Have they nothing better to do?
Thursday, May 14, 2009 Coming out of London Bridge Station yesterday a reader was greeted with a sign stating:
WARNING! In view of the high proportion of persons disregarding the NO Smoking Legislation on the Station and outside on the forecourt, enforcement action WILL be taken without further notice. This will result in a FINE or PROSECUTION. No smoking under any area of the station forecourt canopy.
My informant writes:
A quick check of the British Transport Poice's Policing Strategy and Plans reveals no mention of trying to enforce a ban on smoking OUTSIDE public transport stations being a key policy agenda. Yet this is what they appear to be doing.
This activity appears nothing more than the usual Stazi like persecution of “soft target” smokers by officialdom. Note that the sign is quite specific about targeting smokers outside the station where the legislation governing the smoking ban does not apply.
I would most grateful if you publicise this outrage and inquire as to what legislation and powers the BTP have in fining and prosecuting smokers who smoke outside rail stations.
Looking at the crime data for London South viewable in the Policing Plan Objectives 2008/2009 file we can see that there were 955 recorded violent and sexual offences and 381 recorded robberies for the London South region in 2008/9.
Surely BTP resources are better spent tackling these real crimes rather than pursuing smokers lighting up outside a rail station? Or that is too much like hard work?
I'm sure they have the law on their side (a forecourt canopy, in the eyes of the legislation, makes this an "enclosed public place") but it is nonsense. We were told that the smoking ban was being introduced to "protect" workers from the effects of secondhand smoke. Clearly, that isn't the case here.
It does however demonstrate just how warped our priorities are when smokers are being threatened for lighting up as they LEAVE the station.
Reader Comments (19)
Simon I totally agree with your informant, smokes, like drivers (and speed cameras) are soft targets and ultimately it makes the policing figures look better, whether that be the transport police or the 'normal' lot.
I believe the answer will be, however, something along the lines of, they can enforce whatever law they choose within their jurisdiction, so if their jurisdiction extends to the pavement outside, that they have a canopy over, then so be it!
I do believe, however, as others here have said, that hospital grounds are one example of this not being the case, as we taxpayers pay for the NHS, the hospitals and the land on which they stand. Where we have bowed to the directive of not smoking inside, I don't see many smokers accepting the external ban on hospital grounds and I am not sure that that one can be enforced. Someone with some legal experience might care to comment on that, as well as outside areas around council office, including walkways alongside, the upkeep of which the council tax payer pays for!
This is definitely getting beyond a joke, not that it was ever a funny one in the first place, just a rather sick one. but if we continue to allow more and more erosion of the places we can smoke, we will end up not being able to smoke anywhere but our own homes and only then if we happen to own them!
This will be enforced by the paramilitary wing of the BTP. Namely, two PCSOs dressed in army fatigues who stare at us City types every morning as if we are the enemy. Handcuffs by their side (although I'm not sure under what circumstances they would be entitled to use them), every morning it reminds me that there is something terribly wrong with this country!
I am sure you would approve of me. My flat had no electricity last year and stayed with a friend of mine in South East London, commuting daily from London Bridge Station. The police to be fair when I was smoking literally by that sign ignored me. Some jobsworth employed by Network Rail came out and told me to move on. I politely explained that is not 50% enclosed and was not a place of work. If they had a problem get the station manager or the police. Off he went not to return.
I also had the same experience at Victoria Station on the way down to Clapham Junction for my twice weekly game of poker. Don't let the so and sos get you down.
What is it with these people? Why do they feel the need to bully innocent people all the time?
In our schools, children are told to report all forms of bullying as it is anti social and against the law, yet we, as adults, are having to accept it more and more on a daily basis. Why?
Our police, who are supposed to uphold the law and protect us from those who break it, are becoming more and more involved in this type of violent and bullying behaviour.
Last February, when it was very cold, I went outside to scrape the ice of my car's windows before setting off to work and dropping my wife at the station first. I naturally started my car first in order to let the heated rear window clean the ice for me. When I had cleared it all, I ran back into the house to ask my wife if she was ready yet. She replied that she was, and with that we went to go out again.
As we did so however, there was aloud crashing noise at our door as if someone was trying to break the door down. I quickly opened it as I was about to anyway, and was confronted by two uniformed police officers, one male one female. The male officer asked if my car was outside. No, he didn't ask, he shouted! I was puzzled and told him of course it was. He then told me that it wasn't, he went onto say that it had been stolen. I couldn't believe what I was hearing as I had only just a few seconds before come away from the car. I went to look past him to where my car should be parked, and he physically stopped me. He them started to tell me that my car was still there, but how it could have been stolen by a gang of children, who would have then driven off in it, and as they did so, they would have run over some other children and killed them. I would have phoned the police to find out where my car was, and in doing so would have wasted valuable police time, and all because I had left my car for a couple of seconds with the engine running.
By this time, as you can imagine, I was starting to get angry with this oaf and I told him that if that was the case I had better go and take the keys out of the ignition straight away in case any more children got killed. He then held my car keys in front of me and again physically stopped me from leaving my porch.
I have since reported him to our local police station, who didn't even bother to reply. I then reported the case to DPS who said they would take the case up for me and get our local station to reply straight away. Two weeks ago I received an email from our local police station saying an inspector from there wanted to come and have a chat with me. I replied to the email and told them that I wanted their answer to my allegations in writing. After my last run-in with one of their bully boys, I didn't feel like having another one actually in my house, God knows what he would have threatened me with? Needless to say, I have heard nothing yet again, and yesterday I reported back to the DPS of what has or has not happened.
This is the sort of people we have to deal with now, they do not know the meaning of civility, but I say do not let them get away with it. I now intend to take legal action against the officer concerned, and I would suggest everyone who comes up against this type of bullying does the same.
It shouldn't be difficult to determine whether this area is covered by the ban. A canopy is usually open to the elements on three sides. If this is the case, is the ground underneath it owned by the railway company, which can apparently enact its own ban? If it not, then smoking is allowed.
One little trick to remember Peter and that would hack off the local bully boys in blue - start your car as normal to de-ice it, etc, but use a spare key to lock the doors so that no-one, not even bully boy, can get into your car to steal it or remove the keys!
Being a very cynical and untrusting soul, this is a tactic I have employed for some years now!
I was in the area of Tower Bridge a couple of weeks ago, where a friend on mine has a restaurant. As my wife and I left his restaurant, we stopped in the large square outside, to look at the ancient church of All Hallows by the Tower, which is almost opposite.
Also in the square is a large office block (I think the name is Marsh) which has a large glass canopy sticking out from its front, and I noticed that the church looked marvellous when viewed through the modern construction of the glass cony, so I took out my phone which like most modern phones has a camera attached, and took a picture of the church through the glass canopy.
No sooner had I done this, when two burly looking men came rushing out from the office building somewhere and started shouting at me, saying that I was not allowed to take photos there as it is private property.
I didn't bother to argue with them as I had the picture I wanted anyway, and I explained that I was taking a picture of the church, not of their building. It all ended up amicably, probably due to the fact that I was in a good mood after my nice lunch a good bottle of wine.
But here again, is just another example of the petty officialdom which we are having to put up with more and more in this country, what for? This is not Africa 200 years ago when they thought we were stealing their souls if we took their picture.
And the other outdoor areas you speak about are not enclosed places where silly little people will wave their hands about and complain about their clothes stinking. From what I have seen of most ant-smokers, their clothes stink anyway, along with their way of life, and their bullying ways.
I didn't think that we could be fined for smoking on their property. I thought that maybe they could escort us off their property or stop us using their facilities, including trains. Could somebody please confirm.
If our lords and masters think it is OK to fiddle their expenses or claim to the absolute maximum AND not get prosecuted, then I am at liberty to break this poxy smoking ban.
I am totally cheesed off with being treated as a third rate citizen and I wait this smoking ban amended NOW. Not next year, not next month, but NOW.
If you're talking about London, it's a lot different from round my way.
I'm in a working-class NW town - there's ciggie bins everywhere because almost everyone smokes.
I visited London a few months ago. I found the people there very unfriendly towards everyone. Everyone loves everyone around my way.
Anyway, everytime I frequented anywhere I always asked for a kiddies paper cup with a bit of water in so that I could extinguish my cigarettes. If they didn't oblige, I asked where I was supposed to extinguish my cigarettes without it being unlawful. Talk about a supposedly tourist centre - it hates them and certainly doesn't cater for them. I won't be visiting anymore.
BTW, can anyone tell me where you can buy a drink of orange squash in London, other than at bars? (Even then the barman looks at you strangely when you ask for orange cordial filled with water). My kids really hated their time there as it was always fresh orange that was sold - that gives them stomach ache!
I would say that the Stazi are just resorting to scare tactics with that new warning on train stations. They probably figure we are all fully brainwashed by now and will comply.
Its up to us to ignore them just like Dave did when confronted by the halfwit rail worker as I'm sure that no court of law would take these cases seriously and would throw them out as waste of court time.
But a lot of innocent people dont realise this and thats what the anti's are working on.
Its high time we all gave them the fingers.
Personally I find the new breed of cop frightening especially the new recruits. With all their higher education and modern courses they havent a clue how to treat the public.
I had a personal experience with one female cop over a very minor motoring offence and, because of my life experience I suppose, knew instinctivly that she was scared and needed to show her 'authority' so I decided to be pleasant and apologised immediately and in this instance was let off.
If it had been one of the 'old school' cops he would have reminded me to wear my seat belt after exchanging the days pleasantries with me first.
And I would guess that Peter's altercation with his KGB like cops were of the young new breed variety, who only seem to concentrate on achieving promotion the easy way by building up their numbers on fines by clipping the collars of the easy targets.
Ann, sadly that seems to be all that policing is about nowadays. Too much Health and Safety for them to turn up when called to anything serious! Easy targets are the way to go, far less likely to get injured that way.
In fact, in the small town where I live we have a 9 to 5 police force. After that they come from some distance and most don't even appear to know that our town exists, never mind where it is!
We joked (we needed to by then) when my father-in-law died suddenly at home and the police had to be called by the paramedics before he could be removed. We said to the paramedics who had to stay to see the police, it was unusual they hadn't turned up more quickly as it was such an easy call, however, had we called to say the shed was being broken into we would not have expected to see them for at least a week! They did eventually turn up, just over an hour after the call, which many might think not too bad for 3 to 4 am in the morning, but what about the paramedics who were stuck there with their ambulance that may have been needed elsewhere?
I no longer have any respect for our police force and you put the case very well for why many of us don't. I must say though, that twice I have been stopped on our estate for not wearing a seat-belt and these young officers have been so sure of themselves, but it is a real treat to see their faces when I produce my Expemption Certificate!
Lyn, how do you get an Expemption Certificate?
I never wear a seat belt as I cannot stand being closed in by anything, it makes me feel as if I can't breath.
Also, police and ambulance drivers never wear them, as they say thay are too dangerous if the vehicle caught fire or overturned.
Peter, I was pregnant with my daughter, 26 years ago, when the law came in and although my doctor then was not keen on providing me with a letter of expemption, he did for 6 monnths due to my pregnancy and not wanting to cause me undue stress.
After the 6 months all I had to do was agree to see a psychiatrist as I too suffer from claustrophobia and cannot stand being 'closed in' or 'restricted' in any way - not even having bed sheet tucked in. The psychiatrist agreed that as I had been this way all my life it was unlikely that I would change and the simplest and cheapest way for the NHS to deal with the problem was to exempt me from wearing a seatbelt on medical grounds.
Now you do get a 'certificate' rather than a letter. The main reason, it seems, for being referred to a psychiatrist is that GP's are loathe to take the responsibility upon themselves, although with the say so of the psychiatrist, they have to issue the certificate.
Hope this helps.
Lyn
Thanks for the details Lyn, but I think I am going to pass on this, as I don't even have a doctor, let alone a psychiatrist.
I must admit I never see the "fag police", targeting gangs of hooded baseball cap wearing,
lager swilling, joint toking, "youth" on street corners ,
I wonder why?
You dont think they'd fight back do you?
No they go for the soft target .
Experiment.
If you strode through the street with a tie on and dropped the fag butt (fined).
If you strode through the street with a hoodie on in a gang and dropped a roach (ignored).
True ?
I think so.
Mcauber's law is always right.
Here's one for you to try out Specky, wear a hoodie and a tie and then drop a fag butt. That would fool them????
Actually it would because when im at work I do wear a hoodie and a tie when I smoke in the car park because it keeps the rain off .
Oddly enough ive never had any snidey comments from passers by or attention from the law.
So my conclusion is the hoodie definately works.
But only because they can't see the tie.
Hi Peter
You are welcome to the info, but I will add, I did not have a psychiatrist when the law first came in, it was my GP who arranged for one to see me, as a one off, to determine whether or not it would be worth my having any treatment for the claustrophobia. He didn't feel it would be worthwhile as if I moved, and the likelihood was that I could, then any therapy would not be consistent and continuity would be broken. I never saw him again.
Since I have needed to renew my cert, due to getting married, my current GP also passed the buck to a psychiatrist who had not problem recommending that the cert be renewed.
The upshot is that you do need to have a GP, but not a psychiatrist!