Waterford to ban swearing/smoking in parks

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

jonski

katydid wrote:

I can see the logic of the e-cigs. We have banned them in my workplace, indoors or outdoors. Otherwise it's impossible for the people who are supposed to police these things to know at a distance what kind of cigarette someone is smoking. They would have to go over, check it wasn't a real cigarette. Someone could be smoking a real one, put it out and whip out the e-cigarette by the time the person checking got to them (and don't laugh, that was one of the "tricks" smokers admitted to in my workplace, and which initiated the total ban)

What a great idea , ye should follow it up with the banning of drinking any kind of liquid , you know , just in case they are trying to sneak an alcohol hit . Is that guy actually sniffling from a cold ? Or is he just after snorting cocaine ?

ROCKMAN

bpmurray wrote: »

Did anyone actually read the bye-law document? You can download it here.

It defines parks and playgrounds as smoke-free zones, stating that also includes E-cigs, so that's nothing unusual. It has, however a few things that could be considered overly broad.:

• You may not "Beg, gamble, use obscene or profane language, behave indecently or cause annoyance". Since "obscene" is subjective and "profane" is actually unconstitutional (you can't limit religion) and neither term is defined, it's unenforceable.
• "No person shall organise, conduct or participate in any musical performance (whether vocal or instrumental)" so don't sing in the park!
• "No person shall use any park or open space for the purpose of making a film": this actually forbids you from taking a film of your kids on your iPhone.

Thanks for the link ,interesting read.
Found this part interesting,

[e] Where an employee of the Council or a member of the Garda Siochana is of the opinion that a person is committing or has committed an offence under these byelaws, the employee of the Council may demand the name and address of such person and if that demand is refused or the person gives a name or address which is false or misleading, that person shall be guilty of an offence.


Always thought it was only a member of An Gardaí that could demand your name etc which I would have no problem giving, if they requested it, But I would not give my name or information to any Council employee.

.

katydid

jonski wrote: »

What a great idea , ye should follow it up with the banning of drinking any kind of liquid , you know , just in case they are trying to sneak an alcohol hit . Is that guy actually sniffling from a cold ? Or is he just after snorting cocaine ?

Not the same thing

debok

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Thanks for the link ,interesting read.
Found this part interesting,

[e] Where an employee of the Council or a member of the Garda Siochana is of the opinion that a person is committing or has committed an offence under these byelaws, the employee of the Council may demand the name and address of such person and if that demand is refused or the person gives a name or address which is false or misleading, that person shall be guilty of an offence.


Always thought it was only a member of An Gardaí that could demand your name etc which I would have no problem giving, if they requested it, But I would not give my name or information to any Council employee.

.

This is getting ridiculous. Country is turning into something out of one of those futuristic films where the government makes all the decisions. No swearing is the best iv ever heard.

MentalMario

You can't beat a sense of humour: https://www.facebook.com/events/1663638397198628/

ROCKMAN

MentalMario wrote: »

You can't beat a sense of humour: https://www.facebook.com/events/1663638397198628/

::D:D:D

that's what I like to see ,,,

.

kylith

MentalMario wrote: »

You can't beat a sense of humour: https://www.facebook.com/events/1663638397198628/

I'm thinking of coming home specially if this goes ahead. See ye all there.

Samsgirl

https://m.facebook.com/CallForARevolutionInWaterfordIreland/photos/a.651201458310098.1073741825.331916703571910/811836428913266/?type=1&source=48&ref=bookmarks

robtri

Strangely though this is sort of already in the Constitution for years...
we have the right to freedom of speech.. BUT
"The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law."

article 40.6 covers it

7upfree

The lunatics have at last taken over the asylum.:rolleyes:

Digital Society

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So people should be allowed smoke around other peoples kids? Some auld dirty diseased smelly ****er in the park where kids are.

ROCKMAN

Digital Society wrote: »

So people should be allowed smoke around other peoples kids? Some auld dirty diseased smelly ****er in the park where kids are.

NO not around kids play areas ,but in other areas YES its the people's park not just the kids park and its the ****ing outdoors......

.

jonski

Digital Society wrote: »

So people should be allowed smoke around other peoples kids? Some auld dirty diseased smelly ****er in the park where kids are.

They should ban noisy kids as well , people going in there for a nice relaxing stroll in the park and having their ears accosted by screaming kids , it's a disgrace Joe , noise pollution .

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

ROCKMAN

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And don't forget DOGS...




Runs for cover


.

7upfree

So, can you shout swear words in over the Park wall at someone? Just sayin'......

ROCKMAN

Lets get the park back to what its good at and designed for.

Underage Drinking
Loutish behaviour
Dodging School
and
Population growth.


:pac::D:D

wellboy76

Disgusting the damage done in there last night

ROCKMAN

wellboy76 wrote: »

Disgusting the damage done in there last night

100% AGREE

Gas Jockey

I took the time to email the councillors in my local area. Of those, Pat Fitzgerald got back to me with a reply. Here is the conversation;

Dear Mr. Fitzgerald,

I am confused by the decision to ban e-cigarettes from being used in open spaces. There would appear to be little risk to other persons from their use in this manner and venue. Can you explain your logic underpinning your decision?

Yours etc.


I thank you for your email outlining your concern on the ban on smoking cigarettes & e-cigarettes in the 'Open Spaces By-Laws'. Just to let you know how the decision making system regarding By-Laws. There are five separate Strategic Policy Committees (SPC's) Environment, Transport / Roads, Economic Development, Planning, Housing... The environmental SPC would have been the committee that would have drafted the By- Laws for open spaces... The draft by-laws would then go on public display for a period, during this period the public are allowed make submissions. The submissions are then considered by the committee and if deemed appropriate they are incorporated into the final draft.

The final draft then goes before the full council of 32 Councillors for ratification. The Open Space By-Laws were ratified by the last meeting of council... I will now tell my reason for supporting the adoption of the said By- Laws. As I was not on the SPC committee that drafted the document, I would take the advice of the SPC very seriously. I don't know anything for certain of the safety / danger of e-cigarettes or how they affect the long term health of those in close proximity to the smoker. There is also the issue of setting bad example to children which is another concern of mine. I decided to 'err on the side of caution' I supported the by -laws that recommend the ban on what I would consider to be a narcotic / drug addiction / dirty habit.

However, if you can produce evidence to the contrary and convince me the e-cigarettes are indeed as harmless as you suggest, I would consider reversing my decision.


Thanks for getting back.
Regardless of the unknown and mostly theoretical risks potentially associated with second hand exposure to e-cigarette vapour, it's clear that any risk would be significantly lower than exposure to cigarette smoke. As such, the potential health benefits which might come from embracing e-cigarettes as a tobacco replacement measure are hugely significant, both for the smoker themselves and for society.
Unfortunately, the hysteria surrounding the topic at the moment is preventing any rational discussion of this, as increasing numbers of places introduce arbitrary bans. I fear that this negative discussion will ruin what might otherwise be a useful health measure, without any real estate evidence of harm.
Smokers will smoke anyway until they decide to stop (as we both have), so encouraging and promoting a healthier alternative is a sensible and pragmatic measure. I personally would ally this with significant excise increases on tobacco to encourage the change to tobacco free products.
I was encouraged to hear you mention drug addiction, as I suspect that this also plays a (mostly hidden) part in the discussion. This is a bigger discussion, and threatens to cloud the issue. Smokers are already addicted, so this is a less important issue in the short term. Certainly, proper regulation of the devices is essential to help reassure people that children would be less likely to get access to the devices (although it is impossible to prevent this and should not stop progressive action.
There is a lot to debate about this, but I'm writing this on my phone so it's not as easy as might be on a keyboard, so this is a good place to park it for now.
Take care.

ec18

wellboy76 wrote: »

Disgusting the damage done in there last night

What happened?

Gas Jockey

Good ol' WWN!

obezyana

ec18 wrote: »

What happened?

Park was damaged by scum.

Gas Jockey

This is the only reference to damage to the park i could find in the past 24 hours;

waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/06/26/childrens-playground-in-waterford-park-destroyed-by-cursing-overnight/

Do you know something different?

obezyana

Is WNN not real???????

Cabaal

Gas Jockey wrote: »

This is the only reference to damage to the park i could find in the past 24 hours;

waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/06/26/childrens-playground-in-waterford-park-destroyed-by-cursing-overnight/

Do you know something different?

The park was actually damaged,
https://www.facebook.com/wlrfmwaterford/posts/1015631305144263

Gas Jockey

Assholes!

7upfree

Cabaal wrote: »

The park was actually damaged,
https://www.facebook.com/wlrfmwaterford/posts/1015631305144263

Yep. Cursing. That'll do it every time.:rolleyes:

Wanderer78

right thats it, im going down there to f and blind!