banned from the ground for smoking can..... update update!!

[johnny crossan]

The Caviar Bar at the Abu Dhabi Emirates Palace provides a comfortable ambience for smokers inside the world's most expensive hotel, something similar within the Connell Club would be welcomed by City's tobacco connoisseurs.

 

[stonerblue]

I tend not to pour alcohol and sugar over others nearby though.

All the club need to do is rope off an area immediately outside the spirals ie (outside the stadium confines) for half time. would be cheaper to patrol than the snatch squads currently in operation.

Tell the woman on the 'assaulted' thread that drinkers don't affect those around them.

What a spurious connection to make.
That was the direct cause was it? Or were they just spineless w**k*rs already?
The smoking debate is a health and social issue and the assault is a rare serious criminal matter in the concourse.

Spineless wankers are no problem until they've had enough booze to make them less spineless.
The connection with booze is not spurious in the slightest. It, like fag smoke, affects others around the user.
And i'd put a pound on the fact that the twat that assaulted the woman had had a drink.

 

[GaudinoMotors]

Tell the woman on the 'assaulted' thread that drinkers don't affect those around them.

What a spurious connection to make.
That was the direct cause was it? Or were they just spineless w**k*rs already?
The smoking debate is a health and social issue and the assault is a rare serious criminal matter in the concourse.

Spineless wankers are no problem until they've had enough booze to make them less spineless.
The connection with booze is not spurious in the slightest. It, like fag smoke, affects others around the user.
And i'd put a pound on the fact that the twat that assaulted the woman had had a drink.

Clearly you'll make everything fit your smoking is acceptable in public stance - even using presumptions and generalisations.
Smoking impacts in a negative way upon ALL those in proximity to the smoker, whether it's passive smoking (and I don't want to get into that argument right now) or simply because of the smell. Not every person who has a pint at the match decides to assault the person next to them (that's why what you are saying is spurious).

I'm not condemning smokers it's their choice - and I think the club SHOULD come up with a solution for both sides.

 

[Matty]

Everyone who has a cigarette at the football is capable of not doing so. I realise it's an addiction but the amount of time you're within the stadium confines is likely to be between 2 hours and 2 hours 30 minutes. That's hardly any time at all. Consider your summer holidays. I'd wager the vast majority of City smokers have, at some point in their life, been on an airplane. From the moment you pass through customs to the moment you exit the destination airport you are unable to smoke. This is going to be, again in the vast majority of cases, a damn sight longer than 2 and a half hours. Yet I'd also wager almost every single one of those people has managed to last that length of time without having a cigarette. Why? The answer is simple, fear of the repercussions. If you're caught smoking in the airport, or on the airplane, then you'll be hit with a hefty fine and potentially miss your flight, or be banned from future usage of the airline. The reason people smoke at the Ethihad is because they think they can get away with it. They are aware that, just like the airport, smoking is strictly forbidden, but they believe they can still do it and the punishment will either not be forthcoming, or else will be extremely light indeed. As long as the punishment is lenient, or non-existant, then you will have sizeable numbers who ignore the rules and smoke simply because they can get away with it.

As for the poster who was asking why he had been singled out for punishment when others had been left alone, I'm pretty sure it probably was because you didn't look like you'd cause trouble. You were likely chosen because it would be fairly easy for them to deal with you. And? That might not be particularly fair but since when has the "he's doing it so why am I the only one being punished?" argument actually been an acceptable one? Also, as a point of order, the policy hasn't changed, smoking has never been allowed on the spirals. The enforcement of the policy may well have changed, but certainly not the policy itself. That being the case it's also not a valid argument to claim "well, it's been tolerated for months so why punish me now?", you've known for those months that what you were doing was against the rules, just because it was previously ignored doesn't mean you weren't aware it wasn't acceptable. There is no reason why they should have warned you they were now being stricter in enforcing this, you're told at each and every game, via the tannoy, that smoking everywhere in the stadium is actually banned.

 

[stonerblue]

What a spurious connection to make.
That was the direct cause was it? Or were they just spineless w**k*rs already?
The smoking debate is a health and social issue and the assault is a rare serious criminal matter in the concourse.

Spineless wankers are no problem until they've had enough booze to make them less spineless.
The connection with booze is not spurious in the slightest. It, like fag smoke, affects others around the user.
And i'd put a pound on the fact that the twat that assaulted the woman had had a drink.

Clearly you'll make everything fit your smoking is acceptable in public stance - even using presumptions and generalisations.
Smoking impacts in a negative way upon ALL those in proximity to the smoker, whether it's passive smoking (and I don't want to get into that argument right now) or simply because of the smell. Not every person who has a pint at the match decides to assault the person next to them (that's why what you are saying is spurious).

I'm not condemning smokers it's their choice - and I think the club SHOULD come up with a solution for both sides.

I've not even mentioned smoking in the posts you've responded to.

I think anyone smoking in an enclosed public space is selfish.

The smell of booze is as prevelant, if not more so, than smoke at the match. If someone dislikes the stink as much as those that whine about fag smell then they have just as much as to whinge about.
Every person with a drink at the match inflicts that smell on those around them.
I wont bother going into the facts and figure regarding what you dismiss as 'presumptions and generalisations'.
You say the bloke who grabbed a womans tit and then pushed her over could have been sober, i say they had had a drink.

 

[jimharri]

Everyone who has a cigarette at the football is capable of not doing so. I realise it's an addiction but the amount of time you're within the stadium confines is likely to be between 2 hours and 2 hours 30 minutes. That's hardly any time at all. Consider your summer holidays. I'd wager the vast majority of City smokers have, at some point in their life, been on an airplane. From the moment you pass through customs to the moment you exit the destination airport you are unable to smoke. This is going to be, again in the vast majority of cases, a damn sight longer than 2 and a half hours. Yet I'd also wager almost every single one of those people has managed to last that length of time without having a cigarette. Why? The answer is simple, fear of the repercussions. If you're caught smoking in the airport, or on the airplane, then you'll be hit with a hefty fine and potentially miss your flight, or be banned from future usage of the airline. The reason people smoke at the Ethihad is because they think they can get away with it. They are aware that, just like the airport, smoking is strictly forbidden, but they believe they can still do it and the punishment will either not be forthcoming, or else will be extremely light indeed. As long as the punishment is lenient, or non-existant, then you will have sizeable numbers who ignore the rules and smoke simply because they can get away with it.

As for the poster who was asking why he had been singled out for punishment when others had been left alone, I'm pretty sure it probably was because you didn't look like you'd cause trouble. You were likely chosen because it would be fairly easy for them to deal with you. And? That might not be particularly fair but since when has the "he's doing it so why am I the only one being punished?" argument actually been an acceptable one? Also, as a point of order, the policy hasn't changed, smoking has never been allowed on the spirals. The enforcement of the policy may well have changed, but certainly not the policy itself. That being the case it's also not a valid argument to claim "well, it's been tolerated for months so why punish me now?", you've known for those months that what you were doing was against the rules, just because it was previously ignored doesn't mean you weren't aware it wasn't acceptable. There is no reason why they should have warned you they were now being stricter in enforcing this, you're told at each and every game, via the tannoy, that smoking everywhere in the stadium is actually banned.

Post of the thread.

 

[mr t]

They could do with these in the concourse - Camel Smoking Zones - they have them at Munich airport

And when they return to their seat they stink like fuck. Looks funny though,its like they are lepers or something.pmsl.

I,m a bit of an anti smoker but I don't see the harm in smoking on the spirals, I know its still against the law but the law was brought out to protect non smokers,well if they are out of the bogs they don't affect me.
The whole site is non smoking inc car parks so the fact they have so far turned a blind eye to the spirals is some decent leeway to smokers if you ask me.

Quite why you want something so disgusting and dangerous to control your life though baffles me.

It's not against any law to smoke on the spirals.

Yeah but that's the point. You can only smoke on the spirals if you are in tiers 2 or 3. Folk who are seated in the lower tier have no access to the spirals and that's why they smoke in the bogs - because there's nowhere else for them to go in order to feed their addiction.