Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Poverty, drink and smoking mean Scots twice as likely to die in fires

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 November 2009
SCOTS are twice as likely to die in a fire than people living in the rest of the UK, according to a new report.
The study found that, in many instances, smoking, alcohol, deprivation and living alone were major factors in the number of house fires.

It was commissioned by the Scottish Government following a 62 per cent rise in the number of people killed in
fires in Scotland between 2006-07 and 2007-08.

The survey showed that of 171 fatal fire incidents analysed over a three-year period, 131 were recorded as accidental house fire deaths. The most common causes were discarded cigarettes (54) and cooking appliances (28). Alcohol was a contributory factor in 81 of the 131 cases

The study group, chaired by Strathclyde Fire and Rescue's chief officer Brian Sweeney, has now made dozens of recommendations aimed at curbing the number of preventable deaths.

It includes the proposal that Scotland support a European standard for "reduced ignition propensity cigarettes", which are less likely to set fire to soft furnishings such as sofas and beds.

The report also recommends that each fire death be investigated by a range of agencies in the same way as drugs fatalities.

The Scottish Community Fire Safety Study, the most detailed ever undertaken, found that 47 per cent of fire victims were 60 or over and 53 per cent lived alone. Victims were more likely to live in the poorest parts of Scotland, with 31 per cent of accidental house fires occurring in the 15 per cent most deprived areas of the country.

The poorest areas also suffer some 46 per cent of "secondary" fires, mainly started deliberately. The study said such fires leave "visible scars" which "blight" communities and encourage other forms of antisocial behaviour.

Mr Sweeney said: "The report provides 37 recommendations which will assist in driving down the number of people killed by fire.

"The extensive research conducted is unique to Scotland and examines the underlying reasons for the number of people killed by fire. This report cannot, and must not, lie on a shelf if Scotland is to tackle this issue."

The report also calls for a better sharing of information between local authorities' social work, housing and health departments and the fire service.

It recommends that a special unit be set up to co-ordinate delivery of community safety by the different agencies.

A "sprinkler challenge" was also included in the recommendations, to assess how Scotland can develop an affordable domestic sprinkler system.

Community safety minister Fergus Ewing, who commissioned the study a year ago, said: "The report contains a number of interesting proposals, and clearly demonstrates the need for an effective multi-agency approach, to both target the root-cause of fires and deliver preventative solutions.

"All proposals will be given full consideration."

The report will be debated in the Scottish Parliament on 12 November, Mr Ewing added.

Brian Fraser, head of the Scottish Fire and Rescue Advisory Unit, said: "It is clear that fire and rescue service staff across Scotland need to work together in a joined-up way, sharing resources, information and ideas, as well as with the Scottish Government and other agencies."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 November 2009 9:38 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Jock Tamson,

Scotland, Caledonia, Alba 02/11/2009 23:17:32
If Springburn votes Labour then the headline will be irrelevant.

They won't be able to afford the price of a flame.

Frankie Boyle - have that one on me.
2

Davy,

the four lady's 03/11/2009 00:36:46
Poverty, drink and smoking mean Scots twice as likely to party. I had a real smash bang up time of it at Halloween. While on duty in the nothing zone. Down the road the Devils disciples’Inn was doing brisk business, rooms £1.50 a minute. And at the dirt bag, x rated movie's were bringing in a gold mine, 48 pence a week, including everything else + Food? The shipment failed to arrive, driver was robbed and killed. The treachery department agents arrived at midnight to clean up the town. They were met with sub machine gunfire, made cover returned
fire and took back the city in two hours. They had come to see Me, their dad. So I gave them some ice cream, they went on their way. They had large towns to take back quickly before the Big Explosion happened. One of them may retire she's 41. I hope they come back by mass. She’s done her 20, she wants more action though. She’s addicted to the lifestyle. They are known as the four lady's. Drink, Poverty, smoke, fire.





3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 03/11/2009 00:50:57

Well!! There I was in the lift to my flat this-evening, and without a word of a lie, this is how the conversation went for me an the other person in the lift I shared,

The Guy, smelling of Alcohol,

The Guy:, "Ihave just been down at the chip-shop to get some chips, they wanted £1.30 for a bag, I said Bügger off I will cook my own"

Me: Terrible!

The Guy: "I cant be bothered with all the peeling off a few spuds, but I will soon have them in my chip-pan!

Me: OK!

Well if I am not here tomorrow, you will know, your poor Charles, went-up in a puff-off-smoke, caused by a drink!


4

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 03/11/2009 00:54:35

"drink" in the above should of read 'drunk'

5

Fletty,

03/11/2009 00:55:07
The Hootsman should take some blame here.
I set fire to my copy most days after reading anything by David Maddox.
6

Fifi la Bonbon,

03/11/2009 03:01:41
Listen to this bollix.

"A "sprinkler challenge"... to assess how Scotland can develop an affordable domestic sprinkler system."

"reduced ignition propensity cigarettes..."

"demonstrates the need for an effective multi-agency approach, to both target the root-cause of fires and deliver preventative solutions..."

"...clear that fire and rescue service staff across Scotland need to work together in a joined-up way, sharing resources, information and ideas, as well as with the Scottish Government and other agencies."


Ridiculous. We all know that the problem is pathetic drunken men like Charles' miserable neighbour. We need a holistical and synergetical joined up multi-agency solution that involves locking the said pathetic drunken men up in stone cells so they don't kill themselves and their neighbours.
7

Fifi la Bonbon,

03/11/2009 04:00:25
Housing official - Hello Mrs McGinly.We're here to install your new domestic sprinkler system.

Mrs McGinty - Whit?

Housing official - Yes, your new domestic sprinkler system. We wrote to you. Statistics show that there's lots of house fires in this erria and it's to stop you inadvertently setting fire to the house in a drunken stupor.

Mrs McGinty - Whit? I don't drink. Dirty habit.

Housing official - I'm sure you don't. I can see you keep a nice clean house, and it's a credit to you. But statistics show that this erria has a high proportion of pathetic drunken men and we need to protect our investment in the property. So we're going to rip out your ceiling and install pipework. Now once we've done that make sure you don't let the toast burn or your nice carpets will be flooded and ruined. It's all part of our holistical and synergetical joined up multi-agency solution to the problem of pathetic drunk men setting fire to themselves when smoking or trying to fry chips to save £1.30.
8

Fifi la Bonbon,

03/11/2009 04:02:49
Why don't they just provide a free chips delivery service to pathetic drunk men in council schemes? it would be cheaper in the long run.
9

Anna nexr door,

03/11/2009 05:36:03
They will be Labour voters no doubt!
10

Gdgy,

03/11/2009 08:14:29
#9 so Labour voters aren't Scottish?
And shouldn't beenfit from the glorious SNP's inevitable victories?
11

Mikey,

Carstairs Junction 03/11/2009 09:06:02
The fact is that everybody dies of something. So why not die doing what you enjoy?

Too many people telling us what to do, what to eat and what to wear.
12

thinking,

Scotland 03/11/2009 09:11:28
If there is so much poverty how come so many can afford to smoke and drink?
13

Maurice,

03/11/2009 09:36:02
When is the media here going to realise that in Scotland there just is NO poverty. Get out, take a look at the world and lose the chip on the shudder
14

Iain Mac,

03/11/2009 12:32:50
The Union dividend strikes again.
15

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 03/11/2009 13:42:24
More insanity produced by nobbled scientists...

#10:

"so Labour voters aren't Scottish?"

No. They are idiots. So are SNP voters.
16

english charlie,

03/11/2009 14:49:45
Before the smoking ban in pubs, people would buy their food on the way home from the pub.
17

Alternative (High-Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 03/11/2009 17:24:01
#16:

Before the smoking ban in pubs, we lived in a normal society. The smoking ban was the thin end of the wedge. There is a lot more to come...

Drinking...
Salt...
Fatty foods...
Body weight...
Fitness...
Staying up late at night...

Just you wait and see.
18

Scottish Eric,

03/11/2009 18:00:14
#16 Charlie
Are you really suggesting that the smoking ban is to blame for a 62% increase in fire deaths?
19

soapy1,

Rainworth 03/11/2009 18:25:07
It is to blame for part of it Eric, if smokers cannot smoke in a pub then they are more likely to stay home drinking cheap booze and smoking, this is what this legislation has brought about, put smokers back inside pubs and the numbers of house fires will fall to pre ban levels.

It must also be borne in mind a number of these fires are started by attempting to cook meals while drunk, more drunks at home equals more house fires.

Smoking pubs for smokers will save lives in the home, as the child of a Station Officer of a large Fire Rescue Brigade, having been on a crash party responsible for fires on or off airfields and ships we share similar experiences and having discussed such things at length this legislation will be be responsible for the deaths of many people including those whose job it is to try to rescue those very victims.

I would remind you that Senior Fire Officers are responsible to local government, middle ranking officers and firemen are not, they tend to be more free with their views which can and often do differ from their seniors.
20

Scottish Eric,

03/11/2009 19:29:44
at this point the people from pro-smoking group freedom2choose would normally ask

"can you name one person who has died in a house fire because of the smoking ban"

It's a stupid technique so I wouldn't use it.
21

Scottish Eric,

03/11/2009 20:51:22
#16 Charlie and #19 Soapy

So you really think that a substantial proportion of that 62% increase is due to the smoking ban?
22

My other car's a Bell 206,

03/11/2009 23:09:26
The only reason Scots are more likely to die in fires is because its so bl00dy cold here we need to light fires and burn the furniture just to keep warm and to save on the rip off gas and electricty bills.

Roll on global warming...... I'm feckin' freezing.
23

soapy1,

04/11/2009 10:29:23
Did you actually read the post Eric, I said a part of that figure was due to more people staying home getting drunk, that some were smokers and that some were people attempting to cook while drunk, repeating the same question when it has already been answered does not advance the debate in the slightest, unfortunately it does make the questioner look foolish.
24

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K. 04/11/2009 11:37:28
#16 & #19.
Do chas. and soapy not recognise that inebriated smokers have always been prone to mishaps, including falling asleep in bed with an unextinguished cigarette?
Whether they got drunk at home or in the pub seems irrelevant.
Perhaps the ideal solution would be not to light cigarettes indoors?
It would seem that chas. and soapy are the ones who appear foolish in the course of spouting their F2S agenda.
25

english charlie,

04/11/2009 12:18:43
Eric. Are you disputing the FACT that there has been a big increase in the number of people killed in house fires since the smoking ban?
26

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K. 04/11/2009 12:55:10
#25, chas.w.
Perhaps English Charlie needs reminding that smoking restrictions north of the border took effect on 26th March,2006.
Maybe the Scots as a nation are just more inclined to get bladdered than their English cousins?
27

soapy1,

04/11/2009 13:07:18
How is where they get drunk irrelevent? If more people get drunk at home then the risk of an accident rises as the victims judgement decreases or do you disagree that alcohol impairs judgement? If that is the case why bother with laws to prevent drunken driving?

Your suggestion is really off the wall you support the law regarding drunken driving because alcohol affects judgement and motor function yet do not accept that alcohol affects judgement and motor functions when smoking at home, it is also well known that alcohol also makes people drowsy and they fall asleep added to impaired judgement and loss of motor function a lit cigarette is dangerous, the more people drunk at home the more likely the danger.

One really has to ask who is the fool here David?
The one who thinks that alcohol affects drivers and not smokers or the one who sees a clear and present danger in both cases?
28

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K. 04/11/2009 13:28:48
#27, soapy O.
If soapy concedes that "a lit cigarette is dangerous", then the solution is to recall the old Peggy Lee number "Don't Smoke in Bed". Better still, always smoke outdoors, just like pubs.
29

soapy1,

04/11/2009 13:32:48
But no comment on the effects of alcohol I see Oh well clearly the facts that alcohol has a contributory effect does not matter as long as you can kick a smoker or two David. I'm glad we cleared that up it makes your case so much weaker.
30

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K. 04/11/2009 14:20:19
#29, soapy O.
Let soapy refer to my #24 if he seeks an alcohol allusion from myself. Perhaps he'd overlooked it, or has just had a few.
31

english charlie,

04/11/2009 14:25:01
'It was commissioned by the Scottish Government following a 62 per cent rise in the number of people killed in Scotland between 2006-07 and 2007-08', which was the year immediately after the smoking ban in Scotland.
32

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K. 04/11/2009 14:29:56
#31, chas.w.
So, just what was "the year immediately after the smoking ban in Scotland"?
33

soapy1,

04/11/2009 15:51:19
I thought you were down the pub David!

Nice of you to concede that alcohol plays a major part in house fires, that the impairment of judgement, motor functions and drowsiness are the major cause of these fires. Even better is the concession that the more drunk people at home the more fires are likely to start through whatever causation.

This simply confirms that smokers pubs manned by smokers without food or minors would also help reduce the numbers of house fires as landlords would have the final say as to whether a customer has had enough and we both know that landlords can and do in fact do this. Of course that will not stop anyone drinking when they get home and starting a fire but it should at least reduce these appalling figures.

The fact, according to this article, that 81 of the 131 fires cited were alcohol related says alcohol is by far the greatest factor in these deaths.
34

Scottish Eric,

04/11/2009 17:47:40
#32 David
That penny still hasn't dropped with Soapy and Charlie.

Can't wait to see them weasel out of that one.
35

english charlie,

04/11/2009 18:31:11
Eric. What comes first 2006 or 2007-08?
36

Scottish Eric,

04/11/2009 18:39:55
#35
2006-07 was the financial year before 2007-08

What's your point?
37

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K. 04/11/2009 18:46:54
#34,Scottish Eric.
I really don't think it has, as numbers are obviously not chas.' forté, as his #35 would indicate.
I would refer him to my #26, if he needs a prompt. In the meanwhile, let him dig his hole ever deeper.
38

Scottish Eric,

04/11/2009 18:53:34
#37 David
so you don't think #35 was an attempt to weasel?
39

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K. 04/11/2009 19:23:01
#33, soapy O.
The report above stated that "Alcohol was a contributory factor in 81 of the 131 cases." For some strange reason known only to himself, soapy has chosen to interpret "contributory" to mean "major".
Nevertheless, I am happy to agree that the consumption of alcohol is liable adversely to affect judgement, and lead to accidents, whether in driving a vehicle, operating machinery, peeling potatoes, or slicing vegetables.
Will soapy agree that even sober, dozy smokers can fall asleep with lit cigarettes, and that smoking outside "should at least reduce these appalling figures."
54 out of 131 would seem more aptly to meet the criterion of "major", would it not?
40

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K. 04/11/2009 19:44:20
#38,Scottish Eric.
Eric should surely realise by now that chas. tends to answer a question with another question whenever he's struggling, which tends to be often.
A better analogy might be that of a worm, wriggling fervently on a hook.
41

english charlie,

04/11/2009 20:04:05
#36 Exactly. When did the smoking ban begin in Scotland, 2006 or after 2007-08?
42

Scottish Eric,

04/11/2009 20:26:25
#41
As this is in financial years, our smoking ban started in 2005-06.

You said at #31 "'It was commissioned by the Scottish Government following a 62 per cent rise in the number of people killed in Scotland between 2006-07 and 2007-08', which was the year immediately after the smoking ban in Scotland."

The 62% rise occurred in a financial year that started just over 12 months after our smoking ban began.

It wasn't in "the year immediately after the smoking ban in Scotland", it was 12 months later.
43

soapy1,

04/11/2009 20:30:45
Why are you asking me about fiscal years Eric?

Everyone who reads this knows I have not even thought about mentioning fiscal years never mind posted on fiscal years!

Do you really think that such a high number of alcohol related incidents is minor then David?

Would you not agree that the majority of fires cited above are alcohol related and as a majority figure it becomes a major causation in house fires?

After all 81 out of 131 is a higher proportion of house fires than 54 out of 131 house fires which you say is major!

A sober smoker would have to be tired to the point of exhaustion to fall asleep with a lit cigarette as opposed to semi comatose through alcohol.

44

Scottish Eric,

04/11/2009 20:39:22
#43
Where have I asked you about fiscal years Soapy?
45

english charlie,

04/11/2009 20:41:15
Eric. So you admit that the big increase in fire deaths occured after the smoking ban. Well done.
46

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K 04/11/2009 20:47:11
#41, chas.w.
As per my #25, "smoking RESTRICTIONS north of the border took effect on 26th March,2006.", regardless of where chas. resides. Should I remind him that the article cited "a 62 per cent rise in the number of people killed in fires IN SCOTLAND between 2006-07 and 2007-08." I have highlighted the location in upper case to help chas. avoid another wriggle.


47

Scottish Eric,

04/11/2009 20:52:44
#45 Charlie

Really feeble attempt to weasel out of the hole you've dug.

You claim the big rise happened "the year immediately after the smoking ban in Scotland."

It didn't.

48

Scottish Eric,

04/11/2009 21:22:57
Fire deaths in Scotland by calendar year(source at the end)

Fires in Dwellings

Year Deaths
1998 - 76
1999 - 81
2000 - 67
2001 - 86
2002 - 63
2003 - 61
2004 - 76
2005 - 58
2006 - 45 (smoking ban introduced on 26th March)
2007 - 43

Deaths from fires in the home were 2nd lowest in the year the smoking ban was introduced.

Deaths from fires in the home were lowest in the following year.


(Source: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/08/28090735/11)
49

english charlie,

04/11/2009 21:37:36
2008-73 deaths in fires. Far higher than 2006.
50

Scottish Eric,

04/11/2009 21:58:28
#49
Are you suggesting that this is evidence that the smoking ban caused an increase in fire deaths?

Fire deaths fell in the year the smoking ban was introduced,

Fell further the following year

Then rose 2 years after the introduction of the smoking ban.

Are you serious?
51

english charlie,

04/11/2009 22:07:06
2008-73 deaths in fires. Far higher than 2006, the year of the smoking ban.
A 62 per cent rise in the number of people killed in fires in Scotland between 2006-07 and 2007-08.
52

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K 04/11/2009 22:41:12
#51, chas.w.
At #25, Charlie stated "there has been a big increase in the number of people killed in house fires since the smoking ban." Can Charlie logically explain why it would take two years before any increase was seen?
Did it really take two years for the Scots to decide to drink and smoke at home?
Are they really such indecisive flip floppers?
53

Scottish Eric,

05/11/2009 00:44:08
Charlie, how did the smoking ban cause a decline in fire deaths for at least 21 months before causing a rise 2 years later.

Your argument only makes sense if you have the mindset of 'the smoking ban is to blame for everything'

Until it was pointed out to you about dates, you were adamant the 62% rise took place in "the year immediately after the smoking ban in Scotland".

This is even worse than your usual rubbish.
54

english charlie,

05/11/2009 09:34:59
Eric. Do you believe that since the smoking ban, more people are drinking and smoking at home?
55

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K 05/11/2009 09:54:52
#43, soapy O.
The report above stated "Alcohol was a contributory factor in 81 of the 131 cases". Contributory means what it says, namely that it had some effect on the incidence of fires, NOT that it was either a, or the, major cause.
Soapy is dreaming if he thinks that a smoker would have to be "tired to the point of exhaustion to fall asleep", as falling asleep is fairly normal at what is known as bedtime. With this in mind, smokers would be wise not to smoke in or near bed, or on the sofa, dozing off while they watch t.v. Perhaps they would just be better advised to smoke outside, where there's less likelihood of starting a fire. The fire service might appreciate that.
I'm sorry I hadn't spotted his allusion to myself earlier, as his #43 seemed to be addressed to Eric initially. Perhaps I was dozing at the time.
It might be helpful if soapy were to give a numbered reference to which he is responding in his postings, rather than leave correspondents to ferret it out.
56

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K 05/11/2009 10:00:06
#54, chas.w.
Charlie's up to his old tactic of changing tack when he feels under pressure, but I'm sure Eric will deal with him accordingly.
57

Scottish Eric,

05/11/2009 10:16:05
#54

Fire deaths in the home fell to their lowest level for a decade in 2006, the year in which the smoking ban was introduced.

They fell further in the year after the smoking ban was introduced.

This is great news. Most SANE people would infer from this that the smoking ban contributed to a reduction n deaths in home fires.

Who is inferring otherwise? Soapy and Charlie.

After getting it so badly wrong about their years, most sane people would leave the thread without embarrassing themselves further.

I look forward to more bizarre posts from Soapy and more hole digging from Charlie.
58

Scottish Eric,

05/11/2009 10:18:44
#43 Soapy said "Why are you asking me about fiscal years Eric?"

#44 I asked "Where have I asked you about fiscal years Soapy?"

This is not the first time that Soapy has made up comments made by other people.
59

english charlie,

05/11/2009 12:46:57
Eric. Do you believe that more people are drinking and smoking at home, since the smoking ban?
60

Scottish Eric,

05/11/2009 13:54:47
#59
I remember some research in Scotland that showed that more people were going outside to smoke at home after the smoking ban, so exposure of children in the home actually declined.
Perhaps that is why deaths in home fires declined immediately after the ban.

61

english charlie,

05/11/2009 15:44:27
#60 Eric. In that case then are you blaming drinking for the big increase in fire deaths?
62

Scottish Eric,

05/11/2009 16:05:07
#61
Charlie, that doesn't follow at all.

Here's another take on the same report:
"Lack of working smoke alarms blamed for most home fires"
63

Scottish Eric,

05/11/2009 16:07:18
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/lack-of-working-smoke-alarms-blamed-for-most-home-fires-1.930105
64

Scottish Eric,

05/11/2009 16:14:24
Charlie
I just downloaded the report. No chance that you'll bother to read it as it is 67 pages long, but it doesn't mention the smoking ban, or smokefree, once.
65

english charlie,

05/11/2009 16:16:30
But it does mention smoking and drinking. So do believe that smoking and drinking is not the cause of most fire deaths?
66

Scottish Eric,

05/11/2009 16:24:42
There is wideranging analysis of the causes in the 67 pages of the report Charlie, and it is far more complex than that.

Why don't you read it and educate yourself?
67

english charlie,

05/11/2009 16:30:45
Eric. Do you believe that smoking and drinking have little to do with the majority of fire deaths.
68

Scottish Eric,

05/11/2009 16:46:29
#67
There is wideranging analysis of the causes in the 67 pages of the report Charlie, and it is far more complex than that.

Why don't you read it and educate yourself?
69

english charlie,

05/11/2009 17:00:40
Eric. You normally blame smoking for almost everything. It's good to see that you don't blame smoking for the majority of fire deaths.
70

Scottish Eric,

05/11/2009 17:22:02
#69
Are you finally conceding that the rise in home fire deaths in 2007/08 was nothing to do with the smoking ban?
71

english charlie,

05/11/2009 17:28:00
#70 Just a coincidence that more people are smoking and drinking at home, and fire deaths have risen by 62%?
It's good to see that you don't blame smokers this time.
72

Scottish Eric,

05/11/2009 17:33:02
#71

" Just a coincidence that more people are smoking and drinking at home, and fire deaths have risen by 62%?"

There is wideranging analysis of the causes in the 67 pages of the report Charlie, and it is far more complex than that.

Why don't you read it and educate yourself?
73

english charlie,

05/11/2009 17:54:06
No need, as you've already implied that you don't blame smoking. Well done.
74

Scottish Eric,

05/11/2009 18:56:14
.....and well done you for finally conceding that the rise in home fire deaths in 2007/08 was nothing to do with the smoking ban.
75

soapy1,

05/11/2009 19:43:57
#32 by David ref fiscal years #31, chas.w.
So, just what was "the year immediately after the smoking ban in Scotland"?

#34 your post in responce to David on fiscal years #32 David
That penny still hasn't dropped with Soapy and Charlie.

Can't wait to see them weasel out of that one.

I ask you again where have I mentioned fiscal years you clearly imply that I have with that statement Eric, as there was no reason to involve me in comments referring to a topic I personally have had no part in!
76

Scottish Eric,

06/11/2009 01:42:15
#76
Soapy
Your ever-tenuous grip on reality is letting you down again.

I never asked you about fiscal years.

David's post #32 didn't mention fiscal years.

My post #33 didn't ask you about fiscal years.

My post #58 said:
"#43 Soapy said "Why are you asking me about fiscal years Eric?"

#44 I asked "Where have I asked you about fiscal years Soapy?"

This is not the first time that Soapy has made up comments made by other people."

You have just imagined I've said something then repeated it on here. You do this quite frequently. When challenge to prove the statement you always respond that it is 'implied', although how you can imply that I'm asking you about fiscal years from post #34 is beyond me.

You need to get a firmer grip on reality Soapy.

77

english charlie,

06/11/2009 09:57:08
Let's look at the FACTS.
62% increase in fire deaths 2006-07 and 2007-08.
More people drinking and smoking at home.
Not everybody stopped going to pubs immediately after the ban.
Pub closures have increased each year after the smoking ban.
78

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K 06/11/2009 11:49:26
#77, chas.w.
"Let's look at the FACTS."
Smoking restrictions were introduced in Scotland on 26th March, 2006, blowing chas.' argument that there was "a 62 per cent rise in the number of people killed in Scotland between 2006-07 and 2007-08', which was the year immediately after the smoking ban in Scotland" clean out of the water. Has Charlie no concept of numbers?
"Not everybody stopped going to pubs immediately after the ban.
Pub closures have increased each year after the smoking ban."
Why have pub closures increased each year after the introduction of smoking restrictions, if "not everybody"(?) stopped going to pubs immediately after. Could there just possibly, maybe be other causes for pub closures? I'll set out a few, if Charlie Boy's unable to think of any.
79

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K 06/11/2009 12:00:32
#76, Scottish Eric.
Eric should realise that soapy's concept of reality is reliving the Pelopennesian War in his febrile imagination, or reading about cowboys and indians. What's the betting he could name Hopalong Cassidy's horse?
80

Tag,

06/11/2009 14:51:15
Soapy and Charlie

I've just realised who you are!

At first I thought you might have been getting paid by the tobacco industry to post propaganda on their behalf.

Then I realised that even they have standards.

The stuff you post is frequently counterproductive to the pro-smoking agenda (like Charlies laughable attempts to back track on getting his years mixed up on this thread.)

Recent threads have made me realise just who you are:
- Bumbling ineptitude that undermines the pro-smoking argument
- Frequent silly references to nazis
- Frighteningly bizarre posts about horses
- Foolhardy attempts to blame the smoking ban for everything
- much, much more in that vein

Who would put so much effort into undermining the pro-smoking agenda by making it so easy to ridicule?

ASH, of course.

I'm guessing that one of you is Sheila Duffy and the other is Martin Dockerell. Am I right? Do I win £5?
81

english charlie,

06/11/2009 17:05:44
Is that Eric, tag and David, or Rag, tag and Bobtail?
82

Scottish Eric,

06/11/2009 21:06:25
#80- Tag

Absolutely spot on. ROFLMAO

I reckon Soapy is Sheila Duffy's alias and Charlie must be Martin Dockrell
83

english charlie,

06/11/2009 21:27:46
It was the likes of TAG and ASH who caused the smoking rate to increase. If only they had kept the mouths shut the smoking rate would have carried on decreasing.
84

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantviklle, U.K 06/11/2009 22:19:28
#81, chas.w.
I was tempted to respond to chas.' attempt at wit with an allusion to Shep, Mo and Larry. However, it dawned on me that all the former so called luminaries of F2S, such as Colin the Great, Bill Gibson, Mandy v., Belinda C., Carlo Rossi, nitro, tug f. wilson et al seem to have more or less evaporated, leaving Charlie and soapy as the desperate rearguard, in which case I'll have to content myself with referring to the undynamic duo as Nero and Zero, the Rolicking Romans, or perhaps the Rowan and Martin laugh in.
85

Scottish Eric,

09/11/2009 13:23:08
Charlie and Soapy have been very quiet since their cover was blown by Tag on Friday
86

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 09/11/2009 22:12:22
#85, Scottish Eric.
You might almost have thought they'd imploded, but for the fact they've been on F2S's forum, perhaps asking Belinda what they should do next.
87

Scottish Eric,

10/11/2009 13:40:44
#86
So they really ARE in freedom2choose? I was starting to think that Tag had it right about them being ASH stooges, they were so blatantly idiotic.
88

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 10/11/2009 21:57:48
#87,Scottish Eric.
They're both regular visitors on the F2S forum, so maybe they're being fixed up with new identities, or, just an outside shot, could it all be a devilish triple cross? Stranger things have happened.
89

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 11/11/2009 12:06:03
#85, Scottish Eric.
Chas. has popped up on the "Slower walkers more likely to die from heart attacks" thread, but hasn't yet mentioned smoking restrictions. Soapy would still seem to be washing the salt from his wounds.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.