We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Most Dangerous Man That Ever Lived....
Comments
-
Customers and staff should be able to choose the environment they enter. I am not an avid promoter of smoking, just do not like having options taken away by government. People should be allowed to make their own choices as to how private establishments are run and whether they wish to use them or not for whatever reason.
a quick google suggests that over 300,000 people work in the pub/bar/club sector. realistically, if there was no smoking ban, would they all be able to "choose" to work in non-smoking pubs if they wanted to do so?
by the same token should offices be able to do the same and designate themselves as smoking / non-smoking on the grounds that the staff can just choose to get a job in a non-smoking office if they want to?
when i started working people were still smoking in some offices, and i would have to go out to a client's premises and sit there working whilst they smoked all over me. it was horrible, and there is really no difference between this and having to breathe in smoke whilst you pour pints for people.0 -
OT, I'm old enough to remember pubs with live music (and smoking of course). There was a formulaic chain called "the something and Firkin" pubs and many were microbreweries.I see it as similar to loud music in pubs (which also has health implcations). I used to like it but do not anymore so just go to quiet places. I would not wish it to be banned everywhere though as this would be unfair on the prople that do enjoy it.
Had pianists instead of jukeboxes and songhsheets for drinkers to sing to. Sounds unbelievably naff and prewar but they were great and IIRC, always mobbed. Did good food and always had good selection of real ales.:beer:
A very successful formula. Bought up and converted into Sports Pubs I believe by philistines after a profit. Anyone know better?:(
Oh yeah- laws that saved lives - compulsory driving tests / drivers licences (The Road Traffic Act 1934).There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0 -
I can honestly say that I have not heard one person (in real life) complain about the smoking ban, the smokers seem quite happy that it has cut down their intake.
I can honestly say that the smoking ban has significantly reduced the number of people going to pubs, and that thousands of pubs have closed as a direct result.Maybe we should open up some good ole 19th century Opium dens to keep Hamish and ILW happy
Drugs should be legalised. So why not.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »a quick google suggests that over 300,000 people work in the pub/bar/club sector. realistically, if there was no smoking ban, would they all be able to "choose" to work in non-smoking pubs if they wanted to do so?
A quick google also reveals that tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs, and thousands of people have lost their businesses, as a direct result of the smoking ban.
A non smoker has the option to choose to work in a non smoking pub, or to choose not to work in a pub.
The person made redundant has no choice at all.....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Oh yeah- laws that saved lives - compulsory driving tests / drivers licences (The Road Traffic Act 1934).
The OP wasn't so much about saving lives as laws that had a cheap, effective and highly positive impact. I reckon the driving test is a decent example of that.
It's worth noting that it's an idea that has been widely copied, usually a sign that you've got it right.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »A quick google also reveals that tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs, and thousands of people have lost their businesses, as a direct result of the smoking ban.
A non smoker has the option to choose to work in a non smoking pub, or to choose not to work in a pub.
The person made redundant has no choice at all.....
I read once and agree that pubs fall into three categories
Ones that are really nice to visit and be in.
Ones that are a bit pants but get custom because of their location (next to train stations, say).
And the other third you might as well send the bulldozer to (overpriced/too noisy/full of people from the shallow end of the gene pool).
How do we know it's not the third category that are closing down, meaning the rubbish third?
The smokers are going to spend their money somewhere else, unless they've turned into savers for a future they may not be there to enjoy.
Or maybe they'l smoke less and divert more money from foreign cigarette factories to local eateries/drinking establishments etc. who all employ people who are redundant from other jobs.
As an ex-smoker I can't abide smoke, and to use the cliched analogy, I wouldn't want to swim in a swimming pool that had people urinating in it even if they had their own lane.There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0 -
pubs fall into three categories
Ones that are really nice to visit and be in.
Ones that are a bit pants but get custom because of their location (next to train stations, say).
And the other third you might as well send the bulldozer to (overpriced/too noisy/full of people from the shallow end of the gene pool).
How do we know it's not the third category that are closing down, meaning the rubbish third?
You can't judge the viability of a pub by your taste in pubs or their customers.
The "shallow end of the gene pool" need somewhere to drink too.... and if they weren't drinking there they'd be disrupting your favourite local.
The figures are quite compelling.... Once again as a reminder:
"Analysis of statistics from CGA Strategy showing the net figure of pubs closing revealed losses accelerating after the first year of the ban in each country — from between 0.5% and 1.2% in the first year to between 3.8% and 4.4% in the second year.
Researchers said: “While there is significant variation in the trajectories of pub closures before the ban, there is an almost total
correlation between the three countries after the ban".The smokers are going to spend their money somewhere else, unless they've turned into savers for a future they may not be there to enjoy.
Or maybe they'l smoke less and divert more money from foreign cigarette factories to local eateries/drinking establishments etc. who all employ people who are redundant from other jobs.
In my experience smokers have tended to go out less. And stay home more.
I doubt smokers buying a case of wine instead of a bottle has led to much job creation at Tesco though....As an ex-smoker I can't abide smoke, and to use the cliched analogy, I wouldn't want to swim in a swimming pool that had people urinating in it even if they had their own lane.
As someone with an allergy to a particular food, the smell of that food makes me physically ill, and indeed can endanger my health.
I don't expect to walk into a restaurant and ask anyone eating it to go and stand outside in the cold and rain though....“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
....or Why the Government Sometimes Gets Things Right.
Thomas Midgely Jr probably had as big a negative impact on the environment as any man who ever lived as the inventor of both lead in petrol and Freon (the first CFC).
Funny what you come up with when you're stuck on hold really.
Again, OT, I wonder how big a negative impact this man had on human health
Clarence Cook Little
(nore to do with the thread's title than its question, so I realise I'm digressing).:oThere is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known - Danny Baker0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »You can't judge the viability of a pub by your taste in pubs or their customers.
The "shallow end of the gene pool" need somewhere to drink too.... and if they weren't drinking there they'd be disrupting your favourite local.
.
Pity that, because I have a couple of pubs on my shortlist for closing
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.7K Spending & Discounts
- 245.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 259.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards