Smoking: more statistics to chew over
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 I am just about to do an interview on LBC in response to the latest smoking-related survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics (Opinion Survey Report No 40: Smoking-related Bahviour and Attitudes, 2009/09).
According to the Press Association:
Fewer Britons support the ban on smoking in pubs than in other public places, a survey has revealed.
While 93% agreed lighting up should not be allowed in restaurants, a smaller proportion of 75% believed it was right for cigarettes to be illegal in pubs.
Smoke-free legislation was enforced across the UK by July 2007.
A survey carried out by the Office for National Statistics since the ban showed the majority supported no smoking in the workplace (85%), indoor sports centres (94%), indoor shopping centres (91%) and railway and bus stations (85%).
Meanwhile, the proportion of smokers who said they would like to give up dropped to 67% in 2008-09 from 74% in 2007, although this was not significantly different to previous years, according to the ONS.
Half of smokers intended to quit within the next year, the study found.
Health was the most common reason for people wanting to stop smoking, cited by 71%, while almost a third (31%) gave financial reasons.
The survey into smoking-related behaviour and attitudes, which covered the period September 2008 to March 2009, also revealed an awareness among smokers of the dangers of tobacco to children.
A total of 77% claimed they did not smoke at all when they were in a room with a child - a figure that has increased from the 54% recorded in 1997.
In terms of taxation, there was a clear divide between smokers and non-smokers, with 17% of smokers saying tax should be increased by more than the rate of inflation compared with 64% of those who had never smoked who supported inflation-plus rises on tobacco taxation.
The Guardian covers the ONS survey HERE.
I will check but it is highly unlikely that respondents were offered the choice of separate smoking areas (or rooms) in pubs or in the workplace.
Likewise, I doubt very much whether respondents were divided into pub-goers and non pub-goers.
Ask those questions and I am certain that the answers would be very different.
Simon Clark
Reader Comments (48)
Good old 'Guardian' - ever-mindful of the Liberties of the Individual.............!
Of the many things that irritate me about these 'surveys' is the assertion inevitably made that the Ban HELPS people to give up (a random sample of ASH employess found 125% in favour of this view).
Doesn't this rather miss the point - for those us living outside North Korea ?
If, for example, a Food Taliban were to impose Stoning To Death, Mutilation, and Public Flogging for the Overweight, I'm CONVINCED that that would 'help' people to become slimmer.
But would we really want that, I wonder ?
(Oh, Martin - you DO exaggerate !!)
I wouldn't mind betting that about 75% of those asked were non-smokers.It is said that the 11million smokers left are hardened criminals, I mean hardened smokers, so will ASH and the Government stop pushing useless NRTs and suicide pills, such as Champix?
The high tide mark has been reached and now the tide turns and starts, slowly at first then gathering pace, to go out. Hopefully it will go out a long long way.
Simon, here is a survey done by SA Brain the brewers in Wales in 2004. Not only were 41% of the average pub made up of smokers, but 83% of people wanted choice. Only 17% of people found smoking an inconvenience or irritation. It is entirely made up of people that actually went down the pub.
"More than 80 percent of pub customers in Wales are opposed to a complete ban on smoking in pubs according to a survey carried out for leading independent brewer, pubs and drinks company SA Brain & Co Ltd.
The independent survey of nearly 1,400 customers and staff found that only 19 percent of customers and 12 percent of staff support a total ban on smoking in pubs. There was, however, more widespread support for the provision of no smoking areas for eating and at the bar.
Around 42 percent of customers agreed that no smoking should be the policy in eating areas of the pub. Twenty-two and a half percent support banning smoking at the bar at 22.5 percent and 23 percent of customers said that they would spend more time in the pub if changes to the smoking policy were made. Around 83 percent said that the level of smoke was not a problem in the pub in which they were interviewed.
Of the total number of customers surveyed, 41 percent were smokers.
Retail director for SA Brain & Co Ltd, Philip Lay"
Simon, you may also want to quote this highly biased survey commissioned by the NRT brand Nicotinell from December 2003 in Edinburgh.
This is the worst it:
"Some 81 per cent of smokers interviewed in Edinburgh were against any ban, primarily because they believed they had a right to smoke but also due to concerns about a ban’s effect on their social lives. More surprisingly, 37 per cent of non-smokers were also against the idea of a total ban on the basis of smokers’ rights."
In Full.
"A NEW poll has suggested that any proposed total ban on smoking in public places would not get the overwhelming support of people living and working in Edinburgh.
According to the local street poll conducted in the city by Nicotinell, more than half - 52 per cent - were against a total ban.
It is in sharp contrast to the result of a national survey, also undertaken by Nicotinell, indicating that 68 per cent of the population are in favour of a ban on smoking in public places, with 28 per cent against and four per cent still undecided.
Some 81 per cent of smokers interviewed in Edinburgh were against any ban, primarily because they believed they had a right to smoke but also due to concerns about a ban’s effect on their social lives. More surprisingly, 37 per cent of non-smokers were also against the idea of a total ban on the basis of smokers’ rights.
There was a much more encouraging response to voluntary schemes with the use of smoke-free zones. This is the approach favoured by the Government.
Almost two-thirds (65 per cent) of all those interviewed said they preferred to use pubs and restaurants with smoke-free zones."
Dave -
The above polls are very interesting, of course.
But - We Have Moved On etc etc etc
And didn't I hear some Anti-Smoking Female on the 'PM' programme intone yet ANOTHER familiar mantra this evening ?
Along the lines of:
"Of course, such bans may be a LITTLE unpopular AT FIRST. But then the Public comes to accept them, and (love them, even ?).........."
All part of the Educative Process, you see !
I'm sure - given time - we smokers will ALL come to see The Error Of Our Ways, and stop badgering The People Who Know Best.
I heard it on 'PM', too, Martin, and was struck by, firstly, the fact that someone from the Royal Castle Lung Cancer Foundation (or some such) was asked to comment on the ONS stats, as if they'd disagree with the findings and, secondly, how often The Children were mentioned, chillingly along the lines that, now that even smokers accept the harm done by ETS they will come to believe that smoking in the home (if children are present) is A Bad Thing. They're slowly paving the way to have smoking banned in front of children, be that in cars, public parks or homes.
With Sir Liam Donaldson's "project denormalisation" in full swing, I came across this survey of bar workers in Cork, Ireland and I don't think that the results differ much form the UK. The main findings were that about 70% of bar staff smoked but the most interesting point is that they gave them saliva cotine tests to confirm.
3% of people lied about their smoking habits, so many people who ticked the 'no' box may of been shamed into misleading the survey. Also there are many people who smoke a cigar once a month or twice a year who class themselves as "non smokers."
Also there is a statiscian called Peter Lee. He graduated from Oxford University with an MSc in Statistics. He has worked with epidemiologists on SHS and we really must look into his work more.
One of the most important facts he has uncovered is in saliva, cotine tests people fib about the level of smoking. It is referred to as misclssification. I once read a spat between Lee and an anti smoking scientist. Even the anti conceded that 2% of people lie about their smoking habits. The figure topped out at 20% especially with Asian women studies.
There are two conclusions: Smoking maybe under reported and I have worked out at 2% the vast majority of SHS studies would come up with a relative risk of 1.00. 3% and above SHS becomes protective.
"Results Self reported smoking prevalence among Cork bar workers (n = 129) was 54% (58% using cotinine-validated measures), with particularly high rates in women (70%) and 18–28 years old (72%). Within the ROI (n = 1,240) sub-sample rates were substantially lower at 28%. Bar workers were twice as likely to be smokers as the general population sub-sample (OR = 2.15).
Conclusions Cork bar workers constitute an occupational group with an extremely high smoking prevalence.
More phoney figures produced by the group called ASH and there supporters dont mean a lot, as i feel they are asking the wrong questions, the questions they should be asking is, do you think pubs and clubs should be allowed to have seperate smoking rooms or areas from those who dislike smoking? and as all other groups of people in this country can, do you think people who smoke should be allowed to have there own venues, seperate from people who dislike smoking? as we are not all robots this sounds like more human questions, with the loss of over 2000 pubs and clubs "some of which could have been used to allow for smokers venues", hundreds of busnesses in the entertainment sector,thousands of jobs, a loss of freedom of choice for adults, a sense of inequality and the destruction of social divercity, what have the governments smoking ban really achieved? answer = NOTHING.
All the anti organisations like ASH and the likes are all sitting pretty and smug and self satisfied right now in their blinkered belief that they have pulled off the greatest misinformation and false statistics coup about cigarette smoking.
But like everything else in this life that's built on a lie and false premise, it will only be a matter of time before it all comes tumbling down.
In the meantime their latest
scaremongering tactic now seems to be the swine flu.
Not happy by scaring the vulnerable about SHS they have now turned their crooked eye on the swine flu con.
Some people will do anything to hold on to their job at the expense of others.
As if people are not worried enough in these recessionery times about their jobs and bills, they think nothing of scaring people further with this panic about swine flu, by cashing in on getting everyone to buy thier Tamiflu pills.
After the success of the panic measures of the smoking ban, the quangos now see another cash cow in sight by making themselves indispensible again by conning the populace into believing they will have to keep hospitals open/extra hospital staff/carers etc to cope with the epidemic while at the same time giving the subtle hint to govt. Thus keeping themselves in full employment while the rest of us are forced to join the dole queues.
Nice work if you can get it dont you think!
This survey is a pile of bull dung from start to finish.
1) No-one "knows" how many smokers there are. How can they?
2) The claim that there are fewer smokers, but those who smoke are smoking more is fanciful clap-trap. Again, how can they possibly know? I don't buy all my tobacco in the same shop, so how does anyone know if I'm smoking more or less?
3) Before the ban, the government claimed that "about" 27% of the country smoked which was touted at 14,000,000 smokers. When the ban was brought in this figure suddenly dropped to 12,000,000 at 25%. Convenient!
4) We all know the government is desperate to get the smoking figure down to 21% by 2010. It's felicitous for it, n'est ce pas, that they want to claim a drop to 22% already.
5) There have been a couple of surveys recently contradicting the government's position - one by Mori, and another by an independent institute (can't remember the name but I'm sure some of you will recall it) which claimed that male smoking rates were up.
6)The country is now awash with black market tobacco (I buy it whenever I can) and this includes Chinese cigarettes even! The more the government raises tax, the more this trend will grow. Subsequently and again, how can the government possibly know how many cigarettes are really being consumed and therefore, have any real idea of exactly how many smokers there are?
7)Lastly, this reminds me of the situation in Ireland when all sorts of smoking figures were bandied about and the claim broadcast that their ban was a success - not long before they admitted it was a failure...
Joyce -
Absolutely !
What IS (and I intend no offence) SO sacred about the memory of Roy Castle anyway ?
It's long been a mystery to me why he seems to have been elevated to the status of the country's Best-Loved Oncologist.
It would seem that celebrity in one area of expertise is sufficient to endow its practitioner with infallible knowledge in another.
Surely he was just an entertainer who THOUGHT that all those smokey nightclubs caused his cancer ?
And why doesn't Eddie Mair do a PROPER job, as the intelligent journalist he undoubtedly is, and CHALLENGE the lazy assertions these people
make ("Everybody KNOWS that SHS kills" etc etc) ?
Laziness, fear, or just plain ignorance of the facts, one imagines.
Sometimes I could throttle Auntie !
In the meantime, I'm DYING to hear Jordan's views on the problems caused by fractional reserve banking......
I do not know if other people are like me or not.
I read the Daily Telegraph (believe me, I am not a snob!). Several years ago, the DT began to publish occasional articles about the INCREASED risk of getting cancer by eating meat, or whatever. Note the word INCREASED.
Now, let us suppose that there is a risk of one in a million (whatever that may mean!) of getting cancer from eating ANYTHING, and let us suppose that eating meat increases this risk by 50%. Then, the ACTUAL risk is still only one and a half per million - ie. miniscule.
For some reason that I do not understand, the DT began to publish more and more of these INCREASED risk sort of articles. So what happens? At first, you do not really notice that the article is about some miniscule thing. Your brain sees only 50% INCREASE! And so you go, "Oh God! I must stop eating meat!" But, after you have seen more and more of these INCREASED risk articles, you start to say to yourself, "Hang on, there are just too many of these INCREASED risks to be true." And you think about it, and you decide that all this INCREASED risk is a load of shit! And so you stop reading the articles. It will not be long, I prophesy, before all these INCREASED risk articles disappear.
There is a point to the above
In the same way that INCREASED risk is irrelevant if the risk is very, very small, the opinion of people who never, or hardly ever, go to pubs and clubs as to whether or not smoking should be allowed in pubs and clubs is IRRELEVANT.
It follows therefore that ALL the statistics quoted in the National Statistics bla bla are irrelevant.They mean nothing.
Let us suppose, for an instant, that 90% of people use wood burning stoves to heat their houses. Let us suppose that of the remaining 10%, 5% use gas and 5% use electricity. If there is some sort of dispute between the gas users and electricity users, OF WHAT INTEREST IS THE DISPUTE TO THE WOOD BURNERS?
As regards the National Statistics Survey, you might as well take regard of the statistics from Outer Mongolia or Nepal for all the difference it makes.
Polls are there to drive sane people mad, to make pollsters rich, and to boost government figures.
A report came out yesterday, stating the following: "Sunbeds can increase the chances of developing skin tumours by 75% and pose the "highest" risk of cancer, a report has warned".
I left the following comment about it:
"Give me strength, what are these people going to dream up next?
Almost everything that comes into our daily lives, contain carcinogens in one form or another.
Even our drinking water contains a certain amount of Formaldehyde, which in turn is a hazard in both embalming and making plastics. Vinyl chloride, from which PVC is manufactured, is a carcinogen and thus a hazard in PVC production. How many items made from PVC do we all have around the house, in our cars, in our jobs, etc., etc?
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said sunbeds "can" increase the chances of developing skin tumours by 75% and pose the "highest" risk of cancer.
The IARC have been paid an undisclosed sum to provide this report. Their very existence depends upon providing the right answers to their paymasters. All they have ended up saying in fact, is that sunbeds "can" increase the chances of developing skin tumours etc.
We can all produce reports with the word "can" in them, which in this instance means "might", nothing more.
A couple of weeks back we had the Chief Medical Officer, Liam Donaldson, proclaiming that Swine Flu "could" kill up to 600 people a week in the UK. This silly, and ill thought out statement, caused panic in the UK on a massive scale. Donaldson's figures were wrong (thank God) and I think we will live to see this latest pile of rubbish by the IARC also proven wrong".
I quite agree Peter.
If the gov't etc, are so concerned about sunbeds, then shouldn't they tell the sun it is banned? Ah, perhaps they have already!
Failing that, the next thing will be to limit the amount of time any one of us can spend in the sun when it is out!
Perhaps they should start looking at the real reason people smoke, drink, use sunbeds, etc - it is called THE FEEL GOOD FACTOR.
This country is in such a mess and people are so pi**ed off that they need something to make them feel a little better and nicotine, alcohol and sunshine tend to do that for most. Let's face it, many people suffer from SAD in the winter months and our summers of late have not been wall to wall sunshine for 3 months, so it is understandable that people need to feel good in whatever way is best for them. The fact that the nanny state is trying to ban everything that makes people feel good will end, eventually, with a revolution - it has to, or else we will all be dead from feeling so hopeless and helpless!
I missed out eating, especially things like chocolate, as that is something else that has that FEEL GOOD FACTOR that so many of us crave and need in these desperate times.
The sooner government and quangos start realising this, the sooner their problems will be rectified and things will turn around and recover far better and far quicker than these idiots banning everything and scaremongering!
It is rapidly getting to the point where if enjoying myself and doing what makes me feel good now is likely to kill me in the relatively near future, that is a far better prospect than living for several more decades in abject misery and being dictated to by bloody idiots called politicians who pass judgement on things they know nothing about, haven't researched but gone along with because 'so and so said it was true'! How the hell do they get away with trying to run a country on that basis?
I really must write that article one day which incudes the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation. It already existed as the only cancer charity which researched treatment of lung cancer. Roy did a campaign to raise money for them, a fair amount I believe. They took his name, and upon his death invested the money he had raised in - no, not new research into lung cancer, but extra admin staff and a campaign to present places of hospitality, especially hotels and guest houses, with a 'Roy Castle Clean Air' certificate if they went totally smokefree.
Here is a little something about RC and his unfortunate disease.
Roy Castle died of lung cancer, his death certificate does not say passive smoking.
RC was not a non smoker, he smoked cigars.
In his early career RC did a comedy act in variety shows, his props were made from asbestos.
RC only spent a few years in smoky clubs, he moved on to films and TV, unlike thousands of club acts, many of whom are still going strong.
Lung Cancer did not appear with smoking, in 1900 before smoking was a widespread social activity, 10% of cancers were of the lung. Everyone dies of cancer if heart failure does not get them first.
Roy Castle did not die from passive smoking, he died from lung cancer.
Person no 1 - My Uncle ALbert lived until he was 90.
Person no 2 - Yes I remember him, a miserable sod, what did he die of?
Person no 1 - Good health
I have long thought we would be spared many hundredweight of newsprint tosh, and paranoia, hypochondria, depression and family rows, if newspapers had a style rule banning the use of the words'can', 'could' and 'may' in headlines. I suspect that specialist journalists in a very competitive industry, anxious to get their copy into print, are tempted to snap up an easy,eye-catching headline, spoonfed to them through a press release. I don't know what subs' rooms are like these days, though I worked in several once, but I rather fear that if any sub-editor said: 'Hold on, hold on. What do these figures really mean?' he would not be too popular with middle-ranking executives anxious to get the paper out and have reached the stage of longing for a quiet life. The humble sub's job might itself be that much less secure. Thus the steamroller of specious propaganda rolls on and is met with very little scrutiny.
I have not seen a post on this subject which has not been very sensible and very reasonable. So why is it so difficult for the population of the country to think and act in a similar way - to think and act in a sensible way? Why is it that our politicians, and our newspapers, are hell-bent on wearing us all down until we become jibering idiots, either because we smoke, or because we are fat, or because we are parents, or because we fly on aircraft, etc, etc?
I came upon the following famous phrase a long time ago. I do not know who said it or when, but the phrase goes:
"Most people live their lives in quiet desperation"
'Quiet desperation' = 'fear and uncertainty' and all the other negatives that might spring to mind.
Do persons remember a report in the newpapers about a woman who was prosecuted by the Local Authority for leaving her wheelybin on the pavement? Amusing at the time, but I noticed that quite a few of the residents in my neighbourhood immediately stopped putting their bins on the pavement and started putting them on the end of their driveway instead!
"Lives of quiet desperation".
I am no psychologist, but I can certainly see that such people might be vaguely angry, without knowing why exactly. I can see that such people might find it quite exciting, enjoyable and empowering to lash out at other people who seem to be not so desperate, such as smokers, fatties, drinkers, etc. This idea would explain why it is that people who never go to pubs want to ban smoking in pubs.Unhappy people want to stop happy people from being happy.
The phrase, "Most people live lives of quiet desperation" is on a par with the famous statement by G K Chesterton that "THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND HAVE NOT SPOKEN YET". Well they will be speaking in the next General Election.
"Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them."
(Henry David Thoreau)
I would like to congratulate the bloggers on this forum for their intelligent, fair and informative debate and of course Simon and Forest for allowing people to speak freely, especially compared to bloggers on the recently reopened Irish Health site in ireland in regard to the debate 'Do you think the smoking ban should be overturned' whose contributors seem to be drawn from the hitler movement. And who seem to have acquired a certification in arrogance, jeering and putdowns which only endeavours to stifle any debate on pro smoking.
Their viscious and poisinous attact on any individual who does not agree with their opinion is astounding, and being ireland, it would appear that they must be somehow gaining financially or jobwise out of it.
Due to the poisinous nature of their attacks I personally think that the majority are ASH plants with vested interests.
Also, all blogs are screened by the editor before it is published and deleted or scrapped as he sees fit, which puts the mocklers on what you want to say from the off.
I am very disappointed as I thought ireland had escaped from the dark ages but then again that was just more spin.
Some great posts on this thread !
Re Statistical Abuse (it CAN make you go blind):
Anytown has a population of one million. For the past twenty years, it has only experienced FIVE (reported) burglaries.
Way, way below the national average.
But:
This year, that number has risen to SIX.
Resulting Shock-Horror Headline in the 'Daily Mange' (by Brian Thicke, Crime Reporter):
"BURGLARIES UP BY TWENTY PERCENT, ADMITS POLICE SUPREMO"
Percentages are THE Journalist's Friend !
It would be nice if people were to look BEHIND them occasionally............
Junican -
NEVER apologise for reading the 'Daily Telegraph': it's still something more than the Thinking Man's 'Daily Mail'. It's also JUST the right size for those of us with Normal-Length Arms.
No offence to midgets or small children intended (so, don't bother calling a policeman or a solicitor - WHATEVER it says in the Anti-Terrorist Act).
I am probably going to disobey a maxim which old hacks everywhere have ignored at their peril, i.e., ‘if in doubt, leave it out’. I am worried, as one who has been on anti-depressants since 1997, that I might spread more gloom where enough of it exists already. But I shall, with apologies, disobey that inner warning.
I went to a pub today. Well it used to be a pub. It has been a pub for centuries but I doubt whether the farmers and labourers, auctioneers and commercial travellers who, yesteryear, patronised its various bars, would have felt at home in it. They would have felt comfortable with the ancient, worn paving slabs of its main bar, but with not much else.
During my working life I went to pubs virtually daily. After retirement - yes, this is true - I found off-licence beer made the pensions go a lot further. But my instinctive love of pubs and of beer from the wood, especially, remained. Do others remember the Draught Bass of 50 years ago – before ‘Keg’ – which was poured, deceptively still but alive and fragrant, from great barrels behind the bar?
The pub I visited today was decked with hanging baskets and looked very attractive. At the door was a great concrete bowl of sand for cigarette ends. In the days before the smoking ban it had a separate dining area where, by tacit agreement, no-one smoked. This apparently worked well. After the ban the food side of the business has been developed and the new-style hostelry at times does a roaring trade.
Praise be that the business survives, although I don’t know whether many former regulars still visit or whether they have just faded away. I was with my wife, sister and her husband today. We went to our reserved table, placed our order and waited.
Families with children were all around. The bar where the regulars met was empty . Food was being served in the garden. Near where we were sitting was a round table with about 12 people, men and women in their twenties, who conversed in a bright-eyed way. I caught a glimpse of a bottle of cider, not much else. I admire devoted church folk and am a believer myself but I did wonder whether they were tutors on a lunch break from a young people’s evangelical holiday club.
We waited 45 minutes for our lunches. I made my pint last. I was driving There came a point when my impatience got the better of me. I haven’t smoked in the presence of non-smokers for years (my understanding wife excepted) so it wasn’t that which caused some half-expressed frustration at the delay (perhaps I’m putting this mildly). It was the death of the English pub as an ancient institution.
‘Chill out’, my sister coaxed.’There’s no hurry. Let’s just enjoy chatting.’
‘Chill out?’ I replied. ‘Here? I feel as if I’m on Mars.’
You strike a chord with me, Norman. I now feel that I'm totally out of step with the Zeitgeist. I seem to loathe everything about today's Britain and there's no way that they'd have hired that rather pleasant looking woman as the Wookey Hole Witch had they met me!!
It's not just the smoking ban but, as Peter said on another thread, the myriad infractions of our liberties; the sheer illogicality of decisions; the bullying that accompanies enforcement; the standards of customer (non) care practised by companies; the back-biting and blame-shifting inevitable in target-driven organisations; the manner in which people behave, at best off-hand, at worst defensive and aggressive. I could go on... It's as if the Government has created a society which has a bright, shiny, brittle veneer under which there are cracks so huge you could be engulfed. I think that much of the population lives in a state of simmering bad temper.
I read blogs written by others who are equally horrified at what's happening. It's consoling to know that other people feel the same.
On a happier note, by this time next year we'll have a new Government. It can't be worse than this one. Can it?
To return to the demonisation of smokers for a moment: I listened to a programme on Radio 4 in which MPs spoke of their experiences during the expenses scandal. They were bewildered, hurt and frightened by the animosity of the electorate. They suffered the opprobrium of society. I had not one ounce of sympathy. Their experience echoes that of the 25% of the population whose misery they have engineered.
I agree with your view of the wider picture, Joyce. The trouble is I rather fear the Zeitgeist may already be practising the knot of an Old Etonian tie.I do hope I'm wrong.
I feel exactly the same with regard to the new pub scene as Joyce and Norman.
As I dont partake of the pub scene anymore, except on special social occasions that cannot be avoided.
I find the same shock and horror as to how the old comfortable real pubs have disappeared to find now they are replaced by massive eating venues with drink thrown in as a side order.
And if it happens to be a drinking only pub a person is bombarded with flashing tv screens all around the place or else ear deafening music with the young and trendy drinking from bottles by the neck.
None of them seemingly have the patience/relaxed persona/attention span/ real conversation or the ability to achieve this any more and they always seem to be rushing off somewhere else.
Yeah, I guess nanny has really achieved her aims, divided and conquered we stand outside trying to get a drag on our fags in the wind and rain, while indoors the cash registers are ringing up the only profits to be made in pubs, in these enlightened times, on unwanted food from the punters indoors who will end up on the hit list, like us disenfranchised smokers, for being OBESE.
I hope a change of govt will change things and I'm not holding my breath on this score either, but history shows that people can be pushed so far, so the new lot whoever they will be would be wise to ease up on the small and simple pleasures of the prolatariat and think 'reversion' before the great unwashed reverts and bites them on ass!
After the ban the food side of the business has been developed and the new-style hostelry at times does a roaring trade.
That's how my local is these days. It's become a restaurant for mostly well-off, elderly, retired people. Most of the younger people have gone. Or they're outside.
Whatever it is, it's not a pub any more. It's not even a place where people meet and socialise. It's just a place where people go to eat. When they've finished eating, they leave.
Quote of the Day on Consevative Home.
RTS left this comment on ToryDiary:
"It will be the final irony. Smoking bans, alcohol restrictions, anti-obesity programs all to ensure we live long enough to be bullied into euthanasia."
Fascist wolves may now wear organic sheep's wool, not jackboots. Some among the 'flock' may actually be sheep, nice, loving, trusting animals. The appetite of some of the wolves will grow through feeding. And they will feel strong in that they are doing it for the good of their prey. Perhaps they will end up consuming each other. Fanciful? Maybe. The instinct to control and dominate is part of human nature as are its opposites of love and care. Early days? Yes. But already a massive minority has experienced 'righteous' exclusion and denial of a modest level of tolerance. Early days? I pray they will develop no further. But, if they do, it won't be jackboots which march up your drive. It will people in green, organic wool suits.
Norman -
"It will be people in green, organic wool suits".....
Or 'social workers', as they are more affectionately known these days.
Quite !
It amazes me that - after everything that's been written about him - so few people STILL fail to understand what Hitler REPRESENTED, and that the very impulse that gave rise to that particular phenomenon is still VERY much alive -and thriving, especially (and sadly) in America today.
Invading other peoples' countries and killing Jews (etc) was only PART of that particular New Age Agenda (temporarily interrupted in 1945).
Today, torchlight parades, jackboots, and funny salutes are an insufficient means of moving the masses towards Unquestioning Obedience.
We have subtler methods at our disposal now - in ADDITION to FEMA camps, the CIA/NSA/FBI, 'Global Terrorism', and 'waterboarding' (aka 'torture' - when practised by foreigners).
And Adolph would NEVER have approved of rock concerts, Gay Rights, or Barack Obama........
So glad we've 'moved on' from the Thirties.
At least, THAT is what they're teaching in our schools, isn't it ?
I read all these excellent, interesting posts, and then I had to say to myself, "Just a mo, what was this thread about, again?"
Going back to the beginning, the thread was about STATISTICS.
So, it seems that a large number of people were asked some questions about their opinions about smoking in various places. There was some percentage difference betweem those who were against smoking in restaurants as opposed to those who were against smoking in pubs, and likewise about smoking on railway stations, etc.
What is important to remember about this particular survey is that it is totally irrelevent. These percentage differences do not matter. It is another deliberate red herring.
The reality is that, as regards smoking in pubs, only the opinion of pubgoers, and the staff of pubs, matters. It is a gross error, statistically, to include the opinions of non-pubgoers.
This statistical gross error is what has enabled the Gov and these very stupid MPs who do not understand the real meaning of statistics to persecute us so.
Junican -
Yes - threads tend to develop a life of their own, don't they ?
I, for one, have never been fooled by 'percentages'. But numbers, you see, have a peculiar mystique about them, especially when offered to our highly-UNeducated public by The Experts.
As you say: WHOLLY irrelevant, both statistically and ethically.
If something is demonstrably 'wrong', then no amount of 'polling' or (God help us) 'focus group' consultation will make it 'right'.
And the Ban is WRONG - period.
Why is it wrong ?
Because it HURTS a great many people who were doing no harm to anyone (save, perhaps, themselves).
A classic example of what our friend Mr Booker is fond of calling 'Taking a sledgehammer to miss a nut'.
It's all summed up neatly in that famous injunction of Immanuel Kant's:
"Have the courage to use YOUR OWN intelligence"
Junican (2) -
By way of a 'PS', I've just remembered a beautiful example of the Unconscionable Use Of Statistics:
A few years ago, there appeared a remarkable headline in that unimpeachable source of Truth, 'The People'. It ran:
"YES - DIANA WAS MURDERED !"
Good heavens................(the Police have got a result at last)
Only when you read down a couple of paragraphs did you realise that this was merely the OPINION of a large percentage of grieving Diana-Worshippers on a phone poll.
Call me picky, if you will, but.............
Junican stated "Just a mo, what was this thread about, again?"
Going back to the beginning, the thread was about STATISTICS".
And the one thing I think we all agree with Junican, is that "statistics & polls" go hand in hand with each other, along the yellow brick road to nowhere, or maybe to some far off, and planned destination, which the pollster and their paymasters intended in the first instance!
Mark Twain popularised the saying, originally used by Benjamin Disraeli, when he wrote "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".
Who would any sensible person choose to believe, Benjamin Disraeli and Mark Twain, or the likes of Liam Donaldson, Peter Mandleson, Gordon Brown, and their pet Rottweiler, Ash?
Rhetorical question of course, because the above mentioned trio and their guard dog, do not aim their rhetoric at "sensible people", they aim it at children and the uneducated, for unfortunately, this group make up the largest proportion in the UK. (that's true because statistics clearly show it don't they?????).
This whole question of statistics and polls and lies, is a rhetorical one in itself. The figures are shoved up in front of us, like the ghastly figure of Big Brother in Orwell's 1984. On large screens which no one can avoid, in newspapers, which a lot of people do manage to avoid, and in schools, which most children would love to avoid, but cannot.
Years ago, when "real" scientists did their research, they published their findings as "possible" causes into various illnesses and other matters. I do not recall ever seeing sets of figures and so called "facts", published like they are today, in a manner which invariably states, "facts" such as "swine flu could cause 600 deaths a week in the UK" and "sunbeds could cause more deaths than eating a sheet of asbestos for breakfast every morning", and "smoking can cause more deaths in a week than all the deaths of WWI and WWII put together"
Can, can, can, can. Of course anything "can" do this, or "can" do that, but what use is the word "can" when someone is supposed to be showing absolute and positive proof that such and such will cause this or cause that?
If these people really want to show us proof, then why do they never say the word "does", as in "does cause"?
Sorry, but I still put my faith in Mark Twain's words "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics".
And answers to PMQs.
That makes four !
Reading these posts I have a vision of us all ending up like The Prisoner in that tv series many moons ago. Patrick McGowan played the main part of the Prisoner and would say I am a person not a number, or something to that effect.
Perhaps this is the end of the 'yellow brick road' mentioned above!
We callow and sometimes terrified National Service recruits of 50-odd years ago learned a saying, Lyn, from the old Regulars. It was 'Nil Carborundum' or 'Don't let the b......s grind you down. The pen-pushing paper clip monitors who rule us (so far) on the strength of their suburban degrees in Sociology, or American or Media Studies, believe their own publicity, helped by their former 'University' colleagues now in what we have to call journalism. That is sad but this country has an instinct and tradition for freedom. Perhaps that is why we are under such attack. According to reports our oppressors wept when they were under the spotlight over their expenses. Perhaps they were surpised that the unreal and sinister world of Portmeirion's 'Prisoner' was NOT the real world. Not here. It's a sad let down for them. While there's life I will say: Nil Carborundum
Lyn, on 1st July 2007 I felt like a victim, now I feel like a warrior.
I like your thinking, Timbone. But it is very hard to be the sacrificial lamb. What's-his-name from Blackpool (Hamish, was it?) almost took on the powers-that-be, but he was not backed up by his fellow publicans, was he? His fellow publicans were not prepared to share the cost of the legal action or defy the ban. A bit of courage on their part would have crushed the ban pronto, in the same way that the Poll Tax was crushed.
As regards the real meaning of statistics,
let is think about the Spanish Flu Epidemic which occured just after the first world war.
The statistics were BELL SHAPED. That is, at first, only a few people were infected, but as time went by, more and more people were infected, and more and more people died. It is not unlikely that there were so many people who were weak from lack of food etc that they were at death's door anyway, but, laying that aside, the fact is that cases of of this illness grew and grew, but, after a time, the cases fell and fell.
That is the bell shape.
Now, here is the interesting question, statistically, "WHY DID THE SPANISH FLUE SUBSIDE?" Why did it not spread and spread and polish off everybody?
I mention this because I am sure that, had todays statisticians been about in 1919, or thereabouts, they would have had a hockey stick projection. That is, they would have projected that Spanish Flu would have got worse and worse until the whole human race would have been destroyed!
This is what we suffer from. We have statisticians projecting a never ending increase in whatever, when, in fact, there is always going to be a BELL SHAPE.
Statistics is very good for describing what has already happened. It is useless for describing what WILL happen.
All that we can do is keep shouting as loudly as we can, "YOUR FACTS ARE NOT TRUE AND YOUR PROJECTIONS ARE NOT TRUE!"
Norman -
Re you observation:
".....but this country has an instinct and tradition for freedom. Perhaps that is why we are under such attack."
My thinking precisely !
And that of many others who bother to read behind the 'public' face of History.
But we should also include our American cousins, whose better-defined 'freedoms' have been under constant 'attack' since 1945.....
Many of the problems we are facing in the world today are ESSENTIALLY Anglo-American in origin.
And many of the solutions will be, too IMHO.
But don't rely upon Fox News or the BBC to TELL people what they (problem AND solution) are.................
The publicans themselves were 100% to blame for not fighting the smoking ban when it was introduced.
The only answer I can come up with is greed!
Because in the not too distant past of the false economy era when we were being led up the garden path to reach the fool's gold that was never there in the first place, by our so very politically correct and mostly corrupt 'I'm all right Jack' leaders, it was very easy for a lot of unrealistic people to slide into the same slimey waters.
And now that we're all in the merde, thanks to our wonderful PC leaders, and the publicans start to look around and see their 'once pubs' defaced after being turned into eating and cooking taverns (I wont mention the smell) realisation must be beginning to dawn on them that eating establishments aint going to bring in the dosh they imagined.
Because if punters cant afford the price of a pint in a recession they certainly cant afford pub grub when there's a fast food outlet on the corner.
A big mistake you guys.
Anyone for Bingo?
Ann wrote: The publicans themselves were 100% to blame for not fighting the smoking ban when it was introduced. The only answer I can come up with is greed!
I think that for them the pub business was just another business. They didn't really care whether they were selling beer or bananas or blankets. It was all exactly the same to them. Is that greed? We all have to earn a living, after all. Running a pub is just another way of doing it.
I think the publicans (most of them) lost sight of what pubs offered their customers, which was a lot more than just pints of beer. Or, as is the case with my local these days, chicken and chips. The landlord seems to think that he's just swapped one bunch of customers for another.
When I go into my local pub these days, it seems more like an old folk's restaurant than anything. There's a quiet and rather subdued feel to it. There's no more loud chatter and laughter coming from the bar. There's nothing playing on the juke box. There are just lots of people sitting at tables quietly eating.
I don't eat there myself any more. But when I used to go to pubs to eat, it was partly because they had a different atmosphere than restaurants. They were cheery, noisy places. Now that my local pub has just become another restaurant, not really any different from any other restaurant anywhere, I can't see the point of going to it. And I rather suspect that the old folk who go to it these days may feel the same. I suspect that they wanted the merriment of the pubs just as much as they wanted the chicken and chips. That's what brought them there in the first place. So I won't be a bit surprised if they start staying at home too.
Many, many years ago I used to go to the tiny little restaurant that Keith Floyd had in Bristol. The food was very good, but the atmosphere was better. It was party night every night, and it was always packed, with Keith wandering around chatting to customers, glass of wine in hand. It was such a great success that he opened a couple more restaurants. I went to one of them once. It had beautiful carpets and immaculate tables. But the magical party atmosphere was absent, and so was Keith. It was just another restaurant like any other. I never went again.
Norman, I know the saying as my first husband often used it - he was in the RAF. Unfortunately I am not that good at following it.
Timbone, I am afraid I feel very much like a victim. There are many reasons, but one is that I am very much on my own with regards the smoking ban and other issues that concern our liberty as my husband, like so many others, just shrugs his shoulders and says "So what, just get on with things".
I can't do that but it is leading to me becoming very paranoid and it infuriates my husband because, apart from work, I will rarely go out now. Not just because of the ban, but the cctv, the feeling, that especially if you smoke, you are being watched, someone is ready to jump on you the minute you may drop your fag end on the ground.
Every week there seems to be something else. My husband heard on the radio last week that in London people are being encouraged to keep an eye on those walking dogs and if the dog does a poop and they don't pick it up, then to photograph their face, the dog and the poop! I agree that people should clear up after their dogs, however there are instances for elderly people where the dog is their only companion and the only thing that gets them out of the house and some of these elderly people physically cannot managed to pick up after their pet. I feel more and more that people are being driven into isolation.
End of last week I heard on our local radio that councils were offering people up to £500 to tell on their neighbours if they were doing something wrong, like putting their bin out on the wrong day, or allowing their dog to bark, or parking with 2 wheels on the verge and whatever other petty thing they can think of. The trouble here is proof! Many people have grudges for whatever reason, I can see the councils being inundated with calls/complaints that are mostly ficticious and do not have the faith in the councils to do their research properly. Apart from which, it is the stress and anxiety that is being caused to the innocent party!
Yet more ways they are trying to turn us against each other.
I really do not know how much more of this I can take. It is affecting my marriage and my health. I have mentioned my depression before, and unfortunately, instead of it getting better, it is getting worse, to the point of attempted suicide, but the NHS do not have the resources to help me!
I did like the piece on Freedom to Choose posted today by Colin Grainger, the frightening thing is it could well be true!
Lyn,
I know what depression is like. I know about the black hole. I know about the bottomless pit. I have been there.
You will only begin to recover if you ask yourself this question, "Could things be worse?"
Do you have food, water, warmth and shelter? If you do, then things COULD BE WORSE. Be thankful that you are in a position where you have these things, more or less guaranteed. At the end of the day, you need nothing more.
I had to learn this myself.
When the bottomless pit opened and the black hole appeared, and my little heart started palpitating, and I became afraid, I had to FORCE myself to say to myself, "Just a minute, COULD THINGS BE WORSE?" Once I did that, the incidence of 'unpleasant physical events' started to decease until they went away altogether.
DO IT! Every day, ask yourself, "Could things be worse?" You will be surprised how cheering that thought is.
At the end of the day, we must remember that our 'Save our Pubs Campaign' is NOT about survival. It is about enjoying a little pleasure and about our FREEDOM.
Dont dispair Lyn most people, myself included, feel exactly the same as you most days, nowhere to go to relax or unwind in a cheery atmostphere of comraderie anymore, only people eating or drinking quietly in the pub as Idlex has described, not to mention cctv cameras and brainwashed rightous head bangers.
Maybe I've gone totally paranoid but to me it seems like an atmosphere of quiet desperation with everyone waiting to see who will be the first to do something 'wrong' and break the tension.
As we all know the nanny state has succeeded in dividing us but I'll be damned before I'd let the bastards conquer me.
For instance the only little pleasures I get these days is 'breaking' their silly laws like dropping my rubbish as if I'm unaware of it, stubbing out my ciggie on the footpath. leaving my 'to go' coffee when I'm finished with it anywhere I happen to be and walking smartly away, likewise with my sweet/food/ciggie wrappings and other little ways that are too numerous to mention. It's sad I know but one has to fight back in some way.
I was appalled to hear that councils were asking people to report on their neighbours. That alone would make me up the ante with my 'anti social behaviour'
Why should you take your frustrations out on yourself because of these head bangers who should be strung up themselves? Life is sweet after all and you only get one crack at it.
My motto is dont get mad GET EVEN.
Junican and Ann, thanks for your responses.
I am sorry, Junican, that you have suffered depression, it can be such a debilitating illness and one that is so misunderstood; however, glad that you seem to have managed to drag yourself out of the black hole.
I think I am doing ok, then some little thing ends up being the last straw and I lose it completely, just wanting to end the torture and pain that I feel at that time. I do try to help myself, however with absolutely no support close at hand it is sometimes very hard. I will, however, try your suggestion.
Ann, I like your little ways of breaking their silly rules, I just hope you do not get caught and fined. I just get paranoid about being spotted by a cctv camera and caught that way. When I walk my dog across the park I smoke and always wait until I come to a bin - normal rubbish bin that is - and toss it in in the hope that one day it will catch fire! I also tend to exceed the speed limits where I feel it is safe, or even safer, to do so and feel that I am unlikely to get caught.
Getting Even is a great idea, but pathetic though it sounds, it is hard when even your own husband can't open his eyes to what is going on - his attitude being "don't worry about it, just get on with your own life". Just as well not quite everybody has the same attitude!
Thanks again for your support.
Ann,
I like your thinking. I do likewise, to some extent.
I LOVE the idea that, if all the people co-operate, we can reduce council taxes by, say, recycling. When I put my rubbish into the appropriate coloured wheelly bin, I think that I am helping. Of course, I do not know exactly what happens when the bins are emptied - one reads of occasions where it has been found that all the bins are being tipped into the same vehicle! Etc.
What really, really gets up my nose is to read that some poor person (and they are almost always 'poor' in the sense of 'lacking in financial assets') is prosecuted for dropping a sweet paper. Now, we must be aware that there is nothing that the DICTATORS in local gov like better that to get these incidents into the local rag, or better still, into the national newspapers. Thereby, the plebes learn that NO DEPARTURE FROM THE DICTATS WILL BE TOLERATED! Of course, what they do not realise is that thousands of people think, "Erm, I do not think so. I think that I will drop as many sweet papers as I like." Of course, no local rag ever publishes such heretical thoughts, never mind the national newspapers.
Be aware, ann, that Big Brother has eyes everywhere (honestly, when I am walking up to the pub, I CHOOSE CAREFULLY exactly where I throw my fag end into the gutter just to ensure that I do not throw it in a place where I can be observed from someone's window!)
I think that it is almost certainly true that the people who get prosecuted are always ORDINARY, poor people. Firstly, because they do not understand the bumph that comes from the local authority and, secondly, because they do not have the resources to defend themselves, and therefore, easy to make an example of. Bastards! And I swear.
I feel that, eventually, someone who has sense will say STOP! Let us think!What is going on! Unfortunately, I do not think that it is going to be David Cameron.
What sample do these statisticians use?
I as smoker have never been asked my views.
Someone mentioned Ireland. Pre Irelands smoking ban, I searched the net for a good deal for New Year, it was very expensive, two years passed the ban, I did the same search - cheap as chips. That is a fact - not statistics.
I foreseen this so called credit crunch (what happened to the word 'recession' I think it truly is a backlash from the cig ban (with a little help from stupid overpaid bankers who offered mortgages to people who had no way of paying them back) - for every action there is a equal and adverse reaction.