targeting criminals is same as targetting poor people????

[warrenpenalver]

Ok been having a few problems at work. Ive been mostly on the car park this last week and have had a couple of complaints against me by the public.

 

The whole car park is a no smoking zone as defined in law because its an enclosed space. It is well signed everywhere except by one area where most people walk in (it is only not signed because the criminal who i caught smoking had ripped down the sign, but still the signage is well within the legal requirements).

 

Quite often smokers think the law does not apply to them and smoke and usually when told its illegal to smoke there, they apologise and stop.

 

But this week I have encountered 2 people who became abusive over me telling them to stop smoking. They both had pretty similar complaint that why should they be told where they can and cant smoke and that I'm targeting poor people!! My reply to them is that breaking the smoking laws has nothing to do with being poor! they both became verbally abusive so i told them i would call the PCSO's if they didnt stop smoking. They both stopped smoking, swore at me and walked off before complaining to customer services!!

 

Now ive had similar reactions from people who have no road tax on thier cars saying that I'm targeting poor people by sticking warning notices on thier cars.

 

Now i dont understand possibly how targeting criminals is targeting poor people???? yes some criminals may be also poor but they are not being targeted because they have no money but because they are committing a crime!!

 

I have discussed this with a PCSO and he said that at ****** (the local rough council estate) approximately 40% of the vehicles on the road are illegal in some way be it tax, insurance, MoT, license etc but he explained that they cant just keep a load of police cars there to catch the cars and sieze them as it would be seen as targeting a poor community. Yet he couldnt explain why it would be seen as that.

 

Surely its simply the fact that someone is committing a crime not the fact that they are poor that is relevant??? Im sure theres plenty of middle class and rich people who also commit crime yet you dont hear about them whinging " your targeting the rich" etc

 

Whats your views??

Edited August 25, 2009 by Kathryn
to remove identifying information

[Tally]

Warren, I don't believe that the complaints can possibly be upheld by your employer, nor that you have been prejudicial. They weren't smoking in the car park due to poverty, and being rich would not have made it easier for them to go outside. Perhaps you should check with your boss whether s/he would prefer you to turn a blind eye to smoking in that area.

 

Is it part of your job to check for road tax? If it's not part of your job, it's probably best not to put the notices on any more. People who don't have a tax disc generally know that they are breaking the law and won't be persuaded by a friendly reminder. If it is part of your job, perhaps you could pretend that you don't like doing it but your employer makes you. That way, any complaints will be made to your employer, rather than about you personally.

 

I have discussed this with a PCSO and he said that at Bentilee (the local rough council estate) approximately 40% of the vehicles on the road are illegal in some way be it tax, insurance, MoT, license etc but he explained that they cant just keep a load of police cars there to catch the cars and sieze them as it would be seen as targeting a poor community. Yet he couldnt explain why it would be seen as that.

I think this is more to do with the way it would be seen by the local community and reported in the papers, etc, than how it actually is.

[Kathryn]

I completely agree with you Warren - there is no reason why the law should not apply equally to everyone. Perhaps the PCSO would take a different view if his own car was damaged by someone driving without MOT, insurance or a licence.

 

You didn't make the rules, so you shouldn't be getting this abuse but it might be a good idea to discuss with your employer how to handle these situations and what exactly they expect of you.

 

K x

[warrenpenalver]

The complaints have not been upheld. My manager said i should try and avoid direct confrontation, but how can you avoid confrontation if you are stopping someone smoking etc???

 

The management here are very weak and do not like being put on the spot and being forced to make a decision/policy on things. Theyve done similar things with thiefs assaulting staff and not really supporting them and just telling them they should avoid confrontation despite that being impossible if your detaining someone until the police gets there!!! Its one of those situations where its simply not possible to have it both ways yet the management dont get this.

 

these are the signs we stick on cars: no tax sign

[call me jaded]

I wouldn't bother with the no road tax signs - they could be quite inflammatory. Ultimately it isn't any of your business - if the authorities come in to check road tax then so be it. Telling people it could happen when they have already driven there knowing they have out-of-date tax is pointless.

 

The no smoking thing is just trying to bluff their way out of getting caught. I think telling them you will call someone else diminishes your authority. You could ask the managers for some training on handling difficult situations. Good customer service is difficult to do because it's about remaining polite but at the same time being firm on what the company's responsibilities are. The 'Airline' type programmes are really good at showing what customer service issues are.

 

Rich and poor do both moan - where I live they say that the traffic wardens issue far more tickets at this end of the borough because they know that we can and will pay them. The local paper printed the parking ticket income from the 'rich' high street - it was huge.

 

However it is seen as prejudice to put up a road check coming out of the council estate. Just like when the police get criticised for the large numbers of black youths in the 'stop and search' statistics. But in terms of the actual knife crimes committed, it started off as 'black on black' crime, in London anyway. So are the police targetting people because of the colour of their skin or are they simply trying to prevent crimes? It's a difficult balance and starts to get political.

[Karen A]

The complaints have not been upheld. My manager said i should try and avoid direct confrontation, but how can you avoid confrontation if you are stopping someone smoking etc???

 

The management here are very weak and do not like being put on the spot and being forced to make a decision/policy on things. Theyve done similar things with thiefs assaulting staff and not really supporting them and just telling them they should avoid confrontation despite that being impossible if your detaining someone until the police gets there!!! Its one of those situations where its simply not possible to have it both ways yet the management dont get this.

 

these are the signs we stick on cars: no tax sign

 

 

Hi.I think that if the car park management have no authority to remove cars without tax and do not contact the police then it is not worth you placing stickers on cars.You are risking abuse when management have no ability to enforce the warning you are giving.

People who do not have car tax know they do not have it.If they forgett the DVLA can now fine as the DVLA are well aware of the issue.I do not think people will decide to pay tax because they have a gentle reminder.

 

Incidently I live in one of the most deprived boroughs in the country.Our local wardens do not worry about poverty when they ticket people for parking in an unmarked bay, not having tax ,parking without a local permit,driving in a bus lane whilst attempting to turn left etc etc.An individual will be as likely to get ticketed if they are a mum in an old banger dropping the kids off at school or popping into the local cafe for a take out tea as if they were a commmuter driving a lamborghini. Karen.

 

.

[Sa Skimrande]

I look at it this way, the laws that are made, and there are a great many of them that the public don't know about, should be policed by the law makers and those invested with the power and duty to uphold the law, i.e. the police and courts.

 

I have learned through bitter experience, it is none of my business to challenge anyone about their activities, unless it directly affects myself, or my family, in which case, I will call the police and let them uphold the law they are charged with upholding.

 

Furthermore, I have also learned through bitter experience taking the law into one's own hands often results in no help from the police, any reprecussions in the form of threats, insults or violence from the accused, the police cannot or will not stop it, heresay comes into force here, without witnesses, and even then with witnesses, words don't hurt, resulting in increased anxiety for myself, something, I do not need to be increased as I live with anxiety issues. If an accused person evolves from threats, to actual violence, yeah, the police might then be interested, but why do you need to suffer violence for a law that the police are unwilling to uphold.

 

Laws are created it seems willy nilly, they come out for all sorts, many are illogical, kneejerk, ill thought out or even unfounded, there are lots of stupid laws that if pursued just make money for the lawyers and there mean little else to the complainant and the accused, why help the law parasities get richer.

 

But as to poor people often being the majority law breakers, yes, to this I would have to agree, I have been poor myself, from fairly well off, to rock bottom raiding bins poor, though I did not commit any crimes in that state, I could see all too easily why others do it. I had to support myself only, but there are poor people who have to support their families and children, what comes first, upholding the law, or feeding your children, to me, family comes first and foremost. Also poor people, often there is found drug abuse and alcohol abuse, and there is a need to feed the habit, it being an addiction, poor people fall into the addiction trap because, when there is little else they can do in life due to bad employment prospects, no money, ho hope, having a 'high' becomes very attractive as a means to at least escape the realities of their life. The other thing of course, is when there are many who have , the have nots want it, and they will get it at whatever means, if that means not paying the road toll, skimping on vehicle maintenance, or not buying the extortionate insurance, the hidden boring things, they will do it. Maybe our consumerist society is largely responsible for the divide and there, the rise and popularity of crimes.

 

Another point maybe, that anyone who has a 'legal' vehicle on a private land, might not be insured on that private land anyway, many shop private carparks are private land, and for someone to be there, they have to have permission from the owner of that land, without it, they are there illegally and being illegal, there insurance company, will definately welch out of responsibility.

 

The smoking ban, is completeley ridiculous, it discriminates against addicted people and there alienates usually law abiding people and makes them feel they are criminals. I smoke, an addiction that came from being poor, the only laws I break, are where I smoke. A situation arose at my local pub recently, a resident of a nearby house complained that the smokers outside were making too much noise at ten pm, so she called the police. The police turned up and told the smokers to go inside the pub, which the smokers denied, as one is not allowed to smoke inside a public building, only outside. So, a dilemma for the police, they just left, only to be called again by the same resident to say the smoke from the smokers was coming through her window. You see, the smoking ban is a ridiculous law, ill thought out, and a problem, it was a political move, not a logical one, and has only served as a stick for the busy body to beat otherwise lawful people with.

[chris54]

You see, the smoking ban is a ridiculous law, ill thought out, and a problem, it was a political move, not a logical one, and has only served as a stick for the busy body to beat otherwise lawful people with.

I can not agree with you that the smoking ban is ridiculous. We are now able to enjoy going into pubs and other similar places without being affected by tobacco smoke.

If it were down to me I would also ban it in many outdoor public areas as well.

 

Yes your right it is political, the government make to much money out of tobacco tax to have an all out ban which would be the logical thing to do on health grounds.

 

Warren, I'm afraid I am one for an easy life and I attempt to go about my life with the least amount of aggro , so if it were me I would not confront people unless it was absolutely necessary and there was no other way. The same approach that the police and community officers take.

Iv seen them turn around and walk the other way rather than confront the mums parked on the yellow lines outside the school at home time, even though it is the school have asked them to do something about the danger this puts the children in.

 

And linking poverty to crime, It is very tempting neglect things like road tax and MOTs when your hard up but poverty is no excuse for breaking the law. There are lots of things that I would like but I cut my coat according to my cloth.

 

There are are plenty of other reasons for law breaking, not been avers to sailing a bit close to the wind myself from time to time.

Edited August 26, 2009 by chris54

[bid]

Nice to see you again, Warren! <'>

 

Just a thought...

 

You'll probably get a better response about the smoking with a 'matey' approach, e.g. 'Sorry mate, have to ask you to put your fag out because this is a non-smoking area' rather than a very authoritarian approach.

 

And I agree with the others about not bothering with the tax disc notices.

 

Hope things get smoothed out.

 

Bid

[warrenpenalver]

The warnings are not about us removing cars, but DVLA removing cars which they do occasionally and more importantly, are entitled to do by law since oct 2008. Its the car park manager who says we should put the signs on cars. His reasoning is that he would rather they didnt park here as if the DVLA clamp them, its hassle for us.

 

it discriminates against addicted people

just as heroin and cocaine being illegal to possess and buy discriminates against heroin addicts and coke heads??? Surely making it harder for people to become and stay addicted to any harmful substance is a good thing???

 

I smoke, an addiction that came from being poor

How come??? Ive never understood that. Surely with cigarettes being well over £5 a packet, it would be a rich persons habbit??

 

[Sa Skimrande]

Smoking, believe it or not, is an addiction, not so much of a choice, ever done it, become hooked, and tried to deprive yourself of it, believe me, it is not easy and there is much truth in the saying, once a smoker, always a smoker, as life is not quite the same after ridding an addiction. Even my father, thirty years non smoking still admits he would love to draw on smouldering tobacco, just one more time, such is the addiction, I believe it alters the brain chemistry irreversibly.

 

Cigarettes, they are too expensive, more than I can afford, so, I smoke rolling tobacco, that way besides being cheaper, I can custom make a smoke to my choice, more often than not, barely more than two puffs, but it is enough sometimes.. Also with rolling tobacco, there is a deficit of chemicals in there, neglect a smoke, it goes out, quite unlike a cigarette that will burn to the filter and there pose a fire hazard.

 

I don't want to smoke, I wished I had never started at age 30, but I did due to peer pressure and am now stuck with it. Even my doctor knows my desire to stop, but won't give me the required medication to get me off it, and even recommends I do not try to give up as he recognises tobacco, does help with managing stress, something I am plagued with on a day to day basis.

 

The so called smoking ban, is yet another law to be policed by the police that have better things to do, like catching hard core criminals. It is a toothless law and aimed at alienating normally law abiding citizens. A better solution might have been available, like going back to the turn of the twentieth century and later civility of public venues offering smoke rooms for those addicted and those not, but want to smoke. But, whilst the government still reaps tax from tobacco, it's laws against the smoking of tobacco indicate the government as usual speaks with a forked tongue. And why is it, the bars in Parliament, the law proposers and makers are still allowed to smoke indoors, to me, a law starts with the law makers, not the laws are for the populace only.

 

But,as people seem to think smoking tobacco products is the root cause of cancer, I just wonder how many of those believers run diesel cars, and are quite happy with the effects of diesel fumes on the enviroment, in their hair and on their clothes. Know that, diesel fumes are a known carcinogen and hazardous to health, far more than smoking ever was. The reason everything is quiet, is because diesel is big business, the tax reaped is more than that for tobacco. Just notice what happens, those of you with diesel cars, notice the fuel tax hikes and restrictions that come into place, soon,it will be known diesel fumes pose more of a risk to health than smoking tobacco ever did.

 

As for cars that are breaking the law, if your boss says put notices on cars that break the law, then comply with your boss, as it is your job, but if anyone ever challenges you as to why you are putting notics on cars, direct them to your boss. Just say you are doing what you are told as per your job description. Now, it strikes as your boss is all well and good saying these things, but are they actually engaged in finding and putting notices on cars themself, if they are not, then what they say, is not what they experience, if it was they were involved in the day to day hassles of disgruntled motorists, they might not impose such directives. It might very well be, they direct their minnions to do the dirty work, knowing full well they will not feel the angst of their actions. Just to note it is all well and good imposing rules, but if you are not willing to impose them and rely on others, it speaks of meglomania.

 

And just finally to note, smoking tobacco is not illegal, using drugs other than tobacco or alcohol unless directed by a recognised medical practitioner is illegal.

Edited August 27, 2009 by Sa Skimrande

[chris54]

Smoking, believe it or not, is an addiction, not so much of a choice, ever done it, become hooked, and tried to deprive yourself of it, believe me, it is not easy and there is much truth in the saying, once a smoker, always a smoker, as life is not quite the same after ridding an addiction. Even my father, thirty years non smoking still admits he would love to draw on smouldering tobacco, just one more time, such is the addiction, I believe it alters the brain chemistry irreversibly.

 

A very good argument for a total ban on smoking.

[chris54]

The warnings are not about us removing cars, but DVLA removing cars which they do occasionally and more importantly, are entitled to do by law since oct 2008. Its the car park manager who says we should put the signs on cars. His reasoning is that he would rather they didnt park here as if the DVLA clamp them, its hassle for us.

I see where your coming from.

What you need to do is have a frame of mind and tell the people that you are doing them a favour by telling them that just because their car is not on the public road, they are still at risk of being clamped by the DVEL.

Perhaps the wording of the notice needs changing to take that approach.

[Suze]

Hi , just wanted to add to Sa Skimrande, that the person who lived near the pub and complained had every right to do so, I can,t imagine how hideous it must be for them to listen to the busy chatter of smokers and have their fag gasses blasted into their home.It would help if you and your fellow smokers were a bit more considerate of others, Why could you have not decieded that perhaps they had a point and done the decent thing and gone back into the pub having put out your cigarettes.

[Mandapanda]

Smoking, believe it or not, is an addiction, not so much of a choice, ever done it, become hooked, and tried to deprive yourself of it, believe me, it is not easy and there is much truth in the saying, once a smoker, always a smoker, as life is not quite the same after ridding an addiction. Even my father, thirty years non smoking still admits he would love to draw on smouldering tobacco, just one more time, such is the addiction, I believe it alters the brain chemistry irreversibly.

 

Cigarettes, they are too expensive, more than I can afford, so, I smoke rolling tobacco, that way besides being cheaper, I can custom make a smoke to my choice, more often than not, barely more than two puffs, but it is enough sometimes.. Also with rolling tobacco, there is a deficit of chemicals in there, neglect a smoke, it goes out, quite unlike a cigarette that will burn to the filter and there pose a fire hazard.

 

I don't want to smoke, I wished I had never started at age 30, but I did due to peer pressure and am now stuck with it. Even my doctor knows my desire to stop, but won't give me the required medication to get me off it, and even recommends I do not try to give up as he recognises tobacco, does help with managing stress, something I am plagued with on a day to day basis.

 

The so called smoking ban, is yet another law to be policed by the police that have better things to do, like catching hard core criminals. It is a toothless law and aimed at alienating normally law abiding citizens. A better solution might have been available, like going back to the turn of the twentieth century and later civility of public venues offering smoke rooms for those addicted and those not, but want to smoke. But, whilst the government still reaps tax from tobacco, it's laws against the smoking of tobacco indicate the government as usual speaks with a forked tongue. And why is it, the bars in Parliament, the law proposers and makers are still allowed to smoke indoors, to me, a law starts with the law makers, not the laws are for the populace only.

 

But,as people seem to think smoking tobacco products is the root cause of cancer, I just wonder how many of those believers run diesel cars, and are quite happy with the effects of diesel fumes on the enviroment, in their hair and on their clothes. Know that, diesel fumes are a known carcinogen and hazardous to health, far more than smoking ever was. The reason everything is quiet, is because diesel is big business, the tax reaped is more than that for tobacco. Just notice what happens, those of you with diesel cars, notice the fuel tax hikes and restrictions that come into place, soon,it will be known diesel fumes pose more of a risk to health than smoking tobacco ever did.

 

As for cars that are breaking the law, if your boss says put notices on cars that break the law, then comply with your boss, as it is your job, but if anyone ever challenges you as to why you are putting notics on cars, direct them to your boss. Just say you are doing what you are told as per your job description. Now, it strikes as your boss is all well and good saying these things, but are they actually engaged in finding and putting notices on cars themself, if they are not, then what they say, is not what they experience, if it was they were involved in the day to day hassles of disgruntled motorists, they might not impose such directives. It might very well be, they direct their minnions to do the dirty work, knowing full well they will not feel the angst of their actions. Just to note it is all well and good imposing rules, but if you are not willing to impose them and rely on others, it speaks of meglomania.

 

And just finally to note, smoking tobacco is not illegal, using drugs other than tobacco or alcohol unless directed by a recognised medical practitioner is illegal.

 

Smoking may be an addiction but it can certainly be overcome. I smoked for 11 years, often up to 40 a day. I gave up 27 years ago now and am so glad. I never ever want to smoke again. My mother gave up smoking at the age of 74 and is going strong at 86. I think you are making excuses for yourself, and have not reached the mindset where you REALLY WANT to give up.

 

 

Hi Warren

 

I work for the NHS and of course people are not supposed to smoke anywhere on our premises either, including the car park. Our patients have mental health issues and can be depressed, agitated, paranoid, etc. I personally do not think I should be expected to ask them to stop, but all us staff are supposed to, we don't have security guards or anything.

 

The tax disc notice is awkward if boss says you should. If confronted, could you say that you have been given orders to put the note on and you wouldn't want them to get clamped by the DVLA. (I personally wasn't aware this could happen in a car park). People should 'shoot the messenger'.

 

 

[warrenpenalver]

surely smokers mostly chose to try cigarettes?? even with peer pressure you still have a choice. Same with illegal drugs (although there are a very small percentage of addicts who are forced to take drugs, primarily to keep them in the illegal sex trade).

 

 

DVLA changed the laws to include public accessable car parks to catch loop holes where people could legitimately park thier illegal car on a block of flats car park/ pay car park and the DVLA couldnt touch them, yet had it been parked on the road they could tow the vehicle. It doesnt apply to drives, compounds etc

 

[bid]

I think the thing is, it's often not what we have to say to people, it's the way we say it...a matey approach is often more successful than a very authoritarian one I think.

 

Bid

[Sa Skimrande]

Hi , just wanted to add to Sa Skimrande, that the person who lived near the pub and complained had every right to do so, I can,t imagine how hideous it must be for them to listen to the busy chatter of smokers and have their fag gasses blasted into their home.It would help if you and your fellow smokers were a bit more considerate of others, Why could you have not decieded that perhaps they had a point and done the decent thing and gone back into the pub having put out your cigarettes.

 

 

Well, as it stands now, we have learned the complainant is a solicitor for the city council, so knows how to manipulate the system. Recent complaints have caused the following, the beer garden is not to be used after 8.30 in the evening, no matter the time of year or weather. Barbecues and hog roasts are banned. The pub has got to have it's doors shut when in use. Smokers are only allowed to go out to smoke singularly, and if they meet anyone outside, they are not allowed to converse. In pub entertainment, music and such, is to be kept low. All this is an official order the pub has to comply or else risk closure. Now, let me get this straight, this is not a fun pub, but a local pub used by people in the age group 30 plus, the chavs and riff raff have been expelled long ago, what goes there now, is hard working people who want to drink, smoke and socialise. There is no arguing or fighting, my reason to go there, as it is safe.

 

As it stands, there is talk of the patrons getting a petition up, as this situation is one person denying the rights of the many to enjoy themselves and do in a pub what is done in pubs nation wide, it is undemocratic in a democratic country. What we cannot understand, is why this person moved next to a pub, if they did not want to hear noise. As to smoke going into a persons house, get real, no one can help which way the wind blows, although I can see this happening, a wind vane being put up. Now it does occur to many of us that this person enjoys making mountains out of molehills and is doing it because they can.

 

Smoking is not illegal, it is a choice to many and an addiction to others, the law brought about banning smoking in pubs is ridiculous, many pubs countrywide are suffering and closing due to various constraints, the smoking ban is yet another nail in the coffin. Compromise could be had on this, by simply taking a leaf out of the past, and create smoking rooms for smokers.

 

And because there is a law against smoking in public, is it a reason for anyone to bash another with it, and before you do so, examine your own faults, is there anything you do that is illegal or has a law written against. Any speeders here, anyone ever break the speed limit, perhaps go a bit faster than is allowed, perhaps park where they should'nt, what else.

 

Now, when the government that passed this ridiculous law, bans smoking in the house of parliament bars and social rooms, ( for they are still allowed to smoke in there ), bans the sale of tobacco products, and stops reaping millions in tax from it, then smoking is illegal, then this law can be applied, up till then, leave the smokers alone, it is bad enough being criminalised for becoming hooked on something that the medical services at one time even promoted as good for people, and there are still many who remember those advertisements.

 

I feel particularly strongly about what is happening to my local, because that place, the people who drink there were responsible for making me feel safe to go out and have a drink in public, they proved to me people with drink in them are not all thugs, but just genuine likeable people. I was reclusive partly because of PTSD following an attempted murder on myself, because I thought the better of four intoxicated adults. Known problem, which I believe is ASD related, trusting the wrong people and seeing the good side before the bad.

[Tally]

The man next to our local pub has made lots of complaints about it. He has made them dismantle the playground because the sound of children playing was a problem even though it wouldn't have happened late into the night. It's sad that one miserable old git is allowed to have such an impact on a business.

 

He does petitions all the time about things like the smell of chip fat. I don't know why he bought a house next to a pub. He needs to live in an isolated place really of all these things are such a bother to him. The ironic thing is that he used to be a punk!

[NobbyNobbs]

Smoking is not illegal, it is a choice to many and an addiction to others, the law brought about banning smoking in pubs is ridiculous, many pubs countrywide are suffering and closing due to various constraints, the smoking ban is yet another nail in the coffin. Compromise could be had on this, by simply taking a leaf out of the past, and create smoking rooms for smokers.

you speak of your rights as a smoker but fail to consider anyone elses rights. before the smoking ban i was unable to enter pubs, restaurants, cafes, clubs etc because i have severe asthma and the smoke triggers asthma attacks. i have rights too, and since you choose to smoke (even addictions can be undone) and i dont choose to have asthma i'm perfectly happy with you taking your habit elsewhere so i can go inside a building without the risk of suffocating. as it is i still have to dodge clouds of disgusting cigarette smoke where people lurk outside doors smoking in groups, so its not exactly rosy on my side of the ban either.

 

for Warren - i think i'd warn the smokers once with a 'really sorry but i've got to ask you to stop smoking' and then record that you asked and they refused, and leave it rather than keeping going back. unless your job role specifically says you have to remove them.

[Sa Skimrande]

you speak of your rights as a smoker but fail to consider anyone elses rights. before the smoking ban i was unable to enter pubs, restaurants, cafes, clubs etc because i have severe asthma and the smoke triggers asthma attacks. i have rights too, and since you choose to smoke (even addictions can be undone) and i dont choose to have asthma i'm perfectly happy with you taking your habit elsewhere so i can go inside a building without the risk of suffocating. as it is i still have to dodge clouds of disgusting cigarette smoke where people lurk outside doors smoking in groups, so its not exactly rosy on my side of the ban either.

 

for Warren - i think i'd warn the smokers once with a 'really sorry but i've got to ask you to stop smoking' and then record that you asked and they refused, and leave it rather than keeping going back. unless your job role specifically says you have to remove them.

 

 

Tell me, with your asthma, how do you feel about vehicle fumes, particularly diesel fumes, as vehicle fumes contain many of the chemicals in burning cigarettes and more harmful ones besides, in fact diesel fumes are a known carcinogen.

 

And, did you not notice, I suggested a compromise that is comfortable to all, not one group being given preferential treatment over another.

 

I have not always been a smoker, depression contributed to my smoking, but when I was not a smoker, I did not complain about others smoking, I just accepted the fact that if I go into certain places, I will be breathing smoke, just as I breath vehicle fumes in the street, it is one of lifes risks. To note, I am 42 now, I started smoking at age 32, so, I was a long time non smoker. Asthma I have not had, but from age 4 through to age 37, I had hay fever, and every pollen was a problem to me, I could'nt walk down the street before the eyes started streaming, either that, or always sleeping because of the piriton that was only available at the time. As a child, I suffered with eczma.

 

Sreangely though, when in a smoke laden atmosphere, it retarded the effects of the hayfever.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Sa Skimrande

[bid]

Maybe Nobby might have been making the point that a severe asthma attack can kill so people with asthma have to be very careful around any triggers?

 

Bid

Edited August 29, 2009 by bid

[NobbyNobbs]

Tell me, with your asthma, how do you feel about vehicle fumes, particularly diesel fumes, as vehicle fumes contain many of the chemicals in burning cigarettes and more harmful ones besides, in fact diesel fumes are a known carcinogen.

 

And, did you not notice, I suggested a compromise that is comfortable to all, not one group being given preferential treatment over another.

well firstly i dont make a habit of sitting in a room with a diesel engine running...

 

secondly i think you're missing the severity of an asthma attack. you wont die from not being able to smoke inside... i could die if you do. imagine holding your breath until your body is screaming for oxygen and every instinct is telling you that you have to breathe or you're going to die but your lungs wont work, you can't get air in no matter how hard you try. then tell me your 'need' to smoke inside gets equal consideration with me.

 

what compromise do you suggest? smoking areas in pubs pre smoking ban? that was a roped off area with a few tables for non smokers 3ft from people smoking. when you work out a way to keep your smoke to yourself i'll say the ban is unescessary

[chris54]

well firstly i dont make a habit of sitting in a room with a diesel engine running...

 

secondly i think you're missing the severity of an asthma attack. you wont die from not being able to smoke inside... i could die if you do. imagine holding your breath until your body is screaming for oxygen and every instinct is telling you that you have to breathe or you're going to die but your lungs wont work, you can't get air in no matter how hard you try. then tell me your 'need' to smoke inside gets equal consideration with me.

 

what compromise do you suggest? smoking areas in pubs pre smoking ban? that was a roped off area with a few tables for non smokers 3ft from people smoking. when you work out a way to keep your smoke to yourself i'll say the ban is unescessary

Well put.

[Mandapanda]

Tell me, with your asthma, how do you feel about vehicle fumes, particularly diesel fumes, as vehicle fumes contain many of the chemicals in burning cigarettes and more harmful ones besides, in fact diesel fumes are a known carcinogen.

 

And, did you not notice, I suggested a compromise that is comfortable to all, not one group being given preferential treatment over another.

 

I have not always been a smoker, depression contributed to my smoking, but when I was not a smoker, I did not complain about others smoking, I just accepted the fact that if I go into certain places, I will be breathing smoke, just as I breath vehicle fumes in the street, it is one of lifes risks. To note, I am 42 now, I started smoking at age 32, so, I was a long time non smoker. Asthma I have not had, but from age 4 through to age 37, I had hay fever, and every pollen was a problem to me, I could'nt walk down the street before the eyes started streaming, either that, or always sleeping because of the piriton that was only available at the time. As a child, I suffered with eczma.

 

Sreangely though, when in a smoke laden atmosphere, it retarded the effects of the hayfever.

 

I wasn't aware that smoking was a treatment for depression .... I make do with antidepressants myself.

 

Surely if you can get all the same chemicals (and more) by walking down the street by a busy road you could save yourself a fortune by not smoking as well. If you only started smoking 10 years ago, it was already well reported the harm smoking does to the body. You moan about diesel fumes (which generally are outside in the open air), yet you suggest you should be allowed to sit in an enclosed room deliberately inhaling dangerous fumes from your own cigarettes (which is filtered, presumably) and other people's (which is unfiltered and therefore even more harmful) Smoking rooms increase the concentration of smoke and are therefore even more harmful to smokers - I never found the extractor fan system in smoking rooms could cope with the concentration of smoke.

 

Smoking will protect you from pollen by laying down a layer of gunk in your nasal passages and lungs. This is not strange, and neither is it a 'benefit' of smoking.

 

Please don't think I am criticising you as a person, just your smoking and your 'arguments' for being allowed to affect other people with your smoke. Nobbynobs can't affect you with asthma, except perhaps by falling on you during an asthma attack, but your smoke could kill Nobbynobs (or others with asthma). You can smoke at home, friends' and relatives' homes if they let you, in your car, and out in the open air. I think that is ample opportunity for you to harm yourself. The NHS are providing many different ways of helping people give up smoking at the moment, but you have to really want to give up. I know, I've done it.

 

We all have a right to breathe fresh air (as fresh as possible). No arguments can get round that one

Edited September 1, 2009 by Mandapanda

[Sa Skimrande]

Personlly, I believe smoking has been made a scapegoat for other things in society, just like alcohol consumption, these two things, which strangely enough are the resorts of many of the poor, and mentaly ill ,are under attack, and often those that do the attacking, live in ivory towers, it does not affect them, so they can't understand the realities scenario.

 

Now, it might even be part of a sneaky vicious plan, ban smoking in pubs, chuck the smokers out in the rain and cold, and watch the pub clientele diminish and then watch the pub close down, two birds hit with one stone. Oh, and for the die hard pub clientele, we will raise the cost of duty on a pint of ale to force them not to drink. The down side of this, is supermarkets sell cheap booze, the pub closes and people drink and smoke at home in front of the telly, and in comfort.

 

Odd though, I believe in the House of Lords and Commons, there is smoking still allowed in doors, they have provision for it, and with comfort, as they are not us, we are the hoi poloi, they are more important. Personally, I would like to see the bars and smoking facilities closed in Parliament, because they are there to do a job, it is not the private club they think it is.

 

This country is sliding down a sad, sick route.

 

Now the issue of alcohol induced violence, due to a recent dissasterous night out in another town, I became stuck in that town, I slept for some of the night in the rain and cold at the railway station, waiting for a train, which was I thought supposed to come, but in fact was not coming until five hours later, (Reading timetable issues again). Anyway, the police came and booted me off the station platform where I had some shelter, onto the town at pub and club licking out time, lovely, my greatest fear, and I had not been drinking, it was very scary.

 

Anyway to my surprise the drunks were good humoured, they were happy, but getting cold and wet, and later unhappy. The unhappier they got, the more angry they became and violence did start with some. Now my observation was all these people wanted to do, was go home, but they could'nt, as there was no public transport, Devon at least is technically shut as far as public transport goes on a weekend after midnight, and earlier in some place, nine thirty in the town I was stuck in. The violence I saw was because drunk but happy people were getting cold and wet, stuck without shelter or means of getting home in a town which is unfriendly at night. The police I saw, were antagonistic to groups of youths, they were not helping, certainly not the police we see on tv dealing with the saturday night excess.

 

So, the problem I see, is if pubs and clubs are permitted to stay open late into the night, or early morning, then transport should be available to allow these people to get home, as that is all the majority want to do. If the police want to do something useful, they should put on transport for these people, that way, taking them away from trouble, getting to know people, and goofd for the police/public relations, the police can become a service to people, not a pariah.

 

I got home via taxi, £95 for thirty miles, that certainly ate into my low income, and the reason I was out, to attend a belly dance festival and meet an online friend, a professional male dancer visiting for the first time from America.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Sa Skimrande