It's last orders as pubs call time (From Swindon Advertiser)

If something isn't done soon to Help the individual Landlord or small Pub Group,I can see them following the trend of the "Local Shops", and all that will be left will be the "Supermarket type pubs" such With or Without a Spoon.

"Landlord Robert Feal-Martinez, of the Carpenter’s Arms in South Marston, who believes the smoking ban has crippled pubs, said a unique British tradition was under threat."

Whilst I'm sure there has been an unfortunate impact I go to the pub a lot more since the smoking ban came into force and so do a lot of my friends. The smoking ban has been in place for nearly 2 years now a lot of pubs still have a stale smoke stench to them as if they haven't bothered to redocorate in the hope that the ban gets overturned. Time to move on and look at other ways of attracting customers.

"Some pubs are fighting back. At the beginning of the year JD Wetherspoon, which has several pubs in Swindon, cut the price of a pint to 99p. "

In my opinion this is exactly why "proper" pubs are closing. y just cannot compete with the large chains, such as Wetherspoons

"Time to move on and look at other ways of attracting customers."

What other ways??

The pubs that are going are the traditional ale houses whose customers went there to socialise and for the atmosphere, smokey or not.

I don't go to the pub anymore because of the sterile atmosphere and too many kids running round late into the night. The trouble is pubs cannot survive on the type of customers going there now and the running costs are spiralling out of control especially wages.

My parents had a pub under the old licensing laws but still only had Sunday afternoon as a real break. being a pub landlord is a vocation. You cannot do it as a job expecting good salaries, holidays etc, there just isn't ehough money in it.

I do wish people would stop using the smoking ban as an excuse. My personal suspicion is that pubs closing was an early warning sign of the implosion of the economy and should have been more widely noted. When finances are becoming stretched the first thing you cut out is nights out/ pub meals etc.

The pub trade is using the smoking ban as an excuse, but the reality is that going to a public house, especially for meals, is so expensive that it's more or less forced people to stay away.

"Staying in is the new going out".

The smoking ban is not being used as the excuse, it is the reality. You cannot simply dismiss the facts, 2005 102 pub closures, 2006 204 pub closures, 2007 (post ban) 1846.

It is a fruitless exercise in trying to debate the reasons for pub closures with those who are blinded by Government health spin.

The simple reality is that the customer base that was going to flood in never materialised.

Those that were pub goers now do indeed stay at home leaving many pubs virtually empty, and this constant call from those who do not understand the trade to diversify frankly is absurd.

The reason that some pubs have closed is because they spent a fortune trying to attract a different customer base, that simply didn't exist. I speak with licensees all over the country. They cannot all be 'idiot' operators.

As I write other countries are taking into account the harm bans have caused. Holland has just altered their legislation to allow choice. The German Constitutional Court has over turned their complete ban allowing choice. That is all licensees want is to be able to provide for their style of customer. If we are wrong, allowing smoking rooms will not stop the closures. Not to allow this option, clearly indicates that the Government and the anti smoking lobby know we are right.

Summerof69 wrote:
"Some pubs are fighting back. At the beginning of the year JD Wetherspoon, which has several pubs in Swindon, cut the price of a pint to 99p. " In my opinion this is exactly why "proper" pubs are closing. y just cannot compete with the large chains, such as Wetherspoons

Exactly - that and the prices - the government and greedy brewery chains with ridiculous rents have pushed up the price of a pint to a level where for a lot of people the pub is a once a week option if that. The global downturn and cheap supermarket booze will not help the traditional rural pub. Darling alastair & Brown the clown just go on jacking up the prices despite what the industry is telling them -so if god forbid we are to be left with just Weatherspoon type places.

Home Boy wrote:
"Landlord Robert Feal-Martinez, of the Carpenter’s Arms in South Marston, who believes the smoking ban has crippled pubs, said a unique British tradition was under threat." Whilst I'm sure there has been an unfortunate impact I go to the pub a lot more since the smoking ban came into force and so do a lot of my friends. The smoking ban has been in place for nearly 2 years now a lot of pubs still have a stale smoke stench to them as if they haven't bothered to redocorate in the hope that the ban gets overturned. Time to move on and look at other ways of attracting customers.

I’m sorry, but that just isn’t true. Before the smoking ban came in, there were a lot of promises that “non-pub” type people were going to start going to the pub.

If you believed the hype you would have expected that you wouldn’t be able to fight your way to the bar once the ban was in.

What I noticed, as a regular user of several different pubs, was an almost immediate drop in trade that has never been replaced. Even now, two years later, the non-pub people are still not going to the pub.

The only places which have seen an increase in trade are the unlicenced, untaxed drinking clubs which do not worry about any smoking ban.

If my experience in Stratton at an old Arkells pub is anything to go by I would imagine a lot of people are put off by the large crowds of foul mouthed cigarette smokers hanging around the front door!

Whilst I agree that the smoking ban has had a severe effect on pub attendance, brewers will not rectify this by increasing beer prices to compensate for the customer loss.
The Sun at Lydiard Millicent has also now closed.

who dat?, Swindon says...
1:24pm Thu 30 Apr 09
If my experience in Stratton at an old Arkells pub is anything to go by I would imagine a lot of people are put off by the large crowds of foul mouthed cigarette smokers hanging around the front door!
Here here! I've noticed this around a number of pubs in Stratton, these pubs are doing themselves no favours allowing this to happen.
Perhaps if the smokers gave up smoking they could buy more beer and save the great british pub.

The Librarian says Oook wrote:

Home Boy wrote:
"Landlord Robert Feal-Martinez, of the Carpenter’s Arms in South Marston, who believes the smoking ban has crippled pubs, said a unique British tradition was under threat." Whilst I'm sure there has been an unfortunate impact I go to the pub a lot more since the smoking ban came into force and so do a lot of my friends. The smoking ban has been in place for nearly 2 years now a lot of pubs still have a stale smoke stench to them as if they haven't bothered to redocorate in the hope that the ban gets overturned. Time to move on and look at other ways of attracting customers.

I’m sorry, but that just isn’t true. Before the smoking ban came in, there were a lot of promises that “non-pub” type people were going to start going to the pub.

If you believed the hype you would have expected that you wouldn’t be able to fight your way to the bar once the ban was in.

What I noticed, as a regular user of several different pubs, was an almost immediate drop in trade that has never been replaced. Even now, two years later, the non-pub people are still not going to the pub.

The only places which have seen an increase in trade are the unlicenced, untaxed drinking clubs which do not worry about any smoking ban.

What's not true? I'm not denying the fact that the smoking ban has probably had an impact on the pub trade. Bob's stats are quite compelling, although so are the stats that show a link between passive smoking and various illnesses, but he chooses to ignore them! However, it is true that in my social circle (almost entirely non-smokers) people are going to the pub a lot more than they did prior to the ban.

Is the closure of pubs really too higher price to pay for the 40,000 lives that Cancer Research estimate the smoking ban will help to save?

Home Boy, Swindon says...
Bob's stats are quite compelling, although so are the stats that show a link between passive smoking and various illnesses.
is the closure of pubs really too higher price to pay for the 40,000 lives that Cancer Research estimate the smoking ban will help to save?



A lie does not become truth simply because it is repeated.

The simple fact is that no serious, peer-reviewed, scientific study has ever demonstrated a link between passive smoking and ill health.

In the US, the EPA attempted to classify second hand smoke as a health risk and lost their case in court because there was no evidence.

A 40 year study of non-smokers married to or living with smokers demonstrated there was no noticiable link between ‘so-called,’ passive smoking and ill health.

You can blather all you like, but there is no more evidence for dangers from passive smoking than there is for the existence of Dragons.


This business of 40,000 lives saved is something that is not supported by any evidence whatsoever and is therefore what we would call “an opinion.”

I'm still confused about why I'm being accused of lying? Do you not believe that I now go to the pub more than I used to? I can give you the phone number of the pub landlady if that helps?

I can't comment on the existance of dragons. However, I could point you to many peer reviewed papers produced by researchers all over the world that document the effects of passive smoking. Of course all of these papers are based on statistical relationships which allows the two opposing sides to the arguement to constantly accuse each other of not actually proving anything. Bears a striking resemblance to when the tobacco industry was fighting against the statistical evidence showing the link between smoking, lung cancer and heart disease don't you think?

Home Boy, Swindon says...
I can't comment on the existance of dragons. However, I could point you to many peer reviewed papers produced by researchers all over the world that document the effects of passive smoking.
Of course all of these papers are based on statistical relationships which allows the two opposing sides to the arguement to constantly accuse each other of not actually proving anything. Bears a striking resemblance to when the tobacco industry was fighting against the statistical evidence showing the link between smoking, lung cancer and heart disease don't you think?


Funny you should mention that, because the man who scientifically proved the existence of that link was a guy called Professor Sir Richard Doll. He is one of the foremost experts on smoking and health on the planet.

His comment on ‘Passive Smoking,’ was to say that the alledged risk was so small he was not worried about it at all.

You don’t have to name many studies, just one will do.

Doll (long dead) was paid by tobacco companies and other chemical companies plus other 'undisclosed funding' sources for his research.

Here's the article you love to ignore:

http://www.who.int/i
nf-pr-1998/en/pr98-2
9.html

(stitch the url back together)

The Librarian says Oook wrote:
Home Boy, Swindon says...
I can't comment on the existance of dragons. However, I could point you to many peer reviewed papers produced by researchers all over the world that document the effects of passive smoking.
Of course all of these papers are based on statistical relationships which allows the two opposing sides to the arguement to constantly accuse each other of not actually proving anything. Bears a striking resemblance to when the tobacco industry was fighting against the statistical evidence showing the link between smoking, lung cancer and heart disease don't you think?


Funny you should mention that, because the man who scientifically proved the existence of that link was a guy called Professor Sir Richard Doll. He is one of the foremost experts on smoking and health on the planet.

His comment on ‘Passive Smoking,’ was to say that the alledged risk was so small he was not worried about it at all.

You don’t have to name many studies, just one will do.

http://www3.intersci
ence.wiley.com/journ
al/118996699/abstrac
t?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

http://www.bmj.com/c
gi/content/abstract/
330/7495/812

You may also find this interesting: http://dev.ersnet.or
g/uploads/Document/a
b/WEB_CHEMIN_1092_11
66196139.pdf

who dat? wrote:
If my experience in Stratton at an old Arkells pub is anything to go by I would imagine a lot of people are put off by the large crowds of foul mouthed cigarette smokers hanging around the front door!

You moaned when they smoked inside now you moan when they are outside ?? Can't win... Some of the pubs and clubs don't have the room to provide proper smoking areas.. what are they to do ?? Tell the people to drink elsewhere and then close down ????

BobFM wrote: "The smoking ban is not being used as the excuse, it is the reality. You cannot simply dismiss the facts, 2005 102 pub closures, 2006 204 pub closures, 2007 (post ban) 1846."

Simple fact of the matter is 2007 is also when the economy started to go south! Pubs, as an unnecessary luxury for most people, were simply the first to feel the heat of the downturn. In my opinion the blinkered belief that the smoking ban had something to do with it stopped anyone from noting the real reasons why people suddenly stopped going to pubs.

Of course, the majority of the really badly run pubs have now closed and the closures will now level off, and so if the smoking ban was now reversed, with your warped statistics you would then argue that revoking the smoking ban would have stopped the pubs closing.

You simply have no evidence to prove what you are saying!

Home Boy wrote:

The Librarian says Oook wrote: Home Boy, Swindon says... I can't comment on the existance of dragons. However, I could point you to many peer reviewed papers produced by researchers all over the world that document the effects of passive smoking. Of course all of these papers are based on statistical relationships which allows the two opposing sides to the arguement to constantly accuse each other of not actually proving anything. Bears a striking resemblance to when the tobacco industry was fighting against the statistical evidence showing the link between smoking, lung cancer and heart disease don't you think? Funny you should mention that, because the man who scientifically proved the existence of that link was a guy called Professor Sir Richard Doll. He is one of the foremost experts on smoking and health on the planet. His comment on ‘Passive Smoking,’ was to say that the alledged risk was so small he was not worried about it at all. You don’t have to name many studies, just one will do.

http://www3.intersci ence.wiley.com/journ al/118996699/abstrac t?CRETRY=1&SRETR
Y=0 http://www.bmj.com/c gi/content/abstract/ 330/7495/812 You may also find this interesting: http://dev.ersnet.or g/uploads/Document/a b/WEB_CHEMIN_1092_11 66196139.pdf

I couldn’t load the first one but thank-you for offering two other examples which prove I am right.

The second link is the story of a guessing game. It starts by assuming Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) is dangerous and then decides how many people are being killed, based on the published death stats.

As I say, this study is useless to you because it is based on the assumption that passive smoking is dangerous but it doesn’t attempt to prove this in any way.




The third one is just a predictable anti-smoking winge piece that bangs on about the spending power of “big tobacco.” “Boo-Hiss, its all a big conspiracy.” Do you also believe that The Freemasons are really the New World Order, and run the world from a secret base at the North Pole? This doesn’t attempt to prove ETS is dangerous, it just accepts that it is and accuses any scientist who disagrees of having been bought off.

“Proof” of the Big Tobacco conspiracy is a quote from a Tobacco company executive who is saying that if people have less opportunities to smoke they will smoke less. Wow, that is an admission of guilt if I ever heard one.

The definitive study has to be Enstrom and Kabat. They were initially funded by and used data from the American Cancer Society who backed out when they saw the preliminary results. This study covered forty years of data for 118,000 people. They were published by the British Medical Journal.

They focussed on 35,000 non-smokers with a smoking partner.They found that exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) was not significantly associated with death from Cancer or Coronary Heart Disease.

Predictably they were attacked by the usual hysterical suspects who blamed a number of factors including the fact that the study took place in California, and the weather is better there so people spend more time outside.

We run a members club and the smoking ban has had no major effect really. The smokers now go outside but we have not seen an increase in memberships because all the non smokers have decided to start coming out. I think people have started staying at home because the beer prices are rising and the supermarket beer prices have dropped. Which is something none of us can really do anything about.

I feel the problem is more deep seated than the Anti Smoking brigade having a few victories. Traditionally Pubs were at the centre of a community along with the parish church and the post office. Often in small villages. What we have lost is all sense of 'Community' so it is hardly surprising that pubs and village shops are closing. Use it or loose it.
I now await some abuse and personal attacks from the anti smoking lobby and a variety of other single issue groups.

Casual Observer wrote:
Doll (long dead) was paid by tobacco companies and other chemical companies plus other 'undisclosed funding' sources for his research. Here's the article you love to ignore: http://www.who.int/i nf-pr-1998/en/pr98-2 9.html (stitch the url back together)

So, what you are saying is that a 7 year study of a total 650 people that you claim proves your argument is more reliable than a 40 year study of 35,000 people that does not.

Your study claims to have found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%.

The people with cancer in your study numbered less than 70, and some were former smokers.

Like so many of these studies, once you ignore the headlines and get into the details it tells a wholly different story.

So no, I am not ignoring this article, I am aware of it but regard it as being unimportant.

Interesting accusation, your suggestion that Sir Richard Doll was funded by the tobacco lobby!

This is the guy who proved that smoking causes cancer This is a fellow of the Royal Society, a Regius Professor of Medicine and the man who was so shocked by his own findings he stopped smoking.

I don’t suppose you know he worked for the medical research council and was therefore funded by the government. Later he worked for the Imperial Cancer research society. (About the same time he founded the national blood Service.)

I would ask if you have any proof for your interesting delusion but of course you don’t. How could you? It is untrue.

who dat? wrote:
If my experience in Stratton at an old Arkells pub is anything to go by I would imagine a lot of people are put off by the large crowds of foul mouthed cigarette smokers hanging around the front door!

So you feel like a Rat Trapped in a drainpipe having to run the gauntlet of these foul mouthed tobacco fiends then?

EemBee wrote:
who dat?, Swindon says... 1:24pm Thu 30 Apr 09 If my experience in Stratton at an old Arkells pub is anything to go by I would imagine a lot of people are put off by the large crowds of foul mouthed cigarette smokers hanging around the front door! Here here! I've noticed this around a number of pubs in Stratton, these pubs are doing themselves no favours allowing this to happen. Perhaps if the smokers gave up smoking they could buy more beer and save the great british pub.

The pubs do themselves no favours allowing this to happen!
They have no choice, I am sure they would prefer to have the trade of the few cigarette smokers than no customers at all. If smokers were totally banned from public house premises then so that you wouldnt have to mix with these people inside or walk past them outside, would that mean that you will happily take over their valued custom every night and keep the pub afloat? Non smokers should be filling the pubs now, but it is just not happening, and I dont think that removing smokers from outside will temp them in either.

Quite right nansview, because the problems in the pub industry right now are absolutely nothing to do with smoking or not smoking! Rather, it's a convenient scapegoat...

Well it has certainly had a very serious impact on the clubs I go to!!

If you rehash statistics from a variety of sources you can get any answer you want. Government does it all the time.
Genuine and original research will involve interviewing,testing
,diagnostics etc. on individuals against a control group.

The the extract below appeared in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and was based on research by James Enstrom, from the University of California, and Geoffrey Kabat, from the State University of New York. "...They analysed data from the American Cancer Society's (ACS) Cancer Prevention Study, which was started in 1959 and ended in 1998. In total 118,094 Californian adults had been studied, and Enstrom and Kabat focused on the 35,561 nonsmokers who were married to partners who smoked...."
Less than 20% of partners suffered any ill effects. Real question is how many of those suffered 'significant' ill effects. Find out for yourself.
Certainly a lot of over reaction from those who feel that life should be risk free

The Smoking Ban has had an effect on all pubs and at a time when the Government has used the drinker as a cash-cow but only in the pubs. The govenment hasn't stopped the likes of the supermarkets from Loss Leading probably because they can't. Put those two together and add the problems with the economy and you don't have to be much of a scholar to understand the demise of the Pub. I don't mean the Chain Pubs because like supermarkets they can go to the brewer and demand a price because of volume. I am surprised that "Proper Publicans" haven't yet started a "Co-op" type of initiative to start to compete. To put the "for" or "against" smoking in public places into perspective, I name one person Roy Castle, seems he's been forgotten already.

Oook, for a man who once claimed he "doesn't need Google" you'd really be doing yourself a favour to start using it.

http://www.preventca
ncer.com/losing/othe
r/doll.htm

Home Boy I am perfectly happy to debate the science. I spent 4 years looking at the research.

It is however a fruitless exercise 'experts' choose to dismiss the rules of the scientific investigation it it comes to concluded passive smoking is harmful.

CO however inadvertently in trying suggest PS is harmful simply proves the opposite. The press release he refers to of course does not have a link to the study concerned, because the IARC (WHO) have simply, made it 'invisible'. Why would that be, just look at this extract.

'The study found that there was an estimated 16% increased risk of lung cancer among non-smoking spouses of smokers. For workplace exposure the estimated increase in risk was 17%. However, due to small sample size, neither increased risk was statistically significant. Although, the study points towards a decreasing risk after cessation of exposure.'

In scientific terms the 16 or 17% is a Relative Risk of 1.16 or 1.17. That simple is not a 'causation or association'.

That aside Professor Boffeta the head of the study concluded some startling things that simple did not go down with the WHO. The one that simply has to disappear was the statement that early years exposure by children to passive smoke improved their immune systems, making them stronger and able to resist disease in later love. The WHO simply could not allow that to be widely circulated.

smokers still go to pubs.the ones closing would be anyway regardless of the smoking ban.the price of a pint is the main reason.another is the fact that police have clamped down hard on drink driving.out of town pubs used to get plenty of users who'd have a bit more than the legal limit to drive but would anyway.

The strongest supporters of the smoking ban are the people that never go to pubs.

They have a "dog in a manger" attitude.

They are trying to spoil a tradition that the working class have enjoyed for hundreds of years.

Whatever the scientific arguments regarding the dangers of smoking and the risks associated with passive smoking (I have my own views which I'm sticking to), I have to say I think pubs are much more pleasant to be in since the smoking ban. The days of returning home from an evening out smelling like an old ashtray and having to hang up clothes for days to air are thankfully a thing of the past.

On the other hand, it is sad to see so many pubs closing, for whatever reasons, regardless of whether the smoking ban is the cause. Pubs have been in decline for years, especially country pubs where the only way to get to them was in a car. Was there such an outcry from publicans when the breathaliser was introduced I wonder?

Perhaps it just happens to be a change in social drinking habits, with links to all the well documented reasons for the demise of pubs. Far too many children running around pubs are another thing that has put me off going to some places.

During the summer, weather permitting, there are far more people drinking at home in the evenings. When I was young, BBQ's were unheard of, as was almost all drinking outside, but look at it now. Whenever there's a good Saturday evening in the summer the air is heavy with the smoke of BBQ's. (I'm just waiting for H and S to ban that as the smoke is a known cancer risk.)

Much cheaper beer and lager from supermarkets, the huge increase in wine drinking in recent years, the ever increasing cost of drinking in a pub, greater awareness of the risks of drinking and driving, now the recession. Surely all these must be contributary factors in the decline in going to the pub. Just blaming the smoking ban on all the ills of the pub trade just doesn't cut it with me I'm afraid.

Grumpy the pub closure 'stats' simply do not support your contention.

Of course pub have closed in the past, usually to be followed by a style change, and being opened again. But as I demonstrated the first year of the smoking ban resulted in a 900% increase in closures. That simply cannot be dismissed as natural commercial loss.

What else do they expect when pubs are charging £3.20 for a pint of Cider or £4.00 for a pint of Guiness. They have been caught out ripping off the customers and now the customers have gone to the cheaper pubs, the big chains. All I can say about these pubs is "Tough Mate" you made your bed with the price rip off now lay in it

The reasons we don't use pubs much now, are first and foremost the prices of drinks. I've heard all the reasons why the prices are so high, but that is why we no longer use them as we did. The other reasons that make them less attractive to us, is the amount of 'pubs' that appear more like licensed 'eateries', no duke-boxes, children, and electonic 'noisey' machines.
So yes, the new going out is staying in with the company you would have in the past, gone to the pub with. Not as good as going to the pub, but they, like the dinosaus, are dying out.
The smoking ban is not the biggest factor , it is the reasons I have already mentioned. mentioned

I dont drink so I really dont care how many pubs shut.

I consider drinkers as people who are poisoning their bodys. But I dont care, what I do care about is the amount of drunken slobs causing mayhem in the town center and costing me money. Smokers dont cause that amount of damage to the country as a whole, few fag buts I can live with.

The law says no smoking ing an eclosed enviroment, outside isnt inside.

Civil disobediance is the best way to test these silly rules by silly people.

Thats a rule.

Casual Observer. You said -
Doll (long dead) was paid by tobacco companies

To which I said -
"I would ask if you have any proof for your interesting delusion but of course you don’t. How could you? It is untrue."

You posted this link, which you have obviously not read.
It doesn't prove you right but it helps my case.

http://www.preventca
ncer.com/losing/othe
r/doll.htm

There is not one word in this about tobacco companies. Not one.

There is a report of Doll defending an Asbestos company.

Do you think Asbestos and Tobacco are the same thing?

If you do then please don't smoke roll ups.

Wait. It gets better.


The ASBESTOS company were being sued by ASBESTOS workers who had lung cancer.

Doll said that it was more likely that something else was to blame than ASBESTOS.

Do you know what he blamed?



Go on.



Have a guess.


Can you?


Shall I give you a clue?


OK then, he blamed Smoking ! ! ! ! !

That's right. The man who you claim was paid to defend tobacco companies, blamed them for causing lung cancers in a huge lawsuit.

Odd that!


Any more "proofs" you have like that, bring them on. I could do with a laugh.

Casual Observer, there is a short word, that rhymes with "Twit," and you are full of it.

Casual Observer, there is a short word, that rhymes with "Twit," and you are full of it.

A little harsh sadly there are many who believe that ETS is harmful and are so blinded by prejudice that they misread everything related to the topic.

Bobfm wrote:
Casual Observer, there is a short word, that rhymes with "Twit," and you are full of it. A little harsh sadly there are many who believe that ETS is harmful and are so blinded by prejudice that they misread everything related to the topic.

Yeah, it was harsh, but not undeserved. CO came up with the link, he made claims for it that just proved he hadn’t read it.

The sad fact is Bob, that people regularly get carried away and when they are, they ignore all the facts. Even important people fall prey to this. Look at what is happening right now.

At the moment the World health Organisation are predicting 40% of the UK population will get Swine Flu and up to 1,200,000 of us will die.

I might be worried if I didn’t know that in 2005 the same WHO predicted Asian Bird Flu would turn into a worldwide pandemic which would kill 150 million people round the world. By the time the dust settled, a total of 200 had died and 100 of them were already dead when the warning was issued. That is an error of 75 million percent.

In 1996 UK Government's Chief Scientist Dr John Patterson said that up to 500,000 of us would die from CJD caught by eating infected beef. The final tally is likely to be less than 100 and they are pretty sure beef isn’t to blame. People were saying that then, but they were ignored. Shame about all the hundreds of thousands of slaughtered cows and the millions lost to the export market, but hey, they had good intentions.

Like the man said, “Just the Facts Ma’am, Just the facts.”

Or indeed 750,000 %

Whoops

Bobfm wrote:
Grumpy the pub closure 'stats' simply do not support your contention. Of course pub have closed in the past, usually to be followed by a style change, and being opened again. But as I demonstrated the first year of the smoking ban resulted in a 900% increase in closures. That simply cannot be dismissed as natural commercial loss.

Bob, your 'stats' simply don't prove anything other than lots of pubs closed in 2007. Lots of other things happened in 2007 as well as the smoking ban, as several people have mentioned above, including the beginnings of the largest financial turmoil in recorded history! You're being rather blinkered to suggest that a single event such as the smoking ban could have such a dramatic effect.

Jesus guys this is a really informed debate, but let's not kid ourselves that any of this is going to change the fact that we now have a smoking ban.

The ban is never going to get overturned so get over it and get with the times!

Simple fact is that pubs ARE much nicer to visit without clouds of smoke meaning you have to wash your clothes every time you go out.

It's sad that so many traditional pubs are closing but surely this is more down to chains like Wetherspoons offering 99p pints than the other factors?

Wetherspoons in Swindon is always heaving, and you can see why - why go and pay £3-4 for a pint in some places when you get one for £0.99p?

What I find shocking is that O'Neills and Picklejohns have closed. I didn't know this! They were two of the nicer town centre pubs.

When did O'Neills shut? This is a great loss for the town centre and there is hardly anywhere decent left down there, just a boarded-up ghost town.....

Bobfm wrote:
Casual Observer, there is a short word, that rhymes with "Twit," and you are full of it.

A little harsh sadly there are many who believe that ETS is harmful and are so blinded by prejudice that they misread everything related to the topic.

Hey, no problem Bob - Oook's a bully with clearly a lot of time on his hands.

Passive smoking harm proof, Doll or whatever aside, what's the point in arguing 'till you are blue in the face about what is effectively a done deal?

There's a smoking ban in place, pubs are now much nicer. Get used to it.

I go to pubs more often now (including yours) and I dont go home smelling like an ashtray - result!

If a few pubs close for whatever reason that's sad but... tough. In the long term I think many will reopen.

Casual Observer wrote:

Bobfm wrote: Casual Observer, there is a short word, that rhymes with "Twit," and you are full of it. A little harsh sadly there are many who believe that ETS is harmful and are so blinded by prejudice that they misread everything related to the topic.

Hey, no problem Bob - Oook's a bully with clearly a lot of time on his hands. Passive smoking harm proof, Doll or whatever aside, what's the point in arguing 'till you are blue in the face about what is effectively a done deal? There's a smoking ban in place, pubs are now much nicer. Get used to it. I go to pubs more often now (including yours) and I dont go home smelling like an ashtray - result! If a few pubs close for whatever reason that's sad but... tough. In the long term I think many will reopen.

In conclusion then. You have been unable to support your opinions with any facts at all.

Every time you have attempted to prove you are right, I have proved that you are wrong.

What did you say “Passive smoking harm proof, Doll or whatever aside, what's the point in arguing 'till you are blue in the face?”

You were quite happy to argue when you thought you might win. Unfortunately you lost.

According to you, I am a bully. No I am not, I’m just smarter than you and what I say is supported by the evidence. What you say isn’t and you didn’t realise because you didn’t read it properly.

Speaking of bullying, heres some. “There's a smoking ban in place, pubs are now much nicer. Get used to it.” That sounds like bullying to me.

In other words, you don’t care what people think, you don’t care about the facts, you don’t care about the truth, you don’t care about a huge number of pubs being shut down and people losing their local and landlords losing their livelihoods, you don’t care about anything apart from your own selfish interests. Hooray, CO’s clothes don’t smell of smoke. That makes it all worth it.

How do you finish your selfish diatribe “In the long term I think many will reopen.”

You have no evidence for this, (you never do,) and it isn’t true, but it probably makes you feel better.

Swindon_AOK, I think you rather prove my point that you didn't know the pubs had closed.

CO my pub was never smoky and the only time my cloths ever smelt of anything yukkie is/was when I have the open fire going, which everyone loves. 30'000 times more toxin output than passive smoke but don't worry no one dies of open fires do they.

Try asking the WHO, they reckon 3Million in third world countries who use internal open fires for cooking do every year.!!!!

why ask the who??there just some old band,what would they know??

well off in wanborough 1957 wrote:
why ask the who??there just some old band,what would they know??

Oh dear, does your mother know you are using the computer?

WHO stands for the World Health Organisation you stupid little oik.

Now go away and get off my website.

The Lіbrаrіаn Sаys Οook wrote:

well off in wanborough 1957 wrote: why ask the who??there just some old band,what would they know??

Oh dear, does your mother know you are using the computer? WHO stands for the World Health Organisation you stupid little oik. Now go away and get off my website.

Very rich coming from a jumped up little gypsy.

well off in wanborough 1957 wrote:

The Lіbrаrіаn Sаys Οook wrote:

well off in wanborough 1957 wrote: why ask the who??there just some old band,what would they know??

Oh dear, does your mother know you are using the computer? WHO stands for the World Health Organisation you stupid little oik. Now go away and get off my website.

Very rich coming from a jumped up little gypsy.

Thank you for showing how ignorant you are, now please get off my website.

The Lіbrаrіаn Sаys Οook wrote:

well off in wanborough 1957 wrote:

The Lіbrаrіаn Sаys Οook wrote:

well off in wanborough 1957 wrote: why ask the who??there just some old band,what would they know??

Oh dear, does your mother know you are using the computer? WHO stands for the World Health Organisation you stupid little oik. Now go away and get off my website.

Very rich coming from a jumped up little gypsy.

Thank you for showing how ignorant you are, now please get off my website.

if its your website then kick me off. you dried up saggy old trout!!!!