All in the name of health
Friday, July 25, 2008 I shall be in Manchester today looking at possible venues for an event at this year's Labour party conference (although, after last night's Glasgow East by-election result, I am beginning to think, "Why bother?").
While I'm away you might like to discuss a story that first appeared in the Manchester Evening News on Wednesday and has been picked up by the Independent HERE. It reveals that "radical proposals put forward by the Greater Manchester Health Commission include plans to cut off all funding to local theatres that stage a play which includes smoking in it despite such performances being protected by law".
My quote includes the following. "These are obscene proposals with elements of totalitarianism ... It shows just how extreme the anti-smoking lobby is becoming ... To only allow a world where no-one smokes at all would be artificial and there is only one word to describe it: censorship."
I have been sent a copy of "Tobacco, Health and Health Inequalities: A Manifesto for Action" and will comment further once I have read it.
Meanwhile, a second smoking-related story in many of today's papers reveals that "a self-employed painter and decorator has been given a £30 on-the-spot fine for smoking in his own van because it is classified as a workplace" (HERE). Over to you.
Reader Comments (42)
Max Mosely won his case in court yesterday using the privacy law. What one does in the privacy of their own property is of no concern of anybody else.
I thought that one could smoke in a works vehicle, provided that it was for sole use.
It's all getting scarier by the day, isn't it. Where will it end?
Gloomy, of Bedfordshire
What I find interesting is that Simon is often given a one token comment to refute the anti smoking lobby, here he seems to be getting a paragraph. Has a corner been turned?
It will end Rose when people start to make a stand instead of shrugging shoulders and just accepting everthing like thoughtless sheep.
It is about time these fanatics had their cumuppence once and for all.
I also meant to mention about the Labour Party conference, indeed is it worth turning up. My guess after the next election I cannot see Labour getting in for at least 10 years. They have no plans to amend the smoking ban, with Gordon standing up in Parliament saying what a "success" it was, save the pennies for a nice night out in Boisdale.
Whatever happened to elected government, national and local, being elected to represent the people - in other words, they are our Slaves rather than our Masters!
Everything seems to have turned upside down during this reign of Labour which is turning, rapidly, into a dictatorship by power hungry morons from the lowest escelons of politics to the highest.
The only way to stop this is NOT to vote for ANY of the 3 major parties in any local or national elections - make Protest Votes instead. The whole system needs a huge shake up and a new broom to sweep away the mountainous heap of petty and vindictive laws that have been brought in over the past few years and that dictate to many how they live and work. It has got to stop before it goes too far and we find ourselves being told how many times a day we can breath, pee, sleep, etc. It might sound stupid to say this, but haven't other things been made law that a few years ago sounded ridiculous?
This cannot be stopped by a few people talking about how bad it is. The only way to deal with fascists and bullies is to stand up to them, however difficult that may seem. I know I'm just as guilty, and I am not about to jeopardise my interesting job by leading a revolt involving anything unlawful. Perhaps smokers just aren't that bothered. I know I have said this before, but there is effectively no hunting ban only because thousands of people blocked the streets of London and Otis Ferry and his friends invaded Parliament. To my knowledge there has not even been one large, peaceful march protesting against the smoking ban.
Jon, there have been marches. I went to one in Bristol last year and about 45 people turned up, such is the apathy from many smokers. Frankly the law and lobbying Parliament are out best bet.
The law, as we all know Dave, is changed on an almost daily basis, to suit our masters, not us. And if the law doesn't go through Parliament the first time, our dishonourable band of brothers, just keep on, politically mugging their brothers until it does go through.
This of course make the use the law, to us, as law abiding citizens, utterly useless.
We need big business behind us, we need the tobacco industry, and the leisure industry to back us, and in doing so, they of course would also be backing themselves. No Government, be they Labour or Conservative or anything else, could afford to lose the support of these people.
How do we get them on our side? I cannot offer a quick fix for this, but I am sure that together, with the aid of Forest, there has to be a way. Let us all put our heads together, and start thinking of the big picture as a whole. There's no point in just moaning about how rotten it is down the pub now, tell your bloody landlord how rotten it is, and ask him what he proposes doing about it. I am fed up with arguing on his behalf, it's about time he did some arguing, on our behalf.
Dave
When Gordon said that the smoking ban was a great success, that was during PM's Questions and was in reply to a planted question from a fellow Labour MP. Was that meant to win him a load of votes at the Glasgow East by election? If it was, it failed miserably.
Well said, Peter Thurgood. THAT is the way forward. Involve big business - big time. Well said, also, the comment that the FOREST site is little known. I spent ages trying to locate a smoker friendly site when the ban first began to hit home hard. My clever IT son found it for me eventually. Not everyone has one.
We need to expand these sites, especially this one "Taking Libertes". Well done, Simon, it is the best and the most easy to post on.
Regarding your own question, Simon. Why bother? [To set up an amti-NuLabour venue in Manchester.] Same applies to the others you are setting up and asking for volunteers to man them. Who among us can afford the travel and accommodation to man them? Who among we smokers would be prepared to stand for hours in a smoke-free germ-filled atmosphere. And who would visit? Just the usual brainwashed anti-smoking losers chasing the free munchies.
As someone else [well many people, actually], posted recently. It really is useless to try and convince brainwashed individuals that smoking is O.K. and the evidence against it is lies. Big Pharma, et al, have done far too good a job over many years. This cannot be unravelled by us in individual conversations in a short space of time.
Talking to one's MP and pointing out that their political future is non-existant, whatever party they belong to, is the most useful thing we can do. Yes, it could be done at the conferences within Simon's planned venues but who will staff these venues? Doubt whether smokers could put up with the stale germ filled restrictive atmosphere. Non-smokers may do it but how many non-smokers would be able to resist the statement that they are non-smokers and admit that it is harmful. while also saying, "What about all the other liberties being taken away?"
High time that the net of Taking Liberties was broadened and high time that big business was brought into the picture. Or have they ALL sold out to Common Purpose?
Surely not the publicans and shop keepers?
The Labour party is now dead in the water. No need for us to waste time fighting them further.
VEry good comment, also, regarding that petition that most of us have now signed. I had my misgivings about the second part, i.e. regarding the young people, but didn't take time to think it through thoroughly. By us petitioning to [virtually] make it illegal to assist young people to have access to cigarettes we are, in addition to assisting a dangerous legal precedent, also tacitly admitting that smoking is harmful. BAD MOVE! BAD WORDING! Kids have always smoked behind the bike sheds. Kids always will. Sad that all this vile nonsense has now blown up and out of all proportion. The expensive hobby of smoking was definitely going out of fashion among young people.
And that, incidentally, is all I have got against smoking. It is too expensive.
Have a good weekend, everyone. Great news regarding the East Glasgow by-election.
Just before I pop round to the shop for that bottle of champagne....
I've noticed several comments about Forest not being known to smokers.
If people email their addresses to Simon, he'll send you 'business cards' with Forest details to give to smokers who are unaware that there is opposition.
Just a note about the poor Welsh painter and decorater. Our nit picking no exemption anti smoking law states that it is unlawful to smoke in a work vehicle, There is no exemption, even if you are a sole trader. However, this particular case is slightly different, as our Welsh smoking friend (no, not smoking fiend as they would have us believe) does not have his vehicle registered as a work vehicle, his insurance policy states (as many of ours do) that it is for private use, and can be used to go to and from his place of work. As the gentleman himself said, "I am not painting and decorating my vehicle".
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the appeal. His wife has paid the fine as it was £30 and would have gone up to £50 if she hadn't paid it.
I was only saying to someone today, what would happen if I was in overalls and travelling back from B&Q with a car full of decorating materials - mmm food for thought.
Just a correction, he said "I decorate houses, not vans" - I love that.
And if every smoker just lit up and defied the ban...what exactly would happen ? The one thing that I admire about the French is their ability to simply ignore silly laws
Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the adherence of fooles...Hobbes has never seemed more relevant
The suggestion that Tobacco companies should get involved in the fight is surprising to hear on these pages, as the knowledge of the Master Settlement Agreement in the U.S., should give anyone from a tobacco company nightmares.
I'm afraid they don't want to ruffle too many feathers, in fear of the dreaded lawsuits, that is why they adhere to any directive from the Goverment without a fight. The truth is they are doing well, and have even increased their sales in some countries with smoking bans. Why would they get involved. You'll be waiting a long time for that miracle. They're as unconcerned about their customers as the big drugs companies and if you think Forest will take on the baddies with full force, think again. They have their orders too.
When has anyone from Ash ever been torn to pieces in the press, shown up to be the deceitful charlatans that they are by Forest. Never, and you won't see it.
The joining together of all groups fighting this law would cetainly spread the message more effectively, but I know Forest, the only ones who have regular media contact, are not interested. I wonder why.
Zitori,
I don't think that the criticism levelled at Forest is entirely fair. A conversation that I had with Simon Clark would lead me to a different conclusion.
I think that it wouldn't be wise, though, to begin a discussion on a public forum.
I certainly think the criticism IS entirely fair, and is based on facts and acheivment.
Wouldn't be wise to begin a discussion on a public forum? What the hell does that mean. There are many fighting the Anti-smoking Crusade who have trying for years to have a public debate, and have ALL the evidence to shoot them down IN PUBLIC! That's the whole point. IN PUBLIC.
They need to see these criminals for what they are.
This is not the sort of language that Forest would use, but it needs to be said PUBLICLY.There should be NO half measures with this crusade.
Zitori,
I'll PM on F2C.
Can't find you, Zitori
Sorry Joyce,when you said 'public forum' I initially misunderstood your meaning, as you can see.
When people no longer have loose change to spend in their pockets, they will start reacting angrily to the erosion of their liberties such as the anti-smoking legislation. That day is coming quicker than a lot of people may think. There is a lot of tension building up - rather like a saucepan on a hob and eventually the water will boil and spill over. Fines for smoking inside vehicles, as well as, for example, fining people for parking just over a white line will, eventually, tip people over the edge.
'Home invasion by the State | The Sun |News'
21st July 2008
Jenny if you think things are bad now, google the above. Over a thousand reasons why officials can demand entry into your house.
So much for the privacy law, stating that what you do in your own house is of no concern to anybody else.
I was in Ramsgate watching the carnival yesterday and I fancied an ice cream. There is an ice cream parlour on the sea front with tables outside next to The Queen's Head Pub. I was just about to approach the counter when I noticed a sign on the window which had words to the effect of: In the interests of our staff's health, do not smoke whilst sitting at these tables. So they are now allowed to ban smoking outside! This ignores the smoke coming from the adjacent tables outside the pub. Incidentally the Queen's Head pub is part of the Thorley Taverns chain. Another of their pubs is opposite the station in Broadstairs. It has a lot of advertising outside about cheap drinks etc. but also says it is smoker friendly with a garden at the rear with seats for £1.50. Talk about cashing in.
Needless to say I did not buy the ice cream from the ice cream parlour and I also do not frequent Thorley Taverns!
We need more action like you portrayed here Sylvia. You are unfortunately in the minority with people who smoke. You put your money where your mouth is, and by denying these people your hard earned earnings, you literally stuck two fingers up to them and told them what to do with their trade.
You know what the average smoker does, he or she still goes to their local smoker unfriendly pub, and stands outside in huddled little masses, moaning about how bad it is. Like you, I would give these places one penny of my money.
I have said before that we need to get the business that are effected by the ban, on our side. I know someone poo-pood that idea, saying that the tobacco industry wouldn't get involved, and even saying that Forest are no help either. I am fed up with all this defeatist talk, what are we supposed to do then, sit here, tapping away at our keyboards, and moaning in the rain outside pubs, but doing absolutely nothing proactive at all?
It does not take great courage to do what you did Sylvia, but it does take determination, and fortitude to stand by your principles, and to make a moral stand for your rights.
If we just sit back and accept everything that is thrown at us, even though we know it to be wrong, then we deserve everything we get.
We should boycott all pubs which are unfriendly to smokers, this is the only way to force them to start helping themselves, and in turn, to help us.
Any Government, no matter which party is in power, will have to eventually sit up and take notice of big business, whereas they can afford to ignore us. They can buy our votes with a few well placed goodies just before election time, but they will need to climb down to big business.
Anyone don't believe me? Tell me a better way forward.
P.S. Little mistake above, it should read. I would NOT give these places one penny of my money.
Peter thank you for your comments. Whilst on the subject of boycotting smoker unfriendly places. There is a Thai restaurant in Ramsgate which is owned by an English man with his Thai wife,which has I believe been in the Good Food Guide. It opened in approx 2003 when my husband and I went for a meal there. The food was excellent. Within a few months before a smoking ban was even given credence to they completely banned smoking in this restaurant so we have never been back. Also in 2006 one of the pubs in the town hit the headlines in the local paper by completely banning smoking (again well before the ban) but his trade went down so much that he reinstated smoking within a couple of weeks.
And finally back to the Carnival yesterday, I had to have a good laugh because the driver of a community minibus which was towing a float was sitting there with a fag in full view of the police and crowd. Just hope she didn't get up the hill and get a penalty notice.
Things are bad now, Chas, and I know that it can only get much much worse. I also believe Peter Thurgood's advice re: Sylvia's action is very good advice. I did something similar recently. I went to a meeting at a pub-restaurant (Greene King in the Leeds area), walked outside during the break to see lots of signs on the outside tables saying smoking wasn't permitted. Having seen that, I refused to buy a drink on principle. Hit them in the pocket - that's where it hurts.
The restaurant you mention which implemented their own smoking ban before it became law, reminds me of a restaurant I used to go to in Nerja, in Spain, The restaurant is called El Nino, and I must admit they do excellent food.
The husband and wife owners, )both Spanish) could always been seen holding court in the far corner of the long bar, adjacent to the restaurant. Then, a couple of years ago, the husband, unfortunately, died, leaving his wife to take over. She kept up the tradition, and held her place, still smoking all the time.
But gradually, this restaurant started to attract more and more Brits. The first move was that she banned smoking at one end of the restaurant, to the right of the bar. A few months, and a lot more Brits later, she banned it throughout.
When I asked her why she had done this, she told me it was because of pressure from the Brits. Needless to say, I haven't been back from that day to this, and I am happy to say that every time I pass it, it is now only half full.
I say I am happy, well to be honest, I am not happy at all, I am in fact very sad, knowing that this is what my fellow countrymen, in all their ignorance are doing, not just to our own country, but to Europe in general.
But, like yourself, I will stand by my principles. If the owner lifted her self imposed ban, I will go back, if she doesn't she has lost me, and everyone I can spread the word to, forever.
Hitting where it hurts is the only way. I travel a lot through work and normally stay in a Thistle hotel as they always had a smoking room available. However, after my last trip in Bristol this will not be the case again. Having accepted my booking,I was only informed at the check in desk that there was no smoking room available and anyway 'All Thistle Hotels will be smokefree by the end of the month'.
The attitude of the desk clerk was a disgrace and my colleague and I complained but to no avail even though the rooms were over £150 each for the night. I tried to complain when I got back to work but found it a total waste of time. I now have to go to Manchester and have booked another chain but have been informed that the Manchester Thistle still has smoking rooms and the desk clerk in Bristol was talking out his backside.
I have told Thistle that I will never stay there again but they did not seem too bothered but at least I know that I am not using a company that treats it's customers with complete and utter contempt.
Michael, I quite agree but this is the problem now in this country and not just smoking. The attitude seems to be - I don't give a shit and if you don't like it there are thousands who will put up with it so why should I care and this is what we are all up against. In other words the customer is never right.
Also there is a problem with people misinterpreting the law because hotel rooms are supposed to be exempt from the ban as they are considered your home. Try activehotels.com as the last time I stayed in one we had a smoking room and they are not too expensive.
Good luc!
Peter, Jenny & Michael
The other things that really annoy me is the way they are rubbing our noses in the ban.
1. Is it really necessary for Network Rail to constantly remind us that in the interests of passenger comfort smoking is not permitted anywhere in the station, platforms, forecourt outside, taxi ranks etc. The ban has been in for a year now so we all know and don't need constant reminders. Also why did Network Rail need to spitefully ban smoking on the outside platforms?. I would like to know who made the decision or were they leant on by our Mafia government?
2. Airlines who smugly announce "Thank you for abiding by our non smoking policy" or "Thank you for not smoking". I could scream when I hear them as it implies that you have a choice. I am sure it contributes towards air-rage, as it was unheard of before airlines started banning smoking in the 90s. Even worse was when we won a holiday to Tenerife in 2000 flying with Virgin not realising the flight was four and a half hours non smoking. Before we took off, after running through the usual safety guide for imbiciles the stewardess trilled "Virgin would like to remind that this is a non-smoking flight. The toilets are fitted with smoke detectors. If you do want to smoke (to which I waited with baited breath to hear where) you can sit on the tail." I could have understood if someone had hit her I felt like it.
3. All those irritating adverts on tv at the moment about passing smoking onto your kids.
The only way to try and get our voices heard is in the media but it is so biased in favour of the ban. So some outrageous action is called for, for example what Otis Ferry did or Fathers for Justice it got them publicity.
I agree totally with withholding custom from places that are not smoker friendly.
It upsets my husband at times because in the main I refuse to go out! We live in a small town and on occasion we still visit the local hotel for a coffee - although they have limited space they have put up an awning at the side of the building with chairs and tables and the owners will only allow smokers to use the area. Also, our local Indian restaurant that we used to go to weekly, although they have not been able to do anything as such to accommodate us, as smokers, they do allow us through to the back alley, which is better than standing out in the High Street!
We used to regularly go to bingo at the 2 bingo halls in Worcester. The Gala being the bigger and the Majestic a smaller venue. We usually enjoyed both, however we have been to each one once since the ban and found them both to be soulless, dead by comparison to what they were and the prize money is well down on what it used to be, so it has also become more expensive! We won't go again.
Likewise, I refused to renew my membership of the local Working Mens' Club - I know it isn't their fault, but I still work hard for my money and don't see why I should go out and not be able to relax or enjoy myself with a smoke! I can't afford to go out for the sake of going out and to keep businesses in business!
Staying in most of the time, except for work, is not particularly healthy, especially to those of us who suffer depression and anxiety, as being isolated tends to make the illness worse - but nowadays we don't have much choice, especially in the bad weather, whether that be winter or summer.
The more people who stop using these venues the quicker we just might get some action. I know many won't - like my husband (the annoying thing being he smokes more than me!). At the end of the day, is it really that much of a sacrifice - are we really enjoying ourselves, stood around outside whatever the weather, so we can have a smoke and a moan? We might as well just start having our own drinks and smokes evenings in each others homes, which will cost a lot less anyway!
It just needs more smokers and smoker friendly non smokers to resist going to pubs, clubs, etc so that they feel the pinch even more and will hopefully then be galvanised into some form of action that we can support them in, but which will get far more credence than us, as a small group of individuals.
It is, however, essential we keep nibbling away at whatever we can - I liken it to the Lottery - if you are not in it you can't win it - so if we do not continue to stand together as much as possible, albeit mainly just on this and similar sites, then we won't have any chance of gaining anything at all.
Lyn, you are right in your stance, stick with it. You say "I refused to renew my membership of the local Working Mens' Club - I know it isn't their fault, but I still work hard for my money and...."
Of course it isn't their fault, but it is their fault that they haven't started shouting, or doing anything about it, isn't it?
As you so rightly say, the government will not take notice of a few individuals, or even a large group of individuals, but they would have to take notice if 50 or 100 businesses, or even more, if they suddenly said they were all going bust because of this ridiculous law, and if the government didn't do something pretty damn quick, they would be in danger of losing all the revenue they collect from these businesses, as well as putting one hell of a lot of people out of work.
It is 13 months now since this law came in, and I, and thousands of others have campaigned tirelessly against it, since day one. But I have yet to hear or see, one publican's name who has done the same.
They seem to act as if we owe them a living. I say we do not, I say that they owe us a whole lot more than we do them and it's about time they pulled their fingers out and started campaigning for themselves.
Boycott all pubs and premises, that are not smoker friendly, and spread the word to make sure everyone does the same. They will soon wake up once they get the message.
Peter, it was probably me, the 'someone who poo-pood' the idea about Tobacco company involvment, and Forest's lack of success, but this certainly is not defeatist talk.
I spend a great deal of time contacting anyone and everyone with the truth behind the bans, but know that it is not a realistic idea to think that the Tobacco companies will help in a big way. They wont.
As for Forest, I would be very happy to see them on the attack, and succeeding in bringing the truth of the ETS fraud to the public at large, but I'm afraid their idea of fighting the lunatics is far too mild an approach, which they may think will work, but I don't, but I would be delighted to be proved wrong.
The destruction of business is not being attributed to the bans, and because of the bad timing of the present economical situation, it has made it even more difficult to convince people that the bans have been destructive, with so many other problems present.
I firmly believe that the exposure of the 'ETS Fraud'and it's huge financial connections are the TOP priority in the fight, as without that, there is no reason for blanket bans, and the sort of behaviour described in posts above.
Propety rights, failed business, miserable lives etc, etc cannot be used with much success against....'so you want to kill your children do you?'
You are right in what you say, Zitori, and I do believe that it would be the absolute perfect way in which to go if.......
The "if" that I am talking about, is the "if" we have lots and lots of money, because that is exactly what we would need to hi-light the truth here. We know that the passive smoking argument, used by the likes of ASH is one of the biggest lies offered up to the gullible public in the last 100 years, but while it is being pumped at them almost daily, they are going to believe it aren't they?
For us to get the real truth across to the public, we would need at least as much money as the likes of ASH and the Government, and the other anti smoking groups are spending. At the moment all we have are a few little pro-smoking, pro-choice, pro-freedom, websites, which we have to admit, hardly anyone even knows about.
It is like my own business website. Everyone who sees it, says how good it is, but how many people actually see it? Not enough I can tell you, and the only way I can get people to see it, is by advertising it, and once again we are back to money talking.
This is why I am advocating getting businesses involved. Maybe big tobacco would not come on board, but the leisure industry could be forced to, by us, boycotting their businesses. Look at the recent HM Gov petition, which is gaining momentum. Almost every signature on their is Asian, and nearly all, own newsagent shops. So we already have a potential ally there. If we can get them, surely we can get the leisure industry as well?
P.S. To Zitori
You say "Property rights, failed business, miserable lives etc, etc cannot be used with much success against....'so you want to kill your children do you?"
Do you honestly think our Government cares two hoots about children's lives? I don't think they do at all, if they did, surely they would pump as much money into cleaning up our hospitals, as they have in their war against smoking?
Peter,
You say that HMG would have to take notice if 50+ businesses said they were going bust because of the ban. Many hundreds of businesses HAVE gone bust - there is a working group consulting at the moment about the crisis in the pub industry. Despite the evidence that quite clearly shows that the ban has had the greatest impact, the HMG rep refuses to acknowledge this. They're even considering asking the taxpayer to subsidise pubs!!! No wonder they lost Glasgow East!
I, too, boycott places that won't accommodate smokers but I know that, as a lever, it's not going to work unless all smokers do the same and inform the business owners as to the reason.
Then we're back to the old problem of there being no organised or co-ordinated action, partly because there will be many smokers who don't have access to the internet or who don't know that there is opposition, partly because many smokers have bought the lies and partly because there are smokers who are apathetic who might start to feel angry only when more restrictions are brought in.
We need money and a vehicle to expose the lies about ETS. We have neither.
We also need smokers to be vocal about their dislike of the ban and I suspect that there are now smokers who feel so browbeaten that they're afraid to be.
I have long maintained, like Zitori, that the only way forward is a co-ordinated strategy of all the pro-choice groups with a clear plan and pooled resources. This is more effective than individuals doing their own thing, with a letter, here and a comment, there and so on.
Peter, I didn't say the Government cared about the children, I was explaining the emotional blackmail being used by them, and the likes of Ash, and it being transferred to the public.
This is the sort of dispicable indoctrination, from a lie, that we have to contend with, and yes it seems almost impossible to break this media censorship, but without the exposure of the incredible con, in the papers,for all to see, they will go from strength to strength.
However I do believe that it will come to an abrupt end at some point, but I don't want to wait another 10 or 20 years!
Forest has more media contacts than any other group, but I've yet to see these being used to the utmost. ALL smoking bans are based on ETS lies, and I'll say again, this must be made the TOP priority in any conversation or interveiw concerning the ban. What do you say Simon?
I know what you meant Zitori, I was using the phrase tongue in cheek, the same as you were quoting it, from our miserable bunch of fakes who call themselves Government.
As I explained yesterday, I do agree with the basics of what you say, but I still say that we need money, big time, in order to publicise the truth.
There does seem to be a glimmer of light on the horizon however, and it stems from the very people who I have been calling upon to speak up, i.e. The leisure industry. At last The British Beer and Pub Association, is actually speaking up for its members. Admittedly their argument is aimed mainly at the drinks side of their industry, but they have also said, how much the smoking ban has affected pubs. There was even an article on it, on last night's news on TV.
This could be the start of the fightback, after all the BBPA represents at least half of the UK's 57,000 pubs, and if they all start talking with one very load and very influential, voice, maybe, just maybe, someone in our wretched Government will sit up and take notice of them?
Don't forget we have a General Election on the horizon. Which party will be foolhardy enough to ignore the pleas of 30,000 businesses and their employees?
Sylvia
Railway by laws state:
'No person shall smoke or carry a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, match, lighter or other lighted item on any part of the railway on or near which there is a notice indicating that smoking is not allowed'.
I read this as being smoking not allowed NEAR a no smoking sign. My local staion has very few such signs, so am I breaking their by laws when standing say 10 or 20 yards away from a sign?
Chas
The actual byelaw states the following:
This was introduced in the Transport Act of 1962 and I have it on good authority that the 'smoking' byelaw was created to enable the British Railways Board to designate certain compartments in carriages as non-smoking!
I accept that the Train Operating Companies (and Network Rail) became the designated 'gatekeepers' of the byelaws with the privatisation of the railways in 1996. What I can't accept, though, is that the smoking byelaw can be allowed to be used in a manner which massively exceeds its original and intended purpose.
And I don't doubt for one minute that the government is behind this, even though they would claim that this was the decision of a bunch of private companies. Oh yes, private companies - who are completely beholden to the patronage of the government for their continued existence! Weasel words as usual!
This issue makes me far more angry than the banning of smoking in pubs, to be honest. I travel frequently and have always chosen the train as my preferred mode, especially for my frequent lengthy business journeys to Scotland.
Now I have to 'enjoy' a 6+ hour journey, not only having been deprived of the one carriage (at most) out of 8 where smoking was still allowed, but now even being denied the freedom to 'nip off' the train at an intermediate stop for a quick drag.
Yet the b*st*rds always choose to wish me, and others, a 'pleasant journey' in their PA announcements. Pleasant? How?
So I break this particular byelaw as often as I can, and I would actively encourage everyone to do the same, until such time as someone is prosecuted for smoking on an unstaffed station platform with no buildings, no trains and - er - no passengers!
Because I believe that if the concept of the 'spirit of the law' is worth anything, then this byelaw should be rolled back to be used for its original intended purpose only.
.