to already be fecked off with the smoking ban?!?

[divastrop]

because i live across the road from a bar,which was never a problem before,as the music is never very loud and dd1,who is in one of the front bedrooms,was always fast asleep by kicking out time.

but tonight there are about 30 people standing outside smoking,and of course,because they have been in a noisy bar and have probably been drinking,they are all talking really loud,and my dd cant get to sleep.

why does this government have to dictate to people?why cant pubs and clubs choose whether they want to allow smoking or not,and people choose whether they want to go to a place where smoking is allowed or not?

imo two separate issues here
1 - the noise from the bar- what a shame so annoying for u complain to council probably environmental health/noise management

2 - smoking ban - of course government can legislate and tell people what to do, they have a democratic mandate. personally i would rather govt legislated the smoking than the publicans/licensing trade as they have a financil imperative and are unlikely to consider your needs only theirs

I don't remember anything about a smoking ban in the manifesto. I do remember a pledge not to introduce top-up fees, though.

Skribble, sympathise with bouncing sounds. In Hammersmith, developers built a huge fuck-you design statement monstrosity next to the tube station. The track is above ground in that area. All that glass and steel magnified the noise horribly - people in surrounding streets were driven half mad by it. Stupid bloody idea putting something with reflective surfaces next to two of the busiest tube lines in the whole city.

Of course, the Ark won several architecure awards. Equally of course it has been half-empty since it was built.

From that which I read, it was a proposal to do with establishments where food is served (or some such), and then it went to a "free vote" in the HoC for all MPs with no whip being applied, to see if an outright ban was wished for. And it was.

"The post-election consultation on the plans for a partial ban raised enough questions - such as how you define pub food or enforce a one metre exclusion zone from a bar - that the new health secretary felt it was impractical. There was then a well-publicised row in Cabinet with Ms Hewitt pushing for a wider ban and former health secretary, John Reid, demanding ministers stuck to the original policy of a partial ban, which he won. The prime minister was clearly facing the prospect of a continuing row and decided it was such a controversial issue it warranted a free vote in the Commons and we have ended up with the health secretary essentially opposing her own policy"

from bbc website.

Oh yes, I remember now, wrote about it at the time. But I think orginal plans exempted private members' clubs, which was fairer. Not many MPs prepared to stand up and say 'enough' rather than court popularity, I guess.

Do you remembery Roy Castle, he used to be on the TV programme "Record Breakers"

www.roycastle.org/

He died of lung cancer caused by passive smoking. He worked in night clubs where lots of the customnrs smoked although he was a non smoker himself. This law will protect bar staff from a similar death.

You have my sympathy and I think this is an issue for enviromental. Also technically the customers of most pubs are not allowed to take their drinks on to the street. They have to drink up in licenced premisis.