Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Smoking should be banned in council housing, public health chief says

166 replies

LurkingHusband · 08/05/2017 11:34

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/smoking-banned-council-housing-faculty-of-public-health-a7722726.html

Smoking should be banned in all new council houses to protect children from harmful second-hand smoke, a public health chief has said.

Anti-smoking campaigners consider smoke-free housing to be the next major frontier in reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking.

In 2015, the Government introduced a ban on smoking in all vehicles carrying children.

“Housing associations and councils are looking at smoke-free housing buildings. Where children are involved I think there is a real case for it,” Dr John Middleton, president of the Faculty of Public Health, told The Sunday Times.

Dr Middleton said he believed housing association residents should sign contracts which would make non-smoking a condition of their tenancy.

“You wouldn’t evict a load of tenants for smoking. Where you have got new premises, you could have smoke-free agreements from the start," he said.

In the United States, the Obama administration passed a federal law which banned smoking in all public housing - the equivalent to UK social housing - in November last year.

The legislation, which will come into effect in August 2018, will affect more than million homes. In New York alone, which has the largest public housing agency in the country, 400,000 people will be bound by non-smoking agreements.

Pro-smoking campaign Forest said the proposed policy “would penalise unfairly those who can’t afford to buy their own homes”.

OP posts:
TitaniasCloset · 11/05/2017 03:21

My point is, that once the government get used to harassing people in their own private homes, we are all fucked. The government can tell us all what to do.

Empireoftheclouds · 11/05/2017 08:06

I have reported your comment tit

LurkingHusband · 11/05/2017 09:14

Regarding do-gooders:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C.S. Lewis

OP posts:
heron98 · 11/05/2017 12:12

I don't think it could be enforced.

I also don't think it's discrimination. We rent privately and smoking has always been forbidden in the properties we've lived in.

HelenaDove · 11/05/2017 23:56

Just seen an idea being mooted about sprinkler systems possibly being installed in HA homes. I wonder if this is connected somehow.

If these go off by accident and damage tenants property i can see the HA and the company who may install them passing the buck for liability back and forth to each other. Already happens with some of the heating contractors some of them use.

NO CHANCE!

Instasista · 12/05/2017 07:30

It would have nothing to do with the company who installed them.

A cigarette shouldn't set off a sprinkler system

HelenaDove · 12/05/2017 16:26

Insta DH and i dont smoke. And if they definately wouldnt go off by accident then tenants contents insurance policies shouldnt be affected.

Instasista · 12/05/2017 21:47

It wouldn't affect contents insurance. Not sure why we're even discussing it tbh?

specialsubject · 13/05/2017 09:15

Why do kids in council houses matter more than others? All smoking round children should be banned.

Except it is unenforceable, as we see in cars.

I don't think you can legislate against stupid.

iloveeverykindofcat · 15/05/2017 13:38

Bullshit. Smoking is either legal for all adults or no adults.The circumstancial stuff is sending us further and further into the mess of hypocrisy that are UK drug laws in general.

iloveeverykindofcat · 15/05/2017 13:40

Lurking - not that I don't agree with the Lewis quote, but drug laws have very little to do with health. If they did, alcohol would be illegal tomorrow.

LurkingHusband · 15/05/2017 16:47

Lurking - not that I don't agree with the Lewis quote, but drug laws have very little to do with health

I know.

OP posts:
HelenaDove · 31/07/2017 18:47

And here we are!

From Dawn Foster for the Guardian.

On Sunday evening I sat outside a pub in west London with a group of women, some of whom were crying. A man on a nearby table asked us why we were there, presuming a birthday party gone wrong, or a messy breakup had led to the scene. We were vague and cagey with our answer: “We live in a domestic violence refuge and we’re facing immediate homelessness and danger, so called a journalist for help” isn’t generally a great conversation starter.

Just after midnight that morning, the ceiling had collapsed in one woman’s bedroom: mercifully, she was visiting friends that night. The fact she has a condition that puts her at high risk of a heart attack doesn’t bear thinking about. For two weeks prior in the refuge, the sprinkler system had been leaking heavily: the women showed me the flooding they endured – ankle deep in some bedrooms, and wallpaper bulging with stale water.

Finally, the leak caused the ceiling to fall in. They rang the fire brigade and the housing association that owns the house and the charity that runs the shelter service. When the emergency services arrived, a firefighter told them that if anyone turned on the power, the entire building would go up in flames. Removing a plug from the wall, he swore as water poured from the socket. They were left with torches and barely managed to sleep: seven women, and six children between the ages of two and seven, crowded into the communal living room.

Their children are in play schemes in west London, where they’re building confidence after fleeing abuse and violence
Then matters worsened. The women were phoned individually by the housing association and told they’d be put in temporary accommodation – with no guarantee of when they would return – in Barking, 15 miles away: an hour away on public transport, even though the women’s doctors, counsellors, key workers and friends are all in west London. The children are in play schemes in west London, where they’re building confidence and making friends after fleeing abuse and violence. But worse: some of the women have ex-partners in Barking and east London, men who have told them that if they ever saw them again, they would murder them. One of the mothers was promised that if her husband ever had the opportunity he’d lock her and her son in the house and burn it to the ground.

Understandably terrified, they all refused, and were told there would be nothing else offered. By doing this, they were putting themselves at risk of being declared “intentionally homeless”, meaning they would be out on the streets with the housing association refusing to help.

The women are all intelligent, articulate, educated and speak multiple languages: model citizens on paper to the current government. And yet, because of their situation, they felt they were “scrabbling in the dirt, at the bottom of society”. They repeatedly said they felt like dirt, telling me I was wrong when I objected to them describing themselves as “scum”. They were treated as such by a system that bullies and harasses them and puts them in danger. Time and again I’ve heard near-identical tales of people having their humanity, dignity and worth stripped away due to homelessness and fleeing violence. Needing housing makes you extremely vulnerable: too often, being in need and having to rely on councils, housing associations and shelters in turn means you are treated like a criminal.

'It’s social cleansing': the 93-year-old fighting east London demolitions
Read more
The women lived in the same borough Grenfell Tower stands: to reach them, my bus had to pass the blackened shell. For a period it felt as though the tragedy had heightened public understanding of why housing is genuinely a life or death issue and brought shame on the nation, that we fail some of our most vulnerable time and again.

But the same situation continues to play out time and again: these women were at risk in the house, and at risk in the far-flung accommodation they’d been offered. Desperate to stay together in the small friendship group they’d forged, they had decided to fight: many others would have accepted the offer, and been placed in danger as a result.

With press attention, advice from lawyers who gave their time for free on Sunday night, and pressure from the MP Jess Phillips, whose experience in the domestic violence sector was invaluable, we were able to get assurances that the women would be housed locally until repairs are completed. But for every one of these experiences, many people won’t have a happy ending. Grenfell Tower should have shocked us into treating people with empathy, compassion and care when they’re homeless or in danger: instead, it looks like business as usual

HelenaDove · 31/07/2017 18:49

For two weeks prior in the refuge, the sprinkler system had been leaking heavily: the women showed me the flooding they endured – ankle deep in some bedrooms, and wallpaper bulging with stale water.

Lucysky2017 · 31/07/2017 19:21

It's banned in private tenancies so why should social housing people be allowed to destroy the property and the lives of their children when everyone else in rented cannot?

GabsAlot · 01/08/2017 10:53

somone said earlir about private homes

er no i'll do what i want when i want i own my house-i can see the point abot rental/social thogh its not their proprty although bit unfair if they live in a flat with no garden

New posts on this thread. Refresh page