Thats funny , when returning back from the park today with my dog , 2 people passed me , both were smoking!!

Beddington and Wallington are acting illegally in imposing this ban in public parks.

Public parks, are not covered by the law, which clearly states that smoking is not allowed in any indoor public place. Sutton councillors would do well to read the current laws on this, and to note that "indoor" means exactly that. It does not mean, nor cover, outdoor areas.

Public parks, are paid for through local taxes, and are there to be used by the general public as a whole. They are not there to be used just by the privileged few, who happen to agree with a very unfair law which has been passed, but which is not even covered under the existing law.

I am sure everyone agrees that we want and need, to protect our children, but wrapping children in cotton wool, to protect them from fictitious harm, is not the way to go about it.

Most sensible minded people know that so called "passive smoking" does not cause any harm at all. It was a term invented by a group of fanatics in Nazi Germany in the 1930s, under Adolf Hitler, who was fiercely opposed to smoking, and used in their propaganda war against smoking. The Nazis of course, had to give up on their action against smokers, when war became prevalent, and Hitler knew that stopping his troops from smoking could cause a great deal of problem for him.
In the last few years however, our own fanatics have taken up the cause where Hitler left off, and today we are seeing the devastating effects these fanatics are causing to ordinary people's way of life, and indeed, to the many businesses being forced to close down because of it.
Any council, which sets itself up to impose a new restrictive law upon its citizens, based entirely upon a supposition, as Councillor Bruce Glithero, apparently did, when he complained that passive smoking left his daughter spluttering, should be investigated, and an enquiry set up as to the legality of such a move.
I wonder if Councillor Bruce Glithero's daughter, also "splutters" when walking near heavy traffic? And if she does so, would the Councillor then decide to pass yet another new law, outlawing that as well?

They state that the decision was taken on Tuesday night after consultation showed 84 per cent of residents backed a trial scheme at Beddington Park.

I am sorry but I do not believe these figures. I know several families who live in this area, and not one of them has been consulted on this. The figure of 84% means absolutely nothing.

The population of Sutton, taken in 1991 (17 years ago) was 168,880, which has obviously increased tremendously since then. If 84% of this population figure had now voted for this course of action, we would have seen no less than 141,58 residents in favour of it, instead of which, our local law makers, have a grand figure of just 414 votes registered in favour of the ban. Hardly democracy at work this, I would say.

Sorry Councillor Glithero, and Councillor Jayne McCoy, your figures are absolutely meaningless and lend no credulity to your story whatsoever.

Give the people of Sutton their park back at once, you have acted in an underhand and illegal fashion.

P.S to post above: I quoted a figure of 141,58 residents, who would have been in favour of this.
This was a typ, the actual figure should have been 141,859.

I don't remember seeing any studies that say passive smoking is dangerous in the open air. Sounds like PC nonsense to me, and unenforceable as the Tory councillor points out.

More money-wasting by the Lib Dems.

When is a ban not a ban? When it's a voluntary, crowd-pleasing fudge.

This kind of thing reminds me of the "loony left" councils in the 1980s who made their boroughs "nuclear free zones", despite having absolutely no powers to enforce it.

More here:

http://adrianshort.c
o.uk/2008/10/13/138/

I lived in Wallington for 30 years,many of those a smoker,I have not smoked for 7 years but have no wish to stop others enjoying their pleasure.I moved to Spain a year ago to get away from from this small mindedness.

What a ridiculous idea. Smoking is not illegal outside so this isn't a ban at all. What will no doubt happen is that angry confrontations will now become common in our parks as the more easily-panicked take it upon themselves to confront someone minding their own business smoking a cigarette.

It is petty and interfering. Perhaps we should instead introduce a ban on councillors who come up with half-baked, bossy and unnecessary rules such as this.

I don't smoke, I think people who do are fools to themselves, but it's up to them as long as they don't harm others, which they certainly won't do in somewhere like a park.

It is pure spiteful prejudice against smokers. Parks are for all of us, not just those deemed righteous or worthy.