# London pubs closing at the rate of one almost every other day....



## editor (Apr 22, 2008)

Blimey. It's grim alright.  



> Figures from the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA) show 78 of London's 3,879 urban pubs closed in the last six months of 2007.
> 
> It blamed a combination of factors including the credit crunch, the smoking ban and rising alcohol costs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Crispy (Apr 22, 2008)

The accurate figure works out at 3 a week.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 22, 2008)

How long before there are no pubs left in London I wonder.

Crispy, to the graphmobile!


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 22, 2008)

24 years.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 22, 2008)

phew, plenty of time to stock up.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2008)

editor said:


> Blimey. It's grim alright.



and yet you were pro-smoking ban.

is that bed comfortable?


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 22, 2008)

also, assuming each pub now makes an average of 5 flats, that 19000 over-priced badly made boxes for lonely people to spend all their time in staring at over-priced massive tvs cos there's nowhere else to go.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> and yet you were pro-smoking ban.
> 
> is that bed comfortable?



and we're off...


----------



## dream_girl (Apr 22, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> and we're off...


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> and yet you were pro-smoking ban.
> 
> is that bed comfortable?


Very thanks.

And no longer coughing and stinking from disgusting poisonous fumes when I come back from a long night in the pub, after putting money in their coffers. Which is nice.


----------



## oryx (Apr 22, 2008)

It's shit isn't it?

I'm sure the ones left have got massively more crowded since a lot of pubs shut down! 

I think there's a campaign in my borough (Lewisham) to halt the onward march of pub closures - haven't got time to look now (Liverpool/Chelsea shortly!) but will post it later if I find it. Just to show there's a non-defeatist spirit!


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 22, 2008)

editor said:


> Very thanks.
> 
> And no longer coughing and stinking from disgusting poisonous fumes when I come back from a long night in the pub, after putting money in their coffers. Which is nice.



It's alright DotCom, I hold in the last lungful of smoke and breathe it over his back when I get back in.


----------



## clandestino (Apr 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> and yet you were pro-smoking ban.
> 
> is that bed comfortable?




behaviour changes, cities change, if there were a need for those pubs they'd remain open. the smoking ban is still a good idea, and there are plenty of pubs that are still thriving. 

what's terrible is when beautiful old buildings are knocked down when pubs close.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2008)

editor said:


> Very thanks.
> 
> And no longer coughing and stinking from disgusting poisonous fumes when I come back from a long night in the pub, after putting money in their coffers. Which is nice.




iirc the reason crux of the 'blanket ban' arguement was the right of the worker to be able to work and not endure smoke.
Well, now there's plenty of people getting no smoke in their faces as they wait in the signing on que.


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2008)

There's a bid gone in for Living Bar/Coach and Horses in Brixton and The Goose is being relaunched with a bit of cash behind it, so it's not all bad news.

Most of Brixton's pubs closed way before the smoking ban came in.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 22, 2008)

I've noticed a few pubs closing round here lately.  Tbh it's mainly the tattier ones that may have been struggling anyway, but I suspect the smoking ban does have something to do with it since they were often the pubs frequented by chainsmoking old men, and invariably ones that had no space for an outside smoking area.

That said, the stupid council have just bulldozed the only decent pub in Woolwich - and the only gay pub - for a new council building.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> iirc the reason crux of the 'blanket ban' arguement was the right of the worker to be able to work and not endure smoke.
> Well, now there's plenty of people getting no smoke in their faces as they wait in the signing on que.



I doubt that's true, generally the queue for the dole office seems to be outside and thus they get smoke in their faces from the smoking doleys.


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> iirc the reason crux of the 'blanket ban' arguement was the right of the worker to be able to work and not endure smoke.
> Well, now there's plenty of people getting no smoke in their faces as they wait in the signing on que.


Right. So those workers should just _put up_ with your poisonous, stinking, health endangering fumes just because you're _too fucking lazy_ to walk a few feet to an outside smoking area?

In fact, that short walk to a covered outdoor smoking area provided by the pub has proved sooooo much of a challenge that you've given up going to the pub altogether, and are happy to watch it close down?

What a load of hypocritical bullshit. If you gave a shit about the pubs, you'd still be going.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 22, 2008)

I want to know the closing rate for the 6 months previous to the ban - and the 12 months before that.


----------



## lighterthief (Apr 22, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> That said, the stupid council have just bulldozed the only decent pub in Woolwich - and the only gay pub - for a new council building.


What, the council owned a gay pub?  Very progressive.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 22, 2008)

lighterthief said:


> What, the council owned a gay pub?  Very progressive.


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2008)

Crispy said:


> I want to know the closing rate for the 6 months previous to the ban - and the 12 months before that.


This might help:



> Pubs have been closing at the rate of 27 a week - nearly four every day - over the past year, according to the latest figures released by the British Beer & Pub Association. The current closure rate is seven times faster than in 2006 and 14 times faster than in 2005.
> 
> 1,409 pubs closed during 2007. This is a sharp acceleration on previous years. Pub numbers were down 216 in 2006 - four a week - following a fall of 102 in 2005 – two a week.
> 
> ...


http://www.beerandpub.com/newsList_detail.aspx?newsId=235


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2008)

editor said:


> Right. So those workers should just _put up_ with your poisonous, stinking, health endangering fumes just because you're _too fucking lazy_ to walk a few feet to an outside smoking area?
> 
> In fact, that short walk to a covered outdoor smoking area provided by the pub has proved sooooo much of a challenge that you've given up going to the pub altogether, and are happy to watch it close down?
> 
> What a load of hypocritical bullshit. If you gave a shit about the pubs, you'd still be going.





> often the pubs frequented by chainsmoking old men, and invariably ones that had no space for an outside smoking area.




you lead the no compromise charge, and there was plenty of room for compromise. I'm not having this same arguement with you again, you were wrong last time and you still are.

The quote in the OP cited the ban as one of the principle factors in the closure rate.

So while you bemoan pub closures, remember its the inflexibility of the rabid anti-smoking brigade (which you cheered along) which has contributed to it.


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> you lead the no compromise charge, and there was plenty of room for compromise. I'm not having this same arguement with you again, you were wrong last time and you still are.


If you gave a fuck about your local, you'd still go, smoking ban or not. 

I cant bear all this hypocritical hand wringing.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 22, 2008)

It's not only the smoking ban though, DC.  Beer prices are shooting up thanks to  bad weather and poor hop harvests, and with the economy looking shaky I dare say people are going out a bit less too.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 22, 2008)

When I can get 6 cans for a fiver, choose my own music and chucking out time and my company, staying in and getting mates round seems much more attractive than the pub. Spending a whole evening in the pub just for the sake of it doesn't really figure in my plans at all these days. It's for special occasions or meeting more people than I'd want in my house, but not a casual place to hang out. Couldn't really care much about the smoking ban, although it did help me quit.


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> It's not only the smoking ban though, DC.  Beer prices are shooting up thanks to  bad weather and poor hop harvests, and with the economy looking shaky I dare say people are going out a bit less too.


Well, exactly. Compared to 10 or even 5 years ago, people now have access to a veritable cornucopia of home entertainment options, with video games, zillions of TV channels, DVDs, MP3s and, of course, the mighty Internet all offering attractive- and cheaper - options to a night in the pub.

Throw in supermarkets and corner stores almost overflowing with dirt cheap booze and ever increasing pub prices and it's no surprise that folks are preferring to stay at home.


----------



## dream_girl (Apr 22, 2008)

Pubs smell much nicer than they used to - now they smell of beer. 

As for smokers - it just shows how selfish most of them are doesn't it?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2008)

editor said:


> If you gave a fuck about your local, you'd still go, smoking ban or not.
> 
> I cant bear all this hypocritical hand wringing.




other than the pool table issue I never gave a shit before or after.

I do give a fuck about personal liberties, the reasonable exercising of those. 

however you seem to be going 'oh noes! teh pubs are closing'  without acknowledging that massively unpopular piece of goverment legislation (which you went all-guns for) has contributde towards the closures.

When you were on that high-horse did you not stop to think that pub-closures would follow from this?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> It's not only the smoking ban though, DC.  Beer prices are shooting up thanks to  bad weather and poor hop harvests, and with the economy looking shaky I dare say people are going out a bit less too.




those factors (excepting the harvest) were around before the ban.

Going to the pub for a piss-up and a pool session was a small luxury for me and many I know before the ban.

The smoking ban was the dromedary-crippling straw for many.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2008)

dream_girl said:


> Pubs smell much nicer than they used to -* now they smell of beer. *
> 
> As for smokers - it just shows how selfish most of them are doesn't it?




and sweat and piss and cloying, choking perfumes.

And when I leave that atmosphere, what do I encounter? the carcinogenic choking fumes of cars.

And that shit is really unavoidable


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> I do give a fuck about personal liberties, the reasonable exercising of those.


I'd say that the right of workers and fellow drinkers not to have their health endangered by carcinogenic fumes trump any 'personal liberties' you can dream up for smokers. By a considerable margin.

No-one's stopping you smoking - you just can't endanger others while you're doing it now, that's all.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> The smoking ban was the dromedary-crippling straw for many.



I'm sure it has tipped some pubs over the edge, but tbh I don't know many people choosing to stay at home just because they can still smoke and drink.  I smoke and I still enjoy going to the pub,* as do most other people I know.  It's more sociable than sitting at home drinking.  I doubt the smoking ban is the main factor.  What mainly stops people going to the pub is money IME - and if people have less of it to spend, they won't go out as much.  And I think you're wrong about the timing: it's really only in the last year that most people have started to get worried about the economy - enough so to stop them spending.  And that's happened just as beer prices have shot up.


*And yes, I was and am opposed to a blanket ban.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 22, 2008)

*btw...*

You're on a wind-up here aren't you, DotCommunist?


----------



## Socket (Apr 22, 2008)

I've been going to pubs a lot less since the smoking ban. The price factor was an issue before but the smoking ban has had a larger effect on my pub going. I still go to pubs (they're good!) but rarely pop in on my own for a quick pint as I once did.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> You're on a wind-up here aren't you, DotCommunist?



Yep - nasty DotComm and his nasty 'I told you so' ways . . .


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2008)

editor said:


> *I'd say that the right of workers and fellow drinkers not to have their health endangered by carcinogenic fumes *trump any 'personal liberties' you can dream up for smokers. By a considerable margin.
> 
> No-one's stopping you smoking - you just can't endanger others while you're doing it now, that's all.



a point that might have some relevance if everybody, smoker or non, worker or fellow drinker weren't constantly exposed to exhaust fumes every time they travelled any distance.


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 22, 2008)

I am in agreement with DotCommunist.

I am one of those who doesn't go to the pub now due to the smoking ban (or clubs now either).

Those who don't smoke don't realise the way a fag and a beer go together and I am not standing outside in the pissing rain or freezing cold when I could be at home with mates smoking to my hearts content.

So all those for the smoking ban - I hope you are happy in your sterile, empty pubs that won't be around for long.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 22, 2008)

Crispy said:


> When I can get 6 cans for a fiver, choose my own music and chucking out time and my company, staying in and getting mates round seems much more attractive than the pub. Spending a whole evening in the pub just for the sake of it doesn't really figure in my plans at all these days. It's for special occasions or meeting more people than I'd want in my house, but not a casual place to hang out. Couldn't really care much about the smoking ban, although it did help me quit.


Yeah. I like my local and I often go there to do a bit of work with the laptop, or for quiz night, but I wouldn't go there to get drunk, not more than once or twice a month. It's just too expensive. The fact that I can't smoke inside is a little significant, but not so much, particularly now that it's getting warmer (and they have tables outside too).

All the pubs round here took a hit for a while after the ban but they all seem pretty much the same now as they were before - except that you can see just how many people seem to spend all day in them, now that a good few of them hang around outside.

Smoking ban does make me less likely to pop in for a quick pint somewhere random, though. Pubs which rely on a lot of passing trade rather than regulars or groups could well have problems.


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2008)

PacificOcean said:


> So all those for the smoking ban - I hope you are happy in your sterile, empty pubs that won't be around for long.


Right, And the notion of you moving a metre or so to the comfortable, heated, covered outside areas provided by many pubs is just toooooo much for you to bear - even for five minutes?

I'm positively _delighted_ that when I work in pubs I no longer have to come home _stinking_ of other people's filthy, dangerous fumes. 

And the presence of smoke does nothing to make a pub more interesting, or less 'sterile' - that's down to the people in it. But if that's what you need to make a pub seem interesting, then perhaps you're better off sitting in your stinky home with your mates, while I'm off out meeting new people and having a laugh and a beer - without being forced to inhale lungfuls of shit.


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 22, 2008)

editor said:


> while I'm off out meeting new people and having a laugh and a beer - without being forced to inhale lungfuls of shit.



You live in Brixton FFS!  

One of the main routes through South London.  What about all the bus and car fumes?  They are carsongenic too.


----------



## Prince Rhyus (Apr 22, 2008)

Lots of reasons - one of which is disposable income. With so much of it going on rent/mortgages I really do wonder how people survive. 

With so much personal debt, I wonder how long this level of consumption is going to continue for before the cows come home. 

Another thing to bear in mind is the effect of migration and the changing needs and preferences of the population as it changes. For some, the pub is not the place to socialise. It might be the cafe or even a place of religious worship.


----------



## Gingerman (Apr 22, 2008)

http://fancyapint.com/pubs/pub2301.html
This one is closing down,its where Shaun of the Dead was filmed,2 other pubs near me in New Cross are being converted into flats as well.


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2008)

PacificOcean said:


> One of the main routes through South London.  What about all the bus and car fumes?  They are carsongenic too.


I'm sure they are, but I don't drive a car and I don't work in an underground car park so I'm a total loss what your point is here.

Until such a time that cars start revving up into my local pub and filling the place with fumes I'm afraid your point will remain a total red herring. I've certainly never gone home smelling like an exhaust pipe.

However, if you'd like to start a thread but reducing traffic and traffic emissions, I'm sure you'll find me a hearty supporter of the concept.



Gingerman said:


> http://fancyapint.com/pubs/pub2301.html
> This one is closing down,its where Shaun of the Dead was filmed,2 other pubs near me in New Cross are being converted into flats as well.


From that guide:


> Approaching this pub, we thought it may have shut down due to the missing pub sign and letters, flaky walls et cetera. The interior is equally shabby with a dirty carpet and furnishings that have seen finer days. It's a pure Millwall pub, with Lions programmes and England flags all around.


Doesn't look like the landlord hasn't exactly moved with the times and tried to get new custom in.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2008)

editor;7404321[B said:
			
		

> ]I'm sure they are, but I don't drive a car and I don't work in an underground car park so I'm a total loss what your point is here.
> 
> Until such a time that cars start revving up into my local pub and filling the place with fumes I'm afraid your point will remain a total red herring. I've certainly never gone home smelling like an exhaust pipe.[/B]
> 
> ...



yeah you tried this one last go around

Since then there have been several alatming reports into the carginogenic effect of fumes on people in cities.

On a personal level, just a scant few hours in the big smoke can cause me massive black bogies.


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah you tried this one last go around
> 
> Since then there have been several alatming reports into the carginogenic effect of fumes on people in cities.
> 
> On a personal level, just a scant few hours in the big smoke can cause me massive black bogies.


Yes. And I'm all for reducing car emissions. Big time!

I'm all for less cars, more walking and more bikes I've been directly involved in campaigns promoting those very agendas.

So exactly what is your point here? I mean, you keep going on and on cars, but I fail to see what it's got to do with smoking in pubs.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2008)

editor said:


> So exactly what is your point here? I mean, you keep going on and on cars, but I fail to see what it's got to do with smoking in pubs.



Well, exactly.

How are these cars causing the pubs to be closing down in London.
I mean, it just doesn't make any sense.


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 22, 2008)

editor said:


> From that guide:
> Doesn't look like the landlord hasn't exactly moved with the times and tried to get new custom in.



I thought you were a hardy supporter of the old grimey boozer and hated the new breed of pubs like Weatherspoons?


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 22, 2008)

8ball said:


> Well, exactly.
> 
> How are these cars causing the pubs to be closing down in London.
> I mean, it just doesn't make any sense.



You breath in smoke in pubs - you may die.

You walk in the street with millions of cars pumping out fumes - you may die.

You eat E numbers - you may die.

You exercise too much - you may die.

You get knocked over by a bus crossing the road - you may die.

You get to old age - you may die.

And so on.


----------



## editor (Apr 22, 2008)

PacificOcean said:


> I thought you were a hardy supporter of the old grimey boozer and hated the new breed of pubs like Weatherspoons?


If you're suggesting that I've said that I like filthy pubs with shabby furnishings, shit food and Millwall flags flapping outside you're very much mistaken.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 22, 2008)

PacificOcean said:


> You breath in smoke in pubs - you may die.
> 
> You walk in the street with millions of cars pumping out fumes - you may die.
> 
> ...



Actually, you could just have ended each of these sentences with: you _will_ die.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 22, 2008)

editor said:


> Yes. And I'm all for reducing car emissions. Big time!
> 
> I'm all for less cars, more walking and more bikes I've been directly involved in campaigns promoting those very agendas.
> 
> So exactly what is your point here? I mean, you keep going on and on cars, but I fail to see what it's got to do with smoking in pubs.



Smoking was banned because of its adverse effect on non-smokers. Who then leave the pub and get a nice lungful of exhaust. Commuters probably face even more car fumeage.

The point is, love it as you might the justifications for a no compromise ban are invalidated by the near-equal carcinogen exposure that is part of city life.

You loved the fuck out of the ban because it chimed with your personal preferences. You defended it on grounds that look increasingly shaky, given just how much smoke any city-sweller sucks up be s/he smoker pub goer or otherwise.

It wasn't instituted to give you something to crow about. It wasn't done to piss me off. It wasn't done to hurt evil tobacco companies either. It was done as part of the puritan kickback we're getting off of those colonial bastards.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 23, 2008)

Um...every time I venture out to the bars and pubs on in London there are hoards of people in them, and around shepherds bush there are bouncers doing a 'one out, one in' door policy.

Where are these empty pubs? I want to know because I'm sick of going out for a sociable pint at the weekend and not only being forced to stand because there's no seating left but having to shout over the noise of everyone.

Also, seeing as we've had all this malarkey over the 24 hour licensing laws - how about actually *opening* more bars beyond 11pm? I'm sick of being in pubs that are half full at 11pm and then being made to rush my pint and leave because the pub hasn't got a later license. If they did, then all those people who want to carry on drinking for another hour would be able to - and the pubs would get more money. Duh!

Dare I say it, but we may even start to curb the nation's unhealthy obsession with rushed pint drinking if that were the case too. Just a thought like.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 23, 2008)

I can't believe some people really stopped going to pubs because they can't pop outside for a smoke.  Maybe I just like pubs too much.


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 23, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I can't believe some people really stopped going to pubs because they can't pop outside for a smoke.  Maybe I just like pubs too much.



If you are not a smoker you really don't understand the enjoyment of having a fag at the same time as your pint.

There was a study that I have no idea how to link to, but remember reading that alcohol and fags effect the same part of the brain.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 23, 2008)

It's so confusing.

Not enough pubs, pubs closing, pubs too full, pubs that can't be arsed to stay open late, pubs abandoned by disgruntled smokers . . .


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 23, 2008)

You've made your point, DC, repeatedly. 

Can we get back to bemoaning the loss of pubs now?



There is a real ale pub in Camberwell, which I have mentioned on here before, which only re-opened relatively recently, and completely failed to catch the market (does that phrase exist? I know what I mean), and I think it is going to close any day, causing the landlord to lose his life savings, which he pumped into it. Nothing to do with the smoking ban, frankly, but to do with the fact that the "pub culture" in this country is changing, and it seems you can only survive if you run a gastropub or a music/comedy pub, whereas Jamie Hooper, who put all his money into what is now called Hoopers Bar, tried to set up a CAMRA pub, with the focus on the beer. He told us, when he set it up, that he was going to renovate the kitchen and do food, but only after he had established the business, and he has failed to do that, so far!

Unfortunately, his plans for a micro brewery have clearly been put on hold, and the couple he brought in to help him, who were brewers by trade, have moved on, leaving one grumpy and bored bar man plus the landlord. However, if anyone lives near East Dulwich station (but pub claims to be in East Dulwich, based on that, but it is actually in Camberwell), and you want to save a real ale pub from certain demise - get yourselves down there! 

In fact, it's a fantastic place for an Urban75 Do of some kind or another. Perhaps I could renovate the idea of an U75 quiz night, which was mooted a while back. They might even be into hosting other stuff. 

Anyway, this is turning into an essay, so I am moving on.....


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 23, 2008)

PacificOcean said:


> If you are not a smoker you really don't understand the enjoyment of having a fag at the same time as your pint.
> 
> There was a study that I have no idea how to link to, but remember reading that alcohol and fags effect the same part of the brain.



I am a smoker, I know all about it.  But, yet, somehow, despite having smoked since the age of 14, I can cope.  I was in a pub earlier in fact.  It was very nice.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 23, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> Anyway, this is turning into an essay, so I am moving on.....



More of a sales pitch, really.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 23, 2008)

8ball said:


> More of a sales pitch, really.



Yeah, it was, wasn't it? I wonder why?

I don't even live in Camberwell!


----------



## 8ball (Apr 23, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> Yeah, it was, wasn't it? I wonder why?
> 
> I don't even live in Camberwell!



Mate of mine lives in Camberwell - might mention it next time I speak to her.


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> You loved the fuck out of the ban because it chimed with your personal preferences. You defended it on grounds that look increasingly shaky, given just how much smoke any city-sweller sucks up be s/he smoker pub goer or otherwise..


Nothing 'shaky' about defending the rights of workers and drinkers not to have their health threatened by the selfish actions of others. Or do you think you have some sort of right to harm others through your addiction?

And your bizarre diversion about car pollution isn't helping prop up your piss weak argument either. Surely the point is to reduce _all_ dangerous pollution, and asking smokers to stand outside for a few minutes is hardly the greatest imposition on human rights know to mankind.

Oh, and if you're going to persist with this curious comparison with vehicle pollution, could you produce some 'car vs smoking' comparative health risk studies please?


----------



## harpo (Apr 23, 2008)

It's the price rises. I like the odd fag with a beer but I don't mind the ban because I smoke less.  It hasn't stopped me going to the pub at all, but what is pissing me off is the rising price of a pint. It's not uncommon to pay £3.40 for a pint now in the same pubs that charged around £2.80 a year or so ago.  That's a ridiculous increase. I find it hard to support big breweries taking the piss.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2008)

skyscraper101 said:


> Um...every time I venture out to the bars and pubs on in London there are *hoards* of people in them, and around shepherds bush there are bouncers doing a 'one out, one in' door policy.
> 
> Where are these empty pubs? I want to know because I'm sick of going out for a sociable pint at the weekend and not only being forced to stand because there's no seating left but having to shout over the noise of everyone.
> 
> ...




arghh homophones



And clearly you never frequente small old mans pubs before the ban. The clientel was always small. I used em because you could consume a beer and a newspaper without the rowdiness of other pubs.
But these pubs couldn't adapt to food serving or outside smoking areas, but fuck 'em eh? and fuck the people who worked there.


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 23, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> You've made your point, DC, repeatedly.
> 
> Can we get back to bemoaning the loss of pubs now?
> 
> ...




But doesn't the smoking ban effect this type of pub?

If you use to go into an old style boozer there would be a thick haze of smoke from all the old boys who would be in there for hours.

The type of customer who goes to a pub now and doesn't want to smoke tends to want deep fried camembert and contiental largers with a range of newspapers dotted about.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 23, 2008)

£3.40


----------



## harpo (Apr 23, 2008)

Yeah.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2008)

editor said:


> Nothing 'shaky' about defending the rights of workers and drinkers not to have their health threatened by the selfish actions of others. Or do you think you have some sort of right to harm others through your addiction?
> 
> And your bizarre diversion about car pollution isn't helping prop up your piss weak argument either. *Surely the point is to reduce all dangerous pollution,* and asking smokers to stand outside for a few minutes is hardly the greatest imposition on human rights know to mankind.
> 
> Oh, and if you're going to persist with this curious comparison with vehicle pollution, could you produce some 'car vs smoking' comparative health risk studies please?




of course it is. But you're right, restrict the smojer rather than the car. that makes so much more sense doesn't it?


Those workers are under as much carcinogenic exposure as a smoky pub when they walk the street but lets ignore that shall we?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> You've made your point, DC, repeatedly.
> 
> Can we get back to bemoaning the loss of pubs now?




yeah fine, carry on bemoaning the loss with out acknowledging that a hugely unpopular bit of ledg has contributed to it. Just don't expect me to join in the teeth-gnashing. 

Reap what you have sown and don't have the arrogance to moan about the taste


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> And clearly you never frequente small old mans pubs before the ban. The clientel was always small..


I don't suppose you've twigged that the reason why so many 'old mans pubs' have closed is precisely because landlords can't survive from the takings of a near empty pub populated by a few old men supping hourly half pint?


PacificOcean said:


> If you use to go into an old style boozer there would be a thick haze of smoke from all the old boys who would be in there for hours.


 Yes. And it was a dreadful health risk for the staff and fellow drinkers. I'm glad those days are now over, while smokers are still free to enjoy their addiction just a few steps outside. 


DotCommunist said:


> Those workers are under as much carcinogenic exposure as a smoky pub when they walk the street but lets ignore that shall we?


Your logic is still woefully shaky on this one, but could you produce some credible stats for this claim please?


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 23, 2008)

PacificOcean said:


> But doesn't the smoking ban effect this type of pub?
> 
> If you use to go into an old style boozer there would be a thick haze of smoke from all the old boys who would be in there for hours.
> 
> The type of customer who goes to a pub now and doesn't want to smoke tends to want deep fried camembert and contiental largers with a range of newspapers dotted about.



Maybe, but I think he is suffering largely because he didn't have an established clientele (he bought a derelict pub) before the smoking ban.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Those workers are under as much carcinogenic exposure as a smoky pub when they walk the street but lets ignore that shall we?




Do you have any science to back that up


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2008)

editor said:


> I don't suppose you've twigged that the reason why so many 'old mans pubs' have closed is precisely because landlords can't survive from the takings of a near empty pub populated by a few old men supping hourly half pint?
> Yes. And it was a dreadful health risk for the staff and fellow drinkers. I'm glad tjose days are now over, while smokers are still free to enjoy their addiction just a few steps outside.
> Your logic is still woefully shaky on this one, but could you produce some credible stats for this claim please?




Right so they managed beforehand through miracles. 


You ain't getting stats at this hour, but I'll dig summat up tommorrow. I'd saved a couple of reports on the subject on me laptop.

The point however, is that you bemoan the closures. You cite a source that includes the ban as one of its principle factors. You supported the ban  slavishly.

Whats that word.......begins with an H...you've levelled it at me at least once this thread...


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah fine, carry on bemoaning the loss with out acknowledging that a hugely unpopular bit of ledg has contributed to it. Just don't expect me to join in the teeth-gnashing.
> 
> Reap what you have sown and don't have the arrogance to moan about the taste



As I said - you have made your point, and now you are just repeating it. I was merely trying to get the thread back on topic, because, frankly, it's getting a bit boring because it's you and editor saying the same thing to each other over and over....

Whereas, I seem to be doing a sales pitch for a pub in Camberwell!

(That doesn't mean that I agree with you, by the way, just that I think it's been stated, so time to move on).


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 23, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I can't believe some people really stopped going to pubs because they can't pop outside for a smoke.  Maybe I just like pubs too much.



I very much doubt many people stopped going to pubs of an evening because they couldn't smoke. It's only a short walk to the door after all, and personally I quite like spending a bit of time in a pub and not smoking as much as I would at home - also, it's a great excuse to cut off a dull conversation.

As I said earlier though I do think it would put off passing trade. If I was out shopping or on business, say, and I was a bit knackered, before I might pop into a pub for a pint and a sit down and a fag and a read of the paper. Now I won't. What's the point of going in to get a pint, then going out for a fag?


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 23, 2008)

editor said:


> I don't suppose you've twigged that the reason why so many 'old mans pubs' have closed is precisely because landlords can't survive from the takings of a near empty pub populated by a few old men supping hourly half pint?



In fairness, I think the smoking ban probably has hit such pubs particularly hard, because a certain proportion of the sort of people who used to spend all day sitting at the bar supping pints slowly and smoking have transferred their custom to places that have space for a covered smoking area outside.  A lot of the dingier, smaller pubs don't, and they seem to be the ones closing most often.  Pubs without space at least for a table or two outside were always going to lose out from the smoking ban.  But since many of the grimier pubs were probably operating on a bit of a knife-edge and have been for some time, rising beer prices and falling custom were going to harm them anyway.  The smoking ban is definitely a factor in the loss of pubs but only one among several.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 23, 2008)

I don't think there's anything so wrong with being behind the smoking ban _and_ bemoaning the fact that so many pubs are closing down.  It seems like a perfectly reasonable position to take.

You'd have to be a complete idiot to not see the obvious causal link, but there are more causes involved than just the smoking ban.  Teasing apart the relative contribution of different causes is an impossible task, though, and I suspect wishful thinking on the part of anyone who thinks they can say for sure.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 23, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I very much doubt many people stopped going to pubs of an evening because they couldn't smoke. It's only a short walk to the door after all, and personally I quite like spending a bit of time in a pub and not smoking as much as I would at home - also, it's a great excuse to cut off a dull conversation.
> 
> As I said earlier though I do think it would put off passing trade. If I was out shopping or on business, say, and I was a bit knackered, before I might pop into a pub for a pint and a sit down and a fag and a read of the paper. Now I won't. What's the point of going in to get a pint, then going out for a fag?



I certainly agree with your first para, but I dunno about your second, cos I stopped doing that sort of thing before the smoking ban came in.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 23, 2008)

8ball said:


> I don't think there's anything so wrong with being behind the smoking ban _and_ bemoaning the fact that so many pubs are closing down.  It seems like a perfectly reasonable position to take.
> 
> You'd have to be a complete idiot to not see the obvious causal link, but there are more causes involved than just the smoking ban.  Teasing apart the relative contribution of different causes is an impossible task, though, and I suspect wishful thinking on the part of anyone who thinks they can say for sure.



I agree with this too.

Even if 8ball is wrong about London, he's right here!


----------



## 8ball (Apr 23, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> Even if 8ball is wrong about London . . .



You've found a bit of it that doesn't stink of piss?


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> You ain't getting stats at this hour, but I'll dig summat up tommorrow. I'd saved a couple of reports on the subject on me laptop.


I'll very much look forward to seeing these stats that prove that pub workers are "under as much carcinogenic exposure as a smoky pub when they walk the street."


----------



## harpo (Apr 23, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> Maybe, but I think he is suffering largely because he didn't have an established clientele (he bought a derelict pub) before the smoking ban.



There's a pub by me called the Wenlock Arms. I couldn't tell you what the formula for success is, it's qute scruffy but there's live music and they let dogs in and serve about 7 types of real ale.  It's always full, even when others in the area aren't.


----------



## lighterthief (Apr 23, 2008)

harpo said:


> There's a pub by me called the Wenlock Arms. I couldn't tell you what the formula for success is, it's qute scruffy but there's live music and they let dogs in and serve about 7 types of real ale.  It's always full, even when others in the area aren't.


It's a well-renowned pub in real ale circles (particularly for its range of beer) and has been for years - some people travel a fair way to drink there.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 23, 2008)

bluestreak said:


> I certainly agree with your first para, but I dunno about your second, cos I stopped doing that sort of thing before the smoking ban came in.



Well, I'm sure you can empathise in retrospect. You fancy a sit down and partaking of your recreational drugs of choice - not for long though. As a smoker and a drinker that means you want to smoke and drink. It takes a bit of time to drink a pint, and (certainly for me, and particularly given that booze brings on fags) I get twitchy if I'm drinking and not smoking. That sort of experience just isn't relaxing, and if I wanted to have a pint and a fag I'd be standing outside the place for the whole time - might as well buy a can and sit on a bench really.

Oddly enough I mind it a lot less if I know I'm there for a while, as I know I'm not limited by time.


----------



## harpo (Apr 23, 2008)

lighterthief said:


> It's a well-renowned pub in real ale circles (particularly for its range of beer) and has been for years - some people travel a fair way to drink there.



I know.  I'm glad I just live round the corner. I favour their ciders.


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 23, 2008)

Fair dos, I do indeed empathise somewhat.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 23, 2008)

Just to show that I am not only bemoaning (what a good word that is!) the potential demise of a pub in Camberwell, and to allow myself to be drawn into the smoking ban stuff, I know of several pubs in Cambridge which are really struggling, and one in particular, the Live and Let Live, which used to be really popular, but is unlikely to be able to survive for much longer. I cite it here because I know the problem is the same in quite a few London pubs....

I remember this pub from when I first moved to Cambridge in the 70s, and checked out all the pubs I could find (I actually bought a pub map, stuck it up on the wall of my bedsit and stuck pins in the pubs as I visited them!), and it was kind of a back street old man's pub. More recently, it was refurbished, and became one of the early gastropubs, and was very successful. However, unlike a lot of pubs in Cambridge, it doesn't have a garden, or even a yard, and has been badly hit by the smoking ban as a consequence. Pubs nearby have put money into developing attractive outside smoking areas (so I end up a bit lonely, sitting in the pub on my own, whilst all my smoking friends are outside in the sociable area! ), the Live and Let Live is under threat. The council and the local folks complain if the drinkers go out onto the street to smoke (it's a pub on the corner, and people were gathering and getting a tad noisy), and the police have been called to move people on. So, the pub is under threat, and solely and only because of the smoking ban.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2008)

editor said:


> I'll very much look forward to seeing these stats that prove that pub workers are "under as much carcinogenic exposure as a smoky pub when they walk the street."



iirc the report im on about simply states that car fume exposure is as bad as ciggarette fume exposure.

And you may not be aware of it because you live there, but central london streets are as smoke=ridden as the pubs once were.

Still, while your crying over pub closures you can take comfort in the fact the remaining chain-owned characterless shitholes have a no-smoking policy


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 23, 2008)

For crying out loud. You will not be diverted, will you?


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2008)

editor said:


> I'll very much look forward to seeing these stats that prove that pub workers are "under as much carcinogenic exposure as a smoky pub when they walk the street."



oh and I very much look forward to you explaining how you get to cry about pub closures when the very source in your OP states the ban as a principle factor.

Cause it looks like the most bewildering bit of reasoning from here.

'I don't like smoking in pubs, ban it'

'heres a report about closures that makes me a sad panda and it cites the ban as a principle factor in the closures'


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> For crying out loud. You will not be diverted, will you?



No. 


I shall leave this thread untill tomorrow

theres this bbc4 thing about the medieval mind on iplayer and i must watch it


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> oh and I very much look forward to you explaining how you get to cry about pub closures when the very source in your OP states the ban as a principle factor.


I can get to comment on whatever I like, thanks.

I regularly work in pubs, you see, so I'd have to be soft in the fucking head not to be enthusiastic about something that reduces my health risks. And, of course, people are still at total liberty to enjoy their fags, just not in my face.

Of course, it wasn't me who personally introduced the ban and, as I recall it, was supported by the vast majority of the public and continues to be so.

But if you care so much about pubs, why don't you lead by example and support them like I do?

And I'll look forward to seeing these figures that back up your emphatic claim that pub workers are "under as much carcinogenic exposure as a smoky pub when they walk the street."


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2008)

Guineveretoo said:


> So, the pub is under threat, and solely and only because of the smoking ban.


And the noisy smokers outside, of course.


----------



## twistedAM (Apr 23, 2008)

editor said:


> And the noisy smokers outside, of course.



Now now. That's just going a bit over the top about smokers.

Anyway, friends of smokers often come out to join them.


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 23, 2008)

editor said:


> And the noisy smokers outside, of course.



Hey, I am on your side in this one! 

It's just that I was trying to be fair, and the fact is that this pub would almost certainly not be under threat if smoking hadn't been banned. I would be more likely to go there because of the ban, except that most of my drinking friends in Cambridge are still smokers, and are much more likely to go to pubs nearby, such as the Salisbury Arms (allegedly the first CAMRA pub in the world), which has created a lovely, cosy, outside smoking area.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2008)

editor said:


> I can get to comment on whatever I like, thanks.



And I get the right to shout 'oi Hypocrite!' thanks

I look forward to you explaining the roots of your hypocrisy (ever wondered why pubs were so smoky? could it be that *gasp* people want to smoke with a beer? compromise was possible, but vetoed by the self-same moral arbiters who are now swinging against booze)


And as I said, the stats I (better bloody well) have now refer to how concentrated ciggy smoke is as bad as concentrated car fumes. Which central London is full of


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> (ever wondered why pubs were so smoky? could it be that *gasp* people want to smoke with a beer?


Yeah, and some people want to risk injuring others  by driving their cars pissed too. Doesn't make it right though, does it?

There is *no* excuse for risking workers health (and that of fellow drinkers) when all it takes is for smokers to shift their fucking arses a few feet to an outside smoking area. None at all.

I'm fucking delighted that I never have to put up with another long night of inhaling other people's poisonous shit and coming home stinking like a filthy ashtray. Remind me why you think I _should_ have to put up with it?


----------



## Wolveryeti (Apr 23, 2008)

Fuck the micromanaging cunts telling us what we can or can't do. 

When we are obediently all licking the felch out of Caroline Flint's foetid bumcrack on the grounds that it's good for us we'll be able to reminisce on this as the tipping point.


----------



## paolo (Apr 23, 2008)

The last time I looked - some time back I admit - on ASH's website (or maybe the BMA? But definitely not Forrest or anything dodgy like that), had a link to a study which showed a measurable increase in cancer risk from passive smoking.

Measurable after 20 years of 8 hours per day passive smoking.

That's alot of trips to the pub, or a very long career as barstaff. Or alternatively, a totally normal lifestyle for someone who lives with a smoker, who will now smoke at home more often.

The people who benefit, healthwise, from the ban are smokers. If non smokers think they're getting a lifespan leg up here, they're kidding themselves.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2008)

editor said:


> Yeah, and some people want to risk injuring others  by driving their cars pissed too. Doesn't make it right though, does it?
> 
> There is *no* excuse for risking workers health (and that of fellow drinkers) when all it takes is for smokers to shift their fucking arses a few feet to an outside smoking area. None at all.
> 
> I'm fucking delighted that I never have to put up with another long night of inhaling other people's poisonous shit and coming home stinking like a filthy ashtray. Remind me why you think I _should_ have to put up with it?



Allright fella, revel in it, but simultaneously complain when your no-compromise attitude plays a large part in pub closure. Have your cake and fucking eat it. 

mmmm hypocrisy flavour nomnomnomnom


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 23, 2008)

PacificOcean said:


> I am one of those who doesn't go to the pub now due to the smoking ban (or clubs now either).



I don't either, not only because I can't smoke but the fact that I aint well,  I get terrible heat sensitivity and theres absolutely no fucking way I can do the whole coat on/coat off hot/cold/hot/cold thing it makes me ill, so fuck the pub I couldn't give a shit.


----------



## skyscraper101 (Apr 23, 2008)

editor said:


> Yeah, and some people want to risk injuring others  by driving their cars pissed too. Doesn't make it right though, does it?
> 
> There is *no* excuse for risking workers health (and that of fellow drinkers) when all it takes is for smokers to shift their fucking arses a few feet to an outside smoking area. None at all.
> 
> I'm fucking delighted that I never have to put up with another long night of inhaling other people's poisonous shit and coming home stinking like a filthy ashtray. Remind me why you think I _should_ have to put up with it?



Exactly.

If anything I should be the pissed off one having to act like billy no mates while my fag smoking friends all stand around outside smoking away while as a non-smoker, I remain inside the pub. Either that or I freeze my arse off and inhale their fumes just to carry on the conversation.

But I'm not. As an ex bar worker and a regular punter in London pubs. I only have praise for the fact that we (smokers and non-smokers) can go to a bar that doesn't smell of fag smoke and ash and leave knowing that my clothes don't either.

I'm more pissed off about the fact so few pubs have done very little to extend the license beyond 11pm in the face of shrinking profits. After all, they've had the best part of two and a half years to do so. I'd love to do as I do in many other places in continental Europe and America and go for a drink at 10/11pm and stay out for a couple of hours knowing I'll be able to buy a drink after 11pm and won't be made to drink up and leave as I find is so often the way here and in Ireland.

Is that not a more effective measure to remedy shrinking profits? Surely kicking out paying punters kinda goes against maximising profits and yet I see it happen time and time again.


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> Allright fella, revel in it, but simultaneously complain when your no-compromise attitude plays a large part in pub closure. Have your cake and fucking eat it.


Be sure to point out how I'm in *any way* responsible for "playing a large part" in any "pub closure," or withdraw that fucking moronic comment sharpish.

Of course, the irony is that I'm the one still actively supporting local boozers and are regularly shoving my money into pub coffers unlike some stay-at-home ("Ooh mummy! I have to walk 3 feet for a fag! Oh noes!")  hand wringers.



paolo999 said:


> The people who benefit, healthwise, from the ban are smokers. If non smokers think they're getting a lifespan leg up here, they're kidding themselves.


Well, I certainly feel a whole lot better for not having to endure long hours of inhaling endless stinking, second smoke, thanks.


----------



## JHE (Apr 23, 2008)

It's probably true that the smoking ban has contributed to the decline and closure of some pubs, but there are a lot of other factors.

The price of booze, and the relative cheapness of supermarket booze, has got to be a BIG factor.  Why spend £3 on a casual pint of nice lager, when you can have the same at home for £1?

I suspect that some of the young and youngish pub custom has simply shifted from smaller trad pubs to newer, larger, noisier and sports-telly-bedecked pubs - like that chain of Aussie sports bars, the name of which I've forgotten - and/or to the night-clubby places which have become more normal.

I also reckon a chunk of the better-off crowd has abandoned ordinary pubs for the better 'gastro-pubs', of which there are now many more than there were a decade ago.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Apr 23, 2008)

Not to mention the attractiveness of turning a pub into residential conversion with house prices being as high as they are.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2008)

editor said:


> Be sure to point out how I'm in *any way* responsible for "playing a large part" in any "pub closure," or withdraw that fucking moronic comment sharpish.
> 
> .




Attitude being the important word in my post.

the sanctimonious high-horse riding attitudes that helped the ban come in its shisha-bar banning compromise-free format. You are guilty of such attitudes.

Your own OP states that the ban is a principle factor in the closures.

Do you need a cleare diagram?

The comment wasn't moronic, you either willfuly misinterpreted, or misunderstood.
Which is odd, seeing as you show some insight and knowledge on other issues. Blind to your own prejudice on this one imo


----------



## JHE (Apr 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> ...the ban come in its shisha-bar banning compromise-free format...



I think it's only on u75 that I've come across this odd bollocks.

Support the ban or oppose the ban, but for fuck's sake don't campaign for some special exemption for shisha-smoking!

Do you really think it would be fair or reasonable to ban smoking in ordinary fag-smoking mode, but to allow it in lovely exotic Edgware Road Arabic mode?



On second thoughts, if you just like winding people up by demanding special rights, you go right ahead...

It's kulchrul.  Innit.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Apr 23, 2008)

You don't have to fish around for a 'kulchrul' rejoinder to support shisha exemption from the ban...

Shisha tobacco isn't burnt like cigarette or pipe tobacco. The action is more like heating it. It is also filtered through the tube and stem of the pipe as well as the water bulb. It is thus far, far, less harmful. And it smells nice too. 

p.s. What's wrong with the idea of having smoking clubs, Arabic-themed or not? This way both smokers and non-smokers win...


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 23, 2008)

DapperDonDamaja said:


> You don't have to fish around for a 'kulchrul' rejoinder to support shisha exemption from the ban...
> 
> Shisha tobacco isn't burnt like cigarette or pipe tobacco. The action is more like heating it. It is also filtered through the tube and stem of the pipe as well as the water bulb. It is thus far, far, less harmful. And it smells nice too.
> 
> * p.s. What's wrong with the idea of having smoking clubs, Arabic-themed or not? This way both smokers and non-smokers win.*..



cos of the poor workers who have no choice except to work in smoking bars. Obviously they don't have any choice in yje matter and there are places where theres no employment choice other than one that exposes you to smoke. It's so horrid.
Guess we'll just ban it yeah? cos of roy castlr, and cause i don't like it, and cause the neo-puritan attitudes bleeding back from america.

No way should people be allowed to choose smoking/non smoking places to drink in. No way could we ever credit a worker with enough intelligence to choose! we must ban it!


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> the sanctimonious high-horse riding attitudes that helped the ban come in its shisha-bar banning compromise-free format.


"High horse riding attitudes"? Huh? 

The ban came in because it was *widely supported* in Parliament and because polls had the vast majority of the pubic supporting it too. I doubt if I had any impact at all on whether it came in or not (I wasn't ever polled), but what did you do to fight the ban? Did you go on any marches?

But guess what? Public support continues to grow after the ban.


> The latest survey suggests that 84% of adults in Wales support smoke-free public places, compared with 71% before the ban, according to the Welsh Assembly Government. (Apr 2008)
> http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news...smoking-ban-grows-one-year-on-91466-20694631/





> More than 80 per cent of Scots support the smoking ban and 84 per cent agree pubs, bars and restaurants are more pleasant smokefree, according to new research published today to mark the second anniversary of the smoking ban. (March 2008)
> http://www.holyrood.com/content/view/2267/10552/


Sorry if what people want doesn't fit in with your penchant for blowing dangerous smoke in their faces while they work, but there you go.



DapperDonDamaja said:


> Not to mention the attractiveness of turning a pub into residential conversion with house prices being as high as they are.


Indeed. If you're a landlord struggling to make ends meet and some developer rocks up offering you a half a million quid for your property, who can blame them for giving in?


DotCommunist said:


> cos of the poor workers who have no choice except to work in smoking bars.


You can sneer all you like, that's often the case for many people, actually.

Got this research yet?


----------



## lighterthief (Apr 23, 2008)

skyscraper101 said:


> I'm more pissed off about the fact so few pubs have done very little to extend the license beyond 11pm in the face of shrinking profits. After all, they've had the best part of two and a half years to do so. I'd love to do as I do in many other places in continental Europe and America and go for a drink at 10/11pm and stay out for a couple of hours knowing I'll be able to buy a drink after 11pm and won't be made to drink up and leave as I find is so often the way here and in Ireland.
> 
> Is that not a more effective measure to remedy shrinking profits? Surely kicking out paying punters kinda goes against maximising profits and yet I see it happen time and time again.


Agreed.

It seems daft the introduction of more relaxed licensing laws - and possibly a more civilised drinking culture - have not been implemented more widely.  Completely wasted opportunity IMO.


----------



## tarannau (Apr 23, 2008)

Eh? I can't think of one pub near me that shuts before midnight. Most places are open till 3-4 weekends as well.


----------



## pengaleng (Apr 23, 2008)

editor said:


> "High horse riding attitudes"? Huh?
> 
> The ban came in because it was *widely supported* in Parliament and because polls had the vast majority of the pubic supporting it too. I doubt if I had any impact at all on whether it came in or not (I wasn't ever polled), but what did you do to fight the ban? Did you go on any marches?



jesus fucking christ are you completely fucking stupid? can you not read? 

He didn't say that YOU PERSONALLY had anything to do with the ban, but YOU DO have the same attitude as the rest of the non smoking nazi regime.

EVEN I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU THICK CUNT AND I'M A DICKHEAD.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 23, 2008)

editor said:


> And the noisy smokers outside, of course.


 

what about the noisy NON-smokers outside?


----------



## Crispy (Apr 23, 2008)

tarannau said:


> Eh? I can't think of one pub near me that shuts before midnight. Most places are open till 3-4 weekends as well.



Albert will chuck you out at 11:20 on the nose on a weekday. Just one more hour would be nice.


----------



## jæd (Apr 23, 2008)

FridgeMagnet said:


> As I said earlier though I do think it would put off passing trade. If I was out shopping or on business, say, and I was a bit knackered, before I might pop into a pub for a pint and a sit down and a fag and a read of the paper. Now I won't. What's the point of going in to get a pint, then going out for a fag?



I'm the opposite. Previously if I wanted a quick pint I would have to go into a pub and come out with smoke fumes in my clothes. Now I'm more likely to go for one since I don't. I'm even more likely to go to a pub and get a coffee rather than go to a soul-less & pretentious coffee shop...


----------



## tarannau (Apr 23, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Albert will chuck you out at 11:20 on the nose on a weekday. Just one more hour would be nice.



Blimey. You can tell that I don't go to the Albert that often late night. Pish on a stick - that's rubbish for a pub on such a busy central location.


----------



## innit (Apr 23, 2008)

tribal_princess said:


> non smoking nazi regime.



ha ha, you lose


----------



## Guineveretoo (Apr 23, 2008)

skyscraper101 said:


> Exactly.
> 
> If anything I should be the pissed off one having to act like billy no mates while my fag smoking friends all stand around outside smoking away while as a non-smoker, I remain inside the pub. Either that or I freeze my arse off and inhale their fumes just to carry on the conversation.
> 
> ...




I completely agree with this (including the bit about being left in the pub on my whilst my mates go out for a fag, but that isn't the bit I wanted to respond to), and also get irritated that so few pubs which are not trying to be clubs are open beyond 11pm. It seems so uncivilised, and I hate the "drinking up" culture, which makes all of us into binge drinkers.


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2008)

tribal_princess said:


> He didn't say that YOU PERSONALLY had anything to do with the ban, but YOU DO have the same attitude as the rest of the non smoking nazi regime.


What, you mean the _vast majority of the public_ who fully supported the ban are all "non smoking Nazis" then?

That makes an awful lot of Nazis around then. Except they're not 'Nazis' and you clearly don't even understand what Nazism means. 

But let me explain: no one's been stopped from smoking. Smoking is not banned. People are still free to happily puff themselves into oblivion. No Nazism involved.

The only difference is that they can't force pub workers and their fellow drinkers to share their cancerous fumes inside pubs, shops and offices any more, and that's a right result in my book.


----------



## editor (Apr 23, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Albert will chuck you out at 11:20 on the nose on a weekday. Just one more hour would be nice.


Yeah, it's rubbish but I guess if people aren't buying drinks there's not much incentive to stay open and keep paying staff. Still, at least there's some later options a short stagger around.


----------



## dream_girl (Apr 23, 2008)

DotCommunist said:


> and sweat and piss and cloying, choking perfumes.


Thank God I don't go to the same pubs as you. But aren't you pleased that you have got your sense of smell back now? even if you don't like what you smell.



> And when I leave that atmosphere, what do I encounter? the carcinogenic choking fumes of cars.


Well that's another issue, and if you go to a pub on a busy street, well of course there's gonna be traffic fumes, but how has banning smoking in pubs affected this?  
- but its better than the old days - pollution in the pub and pollution out of the pub. 

I'm pleased that I can spend time in a pub now without suffering running eyes and breathing problems - and my clothes don't stink of cigarettes when I get home.


----------



## clandestino (Apr 23, 2008)

In Denmark, the rule is that people are allowed to smoke in a bar which is smaller than a certain floorspace - 40 square foot or something like that. Which is insane, because you end up being crammed into a tiny area which is full of smoke. I DJ-ed in a bar in Copenhagen a few weekends back, and being plunged back into an extremely smokey atmosphere was a shock, and really really unpleasant. I didn't have any choice in the matter as I was working all night and had to stay there.


----------



## pyrovitae (Apr 23, 2008)

ffs - i'm tired of selfish smokers who whine about how their civil liberties are being taken away - your right to enjoy yourself is only to the extent that it doesn't harm others.  second hand smoke is carcinogenic and causes harm.  

from an american site (http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422), but nonetheless:

_Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year.

Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects.  Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces._

you can still have a fucking fag if you feel like it, the only thing that's changed is you have to travel a few yards for it.  big deal.  your attitude's unjustifiable.  and for what it's worth, i smoked for ten years before qutting and still felt this way AS A SMOKER.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 23, 2008)

They could have smoking bars where the actual bar has a glass screen and your money and drinks go through little airlocks a bit like at the 24h garage.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 23, 2008)

pyrovitae said:


> ffs - i'm tired of selfish smokers who whine about how their civil liberties are being taken away - your right to enjoy yourself is only to the extent that it doesn't harm others.  second hand smoke is carcinogenic and causes harm.



look you WON GODDAMIT WHY MUST YOU EXPECT US TO THEN BE HAPPY ABOUT IT?!!


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 23, 2008)

ianw said:


> In Denmark, the rule is that people are allowed to smoke in a bar which is smaller than a certain floorspace - 40 square foot or something like that. Which is insane, because you end up being crammed into a tiny area which is full of smoke. I DJ-ed in a bar in Copenhagen a few weekends back, and being plunged back into an extremely smokey atmosphere was a shock, and really really unpleasant. I didn't have any choice in the matter as I was working all night and had to stay there.



Floorspace is a silly way to make the distinction between smoking and non-smoking premises.  Personally, I argued for - and still think there should be - a provision in the law so that premises should be able to provide a separate smoking room if they've space for one.  But that's not going to happen now.


----------



## pyrovitae (Apr 23, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> look you WON GODDAMIT WHY MUST YOU EXPECT US TO THEN BE HAPPY ABOUT IT?!!



i don't expect you to be happy but i do expect you to be reasonable.  or is that too much to ask?


----------



## bluestreak (Apr 23, 2008)

Roadkill said:


> Floorspace is a silly way to make the distinction between smoking and non-smoking premises. Personally, I argued for - and still think there should be - a provision in the law so that premises should be able to provide a separate smoking room if they've space for one. But that's not going to happen now.


 
I agree with this.  I also know a wonderful pub where they've basically covered their back garden and put heaters in!


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 23, 2008)

pyrovitae said:


> i don't expect you to be happy but i do expect you to be reasonable.  or is that too much to ask?


reasonable? what are you on about? 

you've seen me smoking in a pub after the ban have you? in fact have you seen anyone at all smoking in a pub after the ban? 

what more do you want, exactly? 

you want all smokers to beat themselves with thorned branches whilst they stand outside smoking?


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 23, 2008)

Pubs closing was an inevitable consequence of the smoking ban and one I'm sure the ban's advocates were aware of - they were   in favour of having a smaller selection of pubs, but all of them smoke-free, than having a wider choice but all of them smoky.

I didn't mind the ban too much myself, for the couple of weeks of it I was in UK for, but I found the stench inside smoke-free pubs off-putting sometimes - not so bad usually, but the places really honked when it had just rained and they were full of people wearing wet, heavy coats. And at all-dayers, when loads of people had drunk enough to get all farty, the smell of cigarette smoke, cigar smoke, or smoke coming off a burning pyre of BSE-infected cattle piled in the corner would have been preferable.


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 23, 2008)

Crispy said:


> They could have smoking bars where the actual bar has a glass screen and your money and drinks go through little airlocks a bit like at the 24h garage.



Blimey, it's only fag smoke.  Not radioactive waste.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 23, 2008)

it was just a joke


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 23, 2008)

Crispy said:


> it was just a joke


----------



## cesare (Apr 23, 2008)

I quite like that system in Spain where the bars have either a red 'no-smoking' sign or a green one. So the overall message isn't encouraging smoking, but in the green sign bars people are allowed to smoke.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 23, 2008)

I can't stand the smell of pubs now with all the furniture polish and air fresheners 

I don't mind the smoking ban but what is pissing me off is people behind me OUTSIDE tutting about smoking in the streets.  Are they not happy enough it's been banned in offices, restaurants and pubs?  Nooooooooooo, not at all 'cos now they have to walk past people smoking


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 23, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> I can't stand the smell of pubs now with all the furniture polish and air fresheners



Me neither, and I don't smoke any more. 

There is a particular cleaner that I can't stand but Mation cannot smell at all. There must be a particular receptor that some people have and others don't.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 23, 2008)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Me neither, and I don't smoke any more.
> 
> There is a particular cleaner that I can't stand but Mation cannot smell at all. There must be a particular receptor that some people have and others don't.


 


The same as how some people seem oblivious to the smell of Poison or Giorgio and others are near to retching when they smell it


----------



## baldrick (Apr 23, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> And at all-dayers, when loads of people had drunk enough to get all farty, the smell of cigarette smoke, cigar smoke, or smoke coming off a burning pyre of BSE-infected cattle piled in the corner would have been preferable.


----------



## cesare (Apr 23, 2008)

Minnie_the_Minx said:


> The same as how some people seem oblivious to the smell of Poison or Giorgio and others are near to retching when they smell it



Or Rive Gauche or any of them sickly sweet ones


----------



## pyrovitae (Apr 23, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> reasonable? what are you on about?
> 
> you've seen me smoking in a pub after the ban have you? in fact have you seen anyone at all smoking in a pub after the ban?
> 
> ...



not at all, i just wish that (some) smokers wouldn't use the term 'nazi' out of context (like tribal_princess) complain about their loss of liberties and convince themselves that anyone who disagrees with their right to smoke indoors in public establishments are anal fun-killers who have a _personal_ and vehement detest for people who partake in the habit.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 23, 2008)

cesare said:


> Or Rive Gauche or any of them sickly sweet ones




I like that


----------



## Herbsman. (Apr 24, 2008)

After reading this thread I can only come to one conclusion, and that is that the editor (and all the other anti-smoking nazis) is a selfish fuckhead. 

Who the fuck do you think you are, wanting to breathe cleaner air when you go out for a drink, what is your problem man? You think it is reasonable to want to have clothes, hair and skin that don't stink of smoke when you get home?

FFS stop being so unreasonable


----------



## Badgers (Apr 24, 2008)

I think that Tesco will open soem pub soon or something


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 24, 2008)

pyrovitae said:


> not at all, i just wish that (some) smokers wouldn't use the term 'nazi' out of context (like tribal_princess) complain about their loss of liberties and convince themselves that anyone who disagrees with their right to smoke indoors in public establishments are anal fun-killers who have a _personal_ and vehement detest for people who partake in the habit.


people just express themselves in different ways. in real life i've never heard people take particularly strong stances either way, people just deal with, but on the internet people get all crazy and extreme!


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 24, 2008)

Herbsman. said:


> After reading this thread I can only come to one conclusion, and that is that the editor (and all the other anti-smoking nazis) is a selfish fuckhead.
> 
> Who the fuck do you think you are, wanting to breathe cleaner air when you go out for a drink, what is your problem man? You think it is reasonable to want to have clothes, hair and skin that don't stink of smoke when you get home?
> 
> FFS stop being so unreasonable


so clever


----------



## Giles (Apr 24, 2008)

editor said:


> Nothing 'shaky' about defending the rights of workers and drinkers not to have their health threatened by the selfish actions of others. Or do you think you have some sort of right to harm others through your addiction?
> 
> And your bizarre diversion about car pollution isn't helping prop up your piss weak argument either. Surely the point is to reduce _all_ dangerous pollution, and asking smokers to stand outside for a few minutes is hardly the greatest imposition on human rights know to mankind.
> 
> Oh, and if you're going to persist with this curious comparison with vehicle pollution, could you produce some 'car vs smoking' comparative health risk studies please?



I don't smoke and I don't see why SOME pubs could have been allowed to have smoking if the customers wanted it. 

Just so long as at least half did not allow smoking, so that the non-smokers / anti-smokers couldn't have non-smoky places to drink.

Given that a significant percentage of the population do smoke, it would not have been too hard to staff them with only smoking staff, who did not mind at all.

Giles..


----------



## innit (Apr 24, 2008)

Giles said:


> I don't smoke and I don't see why SOME pubs could have been allowed to have smoking if the customers wanted it.
> 
> Just so long as at least half did not allow smoking, so that the non-smokers / anti-smokers couldn't have non-smoky places to drink.
> 
> ...



Have you worked in a pub?  When I was a barmaid I did smoke (well why not when you're covered in smoke all day anyway).  Giving up smoking's not easy at the best of times but it's close to impossible when all your colleagues smoke and you're surrounded by smoking customers all day.  And a cigarette break is the only way you'll get 2 minutes to yourself during a busy shift.

Also, I had a very moderate smoking habit and am sure that being in a foggy environment all day with customers huffing cigarette and stinky cigar smoke over the bar in my face probably did me more harm than the less-than-10 cigarettes I smoked myself.


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 24, 2008)

Weatherspoon and Yates bars had excellent extraction systems which meant people could smoke but the bars wern't smoky.

Why couldn't there have been this compromise in some pubs?

I know smaller pubs couldn't have afforded it, but as the first post says, they are closing anyway now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 24, 2008)

I've been in a few pubs recently down here in St Leonards where me and the missus have been the only non-smokers in there (and that includes the bar staff). They would all go outside on rotation. Especially in shitty weather, I felt like telling them to stay inside. 

The majority of the population does not smoke. But the majority of people who frequent a certain kind of pub do, and it is exactly this kind of pub that's closing. I have sympathy for staff who don't like a smoky environment but their jobs are going anyway. It is the kind of pub that was already partially/wholly non-smoking that is surviving. 

I hate this kind of blanket illiberal law that 'protects' a load of people who don't want protecting. There surely was some compromise partial-ban position. This is a cold country. I simply don't think it is reasonable not to cater at all for smokers indoors.


----------



## Giles (Apr 24, 2008)

innit said:


> Have you worked in a pub?  When I was a barmaid I did smoke (well why not when you're covered in smoke all day anyway).  Giving up smoking's not easy at the best of times but it's close to impossible when all your colleagues smoke and you're surrounded by smoking customers all day.  And a cigarette break is the only way you'll get 2 minutes to yourself during a busy shift.
> 
> Also, I had a very moderate smoking habit and am sure that being in a foggy environment all day with customers huffing cigarette and stinky cigar smoke over the bar in my face probably did me more harm than the less-than-10 cigarettes I smoked myself.




Yes I have worked in pubs and bars, some smokier than others.

If it was a real health issue then they could simply have given the staff respirators with filters. Other workers in hazardous environments wear them. 

That way, you could remove the "overriding elf n safety" argument - the only people then "unprotected" in the fag smoke would be (a) the smokers, and (b) those who who were not bothered about it enough to go to a non-smoking pub.

In fact, maybe the sight of staff in respirators would have made more of the smokers think about what they were doing to their lungs.

Giles..


----------



## tarannau (Apr 24, 2008)

Staff in respirators?

Worra cock...


----------



## innit (Apr 24, 2008)

Indeed


----------



## Giles (Apr 24, 2008)

Well, if you want a way round the "you can't harm your staff" problem, there's the only solution I could think of.

Why not?

Giles..


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2008)

Giles said:


> I don't smoke and I don't see why SOME pubs could have been allowed to have smoking if the customers wanted it.


And what if the bar staff didn't want it? Tough titty?

I still can't find a single reason why anyone should have to put up with someone else's dangerous smoke being blown in their face at their place at work. Can you?


PacificOcean;7410438]Weatherspoon and Yates bars had excellent extraction systems which meant people could smoke but the bars wern't smoky.[/quote]Right. And apart from the obvious downside of trying to wedge in energy consuming said:


> If it was a real health issue then they could simply have given the staff respirators with filters. Other workers in hazardous environments wear them.


LOL. That'll make for really pleasant working conditions then. 

The onus should be on the smokers to move off their fat arses and shuffle ten feet to the outside smoking area rather than expecting staff to put up with uncomfortable protective wear all day.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 24, 2008)

editor said:


> And what if the bar staff didn't want it? Tough titty?


some pubs i've been in the bar staff were definitely against the ban, so it's tough titty for them as it stands, it just depends who you are and what pub.


----------



## tommers (Apr 24, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> some pubs i've been in the bar staff were definitely against the ban, so it's tough titty for them as it stands, it just depends who you are and what pub.



no... you don't understand.

No compromise, no surrender.

It's the only thing these fat-bummed, noisy smokers understand.


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> some pubs i've been in the bar staff were definitely against the ban, so it's tough titty for them as it stands, it just depends who you are and what pub.


Would the smoke just circulate around those who were against the ban and completely avoid those who were for it then?

Public support for the smoking ban was overwhelming and it continues to grow (see my earlier links),

I support the right of smokers to puff themselves into an early grave and would never back a call to ban smoking, but I'll be fucked if I can think of any reason why I should be forced to inhale their poisonous fumes all night long when I'm working.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 24, 2008)

editor said:


> Would the smoke just circulate around those who were against the ban and completely avoid those who were for it then?


if all the staff and all the regulars were against the ban (which was the case in quite a few pubs near me) then what? "Public support" is a very broad term, when a lot of local pubs only really cater for a very small number of people. i am not personally too bothered by it, but it is sad that these places will shut down. maybe they would have shut for other reasons anyway.


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> if all the staff and all the regulars were against the ban (which was the case in quite a few pubs near me) then what?


And what happens when they hire a new barmaid/man who doesn't smoke? Or maybe one of the current staff gives up?

Tough titty all round? 

No one should be forced to work in conditions needlessly dangerous to their health and no bar worker (or pub punter) should be forced to inhale a faceful of fumes all day. All it takes is for the smokers to step outside for a while. It's not that fucking hard.


----------



## innit (Apr 24, 2008)

editor said:


> And what happens when they hire a new barmaid/man who doesn't smoke? Or maybe one of the current staff gives up?



Oh well, obviously people who are doing low paid bar work have got *loads of choice* as to what work they take, so non-smokers just wouldn't take jobs in smoking pubs out of desperation - that would never happen!


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 24, 2008)

editor said:


> And what happens when they hire a new barmaid/man who doesn't smoke? Or maybe one of the current staff gives up?


well they would have had to get someone who didn't mind working in that pub. different pubs have different kinds of people working in them. i wouldn't get a job in a pub with fruit machines then declare that gambling was immoral and they should all be removed. as it is there won't be a job for smoking or non smoking bar staff cos the pub will probably close, so noone is benefiting.


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> well they would have had to get someone who didn't mind working in that pub.


You seem to be labouring under the illusion that your average pub worker enjoys a rich and wide range of opportunities for work and they can pick and choose where they work - or that pub landlords can pick and choose from a long line of willing employees.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 24, 2008)

editor said:


> You seem to be labouring under the illusion that your average pub worker enjoys a rich and wide range of opportunities for work and they can pick and choose where they work.



the pubs i am talking about they don't exactly advertise for barstaff fairly. it will be someone who knows someone in the pub. they probably don't even have an "equal opportunities" policy.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 24, 2008)

i was sat outside a pretty empty local type pub the other day (like maybe 6 people inside + staff), come 11 the bouncer came out and was like "it's alright lads you can smoke inside now!" and we had a little lock in with the staff it was like old times (but less people! and a fairly grim pub to be fair)


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 24, 2008)

Now that smoke-free workplaces - or unemployment - has finally been won for pub workers, what fresh cause have the passionate advocates of clean air in the workplace turned their attention to? Building workers probably have it worst, but cleaning workers who have to inhale all those fumes probably aren't that far behind, and people who have to work outdoors in car-clogged city centres are likely up there too.


----------



## rutabowa (Apr 24, 2008)

editor said:


> You seem to be labouring under the illusion that your average pub worker enjoys a rich and wide range of opportunities for work


i also question whether there are many people who are "career bar workers", goign from pub to pub... people generally are locals who work in one pub for ages, or casual student labour who flit around loads


----------



## tarannau (Apr 24, 2008)

editor said:


> You seem to be labouring under the illusion that your average pub worker enjoys a rich and wide range of opportunities for work and they can pick and choose where they work - or that pubs landlords can pick and choose from a long line of willing employees.



Seems a bit patronising to me. I've employed a lot of pub workers in my time and I'd suggest that they're a surprisingly diverse bunch, everything from students through to well educated drop outs and working mothers.

There's plenty of choice of low paid catering/hospitality jobs in most areas as well to be fair. It's more that pub jobs are traditionally oversubscribed, seen as more sociable (and often less hard work) than similarly paid kitchen or hospitality roles. 

FWIW, I can't think of one member of staff that had a problem of smoking. In fact most wanted it to continue, particularly after Wetherspoons ill advised early attempts to ban smoking from bar areas a little while back.  I  still reckon it should be up to the individual pubs where possible.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 24, 2008)

rutabowa said:


> i was sat outside a pretty empty local type pub the other day (like maybe 6 people inside + staff), come 11 the bouncer came out and was like "it's alright lads you can smoke inside now!" and we had a little lock in with the staff it was like old times (but less people! and a fairly grim pub to be fair)



Yeah, that's happened at a few places I've been to as well.

Found it quite surprising that 'lock-ins' still happen when we apparently live in a round-the-clock binge-drinking hellhole.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 24, 2008)

Giles said:


> If it was a real health issue then they could simply have given the staff respirators with filters. Other workers in hazardous environments wear them.
> 
> That way, you could remove the "overriding elf n safety" argument - the only people then "unprotected" in the fag smoke would be (a) the smokers, and (b) those who who were not bothered about it enough to go to a non-smoking pub.
> 
> Giles..



a decent air-conditioning system would be more than enough, as is used in other workplaces where people are exposed to low level noxious substances


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 24, 2008)

I wonder when they're going to protect petrol station workers from the fumes from the forecourt...


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> I wonder when they're going to protect petrol station workers from the fumes from the forecourt...


What's the health risk then? Stats please!


tarannau;7411271]Seems a bit patronising to me. I've employed a lot of pub workers in my time and I'd suggest that they're a surprisingly diverse bunch said:


> . people generally are locals who work in one pub for ages, or casual student labour who flit around loads


Indeed. So why should they have to put up with other people's smoke, even if they are only casual workers? In fact, why should _anyone_ have to put up with other people's smoke in their face?


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 24, 2008)

editor said:


> Right. And apart from the obvious downside of trying to wedge in energy consuming, large, noisy air extractors into smaller pubs, who's going to pay for all this gear? Try passing all those costs on to the customers in the shape of hiked prices and you'll get even less punters.LOL. That'll make for really pleasant working conditions then.



Wetherspoons and Yates have had these for years and people still paid their considerably cheap prices.

Small pubs wouldn't be able to afford them and close but as your first post pointed out this is happening now anyway thanks in part to the smoking ban.


----------



## Crispy (Apr 24, 2008)

Hasn't this been to complete and total bloody-pulp death already?


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Hasn't this been to complete and total bloody-pulp death already?


*Picks up handfuls of the  pulp, squeezes out the water and forms the mush into a shape that might just be able of containing an argumentative point.

*Mush-pulp thing collapses


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 24, 2008)

Crispy said:


> Hasn't this been to complete and total bloody-pulp death already?



It's like one of those Civil War re-enactment things - the Smoking Wars will probably be refought every year on the anniversary of the ban.


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> It's like one of those Civil War re-enactment things - the Smoking Wars will probably be refought every year on the anniversary of the ban.


Here comes the smokers' cavalry!







Cough! Splutter! Wheeze! Phlegmball!


----------



## 8ball (Apr 24, 2008)

Yossarian said:


> It's like one of those Civil War re-enactment things - the Smoking Wars will probably be refought every year on the anniversary of the ban.



I dunno, after a couple of generations it will have no more relevance - they'll just look at us fogeys and say "they banned smoking in _what?_"


----------



## Relahni (Apr 24, 2008)

I say bring back the smoking - it's much better than the stench of farts and piss.


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 24, 2008)

editor said:


> Here comes the smokers' cavalry!



D'ohh - the "Phyrric Victory" pub is being turned into flats.


----------



## PacificOcean (Apr 24, 2008)

Yay for no compromise and a blanket ban despite what staff and punters of certain pubs may want.

All hail North Korea!


----------



## smokedout (Apr 24, 2008)

PacificOcean said:


> Wetherspoons and Yates have had these for years and people still paid their considerably cheap prices.
> 
> Small pubs wouldn't be able to afford them and close but as your first post pointed out this is happening now anyway thanks in part to the smoking ban.



lots of pubs have air-conditioning and lots of modern systems are virtually silent

smaller pubs could have been offered grants to have them fitted to help working class pubs survive

as ever this is about class, guardian reading liberals wanting to inflict their puritan morals on the proles


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2008)

smokedout said:


> smaller pubs could have been offered grants to have them fitted to help working class pubs survive


Yeah! Those pubs were literally surviving on smokers fumes so everyone should pay up for them to stay that way!!





smokedout said:


> as ever this is about class, guardian reading liberals wanting to inflict their puritan morals on the proles


Damn right! It's a class thing! Toffs don't inhale! Guardian readers don't smoke! And all working class people smoke!

Meanwhile, in the real world: 





> Strong support for smoking ban on second anniversary, Tuesday, 25 March 2008
> 
> More than *80 per cent of Scots* support the smoking ban and *84 per cent agree pubs, bars and restaurants are more pleasant smokefree*, according to new research published today to mark the second anniversary of the smoking ban.
> http://www.holyrood.com/content/view/2267/10552/





> Support for smoking ban grows one year on
> Mar 31 2008
> The latest survey suggests that *84% of adults in Wales support smoke-free public places*, compared with 71% before the ban, according to the Welsh Assembly Government.
> http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news...smoking-ban-grows-one-year-on-91466-20694631/


Boo to the fascist oppressor government giving the people what they, err, overwhelmingly wanted.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 24, 2008)

editor said:


> What's the health risk then? Stats please!



I hope you're not suggesting that carbon monoxide is a harmless substance editor!


----------



## cesare (Apr 24, 2008)

It's all of the factors listed in the OP that's going to change the pub culture. The timing was economically unfortunate (imo) re the smoking ban.


----------



## DotCommunist (Apr 24, 2008)

New scientist said:
			
		

> Up to a      fifth of all lung cancer deaths in cities are caused by tiny particles of      pollution, most of them from vehicle exhausts. Having a research method that      separated out the effects of smokers, the researchers concluded that the      death rate from lung cancer rose by 8 % for every 10 microgram in the      concentration of PM2.5 (particles less than 2.5 microns size) per m3.      Concentrations around the world vary but typical levels are 20 micrograms in      Los Angeles, 16 in New York. British levels are similar, but London has a      particular problem with a high incidence of diesel engines that make a      concentration of 32 micrograms for at  Marylebone Road      typical.





http://www.puravent.co.uk/filters/display_static_page.pl?static=research.htm


----------



## smokedout (Apr 24, 2008)

editor said:


> Yeah! Those pubs were literally surviving on smokers fumes so everyone should pay up for them to stay that way!!Damn right! It's a class thing! Toffs don't inhale! Guardian readers don't smoke! And all working class people smoke!



no, those pubs were surviving on the income from their customers many of whom smoked.  but tell you what, you walk into any estate pub or working mans club and ask what they think about the smoking ban, see how long you last

there were plenty of options for compromise but petty authouritarians who want to force their prohibitionist attitude on everyone else shouted loudest and the government bowled over to the tarquin and miranda types who only go to foodie pubs



> Meanwhile, in the real world: Boo to the fascist oppressor government giving the people what they, err, overwhelmingly wanted.



the people want a lot of things such as capital punishment and drug users thrown in jail


----------



## smokedout (Apr 24, 2008)

lots of people working in bars are attacked and have even been killed by people drunk on alcohol

so if your that concerned about workers rights do you support banning alcohol in pubs as well ed


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 24, 2008)

I don't think that the editor really is a crusader for health and safety in the workplace smokedout just that he happens to leap to the defence of pub workers because it suits his personal anti-smoking agenda.


----------



## editor (Apr 24, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> I hope you're not suggesting that carbon monoxide is a harmless substance editor!


Not at all, but have you got these supporting facts or not?


DotCommunist said:


> http://www.puravent.co.uk/filters/display_static_page.pl?static=research.htm


LOL. Can you find something that actually backs up your claims please, rather than a selective quote from a commercial outfit flogging air filters?


Citizen66 said:


> I don't think that the editor really is a crusader for health and safety in the workplace smokedout just that he happens to leap to the defence of pub workers because it suits his personal anti-smoking agenda.


Or it might be because _I've_ worked in pubs and clubs for years on end (and still do) and I'm fucking delighted to no longer have to come home _stinking _of other people's fag smoke and wake up coughing up other people's noxious fumes.

But please explain why you think workers should have to put up with anyone making them inhale dangerous fumes, because I'd really can't think of any justification.

If you want a fag, step outside and respect the right of others not to breathe in your toxic fumes. Looks like a basic courtesy to me.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 25, 2008)

editor said:


> Have you got these facts or not?



Simple question. Two people sit in two rooms - one has nicotine smoke blowing in and the other car exhaust fumes.

will there be much difference in their mortality rates do you think? Do people sit in cars with nicotine smoke blowing in in order to commit suicide?

There's no need to be disingenuous. The facts are widely known.


----------



## editor (Apr 25, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Simple question. Two people sit in two rooms - one has nicotine smoke blowing in and the other car exhaust fumes.


What?! Who sits in a room with car exhaust fumes being blown in their face? What a truly bizarre comparison.

Do you want to try again with something that actually makes a bit of sense in the real world?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 25, 2008)

editor said:


> What?! Who sits in a room with car exhaust fumes being blown in their face? What a truly bizarre comparison.
> 
> Do you want to try again with something that actually makes a bit of sense in the real world?



So garage workers aren't subjected to car fumes in the line of their work then? You seem to be suggesting that there isn't a risk. In most other industries no worker would be subjected to that kind of exposure to poisonous gasses without breathing apparatus.


----------



## editor (Apr 25, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> So garage workers aren't subjected to car fumes in the line of their work then?


On that basis, there's a risk for everyone who has a gas cooker in their house.

But have you got any figures to back up the supposed risk to UK garage workers which you claim is comparable to that from passive smoking?

If not, I'll leave you to it.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Apr 25, 2008)

The understanding is that employers SHOULD be obliged to take every chance to eliminate any harm that their employees could be exposed to. These are labour rights FFS.

If you want to smoke do it where people aren't working eh?

(writing as a casual smoker and someone who feels that the odour of establishments is in need of improving)


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 25, 2008)

editor said:


> On that basis, there's a risk for everyone who has a gas cooker in their house.
> 
> But have you got any figures to back up the supposed risk to UK garage workers which you claim is comparable to that from passive smoking?
> 
> If not, I'll leave you to it.



Well what facts do you have about the effects of passive smoking and I'll see what I can find too?

Oh, and household cookers burn gas not petrol.


----------



## editor (Apr 25, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Well what facts do you have about the effects of passive smoking and I'll see what I can find too?


Lots of well sourced references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking, but here's a few to get you going:


> Passive smoking killing thousands
> Doctors want to see a complete smoking ban in public spaces
> Passive smoking kills more than 11,000 a year in the UK - much higher than previously thought, a study shows.
> 
> ...





> Researchers from London's St George's Medical School and the Royal Free hospital have recently found when you include exposure to passive smoking in the workplace and public places the risk of coronary heart disease is increased by 50-60%.
> 
> A major review in 1998 by the Government-appointed Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH) concluded that passive smoking is a cause of lung cancer and ischaemic heart disease in adult non-smokers, and a cause of respiratory disease, cot death, middle ear disease and asthmatic attacks in children.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/3235820.stm


Still waiting for your appraisal of the comparative risks faced by garage workers, by the way - you brought it up, so it would be awfully nice if you could back it up.

Oh, and even if you'd like to quibble about the medical research on the long term effects of smoking, the immediate short term effects are well recognised and inconvertible for some folks: sore eyes, coughing, stinky clothes, shortness of breath and even a triggering of an asthma attack. Why should _anyone_ have to put up with that when all the smoker has to do is to walk a few feet outside?


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 25, 2008)

editor said:


> Oh, and even if you'd like to quibble about the medical research on the long term effects, the immediate short term effects are well recognised and inconvertible for some folks: sore eyes, coughing, stink, shortness of breath and even a triggering of an asthma attack. Why should _anyone_ have to put up with that when all the smoker has to do is to walk a few feet outside?



I didn't say the risks were comparable and nor am I necessarily against the smoking ban, these are things that you are projecting onto me. I said:



Citizen66 said:


> I wonder when they're going to protect petrol station workers from the fumes from the forecourt...



To which you immediately got defensive about for reasons that remain completely unclear to me. I'll have a look if there's any information available when I've got a bit more time, probably tomorrow, but that still doesn't change the fact that exhaust fumes are incredibly harmful to both the environment and human health. So your strange stance that anyone who comes into contact with these fumes in their line of work shouldn't be awarded the same protection as you believe you deserve in the industry in which you work leaves me as baffled as you often claim to be.


----------



## editor (Apr 25, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> To which you immediately got defensive about for reasons that remain completely unclear to me. I'll have a look if there's any information available when I've got a bit more time, probably tomorrow, but that still doesn't change the fact that exhaust fumes are incredibly harmful to both the environment and human health or your strange stance that anyone who comes into contact with them in their line of work shouldn't be awarded the same protection as you believe you deserve in the industry in which you work.


I'm right with you there bro' just as soon as you produce evidence that the risk is real, quantifiable and comparable.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 25, 2008)

editor said:


> I'm right with you there bro' just as soon as you produce evidence that the risk is real, quantifiable and comparable.





> Children who live close to major transport hubs are more at risk of dying of cancer, a study says.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4138684.stm



> Inhaling tiny particles in car exhaust fumes could trigger heart disease and increase the risk of strokes, say scientists.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/02/18/scipoll118.xml



> Breathing car exhaust fumes can trigger heart disease and increase the risk of strokes, say researchers.



http://www.topnews.in/health/car-exhaust-fumes-may-damage-heart-21104



> Chemicals that seep into our environment may be causing a "silent pandemic" of brain diseases, researchers claim



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10471-warning-over-chemical-risk-to-developing-brains.html


----------



## editor (Apr 25, 2008)

What happened to the garage workers?!


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 25, 2008)

editor said:


> What happened to the garage workers?!



Are they immune to the hazardous effects or something?

Equally, if this is how you want to play it, do you have any links to stories of hospitality workers where it has been proven that they died as a result of passive smoking without wheeling Roy Castle out?


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Apr 25, 2008)

editor said:


> What happened to the garage workers?!




I know of a guy who worked in a garage as a welder.  He's now got Goodpastures Syndrome. 

Totally unrelated but just felt the need to point it out should anyone want to become a welder


----------



## HackneyE9 (Apr 25, 2008)

Pubs were closing at this rate WAY before the smoking ban. I'd say the price of booze/beer in supermarkets had more to do with it, but the main thing is in somewhere like London, you can sell a Victorian boozer for somewhere between 1 and 2 million quid to a developer. That's a lot of pork scratchings. 

The pub closure explosion seems to tally with the house price inflation, ie, starting mid-late nineties.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 25, 2008)

editor said:


> What happened to the garage workers?!



Garages are closing too, as it happens.


----------



## editor (Apr 25, 2008)

Citizen66 said:


> Equally, if this is how you want to play it, do you have any links to stories of hospitality workers where it has been proven that they died as a result of passive smoking without wheeling Roy Castle out?


Are you _really_ denying that shoving fag smoke in someone's face isn't detrimental to their health?

You don't have to die of something for it to be harmful to your health and I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a reasonable explanation why workers and drinkers should be forced to inhale other people's dangerous smoke.


----------



## Citizen66 (Apr 25, 2008)

editor said:


> Are you _really_ denying that shoving fag smoke in someone's face isn't detrimental to their health?
> 
> You don't have to die of something for it to be harmful to your health and I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a reasonable explanation why workers and drinkers should be forced to inhale other people's dangerous smoke.



I've never denied that shoving fag smoke in someone's face is detrimental to their health. Are you still taking the unusual stance that exhaust fumes aren't at all dangerous to people who's jobs bring them into contact it?

You asked me for examples, I asked you for examples which you haven't provided.


----------



## Giles (Apr 25, 2008)

HackneyE9 said:


> Pubs were closing at this rate WAY before the smoking ban. I'd say the price of booze/beer in supermarkets had more to do with it, but the main thing is in somewhere like London, you can sell a Victorian boozer for somewhere between 1 and 2 million quid to a developer. That's a lot of pork scratchings.
> 
> The pub closure explosion seems to tally with the house price inflation, ie, starting mid-late nineties.



The greedy and unfair lease deals that the big pub-owning companies offer to prospective landlords don't help.

They usually tie the hapless wannabe "landlord" into buying their drinks at massively above the open market price, as well as high rents and fairly arbitrary rises in these.

If you can buy a freehold pub, even with a big loan, it is inherently more profitable because you can then buy drinks etc from whoever you want at a much cheaper price.

The issue of pubs being worth more as actual properties than as viable businesses IS a major factor - especially as you say with your typical big London boozer. The thing is with a lot of these pubs, is to "look up" - they often have 2, 3 or even more floors of accommodation above which ends up being worth so much to developers.

There's some that have made this into a money-spinner and not closed the pub, though - there's one near me in Kilburn that is a massive building with (I think) four floors above the ground level pub bit, and a few years ago someone bought it, did it up into a nice pub, with decent food, a proper restaurant bit on one side, and turned some of the many rooms above into a B & B, which now seems to be doing fine.

What really annoys me is the way councils (which have a planning rule generally against losing pubs) allow plans which involve making ALL the upper floors into flats, and supposedly keeping the ground floor as a pub, and then unsurprisingly no-one will take it on because there's no live-in accommodation, and no prospects of loud music / late opening, because of all the people living upstairs. And then after a while the owner says "well, no-one will rent it as a pub, can we have a change of use, please?".

They must KNOW this method by now - why do they allow it?

Giles..


----------

