Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

So if I'm driving my 17 year old

126 replies

IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou · 01/10/2015 09:01

and we're both smoking, I can be prosecuted?

Seems strange to me given that a 16 year old can legally smoke.

AIBU to think they should have thought it through a bit more with regards to age?

Not discussing the health implications, more interested in the potential for time-wasting for both smokers & Plod...

OP posts:
PlentyOfPubeGardens · 02/10/2015 11:57

OurBlanche - It is just Soundbite Politics, a phenomenon which should automatically prompt a vote of no confidence in the pillock that proposes it!

She's over here Smile She's stepping down anyway, probably because of the Alzheimers thing. I'm not sorry to see her go.

OurBlanche · 02/10/2015 11:59

No, not accidental, just pointless, time and money consuming. Self aggrandising shite!

I couldn't care less why, won't speculate as it just leads to conspiracy theory lunacy.

I just think we need a widespread shift in how we, as a society, see it. Hence my view that the proposer of any such stupidity such be automatically put to the vote.

ShowOfHands · 02/10/2015 12:06

There was a public information campaign wasn't there? I wonder if it's made a difference?

I know you think you're being 'funny' with your tales of carseats and dolls but you're sadly not the only person to think this constitutes some sort of hilarious, stick it to da man jape. Local radio was full of similar people coming to the same massively amusing and clever conclusion of how they'd spend their time in response to the legislation. Ironically, their cries of wishing police were better used or resourced seemed to be drowned out by their intention to waste police time.

It's always Plod as well isn't it. Or pigs (piggy fishing in this case) or the filth. Of course the police service didn't make these laws and they're trying really bloody hard in a difficult time but calling them pejorative terms seems to make people feel better.

OurBlanche · 02/10/2015 12:10

Me, ShowofHands? Carseats, dolls? I haven't mentioned them. Or plods! Quite the opposite!

LurkingHusband · 02/10/2015 12:13

Personally I'm of the view that bad and stupid laws need to be challenged. Otherwise we end up with more bad and stupid laws.

OurBlanche · 02/10/2015 12:15

Aah! Her! Thanks Pubes

I suspect the Indy may have overstepped, but you never know!

OurBlanche · 02/10/2015 12:18

Oops! That posted before I did Smile

... buy you never know! She was 'guilty' of over egging the e cigs dangers and is the best known source the biggest and nastiest vaping myth we are discussing elsewhere Smile

ShowOfHands · 02/10/2015 12:19

OurBlanche, the op has mentioned plod, pigs and dolls in carseats several times.

OurBlanche · 02/10/2015 12:22

Sorry Show, you started with public info, which was me and I assumed that the 'you' you railed at was me also. One of those 'written word' things, I shall forget it Smile

LurkingHusband · 02/10/2015 12:25

Ironically, their cries of wishing police were better used or resourced

Which came before the law was passed ...

seemed to be drowned out by their intention to waste police time.

If you create such a nebulous law enabling police to stop any car they like "just in case" there's evidence of someone smoking in the presence of a minor, then you will have wasted far more police time than any odd pranks the public carry out. How many man-hours have police forces had to invest in training for this law. How many man-hours will be wasted in court cases ?

Presumably all other training needs (first aid, safeguarding etc) are completely fulfilled ?

Any future stories about crash victims going unfound for days ? Well, there will always be the retort that somewhere the police were enforcing this law.

Sorry, if any police time is wasted, it will be the governments fault, not the publics. And it should damn well serve as a lesson that trying to use the criminal justice system to address a public health issue is about as brain-dead as you can get. It's ineffective. It's questionably edging towards totalitarianism. And it certainly does very little to foster respect for the law.

As another poster - quite rightly said - if smoking is that bad, why is it not banned ? Bearing in mind other things have been banned without being shown to be harmful.). Clearly it isn't that bad.

tobysmum77 · 02/10/2015 12:47

I have been thinking about the 'denormalising' argument. I think the opposites true.... there was a radio advert about it telling me it was going to be illegal to smoke in my car with a minor and they said it like this was normal behaviour that everyone was doing.

By virtue of it needing legislation it is surely normal???

ShowOfHands · 02/10/2015 12:53

Lurking, if you read all of my posts you'll note that I've already said I don't think the law is necessarily going to achieve any of its stated aim, nor do I think it's the best way of tackling the problem of people forcing passive smoking on minors.

Again, you're doing what the op did and talking about another issue. All very interesting of course, but not actually the thing I was posting about. Police time is wasted anyway so hilarious individuals pissing about for a giggle is irrelevant? Cars are dangerous so who cares about smoking? Yes, wasted police time comes in other guises. This isn't a justification for choosing to waste police time yourself. Even my children know "well Jack does x or Milly is allowed to do y" has no bearing on my expectations of their individual behaviour.

You make comments about man hours police officers will spend training on this law and how many hours will be wasted in court cases. We're talking about on the spot fines so court cases are a rare outcome anyway. I should imagine, given that DH and none of his colleagues receive extra training on any of the amendments made to any laws, it will be a case of them being expected, as police officers, to have their knowledge of the law up to date at all times anyway.

specialsubject · 02/10/2015 13:25

you shouldn't be smoking while driving anyway. Too distracting.

JawannaDrink · 02/10/2015 14:10

Passing laws is about criminalising behaviour, not de normalising it, Jawanna.

Its both, obviously Hmm

People bleat on about nanny stateism, but if your populace are too stupid or uncaring to know not to enclose their children in tiny boxes and then fill them with smoke while moving at speed, someone has to do it for them.

These arguments were the same when the seatbelt laws, and the car seat laws were brought in. They criminalised peoples stupidity in an attempt to either get them to stop being stupid, or penalise them when they were.

OurBlanche · 02/10/2015 14:18

But seat belts in cars weren't both legal and illegal at the same time, as you only encounter them in cars. Which is why there were further laws for coaches. Buses and trains won't follow, presumably, far too much for the driver/conductor to deal with! Making something of a mockery of the 'for your own safety' argument! It was expediency that limited the law, political expediency.

And, sad as you may find it, you really cannot criminalise stupidity!

But you obviously have that nanny state, totalitarian attitude, so we won't see eye to eye on that!

JawannaDrink · 02/10/2015 14:25

Obviously you can criminalise stupidity, since that is precisely what this law does. It criminalises parents who are too thick or don't care enough to protect their own children (which is what the analogy with car seats was, obviously)

OurBlanche · 02/10/2015 14:32

Oooh! How very judgemental of you. I hope you never make a mistake, misunderstand something someone else finds bleedin' obvious!

Original poster
IKnowIAmButWhatAreYou · 02/10/2015 15:53

Obviously you can criminalise stupidity, since that is precisely what this law does.

It also criminalises people the same age smoking in a car, I think it highlights stupidity in our halls of power rather than criminalising it in the plebs!

And ShowOfHands - do you not think that stupid little rules like this are precisely why the Police are going down in people's estimations?

The fact that they're not enforcing "useful" laws, but are going to be running around telling people who can legally marry, drive, smoke etc that they can't do it in one specific circumstance is going to do the image no good.

I've said many times, in many posts that the police need more resources & need to focus on important crimes rather than crap, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that they're always right, honest or used appropriately.

And if I was a 17 year old driver with a 17 year old passenger, yes - I'd take the case to court. and I'd take it as high and as far as I could!!

OP posts:
JawannaDrink · 02/10/2015 16:16

Or you could just not be a twat, not break the law, not smoke in the car? you'd lose, anyway, and hopefully have to pay huge costs for wasting everyones time.

If laws need to be brought in to stop people doing cunty things because so many of them are doing so, surely you should be asking yourself why so many of your fellow citizens are being cunty? Rather than whining about it making you respect the police less. Way to have the wrong focus....

OurBlanche · 02/10/2015 16:26

1984 Brave New World Farenheit 451 Soylent Green Logan's Run Hunger Games The Iron Heel We Ecotopia The Wanting Seed The Country of Last Things Looking Backward

And many other Utopia/Dystopia novels give an insight into worlds where society condemns the stupid, glorifies the drone, etc.

All are scary... and all start with very small changes in government mores.

So, no thanks, no nanny statism for me!

LurkingHusband · 02/10/2015 16:40

If laws need to be brought in to stop people doing cunty things because so many of them are doing so, surely you should be asking yourself why so many of your fellow citizens are being cunty?

When you have defined "cunty" then we can have a really good discussion. However, I suspect my definition of "cunty" woud not equate with yours.

BondGate · 02/10/2015 17:05

do you not think that stupid little rules like this are precisely why the Police are going down in people's estimations?

The police aren't responsible for passing this law. That's entirely down to the government. If you're going to lose respect for anyone over this, then at least aim it at the people responsible for making the rules.

As for whether they'll be enforcing this, rather than other, more useful laws, that remains to be seen. I've heard a radio interview with a senior police spokesman that suggested the police are currently considering this pretty low down their priority list.

LurkingHusband · 02/10/2015 17:08

As for whether they'll be enforcing this, rather than other, more useful laws, that remains to be seen. I've heard a radio interview with a senior police spokesman that suggested the police are currently considering this pretty low down their priority list.

So a law is passed to protect children, but police don't consider it a priority ? Or is there some other interpretation ?

JawannaDrink · 02/10/2015 17:17

When you have defined "cunty" then we can have a really good discussion. However, I suspect my definition of "cunty" woud not equate with yours.

If you don't think poisoning your children with concentrated cigarette smoke is cunty, we don't have anything to talk about and my definition would include you

NeedsAsockamnesty · 02/10/2015 17:20

What if you are just in the car but not actually driving it?