Greg Knight: save our pubs and clubs
Saturday, July 4, 2009 Greg Knight, Conservative MP for East Yorkshire who is backing our Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign, was interviewed on the subject on BBC TV's Look North programme last night. I was also interviewed, from the BBC's Cambridge studio.
The item is not yet available on the BBC website but you can view a shorter report on the programme's lunchtime news. Click on "See the latest programme in full HERE. It's the first story.
Look North follows Look East (see below) in featuring our campaign.
Simon Clark
Under the headline 'Smoking ban: is it time for a change?', the Bridlington Free Press reports: "The campaign to allow smokers the right to light up in pubs and clubs has gathered momentum in the town after supporters of the plan contacted the Free Press in their droves."
Full story HERE. You can comment. Note: this exactly the sort of active support the campaign needs.
Reader Comments (18)
As usual the Beeb managed to find smokers who think that the ban is A Good Thing and the reporter, when asked by the anchor how likely the campaign is to succeed, instead banged on about the DOH's plans to ban packs of ten and branding. 'Struth, they just can't seem to help themselves....
It's an absolute disgrace the way pub owners are doing nothing to revert the smoking ban.
They should be lobbying and agitating the govt for an indoor smoking area. Especially now that we're in a recession by emphasising their loss of trade.
Why, when every other institution and business is crying out for help, do these pub owners stay silent, when they should be producing figures showing how much their business is suffering.
At least for no other reason they could do this in solidarity with Forest, F2C and Save or Pubs etc as a thank you if nothing else.
After all while Forest and others are not only fighting for our civil liberties they're also going a long way in helping pub business.
Talk about ingratitude.
They should be forced to acknowledge this and made feel ashamed for the cowards they are.
After all, as every business person knows, there's nothing for nothing in this life.
Go on ya lazy bastards, make a stand.
Why, when every other institution and business is crying out for help, do these pub owners stay silent, when they should be producing figures showing how much their business is suffering.
Why indeed and who are the 'pub owners'? Is there a reason why they are allowing 'pubs' to go to the wall? Is it more beneficial to allow a pub to fail and then turn it into something else? Is that more profitable, short term?
Maybe turn a 'pub' into a block of flats? More rental income without the hassle of that 'beer' thing?
Is the smoking ban experiment a business opportunity, not in terms of family freindly but in terms of property?
----
The posts by Joyce, Ann and Star2 are quite correct. I too have wondered why it is that publicans are not marching in defence of their livelihoods. I think that there are reasons and here they are:-
1. The pubcos are happy to see as many pubs as possible, which are not theirs, go to the wall. This, potentially, will increase their business in due course. Eventually, only pubco pubs will exist - but these pubs will no longer be pubs as we know them.
I had the experience, recently, of being entertained by my family, on the occasion of my 70th birthday, with a little trip to a 'pub' not far away from where we live. It must be 15 years since I went to this pub last. The place has been transformed. Even though 'open plan', partitions separate groups of people into separate areas - very organised, for the pubco owners, but SO UNUTTERABLY BORING! No fun, no laughter, no communication. The furniture is quite posh, but the food is so very PUBCO - if you know what I mean - bland and middle-of-the-road. The staff, although polite, had an aur
Needless to say, we nine persons - my wife and I, my daughters and husbands and our grandchildren MADE IT OUR BUSINESS to have a really good time, and we did.
Oopst! I seem to have pressed an inappropriate button!
To continue....
..had an aura of WORRY and IMPERSONALITY.
We had a good time before we shot off home in order to begin to REALLY to enjoy ourselves.
You see the point? Not long ago, we could have stayed in the pub to REALLY enjoy ourselves - but not anymore.
2. It seems to me that people who take over independent pubs are in it for a quick buck. They see the possibility of Brewery subsidies for a period of, say, twelve months, during which time the can make a few grand and then shoot off. In the past five years, in our immediate local pub, five (or more) landlords have been and gone. Most certainly, as far as I can tell, judging from the chaos and mess left behind when he quit, the last landlord shot off with the takings and left the debts behind - and he was not the only one to do this.The regulars know it to be true.
They are not going to march because they are only in the business to make a quick buck.
3. Anyone with any sense can see that the above is just what the government want! They do not want proper pubs. They want people to go to work, pay taxes and go home! In that way, the NHS and other services will not be troubled by people. All the beaurocrats etc can go about their business without actually having to do anything! I am serious about this. The objective of many over-paid people in government is to CUT THE DEMAND. Of course, it does not work - it mearly increases the cost of not providing the services that people need. ETC,ETC.
Look! Forget the 'Save out pubs' thing - that is just certain people using Forest to further their own ends. What is important is that we need FREEDOM for adults to do their own thing.
I would go along with what Junican says as regards the new breed of pub owners being in it just for the money.
But if govt and the powers that be are trying to get rid of pubs they would be making a very big mistake and just shows how detached from reality they really are.
Do they not realise that people need an outlet and a common place to socialise.
Not everyone can afford, or do they want to, eat and drink in 5 star restaurants or elitist venues.
If they carry on in this vein treating people as statistics, it may just come back to bite them on the ass.
And the gang in Brussels would want to take note of this too.
Long live the revolution!
Junican wrote: Anyone with any sense can see that the above is just what the government want! They do not want proper pubs. They want people to go to work, pay taxes and go home!
Exactly. People who are sitting in pubs drinking could be working to create 'wealth' (which the government can tax). That's why they don't care what happens to pubs. They don't see them as being good for anything anyway. As far as they are concerned, it would be a good thing if people didn't go to them anyway.
This is the only place i can find to comment about the Eu politicians that want an outright ban all over europe without having to log in and remember a pass word. This is to to all the \EU politicians that want everywhere to be smoke free they can F... off i am sick to death of being told what to do by jumped up over paid no alls that think they know best. I am sick of the fucking EU making our laws i any party that wants to get out of the EU to gets my vote. And i hope everyone who smokes votes for a party that allows smoking back. So this message is for the fraudsters of the Eu go get stuffed you fucking little dictators.Go spend some more of our money and leave us smokers to do what we wants you load of prats.
Pat -
Love it !
Know what makes ME angry ?
That MORE people AREN'T angry...............
Except, it seems, about MPs' perks: stop THAT abuse, and THEY can destroy as many of OUR freedoms as they like.........
Strange set of priorities we seem to have developed in the 21st Century.
Give me one of those port-sodden, foxhunting, servant-rogering Tory Knights from the 18th Century ANY day................
Care for a pinch of snuff, Mr Cameron ?
Do you know what is really weird about these politicians?
On the one hand, you have the Health Dept(the Patricia Hewitts and Caroline Flints of this world) claiming that the Smoking Ban will save 3000 lives a year (nb that is just from reduction of 'passive smoking') and, on the other hand, you have the Pensions Dept saying that people are living too long and that the pension age needs to be put up to seventy! Please tell me, how can you expect a sixty five year old woman to spend eight hours a day digging holes in the ground (remember equality!)?
No! The Health Dept are only concerned with trying to reduce the demands on the NHS. They are not bothered at all about you and I as people. They think that, if they reduce smoking, then fewer people will need to go into hospital. Well, that may be so, but is it nor true that people, as they get older and older, will suffer from other health problems, and therefore require even more attention?
At best, the Health Dept is merely postponing the problem.
Harold Macmillan (prime minister in the 1960s) had the right idea. When a minister suggested that it would be a good idea to cut down on people smoking because of health issues, he said, "Why? Tobacco taxes bring in large sums of money. If people, knowing the dangers, want to smoke, why stop them?"
The critical idea is that adults can please themselves what they do and the owners of premises can decide for themselves what they want to permit on their premises. The biggest con that the government have got away with (so far) is this definition of 'a public place'. You try strolling into Wentworth Golf Club or the Garrick Club in London and saying, "Since this is a public place, I just thought that I would pop in for a quick gin and tonic" - and see how long it would take for you to be ejected!
These are the sort of things that need to be brought into people's consciousness and it might take some time. In the meantime, what we foresters need to do is go on Conservative Home site and keep hammering away at the NONSENSE of the law as it stands.
I read the Bridinglington story which was very positive about the amendthesmokingban campaign ... but then they went and spoiled it by having a column on this - http://www.bridlingtonfreepress.co.uk/paper/Smoking-should-be-made-illegal.5418343.jp
If I could work out how to post a comment, I would. Disgraceful!
Am I wrong in sensing that two Important Groups of People in our society are starting - judging by their latest antics - to get jsut a BIT jittery ?
I refer, of course, to:
a) The Global Warming Nutters, and
b) The Anti-Smoking Nutters.
If so, then perhaps the Dawn is about to break at last ?
Wouldn't get rid of those candles just yet, though..........
Forest and all the other pro smoking campaigners should keep up the momentum by chipping away at the lies of the antis and bringing it to the attention of the general brainwashed public.
Especially in the times thats in it. There's nothing like a recession to force people into a time of reflection.
When the all the false money and bullshit disappear its then when people regain their common sense and are able to see through the brainwashing as regards passive smoking and realise what freedom of choice really means.
I sense too that important groups of people in our society are starting to get a bit jittery.
So keep up the good work Simon and keep chipping away at the propaganda armour.
Rome wasnt built in a day!
Pat -
I've just read the article you mention.
I wouldn't even BOTHER to reply, if I were you.
Mr Prosing Bore has 'heard ALL the arguments', after all - and NOTHING will free him from his Immaculate Conception (a Smoke-Free Paradise On Earth).
He MAY have 'heard', but - like all Religious Zealots - he plainly hasn't LISTENED.
And with God on his side, he has no need to, of course...............
What kind of donkey hides behind a name like 'Paperclip' (one of Microsoft's MOST irritating icons) anyway.............?
What kind of donkey?
A rather nasty and selfish donkey indeed. But, happily, also a very stupid one.
Basil -
Quite !
The problem is, of course:
It's the Stupid People who tend to make more NOISE on this subject than the Reasonable People.
And governments HATE noise................
And so the Moral is..................?
Kill the donkey? :-)
Thanks, Basil -
You've just lost us the Animal Rights vote !
Sod it: who's got a gun ?