Today's most viewed
| READER VIEWS | | | KNIGHTS OUT | | | MEMORY LANE |  | | | CARTOONS | | |
|
|
|
Landlady will admit flouting smoking ban
 |
| Above: Kathleen Hall outside the Welcome Inn, Grant Street, |
A Keighley landlady has hit back at prosecutors taking her pub to court for flouting anti-smoking laws.
Kathleen Hall, from the Welcome Inn, will today plead guilty to letting customers smoke.
But she insists her elderly clientele should be allowed to light up in the pub, off West Lane.
She said: "It's a free house and people should be able to smoke where they want. When you own a place it should be all right. This is like my front room and I should be able to decide."
Bradford Council will today prosecute the Welcome Inn and East Ward Unionist Club, in Parkwood Street, for allowing smoking on the premises.
The Welcome, in Grant Street, will be the first Bradford district pub to be prosecuted under anti-smoking legislation.
Mrs Hall bought the Welcome Inn seven years ago and is still paying a mortgage on the property.
She said takings were down since the smoking ban and the situation could get worse.
She said: "We've put every penny into the pub. If we go bankrupt we lose everything."
Mrs Hall said many customers were now staying at home with a drink even though they loved the Welcome.
Most of her customers were elderly and could not negotiate the steps outside to smoke.
She said: "It's terrible for them. They're anything from 60 upwards. Ninety per cent of my customers smoke. It's a public house with no beer garden, they can't take their drinks outside.
"I'm 55 and as long as I know people have been brought up in alehouses. All my life it's been a pint and a cigarette for working men."
At the time of going to press no comment was available at the East Ward Unionist club. Today's prosecutions come as Bradford Council marks its first 12 months enforcing the anti-smoking laws.
It has served 13 fixed penalty notices on businesses since the law came into force on July 1.
John Major, the council's assistant director for environmental health, said more prosecutions were on the way.
He said: "We have found a high level of complaints across the district with the smoking ban.
"In the first nine months of the ban we carried out 1,500 visits and found virtually 100 per cent compliance.
"In this period we received 250 complaints from the public, all of which we followed up.
"Now complaints have fallen to a handful each month."
Mr Major said the council staff were now making "proactive" visits to check that businesses were complying.
Bradford and Airedale NHS Trust recently revealed a big increase in the number of local smokers trying to quit their habit.
Since the ban was introduced the local NHS "stop smoking" service has seen a 34 per cent increase in people setting a quit target.
The number of people trying to quit for the first time has increased by 84 per cent.
8:04am Thursday 24th July 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: John, Bradford on 12:33pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Mrs Hall says "This is like my front room and I should be able to decide." I couldn't agree more!
Once again the nanny labour government have shot themselves in the foot when they introduced the ban in places like Mrs Hall's pub, despite their election manifest promising that yhey wouldn't.
Mrs Hall says "This is like my front room and I should be able to decide." I couldn't agree more!
Once again the nanny labour government have shot themselves in the foot when they introduced the ban in places like Mrs Hall's pub, despite their election manifest promising that yhey wouldn't.
Posted by: tug wilson, notts on 1:15pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Mrs Hall has my total support,this failed Labour government did not have the right to bring in a total ban,not one person in the World has died from secondhand smoke,Fact,only the Landlords/Ladies and Club owners have the right to say smoking or non smoking,and these local councils should be ashamed of themselves for trying to tell people everything is going great as far as the smoking ban is concerned,its all a fraud as the public now know,end this ban now,Tug.
Mrs Hall has my total support,this failed Labour government did not have the right to bring in a total ban,not one person in the World has died from secondhand smoke,Fact,only the Landlords/Ladies and Club owners have the right to say smoking or non smoking,and these local councils should be ashamed of themselves for trying to tell people everything is going great as far as the smoking ban is concerned,its all a fraud as the public now know,end this ban now,Tug.
Posted by: BarneyBear, manchester on 1:23pm Thu 24 Jul 08
[bold]For 100% compliance, read 100% coercion.[/bold] Thoroughly sick of the continual brainwashing and micromanagement of peoples lives. People should learn HOW to think, NOT what to think. [bold]"The truth sustains itself, but lies and untruths need constant repetitive reinforcement"[/bold] Repeat a lie often enough and the lie will be believed as the truth!
We want our Freedom of Choice back!
For 100% compliance, read 100% coercion. Thoroughly sick of the continual brainwashing and micromanagement of peoples lives. People should learn HOW to think, NOT what to think.
"The truth sustains itself, but lies and untruths need constant repetitive reinforcement" Repeat a lie often enough and the lie will be believed as the truth!
We want our Freedom of Choice back!
Posted by: Baldybogey on 2:20pm Thu 24 Jul 08
This may well be her front room, but she has opened it up to the public. I understand the ban was to include all public enclosed spaces. Yet again smokers have the right and non smokers just have to put up with it....
My pleasure is the drinking, I am sure there would be a fuss made if I decided to stand on a table and douse smokers hair and clothes with the waste product of my pleasure.
For me it’s not about the questionable risks from passive smoking, it’s just plain rude.
This may well be her front room, but she has opened it up to the public. I understand the ban was to include all public enclosed spaces. Yet again smokers have the right and non smokers just have to put up with it....
My pleasure is the drinking, I am sure there would be a fuss made if I decided to stand on a table and douse smokers hair and clothes with the waste product of my pleasure.
For me it’s not about the questionable risks from passive smoking, it’s just plain rude.
Posted by: RTS, Worcester on 2:50pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Baldbogey is clearly one of the people that BarneyBear mentioned; someone who need to learn HOW to think.
No one forces you to enter the premises, you are free to find somewhere more suitable to your tastes - it may even be somewhere that has a completely segregated smoking & no smoking sections.
Just as no one is forced to work there. The health risks touted as being unacceptable pale next to the risk we expect people in other jobs to accept - why are bar workers special, to get this extra special protection
In this particular battle it is not smokers who are the selfish ones. They are not asking for everywhere to allow smoking.
It is the anti-smokers who are being unreasonable and uncaring. They care nothing for the 78,000 job losses or 2000 bar closures since the start of the ban.
This is an acceptable price for them not having to smell smoke
Baldbogey is clearly one of the people that BarneyBear mentioned; someone who need to learn HOW to think.
No one forces you to enter the premises, you are free to find somewhere more suitable to your tastes - it may even be somewhere that has a completely segregated smoking & no smoking sections.
Just as no one is forced to work there. The health risks touted as being unacceptable pale next to the risk we expect people in other jobs to accept - why are bar workers special, to get this extra special protection
In this particular battle it is not smokers who are the selfish ones. They are not asking for everywhere to allow smoking.
It is the anti-smokers who are being unreasonable and uncaring. They care nothing for the 78,000 job losses or 2000 bar closures since the start of the ban.
This is an acceptable price for them not having to smell smoke
Posted by: Johnny B, Channel Isles on 3:55pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Mrs Hall is a Saint. Bradford Council and their Enviro Dept are a bunch of trivial jobsworths in marching boots. "Near 100% compliance" means 100% of their staff are a waste of public money.
Why should Mrs Hall suffer the destruction of her business by 'complying' with a Law based on 2 frauds. Firstly that passive smoke is a danger to public health (it is not - fact). Secondly that Pubs and Clubs would see increased trade from non-smokers.
Both are Labour lies, both are deceipt and both show contempt for public office which is further compounded by their derrogation of duty recently by not mentioning a single destructive aspect on their 'review' 1 year on from the ban.
There's no mention of the 2,000 closures, huge job losses, social devisiveness and theft of peoples liberties. Instead Labour MP's painted a completely false picture (ie. new lies on top of old lies) about "success" which was also garbage.
Claims of increasing quit rates are false. The quit rate has declined since the ban (as happened in Ireland). There have also been no lives saved from passive smoking as there is no danger to passive smoking and Cancer Research heart attack claims are as false as those made up in Scotland.
In short Mrs Hall represents this countries real democratic principles and is standing up against an immoral, dishonest and destructive Law that has no place in any democracy. The sooner these creeps are booted out of national and local Govt the better
Mrs Hall is a Saint. Bradford Council and their Enviro Dept are a bunch of trivial jobsworths in marching boots. "Near 100% compliance" means 100% of their staff are a waste of public money.
Why should Mrs Hall suffer the destruction of her business by 'complying' with a Law based on 2 frauds. Firstly that passive smoke is a danger to public health (it is not - fact). Secondly that Pubs and Clubs would see increased trade from non-smokers.
Both are Labour lies, both are deceipt and both show contempt for public office which is further compounded by their derrogation of duty recently by not mentioning a single destructive aspect on their 'review' 1 year on from the ban.
There's no mention of the 2,000 closures, huge job losses, social devisiveness and theft of peoples liberties. Instead Labour MP's painted a completely false picture (ie. new lies on top of old lies) about "success" which was also garbage.
Claims of increasing quit rates are false. The quit rate has declined since the ban (as happened in Ireland). There have also been no lives saved from passive smoking as there is no danger to passive smoking and Cancer Research heart attack claims are as false as those made up in Scotland.
In short Mrs Hall represents this countries real democratic principles and is standing up against an immoral, dishonest and destructive Law that has no place in any democracy. The sooner these creeps are booted out of national and local Govt the better
Posted by: snowbird, Thunder Bay on 4:24pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Council were elected to run the business of the city, not the city's businesses.
Council is not in the health business and shouldn't be.
no-smoking laws are not about health and they never were about health.
It is all about:
Quarantine/isolate the smoker.
De-normalize smoking.
Passing no-smoking laws is a big step in that direction.
Unfortunatley the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire.
http://smokersclubin
c.com
http://pasan.thetrut
hisalie.com
www.ventilatedsmokin
grooms.ca
Council were elected to run the business of the city, not the city's businesses.
Council is not in the health business and shouldn't be.
no-smoking laws are not about health and they never were about health.
It is all about:
Quarantine/isolate the smoker.
De-normalize smoking.
Passing no-smoking laws is a big step in that direction.
Unfortunatley the hospitality industry is caught in the cross-fire.
http://smokersclubin
c.com
http://pasan.thetrut
hisalie.com
www.ventilatedsmokin
grooms.ca
Posted by: Liz on 5:42pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Baldbogey, the difference is that you have a place where you may go and relieve yourself of the 'waste product of your pleasure'. This place is both sheltered and comfortable for you, unlike smokers who now are treated worse than animals when it comes to their chosen pleasures
Baldbogey, the difference is that you have a place where you may go and relieve yourself of the 'waste product of your pleasure'. This place is both sheltered and comfortable for you, unlike smokers who now are treated worse than animals when it comes to their chosen pleasures
Posted by: Ex-Pubbite, manchester on 6:34pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Keep up the GOOD WORK Kathleen.
Council 'officials' have their heads so far up their backsides that they cannot see the real
picture or if they can they are so afraid of their masters that they obey like brainless sheep (sorry sheep). Lies were used to effect this ban and lies are being used in a vain attempt to save face. These puppets of the government are too stupid to see how much revenue they are losing, too subserviant to stand up and tell the truth about the loss of Pubs and jobs or too bigoted to care about 25% of their electorate. Their gravy train rolls on with a bunch of fat cat, greedy, power
hungry charlatans prising apart the social cohesion that made this country once great. Smoking
apartheit is not the way to a brighter future. Prejudice is not good way to unite people and if these lunatics who are running this asylum think that smokers will give up just because Nanny says so, then this country is lost to an enemy which it can't even see.
Keep up the GOOD WORK Kathleen.
Council 'officials' have their heads so far up their backsides that they cannot see the real
picture or if they can they are so afraid of their masters that they obey like brainless sheep (sorry sheep). Lies were used to effect this ban and lies are being used in a vain attempt to save face. These puppets of the government are too stupid to see how much revenue they are losing, too subserviant to stand up and tell the truth about the loss of Pubs and jobs or too bigoted to care about 25% of their electorate. Their gravy train rolls on with a bunch of fat cat, greedy, power
hungry charlatans prising apart the social cohesion that made this country once great. Smoking
apartheit is not the way to a brighter future. Prejudice is not good way to unite people and if these lunatics who are running this asylum think that smokers will give up just because Nanny says so, then this country is lost to an enemy which it can't even see.
Posted by: Eightieswiffy, Bradford on 9:38pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Good for you Kathleen - there are many pubs in Bradford & district who are NOT compliant.
You are not alone!
Good for you Kathleen - there are many pubs in Bradford & district who are NOT compliant.
You are not alone!
Posted by: Chris, Keighley on 10:20pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Although i am a non smoker i totally agree that this government should not be allowed to play God. They could have introduced smoking and non smoking areas, but that i suppose is to easy. Looking at it another way though, when the pubs continue to close in there droves and many people cut down or stop smoking, billions will be lost in revenue for this sad government, and guess who they will be chasing to fill that tax loop hole?
Keep voting Labour people, you can't beat poverty, greed and despair.
Although i am a non smoker i totally agree that this government should not be allowed to play God. They could have introduced smoking and non smoking areas, but that i suppose is to easy. Looking at it another way though, when the pubs continue to close in there droves and many people cut down or stop smoking, billions will be lost in revenue for this sad government, and guess who they will be chasing to fill that tax loop hole?
Keep voting Labour people, you can't beat poverty, greed and despair.
Posted by: chas, suffolk on 8:54am Fri 25 Jul 08
Max Mosely proved yesterday that what one does on their own is of no concern of anybody else. Anybody who doesn't like smoking can easily use another pub.
Max Mosely proved yesterday that what one does on their own is of no concern of anybody else. Anybody who doesn't like smoking can easily use another pub.
Posted by: chas, suffolk on 9:25am Fri 25 Jul 08
Should read 'on their own property'.
Should read 'on their own property'.
Posted by: Baldybogey on 2:20pm Fri 25 Jul 08
[quote]Posted by: RTS, Worcester
on 2:50pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Baldbogey is clearly one of the people that BarneyBear mentioned; someone who need to learn HOW to think.
No one forces you to enter the premises, you are free to find somewhere more suitable to your tastes - it may even be somewhere that has a completely segregated smoking & no smoking sections.
Just as no one is forced to work there. The health risks touted as being unacceptable pale next to the risk we expect people in other jobs to accept - why are bar workers special, to get this extra special protection
In this particular battle it is not smokers who are the selfish ones. They are not asking for everywhere to allow smoking.
It is the anti-smokers who are being unreasonable and uncaring. They care nothing for the 78,000 job losses or 2000 bar closures since the start of the ban.
This is an acceptable price for them not having to smell smoke[/quote]
What do you mean I need to learn how to think???
[quote] No one forces you to enter the premises, you are free to find somewhere more suitable to your tastes - it may even be somewhere that has a completely segregated smoking & no smoking sections. [/quote]
So as a non smoker not wishing to smell of smoke I have to have less choice than a smoker on where I can frequent to have a drink. That’s really telling me how to think.
[quote]It is the anti-smokers who are being unreasonable and uncaring. They care nothing for the 78,000 job losses or 2000 bar closures since the start of the ban.
This is an acceptable price for them not having to smell smoke [/quote]
And you are saying I need to learn how to think. I suppose the rising cost of mortgages, petrol, electricity, gas and food has had nothing to do with people spending less money and contributing to those closures and job losses.
[quote]Posted by: Liz on 5:42pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Baldbogey, the difference is that you have a place where you may go and relieve yourself of the 'waste product of your pleasure'. This place is both sheltered and comfortable for you, unlike smokers who now are treated worse than animals when it comes to their chosen pleasures[/quote]
Then I suggest that anyone who thinks like yourself should LEARN TO THINK, as others are putting it. If the facilities for smoking are not good enough then take this issue up and have this part of the law improved. That way everyone wins…
Just to clarify….
I am not against smoking
I don’t want the choice of being forced to breath in smoke/have myself and cloths smell of it or never go out
I do think that smokers should be forced out in to the wind and rain so they can enjoy a ciggarette
Posted by: RTS, Worcester
on 2:50pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Baldbogey is clearly one of the people that BarneyBear mentioned; someone who need to learn HOW to think.
No one forces you to enter the premises, you are free to find somewhere more suitable to your tastes - it may even be somewhere that has a completely segregated smoking & no smoking sections.
Just as no one is forced to work there. The health risks touted as being unacceptable pale next to the risk we expect people in other jobs to accept - why are bar workers special, to get this extra special protection
In this particular battle it is not smokers who are the selfish ones. They are not asking for everywhere to allow smoking.
It is the anti-smokers who are being unreasonable and uncaring. They care nothing for the 78,000 job losses or 2000 bar closures since the start of the ban.
This is an acceptable price for them not having to smell smoke
What do you mean I need to learn how to think???
No one forces you to enter the premises, you are free to find somewhere more suitable to your tastes - it may even be somewhere that has a completely segregated smoking & no smoking sections.
So as a non smoker not wishing to smell of smoke I have to have less choice than a smoker on where I can frequent to have a drink. That’s really telling me how to think.
It is the anti-smokers who are being unreasonable and uncaring. They care nothing for the 78,000 job losses or 2000 bar closures since the start of the ban.
This is an acceptable price for them not having to smell smoke
And you are saying I need to learn how to think. I suppose the rising cost of mortgages, petrol, electricity, gas and food has had nothing to do with people spending less money and contributing to those closures and job losses.
Posted by: Liz on 5:42pm Thu 24 Jul 08
Baldbogey, the difference is that you have a place where you may go and relieve yourself of the 'waste product of your pleasure'. This place is both sheltered and comfortable for you, unlike smokers who now are treated worse than animals when it comes to their chosen pleasures
Then I suggest that anyone who thinks like yourself should LEARN TO THINK, as others are putting it. If the facilities for smoking are not good enough then take this issue up and have this part of the law improved. That way everyone wins…
Just to clarify….
I am not against smoking
I don’t want the choice of being forced to breath in smoke/have myself and cloths smell of it or never go out
I do think that smokers should be forced out in to the wind and rain so they can enjoy a ciggarette
Posted by: Baldybogey on 2:22pm Fri 25 Jul 08
Mistake in the JUST TO CLARIFY...
The last statement should have read
I do NOT think that smokers should be forced out in to the wind and rain so they can enjoy a ciggarette
Mistake in the JUST TO CLARIFY...
The last statement should have read
I do NOT think that smokers should be forced out in to the wind and rain so they can enjoy a ciggarette
Posted by: chas, suffolk on 2:36pm Fri 25 Jul 08
I don't want the choice of being forced to breath in the fumes from people who have drank alcoholic drinks and who stink of it.
I do not think that drinkers should be forced out in the wind and rain so that they can enjoy a pint.
I don't want the choice of being forced to breath in the fumes from people who have drank alcoholic drinks and who stink of it.
I do not think that drinkers should be forced out in the wind and rain so that they can enjoy a pint.
Posted by: Baldybogey on 2:54pm Fri 25 Jul 08
[quote][bold]chas[/bold] wrote:
I don't want the choice of being forced to breath in the fumes from people who have drank alcoholic drinks and who stink of it. I do not think that drinkers should be forced out in the wind and rain so that they can enjoy a pint.[/quote] I do not understand your comment....
I understood tghe debate was about smokers not being allowed to smoke in a pub. So they would also be drinking? Or am I missing the point??
chas wrote:
I don't want the choice of being forced to breath in the fumes from people who have drank alcoholic drinks and who stink of it. I do not think that drinkers should be forced out in the wind and rain so that they can enjoy a pint.
I do not understand your comment....
I understood tghe debate was about smokers not being allowed to smoke in a pub. So they would also be drinking? Or am I missing the point??
Posted by: chas, suffolk on 3:12pm Fri 25 Jul 08
Baldybogey
My point is that some people don't like cigarette smoke and others don't like the smell of alcohol and other smells.
There are people who only have 'soft' drinks in pubs.
Baldybogey
My point is that some people don't like cigarette smoke and others don't like the smell of alcohol and other smells.
There are people who only have 'soft' drinks in pubs.
Posted by: Baldybogey on 5:18pm Fri 25 Jul 08
But if they didn't sell alchohol they wouldn't be a pub!!
And I would expect anywhere selling soft drinks only would not allow smoking before the ban....
But if they didn't sell alchohol they wouldn't be a pub!!
And I would expect anywhere selling soft drinks only would not allow smoking before the ban....
Posted by: chas, suffolk on 7:11pm Fri 25 Jul 08
Baldybogey
You must learn how to think.
Pub is short for public house. A house where the public are allowed.
Coffee BARS were all the rage in the 1950s and 1960s and smoking was definately allowed.
Coffee bars were public houses for the younger generation.
Baldybogey
You must learn how to think.
Pub is short for public house. A house where the public are allowed.
Coffee BARS were all the rage in the 1950s and 1960s and smoking was definately allowed.
Coffee bars were public houses for the younger generation.
Posted by: Baldybogey on 9:48pm Fri 25 Jul 08
Extract from the encyclopaedia Britannica
[bold]PUBLIC HOUSE [italic]byname Pub,[/[/italic] bold]
[bold]in Britain and regions of British influence, an establishment providing alcoholic liquors to be consumed on the premises. English common law early imposed social responsibilities for the well-being of travellers upon the inns and taverns, declaring them to be public houses which must receive all travellers in reasonable condition who were willing to pay the price for food, drink, and lodging.[/bold]
The lead story, which is what started the debate, is about a pub licensed to sell alcohol. So as I said in my previous post your point has no point…..
Extract from the encyclopaedia Britannica
PUBLIC HOUSE
byname Pub,
in Britain and regions of British influence, an establishment providing alcoholic liquors to be consumed on the premises. English common law early imposed social responsibilities for the well-being of travellers upon the inns and taverns, declaring them to be public houses which must receive all travellers in reasonable condition who were willing to pay the price for food, drink, and lodging.
The lead story, which is what started the debate, is about a pub licensed to sell alcohol. So as I said in my previous post your point has no point…..
Posted by: chas, suffolk on 9:34am Sat 26 Jul 08
The story is about a landlady who owns a public house which as you say 'must receive ALL travellers in reasonable condition who were willing to pay the price of food, drink, and lodging'. She has now been told not receive travellers who smoke inside the house and probably does not provide lodging.
Smoking is not allowed because a few people object to the smell of cigarette smoke and my 'POINT' was that some people do not like the smell of alcohol.
The encyclopaedia Britannica needs updating. A futher defination of theirs is that pubs have separate bars (private, public and saloons).
How many pubs do you know that have separate bars today?
I repeat, my POINT was you hate cigarette smoke and some people hate the smell of alcohol.
The story is about a landlady who owns a public house which as you say 'must receive ALL travellers in reasonable condition who were willing to pay the price of food, drink, and lodging'. She has now been told not receive travellers who smoke inside the house and probably does not provide lodging.
Smoking is not allowed because a few people object to the smell of cigarette smoke and my 'POINT' was that some people do not like the smell of alcohol.
The encyclopaedia Britannica needs updating. A futher defination of theirs is that pubs have separate bars (private, public and saloons).
How many pubs do you know that have separate bars today?
I repeat, my POINT was you hate cigarette smoke and some people hate the smell of alcohol.
Posted by: Baldybogey on 9:56am Sat 26 Jul 08
And I repeat myself...
I do NOT think that smokers should be forced out in to the wind and rain so they can enjoy a ciggarette
And I repeat myself...
I do NOT think that smokers should be forced out in to the wind and rain so they can enjoy a ciggarette
Posted by: Johnny B, Channel Isles on 1:44am Sun 27 Jul 08
Baldybogey, I think most smokers are happy with your view. At least you're not one of the unsuferable few that think they have a right to all public buildings being smoke free.
I trust you include airports, train stations/platforms, sports centres, hospitals, Govt buildings (parliaments bars still permit smoking) etc?
The 'funny' thing is 70% of the public did not support this all out ban before the ban. And that was at a time when landlords had a voluntary arrangement and without exception all allowed smoking and people never complained about 'smelly clothes' then!
I've just come back from Ibiza. There's no ban there in any bar or club and there's no complaints either about smoking despite most coming from Britain where they're used to the ban. Clubs take anywhere from 1,000 to 8,000 people and 50% of them I reckon smoke.
The health and social 'issues' are just such a lot of trivia and hyperbole I worry about the sanity of the media who blow every topic out of proportion (from smoking to knife crime to bird flu). The biggest loonies in this country just all appear to have the largest megaphones!
Baldybogey, I think most smokers are happy with your view. At least you're not one of the unsuferable few that think they have a right to all public buildings being smoke free.
I trust you include airports, train stations/platforms, sports centres, hospitals, Govt buildings (parliaments bars still permit smoking) etc?
The 'funny' thing is 70% of the public did not support this all out ban before the ban. And that was at a time when landlords had a voluntary arrangement and without exception all allowed smoking and people never complained about 'smelly clothes' then!
I've just come back from Ibiza. There's no ban there in any bar or club and there's no complaints either about smoking despite most coming from Britain where they're used to the ban. Clubs take anywhere from 1,000 to 8,000 people and 50% of them I reckon smoke.
The health and social 'issues' are just such a lot of trivia and hyperbole I worry about the sanity of the media who blow every topic out of proportion (from smoking to knife crime to bird flu). The biggest loonies in this country just all appear to have the largest megaphones!
Posted by: Mark, Haworth on 4:26pm Sun 27 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Baldybogey[/bold] wrote:
Extract from the encyclopaedia Britannica [bold]PUBLIC HOUSE [italic]byname Pub,[/[/italic] bold] [bold]in Britain and regions of British influence, an establishment providing alcoholic liquors to be consumed on the premises. English common law early imposed social responsibilities for the well-being of travellers upon the inns and taverns, declaring them to be public houses which must receive all travellers in reasonable condition who were willing to pay the price for food, drink, and lodging.[/bold] The lead story, which is what started the debate, is about a pub licensed to sell alcohol. So as I said in my previous post your point has no point….. [/quote] Doesn't mention receiving travellers who smoke! ;-)
Baldybogey wrote:
Extract from the encyclopaedia Britannica PUBLIC HOUSE byname Pub, in Britain and regions of British influence, an establishment providing alcoholic liquors to be consumed on the premises. English common law early imposed social responsibilities for the well-being of travellers upon the inns and taverns, declaring them to be public houses which must receive all travellers in reasonable condition who were willing to pay the price for food, drink, and lodging. The lead story, which is what started the debate, is about a pub licensed to sell alcohol. So as I said in my previous post your point has no point…..
Doesn't mention receiving travellers who smoke! ;-)
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
