Comments by Les Lane

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

It was my understanding that smoking in vehicles was only banned where it was a company vehicle which would be used by more thanone user or if they were carrying colleagues in the the vehicle on business.

If as it seems in this case he was on his own in his own private vehicle then how is this impacting on other people at work which is what the no Smoking bill was supposed to be about ( the effects of passive smoking).

If this is the case that you can not smoke in any vehicle then from what I see on the roads councils will be in for a real cash windfall.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

Scored 95% but needed 2 attempts at at least half. Guess we all need to be more aware of signs that we dont use everyday.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

We run a fleet of 73 leased vehicles and have adopted a policy where drivers are only recharged if damage is caused through a negligent act such as putting the wrong fuel in losing the keys by leaving them somewhere etc.

The circumastances of each incident are investigated by me as the Fleet Manager and finally decided by the Company Secretary. To date we have never had to invoke this since it introduction in 2006, where as previously drivers wouldjust go ahead and claim for any damge arising.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

Given in anaother debate on this forum about ASDA charging for abuse of parking in Mother and Child and disabled bays is this a ploy to recover the fines and obvious work needed to improve their safety in car parks?

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

Communication and definition are key to this. Under the terms of the DDA any one who has been asessed as having a special educational need for at least 12 months is considered as disabled. This may be only a low level of need in needing help with readinf etc. Does this mean they can park later in life as a disabled person even though this does not impair their mobility.

I would not abuse such parking spaces but it does seem that in many places these provisions are disproportinate to the number of spaces available to the general user.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

It seems to me that the posts above are missing the main point of this. This man has had his licence revoked and the inference is because he let people smoke in his pub. In reality it appears this was only one breach among others such as allowing under age drinking, breaches of security and others.

This seems to be the press sensationlising licence lost as a rebellion against smoking rather than I suspect the police would have had sufficient grounds to object to a licence with out this.

Lets not make this person a hero for standing up for smokers when he clearly has no regard to the law.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

Now that Mr Hair has dropped his case on the basis he may be considerd for Test matches again after March, was this just a way of forcing the ICC to reconsider his pasition as an umpire and nothing to do with a claim of discrimination?

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

Why stop at the instances above. If this is the case that being able to hear a radio then what about the cars being driven with stereos blaring out? If I have colleagues in the car is this also a public performence? The possibilities are endless. Have the PRS got nothing better to do?

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

In test cricket there is always one of the on field umpires who is senior and would take the lead in decisions such as this. Darell Hair I am sure would have been senior to his partner. Who made the decision to award the game when Pakistan would not play on and who decided the ball had been tampered with. If it was Hair then he should live with the consequences of his actions and allegations when it was found there was no evidence of the ball being tampered with.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

A lot of how you will prove the car was for one person only will come from your car policy. If you state the car is issued to that person for their sole use then that would be accepted.

If like in our policy it just says you will be supplied with a vehicle to carry oput the duties then this allows us to manage the fleet and move cars round.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

I would disagree with Phillip's view on useing private cars as My interpretation is that if the private vehicle is used even on an occasional basis then this is deemed as a workplace and smoking should be banned.

This only goes to show that once again we have legislation introduced that fails to be explicit in its requirements and leads to endless debate amongst the poor individuals who have to ensure the law is implemented.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

If the dog ends are dropped on the street this could be classed as littering and in some areas liable for a fine. The smokers will have to dispose of the cigareetes without littering so will need their own portable ash tray.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

We have a fleet of cars which are issued to drivers and they are allowed to use them for private use. With the new regulations from July it is indicated company cars are deemed to be non smoking if they might be used by more than one person.

From time to time we may reallocate vehicles in the interests of good fleet mamangement.

Do we have to impose a smoking ban in our vehicles and what do we do about when they are being driven privately. Also some staff use their own vehicles in return for payment of an allowance. Will this apply to them as well. I need to consider how many no smoking signs I will need to supply before they all sell out.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

I agreee with Phil. Anyone who was at at the Workplace Law Legal Update Conference this weekwould have heard it said again that the DDA is about people and access to goods and services and not buildings.

Too much is spent on introducing fancy additions and alterations and not enough about focusing on how the service is delivered.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

This is clearly a situation where the GP has no idea of the persons job and what it entails. To say he could come back to work if he is careful clearly calls into question the attitude of the GP who is just giving his 4 minutes worth to the person.

On the other habd some people can get thir GPs to sign whatever they ask and get sick notes for the most obscure reasons.

I would agree that an independant Occupatinal Health specialst is best placed to decide what this person is capable of and what risks he presents to himself and the employer by coming back on such a wishy washy statement.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

In a similar vein to Philips comment as the police seem either unwilling or unable to enforce the law on using mobile phones then how wil they ever be able to implement this one.

As my vehicle fleet is spread all over the country and drivers have the car for private as well as work use then this will be impossible to enforce. I welcome any attempt to limit this but once again we seem to have legislation that will be almost impossible to enforce.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

The key phrase in John's comments seem to Company sponsored party. My understanding from all the articles I have read is that if the company has sposored the party in any way then this is an extension of the workplace.

It seems the only way that this would not produce the vicarious liability is if staff do the arranging totally outside of company involvement or input to cost.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

I am looking to check the rebuild values of the proprties in our portfolio. Does any one know the current rebuild figures issued by RICS. The only info I can find on the web points towards buying books at around £200 per time.

I would welcome any help anyone can give.

Les Lane
Member - 49 posts

Surely in this case Boxing Day is not a religious holiday as I understand the only christain religious holidays are Good Friday and Christamas day. Other days are in fact public holidays not related to religion.

The comments from the barrister therefore are wrong as no one would be expected to attend a disciplinary on a public holiday.