Posted By J Knight
Carol, you can put the 'request' into contracts for service delivery where you have people getting regular visits. Still not enforceable in criminal law, but it can be used to support a decision to withhold service where people are exceptionally uncooperative; it also lets everybody know exactly where they stand,

John

Posted By Chris Packham
From the document that arrived in my post the other day (Everything you need to prepare for the new smokefree law on 1 July 2007):

Private Dwellings
...
"Anyone who visits private dwellings as part of their work, for example delivering goods, or providing services such as plumbing, building or hairdressing, can download further guidance at smokefreeengland.co.uk/resources"

Chris

Posted By Rob T
Carol,

You have of course now seen the absolute extreme end of the anti smoking lobby (A whole day?? without smoke in your own home??!). I suggest people with views like that know absolutely nothing about what the body can cope with and constitutes a hazard. Noted the Dr bit but obviously in general practice and doesn't understand H&S or risk assessment. If people want to post on here they should at least have a modicum of sense in their replies. Going into a house even if the person is smoking in your face will not harm you - or if it did then probably three quarters of the population would be immediately dying of cancer. Just because a dictatorial law has been brought in it doesn't suddenly mean that smoke is any more dangerous than it was before the act was signed!

Anyone who withholds support for those less fortunate than ourselves for spurious reasons should maybe choose a different occupation.

Posted By Rob T
Yes John and of course if this could save 1 person in a billion who could possibly be saved because the likelihood of his/her dying in these circumstances prevail, could be saved then of course. I'd love to see your RA's on actually entering the London underground. Funnily enough there has NEVER been an assessment that has ever shown that the asbestos levels have EVER reached an acceptable level but we still have more than a million people using it every day, Your RA's must be something to behold. Get real!! As I said in answer to the question (which you seem to have missed as usual) just because a peice of paper written by "concerned parties" with a political agenda, is issued doesn't mean that any threat is increased. It just means that they get more smug!

Posted By John Murgatroyd
"Your RA's must be something to behold"

I don't "do" risk asses sunshine. In fact, if the truth was known (which it is) the V A S T majority of risk assessments are totally ignored by everyone. They are done because they "have" to be done, along with COSHH assessments. In the real world if you had to read through them every time you did a different job your eyes would be worn out at the end of the day. Putting-up with other peoples habits is something you learn to do....which is why I won't lose any sleep over the "smoking ban", this being England it will be largely ignored anyway. Working life is a fine balance between obeying regulations which matter, and not bothering about those meant to ensure a healthy supply of well-paid careers for those who don't want to work, at work. And since the "policing" of H&S is going down the pan FAST, who really cares ? (in truth, the policing has been near-to-zero for decades anyway....the gov has just woken-up to that fact, so the H&S inspector will be calling much less than before (joke))
Anyway, I've not been on the underground for 30 years. I cannot imagine it has changed. Full of filth, and that's just most of the people who use it. Mind you, they were clean before they entered it !

Posted By David Bramall
Carol
I am only playing with words here but what does a "NON SMOKING BAN" really mean - it has just crossed my mind that a smoking ban would mean that smoking is prohibited, whereas a no smoking ban implies that smoking is, therefore compulsory.
Have a good weekend.
DrB

Posted By Merv Newman
Good lord, there is an awful lot of nonsense here. Lets get controversial.

Banning smoking for 24 hours before a health visitor comes ? Have they ever tried to avoid drinking tea or coffee for 24 hours ?

Health visitors complaining about smells ? Have they never changed a nappy ? Or visited a "deprived" housing estate ?

I would just love to see a RA which includes a statistical analysis on passive smoking.

OK, asthma prones, pregnant women and maybe a few other groups require special attention. They are out of the statistical box.

But your average social visitor is not going to die from an hour or two of exposure to "passive smoke"

If you want to argue differently then YOU show ME the hard statistics.

I could go for asking clients to not smoke during the hour before the visit (if the social worker can be bothered to turn up on time) and why not open the windows. (sorry, keying error nearly made that widows)

And, if basic control/containment measures are not considered to be sufficient, do as the chemical industry does ; Personal Protective Equipment. Each health/social worker equipped with and trained to use a face mask. Simple activated-charcoal cartidges should do it.

Thinking about it, the sight of your health visitor coming in with a full-face mask and BA set just because you have been smoking might frighten a few of the old dears out of the habit.

Worth a try. Any volunteers ?

Merv

Posted By Merv Newman
Chris,

Duh. Carbon footprint for a packet of 20 fags from virginia to watford ? Not a lot I think.

Carbon footprint for paying 80% of the cost to Gordon Brown ?

That hurts

Merv

Posted By Chris Packham
Bricklayers lament? I was listening to my tape of this - and the other items - only last week!

How did it go? I may be modest in bath, but I am superb in bed!

Chris