Sunday
Jun032007
Telegraph succombs to tabloid journalism
Sunday, June 3, 2007 
"Hundreds of pubs to flout smoking ban" screams a headline in today's Sunday Telegraph. "A campaign of civil disobedience against next month's smoking ban will see hundreds of pubs flouting the new laws." (Full story HERE.)
I don't want to be a party pooper, but it's not going to happen. Yes, there are some very angry people, including a handful of publicans, but a mass campaign of civil disobedience? If that happens I promise to eat my traditionally styled cotton sun hat.
Reader Comments (106)
You may need an effective remedy for your indigestion handy after you have eaten your cotton hat. May I suggest that people spare a couple of minutes to read comment number 81 dated 3 June on the Article 'Smokers Face Tidal Wave of Regulation' of 25th May where I have posted a satirical approach to the prevailing, narrow-minded mentality in this country today.
It might be tabloid, though I wasn't particularly aware of a major increase in logic and sanity amongst the so-called broadsheets, but, even if inaccurate, shouldn't the Telegraph be cheered for stepping out of line even if only just a little?
I can understand that when you go up against the likes of ASH as a job you might become somewhat jaded about human nature Simon, but if you aren't encouraging such activity via this blog then what is the blog for exactly?
http://www.icanhelpit.co.uk/blog/
Bernie, we are engaged in a battle of ideas, not a campaign of civil disobedience. And just because the Telegraph is on 'our' side doesn't mean they should exaggerate (or fictionalise) the facts.
Thanks for the reply Simon. I understand your position. Personally I think the "battle of ideas" is only real for those who aren't a part of the ruling class like most of the people we can meet in the pub. There is no battle of ideas that makes any sense to engage in with the likes of ASH or the government. They aren't acting for the reasons they say they are so it is pointless.
I think a good bit of civil disobedience is the only possible way to make any changes. All other avenues appear to have been cut off.
I actually agree with Simon on this in that there isn't going to be a campaign of civil disobedience. It might be difficult to enforce fines and penalties on individual smokers but the pub landlord or restaurant owner is going to get hit every time with a very heavy fine indeed. Court judgements are going to go against them and then in go the bailiffs if they refuse to pay the fine.
It's also not going to go down very well with the licensing committees if they've been flouting the law and engaging in civil disobedience.
For those people that believe that the smoking laws in enclosed public places are unfair then the correct way forward is through debate, lobbying and the ballot box.
This ban just may be the last straw which breaks the camel's back. If this is the case, disobedience is inevitable.
Simon, if it's between you eating your hat and public standing up against being treated like children, by fascists - I'll vote for you eating your hat every time.
Personally, I find the idea to be a great one.
After all, it worked for Ghandi and Dr Martin Luther King.
Also, does anyone remember the poll tax?
Civil disobedience is the best way to make the law unworkable.
If Forest gives even small support for disobedience to ban of public smoking in the pub or anywhere also it will give the ground to legal action against Forest.
This is situation that "antismoking cult" impatiently waiting for years.
Disobedience should be expressed in refusing to accept scientific fraud as scientific fact. We are decades long forced to accept insane assumptions and speculations as scientific facts.
Still, the current legislation system gives us opportunity to fight against insanity without breaking the law. We need just to be more active.
Presumably, landlords will lose their right to ban photography and film-making on their property...
In which case...
How about setting up a website showing images of the snooper-troupers in action?
watchingthewatchers.com?
They told us it was gonna self-police. Maybe they're anticipating now that we're not going to be such a pushover as they thought.
I disagree- I dunno how many will flout but some inevitably will.
Of course some will, but it'll be done quietly just as it's been done in Scotland, Ireland and everywhere else there's a smoking ban.
The problem with open and widescale disobedience is that it'll be the bar owners who pay the real price for it.
Of course they may the price anyway if they're one of the unlucky 40% who lose business - but that'll be better in their eyes than a £2500 fine and a potential revolking of their license.
At this moment, protest marches and demonstrations to let people know they're not alone in their outrage of the ban would imho be better. We need publicity and lots of it.
Does anybody know what the basis of the Daily Telegraph story is ... without knowing, how can anybody judge the truth of it?
Robert; If you were a jew in the 1930s Germany at what point would you have objected? Would it have been through the ballot box?
Luke; I'm sure you have a point. Yet another restriction of free speech. It would probably be called incitement.
Rob; Yes the landlord is the most heavily targeted because it is his rights that have been taken away. He is also the easiest to prosecute as they know where he is. If I were a landlord I would not relish the idea of being an unpaid policeman but it might still be interesting.
How far am I supposed to go to stop someone smoking in my pub? I could tell the "offender" to put it out. Could I physically remove a cigarette from their hand? I could but it might be risky. Is that what I should be doing?
I think my strategy would be to tell the smokers "You shouldn't do that. It is illegal. I am now calling the smoke police." I would then call the smoke police. I'd like to know if the above would be sufficient to avoid a fine. I think it would be unreasonable to expect me to do more.
So the local officious "I'm just doing my job" Enforcement Officer arrives at the pub maybe 15 minutes later and the offending smokers have already left. So the officer leaves. Later the smokers come back and I repeat the same procedure. It might happen several times a night....
Well the bar owner still has the right to tell someone to leave. If that person refuses the bar owner has the option of calling the police, but it's far more likely that the offender will simply be manhandled out the door.
Bernie, the attrocities committed against the Jews just don't compare with making enclosed public places non smoking. Nevertheless, if your point is that there are still some circumstances in which bad laws need to be challenged and even defied then I would agree. But the smoking laws hardly fall into that category.
It must also be remembered that we live in a democracy with a General Election at least every 5 years. I believe that UKIP would immediately repeal the smoking laws if elected. So if people feel so strongly about the smoking issue then they can throw Labour out and vote accordingly.
Surely rather than a small number of publicans taking a stand and being fined for it a better approach would be similar to that proposed by Bernie. On July 1st if one person went into every bar in the country and lit a cigarette,what could they do? If that smoker refused to put it out and the landlord was then obliged to call the police to have them removed it would cause mayhem. By the time the police arrived the smoker would have left only to be replaced by another one as soon as the police had left.
Each person could do a pub and smoke crawl and within no time the system would be paralysed. I am sure that the police have more important things to do than remove people from pubs for having a puff.
good idea Mike- but we need more than one smoker in each place to make a difference.
Wow... what a great democracy... the only option available is to vote for UKIP - a party with whom I disagree on everything except one single issue.
Choices... choices... there are none.
Take your point Carlo. If three or four went in they would be less likely to be attacked by the antis and the landlord would be more inclined to call the police rather than throw them out himself.
No one wants violence-only civil disobedience.
I think we all just need to wait and see what actually happens. Sometimes these protests really take off and sometimes they don't. In addition, my view of the journalism of The Telegraph on this occasion is that it is fine because it shows that we are learning to give the press what they need to feed off. Civil disobedience will sell copy.
As long as the smoking is portrayed as slow suicides to smokers and to people around them any public disobedience will cause negative affect for any possible effective pro smoking movement.
Fight against anti smoking hysteria should begin by damasking the scientific fraud done by “antismoking cult”
In first place we need to protect our self’s from NOCEBO AFFECT that is decades long generated by anti smoking hysteria.
Robert Evans - the way Jewish people were dealt with prior to and during the Second World War started out by being subtle - then it became less subtle, then less so and so on until it rapidly became deplorable. I believe those who have read 20th century history know what ultimately happened. Eventually it became horrific, yes, unnspeakably so and, as I was not alive at that time, I can't really comment any further. However I am alive now and I can see parallels with the way this government and associates are dealing with tobacco smokers. Ironically it was Hitler, who hated Jewish people and who hated tobacco smoking too! Just a coincidence?! Just today I have read a leading article in a national newspaper that smokers will be denied operations on the Health Service - even though we (through Income Tax, National Insurance and tax on tobacco) have paid in billions of pounds and continue to do so. Then alcohol drinkers and obese people will be treated in the same way - don't think other 'minority' groups will get away with it! They won't. These people are on a roll!! I laughed this weekend when I read the CAMRA magazine for York and Scarborough region where the CAMRA regional editor describes the ban as 'much-heralded' and 'designed first and foremost to protect people's health'. He/she probably doesn't realise that they'll be next. He/she goes on to describe a 'new breed of customers'! Perhaps poodles and snappy little terriers yapping and snapping at the ankles of nasty 'regulars' who used to be able to smoke there!! What utter patronising, condescending tosh.
Finally, NO we don't live in a democracy now - it is rapidly becoming a 'hell hole'!!
Does the person from CAMRA really believe that even if there is a new breed of customers that they are going to drink warm flat beer. The old breed of customer acquired the taste over many years and the flavours are influenced by the surroundings whereas the new breed will be drinking Pinot Grigio influenced by Desperate Housewives. It will certainly not help Real Ale or in particular the smaller 'Micro' breweries.
That's fine Luke, but what of the people who aren't in a position to educate themselves about these things, because they are already fully occupied with other responsibilities. We are trying to create a reasonable solution for everybody, not to create a pro-smoking group.
There are clear risks involved in civil disobedience ... however I think the general point is that government authorities have over-reached themselves in passing this kind of legislation. If that is our view, and we then turn our backs on people who WILL take risks inherent in refusing to co-operate,
Saying that the ballot box is an option would be a bit of a hollow joke in Scotland where we recently had an election with over 140,000 spoiled ballot papers. Maybe in England it is a bit more civilised and you don't actually need international observers yet, but Labour broke an election pledge by voting for the ban.
Luke: can you advise exactly how to overcome the scientific fraud underlying the ban ... who is to initiate a court case for example, and who is going to pay for it? Bans cause enormous social disruption, especially many of for those who already have the smallest of stakes in society.
Michael - I've just read the following conclusion to the afore-mentioned article,"What we as customers need to do is to get out and support our pubs - there's no denying that real ale tastes far better in a clean atmosphere. It may well take a few years, but I'm confident that in time the idea of smoking being tolerated in pubs will seem as alien to the next generation of drinkers as closing on a Sunday afternoon does to the current one."
Hopefully that answers your question.
Robert; Read my post again. I deliberately said 1930s Germany and not 1945 Auschwitz. I find it very significant that as soon as the word Nazi is mentioned, and note that I didn't mention it in my post at all, that someone always jumps in to say "the atrocities committed against the jews..." as if no one had heard of that before. The effect is to say that Nazism = deathcamps. That isn't true and is not only misleading but very damaging. The deathcamps arrived after many years of Nazism. If there were ever to be any real lessons of the Holocaust then they should certainly start with something like "Be able to spot when a government starts to follow fascism and do something about it long before deathcamps are even a possibility." You are also preaching that the democratic process could lead us away from tyranny. Hitler was elected through a democratic process. Democracy invevitably leads to tyranny.
Jenny; You got there first on the subtlety of the Nazis.
Michael; The idea of a smoker going from pub to pub and lighting up in each is a good one. The purpose is for the landlord to call the smoke police. If done in enough pubs as a campaign and appearing in random pubs at unpredictable times it would strain the resources. That would be the idea. But if I were a smoker doing this I would sound out the owner first. I respect the property rights of owners. It is the government that doesn't. I wouldn't be protesting for smokers' rights but for the rights of the owners.
Belinda Thanks for your comment.
Before I try to answer on your question I like to make my point.
For anti smokers and people indoctrinate by anti smoking cults ideology the REASONABLE SOLUTION is to equalise smoking and production of the tobacco with serious crime.
At the moment we don’t need to worry about reasonable solution for everyone but we need to worry about insane situation that affected 14 millions of people.
Before anything we need to discus the questions; is it moderate smoking harmful and does moderate smoking have positive role in sustainability and quality of the life.
The power of antismoking cult is in the people that are engulfed by fear from illnesses.
If moderate smoking is harmful to humans mental and physical health, than I don’t see any chance to counteract to antismoking history.
Luke; Firstly the health issue. There is precious little evidence proving that smoking causes anything at all. Before Robert jumps all over that note the exact words I chose. "Evidence" as opposed to claims about evidence. And "causes" as opposed to smoking being "linked to". "Linked to" has the same scientific validity as saying "the temperature today reached 40 degrees and I had cornflakes for breakfast. Yesterday when I had eggs and bacon the temperature was only 30 degrees therefore cornflakes are linked with higher temperatures.
It is your responsibility as a smoker to check the research for yourself. You only need to read a couple of research papers to get the idea.
Secondly, and much more importantly, you own your body. You are responsible for your own body and what you put into it. Government does not own you or any part of you and has no moral right to try to alter your beliefs or behaviour through any means whatever. Private people have the right to attempt to persuade you about anything they like but you don't have to listen if you don't want to.
Government is that which prevents people from being responsible for their own actions and interacting with each other on a solely mutual consent basis.
http://www.icanhelpit.co.uk/blog/default.asp
Just stepping back for a moment away from the debate concerning the impact on health from smoking and passive smoking, isn't it a bit curious that no one amongst us has identified themselves as being a business or property owner who is offended by the new smoking laws? It seems almost that the opponents of the indoor smoking ban are speaking on behalf of publicans and restauranteurs.
Some very good and relevant points have been made about the rights of business and property owners to allow or disallow smoking on their premises. But what have they got to say about it all I wonder?
I support the ban on smoking indoors in public places but I'm just an ordinary customer expressing my own views. It would be refreshing to hear some opposing views from the people whose rights are supposedly really being affected ie the business owners
Bernie, you're implying that the classic diseases that many smokers fall victim to including lung cancer, emphysema and vascular disease are just a coincidence. I don't believe that this is a common view even amongst smokers.
I would agree with you however that your body is indeed your own and it is your responsibility and choice how you care for your own health. But under no circumstances, regardless of what any publican or restaurant owner says, should you have the freedom to inflict cigarette smoke on others in enclosed public places.
Actually, Robert E, I and many others totally accept and respect the fact that many non-smokers want smoke-free environments. What I want to see is an inclusive solution involving ventilation rather than this hounding of smokers (including elderly smokers) to stand outside like second class citizens in all weathers.
I really don't understand why anyone with any decency or sense of tolerance and decency towards their fellow man would find bans preferable to friendly, mature, civilised and accommodating solutions.
Of course... I understand why ASH don't want an inclusive solution - but they are 'true believers' on a mission comparable only to the crusades. In more tolerant times, most people would have considered them 'nutters'. What disturbs me is to see ordinary members of the public welcoming such an extreme and intolerant approach (if indeed they are). The very idea that there is only one solution to this problem is a total denial of the beauty and brilliance of the creative human mind and of the capacity we all have to find (and to prefer) peaceful and respectful solutions. It's a bloody tragedy.
Robert I wasn't trying to imply anything at all. I was stating a fact. You are pushing the "linked to" argument. It doesn't matter how many agree or disagree. Consensus does not determine truth.
On the rights of smokers and non smokers; There aren't any. None at all. Either way. Unless you happen to be on your own property at the time.
I do not have a right to smoke in a pub right now, before the ban comes in. I never did have the right. You do not have the right to clean air. That is anywhere on the planet. If you thought this was about clean air you are in for a shock. Nowhere in these laws does it say anything about air quality.
If you were to come to my house you would have no right to demand that I not smoke. Not now and not at any time in the future no matter what laws may be passed. My home is my property and I reserve the right to do as I please with it.
Now that is not to say that I cannot be considerate of others. But consideration has nothing to do with rights or obligations.
Please answer this question as an individual; What gives you the right to tell anyone else what rights they may or may not have on someone else's property? I don't believe I have that right so I'd like to know where you get it from.
Robert
I am not primarily interested personally in the profits of publicans. I know that many licensees in Scotland have done very badly. Equally there are others that have done well, but the fact that they have done well does not make me support the ban. In speaking against the ban I'm speaking for myself – I find it offensive that people are forced to make smokers stand outdoors for a smoke. That seems to be contrary to everything that hospitality trades should be about and I have worked in the trade for a few years (not what I do now, thankfully).
Robert E - I am just an ordinary customer and expressing my views too. Post 1st July, I'd love you to be able to express your views in a smoke-free environment and for me to equally express my views in a smokey one! But, that's not going to happen. Not yet, anyway. I really do think you have the makings of an exemplary 'ARP Warden Hodges' with a tiny touch of 'Snooping Pike'. I have embellished my 'Dad's Army' sketch called 'Snooping Pike' and this is available to read on 'Smokers Face Tidal Wave of Regulation' dated 25/5/07 comment no. 81 ie. (over the page from the current leading articles). This just highlights how farcical and stupid things are becoming and will continue to become. I just hope it makes people laugh as I intend to use humour as a 'weapon' as I was told many years ago that the 'pen is mightier than the sword'. Today, due to current appalling literary rates and standards, the pen may just be one of the weapons to be utilised by those people sick of what is happening today!!
Robert E you are expressing yourself in a rather high handed and silly way when you use words like: "But under no circumstances, regardless of what any publican or restaurant owner says, should you have the freedom to inflict cigarette smoke on others in enclosed public places."
Get knotted. That makes you sound remarkably pompous. A pub is private and not public property and it should be the landlord's wish as to how he wants to run it and permit smoking or not smoking. Basically old chap, if you don't like a venue, you just don't go in.
After all, why should everywhere be set up to accommodate your desires when you don't go everywhere?
As for your concerns about passive smoking well let's see how consistent your reasonong is. Do you go to barbeques or bonfires? Enjoy a wood or coal smoke fire in your house? Burn joss sticks or candles or even cook on gas? If so, all smoke, Robert, is capable of producing carcinogenic substances and if you take a good look at those items I mentioned when in common function they produce a far thicker kind of smoke than anything coming out of a cigarette.
Blad, coal and woodburning fires should be banned from public places as well - for consistancy of course. We know their emissions are considerably more dangerous than cigarette smoke and unless the owner can positively guarantee no whisps of smoke are going to escape the chimney into the inside space then they should be snuffed out. Do you agree Robert? Because under no circumstances should the owner have the freedom to inflict coal or woodsmoke on other people. Right?
"Bernie, you're implying that the classic diseases that many smokers fall victim to including lung cancer, emphysema and vascular disease are just a coincidence."
You seem to imply that non-smokers die while in perfect health. We're all going down someday, most likely from cancer or heart disease whether you smoke or not.
Ever wonder how fewer smokers than ever before, in fewer places than ever before, are harming more people than ever before?
Bernie, you are absolutely correct that if I came to your house then I would have no right to demand that you refrain from smoking.It's also not my place to tell people what rights they should or shouldn't have. I agree that pubs and restaurants are privately owned but they do invite the general public in and therefore are accepting smokers and non smokers. It just isn't good enough to effectively tell the latter that concerning passive smoking, they can like it or lump it.
Danny; I'm going to steal that line. Classic.
Robert E... What about the third way...
V E N T I L A T I O N
?
Jenny, I read your story a while back about Dad's Army and smoking and must confess that I enjoyed it even though I was the butt of the joke. I can assure you however that I'm not a snoop.
Blad, I do enjoy the occasional barbecue in the summer and standing around a bonfire on November 5th. As for a roaring fire on a cold and dark winter's night in my favourite country pub, you just can't beat it. Fortunately, the smoke goes straight up the chimney rather than into an enclosed room and therefore doesn't compare with indoor passive smoking.
Rob, chimney smoke is indeed pretty toxic stuff but hopefully it doesn't come down the wrong way to fill enclosed public rooms. But once it reaches the open atmosphere after leaving the chimney pot it is so diluted and dispersed it shouldn't cause any health issues. There are so few houses with traditional coal fires now that it just isn't a problem.
Robert; On what basis isn't it good enough? They own the pub. By what logic do they lose the right to say what can go on in their own pub?
Poppy, "Ventilation" - I think that the licensed trade had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate that this was an effective option but just didn't follow it up as well as they perhaps could have done. Prior to the smoking ban here in Wales, I never failed to come away from any pub without stinking of smoke so whatever was going on with ventilation it didn't seem to be working.
Bernie, I don't think we're going to agree on the dangers of passive smoking but when a good many people are worried about this issue it's wrong to subject them to it regardless. I just don't think that non smokers should be discriminated against particularly where public health is an issue. By the same token, I also wouldn't advocate discrimination against smokers but really believe that good quality and pleasant smoking shelters outdoors for those few minutes that it takes to have a cigarette, is a fair compromise
Robert E, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. What I meant was a ventilation system that actually worked effectively.
Would you not find such a thing MORE preferable than pushing smokers outside?
Do you not think that finding means for inclusion would be better than exclusion?
Robert, I'm confused. Why should the pub trade be required to demonstrate it was good enough? Surely it should have been the other way around. Surely the anti side of the fence should be required to show why it WASN'T good enough.
Hell, even the Heath & Safety Executive thought it was good enough. If they thought it was OK and the ban still went through I doubt there was anything the pub trade could have done.
Regarding chimneys. I think you'll find there's still several million properties in the UK that have coal fires. I even know of a few newish properties that had them - not the compressed cardboard jobs, up market houses.
And anyway that wasn't my point - my point was iside a public place.
There are still a lot of pubs around the country that have open fires and are still used a lot to create a cosy atmosphere during the dark and rainy nights - I used to eat at one with a friend every Thursday.
Surely they should be outlawed as well - if it's unacceptable to have a single person smoking then a whiff of considerably more toxic smoke from the fire should be prevented also. Don't you agree?
Poppy, I might be wrong but I don't think there ever was agreement on the effectiveness of indoor ventilation systems.
Concerning 'pushing smokers' outside, it is less than ideal to have smokers standing on the pavement but the sit down smoking shelters that I have seen look very smart and comfortable.
Rob, I don't agree that open coal fires should be banned. Chimney smoke is quickly blown away and doesn't compare with smoke indoors. In densely populated areas the issue has already been dealt with by smokeless zones and the use of smokeless coal
Robert; You appear to present yourself as reasonable but your answers are not to the questions asked. I don't care how much you believe SHS is dangerous. That is not the issue. I asked you by what right do property owners lose their right to decide what goes on on their property? Answer the question or refuse to answer it but don't just avoid it.