Adrian Short
Design, citizenship and the city
Sutton’s (oxy)moronic “voluntary smoking ban”
13 October 2008
What a great day for liberalism and local democracy. The good burghers of Beddington and Wallington have enacted a “voluntary smoking ban” in the area’s public playgrounds. £3200 of honest, hard-working local taxpayers’ money has been allocated to the scheme which local councillors now hope to roll out across the rest of the borough.
This radical and presumably unique project has just one minor flaw: it has no legal basis whatsoever. Sutton’s LibDem councillors see no legal or linguistic impediment to the idea of a “voluntary ban” which in plain English would probably look more like a request. Deviant playground smokers flouting the voluntary ban run the risk of muted social disapproval. Serious and repeat offenders may find themselves being tutted at by council wardens.
Fortunately, the council has science on its side. The new “voluntary ban” is the permanent establishment of a pilot scheme that was enacted after Councillor Bruce Glithero complained that passive smoking left his daughter spluttering. His research findings can be read in more detail in the latest edition of the Journal of Anecdotal Evidence.
Sutton is to be congratulated for this bold experiment in local democracy. The beauty of a “voluntary ban” is that you can “ban” anything, just as long as you don’t ban anything. Everyone can have a go. It’s democratic, accessible and incredibly liberal.
I’ll be writing to my local committee to address the following issues with voluntary “bans”:
- Men not wearing shirts in public. “Ban” them.
- The word “whatever” used as a sentence substitute. “Ban” it instantly.
- People wearing hoods when the weather is fine. A “ban” is the only solution.
- Groups that cross the road in a haphazard and slovenly fashion. If a “ban” won’t make them cross brisky, simultaneously and perpendicularly to the carriageway, nothing will.
- Rainy weekends followed by fine Monday mornings. Surely a “ban” would be a step forward?
- Children sitting on steps and talking. “Ban” it immediately! Oh, they already did, for real.
What would you “ban” today?
–
Updated on 19 October with a photo by Cllr Terry Faulds of a sign in Beddington Park.
13 October 2008
What would I ban today?
THE LABOUR PARTY
14 October 2008
Quite an amusing story, until the day some slightly pompous disproving parent tries to ‘tut’ too loud at the wrong, high as a kite, bitter young person on the wrong day and shockingly finds a knife quivering in their chest.
Just what part will the council have played in provoking a needless argument – is the illegal sign the cause? Guilty as charged I’d say.
Micro-managing by signs is a dead giveaway that the local regime has no control, so I noted when I was a retail manager – long before I realised it could have been described as an anti-pattern.
“The cutting room floor must be washed properly before the last person goes home” – a real hand-written sign stuck up above the hand-wash basin in a butchery section.
Perhaps parents should go down to the park with some hand-written signs “No bitter young people, with nothing else to do and nowhere to go to today”.
“No knives” – now perhaps that is a better suggestion.
17 October 2008
The ‘Smoking Ban’ terminology you refer to is the local newspaper’s headline for the story. The actual enactment of the committee’s decision might best be described as ‘a polite request not to smoke’. Some of the draft paperwork for the trial was headed ‘Trial no smoking ban’. This caused some amusement amongst councillors as we considered the enforcement implications of this (we don’t get out much & get our kicks where we can).
Unfortunately there was considerable misrepresentation of the story by the local paper. The ‘ban’ only applies to children’s playgrounds, not whole parks as the article implied. Also the costs relate to general playground signs in Beddington & Wallington which we had agreed to fund and are intended to carry general information of contact details for the Parks Dept. and local police; local facility information; age restrictions on equipment etc. as well as the request not to smoke in the children’s playground.
At no time was a request made of the police to enforce the policy as it was made clear from the very beginning that the policy was not legally enforceable.
I understand your concerns about the concept of banning things, especially without legal support. I actually prefer the idea of a gentle nudge in the right direction rather than the giant boot of the law in this situation. I also feel that the council has a duty to protect the vulnerable – a child is unlikely to say, “Can you get that fag out of my face please?”
When the initial suggestion was made the committee decided to trial the policy and the Friends of Beddington and Grange Parks volunteered Beddington Park playground for the trial as they were supportive of the idea and sit on the committee as Community Representatives. The results of the consultation over the summer showed that a large majority of park users were supportive of the policy and the reasons behind it. Following our democratic principles the committee voted in accordance with the public’s wishes.
We are lucky in this country that we are able to freely express our differences in opinion. You probably still object to the policy and that is your right. However please don’t take all you read in the papers at face value!
17 October 2008
You’ll be glad to know that I don’t take the papers at face value, least of all the Sutton Guardian. That’s why when I write something like this I do try to refer to primary sources such as the Sutton Council press release that I’ve linked to in the article. The council is very inefficient at responding to requests for information from the Great Unwashed so people like me generally have to rely on what’s on the council’s website. I’m rapidly discovering the limitations of this approach.
I can only assume that you haven’t read the council’s press release as you’re factually wrong about almost every aspect of it. The council’s headline is, “Playground smoking ban made permanent” and while the Guardian perhaps weren’t careful enough with the fine distinction between parks and playgrounds, their headline, “Smoking banned in parks” isn’t wholly unreasonable. The distinction is clarified in the second paragraph of the Guardian’s report.
The council’s release goes on to quote you as saying,
“The strength of support shows that local people are behind us and I hope the voluntary smoking ban is introduced in playgrounds borough-wide.”
Cllr Ruth Dombey doesn’t even qualify the “ban” as “voluntary” when she says,
“I hope our other local committees will seriously consider adopting the ban in their areas.”
In total, the council’s press release refers to this measure as a “ban” seven times and qualifies this as “voluntary” three times. It is therefore not surprising and in my opinion is not unfair that the Guardian should adopt your terminology in its reporting. If you don’t want hyperbolic, inaccurate and misleading stories written about your activities perhaps you could encourage your press officers not to issue hyperbolic, inaccurate and misleading statements about them.
Thank you for clarifying that the £3200 cost of this scheme refers to general-purpose signage including the polite request to not smoke, rather than specific signs just to discourage smoking. This clearly pertinent information didn’t find itself into the council’s press release so once again it’s not unexpected that the Guardian or members of the public reading your own handout should be ignorant on this point.
As for the measure itself, I see little wrong with a polite request couched in polite terms so long as the scale of these is kept reasonable. Adopting the terminology of nudges, advice and encouragement doesn’t give government licence to continually hector the public about every aspect of their lives and can easily grow to the point where it’s as unpalatable as prohibitions and coercion. The pressure exerted on children in schools to adopt healthy lifestyles is approaching this point. No doubt it’s well-intentioned but it’s causing a lot of resentment among many parents who feel that their natural role in child rearing is being usurped by a state that’s got too big for its boots.
I agree that freedom of expression is a wonderful thing. However, while it’s wonderful that we’re all entitled to hold and express our opinions, we can only have a free political culture where citizens have access to timely, accurate and comprehensive information about the workings of government and the wider society. Otherwise our arguments and opinions are built on foundations of errors and are as worthless and ineffectual as if they were prohibited. In this particular case, the council has precluded any serious public scrutiny of this measure by its reckless handing of its own communications. It’s not reasonable to shift the blame to the Guardian, nor to expect a fair hearing from the public when you feed it tricky, cutesy spin rather than clear, plain facts.
17 October 2008
Well, Jayne McCoy, after reading your post I was jumping around, eager to rebut all of it but Adrian has curtailed my fun by doing it comprehensively.
So, after the smoke has cleared (pun unintended), what we are left with is …
“The ‘Smoking Ban’ terminology you refer to is the local newspaper’s headline for the story.”
… but actually it’s not, it is the Council’s own terminology, as published on the council’s web-site. Since then, you seem to have been trying to distance yourself from the word ‘ban’ as much as possible. Your post here is a perfect example.
As is your letter to the Guardian this week. I hope that my quoting that will not lead to accusations of ‘taking all I read in the papers at face value’.
You mention in your letter that “the issue here is that we want to protect our children from the effects of smoke”. Good idea. Now, if you could just point out one single scientific study worldwide that points to any danger whatsoever from passive smoke in the open air, I would agree with you, but you can’t as no such study exists, nor will one ever exist.
You go on to say “Research clearly states that children who grow up around smokers are more likely to take up the habit themselves”. From that, I suppose you are all for repealing the REAL smoking ban that has seen smokers forced onto Sutton High Street from pubs, in full view of children out shopping with their parents, where previously those smokers had been hidden away from the sight of kids? No? I thought not.
Your emotive language to support your waste-of-money idea is quite understandable I suppose seeing as you have obviously read the wholly negative comments about it on the Sutton Guardian site, and your attempt at a diplomatic drawback is rather touching when you talk about “I actually prefer the idea of a gentle nudge in the right direction rather than the giant boot of the law in this situation.”
Except that this week’s article mentions “Sutton Council has pledged to employ Safer Neighbourhood Teams to ensure public co-operation with the voluntary smoking ban”. Is that also the Guardian being fanciful? If not, isn’t it even worse than asking the Police to enforce it? Isn’t that asking a non-Police force to enforce it? If it is voluntary, why the need for ANY enforcement at all? Or the ‘giant boot’ as you termed it?
Could it be that you know you have no power to bring in any ban, voluntary or not, and that you are desperately searching for some way of making it seem like a real law? If it was a gentle nudge and the signs weren’t all about smoking, AND that public support was “huge” as you also state in your letter, then no enforcement would be required would it?
The last part of your letter is probably THE most staggering. You express annoyance, “frustration” even, that the Guardian has even bothered to focus on the views of what you term “… the minority that opose the move”. So now my council tax is less important than the council tax of others if I can’t prove that 50% or more of the electorate agree with me? What stark staring bonkers logic is that?
These are NOT your parks, or the parks belonging to people with a majority opinion, they are my parks, and everyone else’s parks. I help pay for them, I am entitled to have a voice about the parks that I pay you money for. Until and unless you have some legal justification in stopping people from engaging in perfectly legal practices in an area for which they have paid quite a bit of money to enjoy, your smoking ban, whether voluntary or not, is a complete waste of money. More importantly though, The Guardian are perfectly entitled to report on the views of that minority, that is their job. Why are you using the ‘big boot’ of your position to try to censor negative press comment on a looney idea that fully deserves it as it has only served to waste public finances?
I don’t think I should need to remind you that as a Sutton council taxpayer I am entitled to object about instances of financial waste, so instead of wasting your time on nonsense such as this, could you please focus yourself on working out why £5.5m has been thrown at an Icelandic bank when you were warned not to a long time ago, and why hundreds of thousands of pounds was wasted on a garden waste scheme that NO-ONE WANTED! (you didn’t like the Guardian reporting THAT much either did you? And in that case, we were the fully-fledged, bona fide, HUGE majority).
17 October 2008
Martin,
The Safer Neighbourhoods Teams are the police. They’re local teams comprising a police sergeant, some police officers and some PCSOs. If the SNTs have been asked to enforce the ban then presumably it’s a real ban and not a “voluntary” (let’s just call it “imaginary” from now on) ban.
So the pertinent question is what happens in this scenario:
1. Member of the public smokes in a children’s playground.
2. Pc or PCSO asks them to stop.
3. Member of the public declines, and carries on smoking.
Then what? If the public can smoke with impunity then it’s not a ban. If they can’t, it’s not voluntary. It’s got to be one or the other. It can’t be both. The Safer Parks Team is on 020 8721 2268 if anyone fancies giving them a ring.
It’s amazing how complicated life can become when people start making up their own meanings for well-understood English words.
18 October 2008
Martin
You raise an interesting point about the “minority that oppose the move.” This goes to the heart of the failure of Sutton Council to understand consultation. I have seen plenty of consultations about traffic schemes where no response has been translated as tacit acceptance. Similarly the entire 2008-9 council budget was predicated on a consultation which received 22 replies from a possible 180,000 (before my colleagues and I added another 29 by standing in the High Street for 10 minutes). However for the biggest consultation of all – an election – parties claim a clear mandate if they win with say, 40% of the vote on a turnout of 40% as is typical in a local election. This is a miserable 16% approval from the total electorate; hardly a ringing endorsement.
For the smoking ban/nudge/polite request 1790 questionnaires were handed out; 493 were returned showing 338 strongly agreed with smoking not being allowed in playgrounds. This is 69% of the total returned or 19% of those asked in the first place. You can argue that the question should have been whether £600 should be spent on two signs asking that people don’t smoke in playgrounds. The actual question asked will tend to get a higher response. I don’t believe that it is appropriate for people to smoke in playgrounds but would not support a ban.
Statistics? Don’t you just love ‘em.
20 October 2008
Adrian
I take your point about the Council’s press release and something I will bear in mind when I have dealings with such communications.
As for the latest reporting on a request for the SNT to police the ‘policy’ no such request came from the Beddington & Wallington Local Committee and this is the first I have heard about it.