Discussion
There's no chance of being sued for permitting something, only 'requiring'. We are nowhere near (nor do I feel ever will be) that level of litigiousness, for daily society will become unworkable.
Hence why there will never be a successful claim for damage due to passive smoking, or cooking fatty foods.
Hence why there will never be a successful claim for damage due to passive smoking, or cooking fatty foods.
Sway said:
There's no chance of being sued for permitting something, only 'requiring'. We are nowhere near (nor do I feel ever will be) that level of litigiousness, for daily society will become unworkable.
Hence why there will never be a successful claim for damage due to passive smoking, or cooking fatty foods.
Are you sure about that?Hence why there will never be a successful claim for damage due to passive smoking, or cooking fatty foods.
LoonR1 said:
What if they're found not to be 100% safe? What if someone successfully sues? What if, what if. Nobody knows so why risk it? After all cigarettes were cool and just made you look tough and grown up and had no side effects.
everything in them is safe. they've been tested for years, they're safe. and don't throw out the cigarette crap because they were deemed safe at a time where appropriate testing didn't exist or wasn't being done. every test which now deems a cigarette to be unsafe has been done on e-cigs and found nothing.LeeMad said:
everything in them is safe. they've been tested for years, they're safe. and don't throw out the cigarette crap because they were deemed safe at a time where appropriate testing didn't exist or wasn't being done. every test which now deems a cigarette to be unsafe has been done on e-cigs and found nothing.
Time to be pragmatic here. As a major employer, do I want the hassle of people constantly whingeing and raising grievances over people vaping near them? No.Coud you flip that on it's head? Yes, but the answer is that it's company policy that vaping is banned in the office and that's it. Just as if someone raised a grievance saying I want to wear jeans in the office, I could point to the work attire section and that'd be the end of it.
Do I want the hassle of a claim (however spurious), tying up resource, time, expensive legal counsel and potentially reputation over this. No.
Simple as that.
In addition, they've tested and tested on some elements, but nobody can 100% state that ecigs are 100% safe. There is always a risk. In fact I'd like to see the report that states what you claim, because should my vaping lead to personal health problems down the line, then I've got a ready made scapegoat.
I don't know why you're all so uppity about this. Any company / business can ban anything it wants at any time, as long at isn't breaking any laws.
I don't disagree with what you're saying.
Personally, regardless of the current nature of litigation, the likelihood of retrospective claims being permitted to be successful is exceptionally slim - there are a number of bigger fish.
If an ecig claim were possibly successful, so is a passive smoking claim from the period prior to the smoking ban.
So, it's a balance between (imo) an exceptionally unlikely legal situation, and a guaranteed loss of productivity and engagement in your vaping workforce...
Personally, regardless of the current nature of litigation, the likelihood of retrospective claims being permitted to be successful is exceptionally slim - there are a number of bigger fish.
If an ecig claim were possibly successful, so is a passive smoking claim from the period prior to the smoking ban.
So, it's a balance between (imo) an exceptionally unlikely legal situation, and a guaranteed loss of productivity and engagement in your vaping workforce...
Sway said:
I don't disagree with what you're saying.
Personally, regardless of the current nature of litigation, the likelihood of retrospective claims being permitted to be successful is exceptionally slim - there are a number of bigger fish.
If an ecig claim were possibly successful, so is a passive smoking claim from the period prior to the smoking ban.
So, it's a balance between (imo) an exceptionally unlikely legal situation, and a guaranteed loss of productivity and engagement in your vaping workforce...
It's also a balance between the loss of productivity and management time dealing with whinges from the far greater volume of staff who are not vapers. Personally, regardless of the current nature of litigation, the likelihood of retrospective claims being permitted to be successful is exceptionally slim - there are a number of bigger fish.
If an ecig claim were possibly successful, so is a passive smoking claim from the period prior to the smoking ban.
So, it's a balance between (imo) an exceptionally unlikely legal situation, and a guaranteed loss of productivity and engagement in your vaping workforce...
Sorry, not being pedantic, but...
I think anyone would be hard pressed to sue to be honest, a la passive smoking, and it just seems unnecessarily rigorous. I'm not deliberately parsing, and as you say, it's your office and you can do what you want, but to me it seems a bit uptight.
LoonR1 said:
but even if they are proven to be totally safe. There will still be someone who sues in today's litigious society.
andy_s said:
If they are found 100% harmless, what are they going to sue you for?
LoonR1 said:
What if they're found not to be 100% safe? What if someone successfully sues?
...you were saying someone could sue even if they were harmless, which I don't understand.I think anyone would be hard pressed to sue to be honest, a la passive smoking, and it just seems unnecessarily rigorous. I'm not deliberately parsing, and as you say, it's your office and you can do what you want, but to me it seems a bit uptight.
andy_s said:
Sorry, not being pedantic, but...
I think anyone would be hard pressed to sue to be honest, a la passive smoking, and it just seems unnecessarily rigorous. I'm not deliberately parsing, and as you say, it's your office and you can do what you want, but to me it seems a bit uptight.
Read what I wrote in the first quote again. Anyone can sue for anything, whether they'll be successful is open to debate and highly unlikely. For example, I could sue you for £10,000 that you owe me. I won't win, but you'll have to spend time, effort and money to prove I'm wrong. LoonR1 said:
but even if they are proven to be totally safe. There will still be someone who sues in today's litigious society.
andy_s said:
If they are found 100% harmless, what are they going to sue you for?
LoonR1 said:
What if they're found not to be 100% safe? What if someone successfully sues?
...you were saying someone could sue even if they were harmless, which I don't understand.I think anyone would be hard pressed to sue to be honest, a la passive smoking, and it just seems unnecessarily rigorous. I'm not deliberately parsing, and as you say, it's your office and you can do what you want, but to me it seems a bit uptight.
Plenty of idiots sue for injuries sustained in an accident that they caused. They lose, but I still have to defend it.
LoonR1 said:
andy_s said:
Sorry, not being pedantic, but...
I think anyone would be hard pressed to sue to be honest, a la passive smoking, and it just seems unnecessarily rigorous. I'm not deliberately parsing, and as you say, it's your office and you can do what you want, but to me it seems a bit uptight.
Read what I wrote in the first quote again. Anyone can sue for anything, whether they'll be successful is open to debate and highly unlikely. For example, I could sue you for £10,000 that you owe me. I won't win, but you'll have to spend time, effort and money to prove I'm wrong. LoonR1 said:
but even if they are proven to be totally safe. There will still be someone who sues in today's litigious society.
andy_s said:
If they are found 100% harmless, what are they going to sue you for?
LoonR1 said:
What if they're found not to be 100% safe? What if someone successfully sues?
...you were saying someone could sue even if they were harmless, which I don't understand.I think anyone would be hard pressed to sue to be honest, a la passive smoking, and it just seems unnecessarily rigorous. I'm not deliberately parsing, and as you say, it's your office and you can do what you want, but to me it seems a bit uptight.
Plenty of idiots sue for injuries sustained in an accident that they caused. They lose, but I still have to defend it.
k are you talking about?WEHGuy said:
LoonR1 said:
No. It's called being pragmatic.
Why do you use a motorbike then? Are you not far more likely to be killed on a bike than in a car?I am explaining why companies make these decisions and off we go onto the personal. There is a difference.
Sway said:
Menguin, I'll be really interested in your opinions of the VTR.
Along with the petrol head title, there seems to be some positives and some negatives compared to the MVP:
Positives (that I can immediately see):
Smaller form factor
Replaceable batteries
Updated iclear30 atomiser
Improved button/screen placement
Negatives:
Replaceable batteries/no voltmeter
Potential restrictions on atomiser choice
Lost passthrough /current output?
Increased cost
Will be interesting to see how it stacks up.
ANYWAY guys, back on topic Along with the petrol head title, there seems to be some positives and some negatives compared to the MVP:
Positives (that I can immediately see):
Smaller form factor
Replaceable batteries
Updated iclear30 atomiser
Improved button/screen placement
Negatives:
Replaceable batteries/no voltmeter
Potential restrictions on atomiser choice
Lost passthrough /current output?
Increased cost
Will be interesting to see how it stacks up.
The VTR arrived yesterday in a rather OTT flight case. The weight is certainly imposing. If I ran over this I think it would be my car needing repairs!
Bear in mind this is my first experience of a VV/VW, having been a dedicated e-go / Kanger T3 / Vision V3 / Nano user up until this point.
It is large, but not unwieldy. I took some time deciding on which mod to go for before settling on this one. I looked at the MVP v2, amongst others, but eventually the relatively compact design of this - and the shiny shiny metal - won over.
After charging the 18650 battery I engaged power. It is very easy to adjust the voltage/wattage via the wheel and the LCD screen clear enough. Some fiddling and experimenting with the wattage resulted in my optimum vape being 4.2 with the Grizwalds Caramel Cappuccino I'm currently enjoying.
Positives
- Great vape
- Lots of flavour
- Shiny
- Well built
Negatives
- Weight
- Uses more juice than equivalent e-go
- Size
- Cost
Now I've used it for 24 hours, I'm thoroughly impressed. So much vapour, so easily! The depth of flavour is great as well. Comparing side by side with my old setup, the difference is night and day - Well worth the money in my opinion.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff