Organiser of mass light-up jailed

[yorkie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8540651.stm

A former pub landlord who is thought to be the first person in the UK to be jailed after flouting the smoking ban is "devastated", his wife says.
Nick Hogan, 43, from Chorley, was sentenced to six months in prison for failing to pay fines for smoking ban breaches at his two Bolton pubs.
Hogan was found guilty of breaching the smoking ban in January 2008 at the Swan and the Barristers pubs he ran.
His wife Denise said the couple "never expected" he would be imprisoned.
The original hearing was told that on the day the ban came into force he organised a "mass light-up" in the two pubs.
He was fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £7,136 in costs.
Mrs Hogan, 53, said that following the conviction her husband lost his job and was unable to keep up with the £125-a-week fine payments.
He was jailed on Friday by magistrates in Bolton.
Mrs Hogan said: "He's not a smoking campaigner or anything like that.
"He didn't want to change the law, he just thought if people wanted to smoke it should be their choice.
"We never expected him to go to jail. He hasn't harmed anybody and he isn't a criminal.
"He was allowed to ring me from jail last night but we could only speak for just two minutes. He is devastated."

No, Mrs Hogan, you're wrong. He IS a criminal - he has been convicted of a criminal offence. He IS harming people. If you cannot see that smoking harms people then you are a complete and utter fool.

Nick Hogan thought he was above the law. Thank goodness he's been dealt with.

People who flout smoking laws think they have the right to make people breath in toxic fumes. They are wrong. They do NOT have that right. They're criminals, and I'm glad one of them has been dealt with appropriately, I wish more of them were fined. If they don't pay the fines then of course they should be dealt with.

Nick Hogan, you're a criminal. Mrs Hogan, accept it!

 

[DescendingSadly]

I do hope you don't drive.

 

[yorkie]

I do hope you don't drive.

If you're referring to the toxic fumes given off by cars, I certainly take your point (and no, I don't drive a car), however the equivalent there would be leaving a car running inside an enclosed space where people go to eat/drink/chat.

 

[EM2]

I do hope you don't drive.

What does that have to do with anything? The smoking ban is law.
If you break the law while driving, I have no sympathy with that either.

 

[mrcheek]

Personally, I disagree with the smoking ban.
Although I am not a smoker. For me, its a freedom of choice issue.

But, this guy and his wife sound like idiots to me. The ban is the law. Hogan blatantly broke it. Repeatedly. And then failed to pay the fines. So I can have no sympathy with him.

 

[starrymarkb]

I think the jailing is more for the non-payment of fines rather then the smoking

 

[theblackwatch]

I think the jailing is more for the non-payment of fines rather then the smoking

Yes I read it that way - he wasn't jailed for his smoking, he had been already fined for that but failed to pay up. Interesting it mentions he lost his job as a pub landlord, I wonder if this was related to his original fines?

Personally I find pubs a lot more pleasant now than they were before the ban, and will go into them more often now.

 

[mumrar]

It is irrelevant whether you agree with the smoking ban, that's why we have elected representatives. They make the laws, and we agree to follow. As the father of a near 3yr old, I love the smoking ban. It means we've been able to enjoy meals out in pubs, not just restaurants, and all the time he likes to spend at train stations is smoke free.

I also don't think it's a freedom of choice thing, it only benefits the chancellor, is a totally pointless thing, but it doesn't just harm you, it harms others around you. I hear plenty of smokers crow about the damage drinking can do to other people through domestic violence etc. But if alcohol was the same as cigarettes, it would cause you to attack and man, woman or child in the same building. Smoke doesn't choose whether to harm, it just does it.

 

[First class]

Yes I read it that way - he wasn't jailed for his smoking, he had been already fined for that but failed to pay up. Interesting it mentions he lost his job as a pub landlord, I wonder if this was related to his original fines?

Personally I find pubs a lot more pleasant now than they were before the ban, and will go into them more often now.

I believe that if convicted of some criminal offences, you are not able to hold a license to sell alcohol.

 

[Kneedown]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8540651.stm



No, Mrs Hogan, you're wrong. He IS a criminal - he has been convicted of a criminal offence. He IS harming people. If you cannot see that smoking harms people then you are a complete and utter fool.

Nick Hogan thought he was above the law. Thank goodness he's been dealt with.

People who flout smoking laws think they have the right to make people breath in toxic fumes. They are wrong. They do NOT have that right. They're criminals, and I'm glad one of them has been dealt with appropriately, I wish more of them were fined. If they don't pay the fines then of course they should be dealt with.

Nick Hogan, you're a criminal. Mrs Hogan, accept it!

Non smokers have the right not to enter a smoking pub, no one drags them in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you're referring to the toxic fumes given off by cars, I certainly take your point (and no, I don't drive a car), however the equivalent there would be leaving a car running inside an enclosed space where people go to eat/drink/chat.

Not really an equivalent seeing as everyone would be dead within minutes.

I'm a smoker, i agree that smoking in buildings or vehicles where the general public have to go should be illegal, but a pub landlord is the proprietor of his hostelry and should therefore be able to decide whether smoking is permitted or not, and customers can make the choice to enter or go elsewhere. The same as people can choose whether to come to my house or not in the knowledge i am a smoker (I don't smoke in the house but you know what i am getting at)
As regards the ban on smoking on open railway platforms i think that is just ridiculous. I notice in another thread that a poster says he or she has nowhere to avoid smokers on a platform. I disagree, most platforms are a reasonable length to be able to stand well away from a smoker. It's a bit much complaining about someone having a ciggie whilst waiting for the train, when the train is a claggy diesel kicking out more pollution than hundreds of smokers.

 

[Geezertronic]

I'm a smoker, i agree that smoking in buildings or vehicles where the general public have to go should be illegal, but a pub landlord is the proprietor of his hostelry and should therefore be able to decide whether smoking is permitted or not, and customers can make the choice to enter or go elsewhere

A person should have the right to enter any establishment and not run the risk of passive smoking. It is right in my opinion to ban smoking in these establishments for the good health of everyone, smokers and non smokers. If you want to smoke, go to the designated smoking area where you can poison yourself and other smokers as much as you want

 

[mumrar]

It's a bit much complaining about someone having a ciggie whilst waiting for the train, when the train is a claggy diesel kicking out more pollution than hundreds of smokers.

Main difference being that if the train isn't electric, it needs to run on some kind of fuel. That is itself needed for mass transit between urban areas. You on the other hand require water, sugar, fibre and some fat to function properly. Smoking is a totally pointless activity that holds no benefit to human beings what so ever. How we have managed to create aa multi-billion pound industry out of people willfully killing themselves is a bit odd really. A Landlord is not allowed to make his own rules in a pub in spite of law. If they are would you like your smokers pub if the landlord decided to break his drinks license and sold stronger alcohol than legally permitted, and was full of hazards because he also cares little for fire safety or health and safety laws either? I used to work in a pub before the ban, and despite the extensive air filtration and extraction system, it was vile when it was busy. Maybe we should get a load of smokers together in a pub, with no extraction system, and see how great you think smoking is then.

 

[Kneedown]

A person should have the right to enter any establishment and not run the risk of passive smoking. It is right in my opinion to ban smoking in these establishments for the good health of everyone, smokers and non smokers. If you want to smoke, go to the designated smoking area where you can poison yourself and other smokers as much as you want

If you are offended by Christianity do you believe you have the right to enter a Church and not be confronted with Christianity?
If you are offended by Islam do you believe you have the right to enter a Mosque and not be confronted by Islamic doctrine?
If you are offended by a certain TV programme you have the choice to switch over to another channel.

The bottom line is that you have a choice as to where you do or do not enter.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Smoking is a totally pointless activity that holds no benefit to human beings what so ever.

We keep the NHS funds topped up by the extra taxes we pay.

Maybe we should get a load of smokers together in a pub, with no extraction system, and see how great you think smoking is then.

How great is drinking alcohol when you consider the health risks of excessive consumption?

 

[Daimler]

If you are offended by Christianity do you believe you have the right to enter a Church and not be confronted with Christianity?
If you are offended by Islam do you believe you have the right to enter a Mosque and not be confronted by Islamic doctrine?
If you are offended by a certain TV programme you have the choice to switch over to another channel.

The bottom line is that you have a choice as to where you do or do not enter.

Offence isn't quite the same as physical harm...

 

[mumrar]

If you are offended by Christianity do you believe you have the right to enter a Church and not be confronted with Christianity?

Dictionary definition of pub - a house where alcoholic drinks are sold to the public. No mention of smoking.

We keep the NHS funds topped up by the extra taxes we pay.

I'm so glad you trotted out this pathetic myth, as a car driver I help to contribute to a £110bn duty to the government, to see about £3bn reinvested in the roads.

How great is drinking alcohol when you consider the health risks of excessive consumption?

I personally don't drink alcohol, and your right its effects are very damaging. Difference is if my mate likes to have ten pints a night, and I'm sat next to him talking, I won't get cirrhosis of the liver.

 

[Geezertronic]

If you are offended by Christianity do you believe you have the right to enter a Church and not be confronted with Christianity?
If you are offended by Islam do you believe you have the right to enter a Mosque and not be confronted by Islamic doctrine?
If you are offended by a certain TV programme you have the choice to switch over to another channel.

The bottom line is that I don't run the risk of inhaling second hand smoke by entering a Church, a Mosque or by watching certain TV programmes and I very much doubt that a Church, a Mosque or certain TV programmes are as bad for my health as passive smoking.

You might champion your right to smoke in public places but there are many many more people who will champion their right to breath fresh air instead of 2nd hand smoke.

 

[90019]

I'm so glad you trotted out this pathetic myth, as a car driver I help to contribute to a £110bn duty to the government

What, all by yourself?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Non smokers have the right not to enter a smoking pub, no one drags them in.

No one's forcing you to smoke either.

 

[bluebottle]

What, all by yourself?

No, he did say he helped to contribute.

 

[Deerfold]

I'm so glad you trotted out this pathetic myth, as a car driver I help to contribute to a £110bn duty to the government, to see about £3bn reinvested in the roads.

As a Vehicle Excise Duty Payer...there's sadly plenty of drivers out there not contributing.

 

[mumrar]

Mine won't be renewed come the end of the month. I'm sticking to my own power or trains from now on, even though prickish bus drivers seem determined to knock me off!

 

[yorkie]

No one's forcing you to smoke either.

But they are, passively.

What if I enter a pub and have a meal and then half way through someone lights up? It's not really reasonable to expect me to leave the meal half way through is it?

As a Vehicle Excise Duty Payer...there's sadly plenty of drivers out there not contributing.

Yes, but some of them are because the vehicle is quite economic!

 

[Capybara]

But they are, passively.

What if I enter a pub and have a meal and then half way through someone lights up? It's not really reasonable to expect me to leave the meal half way through is it?

I've never really understood the banning of smoking where meals are being served but not elsewhere. Lighting up while someone is eating is no more likely to affect someone's health than lighting up while simply having a drink. It might be unpleasant but there are plenty of things that are also unpleasant which aren't banned where meals are being served. This is a manners thing. Either go the whole hog and ban smoking in enclosed public spaces as we have done, or don't ban it at all.

 

[142094]

I'm sure I can remember a restaurant in Durham, which was smoking downstairs and non-smoking upstairs. So basically it was smoking throughout.

 

[Geezertronic]

I'm sure I can remember a restaurant in Durham, which was smoking downstairs and non-smoking upstairs. So basically it was smoking throughout.

Smoking sections next to non smoking sections always made me laugh. I think it was Lee Evans who made a joke that the smoke would see the non smoking signs and not move into the non smoking section

 

[theblackwatch]

I'm sure I can remember a restaurant in Durham, which was smoking downstairs and non-smoking upstairs. So basically it was smoking throughout.

And in pubs, before the smoking ban, you generally had to go through the smoking area to get to the no smoking part (nornally a small area at the back or side). If it had been the smoking area at the back, I wouldn't have minded. Anyway, its nice now not to have my clothes smellling of fag ash the next morning after a night at the pub. For those likening it to car fumes, despite cars still being on the road, my clothes don't end up smelling of them either!

 

[Donny Dave]

Smoking is a totally pointless activity that holds no benefit to human beings what so ever.

We keep the NHS funds topped up by the extra taxes we pay.

I'm so glad you trotted out this pathetic myth, as a car driver I help to contribute to a £110bn duty to the government, to see about £3bn reinvested in the roads.

It isn't a myth though! The amount of tax raised through tobacco and ciggarette sales is estimated to be just over £10 billion. Of that, around £4.5 billion is used to treat tobacco related illnesses and diseases.

Even more money is raised by alcohol duties (estimates vary from £12b upto £16b), yet the cost of treating alcohol releated illnesses and diseases is about the same as tobacco.

Where does the surplus go?

 

[mumrar]

In response to the where does the surplus go question, in to the governments purse with everything else. As regards to the myth that the NHS couldn't do without smokers revenue, the surplus is £3.5bn for cigarettes (total raised from tobacco duty '07-'08 was £7.6bn). The surplus for fuel duty and vehicle excise duty is around £30bn having checked properly. The main sources of Government income are Income tax, National Insurance, VAT and Corporation tax. For 2007-2008 this amounted to £394.7bn, so why smokers think their surplus duty of less than 1% of these 'big four' means the NHS survives, I don't know. As I said, an ill-thought out defence often spoken by smokers, but just a myth.

 

[90019]

But they are, passively.

You misunderstand.
I mean people who smoke aren't being forced to.

 

[royaloak]

By banning smoking on the stations people just stand by the entrance with the result that everyone has to walk through the haze, but if smoking was allowed at the ends of the platforms then everyone could enter the middle part of the platform without having to go anywhere near the smokers, simple really!

 

[mumrar]

Even more money is raised by alcohol duties (estimates vary from £12b upto £16b)

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f3/UK_taxes.svg/707px-UK_taxes.svg.png
These figures are for the year 2007-2008, they show the total of spirits, wine and beer and cider duties to be £8.6bn. We must really have a drink problem here if 'estimates' as you so loosely label them, think revenue has nearly doubled in two years.