tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267928368747294421.post693795997799315210..comments2023-09-06T22:58:43.907+10:00Comments on The Angry Exile: Won't somebody think of the chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllldren?Angry Exilehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13697765915987279791noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267928368747294421.post-26593686237349340372009-12-15T00:18:57.187+11:002009-12-15T00:18:57.187+11:00The difference with Allen is that the venue were t...<i>The difference with Allen is that the venue were told by government that they weren't allowed to dictate their own policy and that there was only one they can follow or else they will be fined £2,500. I'd say she wasn't being rude to the venue as Paul Weller, Oasis, The Stones, and a few others have got away with it before. As probably will Allen. She was being rude to the people who imposed such a laughable law.</i><br /><br />Yeah, I certainly don't argue with much of that except that so many places were non-smoking per the owners even before the ban came along that I'd expect most concert venues were already smoke free zones. In such places the government imposed smoking rules did fuck all except impose a financial penalty on the owners if they failed to enforce a policy they'd put in for reasons of their own years before. If Lily Allen was giving a 'fuck you' to the government by lighting up and the venue was already non-smoking pre-ban then it was also a 'fuck you' at the owners. I suspect it actually wasn't a 'fuck you' to anyone at all but all just because she wanted a smoke - sometimes the correct answer is the obvious one, eh? Should she have ignored the government imposed rules? As far as I'm concerned yeah, because I don't think they have any fucking right to rule on what happens on private property bar actual criminal acts. Should she have respected the wishes of the building's owners if they wanted nobody smoking anyway? Again, yeah.<br /><br />I didn't know about the artistic licence thing. I'd heard that people wanted it but having heard nothing since I'd assumed the gauleiters told them to fuck off. So, what would happen if you were to put on a play in which all the characters smoked at various points and every member of the audience was given a role? Come and fine us then ya spunk munchers, it's art! Sneh-heh-heh-heh-heh.Angry Exilehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02491082312193274360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267928368747294421.post-23092456451613317602009-12-14T08:31:11.249+11:002009-12-14T08:31:11.249+11:00Oh yeah, forgot to add. There is an 'artistic ...Oh yeah, forgot to add. There is an 'artistic licence' exemption for the smoking ban.<br /><br />Apparently, you are killing people by lighting up if you are Lily Allen and the others mentioned, but not if you're an actor portraying Winston Churchill.<br /><br />It's all a bit silly, really. ;-)Dick Puddlecotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481866882188932892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3267928368747294421.post-26835061280942401582009-12-14T08:28:10.565+11:002009-12-14T08:28:10.565+11:00Ta for the link, and good point on the rudeness.
...Ta for the link, and good point on the rudeness. <br /><br />Mrs P was watching an episode of 'Come Dine With Me' tonight where a guy lit up around the table, in someone else's house, without asking. I find that extremely rude myself & the reaction of those present I can entirely relate to.<br /><br />The difference with Allen is that the venue were told by government that they weren't allowed to dictate their own policy and that there was only one they can follow or else they will be fined £2,500. I'd say she wasn't being rude to the venue as Paul Weller, Oasis, The Stones, and a few others have got away with it before. As probably will Allen. She was being rude to the people who imposed such a laughable law.<br /><br />In the 'dine with me' case, there was no possibility of financial censure, only the collective will of those who were present to decide the rude actions of the person who lit up. The prevailing mood was that he should have asked beforehand and that they could have agreed, or asked him to move to a different room. No mention of him going outsise, note.<br /><br />That's common sense, as you mention in your post. <br /><br />People like Mr Hall (52), however, have been so willingly brainwashed by a combination of confirmation bias and selfishness, that they are an easy rent-a-gob for a local paper, despite his protestations not meeting basic logical criteria. All those people there and he is the only hypocritical fucktard they could find.<br /><br />Something is very whiffy about the reasoning for such bans if that's the best that a local newshound can do.<br /><br />Just read that back and it seems confrontational. You know full well it's not meant to be. :-)Dick Puddlecotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481866882188932892noreply@blogger.com