A nation of heroines
Saturday, August 9, 2008 "A woman was thrown from a station platform on to an electrified railway line today after telling two youths to stop smoking. The female commuter suffered burns and a suspected broken collarbone, and was taken to hospital after the incident at Farningham Road station in Kent during the rush hour." (Press Association, August 6, 2008.)
I have thought hard before publishing this post because I don't want anyone to think I am trying to excuse what happened to this unfortunate woman. There is NO excuse. Nothing can justify an allegedly violent assault. The youths involved must take full responsibility for their actions - if and when the police catch them.
Nevertheless, I am intrigued that the victim has been described in some quarters as a "heroine". I don't condone people breaking the law. And I'm certainly not suggesting that we turn a blind eye to illegal or anti-social behaviour. But smoking on an open platform should be recognised for what it is - the most minor of minor offences.
People say the law's the law, and the law must be upheld, no matter what. Have those same people never, ever, exceeded the speed limit (for example)? How would they react if they were driving at 80mph on a motorway in clear conditions and another driver flashed at them to reduce their speed to the legal limit? Only a thug would respond by forcing the other driver off the road, but - if it was me - I'd be thinking, "Mind your own business, I'm not doing anyone any harm".
Unfortunately, the incident at Farningham Road station was waiting to happen. The smoking ban has legitimised even the most trivial complaint. Today, anti-smokers have all the power. They have the law on their side and, boy, are they going to use it.
Ironically, Forest was founded following a complaint by a woman who objected to someone smoking on a railway platform. Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris, a veteran World War II fighter pilot, was so annoyed to be told to put out his pipe, he decided to set up a group to defend smokers' rights.
Throughout his life Sir Christopher was a courteous smoker. If he was alive today, he would, I'm sure, be horrified by this week's incident, and he would be quick to condemn the aggressive behaviour of the youths involved.
I suspect, however, that he would also view it as the sad and inevitable consequence of a draconian restriction that leaves no room for common sense or compromise.
Simon Clark
"A 34-year-old woman taxi driver who twice lit up in her parked car was left with a £775 bill yesterday. On the second occasion, Mary Astles hurled her cigarette out of the driver's window when she was approached by a Conwy council licensing enforcement official. The official had been shopping and felt duty bound [my italics] to report what she had witnessed as she drove past the taxi."
Is the council official a heroine too? Full story HERE.
Simon Clark
Victoria Coren writes about the Farningham Road incident in today's Observer. See HERE. Recommended.
Reader Comments (28)
Martin V has written an excellent post on another thread which certainly echoes my thoughts on the railway platform story.
I wonder if you can answer a question for me, Simon? Can the prohibition of smoking on a railway platform which is open air (and, for that matter, in an open air car park) be challenged as the law excludes smoking in the open air, and what action could rail companies and car park onwers take against the offender?
WRT to the taxi driver story, on the first occasion that she was caught smoking, it was by a clerical officer of the council so, someone who 'shopped' her. Since a clerical officer has no greater 'enforcement' status than the rest of us, I think that I would have appeared in court to insist on the evidence to corroborate the allegation. If we don't demand that the rules of justice be applied then smokers are in no better a position than the victims of 17th century witch-hunts.
I must say as a smoker, I am very embarrassed about the whole affair. No matter which way you slice and dice it their reaction was thuggish. I have been very lucky so far with the smoking ban, apart from one lady who was excrutiatingly polite and inferred that smoking outside was vulgar, (I thought she had a point), I have had no incidents. I would feel very confident of putting any anti smoker right verbally, with comments like,"I'll keep a close watch on your speeding" and "he who casts the first stone".
She was described as Management Consulant and I can see the bossy arrogance that goes with people like this, having met many.
However I cannot find any justifications and I hope these yobs have the book thown at them.
Sowing seeds of government approved hatred ...
The day after the "platform incident" my husband had to visit A&E at our local hospital having fallen down a manhole the night before due to the plumber not replacing the lid properly, with a gashed shin and bruised thigh. Having done the best I could at the time the gash was still bleeding at 4.30am the following morning I thought that as a precaution he should get it checked out, bearing in mind what goes down a sewer, thinking he probably would need stitches (the gash being about 2" and a tetanus booster, the last jab being administered 5 years previously. The doctor (Eastern block he thinks - so we are not sure whether he understood what a manhole is) told him to leave off the dressing - it was still bleeding - said no need for a tetanus booster and gave him a course of penicillin and told him he should give up smoking! My husband retorted that he had come with a gashed leg not a smoking illness. Anyway he was sent on his way. Could it be because he smoked he was denied a tetanus jab?
When he was outside in the grounds he took a cigarette out of its packet ready to light when he got outside(the whole hospital, grounds, car park etc is non smoking but he had parked outside because of extortionate parking fees) he was promptly approached by a someone who said "You're not allowed to smoke here" to which he replied "It's not lit though is it, so just you mind your own business". So it is quite easy to see how these "incidents" occur. I am afraid I have little sympathy for this woman (all right she did not deserve to be pushed on the track) but these interfering busibodies are pushing people to the ends of our tethers. (In the newspapers she was described as someone not afraid to speak her mind) which to me means she was an interfering busibody. Also we don't know what her attitude was or what she said when she told them to put their cigarettes out. People can be extremely rude about it.
There have been various 'reports' on this incident. Was the woman thrown or pushed onto the track or was she pushed and lost her balance? Eventually, we may find out.
The men were NOT breaking the law, but simply breaking a dubious railway bye law.
Would that woman have approached the men if they carrying a knife or gun? I doubt it.
As I said on another post, she should not have taken the BYE LAW into her own hands, but reported the 'offence' to the railway authorities.
Of course it was despicable for these yobs to throw or push Linda Buchanan onto the railway tracks, and I hope there’re caught soon.
But what really angers me is this. Doesn’t the no smoking law only apply to enclosed public spaces, so how can it be an offence to smoke on a railway platform.
If however the rail authorities arbitarily decide a railway platform is a no smoking area, then how do they then prosecute someone for smoking on the platform - on what basis in law would they then proceed.
If they have arbitary powers then we should know what they are, and shouldn’t they have staff that police these regulations, rather than allowing members of the public to act as tacit law enforcers.
Perhaps Detective Inspector Bob Richardson, of the British Transport Police can tell us.
I strongly believe this lady has a very strong case for substantial compensation, if she were to argue her case in court!
Open air stations are not covered by the Health Act 2006. The law being used is a 1969 station bylaw whereby a person may be asked to extinguish a cigarette if it is the case they could cause harm to other passengers. I think the original intent of the bylaw was for safety in the case of causing fires, explosions etc. However, it is now being used, no doubt, to cover danger from ETS.
Blad,
I raised this issue in my first post and hoped that Simon could answer what action the rail company could take for infringement of its by-law. Aren't such by-laws supposed to be clearly and publicly stated with the punishment also stated? And can companies simply add a new offence or do they need approval? Do you know?
I also wonder what action owners of open air car parks which display no smoking signage could take. Surely they're not covered by any by-law?
I would have thought that the bylaws of railway companies are more or less the same as hospital grounds and football clubs.
All of them can eject you from their property and stop you using their facilities, but that is all. I would not have thought that they could fine you, as they have no authority to ask for your name and address, except maybe the railway police.
My understanding is the same as yours, Chas. And, furthermore, I don't think the railway police can do anything either as one is not contravening the 2006 Health Act. I smoke on stations all the time anyway. Stuff 'em.
"I would have thought that the bylaws of railway companies are more or less the same as hospital grounds and football clubs.
All of them can eject you from their property and stop you using their facilities, but that is all." Yes, chas, surely that is the point, if you break the rule they have imposed, then you could lose something - a train journey which could be worth more than a £50 fine.
With regard to the woman falling on to the line. Of course, I don't condone this behaviour from the yobs, but, there is also an element of poetic justice here for the woman who just could not live and let live.
Unfortunately busibodies like these are becoming more and more common, yesterday i was walking past a bus shelter with someone smoking in it which under the new laws was illegal. Another woman was walking past and noticed this person smoking and felt the need to start shouting at them. The funny thing is she wasn't in the bus shelter and everyone in the shelter didn't seem to care. What happened to tolerance and reason? This government has created a hate culture against smokers. The nazis did this in the 1930's against minority groups that they hated.
One more thing i've noticed recently is that some cafes have no smoking signs on their outside tables. These are not in enclosed spaces and in fact not even on their land. Is it legal for private companies to ban people from smoking outside on council property? What could they do if i lit up and refused to put it out? Is there a council bye-law empowering private companies to ban smoking on public land?
timbone
I have heard that football supporters that have been caught smoking have had their season tickets taken away. Cost about £1,000.
Mike,
I think that the cafe owners would argue that the tables belong to them and they reserve the right to designate them as non-smoking, in much the same way as they have the right to insist that they are not public seating and are reserved for the use of their customers.
Sorry, but I really don't have much sympathy for the woman who was supposedly pushed from the platform.
The more stupid and petty a law is the less respect people have for it and those who try to uphold it.
A really poor law debases and devalues the rule of law as a whole.
Joyce -
Well, I KNEW we'd get to this story sooner or later !
That's a good point you make about the corroborating evidence, too.
Sadly, most people (including many of our 'magistrates') are conditioned to accept without demur any statement made by someone cloaked in the authority of the 'official' - a very Germanic trait, it seems. And when the buggers are in UNIFORM...........
And I've often wondered how these 'on the spot fines' - levied by Lung Cancer Prevention Enforcement Officers (or whatever they're called) - actually WORK. I mean, do they take photographs and DNA samples ? Or do they just call up an Armed Response Vehicle (suspect carrying a full pack of Bensons - approach with caution) ?
How are they SUPPOSED to react if I declare that:
a) I have no money on me, and
b) That my name is 'George Bush', currently residing at The White House etc........?
I must say that the Imp of Perversity in me (now growing stronger by the day) is almost DESPERATE to be challenged by one of these pointless little twats.
Auberon Waugh once snobbishly remarked - citing Thirties Germany and Japan as examples - that this is just the sort of thing that happens when a nation allows itself to be GOVERNED by members of what he called 'the NCO class'. He might also have added 'management consultants' -
and doctors who seem to have forgotten their role in Society................
Just think of the fun THEY could have had during Dunkirk (when my young mum and her fellow hairdressers threw buns and CIGARETTES down to the straggling, dishevelled warriors in Southampton High Street).
I hate to say it (though someone has to): sometimes I LOATHE my (ie Blair's) generation - pampered, lifestyle-obsessed, historically ignorant, smug, timid, philosophically vacuous, neurotic, complaining, and conformist........(apart from that, they're not too bad).
Christ - what HAVE we come to as a nation ?
Well, we're waiting, Mr Cameron...............
Victoria Coren:
On a bad day, I'd have shoved her off the platform myself.
Quite so.
Yes, Martin, we've come to a pretty pass when a CLERKESS from the Council, in effect, spies on a fellow citizen and reports her for a minor misdemeanour that doesn't concern her.
Joyce -
Absolutely !
I just hope nobody's even THINKING of hiding Jewish families (or smokers) in their cellar..............
They just DON'T GET IT - do they ?
Idlex -
As to the redoubtable Miss Coren's:
"On a bad day, I'd have shoved her off the platform myself."
Do you know, I bet she's the ONLY one in the Kingdom to have entertained such an impious thought - apart from your good self, perhaps ;-)
I think the 'heroine' had it coming, thats what happens to busy bodies sometimes. Maybe a lesson has been learned and she will think twice before poking her nose in other people's business again.
Joyce, I think the point is what can they do if I decide to smoke at these non-smoking tables and they object. The fact is that its off their licenced premesis and don't have the orthority to tell me I can't smoke. Doesn't matter whether they own the tables or not, its still an attact on our personal liberties. They still can't tell me I can't!
To these "on the spot fines" there is potential to just give false details and walk away. The odds of it ever coming back to haunt you (personally) are virtually non-existent.
However if people start doing this enough then it plays into the hands of those who believe we should all be carrying ID of some description - just wait for the statistics regardin the number of crimes that go unpunished because someone gave false information.
Anyway, on the Buchanan incident I commented extensively re: Victoria Coren's column. The general consensus seemed to be that whilst pushing her was unacceptable her butting in to enforce some trivial by-law wasn't exactly popular either.
Mike, yes, I see your point - you've paid for your order and you're ignoring the non-smoking signs. I don't imagine that they could do anything - unless it's a condition of their licence that outside tables are non-smoking (and yes, there was an MSP who was trying this one on). Post-ban, I went to a coffee shop which is divided into smoking and non-smoking sections. All the smoking tables were taken so I sat at a table right next to a smoking table and moved the non-smoking sign to another table. The manager bustled over to tell me that I was sitting at a non-smoking table. I said that he could either allow it to be a smoking table or lose my custom (and there were plenty of non-smoking tables empty). Common sense prevailed!
I think that it's something worth making a fuss about, unless it's the sort of place that really doesn't care about attracting customers who smoke, such as my local garden centre which has now designated the outdoor restaurant area completely non-smoking. It's always packed (inside and out) and I don't feel that there's any point in complaining to the manager who will simply respond that the majority of customers want this (so, in effect, if you don't want to abide by our rules, sod off, we don't need you!)
What intrigues me about this case ,there are two points to be perused.
i.We know the case of a deaf pensioner beaten to the ground by a thug who became irate because he didnt take any notice of his inccessent bullying demands to extinguish his cigarrette obviously because he couldnt hear what the brute was shouting about.
That one never made the national press at all.
Only the local press.
ii.Similar story about the lady shoved off the platform Makes the national press.
iii.So the conclusion that I would draw from that is that a smoker being beaten to a pulp is somehow socially less of an issue than the "lady" in question.
Innocent people get "hammerings" they dont completely deserve every day.
Why isnt this reported too commonplace perhaps.
I think the point is this, middle class lady "whacked" in public on train platform.
Horror!
Working class pensioner who smokes "whacked" at bus stop.
So what!
This raises ... no proves the definate conclusion that class is still very much alive here .
Obviously too if your are a "physopath" or "psycho", to give it the slang term,
Your sentence may alter dependent on who you violently assault.
Colin -
A most fascinating post, and I would appreciate a link (if available) to the pensioner story: rather bears out (he says smugly) what I said elsewhere.
I rather think we're moving into something like
Orwell's 'Four Legs Good - Two Legs Bad' territory, aren't we ?
And I have (reluctantly) to agree with the sentiment that this IS in some sense a Class Issue: I speak as a fully paid-up member of the Middle Class myself.
While at University back in the late Eighties as a not-so-immature student, some obnoxious little tike (think David Miliband - but oilier) once remarked that some of the children ('students') were somewhat apprehensive of me, because I was regarded as 'Working Class' (only just starting to become a crime). Naturally, I asked why (possessing, as I do, an incorrigible curiosity). Because, he said:
a) You have long hair
b) You wear a leather coat
c) You smoke.
Coming from someone who couldn't even FIND Radio 4 on the dial, I thought that a little rich.
He belongs to what one may now describe as The Cameron Generation.
Perhaps what I then brushed off as the vacuous remark of a silly youth has now - in one particular at least - become part of the New Orthodoxy.
And (if you'll allow a sweeping generalisation), whereas the 'Working Classes' retain a certain robust scepticism about things, it's more likely to be the Middle Class which sheepishly adopts the latest fads and fashions (especially of Science and Politics).
Perhaps this explains the rarity of the Feng Shui Consultant on the factory floor or the building site.
I may cite Communism in the Thirties and Climate Change Frenzy today as examples.
And what makes OUR job so much harder is the support this FASHIONABLE (if rather prissy) distaste for tobacco (or rather, tobacco SMOKE) receives from the Junk Scientists, and the legions of well-funded propagandists.
Still, at least my hair's shorter now.
On the subject of smoking in an open area where those who are in charge have deemed that it is to be stopped. I went to enrol for Spanish lessons on Wednesday, (part of my preparation for fleeing the Country in 2010). I arrived in the college car park, lit a cigarette to see me through, and got out of the car. Before I had even closed the door, a security guard shouted to me that I was not allowed to smoke. To be honest, he was a pleasant chap, which I discovered as I discussed the non smoking policy of the college and the global obsession. The main thing is, that while I had this converstion with him, I finished my cigarette, stubbed it out in my car ashtray, and bid him farewell when I went off to enrol.
There has been an amendment to the Transport Act 1983 known as the Transport (Conduct) (Amendment) Regulations 2008. As follows: New regulation 24A insertedAfter regulation 24 of the Principal Regulations insert— "24A Smoking (1)A person must not smoke tobacco or any other substance in or on anyof the following— (a)rolling stock;(b)a tram stop shelter or bus stop shelter;(c)a covered area of a train platform. Penalty: 5 penalty units.(2)A person must not smoke tobacco or any other substance in or on anyother public transport property or part of public transport propertywhere a notice is displayed that smoking on that property or part isprohibited. Penalty: 5 penalty units.(3)A passenger transport company must ensure, so far as is reasonablypracticable, that acceptable no smoking signs are displayed in rollingstock in places where a person is reasonably likely to see one or moreof the signs. Penalty: 5 penalty units. This closes the loophole unfortunately