Snakebite

and the naievety that this technology can't be replicated (in any way)...

if it's the biometric part that's the hard part' date=' will this only be used at airports / ports ?

or, are bobbies going to get portible retinal scanners for the beat ?

I am with Sue, it's the people with nothing to hide, nothing to prove who will have to pay, for what looks like, a gimmick. what's the matter with hiring new police, intelligence, surveylence equipment, border controls for 20 billion ?

or, perhaps channel 20 billion into trying to help the middle east ?

I just don't think a peice of plastic with a chip in it is going to stop a suicide bomber.

"right boys, pack it in, stop being criminals, we've been rumbeled, we need cards that prove who we are, and I can't put 'criminal' on my entry form...can I? how about 'smooth criminal', they'll think I am jacko..."[/quote']

For a start the police already have access to criminal records & photos whilst on the beat thanks to their new digital communications network (called Airwave) that went online nationally earlier this year. So i dont see it being too much of an issue to add to this to allow them to check peoples identities.

The 20 billion we would save every year due to fraud, by issuing ID cards to stop fraud alone far out weighs the initial cost.

I think then the 20 billion we save every year could be put to good use like you say to help the middle east amongst other things.

ID cards are a small part of what is required combat terrorism. The following link is for the Prevention of terrorism bill that was introduced this year:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmbills/061/2005061.htm

This states all of the measures that are being put in place to combat terrorism

So you believe that everyone should have to fork out for an ID card to combat those people that commit fraud?

Why should I pay for someone elses crimes?

For start you already are paying for someone elses crimes in the region of 20 billion a year due to tax & benefit fraud comitted by organised crime.

If you read my previous posts if ID cards become compulsory then there will be no fee to get an ID card as stated on the Identity Cards Bill that is being passed through parliament.

The 15-20 billion required initially for ID cards is a one off bill and will not be spent each year. Unlike the annual costs incurred by organised crime of which will be drastically reduced if ID cards are made compulsory.

While ID cards are still voluntary a fee will be incurred but it will be a lot less than the cost of a passport. The only compulsory thing for the moment is that when you renew or get a passport you will be issued with an ID card at the same time, you wont be able to get a passport without getting an ID card as well.

If it stays voluntary I can still see it being a requirement to have one to get credit as financial institutions will eventually insist on using it to prove identity mainly on the basis it will give them access to all of your previous addresses or deedpoll name changes for credit checking purposes.

The British civil service can't buy anything more technologically advanced than a pencil without fucking it up. I guarantee that they'll spend billions and end up with a system with the functionality of a knackered gameboy. I want to know how to get on their approved suppliers list so's I can bid for the job.

And if once more in my lifetime some smug twat says 'if you've done nothing wrong' date=' you've nothing to worry about', I'm coming round to banjo them. That's not the point. [/quote']

If you look at the UK some of the most popular degrees are in Computer Science. This has got to the point in that there is a greater supply of computer science graduates than there are jobs.

I would hope out of all these people we can find some that are actually competent to carry out the task of building this Database system and actually making it work.

...Of course it will.

What I mean of course is the reduction of benefit fraud & identity theft

If you can think of a better way to combat it, please give us your comments for discussion

The identity cards Bill that is being passed through Parliament can be found at the following Website address:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/009/2006009.htm

There is also a government website dedicated to explaining all about ID cards

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/comrace/identitycards/index.html

It will be issued at the sametime as your Passport and will be integral to using your passport for getting in the US for instance. Initially the ID card will be issued as people renew or apply for a passport, however it is intended to make the card compulsory and after what happened in London on thursday I think this will happen sooner rather than later.

Once it becomes compulsary a fine of upto 2500 will be imposed on those that refuse to get an ID card.

With regards to cost to the individual an amendment to the bill has been made that states:

"Clause 37, page 31, line 39, at end insert 'but no fee shall be imposed for a card issued in consequence of an order by the Secretary of State for compulsory registration.'."

The 15-20 billion cost to setup the ID card scheme initially is the same as cost incurred by organised crime to the UK tax payer every year. Introducing ID cards will erradicate most of this annual burden incurred by organised crime.

The European Union has also started the process of issuing biometric passports, so eventually you will need to give up your biometric information to travel around europe.

Therefore all UK passports will have biometric information on it anyway in order to comply with european requirements.

Current estimate of cost for this scheme is presently between about 15 - 20 billion pounds. The only way this is going to be possible is by charging everyone at least 200 per card. How many people are going to willingly pay that much for something which offers nothing that we don't have already? That means the running costs of chasing up people without cards will be consistently huge. Not to mention the running costs to produce new and replacement cards with such complicated technology.

The technology. Will it work? "No scheme on this scale has been undertaken anywhere in the world. Smaller and less ambitious schemes have encountered substantial technological and operational problems that are likely to be amplified in a large-scale national system. The use of biometrics creates particular concerns' date=' because this technology has never been used at such a scale."

Security. Will the scheme increase security? No system can be entirely secure, and if this one is compromised, it's going to be a virtual one-stop shop for identity fraud. Everything the villains need in one go. And what happens if someone does nick your biometric information? If your bank details are copied they can be changed. Even your passport can be cancelled and changed. But you can't change your biometrics. Once someone has them, they can be you for life.

Tell me why this is worth doing again?[/quote']

If you look at it as a long term investment spread over the next 10-15 years then the cost savings from each department once the system is fully up and running will pay for the initial expense. You cannot look at it as being one big bill that has to be paid now. I think the government will borrow to pay for it initially then use the money that they save in the long term to repay the money borrowed. After which, the cost to the taxpayer will be a lot less.

As the saying goes "You have to spend money to save money".

The cost of the actual card itself seems to have been blown out of proportion. The costs are for the hardware developed to take the biometric information & make the cards. The cost of each card will be very small. Therefore the running costs for replacing your ID card every 10 years to change your photo will be no more than replacing your photo driving licence. Even some credit cards & Student ID cards currently have your photo on it as well as the chip and I dont see them asking for 200 a pop for getting one of their cards.

With regards to chasing up people that dont get an ID card they shouldnt have to. Since without one they wont be able to get benefits, pension, credit, access to healthcare or even a job. Even those that are working already will be checked by at least the tax office via employers to ensure that everyone in their employ has an ID card of which Im sure company's will be fined if they do not comply just the same way as it is right now for employing immigrants that dont have a valid work permit.

Even if ID cards are never issued, this central database will be created. The use of ID cards with it is probably the only way of ensuring that mistakes are not made with someone assuming your identity. Since the ID card will help prevent identity theft.

Okay yes someone could acquire a copy of your biometric information that is held on the card or even you fingerprints or retinal scan but how does that allow them to use that information without them being you. How do you physically change your retina to match the stolen information so that it can pass say a retinal scan.

The people that will have access to the biometric scanning devices that are linked to the database will have to physically activate the machines with their own biometric ID before asking for your biometric ID. Im sure that this will be strictly vetted.

ID cards will only be used alongside physically supplying your biometric information by government departments & finanicial institutions. You wont find it in your local shop.

You make the assumption that our government will always be unintrusive and trustworthy. What if the BNP or another less trusting government came into power? Do you believe for one second that the biometric data would not be used for racial means?

This is exactly how the Nazi party distinguished 2nd and 3rd generation of Jewish ancestry during the 2nd world war.

Well I think you need to ask the British people who they want to be in government. Unless we suddenly all become racist overnight, I dont think party's like the BNP will ever be in power. The UK is multicultural society and it will always be that way.

Im not assuming that the government departments like the police & MI5 will not use the data stored, Of course they will. Hopefully it will be used correctly to make the UK a better place with less crime since it will be harder to get away with it. The main crime it should be able to deter is fraud since the card on it's own will not be enough for it to be used to prove identity. You will still need to provide one of your biometric details i.e. fingerprint when applying for credit which will then be cross checked against the card & the secure database which should also be able to provide a cross check of your photo that is on the database against you and the card. Therefore copying the card will not be enough without the person the card belongs to, since you wont be able to change the information held on the database.

The data on the card will be highly encrypted (using the public/private key approach which is very hard to crack) and if the database is setup right this information and the biometric information given (which should also be encrypted by the machine that reads it) would be sent to the database direct. The database itself will then decrypt the information in a secure environment and then interrogate the database to confirm your identity. Then the relevant information that is needed i.e. Photo, address, age etc will then be shown so that it can be cross checked to prove that the person is who they say they are and that the details match what is printed on the ID card.

The only people that will have direct access to the database will be authorised government departments. Financial institutions may have direct access to certain parts relevant to credit checking & proving ID, but this will be strictly controlled.

Everyone else i.e. employers will only have indirect access via a government department i.e. Tax office or police (if working with children for example) to prove your ID.

For ID cards to work correctly it has to be compulsary. If the scheme was voluntary it wont work.

Credit card company's at the moment are trialing fingerprint technology to replace the PIN number used with their cards, which I can see being implemented with in the next couple of years irrespective of ID cards. Even the Chip & PIN at the moment is making it harder to commit fraud since even if you copy the card you cant use it without the PIN number, the same will apply with using biometric information whereby one cannot be used without the other.

igrnorance is bliss' date=' eh mr bite.

I am currently working IN LONDON.

nowt like jumping to conclusions and talking shite on the internet about things you know fuck all about.

S T U P I D - C U N T.[/quote']

So who's stealing your job then? since you seem to think someone is.

Are you crap at it is that it?

In fear of someone better coming along and putting you out of work.

and you have one pass word and one log on for everything...

I hope they steal your identity first and drain your bank account.

Sorry did I miss something or did you not really have anything constructive to say

Are you a member of the BNP by any chance?

Is your KKK hood hanging up in your closet?

to coin the well used phrase

Don't put all your eggs in one basket

I think there must be a reason for that' date=' no ?[/quote']

I'm guessing the computer age and the Internet is somewhat putting an end to it in the form that, what is one basket. Is it a PC? if so then why not put it on several PC's.

Im sure that they wont put this database on just one server, it will have redundant systems in place to stop it from falling over completely at the first hurdle

Take the EU for instance Common Vehicle licence documents,the European Health card etc, all of this information will be accessed throught the whole of the EU from a common secure database system (albeit one system for each item for the moment) and no one is even batting an eyelid about that.

well' date=' if we do all get identity cards, i can't wait to hack mine so i can get OAP concessions! the reader/writer kits should be on ebay in no time![/quote']

Sorry to disappoint but i think you will still have to look like an OAP and your data of birth will be physically written on the card which will be difficult to forge.

I liked this bit' date=' it's nice to think that it's only nasty smelly "asylum seekers*" that steal our jobs, and our country is only filled with the salt of the earth, I mean , there can't be any british people who want to exploit cheap (if not FREE) labour from people who come here looking for a better life.

"don't come to britain, we'll exploit, extort and make you life just as much a living hell as in your own country, so fuck off".

Here's to the British, being the only good, honest guys on this stinking earth.

*clink*

Does anyone know the stats on UK natives and benefit fraud ?......ah, best not go there, eh.

* PS, Also note the use of "asylum seekers" in mr Snakebites shit, ah, how ignorant can someone get ?

"ach, asylum seker ? Illegal immigrant ? they're all the fucking same, aren't they ?"[/quote']

I disagree, there is a difference between genuine asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

The majority of Illegal immigrants are normally people that are coming into the UK because of economic need rather than fearing for their lives and persecution. These are the people that the government is trying to stop.

Genuine asylum seekers should have no fear of coming to the UK and we should welcome them in their hour of need.

Only racists or BNP activists (although there isnt any difference between them because they are the same, to use lepeeps analogy) will tar geniune asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and the entire ethnic population of the UK with the same brush. Which I believe is wrong.

!!!RACISM IS THE LOWEST FORM OF SOCIETY AND SHOULD BE ERRADICATED!!!

The issue with exploitation will hopefully be reduced by the introduction of ID cards since it will deter the number of economic illegal immigrants from coming into the UK in the first place.

The use of biometric information will also hopefully help to prosecute those who wish to exploit other human beings.

Also since when are genuine asylum seekers stealing our jobs. As far as I can tell in the UK there is a huge skills shortage. We need genuine immigrants to move to the UK to work (this includes genuine Asylum seekers) to fill the skills gap.

The UK is in short supply of doctors, nurses, dentists, engineers & technicians of various disciplines to name but a few.

One reason for the skills shortage is the growing yob culture where by they would rather get drugged up & pissed than actually get a enough of an education to get a skilled trade.

Where the Job market is flooded at the moment is the unskilled workforce where by no qualifications or skills are required. Im guessing this is where you think people are stealing our jobs.

My response to this is go to college or University to get a skill/trade so that you can get a job instead of being a yob.

I wasn't going to bother commenting on this until I saw this -

a 'reduction in bureaucracy'? How?

and 'cost to the tax payer?' if you're worried about the weight of your wallet' date=' 15 - 20 [b']billion pounds will certainly make your wallet lighter, right enough...

The ID card will be used for the following: Provide Proof of ID & age, It is intended that it will be used alongside your passport so that it doesn't need to have biometric information on it as well. Will probably replace the National insurance card as proof of entitlement to benefits from the state.

Eventually it will be used to give access to Council Facilities i.e. Library, Access to Leisure etc. It will also probably be used to do credit checks by financial institutions.

It may even be used eventually to replace the driving licence.

This in turn will mean that the general public will carry only one form of ID for everything.

Yes, it does mean that all of this information that the government already has stored about you will be compiled into a secure central database which will cost money to setup and the biometric hardware & software will cost money initially. The main reason for the costs is to ensure the information that is gathered is stored securely so it cannot be misused or hacked into.

Once it is up and running the actual running costs overall for the different government departments (i.e. police, MI5, benefits office, passport office & dvla etc) will be less since they will be able to access information about you more efficiently since everything will be electronic and centrlaised in one location. The initial 15-20 billion spent on setting it up should then be recovered, so say after the next 15 years goverment departments will cost less to run saving the UK taxpayers money that can be spent on more important things like health & education. Even if ID cards are not brought in this secure central database of information will, if only to reduce government department overheads in the long term.

Okay some people will say this is a breach of your civil liberites, but the government already has this information on you already. The only difference will be is that they will be able to tie it to a photograph (unless you already have a passport or photo driving licence of which they will have it already) & your biometric information.

The other point about civil liberties is that people argue is that the state will know what bank acounts you have, any credit you have etc etc. If the police or MI5 wanted to they can get this information on you anyway using current less efficient methods. But if you are not commiting a crime why should it be a problem. The only people that should fear this are the ones that are breaking the law.

Putting terrorism aside for one minute, on a national level it will be more difficult to commit fraud since you will need your ID card to get credit, people wont be able to run and hide to avoid paying debts since you wont be able to do anything with needing to use your ID card. This will in turn help reduce insurance premiums, and credit interest rates for the majority of people.

With regards to the biometric information (i.e. fingerprints) being put to good use criminals wont be able to get away with their crimes since it will be able to be used to convict them.

I'm not saying it will be cheap initially but over time it will make life easier and cheaper for the majority of people in the UK, irrespective of their ethnic background.

The bureaucracy will over time will reduce since the different government departments will stop using several different systems (both paper & electronic) which is both time consuming and repetitive when transfering information between departments. Instead they will use one system for everything meaning the same information only has to entered once instead of several times therefore saving time and money which can then be better used elsewhere.

They're no more an infringement on privacy than a national insurance number' date=' driving license or passport.

One card with all the information required rather than loads of cards busting out your wallet. Hard to get unless your completely legit., in the same way as passport. Improved security, with a reduction in beurocracy and cost to the tax payer, so funds can be channeled out of the civil service into schools and hospitals. I think ID cards are a good idea.[/quote']

I whole heartedly agree with this. The government already holds information on every UK citizen and the only additional information that the government will hold on the population when ID cards are introduced is your biometric information i.e. fingerprint facial scan & probably a retinal scan as well.

Even if ID cards are blocked from being implemented biometric information will still be required for New Passport applications within the next couple of years so that the UK population can travel freely between other countries that are insisting on getting access to this information i.e. USA. To get into the US now with passports issued within the last year you are required to get a Visa from the US embassy at which time they take your biometric details. Even if you still qualify for the visa waiver programme they still take this information when you land in the US and go through immigration.

The only people that I know that should be afraid of ID cards are the ones who may have broken the law at some point in their lives but never got caught because the fingerprints left at the scene of the crime couldnt be matched to them.

When ID cards are finally introduced biometric data may be used to solve old crimes, of which I do not have any problems with if say for instance it takes murderers that were never caught off of the streets and into prison.

The other benefit of ID cards will be that eventually you will need one to get a job therefore it will deter asylum seekers from entering the UK illegally to get work since it will be very difficult to duplicate these cards unlike the National insurance cards of which TV reporters have shown that they can buy these in the black market.

Yes ID cards on their own will not stop terrorism, but there are many more measures that are being put in place. The civil liberties issue shouldnt be too much of a problem unless you arent who you are claiming to be if stopped by police. My question is why shouldnt the police have the right to ask you to prove who you are? The ID card makes it simple for you to prove who you are so they can leave you in peace as long as your not breaking the law.

In todays world with terrorism round every corner everyone, including the police need to be vigilant about what is happening around them on a daily basis and maybe the ID card is one of the ways to ensure our streets are kept safe from harm by ensuring every UK citizen can prove who they are, which will hopefully make it harder for these terrorists to blend into our communities undetected.

As far as the events that took place on thursday in london I believe the emergency services did the best they could and responded in a very professional and precise manner. My thanks go out to them for being able to more than cope with this disaster.

The terrorists that have caused this terrible disaster cannot be called true muslims and should not be branded as such since they defy the islamic belief of peace. Please citizens of the UK do not blame the muslim population within the UK. The people that carried out these attacks are extremists that will stop at nothing to strike terror, fear & division in our communities with no regards for human life. They are believers of a warped and evil terrorist Osama bin laden and should not be associated with true muslims.

Finally my condolenses go out to all of the people in the UK that have lost loved ones in this tradgedy. I hope that the perpretrators will be caught and that justice will be done in due course.

1.3% is much less than any figure I've seen. I'm sure if it was that small all the vintners associations in Ireland would stop being so vocal.I think Jack may have pulled a fast one with the stats there.

30% smoke in Scotland' date=' 27% is the UK figure.

Whoops!!

You know nothing about addiction.[/quote']

Have you ever seen someone die slowly & painfully of a smoking related illness?

I have and it's not pretty.

One of my uncle's smoked heavily all his life, when he was 54 he got admitted to hospital when his arteries to the lower half of his body packed in. This was directly due to smoking, which in turn had slowly filled his arteries with plaques (fats, cholesterol and other material) which causes narrowing of the arteries. Luckily at the time they managed to make up some new arteries in time which meant he only lost one toe (was amputated) to gangrene. The doctors strongly advised him to quit smoking, which he managed for about 3 months before starting again. Truth was he couldnt stop because he was addicted.

The following year he was admitted to hospital again but it was for what should have been a routine operation to remove a gaull stone. The operation seemed to go fine and he was recovering in the hospital ward until his new arteries that he was given the previous year decided to collapse. This time though he wasnt as fortunate. By the time the doctors realised what happened the blood supply had been cut off from his bowel for too long, which in turn caused it to go gangrene.

When I found out about it he had been told there was nothing they could do for him and he had only a few days to live. The next few days felt like weeks, knowing that some one close to you is going to die in what was a very painful way and that each day that past could be his last is not a nice feeling. Near the end he was pumped full of morphine to ease the pain as much as possible. He died 3 days later, exactly one day after my 18th birthday. That day drastically changed my outlook on life and made me realise the serious effect smoking has on peoples lives.

So dont tell me that I dont know what addiction is.

As far as I'm aware' date=' it's not the nicotine in cigarette smoke that causes cancer and lung diseases, any kind of smoke is just as bad.[/quote']

Okay I agree its the other 250 Carcinogens contained in tobacco that directly causes the cancer.

But at the same time nicotine is more addictive than heroin

Did you know that nicotine is a very toxic poison and is comercially sold and used as a form of pesticide? Do you really want to smoke an active ingredient of pesticide.

For every cigarette smoked you will normally absorb 1mg of nicotine, which is about 5-6% of the amount of nicotine contained in 1 cigarette.

60mg of Nicotine will kill the average adult (about the amount in three or four cigarettes if all of the nicotine were absorbed). I know nicotine only has a half life of 60 minutes which leaves 0.031 mg of a 1mg dose in your body after 6 hours. Since from smoking 1 cigarette only 5% is absorbed you would have to smoke a lot of cigarettes to reach that level of poisoning but, only 1mg of nicotine is required to make a young child seriously ill.

To quote from a Health information website http://health.howstuffworks.com/nicotine7.htm

Nicotine poisoning causes vomiting and nausea, headaches, difficulty breathing, stomach pains and seizures. Each of these symptoms can be traced back to excessive stimulation of cholinergic neurons. People poisoned by organophosphate insecticides experience the exact same symptoms. With organophosphates, acetylcholine builds up at synapses and overstimulates the neurons. Because nicotine is so similar to acetylcholine, and binds to cholinergic receptors, nicotine in excess produces the same overstimulation and toxicity. The more nicotine binding to the nicotinic cholinergic receptors, the more acetylcholine is subsequently released and free to activate other subsets of cholinergic receptors.

Smokers themselves are unfortunately drug addicts and I know that once they are hooked its hard to stop. Putting the ban in place will help people trying to stop by removing the temptation to smoke when they are out in public.

Yes smokers need our help to stop and the NHS is doing what it can to help people by way of patches and other drugs like xyban which coincide with therapy sessions similar to Alcoholics anonymous. A ban will only help to assist this process.

I don't know if those figures took into account the 11pm price hike' date=' it only mentioned smoking.

However, the 11pm price hike shouldn't affect jobs, the amount of jobs in a pub depends on how many people are needed at the busiest times, so if it's busier before 11 they should need more staff, or at least the same as before, not 14% less.

If pubs in Ireland close at midnight normally, I can't see that having an effect on staff levels at all, only on their paypackets.[/quote']

The 11pm price hike also affects night clubs. Also business before 11pm has actually increased since the smoking ban was put into effect.

As regards the Dublin figures' date=' I thought "wouldn't it be a great idea to just ask the pub owners in Dublin what their figures are"

Someone has:

The licenced vintners association asked 277 Dublin pubs (roughly half of Dublins pubs).

turnover was down 16% and staff levels were down 14%.

That's more than one full time and two part time jobs per pub according to them.

Looks like students won't need to worry about breathing in smoke at work, there won't be any work.[/quote']

The scottish executive announced the 1.3% drop in turnover in parliment during the debate on the ban on smoking

Also people are not going to stop drinking just because they can smoke in public, in scotland only 27% of us actually smoke. What about the rest of the population that dont currently go to pubs just because of smoking.

With regards to banning bonfire night how on earth do you get nicotine from burning wood

It's the nicotine thats contained in cigarette smoke that causes cancer.

Nicotine is an additctive drug that some people have become addicted to. The ban will help people to give up this addiction because there wont be the temptation to smoke when in public

Paragraph 1: Deionisers?

They still dont work that well and are not 100% effective

2:That'll be why there's an estimated 25-30% downturn in pub trade in Dublin then?

If you look in New York business has increased. As far as a 25-30% downturn in dublin thats incorrect. There has only been a 1.3% drop in turnover since the ban was put in place and its still relatively new so im sure business will pick up. Also I was in Dublin in May and the pubs were packed out. The difference with dublin though is that they have also introduced a compulsary price increase on alcohol that puts the price up after 11pm in an attempt to prevent people binge drinking for the whole evening which also affects turnover.

3: There should be both smoking and non-smoking' date=' then there would be a choice. I don't like the current situation where non-smokers don't have a choice.[/quote']

What about the staff that work in these establishments most are students and it is in most cases the only job they can get that fits around Uni whether they smoke or not. The only way for staff to be protected as a duty of care is an outright ban.

4: If you ban smoking from pubs which allow people under 18 into' date=' you get round that problem.[/quote']

What? did you actually read what i said. How is only banning smoking in pubs that have a family license going to stop kids standing a bus stop from inhaling second hand smoke from the person that has to have a cigarette just before they get on the bus.

5: Banning it will only make it more attractive to 13 year old girls.

Stopping it from being seen as the normal thing to do when your out in public will change how children interpret whats cool to do and whats not. Smoking is like fashion if everyone else is doing it then kids will want to do it too. Therefore if you ban it public then it looses its status as being cool in the eyes of our kids therefore the trend will change and our kids attitudes will change.

6: Move the smokers out of the pubs and back into their homes' date=' where the kids are. Good thinking![/quote']

Yes I agree that it will put smokers back into their own home. But at the same time are smokers that have even the slightest bit of common sense really going to want to expose their own kids to second hand smoke knowing what it will do to them. These days adults that smoke know exactly what it will do to them over time. Also if it becomes normal for people not to smoke when they are out in public then a lot more people will stop smoking of their own accord.

7: Utopia!!! Don't think so.

We will never have a utopian society but just look at what AID's has done to the world, in the last 20-30 years everyone in the western world has been educated about what it will do to you (the third world is still in dire need of our help to educate them) and I think you yourself would do everything in your power to prevent yourself from ever getting it. Am I right?

Cultural Change required if only for our kids

The whole idea that better ventilation will make pubs and clubs safer for Non Smokers is a pile of crap. Good Ventilation systems only partially remove the smoke and smell but dont remove the poisons found in second hand smoke so unless smokers are in their own sealed room that is separated from the rest of the pub/club then non smokers will still have to breathe in these poisons.

If the licensing trade have any worrys look at the percentage of population that smoke which is about 27%, just think about the increase in trade if even half of the population that doesnt smoke decide to start going to the pub just because they are smoke free. You would find that at least half of all smokers will still go to the pub which in turn would result in an increase of trade.

Some people will argue that by entering the pub/club it is your own fault for breathing in second hand smoke.

Smoking is the only legal drug that will directly affect other peoples health around the user of which only the user chooses to use. The Non smokers with special attention to kids do not choose to smoke but are, at the same time expected to breathe in second hand smoke when in public whether it be waiting for a bus, a train (i.e the person standing next to kids having a cigarette just before they have to put it out before getting on the smoke free bus) or going into places of entertainment that havent already banned smoking. How do you tell a 6 year old kid that it's their fault for getting cancer when they are older from breathing in your second hand smoke that day.

It's about time that something was done about making smoking socially unacceptable. Banning it in pubs/clubs is a start to change how people think. Hopefully this will show our children that it is not normal to smoke therefore preventing 13 year girls (who have been found to be the worst) and boys from starting smoking in the first place.

If people actually sit down and look at the bigger picture the number of children that have started smoking over the last 50 years has grown exponentially. Since parents actions will always influence how a child interprets whats right and wrong. Smoking in front of them shows them that it is socially acceptable. Hopefully if we ban smoking in public this in turn will help people to stop smoking since if they cant do it in public it becomes unsociable. Therefore our kids will hopefully take heed and see that smoking is not the cool thing to do when your growing up.

This change in culture wont happen overnight but if we can do what we can now, hopefully in 20-30 years children wont smoke, they will be healthier, live longer and have more productive lives.

In the long run the only people that loose out are the the tabacco companies and if you look closly at every lobby group that is against this then you will probably find in 9 out of 10 cases that the tabacco companies are directly behind it, just like the woman that visited Moshulu Ross.

The only downside about more and more western countries banning smoking is that in the third world smoking is going to be the next epidemic since the tabacco companies are tripling their efforts to sell cigarettes to the third world safe in the knowledge for the moment that people there are not clued up about the effects of smoking.They not legally bound by law in some third world countries to even have any health warnings about its effects. You never know but in 10-15 years time it could end up being an epidemic that is on a bigger scale than Aids. The only way to stop this from happening is for the rest of the world to take heed until even the manufacture & sale of tobacco products is banned world wide.

I think it might be possible to actually cut down on binge drinking culture' date=' to be honest. Think about the cardinal sin that drink-driving has become, for example. And I don't blame alcohol for the behaviour of assclowns. That's like blaming Gibson or Fender for Good Charlotte sucking. I know some cities are testing a "finger-print entry" scheme for some pubs and clubs by which trouble makers would be banned from pubs and clubs on that network, which sounds pretty awesome but probably really expensive and other problems I'm too lazy to think about.[/quote']

Only thing with fingerprint scanning in pubs is that the we would end up having to give up our civil liberties since it would have to be policed to stop it being abused otherwise you could find yourself being banned just because the bouncer dont like the look of you.

Who would control the information, the police? and what else would they have on file.

Fair enough the innocent should have nothing to fear but mistakes can be made.

It could just lead to more aggrevation in the streets. Which means more trouble that the police have to deal with.

Pub Chains challenging minimum prices

Read today that 2 pub chains have taken the licensing boards to court

Quote from Fridays P & J

"The legal challenge by two pub chains to Aberdeen Licensing Board's proposed imposition of minimum drinks prices in the city's bars is hardly unexpected and, if commonsense is applied, will probably succeed.

The chains argue, quite reasonably, that fixing minimum drinks prices is beyond the remit of the licensing board, an argument which is difficult to rebut.

There is, also, the irony that the very body which is trying to dictate how much people have to pay for their drinks is the same body which has, largely, created the environment in which the cheap drinks promotions and "happy hours" flourished.

Shopkeepers, police and anyone unfortunate enough to live within a bottle's throw of Justice Mill Lane, around which much of these promotions take place, have long complained about the proliferation of pubs and clubs.

Any shop, office or even church which became vacant was converted into a bar, nodded through by a licensing board seemingly unconcerned about the monster it was helping to create. Then, woken like Sleeping Beauty from its slumbers, the board resorted to panic measures to try to return the genie to the bottle while simultaneously keeping everyone else away from it.

The words "stable door", "horse" and "bolted" spring to mind. "

To be honest the Licencing board needs to taken down a peg or two from their high horse in order to see sense.

By all means binge drinking it not good for one's health but i think they could have tackled it a bit differently since they have created the problem in the first place by allowing too many drinks licences, therefore too much competition which in a capitalist economy will always force cheap prices to stay in business.

If this does happen irresepective of the court challenge I think it will put a certain amount of pubs out of business since everyone will get drunk before going out.

The only people that will benefit out of this are the off licences

It needs a huge cultcural change for people to stop binge drinking and I dont see it happening any time soon.