"newsb" wrote in message
...
In article , Sacha
writes

That's fair comment but I would hope some common sense might be applied IF
they feel the need to nanny the entire country into a total lack of
personal
responsibility.

That response might be fine if "enterprises" had a good track record in
caring/being responsible for what they do and how they employ people. You
may well do so but that doesn't apply for all businesses. Too often,
increased profit at all costs is the driver.

And of course, when something goes wrong, people clamour to demand why the
government didn't do something about it...

--
regards andyw

Excellent summary of my intended long winded post.

The majority of employers do want to be legal ,decent and honest , however,
they need a legalised framework, rules and regs to which they can adhere to
and exceed.
Regulation does tend to eventually weed out the Cowboys.

On 19/12/05 10:32, in article , "newsb"
wrote:

In article , Sacha
writes

That's fair comment but I would hope some common sense might be applied IF
they feel the need to nanny the entire country into a total lack of personal
responsibility.

That response might be fine if "enterprises" had a good track record in
caring/being responsible for what they do and how they employ people.
You may well do so but that doesn't apply for all businesses. Too
often, increased profit at all costs is the driver.

And of course, when something goes wrong, people clamour to demand why
the government didn't do something about it...

I understand that but the issue of smoking areas or no smoking areas etc. is
surely one that people can discuss for themselves, with their employers.
Unless an employer is a diehard slave boss, he or she is hardly going to
dispute that secondary smoking is bad for the health and that people have
the right to wish to avoid it.

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

"Broadback" wrote in message
...
Alan Holmes wrote:
"Sacha" wrote in message
.uk...


Groan! Another horrible possibility - except that I think nurserymen,
horticulturists, agriculturists etc. are allowed bonfires. ;-)


Does that mean I'm not?


I wish it did, not to Alan singularly but generally. I am fed up with my
neighbour who cannot go 2 weeks without a smoky bonfire, and she calls
herself an environmentalist. I asked her one day why she did not compost
everything (as I do), she replied that she thought composters and heaps
looked untidy. We both have large sloping gardens, in excess of 1/2 acre,
pity she can't hide them.

I used to have a neighbour like that, if he pulled a weed up, it meant he
had to light a fire to burn it, and most of the time the wind was blowing in
my direction, fortunately he moved into a home where there were no weeds!

I usualy have just one bonfire per year, I save all the cuttings up, wait
until we have had a long fine spell, so it is all nice and dry, then the
fire burns very quickly without much smoke.

Alan


--
Please do not reply to this Email address
All Emails are deleted upon receipt.

"Sacha" wrote in message
.uk...
On 16/12/05 6:43 pm, in article , "Rupert"
wrote:



I trust your Coshh assessment is current and has recently been audited:-)

My cosh is just fine, thanks - and on standby. ;-)

My cosh is ready and wating for the council tax assessors who want to take
photos of my toilet!

Alan

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

"Kay Easton" wrote in message
...
In message , Sacha
writes

But Kay, why do they need to know that our employees smoke, don't smoke or
have places in which to smoke?

If they need to know at all, then they need to know it equally of your
establishment than of any other. I thought your original comment was about
the inappropriateness of the form to your particular circumstances, rather
than that you didn't feel *anyone* should have got the form.

Whose business is it but ours and that of
our employees and customers? And nobody smokes near customers.
It's just more nanny state-ing, IMO

I'm not going to get into any political argument!

Oh, go on, just to please me!

Alan


--
Kay

"Alan Holmes" wrote in message
...

"Sacha" wrote in message
.uk...
On 16/12/05 6:43 pm, in article , "Rupert"
wrote:



I trust your Coshh assessment is current and has recently been
audited:-)

My cosh is just fine, thanks - and on standby. ;-)

My cosh is ready and wating for the council tax assessors who want to take
photos of my toilet!

Alan

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)




Just leave it in a disgusting condition-you might get a rebate.

"Sacha" wrote in message
.uk...
A Healthy & Safety form arrived today which made us laugh. Questions - to
a nursery where everyone works either outdoors or in large glasshouses:
"how many of your workers smoke; do you set aside a special area for your
workers to smoke?" I'm not quite sure that 'back of the bonfire sites'
is
what they're looking for as an answer. ;-)
--
Sacha
------------------------------

The thinking is that the cost of treating someone for diseases from smoking
outweighs the cost prevention measures.

They need stats to plan future medical requirements.

Makes sense to me eh.

bg
www.lchb.ca