SMOKING- Got a warning, is it fair?

[dori2o]

Got a warning this morning off an enforcement officer for smoking on the station platform as I was waiting for the train.

 

This platform however, is not covered or enclosed, it is completely open.

 

The officer advised that the law applies to platforms as though they were enclosed spaces.

 

I have tried looking for the legislation but cannot find any reference to this.

 

Northern Rail have also now puit signs up stating that it is illegal to smoke on any of their premises.

 

Can anyone advise where I can find confirmation of this.

[dx100uk]

strange really, because it is privately owned, they did not even need the new law to bring it into force.

 

they own it, if they say you cannot smoke, you cannot smoke. fullstop.

you are on their premesis.

 

dx100uk

[dori2o]

but does that make it 'illegal'.

[Ecossewarrior]

smoking is disgusting anyway. Just putting ureself in the ground a lot quicker

[Bookworm]

Got a warning this morning off an enforcement officer for smoking on the station platform as I was waiting for the train.

 

This platform however, is not covered or enclosed, it is completely open.

 

The officer advised that the law applies to platforms as though they were enclosed spaces.

 

I have tried looking for the legislation but cannot find any reference to this.

 

Northern Rail have also now puit signs up stating that it is illegal to smoke on any of their premises.

 

Can anyone advise where I can find confirmation of this.

 

They are correct.

 

My husband works for Southern, and all staff got given guidelines about enforcing the ban on ALL railway property, and that includes platforms.

[dave]

....which of course is ridiculous.

[Bookworm]

Depends from whose angle. From the point of view of the people on either side who don't smoke, the staff who get lungfuls as they stand there (and no, they can't move away if they're in the process of dispatching), and simply the people who prefer less litter on the floor rather than more, rather sensible, actually. ;-)

[dx100uk]

but does that make it 'illegal'.

 

interesting point, you need to know if specifically train platforms are listed under the new law which i think they are.

 

if not, then [because it is a private co.] surely they cannot fine you. [which they do not mention on the notice?]

so thus it cannot be a criminal offence? so thus not illegal?

 

however they can still impose the ban or ask you to leave/ban you from their property.

however, take it the otherway if my theory is correct.

you def cannot smoke on trains and for that you can be fined, so what is the diff if it is the platform other than it is not 'enclosed'

 

i'm not up on this as it does not concern me. [even though i smoke! i am luckythat i am not a slave to it]

 

might do some reading though as you have got me thinking.

 

dx100uk

[StudentInDebt]

Smoke Free Stations

Using existing by laws railway companies will be extending the ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces to all uncovered platforms and stations.

 

The widespread smoking ban comes in on 1stJuly. Smoking will be prohibited on all station concourses, ticket halls, platforms – covered and uncovered - and footbridges and subways. This will affect all 1,900 railway stations in England and also applies to railway offices -station offices, canteens and workplace areas which are covered by the legislation. However, smoking will still be permitted on most station forecourts and in (uncovered) station car parks.

 

Says George Muir,Director General of ATOC, ‘The new law will lead to a cleaner smoke-free environment at all of Britain’s 2,500 stations. Smoking has been prohibited on trains for some years, and the railways are now playing their part to comply with smoke-free legislation that has been broadly welcomed in Scotland and Wales.’

[dx100uk]

well done glad someone had the time to find it

i also, [but dont know why] got a PM which quotes this:

 

4 Additional smoke-free places

(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations designating as smoke-free any place or description of place that is not smoke-free under section 2.

(2) The place, or places falling within the description, need not be enclosed or substantially enclosed.

(3) The appropriate national authority may designate a place or description of place under this section only if in the authority's opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.

(4) The regulations may provide for such places, or places falling within the description, to be smoke-free only-

(a) in specified circumstances,

(b) at specified times,

© if specified conditions are satisfied,

(d) in specified areas,

 

so there we go.

 

all answered

dx100uk

[blazing-badger]

I think you will find that the Train Operators have banned smoking on platforms using their powers under the Railway Byelaws rather than the new Act. Consequently the platform need not be covered.

[dx100uk]

yep seems that way as studentindebt showed us [top line] so my initial theory was correct, they could have done it at anytime they wanted. but now people can be fined for it, where as before the rail co's would of only of had the power of banning someone . bit like night clubs really.

when you are getting leary through drink.

 

dx100uk

[Guest weegirl]

Where will the madness stop? I am a non-smoker (an ex-smoker too, so I am actually worse) but come on - if you are outside what is the problem.

 

Our local hospital has even banned staff who give other staff members a lift from smoking in their own cars - okay if they have another staff member in the car at the time, fair enough, but if they use their car for a car sharing scheme, they've been told they cannot smoke in their car at all!! Bull**** I know, probably wouldn't stand legally but it just shows, give some people an inch...

[patdavies]

Our local hospital has even banned staff who give other staff members a lift from smoking in their own cars - okay if they have another staff member in the car at the time, fair enough, but if they use their car for a car sharing scheme, they've been told they cannot smoke in their car at all!!

 

If the car sharing is simply for commuting to/from work, then this may well be interesting if they try disciplinary action as travel to/from work is not a business journey. If it is not a business journey , then the vehicle is not a place of work.

[Champnos]

Its not a business vehicle so its not under the new laws, its probably more of a suggestion LoL a stupid one really as im sure people who get the lifts dont moan.

 

As for the opening post, yes it is now banned from train platforms.

[Bookworm]

Where will the madness stop? I am a non-smoker (an ex-smoker too, so I am actually worse) but come on - if you are outside what is the problem....

 

If you'd read my post properly, you would know what the problem is. My husband works for the railway, and while he dispatches, or has to stand there helping people, he used to get lungfuls of smoke at close quarters. Why should he be put at risk at his place of work?

 

If you're the one stuck next to the smoker on a busy platform, being outside doesn't help, you're still exposed to the smoke, and exposed to the risk of getting your clothes or skin burnt. Simple as that.

[indebtstudent]

Look I really deteste smoking (working in a betting shop will do that to a person!), but I agree that the platform situation seemed a little strange. Have you felt how OUTSIDE some train stations are? They're normallly freezing because they're SO open.

 

I do think smoking is dangerous but not as deadly as the legislation seems to suggests. I'm not going to be felled by walking past somebody who is smoking.

 

Another anomaly, to some extent, is that two people in a car (during the course of work) who smoke cannot both agree to smoke. I suppose the purpose of this is to protect those who may feel compelled to agree that smoking be permitted.

 

I welcome the vast majority of this piece legislation BUT I can see how it gives some people ammo to argue that we have to many laws. At least this law is clear and enforcable, unlike the ban on using mobile phones while driving - I've not seen anyone get pulled up for this offence, though I have seen MANY people doing it!

[Guest weegirl]

If you'd read my post properly, you would know what the problem is. My husband works for the railway, and while he dispatches, or has to stand there helping people, he used to get lungfuls of smoke at close quarters. Why should he be put at risk at his place of work?

 

I actually DID read the post properly, and I really cannot disagree more with your 'I've got the moral highground' attitude.

 

Risking getting clothes and skin burned? Do you know how ridiculous and cantankerous that sounds??? As an ex 40-a day addict for nearly 20 years, I can honestly say I never burnt anyone, and getting burned by a smoker was a very rare thing indeed. I did get burned once, by a friend - which was my fault as I was blind drunk at the time in a packed nightclub. Lets get a grip here, this is hardly a sufficient risk. Sounds to me like you are grasping to enforce your arguement.

 

He is still outside, NOT in an enclosed space. He doesn't have to stand directly beside someone who is smoking (and to get a lungful of second hand smoke when the smoker is outside, that's what you would have to do, stand right beside them and do your best to chase it). Sounds to me like you are being awkard and picking a fight.

 

It is beyond me why you are took my comments personally anyway, I wasn't even referring to your post. But now you have brought it up, I would like to say that if people want to smoke, it is their right if they are not doing it in an enclosed space. I think we have enough laws in the UK telling people what they should eat, drink etc. As pointed out by indebtstudent, this is just another excuse to push the boat out. This was the whole point of my post it was NOT a response to yours.

[Guest ArthurP]

What a ridiculous jobsworth.

 

What about the stinking diesel being ommitted by filthy trains?

 

And I bet the enforcement officer got into his car when he finished his working day and polluted the air, and people, whilst at the same time lecturing about harmful emissions.

 

Claptrap.

[BankFodder]

If you want to smoke in train stations and anywhere else then become French and go to France where they do what they want and don't care about anyone else or the law and where the police can't be bothered to enforce very much at all unless it involves beating up or torturing non-indigenous French citizens in which case they are all for it.

AIUK : France: New report reveals racist abuse with impunity by French police

[blazing-badger]

What a ridiculous jobsworth.

 

What about the stinking diesel being ommitted by filthy trains?

 

And I bet the enforcement officer got into his car when he finished his working day and polluted the air, and people, whilst at the same time lecturing about harmful emissions.

 

Claptrap.

 

Why is is being a "ridiculous jobsworth" to do the job you're being paid to do, and to uphold the law? Is it so unreasonable to object to going to work spending your time inhaling toxic cigarette smoke, before coming home stinking of other people's fags?

[Monty2007]

I am a non-smoker and personally think the new legislation is great. However it seems unfair to impose it outside buildings and on station platforms where in it is not a confined space.

 

There will always be grey areas, as in consumer issues exemplified on this site. I do have some sympathy with your situation.

[Guest ArthurP]

Why is is being a "ridiculous jobsworth" to do the job you're being paid to do, and to uphold the law? Is it so unreasonable to object to going to work spending your time inhaling toxic cigarette smoke, before coming home stinking of other people's fags?

 

I'd agree with you if it were not the fact that this incident happened in the open air. And there is a difference with upholding the law and enforcing it. (As it appears this officer enforced it by giving a warning)

 

I am an ex-smoker and I think it is marvellous that smoking has been banned in public places.

However, there does appear to be rather silly goings on just because it is new.

An incident was reported in my town of somebody being warned for smoking outside a bus stop! And that person was the only one waiting for a bus!

Again, I say the officer from this thread, and my home town, are ridiculous jobsworths. Have they no common sense?

[Bookworm]

If you'd read my post properly, you would know what the problem is. My husband works for the railway, and while he dispatches, or has to stand there helping people, he used to get lungfuls of smoke at close quarters. Why should he be put at risk at his place of work?

I actually DID read the post properly, and I really cannot disagree more with your 'I've got the moral highground' attitude.

 

Risking getting clothes and skin burned? Do you know how ridiculous and cantankerous that sounds??? As an ex 40-a day addict for nearly 20 years, I can honestly say I never burnt anyone, and getting burned by a smoker was a very rare thing indeed. I did get burned once, by a friend - which was my fault as I was blind drunk at the time in a packed nightclub. Lets get a grip here, this is hardly a sufficient risk. Sounds to me like you are grasping to enforce your arguement.

 

He is still outside, NOT in an enclosed space. He doesn't have to stand directly beside someone who is smoking (and to get a lungful of second hand smoke when the smoker is outside, that's what you would have to do, stand right beside them and do your best to chase it). Sounds to me like you are being awkard and picking a fight.

 

It is beyond me why you are took my comments personally anyway, I wasn't even referring to your post. But now you have brought it up, I would like to say that if people want to smoke, it is their right if they are not doing it in an enclosed space. I think we have enough laws in the UK telling people what they should eat, drink etc. As pointed out by indebtstudent, this is just another excuse to push the boat out. This was the whole point of my post it was NOT a response to yours.

 

I didn't take your comments personally, but since you asked "what's the problem", I was giving you an example of "what the problem" was. Was that not clear enough?

 

As for "moral high ground", nothing to do with moral high ground at all! All to do with being at last able to not to smell stinking clothes when he comes back from work. You are obviously unaware of how packed East Croydon is at rush hour or you wouldn't even be questioning this.

 

As for getting burnt, err, begging to differ, I have a scar on my left arm due precisely to such an incident. So you'll have to forgive me if I don't think this simply as something to "grasping to enforce an argument".

 

Finally, you said: "But now you have brought it up, I would like to say that if people want to smoke, it is their right if they are not doing it in an enclosed space."

Well, I am glad to say that since July 1st, no, that is no longer the case. Or at least, not on train platforms.

[Monty2007]

Bookworm, I can also appreciate you point. I think it will get better when the rules are more clear, the smoking ban has worked well in Scotland with few incidents.