OT; It had to happen.

[The Medway Handyman]

Shows just how pathetic this legislation is. Clearly designed to harass smokers.

[nightjar]

He should appeal. As a self-employed person with no employees, his vehicle is not required to be smoke-free.

Colin Bignell

[Steve Firth]

Good. Smokers have been harassing those of us who are not addicts for long enough.

[Andy Cap]

Don't be too smug. Something you enjoy like drink or fatty foods will be next on the list of banned substances.

[ARWadworth]

Dave

It's my van and I will smoke if I want to.

And I do.

Adam

[<me9]

He was carrying a passenger. (Who was also smoking).

[Peter Scott]

Not quite the same thing. The equivalent would be if the eater or drinker threw up the semi-digested food or drink over a bystander. Don't get me wrong, I detest the increasingly legalistic approach in this country. I must break at least three laws every day and only some of them by accident. But smoking is different in that a smoker makes other stink or die.

Peter Scott

[Cicero]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:59:19 +0100, "nightjar" "The Medway Handyman" wrote in

================================== My local paper (Wolverhampton Express & Star, 25/07/08) reported,

"...and his 16 year old passenger who had been helping him at work was also smoking a cigarette".

The fixed penalty notice was number 0001 so it's quite likely to appear on Ebay as a first issue item pursued by collectors - rather like Nazi memorabilia.

Cic.

[The Medway Handyman]

Just stink.

[Steve Firth]

Eating food and drinking alcohol while driving was banned long before banning smoking while driving a work vehicle. If the law were to be fair all smoking in cars would be banned rather than the current half-arsed law.

[geoff]

In message , The Medway Handyman writes

ISTR it was well publicised when the law came in

[Andy Dingley]

Tell Roy Castle that.

[The Medway Handyman]

Not that old bloody chestnut again.

Roy Castle categorically did not die from lung cancer caused by passive smoking.

Non smokers do die from lung cancer, but it is an entirely different form of cancer that occurs in a different part of the lung. It has nothing to do with passive smoking whatsoever.

Not that the facts ever stop the anti smoking fascists from bending the truth to support their arguments - far from it.

[Anne Welsh Jackson]

Quote from the article: "When stopped, both Mr Williams and his male passenger were found to be smoking. "

It doesn't say that this _wasn't_ an employee - there again it doesn't say that he was.

I certainly wouldn't have paid the fixed penalty notice - but then I can be a right stroppy bitch.

[Frank Erskine]

B/S.

[George]

The guy owned the van ie it was not a...

Company car

Stressed out sales reps should be aware that the company Mondeo will not escape the ban. Company cars are considered to be work premises and, therefore, should not only remain smoke-free but are required to display no smoking signs.

This even applies where one employee has sole use of a car. If it can potentially be used by someone else in the future, the ban applies.

[Andy Dingley]

Shatner's Bassoon?

[geoff]

In message , George writes

If he's a one man business (+ tea boi, it would seem) it's perfectly feasible that it's a company vehicle

a decorator driving to work - I should say so

otherwise why would he have a van, not a car

- transporting work related goods and equipment to places of work aka other peoples' houses

[Andy Hall]

There are rather more aspects to the story from Mr Williams.

He says that he's a self employed decorator and the unmarked van is for personal use even claiming that it is for personal use and getting to and from work.

"I am dumbfounded - the van is only insured for private use and to get me to and from work," added Mr Williams, from Llanafan, near Aberystwyth.

He isn't an employee and so this is not the standard employee use of a personal vehicle. Secondly, are we to believe that the van is used solely for this purpose and never in connection with his work? How do the tools, equipment and materials arrive at his customers? Are they delivered by somebody else? Doesn't seem likely, does it.

In a more telling revelation, he says that the vehicle is only insured for personal use.

Mr Williams added: "I take the wife shopping in the van. It is my private vehicle as well as my work van."

So which is it?

On the one hand he now of course wants this to be a private only vehicle in order to try to get out of the legitimately levied fine.

On the other, he is saying that it's also his work van.

Could it be that there is a more serious issue here? i.e. insuring the van for personal use only, yet using it in connection with the business?

In the general case of the legislation, it is not the ownership of the vehicle that is the issue but the use to which it's put. For example, employees may have a car provided by their company - becoming less common - or may receive car allowances or mileage allowances for business use.

[Knotty]

Back that statement with evidence