Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Heinous Crime- Smoking in a public place

38 replies

AitchGee · 03/07/2011 11:22

Thought I'd have a go at this section, hope I've done this in the right place :)

I was a smoker up until my illness, which basically totally dominated my desire to puff away. Right or wrong, I still am of the opinion that there are far more issues that need addressing in society than criminalising smokers. You may have your own views and you are entirely at liberty to have them.

This "Am I being unreasonable" post is however, is about a related matter.

Every day I walk through an underpass and realised that their were no lawful signs forbidding smoking in a public place in an area that was substantially enclosed. The July 2007 legislation expressly defines what is deemed to be "substantially"

In my Local Authority, the Environmental Health Department are entrusted to prosecute.

I called them up and asked them if I found an occasion that was indeed a Breach of the law, would they prosecute? They replied, "Yes, we always prosecute" They asked me where I had noticed the Breach, I told them that it was within their own Subway. They replied that they couldn't possibly "police" a Subway and would therefore do nothing. I advised them, by email, that their only option was to close down all the underpasses or give up policing the legislation.

Is there one law for them, one law for us? Am I being unreasonable to demand that all the underpasses and subways are policed like the rest of us?

OP posts:
bubblesincoffee · 03/07/2011 11:25

YABU to demand because the police have better things to do than arrest people for smoking in an underpass.

squeakytoy · 03/07/2011 11:26

I would say you have way too much time on your hands if something like this worries you... Confused

I am also totally confused as your first part of the thread completely seems to contradict your actions in the later part.

JenniL1977 · 03/07/2011 11:31

The 2007 legislation did not ban smoking in enclosed public places, it banned smoking in enclosed places of work.
There is a big difference. A subway is not a place of work (except for maybe some graffitti artists, and I doubt they care)

TheSecondComing · 03/07/2011 11:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

somethingwitty82 · 03/07/2011 11:48

Im beginning to suspect the EHare a myth.

I reported feral yoofs smoking on a bus and was told they dont attend moving vehicles....[hmmm]

Good to know if I ever plan bank robbery

moondog · 03/07/2011 11:52

Where is it.
I have a goofd mind to set up camp and work my way through a packet opf B&H just to piss you off even more.

Original poster
AitchGee · 03/07/2011 11:56

If someone is going to challenge me on the Law, please do it correctly...

WHICH PLACES MUST BE SMOKEFREE?

The new smokefree law applies to virtually all ?enclosed? and ?substantially enclosed? public places and workplaces. This includes both permanent structures and temporary ones such as tents and marquees. This also means that indoor smoking rooms in public places and workplaces will no longer be allowed.

Premises will be considered ?enclosed? if they have a ceiling or roof and (except for doors, windows or passageways) are wholly enclosed either on a permanent or temporary basis.

Premises will be considered ?substantially enclosed? if they have a ceiling or roof, but have an opening in the walls, which is less than half the total area of the walls. The area of the opening does not include doors, windows or any other fittings that can be opened or shut.

As for the Non Sequiturs, I have as much time as I need to enjoy my life as I wish. Some people go bungee-jumping, which I myself see as daft, others paint-ball, some like me, relish the prospect of hitting back at the pomposity of "Authority" and all it's ugly forms.

OP posts:
moonferret · 04/07/2011 02:56

Is this OP for real? So you don't believe criminalising smokers is important, yet seem fixated on those in underpasses being criminalised?

I haven't read anything so ridiculous on this site since, erm, yesterday!

kreecherlivesupstairs · 04/07/2011 05:42

You aren't in Kew/Wimbledon by any chance?

Original poster
AitchGee · 04/07/2011 08:32

"Is this OP for real? So you don't believe criminalising smokers is important, yet seem fixated on those in underpasses being criminalised?

I haven't read anything so ridiculous on this site since, erm, yesterday!"

The onus is on the supplier of the space to ensure that members of the public are properly informed. Smokers are not at risk of prosecution.

Far too many ppl cow-tow to the whims of government, the smoking ban is merely yet another nail into the coffin of our Constitutional rights. If you feel that protecting the rights fought many centuries ago and laid out within the hallowed text of the Magna Carta is "ridiculous" well I guess you must have better things to do. It's sunny today, don't forget the sun-block.

Try not to jump to negatives when I say this..... When I was born, I never, not once, was given an opportunity to agree to ANY of these civil laws and neither were you. Nobody shook my hand over taxation, nobody asked me if I wanted to have representatives in Central and Local Government, noone discussed anything.

You may consider this "ridiculous", but I certainly don't

OP posts:
OTheHugeManatee · 04/07/2011 10:50

So if I understand you correctly you're saying that if they're not willing to prosecute people for smoking in a subway, they shouldn't be trying to enforce the law at all?

shakey1500 · 04/07/2011 13:13

I'm slightly confused. How can you state that "you are of the opinion there are far more issues that need to be addressed" yet have spent so much time and effort in demanding that the authorities recognise that a subway is not sign posted correctly as being an enclosed space? Fine, they're in the wrong and need to put a "no smoking" sign up and job done yes?

YANBU to highlight the oversight but YABU in your approach (for want of a better word). Sounds like you've got the bit between your teeth over what, in the big scheme of things, is minor. Why not use that talent to approach the authorities on more urgent issues in your area? If you are as relentless as you appear, I'm sure you could make inroads into various, more important/worthwhile issues.

Original poster
AitchGee · 04/07/2011 13:14

"So if I understand you correctly you're saying that if they're not willing to prosecute people for smoking in a subway, they shouldn't be trying to enforce the law at all?"

What I'm saying is that the people that think they control us, can't even get their own house in order.

Smoking bans are an absolute nonsense, begging, prostitution create no victims. Neither does speeding in your car or driving whilst mashed out of your box. But "were" so conditioned to falling into line for the so-called good of the community that frankly it sucks.

OP posts:
OTheHugeManatee · 04/07/2011 13:16
Bear
shakey1500 · 04/07/2011 13:16

Well, good luck with that Hmm

AmazingBouncingFerret · 04/07/2011 13:18
animula · 04/07/2011 13:23

This has nothing to do with you OP (sorry) - are you the same poster as "Aitch" with a slight name-change?

AMumInScotland · 04/07/2011 13:25

Honestly, you think driving while smashed creates no victims?

I was going to attempt to have a rational conversation with you till your last post. Now I'm not going to waste my effort.

mousymouse · 04/07/2011 13:25

yanbu, I hate walking through underpasses that are full of smoke
if you have the time on your hand, good for you for challenging.

SingingTunelessly · 04/07/2011 13:27

I have no idea if YABU or not as I have not the foggiest idea of what point you are tryinng to make Confused

Animula I shouldn't think for a moment this is Aitch. Grin at the thought.

animula · 04/07/2011 13:30

SingingTunelessly - Grin ... yes, I must admit I find it hard to match post to the Aitch I've come to "recognise". Bit of a double-take with the name, though.

Birdsgottafly · 04/07/2011 13:34

Op-All of what you listed does create victims Confused

So what you are saying is that you want to live in a police state, with the whole country fitted with camera's? Realistically we cannot police everywhere, unless we want the police to be the most funded public service and the reason for a substantial tax price.

Birdsgottafly · 04/07/2011 13:35

Op and Mousey- don'y you find that the smell of smoke covers up the smell of wee?

VivaLeBeaver · 04/07/2011 13:36

Technicaly an underpass only has two Walls so doesn't meet the criteria of being substantially enclosed as far as legislation is concerned.

ivykaty44 · 04/07/2011 13:36

So it is ok to police this law in public houses or cinemas but not underpasses?

If there is a law and it is being broken on a regular accurence and soemone requests that this is delt with - then why shouldn't it be delt with.

This doesn't really have anything to do with soemone having to much time on their hands and get a hobbie - that could well mean any of us shoudl get off MN and get a life Grin

It is a bit like saying shop lifting is different from tax evasion and we can't police it all so we will ignore the shop lifting and not worry about it. Both are stealing from the public in one form or another and both are breaking the law and why should one be policed and the other not policed?

Swipe left for the next trending thread