- Morning Advertiser >
- Forums >
- News Article Comments >
- Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street
News Article Comments : Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street
- Thread is open
- View Article
67 Posts(s) found for this thread: Now displaying page 6 of 7
| Author Name | Opinion | Reply |
|---|---|---|
Iain Page 25/07/2007 23:05:07 |
RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street Gilbert, Forgive me if I have misunderstood you. Are you seriously saying that we should do stuff to encourage non-smokers who wouldn't previously have visisted the pub? Or, are you saying we should adopt beggar our neighbour strategies and just try to have the nicest smoking ghetto around? Surely we all know that the way to restore our business is to get this ridiculous ban overturned. I would prefer to do it by ridicule but the time for concerted action is nigh. It makes no business sense to accept the prohibition of smoking. Rather spend a pound on a lawyer than a belly dancer methinks. The going rate seems to be 20% down on takings and averaging at around £1000 a week each. Assuming 30,000 pubs are non-chains we little guys have lost around £100 million so far. Something has got to give. This post replies to Gilbert Bank > RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street |
|
| John Gillman 25/07/2007 23:32:01 |
RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street Ian, question is who's giving? kettles on, may take two days to boil.in these lower climes.. J G This post replies to Iain Page > RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street |
|
| Iain Page 26/07/2007 00:34:57 |
RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street I guess it will be the small landlocked pubs on housing estates who go first (ideal for use as crack dens), followed by the small high street pubs. The later might metamorphosise into Starbucks (only 80% increased risk of bladder cancer if you drink ten cups a day). Next a big chain or two will go bust because they stupidly bought a portfolio of landlocked property from the niftier operators who were bailing out. Then there will be pressure on the business rates and a knock on effect on council tax before some enlightened politician comes up with the idea of a review and we go back to old fashioned smoking rooms, probably on payment of a fat licence fee. Alternatively a whole bunch of us band together, stir up our beloved customers, deluge our MPs with complaints, cause catastrophic collapse of the snitch line, insist on the prosecution of our LAs for failure to police their own premises and sue them for consequential loss for failing to police even-handedly. We might even throw in a rates strike bringing pressure on the business rates and a knock on effect on council tax. Some enlightened politician might then come up with the idea of a review and we go back to the way it was without any interference from the LAs. Or we could all join the Labour party, deselect a few token MPs and force a General Election, possibly selling off their property to fund legal actions against the government and the LAs just for fun. Done & dusted in a couple of months, and all while Brown is on holiday. This post replies to John Gillman > RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street |
|
Ken Nason 26/07/2007 08:44:46 |
RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street So why is opposing a ban out of self interest any less merit than supporting a ban out of self interest. May I remind you that it was the pro banners who when it was pointed out that the ban would be at the expence of the rights of smokers retorted that they wanted the right to enter a pub without having to breath someone elses smoke. It would appear from the evidence that these people are not exercising this right they have won at their fellow mans expence. It was they who said the reason they didn't go to pubs because of the smoke.They didn't say I don't go to pubs because there is no live band, strippers,quizes, Karoke,jazz nights etc. Theres no smoke Gilbert so where are they? It is irrefutable that those who never went to pubs still dont use pubs regardless of whether they are smoke free or not. The fact that non smokers where just waiting fot the smoke to clear to rush down to the local was another lie in the arsenal of the pro ban fanatics.
Ken Nason This post replies to Gilbert Bank > RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street |
|
| Alastair Elliott 26/07/2007 08:55:53 |
RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street Ken, EXACTLY, what more can one say !! This post replies to this thread |
|
Chris Mason 26/07/2007 18:03:37 |
RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street So why is opposing a ban out of self interest any less merit than supporting a ban out of self interest. The fact that non smokers where just waiting fot the smoke to clear to rush down to the local was another lie in the arsenal of the pro ban fanatics. Ken Nason Ken, I'm a smoker and a landlord, but we have been promoting the pub as a safe place to come for some months now. As a result we are seeing many new customers and the return of some who disliked my ideas of a no smoking area when we first moved here nearly 3 years ago. Year on year (wet) takings are up by 34%, we've won two awards for our cask ale this year and food sales are improving (28%). If I had done nothing but erected smoke shelters and nailed a couple of ashtrays to the wall I'd be complaining as well. Instead we started our advertising some 6 months before the ban was due and won the support of both our smokers and non smokers alike, they don't like the law, but they respect the fact we have tried our best to make things easy for them. It helps that we target a 30+ market and in the main socially responsible individuals. Of all the pubs here mine was one of only 2 that was not required as a condition of its licence to belong to a pubwatch scheme, but we still are active members. It is social engineering, but it's also about business and if you don't do anything you'll get nil return and lower loyalty from your existing customers. I don't tolerate anti's here either. Regards Chris This post replies to Ken Nason > RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street |
|
| Robert Feal-Martinez 26/07/2007 18:26:02 |
RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street Well done Chris, you have just qualified as a Retalier not a Publican. We could all foucus on what makes us mega bucks, at the expense of morals, values, fairness, caring, social conscious, community spirit. I guess you would think it was fine to charge the little old lady who was flooded £20 for water, cause that's business. I also note your comment about 'pub watch'. The LA can't impose that condition in the first place. I think you need to go on a course about the LA 2003. This post replies to Chris Mason > RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street |
|
| Nigel Maud 26/07/2007 19:18:13 |
RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street I fail to see why a publican working on the issues of the smoking ban to ensure his business survives to pay him, his rent and his team makes him have no morals, values, social concious or community spirit. I would say that Chris has looked to find a solution to what is now the law to keep his business going forward and not be one of the statistics of closure everyone is shouting will happen - nothing wrong with that is there Robert This post replies to Robert Feal-Martinez > RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street |
|
| Ken Nason 26/07/2007 19:32:11 |
RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street Chris I think you have gotten the wrong end of the stick regarding my post.
I have never said that licensees should not promote or strive to increase their businesses growth and profitability.
The point that GB was making was that the reason pubs don't have the non pub going non smokers ids because they have done nothing to atract them. This was despite all of the pro banners right from the start of this fiasco slating licensees for saying that their trade would be hit if they were forced to stop their smoking customers(who made up the majority of trade). They were shouted down and told they didn't know what they were talking about because there were thousands and thousands of non smokers just waiting to invade the pubs when that nasty smoke that was keeping them out was removed.
My point and question was, if that is all that kept them out then where are they? As pointed out by another poster the same con was used to encourage licensees to spend fortunes on disability work to enable the thousands of disabled people who were kept out of pubs where they were desperate to spend their money. Where are they ? Seems to be a national pastime these days lying to licensees who on the whole are decent hard working caring people. Perhaps there is no place for decent honest people in this brave new world of a manure heap where lies deception and shafting everyone is seen as a virtue
Ken Nason.
Ken Nason This post replies to Nigel Maud > RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street |
|
| Gilbert Bank 26/07/2007 19:34:13 |
RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street Iain, you have got It!!! Gilbert, Forgive me if I have misunderstood you. Are you seriously saying that we should do stuff to encourage non-smokers who wouldn't previously have visisted the pub? Yes, yes, yes!!!!! Or, are you saying we should adopt beggar our neighbour strategies and just try to have the nicest smoking ghetto around? Sorry, Iain, but the non-smoker is who you are beggaring and they too are your neighbour. You have (I assumed) catered for your smoking clientele who have voted with their feet? Plan B? Surely we all know that the way to restore our business is to get this ridiculous ban overturned. This is not going to happen. F2C are not seeking this. I would prefer to do it by ridicule but the time for concerted action is nigh. It makes no business sense to accept the prohibition of smoking. Rather spend a pound on a lawyer than a belly dancer methinks. There is no prohibition of smoking and ridicule? Well the going rate is 8 belly dancers to to one lawyer pound. This post replies to Iain Page > RE: Pubs warned over smokers drinking in street |
|
