• Media Enquiries

    07505 448925(24hr)

Company cars: the war against smokers opens up a new front

Cig148 Almost every day, the Big Brother Watch team receive reports from smokers – people who voluntarily choose to consumer a perfectly legal product – about the efforts the state is making to intimidate them.

In the past few months alone, we've had the case of a headteacher who took it upon himself to issue fines to the parents of pupils caught smoking in the school playground, the example of a health authority which wishes to ban films featuring adults smoking cigarettes and legislative efforts to ban the display of tobacco in corner shops.

This morning, The Times carries news of arguably the most egregious example of anti-smoker aggression Big Brother Watch had heard of to date.

Tendring District Council, working in conjunction with Essex Police, have erected roadblocks across the north of the country in order to pull over drivers to crack down on those smoking in company cars.  According to the newspaper article, "Council wardens and uniformed Police officers will check inside vehicles for 'ashtrays' and the 'smell of smoke'".  Those "criminals" found to have smoked in their vehicles will face a fixed-penalty fine of £50 or could be taken to court and handed a £200 fine.

When will this anti-smoker hysteria stop? 

Have the Police genuinely got nothing better to do than harrass people having a fag on their way to work?  Sadly, it appears they do not.

Posted on March 2, 2011 by Big Brother Watch Posted in Home
  • Buster Gasket

    Targets, dear boy. Targets.
    If you want to see the good old days watch Heartbeat on C4.

  • http://profile.typepad.com/daveatherton Dave Atherton

    As you can see smoking is the least of ones problems for an accident. This was an analysis done in America.
    Specific Distraction % of Drivers
    Outside person, object, or event 29.4%
    Adjusting radio/cassette/CD 11.4%
    Other occupant 10.9%
    Moving object in vehicle 4.3%
    Other device/object 2.9%
    Adjusting vehicle/climate controls 2.8%
    Eating and/or drinking 1.7%
    Using/dialing cell phone 1.5%
    Smoking related 0.9%
    Other distractions 25.6%
    Unknown distraction 8.6%
    http://www.drivers.com/article/423

  • chas

    With thousands of new laws introduced over the last few years, this country is getting more like a dictatorship every day.

  • Phil J

    This is nothing more than a double edged exercise in which:-
    a)…local plod can boost the judiciary coffers considerably
    b)…Tendring District Council can claim fame by have drivers prosecuted in their bid to enforce the law.
    I think all drivers in that area should immediately affix a small flat wooden platform to the dashboard/fascia and start burnin those nice little scented tea light candles! :)
    What would Tendring District Dickheads make of that I wonder?

  • http://ironicthat.big.brother.watch.wants.my.email James

    Is DVLA / PNC advice about the ownership of a vehicle – not its tax/MOT/insurance status, outstanding offences or the way it is being driven grounds to stop it.
    Similarly what grounds are needed to search someone’s car ?
    Is there a lawyer who can answer.
    Why is tobacco legal, and cannabis not. Ban both or tax both.

  • Bill

    A prosecution can’t be brought just because the vehicle smells of tobacco.
    No can a prosecution be brought if there are unlit cigarette ends in an ashtray.
    Carrying unlit tobacco is not an offense.
    So WTF are they going to be actually looking for ?

  • Joseph Young

    Bill, it’s law enforcement through intimidation. The problem with this tactic is that it sweeps up innocent people. Where smoking is witnessed, it’s a £50 fine and a formal caution (criminal record). Where there’s evidence of past smoking, the employer is informed, and it’s the employer who will be judge and jury. If an employee is sacked based on the incorrect inference of a council warden or police officer, that appears to be ok. Employment matters are civil matters, to be resolved in tribunals and civil courts. Certainly no comeback for the police. Similarly, if it’s not going to criminal court, whether officers have reasonable suspicion for a stop is immaterial.
    ‘I’m arresting you on suspicion of driving whilst in possession of an ashtray.’

  • Spartan

    This is trivial to what goes on at the borders with the UKBA. Take a look :-
    http://www.day-tripper.net/access-ukborder-agency.html#anchorexperiencesuk
    One must ask why is Big Brother Watch so mute on this?

  • Phil

    I’m an antismoker and an asthmatic. I support smoking bans since, without question, these positively affect my health. However I have seen bans in combination with copious amounts of public health promotion over 40 years work very well in Australia without any sense that smokers are intimidated or being unfairly targeted by police. There are rules and these are enforced, but 99.99999% of the time no-one breaks these so there is no need. Why? Because community attitudes in Australia, even among smokers, are now firmly against smoking in the wrong places and have been for many years. A smoker is very likely to get a tongue lashing from another citizen well before any policeman intervenes. If the community doesn’t like smoking around their kids and on public transport then no-one is going to do it.
    The mistake UK/Europe made was taking so very long to educate the public about smoking dangers and then simply – overnight in some countries – instigating blanket bans in a knee jerk response. In Australia, these were gradually introduced and tightened over a 15 year period which allowed change to happen. Public health policy has always been ahead in Australia. Europe is surprisingly backward by comparison.

  • Richard Craven

    Well said Phil. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of anti-smoking legislation, certain individuals would do well to recognize, finally, that their chosen habit impinges on other people in a most unpleasant way.

  • Penny Webster-Brown

    Richard, the habits of many people impinge on others but, if it’s not illegal, there shouldn’t be anything you can do about it – except maybe walk away?

  • Briar Tuck

    >I’m an antismoker and an asthmatic. I support smoking bans since, without question, these positively affect my health.
    Then you should probably try smoking — many asthmatics find that it helps a great deal. You need to find a pure tobacco that you can sip at gently — don’t use filters as they contain polypropylene fibres which emit toxins when heated (antismokers never mention that). I do sympathise, but asthma is an allergic reaction, and allergies can be triggered by many things. Jean Nicot (after whom nicotine is named) discovered its efficacy and extraordinary palliative effects on rashes and sores. One of the reasons that allergy incidence is increasing so fast is that it’s now fairly hard (especially outside of Europe) to know what’s in your food. Much Australian food is singularly nasty — force-grown, stuffed full of chemicals and processed to the extent that most taste is removed. Salad sandwiches are a case in point — they invariably look appetising, and turn out to taste of absolutely nothing. To get reasonable bread, you have to find a Turkish bakery, and even the most basic wine is outrageously expensive, and tastes as if it’s been infantilised with added sugar and barbecue-style oak-chip flavouring.
    >copious amounts of public health promotion over 40 years…
    Yes, Australia has been a socialist country for some time. The population density is low enough that only a few people need to be fooled at once, and you’re now past the critical point where “your dicks have dropped off” and you’ve lost the capacity to react or respond logically. One of the biggest giveaways is the often-seen Australian predilection for not saying what’s on their mind. Today’s Australian is terrified of giving offence, whilst at the same time considering greenish fluorescent ceiling lighting the height of aspirational taste. Those individuals who aren’t at home with this end up ‘overseas’.
    >A smoker is very likely to get a tongue lashing from another citizen…
    In my case, from a barman at the Sea Breeze Hotel in South West Rocks, NSW. I was sitting outside on the porch, and asked for an ashtray. “Nah, mate — there’s no smoking outside unless you walk onto the road, but drinking’s illegal there. If you want to smoke, go inside by the air conditioner”. All I wanted to do was to have a smoke, sitting down, with my drink. Standing in a crowded bar by the air conditioner (apart from making zero sense) just doesn’t cut it, any more than does standing in the rain.
    >In Australia, these were gradually introduced and tightened over a 15 year period which allowed change to happen.
    Just because you’ve been successfully ‘nudged’ doesn’t make ‘nudge’ morally acceptable. You’ve simply been socially engineered into compliance, which is why you never noticed the Japanese buying up your coastlines, and communitarians taking over your government. Your Prime Minister speaks slowly, because in her view she’s addressing sheep. Thus far, she’s right, and your post proves it. Take back your franchise.

  • Richard Craven

    @Penny
    I don’t think you read my post properly. I said that, regardless of the rights and wrongs of legislation, some smokers fail to recognize that their habit is unpleasant and impinges on other people. Even though, as you say, sometimes unpleasant behaviour cannot and ought not to be legislated against, my original comment still stands.

  • Richard Craven

    @Briar Tuck
    Too much rambling. Stick to the subject. And try not to give medical advice for which you are manifestly unqualified.