Bring Smoking Back...Please Don't

Local pubs want the smoking ban lifted. Apparently.

Publicans are seeing fewer customers. Apparently.

It's all because smokers have to go outside to have a fag. Apparently.

It appears to have escaped the notice of these publicans that we're in the middle of an economic downturn. They have failed to register the simple fact that I can buy alcohol cheaper in my local supermarket. They have also ignored the fact that by drinking said supermarket bought wine at home, I don't have to pay a taxi driver an extortionate amount of money to get from their pub back to my house. On top of this, the last time I went out in the city centre, it was full of ignorant, drunk fools, who were spoiling for a fight. Male and female. I also found the places mentioned in the article overcrowded. Despite all the poor smokers not going out these days. I would hate to think how many more people these pubs want in their establishments.

So forgive me if I say that smoking in pubs is not going to see the crowds flocking back to your overpriced, surprisingly overcrowded hell holes.

Oh, and Pin Gil; wtf? 

"It is unfair for our customers to have to stand on the street smoking. It is also unfair on people passing on the street to have smoke blown in their faces."

But it's fair for non-smokers to have to sit in it? Seriously?

Court Costs....

At a time when sweeping cuts are being made by public bodies, today's Leicester Mercury has the following headline; "Teenager's 53p fraud court case costs taxpayers' £1,200". Headlines like this must stick in the throat of people who are facing the loss of community centres or increased costs in caring for their relatives. As the young man in question puts it "I think it was all a bit over the top".  Of course he would; he now has a criminal record and has to pay £185 in costs.

It does seem petty that The Gym, a company that owns 10 clubs, with a further 4 planned, would wish to prosecute an 18 year old lad for 'borrowing' his mate's membership details. It seems strange, to me, that they haven't also prosecuted the mate, after all, he was also part of this fraud. I also wonder if he's still a member.... Isn't there another way of dealing with such matters, that don't involve costs? Couldn't the police have just cautioned him? Did the police really need to get involved?

As a gym user myself, I hate to see people abusing the facilities. My gym has had to install CCTV cameras to the entrance of the superior members only Spa area. Not that it seems to put people off from crawling under the barrier. I mean, why should we (okay, the hubby....) pay extra for facilities when we too could slip under the gate? Similarly, if I knew that the person on the treadmill next to me had borrowed a friend's membership card, I wouldn't be happy about it.

It also raises the issue of how petty does a crime have to be for it to be ignored? Reading the comments left on the local newspapers website leads me to believe that there are a lot of Victor Meldrews who aren't happy with the declining standards in modern day society. They complain that criminals get away with murder. Get a cast iron case, and all of a sudden it's not worthy of court time and costs because it's not "proportional". I believe that ignoring the little things leads to people pushing the boundaries as to what they think that they can get away with. If you knew your mate was giving out his gym membership, would you be tempted to use it? How many other people out there are using gyms like this? And who's to say that this was the one and only time Mr Sparrow did this? This may be a 53p case, but the total cost of 'borrowing' may run into the thousands. Criticism of cases like this one appear, to me, to come from people who may be just as guilty of taking liberties, sailing close to the wind themselves. Yes folks, next time it could be you.

One final thing that irks me is this attitude that criminals get away "scot-free". Comments like this are usually made by people who have never set foot in a court, who have no idea what the criminal justice system involves, and can't be bothered to look up sentencing guidelines to see what considerations have to be made. Yes, mistakes are made; that's why appeal processes exist. But criticising sentencing because you believe that hardened criminals (not cheeky young scamps using their mate's gym passes) should be locked up in solitary confinement for the rest of eternity is more about knee-jerk reaction than considered opinion.

Mr Convict

Major news in the Midlands tonight is the news that notorious Nottingham criminal, Colin Gunn, has asked, nay, demanded he is called "Mr" Gunn. The Daily Mail, of course, has jumped on this story like a rash. This has caused outrage amongst right-minded individuals; he lost the right to the respectful title of "Mr" the minute he broke the laws of this land. What on earth is this country coming to, the good people postulate, when criminals make a mockery of the justice system like this. Roger Andrews, according to the news, would rather be in prison than out in the free world; really? REALLY? Okay.....

There are two schools of thought when it comes to the treatment of prisoners; the first is that prisoners should lose their 'rights' the minute that they set foot inside of prison. They show no respect for the laws of this land, why should they be shown any respect? Another topical discussion is the right of prisoners to vote. Society is governed by laws, rules and regulations. If you don't follow them, you are rejecting those norms, and therefore rejecting society as it currently stands. Why, therefore, should prisoners be allowed to have a say on the way society is governed if they want no part of it? Of course, this can be counter-argued; the only way that society can be legitimately changed is through the electoral system (that's if you believe that there are any differences between the political parties, of course....).

The second theory is that prison is there to reform as well as to punish. It follows that treating prisoners with respect, regardless of their crimes, is the only way to show them how to respect others - treat others the way that you want to be treated. It may be the case that some prisoners have never been treated this way, and little things like referring to someone as "Mr" or "Mrs" might have an effect. Similarly with the voting issue; how can prisoners be expected to integrate into society if they are actively excluded?

One other point that springs to mind is when cases sit on the custody threshold, where one person is given a custodial sentence, whilst another person convicted of a similar crime is not. It's okay to afford the latter some respect and call him "Mr", but not the former? How can that be reconciled?

The fact that people feel so strongly about what prison officers call prisoners is questionable in itself. Surely there are more important things to get angry about. Stories like this don't just bring out the ridiculous, they also give thugs like Mr Gunn the attention that they so desperately crave. Get over it, people.

Cameras in Court?

As if dodgy TV dramas aren't bad enough, the lunatics at Sky want TV cameras in our courts. Important sentencing decisions could be televised to the viewing public, with judges being forced to explain their decisions to a "sceptical public".

Just because members of the public don't agree with the reasons and/or the sentences, it doesn't mean that justice is not being seen to be done. Obviously someone at Sky has never set foot in a court as JUDGES DO EXPLAIN THEIR DECISIONS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO CAN BE ARSED TO GO TO COURT AND SIT IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY! And boy, some judges REALLY like to go into their reasons behind their judgments. If you can't be bothered to do that, newspapers report parts of judge's speeches in some cases. Especially the big, more interesting, cases, you know, the ones that Sky wants the right to put on TV (not to boost ratings). If people don't want to sit in the public gallery of their local courts now, do they really want to see it on TV? After all, real life court action is nothing like Law and Order UK, for a start. 

Of course other countries allow cameras into their courts; it doesn't mean that justice is done proper, like. They never make mistakes, oh no sir-ee. Sky's argument comes across more as an attempt to extend further televisual voyeurism. We clearly don't have enough real life programming. The public won't be tuning into see if the courts are doing the job properly any more than they watch The Jeremy Kyle Show for its fascinating insight into modern day British society.