News Article Comments : Pub takings 'down as much as 40%' says Mirror

RE: Pub takings 'down as much as 40%' says Mirror

One of the oddest aspects of the smoking ban debate is the vehement nature of the anti's comments on the subject. Given that they could be assumed to have won, one wonders why they are wasting their time posting and why in such an unpleasant manner? I remember studying a phenomenon called "post-cognitive dissonance" in marketing many years ago - this is the term used to describe the behaviour of somebody who buys a new car and then spends months reading all the reviews of other similar models - trying to reassure themselves that they made the right decision. Does anybody else think that this might be a factor and that they fear a judicial review and the binning of this iniquitous piece of repressive legislation?

This post replies to this thread

RE: Pub takings 'down as much as 40%' says Mirror

Credit where it's due my knowledge has been down to the fantastic research Bill has done and psts on to me. Ihave then just developed it further. A team effort I think you could call it. But you are right Colin. It is amazing how there are numerous particles at 2.5 microns all of which can be removed except according to ASH and super loons like James Repace that can't. Mr Repaces' final comment to me following an email exchange, was 'f' offf you a*rse hole'. Very scientific response from the worlds self proclaimed expert on particle extraction.

This post replies to Colin Grainger > RE: Pub takings 'down as much as 40%' says Mirror

RE: Pub takings 'down as much as 40%' says Mirror

Gilbert, to a certain extent I agree with the sentiment of "it's the law so get over it and get on", however, I think that when a law is a bad one (ie hijacked by special interest groups and supported by dubious science) we have the right to oppose it. Further, it is the nature of this law that is worrying: the state is encroaching too far into our private lives. With regard to future litigation......pure guess work and you cannot frame law on guess work. How about financial support for landlocked pubs that go under - farmers have been baled out for years, or does the fact that some people will lose everything not matter? Surely, if cost is a consideration, it should be so for both parties.

The weakness of your argument is exposed by a tradition of public revolt (Peterloo Riots, Tollpuddle Martyrs, Chartists, Corn Law reformers and antis,wars various, student grants, miners, poll tax etc etc). On the whole I think that a society like ours is at its best when we tolerate objectors and encourage debate.

This post replies to Gilbert Bank > RE: Pub takings 'down as much as 40%' says Mirror

RE: Pub takings 'down as much as 40%' says Mirror

Well heres a ray of hope.. Just done my July figures and the year to date less tonight and the year is 11% up on last year and July is 5% up despite the wet weather. The majority of this was in fact due to April but we have been no smoking since the beginning of January. The new outside area has not yet had a change to shine but this 40% I can only assume also must relate to area as well as what type of operation it is.

This post replies to this thread

RE: Pub takings 'down as much as 40%' says Mirror

Dave, You seem to be criticising the 'red tops' for selective reporting. I suspect you are also selecting to emphasise the impact of the weather that suits your view. I will now be selective. Our pubs benefit from bad weather in the summer because it keeps people near to home rather than nipping out to the countryside. What we have experienced is entirely due to the somoking ban: some people don't go to the pub as much because they can't relax and enjoy a pint and a smoke, others drink less and go home earlier for the same reason.  The fabled non-smoker is non-existent. On an even more selective personal note, I don't go to the pub much since the ban because we drink in the 'private smoking pub' owned by the chairman of our local ruling group on the council instead.

Anecdotes aside, surely the issue you ought to be concerned with is the overall spend in pubs. The prohibition of smoking has directly caused a reduction. Smug winners are only at the expense of others in this zero (actually negative) sum game.

This post replies to Dave Robinson > RE: Pub takings 'down as much as 40%' says Mirror