Smokers at Paddington Station

[whole diary]

[ellendune]

I think I find myself more offended by the fact that people are breaking the rules than I am that they are smoking. Leaving aside the rather odd grammar of the signs that say 'This station is a no smoking station' (as opposed to 'This station is a no smoking bowl of petunias'?), I don't see a good reason to ban smoking in open air areas of stations.

I really don't like cigarette smoke, or smoking-related litter, but I'm not sure what legal or operational reason there can be for totally banning smoking in these places.

Many of our station platforms are partly inside and partly outside so it is difficult to define which is which. Also on a crowded platform non-smokers would still have the hazard of breathing in smoke from smokers who are in close proximity. If they cannot realise this then they are as I said selfish. It seems that even though it may not be in the station, the cluster of smokers by the entrance would seem to fall into this category. I am however not sure this really is outside the remit of the BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) as I thought it was the station approach not a public highway.  

Of course at the end of a deserted platform on a country station - I am not bothered.

[grahame]

Personal view - it should be easily possible to enter and leave any service / building / place in the direction you want to go without having to pass through a fog of unhealthy smoke. 

With the exit from Platform 1 now closed, leaving Paddington to get the bus from the front is now (?) through "smoker's alley" or a really long walk around via Paddington Basin. Other exits take you onto the tube or into a taxi. So Paddington with the current arrangements, as not enforced (not enforceable?) is inadequate in this respect.

Another question about that entrance ramp.   Why is there almost always a police vehicle parked on the double yellow lines up near the barrier?   Does the parking law not apply to police vehicles?  If it doesn't, why not, and if it does, should they not set a good example?  [Happy with them parking anywhere in an emergency]

[Electric train]

I agree regarding the smoking area at Padd although most London terminals suffer the same issue, KX is about the only one I've seen controlled perhaps because its new station area.
What can be done about, whilst I am not and never have been a smoker for the railway authorities to be heavy handed about this would cause them unwelcome grief and complaints so my guess is that from time to time they will as people to move.

Another question about that entrance ramp.   Why is there almost always a police vehicle parked on the double yellow lines up near the barrier?   Does the parking law not apply to police vehicles?  If it doesn't, why not, and if it does, should they not set a good example?  [Happy with them parking anywhere in an emergency]

Despite comments earlier in this thread the approach road from Parade St to Plat 8 is a private road the parking restriction is not made under the Local Authority planning but made under by-laws by Network Rail the parking is enforced by BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) or a Network Rail parking attendant. 

Who can remember when you could drive along plat 8 through Paddington Stn?  That was made under (I think the 1937 Highways Act) as a private road an application had to be made by Railtrack to close it, likewise the area above plat 12 Bishops Bridge Rd through to London St and the covered road along side Eastbourne Terr all were private roads

[ChrisB]

The smoking problem was caused by the railway banning smoking anywhere on stations (even at open ends of rural platforms) and not being arsed to provide at the same time for the resultant crowds of smokers....they were warned that this would happen.

There was never going to be the money for any sort of proper enforcement, hence I think this rule was rather silly. If they'd stuck to the general rule of not within enclosed areas/buildings (which the vast majority of dmokers accept & adhere to), they'd have been a lot more successful.

Thanks for the clarification on the PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) acces road, but NR^» (Network Rail - home page) created this concentration if smokers, and its down to them to find an acceptable solution

[eightf48544]

I suppose you could argue that smoking a cigarette will kill them slowly whereas riding a bike on the platform is an immediate danger both to the rider and any pedestrians.

[BerkshireBugsy]

Although I have only smoked one cigarette in my life (over 5 decades) having lived with chain smoker, who smoked 60 senior service a day, I do have first hand experience of them trying  to give the habit up - although I'm not in anyway justifying the specific actions raised in the original post

In an earlier post someone mentioned that the "general smoking in buildings" law covered on enclosed buildings which is why you see a lot of tables outside restaurants and pubs. However if stations are private property does the property owner have the legal right to set the terms of use, including smoking?

For those who have never heard of senior service they were unfiltered cigarettes which I believe you can not buy legally in the uk now. As a boy of 10 I was often sent to the local shops to buy these for my (late) father and in those days no one used to bat an eyelid!

[JayMac]

With the exit from Platform 1 now closed, leaving Paddington to get the bus from the front is now (?) through "smoker's alley" or a really long walk around via Paddington Basin.

Am I alone in going through The Lawn, up the escalators and then through the Hilton Paddington onto Praed St? I find that a quicker route which has a bonus in that it is totally smoke free.

The congregation that worship at the temple of St Nicotiana don't bother me that much, but then I've only recently given up tobacco.

I now get my nicotine fix from an electronic source.

[broadgage]

I cant say that the smokers congregating in or near the station entrance much worry me.
Yes it is a dangerous and expensive habit, but still legal.
I use that entrance regularly, and do not feel that such very brief expousure to tobaco smoke is likely to do me much harm.

And I am a non smoker ! and allways have been.

Where possible I feel that the railway should provide smoking areas, this would be legal and easily achieved at most stations by simply declaring the end of the platform to be a smoking area.

For smoking to be legal, I understand that EITHER the smoking area must be open to the sky, OR it may be roofed provided that at least half the wall area is open.
(or of course open to the sky AND with less than 50% of the sides enclosed)


It would seem that all unroofed platforms comply with this, and many of the roofed ones as well. Smoking in such places is not against the law of the land, but it is against railway bylaws.

The railway are entitled to ban smoking on their property, just as I am entitled to ban smoking in my garden if I so wish.

However just because they CAN ban smoking, that does not mean that so doing is sensible.

[JayMac]

It would seem that all unroofed platforms comply with this, and many of the roofed ones as well. Smoking in such places is not against the law of the land, but it is against railway bylaws.

The byelaws say:

3. Smoking
No person shall smoke or carry a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, match, lighter or other lighted item on any part of the railway on or near which there is a notice indicating that smoking is not allowed.

That part 'on or near which there is a notice' is somewhat ambiguous. If I'm smoking in an unenclosed or substantially unenclosed area where there is no, 'No Smoking' sign, or I have not passed one, have I committed a byelaw offence?

[stuving]

To return to the question of BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) officers' powers, if I may:

I think you'll find that the roadway is public access....the rules are uninforcable as it's not part of the 'station'

In that case, obstructing it will be an offence.
Doing so while smoking may constitute a public nuisance.
I also wonder if the legal concept of "common purpose" could be applied. IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) it is used in some public order cases for groups who come togther to do something without prior arrangement.
I'm sure BTP powers are not restricted in any narrow cadastral sense to "transport" property.

I said I was sure of this because I was told ages ago that all police officers - even MoD ones ("Mod-plods") had the same personal policing powers. That means they can tell you to do X, Y or Z, and arguing they are "out of area" is not going to do you any good. That sounds to me like the kind of legal ides that is not readily altered. The power is meant to be for urgent action where referring to control and to the police hierarchy is not possible (an "out of area" officer is not part of the right hierarchy, so cannot do that, of course), and in practice its use is limited to that.

Wikipedia's page on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Transport_Police seems to be solidly based on quotes from the statutes, and I'd rather not plough through those to check (done too much of that recently). In the list of places where BTP officers have "all the power and privileges of a constable", I can see at least three that can apply to a station approach:

• in a station, (any land or other property which consists of premises used as, or for the purposes of, or otherwise in connection with, a railway passenger station or railway passenger terminal (including any approaches, forecourt, cycle store or car park), whether or not the land or other property is, or the premises are, also used for other purposes)
• on other land used for purposes of or in relation to a railway
• throughout Great Britain for a purpose connected to a railway or to anything occurring on or in relation to a railway.

Note that it is use, not ownership of property that counts (though property owned by a railway is also included). Thus the access road does not need to be private.

In addition, police forces can agree to vary these demarcation lines. Also, they can give each other permission to act in specific circumstances. I suspect that reinforcing police authority may be such a case. What I have in mind is that some apprentice tearaway does something minor - smoking, littering, etc., specifically as a challenge to the authority of an out of area officer, with a spoken or unspoken "you can't touch me" taunt. I can well see that ACPO might conclude that all officers should be given reciprocal powers to enforce in such a case.

Should they bother about milling hordes of smokers? On the grounds of smoking itself probably not, but for obstruction yes, if they think its benefit would outweigh the actual cost (in time) and any cost in annoying people who only contributing slightly to the problem. I'm assuming that the Met., if asked whether they insist on taking over such a task, would say "oh no, please do go ahead and spend your own budget". They may validly resist on the grounds of the annoyance factor, which would affect them too, of course.

[JayMac]

I was under the impression that a BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) Police Officer has the same powers as any Constable. Meaning they can uphold the law anywhere in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom).

[stuving]

Yes, but ... I think the point is that an officer can only reasonably act without reference to superiors within his force to save life, apprehend a criminal, or if he sees a serious crime being committed. It is when referring to superiors comes into it (even just "should I do X or keep on doing what I was sent to do?") that having the wrong superiors makes it impossible in practice to act out of area. Read the Wikipedia page - carefully - for more of the subtleties.

[JayMac]

The seriousness of the offence doesn't come into it, or referring to superiors, according to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001:

Part 10 Police Powers
<snip>
100 Jurisdiction of transport police

(1)Where a member of the British Transport Police Force has been requested by a constable of^

  (a)the police force for any police area,
  (b)the Ministry of Defence Police, or
  (c)the Civil Nuclear Constabulary,

to assist him in the execution of his duties in relation to a particular incident, investigation or operation, members of the British Transport Police Force have for the purposes of that incident, investigation or operation the same powers and privileges as constables of the requesting force.

(2)Members of the British Transport Police Force have in any police area the same powers and privileges as constables of the police force for that police area^

  (a)in relation to persons whom they suspect on reasonable grounds of having committed, being in the course  of committing or being about to commit an offence, or
  (b)if they believe on reasonable grounds that they need those powers and privileges in order to save life or to prevent or minimise personal injury.

(3)But members of the British Transport Police Force have powers and privileges by virtue of subsection (2) only if^

 (a)they are in uniform or have with them documentary evidence that they are members of that Force, and
 (b)they believe on reasonable grounds that a power of a constable which they would not have apart from that  subsection ought to be exercised and that, if it cannot be exercised until they secure the attendance of or a request under subsection (1) by a constable who has it, the purpose for which they believe it ought to be exercised will be frustrated or seriously prejudiced.

So, someone committing an offence, or being suspected of committing an offence, outside railway property, and/or unrelated to the railway, can be arrested by a BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) officer acting alone as long as said officer is in uniform and carrying his warrant card, and can't get help from a local officer without the course of justice being frustrated. The seriousness of the offence, or suspected offence doesn't appear, from the legislation, to matter.

Regarding superior officers, it appears that the ACPO Policing Protocol is after the fact, with BTP's Chief Constable, only being required to notify the local Chief Constable as soon as reasonably practicable where a BTP office has used his powers as a Constable away from his natural jurisdiction.

[stuving]

(b)they believe on reasonable grounds that a power of a constable which they would not have apart from that  subsection ought to be exercised and that, if it cannot be exercised until they secure the attendance of or a request under subsection (1) by a constable who has it, the purpose for which they believe it ought to be exercised will be frustrated or seriously prejudiced.

I'd watch out for the bit of the legal text where the weasels live - that's a seriously difficult sentence, and needs reading several times to make any sense at all. It also has these (bold) subjective bits in it. The officer's belief as to what ought to be done will be based on training and force policy, and the seriousness of the offence will be relevant to his judgement.

In practical terms, the personal power covers only instances where a local officer would leap out of his car or break into a run without using a radio first, and not 100% of those. Once he's on the radio, it's not down to his personal interpretation of these clauses. After all, the text is clear enough that an officer only acts in this way because it has not been possible to for a territorial officer to attend.

I still think the takeaway message is that all police officers have the same powers vis-a-vis any member of the public; and the rest is about precedence between police forces, is not all set out in statute, and it would be unwise to disobey an officer based on your own interpretation of how it ought to work.

[JayMac]

Indeed.

So if a BTP^▸ (British Transport Police) officer was to tell me I, and a large group of others, were causing an obstruction by standing outside railway property (not that I believe the access road at Paddington is off railway property) and having a smoke, I'd move on.

I'd not question his authority to do so.