Pubs Then & Now

This is a promising new blog based in the Birmingham area showing photos of how pubs have changed over the past few decades. I was a student in Birmingham in the late 70s (as was the blog author) so some of the featured establishments are familiar to me.

Not for girls?

Brewer Molson Coors have just launched a new beer called Animée which is specifically targeted at female drinkers. This has been widely criticised as patronising and sexist, and unlikely to succeed, and those critics are probably right. But, on the other hand, it can’t be denied that beer as a category has a serious image problem amongst women and, as the article says, only 17% of beer in Britain is consumed by women. It’s not enough just to respond by complacently saying “if you can actually get them to try Old Volestrangler they really like it.”

Beer is widely perceived as gassy and bloating, and also as something that will make you fat. Neither of these objections are really valid – the first one is easily answered by choosing cask ale, and the second isn’t really true. Strength for strength, beer has no more calories than other forms of alcoholic drinks. But they are still widely believed.

Beer in general still has a laddish, pint-swilling, footy-chanting image which continues to be pandered to in many marketing campaigns. Many cask beers adopt a kind of rustic, bare-boards, back-to-nature imagery which may appeal to fans of The Good Life, but doesn’t exactly come across as well, very sophisticated. Plenty of women do drink beer, but in many cases they do it for precisely the reasons that deter others – because it comes across as a touch rebellious and not in the least “girly”.

What is needed, surely, is not dedicated “beers for women”, but a marketing strategy which avoids any hints of machoness but instead portrays beer as a modern, authentic, high-quality product that can be enjoyed by both sexes in a social context. You may not think much of the beer, but the recent Kronenbourg “slow the pace” campaign was a good start.

And its presentation needs to be looked at. If it is to seem smart and contemporary, utility Noniks need to be ditched in favour of stylish branded glassware, and those glasses should ideally be oversize so you don’t run the risk of spilling beer all over your clothes.

Perhaps even the much-loved handpump, powerful symbol of cask beer though it is, needs to be called into question. After all, you wouldn’t do your washing with a mangle or specify a car with running boards, so why in the 21st century should you be dispensing beer using a manually-operated device dating back to the Regency period?

TOBACCO CONTROL OUT OF CONTROL

I was trying to find the source of this image on the BMJ Tobacco Control site but I'd have to register to read the whole article. A tantalising piece of information about smokers as mushrooms caught my interest and brought to mind a previous newspaper editor who also thought it was Ok to call for attacks on minorities.

It makes me so said to see history repeating. In addition, I frankly despair at the suppression of the voice of our particular lifestyle group. The editor who allowed, and then defended, an appalling article calling for people to be shot in the streets, because her reporter didn't like what they did, should have apologised. Largely, she has ignored individual emails of complaint and commented instead in her newspaper why she felt the article was valid.

I also asked for the legal Right of Reply to allegations made against Freedom2Choose by an anti-smoker but have so far been ignored. "Name and Address Supplied" accused F2C of using propaganda "on web forums around the world denying smoking is harmful and denying links between passive smoking and illnesses in non-smokers and children."

Passive smoking has not been proved beyond doubt to cause harm but it has been seized upon by smokerphobics such as "Naas" to use as an emotional tool to blackmail people into believing it - particularly exploiting children as human shields in their argument.

If it was true that passive smoking killed children and smoking killed one in two smokers, then none of my generation would still be alive and in very good health. We are and we are as mad as hell at being coerced by fake charities because we won't quit.

The Science is not settled. Most SHS studies show what smokers' real life experiences have proved. It has no effect, it irritates some but also offers protection for some children No study shows a clear link between SHS and lung cancer

Naas also alleges that F2C's only reason to exist is "to persuade people to continue to smoke and to ignore advice about not smoking in pregnancy or in the presence of their children." This is absolutely untrue and defamatory of every member of F2C.

The organisation, which is not funded by Big Tobacco or organised by some Big T exec who sits in the shadows, is a collection of real, as opposed to astro-turf, individuals who simply want to be left alone. That's hardly immoral as implied by Naas' tone.

F2C supports those who chose to quit as much as it supports those who chose not to and it fights the corner of those currently being dehumanised, denormalised, abused and excluded. Unlike the anti-smoker activitist, F2C does not tell people what to do with their own children. That is their choice. If they choose to step outside, it's up to them. If they choose to smoke in their own homes, it's up to them. It is not the "right" of any anti-smoker activist like Naas to interfere in private family matters based on his or her own prejudices about where people smoke and what alleged "harm" they are causing.

One would hope that people like Naas would put their energies into fighting real child abuse if it concerns them so much rather than imaginary abuse based on their own phobic fears and loathing of one particular lifestyle group.

F2C also fights for the rights of hospitality owners to regain control of their properties and supports those pub landlords who have been stripped of everything they own, including their standing in their local communities, by a spiteful law that backed bigotry, intolerance and hatred when choice would have been the decent and honest way forward.

As we smokers slept and in consideration gave over many public spaces voluntarily without complaint to non smokers, believing there would always be a compromise in a fair country, the anti-smoker industry was already working on dismissing any future concern we would have.

Tobacco Control intervened to halt smokers being included in Human Rights legislation. TC has never represented smokers and yet managed to persuade governments that it spoke for us and said we don't consider ourselves a group. I think that used to be true but TC has since forced us into such a group defined by what we do - or fail to give up.

Tobacco control also dismisses us and grass roots smokers rights' groups as having been set up by Big Tobacco without giving any evidence except for the fact that such groups exist.

But when former Battle of Britian pilot Sir Christopher Foxley-Norris - of the same generation as many who now shiver in the cold outside of their social clubs - set up Forest in 1979, it was because he was an ordinary smoker who was assaulted by a smokerphobic woman on a railway platform when he lit up his pipe. It wasn't because he was approached by a Tobacco executive to do it in the way that the Royal College of Physicians was approached by Chief Medical Officer George Godber to set up ASH Uk using his position in Govt.

Tobaco control simply lies when it says : "... the tobacco industry created and supported smokers' rights groups (SRGs) in countries around the world to oppose clean indoor air laws and maintain the social acceptability of smoking."

Those groups have developed on their own and the reason they are far behind the anti-smoker industry in terms of "propaganda" is because these are real people - not paid professionals.

And if what Tobacco Control says about Big T "...developing ads to reassure smokers that they were not ‘social outcasts’ because of their smoking." then I say it's a necessity because of Tobacco Control's aim to encourage Govts across the world to treat smokers in exactly that way.

Instead of real health concerns, Tobacco Control only advocates the use of health as an excuse to push forward the real aim of a smoke free world at any cost. As one who has reported many inquests, I can confirm that the presence of asbestos is seen in the lung although the smoker's black lung isn't as obvious or they wouldn't have to use a pig's to scare the hell out of children.

Advocates should also continue to frame smoking as a health issue. Focusing on smoke as a pollutant avoids mentioning the smoker, and thus subverts the tobacco industry's metonymy of ‘smoker’ for ‘smoke.’ Eliminating cigarette smoke from indoor environments is equivalent to asbestos removal, and thus does not involve anyone's ‘rights.’

The very fact that ordinary smokers like myself are dismissed as "inventions" by the tobacco industry or "stooges" of Big T are some of the issues that anger me so much. I didn't even know the tobacco industry had the guts to fight our corner. Voices that appear on this blog and on other blogs I read are like mine. We don't get industry funding and we don't want it for fear of losing the moral high ground. We are ordinary largely lifelong consumers of a highly taxed legal product who are fed up at being treated worse than murderers.

Tobacco Control is out of control, inciting others to call for violence against us via the use of years of untruths and ideological propaganda. It is time this hate campaign against us ended and the anti-smoker industry's wild and outrageous health claims were put back into a proper and realistic perspective by the use of real independent scientists and experts and not those on the side of either Big Tobacco or Big Tobacco Control.

Thwaites on the move?

Blackburn family brewer Thwaites have announced that they are going to sell off the site of their current brewery in the town centre to Sainsbury’s, and relocate to a new site elsewhere in the area.

Now, I have no concrete reason to believe that they are anything but entirely sincere in saying this is what they plan to do. But I can’t help feeling a slight twinge of doubt that the new brewery will ever materialise. I remember Young’s saying back in the early 2000s that they were planning to build a new brewery at another location in Wandsworth, but they ended up entering into a joint venture with Charles Wells.

At a time when there is still substantial overcapacity in British brewing, does building a brand new large scale brewery really make sense? I’m sure InBev could spare some capacity just down the road at Samlesbury, and Robinson’s in Stockport are currently building a new brewhouse on their existing site, and have a large and underutilised packaging centre at Bredbury.

And, given that the current brewery was only built in 1966, it’s a bit rich for Thwaites to say “It does not provide the flexibility or efficiency for the demands of today’s market and requires significant modernisation”, when the four Greater Manchester family brewers are all operating out of premises that are at best pre-war.

Ian Loe of CAMRA has similar doubts.

IS THIS HOW IT'S DONE ?

I can't honestly say that I noticed much division between smokers and non-smokers before July 2007. There were a few people who really hated smoke but there wasn't the contempt, bitterness, and fear that is now shown towards people who smoke that appears to be hyped up year on year.

And to be honest, if this bloke really is a non-smoker who has been fined more than £300 because of the council's obsession to get smokers, I can understand that he might now hate smokers in a way he probably didn't before.

He might not see that it is an unjust law, a corrupt public health policy, and a bigoted council that has inadvertently caught him in the trap they set for smokers. He might just see that the "selfish" actions of a smoker has brought him trouble. It's a shame I missed that court case. I'd have liked to spoken to him.

In other news today, I note how a smoker of 50 years who began when he was 11 has quit using e-cigs. Good for him. I said ages ago that they were a great quitting aid but I am rather disturbed by his view that he is now "so pleased" to be a non-smoker.

We know that too many former smokers suddenly become wholly righteous when they quit and seem to think they have a licence to become far more abusive towards smokers than the average smoke hater. I sincerely hope that this is not the case with this chap and I hope he never sees the day when the e-cig is banned in the UK.

But it is easy to see how the war on smokers, and public disgust at them, is created by the state, it's propaganda and it's draconian and oppressive laws.

Sales decline slows

The latest beer sales statistics from the BBPA show a reduction in the rate of decline of on-trade sales, which were 4.5% lower in the second quarter of 2011 compared with the same quarter last year. This is attributed to the good weather in April and the effect of the Royal Wedding. They were 6% down over a full year. Off-trade sales were 15% down in the quarter, although that was probably due to a blip last year caused by the World Cup, and 8.3% down over a full year.

In the year to June 2011, total on-trade beer sales were 13.9 million bulk barrels, compared with 18.5 million in the year to June 2007, the last full year before the smoking ban. This represents a fall over four years of almost exactly 25%. In comparison, over the previous four-year period they only fell by 13%, and 12% in the one before that.

REMOVE THIS NHS BURDON

It seems to me that the only people draining the NHS of much needed cash are those healthists in the industry sucking the life out of it by furthering their own highly paid careers through scaremongering and getting public support by insulting selected lifestyle groups.



Despite telling us for ages that fat people are costing the NHS as much as the ficitional "smokers", so they need bullying into the perfect size 10, they now appear to be saying that no matter what fat people do they still won't lose weight.



"Once you are fat it is unlikely you will ever return to your former size, no matter how hard you diet.

Scientists have confirmed what most dieters already suspect; most people who lose weight end up putting it back on again, according to a long-term study of 25,000 men and women living in the UK.

The scientists, from the Medical Research Council's National Survey of Health and Development, tracked 5,362 adults who were born in 1946, and 20,000 born in 1958, assessing their weight, blood pressure and lifestyles.

While around 12 million Britons go on diets of one kind or another every year, only around 10 per cent lose a significant amount of weight, and most regain it within a year.

Dr Rebecca Hardy told the Sunday Times: "Both groups began increasing in weight in the 1980s and since then people have been increasing in mass all through life.

"For men it goes steadily through life. For women it starts slowly and accelerates in the mid-thirties. Once people become overweight they continue relentlessly upwards. They hardly ever go back down."



Note how the article is carefully manipulated to calm fears of the terrifying prospect of too many fat people running loose in the UK to show that help is at hand - Just Call the Professionals.



"A few lose weight but very few get back to normal. The best policy is to prevent people becoming overweight."

However, the study findings don't mean that all diets are a waste of time. Some, which promote eating healthier foods and increasing physical activity, can still make a positive impact on a person's health.

Around six out of 10 adults in the UK are now overweight, with one in four categorised as obese."



And they are stocking up on those professionals being paid to bully people into perfection but they don't say at what cost to the NHS or that it's more about jobs for them and career progression than it is to save fat people from dying or hurting others.



Passive Obesity seems to be the rage these days and it looks like public humiliation, hatred and disgust of this particular lifestyle group is about to become public policy.



Of course we smokers and now drinkers know that public health bodies lie to push forward self interest groups' own political ideological agendas but has there ever been a campaign so nasty as targeting someone who is overweight?



I doubt very much that drinkers, smokers, and the overweight cost the NHS anything like the fantastical figures plucked from the air, but for sure the healthists, scientists, academics, so-called "Charity" leaders, and NHS and related industry staff get whopping amounts of our taxes.



This is what needs to be addressed if the NHS is to remain in a healthy condition in future.

Indian Summer

I’m a non-smoker, in case you hadn’t noticed. It doesn’t, in an immediate way, bother me that there is no smoking in pubs any more. However, I may well observe that there are fewer customers than there were before, or a more limited range. Or that the “crack” in the pub is much diminished. I have also observed that plenty of pubs have closed, although so far only a handful that I have cherished. I am also well aware of the ever-growing tide of anti-alcohol opinion that is sweeping over the pub trade.

I’ve had some great experiences in pubs over the past few years. One of the best was the Black Horse in Clapton-in-Gordano last year. That really was everything a good pub should be.

But, given the current climate, I often feel that a good visit to the pub is like an Indian Summer, a glorious day of autumn sunshine, but one of the last before the dead pall of winter comes in. Sometimes when I visit a pub, I wonder whether it will be the last time I ever have the chance go in there. (And not because I might pop my clogs in the near future!)

And I do seriously worry whether those welcome-to-allcomers pubs that strike a good balance between wet trade and food will still be around in ten years’ time. Even now, they’re a diminishing species. Let’s see...

I WOULDN'T EVEN GO THERE TO DIE

I was chatting to an old friend the other day who told me an interesting piece of news that I didn't know before.

She said a friend of hers went for a job at a Travelodge and part of his training programme was how to deal with a dead body. Apparently the company is a first choice for those looking to kill themselves and they have across the UK two suicides week to deal with so it's important that staff know what to do in such circumstances.

I don't say it's true because I can't find any links to support it other than this one from a regular visitor who seems to be aware if it but then I guess it's something that Travelodge would want to keep quiet. I mean, who would want to stay there knowing the previous body in the same bed was dead?

I used to stay at Travelodges quite a lot because they were cheap and convenient and always set aside rooms for smokers and non-smokers. I last visited in 2007 soon after the smoking ban came out on a trip to Newcastle.

I booked before July 2007 for a stay after July 1 and had the option to book a smoking room which I did. On arrival, however, I found that the company had decided to enforce the smoke-free law even though they had the choice as some hotels still exercise.

We arrived very late. My son was 13. I was told that smoking was no longer allowed and I complained that I had only booked because smoking was advertised as permitted.

"Not any more," the disinterested desk receptionist said.

I pushed forward my point that it was wrong to advertsise a service which was then withdrawn without any notifiation and had I been notified of the change, I might well have decided to book elsewhere.

"Feel free to leave and find somewhere else then," she replied rather rudely.

At that late hour it wasn't feasible to take a child on the round of various hotels at the dead of night and so I had no choice but I've never stayed there since. I was also encouraged that as we got closer to the shit bag room we were given, there was a smell of smoke in the corridor so others had obviously decided to ignore her.

I am sure that if I did want to commit suicide a last fag would be one of the things I'd want so even as a place of death, Travelodge falls short in its service.

Another friend once told me that he had contemplated suicide and rather than just take one single cigarette to smoke in his car, he decided to do it the proper way and put a pipe from his exhaust into the car. He had a last smoke which gave him the time to reconsider his decision. He later told me that if anyone thinking of suicide just took those extra few minutes to think it through carefully, as his smoke allowed him to do, then there would less self inflicted deaths.

As a result of this, Travelodge might want to rethink it's policy of banning smokers from staying at its hotels. It might cost the firm a lot less in the long run and make for a much more pleasant working environment for its staff.

WHO IS UP FOR WALES?

I've enjoyed the last couple of posts on the Pro-choice smoking doctor's site.

And I agree with Blad Tolsty's view in the comments on SimonClark's post about Snipergate that considerate and normally compliant smokers are getting fed up to the point of activism.

Blad also mentions the impending car ban for Wales and why it's important that we keep the pressure on in letting our servants in Govts know that enough is enough. He says :

What we are seeing happening here is very interesting, in that, the number of people prepared to put their protest into action is increasing significantly. Stony Stratford was another instance of this militancy. However, what I am getting at is that a clear course of action is emerging for us so long as we don't become apathetic again.

In 2004/2005/2006, when the protests about the proposed smoking ban were taking place in Scotland, and Wales as well as the protests to the House of Commons and House of Lords, there were very few people taking part. In fact, a number of the people I was working with were Americans. Now, however, the picture is changing and it is only by lots of people undertaking such actions as I have described, that all sorts of minorities and social groups have been able to make their presence felt. I wonder too, if there had been a current level of action as to whether the smoking ban would have been made law in the first place.

Having said all that, the current proposal in Wales to ban smoking in cars carrying in children, does represent another and rather sinister step forward for the anti smoking lobby. I think that most of us are agreed that if such a ban is implemented, it is only a matter of time before the next step is proposed which will be to interfere in what people do in their own homes.

Leaving aside the fact that plenty of data manipulation has occurred to make a car ban seem a decent proposition to MPs, what carefully structured course of action should be taken by us (provided the numbers are willing to take part) to fight the car ban?

I think the first thing we must organise is a mini-bus or two to pick people on route from the north and south to take them to Wales and I suggest outside this office
ASH Wales
2nd Floor
8 Museum Place
Cardiff
CF10 3BG
might be a good place to hold it bearing in mind that ASH Wales claims to speak for smokers and has made up figures yet again to falsify concern when there is none among anyone other than the tiny minority of smokerphobics who ASH does represent.

What we need is a good organisation leader who can direct this and funding for the two minibuses. Perhaps enough of us can pitch in donations to pay for them. I would suggest that Simon Clark at Forest or Dick Puddlecote would be ideal organisers but I reckon Simon might be wary because of ASH's accusation about "dirty tobacco money" and DP is a very busy man who gives more than enough of his free time to this cause already.

However, I am sure it can be done and we can do it - perhaps our friends in Wales can instigate it. Unless ASH Wales bullies politicians through it's endless onslaught of science and lies by press release, we have up to three years to sort this out but the sooner we counteract ASH's false claims, the sooner the Welsh Assembly will realise that they do not speak for us and they speak with fork tongue.

I am also grateful to the Pro-choice smoking doctor for finding this site. I wonder if they think tobacco control puppet Anne Milton is any more interesting these days given her stance on the TC Third Reich.

Mothers’ Union

Three times in the past month, I’ve been in a pub at the tail-end of the lunchtime session, and a group of young mothers has wheeled in a procession of prams, buggies and pushchairs containing their offspring. Needless to say, my heart sank, and the inevitable chorus of howling and wailing was soon in evidence. A very good reason not to stay for another. It was also noticeable that on at least one occasion they sat and nattered for at least a quarter of an hour before anyone ordered anything from the bar. The old-style publicans would have chucked people out for that. I know for a fact of one licensee who barred a school of women for not putting enough money across the bar.

Oh how are pubs fallen when it comes to this. In the old days, there would have been a cosy fug of smoke and the bar would have been full of blokes perusing the racing pages prior to nipping in to the bookies’. Nowadays, it seems pubs are so desperate they have to act as unpaid social clubs.

George the Last

Shown here is a photo of the George in Stockport at the busy junction of the A6 and Heaton Lane opposite Debenhams. It has been in a closed and boarded state for around six months now, and represents a real eyesore right at the centre of the town. Many years ago it was one of the scattering of pubs in east Cheshire and Staffordshire tied to Liverpool brewery Higsons – another was the Fool’s Nook on the A523 south of Macclesfield.

From when I first remember it in the mid-80s part of it had been turned into a would-be “trendy wine bar”, but the other half retained its lavish 1930s fittings with extensive wood panelling. It also served Draught Bass as well as Higsons. Apparently in its original form the small corner door gave access to a tiny separate vault.

It was later thoroughly knocked through and given a more generally modern makeover, but never really seemed to find its feet, so in the current climate its ultimate closure came as no real surprise. Many of these pub company outlets in town centres seem to have struggled as they have been neither fish nor fowl, not modern enough to appeal to the youth market, traditional enough to appeal to the older drinker, or with enough emphasis on beer to attract the enthusiast, and not really doing anything as well as Wetherspoons.

THE IMMORTALS

I had a few thoughts on the tragic Amy Winehouse but Simon Cooke over at the View from Cullingworth said pretty much exactly what I was thinking.

Obnoxio The Clown wrote a really poignant piece. I don't think he's suicidal but showing how any one of us could find ourselves taking that wrong turning, standing in the same shoes, but no one but ourselves can change our course. Sometimes it takes the courage we haven't got or the will we can't summon but we are all masters of our own destiny and sometimes we must.

I've heard others say that Winehouse wasted her life. I think she did far more with the time she had than many of us will achieve in a lifetime. She might even become a member of the 27 club.

RIP Amy. Thanks for your music and your individuality.

SMOKING AND HEALTH

Ages ago, when the story broke of an Indonesian whose fag exploded as he rode his motorcycle to work, I said it wouldn't be long before the health lobby terrified people into believing rocket fuel was in cigarettes.

As it happens, today I saw a new propaganda poster in the window of my smoke free shop. It had a diagram showing all the different chemicals in cigarettes including, yes, you guessed it, rocketfuel. Others were said to be poison used on death row, sewer gas, toilet cleaner, radioactive gas, and pesticide (which is how they now describe nicotine.) It was so wildly hysterical in it's claims that I wondered how they thought that it would persuade smokers of many years' experience to quit.

Perhaps it was meant instead to frighten the non-smokers more than us so they develop the same kind of paranoia and see us as diseased. My problem with this campaign poster of theirs is that they promote the smoker as the dirty, stupid, addict and not the victim of a dangerous black market that smoke free policies have created. Thanks to the anti-smoker political lobby groups tobacco with far more dangerous chemicals than anything Public health and it's front groups have tried to save us from before is now more available than ever. Adult smokers will avoid it. Kids will not.

Independent author Rich White explains the real chemical danger of regulated tobacco in his Smokescreens book and examines it in context with other atmospheric and environmental pollutants. He says, for example :

"...smoke from charcoal contains many of the same components of tobacco smoke, such as carbon monoxide and formaldehyde, as well as carcinogens and so on – a ten pound bag of charcoal produces as much smoke, and chemicals, as 160 packs (3200 cigarettes) of cigarettes."

British American Tobacco says : All tobacco products pose risks to health, but based on available scientific evidence, the ingredients our companies use, at the levels used, do not add to the health risks of smoking. Nor do they encourage people to start smoking or affect a person’s ability to quit. Ingredients are not added to make our tobacco products appealing to children, and there is no evidence that they have this effect. Although ingredients in some types of cigarettes include sugars, cocoa and fruit extracts, they do not create a sweet, chocolate-like or fruity taste in the smoke. In short, our cigarettes still taste like cigarettes and not sweets or candy. Nicotine is not added to tobacco products - it occurs naturally in tobacco. Smokers in countries such as Canada, Australia and the UK have historically preferred the taste of Virginia-style cigarettes which contain few or no ingredients.

That actually rings true with me from experience and taste. The smoke free wild allegations about chemicals in cigarettes seem false and certainly over-egged to exploding point.

Meanwhile, those groups like ASH that would encourage such untruths to achieve that ideological aim of a smoke free world are happy to push dangerous chemicals that have proved beyond doubt to kill. So on further examination, the anti-smoker industry's claim that "it's about health" does not stand up.

It seems, however, that when the Pharma industry wants to exploit tobacco, they claim it's good for a whole host of things including beauty and skin care (and I thought they said it made you ugly), circulatory health (and I thought they said it was bad for circulation), and oral health (and I thought it made your teeth look like a crack whore's.)

Reasonable anti-smokers even admit that there are some beneficial qualities in tobacco

But few would believe the benefits are as astounding as this clinic claims

JAKARTA (AFP) – An Indonesian woman exhales cigarette smoke into the mouth of a gaunt, naked patient at a Jakarta clinic, where tobacco is openly touted as a cancer cure.

The Western patient is suffering from emphysema, a condition she developed from decades of smoking. Along with cancer and autism, it's just one of the ailments the Griya Balur clinic claims it can cure with cigarettes.

"I missed this," says the woman, a regular customer, with an American accent, as Phil Collins's "I Can Feel It" blares in the background.

Griya Balur founder Dr. Gretha Zahar told AFP she had treated 60,000 people with tobacco smoke over the past decade.

You might think she's just a witch doctor but then she does have a PhD in nanochemistry from Padjadjaran University in Bandung, West Java, Zahar. Her jiggery pokery explanation is as astounding as the anti-smoker claims made in the opposite. And yet, she's a doctor. And we're supposed to believe doctors, aren't we?

She said :

"... manipulating the mercury in tobacco smoking can cure all diseases including cancer, and even reverse the ageing process.

"Mercury is the cause of all illnesses. In my cigarettes -- we call them Divine Cigarettes -- there are scavengers that extract the mercury from the body," she said.

Zahar says she does not need to subject her theories to clinical tests or publish them in peer-reviewed journals, nor does she have the money to "fight" with "Western medical scientists" and that I can believe.

Her claims were recently presented to the Constitutional Court where farmers and legislators from the tobacco-growing hub of Central Java are challenging a law that recognises tobacco as addictive.

Bearing in mind that the World Health Organisation, who we should be able to trust implicitly, played dirty in the smoking nd health game and buried the SHS results that showed protective effects on children preferring to use a less reliable method of study to achieve the aim they had already announced.

So in this myriad of conflicting studies, claims, fantasies, and politicking, who and what, exactly, are we humble consumers supposed to believe when trying to make an honest decision about the alleged harm or benefits of tobacco.

18th Century poet William Cowper had the best answer :

And diff'ring judgements serve but to declare/That truth lies somewhere if we knew but where

Off-grid drinking

Nowadays, if you’re armed with the Good Beer Guide and various internet listings, you should have little problem in finding a decent pint of cask beer in virtually all parts of Great Britain. However, it has to be said that I am interested in plenty of things apart from beer, and I also take the view that going in a characterful pub is likely to be a more memorable experience than drinking a nice pint. (Obviously, the two often coincide)

And so, from time to time, you find yourself “off the grid”, maybe looking for lunchtime food in a town where there are no GBG entries, or wanting a bit of variety in the evening in a town where the only entry is Wetherspoon’s. Sometimes you encounter unexpected gems, and I’ve always said that serendipity is one of the best things about pubgoing. But, on the other hand, sometimes you wonder why you bothered. For example, in the past month, I have encountered the following, all in outwardly appealing pubs:

• A pint of a mainstream beer brewed 200 miles away from the pub in question, crystal clear and with a bit of condition, but served around 5°C too warm
  
  
• A flat, warm, slightly hazy and just about “on the turn” pint of a well-regarded local micro beer. This was probably returnable, but given that I would never be going back there again I couldn’t be arsed
  
  
• A pint of an award-winning family brewer’s beer where a handle glass was placed on the drip tray and the barman simply pulled on the sparkler-free pump to fill it. This in a shabby former GBG-listed pub in a picturesque city-centre location where there were no other customers at 9.30 pm. (Actually, the beer was OK, and much better than the other two)

The best can be very good indeed, but there remain far too many pubs that can’t even get the basics right. Of course, lack of custom exposes many sins that can be hidden in a busy pub.

OUTRAGEOUS!

Below is the letter I have writen to the editor of the Luton Herald and Post. A copy has been sent to the Press Complaints Commission. I hear some have even reported the paper to Beds Police. Please, if you feel as strongly as I do after reading Simon Clark's blog piece linked below, then write your own letter and make sure that these people realise that smokers are not fair game - literally.


Dear Ms Hughes,

I am dismayed that your feature writer felt it highly amusing to single out one minority group of people for attack in his article "Snipers Could Soon Snuff Out Smoking" July 21, 2011. Should this kind of joke have been directed at any other minority, you and your writer would be facing charges of inciting hate crime.

Many older people who still smoke do so because they have smoked since childhood and studies show that quitting rather than to continue smoking moderately can be more harmful.

Alan Dee could have written an article very much in the public interest that would call for more research on this issue so that this particular lifestyle group, and their families, could be better informed at what quitting after a lifetime of smoking means for those who do not fit the "one size fits all" health approach and are skeptical of the political smoke-free agenda.

Instead Dee chose to incite hatred at these people's expense based on his own prejudices. I fail to see how that is funny. I would welcome an explanation as to why your paper sees this group as a legitimate target for attack and how inciting others to violence against smokers is in the public interest

FYI Lifelong smokers began smoking in a different age and are from a different generation where smoking was perceived differently and accepted almost everywhere. They resent that as considerate smoker adults who have enjoyed smoking in places where they were permitted in a tolerant society happy to compromise and share until recent years, and during the last four years particularly, that they have been dehumanised, denormalised, stigmatised and marginalised by public health bodies that make some quite outrageous health claims.

Frankly, unbiased and ethical publications such as the Luton Herald and Post should have put this propaganda to the test and then perhaps prejudices as wild as your reporter's would not have got to such hysterical levels.

Do you ever ask these bodies that make some new smoking and health claim based on "research" or "science" or "a study", for example, for the data and the results it quotes from? Do you ever ask such questions as : "What was the methodology used? What was the sample group? What were the other confounding factors? Over what period of time does this study cover? Who is the author of the new research/study? Do they have a conflict of interest - ie : is that person an anti-smoker activist/academic or have links to either the Anti-smoker industry or the Pharmaceutical industry? Who has funded this study?" ... and then given it over to independent epidemiologists to analyse?

The one size fits all health approach that aims to enforce the ideological aim (decided in 1970 and aimed for 2000) of a smoke-free world seems to promote smokerphobia of the sort your writer has demonstrated in a monumentally offensive article and I would respectfully ask that you withdraw it, apologise for your lack of judgment in allowing it to be published, and ask your writer to apologise for the offence he has caused.

Smokerphobia is something that we have been monitoring following high profile and often violent incidents between smokers and anti-smokers since 2007. I think your article is worthy of being added unless, of course, your writer had not meant offence and is satisfied to accept that he has been grossly misinformed about the smoking and health issue and, particulalry, the sort of people who are part of the minority who still smoke.


Pat Nurse
Freedom2Choose
Freedom2Choose.info

Pointing skywards

The Stockport area now has a new gastro-pub in the shape of the Pointing Dog in Cheadle Hulme, which opened last week. This has been developed by the Felicini Group from the former Smithy pub. As you can see, it’s a strikingly modernistic wood-clad building that doesn’t look remotely like a pub. The Smithy had for years pursued a youth-oriented policy and had became very run-down, so few tears will be shed for it.

The Pointing Dog is very much a “restaurant with bar” rather than any kind of pub, but there is an area set aside for drinkers at the front on the right. It even had beermats and a few bench seats! The dining area had a sign saying “Please wait here to be seated” and there were no informal bar snacks. There’s a very large part-covered outdoor seating area at the rear.

There were four cask beers – Theakstons Best Bitter, Deuchars IPA, Dunham Massey Big Tree and Castle Rock Harvest Pale – and the lager choice included Sagres, Amstel and the Derbyshire-brewed Moravka rather than the usual suspects, so they are making an effort on the beer front. However, I was charged £3.60 for a pint of the 3.8% ABV Harvest Pale, which is by some way the most I’ve ever paid for a “regular” cask beer. At least it was a decent pint. The beer was served in a heavy, straight-sided handle glass. I would expect the lagers to be over £4.

Needless to say, it’s unlikely to become a regular haunt of mine, although I wouldn’t condemn it out of hand, just say it’s not my sort of place. You could actually just go there for a couple of drinks without made to feel unwelcome, which isn’t the case with many gastro-pubs.

I couldn’t see any sign of a price list – maybe they thought it might be a heart attack-inducing health hazard, but even so Trading Standards might not be too happy. I couldn’t see a menu either, so can’t comment on the food prices, but I’m assured they’re at least double Wetherspoons’.

WE DEMAND AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW – NOW!

An obviously impartial Govt minister (not)


An obviously impartial academic paid to produce biased results for her masters in ASH among others in the anti-smoker industry

I am so sick of these sort of people scrounging their personal wealth from the taxes I have paid on my legal product since the age of 8 and Govts who are too stupid to realise they have been taken for idiots.

You see, after getting Nanny Anne Milton's response via my MP Karl McCartney yesterday, I thought I'd do a bit of Google research into self-interest sociologist Linda Bauld who carried out a (snigger) “evidence based review” of the smoker ban in England.

Ages ago (although I can't now find the link to the blog post I did at the time – I really must sort out these tag lines into some kind of order that allows me to find things) when it became clear that former health secretary St Gillian of Merron had been given a completed review of the devastating smoking ban, I did an FoI request to get a copy of that report. I suspected that it would show that everyone loved the ban – even before it had been complied – and I was proved right. They didn't have to pay almost one million pounds to get it done – they could have just made it up – oh, but then the author did, didn't she?

I was told that I couldn't have the review until it had been “peer reviewed” which I assumed meant “cherry picked”. And cherry picking is exactly what Linda Bauld did with her smoking ban review that selected evidence, hyped up non-existent health scares like a miraculous drop in heart attacks since the spiteful blanket ban which were proved to be false and made up of manipulated junk science to pull the wool over the eyes of the stupid while supporting the ideology that these enemies of the people planned to push forward at any cost to society.

I did find a link to a critique carried out by Imperial Tobacco and it was quite comforting to know that the company does actually care enough about the denormalisation of it's consumers that it has actually questioned the alleged “impartiality” of Bauld's work HERE. OK, so big bad baccy did it but I say hoo-fucking-ray.

Others have also asked questions about how lead players in the persecution of legal consumers have infiltrated our parliament. How did the UK Centre for tobacco control, which is a network of nine universities all troughing their snouts into the £17 million pounds of OUR money given to add credence to the lies of ASH, CRUK, the BHF and related self-interest groups that really can't be called “charities” anymore, get to make health policy? We didn't elect them. I don't recall seeing any of their names on the ballot list of candidates at the general election.

Bauld, a member of ASH, vice chair of CRUK tobacco control's Third Reich, and an advisory member of the Smoke Free South West programme board (whatever that bollox means) and a member of the International Network of Women Against Tobacco (INWAT – or should that read slightly differently) does not work for the public but self interest organisations to push through their own bigoted agenda. Why on earth was this woman given the job of a so called “evidence based review” when it was so obvious she was going to fake it? She certainly has a conflict of interest. The Govt might just as well have given it to someone in the tobacco industry to compile – the “impartiality” would have been just the same although no doubt a different result would be seen.

You only have to look at what Bauld says about the “beneficial effects on the hospitality industry” to know that her greatest skill is lying of the first grade. Anyone who skipped school in the fourth year and left without any qualifications can surmise that since the smoking ban of 2007 our pubs and clubs have suffered enormously. Why didn't she ask those pub landlords now out of business – or jailed like Nick Hogan? There are thousands of them to choose from. Or the smokers shunned and avoided by their communities who now sit at home lonely with no where to go? She didn't ask them of course because she must want everyone to believe the crap that she spouts but as tax payers, and citizens of what used to be a tolerant and fair country, we deserve to be told the truth and not spin fed selected data from people with self interest motives.

Before the likes of her political lobby groups including ASH reintroduced discrimination, phobia, hatred and untruths into our society, in ways not seen since the days when the hospitality industry posted notices on their doors such as “No Irish, No Blacks and No Dogs”, this country was one that could be proud of how it treated people from all different faiths, lifestyles, and ethnicity. Now it really should hang its head in shame for what it is doing to selected minorities because it hates the product that they consume.

We've also seen that as soon as anyone wants to challenge these academic ideologically driven reviews and sociological biased behavioural studies on how to further exclude and isolate smokers, through the exploitation of young people and children, she cries like a spoiled child and demands Govt covers up this jiggery-pokery fakery.

These people should not only be sacked for failing to be impartial in the area of academic study but prosecuted for hate crime. Bauld, for example, has no intention of providing impartiality if it means it goes against taking this to the "Next Logical Step." The truth wouldn't allow the phobia and untruths about smokers to end, would it. Neither would it earn yet more tax coffers for those she works for.

We smokers, the biggest tax payers in this country, demand an independent review by a truly independent third party and for the political smokerphobic lobbyists to be removed from pushing forth their own agenda and frauds in the Parlt that is supposed to represent and work for us - not highly paid political lobby groups and their pet academics. And we demand that a new study is done now in the name of fairness, impartiality and honesty. Perhaps they could get back the money they paid Bauld because of the shoddy service she gave. (Unless of course truth and independence was not something the Govt wanted.)

Download a copy of the Imperial Tobacco critique from the link above and send a copy to your MP, or local councillor along with a letter DEMANDING a truly independent review of this monstrous piece of legislation. We must expose these people for what they are - greedy liars who hate smokers and are happy to ruin people's lives if it brings in money for themselves or the ideological aims of political lobby groups they work for.

Non-smokers’ survey – the results

As a counterpoint to the smokers’ survey, I ran a survey of non-smokers’ experiences of pubs and pubgoing since the smoking ban. This attracted 80 responses over 7 days, so fell a bit short of the maximum of 100.

As ever, I make no claim for the results to be scientific or representative – it’s merely done for interest and to stimulate discussion. It’s clear there is a wide range of views, especially in the comments section. There were certainly more comments per response than for the previous survey.

It’s perhaps significant that 57.5% of non-smokers (46/80) believed there should be some relaxation of the ban, either to allow separate smoking rooms (27) or to repeal it entirely (19).

The full results are below (I can’t be bothered to work out all the percentages):

1. Have you smoked in the past?

Yes, regularly: 20
Yes, occasionally/socially: 21
No, never smoked: 39

2. How often did you visit pubs prior to 1 July 2007?

Daily or most days: 12
2 or 3 times a week: 44
Weekly: 17
Fortnightly: 1
Monthly: 0
Occasionally: 6
Never: 0

3. How has the frequency of your pub visits changed since 1 July 2007?

More: 14
About the same: 41
A bit less: 9
A lot less: 16

4. Do you feel it is reasonable to expect smokers to go outside for a smoke?

Yes, I support the current law: 34
No, they should be allowed to have indoor smoking rooms: 27
No, there is no need for any legislation on this issue: 19

5. Have you noticed any pubs closing in your area since 1 July 2007?

No: 18
Yes, a few: 39
Yes, a lot: 23

6. Have pubs you know that are still open lost trade since 1 July 2007?

Not that I have noticed: 31
Some are a bit quieter: 21
Some are much quieter: 28

7. Have you noticed pubs in your area providing improved smoking facilities?

Not at all: 13
Yes, a few have: 45
Yes, quite a lot have: 22

8. Have you noticed smokers that you know changing their pubgoing habits? (choose all that apply)

No, not really: 43
Yes, some still go as often but spend less time in the pub: 14
Yes, some go less often: 21
Yes, some have stopped going entirely: 21

9. Have pubs become more or less welcoming and sociable since the smoking ban?

More so: 31
About the same: 16
A bit less: 12
A lot less: 21

10. Any other comments?

Reproduced verbatim as received. I've numbered them so they're easier to respond to.

1. I've certainly noticed they don't smell any more.
   
   
2. Pubs had 30 years of falling smoking rates to do something. Instead they ignored the non-smoker and pandered to a shrinking minority. Now pubs have to cater for the very people they spent all those years ignoring. The real problem though isn't the ban but the cost.
   
   
3. I lived in California when they introduced the first smoking ban and bars got busier. I have been back here a while now and things will settle out. We need to get over the thinking that smokers are the life blood of pubs. They are not , it is people who want to go drink and socialise that are the ones keeping bars open. If a thing like stopping smoking in a pub ( but still around it ) stops someone going then they were not that great a customer. You can see it practically the amount of time smokers spend not buying drink ( now outside smoking ) and they didnt buy theie cigarettes in the bar anyway. So the best customers for bars are people who want to socialise and not these magical super happy smokers you paint pictures of. Bars are businesses not a community service provided for some minority to dominate. One person smoking imposes their smell on everyone in an enclosed space. NB the next thing they will alow to get passed is by littering cig. stubs. Smokers were finally banned from CA state beaches , not because of the smoke, but because they gave an excuse from the amount of litter they caused. Think of other people .
   
   
4. What was wrong with separate smoking/non smoking areas. when adequately ventilated it was fine.
   
   
5. The solution can be found here http://f2cscotland.blogspot.com/2011/07/air-quality-standard-eliminates-need.html
   
   
6. There are some people I see much less often in my local simply because they choose to stand outside. I think they're sad. They'll go an hour or two without a cigarette for a train or plane journey, so why not in the pub? They've had it their way all their adult lives up until four years ago, now it's my turn. Just accept it.
   
   
7. I can't be bothered with the pubs anymore-they have lost their atmosphere, their charisma and their appeal. All my friends have stopped going bar one, and he only pops in for a pint every night to get out of the house for half an hour. As an exercise to cull smoking/smokers the ban has been an abysmal failure but as an exercise to cull the hospitality sector it has been a raging success!
   
   
8. The smoking ban has ripped the guts out of the pub trade. Around here, loads have closed, and those that are left are empty and soulless. The only future for pubs seems to be as restaurants.
   
   
9. As a non smoking ex-smoker (heart attack) I do now notice that smoke does make your clothes stink. It's being short of breath that keeps me off the fags
   
   
10. Not been to a pub since the ban.
    
    
11. I no longer go to the pub as my smoking friends don't go. What's the point of going to a pub and paying pub prices when there's no one to talk to? I stay at home and entertain people here or go to their houses now.
    
    
12. Occasional smoker - once a year I have a cigar on National no smoking day
    
    
13. The proper solution would be to allow pubs to choose to be smoking or non smoking and then their clientele can also choose.
    
    
14. Many of my regular pubs feel empty - regulars who used to spend hours everyday at the bar no longer go, or if they do they only stick around for one pint. No more long games of chess or working together on crosswords.
    
    
15. In general, pubs feel less sociable since the smoking ban, and smokers were often the real characters in pubs.
    
    
16. Yes my clothes smell cleaner, but most of the pubs I loved have closed. Guess I'll have to console myself with yet another can of crappy supermarket beer!
    
    
17. A few local pubs have gone, but not really because of this ban. The remaining pubs seem to stick all smokers outside on bench seating under parasols, regardless of weather. One pub has patio heaters. It wouldn't bother me if the law was loosened to allow smoking rooms, but it strikes me that groups would still be segregated on and off during a visit, though the smokers will still be able to stay inside in bad weather.
    
    
18. Most people that have stopped going to the pub have done so due to price differences between on and off trade
    
    
19. I used to smoke a pipe but gave up as decent quality tobacco became harder to obtain and specialist outlets closed. I think the main cause of pubs closing is the prices charged but the smoking ban definitely worsened the situation. Where pubs might be gaining trade seems to be in food but I suspect some of this is because restaurants are pricing themselves out of business. In my area (London E11) pubs closing tend to be in the more working class parts, which also have a lot of East European immigrants from countries that don't have much of a pub going tradition and who probably don't want to regularly pay over twice what a bottle of beer would cost from a local corner shop. In the more affluent parts I can't think of any pub closures but I do know of some restaurants that have gone under. Incidentally and off the subject, some corner shops seem to undercut Tesco on things like Polish beers, so why isn't CAMRA banging on about them?
    
    
20. There are lots of reasons why pubs are less busy or closing: change in people's social habits, supermarket alcohol, PubCos etc.. The smoking ban might be one factor but don't try and use this survey as 'proof' that the smoking ban is bad for pubs! It's really time to move on from this old issue.
    
    
21. I used to smoke, am a non smoker and in favour of the ban. So that's where I stand. I'm also - for want of a better way of putting it - a 20s professional from the educated middle class, so the question about my friends is moot (i.e. none of my close friends smoke at all You'll have to take my word for it that this is coincidence - I don't go around wishing to alienate smokers). I also feel the survey is likely to produce quite a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' result - the latin phrase is a logical fallacy ('after it therefore because of it'). My pubgoing has decreased since the smoking ban - but then so, with relatively high inflation, has my disposable income. The latter has far more to do with my pubgoing habits than the former. Thanks for putting up the survey.
    
    
22. I support the "smoking carriage" option, as long as the smoke doesn't drift out into the rest of the pub and you don't have to walk through it to get to the Gents. There's no reason why sufficient extractors can't be put in to allow non-smoking staff to get in to clear glasses etc (though clearing the ashtrays was always my least favourite part of the job!) Some pubs have done a good job with their smoking areas - the Duke of Cumberland Arms in Henley, West Sussex springs to mind (outdoor fireplace, comfy seats, and not so far from the entrance that it's a huge trek to get another pint). Worst part about the smoking ban is a 5 minute wait between games of bar billiards as my opponent now has to leave the table for a fag :)
    
    
23. I was a dedicated smoker for fifteen odd years before I gave up. I'm glad I did and I don't want to go back but I will always stick up for smokers rights. I find it amusing that some non-smokers bang on about how selfish smokers are and yet they demand that every indoor space and place of entertainment conforms to their own wants. We're all adults and it should be about choice. No reasonable smoker wants to go back to every pub allowing smoking but as users of a legal (heavily taxed) product they should have somewhere they can go. Other countries have stood up this appalling little piece of legislation and won concessions, I would love it if it could happen here but I don't hold out much hope.
    
    
24. "Smoking rooms only, where landlords and staff agree" is the reform that should have been tried. (It was in the 2005 Labour Manifesto, apparently.)
    
    
25. Smokers outside can be a nuisance, blocking pavements and leaving litter and can sometimes be intimidating, depending on the venue it seems.
    
    
26. Question 8 is flawed, I don't go to the pub with anyone who smokes.
    
    
27. The next frontier is banning smoking outside of pubs and in pub gardens so its possible to enjoy sitting outside too. Resistance is futile.
    
    
28. I fully support peoples choice to smoke but not where it has a clear and demonstrable effect on those around them. I think the law should be changed slightly to allow for an indoor smoking license for pubs that can achieve a specific level of air quality.
    
    
29. Need to consider economic climate
    
    
30. Some leading questions I thought, but overall a good survey. Nice counterpart to the smokers survey.
    
    
31. Pub closer is about badly run pubs and increased competition from alternative leisure activities. The smoking ban doesn't change anything in the long run. As a 23 year old I can count the number of smokers I known on one hand.
    
    
32. Any discussion of the issue is clouded by bad-tempered and intolerant comments on both sides in equal measure. A minority, no doubt, but their abuse ensures rationality goes out of the window. And I do wish people would debate rather than just post links to websites that they claim "proves" their point. My experience is you can find a website on the internet to "prove" virtually any point you like.
    
    
33. I really don't like pubs anymore. They are usually so sterile. It's like having a beer in a Dr's waiting room. Then again smoking never bothered me. I like smoke in pubs and most restaurants I go to hadn't allowed smoking for 15 years or so anyway. Now we tend to go to other people's houses as everyone is more relaxed.
    
    
34. The pub experience, I feel, is far more impoverished than it ever was pre-ban. I believe that repealing the ban is the only sensible option but this will not happen for a long time yet, by which time it will probably be too late to limit the damage, not only on the smoking ban but the entire idea of going out to drink here in the UK. Repeal the ban.
    
    
35. Smokers who say pubs are closing because of the smoking ban are twats
    
    
36. Most of the guys I know smoke outside and there was one bloke a smoker who switched to another pub cause it was nearer to him — he liked Greene King as well…
    
    
37. It's been striking how many of my smoking friends have quit since the ban though I wouldn't conclude there is a direct cause/effect.Similarly, although I prefer non-smoking pubs the ban is not the reason behind my increase in pub-going. For me there are a whole range of factors that are influencing pub-going in the UK, the ban is clearly one but I think not necessarily the most significant, economic and societal change (which of course also impact on attitudes to smoking) are probably of greater consequence

SO GOOD I HAD TO COPY IT ALL

Bryony Gordon at the time she wrote about the indoor smoking ban (note in the comments that some prick is just abusive because he or she has nothing of value to add.)

The reason I am copying below a brilliant article on Stony Stratford by Ms Gordon, which is in today's Telegraph, is because I'm so grateful to finally hear that rare journalistic voice of reason, fairness, and common sense on a very acrimonious issue.

Enjoy - her work is is better than smoking in a Bohemian restaurant after a fantastic meal - something I haven't done in Britain since 2007

The tiny town that refused to give in to a fresh-air fascist - Stony Stratford is a jewel for standing up for the right to smoke outdoors.

Stony Stratford calls itself the jewel of Milton Keynes, a real corker of a catchline, a bit like rebranding Nunhead the pearl of Peckham. Yet putting aside jokes about applying lipstick to a pig (and then turning the ear of said pig into a silk purse), Stony Stratford is the jewel of Milton Keynes. As it turns out, it is the jewel of the whole godforsaken country.
This is why: last month, councillor Paul Bartlett announced his intention to create a new bylaw that would outlaw smoking in open places. “Stony Stratford is a historic town which is blighted by cigarette butts,” announced Mr Bartlett, as hordes of fag ends ran behind him, wearing hoodies and tanked up on cider.
“Why should people have the freedom to smoke in my face, pass on diseases and spoil the environment?” At that, a giant ciggy strolled up to him, puffed its poisonous smoke in his face, and ashed all over his suit.
Mr Bartlett’s proposal is not the reason Stony Stratford is a gleaming jewel. It is the town’s dogged refusal to accept it. On Tuesday night, smokers and non-smokers alike protested with a “mass light-up”, forcing the council to postpone a public meeting to discuss the bylaw.
As one resident told a newspaper: “People who don’t smoke don’t support him. People who have kids and don’t smoke don’t support him.”
If residents are walking up to Mr Bartlett and puffing in his face, then I am ashamed of my fellow smokers. But I suspect the truth is somewhat different: that the councillor falls into that tiny minority of fresh-air fascists who happily drive cars and fly away on holidays, but simultaneously believe that those who choose to smoke the odd fag are as evil as former editors of the News of the World.
The smokers I know are among the most courteous people around. They agree with the smoking ban and apologise should anything blow in the general direction of those who do not indulge in the habit.
They tend to put butts in ashtrays, and if there is no ashtray available, they stub it out and place it in their cigarette packet for later disposal. If the Buckinghamshire town really is blighted by fag ends, then surely the solution is simply to provide smokers with more places to throw them away.


And yet another voice of reason HERE from Simon Cooke. I urge everyone to read it and take the steps that Mr Cooke urges. The revolution against the puritans, their lies and their unbearable view of the future world starts here and now!

House of many rooms

While they do many things well, I’ve often been critical of Wetherspoons for the soulless, barn-like nature of their pubs and the well-nigh total lack of “pub atmosphere”. Several people have suggested that I should try the Waterhouse in Manchester City Centre. “That’s different,” they said, “it has lots of small rooms.” So, finding myself in the area, I thought I would pop in for a swift half and see for myself. And indeed it does.

Unusually for a Spoons, it’s in a row of three town houses from the Regency or early Victorian period. Inside, there are at least eight separate drinking spaces, plus the bar, which is at the back on the left. However, due to the complete absence of any fixed seating, it still doesn’t really feel like a pub should. It’s just four tables and sixteen chairs plonked down in each room. If even half the walls had benches, it could be a rather wonderful recreation of the multi-roomed rabbit-warren pubs of old. But they don’t, and it isn’t. I also had some distinctly underwhelming beer.

Spoons’ prices seem to be getting distinctly mainstream as well, with the premium lagers all well over £3 a pint, and many of the main meals on the menu over £7. (This is “city centre” prices and maybe around 10% above Didsbury or Stockport.) They’re by no means the bargain they once were.

The name, incidentally, comes from Alfred Waterhouse, architect of the Victorian Gothic Town Hall just across the road.

A self-enforcing law?

It’s often claimed that the smoking ban is effectively self-enforcing, but the reality is not quite so simple, as this exchange between me and another contributor on a non beer-related forum (in a members-only section) illustrates:

A. N. Other: In my experience there certainly seems to be a remarkable degree of compliance with the ban and very little defiance - if there was a silent majority against the ban or even a large minority against it I very much doubt this would be the case.

Curmudgeon: By the very obviousness of breaking it, it is a law that is likely to result in a high degree of compliance, but compliance doesn't necessarily equate to acceptance. And, of course, smokers can simply withdraw their custom. Since 2007, according to statistics produced by the BBPA, beer sales in British pubs have fallen by 25% and over 8,000 pubs have closed.

A. N. Other: I'm not sure that I accept that. Speeding is also very obvious and yet the law is widely flouted. I think compliance with the smoking ban is in the first instance brought about by the law, and secondly is made effective by it now being a socially accepted norm. I'm not aware that it's required a huge amount of enforcement by the police or the courts, or even by pub landlords - it seems to be pretty much self-policing, which is a good result if you ask me.

Curmudgeon: I would say that is due to the fact that the risk of prosecution lies with the licensee for "permitting smoking", not the individual smoker, and the potential penalties are livelihood-threatening. It is simply not worth the risk for any licensee to turn a blind eye to it. If only individual smokers were liable to prosecution, then I'm sure many licensees would say to their customers “OK folks, I'll let you smoke in the back room, but don't blame me if you get nicked”. I have heard numerous reports of pubs having smoking “lock-ins”, and one pub near me which closed a few months ago apparently had a mass "smoke-in" on its final night.

Taking the analogy with speeding a bit further, if roads were privately owned and their owners were liable to prosecution for "permitting speeding", then they would ensure there was virtually no speeding. Not that I am proposing that, of course.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone light up in a pub since the ban came in, and there have been very few prosecutions. But that is because people are not just “obeying the law”, they are obeying the house rules as well. It’s not just them who would get it in the neck, it would be the licensee. Indeed, it would probably just be the licensee.

Take away that particular aspect of the law and a wave of mass civil disobedience, tacitly encouraged by licensees, would probably make the ban dead in the water within days.

Aberystwyth has recently been in the news as a cock-up between police and local council has effectively left the town without any parking enforcement, leading to a “parking free-for-all”. It would be interesting to speculate what the results would be if it became known that a particular local authority was not enforcing the smoking ban. My money would go on an equitable sorting out of smoking and non-smoking facilities in a short period of time.

It’s also worth adding that, before the ban, compliance with designated non-smoking areas in pubs tended to be well-nigh 100%.

A TOWN LISTENS AND ACTS

It seems that following the protests of residents in Stony Stratford against the bigoted councillor Bartlett's plan to ban smoking outdoors the town actually took notice and rejected his preposterous idea

According to the About My Area blog : When it became apparent that nobody was prepared to second Councillor Bartlett's proposals, there were calls from some members of the public for him to also withdraw the proposal that had been moved to the 20th September. Other people were calling on Councillor Bartlett to resign from his position on the Town Council. The Town Council listened to the people and the businesses of Stony Stratford and then dealt with Councillor Bartlett's proposals accordingly.

They were unanimously rejected but for two people - which was Bartlett and one other - and the town demonstrated democracy in action as opposed to public health bullying of the electorate. Our national Govt would do well to take a leaf out of SS Town Council's book and actually listen to what the majority want - fairness for both sides - as opposed to pandering to the phobias of the minority to want smokers criminalised.

I have been saying for ages that this is no longer about health but ideology and the eradication of smoking by any means even if it means criminalising the adult consumer of this legal product.

That has now been confirmed by the woman in the linked radio interview on calls for more smoking bans in public outdoor places.

The woman from Derbyshire's Stop Smoking "service" says it's a matter of not allowing children to SEE smokers. Simon Clark at Forest reasonably put her in her place but sadly our Govt and it's Neo-Nazi health Dept agrees with these smokerphobics.

That's why the protest at Stony Stratford and its victory is so important. Govt and councils must be made to see that working against smokers is working against the wishes of the public they are supposed to serve.

All of us accept reasonable restrictions to stop youth and child smoking but the oppression of the restrictions introduced since 2007 have put back any good work done on that front. Kids can now get unregulated, uncontrolled, and dangerously mixed tobacco from the black market and everything the righteous do now helps to make that market more and more viable and profitable. Man with a bag is certainly in my home town and we know that in Ireland there have been cases of children used as runners to sell dodgy tobacco door to door. The blame for this lies squarely with the anti-smoker industry that cares more about its own profits, funding and the enforcement of its ideology than children and health.

MILTON IN DENIAL

As I'm currently without work, and following my recent holiday to Italy, I must admit that funds are tight. However, thanks to Anne Milton - the corrupt DoH minister who lives happily in the pocket of the anti-smoker industry - I now have a two page worthless letter from her filled with all manner of weird, wild, wacky and frankly paranoid health lies about smoking which will save me a bob or two on bog paper.

My MP Karl McCartney - who I am sure is a good and decent bloke - was invited to The Save Our Pubs and Clubs event at the HoC on June 29. He couldn't make it but kindly agreed to see me at his local surgery where I told him about some of the ridiculous health claims made about smoking, the fraud of passive smoking, and how smokers are being bullied, harassed out of jobs and in some cases sacked just for being smokers.

I also made him aware of a study that shows lifelong smokers from childhood to older age are 60% more likely to die immediately after quitting than if they continue to smoke moderately.

I also raised with Karl my concerns that the Pharma political front group ASH was too close to Govt and it stank of corruption.

After all, it can't be right for a Govt to pay a political lobby group to lobby it to achieve the ideological aim that the Govt wants and bypassing the very real concerns of the electorate - ie: The people who put Milton and her cronies in office.

Karl was very interested in our campaign and wrote to ex-smoker Milton who at least took the time to write him a three sided letter rather than the usual brief "smokers kill 600,000 people per year so fuck off" response her dept usually sends to humble voters concerned at where this is all going.

Milton feigned ignorance of smokers sacked from jobs and bullied in the workplace yet I drew her attention to Page 229 of Velvet Glove, Iron Fist that details names, firms, and cases where that has happened since this nonsense began in the late 1990s.

She is either blind, ignorant or stupid if she hasn't seen articles such as THIS THIS or THIS.

And even after the spiteful blanket ban which forbids smokers from smoking in the workplace, the practice still continues and there is no protection or even recognition to stop this discrimination based on bigotry and not health concerns or a smoker's inability to do the job required.

In 2005, a lady named Sophie Blinham began work at Dataflow Communications but was sacked within 15 minutes of starting her job. She took the firm to court and lost. A spokesman for the "victorious" firm said he didn't want people coming into work "smelling of smoke." Smokers did not, he said, present a "good image." I loathe the smell of chewing gum but I'd never sack someone for it if they didn't chew it at work. Smell - despite the fraudulent studies on Third Hand Smoke - harms no one.

Milton also mentions the Govt's plan to force us down to an 18.5% per cent minority as outlined in the puke inducing title of it's report - no doubt complied by academics in the payroll of Big P and ASH - Healthy Lives, Healthy People: A Tobacco Control Plan for England. Despite the fact she said this, rather more substantial piece of bog paper, "aims to promote comprehensive and evidence based tobacco control in local communities" there is nothing in it based on any more than junk science, manipulated data and a prejudicial view that smokers will be eradicated no matter what.

Then of course Milton repeats - and actually makes up a few new whoppers - on how many die of smoking (fill in huge figure yourself - it's just as accurate). Do you know they now claim it kills more people than road accidents, "other accidents and falls", preventable diabetes, suicide and alcohol abuse? Wow.

I might even be tempted to believe it if this wasn't about health but social engineering by profiteering sociologist academics rather than scientists who work in the more reliable area of biology than behavior.

I forgot during my visit to Karl to ask exactly what the plan for smokers is after we are forced down an even smaller minority but I feel sure that Milton won't admit quite yet that the aim is to criminalise us. My real fear is "quit or prison is the next logical step". I am to write to Karl again to ask him find out what plans lie in store for us and whether I will be jailed in my 70s for failing to subscribe to this new religion

Of course Milton spouts the fraudulent figures on harm caused by passive smoking. Odd that they appear to get worse with each new study or report or research that we are never allowed to see or analyse despite the rapid drop in smoking rates. Also odd that she blames smokers for causing asthma when the fact is that since smoking rates have declined asthma cases have risen.

The studies on passive smoking are all featured in Velvet Glove Iron Fist and they show roughly rounded off that 80% show a null (no) effect, 10% an irritant effect to people extra sensitive to smoke - non show lung cancer - and 10% that show there is a protective effect for children. Milton is quite simply a liar - or naive to the point of stupidity. I would have thought that Britain deserves someone of more intellect to direct policy but then she is an expert bigot and I guess that is the only qualification needed for the modern health dept today. Despite the billions that we put into their funding, they still can't cure cancer and heart disease so they waste our cash on persecuting minorities instead to make it look as if they are "doing something".

Milton even repeats the rubbish about middle ear infections which yesterday's science by press release fraudulently claimed made teenagers deaf. More disgracefully, despite the group that represents and counsels parents on cot deaths refuting and demanding ASH founder John Banzhaf withdraw this false claim, he continued to repeat it until it became "truth".

The Sudden Death Syndrome Alliance said : "The sensational headline for one of your recent Internet reports (07/30) "Smoking Parents are killing their infants" has gone too far. The fact is, resarchers still do not know what causes SIDS ... Insensitive generalisations about SIDS broadcast through print or the electronic media serve only to perpetuate the public's misconceptions ... Your literature states that smoking "kills more than 2000 infants each year from SIDS" Any published figures are sheer speculation, or guesses, not grounded in actual experimentation ... we respectfully request that you adjust your message as far as SIDS is concenred. While we support your cause, we can not do so at the expense of the tens of thousands of families that we represent."

The group said they welcomed Banzhaf's reply but he did not give one and ASH continued to quote the statistic which Milton has now adjusted by just throwing smoking in the mix as the cause of "a variety of conditions including respiratory disease, COT DEATH, (my emphasis) and middle ear disease in children." Yes, we know, they always use the children as human shields to force through their own wet dream of a smoke free world based on ideology not real and proven health concerns.

The only little nugget of comfort was that Milton claimed that "no decision has yet been taken on whether to award further grants to ASH for 2011/12 or beyond." I reckon that as the Govt also aims to use the fraudulent smoker-harms-others template for other lifestyle issues, then ASH will have a new role to play under it's new description of "Public Health Charity". Yes, I think the former "Anti-smoking charity" is looking to ensure it still gets it's unhealthy share of a very large paranoid pie by using its bigoted expertise on other groups of people.

I hope Karl does write to Milton again based on what I have written above but I also know that she will just repeat and keep repeating her outrageous claims until he finally believes them or just gives up. Nanny Milton along with Bully Andrew Lansley, have made the poster below a reality. As much as I really do like Karl, I have to ask as a smoker - and of others as drinkers, fatties and foodies - do you really want to vote Tory next time when all you can expect is more persecution and an unwillingness for Govt depts to actually listen to those it allegedly works for and represents?



The Conservative Govt must be made to see that it's current health policy will lose it votes and damage it's chances of a landslide victory at another election. They managed to scrape together a coalition on 10 million votes - just imagine what they could achieve if they got the 12 million smokers onside as well.