Contact the Citizen
Text CIT and your news tips, photos and video to 80360 Click here for other ways to contact us »
Club fined for holding smoking lock-ins
11:16pm Friday 29th February 2008
Comments (61)
A CLUB where lock-ins were held for regulars to smoke is the first licensed premises in East Lancashire to be prosecuted for flou-ting the smoking ban.
Peter Valentine, who has run The Tacklers in Colne for two years, let customers smoke in the Knowsley Street venue after hours for three weekends on a row.
The 54-year-old, from The Crescent, was caught by health insp-ectors conducting a spot check to ensure anti-smoking laws were being followed.
He was fined £250 with £100 costs after he pleaded guilty at Reedley Magistrates Court to allowing people to smoke in the premises.
Environmental health bosses confirmed that Valentine was the first owner of licensed premises in East Lancashire to be prosecuted for allowing customers to smoke since the ban was introduced last July.
After the case, Valentine said he might have to shut as there is nowhere for his members to smoke while pro-smoking group Forest, condemned his prosecution.
But Pendle Council said that it would now be conducting more late-night operations to catch others who are allowing people to smoke in their premises.
Reedley magistrates were told that an environmental health officer, licensing officer and police had visited the club at 11.45pm on November 2, 2007.
Peter Frost, prosecuting, said: "The police do check the anti-smoking and licensing legislation and as the environmental health officer approached the club the door was closed, lights were on and she could hear voices inside the club.
"She used the intercom and a man who said he was a steward answered.
"The officer said there had been smoking inside the club for an hour. She counted 12 people there and she said the room smelled strongly of cigarette smoke and there was a smoky haze.
"Mr Valentine said he was soley responsible for allowing smoking inside the club and said he had no excuse."
Sheila Bell, the environmental health officer who conducted the raid, said: "It is the first offence we have prosecuted since the legislation came in. It's not something we are doing every day.
"It is unusual to find a smoking lock-in and the outcome of that is that we are going to focus much more on late night activity - so when we go out we will be staying out longer."
Peter Valentine, says he believes his club, which has a sign on the door saying that smoking on the premises is forbidden, will shut now smokers are being forced to go outside.
He said: "We've had letters from the council about people smoking and causing a disturbance on the streets outside the club. But people aren't going to go out for a smoke stand a street away and then come back.
"We don't have a smoking shelter because we haven't room for one. There's only a fire exit at the back and the front is a street which is a public highway. We can't even have fire buckets at the front like other clubs have.
"I don't agree with the smoking ban at all and it's not just me.
"I think the fine is fair. I thought it was going to be more than it was.
"These clubs were built for the working men, people want to smoke.
"I've been to Spain and you can smoke everywhere there. In most bars they have designated smoking rooms. I think the ban will shut the bar down if I send smokers away."
Neil Rafferty, a spokesman for pro-smoking group Forest labelled the ban "ridiculous."
He said: "It's a shame that Mr Valentine has had to break the law. While we don't promote it, we understand the position he is in.
"It is a really stupid law which is criminalising decent people who are just trying to serve their customers.
"I can't imagine that anbody who was involved with the lock-in had any problem. "
Amanda Sanderford, research manager for anti-smoking campaign group, ASH, said she believed the fine was justified as the law on smoking in public places is quite clear.
She said: "There's no point in having a law if it is not going to be properly enforced.
"Mr Valentine's fine should send out a clear message to others who break the law - that they will be investigated and they will be fined.
"It is a serious matter because the dangers of passive smoking are very clear and if people are allowing smoking they are damaging their and others' health."
A spokeswoman for Smoke Free England added: "We believe the penalties are a sufficient deterrent, and we expect that pubs and other hospitality venues will comply with the legislation to make their premises a healthier place to visit and work."
Your Say YourBurnley and Pendle Citizen
Live & Let Live, Colne says...
8:27am Sat 1 Mar 08
I agree with Hellboy; the enforcement authorites should apply a bit of common sense and first target the lowlife chavs who we all see everyday causing real problems in society.
Dean Simpson, Spain says...
9:59am Sat 1 Mar 08
Bill, Burnley says...
11:40am Sat 1 Mar 08
Mary, Pass says...
11:51am Sat 1 Mar 08
Or maybe we could no longer offer free NHS care for smoking-related complications to those who choose to harm themselves with a lungful of tar.
It only free to those who don't pay tax.
chavbuster, Lancashire says...
11:56am Sat 1 Mar 08
Hellboy wrote:Tell it as it is mate!,i applaud you.
Well hey!The police have a job to do after all!
It must be FAR more important to catch out us 'EVIL' smokers rather than apprehend a gang of chav lowlife beating a man to death!
We have never had it so good in the UK as far as law and order goes...I feel proud to be British!
best
cb
cloggy, Arrod says...
12:00pm Sat 1 Mar 08
Good point Bill, thats why it was a lock-in, so the smokers could be anti social on there own without the nosmoking brigade kicking off like you are trying to do. You wouldnt have been allowed to stay with that opinion! It would have been you being anti-social.
As for the NHS not paying, perhaps they shouldnt pay for all the others scares they have given us over the years, like asbestos, salmanela in eggs, and all the other food scares they have given us over the years. Perhaps if you live over 70 then you shouldnt have free NHS treatment, seeing as the government are getting us to survive longer? Would you agree to that as well?
Leave smokers alone, its no different to any other ailment our governments over the years have created and promoted.
(non)smokin, stacksteads says...
1:44pm Sat 1 Mar 08
Bill wrote:where would you draw the line on treatment then, Bill - rugby injuries and other sports ailments - all self inflicted - what about alcohol itself
Good. Filthy habit. The sooner we make the point that it is a thoroughly antisocial and unwelcome habit the better. Or maybe we could no longer offer free NHS care for smoking-related complications to those who choose to harm themselves with a lungful of tar.
ban em all i say!!! - NOT!!!
michael rigby, blackburn says...
4:44pm Sun 2 Mar 08
What a society.If this guy wants to allow people to smoke when the pub is closed, that should be his business.
This country is finished.
Andy Mullen, Athens, Greece. says...
9:40pm Sun 2 Mar 08
Bill wrote:Free NHS care? If it wasn't for the tax revenue from cigarettes, the NHS would collapse.
Good. Filthy habit. The sooner we make the point that it is a thoroughly antisocial and unwelcome habit the better. Or maybe we could no longer offer free NHS care for smoking-related complications to those who choose to harm themselves with a lungful of tar.
RufusT, Oxford says...
9:37am Mon 3 Mar 08
If it wasn't for the tax revenue from cigarettes, the NHS would collapse.
The figures are something like:
cost of treating "smoking related" illnesses £1.7bn/year
revenue from tobacco duty £8-10bn/yr
Clearly the free NHS care is quite a bit overpriced?
John, Richmond says...
11:39am Mon 3 Mar 08
Mark, Lancashire says...
8:02pm Mon 3 Mar 08
Civilised society is based on the ability of the people to express their opinions and revolt against laws that are unjust. Would you be saying the same about the civil rights marches in America in the 1960's, or the protests for a woman's right to vote. The total compliance despite what the law says is what communism is based on. If you prefer that go and live in North Korea. The Government lied about the reasons for going to war, and false evidence has been used to enforce the smoking ban - even ASH admited that the evidence was exhagerated to fool the British public into support for a draconian measure. Also, the smoking licence is unconstitutional and has not been adopted as a posibility.
mark, Leicetsreshire says...
8:15pm Mon 3 Mar 08
Just because its law doesn't make it good or right-who's protecting the landlords and staff of the many pubs that have now closed?
Donnie, says...
8:25pm Mon 3 Mar 08
Government control of private property is a principle of Communism. The sooner this stalinist government is voted out the better, they lied in their manifesto and obtained thousands of votes fraudulently.
David, New Mills says...
9:11pm Mon 3 Mar 08
DaveA, Atherton says...
9:15pm Mon 3 Mar 08
DaveA, Atherton says...
9:19pm Mon 3 Mar 08
mandyv, cambs says...
9:28pm Mon 3 Mar 08
8th August 2006 the HSE in the document OC 255/15 article9 state
for some strange reason hmm it has been changed to OC 255/16 Paragraph
14
" HSE cannot produce epidemiological evidence to link levels of exposure to second hand smoke to the raised risk of contacting specific diseases".
We need to get this ban amended to include ventilation,
freedom2choose.info -- for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike
Please show your support, donations, large or small, toward our fighting fund,
become a member, or join the forums.
Stand up and be counted.
http://petitions.pm.
gov.uk/smokinglicens
es/ ends in October 2008
These could do with some support please,
http://www.innthecol
d.com 1000 Pubs in 90 days, can you help with this one?
Warning: Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science
http://www.epi-persp
ectives.com/content/
4/1/13
Stef, Bandera Texas says...
1:08am Tue 4 Mar 08
She said: "There's no point in having a law if it is not going to be properly enforced.
Here again, we have ASH, that corrupt organisation sponsored by dirty money making comment on their great achievments, in alienating people, destroying business's and creating social division and hatred. Now they relish in quoting the outcome for this man following their filthy deceit and lies. It is not surprising to see also comments from David from New Mills, on this thread, you can read all Davids 1000's of posts in the Scotsman Newspaper. David is clearly either working as a planted government employee working on behalf of the smoking ban or alternatively should be dismissed as a sad, rabid anti-smoker of the worst form.
This Ban is a wicked act of unprecedented political abuse and of massive financial corruption and has NO relevance to public health, issues, whatsoever. We will not see an end to this wicked ban until we rid ourselves of this nazi style junta in power, and seek to elect representatives who believe in tolerance and choice and not bribed and motivated by personal greed.
Dave, says...
4:51am Tue 4 Mar 08
Very few smokers have actually stopped since the ban maybe forced to reduce during work time thats all because we enjoy smoking and many are now staying home instead of going out. However, they are saving more and taking more frequent trips to Spain for long weekends where smoking and drinking is welcome and much cheaper. It makes a very enjoyable break. Then bring back cheap non UK duty smokes too. There is still 25% of the population that enjoys smoking but force this amount of people abroad whenever they can grab a few days to socialize will create at least $5 BIO hole on beer and smokes tax. Its actually very cost effective when a round trip flight is about 90 quid. But it doest have to be cheaper its all about choice thats why supermarket sales is a bad argument. What you do given the current situation? 3 days stood outside the Dog and Whistle in the cold and rain in Blackpool or 3 days in Benidorm? Dont forget too many smokers have non smoking partners that are now also forced into this situation.
The next target is cheap booze in supermarkets. Its not the reason for the pub losses as supermarkets have sold cheap beer for decades although the government would like you to believe it IS the reason. Australia and New Zealand has already just introduced severe restrictions on times of sale and rations of low cost beer in some states as an experiment to curb drinking. I think we could see something similar in time for Xmas here too. Next year will target fast food outlets!
chas, suffolk says...
7:45am Tue 4 Mar 08
David, New Mills says...
9:56am Tue 4 Mar 08
Valentine was not "forced" to break any law. That was a matter of his F2C, which he seems to acknowledge himself.
David, New Mills says...
10:01am Tue 4 Mar 08
Smoking in the U.K. is neither banned nor prohibited, simply restricted as to where it may legally take place.
National No Smoking Day 12th March, 2008.
For more tips on giving up smoking, visit www.gosmokefree.nhs.
uk or www.quit.org.uk.
David, New Mills. says...
10:21am Tue 4 Mar 08
I am not "a planted government employee working on behalf of the smoking ban", just a committed pro-restrictionist in good form.
If he dislikes "this nazi style junta in power" suggest he contacts his local Publican Party representative.
David, New Mills says...
10:28am Tue 4 Mar 08
Stef's nasty, vicious comments about people doing the job they're paid to do is very typical. How is he with policemen?
National No Smoking Day 12th March, 2008.
For more tips on giving up smoking, visit www.gosmokefree.nhs.
uk or www.quit.org.uk.
Will stef be back in time to celebrate it?
Rose, says...
10:34am Tue 4 Mar 08
Strange you should mention planted government employees supporting government policy.Having seen the bizarre behaviour on these threads I did a little digging.
"How Labour used its election troops to fake popular support"
"reveals how party members and supporters were systematically used to create the impression of 'real people' passionately backing the government".
"Campaign materials seen by Dispatches stress that 'more people trust the letters page than any other page of their local newspaper' and that local organisers should target it"
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/politics/2005/
may/22/uk.election20
05
Very informative, I've noticed that real people who support the ban try to explain. Activists parrot abuse.
David, New Mills says...
10:49am Tue 4 Mar 08
If Dave and his ilk are so very compassionate about the future of British pubs and their staff, let them flock to them in droves and show some support, rather than exporting their custom to Spain.
There are surely better reasons for foreign trips than cheap booze and cigarettes? Perhaps if global warming renders the Med. too hot, Dave will relish the cooler fresh airs of the Dog and Whistle in Blackpool.
I thought it was the ON trade that was trying to stifle competition from supermarkets?
Ah well, no more Big Mac and fries?
David, New Mills says...
10:57am Tue 4 Mar 08
There will be even fewer of them when they get socked where it matters, in the wallet. Are they as widespread as the puffers and wheezers would have us believe?NO,NO,NO?
National No Smoking Day 12th March, 2008.
For more tips on giving up smoking, visit www.gosmokefree.nhs.
It's not just mandyv who can cut and paste.
Dave, says...
11:33am Tue 4 Mar 08
Anway its only a matter of time before alcohol is severely restricted here but the real health obsession will come when you ask for Mc Donalds and your limited to one big mac and small fries with no salt cos that will be band except for home use. Then pop into a coffee shop and given one sugar per customer etc. They will probably end up banning chips and kebabs too cos they are too fatty.
Eventually there really is only one solution to the UK problems and thats leave the country as so many have done already. The UK has 3.2 million citizens who live abroad now and that number is growing at the fastest rate seen for many decades. In fact its the highest of all G8 countries. These are your middle class people that were the pillar of UK community and they sold up and gone and the gap is filled with Eastern Europeans. Smoking is only an extra nail in the coffin but when factored in with sky high council tax bills, rubbish piled up for a fortnight which otherwise is cleared every DAY in spain, high bills and water rates and extreme costs of motoring with congested roads and charges, TV licenses and last but not least terrible weather. So its not just about drinking and smoking its peoples standard of living inside a nanny state thats the problem.
David, New Mills says...
11:47am Tue 4 Mar 08
"there is no sense standing outside." Agree, as bound to be some seats free inside.Socialising surely possible without smoking, unless you're seriously nicotinic.
After Dave's long list of gripes about the U.K. it's surprising he's still here!
From what he says, smoking restrictions a mere side issue, and not worth griping about.
chas, suffolk says...
11:48am Tue 4 Mar 08
You try to tell us that you are not intolerant and yet you call smokers 'puffers and wheezers'!
The numbers of smokers was declining for decades, but the smoking ban has halted that decline, because it has made it attractive to youngsters.
A tip to reduce smoking, get the Government to get rid of a ban that makes it attractive for youngsters.
David, New Mills says...
12:01pm Tue 4 Mar 08
A fairly accurate description when one listens to them. How about hackers and coughers as an alternative?
Sensible youngsters will see the h(a)unted puffers, wheezers, hackers and coughers outside pubs and conclude it's an addiction for mugs. The less sensible are welcome to sign up to nicotinism
chas, suffolk says...
12:13pm Tue 4 Mar 08
Debtman, Derry says...
12:27pm Tue 4 Mar 08
Now we hear that Ireland has more unelected bodies interfering in the lives of its citizens than China, proving that the ban was the thin end of the wedge.
The UK is moving in the same direction. Ban egg adverts, condemn fast food and processed meat, restrict working hours,tell you which car you can drive etc. People fought and died for rights that are being steadily eroded by those with vested interests. The process is irreversible when the majority support certain government actions against some people's rights. In America after Sept 11 attacks the people supported action and they now have the Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq and Afganistan, phone tapping, extraordinary rendition and a complete loss of civil liberties. Britain is next.
David, New Mills says...
12:51pm Tue 4 Mar 08
"Smirting" is just a new name for a long established practice, if chas. can recall the supposedly sexy smoking scene between Davis and Henreid in "Now Voyager". Personally, I can think of other things I'd prefer to have in my mouth.
Chas.'s suggestion is declined, as I try to avoid ashtrays and people whose breath smells like one.
Dave, says...
1:02pm Tue 4 Mar 08
Life is all about risks there is a thousand ways to die and passive smoking is not one of them compared to risks drinking alcohol, flying, driving a car or even playing sport. So you see the risk of "murdering" someone by smoking is a bit far fetched when the fact is you could kill a child driving on the way home from work tonight is a very real possibility. This risk is several thousand times greater then passive smoking will ever be and its still legal to drive.
Donnie, says...
1:39pm Tue 4 Mar 08
owned by the public.
Pubs and clubs are privately owned the public are not forced in or forced to work there and they do not own the building. Whether smoking takes place on private premises should be the owners choice and no one elses. Lets turn the senario around for a moment, suppose the government said that all public and private places must allow smoking as it is legal. What would you say if someone smoked in your private house, I can imagine you would state that this is your private property and you deemed whether smoking took place or not. This is exactly the same position as publicans in their PRIVATE pubs.
Get real
chas, suffolk says...
2:53pm Tue 4 Mar 08
John, Richmond says...
3:26pm Tue 4 Mar 08
fjw, Manchester says...
3:46pm Tue 4 Mar 08
Rose wrote:I believe it's known as 'astroturfing' and it's been used by Labour for about the past 6 years. The results of their innumerable 'surveys' are obtained in this manner which explains why people are puzzled when they find out about the reults of 'surveys' that nobody knew anything about! The problem is root and branch, this Govt.
Stef Strange you should mention planted government employees supporting government policy.Having seen the bizarre behaviour on these threads I did a little digging. \"How Labour used its election troops to fake popular support\" \"reveals how party members and supporters were systematically used to create the impression of \'real people\' passionately backing the government\". \"Campaign materials seen by Dispatches stress that \'more people trust the letters page than any other page of their local newspaper\' and that local organisers should target it\" http://www.guardian. co.uk/politics/2005/ may/22/uk.election20 05 Very informative, I\'ve noticed that real people who support the ban try to explain. Activists parrot abuse.
fjw, Manchester says...
4:03pm Tue 4 Mar 08
John wrote:A reasonable comment, I'm pleased to say, from a disliker of smokers, until we get to the 'drug addict' bit (again, have you nothing new?) but how do you know it's supported by 'over 50%' of people? - or are we 'astroturfing' again?
I fail to understand why normally clever individuals who smoke have such a problem with logic when it comes to smoking. It is obvious and accepted by all that smoking is dangerious to the smoker. It therefore follows that same smoke must be just a dangerious to a non smoker. Research over many years has proved beyond any doubt that tobacco smoke is a killer. That is all we need to know to ban smoking everywhere except in private houses. Smoking is drug adiction and those who chose a life of drug adiction have themselves to blame as their habit is marginalised more and more. It is still legal to smoke, the only change is that so called smokers can\'t now inflict the effect of their drug adiction on others inside any building where the public can go. This is one of the most popular laws to come along for years. well over 50% of the population like it. The good pubs are doing well, the bad ones will go to the wall. So come on you pub ownere reinvent you pub, offer the public something different and you will do well. Sta the same and you will sooner or later go down the pan.
Burnley Taxpayer, Burnley says...
4:12pm Tue 4 Mar 08
fjw, Manchester says...
4:36pm Tue 4 Mar 08
By the way, mind your own business what I do and don't contaminate my space with your disgusting opinions (ring any bells?)
Debtman, Derry says...
5:12pm Tue 4 Mar 08
We are called drug addicts, but even heroin addicts who are prostitutes and thieves are allowed places to inject their illegal products and are given clean needles for the next hit.I actually support this practice and do not call these people a drain on the NHS even though they contribute nothing.
Smoking barstaff want to work whether it is in a smoking pub or not. However, smokers are being discriminated on a daily basis by employers and it is not illegal. Let them work in smoking bars where the patrons are smokers and kids are banned. This is not seeking a derogation from health and safety laws because these people already smoke so cannot be any worse off inhaling some second hand fumes.
Rose, says...
5:14pm Tue 4 Mar 08
Smokers as malodorous
Smokers as litterers
Smokers as selfish and thoughtless
Smokers as under-educated and a social underclass
Smokers as addicts
etc etc
Heres their whole denormalization strategy
http://tobaccocontro
l.bmj.com/cgi/conten
t/full/17/1/25
Charming.
fjw, Manchester says...
6:42pm Tue 4 Mar 08
David, New Mills says...
8:42pm Tue 4 Mar 08
It doesn't matter a jot what Donnie's concept of private property is. Let him read the appropriate Acts and "get real(istic)" if he can.
David, New Mills says...
9:10pm Tue 4 Mar 08
Chas. has no idea what I mind or don't mind.
"I'd like to know what he prefers to have in his mouth."
Bet he would, but I've no intention of enlightening his sad curiosity. Keep dreaming, boyo!
Dave, says...
9:44pm Tue 4 Mar 08
Sorry John thats completely wrong and is a typical opinion of someone that has been taken in by one or two anti smoking adverts.
First it takes a life time for a few smokers to get sick from smoking and as already explained the risk is not so great that a few puffs creates instant death. Second there is NO research over many years to prove passive smoking. If there is show me the actual results of a real survey and NOT the words of an anti smoker campaign that has cooked the books and added an extremist view. Not even the World Health Organization has found a solid link to passive smoking no one has and there is not one death certificate anywhere in the world that states cause of death "passive smoking". Don't you think thats odd considering you classified it as dangerous??
Finally as discussed before everything has a threshold where at low doses is considered safe so you can not take something thats generally toxic in extremely large doses is therefore using your logic still toxic at low doses it dont wont like that.
vitamins is a good example your body needs traces of iron and other minerals but in large enough doses they will kill you as they become toxic. Same as fluoride and chlorine that is dangerous you but its added in your tap water so there are many are things in life thats are dangerous in large enough doses.
See eventually the argument is always the same as the dangers of smoking are peeled back the anti smokers only have the bad smell to fall back too which is true smoking stinks its awful but thats really all it amounts too a bad smell. As much as smells should be controlled to minimize other inconvenience there are times when its not appropriate. For example if you hate curry you don't go into an Indian yet to some people its pleasant and enjoyable to eat to others makes them feel physically sick from the smell yet as far as i know Indian takeways are still legal.
RTS, UK says...
11:54pm Tue 4 Mar 08
David wrote:Semantics. Choose X required breaking law Y. Thus in order to choose to allow smoking he was "forced" to break the law. Just as when you choose to jump out of an aeroplane you are "forced" to fall downwards.
Re DaveA 9.19pm.
Valentine was not \"forced\" to break any law. That was a matter of his F2C, which he seems to acknowledge himself.
For many pubs around the country it's become more serious; they're faced with a choice; break the law or go out of business.
It's interesting though that this issue isn't going away and it seems that more people are breaking this stupid law every week.
pat, herts says...
10:10am Wed 5 Mar 08
john, Richmond says...
11:31am Wed 5 Mar 08
David, New Mills, U.K. says...
1:25pm Wed 5 Mar 08
David, New Mills, U.K. says...
1:31pm Wed 5 Mar 08
A sure fire way of landing in court, and facing the penalty, like Messrs. Howitt, Hogan and others.
Let her find enough fellow protesters to arrange a march, or even topple the government? Till then, it's a case really of put up and shut up.
David, New Mills, U.K. says...
2:41pm Wed 5 Mar 08
Whatever pubs are for, getting bladdered in them is scarcely de rigeur. Yes, I'd still "bother going to a pub once beer is severely restricted on alcohol content or limited to 2 pints per person or worst case you could go inside but only consume '(horror of horrors)' an orange juice?"
His long diatribe with dubious evidence and data simply underlines the fact of his being in denial about his addiction. If he's not addicted to nicotine, can he not spend an hour or two in a pub, without the necessity to have his fix.
Happy puffing by all means, but continue to keep it outside.
chas, suffolk says...
4:03pm Wed 5 Mar 08
. Good health, David.
David, New Mills, U.K. says...
9:04pm Wed 5 Mar 08
He may be relieved to know that I am able to walk to the pubs in idyllic Pleasantville without having to circumvent too many life threatening vehicle fumes, well maybe some from a few horses' excreta.
I've managed to survive all those nasty carcinogens in alcohol so far.
His smoke affected health concerns me not a jot.
Nick., london says...
5:37pm Thu 6 Mar 08
David wrote:It was a club, the door was answered by the Steward, therefore not a public place. If it was a CIU club then it is owned, run, and a member only establishment, not stated in the news report but strongly suggests that.
No one "forced" Valentine to break the law. He made a choice, he paid the penalty. If Donnie and his tin hat cohorts don't understand the concept of enclosed public places, they need only revert to the appropriate legislation for definitions. If they don't like them, so be it. Perhaps the Publican Party could overthrow the régime? Well, maybe not.
David, New Mills, U.K. says...
8:17pm Thu 6 Mar 08
Whatever the views of Nick and "tin hat" Donnie as to what constitutes an enclosed public place, they must refer to the Health Act, 2006, or to the comparitive Scottish Act for a factual definition.
Notice self-styled martyr Tony Blows was apparently socked for £12k to-day for failing to recognise reality. Who'll be next for self flagellation, I wonder?
pat, herts says...
5:52pm Sat 8 Mar 08
Burnley Taxpayer wrote:Well if you feel that strongly I suggest you write to this selfish government and ask them to ban cigarettes and if they do, dont go moaning about how much your cost of living has to rise to make up for the short fall this government will no doubt lose. Remember this country uses to be free and people like you are turning it into a nanny state. you moaner.
I wish smokers would stop whingeing and just give up their filthy habit. They are as bad as any other sort of addict.
BROKE RULES: The Tacklers Club is the first in East Lancs to be prosecuted for breaching the smoking ban.
In this section
- Burnley Council 'stupid' for paying £290,000 for eyesore
- Burnley firms secures £850,000 museum contract
- Nelson drugs minder ordered to repay £30,000
- Traders want increased police patrols in Nelson
- Barlick police call for public backing to shut down 'party houses'
- Nelson shopping bosses snub suicide hotspot safety plan
- £100k drug farm in empty Colne house
- Lowerhouse community day pleases beat police
- Historic garden recreated at Towneley
- Cheeky Monkey star in training to play 'Billy Elliot' in West End
Sponsored Links
Local advertisers
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Hellboy, Hell(without the smoke) says...
12:20am Sat 1 Mar 08
It must be FAR more important to catch out us 'EVIL' smokers rather than apprehend a gang of chav lowlife beating a man to death!
We have never had it so good in the UK as far as law and order goes...I feel proud to be British!