Say No To Nanny

Smokefree Ideology


Nicotine Wars

 

40 Years of Hurt

Prejudice and Prohibition

Road To Ruin?

Search This Site
The Pleasure of Smoking

Forest Polling Report

Outdoor Smoking Bans

Share This Page
Powered by Squarespace
« Is this the beginning of the end for conventional cigarettes? | Main | Industry lights up Next Generation Nicotine Delivery conference »
Tuesday
Nov292016

Sign language

A non-smoking self-employed workman has been fined for not displaying a 'No Smoking' sign in his own van.

Trevor Emery, who runs a domestic appliance business, had to pay £150 which is £100 more than he would have been fined had he actually smoked in the vehicle.

According to Trevor he was unaware of the law, which is no defence of course, but the curious thing is that it took Kent's eagled-eyed wardens almost ten years to spot the 'offence'.

The story first appeared here but went national via The Sun, Daily Mail and others.

BBC South East News also ran the story last night. They wanted to know what our reaction was so I responded as follows:

"This case demonstrates how harsh the law is. Enforcing it in such a heavy-handed way is inappropriate and ridiculous.

"Common sense suggests that a gentle warning and a reminder to Mr Emery to put a no smoking sign in his van would have been sufficient.

"It's almost ten years since the smoking ban was introduced. Compliance is very high which indicates there are very few people who aren't aware that smoking is forbidden in workplaces, including work vehicles.

"Do we really need 'No Smoking signs everywhere? Instead of punishing people like Mr Emery for this most trivial of offences, the authorities should amend the regulations because the vast majority of 'No Smoking' signs are increasingly redundant."

In the event they didn't use any of it but the issue of signs that are essentially redundant is something I may come back to.

After all, do we really 'No Smoking' signs on every shop window, for example? Who, in this day and age, would walk into a store and light up?

Truth is, 'No Smoking' signs rarely if ever have anything to do with health.

In terms of advising people they can't smoke in shops or work vans (or churches!) they tell us nothing we don't already know.

In many cases their primary purpose is no longer to inform but to create a culture in which smoking is widely perceived as a forbidden, even criminal, activity.

This less than subtle tactic is part of a general strategy to denormalise smoking and, by association, smokers.

Trevor Emery could have been let off with a word in his ear. But no, he had to be made an example of, a warning to anyone else who dares to overlook one of the most important symbols of modern life – the ubiquitous 'No Smoking' sign.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (6)

Is this a joke ? Every lorry i see has a smoking driver. Are they exempt ?

Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 15:50 | Unregistered CommenterTimothy Goodacre

You've got better eyesight than me! I can't remember the last time I saw a lorry driver smoking. The occasional van driver perhaps, but no more than that.

What I do know is I've never read or heard of any reports suggesting that smoking while driving was the cause of a fatal accident, unlike the use of a mobile phone.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 16:05 | Unregistered CommenterSimon

Well this council employee has opened the doors, from now on every council, police, fire service vehicle should be checked by the public and the council chairperson in charge be fined if there is no no smoking signs on the vehicles, including the mayors.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 17:00 | Unregistered CommenterDavid Kerr

The key in this story is the use of draconian rules and ubiquitous warning signs to harass, persecute and denormalise smokers (where denormalise is the equivalent of dehumanise).

Rather than enforce these regulations their utility should be revisited and smoking restrictions in many cases should be repealed.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 18:29 | Unregistered CommenterVinny Gracchus

Of course antis need no smoking sighs everywhere to introduce smoking to children. The first a child asks when they see the sign is what is smoking. ASH needs child smokers too because they need to ensure a future supply of quitters to keep paying their fat salaries and justify this hate group-s existence.

As most people don't smoke, and those that do rarely smoke in front of children, the most common way children hear about smoking and learn about it is through signs such as this, not needed but about every 10 feet or less away from the last no smoking sign.

Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 19:35 | Unregistered Commenterpat nurse

Here in Greece they're very much on the case with the 'No Smoking' signs, and you see them on the windows of every bar and restaurant, without fail.

However, you will also notice that there are ashtrays on the bar and every table.

But they're very compliant where the signs are concerned. Got to abide by EU regs y'know.

Likewise, I had reason to visit the central police station a few years ago, and they had HUGE 'No Smoking' signs on the wall in the front office. Despite their size, I almost missed them, as they were barely visible in the fug of tobacco smoke which pertained in said front office.

But they really are very compliant where the signs are concerned.

Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 9:32 | Unregistered Commenternisakiman

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>