a position of responsibility!

 

Actually I hold a number of 'public servants' in high regard.  Unfortunately there are those who are more interested in self aggrandisement and lining their own pockets.  If your powers of recollection were up to it you would recall my postings regarding my dislike/distrust of those 'office holders' are aimed entirely at those questionable individuals.  However with your selective powers of recall I doubt the foregoing would fit your argument. 

 

So your comment is yet another illustration of your childish vein of argument...........

My selective powers? Guess who wrote this about 'Most all public service organisations'.'There goes another flying pig then. The problem with the 'system' (most all public service systems/organisations) is that they are populated by low ability, self aggrandising, self serving individuals. In recent years I have seen precious little evidence of those 'at the top' being there on the basis of merit, ability or morality. Basically the culture seems based on 'What can I get out of it, what 'spin' (lies) do I need to proffer to hide my ineptitude and how long can I get away with it'.......oh and if they can take a few 'cronies' with them along the way then, for them, so much the better. The cronies will ensure the 'chief' keeps his/her snout in the trough that much longer.The bottom line folks is we....the providers of the income for these thieves/liars and manipulators have no recourse and as a consequence we have no option but to live with it. We really do have no other option.........apart from revolution!"That to me speaks of a rather obsessed man!

[CliveH]

That is an interesting point Frank and one that deserves a bit of further thought.

 

When a person who is caught using their mobile phone (Non Hands Free) and gets a fine - they could just say "Fair Cop" and pay up. But most don't, most swear they were using hands free, and when fined wonder why they were "picked" on because - like the rest of us - they see far far more people using mobphones whilst driving than Police.

 

Whilst I do not condone their thinking - it is easy to suggest that with the country in such a mess financially, that any law to fine an otherwise law abiding individual is little more than revenue collection.

 

Maybe the country would be better off, not taxing us but simply fining us all for our various misdemeanours?

 

OK - I jest - but the "why pick on me" fallout from such stupid laws that can only be partially enforced is a significant aspect of this debate.

 

 

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2014-02-05 1:39 PM

 

Had Enough - 2014-02-05 12:23 PM

 

CliveH - 2014-02-05 11:25 AM

 

 

My point was that with so few police on the ground such that good legislation re tailgating and centre lane hogging is not being actioned - how can anyone think that a parent having a crafty smoke in their own car is going to be "caught".

 

 

 

Er, as we've explained to you many times Clive, they'll be caught in the same way as people talking on phones or not wearing seat belts. But what is it about the following proposition that you clearly are too thick to understand?

 

If it becomes law, the very fact that it is now illegal will ensure that the majority of smokers no longer smoke when there are children in the car.

 

Why is that so hard for you and your thick mates to understand?

 

This is just unbelieveable? Are you really so dumb that you can't work out that making something illegal stops most people from doing it!

 

And just as with mobile phones the police will make examples in the early stages to ram home the message and the resulting court cases will deter others.

 

God, it couldn't be more simple!

 

Yes - and herby is the nub of the issue Frank.

 

You seem only able to comprehend "simple" notions - the rest of us who have the ability to look at things from a wider perspective realise that just because something is law does not mean that populations thereby abide by that law.

 

The proof is that there is not enough police to apply the sensible and far more easily policed Centre Lane Hogging and Tailgaiting law.

 

Yes - using your mobile phone is against the law - but not if it is hands free. And I see far more people using non-hands free phones than I do police patrols! - So the law is hardly an effective deterrent.

 

Yes - smoking in front of kids is stupid. It ought not to happen - but I can see smokers keeping an "e-cig" handy to "prove" that they were "hands free"

 

And the last thing we need is stupid politicians passing laws that criminalise otherwise law abiding people - however stupid their actions may be.

 

 

 

I give in Clive. When you talk about criminalising people who will get a fine you've clearly lost it. When you talk about the bulk of the population ignoring the law, you've obviously lost it. If you're flashed by a speed camera for instance you are not criminalised. Errant nonsense!

 

When you ignore all the evidence from previous legislation which has changed attitudes, you've obviously lost it.

 

And of course all politicians are stupid, except of course the odd few who agree with you!

 

You simply can't grasp the concept of laws changing attitudes despite there being so much proof that they do; seat belts, phones in cars, drink driving, speeding. People didn't stop doing all these things because they've suddenly become more sensible. they stopped doing them because a law was passed and was enforced. And the nonsense that you keep trotting out about how people will try to fool it by e-cigs etc. is just puerile and laughable.

 

As I said, I give in. Your limited native intelligence, as I've often said, simply can't think beyond your knee jerk reactions.

 

Finally, I note that you haven't commented on the article from Professor Terence Stephenson, President, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Perhaps because it doesn't accord with your simplistic views?

 

But as Symbol Owner wrote:"That is an extremely good article, Frank, put very succinctly. Says all you need to know to make the case, really."

 

I'll leave you to have the last word, you are famous for it after all!

[antony1969]

pelmetman - 2014-02-05 2:25 PM

 

antony1969 - 2014-02-05 2:16 PM

 

Ps You needn't fell sorry for me. I'm one of the most contented people on the planet. I certainly don't wake up every morning hating most of the country and the people in it! You really do need to step back and examine your attitude to almost everyone in the UK who's in a position of responsibility!

 

Forgive me Uncle Frank but for one so content and happy with the world and everyone in it how come you chose a name that suggests suicide is a very real option ? Sorry in advance as I'm obviously reading it wrong

 

(lol) (lol).......... ............I think you've lost your inheritance ;-)

 

I can still count on Nowtelse to leave us a quid or two Dave and Donna pays me a few quid now and again

[Guest Had Enough]

CliveH - 2014-02-05 2:44 PM

 

When a person who is caught using their mobile phone (Non Hands Free) and gets a fine - they could just say "Fair Cop" and pay up. But most don't, most swear they were using hands free,

 

And your evidence for this latest bit of wishful thinking to bolster your case is ........................?

 

Most of them don't have 'Hands Free' Clive, or they'd use it. Perhaps you haven't thought that the police will simply say: "Well, we saw you and you're on camera with a phone to your ear. But perhaps you can show us your hands-free system sir?"

 

Carry on with your fantasies!