Your Argus
TEXT your pictures, videos and messages to 80360. Start your message with SUPIC or email your tip-offs »
Barman assaulted for telling smoker to stop
4:31am Thursday 26th July 2007
Comments (88)A barman was attacked by a drinker after he tried to uphold the new smoking laws at his pub.
Regulars at the Rose and Crown, in Worthing, watched in horror as the member of staff was headbutted and punched by the customer.
The drinker struck out in front of an off-duty police officer after he had been told to stop smoking at the pub in Montague Street.
One onlooker, who refused to be named, said: "He was looking for a fight and it looked as if he picked an argument over where he could and couldn't smoke and drink."
A staff member had asked the gentleman, believed to be a former marine in his mid 40s, to stop smoking in the pub's beer garden.
The garden was closed for the afternoon as there was live music at the popular pub.
The man then took his cigarette and pint out to the front of the pub where several other pub-goers were enjoying a smoke.
The same staff member followed the man and told him he was not allowed to drink in the street and would have to take his drink back in.
Instead of obeying the barman's orders the man punched him and headbutted him three times.
Another regular at the pub, who did not want to be named, said: "We couldn't believe it. There is never any trouble at this pub and as far as I know there hasn't been any trouble here since the smoking ban started.
"It does have an effect on people though telling them where they can and can't drink and smoke.
"Fortunately the injuries to the barman weren't too bad and there was an off-duty policeman standing there as well so he helped out a lot."
Sergeant Ian Kerr, of Sussex Police, said the force was appealing for witnesses to the assault, at 3.30pm on Sunday, to come forward and that they were investigating the incident.
He said: "There was an assault at the Rose and Crown pub and we do have a named suspect. We haven't spoken to the individual involved yet but we are looking to progress this to a conclusion.
"Obviously anyone who has information can come forward and contact us on 0845 6070999."
Since the smoking ban has come in there have been no reports of smokers breaking the law in Sussex with pubs across the county having mixed experiences over whether or not it has affected trade.
Over the last four weeks landlords have told The Argus drinkers have been adhering to the new rules and, early on in the ban, those who forgot and accidentally lit up were more than happy to move outside or put their cigarette out.
The legislation was introduced to improve public health but pro-smoking groups such as Forest has accused the Government of eroding people's rights.
Anyone breaking the law by lighting up could be hit with a £50 fine and if it goes to court it could rise to £200.
Businesses also face fines of up to £2,500 if they fail to enforce the ban and display the correct no smoking signs.
The violence arising at the Rose and Crown from the smoking ban echos the reaction of three men in a London club who shot a bouncer after he asked them to stop smoking.
James Oyebola, 47, was attacked in the early hours of Monday morning. The 6ft 9ins former British heavyweight boxing champion was shot in the head and leg in a covered courtyard area at the rear of Chateau 6 in Fulham Road, west London. He remains in a critical condition.
Management at the Rose and Crown refused to comment on the Sunday incident because of the ongoing police investigation.
Your Say YourThe Argus
Jim, Brighton says...
11:24am Thu 26 Jul 07
jstewart, NE Englan d says...
11:45am Thu 26 Jul 07
Rich, Sussex says...
11:51am Thu 26 Jul 07
Arnold, Yorks. says...
12:08pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Only the fatally addicted would continue to smoke in the enlightened world in which we now live.
It is symptomatic of someone who struggles to express themselves due to a dull intellect that they lash out (as in this case).
The law exists to protect good people from this violent, aggressive minority who, not content with endangering other's lives through carcinogenic smoke, attempt to beat them with their fists until we see it from their point of view.
As smoking rates fall, only the truely desperate will continue to smoke.
20 years from now they'll hopefully be hardly any smokers at all.
Jenny, N Yorkshire says...
12:09pm Thu 26 Jul 07
RTS, Worcester says...
12:26pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Acheron, Hove says...
12:27pm Thu 26 Jul 07
What he was doing was enforcing what is now the law of the land. Whether you agree with it or not, it's there. Maybe you'd prefer it for the pub to lose its license and the landlord/lady to lose their livelyhood for 'letting people off'.
And at the end of the day, any sort of nagging does not deserve becoming a victim of GBH. Anyone who is condoning the violence on the grounds of nagging is really promoting a very violent world and should reconsider.
John, Portsmouth says...
12:36pm Thu 26 Jul 07
what a shallow-minded statement....so then...when are drinkers going to be singled out and treated as 'lepers' for the assaults that happen in every main town??
Biggest load of ***** i've seen written for a while
Paul, Worthing says...
12:37pm Thu 26 Jul 07
peter potter, Brighton says...
12:40pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Daniel M, Derby says...
12:50pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Tich, York says...
12:57pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Arnold wrote:With a degree in Computer Science and working as IT manager for a company, I bow to your superior knowledge.
Typically smokers are of low intelligence and also weak minded to fall prey to such a horrible addiction.
Only the fatally addicted would continue to smoke in the enlightened world in which we now live.
It is symptomatic of someone who struggles to express themselves due to a dull intellect that they lash out (as in this case).
The law exists to protect good people from this violent, aggressive minority who, not content with endangering other\'s lives through carcinogenic smoke, attempt to beat them with their fists until we see it from their point of view.
As smoking rates fall, only the truely desperate will continue to smoke.
20 years from now they\'ll hopefully be hardly any smokers at all.
My low intelligence is unable to analyse the statistics that show there is no link between SHS and cancer. I simply listen to the lies spouted by the like of ASH to line their own pockets. The law actually exists to protect workers but you would know that !!
It's quite OK for a non smoker to hit a deaf person for not responding to a request to put his cigarette out then is it. Double standards or what. The aggressive minority are the rAntis like yourself.
For the more tolerant people out there who believe in freedom and choice visit freedom2choose.co.uk
Paul, Worthing says...
1:00pm Thu 26 Jul 07
DaveA, London says...
1:02pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Rick S, London says...
1:14pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Having said that, violence can never been condoned, and this incident is deplorable in its own right, quite apart from giving ammunition to disturbing bigots like Arnold.
DaveA, London says...
1:14pm Thu 26 Jul 07
"Having a quick puff on a 3 hour train journey while the train was taking on more passengers"
Arnold, Yorks says...
1:19pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Pro-smokers have lost this one, as they always would. Now we are seeing the backlash from an aggressive minority who are determined to force across their point across, using violence if necessary.
Oh and for DaveA: Here's a multitude of studies showing the harmful effects of passive smoking:
http://www.no-smoke.
org/pdf/SHSBibliogra
phy.pdf
I hear nicotine patches come highly recommended??
martin, says...
1:29pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Tich, York says...
1:31pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Arnold wrote:Wonderful link Arnold - mostly to do with pregnancy and children. Since when was a pub somewhere that a child goes. And while I'm on the subject what exactly are you qualifications.
With a degree in Computer Science you are hopelessly unqualified to comment on epideamiological evidence and carcinogenicity of SHS.
Pro-smokers have lost this one, as they always would. Now we are seeing the backlash from an aggressive minority who are determined to force across their point across, using violence if necessary.
Oh and for DaveA: Here\'s a multitude of studies showing the harmful effects of passive smoking:
http://www.no-smoke.
org/pdf/SHSBibliogra
phy.pdf
I hear nicotine patches come highly recommended??
Part of my degree was in Software engineering which incorporates a large amount of statistical analysis
DaveA, London says...
1:35pm Thu 26 Jul 07
utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode
rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible
reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights
and freedoms being removed until past the point at which
these changes cannot be reversed - Adolf Hitler
Daniel M, Derby says...
1:36pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Tich, York says...
1:37pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Tim, Brighton says...
1:38pm Thu 26 Jul 07
If the guy was in an area he wasn't allowed to be, then the barman has every right to move him, and if he isn't allowed to take his drink out the front - what's his problem.
DaveA, London says...
1:38pm Thu 26 Jul 07
http://www.bmj.com/c
gi/reprint_abr/326/7
398/1057.pdf
Conclusions The results do not support a causal
relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker
than generally believed."
Introduction
Several major reviews have determined that exposure
Carl Schalck, says...
1:42pm Thu 26 Jul 07
While doing your job. At work. I notice the attacker was apparently an "ex-marine". Hmm.
Anyone who reacts with violence of that magnitude (headbutted THREE times?!) when asked to follow the pub's rules should be locked up until they are rehabilitated into a normal society.
Jenny, N Yorkshire says...
1:43pm Thu 26 Jul 07
freedom2choose.co.uk
Tich, York says...
1:45pm Thu 26 Jul 07
freedom2choose.co.uk
Arnold, Yorks says...
1:48pm Thu 26 Jul 07
I've just pulled out a rake of independent, peer-reviewed studies. You manage with a bit of tobacco company propoganda! LOL!
Even the tobacco companies have now given up trying to fool people. Go and have a look on their websites and see what they say about passive smoking!
Tich, York says...
1:56pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Arnold wrote:Ah that's it is it Arnold - if its funded by Big Tobacco it's a lie but if it's funded by BigPharma then it is automatically true. Big tobacco just want to line there own pockets and Big Pharma want to ....... just line their own pockets.
Keep clinging to that tobacco funded study DaveA!!!
I\'ve just pulled out a rake of independent, peer-reviewed studies. You manage with a bit of tobacco company propoganda! LOL!
Even the tobacco companies have now given up trying to fool people. Go and have a look on their websites and see what they say about passive smoking!
Roger Foulser, Hornchurch says...
2:08pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Jenny, N Yorkshire says...
2:08pm Thu 26 Jul 07
I could not agree with you more Tim of Brighton - but who are the idiots? The idiots are the ones in charge who ignore the wishes of ordinary people - those who legislate in a manner which degrades, criminalises and belittles ordinary decent people. Before this government started spouting all this anti-smoking propaganda, most people didn't give a toss about people around them smoking (unless they deliberately wanted to aggrevate them, of course, or blew smoke into their faces inadvertently). This law really is the cause of violence, not just physical violence, but psychological warfare. Violent acts and arguments are the direct consequences of people enforcing their lifestyle choices and views on other people. If people can't understand this simple fact, then they are the 'idiots'.
DaveA, London says...
2:09pm Thu 26 Jul 07
http://www.hse.gov.u
k/foi/internalops/fo
d/oc/200-299/255-16.
"14 The evidential link between individual circumstances of exposure to risk in exempted premises will be hard to establish. Inspectors are therefore urged to exercise caution in considering any formal enforcement action in relation to SHS (with one exception see below). However, the full impact of the smoking ban is difficult to foresee completely, and if serious circumstances emerge where inspectors believe they must consider enforcement, then they should consult the Policy Team (see Annex 1 for contacts) before taking action. "
Andy R, Hove says...
2:10pm Thu 26 Jul 07
martin wrote:No he wasn't. Try reading the article and then commenting rather than the other way around.
the guy was in the beer garden, there was no law being broken to enforce in the first place.
Arnold, Yorks says...
2:20pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Unfortunately the HSE has NO say in public health (as they know very little about it!)
Smoking kills 100,000 people in the UK every year with 9 out of 10 cases of lung cancer occurring in smokers.
You can waffle on as much as you want with your crazy 'conspiracy theories'.
The bottom line is this WILL save lives, weighed against the minor inconvenience of smoking outside it's a no-brainer.
DaveA, London says...
2:21pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Tich, York says...
2:24pm Thu 26 Jul 07
One has to ask whether the are fit to do the job of running a country when the purposely cause a divide in what used to be a tolerant country.
freedom2choose.co.uk
Arnold, Yorks. says...
2:25pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Don't forget to tell everyone that Professor Enstrom has had a 30 year relationship with the tobacco industry and received many thousands of dollars from them!
Tich, York says...
2:27pm Thu 26 Jul 07
dave, hove says...
2:29pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Tich wrote:Cool!
It's quite interesting to think that this incident along with the deaf guy getting beaten up and (possibly) the boxer being shot would not be happening if the government had thought about what they were doing. One has to ask whether the are fit to do the job of running a country when the purposely cause a divide in what used to be a tolerant country. freedom2choose.co.uk
Bloke headbutts someone and all of a sudden the Government is to blame, can't quite see the link myself....
Tich, York says...
2:30pm Thu 26 Jul 07
I'm with you DaveA :-)
DaveA, London says...
2:32pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Ben Wheeler, Brighton says...
2:39pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Maybe the government needs to hauled before the courts itself on this one, for it's own failure to consider the safety of law abiding members of the public
Ashley Price (Lewes Green Party), Lewes, Sussex says...
2:40pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Asking someone twice to stop breaking the law is hardly nagging.
The beer garden was closed that afternoon and so the attacker went out onto the street with his drink - where drinking against the law.
As has been said above people should read the article before commenting.
martin, says...
2:46pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Andy R wrote:"A staff member had asked the gentleman, believed to be a former marine in his mid 40s, to stop smoking in the pub's beer garden."
martin wrote: the guy was in the beer garden, there was no law being broken to enforce in the first place.No he wasn't. Try reading the article and then commenting rather than the other way around.
yes he was, i suggest you take your own advice.
Michael, Edinburgh says...
2:47pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Jenny, N Yorkshire says...
2:47pm Thu 26 Jul 07
martin, says...
2:52pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Ashley Price (Lewes Green Party) wrote:the man was not breaking the smoking ban law because the garden was closed.
The comments made on here show that many people have commented without reading the article. Asking someone twice to stop breaking the law is hardly nagging. The beer garden was closed that afternoon and so the attacker went out onto the street with his drink - where drinking against the law. As has been said above people should read the article before commenting.
this guy was obviously a thug but, this has been turned into a story of a man breaking the smoking law when actually there was no infraction of the smoking ban broken at all.
A fed up Smoker, Brighton says...
2:54pm Thu 26 Jul 07
This legislation is badly thought out and could have been developed as a better compromise. Isn't it ironic, that most supporters of the ban, never venture into pubs or clubs. If that is the case, why did they support the ban?
Andy R, Hove says...
2:58pm Thu 26 Jul 07
martin wrote:Have another go. He took his drink out on to the street because the beer garden was closed. He was then told he could not drink in the street. He could have smoked outside but he wanted to drink as well.
Andy R wrote:"A staff member had asked the gentleman, believed to be a former marine in his mid 40s, to stop smoking in the pub's beer garden." yes he was, i suggest you take your own advice.martin wrote: the guy was in the beer garden, there was no law being broken to enforce in the first place.No he wasn't. Try reading the article and then commenting rather than the other way around.
martin, says...
3:08pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Andy R wrote:"A staff member had asked the gentleman, believed to be a former marine in his mid 40s, to stop smoking in the pub's beer garden ." copy and pasted from the article.
martin wrote:Have another go. He took his drink out on to the street because the beer garden was closed. He was then told he could not drink in the street. He could have smoked outside but he wanted to drink as well.Andy R wrote:"A staff member had asked the gentleman, believed to be a former marine in his mid 40s, to stop smoking in the pub's beer garden." yes he was, i suggest you take your own advice.martin wrote: the guy was in the beer garden, there was no law being broken to enforce in the first place.No he wasn't. Try reading the article and then commenting rather than the other way around.
he was smoking in the beer garden ( not breaking the law ) after being told not to, he went out the front where broke a drinking outdoors law.
not once was there an infraction of the smoking ban.
the man was a thug but, he did not break any smoking laws.
Jenny, N Yorkshire says...
3:10pm Thu 26 Jul 07
The beer garden was closed that afternoon and so the attacker went out onto the street with his drink - where drinking against the law."
I'm afraid, as an adult, I would consider being asked to do something twice would be considered 'nagging' and besides that, for hundreds of years people could drink and smoke in places without being pestered anyway and brought into conflict with the law. This case is a classic example of the horrible consequences of badly thought-out legislation as a 'fed-up smoker' above quite rightly pointed out.
S, Sussex says...
4:28pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Tich wrote:So, let's get this straight - you won't take Zyban because death is one of its side-effects (in a very, very small number of cases), but you're quite happy to smoke, even though death is one of the side-effects of smoking (one that kills over 100,000 people a year in the UK)? Hmm, very logical!
Oh and by the way Arnold along with nicotine patches there is of course Zyban which is made by one of the companies as a smoking cessation product - one of its side effects is very interesting - its called death. I'll stick with cigs thanks
Tich, York says...
4:40pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Well if you think it's OK to prescribe a drug that has the potential to kill (and has) fine.
I would like to know the source of your figures of 100,000 a year is from. Bear in mind that if you die of a smoking related disease it does not prove that smoking caused the disease.
Ashley Price (Lewes Green Party), Lewes, Sussex says...
4:47pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Whether you are for or against the law doesn't matter, someone should not react in the way this person did when being asked.
As it happens, I personally don't completely agree with the ban. I would like to think that the owner of whatever business or establishment could decide whether people smoked or not. But I think this would lead to more abuse than have an all out ban.
Tich, York says...
4:54pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Ashley Price (Lewes Green Party) wrote:I don't think anyone here condones the violence referred to in this article or the other 2 recent assaults, on a deaf man and the boxer.
So, what the majority of people seem to be saying is that the fact that the disagree with the smoking laws means that the violence was justified!
Whether you are for or against the law doesn\'t matter, someone should not react in the way this person did when being asked.
As it happens, I personally don\'t completely agree with the ban. I would like to think that the owner of whatever business or establishment could decide whether people smoked or not. But I think this would lead to more abuse than have an all out ban.
And is is good to hear that you do not completely agree with the ban that would 'appear' to be the cause of these incidents but I fail to see how the freedom of choice would lead to more abuse. Surely a mixture of smoking and non-smoking premises would restore the harmony by allowing everybody the freedom of choice.
Lucy, Brighton says...
6:44pm Thu 26 Jul 07
I would like to be the first here to wish the assaulted barman a quick and full recovery.
Fact smoking in any enclosed public area is now against the law.
The pub garden being closed appears to have been a discretionary measure on the landlords part to minimise the adverse affect a noisy band and busy pub would have on said landlords neighbours.
Drinking on the street in front of the pub is no doubt an infringement of the venues license, therefore not permissible by the landlord.
It is a shame that the situation could not have been amicably resolved by reasonable discussion. The gentleman in the loosest sense of the word may not have been fully aware, when purchasing his drink, of the publicans licensing restrictions and discretionary measures. Had he chosen to be polite and understanding, he may have found his money refunded to him so he could enjoy his pint & cigarette in an establishment whose pub garden was open at that time.
Drinking alcohol has a direct link to increased violence. Smoking or the prevention of does not.
MRab2, Worcester says...
8:46pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Drink and smoke!?! At the same time? What, was he mental?!!?
Jason, says...
9:02pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Yet a woman's tongue was cut out for smoking in Midwestern U.S. one month back and a man in NYC clubbed to death for smoking just 5 months ago.
Even here in U.K. an older deaf man was kicked to the ground and beaten by a younger non-smoker calling him names - and where was the outrage.
Propaganda indeed. I'm not a smoker and have nothing to gain but know the smoking ban has been based on a total lie and fraud, all pharmaceutical backed and led for more profits for them, selling nicotine and antidepressants and who knows what else they have on the agenda.
ETS was never shown harmful enough there couldn't have been allowances for separate ventilated rooms and banning it outdoors now too is just taking it too far.
Fuming, Worthing says...
9:08pm Thu 26 Jul 07
I also think trying to micro-manage peoples lives at this level when people are being flooded out of their homes because of inadequate flood protection and ridiculous planning regulations speaks volumes about the incompetence of the curtent adminstration.
lynsey williams, cheshire says...
9:59pm Thu 26 Jul 07
I do not think my bar staff should have to police the smoking ban nor do i think it right for licensees to pay a fine for those people who smoke in their pub. It should be up to the government to "create new jobs:i.e smoking police" for us to ring if someone dares to commit this heinous crime!! Then wouldn't that be a crass waste of public money, as has the massively expensive non smoking campaign. If common sense and democracy had prevailed then we would not now be in this ridiculous situation. As the anti smoking campaigners have claimed, the majority want this ban, then most venues would have become non smoking but there would have been a few little havens, ie traditional english pubs, for those who wish to relax with a drink, a cigarette and cogenial and sensible conversation!
If you believe you should have a choice visit freedom2choose.co.uk
Poly
emma carter, hull says...
10:03pm Thu 26 Jul 07
J C, Haywards Heath says...
10:38pm Thu 26 Jul 07
caty, brighton says...
10:59pm Thu 26 Jul 07
s, brighton says...
11:05pm Thu 26 Jul 07
Stephanie, Florida USA says...
11:12pm Thu 26 Jul 07
rs, such as Enstrom and Kabat for a start, to back their claims. If we consider people who smoke along with occassional smokers, closet smokers and tolerant nonsmokers, then the antismokers are clearly the smallest of minorities. Their minority status and lack of substantial evidence to back their claims are undoubtedly the reason that they must rely on character assassinations of people who smoke. They have severe psychological problems--Antismoker
s' Dysfunction Syndrome (ASDS)--and should be treated accordingly. Although attacks on disagreeable and dysfunctional people are tempting, I think the best course is to refer them to professional help that they so desperately need.
As for this article, alcohol clearly played a role in the violence. However, there has been considerable violence toward both people who smoke and antismokers all over the world. This was not considered prior to implementing the ban in England--or elsewhere for that matter. Much of the violence is a result of forcing citizens--and, in England, pub owners--to enforce the bans. In addition, the article states, "Since the smoking ban has come in there have been no reports of smokers breaking the law in Sussex with pubs across the county having mixed experiences over whether or not it has affected trade." This implies that pubs are not ignoring the ban and that is simply untrue. (Even New York has speakeasies and many clubs that ignore the ban there.) I have always loved England. I truly hate to see these problems infecting the minds and lives of people who are usually admired the world over.
mandy, cambs says...
12:02am Fri 27 Jul 07
Typically smokers are of low intelligence and also weak minded to fall prey to such a horrible addiction .
Einstein, Churchill? your IQ must be sky high.
http://whyquit.com/w
hyquit/LinksAAddicti
on.html
As for your nico patches - 91.2% of all successful long-term ex-smokers quit entirely on their own without resort to any product, procedure or program of any kind including hypnosis, Zyban, Wellbutrin, acupuncture, magic herbs, laser therapy, or the nicotine patch, gum, lozenge, spray, or inhaler (ACS 2003)
Nothing to do with money of course?
You sound like a barrel of fun.
Big Pharma have multi-billion lawsuits against them, with the bad drugs people have taken.
Now if they were smokers, what do you think would get the blame?
Asbestos still goes unrecognised.
http://www.lkaz.demo
n.co.uk/ban36.htm
3. Asbestos Not Tobacco Caused Cancer
Issue 36: Autumn 1999
3. Asbestos Not Tobacco Caused Cancer
Two years after his death, a ruling by the Court of Sessions in Edinburgh vindicated the efforts of William Smith's family to gain recognition and compensation for his asbestos-related illness. A plaintiff's verdict by Lord Bonomy awarded damages totalling £97,100 against Upper Clyde Shipbuilders (UCS), successors to John Brown Shipbuilders Ltd., Smith's former employers. This case was complicated by several factors: disputed medical evidence, the lack of a post-mortem and the decedent's history of heavy smoking. During the 1960s, Smith worked for five years as a coppersmith's assistant; UCS agreed that asbestos exposure could have occurred during this time.
The truth would go a long way, propaganda is dangerous, that is where we are now. Hatred is not healthy either.
www.ipetitions.com/t
ell-a-friend.html?id
=8a290f71
A blanket ban was NOT, wanted by the majority
If you think this ban is wrong and you would like a voice,
Please go to www.freedom2choose.c
o.uk/
The new sister site to www.thebigdebate.org
/
Online petition, download petitions,
Debates, links so you can make your own judgment,
WE NEED TO FIGHT THIS TOGETHER
We need to get this ban amended to include ventilation,
Please help us, with your support and donations are very welcome, large or small
poly, cheshire says...
1:30am Fri 27 Jul 07
As smokers we would like to have the choice to sit in a smoker friendly pub, just as anti smokers would choose to go to a non smoking pub. No one is asking you to join us!!!
Nigel Hall, Cardiff says...
10:09am Fri 27 Jul 07
It's all very well Ashley Price telling us it's the law (and clearly he's in favour of it) but when the law treats decent law-abiding people like this, it's hardly surprising there will be trouble
Arnold, Yorks says...
12:10pm Fri 27 Jul 07
"I'm a publican and all I care about are my profits. Stuff my staff" (who of course are historically poorly paid for their late hours and dealing with abusive customers).
This law is to protect workers, workers that you couldn't give a toss about. Ever since we've stopped sending kids up chimneys and down coal mines, laws have been brought in to protect employees. Employers have always paid scant regard for health and safety laws because there's 'no profit in them'.
And that's why laws had to be passed. The only reason you're vocal now is because you think your profits will be affected NO other reason.
Tich, says...
2:15pm Fri 27 Jul 07
Arnold wrote:Arnold I see you now say that the law was introduced to protect the workers - maybe you are starting to pay attention.
Trust Lynsey Williams to take that line:
\"I\'m a publican and all I care about are my profits. Stuff my staff\" (who of course are historically poorly paid for their late hours and dealing with abusive customers).
This law is to protect workers, workers that you couldn\'t give a toss about. Ever since we\'ve stopped sending kids up chimneys and down coal mines, laws have been brought in to protect employees. Employers have always paid scant regard for health and safety laws because there\'s \'no profit in them\'.
And that\'s why laws had to be passed. The only reason you\'re vocal now is because you think your profits will be affected NO other reason.
You clearly have not read (or understood) Lynsey's comment. She is pointing out that she and her staff have been put on the frontline to 'police' a law that she does not agree with and is not wanted by the majority. From the Office of National Statistics - 67% of people are against a total ban. But of course you will dispute that figure - go check it my fiend.
Oh and while I'm here, you never did tell me what your qualifications were
Exocet, On your way says...
5:00pm Fri 27 Jul 07
This ban was brought about by pressure from the Anti-Smoking Nazi's of ASH. Smokers everywhere unite and ignore this ban. It would soon be changed.
DEFY THE BAN
west2, London says...
7:05pm Fri 27 Jul 07
This law is to protect workers.
Why wasn't it brought in under a health and safety at work act?
Perhaps the HSE knew it was not a problem?
As fot the 'it's the law brigade', oh dear. Bad laws require more laws to stop the unintended consequences.
west
----
cliff, east london says...
9:10pm Fri 27 Jul 07
Donnie, Pollen33 says...
9:35pm Fri 27 Jul 07
Smoking bans are an attack on freedom and an attack on property rights. Proponents of the smoking bans want government to give them the power to walk onto someone elses property and have things exactly the way they want them even if that means sending the police after business owners who do not bend to their will. Property owners who refuse to comply will risk fines and going bankcrupt.
Thats not democracy, its dictatorship of the absolute worst kind. Its called fascism
Rosy P, Hove says...
11:22pm Sat 28 Jul 07
I do hope he's reconsidering that "dull intellect" charge, as it seems to be haunting him somewhat. For all his alleged superiority, he's being made to look a prize turnip here.
The smokers are rather better-informed than he was counting on, I think!
JC, Switzerland says...
12:00am Sun 29 Jul 07
Looking at what has happened to my country makes me very sad. The hate which is now everywhere is a disaster.
Who caused this situation? ASH and their fanatics. Stanton Glantz as head looney should be asked to recompense all the people he has damaged.
The british Government should be called to account for listening to fanatics.
Get fanatical groups like ASH out of our lives and we would all be better off.
Rick S, London says...
11:23am Sun 29 Jul 07
http://tinyurl.com/2
s25o9
This AMERICAN nutcase and self-appointed film censor is trying to get the "advocates in the UK" (i.e. ASH) to put MORE pressure on our government, refers to "pro-tobacco forces" (that's smokers to you and me) and talks about "a horrible precedent for the rest of Europe".
Why the hell is Britain or Europe any of his business?
Rick S, London says...
11:42am Sun 29 Jul 07
JC, Switzerland says...
12:42am Mon 30 Jul 07
If not, why not?
It would seem that Ireland has the healthiest dole queue in the world.
Stop ASH!
PETE BENNETT - FORMERLY OF DADDY FANTASTIC, BRIGHTON says...
4:03am Mon 30 Jul 07
Arnold, Yorks. says...
2:30pm Mon 30 Jul 07
http://www.ftadviser
.com/dt_general.aspx
?m=11216&amid=116414
Don't waste your time with this "law isn't popular" rubbish! An organised group of fanatical pro-smokers hijacking a webpage IS NOT indicative of the general publics opinion. 75% of the population don't smoke and most of them couldn't care less about the new law (unless they have something to gain from altering the law; ring a bell anyone?!!)
It's game over for the smokers, you are a dying breed.
JC, Switzerland says...
12:16am Tue 31 Jul 07
Your comments are downright rude and if anybody is a fanatic, then it is yourself.
Arnold, Yorks. says...
10:28am Tue 31 Jul 07
Tich, says...
2:17pm Tue 31 Jul 07
Arnold wrote:What were your qualifications Arnold ?
If you were able to make up your own mind then we wouldn't hear you regurgitating the same, tired dross that comes from your pro-smoking buddies.
matt belmer, says...
11:03pm Tue 31 Jul 07
Southern Softy, Doooon Soooooth says...
2:49pm Wed 1 Aug 07
Stop it now, you're upsetting the whippets...
Mark, Germany says...
5:44pm Thu 2 Aug 07
Arnold, you would have been very happy here seventy years ago. You have the same opinions and brainwashing ideas as the man with the moustache. Do you have a moustache?
In this section
- Jury in Hastings stalker attacks trial told car salesman "terrorised lone women"
- Learn the Brighton Carnival dance
- Sussex councils spend millions on school transport
- Man quizzed over Brighton YMCA blaze
- Sussex swine flu cases mount up
- Portslade schoolboy knocked down at death crash site
- Debt scammers target Sussex
- Paralysed Worthing teenager spends 14th birthday in hospital
- Brighton cabbies 'treated with contempt'
- Sussex disabled boy helped by kind neighbours
Sponsored Links
Local Advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Ashley Price (Lewes Green Party), Lewes, Sussex says...
10:37am Thu 26 Jul 07
Would it not be going to far to say that it is obviously pre-meditated by the attacker? They must know they are likely to be challenged, and they therefore must know what their own response is going to be.