The pub should rename to the Beagle.
A Yorkshire boozer which last week established a "smoking research centre" has attracted the attention of Barnsley Council, evidently unimpressed with its vital scientific work. Kerry Fenton, landlady of the Cutting Edge in Worsbrough, converted the pub's tap room into a hub of nicotine-based research in which punters could …
The pub should rename to the Beagle.
You could try this the other way around. Any genuine research & test facilities out there that fancy serving beer?
...they are supplying appropriate PPE to staff and ensuring it is used.
"Non-smoker Rob Hudson, who's been patronising the pub for 35 years, said: "I would rather come into a full pub than an empty room. I have the choice of the tap room and the lounge and I come in here."
That's the kind of non smoker support we want. The pub offers a smoking section and a non smoking section. If a drinker doesn't want to be in a smoke filled room, they go into the non smoking room. This kind of person respects every smokers 'right to choose' to smoke indoors and not be told what they can and cant do, unlike a pointless and revenue losing nanny state piece of legislation that has done no good for the pub industry.
Love it :-)....shame it's t'up north though :-(
So, even people who want to go into a smoky atmosphere so much they'll fill ina questionaire and pay for the privileged aren't allowed to.
I love living in a "free country".
If politicians actually had any brains they would have come out with the idea that they add a tax for pubs/bars that want to have a smoking section. Then if the owner would like a smoke free pub they would do nothing and it would be smoke free. If however they wished to be allowed to have patrons smoke they pay an extra tax to have a section setup for smoking.
Looking forward to the place being shutdown due to breaking their license (as a pub not a research lab) and not having a license for medical research.
The smoking ban is about the only good thing this government seems to have achieved!
Aww, diddums. My heart bleeds. If you find the weather too much, just quit your disgusting (and life-limiting) addiction. The smoking ban has been excellent, no more do I have to half my life shortened by self-centred puffers of cancer sticks when I fancy a pint.
Nor do I come home reeking of their foul weed.
The entire point of the regulations is to protect staff from breathing secondary smoke.
I f a non-smoking member of staff refuses to serve in this room will they be able to keep their job?
or will they have a case for unlawful dismissal?
and it'll soon wear off. The smoking ban is not to blame for the decline in the pub trade. Its shitty pubs serving equally shitty beer (usually a choice of Carling, Guinness and John Smith's). My locals, which have a nice atmosphere (no huge Sky TV dominating the rooms), do good home-cooked food and have a huge range of beer and decent real ales are packed almost every night, and they don't charge a fortune for beer either. Perhaps if pubs didn't fleece their clientèle for soft drinks (£1.50+ for lemonade or £2+ for a bottle of J2O) then maybe things wouldn't be so bad?
It's about time you came to live in the real world. Pubs have been going to the wall in droves since well before the smoking ban was implemented.
All sorts of explanations have been offered for this, (blame supermarkets for selling cheap booze if you want, many do) but essentially our use of leisure time is changing and people would, on the whole, prefer to spend their leisure time in places other than the local boozer. It probably doesn't help that the pub industry have decided to counter this by following one of two paths; either pretend to be a restaurant or become a location to watch foot on Sky Sports. If you don't want to eat or watch football, but actually fancy a quiet drink with your mates there are precious few pubs within miles of here which cater for you. It seems a curious business strategy when you are losing customers to try to alienate what probably makes up the largest proportion of your clientelle.
It's all very well going on about choice but there was never a choice for non-smokers before the ban, if you wanted to go to the pub then the only option you had was a smoke filled room. Well now the shoe is on the other foot, now you have no choice, forgive me if I completely fail to feel any sympathy for you. Besides, you don't "choose" to smoke, you're simply deluding yourself. You are addicted, grow up and deal with it.
Bar Theatre. The exclusions state:
"Where the artistic integrity of a performance makes it appropriate for a person who is taking part in that performance to smoke, the part of the premises in which that person performs is not smoke-free in relation to that person during his performance."
So all we need is someone to write a play about some opium dens and smoking becomes a prop.
And we all know about "Artistic Integrity" don't we, eh, eh. She a goer, eh eh, nudge nudge, know what I mean....
Sorry, I'll get my coat...
I haven't set foot in most pubs in my area since the smoking ban came into force, the only time I do consider it is if the weather is good and there's outside seating, and it would seem most other locals feel the same way.
In the last year I've seen four pubs in my area closed and / or put up for sale, including a couple of very big ones which prior to the ban where always packed full of people, after the ban though you could count the regulars on one hand because there was no space for outside seating facilities etc. Others have resorted to having free food and ridiculously low drink prices to entice customers, largely replacing their established friendly regulars with binge drinking college kids and the like.
It really does sadden me that the traditional British pub is probably now gone forever.
Lets try and scupper this rubbish law by getting all our local pubs in on the act, surely if enough pubs do this they wont be able to enforce this rubbish law! And before the anti-smoking brigade jump in on this as long as we have our own room and people have a choice to sit in smoking or non smoking there should be no problem. Its our choice if we want to smoke same as its yours not to. Each to their own! Lets get this rolled out nationwide!!
well where else would an idea like that originate? ;)
My favourite trick of the government was to word the ban in such a way that smoking was not allowed in any circumstances.
Hence the smoking booth in Edinburgh airport was removed. Now, the nature of the beast meant that no smoke ever escaped. Even when you were inside it, you couldn't smell smoke (other than from the cigarette you were about to light).
Unlike in Holland where they've started to install these since their smoking ban...
One non smoker does not mind the stench and poison that fills the air. Sure its a choice.
But the analogy I use when describing designated smoking/non smoking areas under the same roof is people pissing in a swimming pool
The undesirable ends up in your area regardless of efforts to reduce it.
Id support individual rooms, that are hermetically sealed.
Since the ban I've actually frequented more pubs than before the ban.
So, pub finds a way around the smoking ban and business quadruples over the space of a few days.
It is now clearly obvious that the declining pub trade is definitely being caused by cheap supermarket prices and absolutely not by the smoking ban.
I wish these people all the best, I hope they give the council the shaft and pubs all over the country start following suit.
Although a non-smoker, smoke filled pubs never used to bother me, and I thought the smoking ban legislation was OTT, however, on a recent trip to Spain and entering a smoke filled bar, I had to leave after a few breaths, it really was unbearable, sorry guys, no going back...
i've not nowt agaisnt a smoking and non smoking section, as long as that filthy smoke doesnt float my way, a door and a large extractor fan will keep me happy. if smokers want their own room where they can riddle themselves stupid with lung cancer then go mad by all means. meanwhile ill be hammering my liver with another pint of blacksheep
You're missing the point -- this Hudson chap clearly went into the "research facility" because he prefers "a full pub" to "an empty room". This supports the age-old argument that smoking and non-smoking sections don't work because smokers don't socialise purely with smokers, and non-smokers are often good friends with smokers. If there's a smoking room, that's the only place that's available to both groups, so that's where EVERYONE ends up....
I will rent any pub hall as a research testing facility for 1p plus the price of being granted a research lab license, if the pub will supply the patrons beer.
WE will be researching: the effect of smokers on computer systems using air cooling.
Due to the time a smoker takes to affect pc equipment we will also be doing some tests for how smoke affects decorations.
Staff will need to wear breathing aparatus, under HSE regulations, and applicants must sign a waiver against death caused by the experiments
For more information post below lol.
Tombstone: Because whilst we want to beat the ban, the result for many will be death. But as adults we can choose death ourselves, we dont need a nanny state telling us its bad, were not stupid, we know!
I think we (should have) allowed pubs/clubs/bars/restaurants to apply for a smoking license much as (I understand) they do now for a booze license.
These booze licenses are granted by local authorities/magistrates (right?) so different areas/regions/towns/villages could apply their own policies - and create a mix of venues as appropriate for their own residents, visitors and businesses.
Venues which allow smoking should be clearly marked/identified (a big skull & X-bones on the door?) - and perhaps taxed more than non smoking venues (or maybe the non-smoking can be encouraged via rebates?) if we want to influence the behavior of people who haven't yet understood that smoking is stupid and dangerous.
Anyhow.. this would allow locals to fix their own rules via an accountable local process.
e.g. We could say up to 10% of venues get a smoking license. Must be renewed each year. Vote for changes if you don't like it.
NB. I no longer smoke or drink alcohol - and I would encourage others to stop too - you'll be happier and healthier :-)
Give a script out to everyone who enters:
ROLE: You are a pub goer before the smoking ban
Some details are missing. The 50p can't possibly cover the cost of the beer. Are they paying for the beer ? If so, the place needs a license and is a Pub, not a research establishment.
If they don't charge for the beer I think they stand some chance in court.
Nice idea about smoking and non-smoking rooms but remember, before the ban pub owners didn't give a damn about non-smokers and in most cases both sections of pubs were smoking.
As an asthmatic non-smoker I have no (absolutely none) sympathy for the landlords or smokers as after 24 years of unpleasant drinking in pubs/clubs I think I can have at least a decade or two in a pleasant environment. Had there been options before the ban (e.g. make the lounge bar non-smoking) then I'd have has some sympathy as long as staff were protected. Yes, pubs are quieter but it's not just down to smoking.
Before deploying the tired old 'nanny state' crap you should ask the pub industry why it so persistently avoided the many opportunities they were given to avoid any ban. The politicians really didn't want to annoy so many voters and prevaricated for 10+ years hoping they could sit on their expense cheating arses ignoring the growing clamour for action. It looks very like the pub trade relied on that reluctance and assumed no government would actually follow through on threats.
The last option offered included increasing the number of separate smoking/non-smoking rooms, signage for smoking policies and a general improvement in non-smokers ability to avoid smoke in pubs. The targets were pretty modest. The response was overwhelmingly to just put 'smoking allowed' signs up.
The pub trade played chicken with the government and lost. Blame the many landlords more interested in fighting change than improving their pubs.
There is no direct link between the number of pubs going out of business and the actions of the governments but:
They've increased the cost of drinking,
They've increase the council tax costs on pubs,
They've made it harder to have gatherings for political purposes in pubs,
They've made it harder to put on live music in pubs,
They've made a social addiction illegal inside pubs (smoking)
They've made it costlier to put on live football in pubs (courtesy of Mr Murdoch)
They've made it harder to have a drink and then drive home (I actually support their stance on this one!)
There may just be a breakdown in people's desire to go to pubs, or drinking, but I seriously doubt it.
Mine's the one with the CAMRA membership in the pocket.
What we need is some smart topologists to build a pub in the shape of a Klein-bottle - then the 'outdoor smoking area' is indoors as well !
Smoke-filled pubs bothered me (especially when I worked in one - I remember one time we had a private function for a bunch of Greeks, who were smoking like chimneys, and they refused to have the windows open because it was making them a bit chilly. My eyes stang for most of that night, and I had to spend a lot of time outside), but the smoking ban went too far.
What was needed was the requirement to have a non-smoking area in all pubs. The bar/s should be situated in non-smoking areas, to protect the staff (going into a smoking area just to collect glasses won't give you cancer, whereas constantly working in one may do), and non-smokers should be able to get to non-smoking areas without passing through a smoking area (so the non-smoking area would be situated at the entrance to the pub).
The smoking areas should have proper ventilation to avoid smoke drifiting into non-smoking areas (in practice, this would mean large extraction fans above it).
This may be costly for pubs to implement, but it's better than a wholesale ban on smoking in public places. The same goes for offices - why were smoking rooms banned when non-smokers aren't affected by them unless they go inside?
> I love living in a "free country".
You mean a country free enough for you to take up valuable NHS bed space in a lung cancer ward in 20 years time!? No thanks.
I think its right for SOME liberties to be taken away from those, esp those with obsessive disorders such as a smoking habit.
-And I didn't even mention about how your habit might affect other peoples health around you.
I support the smoking ban 100%, the only trouble is now a lot of pubs just stink of piss, instead of fag smoke!
And I think it's about time we stopped this ban-everything bullshit and just enforce guidelines. Ventilation or having a smoking-only room isn't exactly hard to do.
It was all non-smokers' democratic right to demonstrate against smoking in pubs, and I have nothing but congratulations for you in succeeding in your noble cause. But now you've succeeded in having smoking banned from pubs, START USING THE PUBS, YOU BEARDED, SANDAL-WEARING, LABOUR-VOTING PUSSIES. Cheers dudes.
The Japanese have been using the "we only kill whales for research" excuse for years - seems to work for them.
The smoking bans only achievement is to make lots of people redundant the myth that n0one smokers would make up the loss has been proven to be a myth.
The only pubs that are buoyant have increased prices to compensate this has caused the none smoker to ineffect pay through the nose for a policy that was ill thought out.People who smoke are doing nothing illegal and room could have been made for all.The fact that Government have chosen to enforce this has just further ensured a holier than though attitude.
There have been many flawed and statistically unsound assumptions made on the effects of smoking that have entered the main stream and are now believed,but when none smokers go past closed pubs i can assure you the majority of the 50 a week that have closed did so because of loss of custom this would have been prevented if all the non smokers had returned to pubs that were allegedly staying away.
As a none smoker my motor vehicle produces far more of exactly the same carcinogenic substances as burning tobacco creates yet i dont see the same uproar about that i suppose it depends which companies lobby the hardest as to what type of government we get, and its amazing that through legal loop holes an MP can still get his subsidised to the hilt pint and smoke in the house of commons bar......doesnt seem fair to me even if it is within the rules but i suppose pales into insignificance with the impropriety they have shown over there allowances claims.
I have lived long enough to know that when the majority force decisions on the minority it usually comes back to haunt them i think the smoking ban is one such case.
Paris because they are actually reducing the tax drinkers are asked to pay in a bid to revive the entertainment sector.
What is not mentioned is the drinking of alcohol. There are spasmotic outcries about 'binge drinkers' and 'girlies who drink to much--oh the chav shame' and all of that, but the UK has this big cloud of obfuscation where a cold hard look at drinking and its effects on society should be. Violence (in the home and on the street) is hugely alcohol-related, many car accidents are the result of a drunk driver, and I have seen in several companies bad decisions made by managers who are in fact ploughed by 3pm. Then there are the physical effects of drinking, which fill up the hospitals as much as cigarette smoking does.
I'd like to think the decline of the pub relates to the healthier lifestyles of the modern Brit, where spending time with friends happens in homes or parks or other places and doesn't have to involve sitting in a place crafted to make them all drink, drink, drink. The social traditions of drinking (buying rounds, etc.) will also, I hope, slowly wither over time.
Either that, or legalise all mind-altering substances, licence them, and be frank that alcohol, hash, coke etc are all there for people who like their reality fuzzy for a few hours every day.
Amen fella, as an ex smoker with a smoking partner we have a similar agreement, if she smokes i leave the room, my choice, simple...
Common sense prevails..On here at least.
Can they just pay a fine, or would they be shut down? Most bars in Iowa are smoke-free, but at least one got so much more business from allowing smokers they just pay the fines.
[quote] You mean a country free enough for you to take up valuable NHS bed space in a lung cancer ward in 20 years time!? No thanks.[/quote]
At least us smokers will clear off out of the bed in, oh, say 6 months? How long are you non-smokers going to carry on costing in your 'healthy' old age? "Our taxes are paying for you to become an old, useless, whining burden on society"
PS Nothing against non-smokers; it's all about choice and the respect of it
That's Iowa. This is the UK.
It's probably a fine for smoking and a fine for allowing people to smoke. Probably pretty soon it will be a fine for "thinking about smoking", "going equipped to smoke", "belonging to or raising funds for a smoking organisation" or having "material likely to be of use by a smoker" if anti-terrorism legislation is anything to go by.
that stops everybody from smoking all at once. Just to hear all the sanctimonious holier than thou non-smokers squeal like stuck pigs as our darling chancellor finds new and imaginative ways to claw back the £12 billion a year in extra tax that smokers pay.
80% of a packet of cigs price is tax.
So remember folks, smokers are doing something for you, they are lowering your tax bill.
Flame away, I'm off to light one up.
Always wonder about those who claim to be non-smokers, but are keen to breathe in what others have left. Why can't they just buy their own?
The pub is across the road from me and the news vans descended yesterday, I can't see BMBC standing for it myself, me thinks their others licences will be revoked.
We shall see.
I've got a choice to come along and stab you in the face until death but of course inevitably I'll be caught and punished :D you have a choice to smoke a rank old rag of toxic leafy crap doesn't meant we can't make it illegal. The people that are in the majority who want rid of it after having to go through parents and the such dying of particularity nasty diseases... don't mind :D So some choices are given the appropriate punishment by society if you choose them, ooooo what a shame :P
Flame /on :D
The same fine every time ? Surely the penalty would increase for repeat offenders?
No one sees, it no one wins. Way tooooo emotional for me, ban one social drug but accept another ?
As a socialiser and frequenter of pubs, I know and I know many of you know the phrase "what's your poison", and therein lies the conundrum that'll never be solved.
Chill, peace, love MAN.
To all the non smokers complaining about lung cancer/NHS etc,etc . Heh smokers pay the same taxes, NI, VAT, Council Tax, etc etc as you do. And extra for smoking.
The drain on the NHS is not purely caused by lung cancer. For the money wastage you need to look at management first.
Perhaps you might like to cost out drink driving, and alcohol related offences that drain so much out our police forces on a Friday/Saturday night.
The true analysis is that alcohol is far more costly to the state that smoking. If you take each individually.
For the smoking and drinking brigade which ever way you cut it you cost the state, non drinking smoker, hmm what about them, hmmmmm non smoking drimkers,
Pass the spliff sweetheart I'm having a paranoia attack.
I am a ex-smoker but a lifelong anti-nannyist. I am against most government interference in private affairs, and it seems to me that it should be up to the landlords to decide if they want smoking in their own pubs or not. By all means, lets have legislation to allow landlords to defend their choice either way but compulsion in issues of personal choice is not for grownups. The current government are dangerous, utterly contemptible and are not fit to run a whelk stall let alone a country.
Clearly the anon coward poster had his/her sense of smell so damaged that they weren't aware of the sickening stench that eminated from that booth - I had to pass it twice a week, and remember it well.
Still, it was better than the one at the end of T1 at LHR, which you could smell *from the moment you stepped off the plane onto the jetty*.
This is a work safety law, and in the UK they have real workers rights. The local council (municipality) will shut down the pub (as well as remove it's license to serve alcohol) if it fails to meet safety standards after being given an opportunity to bring the pub into compliance.
They'll basically get a letter telling them to enforce a no-smoking policy and that inspectors will arrive without notice to verify that this has happened. That's on top of the fines they're almost certainly going to get anyway.
I don't really have much time for people that put workers in jeopardy. I'm a smoker and it really is no hardship to step outside for 5 minutes to smoke a cigarette. But I also have little sympathy for the anti-smoker brigade that simply want to punish people for doing something their jumped up holy-than-thou attitudes disagree with. These people don't give a fuck about what happens to anyone, they just see something they don't like and go after the people doing it. They're a disgusting blight on society who should fuck off back to California where they belong and take the arseholes that won't take their cigarette smoke outside with them. Those people deserve each other.
You bunch of cunts told me that I needed to pay for my smoking-related illness through taxes. Good, so now that I'm doing that why hasn't anyone told doctors and hospitals where to send their bills for smoking-related illnesses? We've been told that every tax increase we pay is because we cost the healthcare system money, but for some strange reason none of that money we're now contributing is available to pay our bills. Odd that don't you think? After all studies have shown we were paying at least double the cost to the healthcare system back in the early 90s, and I'm pretty sure cigarette taxes have gone up a number of times since then. So where exactly is this money and why isn't it being used for the reasons you cunts told us we need to pay it?