| |
|
|
|
|
Share/Bookmark this Topic:
|
| Message |
Author |
by linkup
on Thu Jun 21, 2007 2:35 am |
|
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1964081.ece
Ban on smokers fostering under-5sRosemary Bennett, Social Affairs Correspondent
Smokers will be prevented from fostering children under the age of 5 once the smoking ban comes into force on July 1, The Times has learnt.
The Fostering Network, which oversees Britain’s 42,000 foster carers, is to change its guidance to local authorities and agencies because of the risk of legal action by children in care whose health may be damaged by smoke.
The network said it was imperative to protect children in foster homes from the risk of lung cancer and asthma. Research suggests that young children are particularly at risk.
There are fears, however, that the ban will aggravate a shortage of foster families, which is currently estimated at 10,000. The shortfall means vulnerable children are frequently uprooted and sent to foster families miles from their home and separated from siblings.
Local authorities have the final say over who can foster. They are expected to adopt the new guidelines, which will be supported by the British Association for Adoption & Fostering, but will have to go through the process of changing their individual regulations before the ban is implemented.
A government source said last night that local authorities would have to balance the need to have a pool of foster carers against the best interests of the child.
Under the Government’s ban, all enclosed public places and work places, including pubs, clubs, cafés and restaurants, will be smoke free from July 1.
Town halls are currently calculating how the ban will affect them. Earlier this week Liverpool City Council asked residents not to smoke at home when council workers visit.
While foster carers provide a public service, lawyers say their homes are not considered a workplace so are not covered by the ban.
The Fostering Network said the July 1 ban underlined the fact that smoking in any enclosed spaces was harmful, and would leave all fostering agencies legally vulnerable.
Draft guidance, which will be issued as formal guidance to all local authorities and fostering agencies on July 1, says that children formerly in care may have grounds to sue if their health is affected or if they become smokers.
“No children under 5 should be placed with nonrelated foster carers who smoke – this is because of the particularly high health risks for very young children and toddlers who spend most of their time physically close to their carers.”
Disabled children of any age who are physically unable to play outside, and children with respiratory problems such as asthma, should never be placed with foster carers who smoke, the guidance says.
Smokers are already prevented from adopting children under 5.
Raina Sheridan, deputy chief executive of the Fostering Network, said it had been a difficult decision. “We know there are very good foster carers who smoke. But we also know that the health and well-being of children and young people has to be the priority. We hope all fostering agencies will eventually move to the point where all children are placed into a smoke-free environment.”
Forest, the pro-smoking group, said the move was blatantly discriminatory. “They are risking removing thousands of excellent foster parents from the system for the simple reason that they smoke,” a spokesman said.
10,000 families short
There are 43,000 foster families
There are about 61,000 children in care while almost 50,000 are with foster families
One fifth of children in care are under the age of 4. The largest group (44 per cent) are children aged between 10 and 15
Two thirds are taken into care because of neglect or abuse
There is an estimated fostering shortage of 10,000 families
A quarter of the population smokes, down from 39 per cent in 1980 and 52 per cent in 1948
72 per cent of smokers say they would like to give up, Department of Health says
The average length of time in care is 2 years and 51 days
Source: Department for Education, The Fostering Network |
|
|
linkup
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Oct 01, 2005
Posts: 1201
Location: Anywhere but here
|
| |
Back to top |
|
|
| |
|
by Colin
on Thu Jun 21, 2007 3:09 am |
|
|
|
Colin
Smoker
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: 158
Location: Banff, Scotland
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by linkup
on Thu Jun 21, 2007 3:19 am |
|
| Love that article! Good luck. |
|
|
linkup
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Oct 01, 2005
Posts: 1201
Location: Anywhere but here
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by linkup
on Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:54 am |
|
Legal challenge to ban on smoking
A legal challenge to the government's smoking ban in England has been launched at the High Court.
Freedom To Choose says the change in the law from 1 July contravene the European Convention on Human Rights.
A judge will now decide whether they have a case raising genuine issues of law that should go to a full trial.
The government said it would vigorously fight any challenge to the ban, which applies to almost all enclosed public places and workplaces.
'Test case'
Freedom To Choose lodged a petition for a judicial review of the legislation at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.
The group cites Article One of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights which assures the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. It also points to Article Eight which covers the right to respect for privacy.
"This will be a legal test case with significant wider public interest," says the group, which is spearheaded by pub landlord Robert Feal-Martinez.
"We want the government to realise a total ban is not necessary," said Mr Feal-Martinez, who argues that ventilation systems can reduce the harmful impact of second-hand smoke.
The group's legal case has been funded entirely by public donations, gathered through its website and public events.
Somewhat confusingly, there is another anti-smoking campaign called Freedom2Choose, started by the managing director of Blackpool-based tobacco vending machine supplier Duckworth.
They are not involved with the current legal action.
The smoking ban in England follows similar moves in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/6252016.stm |
|
|
linkup
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Oct 01, 2005
Posts: 1201
Location: Anywhere but here
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by linkup
on Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:19 am |
|
"We want the government to realise a total ban is not necessary," said Mr Feal-Martinez, who argues that ventilation systems can reduce the harmful impact of second-hand smoke.
Why did this idiot refer to harmful impact of SHS? Case lost,end of story! |
|
|
linkup
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Oct 01, 2005
Posts: 1201
Location: Anywhere but here
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by gilster
on Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:40 am |
|
linkup wrote:
Why did this idiot refer to harmful impact of SHS? Case lost,end of story!
Yeah, statements like that kills the cause...
Antis wrapped it up pretty good with SG Carcinoma saying
"There is no safe level of SHS"
Just slide in the 'harmful impact' phrase and you got....
"There is no safe level of the harmful impact of SHS"
I do wish them all success - using the EU standards and laws.
Another country won on that, who was it? Denmark? I forget.
Smoke is smoke
Ban All
Or Ban None |
|
|
gilster
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Apr 19, 2006
Posts: 1207
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by linkup
on Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:54 am |
|
| Hopefully,a full revolt in the UK will supercede all Court rulings. |
|
|
linkup
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Oct 01, 2005
Posts: 1201
Location: Anywhere but here
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by Colin
on Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:46 pm |
|
You good people may (or may not) be interested in this:
http://www.freedom2choose.co.uk/news_viewer.php?id=261
While we are revolting, perhaps you guys could launch a class action on behalf of the dead and the dying?
The only thing I invented was the title. Everything else is true.
Which makes it a terrifying story. |
|
|
Colin
Smoker
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: 158
Location: Banff, Scotland
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by linkup
on Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:25 am |
|
If the Club Owners react like this owner,the ban will succeed and this owner will be doomed to business failure:
Members' club bemoans smoking ban
By Stuart Richards
BBC News
A working men's club in Kent found itself looking to the heavens for divine inspiration over the smoking ban - and it soon became apparent that there was only one option available for an outside smoking space.
So the legislation due to come into force on 1 July has resulted in the steward at Herne Bay Ex-Servicemen's Club having tables and chairs appear on a patio terrace outside his first floor flat.
Club secretary Jean Gilham explained: "We are straight onto the pavement at the front and we are straight onto a back alley which is a public right of way.
"There is no garden and we're a terraced building."
Alongside the disruption of having to improvise in finding an outside space for the club's smokers, Ms Gilham and committee chairman Mick Ayton remain convinced that private members' clubs should be exempted from the ban.
And the most galling aspect is that two smoke extractors were purchased a couple of years ago when they were "given to understand" that they would indeed have an exemption.
New stairlift
Ms Gilham said: "Working on that theory, but knowing that people didn't want to come into a smoky atmosphere, we installed them at a cost of £4,000 to £5,000 which is a lot of money to us."
But premises like the ex-servicemen's club do fall under the legislation, meaning the same amount of money has had to be spent again on preparing for the ban.
The patio terrace above the snooker room and toilets downstairs now boasts four garden tables and eight chairs, safety railings and wooden screens - and there is a new stairlift in place before the more elderly members can even reach the smoking space.
But eight chairs for roughly three-quarters of a 700-strong membership who smoke?
Ms Gilham estimates that somewhere between 15 and 25% of the club's business could disappear if members decide to buy drinks from a supermarket or off-licence and just stay at home.
"It's all about the loyalty of our members," she said.
"If they are not loyal to us and they don't come in here, we will go to the wall."
I like my drink and my fags and I'm in here every day
John King, club member
But Mr Ayton declared: "It's going to be very hard, but we are survivors here."
Nonetheless, with live music, dancing, bingo and private functions already existing revenue streams, and food sales not an option, the future for Herne Bay Ex-Servicemen's Club remains unclear.
"We can't understand why we're not exempt," Mr Ayton said.
"Most of our members are very, very against the ban and very angry - even the non-smokers."
John King, 68, is one of them.
A smoker since the age of 13 and a member at the club for 40 years, the former artilleryman said: "We should be able to decide [for ourselves] because this is a private club, it's not for the public to come in here.
"I'll still come in, I'll go outside and smoke. If it's raining, I'll stand outside the back door. I like my drink and my fags and I'm in here every day."
Members have been asked not to put their club in a difficult situation, with a warning that any person who refuses to refrain from smoking indoors "will face a disciplinary hearing, which will more than likely result in loss of membership and/or a ban from using the club".
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/kent/6252752.stm |
|
|
linkup
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Oct 01, 2005
Posts: 1201
Location: Anywhere but here
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
by linkup
on Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:04 pm |
|
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007300025,00.html
Smoking ban ignites anger
By SEBASTIAN LANDER
June 29, 2007
COMMENT ON THIS STORY
CAMPAIGNERS for the right to smoke today launched a High Court challenge over the Government's smoking ban.
The ban, which comes into effect on Sunday, applies to almost all enclosed public places including offices, factories, pubs and bars, but not outdoors or in private homes.
The pressure group Freedom2Choose lodged papers at the Royal Courts of Justice in London as they began their campaign for a judicial review.
A judge will now decide whether there is an “arguable case” raising genuine issues of law that should go to a full hearing.
Bob Feal-Martinez, for Freedom2Choose, said the case raised “questions of personal liberty” and highlighted the dangers of “a democracy becoming a dictatorship”.
He said: “We are seeing the erosion of the personal liberty in this country people like my father and grandfather fought to achieve.
“Next on the agenda is alcohol, closely followed by food.
“If people don’t stand up for their rights and against governmental intereference, we will get a dictatorship, not democracy.”
The Freedom2Choose legal challenge is based on the argument that the new smoking ban violates human rights laws.
And campaigners were not the only ones to lash out at the ban - a billionaire nightclub owner vowed to flout the new rules.
Dave West, who owns the Abracadabra restaurant and HeyJo erotic-themed club in central London, said he would allow people to smoke freely.
He has hired Cherie Blair to challenge the ban and advise on how it could breach the human rights of staff and guests at his club and restaurant.
Mr West, 63, fears the new legislation will force him to close.
He said today: “It will be business as usual at my exclusive restaurant and nightclub and with the backing of Cherie Booth QC in the High Court of Justice and the European Court, everyone - including the press - can smoke as usual, and when the old bill comes in I’ll pay everyone’s fine.
“And not just for the first day, but until hell freezes over.
“When the police come in, as they will, we shall puff in their faces, show them the writ with Cherie’s name on it and tell them to come back another time.” |
|
|
linkup
Smoking Lobby Sponsor
Joined: Oct 01, 2005
Posts: 1201
Location: Anywhere but here
|
| |
Back to top |
| |
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
