Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'OT (OFF Topic) Forums' started by Dragon, Jul 24, 2008.
What's the old saying.
"A wise man has something to say, a fool has to say something.":bannana:
I read that story in the Metro this morning.
I sometimes wonder if everybody involved in stories like these are being slightly economical with the truth. Not to the point of saying or reporting untruths, but to carefully omit what might be deemed to be influential facts of the situation. Thereby giving a slightly inaccurate picture of the incident.
Or maybe its me.....................
Dave, what made you think this may not be the whole picture.? I'm fairly sure it's not, but why did you think that.
I'm not sure about whether a van, being a commercial vehicle, is a place of work or not. I think it is, thus it is illegal to smoke in one if used for business purposes.
Company cars are not classed as such if only used by one driver, pool cars are.
Is it just me or is this constant posting of rubbish from the Daily Mail getting irritating?
Why fill up the pages of MBClub with rubbish from a newspaper that doesn't deserve the name?
Just a hunch. Nothing unusual for any newspaper to only report a part-story to help make a point.
Not saying this IS true in this case, just a maybe.
Not just the Mail, but also the Metro, Sun and Express to name but three.
If I find something irratating, I dont read it. Quite simple. Rather like TV or Radio programmes.
It's hard in these cases to describe a place of work. A taxi drivers place of work is his car, so you'd think they can't smoke in the car. A painters place of work is, you'd imagine, wherever he's doing the painting. The van is in this case just transport. I work from home as a freelancer, does that mean I cannot smoke in my own house?
The lines on this are really not very straight, and need to be thought through a little more IMO...
I think he might find that if he were in an accident on the way to a job and he had painting equipment in his van at the time then he might be in trouble. He does not "commute" to work, he has no fixed place of work. He is self-employed, driving to clients' premises with the tools of his trade in the vehicle. I'm sure this requires business insurance for the van, otherwise "business use" would not be worth listing on insurance.
That said I think it's a waste of time, if the van is privately owned then surely they would struggle to argue that it's a "place of work".
I saw a Royal Mail van delivering to a Hospital and the driver was smoking. Not only is it illegal to smoke on the premises but it's also illegal to smoke while in the vehicle! The police are actually on-site at that hospital but they are too busy keeping the patients from beating up the staff to check out who's smoking in the carpark...
Quite. Was sitting in a bus down The Strand a few days ago, and a removal lorry stopped next to the bus and there, in the cab was 4 guys all happilly puffing away on their roll-ups. I cant see the problem myself. And I say that as a lifelong non-smoker.
If I read this right, different account, the van belongs to the painter himself and it that case he would be using it for work on some form of car scheme with his employers. In that case, he cannot smoke in it while at work if he has a passenger, while at work and on his own he can. It seems he was not at work at the time so the legislation would not apply anyway.
I personally believe this is bureaucracy gone mad but this person is quite clearly breaking more than one law and this post highlights how dangerous it is to merely listen to one side of any story.
He was in a van with a passenger; this passenger was an employee. The van was no doubt carrying the tools for this person's trade and to quote the driver,
"I was dumbfounded - the van is only insured for private use and to get me to and from work"
I am no insurance expert but to me this person is perhaps confused regarding the type of insurance required for that vehicle.
The key factor to me was the fact that there was another person in the van. A 16 year old with a future life in front of him. The fact he was "supposedly" a smoker too doesn't detract from the fact that the legislation is there to protect people who don't want in inhale other peoples smoke. Supposing the 16 year old wasn't a smoker---what then. Is he going to tell his boss to "bogart that joint my friend"
The British attitude to this sort of law is so different to that in other EU countries.
My wife and I were in Amalfi late last year and in a couple of bars we went in, we were asked if we wanted an ashtray when we ordered a drink (neither of us smoke, so the question was superfluous). We asked the server on both occasions about this practice and were told the same thing: there's a smoking ban in force here the same as there is in Britain, but you're in Italy now and if you want to smoke, then go ahead...
since we are all in the mood, here is nothing whatsoever to do with MB.
is this possible and can there be no appeal?i mean what if the council worker is an ex
I tell you what's really irritating. People having a pop at the Daily Mail all the time. This is a perfectly valid piece of news (go on, tell me the Daily Mail made the whole thing up), it is motoring related and it is of interest to many people I would imagine. What's wrong with posting this story?
No newspaper is perfect. Simon, please tell me which paper you read so that
I can slag it off and insult the readership and - by implication - you. It won't be hard to do, believe me. Unless it's the Telegraph, which I happen to read And the Financial Times, which is beyond reproach but boring.
Same thing in rural Spain, lots of signs (green cigarette with no cross bar) actively encouraging smoking if you wanted to, which of course most locals were actively participating in doing so.
I don't smoke and so selfishly, I don't care about this so-called news