Summer house rules
Sunday, August 16, 2009 Max Atkinson is a "communications researcher and consultant who runs courses, coaches speakers and writes books on presentation and public speaking". He also blogs. Last week he drew attention to our campaign to amend the smoking ban (which he supports) and commented:
"Last week ... we stayed at a delightful hotel that had come up with as good a compromise as I’ve seen so far. Although I very much hope that their imaginative investment will bring them the financial rewards they deserve, I’m not going to reveal its name or where it is – for the simple reason that, if their local district council’s ‘smoking solutions officer’ (sic) is anything like ours, this particular smoking shelter would almost certainly be written off for being far too comfortable, not draughty enough, and therefore illegal.
"Next to the terrace they had built a tastefully designed summerhouse equipped with comfortable chairs, heating, lighting, tables and ashtrays. At first sight, the notice on the door saying ‘PRIVATE PROPERTY’ suggested it was off-limits to guests.
"But it wasn’t, and I presume that the point of the notice was to define anyone in there as a private guest who had been invited into this particular piece of private property by its owners, who also happened to be the private owners of the hotel.
"Whether or not it was technically ‘legal’ under existing legislation, I have my doubts. But I don’t know and don’t care – because it was such a welcome blast from the past to be able puff away, have a gin and tonic and inspect the menu at the same time – and, thanks to the heating arrangements, it would have been just as comfortable in December as it was in August.
"What’s more, and this really is the point, the solution was as acceptable to me as it presumably was to other guests who chose not to sit in the Puffin room.
The sad thing is, Max is probably right not to identify the hotel. In Brown's Britain (founder: T Blair) the authorities would probably declare the summerhouse to be an enclosed public place and, well, you know the rest.
Good to know, though, that some proprietors are still doing their best to accommodate smokers. Where there's a will, there's a way.
Reader Comments (56)
I think the link you were looking for is this one, Simon. ;-)
People (who haven't yet seen it) may care to check out the following Youtube video, featuring the impressive Daniel Hannan MEP (Conservative) on the subject of Smoking And The European Union.
It's succinct, reasonable, and EXACTLY what Cameron SHOULD be saying IMHO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdQ-TglkGzs
And he's not just right about smoking, either...........
Kindly step aside, Mr Cameron.
I see that Simon is back for the time being (Lake District next?). I trust that he had a good break. I hope that he will tell us about his smoking experiences in France.
About this thread, there is something that I do not understand. Whether or not this particular 'Summer House' is legal or not is a matter of FACT. Does it have a roof (whether it is retactable or not)? If so, then the constructions's sides are not allowed to encompass an area greater than 50%, and that includes any door or window openings. There is no deviation from this definition.
In Bolton, Lancs, where I live, a restaurant/snack bar in the town centre has got around this provision (as best they can) by building a structure, about 10 yards square, which has a roof which is about 8ft from the ground. They have surrounded the roof with sides about 4ft from the ground. The 'sides' are clear glass/plastic. People are thus protected from the worst of the elements and can sit within the structure and eat, drink and smoke to their hearts' content. The structure complies with the law.
There is another way in which it can be done, but, for lack of the ability to draw drawings, it requires the use on one's imagination. So, let us imagine the following scenario.
Imagine a structure which is something like a carport. It has a roof supported by posts on the corners, but no sides. Now, imagine this carport-like structure to be, say, 5 metres wide and 20 metres long. Now, according to the law, it would be quite legal to put a full 'back' on the structure (the back of the 5 metre end), and full 'sides' which extend not more than 10 metres along each side (half the length of the structure). Thus, one would have a structure which, at one end, would be almost completely enclosed, while complying with the law.
One could then put in heaters, lights, furniture, TV, or whatever, and be legal.
It would be interesting to know if the 'Summer House' described in the article complies with the above in some way.
Oopst!. Sorry, Simon. I did read your article about your holiday, but somehow missed the bit about the restaurant having ashtrays etc. Very interesting.
I think it is legal if hotel guests have each to be personally invited to use it. It can then be claimed to be part of the hotelier's private residence.
Junican - You have obvously studied the regulations regarding the 50% rule for enclosures in some depth and I do not doubt that you are correct. However, these "rules and regulations" were put together to maximise the discomfort and inconvenience of smokers by a bunch of ASHites (none of them were debated in our so called parliament). Pigs are afforded greater protection, in law, with respect to their living enclosures than smokers. Forget the details of the enclosed spaces regulations, Junican, they are totally unreasonable. If people have a will, there is always a way and eventually the smoking ban fall into disrepute. It is already happening with company vehicles, as I regularly see smokers at the wheel of their smokefree workplaces. Bad laws deserve to be ignored, especially ones that are so blatently discriminatory against smokers. Bill.
Bill,
Your last point, re smoking in work vehicles is very interesting. It just so happens that, this evening, I was enjoying tobacco outside the pub and a van pulled up at the traffic lights. It was obviously in use as a workplace because there were three 'workers' in the front seats. I observed the drive put a fag to his mouth and take a drag.
The thought occurred to me, "Why is the driver not bothered about the law? Surely, if he got caught, he would get sacked?". And then I thought, "Maybe the drivers of this company have come to some arrangement with their employer whereby, if they get caught smoking in the van, they will accept responsibility themselves and pay the fine. In return, the company will not regard the matter as being of any importance and will not sack them". Do you not think that this scenario is very likely?
Also, recently, I have noticed that our local pub landlords have stopped worrying about people standing inside the porch to enjoy tobacco. Not long ago, they used to go mad about even being a few inches inches inside as opposed to a few inches outside. Do you think that the word has quitely been put about that, from the point of view of the local authorities, 'out of sight is out of mind' and that pubs will not be prosecuted as permitting smoking if they cannot see the offence?
It seems likely to me to be so. Perhaps these organisations have quietly taken legal advice about what the word PERMIT means. Needless to say, the general public will not be aware of this.
Makes you sick, doesn't it?
There's a pub near me with an enclosed terrace (no roof, but walls on all sides, and a few parasols). When it's warm enough, they open what's effectively a wall of doors, so the bar has one side open to the terrace. They used to insist smokers stood at the far end of the terrace, but not now, so you get people standing an inch or two on the outside part of the terrace smoking. Perfectly legal, but I'm waiting for the council to catch on and come up with some excuse to stop it
With regard to workers smoking in work vehicles, has anyone else noticed the increase in accidents, particularly on motorways, of lorries and other 'work type' vehicles? The increase in incidents seemed to occure around the time of the smoking ban!
Smokers, who drive for a living, will for the past however many years have used their smoke as a stimulant to help maintain awareness whilst driving, esecially on long stretches of motorway and when the vehicles are restricted to 56 mph. By not smoking they tend to fall under an hypnotic spell that means to all intents and purposes, they might as well be asleep! Non smokers have not been accustomed to this method of stimulation and presumably have their own methods, but if their methods were also stopped, how many more accidents are we likely to see?
Most drivers ignore the smoking ban in vehicles, especially when on the open road, as if it helps them to concentrate then it is far safer for them to smoke than not to!
Lyn makes a good point about smoking keeping drivers awake. I've certainly smoked to avoid dozing off. I thought about this over the weekend as the "charity" BRAKE was once again in the headlines for trying to make cab drivers take a brake every two hours. A couple of months ago, BRAKE wanted smoking banned in all cars.
I've noticed that the smoking ban in work vehicles is now routinely ignored, particularly by passengers. I even saw the driver of a NOT IN SERVICE bus smoking at the wheel while driving through the centre of Manchester. Perhaps he'd just come into money.
I find myself forever breaking some petty little nulabor law or other. It's been so hard to keep up!
Resist these appalling people and, like the Manchester bus driver, manually take back the freedoms these thieving parasitic traitors have stolen.
Like ASH, BRAKE is a fake charity. Nulabor filth stealing public money in order to lobby itself for what it wants to do anyway.
Banning smoking whilst driving is a ludicrous and dangerous idiocy. As someone who once drove for a living, the only thing that I knew of that would make absolutely sure I didn't fall asleep on the motorway,from the hypnotic boredom, not neccesarily tiredness, was smoking. It ALWAYS worked and anyone who says otherwise is a liar and a bloody fool!
As for the relaxing of enforcement of the smoking ban, I rather think that people are becoming wise to the fact that the smoke-police are very few, and the chances of being caught out are slim, and maybe this is one way that the anti-smoking hysteria will be slowly diluted. After all there are very few around who believe it is a good thing to fine working people for just having a fag.
No church that I know displays a no-smoking notice at its entrance,as the law requires. One small step for freedom.
the "charity" BRAKE was once again in the headlines for trying to make cab drivers take a brake every two hours.
Does that mean they should perform an emergency stop every two hours? Or just take a break?
Nice one, Idlex.
I have just been to the BRAKE site. I noted that they have no forum.
Sometimes, one wonders how these organisations come to exist. Clearly, from the remarks that BRAKE made to the Daily Telegraph, no one at BRAKE knows how to drive. (Does anyone remember that? The spokeswoman at Brake said that there was a fog of smoke in a car in which someone was smoking and therefore it was difficult to see through the windscreen. Also, one has to take one's hand off the steering wheel from time to time, which is DANGEROUS).
One can understand how someone who loses a child in an accident would be desolated, and I suppose that that is how these societies come to be formed. Many other societies come to be formed in the same way, I suppose. It is not beyond the bounds of our imagination that such 'charities' can be manipulated by politicians, newspapers, etc with the greatest of ease. Need a quote about a fatal traffic accident? Phone the spokesperson from BRAKE.
It is also noticeable that ASH does not have a forum - at least, as far as I can tell.
Here is an interesting thought.
Create an organisation. Let us call it PET, which stands for People who Enjoy Tobacco (notice the capital letters!). Members of the organisation are called 'Pets' - lovely word, pets - brings to mind nice doggies and such. Declare an objective which might be 'to study and promote the benefits of the substance, NICOTINE'.
Open a charity bank account in the name 'PETS SOCIETY'. Apply to Charity Commission for tax free status (not that it matters!). Set up a web site. Write to every newspaper and promote yourself. Have a spokesperson who says, at every opportunity, "The lack of NICOTINE, a well known theraputic substance, is playing havoc with our commercial travellers. More and more accidents are being observed where the drivers of commercial vehicles are uptight, worried and not in mental control. Something must be done. 'PETS (People who Enjoy Tobacco), our members, do not have these problems".
I think that the idea is brilliant! It is apolitical, cheap, has a nice friendly name, and is CORRECT in terms of the beneficial effects of nicotine.
I might even take it upon myself to start the process. If I did, would I have the support of people on this site? Of course, as is not uncommmon, this idea may already have been thought of. I do not know.
What do you think?
Sounds good to me Junican, just so long as we had some really good spokes people to really keep things rolling and 'in the news' as well as 'in the face of the PC brigade'.
Lyn
You have actually hit the nail on the head.
Spokespersons!! Very tricky!
Who has the ability to speak for and on behalf of PETS (People who Enjoy Tobacco).?
Readers will recall that on another thread I said I had written to my MP. This is to let people know, in case they miss it, that he's promptly replied and I've copied it as comment 88 on the 'Club Journal- Write to your MP thread below'.
I agree with norman. whats the point of writing to a con mp you know he wont answer you.
Vote Labour if you want to end the smoking ban.
Further to Jack Dean's comment above I said in fact that my MP had replied promptly and, for the record, I did not (repeat not) say 'vote Labour if you want to end the smoking ban.'
oh come on norman your a union man surely? who else would you vote for?
Labour is for people like us who smoke.
"Labour is for people like us who smoke."
Lordy... are you serious? More than 90% of Labour MPs voted against their manifesto-commitment on this.
Labour love to punish people like us. Some Tories [a minority at present] may be almost as bad, but I'd rather argue with a Tory than a Labourite. They tend to be more open to reason, less dogmatic and less hysterical than the "we know best so shut up you stupid dirty smelly prole" socialists.
Oops, forgot to change screen ID back...
Yep. Lillian's one of mine :-)
Name calling, thats ecxactly what i'd expect from a con.
I am a Socialist and proud of it and if you dont like it why did you vote for us?
Labour is the smokers party. Cons is the party against freedom and smoking, its a fact live with it.
Jack, are you a red herring?
Haven't voted Champagne Socialist since 1997, Jack. Before that, I was a CLP member, so I do know how they think...
You equate socialism with freedom?
Champaigne and herrings? When my father was out of work because of Maggie Thatcher all he could aford was a brown ale at the weekend and a pint of winkles between him and my mum and me, and you talk to me about champaign?
Vote Dave out now bring back freedom and smoking.
Jack Dean, you should be ashamed of yourself, joking that Labour have not taken all our freedoms and rights and dumped them (along with us) into the trash.
At least I hope you were joking, as an ex Labour suporter with no main party left to vote for I take my vote too seriously to return it to the people who would destroy the working class and turn us into drones to serve their masters.
Junican.
I've thought long and hard about your suggestion regarding a charity called "PETS". From so many angles, it is as simple & brilliant a concept as the invention of Cats Eyes. Many posters here come up with good ideas but usually want someone else to do it. Why don't you persue it yourself, in the first place. An enquiry to the Charities Commission would tell you whether there is already a charity by that name and would send you the application forms. It would be the first small step in the right direction.
Accidents on the roads due to this latest development of banning the therapeutic action of smoking are a very real danger to life.
A non-smoking nurse friend of mine told me yesterday that she believes smoking to be a genetic thing. This is why it suits some people and not others. It could also explain why nicotine based pharmaceutical drugs have a devastating effect on some people but not others. Knowing the beneficial properties of nicotine, the pharmos tried to mirror nature by producing these anti-depressant drugs and other drugs with nicotine as their base. [Chemical names are Niacin, Nicotinic Acid, Vitamin B3].
The simple old fashioned action of trying smoking and seeing if you liked it, was the body's way of finding out whether nicotine was beneficial to it.
I agree with Mrs Johnson about those cats eyes being a danger to lives. But I dont see what thats to do with smoking? The cons want to ban everything we must get our masages accross. Vote Labour Vote freedom!
What do you mean Mary, when you say you have no main party left to vote for? Why haven't you? Are you placing all your hopes in one of the three major parties saying they will do something about the smoking ban?
I know you are angry at certain twerps that have recently appeared on here, but please don't let your anger blur your vision of right and wrong.
It is your prerogative of course, but in my opinion there is much more to life than just smoking. What would you do if all parties, both major and small, said they would not do anything about the ban, if they all stated that tobacco should be banned altogether?
I know this is only a hypothetical question, but what would you do? What in fact would anyone else on here do?
It would be pointless then for everyone to say that they were withholding their vote wouldn't it? Because who would you, or indeed anyone else be withholding it for?
If no one voted, we could end up with a military take-over.
"What would you do if all parties, both major and small, said they would not do anything about the ban,"
You know that isn't so, Peter. Let's not go along that road again, or I will be banned from here for life.
Take a look at this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8210551.stm
You know that isn't so, Peter. Let's not go along that road again, or I will be banned from here for life. MARGOT.
I didn't say it was "so" Margot. I said it was a hypothetical question, but one which I would be very interested in hearing posters views on?
Just watched the video of the girl smoking and explaining why she does and why she doesn't want to stop.
I thought it was very well done, a nice, open, friendly girl, explaining in ordinary terms why she does what she does, and showing the world that people like her, and like us, are ordinary people who just happen to like smoking. We are not criminals and we are not monsters!
Regarding posters' observations that the smoking police seem to be taking less and less notice of, for example, smoking in vehicles or just inside the porchway of buildings, here is a recent observation of mine.
I dislocated my shoulder in and went to the local hospital A&E unit. I'd visited this just before the smoking ban, and every corridor and waiting room were plastered with disgusting posters screaming that smoking kills and advertising NHS help to give up. This year, two years later, all such posters have gone. At the original consultation I was asked, as a 75 year old, what medication I was on. I said, none at all because I have smoked all my life and believe that contributed keeping me healthy. The clinic nurse did not argue. I've mentioned that I smoke and am glad of it to all consultants and staff I have seen since. None have argued with me.
I believe the genuine medical profession are having the truth of the matter brought home to them. Similarly, the law enforcement officers, scared perhaps of consequences if they did not rigidly obey the new law originally, are themselves realising that it has done nothing good and may, perhaps, even be just another Big Brother persecution tool.
If police are smoking in there vans as Mrs Johnston says then something needs to be done about it. Mind you i dont think doctors and nurses should be smoking in hosptals as well. I like a fag but imagin you took your little kiddy in there and the nuse kept blowing smoke in his face, I think i'd give em a smack on the nose to be honest.
But its getting more and more like that in hospitals since the cons took em over. I see that toffee nose git Cameron been telling everone today that now the cons own the nhs he can do what he wants. This is the reason they are blowing smoke in Mrs Johnstone's face all the time.
Literary mockney?
As far as I know you can smoke in your own car, or did some nazi change the law while I was asleep? The exception is if the car is a company car, van, lorry, taxi, etc. Then it's consider a workplace. I smoke cigars and I smoke in my car - with the window open, of course! But then it's a private car.
Buggerit, I think I've been had.
Nice one JD. :-)
I Personally do not think any political party will amend the smoking ban. It has now gone too far. I belive what will happen nature will just take its course and it will soon be forgotten as other issues come on board. Then it will gradually come back as acceptable.
People will never be stopped from doing something they enjoy.
Peter James said, "Personally do not think any political party will amend the smoking ban."
At the risk of bringing this Tory site crashing down on my head again, I have to remind you, Peter, that the fourth largest party UKIP has had amendment of the smoking ban clearly in its manifesto for a long time. UKIP is rapidly growing in popularity as was shown by the recent elections. Very recent by-elections in Cambridge, won by UKIP, showed a 40% and 39% vote. A vote for them would not be wasted and even a handful of UKIP MPs inside our UK parliament would ensure that repeal of the smoking ban was put on the table along with the truth about what is actually happening in Brussels.
PLEASE, I don't want to turn this into yet another political war - just want the facts as they are to be stated.
What are you talking about Mrs Johnstone? Labour are the only party that has said they will get rid of the smoking ban and you keep on about Ukip.
Get rid of the cons and the smokin ban will go with them.
Not turning it inti any political war Margot just stating my opinion thats all. And lets be honest politcal parties promise one thing and do the other. And I mean ALL political parties.
And Mr Dean, this is planet Earth. Not Mars
Peter James said, "Politcal parties promise one thing and do the other."
Yes, Peter James, that has been our experience for many years now. I believe that Ukip is a new kind of politics based on honesty not spin. They are achieving everything they promised in impeding the EU from total domination. Don't forget their huge campaign to persuade the Irish to vote No to the Lisbon Treaty. They have virtually no funds and are ignored by the media. They are deliberately trying to work themselves out of a job. How many politicians have that as their aim?
Regarding smoking, their leader Nigel Farage both smokes and drinks as Churchill did before him. You have only to hear Nigel speak on all video clips on U-Tube to have no doubt about his honesty regarding the smoking ban and all the other deprivations of our liberties.
We cannot continue our lives as they are. The hour produces the man, just at it did with Churchill in the second world war. This is the third world war and we are as much in peril now as we were then. Even more so. This is my opinion and the opinion of an ever increasing number of British citizens.
I never mentioned mars Mr James and if i did it would have been in connection with smoking not the irish in lisbon which is all you go on about.
why wont you tell the truth about who you vote for? Why wont you admit that your a tory?
I know why its because your scared to admit the truth.
At least Mrs Johnstone admits who she votes for even if she is wrong.
I dont know what wrong with you people on here we should all be marching down the middle of the road together smoking fags and waving the red flag and cheering as we drive the cons out of this country.
Jack Dean, whoever he is, is ruining what used to be a sensible read in the evening. I may not agree with some of the comments on the various forums but I enjoy seeing the views expressed. Mr Dean, with his fatuous comments reminiscent of the notorious Jane Seedling, is undermining them. He has had his fun and now, like her, he should go away.
Stupid it most certainly is Grumpy, but I see it as a bit of fun. We all know he's not real (are you Jack?) but in a month like this, when hardly anything is happening politically, and the headmaster is away, so nothing new on the blackboard for everyone to see and gripe about, I think the likes of Jack liven the classroom up a bit.
What you should also bear in mind Grumpy, is instead of moaning about some prankster who you say is ruining your evening read, get your old fingers greased up and start typing something yourself. Maybe other posters will reply to you, and Jack will slope off to annoy some other site.
I know one is not supposed to change the thread on these boards dramatically, but I have just found something which I think is very, very important and relevant to our cause, that I am sure no one will object to me giving details of it on here.
I found this on a news site, where Tamiflu was being discussed. It seems that there is a person who has carried out a great deal of research into Tamiflu and also into the so called swine flu.
He supplies link after link of government and pharmaceutical companies corruption and plotting against us, and in fact all citizens around the world.
I haven't been through all the links yet, as from the amount there, it looks like it would take the best part of a day to do so, but before the links even start, he states that vaccines typically contain many of the following fillers......he goes on to name nearly all the "contents" which our government and our so called health experts, tell us are contained in cigarettes. Now isn't that strange?
We have, on one hand a bunch of so called health fanatics telling us this is what kills people and this is why no one should smoke, and on the other hand, this same bunch of fanatics are demanding that everyone in the country be given this in order to protect them from swine flu?
There is so much more, and so much evidence to condemn the whole damn bunch of them, and hopefully to use in our fight to throw out their unjust and unlawful law.
Read here http://swineavianfluthestorysofar.blogspot.com/2009/08/swine-flu-true-story.html
i would like to ask has jack dean been asleep for the last two and a bit years labour brought in the smoking ban with help from other parties I am voting ukip next time