Council stamps on hospital smokers

February 04, 2010

| Submit Comments | Comments (19) | Previous | Next

Council officers are patrolling an area surrounding a hospital to catch smokers littering the streets with cigarettes.

Stepping Hill Hospital in Stockport has a no-smoking policy forcing people to go off-site, but nearby roads are left swamped with hundreds of cigarette butts.

Areas around the maternity unit and nearby Ripley Avenue were said to be hardest hit at a Stepping Hill area committee meeting.

Adam Cunningham, a council area conditions officer, told the meeting: "I did an enforcement patrol but didn't catch anyone. I intend to do other patrols.

"It is just disgusting there must have been 300 cigarette butts. It is mostly hospital workers. For obvious reasons the hospital is unwilling to tolerate smoking from staff on its grounds.

"Whenever I go there's a stream of hospital staff going off grounds for a cigarette."

Chris Burke, chief executive of Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, has backed the patrols and said smoking has been banned at Stepping Hill since October 2006.

Stepping Hill councillor Wendy Orrell said: "They (workers) would go mad if it was outside their front door."

The issue was raised last year and led to discussions between the council and Stepping Hill.

The hospital funded bins for cigarette butts on nearby roads but the problem has now reared its head again.

Control

Mr Burke added: "While we can control smokers' behaviour on site, it is impossible to control their behaviour off site whether they are patients, visitors or staff. We continually ask that our staff treat our neighbours with respect and regularly remind them that dropping cigarette ends in the street is illegal and is offensive.

"Our security manager and his team regularly patrol the perimeter of the hospital site to monitor the situation. The trust has also encouraged the council to issue fixed penalty notices to those that continue to litter the town's streets in this way."

A council spokesman said: "We are aware of this issue and has been involved in discussions with the hospital. Area condition officers have visited the site around the hospital to raise awareness of this issue and will continue to do so in the future.

"We can issue fixed penalty notices to people caught dropping litter as part of the Environmental Protection Act, 1990. If paid within seven days the penalty is £50.

"As they are an alternative to prosecution, there is no right of appeal. Anybody issued with a fixed penalty notice and wishing to decline payment has the right to appear in court."

| Submit Comments | Comments (19) | Previous | Next

Showing comments 1 to 19 and replies | View All

arachne, The Web (04/02/2010 at 16:16)

And here's me thinking that hospital grounds are owned by the public who pay for them. At a hospital in London a few years ago, before the government ban, security guards had been monitoring me on CCTV as I smoked in the grounds. I completely ignored their orders to move onto a busy main road to smoke. Four weeks later, when I returned to the hospital, they'd given up on their ban in the grounds and even the security guards were smoking there. As for the CCTV of me, I asked for a copy under the data protection Act to cause as much trouble as possible for this silly ban. A Hospital is not the place to ban smoking for those who need to as it could delay their recovery somewhat because of trying to recuperate and having withdrawal symptoms at the same time.

Roger Yoo, Moss Side (04/02/2010 at 16:28)

I wish Manchester would take this as a worth while example. On a recent visit to Wythenshawe hospital which also has a no smoking policy in the hospital grounds I had to wade through all the filthy discarded dimps at the main entrance.

keyjockey, Manchester (04/02/2010 at 17:30)

What hospital staff do in their break, on the public highway, is not their employers' business if it is legal. However, littering is a civil offence and they have an option to deal with it that way, if they must. No doubt by setting up video surveillance. If I was working there I would take a look around at the placing of CCTV cameras. Also look out for unusually positioned cars....but why can't the smokers just be a bit more civic minded anyway? That way, they can stick two fingers up to the stalinist State and the health fascists. And that has GOT to be worth the effort hasn't it?

Matt Hulme, Hulme (04/02/2010 at 18:02)

This is what happens when blanket bans are imposed, what do they expect smokers to do?

Far better to have a designated area where smokers can enjoy a cigarette and dispose of the dimp in a suitable receptical thus avoiding them being thrown to the floor all over.

Common sense seems to be a thing of the past!

Poppasmurf, A galaxy, far far away (04/02/2010 at 18:51)

What silly comments from 'arachne'.

If you are so stupid as to continue smoking, I suggest you do it in your own private property and preferably with sealed hood over your head to stop the cancer causing smoke from escaping and polluting the air for others. Oh, sorry, did you say that would be dangerous - well so is smoking.

Leon Weastie, Stuck in a Bockle Over the Mode (05/02/2010 at 04:30)

Nineteen Eighty Four, a bit late but that's what you've got.
Get out while you can.

Moorlok, London (05/02/2010 at 08:39)

While I can't disagree with the objections to cigarette butts littering the streets, what I do object to are the anti-smoking fascists that have little better to do than persecute and penalise smokers at any and every opportunity!

Why can't these people protest against the hordes of drunken louts and IV drug users that litter our streets? We rarely hear about the anti-smoking Stasi getting on their high-horses and doing something about this menace. Again they target people who are overwhelmingly law-abiding and try to force their opinions on other people. The drunken louts and IV druggies would simply tell them to go away in no uncertain terms, so they turn their attentions to the easier targets.

IV drug users get free hypodermics, free counselling, and free drug substitutes, smokers only get abuse, persecution, and people looking down their noses. Perhaps it's the anti-smoking Stasi that need the counseling to rid them of their arrogant, pernicious, and obnoxious attitudes?

Black Flag (05/02/2010 at 09:03)

Moorlok,

if the best argument that can be offered against persecuting one group is that there are other, more appropriate groups to persecute, then we should probably give up all hope now.

Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (05/02/2010 at 09:07)

Adam Cunningham, a "council area conditions officer" should get a hobby.

Moorlok, London (05/02/2010 at 09:43)

Black Flag,

That's not my argument!, it's an argument of 'proportionality', as has been, and is, so typical of this useless government !! Target the easy targets, make lots of money doing so with punitive fines, and flower the crime statistics with pointless priorities to make it look like the cretins are doing something!

arachne, The Web (05/02/2010 at 11:58)

Poppasmurf, do you drive a car? If so I suggest you stop polluting my environment with your cancer causing chemicals and have your exhaust pipe pumping out the pollution inside your car only so others don't have to breathe it? Or do cars not produce low level ozone and other poisonous chemicals?

Theowolfe (05/02/2010 at 12:19)

"As they are an alternative to prosecution, there is no right of appeal. Anybody issued with a fixed penalty notice and wishing to decline payment has the right to appear in court."

As a non smoker I would urge all smokers issued with a fixed penalty notice to take it to court and clog up the whole court system. In fact I would urge all recipients of fixed penalty notices to do this. The advance of the state control of behaviour needs to be challenged.

Hurry O'Caine - the Irish Whirlind, Typhoon Tipperary (05/02/2010 at 12:36)

Banning smoking from hospital grounds has the same effect as clearing prostitutes from a particular area of town or closing a problem pub. IT doesn't cure anything or reduce participation, it simply gives soemone else a chance to endure the inconvenience.

I really cannot see why hospitals cannot allocate a smoking area, after all, smokers do fund the health service.

RT, UK (05/02/2010 at 16:42)

There should not be smoking on all NHS property full stop. The idea of clogging up the court system instead of your arteries would fail. Unless you have the money to pay the excessive costs, travel etc.

I would expect the persecution of smokers to get more serious. It is easy money, 300 butts at 50 pounds each is 15,000 pounds for a start. More stealth tax.

It may be 34 yrs but it will never be 37yrs. (05/02/2010 at 17:15)

The best way to get people out of the habit is to make it unaffordable I use to smoke I was fortunate I could stop and start at will I found giving it up a little stressful for a day or two but after that it was plain sailing. People who find giving the habit up to difficult need an incentive and pricing them at quite a high figure would be a deterrent I would start at £20 a pkt and then 50 pence per year per pkt.

Theowolfe (05/02/2010 at 17:31)

IF the courts were clogged up the government would have to change its approach. So the extra costs you mention RT would only fall on the initial defendants. This could be offset by a fund set up for the purpose.

The costs would be worth it to roll back this illiberal state.

arachne, The Web (05/02/2010 at 21:04)

Making smoking unaffordable doesn't work. There are a vast number of people now who no longer buy legal cigarettes. Why pay £6 a packet when you can go to a local smuggler or bootlegger and get them for only £2.50. I used to work at Customs and Excise and know how difficult it is to stop. Even if they stop the smugglers, they'd never stop those who make bootleg cigarettes. And because there are no records of who is not buying cigarettes from legal outlets, the figures for the drop in smokers may be way off the mark. But the greed of the government buy taxing lifes pleasures, is probably costing them billions in lost revenue. People now buy illegal cigarettes, booze and red diesel and there is very little the authorities can do to stop it unless they reduce the taxes to make it unprofitable.

minnie royle (05/02/2010 at 21:30)

Whilst i do feel that dog ends on the pavement are not nice and smokers should take more responsibility for disposing of them correctly.There is something sinister about how the state is persecuting smokers.These hospital jobsworth would be better spending our taxes on employing more people to clean our hospital wards (or paying the existing cleaners a better wage)

julie hill (13/02/2010 at 23:52)

We are in a transient period at the moment with many smokers stopping, trying to stop, and trying and failing to stop.

Its all in the mind, yes we know - but try saying that to an alcoholic or IV/cocaine drug user.

Change is happening - no-one smokes because they want to - give people time and stop thinking you are better/more intelligent/stronger than them because you are not.

Smokers - pick your dimps up and don't puff in anyones face!

()

Report

News