List of all posts by user:

In response to Michael's post. Micheal, you are absolutely right that has not been confirmed in relation to the smoking legislation. However, within other planning legislation that if there is a 100mm space between 'structures' they are deemed to be free-standing therefore are not affected by other structures. If this applied to the smoking legislation, if you leave a gap of 100mm or greater and you smoking shelter complies with the 50% you are complying by default. I accept this is open to interpretation. In repsonse to J Macrae, once again this is a measurement that has been banded around for a while, along with 1.0 metres and 0.5 metres as well as answers of ?????????. In referring to the above response to Micheal's post, by definition if the structure is free-standing and has 50% open walls you cannot go wrong..........................unless the goal posts are moved again!

Having quickly downloaded the Gateshead Council document, I was astounded as to the poor quality of the information it contained. It is nothing more than regurgitated information, that provides no clarity for landlords or anyone looking to invest in a smoking shelter or awning. The simple fact, contained within the legislation is that you must comply with the 50% rule if providing an 'area' in which people can smoke. This applies to anything deemed to be substantially enclosed ie, has a roof which includes awnings. As long as the smoking shelter or awning leaves a gap (within planning legislation a 100mm space is classed as sufficient) between the edge of the shelter and any other structure, wall or fence for example, the shelter would be classed as a 'free standing' structure. As such, as long at it complies with the 50% rule, you will automatically comply with the legislation. Regarding awnings and yard areas, the simple answer is not to cover the whole area. reduce the width by 100mm in each side and only cover 50% of the floor area. Using the defintion above you will complying with the legislation as well as providing an area for smokers. Finally, the legislation is not sufficiently detailed and although I don't condone law breaking or wasting money on non-compliant structures, the only people to police this are the planning officers or the enviromental health dept's....................and do we really think they will be coming round to all 60,000 pubs with a tape measure. I don't think so.

The self appointed 'god' of the licensed trade speaks in the same tongue as he requests his flock to resist using. Mr FTC is clearly is not interested in debate, discussion or even compromise. His focus is clearly on elevating himself into some higher unelected position, so all the other spineless morans he has as followers can bow in his presence even more. Sing the FTC song or don't sing at all !!!!!! Bob, you request others to resist such post's, yet you make an insulting and defamatory remark about Jon and where he works/lives. You should ashamed of yourself, however you have shown your true colours now and for everyone to see. Well respected member of the licensed trade ?!?!..............I think not.

Robert, there was no implication on my post, merely a quote that I had read on the internet. I never implied anything, you had made an assumption, therefore the responsibility for the interpretation lies with you. As for being insulting, then check your own post. You had levelled an insult at me as being a liar, which is clearly unfounded and wholly inaccurate. I am not sure of the relevaance of the source of the quote, however, as always you have avoided any meaningful reply to what is a quote from an industry voice. Congratulations on realising I am not a member of the BII, probably along with many others in the trade, however please feel free to respond to the quote....................................

In June 2006, The British Institute of Innkeeping ’s magazine said that: "...we are talking about banning the use of a carcinogenic substance which in enclosed spaces kills or damages the health of passive smokers – that means licensees and bar staff and customers. This is a scientific fact, and we should bear this in mind along with the economic arguments" What are the FTC's thoughts on this article and the comments made ? Read what I posted Bobby! This is the post, on the site to which I provided the link, it clearly states The British Innkeeping's magazine said........ Scroll through the link, find the quote for yourself before you accuse anybody of lying. As for suing you, the point would be what ? I couldn;t be bothered even if i cared what some joker, who has nothing better to do than post several hundred posts on ever topic under the sun, said about me. Unlike you Bob (seeing as you wish to be personal) I have a life, your life seems to revolve around posting on this webiste and leading a 2 bob(very apt) crusade to overturn a piece of legislation that is overdue. Read the posts properly before you make accusations. You asked me to provide the source of the quote and I have done exactly that. I never quoted that I had read any magazine, I merely posted the quote and asked for your thoughts................simple, even for a simple man like you.