Why it's time for action against the Daily Mail...

The Daily Mail has reignited its campaign against the new licensing regime with a series of damning articles over the summer. Much to the chagrin of those in the trade, the paper - which is many publicans 'paper of choice' - has decided that just months before the law comes into effect is the time to cause a stink again.

Numerous stories have appeared in the tabloid, as part of its "Say No To 24-Hour Pubs" campaign, encourages residents to object to late licences and paints pubs as one of the evils of society.

So what exactly has been wrong with the Mail's coverage? Well even the campaign's name "Say No To 24-Hour Pubs" is misleading. According to figures from the British Beer & Pub Association (BBPA), the majority - around 90 per cent - are only applying to stay open for an extra hour or two at the weekend. And this is just to give them the option of opening for these hours, when it is economically viable. In reality, only a handful of pubs across the country have applied for 24-hour licences.

Indeed, the whole point of the new Licensing Act is to offer greater flexibility to licensees and to hopefully prevent some of the problems that are caused when everyone is thrown out onto the streets at the same time.

But the Daily Mail, Middle England's favourite daily, has ignored this and ploughed on with its attempt to undermine the Act, and the trade. Thanks Daily Mail.

One example of the paper's tactics is its story on a pub in Sedgefield, Tony Blair's constituency. It claimed that residents are up in arms over the Dun Cow Inn's application for an extra hour at weekends.

The Mail quotes two nearby residents who are upset about the pub's plans. However, they are clearly not upset enough to register their feelings with the local council. When The Publican contacted Sedgefield Borough Council, a spokesman confirmed no formal objections had been lodged.

And the licensee of the Dun Cow Inn, Geoff Rayner, is unaware of any ill-feeling among villagers. "We have not had one single comment of concern," he said. "The police and the council are as surprised as we are by the story. It's ridiculous and totally out-of-order."

The Mail on Sunday has followed suit. On September 4, the paper ran a story "uncovering" the fact that government advisory group meetings had taken place at the headquarters of the BBPA. "The industry-funded organisation used the opportunities to treat guests to light meals and coffees at its offices," the story read.

The chairman of the group, Andrew Cunningham, a senior civil servant, was in the firing line - as he was in another Mail on Sunday splash earlier in the year.

However as Mark Hastings, BBPA director of communications, pointed out, the association's offices are in a government building and its landlord is the Department of Health. He added: "I think the article is an example of how low towards the bottom of the barrel the Mail has got with this issue. But I don't think it is having a go a pubs per se, it's trying to undermine the government and it just so happens that pubs are suffering collateral damage."

Nick Bish, chief executive of the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers, believes the attack on Mr Cunningham was "unnecessary, unprofessional and unpleasant". "If there's a political decision taken, it's down to the minister," he added.

Mr Bish says many of the Mail's stories are bizarre, inaccurate and should be ignored. "But the fact remains the Daily Mail is read by a lot of people and it has an impact on political activity," he said.

But Mr Hastings is not as perturbed as some. "The reality is people read the Daily Mail in the pub or read it and then go to the pub and do not recognise these mythical problems written about in the paper.

"Many people love their pub and love going to the pub and will not be put off by these types of stories." Let's drink to that.

Just plain wrong​

In a Daily Mail article that appeared on August 29, the paper stated that "residents are barred from objecting if they live more than 80 yards away".

But this is plainly wrong. The Department for Culture, Media & Sport states that residents that are in the "local vicinity" can object and this is defined locally by the local authority.

A spokeswoman added: "If you are in a small village then it may be any residents within a square mile that can object. But if you are in a big city, then it may only be anywhere that is within 100 metres of a pub."

On the facing page the example was given of a man who had been unable to object to a late-night application for his local supermarket. Make up your mind Daily Mail - is it pubs or supermarkets that are the problem?

Another example in Amberley in Gloucestershire suggests residents are upset because the intentions of their local - the Black Pub - was advertised in a regional paper instead of their local.

But what about the sign in the window notifying people of an application for a late licence that all pubs have to display? If residents are near enough to be affected, wouldn't they notice the sign in the window when they passed the pub?

No-one at the Daily Mail was available to speak to The Publican about any of these stories.