We'll back the pub but they won't back us
Wednesday, January 20, 2010 
Brigid Simmonds is chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA). She popped up on BBC Breakfast (or was it GMTV?) yesterday, and I caught her again on The Daily Politics (BBC1). She was responding to the Government's plan to introduce a ban on cheap alcohol promotions. If I understood her correctly, she was not arguing against these measures but felt that it is unfair on pubs because it doesn't address the issue of cheap supermarket booze.
In keeping with the BBPA's 'new' campaign, I'm Backing The Pub (actually, it's a re-branding of an old campaign called 'Axe The Beer Tax: Save Our Pubs'), Simmons spoke enthusiastically about the importance of the pub in the community.
I have no problem with the I'm Backing The Pub campaign, apart from one thing: the BBPA, like the hospitality industry in general, obstinately refuses to support any attempt to amend the smoking ban. In fact, they are reluctant even to discuss it.
I have had meetings with or written to a number of trade bodies and the response has been the same each time. "We won't campaign against the ban because it's the law" or "Half of our members support the ban". Doh!
As it happens, I met Brigid Simmonds a couple of months ago. It was a small private event so I can't say who was there or what was discussed. But I will say this. When I introduced myself and explained that Forest is campaigning to amend the smoking ban, the look on her face spoke volumes.
She wasn't unpleasant or unfriendly. She just moved away so that the conversation, such as it was, could go no further. (I remember the moment well because I commented upon her reaction to the person standing next to me.)
Meanwhile her organisation, the British Beer and Pub Association, wants us to back the pub.
Well, I've got news for the BBPA, the British Institute of Innkeeping, the Federation of Licensed Victuallers Association, the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers et al. Supporting the pub is exactly what Forest, via the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign, is doing. We're backing the pub with both our time and our money.
But what is the pub and leisure industry doing to help smokers? Apart from a few smoking shelters and the odd heated patio or roof terrace, the answer is: sweet FA.
Reader Comments (44)
The duty on a pint of beer is less than 40p, and even if the duty was scrapped, which would never happen, alcohol will still be cheaper in supermarkets. Until 2007 very few moaned about the duty on beer.
Its very despairing Simon, when we give our backing to the pubs that they turn around and spit in our face, especially when the health fascists are doing a silimar number on them.
It would make you want to tear your hair out in frustration.
You are to be commended for carrying on when you come up against such jobsworth specimins, with their closed minds on the smoking ban.
This is what i've being saying all along. Pubs are a waste of time. Yes they want your custom as long as you dont mention smoking. Let them rot!!
And i dont care less how many pubs are closing a week. It serves them right. Sorry no sympathy whatsovever.
Dunno I have only been in a pub 3 times since July 2007 .
Before that I use to go 2 or 3 times a week.
Sod em.
Happy bankrupcy.
One of my friends has a bar built into his house, pumps and everything, great.
Even has ashtrays !
I would only support them again if they fight the ban.
Perhaps they could learn from Bar owners in the rest of the world Holland for example.
Simply put, don't lick the boot that kicks you .
A very masochistic approach from them here.
Odd ?
The BBPA acknowledges the damage the smoking ban has done, but as you rightly say will do nothing about it.
My sympathies are with the landlords who are made bankrupt, the pubcos and breweries et all I have kittle,
Is it just possible that at the time the smoking ban legislation was being finalised, that the "industry" was thrown a sop in return for their silence? If so, I'd like to know what it was?
Why not forget the pub trade organisations and campaign for private member's smoking clubs?.
Make the club the hub of the community - forget the pubco tyoe pub,
----
....Or possibly, just possibly, it's because the smoking laws just aren't as big an issue as you guys think it is.
Just remember that in Scotland, our smoking laws came into force 15 months before England's. But the spurt of closures in our pubs didn't start 15 months earlier. In fact, in the year after our smoking laws came into force as many pubs prospered as suffered. The significant rise in pub closures here occurred around the same time as in England - as the credit crunch struck.
To quote the chief executive of the Scottish Beer and Pub Association, while he accepts that some closures through to early 2008 were in part at least due to the smoking laws:
"Things have been tough for some operators, much tougher for some than others, but THE VAST MAJORITY HAVE EMERGED STRONGER AS A RESULT OF THE SMOKING BAN AND WITH A MUCH STRONGER CUSTOMER OFFER thanks to developing their food product and diversifying their businesses." (my emphasis) (http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&storycode=59125)
Looks like the BBPA is right not to want your "help".....
Rollo -
Re:
"...A MUCH STRONGER CUSTOMER OFFER thanks to developing their food product and diversifying their businesses."
If only businessmen were as keen on 'developing' their knowledge and use of the Queen's English as they are of clobbering us with the lifeless lingo of an under-manager at Comet..........................
Since our CEO is confident that the Ban has been beneficial to pubs, he would presumably have NO objection in principle to allowing (say) one pub in ten to cater fully for smokers - if only to test the waters, so to speak.
And neither would you, I imagine.
HE would call it 'diversification'.
WE would call it 'choice'.
And the expected demise of the Smoker-Friendly Pubs would demonstrate once and for all how popular and 'successful' the Ban has become with the Public (the most reliable 'focus group' anywhere).
Wouldn't it..............................?
I couldn't agree more, Simon. The lack of support from so much of the pub trade is one of the most baffling and annoying parts of the whole sorry smoking ban story. Why have our licencees reacted so differently from those in other parts of Europe?
Martin V - I've read your comment and I see nothing in it which justifies a claim that the smoking laws are the major cause of pub closures.
I'll leave you to your hypothetical situations.
Rollo says 'the vast majority emerged stronger as a result of the smoking ban'
Well, they would, wouldnt they when the majority of neighbouring pubs had to close down because of the smoking ban.
And the pubs that 'emerged stronger' were the pubs that could afford to turn themselves into 'superpubs' which were just glorified eating houses with a smell of food eminating from them that would make you want to vomit, together with wall to wall plasma screens permanently tuned to sports, that only attracted young screaming/cheering football fans on match days, and that forced the ordinary decent regular customers to stay at home.
Talk facts Rollo lad, you obviously have a short memory span.
Rollo - there is only one issue for me - choice. I fail to see whether the smoking ban is "popular" or not why there cannot be an element of choice.
Basically those pubs that want smokers, and that smokers want to use are being allowed to die then there will be no-one in favour of an amendment to the smoking ban and no dissent to this law forced upon people who simply want to be treated equally and left alone.
The test of the ban's "popularlity" will come at election time. Certainly the Govt that was in power and paved the way for this spiteful law will be kicked out.
Isn’t it interesting that this article started with a claim that the smoking laws are the main cause of pub closures in the UK. But when cold water is thrown on their argument, the pro-smokers have nothing to back up their assertion.
Instead, Martin V and Pat Nurse both try to change the subject, by arguing “Well actually, errr, ehmm, never mind what was said before about the real issue being pub closures. In fact the real issue here is choice”. While Ann appears to concede that not so many pubs have closed for good as a result of the smoking laws, although some more have changed style.
So what was that again about the smoking laws supposedly being the main cause of pub closures?
Rollo -
You say:
"Instead, Martin V and Pat Nurse both try to change the subject..............."
Oh, please................
The central THEME of Simon's blog - as I read it - was the BBPA's 'I'm Backing The Pub' campaign, and the nannyish refusal of said Association to even DISCUSS the sensible notion of an amendment to the Ban.
And - having re-read Simon's piece (hell - no-one's infallible) - I cannot see any SPECIFIC mention of the Ban's being a 'major cause of pub closures'.
The fact that certain erstwhile PUBS have felt constrained to re-incarnate as rural sushi-bars, with bouncy-castles-for-the-kids, Activia On Tap, and wall-to-wall 'X Factor' also raises the rather important question:
WHEN IS A 'PUB' NO LONGER A 'PUB' ?
Well I, for one, would argue that THAT moment came when Old Jack could no longer smoke his pipe in 'his' chair by a roaring log fire on a Sunday morning (as he has done these twenty years past) - even if it does provide the suburban neurotic with the sterile atmosphere of a health spa (to say nothing of An Enhanced Customer-Centred Food-Product Option Going Forward).
Old Jack was quite content with his 'pie'.
In any case, the major-or-minor argument is irrelevant to the question of CHOICE: the fact that MILLIONS of pub-goers have now been DENIED a choice in this matter can hardly be of NO significance in the accelerating rate of closures - whether such places offer a wide range of 'food-products' (aka 'food'), or not.
If lack of choice is ONE factor in the demise of pubs, then - logically - removing that restriction would be ONE factor in their possible revival.
Sadly, the 'Brigids' of this world don't 'do' Logic.
It makes their synapses go funny.
Even so:
Why DO some people have SUCH a problem confronting the Blindingly Obvious ?
If only the Ant would look behind and UP occasionally, he might just realise that the darkening sky is, in fact, the foot of the Elephant - coming down to crush the life out of him.......................
@Rollo
Hi Rollo, I hope you are well.
"THE VAST MAJORITY HAVE EMERGED STRONGER AS A RESULT OF THE SMOKING BAN AND WITH A MUCH STRONGER CUSTOMER OFFER."
I also have a quote from 1912 from the Captain of the Titanic. "The vast majority of the ship has emerged stronger after hitting the iceberg, with much more views of the Atlantic to enjoy."
Hi Rollo,
What is hard to dispute is that we have lost ~50,000 non-smokefree/mixed pubs since July 2007
which is a sad loss for the millions of people who used them in preference to the vastly smaller
number of totally smokefree pubs. What impact the smokefree law has on the smokefree pubs that
replaced the mixed/smoking ones is hard to measure because, to my knowledge, no one has made
a proper attempt to measure it. I have read lots of before and after studies that show that
heart attacks go down after smoking bans but practically no effort has been made to measure
if and how many pubs have suffered and what pubs have benefited. But there is a lot of anecdotal
evidence that thousands of pubs are suffering because of the smoking ban and I have never known
so many pubs to shut such a short period of time. Rollo, do you remember going to pubs in 1986 when
unemployment was ~3,000,000 at ~10% of the workforce? Do you remember pushing hard on the doors just to get in?
Walking from pub to pub to find one that had somewhere to sit (I hate standing!)? The smell of the booze 20 yards away from the pub;
a smell that can only come from a busy pub at that distance? The muffled ripple of laughter from inside as you approach the door
and as you open it; that sweet smell of tobacco smoke and busy air that comes from opening the door
of only that type of pub? Don't you miss that at all? I can't name any pub that I used that closed it's doors in 1986;
post 2007 has been profoundly different. Rollo, can you think of pubs that you drank in that closed in and around 1986?
How does that compare with the ones that you have used that have closed in and around 2007 - with unemployment at a similar level?
Not even including pubs that have been forced to turn into bottom end smokefree restaurants, can you name more or less than 1986?
@Rollo
"Isn’t it interesting that this article started with a claim that the smoking laws are the main cause of pub closures in the UK. But when cold water is thrown on their argument, the pro-smokers have nothing to back up their assertion."
The perfect emperical evidence for smoking bans is Ireland, with their ban starting in March 2004.
Ireland's pubs are mainly freehold and can shop around for their beer, hence no pubcos. From March 2004 to March 2005 Ireland enjoyed +7% GDP growth, an economic boom of outstanding proportions.
One year after the ban 15% of urban pubs had closed and 25% of rural pubs. The extra 10% of rural pub closures can be put down to a crack down on drinking and driving.
Where will it all end Rollo to satisfy your "stronger pub." The news from Ireland 6 years on is grim. Ireland has lost 25% of its pubs and the final figure is set to be: "The study by the Drinks Industry Group of Ireland (DIGI) shows that of Ireland's surviving pubs one in three is set to shut. Over a third - that's another 1,500+ pubs - now say they will struggle to survive into the future....Over 80% of Irish premises have been revamped - or added food, live music, games, etc....And the result? Irish pub takings fell 13% in August from a year before, according to the Central Statistics Office. Over the same 12-month period at least 4,800 pub jobs were cut, said a Vintners Federation of Ireland report. That's at least one job per pub in the last year alone...New figures from the EU show they are now at 33% (adult smoking rates) - the highest for 11 years. That's up 6% since the inception of their smoking ban."
Good heavens Rollo if this is success, what do you define as failure?
http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=16&storycode=65627&c=2
@Rollo
Also emperical evidence number 2 is AC Nielsen's report, and just for extra provenance it is whole heartedly endosed by Martin Dockrell, Policy Manager of ASH in a private email. ;) AC Nielsen estimate that between 50-80% of closures are down to the ban.
"As you say, it is certainly a tough time for many pubs and the legislation has plainly been particularly challenging for some. The big industry analysts AC Nielsen, for example reckon that around half the fall in pub beer sales is down to Smokefree."
"Analysis of a year’s worth of sales data from Scotland following the ban there last March has identified that volume in licensed premises had fallen some 5%. When compared with trends in England and Wales over the same period, the numbers suggest that the majority of this decline (4%) can be attributed to the smoking ban."
"“Since the smoking ban took effect on March 26th, liquor sales in Scottish pubs have been lagging well behind their English and Welsh counterparts at 2.9% versus 6.5% respectively”., said Eleni Nicholas, MD of ACNielsen UK & Ireland. (ACNielsen PubTrack* 18 weeks through to week ending 29.07.06). The smoking ban in Scotland has cost publicans an average of 3 fewer servings per week, compared to England’s buoyant pub food and drink sales which increased by an average of 54 servings per week for the same period."
http://uk.nielsen.com/news/SmokingBan.shtml
http://uk.nielsen.com/news/pr20060831.shtml
@Fedrick
"..heart attacks go down after smoking bans but practically no effort has been made to measure." As you shout out at the theatre, oh yes they have.
Dr. Michael Siegel is a public health professional who has testified against tobacco companies, but hates all the junk science surriunding anti smoking. There is not one shred of truth that the smoking ban has reduced heart attacks anywhere in the world.
"The IOM report failed to consider relevant, objective, population-based data from the following, each of which fails to find any effect of smoking bans on heart attacks, in the short-term:
1. Scotland
2. England
3. Wales
4. Denmark
5. Florida
6. California
7. Oregon
8. New York
9. United States
21st December.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com
Dave,
I do read Dr.Siegels blog every day! I was just pointing out that a lot of love and money has been lavished on trying to prove that smoking bans cause heart attacks to go down further than without a ban (when the published hospital admissions data show they clearly don't) but not much (before and after) has been done to measure the impact of smoking bans on pub closures!
Michael Siegel -
Now THAT's what I call a 'scientist'.
Truth-addiction is something MORE people need to 'suffer' from.....................
And - at the risk of MYSELF missing the Blindingly Obvious:
If a city had (say) one hundred pubs - of which ninety were forced to close - let us say, as the result of the Ban - then one WOULD expect the remaining ten to 'emerge stronger' as a result.
That's what TENDS to happen when you DESTROY competition/choice.
And if there were only ONE pub left - whoopee !!
The constant beeping of the cash register would PROVE the 'success' of the ban.
Wouldn't it ?
But I think that rather misses the point (unless you're instinctively in favour of quasi-monopolies)...............
Ah, good to discuss issues with you again, Dave! I’m sorry to say this though, but you are continuing to use some decidedly dodgy statistics.
First, let’s look at Ireland. You claim “One year after the ban 15% of urban pubs had closed and 25% of rural pubs.” I really don’t know where you got those figures from. Official Irish figures show that bar takings fell by 5.3%, not much more than the 4% decline there had been in the previous three years. Articles from the time bear out a general story in which the pub industry was doing okay overall, with many rural pubs struggling but many Dublin pubs prospering. They also show how the pub industry was already facing a series of pressures. E.g:
http://www.caterersearch.com/Articles/2005/04/21/201199/what-can-irelands-smoking-ban-teach-uk-hospitality.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/12/world/europe/12iht-ireland.4568545.html?_r=2
The second set of figures you quote refer to difficulties for Irish pubs in the last year or two. How can you put the blame for that down to the smoking laws?! If you read the press release which accompanies the DIGI report, you will see that they call for help for the pub sector. The help they want is reduced excise rates – no mention of reforming or repealing the smoking laws. http://www.drinksindustry.ie/news.php?intPageID=4&intSectionID=53
Basically Dave, what you are trying to argue is that, once a smoking law is introduced, you can blame any subsequent fall in sales on the law – no matter how long afterwards it occurs. Come on!!!!!
As for Irish smoking rates, the only statistics I know of which measured smoking prevalence in 2004, when Ireland introduced its smoking laws, is this: http://www.otc.ie/fig.asp?image=Mar08charts/fig_2.jpg
Notice how smoking rates after the smoking laws were introduced were lower EVERY SINGLE MONTH than in March 2004, when they came into force.
Now let’s turn to Scotland. And you’re just as fast and loose with your “facts” here Dave.
Please show me where AC Nielsen “estimate[d] that between 50-80% of closures are down to the ban.” According to the articles you cite, Nielsen said that the smoking laws were responsible for a 4% drop in alcohol volume sales. Are you seriously suggesting that a shedload of pub closures happened because alcohol sales fell 4%? On-trade UK beer sales fell by over a quarter in the decade to July 2007, when the English smoking laws came into force. Can you please explain to me how our pubs are able to withstand a 25% drop in alcohol sales, but are somehow unable to cope with an additional 4% fall (which doesn’t even take account of the fact that food sales in Scottish pubs INCREASED after our smoking laws were introduced!)?
To use your own quote against you, if the smoking laws cost Scottish pubs “an average of 3 fewer servings per week”, how on Earth is this going to cause any previously successful pub to topple???
Come on, Dave. I thought you were serious, thorough and fair about your research.
You twisted my words there Rollo.
You must know full well I meant that the only pubs that survived the smoking ban were those god awful so called superpubs that could afford to change themselves into eating houses and that are only frequented by a niche customer of mostly the young and football fans, who are mostly tanked up from drinking at home before they go to watch a match in them or who go on to nightclubs.
While the smaller neighbourhood friendly pubs catering for communities all went to the wall.
Maybe you deny the nose on your face too!
Funny Ann. You complain about my post. But you offer no justification whatsoever for your claim that the smoking laws were the main cause of pub closures.
So tell me. Why didn't pubs in Scotland collapse at the same rate when our smoking law was introduced? And, like I asked Dave (and perhaps he'll reply sometime....), how can an estimated 4% fall in alcohol sales from the smoking laws be responsible for so many pub closures, especially since UK pubs had already endured a 28% drop in beer sales in the decade before July 2007?
Rollo, you're too indoctrinated by Big Brother to see the wood for the trees.
Try meditation!
Ann - You're too indictrinated by conspiracy theories to see the wood for the trees.
Try researching the whole evidence, not just the biased nonsense which fits your prejudices.
Surely someone reading this has knows enough about the pub business to explain why a subset of pub owners do not want to enlarge their customer base. If your pub has two or more rooms which are both less than half full, it makes sense to allow smoking in one of them. Whether or not the ban was responsible for most of the pub closures, there are many people who do not now visit pubs or cafes; but would if there was somewhere to smoke. I am one and I know a couple of others. Looking forward to an explanation.
Some bed time reading.
Pub Closures 2004-2008
'Trade down at half of pubs in first year of smoking ban' AND
'20,000 Pubs in danger' AND
'Caterers have misread smoke signals' AND
'Public smoking ban hits pubs' beer sales' AND
'Law is final nail in the coffin of old-style pub' AND
'Over 1,000 pubs shut since smoking ban' AND
'Food sales haven't compensated for the smoking ban' AND
'Pubs in crisis one year after the smoking ban' AND
'Pubs count cost of smoking ban' AND
'Thousands of pubs expected to close due to smoking ban' AND
'Smoking ban has hit trade - expert'.
Fredrik, Rollo would say that was all a conspiracy and that you were biased, because according to him pubs didnt suffer at all from the smoking ban.
Its strange tho, how three of my local pubs have closed down since the smoking ban.
Ha Ha Ha
Tommasi says...
Pot. Kettle. Black...
Don't waste your time arguing about about pub closure and smoking prevalence statistics. Nobody would have argued against the legalisation of homosexual sex acts on the ground that 5% indulged in them rather than 6%. Since smoking saves taxpayers money, it is a freedom of choice issue. In the past Rollo has said he has no objection to private smoking clubs staffed by their members. He just likes an argument. I've not figured out precisely what he believes. It appears to have something to with the definition of private property. Don't rise to the bait.
What a strange collection of comments. Ann claims I’ve tried to argue that “pubs didn’t suffer at all from the smoking ban” (has she actually read my posts?). Brian adds nothing of any value (not for the first time?). And Jon tries to turn the issue to freedom of choice (freedom for the smoker, anyway, not for other people who might have to sit or work around them). And he's scared to get into a proper discussion about the issues.
At least Fredrik, bless him, has actually tried to provide some kind of evidence to back up his position. Only Fredrik, if you actually read the articles you cite, how many say what you want them to say, which is that the smoking laws are the main cause of pub closures? The closest you get is some of the local articles near the end of your list which quote some local anecdotal examples. I’m not denying them, but even these examples often paint a mixed picture.
But the other articles you cite either simply confirm that the industry is having problems (who’s denying that?) or show how there are several reasons for this – check out the People, Publican, FT and the 2 Guardian articles (although the story in the 2nd article is covered more fully by the Publican here: http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storycode=60288).
That Publican article quotes Nielsen as suggesting that the smoking laws accounted for around half of the total drop in alcohol sales – around 4% in total. That’s remarkably similar to the effect in Scotland (where, as you will recall, our smoking laws did not result in a sudden rush of closures). It’s also a tiny fraction of the total reduction in beer sales over the last decade, as again I have already mentioned.
So again I go back to the question – how can drop in demand possibly account for so many pub closures?
The thing is that publicans’ problems aren’t just due to a drop in demand. They’ve faced a substantial increase in costs – food and drink, property, energy costs. They’ve had to slash profit margins to try to remain vaguely competitive with supermarkets. It’s also been much harder for them to get credit (overdraft or loan facilities) and interest rates have shot up.
So why is it that the pub industry is ignoring your campaign?
The answer is obvious – you simply don’t understand the full range of problems pubs are facing. You are irrelevant to them.
Rollo,
I don't know how many pubs have been closed as a result of the smoking ban. But I get the impression that many in the industry think that the pubs that have closed are the "wrong" sort of pub anyway. I think there are publicans who would be prepared to lose any number of pubs just to maintain 100% smokefree pubs. And it is this alienating attitude,I think, that is partly to blame for making pubs increasingly irrelevant to customers.
Thanks Fredrik. Interesting take. I have to say it's not something I've picked up (although you may be right).
The most similar kind of message I've picked up from publicans is that many of the pubs which have closed were already struggling before 2007. This is particularly true for "traditional" pubs which catered for long-standing, often smoking punters. Their traditional custom was falling away (in many cases, literally dying out). But, either because the publicans were sticking their heads in the sand or it was really difficult to bring in new custom, they were not replacing enough of their lost custom to survive.
Rollo, I stressed that smoking could be allowed in private smoking clubs staffed by their members (I assume they smoke). I'm not scared of getting into a discussion about the issues. I've said that I don't think the precise cause of pub closures or the prevalence of smoking is relevant to what sort of ban there should be. As you say, it is a safety issue. I believe that powerful extraction systems are sufficient and that, to some extent, people have to be responsible for their choice of job. I wouldn't work as a scaffolder. I am suggesting the private club option as a concession to those who believe any contact with cigarette smoke is harmful.
Rollo - I haven't changed my mind at all. I've always been against the blanket smoking ban because it does not allow for choice and it encourages discrimination. That's the issue for me, but the issue of pub closures is one that is very important to those people who have been forced out of buisness because of political ideology.
Jon – You wouldn’t work as a scaffolder. Nor would I. Some jobs are inherently more dangerous than others, true. But health and safety laws apply to scaffolding and to other lines of work too. And they apply to every business. If you own a scaffolding business, you’re not allowed to say “I’ll not bother with these health and safety laws”. Why should the situation be any different in pubs? Are pub owners immune from other health and safety requirements, such as drink/food hygiene and fire safety? Of course they’re not.
I don’t accept that ventilation and extraction are sufficient. For a start, there’s no evidence which demonstrates that, if you’re in a pub and someone’s cigarette is, say, 0.5-1m away from you, that all the smoke will be magically picked up by ventilation equipment before it hits your nose. Secondly, ventilation equipment only stays fully efficient for a short space of time and requires regular maintenance. How do you ensure that takes place? In fact, how do you ensure that the ventilation is kept switched on in the first place? Experience from many pubs in recent years is not promising.
As for your suggestion that smoking could be allowed in private members’ clubs, I don’t have a particular objection to that – provided the club was not allowed to sell anything. Otherwise, there would be too many loopholes which could be exploited (e.g. turning a pub into a private member’s club and nominally making pub staff “members” of the club so that they lost the protection of smoking laws).
Pat – I didn’t accuse you of changing your mind. I said you changed the subject away from pub closures. And again in your latest post you offer nothing to justify a claim that the many pub closures in recent years are mostly due to the smoking laws.
So the smoking laws “encourage discrimination”, do they? I’ve not seen any notices outside pubs saying “No smokers allowed”. Smokers are as free to enter a pub now as they have ever been. All they have to do is behave in a reasonable way which does not unreasonably irritate or harm people around them. If their wish or need to smoke is that strong, then it is little effort to pop outside for a few minutes. If it’s not, then they don’t need to move at all.
To suggest that smoking should be allowed in private clubs so long as they did't sell anything is ridiculous. It is a question of safety. You are admitting that smokers should be allowed to congregate in non-residential buildings, but not that they can drink coffee while doing so: presumably so they don't enjoy themselves. How does drinking coffee make the smokers more or less safe?
It's nothing to do with drinking coffee. "Members" can always bring their own alcohol into their private building.
But nothing for sale. Nothing that would require a license to sell.
Otherwise, you're opening up loopholes.
Simple.
For heaven's sake don't rely on the BBPA - their agenda is simply around property companies and brewers. They have no mandate to represent pubs although issue misleading information that they. They can in reality claim a mandate for no more than 10% of the UK's pubs as opposed to the 50% they claim. Their real agenda is protecting the beer tie - which is closing pubs down faster than anything else - and securing concessions on duty which, if given, go into their clients' pockets and not to pubs or consumers. The BBPA is quite a shallow scam in reality, hence the reason for fronting it with an OBE - normal procedure!