Smoking ban has its first martyr (and umpteenth victim)

Nick Hogan, a former pub landlord, has become the first person to be jailed in connection with the smoking ban. He was sentenced to six months in prison for refusing to pay a fine imposed under the legislation.

As the Daily Mail reports it, he openly flouted the law and then refused to pay his fines and I accept of course that that's the ultimate recourse for people who refuse to pay fines. But it's a question of proportion.

During my time in the criminal justice system I regularly saw people with several or many previous convictions who, on being convicted of a further violent offence (or offences), were given shorter sentences than this (or, frequently, non-custodial sentences). This chap will find himself in prison alongside hardened criminals, for allowing grown adults to do as they wish, something which in some cases they have been doing for most of their lives, something which in most contexts is perfectly legal and, until recently, was perfectly legal in this context too.

Particularly at a time when so many pubs are closing, and prisons are rammed, is a six month sentence really appropriate, and/or a good use of custodial space?

By Alex Deane

Coda 1: If you want to support Mr Hogan, go here.

Coda 2: for many people who have been smokers for decades, as a part of their relaxation after a hard day's work, whether it be in pubs, in bingo halls or in working men's clubs, smoking is an innate part of their social life - the complete banning of this activity seems peculiarly cruel and thoughtless in relation to such people, don't you think? You might wish to visit here or here if so.

Comments

[Purlieu]

I'm afraid I must disagree here.
Smoking bans in the workplace is a good thing.
You HAVE to be there to work and earn your money. You should not have to breath secondary smoke as part of that arrangement.

And the guy, despite how you'd like to spin it, did not go to jail for opposing a smoking ban, he went to jail for not paying a fine, same as any fine.

Of course "somebody has to go to jail" sometime to show the public that the Act has teeth.

[Mishmash]

It sounds like jailing a person for debt: I thought that went out with Dickens!

[There is a typo: 1st line last paragraph - "prisons are rammed" (sic).]

[Captain Ranty]

Tut tut.

Haven't you learnt yet?

To retain your freedoms you have to defend the freedoms of others.

I defend/fight for others even though whatever they are defending/fighting for will almost never affect me directly.

How many other plights do you ignore because they don't fit in with your worldview?

However you look at this, this is that jackboot stamping in your face. If you can't see that then I suggest you hurry back to your embroidery.

CR.

[Purlieu]

"To retain your freedoms you have to defend the freedoms of others"

Yeah right let's defend their freedom to give me cancer.

[martha]

Don't be silly, your mum probably pushed you around in your pushchair at car exhaust pipe level. If you've survived that, a little puff of smoke isn't going make much difference. Do your own research and don't believe the passive smoking scare story, it's just another scam like AGW

[B. Essemer]

Hey Purlieu
You are the type found in the Third Reich,
when the neighbour was dragged away at midnight , all you could whimper was,
"its the law you know",
Just how nany more backstabbers are going
to hide behind the "cancer" banner.
Some of us would rather be stinking men
than whinging weasels.

Welding shop choker

[Purlieu]

Hey Alex
You know my posts from other subjects.
So I disagree on one thing and hey presto what's with all the ad hominem stuff ?
From keyboard warriors.

Martha - "the passive smoking scare story" ask Roy Castle

Essemer - I call Godwin on you

[alastair]

Purlieu is right. It may be your freedom to decide to smoke, but if you do so and pollute the air I must breathe then you are harming my health.

If you were blowing some other kind of toxic fumes, I could probably sue you under Health & Safety legislation, and you'd probably agree that I'd be right to do so.

I don't have anything against smokers who choose to smoke somewhere away from where I am, but the experience of non-smokers historically has been that cigarette smokers are typically rude, unrepentant litterbugs (you may have noticed all the cigarette butts on the ground… many within a few feet of a suitable receptacle; not to mention the number of smokers who discard ash and butts out of their car windows, a very dangerous practice), and indeed only the other day I read that some woman was pushed onto a live railway track by some idiot who thought it was appropriate behaviour when asked politely not to smoke.

I should say that I have generally found smokers of cigars, cigarillos, and pipe tobacco to be more polite and more reasonable. I don't know why there should be a distinction, but there is.

Further, I see no reason why smokers should be able to impose their habit on e.g. bar staff. That said, I also don't see why bar staff shouldn't be able to agree with their employer that the establishment they are working in should be a smoking zone (this makes sense, particularly for e.g. private clubs).

[Bob]

That's why so many bars in the USA have "fine kittys" that even non smokers gladly contribute to so they can peacefully congregate with their smoking friends without raising the ire of neighbors, who can vote their ward dry.

[Andrew]

The one thing that is at fault is a person’s rights to engage in a legal activity of smoking without being abused by anti 2 half pint drinking do gooders. Over 5000 pubs and clubs have shut since the law of non smoking was introduced why can they not open a third and employ smokers to work behind the bars with a 5 foot sign saying they are smoking pubs and enter at your own risk. To come out with an outright ban whilst still taking billions in revenues from the sale of tobacco is an outrage and if they want to ban smoking then ban the consumption of sales and place the shortfall in the taxable income it should only raise taxes by 6p in the pound so all the healthy i am going to live forever merchants can have the satisfaction of feeling the pain in order to have the gain. Sometimes I wonder why all our Fathers and Grandfathers bothered to engage in the two world wars as we are now living in a society that will soon dictate when we are allowed to drink and eat.

[Spartan]

Not the Roy Castle myth again!

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

[Crux]

Might I suggest we tax [fine] all suspected criminals? Then, if they are unwilling to pay the tax, we can happily imprison them for up to six months.

An excellent way for our money-strapped government to make some extra cash.

[Shepherdess]

Everything bought in is for financial gain now.
Parking restrictions, cameras, Hell even the common copper has become a policy enforcement officer happier to dish out a ticket that catch a criminal.

If you look at the types of people they try hardest to catch, its the ones that make them money. There is more money to be made for the Police (registered company) from civil disruption. The more tickets they can issue to more profit they reap by keeping the courts (also a registered company) from getting their cut!

[Shepherdess]

Since when has it been right to imprison a man for not doing the work of the police.

Surely, if landlords are expected to enforce law, they should receive both financial earnings and training to do so!

We are now seeing people like Andy Norman being arrested for allowing drugs to be used at an event he was DJ-ing at despite no-one being charged with having or using drugs. It gave the police reason to step in and take ALL proceeds from ticket sales leaving all expenses to Andy.

In the meantime, Incidents like the Hollie Greig scandal are having tax payers money spent on hiring solicitors to keep people quiet!

arrrrggg

[d smith]

I'm a bit dissapointed in your website, and I'm actually one of the many people worried about removal of privacy in the UK.

My concern is, that you talk of ID cards and so on, then you have something on religious posters and smokers - which are blatantly political subjects.

If you were solely concerned with the state apparatus for a big brother government, then I'd support you, but I'm NOT a Daily Mail reader.

Maybe you need to consider what it is you want to fight against - is it big brother or just a labour government??

[Sandy]

I do agree with d smith - this website is "Angry of Tunbridge Wells" - who reads the Daily Mail!

With freedom comes responsibility - if we all did exactly what we wanted everyone there would be chaos and everyone would be crying out for rules!

[viagra online]

I would rather pay the fine The psychological effects caused by smoking abstinence in an individual are varied, including nervousness, lack of concentration.