Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

B424 - Unsupervised Tanning Shop Bill 2012

Announcements Posted on
TSR wants you: get involved with Power Hour. 10-04-2014
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    You think I deserve scorn? :sad: politics aside I liked you but clearly I should hate you too
    Contempt and hatred are distinctive. I don't really like vain and wealth-obsessed individuals and never have. I'm sure you're a pleasant person but the things you choose to present here leave me, as I say, wary. People take me as I am, I've never worried too much otherwise.
    • 38 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Aye
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It will upset people from Essex and Geordies but as that is allowed and to quote Graham Taylor 'I do not like Orange', an aye from me.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Aye for what it's worth. Ok, it's not breathtaking, but the bill still does something good in my opinion.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    It will upset people from Essex and Geordies.
    How? it is only asking for more supervised staff for a problem that happened years ago and has since been resolved... I have never been to a tanning salon that is unattended within the UK.
    • 28 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DebatingGreg)
    Aye for what it's worth. Ok, it's not breathtaking, but the bill still does something good in my opinion.
    Thank you for considering the benefits of the bill over partisan interests - something certain government MPs could learn from. I'm happy to admit this issue is not exciting but it's designed to save lives and improve safety, surely aims that should be welcomed.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    no from me the bill needs a lot of work...
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    no from me the bill needs a lot of work...
    And what work would that be exactly?
    • 28 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    no from me the bill needs a lot of work...
    Suggest your improvements then. Saying "the bill needs work" without offering a solution means very little.
    • 44 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    And what work would that be exactly?

    (Original post by Birchington)
    Suggest your improvements then. Saying "the bill needs work" without offering a solution means very little.
    I see that Labour and the Lib Dems are cosying up then.
    • 28 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by toronto353)
    I see that Labour and the Lib Dems are cosying up then.
    I'm not sure if asking someone to elaborate on their 'no' can be considered "cosying up".
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Do you know how to format bills? These are atrociously formatted
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    As discussed a few pages back the coin operated tanning booths seem to have gone completely now so this bill is not necessary so I intend to vote nay.

    However, even if the booths were still around; I wouldn't support the bill. I think people understand the risks of such tanning machines and can make an educated assessment of how long they should be in by themselves without us needing to get the law enforcement on the tanning shop's ass and force them to supervise them. The supervision is unlikely to reduce the cancer risk of people using such booths, as they could just come back everyday and use the booth for as long as they possibly can each day before getting booted out. In that scenario, they are quite probably (and most unfortunately) going to get cancer eventually.

    A well meaning bill, but I don't think the problem exists anymore, and even if it did, this bill does not bring the solution.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    As discussed a few pages back the coin operated tanning booths seem to have gone completely now so this bill is not necessary so I intend to vote nay.
    Coin-operated booths are indeed gone, but unmanned machines in salons are not, as noted earlier in the thread.

    However, even if the booths were still around; I wouldn't support the bill. I think people understand the risks of such tanning machines and can make an educated assessment of how long they should be in by themselves without us needing to get the law enforcement on the tanning shop's ass and force them to supervise them. The supervision is unlikely to reduce the cancer risk of people using such booths, as they could just come back everyday and use the booth for as long as they possibly can each day before getting booted out. In that scenario, they are quite probably (and most unfortunately) going to get cancer eventually.
    As far as I'm aware, this isn't about reducing cancer (or at least, directly, anyhow). It's about reducing the incidents when people fall asleep in these booths or are for some reason stuck in, and receive serious burns as a result, usually being hospitalized. Now, you may consider that a risk that they aware of, but it's not actually in isolation. When people are moronic enough to do this, we still have to pay for their care on the NHS. We stop this, we reduce one of the drains on the NHS, we can put the savings towards cutting taxes or whatnot, everybody happy.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Coin-operated booths are indeed gone, but unmanned machines in salons are not, as noted earlier in the thread.



    As far as I'm aware, this isn't about reducing cancer (or at least, directly, anyhow). It's about reducing the incidents when people fall asleep in these booths or are for some reason stuck in, and receive serious burns as a result, usually being hospitalized. Now, you may consider that a risk that they aware of, but it's not actually in isolation. When people are moronic enough to do this, we still have to pay for their care on the NHS. We stop this, we reduce one of the drains on the NHS, we can put the savings towards cutting taxes or whatnot, everybody happy.
    The problem I see is that extra enforcement of this will only cost us more than we'll be saving in the NHS since the amount affected by this will be so few.
    Let them be morons I say, a nay vote does not guarentee extra NHS costs, but an aye vote does guarantee extra enforcement costs.

    As always in politics its not a black and white decision. We're being asked to choose between one shade of grey and another.
    A nay vote: Risk extra NHS costs.
    An aye vote: Be guaranteed extra enforcement costs.

    I'm gonna go with the former.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jarred)
    The problem I see is that extra enforcement of this will only cost us more than we'll be saving in the NHS since the amount affected by this will be so few.
    Let them be morons I say, a nay vote does not guarentee extra NHS costs, but an aye vote does guarantee extra enforcement costs.

    As always in politics its not a black and white decision. We're being asked to choose between one shade of grey and another.
    A nay vote: Risk extra NHS costs.
    An aye vote: Be guaranteed extra enforcement costs.

    I'm gonna go with the former.
    What enforcement costs? Make it law, and if people get burned, they can sue. Self-enforcing.
    • Thread Starter
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This is in cessation.
    • Thread Starter
    • 20 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This has been withdrawn.
Updated: April 26, 2012
Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.