Prev
No Smoking sign, South Lakes 6th June 2014
Next
Prev
Gibbon Exhibit at South Lakes, 04/07/14
Humboldt Penguin at South Lakes, 04/07/14
Giant Anteater Exhibit at South Lakes, 04/07/14
No Smoking sign, South Lakes 6th June 2014
My favourite sign in the park
New safety notice on the Railway
Red-mantled Saddle-backed Tamarin
Next
bongorob

No Smoking sign, South Lakes 6th June 2014

  • Media owner bongorob
  • Date added
No Smoking sign.

Why use two words when ninety-one will do?

The park owner hates smokers and because he does not smoke he thinks that no one else should. signs saying smoking was illegal were in the park before smoking in enclosed public places became against the law.

The owner likes wearing hats, I am surprised that he lets visitors who are bare-headed to enter.

Anothe rsign I saw but forgot to photograph implied that it was an offence under the 1981 Zoo Licensing Act for visitors to feed the animals.
Click to expand...
  • Like
Reactions: felis silvestris
bongorob
No Smoking sign.

Why use two words when ninety-one will do?

The park owner hates smokers and because he does not smoke he thinks that no one else should. Signs saying smoking was illegal were in the park before smoking in enclosed public places became against the law.

The owner likes wearing hats, I am surprised that he allows visitors who are bare-headed to enter.

Another sign I saw but forgot to photograph implied that it was an offence under the 1981 Zoo Licensing Act for visitors to feed the animals.
 
P
'Against the Law'?:confused: I don't think its against the law to smoke in Zoos generally is it? That can't be so.:confused: Forbidden here, maybe, but not against the Law.
 
Chlidonias
from Wikipedia:

Smoke-free regulations covering all indoor work-places in England, including bars, clubs and restaurants, came into force on 1 July 2007. Some places, such as certain smoking hotel rooms, nursing homes, prisons, submarines, offshore oil rigs, and stages/television sets (if needed for the performance) were initially exempted, as well as Royal Palaces, although members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords agreed to ban all smoking in the Palace of Westminster.

The on-the-spot fine for smoking in a workplace is £50 (~€60/~$75), £30 (~€35/~$45) if one pays within 15 days, while a business that allows smoking can be fined £2,500 (~€3,700/~$3,800). Smoking largely remains permitted outdoors, apart from railway stations. However, an internal government briefing obtained by The Independent on Sunday newspaper reveals that powers are available to extend coverage to further outdoor areas if required. A legal loophole exists for cigar smokers who are allowed to smoke in store to 'sample' the cigar in England only.
Click to expand...
 
P
'powers are available to extend coverage to other outdoor areas if required' is the relevant section. Presumably its only the Government that can put those into force though?
 
Animal
Again, I don't get the fuzz about this. Smoking isn't allowed there, so don't smoke there.
 
P
Animal said:
Again, I don't get the fuzz about this. Smoking isn't allowed there, so don't smoke there.
Click to expand...

My query here is now not so much connected with where it is. I would be interested to know if a sign like this was genuine or could be enforced wherever it was- not necessarily here or in any Zoopark. Can you forbid smoking in an outdoor area in such a way? ( I don't smoke, just interested)
 
zoogiraffe
Pertinax said:
My query here is now not so much connected with where it is. I would be interested to know if a sign like this was genuine or could be enforced wherever it was- not necessarily here or in any Zoopark. Can you forbid smoking in an outdoor area in such a way? ( I don't smoke, just interested)
Click to expand...
I actually think if somebody was to smoke in the park,they could possibly claim depending on where in the park it was that it isn't a working area for the staff,in which case if the court was to agree with them then the park COULD possibly be in breach of the act,by banning smoking in the whole of the park.
 
Maguari
zoogiraffe said:
I actually think if somebody was to smoke in the park,they could possibly claim depending on where in the park it was that it isn't a working area for the staff,in which case if the court was to agree with them then the park COULD possibly be in breach of the act,by banning smoking in the whole of the park.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have thought there's any legal difficulty at all in having a smoking ban as a condition of entry.

I don't think banning smoking in extra areas on private property is against the Act at all - it just wouldn't be legally enforceable, is all.
 
I
Maguari said:
I wouldn't have thought there's any legal difficulty at all in having a smoking ban as a condition of entry.

I don't think banning smoking in extra areas on private property is against the Act at all - it just wouldn't be legally enforceable, is all.
Click to expand...

I assume that South Lakes' land belongs to David Gill, and as such he is perfectly entitled to say that he does not want people smoking on it. I wouldn't want somebody to come into my house and light a cigarette without asking my permission first. What he's not entitled to do is to say that the law is his authority for enforcing that particular edict.
 

Media information

Category
South Lakes Wild Animal Park
Added by
bongorob
Date added
View count
2,619
Comment count
18
Rating
0.00 star(s) 0 ratings

Share this media

Back
Top