Nick Hogan, the pub smokers’ champ, cannot complain that he was denied the relief of lighting up during his 11 days in Forest Bank jail. No sooner was he through the wrong side of the clanging gates than he was greeted by warders offering him baccy, a box of matches and a supply of roll-up papers.
Nor was he the beneficiary of preferential treatment. Every convict, whatever his crime, is handed the same gifts to ease his existence in durance vile while paying his debt to society. You could say that by being thrown in jug, Hogan had become one of a few thousand privileged people in the United Kingdom.
If you are, like he was, an imprisoned guest of Her Majesty, or a soldier in barracks, or an inmate of a lunatic asylum or, an elected or peer-appointed member of both Houses of Parliament you may, with one or two minor limitations, smoke anywhere in a public place with a roof on it.
The rest of us may be run in for smoking under the leaking tin lid of a bus shelter. And that is not the end of it. Some municipal health fascists live in high, and not too fantastical hopes, of banning smoking in parks – or within 400 outdoor yards of a crematorium garden.
Hogan was locked up for six months because he had still not paid £8,664.40p in fines and damages imposed for letting people smoke in his then pub, The Swan Hotel, Bolton, after the government implemented its despotic ban on every public building in the country.
He didn’t refuse to pay. He said he could not pay because he was bankrupt. The cops were sent to carry him off to jail all the same – though his debts to the court could surely have been abstracted gradually from the future income of his businesses.
What is it that Justice Secretary Jack Straw said about locking up only those who presented a danger to society? What is it that many a judge, or a magistrate, gives in excuse for letting a pernicious burglar or a sexual molester loose, on a suspended sentence? It is that Straw and his underlings, in despair over lack of cell-room, have urged them to reserve incarceration for only the most desperate cases.
Yet they locked up Hogan for owing to the Crown what is a mere pittance when compared to the vast amounts picked from taxpayers’ wallets by MPs paying non-existent mortgages on fraudulent expenses.
Happily, Hogan is now free. His sentence was gloriously abbreviated by a man dressed up as Guy Fawkes turning up with a coffer crammed with the money needed to secure his release. This treasure had been amassed from the donations of admirers, most of them hearing of the publican’s plight over the internet.
Outside the nick, Nick’s first act – after embracing his wife Denise – was to light a proper cigarette. Possibly, some goon had been installed with binoculars on the watchtower to make sure he didn’t light it, illegally, under the 12 inch wide shelter of the prison roof’s eaves.
Banger clanger that even the dog didn’t touch
I TRIED out, the other day, some vegetarian sausages, which had arrived by mistake in a consignment of foodstuffs I had ordered from a grocery- delivery firm. I had to give up after nibbling only half a one, tossing the remaining contents of the frying pan towards Daisy, my dog.
The dog, taking these sawdusty tubes for toys, flicked them up and down with her paws and butted them with her head. When I tried to stuff one in her mouth, she backed away in alarm, as if confronted by a poisonous lunatic.
So much for hot dogs filled with sheepdog-repelling soya. Then I opened the morning newspaper. A half-page advert, sponsored by campaigners for humane farming, showed a little piglet, its eyes popping in terror and pain. The caption read: “How would you feel if someone pulled out your teeth with a pair of pliers? Yes, exactly. Like that piglet.”
Instantly, I got the moral point of trying to produce a porkless sausage. A pity about the taste.
To enjoy a proper sausage, some of us need to suppress the awful knowledge that when prodded into the abattoir pigs wail like babies.
Heavenly Carla is so wise in the ways of love
NOT for one moment should anyone believe the tales about Carla Bruni seeking solace with a pop singer while her husband, Nicolas Sarkozy, the midget president of France, dallies with his beautiful karate champion ecology minister, Chantal Jouanno. Both flings appear to be fictions of a spiteful blogger.
All the same, Carla is less than confident about the futurity of her marriage. When asked if Nico was for keeps, she said: “I guess marriage should be for ever, but who knows? I wish it could be for ever. But we could be dead tomorrow...”
Carla is savvy. She doesn’t expect to meet Sarko in Heaven, that’s for sure.
Tweet

Showing comments 1 to 21 and replies | View All
Acid, Chadderton (12/03/2010 at 09:18)
davmac, manchester (12/03/2010 at 10:10)
Theowolfe (12/03/2010 at 10:37)
Acid, Chadderton
Because the government decides to pass a law to make something illegal doesn't make it right. If the government were to pass a law saying all smokers must wear a yellow cigarette, would you support that?
Anne Coates, Jersey Street (12/03/2010 at 11:16)
I couldn't agree more. When Mr Coates takes me out of a friday to the Kings Arms for a gill or two of Old Peculiar, I am amazed at the smell. I used to love the curling blue waft of rough shag as we sat chatting in the lounge but these days the invisible waft of old B.O. and unwashed pants is over-powering - and that's only the ladies.
Acid, Chadderton (12/03/2010 at 12:39)
12/03/2010 at 10:37
Whether a law is right or wrong, and that's all a matter of opinion in this case, it is still a law and shouldn't be broken. This guy was just being pig-headed and looking for confrontation and, probably, a few days in the limelight. We're not the only country that has banned smoking in public. At the end of the day, it is a health hazard and shouldn't be forced onto non-smokers.
Mrs Jammy, Sitting on the settee (12/03/2010 at 14:59)
Yeah, because you would never see smoke at a crematorium!
Andanotherthing, Mcr (12/03/2010 at 15:31)
How on earth did the ordinary man and woman get the rights they have? Could it be that they broke a lot of laws to get them.
Acid, Chadderton (12/03/2010 at 17:55)
Andanotherthing, Mcr
12/03/2010 at 15:31"
No doubt, some of them, if only to draw attention to a social wrong. Also voting for parties that would change things without breaking existing laws. However, non-smokers have the right to protect their health too.
griffin, stockport (12/03/2010 at 18:12)
BO is preferable, and less harmful.
And when the door opens and people are smoking outside it smells as though someone has broken wind.
Sheik Man SOUR - King Of The BITTERS. ABU Dhabishire (12/03/2010 at 18:13)
pigroast, manchester (12/03/2010 at 18:39)
Mike Brailsford, Blackpool (12/03/2010 at 18:51)
How about motorists refuse to buy car insurance because they believe they are safe enough drivers without having to pay for something they may never use.
Allow people to carry a knife, because it doesn't mean they are going to use it.
Well some of you may find those two suggestions ridiculous, but Hogan & Howitt (great name a double act could use) seem to break the law and get huge plaudits.
Andanotherthing, Mcr (12/03/2010 at 18:53)
No doubt, some of them, if only to draw attention to a social wrong. Also voting for parties that would change things without breaking existing laws. However, non-smokers have the right to protect their health too.
Acid, Chadderton
12/03/2010 at 17:55
Non smokers certainly do have that right. Publicans should have the right to offer or decline their hospitality to smokers if they choose. A non smoker could frequent a non smoking Tavern a smoker could frequent a civilised establishment that allowed its customers to smoke or not as they wish. Everyone welcome.
tug wilson (12/03/2010 at 20:20)
paulkearns, DF (12/03/2010 at 20:48)
"Well some of you may find those two suggestions ridiculous, but Hogan & Howitt (great name a double act could use) seem to break the law and get huge plaudits."
Firstly, Nick was NOT jailed for breaking any kind of law. He was jailed for being unable (not unwilling) to pay a "fine" the majority of which was costs anyway.
Secondly, he had not actually (by allowing smoking in his pub in the first place), broken any LAW. He had merely not obeyed a statute (if you don't know the difference, then, with greatest respect, I would suggest you look it up).
Thirdly, he was not even on the premisses when the "offence" occurred and, under the "Health Act 2006" (under which this prosecution was originally brought), that defence alone should have been sufficient to have the case dismissed - yet the court simply ignored this and "fined" him anyway.
Fourthly, Nick had, despite having been made bankrupt (mainly because all the non smokers failed to turn up at his pub and spend their money), has actually managed to pay some of the "fine" anyway - all he was asking for was more time - as he is, as I said, bankrupt.
Fifthly, one of the promises made at the last general election (and I quote) was "there is no question of bringing in a blanket smoking ban in pubs and clubs". Such a blatant lie is tantamount to fraud.
The Health Act 2006 demands ONLY that landlords take all reasonable steps to inform their customers that smoking inside the pub is illegal (not unlawful) and that they display the correct signs to inform people of this.
The signs were in place and Nick was not even there at the time. His only crime was not to physically throw people out and make it clear that he did not agree with the act (had he tried to throw people out, then he could have committed the crime of assault).
To play out the suggestions that some have made of "if you do the crime, then you must do the time". Just imagine that someone (you don't know who), decided to take your car for a drive and was done for speeding. You had publicly declared at some point that the 20 MPH speed limit was stupid - would you then expect to be arrested and imprisoned for the actions of the person who was driving your car when it was booked for speeding? Off-course you wouldn't.
Now, explain to me the difference (and I had studied EVERY clause of the Health Act 2006) - THERE SIMPLY IS NONE.
Whatever your views on smoking - this is a matter of social justice and landlords being made to pay for the transgressions of others - and being able to do nothing against the "steamroller" of prejudice - stirred up and invented by politicians who (as witnessed by recent news articles) feel that they, even for their own crimes, are somehow "above the law" (and they broke REAL laws - not statutes).
Discuss.
Sheik Man SOUR - King Of The BITTERS. ABU Dhabishire (12/03/2010 at 23:25)
Andanotherthing, Mcr
12/03/2010 at 18:53"
But they haven't. End of.
Helend (13/03/2010 at 00:02)
Anyone who still believes that the blanket smoking ban was about public health needs to open their eyes and do a little research to find out about the negative health effects of the ban (which obviously go unreported in the main-stream-media).
This is an appalling piece of legislation which is causing ill-health to many and even death in certain cases. I do not agree with law-breaking, but this law certainly needs challenging.
It takes a very strong individual to challenge our law (as most educated people know - just look back in history). Nick Hogan is one of them and I'm sure that the thousands of people who supported him (without the exposure of the main stream media) realise that.
Any government that passes legislation to treat their own citizens (including the elderly, infirm, sick, war-heroes, etc) worse than the legislation for the treatment of pigs, needs to be questioned; particularly when their are numerous alternative solutions available to cater for everyone.
Acid - Any chance you could let me know why you believe it is right that these designated smoking areas have to treat your fellow citizens worse than pigs? I can only assume that a heated separate building (away from the elements that you enjoy) is a no-no for those whose legal life-style you object to?
I can only assume that you like seeing other people's grand-parents either thrown outside in the elements or having a reduced social life.
Catering for everyone is the answer - there are very few blanket bans abroad, as the educated know.
Belrock, England (13/03/2010 at 00:06)
Anne Coates, Jersey Street
12/03/2010 at 11:16
I am with you on this one Anne and I think used to quite like the Smokey atmosphere and especially enjoyed the rough shag. Shame but I suppose all good things come to and end.
PW, Manchester (13/03/2010 at 07:14)
Sorry, you'll never get through to the fascists who want every establishment their way. I do agree with you as a non-smoker. Give me a non-smoking pub any day, but live and let live.
Belrock, England (13/03/2010 at 11:43)
Chris F J Cyrnik (13/03/2010 at 11:53)
Do you remember it? I’m sure you do…but here’s a reminder anyway.
‘all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be
smoke-free; and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to
allow smoking or to be smoke-free. In membership clubs the members
will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free’.
Speaks for itself – doesn’t it?
Had these reprehensible and duplicitous halfwits honoured their promise…then Nick Hogan would have never gone to prison.