Letters to the editor
Tuesday, June 30, 2009 The Daily Telegraph reports that:
Antony Worrall Thompson, the chef, is among signatories to a letter in today's Daily Telegraph calling for the ban on smoking in pubs to be relaxed. He is leading the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign, which claims that the ban is "ripping the heart out" of British pubs. It wants smoking permitted in some areas.
The letter, signed by AWT and 18 publicans, some of whom attended last week's campaign launch, reads:
SIR - Traditional English pubs and clubs are suffering like never before. Around 40 are closing every week and many others are laying off staff and making cuts in a desperate attempt to survive. Tens of thousands of jobs have already been lost and many more redundancies are likely to follow over the coming months.
There are many factors causing difficulties for licensees, from the serious downturn in the economy to continuing punitive duties on the sale of alcohol. But one factor that could be dealt with - at no expense to the taxpayer - is an amendment to the blanket ban on smoking in public places.
Tomorrow marks the second anniversary of the smoking ban in England. As publicans, we believe that its impact in reducing trade has been substantial.
We seek a solution that is fair to smokers, non-smokers and staff alike. We consider it wholly unreasonable that, when up to half of our customers are regular smokers, we can make virtually no provision for them. But we are also conscious that many pub-goers are keen on a smoke-free atmosphere. That is why we are calling for an amendment to the smoking ban, rather than its full repeal.
If we were allowed, for example, to provide separate smoking rooms while ensuring that non-smokers’ preferences were catered for, we could improve our service without causing any upset.
For these reasons, we urge politicians of all parties to help save our pubs and clubs by introducing an amendment to the smoking ban. If they don’t, the traditional English pub will continue to wither on the vine.
Letter and full list of signatories HERE.
Note: the letter will almost certainly generate a fierce response from the anti-smoking industry. It is important therefore that supporters of the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign write to the Telegraph echoing our call for amendments to the ban.
You might wish to highlight the devastating impact on your social life. Or the fairness of the Spanish model. Then again, you could take the opportunity to urge David Cameron to revisit Conservative party policy on this issue ...
Email dtletters@telegraph.co.uk. Keep your letters short and to the point and give your full name and address.
Who knows, if the paper gets a good response it might encourage the Telegraph to get behind the campaign.
Simon Clark
On the back of AWT's letter in the Telegraph, I will be discussing amendments to the smoking ban on the BBC Radio Wales phone-in at 1.30pm.
Update: Antony also took part in the phone-in. He was up against some woman from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health who was, of course, hugely in favour of the smoking ban. Antony, I have to say, performed brilliantly. We're lucky to have him on our side.
Reader Comments (16)
The smoking ban should be made null and void, as one of the main instigaters of the smoking had a conflict of interest.
Patricia Hewitt who was Secretary of Health between May 2005 and June 2007 works for Alliance Boots, who sell NRTs.
Another former Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, has a job with Lloyds Pharmacy, who also sell NRTs.
Simon quite rightly says "you could take the opportunity to urge David Cameron to revisit Conservative party policy on this issue ..."
One way you can get your voice heard on this one, is to visit this link
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=41_2f9ThyXieo7QWErVibPkA_3d_3d
This takes you to the latest ConHome survey, which asks the following:
Which Labour laws should a Conservative government repeal?
Should the NHS be immune from spending cuts?
What should the Conservatives do if Lisbon is ratified?
Should candidates adopted for hard-to-win seats be freed to apply for easier-to-win seats?
Click to answer these and other tracker questions in June's ConHome survey.
Is separate smoking rooms the best idea? Small pubs cannot provide them and so will be against the move; and the smelly pullover objectors will complain about smoke leaking from them. Would the Spanish model not be better, where small pubs are permitted to choose and large pubs have to provide a room if they they want smoking. To me, it seems crucial that all but the most fanatical non-smokers must not feel as if they've lost too much. There must be a plentiful supply of pubs with no smoking anywhere - even outside. This will stop the vast majority of objections once and for all. That state of equilibrium is of course exactly what ASH doesn't want. What do others think?
I agree with you Jon, I think this campaign is a marvellous idea, exactly what I have been calling for, for the past year or so. An "amendment" of the ban, where we would go along the same lines as they have in Spain.
And believe me I know exactly how it works there, as I travel there quite often in connection with my work. Small bars of 100 sq mts or less can choose for themselves, whether to be smoking or non smoking, and larger premises, which do not just stop at bars, but also include restaurants, have to provide, not a smoking room, as many people here seem to believe, but a separate smoking area. And there are no laws there, dictating about the use of air extraction plants etc., either.
If we ended up with separate smoking rooms here, I have a terrible feeling that it would be something along the lines of a sealed room, with no windows, in case our terrible fumes drift out and poison some local council official or the odd traffic warden, and believe me, you do need to be odd to be in that profession don't you!
The smoker would have to open the door to his or her sealed room, and make their way through the nice airy area, to the bar, suffering the hand wavers and smelly clothes objectors on their way. This is not what I want, this is not the Spanish way. The Spanish way is the completely fair way, where the smoker has his choice and the non smoker has theirs.
Let the owner, the publican, the restaurateur, decide, not the Government!
Peter and jon, If you read the top heading "our case ", the problem with small venues is covered citing the spain model with landlords having the choice of being smoking or non-smoking. I dont particularly want a room either but I think it would be better than nothing and at least it would open up a debate about it. I think it wants supporting.
Please don't get me wrong Sheila, I am all for this campaign, but I do not believe in supplying ammunition to the enemy, and I see the wording "room" as live ammunition for our enemy to use against us.
By now, I think more and more people are beginning to realise that the anti-smoking zealots have gone too far, and must make some concessions in the battle for freedom, or lose out completely.
For the first time in two years we have the ball in our corner, and our team is getting stronger and stronger and winning more and more support.
The "sealed off room" should be kept as a last resort, not put on the table as a peace offering.
The campaign speaks loudly and clearly about going the Spanish way, which is why I support it. The Spanish way does not have "designated smoking rooms".
I certainly support the campaign. I'm just thinking out loud about the consequences of pushing for the various options. Over half the population is indifferent to smoking as long as it is below their personal nuisance level and their social life doesn't feel constrained. These are the people who need to be considered. The fanatics may as well be ignored. For moral, religious or whatever reasons, they hate smoking and smokers, and always will.
So Antony was up against some woman from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health who was hugely in favour of the smoking ban? Nothing new there then!
What I find it difficult to understand is why organisations such as the CIEH set themselves up not just to promote the importance and standing of environmental health in local government, which is within their remit, but to positively discriminate against anyone and everyone who disagrees with their views.
Health, as many people here will testify, is made up to a large extent of the well-being and happiness of the individual. Take away that happiness and you are relieving them of the ability to feel well, and the ability to feel content. Does anyone have that right, to take away other people's happiness? Not if they are set up to do just the opposite they don't!
I read someone's view here today, on another thread, where they said that smoking helped them cope so much after the death of their husband. Would the CIEH have denied this person that right to be able to cope and to bring a little happiness into her life after such a tragedy?
The Bible says, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do". Well I am sorry, I can't forgive them, because I think they know damn well what they doing!
I read the Telegraph article. I was amazed that it was published in view of the apparent 'omerta' in the media regarding anything that could possibly seen as in support of smoking.
I wrote to the Telegraph. Below is a copy of my letter.
Sir,
Re Letter published today ‘Amend the Smoking Ban’.
Bravo to the Telegraph for publishing this letter! It is right that the plight of hundreds of publicans, whose businesses are at risk, and the plight of thousands of people, whose jobs are at risk, should be high-lighted.
Anyone with any intelligence knows that this draconian law was based on the very remote statistical possibility that passive smoking kills and injures. If ever there was a case of ‘Hard cases make bad laws’, this is it.
Public Houses are licensed and are therefore very easily identified. There is no sensible reason why they should not be exempted from some of the provisions of the law, especially what constitutes ‘a substantially enclosed place’. In our climate, to specify that a construction built to provide shelter from the elements should have half of it sides open to said elements is almost a contradiction in terms.
Let there be smoking areas, properly ventilated. Let adult people, who do not mind second hand smoke, use these facilities. Let pub staff, who are afraid of second hand smoke, opt out of going into those areas. I am sure that smokers would be quite happy to take their used pots to the bar and clear up their detritus.
No doubt the Telegraph will receive many letters and comments supporting the ban in pubs, but we must always bear in mind that very few people indeed go to pubs regularly. Also that, only publicans who are prepared to subject themselves to the loss of trade from non-smokers will put a relaxation into effect.
Yours sincerely,
I think that we have to find a chink in the armoury of the fanatics. I think that the draconian definition of 'a substantially enclosed place' is it. I believe that few, if ANY, MPs actually were aware that, buried deep in the regulations of the Health Bill, was this provision, as regards outside shelters, that even retractable awnings were considered to be permanent roofs and that sides could only cover 50% of the area around the sides. If I was an MP and I voted for the bill without knowing that I was condemning many of my voters to go outside in the wind and rain for a smoke without proper shelter and, further, to be SEEN by all and sundry to be standing around outside a pub, I would be ashamed. Is it any wonder that MPs want to avoid discussing the smoking ban at all costs? Nearly as bad as expenses.
The spanish model is certainly worth promoting, but I fear that we may have to wait a while to have any reasonable expectation of success in that area.
Shame they didn't make the point about how MP's and MEP's have exempted themselves from the ban.
"If we were allowed, for example, to provide separate smoking rooms" as they do in both the Westminster and EU Parliament buildings.
I also back the campaign and have the logo and link on F2C's blog: http://freedom-2-choose.blogspot.com/
It never fails to amaze that when we have hard line canditates like BNP and others that stand up and run for their own hard line views, that not one canditate will stand up and champion for a repeal of this draconian smoking ban law for disenfranchised smokers, some of whom are now looking for any opportunity to take to the streets to back practically any cause.
We have minorities that show no signs of oppression or bullying like immigrants, black people, cripples, gay marriage etc that have numerous agencies championing their cause allowing them to have equal status and whose voices are heard every day of the week and which result in fines and jail time if you, god forbid, offend them.
Yet us tax paying, ordinary law abiding citizens of our own country are thrown to the wilderness, with no voice and shouted down every time we ask for a fair deal or a very small concession like an indoor smoking area in a pub, the likes of which they have in Spain and many other countries of europe.
Then they come along and try to force us to vote for treaties that they tell us will make us all equal europeans.
Talk about lying and bullying in plain sight and then we all go along with it and swallow this crap.
Then they flaunt their elitism in our faces by providing smoking rooms for themselves in parliament and Brussels and we all go along like sheep with this 'do as I say and not as I do' caper.
Instead of smoke friendly aeroplanes we now have air rage and that rage and intolerance is now creeping into general society.
Nobody laughs any more unless its under the influence of drink or some other drug.
Our bosses at Govt level and EU level have created and are still creating a discontented society.
Today in Ireland the banning of tobacco displays has come into operation, giving new meaning to the expression 'See no evil'!!
A few points.
I personally do not like the mention of a sealed smoking room. As a matter of fact, Patricia Hewitt did suggest a 'sealed smoking carriage' in pubs and clubs during the cabinet debate about the SBE - incidentally, would someone care to suggest what the use of the word 'carriage' means? NO, a sealed smoking room makes me think of what happened at Manchester Airport before July 2007. There was no longer a smoking area in the departure lounge, you were directed to a badly ventilated room which was thick with smoke and very uncomfortable.
My second point is about Tom Harris, Labour MP for Glasgow East. Former Transport Minister who was sacked because he does not toe the party line, he tells the truth. He is a non smoker, although his parents were heavy smokers, his mother dying of lung cancer when she was 70. TOm voted against the smoking ban. If you visit his excellent blogsite, you will see the Save our Pubs and Clubs banner - http://www.tomharris.org.uk/
I hope my third point is not taken the wrong way. I think it is important to make sure that we do not say things which are wrong when making points about this ban. The Palace of Westminster is a Royal Palace, so a little quirk in the British Constitution classes it as part of the Royal family's home, (I think I got that right). This means that it is exempt from the smoking ban. However, Parliament voted to make it smokefree. There are smoking shelters and you can smoke on open air terraces, but nobody smokes inside the Palace of Westminster.
I really am sad that so many pubs are closing down.Its awful and its all to do with this nasty awful NANNY state we live in. Whats wrong with a seperate smoking area. With good air conditioning? our local weatherspoons in Godalming had a good smoking area until the pathetic council said oh no NOT allowed. I really think its time that we MUST all get together and support these poor pubs. Patricia Hewett has caused everyone some real damage by ruling our lives. Look at the streets outside with ciggie buts on the ground.If people want to smoke they should be allowed. Even many resteraunts are suffering loss of trade as well as they have to wait as the smokers are all going out side for a ciggie between a course. so this holds up the waiters/waitress at a table. Whats wrong with a seperate room for smoking. There is so much stress out there and people are smoking more
I have been am 62 years old and have frequented local pubs since I was 15 years old.At one time the local had a snug or smoke room and a lounge were smoking was not allowed. I can honestly say that the most frequented room was the smoke room, as that was were all the fun was. Eaven now non smokers say that the heart and the fun has gone out of the local pub solely due to the smoking ban. It would be benificial to set a room aside for non smokers, it would be empty but there you are everyone would be accomodated for. I do believe that this ban infringes my civil rights as a smoker.I pay the extortionate tax the government put on tobacco. but they do not want me to smoke it. FIGHT THE BAN
There is a very well put together piece of writing by the singer JOE JACKSON, Its called "Smoking and the Nanny state" , IT really is a bit of eye opener,
Please go to the "JOE JACKSON" web site and follow the links.