It is widely being reported that government ministers are facing huge calls by peers this week to put a ban on smoking outside pubs, bars and restaurants.
Ministers are being urged to address outdoor smoking and the uses of designated smoking areas in the interest of public health as “pavement drinks”, alfresco dining and outdoor socialising continues to be widely embraced by many hospitality establishments after post-lockdown reopenings amid the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.
A group of cross-party peers are believed to be set to challenge ministers in Parliament today during a debate on emergency planning legislation and are set to force a vote on the issue next week.
According to The i, the peers are to table an amendment to the Business and Planning Bill which stipulates that pavement licences should only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is banned.
Deborah Arnott, the Chief Executive of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), said: “Making smoke-free status a condition for all pavement licences sets a level playing field for business and the public, and has strong public support, which will make it easy to enforce.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Alison Cox, Director of Prevention at Cancer Research UK, added that: “The pandemic has changed the way we live and most of us are spending more time outside, but being stuck in a queue or outside a café, escaping second hand smoke isn’t an easy option anymore.”
“Second-hand smoke is harmful and can be unpleasant to those nearby and smoke-free environments are important in protecting people and denormalising smoking in society.”
ADVERTISEMENT
As many streets in Manchester city centre, primarily in the Northern Quarter and surrounding areas, have become temporarily pedestrianised to allow for additional al-fresco dining/drinking tables in the name of social distancing, and with similar set-ups seen throughout the boroughs too, is outdoor smoking becoming something of a growing concern to patrons in our county?
Here at The Manc, we always want to know where you stand.
Ahead of a parliamentary decision, we were keen to find out whether a ban would be be supported, or viewed as unnecessary in Greater Manchester, so we took to our audience of loyal Mancunians on Facebook and Twitter to ask – ‘Do you think smoking should be banned outside restaurants/bars?’
ADVERTISEMENT
Here’s what you said:
___
Facebook
Over on Facebook, we put the question to our 500,000+ followers and invited all manner of response.
We received an overwhelmingly active response from our audience to this question and therefore haven’t been able to include every single comment in this article. Instead, we chose to feature a range of responses which seemed to resonate best with others and amass the most interactions overall.
If you are keen to have a read of the rest of the responses and have your say, you can head on over to the post on our Facebook page here.
ADVERTISEMENT
___
Twitter
When it came to Twitter, we chose to ask the simple ‘yes/no’ question, and in the two-hour time frame to which the poll was running for, we received a total of 1,034 votes.
According to the standings, voting appeared closer than ever.
Whilst results were running neck and neck throughout the majority of the two-hour period, they finally edged over and signalled that voters feel a ban on smoking outside of pubs, bars and restaurants in England is not necessary and should not take effect.
51% of voters felt a ban would not be needed under current circumstances, whereas only 49% indicated they would like to see one put in place.
ADVERTISEMENT
Follow-up responses to this poll were also invited and can be viewed here.
Are you keen to have your say?
If you’ve not yet had the chance to respond our poll, then there is still time to head on over to @TheMancUK on Twitter to take part, leave your thoughts and discuss matters with other Mancunians in the same, or different positions to you.
Do you think smoking should be banned outside of pubs and restaurants?
The Manc is helping local businesses and venues get back on their feet after lockdown with our #BuzzingToBeBack campaign – offering as much support and exposure for Manchester hospitality as possible.
Read more about what we’re doing for the industry here.
ADVERTISEMENT
___
For the latest information, guidance and support during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in the UK, please do refer to the gov.uk website here.
#StaySafeSaveLives
Trending
Salford Red Devils granted another adjournment over unpaid debts
Danny Jones
Salford Red Devils have been given one more adjournment and yet another stay of execution, being given another two weeks to find the money to cover their unpaid debts.
The local rugby league side, which has been wrapped in all manner of struggles both on and off-pitch over the past year or so, reportedly needs to pay around £700,000 to HMRC alone and still owes roughly £5 million in total to various creditors.
To no surprise, regular matchgoers, neutrals and even rivals alike have expressed their continued disappointment with the club, mainly at the lack of transparency and clarity from the organisation throughout this long, drawn-out process.
This is coming from a wire fan but no club deserves to be left in the dark even longer than they already have done it’s nothing but a disgrace to the sport of rugby those owners and the court should be ashamed of themselves.
Updating fans on social media, this is all the information they have communicated at this time: “Salford Red Devils can confirm that HMRC have granted the club a two-week adjournment, providing additional time in which to secure the necessary funds.
“We would like to reassure supporters that we are working tirelessly behind the scenes to ensure a positive resolution. Further updates will be shared as soon as possible.”
It’s worth noting that the current owners have reiterated that they inheited around £3m in existing debt before they took over the club, but assurances over their own investments have still come to nothing; meanwhile, with many still waiting on wages, players and staff alike have now left.
Having been propped up by loan players and emergency loans, the team is now closer to a skeleton crew than it is an outfit capable of competing in the premier division.
Either way, the outrage remains and is only growing stronger. One user wrote on X: “A good approach by them if they was legit would be to engage and bring in The 1873 to bridge the communication black hole (they created).
“The problem with that is if they did it would expose them for what they are… Extortionists using the club as a vehicle.”
More alarm bells were raised recently when assistant coach and Krisnan Inu – who was also director of the company set up to take over the business – withdrew himself from a key position behind the scenes.
Speaking of The 1873, the outspoken supporters trust took no time at all in issuing a response of their own, adding: “The judge presiding over today’s case has adjourned by 14 days. This adjournment has dragged the uncertainty on even longer.
“Every delay makes planning for 2026 harder and keeps the club stuck in limbo when it desperately needs clarity and direction.
“The fans, the players and the future all deserve better — The 1873.”
You can see the rest of their statement in full down below, but for now, what do you make of this seemingly neverending saga, Salfordians?
Andy Aspinall issues update on Tom’s eye poke injury and calls for changes in the UFC
Danny Jones
Andy Aspinall – father of Manc martial artist Tom Aspinall – has shared a lengthy video interview on his son’s YouTube channel discussing the latest regarding his son’s eye injury.
More importantly, as a concerned parent, he’s also called for better safeguarding and/or tighter rules in the UFC regarding fouls and, in particular, eye poking.
In case you missed it, this past weekend, the Greater Manchester MMA star took on French fighter Ciryl Gane in his first title defence since being named the undisputed heavyweight champion. Unfortunately, the main event match had to be cut short after Aspinall was left unable to see following an eye poke.
Although this is an illegal move in the sport, not only could it not be proved whether it was accidental or perhaps even intentional, as some have speculated on social media, but the only outcome was for the bout to end in a no-contest. Updating fans online, Andy reiterated priorities, dubbing this “just a job”.
🚨BREAKING🚨
Tom Aspinall “𝙎𝙏𝙄𝙇𝙇 𝘾𝘼𝙉’𝙏 𝙎𝙀𝙀” out of his right eye following Ciryl Gane’s double eye poke at UFC 321, his dad Andy has revealed 😳
“His right eye, he still can't see anything.He said it's just grey.
As you can see in the main clip above, Andy says that the Atherton-born fighter still “can’t see anything” out of his right eye, describing his sight as little more than “just grey”; meanwhile, his left eye is said to be at roughly 50% vision, having struggled to get more than a few rows down on a Snellen chart.
Essentially, the short version is that after the pain of the controversial eye poke, the muscles in his eye still aren’t healed and will be going for even more eye tests, including an eye test.
However, arguably the most salient points to take away from the video were those regarding his son’s overall welfare and the safety of the sport, as it is clear that Andy was talking chiefly as an understandably worried father rather than his coach.
“For me, everything is about his health. It’s not about the fighting – that’s just what he chose to do as a job”, he says, also clarifying that he isn’t accusing Gane of any ill intent, personally, and that the referees need to have more powers when it comes to fouling.
He also reminded those watching that the Wigan native has a wife and three kids to think about, stating, “This is just a job that he’s doing at this period in time, and he’ll do another job”, before going on to add, “What [will] it take?” for the UFC to get stricter around fouls like these.
You can watch the most recent update on Tom Aspinall from his dad, Andy, in full down below.
Andy Aspinall also had plenty to say in terms of what the UFC can do to better protect fighters/improve the rules.
Andy also made a point of suggesting once again that Tom should maybe turn to boxing instead of MMA, not only because of the added safety measures but because of the bigger paydays.
Do you think the UFC needs to be more stringent when it comes to not only protecting its fighters but also the rules and punishments surrounding serious fouls, such as eye pokes?
AND, alternatively, do you think Tom Aspinall would be well-suited to a boxing ring?
In the immediate aftermath of the injury, he was the first to admit that “this is a dangerous f***ing sport”; whether or not coming this close to permanent damage has made him reconsider, only time will tell.
Emily Sergeant -
13th July 2020 
