Third smoke ban rebel facing court

Go for it Tony - businesses are suffering horrible losses around the country and very many town pubs have lost a lot of customers already. People like Claire, who are experiencing good custom, seem to be very rare indeed at present. If there had been a market for non-smoking establishments (as Tich correctly pointed out), surely they would have been up and running well before this draconian unnecessary blanket ban. New people do not seem to be flocking into pus/clubs etc. since July 1st and some businesses locally are losing 3-4 hundred pounds a week in summer. I wish Tony and other like-minded brave people all the very best.

Claire Bignall said "I am sorry to say the MAJORITY of the country agree this law is a positive move, it is just that the minority shout the loudest!" - i disagree most strongly with this statement, can someone tell me who asked the 14 million smokers in this country their opinion and the thousands and thousands of publicans. It would do some people good to remember that banning smoking in all public places was NOT in any political parties manifesto and was NOT therefore voted on by the British Public. Further the poll ran by the Office of National Statistics stated that only 33% wanted a total ban, the other 67% wanted smoking and no smoking areas backed up by ventilation. Spain, Holland and Portugal have all opted for this option and publicans have been given the choice. Claire Bignall might want to live in a dictatorship the majority dont.

To claire bagnall.o.k. so your pub is doing o.k. now with the blue Rinse brigade begging meals for as little as 1.99p each for 3 courses in some areas.you wait untill the snow and frost comes honey..you wont have any customers,cos Sheeple dont like the snow.And no,the majority 67% did not want this ban however much the Antis try to brainwash the sheeple.that they did.

Good luck Tony,they have a choice of Smoking or non smoking bars ,restauraunts etc., in other parts of europe so why not here?,let the european courts decide ?as we are a member of the european union and you can,t have one rule for one and not the other ! I have actually stopped socialising because of this ban as it makes you feel ostracised !

I'm sorry if it doesn't trouble Claire Bignell that so much in the way of public resources has been applied to fostering an atsmosphere that marginalises smokers. The law is the law and perhaps she would rather Rosa Parks had stayed on the Blacks only section of the bus and racial segragation might be the norm to this day ... Last week I had a meal with three other people at a bar/restaurant outdoors, under an enormous umbrella in the rain, while the waitress and bar tender (a smoker) sat inside the bar by herself. This frankly ludicrous situation is being replicated all over the country now. The most ordinary social intercourse is interrupted and censored. Yes there are other ways of achieving change than civil disobedience, and freedom2choose will be considering as many as they can. Don't doubt their/our commitment.

Tony and the rest of the "rebel" landlords are risking their livlihood standing up for freedom and all that is right and good in this God forsaken dictatorship of a country. I wish Tony all the luck in the world, we need more people like him!

You're incorrect, Claire. The majority of the public do not agree with the law in relation to pubs. An Office for National Statistics survey from July of last year proved that: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/smoking0706.pdf Only 33% of the population favour a total ban in pubs. I am afraid it is you who is part of a minority.

Clair How wrong you are. the majority of the people (70%) did not want an all out ban they wanted choice which was only what the government promissed us in their last manifesto. let me asure you that my whole heart is in this and i will not change, i am prepared to go to prison where i can smoke, but to be denighed the right to smoke in my own home, cannot and will never be right. after 30 years in this trade this is the most unjust, discriminating law that has ever been passed. you might be doing well in your pub but think of all the others that are not that are either landlocked or have 95% smokers like myself. your selfish attitude dosent do you any favours in this continually hard trade. make the most of your trade because you might be next.

Claire, I am happy that your choice worked out so well for you. We have seen that you are an exception to the rule and a lot of pubs are suffering badly from the ban. No, the non/anti smokers have not been flocking in. The law is bad and will be contested. Your arguement that the law must be obeyed because "it is the law" is reminiscent of the Nazi war criminals who were just "obeying the law". When the law is wrong then it MUST be contested. Sorry, it won´t wash.

Claire, I am glad you pub is doing well and you have made provisions for smokers. The loudest minority ar the antis, they will not fill all the venues. There will be people going out now that did stay at home. There will also be many smokers and non-smoking partners/couples like myself, friends and family, who will not go out to freeze. A law based on lies, is an unjust law, it is vindictive and spiteful and has caused much hatred. It can be seen on many online comments to articles. Hatred is NOT healthy, social engineering is NOT healthy, social isolation is NOT healthy. I have never been a law breaker, %! years old, but this ban has gone too far. An amended needs to be fought for to include ventilation/air filtration, for those in the hospitality trade, who wish to go down that route. This ban is about control, it has a much bigger agenda, some of us know where it is all going, it will not stop unless people make a stand. There are many violent people amongst us, who do not need an excuse to shoot, stab or injure people. Publicans or staff will be put at risk. It is a witch-hunt against smokers,you do what you feel is right for you, others will do what they feel is right for them. I will not go to the local pubs who did not want to give their customers a voice, my choice. freedom2choose.info

The Smoking ban was never part of any political party manifesto and was brought about by the lobbying of a weak government by ASH and other Anti-Smoking organisations. Consultations were a farce as the Anti-Smokers were prepared well in advance and had the backing of the pharmaceutical companies who had a vested interest in NRT products. Those publicans and pub chains that have spent thousands of pounds in providing outdoor facilities will soon change their views when further restrictions planned by the EU are known.NOW is the time to fight the smoking ban and civil disobedience will succeed in highlighting the unfairness of this law. Wait till the winter arrives and your beer gardens are empty and you only have one or two miserable Anti's sipping their half pints in the pub.Those landlords who are defying the ban now deserve the support of everybody, they have seen the danger of this ban that is dividing society. IGNORE THE BAN AND LIGHT UP.

Tony Blows is making a stand on behalf of himself and many millions of people in this country who believe this is a bad law, and needs to be contested. Well done to him. The number of people who say the law is the law and you should never break the law, are missing a very big point, where do you draw the line? Sooner or later the phrase "I was just following orders" is no longer a justifiable excuse. There will come a time when donning a brown shirt and obeying without question will be the only option left for 'Law abiding' people. Then all those millions of deaths 60 years ago will have come to nothing.

to save landlords from prosecution i suggest that next to the enforced NO SMOKING SIGN the landlords should put up their own poster along the following lines ANY ONE SMOKING ANY WHERE IN THIS ESTABLISHMENT DOES SO AT HIS /HER OWN RISK AND COULD FACE BEING FINED UNDER EXISTING LEGISLATION. SIGNED THE MANAGEMENT the landlords lawyers can give an opiniom on this as something has to be done about this ill thought blanket ban

Tobacco is a legal substance and has not been banned in places of residence. Why therefore should a private pub owner be treated differently? Any publican should have the right to refuse to serve whoever he wants and therefore refuse entry to all non-smokers.

I think all of you people that are for the ban are PATHETIC. Since when is our establishments publicly owned. We are privately owned entities trying to make a living. And why doesn't the government BAN the sales of cigarettes if they are so harmful. MONEY AND TAXES. They were quick to take a few drugs off the market because they were harmful to ones health, but they won't the cigarettes because they are the biggest money maker for the government and the pharmaceutical industry. Who do you think is funding the smoking bans. Yes-it's our tax dollars and the pharmaceutical industry. If they can get people to go along with their smoking cessation products to help people quit...then they are making even more money. Are these products safer than the cigarettes?? Absolutley not. Do your homework befor you call people pathetic and by all means put your whole lifes savings, head aches, and long hours in your own establishment and see how long you will be in business when the government comes in your privately owned business and tells you how to run it.

I do not agree that with the comment Keith made that the government planned this ban for the good of the (MAJORITY) or non smokers. In my opion and after speaking to other licensees and managers it seems that the larger managed houses and outlets are thriving because there is money to be spent on ensuring provisions for non smokers and smokers alike are in place. What about the small licensees in freehold, lease and tenant property. We can not afford a loan nor money upfront to purchase any equipment. The majority of our clients ar smokers and we have nothing for them and have seen no further growth in the non smoking trade. We have been forced into an impossible position. Good for Tony for standing up for his beliefs and rights in his pub but I feel he will loose out in the end. It will take an uprising by everyone for any voice to be heard.

Well done Tony. If we don't stand up and be counted - who will. The anti-smokers carp on about this being LAW as if this is everything - well my friends, this country is still (just) a democracy and people still have the right of protest. We do not live in a nazi state where only one opinion counts - we have the right to stand against this 'civil' law. What frightens me more than anything about this issue is the hatred and contempt that pours out of anti smokers - bigotry kills more people worldwide than any other 1 thing - just think before you speak or write and ask yourself, am I being fair, am I really listening to what is being said or is this now the only issue I can vent all my hatred on - hatred that stems from other issues but smokers are the only 'fair game' this unfair and comtemptible government who are controlled by organisations like ASH, have left me!!!?

The right to a smokeless environment I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else's rights? Airplanes, court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any smoking law. What should not be included are places located in or on private property, providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law, to frequent or work at that specific location.

To Tony Blows I say - Take it all the way, it is your home, you alone should be allowed to decide whether you and your customers are allowed to partake in a perfectly legal activity. To Keith Langridge, may I say your argument is wrong on several counts. 1) A public house is not a public place. 2) If the MAJORITY of pub users are non-smokers, why were there not more non-smoking pubs prior to the ban, surely free market economics would have ensured their success. 3) Smokers contribute far more in tax than the amount spent by the NHS.

Claire and Keith - Your posts seem uncannily similar. You both state the MAJORITY of pub-goers support this ban. If that were true then pubs would not be struggling to survive. Around 1000 - 1500 pubs, bars & social clubs will cease trading within the next 12 months, even more the year after. Ireland has lost 14% of it's pubs already. That would equate to 8000 pubs & bars closing in the UK within 4 years. Along with the forthcoming anti-drinking measures the Trade is being crucified. Publicans must either fight back in any way they can or face losing their livelihoods. I take my hat off to Tony Blows and wish him all the luck in the world.

As a licensee running a pub that has been smoke free for the last 3 years, it is my opinion – (yes opinion) that too much importance has been placed the wrong issues. My business is thriving it was identified early on that a large number of non smokers previously stayed at home so not only did we give them somewhere to go before the ban, they has stayed loyal since! I believe the main issue isn't whether or not the law is correct or someone is right to break it because they don’t agree - IT IS THE LAW - I am not anti smokers, we have ensured a significant area is available for our smoking customers and try to make them as comfortable as possible outside. I believe everyone is important, smokers or not and all deserve to be treated will respect - this respect does not mean support in breaking the law whether I believe the law is right or not. There are several laws I believe are flawed or unjust but I don’t purposely break them or condone breaking them. There are much better ways of fighting unjust laws – it will take time and money and I don’t believe that the people kicking up the fuss believe strongly enough to actually get something done – and NO I don’t believe a little publicity for breaking the law will get anyone anywhere except a stay in jail or massive fines and quite aside from that I am sorry to say the MAJORITY of the country agree this law is a positive move, it is just that the minority shout the loudest!

The law cannot be flouted because a few people think they are right and have a small following. A public place is where the public are invited in for the trade to take place. This smoking ban was for the benefit of the public who do not smoke, or in other words the MAJORITY of pub users. The increase in trade in many pubs has proven it to be the right decision by governbment and its advisors. The penalties for disobeying should be severe as smoking was causing lots of health problems in non smokers and smokers alike that cost the NHS a lot of money.

There shouldn't be a smoking ban in the first place.Bad laws should be contested.Smoking bans are being challenged everywhere.The U.S. Supreme Court has found that a private business does not become public simply because the public is invited in.In my province,the gov. has lost the appeal in a smoking ban case very similar to this story.

Re: Third smoke ban rebel facing court. This government's knowledge of, and concern for, smoker's, would approximate the size of a filter on a cigarette. If one truly desires to promote the health of smoker's and their families, one does not pursue that desire by subsequently destroying their mental/emotional stability through constant use of stessful force by intimidation, new legislations. It is mental/emotional health that makes physical health work, not the effects of trauma caused by government irresponsibility. Surprisingly, this government has chosen to bow and curtsy to, our enemies, monstrous Second World War anti-smoking history. Human beings are not automatons to be dictated to by government bureaucrats, in particular, not on their own property.

Mike, If I am able to accept and respect that you are entitled to your opinion, can you accept that others are entitled to disagree with you. You do not state whether you are a licensee, let alone whether you are a manager or proprietor of such an enterprise; all of which are very likely to colour your opinion. Before you sound off on any issue, it would be most helpful if you clarified your interest so constructive debate / comment can be made. Otherwise the fourth word of your post is the apposite response - "pathetic". And yes I am a self employed licensee.

Tony is a man of principle who deserves our heartfelt congratulations and support for his stand against the incursion of the state into what was, until July 1st, our private domain. Smoking per se is not illegal. The alleged harmful effects from passive smoking are far from proven and in some studies actually shown to be beneficial. Yet, the government has assumed powers that it does not legitimately hold to tell us what we may do and what our customers may do in our own private space. The public has not and never has had uninhibited access to our pubs. They are admitted only on our terms and with our agreement and, as we all learn on the courses, can be ejected without reason. The Health Act 2006 seeks to make we publicans into unpaid agents of the state required, under threat of a substantial fine, to police a law that only applies circumstantially. Not even the police are subject to penalty if they fail to successfully police a real crime. In this Alice-in-Wonderland state are they seriously saying that we must successfully prohibit an otherwise legal activity and suffer a severe penalty if we do not? And what of property rights? Tony is a hero on a par with the Tolpuddle Martyrs.

Smoking Bans are a gross infringement of private property rights. Pubs are privately owned not publicaly owned, whether smoking takes place on the premises should be the owners choice and no one elses, definitely not governments. The public are invited in not forced in, the same applies to people working there. I carnt believe how publicans have just rolled over and accepted this bad law. Good luck to Mr Blows he deserves it.

This man is a hero. He has the courage to stand against a bad law and all the lackeys who try to impose it. This law is yet another example of the intrusive nature of this government and Blows is a man who has spoken for many by his actions. With regard to the previous comment posted by "Mike," sometimes breaking the law, particularly when it is a bad one, is the right way to go as civil disobedience is the last defence of the citizen against a tyrannical government. This law has nothing to do with safeguarding the public but was politically motivated by those with a desire to "save us from ourselves." Moreover, what a pity they had to fabricate evidence to support it by proposing that second hand smoke, in the quantities in which we normally experience it, is a deadly substance. It is not and only the weak minded and foolish believe it to be so. In fact, I suggest that those who persist in this belief go and study the emissions from traffic for if they think SHS is dangerous then traffic fumes must be banned immediately!

There is nothing pathetic about challenging or defying laws that are unjust.. Indeed the democracy of this country is rich in history of doing just that, dating back to and before suffragettes chaining themselves up to draw attention to the need to change the law. It takes courage, real courage to do that; what remaining freedoms we do have left in this country have had to be fought for, it is people who are too scared to challenge and fight who are pathetic.

Is it right that I hear that the only place exempt from the smoking ban is the houses of parliament. If so why should MP's who help make this law not abide the same as everyone else?

This man is pathetc, I hope he loses his license. Why don't we all ignore the law, all 3 should be made examples of.