This law was brought in with plenty of fanfare so no chance that you did not know about it. The fact that he did not pay the fines are the reason he is in this mess. He only has himself to blame. His lawyer should have warned him.

It's the landlord's property, not yours. It's up to them what goes on in their pub. If you don't like their smoking policy, vote with your feet.

I'm also a non-smoker. It really sticks in my craw that the government are curbing legal activity on private property this way.

+1

I know the smoking ban applies to public houses, but does it apply to private clubs? If so, then that's a definite invasion of personal liberty.

Yes it does. They are also enclosed spaces ...........

So is my house. I had a few friends around recently and we enjoyed a good smoke. Is that a crime? It was no different than a private club, surely?

Sometime the law can be an ass and this is one of those I suspect

What about private cigar clubs and the like?

"Here is your fine cuban, now smoke it outside"

Well when the legislation came in there was a last smoke night in several gentlemen's clubs in Piccadilly so I guess they are effected as well.

AFAIK the law applies if it's a place of work or an enclosed public space.

If private clubs employ people then they're subject to the ban.

That's my understanding anyway.

Ahh that makes sense. Presumably a non-profit smoking club run by volunteers would be exempt.

Anyone in?

More often than not it's the brewery that owns the pub, not the landlord so it's the breweries policy not the landlords.
If the smoking ban on pubs was lifted it would not be possible to 'vote with your feet' in a very short space of time as a significant majority, if not all, pubs would allow smoking inside.

Second, by that argument (my pub, my rules) they should be allowed to sell alcohol to under-age people or sell anything they really want to, heroin for instance. A law is a law even if you don't like it and there are ways to challenge them at the ballot box and in the courts.
The anti-smoking law is there to protect the [pubs] employees from second hand smoke and, as a beneficial consequence it also protects everybody inside the premises from the risks of second hand smoke.
The law has been enacted and was done so in a clear way, it wasn't snuck in under the radar.
For pubs and the like I'm fully in support of it. You would either need totally effective air handling to remove all the smoke (very expensive) or you can send people outside.

I did however pass a bus stop (basically a screen with a roof on it) that said you couldn't smoke 'inside' it.
This to me seemed a bit silly, the thing was made of mesh and open on three sides.
If someone was smoking it would be easy to stand up-wind of them, something that can't readily be done in a more enclosed space like a pub.

6 of one...



Rubbish! Smoking is a LEGAL activity, selling alcohol to people who are under-age or selling illicit drugs is not. As I said, this ban is a curb on a legal activity which is conducted on private property.

Also I don't see how the law was implemented has anything to do with the fact it's wrong. Presumably, if the government drafts a law stating that CCTV will be going in to your bedroom then this is OK as long as they publicise the fact they're doing it.

No, it's an important distinction. If the landlord was the owner and the only person working in the premises then what he chooses to inflict on himself as a consequence of what he (or she) allows to be done on the premises is a matter of their choice.
If the landlord is an employee of the brewery and/or employs other people then they have a duty under Health and Safety law to provide a safe working environment for the employees (who have a right not be harmed simply by going to work).



Fair enough, that was a bad example.

How about something that's close to many peoples hearts around here.
Photography is a legal activity when done in public places (most of the time). However, if you want to take photographs inside a military base, the atomic weapons establishment or a nuclear submarine then at the very least you require special and specific permission. The activity is therefore legal but restricted depending on where you are.

I disagree that the law is wrong whereas I would say that your example about bedroom CCTV would most definitely be wrong.
I believe whole-heartedly that employees of establishments like pubs have the right not be injured just by breathing at work. As do patrons of those establishments. If however, someone, on their own, wishes or is compelled by addiction to nicotine to smoke then they my still do so, just not in a manner that forces others to be party to the risk they have chosen to accept.

But this is government-owned property (where the government/MoD etc make the rules), this is very different to a public area - such as a street (where there are no restrictions (other than what's illegal)- or property owned by private companies or individuals (where these companies and individuals set the rules).



I'm all for the risks being minimised (as H&S requires) - but if you choose to accept the job and are aware of the risks beforehand, whose fault is that but your own?