are patio heaters ethically acceptable?

[jockscott]

If it is decided it is not safe, and we live in a country where the government enforces H&S = then it is banned.

Often said, "If it was up to Health and Safety,, nothing would ever get done."

For instance, at work, I'm allowed to change light bulbs,,, BUT,, only if I don't have to go more than two steps up a step ladder. If I had to step on to the third or (oooh danger) the fourth step, then they are supposed to get someone else to do it (always at a cost though) So I change light bulbs as and when needed, and bugger H&S, I'm the one taking the risk, I put no one else at risk and personally accept the risk. If I fall, then I'd accept that it's my fault. I'm therefore saving my employer a stack of money. (specially when it costs upwards of £50 a time to get an electrician out for such a menial task. (and I've had "ladder training" at that) H&S rules are bloody ridiculous these days.

 

[jeds]

how often we have a bath?; what temperature we are allowed to heat our living rooms?

You mean there are people that bath more than once a week on a Sunday.

 

[Ennui]

Firstly, you blame anti-smokers for landlord's decision to use patio heaters.

Well, fundamentally yes is the answer.

Even an idiot can see that .

If everybody smoked, patio heaters would not be put in the beer gardens for the warmth of the smokers.

Are you really stupid or just pretend to be???

The mind boggles. If everyone smoked there'd be far fewer customers anyway.
Only a biggotted minded idiot could blame the locating of patio heaters on the non-smokers.
Have you, just for a second, considered that if no-one smoked patio heaters wouldn't be necessary. Or even if the smokers were prepared to be a little cold in order to persue their chosen habit.

Oh no, it's all the fault of the non-smokers.

I bet when you walk into a lamp post you blame the council for putting it there.
Next time you spill your pint blame someone else, anyone else, the government, the Greens, EU, it couldn't have been your fault.

 

[Ennui]

Nowhere in the legislation does it mention that landlords must provide heaters for smokers.

Yes and if you read my quote in full, you'd have seen the bit about landlords providing these to ensure their business continued.

They choose to do so. They could have left the smokers to go cold. They were only under the pressure of the smokers to provide patio heaters.
They don't care if they contract smoking related diseases or even cause such diseases in non-smokers, but hey, they musn't catch cold.

Blood bank worker wanted. JWs need not apply! icon_rolleyes.gif
Garage/Insurance workers needed, Amish need not apply! icon_rolleyes.gif
Santa Claus wanted JWs need not apply. icon_rolleyes.gif
Bank worker wanted. Bhuddists need not apply. icon_rolleyes.gif
Contraceptive clinic worker wanted. Catholics need not apply. icon_rolleyes.gif

etc. etc.

I agree, current legislation doesn't permit the wording of job adverts to state the obvious (as in xxx, need not apply) , but the example I did use, shows that some people do apply for jobs they can't do for religious reasons, then complain afterwards.. Why do they do this? ( I'll hazard a guess here and stand by ready to be shot down in flames,,,,,, COMPENSATION..)

In your opinion, does eveyone apply for a job in the hope that they can refuse some aspect of it and claim compensation. Or is it limited to a small minority. (Shoot yourself down in flames!)

Looking through the forum I see the subject of discrimination law and employment has been well covered before, where the name changed to positive discrimination, then later changed to positive action as the thread progressed (positive action, is still discriminating against someone however)

Sorry, you've lost me on this. I don't see the relevance.

 

[Ennui]

I notice you've removed your thanks from LastMagicBean's comment since my response.
Wise decision.

I have done no such thing. When I click to 'like' a post I do not later remove it and, be assured, I would certainly not be swayed by any of your comments.

Some strange things go on on this forum, including mods removing posts or comments for no apparent reason and, of course, giving no reason.

And perhaps people thanking someone because they thought "what a good post!". Then a response makes them think again, so they remove their thanks.
When it's pointed out to them, they realise they've been rumbled and re-apply their thanks.
Simple and obvious init?

 

[Ennui]

Under my ideal regime, landlords would have the choice whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub, or a pub offering both facilities (in isolation, of course).

That's freedom, a concept abhorred by greenies and do-gooders.

Under your ideal regime........... don't make me laugh,
It would be funny but you really mean it.

Well, under your ideal regime, I daren't guess, really. It'd probably be seriously fundamentalist, bigotted and racist

You'd still have the audacity to call it freedom.

 

[JBR]

I notice you've removed your thanks from LastMagicBean's comment since my response.
Wise decision.

I have done no such thing. When I click to 'like' a post I do not later remove it and, be assured, I would certainly not be swayed by any of your comments.

Some strange things go on on this forum, including mods removing posts or comments for no apparent reason and, of course, giving no reason.

And perhaps people thanking someone because they thought "what a good post!". Then a response makes them think again, so they remove their thanks.
When it's pointed out to them, they realise they've been rumbled and re-apply their thanks.
Simple and obvious init?

I've already pointed out to you that anything you are likely to say will not change my mind about anything.

You do have a high opinion of yourself, don't you?

 

[JBR]

Under my ideal regime, landlords would have the choice whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub, or a pub offering both facilities (in isolation, of course).

That's freedom, a concept abhorred by greenies and do-gooders.

Under your ideal regime........... don't make me laugh,
It would be funny but you really mean it.

Well, under your ideal regime, I daren't guess, really. It'd probably be seriously fundamentalist, bigotted and racist

You'd still have the audacity to call it freedom.

Ah! I've got it! Germany. Dictatorial. Dislikes the concept of freedom of choice.

You're Angela Merkel!

 

[LastMagicBean]

Only a biggotted minded idiot could blame the locating of patio heaters on the non-smokers.

Nope. It's fact.

 

[LastMagicBean]

Have you, just for a second, considered that if no-one smoked patio heaters wouldn't be necessary.

Yep, pointless thing to say though.

You see, patio heaters would NOT be used for smokers outside of pubs if everybody smoked or nobody smoked, but in the real world it's about the division of the two.

Non-smokers are to blame for patio heaters in pub garden smoking areas. Fact.

Give your head a shake.

 

[LastMagicBean]

So the green anti-smoking brigade are indeed killing our planet. Fact.

 

[JBR]

So the green anti-smoking brigade are indeed killing our planet. Fact.

Well they're certainly making life difficult for some innocent people.

Before Dropclanger shoves his oar in again, I want to announce that I used to smoke small cigars until a few years ago and was obliged to sit outside with my pint. Although I have given up now (to save money!) it would not bother me in the slightest to have to sit next to a smoker, either outdoors or in. In fact I have done so in more civilised EU countries where they tend to ignore Brussels' diktats.

I think it's called 'live and let live'.

 

[Ennui]

Have you, just for a second, considered that if no-one smoked patio heaters wouldn't be necessary.

Yep, pointless thing to say though.

You see, patio heaters would NOT be used for smokers outside of pubs if everybody smoked or nobody smoked, but in the real world it's about the division of the two.

Non-smokers are to blame for patio heaters in pub garden smoking areas. Fact.

Give your head a shake.

Sometimes I do need to pinch myself to ensure that I'm awake when I read your drivel.
You do understand what you are saying is:
"I, as a smoker, reserve the right to poison my body, and if the opportunity arises, to do the same to other innocent bystanders, to the point that it seriously endangers mine, and their health. But you non-smokers have insisted that I do it outside where I do not endanger your health. So I want to be warm and dry while I endanger everyone's health. I blame it all on you. It's all your fault."

The mind boggles!
You have a warped sense of responsibility.

 

[Ennui]

So the green anti-smoking brigade are indeed killing our planet. Fact.

Well they're certainly making life difficult for some innocent people.

As an example?

Before Dropclanger shoves his oar in again,

What's Dropclanger got to do with it?
Are you obsessed by this word?

[ I want to announce that I used to smoke small cigars until a few years ago and was obliged to sit outside with my pint. Although I have given up now (to save money!) it would not bother me in the slightest to have to sit next to a smoker, either outdoors or in. In fact I have done so in more civilised EU countries where they tend to ignore Brussels' diktats.

I think it's called 'live and let live'.

Then allow those that do not smoke to live in clean air away from the foul smell of tobacco smoke.
Or does that not meet your ideal regime of "live and let live"?

 

[Ennui]

Under my ideal regime, landlords would have the choice whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub, or a pub offering both facilities (in isolation, of course).

That's freedom, a concept abhorred by greenies and do-gooders.

Under your ideal regime........... don't make me laugh,
It would be funny but you really mean it.

Well, under your ideal regime, I daren't guess, really. It'd probably be seriously fundamentalist, bigotted and racist

You'd still have the audacity to call it freedom.

Ah! I've got it! Germany. Dictatorial. Dislikes the concept of freedom of choice.

You're Angela Merkel!

You have now displayed your level of intellect and ability to hold any kind of discussion without recourse to insult, yet again.