tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post4457722972603978496..comments2024-03-29T08:01:51.705+00:00Comments on The Pub Curmudgeon: Non-smokers’ survey – the resultsCurmudgeonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-34824595364934945322011-07-27T18:49:01.743+01:002011-07-27T18:49:01.743+01:00Anon at 21-39, and also in the pub are anons who o...Anon at 21-39, and also in the pub are anons who offer no evidence of any note except to yammer the sum knowledge of the world they read in the Sun. Go back to trying to solve the crossword from Monday last week if you can keep your eyes off page 3 for long enough.Gregsternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-14001197991234826442011-07-26T01:08:48.873+01:002011-07-26T01:08:48.873+01:00Dick, it would seem that your point about the smok...Dick, it would seem that your point about the smoking ban not bieng about protecting health of bar staff was clearly stated by Dr Linda Bauld before the smoking ban.<br />"I hope that in 10 years’ time we will be much closer to the situation where smoking is no longer as socially acceptable. That’s what this [smoking] ban is about - <strong>cultural change.</strong>" - Dr Linda Bauld, April. 2007. <a href="http://pubcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/03/she-would-say-that-wouldnt-she.html" rel="nofollow"> HERE </a><br />So Dick, it would seem that ASH UK board member Dr Linda Bauld is in agreement with you!Fredrik Eichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985306468872702882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-34730965526109864352011-07-26T00:34:57.305+01:002011-07-26T00:34:57.305+01:00"The ban is here to stay, I'm afraid.&quo..."The ban is here to stay, I'm afraid." - Saga,<br />Do not be afraid, many bad laws have a short shelf life, take <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28" rel="nofollow">Section 28 - "Some prominent MPs who supported the bill when it was first introduced have since either expressed regret over their support, changed their stance due to different circumstances which have evolved over time, or have argued that the legislation is no longer necessary."</a> for example.Fredrik Eichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985306468872702882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-31674385203245888712011-07-25T21:39:07.157+01:002011-07-25T21:39:07.157+01:00Kudos to the Curmudgeon for fostering a proper pub...Kudos to the Curmudgeon for fostering a proper pub atmosphere in here: a bunch of bitter, vaguely conspiracy-theorist, blowhards yammering on about things they think they know everything about and yet can't be arsed to take the time to try to change anyway!<br /><br />Puff on, my grumpy brothers. The ban will still be in effect when you lot kick the bucket.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-38483055594843844442011-07-25T19:51:53.221+01:002011-07-25T19:51:53.221+01:00"Dick your 'facts' are just plain wro...<i>"Dick your 'facts' are just plain wrong."</i><br /><br />Not really, no. You see, I can back them up. You said that the ban was about protecting bar staff, I said that government literature never says that apart from Hansard where MPs attempt to candy-coat it. When you look at <i>actual</i> government documents, they never hide the true reason. <br /><br />Here's one from just last week <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201012/ldselect/ldsctech/179/179.pdf" rel="nofollow">(page 10)</a>.<br /><br /><i>"Regulation of the individual<br /><br />Interventions category: Restrict choice<br /><br />Samples of policy interventions: Restricting the options available to individuals e.g. outlawing smoking in public places"</i><br /><br />Nope, don't see anything there - in any of the 111 pages - about protecting bar staff.Dick Puddlecotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481866882188932892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-80017451717017670792011-07-25T15:30:33.879+01:002011-07-25T15:30:33.879+01:00Pre 2007 I worked in a pub with a separate non-smo...Pre 2007 I worked in a pub with a separate non-smoking are and pretty much every day we had to tell people to stop smoking there. Occasionally people would actually refuse to do so. I'm sure that it was the same for pubs where you couldn't smoke at the bar. So no, in my experience pre 2007 the ban was not self policing at all. <br /><br />My journal is primarily going to be about the coming adventure of turning a derelict pub into something special with not much money in the bank. The journal is hopefully going to get a lot more interesting when I actually get the keys for the pub, and have to start doing it up. Currently all I am doing is acquiring essential things, and waiting for legal issues to settle. <br /><br />I'm far too opinionated to write a pub blog that incorporates my thoughts about the wider drinks industry. Nobody would touch me with a barge pole. :)Saga Of Nailshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891668833405154713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-14029315834041016262011-07-25T15:18:50.565+01:002011-07-25T15:18:50.565+01:00Saga of Nails said: "I need to make my journa...Saga of Nails said: <i>"I need to make my journal more interesting, so that I attract such visitors as yours."</i><br /><br />Well, so far it seems to be stultifying boring :p<br /><br />Post something about the wider pub scene and drinks market and someone may be interested.Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-52552987977594747812011-07-25T15:07:28.374+01:002011-07-25T15:07:28.374+01:00"The law is simple, and it's easily notic...<i>"The law is simple, and it's easily noticed if it is broken. It's basically self policing."</i><br /><br />Only because the burden of the law falls on licensees - <a href="http://pubcurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2011/07/self-enforcing-law.html" rel="nofollow">see here</a>. <br /><br /><i>"If the law is altered, then the boundaries are going to be much blurred, and this is why I think councils will have to start employing smoking enforcers."</i><br /><br />They never needed to before July 2007. Then non-smoking areas really were self-enforcing.<br /><br />Oh, and keep on posting this drivel - I do love swatting full tosses to the boundary.Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-69617297887374559642011-07-25T14:57:02.070+01:002011-07-25T14:57:02.070+01:00Curmudgeon, at the moment I'm fairly sure that...Curmudgeon, at the moment I'm fairly sure that local councils don't actually have to employ any smoking enforcement officers, because 99% of pubs and customers are adhering to the ban. Pubs which don't are swiftly going to get reported to the authorities. Anybody smoking inside a pub at any time is breaking the law, and all customers know this. The law is simple, and it's easily noticed if it is broken. It's basically self policing. <br /><br />If you had either some smoking pubs and some not, or separate carriages, then customers are not necessarily going to know what the specific status is going to be for a particular venue. <br /><br />Currently the distinction is clear. People cannot even go inside to pick up their pint if they have a fag in their hand, but I'm pretty sure that the temptation to do things like this will increase if the law was less strict and clear. Are other customers going to report pubs if this kind of thing happens, or just sit and grumble in the English manner. <br /><br />If the law is altered, then the boundaries are going to be much blurred, and this is why I think councils will have to start employing smoking enforcers. I know a licensing officer, and the next time that I see him, I'll ask whether Bristol Council spend any significant money enforcing the smoking ban. I strongly suspect not.<br />Well done on the record comments. (I need to make my journal more interesting, so that I attract such visitors as yours.) :)Saga Of Nailshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891668833405154713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-79687567009144521882011-07-25T12:46:53.786+01:002011-07-25T12:46:53.786+01:00"Do you at least accept that it would cost a ...<i>"Do you at least accept that it would cost a lot of money in bureaucracy to get a ban amended?"</i><br /><br />No, it wouldn't cost any money whatsoever beyond Parliamentary time to repeal the relevant provisions of the Health Act 2006. And local authorities would save money by no longer having to employ smoking enforcement officers.<br /><br />Incidentally, I'm sure this is a record for number of comments on a post on this blog ;-)Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-55541055285465649962011-07-25T12:26:16.799+01:002011-07-25T12:26:16.799+01:00Curmudgeon, I am at least trying to put forward an...Curmudgeon, I am at least trying to put forward an argument as to why I am correct, backed up by what I see as facts. You are not trying to 'prove' my argument wrong, or sully my 'proof'. You are just saying that I'm wrong, and not elaborating in any significant fashion. <br /><br />That's why it could run and run.<br /><br />Your argument about other countries doesn't equate if you look at their attitudes towards other controlled substances. Weed isn't about to get legalised here, but it is legal in Holland.<br /><br />Do you at least accept that it would cost a lot of money in bureaucracy to get a ban amended ?Saga Of Nailshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891668833405154713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-57794938501759008632011-07-25T11:44:54.233+01:002011-07-25T11:44:54.233+01:00@Neil from Dave Atherton
The point is that the ha...@Neil from Dave Atherton<br /><br />The point is that the harm of second hand smoke (SHS) really has been an invention of the anti smoker organisations. To give you another example childhood exposure to SHS and lung cancer. There are 22 papers conducted into it and 3 suggest a small risk, 11 suggest a small level of protection and the remaining 7 the null hypothesis.<br /><br />The most famous one is the World Health Organization's Boffetta 1998 report which on childhood exposure to SHS concluded:<br /><br />"Results: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64-0.96)"<br /><br />In epidemiological terms the figures are known as "statistically significant as the CI boundary is <1.0. <br /><br />Neil, ASH and the Department of Health have consistently refused my request for a debate. Speaks volumes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-23994083316447523272011-07-25T09:56:36.142+01:002011-07-25T09:56:36.142+01:00Slippery slope?
It looks to me like you are on th...Slippery slope?<br /><br />It looks to me like you are on the edge of a precipice.<br /><br />Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Financier of Temperance<br /><br />"The temperance-oriented Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) "seeks to drive adult beverage consumption underground, away from mainstream culture and public places."<br />"It attempts to stigmatize alcohol, de-legitimize drinking, marginalize drinkers, and create a de facto quasi-prohibition of the legal product"<br />http://www.alcoholfacts.org/RWJfoundation.html<br /><br /><br />WHO gets nod to tackle harmful use of alcohol- 2008<br /><br />"The blueprint, to be presented in two years, should include a set of recommended national measures for states. These could cover guidance on the marketing, pricing, and distribution of alcoholic drinks and public awareness campaigns.<br /><br />In 2003, WHO clinched the first global public health treaty which targeted tobacco through stronger warnings on cigarette packages and limits on advertising and sponsorship" <br />http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/05/22/us-un-alcohol-idUSL2267900320080522<br /><br />Guidelines For Alcohol Consumption Are Inadequate For Cancer Prevention<br />12 Jul 2011<br /><br />"Several evaluations of this agency as well the joint 2007 report of the World Cancer Research Fund and the American Institute for Cancer Research warned of the link between alcohol and cancers in the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon-rectum and breast cancers. Based on the evidence, <br /><br />"there is no level of alcohol consumption for which cancer risk is null."<br />http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/230871.php <br /><br />The boarded up windows,metal fencing and dead flowers in tubs makes the High Street look terrible.<br /><br />Somehow I don't think "But alcohol is different" is going to work.<br /><br />RoseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-41274110342499338782011-07-25T08:06:56.007+01:002011-07-25T08:06:56.007+01:00"the indoor smoking ban was essentially broug...<i>"the indoor smoking ban was essentially brought in to protect employees against smoke"</i><br /><br />Oh no it wasn't. This one could run and run ;-)<br /><br /><i>"The ban is here to stay"</i><br /><br />A phrase only used by those who want it to be here to stay. No doubt the likes of Billy Sunday said the same about US Prohibition in the early 20s when people started pointing out its negative consequences.<br /><br />Smoking bans have been relaxed or amended in other countries, most notably the Netherlands. No reason why it can't happen here, given time.<br /><br />And if it doesn't happen, the ban will go down in history as the measure that kick-started the decline of pubs from a national institution to a tiny, irrelevant rump.Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-650921257492687662011-07-25T01:26:08.957+01:002011-07-25T01:26:08.957+01:00@ Fredrik Eich, you do seem to think that the only...@ Fredrik Eich, you do seem to think that the only people who support the smoking ban are (possibly rabid) anti-smokers. I am a publican, and support the smoking ban, although I do find it a pity that some kind of compromise couldn't have been reached with 'smoking carriages'. And I'm typing this with a fag in my hand.<br />I have met PLENTY of smokers who support the ban, and I have met PLENTY of non smokers who oppose it.<br />Curmudgeon, I raised the point about the wider remit for the ban in order to try to 'prove' my point that the indoor smoking ban was essentially brought in to protect employees against smoke, and employers against future lawsuits from employees. It was not just a ban on smoking in pubs but a ban on smoking in ALL places of work.<br /><br />The ban is here to stay, I'm afraid. There is absolutely no way that it is going to be repealed. The Tories are not going to do it. Labour are certainly not going to do it, and the Lib Dems don't actually have enough influence to do it. How many MP's support a repeal of the ban ?Saga Of Nailshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891668833405154713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-45256251145477734252011-07-24T22:50:47.854+01:002011-07-24T22:50:47.854+01:00"I take it to be a lighthearted attempt to ge..."I take it to be a lighthearted attempt to get people to look at their world in another light and maybe see why pro-clean air supporters are so passionate." - Anonymous.<br />I really don't know why anti-smokers are so obsessed with the human excretory system but it's their analogy and I think it fair to point out that there can be more than one swimming pool. This concept is somthing that anti-smokers find hard to conceptualise. So for example in th UK prior to the smoking ban , I would walk past any number of smoke-free restaurants in order to find one where I could dine where smoking is permited. Now I walk past smoke-free restaurants to find yet more smoke-free restaurants. So in the pissing anology , it's a bit like walking past pissing pools to find yet more pissing pools. I too am passionate on this subject, I passionatly believe that any pub or restaurant should ba allowed to go smoke-free because other wise there would be no places for people that do no like smoking to go to, this would make people unhappy and I beleive it is wrong to make people unhappy. So this is the way it would work, if you like going to smoke-free restaurants then you go to those and I go to the restaurants where smoking is permitted, that way we are both catered for. It would not be my responsibility to make smoke-free places popular and it would not be your responsibility to make non-smoke-free places popular. To get to this happy situation the law needs to be repealed or at the very least amended and this will not happen.Fredrik Eichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985306468872702882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-18329803712542553192011-07-24T20:54:20.501+01:002011-07-24T20:54:20.501+01:00@Anon, if you don't think I'm worth arguin...@Anon, if you don't think I'm worth arguing with, then why do you bother?<br /><br />Whatever the "science", the pissing in the pool and wanking in the corner comparisons are ludicrous, hyperbolic, foaming-at-the-mouth arguments that discredit anyone advancing them. It's a bit like people who say driving a car is like toting a loaded gun.<br /><br />The "slippery slope" argument cannot be regarded as fallacious when it is enthusiastically taken up by those campaigning against alcohol - they see it as the logical next step from tobacco, and who am I to argue?Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-44424052357616994012011-07-24T20:45:36.193+01:002011-07-24T20:45:36.193+01:00ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE –
ESTIMATION OF ITS CO...ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE –<br />ESTIMATION OF ITS CONTRIBUTION TO RESPIRABLE SUSPENDED PARTICLES –<br />METHOD BASED ON SOLANESOL DETERMINATION<br /><br />"Many plants of the Solanaceae family, which includes the genus Nicotiana, of which the tobacco<br />plant is a member, contain solanesol; particularly those that contain trace amounts of nicotine.<br />These include the tomato, eggplant, potato, and pepper.<br /><br />The potential interference due to these sources is negligible, cooking being the only likely potential source of interference. An interference of this type would bias results high, overestimating the contribution of ETS to RSP."<br />Coresta<br /><br /><br />Nicotine<br />"Nicotine is an alkaloid found in the nightshade family of plants (Solanaceae), predominantly in tobacco, and in lower quantities in tomato, potato, eggplant (aubergine), and green pepper.<br /><br />Nicotine constitutes 0.3 to 5 percent of the tobacco plant by dry weight, with biosynthesis taking place in the roots, and accumulates in the leaves."<br />Science Daily<br /><br />"With secondhand smoke, the main concerns are exposure to levels of carbon monoxide and respirable particulate matter.<br />While air nicotine metabolised as cotinine provides a marker for measuring exposure to tobacco smoke, the nicotine is not present in such quantities as to present health concerns".<br /><br />ASH Scotland non tobacco smoking materials<br /><br />Scary huh?<br /><br />RoseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-30147908393427736502011-07-24T20:30:15.480+01:002011-07-24T20:30:15.480+01:00@Carmudgeon
Michael J. McFadden? Really? That tip...@Carmudgeon<br /><br />Michael J. McFadden? Really? That tips your hand as someone not to argue with. Mr. McFadden is quite zealous in his insistence that the volume of work showing second-hand smoke is bad is overshadowed by the handful of questionable reports he has dug up.<br /><br />It seems everyone in the rational world has been taken in by an anti-smoke temperance movement, which people like Mr. McFadden are out to open our eyes to the conspiracy?<br /><br />You take his word over volumes of sound scientific findings?<br /><br />Let's see what Mr. McFadden has accomplished:<br /><br />1. He published a (I'm guessing not peer-reviewed) book through a tiny publishing house that specialized in publishing anything that was pro-smoker. Though I can't find a record of it existing today. The quotes in support of his work suffer from the Appeal to Authority fallacy, as someone with a Dr. in their name and heading up some imaginary "thinktank".<br /><br />2. He signs his name to any newspaper comment board he can find where an article about a smoking ban was covered, being sure to plug his book and use words like "fraud" and "coverup" and other words that make you really trust a guy...<br /><br />As for the pissing in the pool analogy, I take it to be a lighthearted attempt to get people to look at their world in another light and maybe see why pro-clean air supporters are so passionate. And yet people take it as a "fact" and mercilessly try to debunk it. I mean, the fact that people on this board cheerfully suggested that yes, there should be a separate pissing pool, and a special bar only for masturbaters tells me that they missed the joke!<br /><br />And that they are very much in love with their little smoke sticks.<br /><br />The day that me responsibly enjoying a beer causes as much harm to those around me (currently: none) as what one cigarette can cause to those around it (currently: a lot, remember Anonymous quoting Dave Atherton, cigarette smoke contains more than just nicotine!) then we can talk about equating beer with cigarettes. Stop using a slippery slope logical fallacy, please.<br /><br />And @Fredrick Eich: I think you need to lighten up... scientifically dissecting jokes will put you in line with looneys like Michael J. McFadden!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-82219416632983700972011-07-24T20:01:15.588+01:002011-07-24T20:01:15.588+01:00Well, as often said, you just cannot appease these...Well, as often said, you just cannot appease these people, as they have no interest in compromise or rational accommodation. Exactly the same is true of the anti-drink lobby.Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-45993922379378753002011-07-24T19:56:17.439+01:002011-07-24T19:56:17.439+01:00I have great sympathy with the pub trade, it all j...I have great sympathy with the pub trade, it all just seems so sad.<br /><br /><br />ASH Political Bulletin 2004 Page7<br />Letter to the Publican<br /><br />From Peter Linacre Managing Director of The Massive Pub Company<br /><br />"The only ultimate provision and safety for us will be a smoking ban.<br />We all need to be forwarned that the next growth area for the legal system will be prosecutions of publicans for not protecting staff from the dangers of ETS.Since April 27 cases have been taken on - this is the start of a tidal wave - in my view.<br /><br />The industry, through the various trade bodies is looking for a voluntary ban with 80% of premises having smoke free areas by 2007.<br />Having attended the conference I am of the clear view that far too many of us could be fighting legal battles by then, and perhaps we will be preferring a total national ban.<br /><br />We need to take a very close look at what is happening elsewhere and learn from their experiences.The clearest message from this conference is that on health and legal grounds a ban is an absolute must and an absolute certainty.<br />That frightens us and requires us to change will, ultimately, be irrelevant.<br /><br />I would strongly recommend that every trade body and industry representative invites some of the speakers from this conference, or workshop.<br />At least that way acknowledge of the dangers of ETS and to our livelihoods and businesses will be more widely available."<br />http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_405.pdf<br /><br /><br />Massive Pub Company calls in the administrators<br />28 January, 2008<br />http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storyCode=58420<br /><br />RoseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-40727070382879770672011-07-24T19:44:58.132+01:002011-07-24T19:44:58.132+01:00My attitude to the way the smoking ban appeared to...My attitude to the way the smoking ban appeared to have been accepted, changed when I first found this.<br /><br />ASH and Thompsons' Tell Employers: Don't Say You Weren't Warned Over Secondhand Smoke<br />Monday 12 January 2004<br /><br />"The hospitality trade faces a rising threat of legal action from employees whose health is damaged by secondhand smoke, after a new tie-up between health campaigning charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) and the UK's largest personal injury and trade union law firm Thompsons was announced today.<br /><br />ASH has sent a registered letter to all the UK's leading hospitality trade employers, warning them that the "date of guilty knowledge" under the Health and Safety at Work Act is now past, and that employers should therefore know of the risks of exposing their staff to secondhand smoke. Employers who continue to permit smoking in the workplace are therefore likely to be held liable by the courts for any health damage caused. ASH and Thompsons intend to use the letters in any future court cases as evidence that employers have been fully informed of the issue."<br /><br />"ASH and Thompsons are also planning further steps to encourage employees who believe their health has been harmed by smoking in the workplace to seek legal advice on making a claim for compensation. These will be announced shortly."<br />http://www.ash.org.uk/media-room/press-releases/ash-and-thompsons-tell-employers-dont-say-you-werent-warned-over-secondhand-smoke <br /><br />Publicans may well have thought that passive smoking was complete nonsense, but could they really afford to take the risk of some ex-employee twenty years down the line taking them to court with any ailment that might have developed, caused by who knows what?<br /><br />That threatening letter from ASH left them like sitting ducks.<br /><br />RoseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-11762577420105687472011-07-24T14:31:22.893+01:002011-07-24T14:31:22.893+01:00Honestly, sticking your head in the sand and prete...<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_PTNXHvy4OkY/TJJRiXYzS3I/AAAAAAAAAFU/kQv7nTf394g/s1600/pubsclosingUKandEire.jpg" rel="nofollow">Honestly, sticking your head in the sand and pretending facts don't exist just doesn't help your cause at all."</a><br /><br />Agreed.Fredrik Eichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985306468872702882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-52660653649759952672011-07-24T10:49:07.172+01:002011-07-24T10:49:07.172+01:00"Will people get over the focus that it was a...<i>"Will people get over the focus that it was a bill banning smoking in pubs? It was a bill, banning smoking in all places of work and indoor public places. Pubs just happened to come under that area."</i><br /><br />Who has ever said on here it was solely a bill banning smoking in pubs? Obviously it was a more general law, but as this is basically a blog about the licensed trade and the drinks industry that is the particular bit I am interested in.Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02558747878308766840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5623537812609722663.post-26769559647097238782011-07-24T10:40:17.688+01:002011-07-24T10:40:17.688+01:00Will people get over the focus that it was a bill ...Will people get over the focus that it was a bill banning smoking in pubs ? It was a bill, banning smoking in all places of work and indoor public places. Pubs just happened to come under that area.<br />Honestly, sticking your head in the sand and pretending facts don't exist just doesn't help your cause at all. <br />Dick your 'facts' are just plain wrong. I didn't 'glance occasionally' at gvmt literature. As I was running pubs in the run up to the ban I followed the issue very closely because it was likely to change my professional career.Saga Of Nailshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891668833405154713noreply@blogger.com