Smokers hit by 'seven screws' ban

Smokers hit by 'seven screws' ban

The gazebo was put up in the pub's garden to cater for smokers
A York pub landlord has been told to knock down a gazebo put up for smokers in his garden because of seven screws.

Robin Watson built the facility in The Shoulder of Mutton's beer garden after the introduction of the smoking ban.

He used the screws to secure the gazebo to the ground, but York Council said the move breached planning rules.

Because it is fixed to the concrete and has been in place for more than a year, it requires planning permission, said a council spokeswoman.

Such a structure is deemed "permanent", she explained.

Mr Watson said he was sent a letter from the council which gave him three choices: Apply for planning permission, take the structure down, or be liable for a £20,000 fine. The council seem to see it as a way to make more money out of businesses

Mr Watson said: "They know how many pubs are closing down at the moment. I can't understand why they are pressing on with something so petty as this.

"If you did this in your own back garden there would be no pressure whatsoever.

"We pay all our council rates. The council seems to see it as a way to make more money out of businesses."

A spokeswoman for York Council said: "The council's planning enforcement team has written to the owners of the property asking them to take the structure down or apply for planning permission."

http://news.bbc.co.uk

A small victory for common sense, but the battle goes on

A small victory for common sense, but the battle goes on
Saturday August 2, 2008
A ruling by a top court in Germany offers some hope to smokers, but it could yet end in tears. Joe Jackson reports.

You may have heard that a couple of days ago, the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany declared smoking bans unconstitutional and ordered them to be partially reversed. Unfortunately this is not quite the case, though the ruling is a provisional victory of sorts.

The situation is this:

(1) The Federal Government conceded the power to ban smoking to the 16 individual States (Lander). They all came up with different laws, which mostly went into effect in January 2008. Most of them, including the city-states of Berlin and Hamburg, allow separate smoking rooms (so long as they are not the ‘main room’). In Bavaria private clubs are exempt, so thousands of venues have just turned into ‘private clubs’.

(2) There has been great resistance to bans – not only bars etc defying the law but some city and state officials saying they won’t enforce it. Enforcement in Berlin has been pretty lax. Nevertheless business has gone down by at least 30% in nonsmoking bars, and unlike in, say, the UK, where the mainstream media and politicians declare the ban a great success even though pubs are going out of business, in Germany everyone seems to know about it. Thousands of customers are going across the borders to Poland or Belgium, where bars still allow smoking. Public opinion also seems to have been on the side of the small bar owners who have been most affected.

(3) A group of small bars, mostly from Berlin, forced a Judicial Review, on the basis that the ban was unfair on bars which were not able to have a separate room. The Constitutional Court has just ruled in their favour. BUT …

THE DOWN SIDE:
(a) The ruling is basically that there should be a ‘level playing field’: either let the small bars allow smoking or have a total ban everywhere. Thus this can be seen as opening the door to an even worse situation later.
(b) The antismoking fascists now have another year and a half to bombard us with propaganda and push for a more comprehensive ban.

THE UP SIDE:
(a) The states now have until the end of 2009 to re-write their laws, and until then, smoking is allowed.
(b) The rights of bar owners and the fact that smoking bans hurt business, have been officially recognised.
(c) It demonstrates that action can make a difference.
(d) We have another year and a half to fight the antismoking fascists.

In the meantime, I’m off to the corner pub for a beer and a fag.

Joe Jackson is a writer and musician
http://www.thefreesociety.org

Outside smoking banned at pub

Outside smoking banned at pub
By John Harrington

A licensee has been ordered to refuse service to customers who smoke on the street outside her pub.

Back to article list
This message must be carried on signs at the entrance and on street-facing windows as a new condition of the licence at the Horse & Jockey in Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire.

The unusual conditions were imposed at a review, called after a resident asked for the premises licence to be rescinded — and tenant Janis Harmer removed as designated premises supervisor (DPS) — due to noise from within the premises and from smokers outside.

The signs, which must be at least A4 in size, say: “Customers must not smoke on the street outside these premises. Any person failing to observe this condition will be refused further service at the bar upon re-entry.”

The Punch Taverns pub is also banned from using TVs or amplified music outside after 9pm.

Despite the restrictions, Harmer said the council’s decision was “a big relief”, adding, “I thought something would happen to the premises licence or I would be removed [as DPS]. That’s the pressure I was under.”

Harmer said the outdoor smoking ban had had a “marginal” effect on trade. However, she is making it clear that the decision is not hers, but “on the order of the council” according to the signs.

Morning Advertiser legal editor Peter Coulson said the outdoor ban appeared to be “unreasonable, but it’s the kind of condition that can be imposed at a review”.

He said: “The alternative is to go to the magistrates to say this condition is difficult to enforce, so can you think of one that’s more reasonable? But to appeal at the magistrates costs £400, which is a deterrent.”
http://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk

Irish Republic-Convictions for flouting smoking ban on the rise

Irish Republic-Convictions for flouting smoking ban on the rise

CONVICTIONS obtained under the smoking ban have jumped threefold, new figures reveal.

According to the figures, supplied by the Office of Tobacco Control, 16 convictions were obtained in 2004, with this figure hitting 49 in 2007. The smoking ban was brought in by former Health Minister Micheal Martin on March 29, 2004. Similar bans have since been introduced in countries such as Denmark and France.

Last year more than six convictions relating to incidents such as people smoking in front of publicans. Eleven related to people, like bar managers, permitting smoking in non-compliant outdoor smoking areas.

Twenty-nine were for permitting smoking in places such as a bar counter or within a pub or taxi.

There were also two convictions for obstruction and interference with an authorised officer, while another related to the failure to display the required signage.

Environmental Health Officers (EHOs) carry out prosecutions under the Public Health (Tobacco) Act.

There are more than 540 Environmental Health Officers dealing with environmental issues and tobacco control, a number which has not changed significantly since the introduction of the ban.

Fine Gael Health Spokesman, Dr James Reilly, last night branded the increase a "worrying trend".

"It an extremely serious public health issue. There are clearly people prepared to flout the law.

"Those who do this should face the full rigours of the law."

However, a spokesman for the Office of Tobacco Control last night defended the rate of compliance, insisting it was 95pc.
http://www.independent.ie

Hotel owner prosecuted for smoking on her own premises

Hotel owner prosecuted for smoking on her own premises
A hotel owner has been prosecuted for smoking a cigarette in her property while nobody else was there.

By Chris Irvine
Patricia Coupeland was given a 12 month conditional discharge by Blackpool magistrates after she admitted smoking on a smoke-free premises.

Ms Coupeland, 50, of the Cheers Hotel in Blackpool, told a court the hotel was closed at the time and not taking in guests.

She said: "I was in the dining room doing my paperwork and having a cigarette. It was closed as a hotel at the time and was therefore my private home. There were no guests. I only had a friend stay. The health officer came across as vicious and a person with attitude."

Victoria Cartmell, prosecuting for Blackpool Council, told the court that on February 1 environmental health officer Alan Taylor arrived at the hotel to carry out a hygiene inspection.

She said: "The defendant returned from the kitchen with a cigarette which she continued to smoke in the bar area.

"The defendant confirmed it was a smoke-free hotel, but said it was her own home and she was free to smoke in her own home.

"The officer said smoking in her private quarters was okay, but not in the bar."

Ms Coupeland was issued a £50 on the spot fine, which would have been reduced to £30 had it been paid in 15 days, although the penalty was not paid.

Last month, a painter and decorator was left "dumbfounded" after receiving a £30 fine for smoking a cigarette in his own van.

Gordon Williams, 58, of Llanafan, Aberystwyth, says he had popped to the shops when he was pulled over by Ceredigion council officials.

He said: "I am dumbfounded - the van is only insured for private use and to get me to and from work.

"It's not my place of work - I decorate houses not vans."

Rules defining when a vehicle can be treated as a place of work are complex.

While company cars in which passengers are carried are classed as one, there is confusion over private vehicles depending on whether thay are mainly used for work.

Last year, the Rolling Stones were not prosecuted despite repeatedly flouting the smoking ban when performing at the O2 Arena in London - Greenwich borough council said nothing could be done because fans at the venue had not objected.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk

There's no smoke without ire - that's the real outrage

There's no smoke without ire - that's the real outrage
Victoria Coren The Observer, Sunday August 10 2008
Britain is gasping in sympathy with Linda Buchanan, the hapless Kent commuter who was pushed on to a railway track by two men she had 'ticked off' for smoking. Everyone is shaken by the idea of this ghastly, nightmarish experience. We are all standing closer to walls as we wait for trains. Poor, terrified Linda Buchanan.

Having said that ... On a bad day, I'd have shoved her off the platform myself.

Of course, this is a horrible story. But not just because there are people who push other people on to railway tracks. This was not a meeting of good and evil. It was a meeting of bad and worse.

Mrs Buchanan, who was helped off the track with a hurt wrist, has been hailed as a hero in the press. Shouting at the smokers, she did 'what any good citizen might do'. She is 'a woman unafraid to intervene when something is wrong'. She 'highlights what ordinary people risk by confronting thugs'.

Bollocks. This woman is not a Ben Kinsella (stabbed to death trying to break up a street brawl) or a Philip Lawrence (killed trying to protect the children at St George's school, where he was headmaster, from a gang of bullies), although one newspaper had the tasteless nerve to compare her to both. Mrs Buchanan wasn't being a hero, she was being a busybody.

People who step in when others are being attacked or threatened are not aiming purely to uphold the law. That's why it's so pointless and unhelpful for the police to advise us 'not to take the law into our own hands' in these situations. It is not about the law. It is what the law's about. Social responsibility, morality, right and wrong. If you see somebody in danger, you don't just walk past and leave them to their fate. Legal, illegal, who cares; it's morally wrong to ignore someone who is terrified, alone and needs help.

Easy for me to say, as a woman. I have twice got involved in situations where I thought somebody was about to get hurt - or, at least, was being terrorised - once when a biker was thumping on a female motorist's car after a skirmish at a traffic light, and once when a man in the street was trying to yank a baby from the arms of a woman (I assume his wife) and she was literally screaming for help.

It's much easier for a woman to walk up and try to calm the situation; you do it in the fairly confident assumption that you're not about to get attacked yourself. If it happens, it happens (better than going home, putting the kettle on and idly wondering if anyone got murdered), but in my experience so far it hasn't. This is statistically more dangerous for men. My father was always a one for: 'Leave that woman alone!' and: 'Give you my wallet? You'll have to kill me first!' and I hated it. I thought, one day, someone might.

Philip Lawrence and Ben Kinsella, and all men who put themselves at risk to protect others, are heroes. Not so a commuter who bustles up to unleash the sharp end of her tongue on a guy having a quiet cigarette while he waits for a train. He's not the bully; she is.

Non-smokers have won, do you understand? We, the weak and addicted, with our revolting habit, who will waste money and lose lovers and die young in our stupid helpless pursuit of small nicotine comforts, have lost the war. You, the strong and healthy and pure, have taken all your land back: you've got the aeroplanes, the cinemas, the theatres, the restaurants, the pubs, you've got the inside of the whole world.

And we stand outside, cold and miserable and addicted and embarrassed, on the naughty step, hunched over our desperate little 'treats'... and still you come scurrying over to shout at us. Outside railway stations, in the street, outside restaurants on the three days a year we can comfortably eat there; you lean across to revel in your power, demonstrate your superior self-denial, and tell us how disgusting we are. The powerful sneering at the losers.

Unfortunately for Mrs Buchanan, she picked the wrong victim. She inadvertently ticked off someone truly horrible, who exacted the inexcusable revenge of pushing her off the platform a couple of days later. Appalling, indefensible, I hope the police catch up with the man, or men, and throw away the key. (Assuming they have locked some sort of door with it first.) But that doesn't make Linda Buchanan right.

Have you seen the train platform at Farningham Road, Swanley? It's a great long stretch, completely open to the sky. It is a huge, airy Serengeti of space. Mrs Buchanan might just as well have trekked across the Sahara, shouting criticism through a megaphone at a distant farting nomad.

Since we have a priggish, disapproving, bullying, absolutist government, which refused to bring in a (good, correct) smoking ban by stages, the Farningham smokers were technically breaking the law even by having a crafty snout on an outdoor platform. But why was this Mrs Buchanan's problem? Anyone who didn't like it could have moved further down, in the fresh air. Nobody was getting hurt but the smokers themselves. They weren't breaking the Ten Commandments.

There's nothing heroic about 'ticking off' a smoker whose air you're not obliged to share. That's like 'ticking someone off' for parking on a yellow line, or for swearing in a private conversation: not doing something right, but something self-righteous. It is done by those who look around the world in smug disapproval of everything, who make personal remarks, who bitch and criticise, who feel superior. It's rude.

Poor Linda Buchanan, who suffered such a horrible assault. I'm very glad she is on the mend. But I'm even gladder that she doesn't live next door to me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk