Minister resigns after breaking the law.

[Mr Stabby]

Welsh Culture Minister Rhodri Glyn Thomas has resigned after claims he walked in to a pub holding a lit cigar.

The Plaid Cymru minister quit saying his position was not "sustainable" following an earlier gaffe when he named the wrong winner of a book prize.

Labour First Minster Rhodri Morgan praised Mr Thomas for his "hard work".

Witnesses at a pub near the Welsh assembly claim Mr Thomas was reprimanded by staff for having a lit cigar in his hand as he walked in.

Mr Thomas had already pulled out of the opening of the Sir Kyffin Williams gallery on Anglesey on Friday evening, telling colleagues he did not expect to last the evening in his post.

In his resignation letter to Mr Morgan, he wrote: "In the light of the publicity that has been following me in the last weeks I feel that my position in the government is no longer sustainable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7514458.stm

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Ridiculous. He did break the law, but it is a minor law, and IMO he doesn't deserve all of the publicity over this simple issue.

 

[Raziaar]

Walking into a bar holding a lit cigar is illegal? Wow...

 

[Absinthe]

What a monster.

 

[kirovman]

The Plaid Cymru minister quit saying his position was not "sustainable" following an earlier gaffe when he named the wrong winner of a book prize.

War criminal.

 

[Nemesis6]

Jesus Christ... some people are really ridiculous with this smoking ban. Can someone enlighten me on this issue: Does the UK have any exceptions about smoking in bars? For example, we have one in Denmark that states that if the places is larger than X by Y, smoking IS allowed.

 

[Mr Stabby]

No smoking in workplaces, so bars and restaurants are 100% smoke free.

 

[The Monkey]

The smoke ban is something very positive, especially for the staff at the bar/restaurant, but resigning because of this is just silly.

 

[Mr Stabby]

If you don't like smoke don't work in a bar.

 

[McGooTheWise]

Yeah, they issued this same ban in Illinois, and in restaurants I'm fine with the ban, but in bars? You have people drinking, getting drunk, and all you can worry about is how you might inhale some smoke? You're drinking beer. That's less healthy than a cig. What are we going to ban next? Breathing in second hand smoke?

 

[The Monkey]

If you don't like smoke don't work in a bar.

That's easy for you to say. What if that job was the only one available at the time? You want people to choose between unemployment and bad health?

 

[Absinthe]

Sure, why not.

 

[PimpinPenguin]

If you don't like smoke don't work in a bar.

What about those who don't smoke and go to a bar. Why do we have to put up with your filthy second hand smoke, you wanna smoke go outside and continue killing yourself.

 

[Vegeta897]

You're drinking beer. That's less healthy than a cig.

Bwuh?

Sure you can die in a drunk driving accident, or drink too much and die of alcohol poisoning, but that's when you choose to drink irresponsibly. You can't "smoke responsibly" and be exempt from its unhealthy side effects.

 

[Absinthe]

What about those who don't smoke and go to a bar. Why do we have to put up with your filthy second hand smoke, you wanna smoke go outside and continue killing yourself.

Go to your little social soiree elsewhere. We'll live like men.

 

[The Monkey]

Go to your little social soiree elsewhere. We'll live like men.

What about when your smoking cause impotence? How much of a man are you then?

 

[Absinthe]

What about when your smoking cause impotence? How much of a man are you then?

Tape and plywood.

 

[Vegeta897]

I'd like to get in on that action.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Jesus Christ... some people are really ridiculous with this smoking ban. Can someone enlighten me on this issue: Does the UK have any exceptions about smoking in bars? For example, we have one in Denmark that states that if the places is larger than X by Y, smoking IS allowed.

I don't know about the whole of the UK, but most of the bars around here have a special, seperate building for smokers.

The smoke ban is something very positive, especially for the staff at the bar/restaurant

Before the ban came in, most restruants and bars had smoking sections. Smokers could still sit and smoke, but they were seperate from the non-smokers. Nobody was complaining. But the engines of totalatarianism ignited and banned it entirely for no reason.

 

[Mr Stabby]

What about those who don't smoke and go to a bar. Why do we have to put up with your filthy second hand smoke, you wanna smoke go outside and continue killing yourself.

It should be the owner of the bars decision as to whether the bar is a smoking or non smoking bar, not yours and not the governments. Also, I don't smoke.

That's easy for you to say. What if that job was the only one available at the time? You want people to choose between unemployment and bad health?

Highly unlikely to occur. If you don't like the health risks involved in a job, then don't take the job. No one is forced to work in a bar.

 

[Eejit]

The smoking ban is awesome.
One no longer stinks of that horrible shit after having a night out.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Smoking ban is stupid and so is this.

 

[Eejit]

Smoking ban is awesome and this is stupid.

 

[The Monkey]

Before the ban came in, most restruants and bars had smoking sections. Smokers could still sit and smoke, but they were seperate from the non-smokers. Nobody was complaining. But the engines of totalatarianism ignited and banned it entirely for no reason.

Here we still have rooms designated for smokers here, isn't it the same in the UK?

Highly unlikely to occur. If you don't like the health risks involved in a job, then don't take the job. No one is forced to work in a bar.

As I said, the laws must take into account the well-being of not only the guests, but also the employees. With your logic it would be alright for a construction site to have no safety protocol whatsoever because the employers aren't forced to work there, nevermind if they get killed.

 

[Mr Stabby]

Here we still have rooms designated for smokers here, isn't it the same in the UK?

No, any place of work has an absolute ban on smoking indoors.

As I said, the laws must take into account the well-being of not only the guests, but also the employees. With your logic it would be alright for a construction site to have no safety protocol whatsoever because the employers aren't forced to work there, nevermind if they get killed.

Should restaurants ban peanuts in case a guest has an allegory? If there was no law requiring hard hats on a building site, do you think no one on a building site would wear a hardhat? Many safety precautions taken by companies are not required by law.

Anyway banning smoking isn't a safety protocol, smoking won't cause an accident in the workplace, it's about longterm health, and it should be optional to work in an unhealthy environment provided they are aware of the risks. Maybe they should ban working in the Beijing, London or Los Angeles because of the shit air quality.

 

[The Monkey]

Anyway banning smoking isn't a safety protocol, smoking won't cause an accident in the workplace, it's about longterm health, and it should be optional to work in an unhealthy environment provided they are aware of the risks. Maybe they should ban working in the Beijing, London or Los Angeles because of the shit air quality.

You're missing the point. The reality is that for a lot of people quitting or changing job isn't an option, unless they want to face bankruptcy. That is the kind of people that the government needs to protect though legislation. Yes, in a perfect world anybody could change job anyway and anytime they want, but that's not how the real world looks like. The businesses' sole interest is profit, the well-being of the employees isn't a priority, which is why the government needs to step in.

Should restaurants ban peanuts in case a guest has an allegory?

That's completely irrelevant, the guest can easily choose a meal without peanuts, but the employees cannot easily change jobs due to the economic realities in the society.

If there was no law requiring hard hats on a building site, do you think no one on a building site would wear a hardhat? Many safety precautions taken by companies are not required by law.

Any important safety measures should be mandatory though the law. Otherwise nothing prevents the workplaces from being just as bad as the coal mines in the 19th century.

 

[Mr Stabby]

You're missing the point. The reality is that for a lot of people quitting or changing job isn't an option, unless they want to face bankruptcy. That is the kind of people that the government needs to protect though legislation. Yes, in a perfect world anybody could change job anyway and anytime they want, but that's not how the real world looks like. The businesses' sole interest is profit, the well-being of the employees isn't a priority, which is why the government needs to step in.

Why would people who have a problem with smoking get a job in a bar in the first place? It's just hypothetical nonsense that there are people (asthmatics?) with no choice but to work in a bar. Where does this occur where the only employment is as bar staff?

A business does have an interest in employee well being, if the employee doesn't like their treatment they quit and a business would try to avoid losing it's staff. There are reports that the smoking ban has caused a slow down in business in bars, a slowdown in business means a downturn in profits which could mean cutting back on staff.

That's completely irrelevant, the guest can easily choose a meal without peanuts, but the employees cannot easily change jobs due to the economic realities in the society.

Wrong, if the kitchen had peanuts in it there is no guarantee that other food won't be contaminated, and the most extreme cases can be triggered by airborne particles.

Any important safety measures should be mandatory though the law. Otherwise nothing prevents the workplaces from being just as bad as the coal mines in the 19th century.

A coal mine today is still very dangerous. Many things make workplaces today much safer than the 19th century. The reason children and pregnant women aren't working down mines today in the west is becasue they don't need to, the west is wealthy and workers can afford to demand high working standards from employers. Economically a western worker is more valuable uninjured. Not that I'm against government regulation of safety but to claim that without the government th west would have Victorian sweatshops is just nonsense.

 

[Sulkdodds]

If there was no law requiring hard hats on a building site, do you think no one on a building site would wear a hardhat? Many safety precautions taken by companies are not required by law.

Misleading; companies can be prosecuted if they fail to take adequate safety measures to the point where people get killed. The Health and Safety Executive doesn't legally enforcce the wearing of hard hats specifically, but does enforce a variety of more general rules and regulations, demanding risk assessments that would lead to the adoption of hard hats.

Except things don't always work out justly; the laws on corporate manslaughter generally allow the companies to escape responsibility for the deaths of people that are killed by bad policy, and, increasingly, are avoiding even the small amount of liability which still applies to them, because the unsafe jobs are done through shell companies, and the damages are demanded in proportion to the earnings of the shell company (ie pocket change for the mother corp).

Wrong, if the kitchen had peanuts in it there is no guarantee that other food won't be contaminated, and the most extreme cases can be triggered by airborne particles.

But that's very much "hypothetical nonsense". There are at least scientific studies that claim second-hand smoke is dangerous; I don't believe there are any scientific studies that conclude it is dangerous for someone with an allergy to work within the general vicinity of a nut.

But the engines of totalatarianism ignited and banned it entirely for no reason.

Unfair. I don't agree with the universal smoking ban, but it's not for "no reason" and, though restrictive, it's not fully totalitarian to ask you to step outside when you want a fag.

 

[<RJMC>]

since arriving here in europe I get so used to the cigars amoke that I dont give a dam

but I allways have thought about buying a gas mask and wear it

 

[Sulkdodds]

Oh, and on the subject of "Minister resigns", this is extremely odd (think of all the stuff that Blair, Brown et al should have resigned for) - but it seems the guy had a lot of negative publicity following him around even before he broke the law, and I'm unsure we can really say "he resigned because he smoked in a bar."

 

[Mr Stabby]

Misleading; companies can be prosecuted if they fail to take adequate safety measures to the point where people get killed. The Health and Safety Executive doesn't legally enforcce the wearing of hard hats specifically, but does enforce a variety of more general rules and regulations, demanding risk assessments that would lead to the adoption of hard hats.

Except things don't always work out justly; the laws on corporate manslaughter generally allow the companies to escape responsibility for the deaths of people that are killed by bad policy, and, increasingly, are avoiding even the small amount of liability which still applies to them, because the unsafe jobs are done through shell companies, and the damages are demanded in proportion to the earnings of the shell company (ie pocket change for the mother corp).

I think there is EU law on specific regulations on hard hats. While some regulation is required, health and safety can exist without the law as well. I was addressing the stereotype of the evil capitalist employer that would never allow safety regulations without being forced by the wonderful government.

But that's very much "hypothetical nonsense". There are at least scientific studies that claim second-hand smoke is dangerous; I don't believe there are any scientific studies that conclude it is dangerous for someone with an allergy to work within the general vicinity of a nut.

In a restaurant however the kitchen will have loose standards on nut contamination. So even if the person orders a meal without nuts, it can still be contaminated. Certain allegories can be triggered by contact with skin.

Though it is true that, in Britain at least, the employment of children and women was stopped due to moral outcry. Of course, one could say the moral outcry was only made possible by a prosperous society.

Hong Kong would be an example of a barely regulated country where standards improved, without the government. A child or pregnant women only choose to work in a mine because they were extremely poor and needed the money, in the same way people work for nothing in very poor countries. Today if child labour was legal in the UK, it's highly unlikely to see children back in sweatshops because the economic situation is vastly different.

Unfair. I don't agree with the universal smoking ban, but it's not for "no reason" and, though restrictive, it's not fully totalitarian to ask you to step outside when you want a fag.

It's unfair on the owner of the bar, who may see a loss in revenue from smokers staying home, bars in the ROI experienced a decrease in business after the ban was introduced there.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I think there is EU law on specific regulations on hard hats. While some regulation is required, health and safety can exist without the law as well. I was addressing the stereotype of the evil capitalist employer that would never allow safety regulations without being forced by the wonderful government.

The stereotype is not always applicable but the example of Michael Mungovan (whose life cost a Balfour Beatty shell corporation a paltry ?150,000 after their lackadaisical incompetence got him killed on a railway line) shows that imposed safety regulations are needed and that employers can't be universally trusted with the safety of their employees. See also: the frequency of rail crashes since the privatisation of the system, the way that Private Finance Initiative operators are repeatedly building unsafe and unsanitary hospitals on our own tax money. New Labour's consistently promised/failed to reform the law on corporate manslaughter; as it is, the law's inadequate.

Over the last ten years about 3,500 people have been killed at work in Britain. Research by law professor Gary Slapper (har har) suggests that around 700 of these deaths should have resulted in corporate manslaughter prosecutions. But only two (tiny) companies have ever been convicted of this crime; courts must prove that a director or senior manager can be singled out as individually and directly responsible for the death - a shared responsibility (eg a board) will not lead to a guilty verdict. Though the Health and Safety Executive has conclucded that 70% of deaths in the workplace result from "management failure", but HSE only gets round to prosecuting 19% of cases it investigates - and it only investigates a tiny proportion of cases. It is lackadaiscial. Accordingly, the average cost of a human life in Britain is now 18,000 pounds. That means it may often be cheaper to kill your workers than to improve your safety record. And the first duty of a corporation is always (and rightly) profit.

Employers need not all be top-hat-wearing villains for the law to be required to step in. Most people can be trusted not to murder, but it is absolutely necessary to legislate against it.

In a restaurant however the kitchen will have loose standards on nut contamination. So even if the person orders a meal without nuts, it can still be contaminated. Certain allegories can be triggered by contact with skin.

But again, someone with such a strong contactile allergy would surely know about it and take precautions against it. If the scientific studies behind the smoking ban are to be believed, the dangers of second hand smoke apply to everyone.

I think the argument that people should not choose to work in dangerous places is strong enough without you needing to bother drawing such weak parallels between, on the one hand, a general health problem backed up by much scientific evidence, and, on the other, a highly specific allergy dangerous in highly specific circumstances, with no (to my knowledge) scientific study of its general or widespread effects.

Hong Kong would be an example of a barely regulated country where standards improved, without the government. A child or pregnant women only choose to work in a mine because they were extremely poor and needed the money, in the same way people work for nothing in very poor countries. Today if child labour was legal in the UK, it's highly unlikely to see children back in sweatshops because the economic situation is vastly different.

I'm skeptical that standards improved "without the government" simply because Hong Kong was a British territory for a very long time and surely was subject to similar labour laws. If you have any more specific information on HK's labour laws I'd welcome it.

You're right to say that economic prosperity allows the capacity to treat workers well. I think you're wrong to say we wouldn't see "children back in sweatshops" if it were allowed now. We wouldn't only because there are no sweatshops here; Britain doesn't really have a manual labour industry. There are plenty of poor families in Britain (and no, don't imagine all of them are 'broken' or all of their children are' delinquent') whose children might certainly work to support their parents if they could. Absence of labour laws produces prosperity, but prosperity isn't necessarily universal, and it doesn't necessarily apply for those that are paid whatever the employer can get away with (even if it is the employer's interest to pay its employees well enough to keep them, that is still "what they can get away with"). I think you're sorely mistaken to imagine there aren't families in the country right now who would use the extra income if they could get it. Maybe that'd be fine. Ordinary labour laws as current (minimum wages, health and safety) would still apply in a way they didn't in 1816, and perhaps what every politician under the sun currently claims is a broken society could benefit from people learning responsibility at an earlier age.

It's unfair on the owner of the bar, who may see a loss in revenue from smokers staying home

True of lots of things. The question is whether the net health benefit is worth the net financial drawback. I don't know about that, but I'll go so far to say that the ban may certainly be justified if the health concern is really so pressing.

 

[Mr Stabby]

The stereotype is not always applicable but the example of Michael Mungovan (whose life cost a Balfour Beatty shell corporation a paltry ?150,000 after their lackadaisical incompetence got him killed on a railway line) shows that imposed safety regulations are needed and that employers can't be universally trusted with the safety of their employees. See also: the frequency of rail crashes since the privatisation of the system, the way that Private Finance Initiative operators are repeatedly building unsafe and unsanitary hospitals on our own tax money. New Labour's consistently promised/failed to reform the law on corporate manslaughter; as it is, the law's inadequate.

Over the last ten years about 3,500 people have been killed at work in Britain. Research by law professor Gary Slapper (har har) suggests that around 700 of these deaths should have resulted in corporate manslaughter prosecutions. But only two (tiny) companies have ever been convicted of this crime; courts must prove that a director or senior manager can be singled out as individually and directly responsible for the death - a shared responsibility (eg a board) will not lead to a guilty verdict. Though the Health and Safety Executive has conclucded that 70% of deaths in the workplace result from "management failure", but HSE only gets round to prosecuting 19% of cases it investigates - and it only investigates a tiny proportion of cases. It is lackadaiscial. Accordingly, the average cost of a human life in Britain is now 18,000 pounds. That means it may often be cheaper to kill your workers than to improve your safety record. And the first duty of a corporation is always (and rightly) profit.

Employers need not all be top-hat-wearing villains for the law to be required to step in. Most people can be trusted not to murder, but it is absolutely necessary to legislate against it.

I'm not contesting the need for laws to form a safety net, to enforce safety standards. The Monkey made a point, that because an employers primary interest is money, that they don't care about their staff, which is not universally true.

But again, someone with such a strong contactile allergy would surely know about it and take precautions against it. If the scientific studies behind the smoking ban are to be believed, the dangers of second hand smoke apply to everyone.

My main point about the nut allegory, was that someone with a severe allergy couldn't safely eat at a restaurant, that served food with nuts, due to possible contamination. Therefore to state, that the government should intervene to insure costumer safety could mean the banning of food with nuts. It's an extreme case to highlight what I view as an unreasonable imposition on the business owner.

I think the argument that people should not choose to work in dangerous places is strong enough without you needing to bother drawing such weak parallels between, on the one hand, a general health problem backed up by much scientific evidence, and, on the other, a highly specific allergy dangerous in highly specific circumstances, with no (to my knowledge) scientific study of its general or widespread effects.

For those that state that government must intervene ensure the health of people, who work voluntarily in unhealthy environments. Then the extreme end of such a proposition should be warranted, however absurd.

I'm skeptical that standards improved "without the government" simply because Hong Kong was a British territory for a very long time and surely was subject to similar labour laws. If you have any more specific information on HK's labour laws I'd welcome it.

http://www.globalpolitician.com/21105-hong-kong-china

That's the first result I got on Google. I'm not sure why Hong Kong never followed British laws or our disastrous post war economic problems. I think Homosexuality is illegal on the Isle of Man, so maybe crown dependencies aren't bound by British law.

You're right to say that economic prosperity allows the capacity to treat workers well. I think you're wrong to say we wouldn't see "children back in sweatshops" if it were allowed now. We wouldn't only because there are no sweatshops here; Britain doesn't really have a manual labour industry.

The manual labour industry in the UK died for a few reasons. It couldn't compete with the cheap labour value elsewhere (China, India) and it couldn't compete with the service sector on wages. The modern UK economy is based on the service sector, the service sector is a product of a rich society. The labour market is not a one way street. The labourer has an input on the job and wage they earn too.

There are plenty of poor families in Britain (and no, don't imagine all of them are 'broken' or all of their children are' delinquent') whose children might certainly work to support their parents if they could. Absence of labour laws produces prosperity, but prosperity isn't necessarily universal, and it doesn't necessarily apply for those that are paid whatever the employer can get away with (even if it is the employer's interest to pay its employees well enough to keep them, that is still "what they can get away with"). I think you're sorely mistaken to imagine there aren't families in the country right now who would use the extra income if they could get it. Maybe that'd be fine. Ordinary labour laws as current (minimum wages, health and safety) would still apply in a way they didn't in 1816, and perhaps what every politician under the sun currently claims is a broken society could benefit from people learning responsibility at an earlier age.

It's quite probable that if children were allowed to work, those from poor backgrounds may end up leaving school and starting work, if government economic intervention was abolished. However that does not mean they would end up in sweatshop working 18 hour days for 3rd world wages. Labour laws are also a double edged sword, banning children from working, while it's better for children to go to school and get an education, if they are poor and need money, how is banning them from working helping them? In the first world where we can afford social programs, it's not an issue. But in 1830 or the 3rd world, which is the lesser evil.

To say that employers will pay their employees what they can get away with, is true but I think your missing my point by saying that. What they can get away with in the UK and what they can get away with in India are two different values and not just because of the government. Labour in the UK has a higher value than labour in India. In India there is a large excess of labour, which drives the value of labour in India down. In the same way when the industrial cities flooded with unskilled people from the country in Victorian Britain the labour value decreased (although labour in the cities was worth more than labour in the countryside), also the overall macroeconomic wealth of the UK is higher and it's population much lower.

Speaking of the minimum wage. Tesco can afford a minimum wage of 5.30 (or whatever it is) easily, in fact most big retailers generally pay above the minimum wage. However what about the local green grocer can they afford it? Many small shops are getting slaughtered by the big retailers. Monopolies come from government intervention killing off the weaker competitors. Of course those small shops will get slaughtered anyway as the big companies can pay more for the labour anyway even if there was no minimum wage.

True of lots of things. The question is whether the net health benefit is worth the net financial drawback. I don't know about that, but I'll go so far to say that the ban may certainly be justified if the health concern is really so pressing.

Well I certainly don't think it's fair for a pub to go out of business just so it's former employees would have had better health had the pub stayed in business. While second hand smoke isn't the same as binge drinking in regards to people who damage themselves because it's someone else's cigarette doing the damage. I still think there is enough choice involved in being around second hand smoke in a pub. So that it's an issue of personal responsibility whether a person destroys their liver through drinking or their lungs through smoking, not the governments.