Landlord Bans Swearing!

[VikingHumpingWitch]

I'd rather be beaten up than compared to that waste of skin.

Just so you know I'm not often serious, I'm just not good at being that way.

[saddamy]

Oh great. A possible biatch fight. Bring it on,

[sushimo]

Now you mention it.....hmmmm!!

Which Tate is Vox, she is so many! ;D

[puffin]

Jan 29, 2009 16:47:33 GMT @joyce said:

In my local they have a swear box, 50p for every swear word .
The money goes to a local lad who needs treatment abroad.

Excellent idea.

[Libby]

I think a lot of people feel the same about swearing and generally don't like hearing it shouted in public. I'm human i swear, but i wouldn't dream of sweating shouting out loud in public. I guess it depends on upbringing to a certain extent. My parents never had swearing slanging matches in front of us, and hubby and i don't in front of our children either. I know the children swear, but they wouldn't in front of us. It all boils down to respect. There is very little of that around these days. Also whatever happened to women behaving like ladies?! Many want to sound like fish-wives! Why?!

I don't think it should be made law not to swear in pubs. It should be entirely up to the publican whether he wants to permit it or not. If people want to f and blind, go to a swearing pub!

[sweet soul]

I think the link to catherine tate is vhw's expression in the pic ?
Catherine dont seem to smile alot.
Put up a happy smiley pic vhw?
Me? i look dopey on all mine : /

[feral]

[Libby]

I'll second that feral!

[redanchor]

If anyone tried to bring in a swearing ban at my local pub they would be beaten to death. When I go to a pub I want to drink to excess, smoke, gamble and laugh. I find anyone not doing these things offensive and I think the government should have them banned.

[redanchor]

Can anyone tell me why swearing is bad? For example, why do people find the word 'sh*t' offensive, but not the word 'poo', or some dimwit mother asking their bundle of joy whether it did a 'poopie' or whatever.

[Ian]

I don't think it should be made law not to swear in pubs. It should be entirely up to the publican whether he wants to permit it or not. If people want to f and blind, go to a swearing pub!

Why this perfectly sensible logic couldn't be applied to smoking is utterly beyond me.

[cn]

Utter Pap.

It all went tits up when they got rid of the vault. No wimmin or kids....you could swear to your hearts contents. But there was no swearing in the snug, where wimmin and effettes hung out.

See what your pish wet policies land us!

[jonren]

I hope this landlord realises that Vox will never buy a drink in his pub.

[Libby]

I still say it should be up to the landlord (swearing and smoking), and then we the public have the choice which pub we go to. Simple. The landlord also takes the risk of either losing custom or gaining custom because of his choice whether to permit or not.

[dwad]

I really don't think the same logic can be applied to smoking and swearing. Unless you can give me some stats on the number of deaths due to swearing related diseases last year?

[omnipleasant]

Can you give me some concrete stats on the number of passive smoking related deaths last year?

[Deleted]

info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/lung/smoking/

[omnipleasant]

Is that Royal Society report the one drawn up for the government to back up the smoking ban?

[omnipleasant]

Is this true?

In March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not “statistically significant”. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer had been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people’s tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people’s eyes, it is no risk at all.

And this?

In May 2003, the British Medical Journal published a study that seriously questioned the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health. According to the study, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California, Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved 118,094 California adults enrolled in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. The authors found that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.

[Deleted]

I have no idea if it's true or not.
I was shocked to read that people in the NE are at the top when it comes to smokers.