UKIP

[curMUDGEon]

In a GBG listed pub the other day I picked up a "SAVE OUR PUBS" beermat published by UKIP. and I quote ;
" Standing up for our pubs,
- UKIP won the fight to keep the pint - no EU half-litres to shortchange you !
- Support traditional beers - cut tax on real ales.
-Let the landlord decide whether to allow separate smoking rooms. "

Discuss !!!

[PeterE]

See this video by Nigel Farage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLb2a4OXyHQ

[Mr_P]

In a GBG listed pub the other day I picked up a "SAVE OUR PUBS" beermat published by UKIP. and I quote ;
" Standing up for our pubs,
- UKIP won the fight to keep the pint - no EU half-litres to shortchange you !
- Support traditional beers - cut tax on real ales.
-Let the landlord decide whether to allow separate smoking rooms. "

Discuss !!!

Yes I saw one of those last year just before the election. All I can say is they've been strangely silent whenever there's been any pub campaigns on the go.

[Real Mild Child]

curMUDGEon wrote:
In a GBG listed pub the other day I picked up a "SAVE OUR PUBS" beermat published by UKIP. and I quote ;
" Standing up for our pubs,
- UKIP won the fight to keep the pint - no EU half-litres to shortchange you !
- Support traditional beers - cut tax on real ales.
-Let the landlord decide whether to allow separate smoking rooms. "

Discuss !!!

Really it should be CAMRA not UKIP won the fight to keep the pint - no EU half-litres to shortchange you !

Let the landlord decide whether to allow separate smoking rooms. No let us not, they should have helped CAMRA, by keeping all the rooms in the Pubs that they have.

[munrobasher]

Let the landlord decide whether to allow separate smoking rooms. No let us not, they should have helped CAMRA, by keeping all the rooms in the Pubs that they have.

I really do usually say "Let people run their own lives" but on this subject I'm torn. The biggest problem to the separate room idea is concern for the people who work there who don't, in fairness, have a choice whether they go into a smoke filled room to collect glasses etc. Yes I know you could insist that the smokers return glasses or that it's only tidied up after hours but would that work in practise?

Cheers, Rob.

[Richard English]

When pubs had the option to have separate rooms for smokers, with a proper non-smoking area, my experience of pubs in my area as that almost all of them (with the exception of Wetherspoon) simply put up the sign (which I assume was mandatory) that declared: "Smoking Policy - smoking is permitted throughout". Thus they kept to the letter of the law, but not, of course, its spirit.

Which is why the legislation was introduced to protect the needs of the majority of Britain's population that does not smoke. Had the licensed trade "played the game" then we would probably now have the smoking/non-smoking accommodation. But they didn't, and we don't. And we won't. There is no reason at all why the government, having introduced the legislation, should change it in response to the moans of a small minority.

Incidentally, I have spoken to several smokers and asked them if the new legislation had changed their pubgoing habits and, without a single exception, all have said it has not. When they want a smoke, they go out, get their fix and come back in five minutes later. I have never - even in these columns - heard of a smoker who now refuses to use pubs at all, consequent on this legislation - despite the doomladen claims of the smoking supporters who used once to post here.

[PeterE]

I really do usually say "Let people run their own lives" but on this subject I'm torn. The biggest problem to the separate room idea is concern for the people who work there who don't, in fairness, have a choice whether they go into a smoke filled room to collect glasses etc. Yes I know you could insist that the smokers return glasses or that it's only tidied up after hours but would that work in practise?

Well, people are still allowed to smoke in their own cells/rooms in prisons, care homes, hotels and private houses. And others are allowed to work there.

In my experience a large majority of bar staff are smokers anyway.

The idea that brief exposure to very stale tobacco fumes is going to be injurious to health is in any case utterly ludicrous.

[Richard English]

I really do usually say "Let people run their own lives" but on this subject I'm torn. The biggest problem to the separate room idea is concern for the people who work there who don't, in fairness, have a choice whether they go into a smoke filled room to collect glasses etc. Yes I know you could insist that the smokers return glasses or that it's only tidied up after hours but would that work in practise?

Well, people are still allowed to smoke in their own cells/rooms in prisons, care homes, hotels and private houses. And others are allowed to work there.

In my experience a large majority of bar staff are smokers anyway.

The idea that brief exposure to very stale tobacco fumes is going to be injurious to health is in any case utterly ludicrous.

1. I think you will find that people are not allowed to smoke in places where others work.

2. Your supposition about bar staff is just that - supposition. And they can't smoke in their workplace.

3. Exposure to stale tobacco fumes may or may not be injurious to health - just as exposure to the smell of raw sewage is probably quite safe. It doesn't mean that it's very pleasant, though.

[Dick Puddlecote]

Had the licensed trade "played the game" then we would probably now have the smoking/non-smoking accommodation.

Personal insult removed by moderator

If CAMRA 'played the game', they'd be calling for graphic pictures of drink ravaged livers on all beer packaging. The anti-alcohol lobby are already demanding a ban on all drinks advertising and quoting France as a precedent, and the duty escalator has already marked you out as someone to be stamped out. When will you get this? You are being denormalised just as smokers have been. We're not talking 'if' anymore, but 'when'.

Incidentally, I have spoken to several smokers and asked them if the new legislation had changed their pubgoing habits and, without a single exception, all have said it has not.

I hear you. And I can quite believe your narrowly-experienced anecdote.

Your supposition about bar staff is just that - supposition.

Shame you can't extend the same courtesy to others who have experiences different to yours.

Carry on appeasing, Richard, but might I suggest that such an approach only encourages the people who are using the same tactics to attack your personal preferences and that if you don't change tack, you're going to live to regret it?

Good grief.

[Dick Puddlecote]

Personal insult removed by moderator

[Richard English]

I will give your rant the courtesy of a reply - although it scarecly deserves it. The licensed trade was given the chance to make provision for both smokers and non-smokers - it didn't do so and therefore lost the chance for this kind of self-regulation. So the law had to step in so that the health, comfort and general well-being of the vast majority of the population was looked after.

Your comments about the anti-alcohol groups have much validity - but I have been talking about the smoking ban. To try to equate the activities of the teetotal lobby with the activities of the anti-smoking lobby is daft - and takes attention from where it should be focussed - on the threat to beer and pubs. I - and many other concerned drinkers - are using every effort to counter the anti-alcohol propaganda. Are you? Or are you diluting your efforts by trying to reverse a decision that won't be reversed? The anti-smoking lobby has won - and all but that minority who smoke (and FOREST of course - do you work for them perchance) accept this. Public smoking has gone - along with bear baiting and public hanging - and a darned good thing too.

And, insofar as your childish comment about my being murdered is concerned - I can believe that of you - after all, you used to murder people daily when when you forced them to inhale your poison by smoking in enclosed spaces.

[old_snudgie]

When pubs had the option to have separate rooms for smokers, with a proper non-smoking area, my experience of pubs in my area as that almost all of them (with the exception of Wetherspoon) simply put up the sign (which I assume was mandatory) that declared: "Smoking Policy - smoking is permitted throughout". Thus they kept to the letter of the law, but not, of course, its spirit.

Which is why the legislation was introduced to protect the needs of the majority of Britain's population that does not smoke. Had the licensed trade "played the game" then we would probably now have the smoking/non-smoking accommodation. But they didn't, and we don't. And we won't. There is no reason at all why the government, having introduced the legislation, should change it in response to the moans of a small minority....


....The licensed trade was given the chance to make provision for both smokers and non-smokers - it didn't do so and therefore lost the chance for this kind of self-regulation. So the law had to step in so that the health, comfort and general well-being of the vast majority of the population was looked after.....

Richard is still in denial and trying to rewrite history. The reason pubs did not provide non-smoking areas is because there was not much demand for it, it is not exactly good business to spend money on facilities that not only will not bring in extra trade (apart from Mrs English as we have been told before) but are also likely to reduce space for or alienate your existing customers. When market forces failed to provide what the health facists wanted their nanny state socialist friends did it for them. With that success behind them you can see how they're attacking drinking, Labour's alcohol duty escalator (ably supported by the coalition) for example.

Dick Puddlecote's point was that the anti-smoking lobby and the anti-drink lobby is the same group of health facists and they are using the same tactics against drink as they did with smoking; misinformation, lies, misuse of statistics, selective quoting. The trouble is people believe this tripe the way they still believe it about smoking. And yes we will be accused of being "murderers" when they find a way to make the passive-drinking charge stick, it failed last time they tried but that won't stop them trying it again, after all it was the "killer lie" with smoking. Remember "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth".

Please tell us Richard the ways you are doing more than a well known campaigner like Dick Puddlecote to combat the neo-pro's.

One last point, if the large band of non-smokers who were just dying to go to the pub but were put off by nasty, smelly, smoke actually existed where are they now and why are so many pubs closing through lack of customers? And I will say it again, the majority of the population doesn't smoke, neither does it go to pubs, but before the ban I found in most pubs a majority of customers smoked, sometimes as many as 90%. So which minority was it imposing their views on a majority?

[Richard English]

When pubs had the option to have separate rooms for smokers, with a proper non-smoking area, my experience of pubs in my area as that almost all of them (with the exception of Wetherspoon) simply put up the sign (which I assume was mandatory) that declared: "Smoking Policy - smoking is permitted throughout". Thus they kept to the letter of the law, but not, of course, its spirit.

Which is why the legislation was introduced to protect the needs of the majority of Britain's population that does not smoke. Had the licensed trade "played the game" then we would probably now have the smoking/non-smoking accommodation. But they didn't, and we don't. And we won't. There is no reason at all why the government, having introduced the legislation, should change it in response to the moans of a small minority....


....The licensed trade was given the chance to make provision for both smokers and non-smokers - it didn't do so and therefore lost the chance for this kind of self-regulation. So the law had to step in so that the health, comfort and general well-being of the vast majority of the population was looked after.....

Richard is still in denial and trying to rewrite history. The reason pubs did not provide non-smoking areas is because there was not much demand for it, it is not exactly good business to spend money on facilities that not only will not bring in extra trade (apart from Mrs English as we have been told before) but are also likely to reduce space for or alienate your existing customers. When market forces failed to provide what the health facists wanted their nanny state socialist friends did it for them. With that success behind them you can see how they're attacking drinking, Labour's alcohol duty escalator (ably supported by the coalition) for example.

Dick Puddlecote's point was that the anti-smoking lobby and the anti-drink lobby is the same group of health facists and they are using the same tactics against drink as they did with smoking; misinformation, lies, misuse of statistics, selective quoting. The trouble is people believe this tripe the way they still believe it about smoking. And yes we will be accused of being "murderers" when they find a way to make the passive-drinking charge stick, it failed last time they tried but that won't stop them trying it again, after all it was the "killer lie" with smoking. Remember "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth".

Please tell us Richard the ways you are doing more than a well known campaigner like Dick Puddlecote to combat the neo-pro's.

One last point, if the large band of non-smokers who were just dying to go to the pub but were put off by nasty, smelly, smoke actually existed where are they now and why are so many pubs closing through lack of customers? And I will say it again, the majority of the population doesn't smoke, neither does it go to pubs, but before the ban I found in most pubs a majority of customers smoked, sometimes as many as 90%. So which minority was it imposing their views on a majority?

Frankly I am fed up with hearing the same old tosh and spurious "facts" being trotted out by the smoking-adicted minority. The reason why pubs didn't provide non-smoking accommodation was because there was no demand? Please - where on earth did that piece of rubbish come from? Why don't hotels, clubs and theatre bars not serve Real Ale - because there's no demand! If you don't supply something then of course you can say there's no demand "because nobody buys it".

And I will tell you why so many pubs are closing - it is because many publicans couldn't run a singsong in an old folks home, that's why. Many of them know nothing about sales or marketing and did well when all business was doing well. It's when business takes a downturn that the competent wheat is sorted from the incompetent chaff.

The smoking ban is a fact - how many pubs have taken advantage of the ban in order to increase their business? Where is the "large band of non-smokers" that are wating to come in? I'll tell you where they are - they are in publicans' towns, villages and streets. They are living in houses flats and bungalows near to pubs. They are presently buying their drinks in restaurants and supermarkets because they don't know that pubs have changed their smoking rules. Good publicans go out and find them; rotten publicans moan that life isn't fair and the smoking ban is ruining their business.

Get with it, please. The world doesn't owe you a living - you have to earn it.

And, if Dick Pubblecote is a well-known campaigner then I am sorry I have only ever seen his name on this forum, in connection with his pointless attempts to get rid of the overwhelmingly popular smoking restrictions. Maybe he doesn't use his real name in these forums - I do, of course. As I used my own name when I recently write to my MP asking him to oppose the duty increase.

[old_snudgie]

Frankly I am fed up with hearing the same old tosh and spurious "facts" being trotted out by the smoking-adicted minority. The reason why pubs didn't provide non-smoking accommodation was because there was no demand? Please - where on earth did that piece of rubbish come from? Why don't hotels, clubs and theatre bars not serve Real Ale - because there's no demand! If you don't supply something then of course you can say there's no demand "because nobody buys it".

I didn't say no demand I said "not much demand", - in your often used words "read what I actually said". It was tried by many pubs prior to 2007 and failed miserably, don't take my word for it check out what Wetherspoons found when they tried it in 2005-6

http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storyCode=32322

And given the number of nicotine bouncers outside most JDWs these days you can see why they stopped it! Not much sign of pent up demand there, and no sign of it now after nearly four years. Pubs continue to lose custom albeit for a variety of reasons, but not a hint of all those non-smokers rushing to smoke free pubs.

There are plenty of outlets of products and services where demand is so small that it is uneconomic to provide them, whether that's Mongolian bat wings, a cask of London Pride or even training people to sell stage coach tickets. It's up to whoever runs the business to make the decision to provide or not provide something loss making.

Real ale is particularly difficult with its short shelf life, if even a pin doesn't sell in a couple of days it's not going to be worth keeping. This is particularly relevant to clubs (mainly weekend trade), hotels (variable trade/customers) and theatre bars (probably the wrong customer profile). I know there are ways to serve real ale in most outlets, however the business questions are: is it viable to arrange this? what will the wastage be? is there sufficient demand to warrant an investment or even a trial? How much money will I lose?

[Richard English]

Please don't accuse me of not reading a story properly before commenting when you yourself do the self-same thing. J D Wetherspoon were one of the few pubs that had non-smoking accommodation in most, if not all their pubs. Having non-smoking accommodation alongside smoking accommodation is not the same as making a pub non-smoking, and it was the former my comments were clearly referring to, not the latter. As the subtitle of the article you refer to clearly says:

J D Wetherspoon is calling a halt to its roll-out of no-smoking pubs until the government brings in the full smoking ban next year.

In anticipation of the ban JDW did start to convert its pubs to non-smoking but found that they lost business because smokers started to use other pubs that that still allowed smoking. Of course, some smokers will move to a smoking alternative whilst one exists and Tim Martin quite rightly agreed that it would be better to wait until there was no such alternative. He is, above all, a very good businessman. During the time that pubs had the option to provide both smoking and non-smoking accommodation, JDW houses kept to the letter and the spirit of the law (they were one of the few chains that did) and in my own experience I found that the non-smoking accommodation was always at least as busy as the smoking accommodation. If all pubs and pub chains had followed JDW's lead then we might not have had the smoking ban. But they didn't. In spite of your claim that many other pubs tried non-smoking and smoking accommodation "and it failed miserably" I never saw a pub that went from smoking only to smoking/non smoking and back to smoking only. I challenge you to find an authoratitive source to back up your assertion.

So we have the ban and it will stay. And the vociferous smoking minority should stop wasting time and effort to try to persuade the government go back to the dual accommodation option. They tried it; it didn't work and I see no reason why it would work now. Those who wish to campaign should direct their efforts against the anti-alcohol lobby - that is a battle that is ongoing. Fighting battles that have been lost is for war-gamers not campaigners

I don't quite know why you posted the final paragraph about the fragility of Real Ale. Sucking egge and grandmothers springs to my mind. Of course it is quite true and let me tell you what has happened in my local.

It is still non-smoking but, instead of selling one firkin (or part of a firkin) of Real Ale a week they are now turning over several a day. Every day in the past week there has been a different guest or guests - alongside Dark Star's own fine beers. The smokers are still there (I spoke to one only yesterday and he said how much he now prefers non-smoking pubs as his clothes no longer smell - and he finds the five minutes he has to take outside to have a drag is no problem at all). And in addition there are people now in the pub who haven't been coming for years - not necessarily because it is now non-smoking, of course - but because it is now a good pub run by people who know how to run a business. And yes - they DO have their opening hours displayed outside the door!

And as I also wrote, there are plenty of non-smokers around who will use pubs - but they're not going to rush in (did anyone suggest they would?) - just as with any business you have to seek out and woo your customers. JDW does the job very well and. over the years, has adjusted its offering to meet the changing needs of its customers.

But as I have said many times, some publicans don't deserve to succeed and I have seen nothing in these columns to persuade me that I am wrong. Smoking ban or not; high taxes or not; supermarket competition or not - there are pubs that are still heaving and others, maybe even in the same street, that are deserted. And the reason is never hard to find - the reason will usually be standing behind the bar, reading a newspaper and moaning to anyone who will listen that life isn't fair.

[curMUDGEon]

Please don't accuse me of not reading a story properly before commenting when you yourself do the self-same thing. J D Wetherspoon were one of the few pubs that had non-smoking accommodation in most, if not all their pubs. Having non-smoking accommodation alongside smoking accommodation is not the same as making a pub non-smoking, and it was the former my comments were clearly referring to, not the latter. As the subtitle of the article you refer to clearly says:

J D Wetherspoon is calling a halt to its roll-out of no-smoking pubs until the government brings in the full smoking ban next year.

In anticipation of the ban JDW did start to convert its pubs to non-smoking but found that they lost business because smokers started to use other pubs that that still allowed smoking. Of course, some smokers will move to a smoking alternative whilst one exists and Tim Martin quite rightly agreed that it would be better to wait until there was no such alternative. He is, above all, a very good businessman. During the time that pubs had the option to provide both smoking and non-smoking accommodation, JDW houses kept to the letter and the spirit of the law (they were one of the few chains that did) and in my own experience I found that the non-smoking accommodation was always at least as busy as the smoking accommodation. If all pubs and pub chains had followed JDW's lead then we might not have had the smoking ban. But they didn't. In spite of your claim that many other pubs tried non-smoking and smoking accommodation "and it failed miserably" I never saw a pub that went from smoking only to smoking/non smoking and back to smoking only. I challenge you to find an authoratitive source to back up your assertion.

So we have the ban and it will stay. And the vociferous smoking minority should stop wasting time and effort to try to persuade the government go back to the dual accommodation option. They tried it; it didn't work and I see no reason why it would work now. Those who wish to campaign should direct their efforts against the anti-alcohol lobby - that is a battle that is ongoing. Fighting battles that have been lost is for war-gamers not campaigners

I don't quite know why you posted the final paragraph about the fragility of Real Ale. Sucking egge and grandmothers springs to my mind. Of course it is quite true and let me tell you what has happened in my local.

It is still non-smoking but, instead of selling one firkin (or part of a firkin) of Real Ale a week they are now turning over several a day. Every day in the past week there has been a different guest or guests - alongside Dark Star's own fine beers. The smokers are still there (I spoke to one only yesterday and he said how much he now prefers non-smoking pubs as his clothes no longer smell - and he finds the five minutes he has to take outside to have a drag is no problem at all). And in addition there are people now in the pub who haven't been coming for years - not necessarily because it is now non-smoking, of course - but because it is now a good pub run by people who know how to run a business. And yes - they DO have their opening hours displayed outside the door!

And as I also wrote, there are plenty of non-smokers around who will use pubs - but they're not going to rush in (did anyone suggest they would?) - just as with any business you have to seek out and woo your customers. JDW does the job very well and. over the years, has adjusted its offering to meet the changing needs of its customers.

But as I have said many times, some publicans don't deserve to succeed and I have seen nothing in these columns to persuade me that I am wrong. Smoking ban or not; high taxes or not; supermarket competition or not - there are pubs that are still heaving and others, maybe even in the same street, that are deserted. And the reason is never hard to find - the reason will usually be standing behind the bar, reading a newspaper and moaning to anyone who will listen that life isn't fair.

"And the reason is never hard to find - the reason will usually be standing behind the bar, reading a newspaper and moaning to anyone who will listen that life isn't fair." - yes, and the best example of that I've seen was some years ago, a licensee for whom the phrase 'more life in tramp's vest' could have been invented, stood behind the bar of a historic pub bang in the centre of the next village moaning "market day and only two customers in here", this probably just a few weeks after Punch had persuaded him what a marvelous 'pub business opportunity' it was. In contrast a remote pub on a narrow lane two miles away, which anyone could have expected to be converted to a private house years ago, was taken on by someone who knew what customers wanted in terms of beer, food, value, welcome, etc. and has had to be substantially extended, is now thriving and has just become a branch pub of the year.

[Richard English]

I have just returned from a couple of pints at the Partridge. Far from heaving but still busy - and with a new guest beer on from Kent. No moaning, just a good conversion with the barman about the intricacies of cellar management and the revisions to the (locally sourced) menu.

[old_snudgie]

Please don't accuse me of not reading a story properly before commenting when you yourself do the self-same thing.

You talk an amazing amount of drivel on here most of which people let pass but please don't misquote me or indeed try the very same thing again by saying I was accusing you of something else. I did not accuse you of not reading a story I accused you of misquoting me.

During the time that pubs had the option to provide both smoking and non-smoking accommodation, JDW houses kept to the letter and the spirit of the law...blah blah blah

The JDW story was there to illustrate my point that market forces failed to give the health facists what they wanted, and incidentally showed how little demand for non smoking pubs there was. As JDW promoter and apologist in chief, I had thought you might appreciate the irony. Repeating the same nonsense about the "spirit of the law" and "it would have worked if only" ad nauseum won't make it true, the health facists would never settle for public smoking in any form and they won't rest until drinking is forced underground too.

I don't quite know why you posted the final paragraph about the fragility of Real Ale. Sucking egge and grandmothers springs to my mind. Of course it is quite true and let me tell you what has happened in my local.

I related this for two reasons
1. You wondered why Clubs, Hotels and Theatre bars don't often sell real ale
2. You appear breathtakingly ignorant of the realities of the licensed trade

And as I also wrote, there are plenty of non-smokers around who will use pubs - but they're not going to rush in (did anyone suggest they would?).

Well they've had four years and yes it was said there were hoards of non smokers who would rush to the pubs if only they were smoke free, let's face facts, they don't exist in spite of your assertions or the supposed lack of charm amongst licensees. I know the ban will never be repealed and as a non-smoker I don't care but I do care about how easily people are fooled, I worry about people trying to rewrite history but mostly I care about how cheaply we throw away liberty in this country.

[PeterE]

I know the ban will never be repealed

Well, never say never. I agree the likelihood of any amendment in the near future is minimal, but I'm sure people said the same in the early years of US Prohibition. Who knows how the political wheel will turn in future? The political party to which this thread refers could come to power in the event of some cataclysm in the EU - and they support amending the ban.

and as a non-smoker I don't care but I do care about how easily people are fooled, I worry about people trying to rewrite history but mostly I care about how cheaply we throw away liberty in this country.

I could say as a non-smoker I don't care either - but on the other hand I do care about all the pubs that have closed and all the pubgoers now made to feel like lepers in their own locals, if they are still open. And surely the whole point of believing in liberty (something entirely lost on antismokers) is that it means supporting the right of people to do things you personally find objectionable.

[Richard English]

You talk an amazing amount of drivel on here most of which people let pass

Frankly so do you - but I try not to be gratuitously offensive. Anyway I am fed up with reading all the repeated nonsense you writs and I shall contribute no more. I have explained about the "hordes of non-smokers" (your phrase, not one I have ever read) and I have also explained that Wetherspoon (almost alone) provided smoking and non-smoking accommodation very successfully. You choose to trot out the same old tosh about the smoking ban "killing pubs" ignoring the fact that well-run pubs (of which JDW is one) are doing very well. They know about marketing - many other do not

Pubs that are failing are failing primarily because the people that run them know nothing about sales and marketing and take make no effort to take advice from someone who does. But if you smoking enthusiasts want to go on moaning, well just go on. You are wasting time that could be better used in fighting the anti-alcohol lobby.

If you can quite me some properly researched, statistically valid facts about smokers' attitudes and behaviour towards pubs now that smoking is banned in all enclose public then I might bother to contribute again. As it is you are simply writing what "you know". I have at least taken the trouble to interview a fair number of smokers and bar staff about the subject - not a statistically valid sample - but much better than guesswork.

[PeterE]

If you can quite me some properly researched, statistically valid facts about smokers' attitudes and behaviour towards pubs now that smoking is banned in all enclose public then I might bother to contribute again.

Have you ever done this rather than quoting anecdotal evidence from a limited sample? You seem to like accusing others of this while doing it yourself, as shown by the following paragraph.

As it is you are simply writing what "you know". I have at least taken the trouble to interview a fair number of smokers and bar staff about the subject - not a statistically valid sample - but much better than guesswork.

Do you not imagine that those taking the opposite view have also discussed the subject with pubgoers and licensees? And looked at the evidence of the ranks of closed pubs in their local areas?

It's also worth mentioning that over the past four years a large number of pub operators (including JDW) have cited the smoking ban as a major reason for disappointing results. Are you saying that they don't know what's going on in their own businesses?

[curMUDGEon]

I know the ban will never be repealed

Well, never say never. I agree the likelihood of any amendment in the near future is minimal, but I'm sure people said the same in the early years of US Prohibition. Who knows how the political wheel will turn in future? The political party to which this thread refers could come to power in the event of some cataclysm in the EU - and they support amending the ban.

and as a non-smoker I don't care but I do care about how easily people are fooled, I worry about people trying to rewrite history but mostly I care about how cheaply we throw away liberty in this country.

I could say as a non-smoker I don't care either - but on the other hand I do care about all the pubs that have closed and all the pubgoers now made to feel like lepers in their own locals, if they are still open. And surely the whole point of believing in liberty (something entirely lost on antismokers) is that it means supporting the right of people to do things you personally find objectionable.

"Well, never say never. I agree the likelihood of any amendment in the near future is minimal, but I'm sure people said the same in the early years of US Prohibition." - not an appropriate comparison really. In the early years of US Prohibition there was significant opposition to it, bootleg liquor produced in large volumes from early on. Yet, I've not heard of one British pub that has defied the smoking ban, licensee and customers maintining a smoking room because it's an issue they feel so strongly about, no, repeated moaning is all opponents to the ban seem prepared to do.

[Gavin Davis]

I've not heard of one British pub that has defied the smoking ban, licensee and customers maintining a smoking room because it's an issue they feel so strongly about, no, repeated moaning is all opponents to the ban seem prepared to do.

I've been in attendence at a few smoking lock ins. The last couple have been as an ex smoker.

[Richard English]

If you can quite me some properly researched, statistically valid facts about smokers' attitudes and behaviour towards pubs now that smoking is banned in all enclose public then I might bother to contribute again.

Have you ever done this rather than quoting anecdotal evidence from a limited sample? You seem to like accusing others of this while doing it yourself, as shown by the following paragraph.

As it is you are simply writing what "you know". I have at least taken the trouble to interview a fair number of smokers and bar staff about the subject - not a statistically valid sample - but much better than guesswork.

Do you not imagine that those taking the opposite view have also discussed the subject with pubgoers and licensees? And looked at the evidence of the ranks of closed pubs in their local areas?

It's also worth mentioning that over the past four years a large number of pub operators (including JDW) have cited the smoking ban as a major reason for disappointing results. Are you saying that they don't know what's going on in their own businesses?

As I have already said, if someone can give me some properly researched data I will again contribute. And closed pubs are not evidence that the smoking ban has caused their closure - they are evidence only that they have closed.

[curMUDGEon]

I've not heard of one British pub that has defied the smoking ban, licensee and customers maintining a smoking room because it's an issue they feel so strongly about, no, repeated moaning is all opponents to the ban seem prepared to do.

I've been in attendence at a few smoking lock ins. The last couple have been as an ex smoker.

I wasn't aware of 'smoking lock ins', surely nothing of the scale of all the proper post 11.20pm lock ins all over the country before 1988, and not in the same league as the civil disobedience campaigns of movements confident that justice and public obinion will give them victory.