Thursday
Jul232009
Save our pubs and clubs open thread
Thursday, July 23, 2009 
Further to yesterday's news that 52 pubs are closing EVERY WEEK, I am creating an open thread today so that people can comment on our campaign to amend the smoking ban. This also coincides with the distribution, this morning, of e-bulletins to supporters of Forest and Save Our Pubs & Clubs. Please keep your comments short and to the point.
To receive occasional e-bulletins from Forest, sign up HERE.
If you have not yet registered your support for the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign, click HERE. To date over 1250 people have signed up, including 250 publicans.
Update on Friday, July 24, 2009 by
Simon Clark
Simon Clark
As a result of Thursday's e-bulletin a further 249 267 286 301 people have joined the campaign.
Reader Comments (138)
Peter, I fear your sense of smell is letting you down. I well remember the morning after a night out in a smoky bar in the good old days when I would have to wash every single item of clothing my husband and I had had on, plus my hair, plus everything else in the washing basket, because it all smelled so strongly of smoke, and indeed was making the room unpleasant.
Now, I'm a smoker of course, and for me that was a sacrifice well worth paying for a good night out. It goes without saying that I would MUCH rather have that job to do in the morning than not go to bars at all, which is what I (don't) do now.
But I completely understand why some folks would feel irritated at having to do the same everytime they went out for a drink, when they don't smoke themselves. Their irritation doesn't feel in any way unreasonable to me. If we don't listen to these people's point of view, then I think it's no wonder they may feel a complete smoking ban is preferable to the old situation.
I really think it is counter-productive to tell people their likes and dislikes are not valid. I don't like it when people tell me what to think, so why should I do the same to non-smokers who dislike smoke?
Can we not have a little more empathy for each other's point of view? That is why these proposals, to AMEND the ban and allow CHOICE for everyone, are so important in my view. It really shouldn't be beyond the country's collective wit and ken to find a compromise that will listen to everyone's experience and keep everyone reasonably happy, smokers and non-smokers alike. To be honest, that's the kind of country I want to live in.
"Despite her depressingly Nu Labour Look, plus her highly original background in 'management consultancy', I'd really love to know HER views - on the Ban in general, and the 'Save Our Pubs' campaign in particular."
Martin V, save yourself the trouble and send yourself a reply. Easily done, just find the standard reply from any MP or the ASA, change a few details such as names, and voila, that is her view.
Timbone -
Such cynicism (you're worse than me).....
Too late, anyway: I've written and posted it now - together with a copy of Joe Jackson's excellent essay.
Let's wait and see: she MIGHT just have a Functioning Brain, and surprise us all.
Not taking any bets yet, though.........
Sorry Rose, you are completely wrong regarding my sense of smell. I have already told you that I have a very acute sense of smell.
I can detect what someone has eaten hours before, I can smell perfumes and other similar smells as I pass people in the street. As for food, I pride myself in my cooking abilities, and can tell you if anything is not quite right or completely fresh, at just one sniff.
When I pass the occasional person smoking in the street, the smell whiffs up to my nostrils like milk to a baby, it smells like heaven to me, and as for cigars, they don't just smell like heaven, they are heaven.
But, as well all know, smells are like beauty, "in the eye (or should I say nose) of the beholder". My wife's daughter does not smoke, and she constantly moans about her father, who she says, "smokes like a chimney", "his whole house smell of it" she says, "along with his clothes and his hair", and she, like yourself, says that she has to wash her clothes and hair after visiting him.(a well known story, I am sure you will agree).
My wife and I smoke, but not when my wife's daughter and her children visit, although she does know that we both smoke, and there is always plenty of smoking paraphernalia left around, including, cigarettes, lighter, cigars, cigar cutters, and of course the ubiquitous ash-trays. My wife asked her a while ago, if she ever smelt any of those smells when she comes to our house, to which her daughter replied no! Why do you think this is Rose? Do you think her sense of smell is letter her down also? The truth can be summed up in one word, "propaganda".
Because her father smokes (be it in his garden) in front of her, and we do not smoke in front of her, she sees him as one of the great unwashed, the stinker of clothes and the polluter of hair.
It even happened to me once in a restaurant some years ago, when a young brat sitting near us, complained to his father that I was smoking, and it was upsetting him, to which I ended up in a great argument with his father (in a smoking restaurant). What the spoilt little brat and his father hadn't noticed was that there were two people sitting behind them, out of eye-shot, both smoking. This of course hadn't bothered them one iota, because they had not actually seen it.
Anti-smokers only disagree with the smoke they can see, the cigarette they can see, that spiralling coil of beautiful white smoke, that normal people love, and for some perverted reason, they hate.
Do not give in to them Rose, in any way. We have given them too much of our freedom already.
Timbone and Martin V I am pleased to say I have met Chloe and have brought her a drink. She is a libertarain and would like to see the ban amended! But please drop her a line anyway.
Can I also confirm that Edwin Northover the Conservative Prospective Parliamentary Candididate for Leyton and Wanstead would also like to see the ban amended. He is a local councillor in the London Borough of Redbridge. Edwin is standing in "Mr. Trougher" himself Harry Cohen's constituency, the man in Parliament to claim the most for a second house.
I met up with Ed last Wednesday and the four Tory Councillors were all unanimous it wanting the ban amended, along with a Conservative Party employee.
Hope springs eternal.
Thanks for that cheering piece of news, Dave.
I've also informed Chloe that her response WILL be posted on 'the relevant websites' - which should ensure a certain measure of honesty, anyway.
Yes, we must ALL hope.
Shame that we all have to expend SO much energy on what is, in reality, a Complete Non-Problem -save for the Antis' MAKING it one.
Oh dear Dave, I hope you haven't upset too many people on here with your story about Chloe and the Tory Councillors.
As much as we all want to see this ban amended, I strongly suspect that there are still a few people, would absolutely love it, to hear just the opposite from the "Tory Toffs".
I can hear it now, "I told you so, they're all the same, bla bla bla..." Like old ladies at a bus stop!
Thank you so much Dave, for putting the records straight on this. Now maybe we might hear from someone else who has heard from one of our Labour friends, who has the same feeling regarding the ban?
I hope so!
P.S. to previous post (above).
Regarding my call for any Labour MPs who might support us.
I do apologise to Labour MP David Clelland, who has backed this campaign from the start.
As Simon has reported, Tom Harris, Labour MP, also supports the campaign to amend the smoking ban. I'm sure there are others.
Back to smells. I live near a farm. From time to time, the farmer throws cowshit all over his land. It is called FERTILIZER. For a few hours, there is pong in the air.
The vast majority of the local residents say to themselves, "Oh. Our farmer is fertilising his fields again", but I am sure that a small minority will be saying, "Oh my God! This bloody farmer is POLUTING THE ATMOSPHERE AND WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!" Of course, nobody dies.Our lungs are perfectly capable of dealing with the molecules floating about in the air.
Passive smoking is similar, in the sense that one's lungs are perfectly capable of dealing with bits of dust, bits of smoke, bits of pollen, bits of perfume, bits of aircraft emissions, etc. Our lungs actually DISOLVE, molecularily, bits of dust, pollen, smoke of any kind, etc.Apart from absorbing oxygen and nitrogen etc,that is what they are for.
Is it even remotely possible that Cloe Smith knows anything at all about this matter? I doubt it. She will do what the rest of the charletans do. Don't bother reading the Bills that you vote on -boring, boring. Best thing is to buy a flat for £400 grand, get an interest only mortgage (interest paid by the taxpayer), then after,say, five years, sell the property for £600 grand and pocket the difference! What is wrong with that? The actuality of the laws you pass not in your hands, and therefore there is no point in bothering your head about them, especially when there are lots lunches to go to.
God! I am pissed off with this stuff!
Let us just hope and pray that Cloe Smith may, just possibly, be capable of saying IS THIS TRUE?
Peter, why don't you smoke in your own home when your stepdaughter and her children visit?
Joyce, I do not smoke in my home when my own family children are present, for the simple reason that I love and respect them, and their wishes.
It was announced yesterday that during the summer recess a dedicated room is to be built or established in the Houses of Parliament, for the use of ministers, MPs and God knows who else.
Surely the creation of this precedence in a "work place" adds considerable weight to our argument for this provision to be nationally acceptable in other establishments.
Can use be made of this development?
Junican wrote: Our lungs actually DISOLVE, molecularily, bits of dust, pollen, smoke of any kind, etc.Apart from absorbing oxygen and nitrogen etc,that is what they are for.
Not sure about that. I think it's more that the passages of the lungs are lined with beating cilia - tiny hairs - which act to transport foreign matter like dust and pollen up and out of the lungs.
If you think about it, you will perhaps recognise that lungs must have such a capability, because humans (and indeed all animals) have always been living in environments that are dusty or sandy or smoky or pollen-laden or insect-laden. Without such a transportation system, everyone's lungs would just fill up with dust and sand and other detritus within a few months or years, and stop working altogether.
This is why smokers' lungs are largely indistinguishable from other people's lungs. The supposition that they are not relies upon people not knowing how lungs work, and imagining that lungs just fill up with stuff. Like so much propaganda, it is built upon ignorance, and relies upon ignorance, and it is dispelled by knowledge.
Peter - Yes, I can understand that but, in capitulating to your stepdaughter's dislike of the smell, in what way is your behaviour different from the "giving in to them" that you suggest that Rose shouldn't do?
I have already explained Joyce, I do it out of love!
I do not "love" these other people, and I doubt very much whether any of us do.
I trust that your stepdaughter appreciates your gesture, Peter. It's a tricky issue these days, isn't it?
I regard the unwanted sound of 'muzak' coming at me from loudspeakers in banks, pubs, lifts and shopping malls as an intrusion. It can test my temper, sorely. I think this resentment is of a kind with what people who do not like tobacco smoke feel when they have no choice but to encounter it. Although aware that brainwashing may have influenced them I must respect their wishes. Personally I think it is sad that the culture has swung so far from acceptance of tobacco smoke in the atmosphere as normal and, depending on the tobacco, agreeable. But even when it was acceptable, there was a minority who didn't like it who were sometimes ignored and maybe jeered at. I say that to try to be fair. Now that the pendulum has gone so far in the other direction I think it is reasonable and true to our political traditions to argue for provision and tolerance for smokers in pubs and clubs, preferably, in my case, without 'muzak'. And, like Junican above, I not only don't mind the smell of muck-spreading, I actually love the smell of cows.
Charlotte, I know one of one senior Tory who openly flouts the ban in the House Of Commons by smoking in his office. Not only that when you enter his office you get offered not only a bevridge but also tobacco.
Also the G20 smoking room matter has not finished, I will be in touch in a few weeks. At the moment they "have lost the papers."
Toe curling hypocrites.
Dave -
Re your interesting:
"one senior Tory who openly flouts the ban............"
The point is: how did HE vote ?
PS:
He wouldn't be a jazz-lover, by any chance ?
Peter -
Re:
"I do not smoke in my home when my own family children are present, for the simple reason that I love and respect them..............."
When I was a Little Boy back in the Sixties, if I'd even HINTED that my parents desist, I'd have got a hefty slap - and that would have been due to MY lack of respect !
But that was BEFORE it became fashionable to infect children with Fashionable Adult Neuroses (one of America's LESS desirable imports).
Frankly, we 'listen' to children TOO BLOODY MUCH !!!!
Yet another area where the Victorians got it right, I feel.
And you want to try getting a child chimney-sweep in my neck of the woods these days.......
There was an interesting article in the Daily Telegraph today about the demise of the Country Pub. The author regretted the loss of the country pubs that he had known in his youth. He did not mention the Smoking Ban as a cause of the loss of these pubs, and, indeed, he was right not to.
Country Pubs have been dying ever since the drink/driving laws were introduced.
I do not think that anyone nowadays seriously contests the drink/driving laws as such. But it was not just the law that was the problem; it was the UNCERTAINTY that people felt as regards whether or not they were over the limit since you can't easily tell, and the uncertainty about whether or not you were fit to drive even if you were not over the limit, etc. Thus, even though persons might well be perfectly OK, they refrained from driving to country pubs, just in case they just might be involved in an accident.
However, a significant number of these pubs managed to survive - and then, along came the Smoking Ban. Not only that, but there are the 'child protection officers' hanging around to take your children off you if you so much as allow them to play outside, on their own, for just a moment.
Who, in their right mind, would venture to these County Pubs? Much better to stay at home, don't you think?
Believe me when I say that I am not pushing a political view. It is obvious that I am not.
But this Government are allowing things to happen which they should be strangling at birth. For example, the ridiculous idea that children should not be allowed to 'play out' unsupervised; the smoking in the presence of children thing; the denial of the right of free adults to assemble and do what they want within the the law (smoking is legal!); the silly global warming thing.
The 'Save our Pubs and Clubs' campaign is only one of several that ought to be in hand, but, really, there should only be one campaign and that should be 'SAVE OUR FREEDOMS!'.
Junican -
Yes, Simon Heffer (unusually, for him) WAS guilty of a Sin of Omission on that one !
He's not a smoker, of course - but that's no excuse.
The whole smoking ban shambles, apart from being grossly unfair for the masses of law abiding tax payers, was so incomprehensibly stupid in that the braying minority of the antis brain dead/pc/malcontents, who mostly sit all night over one pint or fizzy drinks anyway, should have been the ones to be kicked outdoors to the 'fresh air' they claim to love.
And us smokers who really spend the money should have been left indoors to smoke in peace.
After all we were not the ones to start causing trouble in the first place.
If Bambi Blair and the rest of the headless labour govt had told them in the first instance that 'yes, you can have your smoking ban, but it will mean non smokers will have to sit outside the pub'.
I'm damn sure this stupid smoking ban would have died a very quick death.
Roll on the revolution!
Martin, my wife and I were out at a restaurant last week, with some friends, and their 11 year old son. We were sitting in the patio area of the restaurant, so I was obviously smoking. My friends are non smokers, but do not mind smoking at all, and always provide me with an ash-tray when we visit their house.
When I lit my first cigarette at the restaurant, I noticed my friend's son starring at me, and for a brief moment I thought he was about to start the old arm waving exercise etc. So to counteract any actions he might have taken, I took my cigarette out of the pack and then jokingly offered him one.
His face lit up and he quickly took one. Then to my surprise, he asked his dad if he was going to have one as well. When his dad declined, the boy shook his head and said "I wish you would".
Before things got out of hand I quickly took the cigarette away from the boy and put it back in the pack, but what got me was that he was really angry. He said "Hmm...that didn't last long did it?". We all laughed and the incident passed as a joke, but I was so surprised and pleased to see that not all kids are of the indoctrinated masses that we normally come up against, and I am pleased to say that this is also the case with my grandchildren, who know I smoke and take it as normal as they would if I told them that I also eat fish and chips.
One of the little chaps even used my Forest ash-tray as the subject for something he drew for me the other day.
Dave, I'm glad the G20 smoking room mystery has not gone away. I tried to get Donal MacIntyre to investigate it on his RSLive show. I'm sure many people have noticed that the big piece in the Daily Mail at the time has been deleted and no longer shows up in its search engine. Why is that? It shouldn't be too difficult to settle the issue. The Whip columnist in the Sun got the tip from the contractors. There must be tens, even hundreds of people who know the truth. It's a shame the House of Commons office smokers can't be outed.
I hope, Martin, that Chloe is not like the 20 year old Con PCC for Mansfield - a smoke hater who cannot debate but can only abuse. http://patnurseblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/fuming.html
Pat -
Thanks (I think) for the link
As a conservative (of the bolshie variety), I'd almost certainly go with sitting Labour MP Alan Meale - who voted against the total ban.
He also happens to be a Grown-Up, which is an advantage - even in the Commons.
As for the bespectacled TIT ("Your Country Needs You"), this is surely a belated April Fool's Joke ?
It might also help our potential William-Pitt-For-The-YouTube-Generation if he could manage to learn to spell (and possibly write in English) BEFORE going to read Politics at Lincoln:
"I know what the people of Mansfield want from there (sic) Local Council and there (sic) MP, I know they distrust there (sic) politicians but I also know that are very political and we must win there (sic) trust back."
Your ded right there, Fraze - innit ?
Wha'ever you mean.
Clearly, Cameron's team have either stuck a 'No Chance' flag on the campaign map for Mansfield (even for the Yoof Vote) -or they owe Mr Meale a VERY BIG favour.
Alternatively, Ben Elton's now writing the script for Central Office...........
Peter -
Sorry - nearly forgot you...........
Bravo to your young friend !
Next time you see him, give him a long, cool G and T from me - Schweppes (what else ?), with a lemon twist.
Go easy on the Schweppes, though (we don't want him getting into bad habits).
And you might ALSO let him know about an impending vacancy in the Mansfield constituency !
New press release from statistics.gov.uk. Smoking behaviour and attitudes 08-09. Smoking constant at 25% for men and 20% for women. Figures for agreement with ban on smoking in pubs. Agree, strongly agree etc.
I think the ban on smoking in psychiatric hospitals is the the worst aspect of this legislation. I don't suppose a blnd eye is turned towards smoking in Rampton as it is in other hospitals (recent Guardian article). This really is a barbaric and vindictive attack on people unable to defend themselves. I took part (well before the ban) in some research as a member of a control group who had to be smokers. I was told by the psychiatrist in charge that the control group had to be smokers because the group being investigated were schizophrenics: 90% of whom smoke; partly because their brains are wired up to want to smoke and partly to lessen the bad side effects of the medication they were given. I urge people to email the CE of Nottinghamshire NHS Healthcare Trust if they feel strongly about this.
Jon, you are right about Rampton. However, the smoking ban in general is causing many people with depression and other mental health issues to become isolated in their homes as well as the elderly who may well then develop mental health issues as a result.
For my own part, I find it totally terrifying that if I have what is termed 'a crisis' at the wrong time and in the wrong place, I could be sectioned and therefore unable to smoke. I don't feel I could possibly keep any shred of sanity without my cigs! This thought is just an added burden on top of the ban in general that I, and I am sure many others, suffer.
Don't you just love those figures, the type that Jon just pointed us to? Issued, so they claim, from www.liars-r-us.gov.uk.
I don't quite understand the first part, where they state that the figures of 25% for men and 20% for women, are constant. Surely they could have come up with something better than that? I mean to say, surely it's a well known "fact" that since they are getting the message across so well, the figures for both men and women smoking, are dropping like the proverbial children in a pro-smoking household.
What I am sure we are all pleased to see though, are the figures that prove that most people strongly agree with the smoking ban in pubs. I am so pleased to be a part of our wonderful, health conscious nation.
A friend of mine actually took part in these latest polls. It was on a Monday in January, he tells me, at one of those big old buildings in Grimstoke, that used to be a pub. There were 17 people there including my friend, and after orange juice and biscuits all round, they got down to voting. Bob voted against the ban actually, which I was naturally very displeased with, but, he said, an overwhelming majority voted that they agreed with it, 9 for the ban, and 8 against it.
With a massive majority like that, all agreeing that the smoking ban is doing a great job, who are we to argue?
Peter asks:
"With a massive majority like that, all agreeing that the smoking ban is doing a great job, who are WE to argue?"
S-C-U-M !!!
What else ?
We just need HELP to REALISE that we ARE scum.
And I'm sure the lovely lady I've just been listening to on R4 from the Roy Castle Lung Cancer (erewego) thingie - complete with her whiny certitudes and Primary School Science - would only be TOO pleased to provide it.....
A respectful Eddie Meyer didn't ACTUALLY ask:
"In view of the fact that a TINY, TINY, minority STILL stubbornly and idiotically REFUSE to give up, what MORE can be done to MAKE them ?"
- but he might just as well have done so.
Thanks, BBC, for the trenchant, sceptical journalism (as ever) !
Someone mentioned Rampton. I noticed this from a few days ago:
Patients lose smoking ban appeal
Patients at a psychiatric hospital have lost a legal appeal over the right to smoke following the 2007 smoking ban.
Two patients at high-security Rampton hospital in Nottinghamshire maintained the NHS ban on smoking violated their human right to smoke in their own home.
But the Court of Appeal has ruled the policy is lawful and the right to smoke is not covered by the European Convention on Human Rights.
Nottinghamshire NHS Healthcare Trust said patients were given help to quit.
The smoke-free policy has been in operation since April 2007 and bars smoking inside and outside at Rampton by staff and patients.
There is no justice any more.
What we should notice about this matter is the sheer cruelty and inhumanity of the ban at Rampton.
What I cannot understand about this situation is why people who are sectioned, and therefore forced to live at Rampton, and cannot leave the hospital, are not regarded as being in the same position as prisoners.
I find it difficult to see haw it came to be a matter of human rights. I would have thought that existing legislation, which exempts prisons would be sufficient. I suppose that there is something in the small print of the Health Act which restricts the definition of 'prisons' to actual jails. Another thing that MPs did not notice when they voted for this heinious act.
I think that all the Court of Human Rights was saying was that smoking is not a subject for them to judge on. It does not mean that it is OK for prisoners in a mental hospital to be denied the the ability to smoke.
As usual, The Trust said that patients were being GIVEN HELP to stop smoking ie. being FORCED.
Another think that intreagues me about this matter, and others similar, how do these hospitals acquire the right to stop people smoking in the fresh air? I don't get it.
Junican -
Re:
"how do these hospitals acquire the right to stop people smoking in the fresh air? "
Whatasillyquestion !
It's to stop others BEING KILLED, of course (so the precise legalities don't really matter).
What European lawyers would probably refer to as the Teleological Approach (ie the Ends Justify The Means).
The 'end' in this context being Perfect Health For All (whether they want it or not).
A classic case of being Kind To Be Cruel ?
Nope - just Being Cruel............(and they just don't SEE it).
Was there EVER a time in Human History, I wonder, when so many numbskulls had SO much POWER ?
Nope - and aren't they just LOVING it ?
Bless 'em..................
Martin V,
I know what you mean, but it is actually the LEGAL right that I am interested in.
I have just spent a couple of hours thrutching about on the site 'Parliament uk' to try to find some answers about the subjects I mentioned in my last post. I have found some interesting things. I hope that these are interesting.
1. Health Act 2006.
If you want to read the Act, follow the instructions below. The bit of the Act which involves the smoking ban is quite short and easy to read and understand, but read it slowly and carefully.
a. In your address bar, type 'www.opsi.gov.uk'.
b. On the right side, see 'Search'
c. Type in 'health act 2006'.
d. Click the first item in the list revealed entitled 'Health Act 2006 (c 28)'.
It takes you straight to the actual words of the Health Act 2006.
2. I wondered how it came to be that MPs voted for this ridiculous idea that a 'substantially enclosed place' could be wide open to the elements. The answer is that they didn't.
A sentence in the Act, under 'premises', gave the Health Dept the power to decide AT A LATER DATE what the definition of a 'substantially enclosed place' would be. Note what I say - the Act gave the Health Dept this power. But, The Health Dept are obliged to 'lay their definition before both houses of parliament. This they did on 18th Dec 2006 - BY PLACING A PIECE OF PAPER IN THE TEA ROOM OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS! That is all that the Health Dept needed to do! Why? Because the Health Act gave them the power to decide.I have tried every which way to find some sort of debate about this, and have found nothing. Guess who was the Health Minster who put this forward? The f**king Caroline f**king Flint! (I do not normally swear).
Do you see why MPs consider the matter to be dead? They do not want their ignorance to be revealed.
3. As regards the situation of these poor people who are mentally ill and imprisoned, and are not allowed to smoke, here is what I found.
By a Statutary Instrument from the Health Dept dated 7th March 2007, a TEMPORARY exemption from the smoking ban was given to 'mental health units'. As far as I can see, this statutary instrument was not placed before parliament at all. It came into force on 1st July 2007. But it was temporary. It expired on 1st July 2008.
Think about this exemption. Why was it needed at all? Well, it wasn't, but, when it expired, by implication, ALL mental health places became subject to the ban! That is the reason that Rampton have been required to ban smoking for their prisoners. They have no alternative. So we should not blame the managers of Rampton, we should blame the Patricia f**king Hewitt and the Caroline f**king Flint. (I swore again).
I am sorry to be so verbose, but I hope that this post has been interesting and informative.
Junican, here is the House of Commons debate of 14 Feb 2006, if that's what you've been looking for. I don't know whether 'debate' is really the right word for it.
Question, does anyone know what kind of lung cancer Roy Castle died of, there are many kinds. I think it is Small Cell Carcinma but if you know better please post here.
Remarks from Dave atherton
Also the G20 smoking room matter has not finished, I will be in touch in a few weeks. At the moment they "have lost the papers."
Toe curling hypocrites.
Dave tell us more, I have been emailing an MP about this, I will keep details secret but let's just say he DENIES any smoking rooms were provided at the G20. We need this exposed Dave.
Idlex,
Thanks for your link to the House of Commons debate of 14th Feb 2006.
I read this debate some time ago and at first I could not understand it. Only when I did some further research did I find out that that this was the THIRD reading. The first two readings were of the Bill in its orginal form - allowing non-food pubs and private clubs to decide for themselves. In the THIRD reading, the Gov flipped its opinion and decided to include ALL venues in the total ban. So, the Gov, being the LABOUR Gov, recently elected on the basis of its manifesto, overrode its manifesto and, using the trick of the 'free vote' and other tricks, imposed the full ban law upon us - AGAINST THEIR EXPRESSED INTENT.
There are a couple of weird things about the debate. Firstly, almost to a man, MPs ACCEPTED that passive smoking is killing people. Not a single MP queried the evidence.
Secondly, the question of what constitutes a 'substantially enclosed place' was brought up, but the Sec of State, Pat F**king Hewitt, fobed the question off by saying that she isn't sure yet - "We will decide these regulations after we have had a think about it". MPs accepted this.
Thirdly, and this was amusing, a number of MPs tried to score political points by asking Pat F** Hew how she came to have BELIEVED that the ban was correct in its original form and had proposed the ban in that original form but was now prepared to vote to AMEND the form of the ban that she had originally proposed!. She managed to fob this question off.
Fourthly, again and again, the queston of 'children' actually smoking or 'children' passively smoking was brought up. Some MPs said that stopping people smoking in pubs would drive some people to smoking more at home, and therefore put children more at risk.
The answer to this was, AND THIS IS VERY INDICATIVE OF THE REAL PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION, that, eventually, the effect of the ban would be to reduce smoking overall, and therefore, children would not EVENTUALLY be exposed to tobacco smoke at all.
Fifthly, it is very clear that, despite the expressed reason for the ban being to protect workers, the REAL intention is, gradually, to get to a position where tobacco smoking will be COMPLETELY banned. If you read the statements of the f**king Pat F**king Hew, in this debate, carefully, you can see this implication very clearly. Naturally, she has now become a director of some health company or whatever.
Obviously, the whole scenario is very complex. Because of the amendments to the Bill, introduced at the last moment by the Gov, the third reading of the Bill was chaotic - but MPs do not want to know! Why? Because it shows how lacking in knowledge that they were - AND -and this is very important, how they were thrutching about with miniscully important matters while patients in hospitals were being killed by superbugs in large numbers - among other things.
Mark:
If you send off this Freedom of Information Request, the answer back is "we have lost the papers." The Foreign Office has been able to wriggle on vaguely worded questions previously. This did the trick.
"Under the Health Act 19th July 2006 under 'Overview Of The Structure Of The Act' point 5, Part 1, paragraph 6, can you confirm that the The Secretary of State has granted an exemption to the smoking ban at the ExCel Centre, Canning Town on the 2nd April 2009 for the G20 Summit. That there is a smoking room or rooms with coverage of 50% or more where delegates may burn tobacco and inbibe."
Junican wrote: The first two readings were of the Bill in its orginal form - allowing non-food pubs and private clubs to decide for themselves. In the THIRD reading, the Gov flipped its opinion and decided to include ALL venues in the total ban.
It's my impression that wherever smoking bans are introduced, some sort of deception always has to be practised, because most people don't want them. When Mayor Bloomberg introduced a smoking ban in New York, it wasn't something that was part of his election manifesto. It was simply that, once he was mayor, he was able to railroad through a smoking ban in various committees.
Also the G20 smoking room matter has not finished, I will be in touch in a few weeks. At the moment they "have lost the papers."
There must be quite a few other people who will know. The various representatives from different countries who used any smoking rooms that were provided. The staff that served in them. The cleaners who emptied the ashtrays. The building contractors who screwed the "Smoking Room" signs on the doors. It must be an open secret.
Junican -
Yes, I quite appreciate that you were making a legalistic rather than a philosophical point above – but I just thought I’d chuck in the latter for good measure.
Thanks for the link.
It’s over 20 years since I last studied an Act of Parliament at university and Law College, so please forgive any errors of interpretation on my part with regard to the (appallingly drafted) 2006 Act.
My (rather hasty) reading of the Act reveals the following relevant points in the context you mention:
1) There is no definition within the Act itself of ‘enclosed’ or ‘substantially enclosed’. This may be specified – in England - however, by the Secretary of State (prob the Health Secretary) by regulation, acting as the ‘appropriate national authority’.
In other words, simple Ministerial Fiat is enough (no debate necessary). One would have to look up any such regulations, of course, to see whether any such definition HAS been provided.
In the absence of the above, we would need to rely upon the common sense of judges (?) and the resulting case-law to help us determine what ‘substantially enclosed’ SPECIFICALLY means.
Interesting to note that the ‘appropriate national authority’ in the case of WALES is NOT a Minister, but the National Assembly itself. So, in theory at least, this definition COULD be amenable to the Democratic Process. But I digress...............
Such powers of definition by a Minister have always been regarded as unchallengeable.
However:
2) The Act also provides that (the Health Secretary) may EXTEND these ‘smoke-free’ provisions into other areas not covered by the Act – even if they are NOT ‘enclosed or substantially enclosed’ (eg parks, gardens, etc etc).
This power IS qualified, however, (and so – challengeable) by the requirement that such power is exerciseable “ONLY if in the authority’s OPINION there is a SIGNIFICANT risk that...persons present....would be exposed to SIGNIFICANT quantities of smoke”.
Here, at least, ARE some potential grounds for challenging any such decision (assuming normal Common Law rules of interpretation still apply in this Post-Blair era):
a) In arriving at its ‘opinion’, did the ‘authority’ consider ALL the facts that it would be REASONABLE to expect (ie did it ‘ask’ itself the RIGHT questions) ?
b) How does one determine what IS a ‘significant’ quantity of smoke ? The act provides no clue. Would it, therefore, be ‘reasonable’ to conclude that ONE cigarette in a half-acre open space, for example, constituted a SIGNIFICANT ‘quantity of smoke’ ? I would suggest not. And I would argue that this IS one area in which a legal challenge COULD be mounted.
In a sense, however, all this is rather academic.
In the case of care homes, for example, the (de facto) ‘owners’ of the premises would presumably merely point to their rights as property-holders to determine permissible and NON-permissible activities on their land (in the legal sense) – especially since there is no supervening RIGHT to smoke acknowledged by Law.
Rampton of course is not a private institution, but an NHS hospital under the charge of the relevant NHS Trust. As such, the latter probably has as much ‘right’ to restrict smoking as any other ‘landlord’. And if not, then I’m sure the Health Secretary would be only too willing to oblige – by scribbling the relevant ‘regulation’ on the back of an envelope.
To describe the patients as ‘prisoners’ – although FACTUALLY true, is LEGALLY incorrect.
In brief, therefore, I would contend that the authorities at Rampton ARE acting quite within the Law.
Just as the Nazi gauleiter who hung Jews from meat-hooks by their testicles was ALSO quite within the Law – as it applied within the borders of National Socialist Germany.
Herein, of course, lies the inherent danger of granting Law-making powers to the State, with no REAL checks and balances to guard against its abuse.
Judicial decisions at least, have to to be JUSTIFIED in court.
But – as I’ve said before – if the Administrative Class finds it acceptable to ban even the inmates of a HOSPICE from resorting to the solace of a cigarette (whether indoors or out), then what chance do we have of pleading our case on HUMANITARIAN grounds, when They:
a) Demonstrably have no Humanity, and
b) Have The Law on their side ?
BTW, for those of you out there who are NOT ‘Telegraph’-readers, and who have not yet QUITE cottoned on to the way our country is going, allow me to suggest that you have a quick read of Christopher Booker’s recent article – (‘Evil Destruction of a Happy Family’) at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5858902/Evil-destruction-of-a-happy-family.html
Read – and Weep for England !
And then try and imagine what a One-World Government will be like..........
I wonder if the pub trade itself was the target of the smoking ban, rather than smokers.
In 2004 Hazel Blears, then a minister at the Home Office, said 'Pubs and clubs should be encouraging a more continental-style café culture which would bring higher-spending, older people back into city centres.'
Hasn't the ban partially achieved this objective? The closures have been concentrated on 'wet' locals, whereas the town centre food-led pubs are surviving.
Real continental café culture is as much damaged by smoking bans as our own native pub culture.
Martin V - I have read the article in The Telegraph that you posted. Yes, I did weep.
I hope that the ongoing situation has a happy ending, but unfortunately even if it does, the child and her parents will be scarred for life as a result of what the state have put them through.
Martin V
I read your comments with interest.
Just a few notes:
The 'appropriate national authority' was defined elsewhere - in this case, it is indeed the Sec of State for Health.
The Sec of State defined 'substantially enclosed place' in a paper 'laid before' parliament of 16th Dec 2006.
I also noticed the 'catch all' provision re 'other places', although I do not think that that provision has been used as yet. I do not think that the ban on smoking on railway station platforms, hospital grounds, etc has resulted from that provision ie those particular bans have not come from the Government. I suspect that, in those cases, the bans have been put in place by the OWNERS OF THE PREMISES.
I think that I am saying the same thing as you when I say that there is a defiite issue here.
For decades, we all accepted and respected 'no smoking' carriages on the railways; we all accepted 'no smoking' signs on the bottom deck of double-decker buses. In other words, we all accepted restrictions imposed by the owners of places. However, these places were invariably INSIDE.
I feel very strongly that if it came to the crunch, a ban on smoking in the fresh air on a bus station, for example, would not hold up. However, like everything else in this sorry business, the situation becomes very complex.
Let us think about what might happen on a bus station. I am standing on the bus station in an area distant from other people. I light a cig. Some official comes to me and say that I am not allowed to smoke on the bus station. I say that I am allowed to smoke there because I am in the fresh air. What happens then? Does he call in some 'heavies' to remove me physically from the premises? Does he call the police? I do not know what would happen.
It would be interesting to see what would actually happen if a group of friends, equiped with cameras and microphones, tested it out!
Lastly, isn't Christopher Booker great? He demolishes every statistical, mumbo-jumbo 'proof' that come to his attention, whether it be global warming, SHS, family courts or whatever. The weird thing is, why is it that the powers-that-be take no notice of what he says or, indeed, why is it that the Daily Telegraph do not DEMAND answers from Ministers to the doubts he raises?
Junican - I was smoking outside a football club's building when a jobsworth bustled over to tell me that I couldn't smoke there, it wasn't a designated area. I said that it was, it was the Open Air. He said that the man from the Council had been round and that for health and safety reasons smokers had to stand in a box in a corner of the (huge) car park. I said that I was the only person standing in the (huge) car park so there was no health and safety issue, that the man from the Council was acting beyond his powers and that perhaps people should be more worried about the smoke belching from the industrial chimneys which loomed over us as we spoke. Jobsworth became apologetic and uttered the entirely predictable words, "I'm only doing my job". I almost burst out laughing. All the while I continued to smoke my cigarette.
For a while I had to park in an open air car park which had signs saying that it was against the law to smoke anywhere on these premises. Had I been challenged I would have retorted that they were breaking the law by displaying misleading signage, asked for the name of the person responsible and threatened to take the matter up with my MP.
These people are bullies and when challenged usually back down muttering that it was someone else's decision/fault etc. If we don't stand up for ourselves we have only ourselves to blame when we find ourselves completely ostracised from 'decent' society.
When are we going to stop hearing about all these infractions against our liberties Joyce?
It is not just the anti-smoking movement either, it is about almost everything that effects people's lives.
I noticed a couple of comments on here, praising us (the posters) up, for being so calm, deliberate, and sensible. This is nice to hear of course, but is it our niceness and calmness that is standing in the way of us moving forward?
Wars are not won by being nice to the enemy, and laws are not changed by accepting everything that is thrown in front of you.
Before anyone starts to worry, I am not advocating that we should all meet in Trafalgar Square and march through the streets to Downing Street, and burn it down with our lighted cigarettes (not a bad idea though is it?)
What I am advocating, is that we all start challenging more! As you so rightly pointed out Joyce, when these people are challenged "they usually back down muttering that it was someone else's decision/fault etc".
But it is not just the gormless little squirt in the peaked cap that needs challenging, it is their boss in the town hall office, the people who think they can do and say whatever they want to us, and we will not only accept it, but pay them for the privilege of accepting it.
There is, as we all know, the "Human Rights law", but these jobsworths are using this law to impinge upon our rights and liberties, instead of enhancing our rights.
It is a relatively simple task to look up the law relating to the smoking ban, which I think most of us on here know pretty well by now anyway. But if we have the exact wording of where exactly the law states that smoking is permitted and not permitted, then we at least have the start of a reasoned argument with these vile little people.
As far as I am aware, there is no law in this country that states it is illegal to smoke in an outside area. Armed with this, it should not be too difficult to take on the town halls, and the rail companies, and anyone else who decides to invent their own set of anti-smoking laws.
Joyce has said it, and now I am saying it. Challenge the b*****ds.