Smoking

I’m really sick and tired of the self-righteous people going on about a smoking ban all the time. These are the people who are more than willing to lecture everyone on what should be done, but are not willing to do it themselves. There is absolutely no need for a ban on smoking anywhere there is choice, pubs being one.

Each pub etc. can take a decision as to whether they allow smoking, have a smoking area, or ban smoking altogether. Then, as a customer, you either give them your business of not as you find the conditions. If you choose to frequent a pub that allows smoking, that is your choice. You do so in the full knowledge of that fact and therefore should take the consequences. If you don’t like the smoke, go to another pub that has conditions more to your liking. If enough people object to smoking and do this, there will be plenty of choice. Of course, the reality is that most non-smoking pubs that open are closed within a short time as they don’t get enough trade. So, presumably people don’t object enough to use their legs and more a few yards down the road.

Another common excuse is that people feel pressurised by friends to go to a smoking pub. Well, the answer is simple; get a backbone. When your friend suggests this, say no. Say you will go to a non-smoking pub only. Of course, people won’t do this as they tend to be spineless whinging plankton, incapable of standing up for themselves. So, what do they do? They ask the government to do it for them. Their cowardice and inability to stand up for themselves, forces us into more and more, unnecessary legislation and red tape.

Another common answer is that it is to protect the workers. Well, once again, the workers have a choice. As with all jobs, whether you take it or not is your decision and nobody is forced to take a job in a smoky atmosphere. When weighing up the pro’s and con’s of a job, you should include the smoking conditions. Again, employers can decide on their policies and may loose the best candidates if it isn’t to their liking. That is their choice.

So, a message for all of you campaigning for a total, or even partial ban. Get a spine and act according to your beliefs rather than folding at the first opportunity. Spend your money only in pubs, restaurants etc. that have conditions you like and very quickly more and more non-smoking etc. establishments will occur. Stop asking the government to wipe your arse for you and do it yourself. Freedom of choice is for everyone, not just non-smokers.

Lardies

Bradford has earned the title ‘Lard capital of Britain’. Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Glasgow makes up the remainder of the top 5 for lard arses. From the publicity, it would appear this is viewed as a negative thing. However, I would like to point out all the positive aspects of this finding.

Firstly, as pointed out in a previous missive, these people are actually helping everyone else. As lardy people tend to die earlier than others, this move will help raise annuity rates and should be encouraged by the government as one component of their pension plans. If you can’t afford to give everyone a decent pension, simply reduce the number of people you have to pay. Simple and effective. Bar mandatory termination at a given age (as in Logans Run), which whilst a good idea is probably lacking in public acceptance, encouraging people to be unhealthy is the best option.

Secondly, these people should have additional crash resistance. With a ring of blubber all round, considerable additional cushioning is available in the event of an accident. This really applies to all scenarios. If in a car, the combination of fat and air bags should ensure optimal survival prospects, whilst if a pedestrian, the fat will again cushion and make a satisfying dent in the impacting car. If the lard is around you arse, it also means you won’t fall over, but bob upright again in the style of a weeble. However, if the lard is around your waist, other pedestrians might be crushed as you roll away. This is particularly useful for Glaswegians, as being Scottish, they are pissed all the time and therefore more susceptible to accidents.

Thirdly, accepting your lard arse nature means you can eat what you like. No more calorie counting for you. See a bucket of animal fat, dive straight in and gorge away.

Fourthly, given the population centres involved, the additional difficulty in copulation is to be welcomed. This makes it difficult for these people to propagate the species and therefore stops crime waves and general unpleasantness for the remainder of us. As with the first advantage, mandatory neutering would obviously be better, but would undoubtedly be fought by wishy washy liberals.

And finally. Bearing in mind the cities mentioned in the report, why should anyone really care. Fat scousers and geordies aren’t fast enough or nimble enough to steal effectively. Let’s face it; a 20stone mugger is going to get caught. No more getaways, just slowaways. Given the populations of these five cities, lardies dying early would rapidly reduce the population of the country and give more space for the rest of us. The government wouldn’t need to build 2million more homes, especially in the south, as properties become available in the north. Granted, this is a long term plan, as properties wouldn’t be suitable for human habitation until all neighbours had been removed as well, but we should look long term.