BCH: results of consultation on extending 'smokefree' zone to nearby streets
Tuesday, October 17, 2017 at 12:17 I suppose I ought to write about the outcome of a consultation conducted last year by Birmingham Children's Hospital (BCH).
You may remember it. I wrote about it here (Action alert – hospital wants to extend smoking ban to nearby streets) and here (Why 'smoke-free' consultation should be declared null and void) and invited readers to submit a response.
The consultation report has been sitting in my inbox for a few weeks. I'd like to say the outcome was a victory for those who opposed extending the hospital's 'smokefree' zone to neighbouring streets but I can't because there was a majority in favour.
That said, it was hardly a great win for BCH. I say that because it took a Freedom of Information request to get the hospital to reveal the existence of the report which wasn't on its website.
Nor had the results of the consultation been reported by the local media, which suggested two things. Either they hadn't been released or the results were insufficiently robust to merit any coverage.
Anyway, after submitting an FOI request in August I was sent a copy of the report (Proposal for a smoke-free zone around BCH: consultation responses) plus this brief summary:
- Birmingham Children’s Hospital remains a smokefree site. There has been no recent change in this.
- As outlined prior to last year’s consultation, any changes to ask people not to smoke around the hospital would need to be developed as a proposal with the local authority. At this stage, no formal proposal has been made. However, our consultation showed that the vast majority of respondents who actually use the hospital, live in Birmingham or use the streets around our site were in favour of a smokefree zone, and we therefore continue to explore ways of achieving this.
The 19-page report, dated November 8, 2016, is slightly more interesting. Here are three things I noted. One:
More smokers were strongly against the zone than were for it. Previous smokers were more evenly split between supporting and being against the zone. The majority of support came from non-smokers.
I'm sure this won't won't surprise anyone. It is however another example of what I call the 'tyranny of the majority' and it's a problem for smokers because non-smokers now outnumber smokers five to one and those who express an opinion in surveys like this are invariably anti-smoking.
My guess is that most non-smokers don't feel strongly about people smoking in the street, regardless of whether it's near a hospital, but that also means they're unlikely to be motivated to take part in a consultation on the subject.
Inevitably therefore what we're up against is a hardcore of anti-smokers plus members of staff who I imagine were encouraged to submit a response that, lo and behold, supported their employers' proposed policy.
Two, people are generally reluctant to ask smokers to move on not because they think they are interfering in someone else's business and it has nothing to do with them but because they are frightened to do so.
Indeed the most extraordinary comment in the entire report reads:
Having been a police officer for 30 years I feel it would be dangerous to get into conflict with people who are smoking.
Goodness, if an experienced police officer is intimidated by the thought of asking someone to stub out a cigarette or move further away from the hospital to smoke you wouldn't back them to protect you from a knife-wielding terrorist, would you?
Three, the hospital wants to ban smoking and vaping in nearby streets. This is based on responses to the question 'Should the zone apply to e-cigarettes?' and the following key points:
- Respondents in favour of the zone were largely for it applying to e-cigarettes.
- Several respondents highlighted that a zone might discourage quit attempts using e-cigarettes, although no respondents indicated that they personally would be affected in this way.
What I deduce from this is that respondents opposed to the zone were largely against it applying to e-cigarettes (I know I was) but very few (if any) vapers bothered to submit a response, presumably because it was promoted as a consultation about smoking. (Forest gets a mention in the report but there's no reference to any vaping-related organisations.)
In other words, by declining to engage in a consultation on a "proposal for a smoke-free zone around BCH", the vaping advocacy community has effectively given the green light to a policy which, if implemented, will prohibit both smoking and vaping in neighbouring streets.
Here are the full recommendations:
1. Given the strong support from the significant majority of the public, families and staff who regularly use the area around the hospital, BCH strongly believes that the introduction of a smoke-free zone around the hospital site is a positive step.
2. BCH believes it will improve the experience of visitors, whilst also offering an opportunity to communicate a consistent and important public health message.
3. Based on consultation feedback, BCH believes that the zone should include vaping and e-cigarettes, maintaining consistency with the hospital site itself.
4. BCH will initially pursue the introduction of a voluntary zone, supported through signage that highlights the importance of the zone to children and families visiting the hospital.
5. BCH recognises the views of a number of people that they would like to see a more formal, enforceable zone introduced. BCH will ensure that any implementation of zone is appropriately monitored, and will support exploration of a stronger approach if a voluntary zone fails to address sufficiently the level of concern that the consultation has highlighted.
The good news is that nothing much appears to have happened since the report was produced in November last year.
According to the hospital, in response to my FOI, "any changes to ask people not to smoke around the hospital would need to be developed as a proposal with the local authority. At this stage, no formal proposal has been made."
It's hardly a positive result but in the circumstances it'll do.
Reader Comments (8)
Well this vaper most certainly DID have his say about the proposals, just in the same way as I vehemently opposed Swansea City Council's proposal to extend their smoke-free beach policy from Caswell Bay to all of Gower's beaches (and encouraged other people to do so). I have also opposed every other smoke-free zone that I have been aware of, either from you or other people.
What caught my eye from your excerpts though was
'However, our consultation showed that the vast majority of respondents who actually use the hospital, live in Birmingham or use the streets around our site were in favour of a smokefree zone, and we therefore continue to explore ways of achieving this.'
Seems to me from that statement that they actively sought to exclude any view that came from somebody who did not live in the area, unless it actually supported their view of the smoke-free zone. Crucifying the figures to meet their goals much ?
This is becoming all too common a scenario as your recent blog-posts about Scotland's proposal to ban smoking in the home also shows.
The thing is, where will it end ?
Some years ago The Mercy, (Public) Hospital in Cork also tried to make the footpaths around the place smoke free. The site is in the heart of the city and the doors open onto public paths all around. Not only did the City Fathers deny their request but the hospital was forced to re-instate ashtrays on the walls near its entrances due to the litter problem when they were removed. Common sense should have dictated this would be the case but that's fanatics for you.
Well, I can't say I'm entirely surprised by the outcome. I seem to remember saying something along the lines of "they'll disregard the outcome if it doesn't go their way" - oh wait, I did here
The fact that they excluded out of area responses only supports that. They wanted this extended "smokefree zone" and were only going through the motions with this "consultation" debacle.
I wonder if those alleged smokers are really astro turf antis. They do lie,manipulate and mislead so that is more likely the explanation.
Smokers need to recognise that not all non smokers are antis - or more accurately smokerphobics.
As you rightly point out, most non smokers couldn't care less either way. I find many these days are on our side,, if they take a side. The rabid smokerphobics are in the minority but they are very loud, usually thanks to the megaphone of public money that they take but do not contribute to in any way.
If I find myself at BCH I will smoke outdoors. Anyone, including a strapping male PC who is scared of a skinny granny like me will be politely told to go away if I am approached. I pay far more than others for the use of hospital facilities and I will not be bullied into submission by those who support discrimination or exclusion.
Smokers must learn to stand their ground and refuse to be intimidated.
"Smokers must learn to stand their ground and refuse to be intimidated." (Pat)
Couldn't agree more. If smokers have the law on their side they should absolutely refuse to comply. I find that it helps to ask the person who's throwing their weight around to quote the law that I'm supposed to be breaking - of course they can't. I haven't kept up with the ins and outs of hospitals wanting to extend but unless I've missed it, the hospitals I think would have to have the law changed by Parliament to impose the extension - hospitals don't have legislative powers. I would even argue with someone trying to stop me smoking in the grounds on the basis that private property rights don't trump the law of the land (they didn't when the ban was instituted) and the law of the land doesn't ban smoking outdoors.
This is an example of the relentless antismoker propaganda shaping perceptions. In addition, I think the index of suspicion for manipulating the results by astroturf antismokers (as suggested by Pat Nurse) is high. The statement by an alleged 30-year police officer is telling. Any cop worth his salt knows how to talk to people and gently request someone to stop smoking or doing anything else that bothers them. The astrotufers always show their hands by making absurd statements to achieve their intolerant end state.
That said, it is also taking that they have yet to move forward. This provides an opportunity to counter the antismoker propaganda with a dose of reality. Maybe its time to send copies of "Smoked Out" to select local councils?
The "Tyranny of the Majority" is an interesting concept. It appears to me that a natural result of this is, as smokers become more of a minority, the "problem" of outdoor smoking reduces. We then have public bodies spending a disproportionate amount of time, energy and money dealing with what is an already ever decreasing "problem".
As another vaper who responded in a strongly negative fashion to this ludicrous consultation I'm disappointed that they didn't mention my point about just how stupid it is to ban smoking on a site that is surrounded on (I think) two sides by a motorway. But then, they wouldn't.