"Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker was 
left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette from her 
hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter in 
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he 
complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."

Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending 
himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore 
fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-defend-probe-cigarette-row-assault/article-305202-detail/article.html

On Sep 4, 4:00 pm, Mickey Mouses grandad 
wrote:
> "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker was
> left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette from her
> hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter in
> Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he
> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
>
> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>
> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...

Unfortunately, there are members of society who think that they are
the only ones who have rights. I don't smoke myself, but I don't go
around bullying those who do smoke.

The person could easily have moved from the affects of the smoke.
Indeed, there is no right to no-smoke in public.

On Sep 4, 4:15 pm, marc.simm...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 4, 4:00 pm, Mickey Mouses grandad 
> wrote:
>
> > "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker was
> > left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette from her
> > hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter in
> > Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he
> > complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
>
> > Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
> > himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
> > fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>
> >http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...
>
> Unfortunately, there are members of society who think that they are
> the only ones who have rights. I don't smoke myself, but I don't go
> around bullying those who do smoke.
>
> The person could easily have moved from the affects of the smoke.
> Indeed, there is no right to no-smoke in public.

Nicely put. :-)

marc.simmins@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 4, 4:00 pm, Mickey Mouses grandad 
> wrote:
>> "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker was
>> left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette from her
>> hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter in
>> Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he
>> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
>>
>> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
>> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
>> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>>
>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...
> 
> Unfortunately, there are members of society who think that they are
> the only ones who have rights. I don't smoke myself, but I don't go
> around bullying those who do smoke.
> 
> The person could easily have moved from the affects of the smoke.
> Indeed, there is no right to no-smoke in public.

It was at a bus-stop - most semi-enclosed ones are 'no smoking' - 
although the story doesn't make it clear which this was.

"Blah"  wrote in message 
news:6iacqvFpj78nU1@mid.individual.net...
> marc.simmins@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 4, 4:00 pm, Mickey Mouses grandad 
>> wrote:
>>> "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker was
>>> left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette from her
>>> hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter in
>>> Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he
>>> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
>>>
>>> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
>>> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
>>> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>>>
>>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...
>>
>> Unfortunately, there are members of society who think that they are
>> the only ones who have rights. I don't smoke myself, but I don't go
>> around bullying those who do smoke.
>>
>> The person could easily have moved from the affects of the smoke.
>> Indeed, there is no right to no-smoke in public.
>
> It was at a bus-stop - most semi-enclosed ones are 'no smoking' - although 
> the story doesn't make it clear which this was.
I was thinking this.  As it hasn't been mentioned I think that it must have 
been an 'open' one in which smoking is allowed.

sandy58 wrote:
> On Sep 4, 4:15 pm, marc.simm...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 4, 4:00 pm, Mickey Mouses grandad 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker was
>>> left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette from her
>>> hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter in
>>> Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he
>>> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
>>> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
>>> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
>>> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...
>> Unfortunately, there are members of society who think that they are
>> the only ones who have rights. I don't smoke myself, but I don't go
>> around bullying those who do smoke.
>>
>> The person could easily have moved from the affects of the smoke.
>> Indeed, there is no right to no-smoke in public.
> 
> Nicely put. :-)

You are saying that drug addicts should force others out of their way?

Mickey Mouses grandad wrote:
> "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker was 
> left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette from her 
> hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter in 
> Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he 
> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."

You forgot -

"She moved away but the man, in his 50s, still felt the smoke was 
getting in his face, and snatched it from her, county police said."

> 
> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending 
> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore 
> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
> 
> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-defend-probe-cigarette-row-assault/article-305202-detail/article.html 
> 

Is that you, Big Joe McCavendish?

"Mickey Mouses grandad"  wrote in message 
news:g9ot5t$fo9$1@aioe.org...
> "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker was 
> left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette from her 
> hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter in Cheltenham, 
> Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he complained that the 
> fumes were blowing towards him."
>
> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending 
> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore 
> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>
> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-defend-probe-cigarette-row-assault/article-305202-detail/article.html

Why didn't he attack all the passing vehicles that were dispensing poisons 
as they passed?

bikeulike wrote:
|| "Mickey Mouses grandad"  wrote in message
|| news:g9ot5t$fo9$1@aioe.org...
||| "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker
||| was left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette
||| from her hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the
||| shelter in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old
||| victim when he complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
|||
||| Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply
||| defending himself against having dangerous poison blown over him.
||| He was therefore fully entitled to defend himself by removing the
||| danger.
|||
||| 
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-defend-probe-cigarette-row-assault/article-305202-detail/article.html
||
|| Why didn't he attack all the passing vehicles that were dispensing
|| poisons as they passed?

Because a lot would have had men in them?

-- 
Rob

bikeulike wrote:
> 
> "Mickey Mouses grandad"  wrote in message 
> news:g9ot5t$fo9$1@aioe.org...
>> "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker 
>> was left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette 
>> from her hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter 
>> in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he 
>> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
>>
>> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending 
>> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was 
>> therefore fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>>
>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-defend-probe-cigarette-row-assault/article-305202-detail/article.html 
>>
> 
> Why didn't he attack all the passing vehicles that were dispensing 
> poisons as they passed?

Because in spite of what you fail to grasp, car fumes are not addictive 
neither are they deliberately blown into peoples faces.

"Rob"  wrote in message 
news:gfmdnSOBeNhNgl3VnZ2dnUVZ8rGdnZ2d@bt.com...
> bikeulike wrote:
> || "Mickey Mouses grandad"  wrote in message
> || news:g9ot5t$fo9$1@aioe.org...
> ||| "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker
> ||| was left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette
> ||| from her hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the
> ||| shelter in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old
> ||| victim when he complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
> |||
> ||| Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply
> ||| defending himself against having dangerous poison blown over him.
> ||| He was therefore fully entitled to defend himself by removing the
> ||| danger.
> |||
> ||| 
> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-defend-probe-cigarette-row-assault/article-305202-detail/article.html
> ||
> || Why didn't he attack all the passing vehicles that were dispensing
> || poisons as they passed?
>
> Because a lot would have had men in them?

Nail, hit, head.

"Affa Davit"  wrote in message 
news:g9p7pn$1j8$2@aioe.org...
> bikeulike wrote:
>>
>> "Mickey Mouses grandad"  wrote in message 
>> news:g9ot5t$fo9$1@aioe.org...
>>> "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker was 
>>> left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette from her 
>>> hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter in 
>>> Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he 
>>> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
>>>
>>> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending 
>>> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore 
>>> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>>>
>>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-defend-probe-cigarette-row-assault/article-305202-detail/article.html
>>
>> Why didn't he attack all the passing vehicles that were dispensing 
>> poisons as they passed?
>
> Because in spite of what you fail to grasp, car fumes are not addictive 
> neither are they deliberately blown into peoples faces.

Second-hand smoke isn't addictive, even if it was blown deliberately into 
someone's face, which it wasn't.

"mentalguy2008"  wrote in message 
news:xvVvk.148898$6s4.98041@newsfe14.ams2...
>
> "Affa Davit"  wrote in message 
> news:g9p7pn$1j8$2@aioe.org...
>> bikeulike wrote:
>>>
>>> "Mickey Mouses grandad"  wrote in message 
>>> news:g9ot5t$fo9$1@aioe.org...
>>>> "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker was 
>>>> left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette from 
>>>> her hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter in 
>>>> Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he 
>>>> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
>>>>
>>>> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending 
>>>> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was 
>>>> therefore fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-defend-probe-cigarette-row-assault/article-305202-detail/article.html
>>>
>>> Why didn't he attack all the passing vehicles that were dispensing 
>>> poisons as they passed?
>>
>> Because in spite of what you fail to grasp, car fumes are not addictive 
>> neither are they deliberately blown into peoples faces.
>
> Second-hand smoke isn't addictive, even if it was blown deliberately into 
> someone's face, which it wasn't.
>

Try this test. Smoke a cigarette, It will take about 5 min. you will not 
die. Try the same experiment with fumes from a car exhaust. Good luck and 
please report back with your results!

On 4 Sep, 16:00, Mickey Mouses grandad  wrote:

> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>
> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...

"The man is described as black, in his 50s and tall, with short grey
curly hair and a short beard. He was wearing a green sweater with a
zip and green khaki camouflage trousers and beige trainers."

I think we can fairly safely identify the single word there which
would have spurred the local rozzers into action.

Ian

marc.simmins@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 4, 4:00 pm, Mickey Mouses grandad 
> wrote:
>> "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker was
>> left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette from her
>> hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter in
>> Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he
>> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
>>
>> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
>> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
>> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>>
>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...
> 
> Unfortunately, there are members of society who think that they are
> the only ones who have rights. I don't smoke myself, but I don't go
> around bullying those who do smoke.
> 
> The person could easily have moved from the affects of the smoke.
> Indeed, there is no right to no-smoke in public.

...unless you're in a bus shelter, as happened in this particular 
instance! They have little signs on them now, except where the druggies 
have torn them down, intimating that smoking is not permitted.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

Blah wrote:
> marc.simmins@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 4, 4:00 pm, Mickey Mouses grandad 
>> wrote:
>>> "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker was
>>> left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette from her
>>> hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter in
>>> Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he
>>> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
>>>
>>> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
>>> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
>>> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>>>
>>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...
>>
>> Unfortunately, there are members of society who think that they are
>> the only ones who have rights. I don't smoke myself, but I don't go
>> around bullying those who do smoke.
>>
>> The person could easily have moved from the affects of the smoke.
>> Indeed, there is no right to no-smoke in public.
> 
> It was at a bus-stop - most semi-enclosed ones are 'no smoking' - 
> although the story doesn't make it clear which this was.

The article states: "The attacker was waiting at the shelter in 
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he 
complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

The Real Doctor wrote:
> On 4 Sep, 16:00, Mickey Mouses grandad  wrote:
> 
>> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
>> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
>> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>>
>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...
> 
> "The man is described as black, in his 50s and tall, with short grey
> curly hair and a short beard. He was wearing a green sweater with a
> zip and green khaki camouflage trousers and beige trainers."
> 
> I think we can fairly safely identify the single word there which
> would have spurred the local rozzers into action.
> 
> Ian

"Trainers"?

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

®i©ardo wrote:
-smoke in public.
>>
>> It was at a bus-stop - most semi-enclosed ones are 'no smoking' - 
>> although the story doesn't make it clear which this was.
> 
> The article states: "The attacker was waiting at the shelter in 
> Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he 
> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
> 

It does't make it clear whether it was just a back and roof, or back 
roof and sides - I beleive that distinction is enough for no smoking or 
smoking....

®i©ardo wrote:
> marc.simmins@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Sep 4, 4:00 pm, Mickey Mouses grandad 
>> wrote:
>>> "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker was
>>> left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette from her
>>> hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter in
>>> Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he
>>> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
>>>
>>> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
>>> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
>>> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>>>
>>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...
>>
>> Unfortunately, there are members of society who think that they are
>> the only ones who have rights. I don't smoke myself, but I don't go
>> around bullying those who do smoke.
>>
>> The person could easily have moved from the affects of the smoke.
>> Indeed, there is no right to no-smoke in public.
> 
> ...unless you're in a bus shelter, as happened in this particular 
> instance! They have little signs on them now, except where the druggies 
> have torn them down, intimating that smoking is not permitted.
> 
But not all shelters ..

Blah wrote:
> ®i©ardo wrote:
> -smoke in public.
>>>
>>> It was at a bus-stop - most semi-enclosed ones are 'no smoking' - 
>>> although the story doesn't make it clear which this was.
>>
>> The article states: "The attacker was waiting at the shelter in 
>> Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he 
>> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
>>
> 
> It does't make it clear whether it was just a back and roof, or back 
> roof and sides - I beleive that distinction is enough for no smoking or 
> smoking....

Even where such a distinction is made the druggies seem to take great 
delight in tearing the notices down. Still, that's one of the joys  of 
addiction, isn't it.

-- 
Moving things in still pictures!

"The Real Doctor"  wrote in message 
news:3072f13f-5840-4ebf-9ecd-54b4ceb797ab@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Sep, 16:00, Mickey Mouses grandad  wrote:
>
>> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
>> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
>> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>>
>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...
>
> "The man is described as black, in his 50s and tall, with short grey
> curly hair and a short beard. He was wearing a green sweater with a
> zip and green khaki camouflage trousers and beige trainers."
>
> I think we can fairly safely identify the single word there which
> would have spurred the local rozzers into action.

"assault"?

On 4 Sep, 21:23, "mentalguy2008"  wrote:
> "The Real Doctor"  wrote in messagenews:3072f13f-5840-4ebf-9ecd-54b4ceb797ab@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 4 Sep, 16:00, Mickey Mouses grandad  wrote:
>
> >> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
> >> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
> >> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>
> >>http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...
>
> > "The man is described as black, in his 50s and tall, with short grey
> > curly hair and a short beard. He was wearing a green sweater with a
> > zip and green khaki camouflage trousers and beige trainers."
>
> > I think we can fairly safely identify the single word there which
> > would have spurred the local rozzers into action.
>
> "assault"?

Ah, that old chestnut, in possession of black curly hair and thick
lips no doubt.

Sorry I fed the Troll.

rob2

The Real Doctor did say:
> On 4 Sep, 16:00, Mickey Mouses grandad  wrote:
> 
>> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
>> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
>> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>>
>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...
> 
> "The man is described as black, in his 50s and tall, with short grey
> curly hair and a short beard. He was wearing a green sweater with a
> zip and green khaki camouflage trousers and beige trainers."
> 
> I think we can fairly safely identify the single word there which
> would have spurred the local rozzers into action.
> 
> Ian

beige?

"The Real Doctor"  wrote in message 
news:3072f13f-5840-4ebf-9ecd-54b4ceb797ab@k36g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On 4 Sep, 16:00, Mickey Mouses grandad  wrote:
>
>> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
>> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was therefore
>> fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.
>>
>> http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/wdp/news/13-40-Gloucestershire-police-...
>
> "The man is described as black, in his 50s and tall, with short grey
> curly hair and a short beard. He was wearing a green sweater with a
> zip and green khaki camouflage trousers and beige trainers."
>
> I think we can fairly safely identify the single word there which
> would have spurred the local rozzers into action.

Indeed - camo trousers with BEIGE trainers? It's enough to make a person 
vomit. Hanging would be too good for him...

PDR

Mickey Mouses grandad wrote:
> "Police today defended their decision to investigate after a smoker
> was left "quite shaken" when a disgruntled man snatched a cigarette
> from her hand at a bus stop. The attacker was waiting at the shelter
> in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, beside the 61-year-old victim when he
> complained that the fumes were blowing towards him."
>
> Surely any 'assault' was by the smoker? The male was simply defending
> himself against having dangerous poison blown over him. He was
> therefore fully entitled to defend himself by removing the danger.

So presumably he'd also be "fully entitled" to destroy the bus when it 
pulled-up, belching much more dangerous emissions in much greater volume. 
Sounds like a recipe for anarchy to me.