News RSS Feed


Barman assaulted for telling smoker to stop

4:31am Thursday 26th July 2007

comment Comments (88)   Have your say »

By Richard Gurner »

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.

Print article » Email to a friend »

Your Say YourArgus

Ashley Price (Lewes Green Party), Lewes, Sussex says...
10:37am Thu 26 Jul 07

This is terrible. People flout the law and the attack those who try to enforce it.

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.

Report this post »

Jim, Brighton says...
11:24am Thu 26 Jul 07

Worthing drinking on a sunday = a warzone. If it wasn't this it would of been something else. When are the police going to stamp down on the hooligans in the town that come out to play on a Sunday. Particularly in the Toad and Assembly !

Report this post »

jstewart, NE Englan d says...
11:45am Thu 26 Jul 07

Unfortunately, we're likely to see more "smoking-related" crimes. Increasing numbers of smokers are realising that the legislation was brought in on a lie and, quite naturally, are furious that they are being demonised and marginalised unfairly. Whilst most smokers will choose to express their anger within the confines of acceptable behaviour, there are those who will resort to violence. Wrong, too, is the fact that licensees are charged with enforcing the ban, thus endangering the welfare of themselves and their staff. The lies on which this law are based are also creating hate crime against smokers, the most recent being an assault on a deaf smoker who was beaten up when he didn't respond to a stranger's request to stop smoking. The only advantage of this legislation is that people can go home from the pub without their clothes smelling of smoke.

Report this post »

Rich, Sussex says...
11:51am Thu 26 Jul 07

I can't condone violence in any shape or form, but I can understand the assailant's frustration. He tried to smoke in the garden. Isn't that one of the few places smokers can smoke? Sounds like he obliged and moved outside, just to be nagged again. If the barman also had the wrong attitude, I can understand the frustration in a guy who has served for his country and now has to abide by stupid laws. But , no, it doesn't make it right. Surely, if you work in a pub, it is not your duty to stop smokers smoking - just ring the police. Since when were bar staff supposed to be law enforcers? Listening to Radio 2 yesterday, does anybody think the new ban is a good thing? Even the anti smokers ringing up said things have got worse - smokey beer gardens, noise from smokers standing in the streets etc, now the patio heater debate. Can't common sense return and we have smoking and non smoking pubs to keep everyone happy. FREEDOM TO CHOOSE. Not in the modern day UK, and here come new rules about drink and food. Not good, is it?

Report this post »

Arnold, Yorks. says...
12:08pm Thu 26 Jul 07

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.


Report this post »

Jenny, N Yorkshire says...
12:09pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Sadly it appears to me that the barman provoked the guy smoking outside by nagging him. I believe there will be an increase in this sort of behaviour - people nagging others and people retaliating. I, too, heard most of the Radio 2 Jeremy Vine debate yesterday and it appears to me that some people are becoming increasingly petty and nasty towards tobacco smokers. This blanket ban will create far more damage than most people think and there will be an increase in violence. Had people had freedom to choose their social venues, this would not be happening - not in pubs/bars etc. anyway.

Report this post »

RTS, Worcester says...
12:26pm Thu 26 Jul 07

If sanctamonious ninnies spouting barely concealed bigotry start becomming the norm then we can expect an awful lot of this kind of thing as people's frustration boils over.

Report this post »

Acheron, Hove says...
12:27pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Sorry, but for those who are complaining that the barman was 'nagging', please stop and think about what you are saying.

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.

Report this post »

John, Portsmouth says...
12:36pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Typically smokers are of low intelligence and also weak minded to fall prey to such a horrible addiction.

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

Report this post »

Paul, Worthing says...
12:37pm Thu 26 Jul 07

I'd echo what Acheron says. Like it or not, it's the law. And why does violence seemingly always have to be the default response to being told something you don't want to hear these days? Poor bloke should be able to do his job (and pulling pints is a most worthwhile occupation, in my view) without getting chinned.

Report this post »

peter potter, Brighton says...
12:40pm Thu 26 Jul 07

I can't believe some of the comments on here! It doesn't matter if he was 'frustrated' or that he served his country, this man is obviously a total thug who shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets. Jenny, you are insane- if the barman hadn't done anything then he would be liable for a large fine. It doesn't matter how frustrated you are about anything, this behaviour is inexcusable. If you don't like a law, take your 'frustration' out by trying to get it changed, not by attacking innocent people. Anyone understanding this man's actions is as much of a thug as he is. (I am a smoker, by the way!)

Report this post »

Daniel M, Derby says...
12:50pm Thu 26 Jul 07

It seems to me there's alot of people posting on here who aren't living in the real world and sound like they've never had a fight before. If a bloke wants to smoke and a drink outside a pub then thats his right and expect a bashing if you try to take that right from someone. I'm with the marine on this one.

Report this post »

Tich, York says...
12:57pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Arnold wrote:
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.

With a degree in Computer Science and working as IT manager for a company, I bow to your superior knowledge.
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

Report this post »

Paul, Worthing says...
1:00pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Trouble is, Daniel M, it ain't his right. No member of the public has the right to do anything in a pub, not even be in it at all, without the landlord's (and so the bar staff's) permission. Landlord is not going to want to risk his licence over some toerag who's out looking for bother, because he hasn't managed to evolve past using his fists to deal with life's problems.

Report this post »

DaveA, London says...
1:02pm Thu 26 Jul 07

I cannot condone violence of this nature, but I too can at least feel his frustration. This has given every clipboard Nazi the right to impose their bigoted view of the world. Some of the more petty aspects I have encountered include having an unlit cigarette in my mouth and asked to take it out. Having a quick puff on a 3 hour train journey while the train was taking on more passengers and finally an outdoor section of a cafe in Leytonstone, London banned from allowing customers to smoke in 100% open area by the council. I was hoping there was going to be some give and take on this fascist law but the anti-smokers insist upon metaphorically invading Poland. My protests will stop short of violence but rest assured all other legal methods of protest will be employed. Finally if any of the Tobacco Taliban can show me one scientic study that shows that passive smoking has any effect on the passive smokers health, I will quit today. Cig heil!

Report this post »

Rick S, London says...
1:14pm Thu 26 Jul 07

I can't see how the barman was enforcing the "law of the land" or "liable to a large fine" when the bloke was smoking in the beer garden and wasn't breaking any laws!

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.

Report this post »

DaveA, London says...
1:14pm Thu 26 Jul 07

What I meant was stepping off the train and having a quick puff while the train was staionary and being threatened with the police if I did not put it out.

"Having a quick puff on a 3 hour train journey while the train was taking on more passengers"

Report this post »

Arnold, Yorks says...
1:19pm Thu 26 Jul 07

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??

Report this post »

martin, says...
1:29pm Thu 26 Jul 07

the guy was in the beer garden, there was no law being broken to enforce in the first place.

Report this post »

Tich, York says...
1:31pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Arnold wrote:
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??
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.
Part of my degree was in Software engineering which incorporates a large amount of statistical analysis

Report this post »

DaveA, London says...
1:35pm Thu 26 Jul 07

The best way to take control over a people and control them
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


Report this post »

Daniel M, Derby says...
1:36pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Alot of you are going from the main point, which is bloke having cig in beer garden-perfectly legal-bloke told to go out front and have smoke there-but you can't take your drink with you sir??? what?? the whole enjoyment of going to a pub is having a pint and a cig. Barman in his face, in his face, BANG, CRACK, SMASH. Lesson is you don't keep on at people or you get hurt. I should know being a psychiatric nurse

Report this post »

Tich, York says...
1:37pm Thu 26 Jul 07

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

Report this post »

Tim, Brighton says...
1:38pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Violence is never justified. Whether it's from the smoker or the non-smoker. Saying that this new law is the cause of the violence is pathetic. Idiots are the cause of this violence, and it's a general problem.

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.

Report this post »

DaveA, London says...
1:38pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Try this one, and i quote.

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

Report this post »

Carl Schalck, says...
1:42pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Well that's brilliant. "You don't keep on at people or you get hurt."
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.

Report this post »

Jenny, N Yorkshire says...
1:43pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Peter Potter describes me as 'insane' - well I certainly don't have a certificate to prove my sanity. Just because I recognise people becoming frustrated, doesn't mean I condone violence and would, myself, assault someone (even if I really felt I would like to do so). As for being a thug - thanks for the compliment. I have most certainly never behaved like a thug but at the present time, the prevailing attitudes and negativity re: smokers makes me dream about taking up thuggery. However, following people around and badgering them is tantamount to 'nagging' (cf. Acheron - Hove) where I come from. The 'culprit' was standing outside smoking, not inside. I don't think I am the only one who believes that this government and supporters of the blanket ban are anything other than 'naggers' - we get nagged and belittled for smoking a legal product whereas shoplifters and real thugs get a pat on the back if they apologise for thieving and beating people up. I may simply choose to walk away from someone who upsets me, but not everyone is so restrained. This ban, like so many other things, is trying to make everyone the same and behave in the same way - and we are not all the same and not everyone reacts towards a situation in the same way. I don't condone violence and beating people up, but I equally do not condone being badgered, belittled and bullied by sanctimonious prats who are getting ordinary people (eg. bar staff) to do their dirty work for them. Going out for a pint used to be a happy experience, now it is rapidly becoming a slagging match or a battleground.
freedom2choose.co.uk

Report this post »

Tich, York says...
1:45pm Thu 26 Jul 07

DaveA - Now that's what I call a link :-)

freedom2choose.co.uk

Report this post »

Arnold, Yorks says...
1:48pm Thu 26 Jul 07

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!

Report this post »

Tich, York says...
1:56pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Arnold wrote:
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!
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.

Report this post »

Roger Foulser, Hornchurch says...
2:08pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Like most people who have commented violence is not the solution, I can visulise more incidents, especially in airports and on aeroplanes when delays occur and frustration kicks in. The bottom line, is that people are not being given FREEDOM OF CHOICE this could have solved present and future problems that will defiantly happen. If you are an anti or a pro smoker you must agree that the whole situation has been mishandled by the government. Arnold you should check out dave hitt.com this guy challenged every anti smoking organisation in the USA asking them to name two people who have died of passive smoking, his findings says it all.Roger

Report this post »

Jenny, N Yorkshire says...
2:08pm Thu 26 Jul 07

"Saying that this new law is the cause of the violence is pathetic. Idiots are the cause of this violence, and it's a general problem."
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'.

Report this post »

DaveA, London says...
2:09pm Thu 26 Jul 07

This is from the government's own, your very own Health And Safety Executive.

http://www.hse.gov.u
k/foi/internalops/fo
d/oc/200-299/255-16.
pdf

"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. "

Report this post »

Andy R, Hove says...
2:10pm Thu 26 Jul 07

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.

Report this post »

Arnold, Yorks says...
2:20pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Ah bless DaveA!

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.

Report this post »

DaveA, London says...
2:21pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Sorry Tich and Arnold you are both wrong. This study began in 1959 and ran to 1998 involving 118,000 people of whom 34,000 were spouses of smokers. It was originally funded by The American Cancer Society who are vehemently anti-smoking. Professor Enstrom and Dr. Kabat, the people who were in charge of the survey are anti-smokers, having worked all their lives in public health. Their survey inevitably was coming up with the "wrong results". The ACS promptly withdrew their funding (how cynical)and with no influence on the methods Philip Morris took over. Their report was peer reviewed by by 5 separate profesors at the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and hence published. Again because of the "wrong" result the New England Journal and the UK equivelent The Lancet refused to publish the results. Subsequently a full review of the Enstrom, Kabat and the BMJ peer reviewers was completed in March 2007 and you may grind your teeth but this is now accepted medical facts. So the government is lying through it's teeth and you have been duped like a complete sucker.

Report this post »

Tich, York says...
2:24pm Thu 26 Jul 07

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

Report this post »

Arnold, Yorks. says...
2:25pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Hey DaveA!

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!

Report this post »

Tich, York says...
2:27pm Thu 26 Jul 07

... and there goes Arnold spouting of rubbish again. The ban was bought in to protect the workers in the hospitality industry - The brief of the HSE is to protect workers in the work place.

Report this post »

dave, hove says...
2:29pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Tich wrote:
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
Cool!
Bloke headbutts someone and all of a sudden the Government is to blame, can't quite see the link myself....

Report this post »

Tich, York says...
2:30pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Arnold spouting AGAIN - the study mentioned by DaveA was originally commisioned by the American Cancer Society but they withdrew their funding when it became apparent that they weren't getting the results they wanted.
I'm with you DaveA :-)

Report this post »

DaveA, London says...
2:32pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Arnold, you may agree with me on this one and let me clarify what I am saying. As an ACTIVE smoker it is possible it could, for example in my 60s or 70s have have a fatal effect on my health. What I am saying is that PASSIVE smokers have nothing to fear healthwise. It is the lie about passive smoking that is the basis of NuLabour's law. I do not like people in power misleading me or anyone else in a democracy.

Report this post »

Ben Wheeler, Brighton says...
2:39pm Thu 26 Jul 07

What really needs to be answered here is what right the government has to delibritly pass laws that force people into a situation where the could be attacked, IE, have a law stating that those who do not enforce the ban will be fined for not doing so, This same government will now be looking at allowing the UK'S pub landlords being sued for not protecting their staff properly, when the reality is this is a problem they created!

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

Report this post »

Ashley Price (Lewes Green Party), Lewes, Sussex says...
2:40pm Thu 26 Jul 07

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.

Report this post »

martin, says...
2:46pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Andy R wrote:
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.
"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.


Report this post »

Michael, Edinburgh says...
2:47pm Thu 26 Jul 07

A horrifying incident- I abhor violence, but I do find it sinister that the media are eager to report bad behaviour by rogue smokers yet ignore assaults-which have reliably informed of- on peaceful, law abiding smokers by virulent and violent anti-smokers.

Report this post »

Jenny, N Yorkshire says...
2:47pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Dave of Hove - the link is that they legislated (the government) and have created an unpleasant situation for many millions of people. Obviously if someone reacts violently they should take responsibility for their own violent actions, but this issue is wider than that. If you think people won't react you have very little understanding of human nature. Everyone is different and everyone reacts differently. I personally would not physically assault someone, but other people are not as restrained as me. So yes, the government is to blame because this new draconian law is causing people to become stressed and violent and this is just the start of things to come.

Report this post »

martin, says...
2:52pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Ashley Price (Lewes Green Party) wrote:
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.
the man was not breaking the smoking ban law because the garden was closed.

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.

Report this post »

A fed up Smoker, Brighton says...
2:54pm Thu 26 Jul 07

What people are failing to mention is that the smoking ban will cause more injuries and trouble. Drunken people gathering outside pubs or clubs at the same time to smoke, will ultimately lead to violence. Druken people being told not to smoke, could become violent. People moaning about smokers and busy-bodies are inviting themselves to trouble.

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?

Report this post »

Andy R, Hove says...
2:58pm Thu 26 Jul 07

martin wrote:
Andy R wrote:
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.
"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.
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.

Report this post »

martin, says...
3:08pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Andy R wrote:
martin wrote:
Andy R wrote:
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.
"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.
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.
"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.

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.

Report this post »

Jenny, N Yorkshire says...
3:10pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Ashley Price - Lewes Green Party writes that, "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."
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.


Report this post »

S, Sussex says...
4:28pm Thu 26 Jul 07

Tich wrote:
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
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!

Report this post »

Tich, York says...
4:40pm Thu 26 Jul 07

S' Sussex
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.

Report this post »

Ashley Price (Lewes Green Party), Lewes, Sussex says...
4:47pm Thu 26 Jul 07