Posted By Lilian McCartney
that's where we have it as well.

Also, actually in the church hall instead of onmain door

Posted By Alan Hoskins
The problem is that (perhaps) not all EHOs will take the same line. Not much possibility of prosecution though, I shouldn't think.

It's the same in many other types of establishment. Had no smoking in buildings for years but now have to put the signs up at our entrances.

Alan

Posted By Alan Hoskins
Why would they need a faculty for that, Arran? It's only a paper notice...

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Following on from Arran

Regulation 6 and 7 state

(6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (5) to
show —

(a) that he did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that the premises were smoke-free (or, as the case may be, that the place or vehicle was smoke-free), or

(b) that he did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that no-smoking signs complying with the requirements of this section were not being displayed in accordance with the requirements of this section, or

(c) that on other grounds it was reasonable for him not to comply with the
duty.

(7) If a person charged with an offence under subsection (5) relies on a defence in subsection (6), and evidence is adduced which is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to that defence, the court must assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.


6(c) would suggest that if the church could show that if smoking does not occur in their premises it would be reasonable not to comply with the signage requirements. Reg 7 then makes the prosecution achieve a criminal standard of proof, which I suspect may be difficult. They cannot merely rely on the fact that they think there should be signs but prove that the other grounds were not reasonable.

Reasonable EHOs or similar would thus not bother with such as churches but concentrate their fire on the pubs, restaurants, covered markets etc where the need is greater. I suspect that the easy hits will be first though. Much as I agree with the legislation the signage requirements for me are the most inane piece of bureaucratic intervention designed for job creation that I have witnessed in many years. After all if the public cannot be trusted to know what is an enclosed public place or a place of work we are again seeing Whitehall and Town Halls etc as a place for self seeking jobsworths.

I hope all H&S practitioners keep themselves clear of this and leave it to the HR professionals to take the flak and public brickbats for the daft interpretations that are likely to follow.

Bob

Posted By Bob Thompson CMIOSH
Holy Smoke

Posted By Robert K Lewis
I thought a general notice reminding all persons that any form of law breaking is prohibited in the premises might be the best cover.

This is probably be the most costly waste of time that any legislation has ever inflicted on the long suffering voter.

Can anyone actually provide a solid explanation for the particular regulation - everything else I can understand and support.

Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis
Merv

It is the protestants, particularly anglicans and methodists, that used to insist on hats - others are happy with either nothing or a head scarf of some description.

Do you think the iron mask could make a comeback now for the overzealous enforcers, or perhaps the scalds bridle?

Bob

Posted By Paul Durkin
Thanks for entering into the Spirit of this. God's house is now safe from over zealous signage.
What did Bob mean about 'Holy Smoke'?
It could 'incense' some !!
Regards, Paul

Posted By Alan Hoskins
not sure that elf 'n safety would allow that Bob...