Blackpool Gazette July 11th
2007
Smoke ban rebel: Come
get me
The boss of the Happy Scots bar on Rigby Road has
advertised smoking is still allowed in his bar - despite the threat of a massive
fine or even closure from the authorities.
But one week after the ban on
lighting up in public places was brought in customers are still happily puffing
away in the Happy Scots.
Three drinkers have so far been handed fixed
penalty fines of £50, but no action has been taken against Mr Howitt.
The
pub boss - who will pay his customers' fines - says this is a clear sign the
authorities do not know what to do about his "pro-freedom" protest.
"They've
been fining my customers and not me and I don't understand why?" he said.
"I'm here and they know I'm not going to stop my customers from smoking so
what are they waiting for?
"It proves how badly thought out and impossible
to implement the law is and how weak and cowardly Blackpool Council is.
"Levying the fines on my customers and not me is pathetic.
"I'm
challenging them now - don't pick on my customers, pick on me."
Mr Howitt
has labelled the smoking ban, introduced on July 1, a "human rights issue" and a
government "hate crime" against 14 million smokers.
He says he is determined to take his fight all the way to
European Court of Human Rights.
Mr Howitt added: "The dictionary says that
hate crimes are 'crimes motivated by bias against an identifiable social group'.
"This is certainly that and there is a bias against smokers.
"I'm not a
smoker myself, but I'm just trying to stand up for people's rights and give my
customers what they want."
And the customers seem to be supporting him with
takings up 50 per cent and people coming from as far as Glasgow, Birmingham and
Bolton, just to have a smoke in the pub.
Mr Howitt's controversial stance is
further complicated by the fact that he is Chairman of the Blackpool Licensees
Pub Watch Association.
A vote of no confidence put
forward against him by one of
Blackpool's leading landlords, Dave Daly, from The Castle on Central Drive, saw
overwhelming support for Mr Howitt with 85 per cent of licensees voting in his
favour.
Mr Howitt also claims Blackpool Police's Nightsafe team, asked him
to resign, but he has refused to do so.
Henry Mitchell, Chairman of
Blackpool Council's Licensing Committee today responded by threatening to close
the Happy Scots Bar down if Mr Howitt does not tow the line.
"We're trying
the softly, softly approach at first," he explained.
"The council's
enforcement team has been down there already and have issued fines and we're
hoping for some common sense and co-operation.
"But if Mr Howitt continues to
ignore the law tries to take us on, he will lose.
"We've closed down
Walkabout and The Counting House on other licensing matters before and so we
won't stand for it."
Smokers ignore new law
And so far
the only fines handed out to smokers breaking the law have been in the Happy
Scots bar in Rigby Road.
Licensee Hamish Howitt is openly flouting the
legislation which prohibits lighting up in enclosed public
places.
Illegal
But Alan Cavill, the council's assistant director
of enterprise and business development, says Mr Howitt will soon be in front of
the courts after enforcement officers from Trading Standards issued two
"reported for prosecution" notices.
Hitting back, Mr Howitt today said he
would serve a writ against Blackpool Council, the Home Office and the Department
of Culture and Media for "harassment".
Mr Cavill said: "The licensee was
reported for prosecution for infringements on both Friday and Saturday which
should result in him receiving two court summonses carrying a maximum fine of
£5,000."
Mr Howitt, however, denied Mr Cavill's claim, saying he had not been
served with any paperwork.
He said: "I haven't had a single piece of paper
to say they are going to prosecute me. I intend to serve the council, the Home
Office and the Department of Culture and Media with a writ for
harassment.
"They are harassing me over the ban and wasting police time
sending them along with Trading Standards even though it's not the police's
responsibility to enforce the ban."
But Mr Cavill responded, saying written
confirmation was being prepared.
He said: "Mr Howitt has been verbally
informed that he has been reported for prosecution twice and will receive a
hand-delivered letter informing him that he is required to attend an interview
on Friday," he said.
"Mr Howitt is not only allowing smoking on his premises,
but actively encouraging it."
But Mr Howitt denied those claims and said:
"This law is illegal as far as I'm concerned and if the law wasn't challenged
there would be no democracy. Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Peter Tatchell,
they all broke the law.
"I'm serving this lawsuit against them for harassment
for an unspecified sum, that could be millions of pounds.The council, the Home
Office and the Department of Media and Culture should have that on their desks
in the morning."
Three customers have so far received £50 fixed-penalty
notices at the bar, which Mr Howitt has pledged to pay.
Politicians and health fascists are inciting hate
crimes against 25 per cent of highly taxed lawful smokers who outnumber every
minority group in the UK combined.
Fourteen million lawful adults have been
criminalised and paraded like animals in a zoo outside pubs and clubs in gales,
sleet, snow and rain and humiliated by passers-by who have never spent a penny
in our pub, such is the zealous action of the government.
It incites
snooping and free phone telephone calls to grass on a lawful smoker, this
government who stole my vote and many others by lying in its manifesto that
non-eating pubs and clubs would be exempt from the ban.
I've had thousands
of emails, letters and visits to my website and pub etc, 99 per cent of them
supporting our stance which is about choice.
However one chap said he hopes
my pub burns down and Neil Kendall's letter (The Gazette, June 19) states his
next-door neighbours' smoking seeps through his walls.
He states that he wont
be affected as he isn't a regular. He seems to want smoking banned inside your
own house as well as pubs and on the streets such is the hatred incited.
Non-smokers have a choice: Don't come in our pub if it offends. Everyone is
welcome, let the free market economy vote with its feet. We have invested over
£1m; it's our £500,000 mortgage, our business, our destiny.
We don't force
smokers or non-smokers into our pub, just as we don't force anyone
outside.
It's about privacy, dignity and choice. Smokers are being forced
outside and denied warmth, comfort and open political debate.
Hamish, Joanne
and Hugh Howitt
Crazy Scots Bar, Rigby Road,
Blackpool
In reply to Stephen
Brookes letter (The Gazette, June 14), he mentions the words 'democratic
laws'.
Well, Mr Brookes, are you aware, that our MPs are allowed to carry on
smoking in the house of commons, their place of work, the reason being it is a
part of the palace of Westminster which is exempt from the smoking
ban?
Furthermore, only 43 days after introducing a smoke- free policy for the
European Parliament in brussels and strasbourg, the assembly's governing body,
aware that parliamentarians were flouting the ban, has decided to reverse it and
allow smoking in designated zones. That decision, Mr Brookes, was
democratic.
According to government statistics, there are10 million smokers
in this country, most of whom wish to protest against the draconian methods used
in inflicting the smoking ban on mostly law-abiding citizens.
I therefore
support Hamish Howitt, in his effort to protest against the smoking ban, in its
present form, bearing in mind that there can be no democracy without
protest.
Tom McCallum, Saville Road, Blackpool
FYI 6JR
I think its a disgrace that Mr Hewitt's pub
hasn't been closed down by now, see if he is still laughing then. Is it really
worth it Mr Hewitt?
Mrs Short, South Shore
Hamish will always fight for
what he believes, putting others first. Thank goodness he's like that. Four
years ago I was facing amputation until he backed my cause.
M Mckenzie,
nine, non-smoker
I agree with hamish. I seem to smoke more as I have to keep
running out of the pub. Lucky I can, what about the old ones who can't. PS.
Where will the the non-smokers be when it's hot outside – with the outcasts?
Kevin Mcd, Cleveleys
The problem of Hamish Howitt is easy to resolve.
Withdraw his licence and close his pub, problem solved.
Bryan,
Fleetwood
Dave West and Harry "H" Barnett
Hey Jo
Welcome to
SmokeScreen-online
Hi, let me introduce
myself. My name is Harry 'H' Barnett. Along with Dave West we are mounting a
stand to have our, & therefore your and your children, Civil Liberties
restored. Our aim is to get the 12 million smokers (although our surveys of some
40,0000 signatures, state that 30% are non smokers) not to vote Labour, in the
next election. It seems the only time they consider the voters is when they want
your vote. Its time to show them that Enough is Enough. We need your support in
this fight. I will endeavour to answer all Emails. If you have read this far
please sign our petition and add your comments. We need all the help we can get
to get rid of this lot of sleazy politicions. Thanks! H
smoke screen
Tony and Caz from the Dog Inn
It is many peoples dream to run a pub in the Country-those that do so will tell you that it is very hard work,long hours and it has to be your life.
You need to be free to run your own business but the smoking ban has aded more worries for landlords and ladies-under threat of a £2500 fine and a criminal conviction,Landlords now have to police a ban that can also impact on their own business-they have to ask good customers to go out side for a cigarette.
In this trade,you can work 100 hours a week,it is your job,your home and your social life.
Sure,laws should cover bar areas and cellers etc. but in a good pub,your stepping into the Landlords home
I find living in the UK at the moment both mystifying and depressing as
political correctness continues to go from one extreme to another, coupled
with an increase in Government interference into our everyday lives with almost
daily recommendations on how we should live with regards to eating, smoking and
drinking and so on.
One example I find particularly interesting is the
ban on smoking in public places, something that would have seemed incredible
just a few years ago. Since it was introduced a mere 7 months ago, I have
followed the reports of pubs and bingo hall closures as well as reading more
into the background studies and was initially amazed to find that the largest
studies, including the one carried out by the World Health Organisation, could
find no link between passive smoking/second hand smoke and an increased risk of
lung cancer. This seemed to have been completely ignored when the law was
drafted.
My interest in the smoking issue took me to Hereford Crown
Court on 14th January to observe Mr Tony Blows, a publican from the Dog Inn,
Ewyas Harold face 3 charges of allegedly allowing smoking in his pub. I did not
like what I saw.
The Council brough forward several "witnesses" to the
alleged incidents. The first witness, as reported in your paper last week, was a
Mr Philip Parkinson who "witnessed" two occasions. He stated that he found the
pub too smoky and had to retire to his bedroom to drink his whisky alone. I
think his evidence lost a lot of its credibility when he admitted that he didn't
have the strength of character to mention anything to Mr Blows, even though he
supposedly felt so strongly about it. Rather than stay the week as he had
booked, he concocted a lie about having to return home due to family illness
whereas he simply moved to another hotel. He later contacted the council to
report Mr Blows but as a man I found I had no respect for his
weakness.
But more was to come. The next 3 witnesses to another alleged
incident involved staff from Trading Standards who "volunteered" to visit the
pub undercover on a Saturday night in plain clothes. It became clear that all 3
were non smokers and during the visit to the Dog Inn and the one next door, 2 of
the 3 had 5 pints of beer, one saying to "fit in".
What concerns me
here is why should Council officials feel they have to go in a sneaky
underhanded way when carrying out an inspection as they have the powers to
simply walk through the door and announce who they are? Is it right, let alone
professional, for council staff on official council business to drink what I
believe is a fairly large quantity of alcohol? Wouldn't 5 pints have a strong
effect on their judgements as to what they think they saw and heard? As one of
them also took his wife and there were 5 rounds bought, can I ask who paid for
these 20 drinks? Were the costs put down on expenses meaning the local tax payer
would foot the bill, not to mention possible overtime on a Saturday night? I
read of a similar incident at a bar in London where the council officials also
made an undercover visit to a supposed smoking allowed venue and they felt the
need to each have a 3 course meal washed down with two bottles of wine. Total
bill £140, again paid by the public.
In closing on the witnesses, it
became almost laughable that Mr Blows was "identified" by one them from an
almost completely black passport sized photocopy of a photograph of him. And did
these council officials mention to anyone at the pub that they were breaking the
law even though customers smoking could have been fined? No, like Mr Parkinson,
they crept meekly away.
So these examples of grassing up and spying
whilst intoxicated show the type of country we now live in and this sadly
reminds me of Eastern European countries from the past.
It did also
occur to me that if second hand smoke is as dangerous as some claim (even though
as mentioned, the larger studies do not prove this at all) then shouldn't some
action be taken against the councils for putting their staff at such unnecessary
risk when a 5 minute visit would suffice?
In closing, I was also
disturbed by the actions of Paul Hooper who attended representing ASH, the
anti-smoking group. He had as much right as I did to attend but I doubt that he
was correct to repeatedly leave the court, particularly during the morning
session to give a full report of proceeedings to the witnesses waiting outside.
His hanging gesture made to the defendent's wife who was a witness for the defense was also out
of place, and could be called
intimidation which is a serious crime in a court of law.
I look forward to the 13th February when the case will be concluded but
I do despair in these dark days we are living in.
Yours
sincerely,
Richard
How to destroy an honest business and family man,making
him bankrupt
28th january 2008 Nick was fined £10,000
Smoking ban rebel fined £10,000
28 January, 2008
Nick Hogan furious after court finds him guilty
Smoking ban rebel Nick Hogan has slammed a court after being fined £10,000 for failing to stop people lighting-up in his pubs.
He was found guilty of four counts of the charge at a hearing at Bolton Magistrates Court today.
He said: “I think the financial penalty is extortionate considering the offence. If I was a drug dealer doing small amounts of cocaine I would probably only get a slap on the wrists.”
The former licensee of the Swan Hotel and Barristers in Bolton was also cleared of four charges of obstructing council officers and another charge of failing to stop people smoking.
He added: “What this has done has denied every publican in the country a right to a fair trial because £10,000 is a lot of money to most people.”
Hogan added he was considering whether to appeal against the decision.
http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=58425&c=1