The Rise in the Crime of ‘Permitting’

There exists ‘a crime’. That ‘crime’ is “permitting smoking in an enclosed place”. After the smoking ban was introduced, a few publicans rebelled. But they were very quickly subdued. The emphasis should be on ‘very quickly’. No real attempt was made to examine the legal requirement for an individual to act as an unpaid law enforcement officer.

These sort of issues can be very confusing. For example, it is often the case that laws are passed which require groups or individuals to ‘take care’. That would apply to manufacturing standards and such. Is that the same thing? I would say that not. The ‘crime’ would be in producing an unsafe product. There would be no requirement for that group to police users of the unsafe product.

The excuse for creating ‘a crime’ of “permitting smoking in an enclosed place” depends entirely upon Second Hand Smoke harm to employees.

But think. What that argument depends upon is the idea that employees are robots – that they have no volition – that they have no option but to work in bars, pubs, etc. What the law did was simply ensure that, a) People could not refuse poorly paid jobs in pubs on the grounds that the tobacco smoke was bad for their health, and, b) avoid accusations that Government was being manipulated by ‘Big Business’.

Weird, is it not, that Tobacco Control is now itself a ‘Big Business’. Massive profits are being made world-wide.


Where will the ‘Crime’ of “Permitting” be applied next?

The ‘Sugar Question’ arises with great force. It is easy to force/persuade major food manufacturers to lower the sugar content of their produce, but what about the myriad of small bakeries, pie shops, restaurants, etc? Will a sugar content law turn them into criminals?

That is why the Crazy Health Zealots want EVERYONE IN THE UK to pay a tax/levy on the half a teaspoonful of sugar that they put in their tea. It is a way to avoid criminalising millions of people. Or rather, it is a way to avoid criminalising the addition of more that half a spoonful of sugar to one’s cup of tea.

It seems that Cameron has permitted hundreds of highly paid civil servants to waste their time on producing legislation to raise a tax on sugar. How weak can you get? The WEAKNESS was amply revealed by the plain packaging of tobacco thing. I use the word ‘thing’ advisedly. There was no great call from The People for it. It was ‘a thing’ which a few Crazy Tobacco Control Zealots called for. Cameron et al fell into the trap. The trap is to be a wimp and to mealy-mouthed. The trap is to fail to reject strongly the right of smokers to know what they are smoking. The protection of smokers from crap tobacco products has been abandoned.

Why should tobacco products be singled out to be unregulated as to quality?

Smokers are being treated cruelly, but our politicians do not see it. But they don’t give a shit anyway.


I don’t remember many laws of ‘permitting’. There was a time when ‘permitting’ the use of premises for prostitution was a crime. I’m not sure if that ‘crime’ still exists. Perhaps the use of premises for prostitution is now OK, provided that smoking is prohibited in said premises.

How in God’s Name did the law demanding that innocent people police a Smoking Ban get onto the statute book? It is a scandal of the greatest importance. And yet the elected politicians do not see it – or do not care. My bet is that they do not care.

The result of not caring about simple things is that a similar attitude applies to important things. Thus, allowing yourself to be influenced by the Medical Profession, to accept SHS harm, will condition your mind to accept any tiny affect at all as important.

Cameron is trying to convince us that the only problem with the EU is migrants. That is absolutely not true. At this moment, it is true that the invasion must be stopped. But disallowing benefit claims will not stop the invasion.

None of the above describes the real problem. The real problem is what the EU has become, and what our politicians have allowed it to become. For example, there is no way that the EU should have become an extension of the World Health Organisation or the United Nations Organisation. Both of them are corrupt beyond imagining.

Would it not be wonderful if Trump said that he would kick the UN out of the USA? He ought to since that organisation is just a dead weight on the taxpayer. That is also true of the EU. Why does it take an invasion of crazy zealots from an alien culture to to tell politicians what they should have been aware of in the first place?

I suspect that Politicians are not knowledgeable enough to make ANY decisions. Further, I don’t think that they know whom to get good advice from. How can you explain the email exchanges between ‘Expert’ McKee and the Chief Medical Officer? He is obviously a charlatan, and yet he controls the CMO.

Why is the Chief Medical Officer subservient and lacking in critical thinking? It can only be that she is incompetent.


The criminalisation of innocents must be stopped. There is no excuse. It is a simple fact borne out by history.



6 Responses to “The Rise in the Crime of ‘Permitting’”

  1. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Junican, yes, the enforcement question is one approach to fighting bans that I have long believed and preached as a viable approach. The big problem is that the few cases that have gone to court seem to have involved pub owners who openly invited patrons to smoke.

    Here are some recent postings I’ve made on thiis topic, but so far I’ve never gotten pubs in a new ban area (where it would be most effective) to try it:


    This one went to a news story in Romania a few weeks ago:

    How are the firms and restaurants and bars required to take action in enforcing the law so that they don’t get fined? Are they expected to tackle the smokers and throw them out physically if they don’t stop? Are they expected to shoot them? Or call the police? Or just say “Naughty naughty That’s not allowed”? Does the law offer **ANY** specific, clear guidance in this area outlining exactly what duties the government is requiring ordinary citizens to take in service of acting as unpaid, unempowered, unarmed, and uninsured Citizen Vigilante Law Enforcers?

    If not, then I can see no way that the owners and workers in such places can be held legally responsible for the actions of others.

    And one to New Orleans a while back that

    ““Bartenders are going to be the best and most reliable enforcement,” Williams said.”

    Really? Bartenders are now OFFICIALLY slated to be untrained, unpaid, uninsured, unempowered, and unarmed Citizen Vigilante Law Enforcement Officers? What level of physical violence will they be sanctioned by the authorities to use? Beer mugs to the head? Those nifty short baseball-bat billy clubs? Guns are messy because of unintended side casualties, but how about machetes?

    Or are they expected to just pick smokers up and heave them through the plate glass windows like in the old Westerns?

    I think it needs to be made clear and official that the duty of bar personnel does NOT extend to violent physical confrontations. That once they have hung signs, informed smokers of the law (in case they are blind), and asked them not to smoke, that their job is either done, or they are required to take the next step and call 911.

    Does the Council have enough guts to make this sort of clarification? Or is it just going to leave it sloppy and let the citizens of NOLA deal with the consequences — including holding the tax bag for potential lawsuits?

    And, although I don’t think the formatting will come through here, I have a VERY carefully designed handout flyer that I used for the last page of the Stiletto at

    I’d be happy to customize it for any pubs wanting to go this route!

    The thing of primary importance is to make sure that you do NOT “encourage” customers to violate the law, and that you DO take “reasonable steps” in terms of whatever they define as reasonable without invoking physical violence. I.E. although it’s fine to let your customers know your opinion on the ban and what you might personally like to see happen, you DO have to inform them of the law and/or ask them to stop and/or perhaps even refuse to serve them while they are smoking and/or even insist that they leave and come back in with a promise not to smoke in order to be served if you have asked them to stop earlier and/or call the police or health department and make sure they take down a full physical description of every smoker you have seen in the course of an evening so they can be tracked down by an elite police force!


    The key is not to be seen as actively permitting smoking and also to follow whatever the law actively demands. An owner/worker is most CERTAINLY NOT required to put their lives at risk in enforcing the law, and there are a number of incidents where people’s lives HAVE been put at risk or even ended in the enforcement of the laws — so the concern is certainly quite reasonable (Just about three weeks ago some guy here in the US shot a waitress in the face when she told him smoking wasn’t allowed.)

    – MJM

    • junican Says:

      The Bolton Publican made a fundamental mistake. He posted a notice in his pub which said, “IF YOU SMOKE, YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK” Idiot! The whole point of the law was that, if someone smoked, it was a the risk of the publican! He hanged himself by posting that notice, I went to his pub shortly after the ban and saw that notice. I was horrified. The implications were immediately obvious to me. And yet I still contributed to the ransom to get him out of jail.
      If he had plastered his pub with ‘No Smoking’ posters, but put saucers and incense candles on the tables, he might have got away with it. At least, he might have had a case in court.

      But everything is not lost. Sooner or later, the SHS myth will be shown to be just that. Eventually, there will be a breakthrough, and it will probably come from an unexpected direction.

      • nisakiman Says:

        Unfortunately, I think you’re wrong, junican. Even if it became public knowledge that SHS was completely harmless, TC would be out in force with “Well, we don’t want to go back to the bad old days when you had to have a shower and wash your clothes after the pub to get rid of the stench, do we”.

        They used SHS to impose the ban, and now it’s imposed, it will be easy for them to think of reasons why it should remain in place, SHS harmlessness notwithstanding.

      • junican Says:

        You may be right, Nisak, but a lot depends upon how the stigma is revealed to be false. IF, pubs were able to elect to be ‘smoking’, then the response to the zealots would be, “Go somewhere else if you don’t like the fun of smoking pubs!”.

  2. artbylisabelle Says:

    May I please have a little untwisted lemonade with my tea? You nailed it again!

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: