There is a fantastic example of righteous blind-siding on The Publican site. Let's pick it apart piece by piece.
Licensees been warned they could face hefty fines if they follow in the path of a pub that allowed customers to light-up as part of a ‘research project’.
Kerry Fenton opened a smoke room in her pub the Cutting Edge in Worsbrough, South Yorkshire, after being told a legal loophole allows some pubs to use rooms as designated research centres.
So far, so good. It is true that pubs 'could' face hefty fines. Only 'could', of course - though it is worth noting that the pub in question didn't receive any fine whatsoever. Those not familiar with the case might like to read this for background before reading the other ill-informed nonsense presented in (not by) The Publican.
And Federation of Licensed Victuallers Associations chief executive Tony Payne said other pubs should beware of taking part in similar projects.
“I would warn licensees against this because they could end up being fined,” he said.
“This lady has had to withdraw it because of the legality and it could be considerably expensive for anyone else who does it.”
I wouldn't expect anything else from those entrusted with protecting pubs. They are experts in the practice of running away very swiftly in the face of a threat to their industry. They bravely fled when threatened by a few fake charities prior to July 1st 2007, and are still showing no sign of any balls. It's why pubs are being further hammered by this government with nothing but a bunch of backward cowards to protect them.
The above rubbish from Tony Payne is a perfect example. 'The lady' did not withdraw because of the legality, as it wasn't tested. Licensees 'could' end up being fined, but only after due process. They would be entitled to test the law in court first. Why are the LVA pouring cold water on such a case which could help their members?
I reckon it's cos they is stupid.
However Kerry is adamant that if she had been running a freehouse she would have carried on with the scheme.
Of course she would have. She was stopped not by Barnsley Council, despite the worldwide attention, but by her brewery.
Now answer me this. If the council were so confident with their right to take action in this instance, where is the court case? Where is the fine?
Just as in the G20 sleight of hand, the same methods occur here. The simple reason why Barnsley did not push for punitive measures despite video evidence which would, if they are so certain, lead to an open and shut case, is that they couldn't find anything in the Health Act to say that the landlady had done anything wrong.
However a Department of Health spokesperson disagreed: "Smokefree legislation does set out an exemption for bona fide research and testing facilities that may have a designated room that is not smokefree, provided specific criteria are met."
OK. I get what you are saying, so let's have a look at the criteria.
(3) In this regulation a “designated room” means a room which—
(a) has been designated in writing by the person in charge of the research or testing facility in which the room is situated as being a room in which smoking is permitted for research or tests specified in paragraph (2) and is a room for the use only of the persons who are required to supervise or participate in the research or tests;
Tick
(b) has a ceiling and, except for doors and windows, is completely enclosed on all sides by solid, floor-to-ceiling walls;
Tick
(c) does not have a ventilation system that ventilates into any other part of the premises or other premises (except any other designated rooms);
Tick
(d) does not have any door that opens onto smoke-free premises which is not mechanically closed immediately after use;
Tick
(e) is clearly marked as a room in which smoking is permitted.
Tick
According to the letter of the law, it is a research centre.
Sadly, the DoH spokesman then wanders into the realms of righteous wriggling.
"Simply renaming a pub would not appear to satisfy the requirements under the law.”
Err ... no. The law is exactly as stated above. It's on your bloody web-site for crying out loud, don't you read it? The requirements have been duly met. Please point out which part says that the research centre cannot be in a pub.
It gets better.
He added it was down to council’s to enforce the legislation and in this case Barnsley Council ruled that “clearly the smoking research room is in breach of non-smoking legislation.”
100% correct that is up to Barnsley Council to enforce the legislation. But they didn't. Because they couldn't. They may have ruled that it wasn't a research centre but it is by no means 'clearly' so from the wording of the law. They would have had to take it to a court to prove as such.
No amount of lies from some DoH civil servant changes that.
In both cases of pubs embarking on this approach to try to rescue their business, it was the brewery, and not the council, who stopped them. The exemption is still 'live' and certainly not covered adequately by the Health Act.
A challenge offered by a freehouse would be extremely interesting. There wouldn't be an easy way out for the council concerned. They would either have to turn a blind eye, or commit resources to an action that their own legal department would probably warn them against.
As a postscript, it's worth reminding you of the mendacious reasoning that was given for the free vote in the troughing Palace of Westmonster. To tackle the sticky problem that pub-goers enter a smokey environment at their own behest, it was couched as being to protect bar workers. Again, the Cutting Edge pub passes this test with flying colours. It's just not enough for those who don't like even hearing about people doing something legal of which they, personally, disapprove. All must bow down to the God of socialist maternalism.
After all, who wants to live in a country that allows this?
“Customers absolutely loved it. People started coming to the pub again and socialising together as a community, especially the older generation.”
That sort of thing just doesn't belong in Labour Britain, does it?
