News RSS Feed


Smokers lighting up in pubs

3:56pm Thursday 3rd January 2008

comment Comments (29)   Have your say »


More than half of pubs quizzed by the Oxford Mail have admitted spotting a smoker illegally lighting up - but nobody has been fined.

The Oxford Mail questioned 32 pubs across the county and 17 landlords said people had been seen flouting the ban.

In most cases, landlords say smokers claim to have forgotten about the ban - and when tackled, either apologised or immediately went outside.

But local councils, which are supposed to enforce the ban, have not fined a smoker or licensed premises for flouting the ban since it came into force six months ago.

Luke Massingham, manager of The Chequers Inn in Witney, said: "It often happens at the weekends with people trying to be a nuisance. So we advise them to go to the smoking area, or make them leave."

Another landlord, in Kidlington, who asked not to be named, said a drinker persisted with smoking one night in the pub because he knew the pub manager was away.

He was warned by staff and eventually put out the cigarette.

Smokers who get caught lighting up face a £50 fine.

A pub landlord can be liable for a £200 fine for failing to display a No Smoking sign. They could be landed with a far higher fine of £2,500 if they allow any drinkers to smoke on their premises.

No fines have been issued by any district council in Oxfordshire.

Oxford City Council, however, has sent six warning letters to premises where smoking is alleged to have taken place.

They have also issued 108 letters warning about wrong signage.

Two premises in West Oxfordshire are also under investigation for allegedly breaching the strict smoking regulations.

Simon Clark, director of smokers lobby group Forest, said: "There are a lot of angry smokers who feel the ban is too draconian."

Print article » Email to a friend »

Your Say YourOxford Mail

alan page, says...
11:04am Fri 4 Jan 08

Good luck to them. It is about time somebody started standing up to the small minded bigots who got this ludicrous ban imposed.

Report this post »

fraser, yorkshire says...
11:14am Fri 4 Jan 08


Imagine this people, in a world where the following common sense approach would have been taken :-

1 smoking and non smoking pubs ( freedom of choice )

2 Potential members of staff are aware at interview stage that they are due to be working in a smoking pub / non smoking pub. ( again folks freedom of choice )

3 members of public choose which pub they frequent, again a smoking or non smoking pub. (.... you've said it folks, the freedom of choice)

Result - no loss of business , no people cast into the cold , both sides happy.

By the way, this opinion is from a non smoker.

Amend this Ban Now!

Report this post »

DaveA, Berkshire says...
12:12pm Fri 4 Jan 08

I think most smokers and quite a few non smokers have seen the government and ASH are not wearing any clothes. www.nationalsmokingd
ay.com was a great success and I feel this is the thin end of a very thick wedge for the nannies and bullies. It will become their nemisis and poll tax law. Good luck to everyone.

Report this post »

Phil Williams, Norfolk says...
12:16pm Fri 4 Jan 08

By not enforcing the ban, our lying government have managed to maintain the myth of "Total compliance".
On National Smoking Day (which the government and media is pretending didn't happen) I spent all night smoking in a pub and nothing was said, and best of all, I was not alone.
Its time the people took back the freedom that was stolen from us.

Report this post »

Mr Ison, England says...
3:29pm Fri 4 Jan 08

What gaul!

Report this post »

tracerace, nazi land says...
4:53pm Fri 4 Jan 08

I QUITE AGREE PHIL WILLIAMS......
"By not enforcing the ban, our lying government have managed to maintain the myth of "Total compliance"
TOTAL MEDIA SILENCE TO BOOT! AND WE HAVE A COUNTRY THAT IS UTTERLY PI**ED OFF WITH ONE MR GORDON BROWN, ASH AND WHO!
To all the silly antis out there....i hope you don't drink fine wine and eat nice food....Cause YOU'RE NEXT ON THEIR NAZI AGENDA!

Report this post »

Bill C, Oxford says...
5:25pm Fri 4 Jan 08

How absolutely outrageous - someone smoking a legal product in a public house, whatever next!

This purile smoking ban needs amendment and rapid before we start loosing traditional pubs in their thousands. Social lives turned up side down due to a myth - passive smoking kills thousands. The only certainty is that it will kill off the drinking estalishments in the thousands and create unemployment in the hospitality trade.

AMEND OR END THIS SMOKING BAN AND GIVE ADULTS A CHOICE OF VENUES - ARE YOU LISTENING GORDIE BROWN??

Report this post »

chas, suffolk says...
5:34pm Fri 4 Jan 08

Hundreds, maybe thousands of pubs have lock-ins, so why not allow them to smoke anyway.

Report this post »

Basil Brown, Oxford says...
7:01pm Fri 4 Jan 08

Drunk on power, drunk on Getting Away With It, NuLabor are going berserk. Denying smokers NHS treatment, despite us subsidising the NHS for EVERYONE through our disproportionate fag-taxes? Are we just gonna lay down and take this? Doubling taxes for the poorest people in society, then spending the booty on surveillance to keep us on the proscribed path. And now tricksily selling out our very nation to the anti-democratic EU against the wishes of the people they're elected to serve.

Take back the power! Let NuLabor's unrestrainable sociopathic We Know Best-ism be their nemesis.

Report this post »

H. O'Brien, London says...
7:03pm Fri 4 Jan 08

Puerile smoking ban. Well, what do you expect, Bill, when around 70% of a puerile population approves?

Unsaid, is the fact that smokers lost to pubs now smoke at home -- where their children are. If passive smoking is such a big menace, you'd think the authorities would want more of it to take place in pubs than at home with the kiddies. Well, one step at a time, and don't think homes is not on the antismokers' agenda. Stay tuned.

Report this post »

Mary Ward, says...
7:22pm Fri 4 Jan 08

Those who smoke in public places are selfish, why should others have to risk lung cancer through passive smoking? You are selfish. How would you feel if one of your family died through inhaling your stale smoke? What other dirty habits have you?

Report this post »

Basil Brown, Oxford says...
7:24pm Fri 4 Jan 08

H. O'Brien, The 70% approval was yet another lie, I'm afraid. They collated the figures for "approving of further restrictions" with those wanting a Total Ban, in order to achieve this. ASH have admitted "confidence trickery" was used to make the idea of a ban seem inevitable.

Smoking more at home? Take comfort from the long-term 1998 WHO report on ETS, which they failed to publish because it produced the Wrong result for them. Not only did they find no evidence of any increased cancer-risk through workplace exposure, but they got a statistically-signif
icant result of a 22% lower incidence in lung-cancer in the descendants of heavy smokers , indicating a protective effect from environmental tobacco smoke. The Telegraph were leaked a summary of the report then exposed this result. ASH sued and lost. Not a dickie from the BBC.

Two interesting searches: "Kitty Little" + diesel ,
"Sir Richard Doll" + Monsanto

Report this post »

chas, suffolk says...
8:17pm Fri 4 Jan 08

Mary Ward. It's been months since I last heard somebody saying that passive smoking kills. Even the vast majority of anti-smokers now know that that isn't true.

Report this post »

Bill C, Oxford says...
9:44pm Fri 4 Jan 08

H O'Brian - yes, I think a number of us are aware of where all this is leading us and banning smoking in homes and the eventually banning of tobacco products by 2017 are ASH's stated aims. Who exactly are ASH to dictate policy to HMG? They are totally unaccountable for the damage they are causing to people's social lives and the hospitality trade. A bunch of New Labour funded, health fanatic, hell-bent on making life miserable for smokers.

Mary Ward - Why do anti-smokers call smokers selfish? There is absolutely so corrolation between smoking and being selfish; being selfish transcends all types of people.

As for passive smoking, it is a lie to enable the Smoking Ban Experiment is be passed in law.
If you can name one person who has died from passive smoking, I would be pleased to hear from you, so long as it is not Roy Castle (who actually smoked the odd cigar apparently, a fact not widely publishised for obvious reasons).

Report this post »

mandyv, cambs says...
10:27pm Fri 4 Jan 08

I agree with the majority of comments, yes apartments are what the antis are after in some of the USA States, you know the land of Liberty and all that, taking the liberty more like. You can smoke pot in some of the venues, for medicinal purposes of course, but not ciggies, how strange and hypocritical is that. Mind you California is as intolerant as they come. I cannot remember now how many are on anti-depressants, does not surprise me, perfection must be very stressfull.
Mary, I found this yesterday, maybe you would like to take a look. http://www.bmj.com/c
gi/eletters/326/7398
/1057#32346
What an eyeopener, James Enstrom, having to defend the longest "so called Passive smoking" ever done study ever done. I am gobsmacked at some of the replies, and very angry, at the lies than continue by the antis.

Report this post »

Dave, Headington says...
1:36am Sat 5 Jan 08

Mr Ison wrote:
What gaul!
Good morning Mr Ison. Your missi....

A gaul. If I am not mistaken this is half of a french brand of cigarette.

Please advise if there is a hidden message in your post.

Thank you

Dave

Report this post »

Jane, says...
10:45am Sat 5 Jan 08

Why bother with warning letters. PROSECUTE. People ignore the ban because they know nothing will be done. Smoking is disgusting!!!

Report this post »

pat, herts says...
1:41pm Sat 5 Jan 08

Bill C wrote:
How absolutely outrageous - someone smoking a legal product in a public house, whatever next! This purile smoking ban needs amendment and rapid before we start loosing traditional pubs in their thousands. Social lives turned up side down due to a myth - passive smoking kills thousands. The only certainty is that it will kill off the drinking estalishments in the thousands and create unemployment in the hospitality trade. AMEND OR END THIS SMOKING BAN AND GIVE ADULTS A CHOICE OF VENUES - ARE YOU LISTENING GORDIE BROWN??
Are you joking GORDON BROWN and all his merry men NEVER BLOODY LISTEN they are two busy trying to think up ways to get more money out of us all. They are a bunch of hypocritical bigots who deside these news laws and then totally ignore them theirselves WHAT A BLOODY SHAMEFUL lot they are.
quote

Report this post »

Bill C, Oxford says...
1:46pm Sat 5 Jan 08

Jane - A lawbased of lies and introduced on the pretence of saving lies deserves to be ignored.

Regardless of your views on smoking, the fact remains that tobacco is a legal product and contributes 5 times the tax revenue to the government than it costs the NHS in treating smoking-related illnesses.

This law needs amending to allow CHOICE, so that people like you have the CHOICE not to enter venues that allow smoking. Sounds fair to all concerned I think.

Report this post »

pat, herts says...
1:57pm Sat 5 Jan 08

I would like to say to everyone who thinks the smoking ban is unfair publicans, club owners, and alike please write to GORDON BROWN and tell him and keep writing to the government until they are sick of you, let them know that this ban was implemented on a bunch of lies. And also tell gordon stalin brown that it is the smokers with the huge amounts of tax they pay on their cigarettes that is propping up the NHS and it is nothing more then fraud to take our taxes and national insurance to be banned from medical treatment, and that we should all have a refund on our contributions if this is going to be the case.It is the government who have got their figures wrong with all the extra immigrants they let into the country that has put a strain on our services and now they are making us a scape goat for their mistakes. I hope the british people see the light and realise that this government is going to far they were elected to run the country not our PRIVATE LIVES.

Report this post »

Bill C, Oxford says...
4:49pm Sat 5 Jan 08

Pat (Herts) - You may want to view www.freedom2choose.i
nfo website; we don't claim we are going to perform miracles, but at least we will give it a good try in amending these draconian smoking laws.

Report this post »

pat, herts says...
12:19am Sun 6 Jan 08

Bill C wrote:
Pat (Herts) - You may want to view www.freedom2choose.i nfo website; we don\'t claim we are going to perform miracles, but at least we will give it a good try in amending these draconian smoking laws.
Hi Bill thanks I have already add my name to freedom to choose, but like to say to every pub and club owner who reads this web site, please take note of the story ( french state sued for ruining hookay-pipe buisness ) that would be a good idea for you to do, take this government to court for loss of earnings and buisness being at an all time lowsince the smoking ban. I am sure you would recieve an over whelming support from all smokers who disagree with this draconian ban.

Report this post »

Cathy, says...
5:57am Sun 6 Jan 08

I completely agree with the majority of statements here. The only thing is I lose hope when I see countries like France, Germany, Spain and Turkey jump on the bandwagon. Life is very depressing for smokers now. I keep up my little one-man war and refuse to go to pubs and cafes in the cold weather, but what can one person do? I feel like that Dutch bloke trying to stick his finger in the dyke. I used to be very sociable, but now I rarely go out. What I would like to know is have Irish, Scottish and English bars lost business or gained it? I keep hearing conflicting reports. And what about America where it all started? I'd very much like to believe that businesses are losing money, although I feel sorry for the proprietors.

Report this post »

DaveA, Berkshire says...
10:02am Sun 6 Jan 08

Cathy: It only goes to show how slick the government and ASH's spin and lies machine are. In Ireland 1500 of their 8000 pubs have closed, 25,000 people in the hospitality industry have lost their jobs. Source, Irish Licensed Vituallers Association. In the UK 50 pubs a month were closing, post smoking ban 50 pubs a WEEK. 30% of bingo halls are due to closed too. Anything else is lies.

Report this post »

chas, suffolk says...
10:05am Sun 6 Jan 08

Cathy. If every smoker boycotted pubs that would make a lot of difference. Many have already done so and that is why pubs have lost a lot of customers. What I cannot understand is why, when a 'shed' is built for smokers it cannot be more that 50% covered. If it is clearly marked for smokers only, what is the problem?

Report this post »

RW, says...
11:46am Sun 6 Jan 08

Having been told repeatedly online that I am toxic,filthy,stupid and smell horribly, I shall certainly stay at home for the greater good.

Report this post »

alan page, says...
3:38pm Sun 6 Jan 08

I feel like that Dutch bloke trying to stick his finger in the dyke. I used to be very sociable, but now I rarely go out


Ding dong - Cathy can I come round to visit you I like Dutchmen too....

Report this post »

Basil Brown, Oxford says...
5:40pm Sun 6 Jan 08

chas wrote:
Cathy. If every smoker boycotted pubs that would make a lot of difference. Many have already done so and that is why pubs have lost a lot of customers. What I cannot understand is why, when a \'shed\' is built for smokers it cannot be more that 50% covered. If it is clearly marked for smokers only, what is the problem?
Hi Chas. The idea of the 50% ruling is that us smokers are supposed to feel uncomfortable and humiliated by our "terrible addictions" and, subject to ridicule from the "decent" citizenry, we will then beg to join the ranks of the "clean".

Instead, smoking's now more popular amongst the young than it has been for years. The intense propagandisement through schools and the media has created a backlash.

"Stupid, smelly, toxic..." The truth is, of course in the reverse. Those of us who continue to ENJOY smoking tend to be those of us who have educated ourselves as to the risks and benefits inherent in tobacco-smoking. If I had reason to believe the establishment-views on tobacco, I wouldn't smoke. But, as with a heartening number of other commentators here, I took the trouble to read and appraise "the evidence" as presented by those who would have us believe we are responsible for killing x,000s through "secondhand smoke". In epidemiological terms, this "evidence" is a crock of cack. Worse is that the anti-smoking industry are consciously subverting science; telling blatant lies with which to demonise a section of society.

Then I came upon articles about how Patron Saint of the anti-smoking movement, ex ASH president the late Sir Richard Doll, had been receiving huge payola from Monsanto. And asbestos manufacturers. And the Chemical Manufacturers Association. And the nuclear power industry. In each case, he produced work clearing his paymasters of any legal blame for deaths which could otherwise have been attributed to their industries. Remember the leukemia-clusters around nuclear-plants story? It was Doll who ruled these a "statistical quirk", advancing the hypothesis that it could have been the "over-clean homes of nuclear-workers" which were to blame. The message was clear. "Industrial pollution is no threat to you, but your own bad habits like smoking are". He wasn't paid by anyone in the tobacco industry. :-)

The causes of cancer are multi-factorial. Genetics, urban or rural-dwelling, amount and type of exercise, drinking/eating/smok
ing habits, etc. etc. etc. all play a part. But there are factors which the anti-smoking industry never want you to know about, those that they have a vested interest to conceal. For, historically, the worldwide cancer "epidemic" has tracked industrial-growth... and not smoking-rates. So, in the words of the late Dr. K. Little:

"According to advertisements produced by the anti-smoking lobby there are over 30,000 deaths from lung cancer a year. Yet there has been evidence for over 40 years that those deaths were not due to cigarette or tobacco smoke. Since the effect of the anti-smoking campaign has been to prevent the genuine cause from being publicly acknowledged, there is a very real sense in which we could say that the main reason for those 30,000 deaths a year from lung cancer is the anti-smoking campaign itself."

Report this post »

RW, says...
8:43pm Sun 6 Jan 08

This is a favourite of mine
Fear of Political Embarrasment Led to Cover Up of Link Between Air Pollution and Lung Cancer
http://www.lshtm.ac.
uk/news/2002/smogpol
lution.html

Report this post »

Comments are closed on this article.

Scenes like this, photographed before the ban, are now illegal Scenes like this, photographed before the ban, are now illegal

In this section

Essential Links

Sponsored Links



UK Debt Help and Advice | IVA help and advice | The truth about IVAs | Stay with Prague Hotels | Visit Spain with Barcelona Hotels

Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »