Sir.-I am deeply concerned to read of how the PC brigade wish not only to deny people the right to smoke in specially-assigned smoking rooms at the borough council but also prevent anyone from doing so in the area surrounding the buildings.

Whatever next? Will they ban people with brown shoes or red ties from walking through the campus? Will skirts be measured for length or short trousers rendered compulsory?

Some complain that smokers spend too much time away from their desks while having a smoke, but perhaps we should also study just how effectively those complaining non-smokers actually work themselves.

Should we stop them from attending the patently unhealthy Friday fry-up, browsing the internet, drinking alcohol or eating meat? Perhaps we should give them each a bottle or bed-pan in case they have weak bladders?

For historical reasons, smoking tends to be more prevalent among people of more mature years who have earned the right to do so.

Here is an opportunity for the borough council to show it respects all of its employees and not just the designer trendies.

Smoker or not - their next target could be you!

-Michael Brook, Merlin Mead, Basingstoke.

Sir.-We would like to express our support and encouragement for Cllr Harry Robinson's stand against the "nanny state" smoking ban proposed for the Civic Offices.

We infer from his actions that he is against smoking bans in general, and, therefore, has similar opinions to us.

We intend to resist such moves in the future and take the consequences.

As a hospital doctor and an employee of the local county council, we are both intelligent beings and totally refute the propaganda presented by the BMA, the Government and anti-smoking groups relating to "passive smoking".

We make our own decisions whether to smoke or not, knowing that there are probably some risks to us, although greatly overestimated.

We are also responsible individuals and would not smoke in enclosed or underventilated areas if we thought we were harming others.

We are both Conservative voters, and would be happy to assist Cllr Robinson, or join him, if appropriate, in any protests he thinks reasonable.

-Names and address withheld.

Sir.-I suggest that smokers should be given small rooms to smoke in, labelled "euthanasia rooms", and national health facilities be withdrawn for smoking-related deseases.

That way, these dinosaur thinkers will become extinct and we can all breathe freely.

-John Bailey, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Sir.-Basingstoke hospital is a no-smoking establishment.

Would it therefore be hypocritical of Harry Robinson to start using the services there should he start to suffer any side effects of smoking 20 a day?

-Name and address withheld.

Sir.-I would like to point out a few things to Cllr Robinson.

So you think being forced to walk 20 yards to have a cigarette contravenes your human rights? What about the right to have a roof over your head, or the right to a decent pension after 50 years hard work?

What about the right to be able to afford to provide for your family?

These are all things I believe the local councillors should be dealing with.

Cllr Robinson makes front page news because he seemingly doesn't want to get cold when forced to be considerate to non-smokers.

I would have been more impressed had he instead announced a tax cut or a low-cost homes programme.

If smoking is all he cares passionately about, then I believe he is not fit to be a councillor.

-Gary Stoessel, Black Dam, Basingstoke.

Sir.-From a libertarian point of view, Mr Robinson should be allowed to kill himself in a fashion that he chooses, as long as it affects no one else but him.

Smoking outside should affect no one else, apart from the unsightly "gangs" of people.

From a practical point of view, in these times of greater knowledge and understanding of the causes of illness and disease, we should look to our councillors to lead by example and publicly give up smoking for the greater good and health of the community.

-Simon Eagle, Little London.

Sir.-I have been a smoker since I was 16 years old - and I am now 68.

I, as an individual, have no objections to no smoking in office areas where other people work, provided that a smoking room is available for those who do.

We smokers are always being got at, with people saying that it is costing the NHS money to deal with the after-effects.

What about the drinkers who cause trouble in hospitals after a night of drinking and the need for police to attend problems caused by drinkers?

I wonder what would happen if the landlord of a bar was heavily fined if the police were to catch one of his customers drunk and causing trouble, or if his licence was taken away after three "yellow cards" were given to him.

If research was carried out, I believe the cost - in money and manpower terms - to central and local government for dealing with drinking problems would be higher than dealing with smokers.

-George Rose, Basingstoke.