Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Thousands of smokers defied the introduction of the smoking ban across England yesterday by lighting up in pubs, claiming that the legislation was an infringement of civil liberties.
Liam Mullone in his Civil Rights Response Unit, which offers outdoor smokers comfort as they contemplate the death of civil liberties
Councils, which have the power to fine smokers who light up inside work places, pubs or any public building, admitted that not a single fine was issued as they tried to implement the ban in a "softly, softly" way.
One pub defying the ban was the Dog Inn in Ewyas Harold, near Hereford, whose landlord is Tony Blows, part of the campaign group Freedom2Chose. He argued that as his pub was also his home he should be entitled to smoke anywhere within it.
"I'm doing it for the simple reason that this is my home. My wife and I work 200 hours a week in this pub. It's private property. There's no way they can stop us doing it," he said.
About 1,000 fellow publicans had also allowed their customers to light up yesterday, he claimed.
Mr Blows added that he would refuse to pay any fine, which can be up to 2,500 for publicans or other businesses that allow smoking on their premises. "I want my day in court. And I am prepared to go to prison, if needs be. At least I can smoke there."
There are about 1,200 council enforcement officers who will help police the ban, but few of them were on duty yesterday. A spokesman for the Local Government Association said only repeat offenders would be fined, and only after a warning.
He said: "Councils are taking a softly, softly approach to enforcing the ban as experience from Scotland and Wales shows it to be self-policing. Councils have made it clear that people will not be issued with a fine for their first offence."
In Scotland, where the smoking ban was introduced in March last year, just three individuals were fined in the first month. Since then, the rate of penalties has increased, with 238 individuals issued with fixed penalty notices in the first three months of this year.
Health officials greeted yesterday's ban with celebrations, saying it would significantly help reduce deaths from second-hand smoke.
Liam Mullone in his Civil Rights Response Unit, which offers outdoor smokers comfort as they contemplate the death of civil liberties
Councils, which have the power to fine smokers who light up inside work places, pubs or any public building, admitted that not a single fine was issued as they tried to implement the ban in a "softly, softly" way.
One pub defying the ban was the Dog Inn in Ewyas Harold, near Hereford, whose landlord is Tony Blows, part of the campaign group Freedom2Chose. He argued that as his pub was also his home he should be entitled to smoke anywhere within it.
"I'm doing it for the simple reason that this is my home. My wife and I work 200 hours a week in this pub. It's private property. There's no way they can stop us doing it," he said.
About 1,000 fellow publicans had also allowed their customers to light up yesterday, he claimed.
Mr Blows added that he would refuse to pay any fine, which can be up to 2,500 for publicans or other businesses that allow smoking on their premises. "I want my day in court. And I am prepared to go to prison, if needs be. At least I can smoke there."
There are about 1,200 council enforcement officers who will help police the ban, but few of them were on duty yesterday. A spokesman for the Local Government Association said only repeat offenders would be fined, and only after a warning.
He said: "Councils are taking a softly, softly approach to enforcing the ban as experience from Scotland and Wales shows it to be self-policing. Councils have made it clear that people will not be issued with a fine for their first offence."
In Scotland, where the smoking ban was introduced in March last year, just three individuals were fined in the first month. Since then, the rate of penalties has increased, with 238 individuals issued with fixed penalty notices in the first three months of this year.
Health officials greeted yesterday's ban with celebrations, saying it would significantly help reduce deaths from second-hand smoke.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 64
|
By:
Prof Ian Gilmore, the president of the Royal College of Physicians, said: "I am blissfully happy. From a personal point of view, I can now go into any pub without inhaling smoke. And from a professional point of view, it is the culmination of over 40 years of work from doctors. It will save 11,000 lives every year."
|
|
By:
I would build smoking only prisons for thr lot of them.
|
|
By:
lock em in a cell with cancer fumes permanently being released.
that'll learn them. :^0 |
|
By:
It's a sad bstard who gets up and posts this at 7:50 haven't you got anything better to do in the morning
|
|
By:
erm i've been up since yesterday afternoon so the time is pretty insignificant you freak.
|
|
By:
in fact i posted it 16 hours after 'getting up'.
|
|
By:
Canaryboy's life amounts to nothing more than crowing about smokers, tard.
|
|
By:
well that makes you completely normal then doesn't it
|
|
By:
thats what I feared stemroach
|
|
By:
he thinks his winding people up and providing entertainment , his hardly providing riverting comedy or information that he hasn't flogge dto death by him for months..
|
|
By:
yup :^0
|
|
By:
fuzz, loved that m8 It's a sad bstard who gets up and posts this at 7:50 haven't you got anything better to do in the morning
BRILLIANT |
|
By:
yeah brilliant when i got up 16 hours earlier.
FREAK |
|
By:
canaryboy - Prof Ian gilmore 'it will save 11,000 lives a year'. How exactly ?
If there is an 11,000 decline in deaths from 'smoking related diseases', there HAS TO BE an 11,000 increase in deaths from other causes. |
|
By:
ah said you canaryboy,
|
|
By:
are you on crack ll?
|
|
By:
final destination wasn't real.
|
|
By:
lobby, who will keep these extra 11,000 per year in old age pensions, they are moaning now that they cant afford paying out extra for those people living longer now, taxes will have to up up to fund it , plus a extra burden on the nhs, social services etc, will need at least 10p in the ta hike to fund all this
|
|
By:
agree
|
|
By:
the extra pensions will be funded by the money saved by the NHS on not having to treat as many people for smoking related diseases
|
|
By:
& less people dying before 65 means more tax coming in anyway
|
|
By:
There will be less people to treat on the NHS so doctors and nurses will have to be laid off. This will put a burden on the state with them going on the dole instead of paying taxes.
|
|
By:
And what about the revenue from Tabacco duty???
|
|
By:
but we're short of nurses as it is hence we import them you mug.
|
|
By:
Are you saying its more expensive for the gvt to pay dole than it is to pay a nurse or doctor?
|
|
By:
and doctors will be used to cut waiting times in A&E
|
|
By:
canaryboy 02 Jul 11:06
but we're short of nurses as it is hence we import them you mug. Thats bullsh1t, there is an excess of nurses thats why the contracts for foreign(non EU) nurses will not be renewed. |
|
By:
Grouthc - neither of us have the figures on this, but I recall a DHSS study of some years ago, which found that banning smoking would on balance greatly increase costs to the taxpayer.
I'm not a smoker, and every time I see one I silently thank them 1) for paying some of my taxes for me 2) volumteering to commit hari-kari, so that there will be more pension to go round for the rest of us. |
|
By:
lobby, do you also thank them for trying to give you lung cancer?
|
|
By:
Should immediately fine the morons ! There should be zero tollerance , and dont get me started on mobile phones and driving!!
The simple answer to the arrogang barsteward up the road from me in E Harrold is simply not to renew his licence to sell. He can then invite as many people as he likes into his ''home'' to get cancer. |
|
By:
what will you get your knickers in a twist about then though?
|
|
By:
none tryers :D
|
|
By:
:^0
|
|
By:
The notion of a 'private public house' is an intriguing one.
|
|
By:
lost revenue on tobacco duty,
lost revenue on alcohol duty, lost revenue on tobacco manufacuring job cuts, lost revenue on brewery job cuts, lost revenue on transport job cuts due to the above, plus more cost to police the ban, looks like its going to plenty. |
|
By:
so?
|
|
By:
So to get the revenue back hopefully they'll tax the ar$e off bacardi breezers and poker winnings.Money has to be found somewhere, it doesn't just "come".
|
|
By:
EMR- you forgot lost revenue on washing powder- as less will be needed to rid the smell of those foul cancer sticks.
|
|
By:
EMR- you forgot lost revenue on washing powder- as less will be needed to rid the smell of those foul cancer sticks.
Here we go, another non-smoker who wants to wash their clothes twice a year. Newsflash clothes smell after a days wear regardless, pikeys! |