LIGHT BLOGGING, FESTIVAL, AND OTHER STUFF

Nice to see all went well at The Jolly Brewer Smoker's Festival this year.

Simon Clark at Forest has the details. If I'd known he was there, I would have popped in to say hello but it's probably just as well because it would have diverted me from my MA dissertation which must be handed in by 2pm next Monday. Yikes! Happily I'm on course but worried because of having to work an hour and half travel distance each way from home next week. That will leave me just a few twilight hours to work to get it all organised.

The 90 minute film drama is finished, apart from one scene to add and another to tweak. The premise, synopsis, and statement of intent, is very almost there and I need a bit of thought space, and then a touch of editing to the 6000 word critical review before I can say I'm done but I will make next Monday's deadline.

All of this is the reason for my light blogging of late. I've been keeping my eye on other blogs and note congrats are in order for some of my faves - F2C, Dick Puddlecote, Taking Liberties, Velvet Glove Iron Fist, Underdogs Bite Upwards, OH and Anna Raccon who all scored top 10 or 30 in the Total Politics Libertarian blog awards.

Unless anything gets me back to my ranting old self before next Monday, I'll leave with a couple of thought provoking posts from Dick Puddlecote who writes about how ASH are trying to justify their own existence and Leg Iron who reports about the latest self interest group which is set to ruin the world.

* Dan Donovan's Photos above are pinched from Taking Liberties.

Roadhouses

On a Bank Holiday Monday, why not go for a spin in the car? By 1938 there were two million cars on the roads of Britain. And one thing those mostly middle-class car owners were keen to do was to escape the confines of the city, and go out for a drink in the countryside. The brewers obviously responded to this trend by redeveloping existing pubs and building new ones to cater for the burgeoning “car trade”. Robinson’s of Stockport had a specific policy of acquiring and developing country pubs when many of their competitors held off. There’s still plenty of 1930s pub architecture around to be appreciated, even if in virtually all cases the interiors have been gutted more than once. Also bear in mind that coach trips to country pubs were extremely popular in those days too. Here are four examples – for a change all still trading – in Cheshire:

The Nag’s Head, Bridge Trafford – originally a Greenalls pub

The Helsby Arms, Helsby – originally the “Brown Cow”, this was built to coincide with the opening of the A5117 Chester By-Pass road, which revolutionised road travel to the North Wales coast. Developed by one of Bass’ predecessor companies (possibly Bents of Liverpool)

The Red Lion, Eaton – another former Greenalls pub, replacing an older pub in the village centre

The Legs of Man, Arclid – typical of a number of Robinson’s 1930s developments

The common architectural theme, with prominent tiled gables, is very obvious.

Some more equal than others

A few weeks ago I posted some sobering statistics showing that total on-trade beer volumes had fallen more than 40% since 1997, and weren’t much more than a third of what they were at what will come to be seen as the all-time peak of the pub and club trade in the late 1970s. Now, obviously people will counter that by saying “well, I regularly go in the Mole & Meerkat and it’s packed every night”, but that doesn’t alter the cold hard facts. Within an overall declining market, it is still possible for some pubs to prosper, and it is clear that the pain has not been spread at all evenly.

Phil has recently posted on his Oh Good Ale blog descriptions of some of his locals in the Chorlton-cum-Hardy area of Manchester, such as the Marble Beer House. Chorlton is a rarity in that in recent years the number of bars, and of cask ale outlets, has considerably expanded. Indeed it is that kind of area – prosperous, socially mixed, densely-populated, with a noticeable academic and bohemian element – where pubgoing is likely to survive most strongly. There are plenty of similar areas in London, where I get the impression that pubgoing remains noticeably more healthy than in much of the rest of the country. Contrast that with less well-off Manchester suburbs such as Longsight and Openshaw where most, if not all, of the pubs have now disappeared.

The pub and bar scene in Manchester City Centre gives an impression of health, but that is much less so in the satellite towns. I have written before about the devastation of the pub stock in Ashton-under-Lyne. Stockport has done better, but even here there has been a steady drip-drip of closures and there are currently probably at least five pubs in the town centre that give the impression of clinging on for their life.

It is also very obvious from looking at the closed pubs on Google StreetView that the big, purpose-built pubs from the 30s, 50s and 60s, whether roadhouse or estate pub, seem to have fared worst of all – possibly for reasons discussed here, a combination of always being a little soulless and being on spacious sites that appeal to developers.

Outside of the conurbations, in small towns, villages and the countryside, there is surely much more pain to come. Pretty much every non-motorway road journey of any length reveals a fresh pub that is closed and boarded. Now, obviously it is possible to find enterprisingly-run pubs that succeed in locations where many others fail, but even if you are bucking the trend, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a trend.

The question is whether the next ten years will bring just a further thinning-out of pubs, leaving fewer but stronger still standing, or whether we will end up with a situation where large tracts of the country, urban as much as rural, in effect have no pubs at all, as the term is usually understood, and pubgoing will cease to be anything remotely approaching a universal experience. And, of course, in some run-down inner urban areas, that is already pretty much the case.

The truth will out

Obviously the guardian of political correctness and received wisdom at the BBC had a day off and this article about the decline of the pub trade in South Wales somehow slipped through the net.

Licensee Colin Davies of the Clydach Vale Hotel, Tonypandy, is quoted as saying:

“It's terrible and these are sad times for everyone.

“In my opinion, it all comes from the smoking ban. We really noticed a huge difference. Our customers just stopped coming.

“People in the valleys don't want a gastro pub - they want somewhere they can come and have a drink, a smoke and chat.

“I'm lucky - I've just finished paying off my pub's mortgage. If I hadn't, I think we'd be closed now. Two more pubs have closed here and I know of others that are struggling.

“Once these pubs are gone, they usually just become derelict and it affects everyone. People who have been meeting for years have to stay at home and for many, particularly older people, it becomes very lonely.”

That sounds all too typical of the experience of working-class communities the length and breath of Britain. Even Iain Loe of CAMRA grudgingly admits that the smoking ban might have had something to do with it. What a pity he didn’t recognise that three years ago, really.

However, all his comments about pubs diversifying to survive sound very much like pissing in the wind. If your core trade has fallen off a cliff, no amount of serving school dinners and running a post office will make your pub viable. And, of course, all too many pubs have gone the whole hog and diversified themselves into private residences.

Nutts to drinkers

When he was sacked as the government’s chief drugs adviser last year, Professor David Nutt was widely portrayed as someone who had had the temerity to stand up for a liberal, common-sense approach and had been punished for his outspokenness. But it was pointed out at the time that he was not so much pro-drugs as viscerally anti-alcohol, and this is underlined by his latest thoughts on alcohol policy, which have been given a thorough fisking by the Filthy Smoker on the Devil’s Knife blog.

Like many in the anti-drink lobby, he deliberately misinterprets the concept of real terms prices, and I’m sure drinkers will give a warm welcome to his proposal that the price of alcoholic drinks should be “gradually” tripled over a five-year period. Oh joy, the £10 pint beckons!

Nine months further on, this suggests that the government of the day were quite right to give him the boot as he is clearly an extreme neo-Prohibitionist and not someone who should be given any say in the formulation of public policy. As the FS says, “I never thought I'd sympathise with Alan Johnson but I'm starting to see why he sacked this dolt.”

Closing time

One of the benefits of Google Street View is that you can pull up an image of pretty much any pub, anywhere in the country. And, sad to say, a depressingly large number of them show up as being closed and boarded. I’ve accumulated something of a collection of these links and thought I would set up another blog called Closed Pubs to which I could progressively add them. Obviously this won’t appeal to those who view the world through rose-tinted beer goggles, but all it is is a record of what can (or could) be seen on the ground. If you have any more suggestions for inclusion, please let me know.

Buy that man a pint!

Good news today - for once - that Transport Secretary Philip Hammond is apparently “minded” to reject the call in the North Review to reduce the UK drink-driving limit to 50mg.

A source close to Mr Hammond said: “The minister is very sceptical indeed about this idea. The majority of people who cause fatal car accidents are so far over the limit that lowering it won't make any difference.”

I have to say when he initially expressed scepticism about it a couple of months ago I had my fingers crossed – but we will have to wait until the formal policy announcement before it can be regarded as absolutely certain.

This will give a lifeline to thousands of pubs outside major town centres whose licensees must have been very fearful for their survival had the proposal been implemented. But the ever-growing reluctance of responsible younger people to drive after consuming any alcohol whatsoever is likely to lead to a continued leaching of trade away from pubs in the coming years. This is despite the fact that the legal limit hasn’t changed and in fact is probably enforced less intensively now than it was in the heyday of pubs in the late Seventies.

The report quotes Carole Whittingham, of the Campaign against Drinking and Driving, whose son was killed by a drink-driver, as saying: “We are extremely disappointed. Studies have shown that reducing the limit would reduce deaths on the roads.” But it would be interesting to know the blood-alcohol level of the driver who killed her son. I would be surprised if it hadn’t been well above the current limit, and thus already thoroughly illegal. This argument is very much like advocating the reduction of a reasonable 40 mph speed limit to 30 mph because boy-racers who couldn’t care for any limit are bombing through at 80.

WHAT IS GOING ON?

Yes, we'd all like to know what exactly is going on?

I wait with bated breath to find out but I wonder if it's because these people really don't realise that there should be more thought behind this this kind of propaganda?

SIGN UP TO SAVE PUBS

Sign up for freedom and choice because Pubs really do need smokers and in a fair, free and tolerant society there can be no excuse for abolishing freedom of choice.

FESTIVAL FUN AND RAIN

It's been back to basics for me for the last few days as I've been camping on site at the Small World festival near Louth Lincolnshire which was a relaxing escape from the reality of being a target for hate in NuBritain.

The weather was mostly awful but a piece of a wood placed strategically at the entrance of our tent saved us from getting a right soaking in the torrential monsoon type downpours that occurred sporadically throughout the four days. The heaviest downpour came when me and my other half were most exposed on gate shift with a very nice never-smoker hater of the puritanical health zealots who she said have also ruined her social life because most of her friends smoke.

The wet and damp was tempered with some lovely warm south west breezes and the final day on Sunday was glorious. The music from bands listed on organisers the Wolds Collective poster above were outstanding and the atmosphere friendly and tolerant - even when smokers took shelter inside "public" tents manned by stallholders and service providers.

I did take my new netbook to write as I was away but unfortunately, I did also check out the news and the first two items I read left me so depressed, the netbook was put away until I got back home.

This piece of news from Anna Racoon made me wonder what on earth is happening here but I'm glad to see Anna ready to battle for what is right.

And this piece of news from Taking Liberties is really quite a terrifying move forward towards assaulting smokers in the street with the blessing and encouragement of the authorities. The Bully State is quite a soft description of what is going on here and what is this NuGovt doing about it? My guess
is nothing.

I have heard smokers say that if any of these morons run up to them and grab cigs from their mouths they will get a smack in the face. I would advise against it. What they are doing is assualt but we live in an unfair society. They can assault smokers but if we fight back we will be the ones facing criminal charges.

I have been saying for ages that the anti-smoking zealots are moving towards criminalisation of smokers and the eradication of tobacco and Govt is doing nothing to stop the hate campaigns against us.

We also need protection from discrimination in the workplace because the issue is getting very nasty according to Leg Iron over at Underdogs Bite Upwards who reports that Nicotine test kits are sometimes used as part of pre-employment screening by some organizations and agencies that prefer non-smoking employees.


With the state taking a Fascist approach with its never ending signs telling us what to do or not to do OR ELSE, I did find the sign below at Small World a very pleasant way of telling people how to use the festival toilets correctly.

I rather liked the idea of going back to the Roman way of sanitisation and the earth loos which use only sawdust to flush which means that it all goes back into the earth as compost waste. There were disgusting Portaloos on site but few festival goers use them preferring the natural approach to spending a penny or two.

Perhaps if the anti-smoking zealots could be as poetic in their demands as the Wolds Collective, and far more polite about it, then maybe people like me wouldn't be quite as angry and frustrated as I am by this modern phenomenon of Don't Do It Because We Told You Not To.

Walking away

It pains me to write this, but last night, in one of my favourite pubs, I saw a couple walk away from the bar and out of the door because they hadn’t been served after a long wait. The pub was busy enough, but by no means heaving, and there was a mixture of causes – not quite enough staff, staff being too local-friendly, staff not being fully aware of what’s going on “on the other side”. But, whatever the reason, it’s a disgrace – no good pub should ever see customers leave because they can’t get served quickly enough. The legendary Arthur Gosling of the Royal Oak in Didsbury – long since retired, but fortunately still with us – would be appalled.

Stick to the knitting

Not entirely surprising news that Adnams’ Cellar & Kitchen chain is finding trading tough going. This is a bizarre project involving setting up shops combining high-end wine and kitchenware. History is littered with examples of companies diversifying into areas that are outside their core business and area of expertise, and ending up falling flat on their face. And the idea of juxtaposing wine and kitchenware sounds like something dreamed up by marketing consultants after a very long lunch. What next – Westons setting up a chain called “Spade & Press” combining cider with garden tools? When I first heard of the concept I thought “that sounds like a recipe for failure.”

Also disappointing to see them whingeing about progressive beer duty. If they’re worried about tiny micro breweries eating into their trade they must be doing something fundamentally wrong. By definition, unless your production volumes remain very low, you don’t benefit much if at all from PBD.

Non beardy beer

There was an unusual request recently on the CAMRA forum from someone (whom I actually know from another forum) asking for any suggestions as to where he could get McEwan’s Best Scotch in the Derby area (you might have to register on the forum to read the link). Once the discussion had progressed beyond the usual “why would you want to drink that anyway?” it was established that it wasn’t available outside its traditional North-East heartland and even there it was confined to a dwindling number of working men’s clubs and “old men’s pubs”.

If you go in those kinds of establishment around here you may still find from time to time obscure keg brands that you thought had died the death or had never heard of in the first place, such as John Smith’s Chestnut Mild and Walkers Bitter. Some independent brewers produce keg beers for the club trade that do not exist in cask form – for example, Robinson’s own and brew the Wards brand, once very popular in Sheffield.

On my recent trip to Scotland it was noticeable that pretty much all the keg ales on offer on the bar were “zombie brands” that you never see anywhere else. Anyone fancy a Younger’s Tartan or a Calders 70/-? The only keg ale you would see south of the border was John Smith’s Extra Smooth. There were also “zombie lagers” such as McEwan’s Lager – indeed it could be argued that the best-selling but largely Scotland-only Tennent’s Lager is itself something of a zombie brand.

While there’s a wealth of information available about the availability and taste profile of cask beers, there’s effectively no equivalent for their keg counterparts, which often continue to reflect interesting facets of beer’s social history. So there might be some interesting stuff in the book that is mentioned in the forum thread – the Non Beardy Beer Book, although a glance at a few entries on their website suggests a rather jokey approach light on hard facts. This is what they have to say about McEwan’s Best Scotch (they can’t spell it correctly either). Even so, I might see if I can find a copy going cheap on eBay.

“Best Scotch” was (and to a limited extent still is) the staple ale of the North-East, a dark, lightly-hopped, malty brew that occupied the same place as bitter in the marketplace, but in reality was more akin to a strong mild. The other well-known brand was Lorimer’s, marketed by Vaux but produced for decades at the Caledonian Brewery in Edinburgh which they owned. This was transferred to Vaux’s own plant in Sunderland in the mid-1980s, but I don’t know whether it’s still brewed at all or, if it is, where.

Cheap booze crackdown “doomed”

Interesting report in the Daily Mirror (of all places) that an internal Home Office report has shown little support for the government’s alcohol pricing plans. In fact, more people thought that a ban on “irresponsible promotions” should be confined to the on-trade, which rather goes against the promotion of the pub as the home of responsible consumption.

It is clear that, in the minds of the general public, by far the biggest alcohol-related problem in society is late-night disorder in town and city centres, which is overwhelmingly associated with on-trade consumption. If people want to wreck their livers in the comfort of their own homes, that is seen as their own problem, not a wider social issue.

While “pre-loading” does take place, it must amount overall for only a tiny proportion of off-trade alcohol purchases, and to penalise the responsible majority for the sins of the minority would be unreasonable. However, that did seem to be the stock-in-trade of New Labour policy on many fronts for thirteen years. And, if drunks out and about in town centres have been pre-loading, somebody has still sold them more drink in the on-trade, unless they wandered out of the house ratarsed.

It’s always someone else who is an irresponsible drinker, and once people realise they’re being expected to pay more, indeed a lot more, for their slabs of Carling and 3-for-a-tenner Aussie Chardonnay they’re unlikely to be too keen on the idea.

Fear of flavour

My local Hydes pub recently had Marble Manchester Bitter on as a guest beer, and it’s no exaggeration to say it was possibly the best pint of beer I’ve drunk this year. I’ve expressed scepticism before as to whether wall-to-wall hops are necessarily a good thing, but this was a superb example of a pale and uncompromisingly hoppy beer that at the same time had an underlying malt balance. It’s often said that brewers of widely-available beers have to some extent dumb them down so that they don’t shock drinkers’ palates, but is that really true? Would Manchester Bitter fall flat on its face if presented as the staple “ordinary bitter” in a tied estate of 500 pubs? Actually, I don’t think so – rather I suspect offering such a distinctive, high-quality brew would enhance the owning brewery’s reputation.

It tends to be put down as an inevitable consequence of growing older and more cynical, but I genuinely believe that most widely-available cask beers have become blander over the past thirty years. In particular, back in those days, the North-West bitters produced by Boddingtons, Holts and Yates & Jackson were often genuinely, uncompromisingly bitter in a way only a few micro beers are today. Yet those were the staple beers in pubs frequented by ordinary folk, not beer buffs. Yates & Jackson is now only a memory, Boddingtons a pale, transplanted shadow of its former self and Holts, while still an excellent beer when on form, falls much more into the category of having a good balance of malt and hops. In an age when the default pint of choice has become cooking lager, might it actually help brewers’ sales if they introduced more individuality into their regular cask beers?

Beer and wine consumption

There's an interesting pair of graphs on Mark Wadsworth’s blog showing beer and wine consumption in Britain from 1961 to 2005. For some reason, they’re in “short tons”, which is a measure of weight, not volume (I think there are around 7 barrels in a short ton), but the message is very clear. Wine shows a constant, steady growth, but equally, just look at the way beer consumption grew up to its peak in 1979. Since then, it has declined, with a sharp fall in the early 80s when so much thirst-inducing heavy industry was eliminated, but not catastrophically so. Indeed, since around 1992, it just seems to have bumped along at a roughly constant level. Compare that with the table I posted recently showing a decline of over 40% in on-trade beer sales since 1997. So it would appear there hasn’t been a massive overall fall in beer sales, but rather a substantial shift from on- to off-trade consumption.

The demise of the pub

Hat-tip to The Southport Drinker for pointing out this poignant collection of photos by Chris Etchells on “the demise of the Great British Pub”. There are more on Chris’ website here.

Ha Ha Ha Ha Haaaaaa Ha Ha Haaaa

Thanks Carl Minns you've just cheered me right up.

It's a shame your party has the same skewered view on this issue, though.

Thanks also to Anna Racoon whose Responsible Racoonage was deservedly voted top Libertarian blog.

And while I'm posting links, this one over at another worthy blog winner Dick Puddlecote's place is worth a read. It seems we smokers will soon have company in the New Age gulags.

SOBERING PERSPECTIVE

Would I even think of calling parents who take their children walking on clifftops child abusers? Absolutely not and yet I believe that is it is far more dangerous to children than any wisp of tobacco smoke.

WHY BOTHER?

Why do I sit here wasting damn good time, that I could use to actually make myself a hell of a lot better than off than I am now, by writing reams and reams of useless copy that only serves to make me get angrier and angrier?

That's a question that I've been asking myself a lot lately.

The knocks and abuse you get as a smoker is bad enough but when you get knocks and abuse from those that claim to "understand" how you feel, or empathise with your feeling of isolation, or even feel the same way, then it simply makes me want to throw in the towel, emigrate, and think "fuck you all. I've had enough".

As a lifelong smoker born into an age or generation where smoking was perceived differently, I feel differently. I worried when the first anti-smoking ad came out in the 1970s that personally attacked women who smoked as "disgusting and smelly". I was completely alarmed when I first read about "passive smoking" and saw how it would be used against us. But I was even more concerned that I never heard the other side. No one was sticking up for us because they did not fear that which wasn't true.

In the 1980s, I recall telling off a fellow smoker for throwing a fag end down. He laughed and said it was biodegradeable so what was the problem. I replied that one day we would be banned from smoking everywhere and that sort of action would be used against us. He laughed even harder and well he might because although the media, particularly, liked the idea of passive smoking the anti-smoking industry could not get a free thinking generation of politicians to accept their junk "scientific" studies. I always blew a sigh of relief at that but still it niggled me that one day things would get a lot worse for those of us who started in childhood and had a different cultural view of smoking.

"Cultural view"? Yes. I can't explain it but how does one define a "cultural feeling"? Perhaps evidence of that can be found in smoking fettishsm. I never knew such sexual culture existed around smoking but it does. Is that not evidence that smoking is cultural to some people? And what about those Native Americans whose forefathers discovered tobacco and it's use has descended through generations? Is that not cultural?

Anyway, I digress slightly.

When Nulabour got into Govt, I noticed the anti-smoking hype increase. That was when I first started to notice job ads for "non-smokers only", houses to rent for "non-smokers only", and second hand cars being bought from "non-smokers only." I also got some comfort that most "non-smokers" I talked to at the time felt this was completely wrong because "smokers" could refrain from smoking in all of the above.

At the end of the 1990s, the first smoke ban ever was brought to my newspaper office with a young and trendy new editor. Was it because, as I always argued that it should be, because the place was so littered with mounds and reams of paperwork that it was an obvious fire hazzard? No. Because some of the new, young and trendy reporters he bought with him didn't like the smell. The company used a handy excuse given in law from NuLab and pushed by the anti-smoking industry under Health and Safety at work laws on SHS.

The court I covered banned it a year later - despite the fact that the majority of people who used that court on a regular basis were smokers from the underclass. When I asked the head bod why, he simply said "because everyone else has and we brought ourselves into line with what they are doing." OK. He agreed with me that it was wrong to discriminate against smokers from employment though. Shame our last Govt did not and our present Govt doesn't care to ensure protection for people who are either "cultural smokers" or who simply choose not to quit because they enjoy smoking tobacco. To suggest that we couldn't get through a day's work without a fag is insulting.

The court now chases smokers away from the outside grounds which enables them to lay failing to surrender charges on those smokers who miss their names being called, and come upstairs late, because they were outside having a fag and the usher couldn't find them.

From the end of the 90s to 2007, I waged a one-woman campaign not knowing of any particular organisation that spoke for us I wrote to my local paper often and I wrote to my local council. I never felt Merron my MP would listen. She has proved since that she would not have. I found Forest, before Simon Clark was director. Whoever was in charge then was pretty apathetic and didn't see any reason for concern. What ever was happening would never lead to a total, blanket, public smoking ban in those places where we spend our leisure time. OK.

Those of us who maintain we ARE cultural smokers say we should be treated as a lifestyle minority and given some space of acceptance in the world. We will never quit no matter what is done to us. My fear now, based on 42 years of watching myself become perceived as a "smelly, selfish, poisonous, child abusing, suicidal, serial killer", is that all that waits in line for me and my kind next is criminalisation because we refuse to quit and yet when I suggest it, someone over at Taking Liberties thinks I need to have a lie down. OK.

It seems to me that the current Govt under Nick Clegg has made it abundantly clear that we simply don't matter. Meanwhile, because they haven't yet criminalised us, the antis are using all of their power and money to heave pressure on the new adminstration "to do something" as if enough hasn't been done to us already. Hence the further invention of a new threat THS.

If the readers of Taking Liberties can't see what the future holds for smokers, and don't fear it, then maybe that is because they are simply people who smoke and why should the smoking issue matter at all? Whatever "group" we hold ourselves in, we are all in it together.

First and foremost we should not be slagging each other off on these public blogs and forums but sharing and distributing the weapons in our armoury. Whether that be to argue that as a "minority group" - which we undoubtedly are because we are few - we deserve some tolerance and space, or whether it is attacking those political parties that are ignoring us and treating us, frankly, worse than lepers, we should be doing something together and in a united way. If we do not, then please tell me why should I, Simon Clark, Dick Puddlecote, F2C, TICAP and all their scientific advisers, bother with this fight at all?

Common sense in “Guardian” shock

One of the benefits of public expenditure cuts is the axe that has been taken to all those hectoring, patronising government advertisements. Now, you might have thought that telling ordinary people how to live their lives would be a popular cause amongst Guardianistas, but Zoë Williams in today’s paper seems to have seen at least a chink of light:

Diet initiatives, especially the Change4Life campaign, are much more controversial, even though this one looks cute and straightforward, with its multicoloured morph men telling you to eat more sweetcorn. On a food-swap wheel distributed in GPs' surgeries and children's centres, it told people to swap squash for a smoothie, when smoothies are 57 times more expensive than squash and also much more calorific. What it ultimately looked like was an attempt not to improve national health but to replicate the middle-class diet across the entire population – to say, in other words, that the reason you are obese is that you are insufficiently middle-class. Likewise, the Start4Life campaign attempted to recreate the "middle-class habit", although only 1% of the population does it, of exclusively breastfeeding their baby for the first six months.

Screw the poor

Many people were hoping that the new coalition government might demonstrate a significantly less bullying and authoritarian approach to public policy than its predecessor. Now, I have argued in the past that, at least on issues of “lifestyle freedom”, a change of government was unlikely to bring much respite. And so it has proven, with David Cameron expressing qualified support for the Greater Manchester local authorities’ crack-brained plan to impose a minimum unit price for alcohol in their area. This was clearly an instinctive response and reveals his true colours to be those of a patronising, authoritarian snob rather than anything that could even be vaguely called a libertarian. And his reference to “tins of Stella” really showed him to be someone in touch with what is happening on the street.

As I have repeatedly pointed out before, minimum pricing is an extremely inefficient and broad-brush method of dealing with “problem drinking” (whatever that may be) and would in practice have a significant impact on the wallets of less well-off families, even if they kept within official drinking guidelines. Hell, a few months ago, I even heard the then Home Secretary Alan Johnson, who is hardly a liberal in the true sense of the word, arguing against it on those grounds.

Now I can’t really see Cameron pressing ahead with this once Sir Terry Leahy’s tanks are drawn up on his lawn, let alone the fact that it is totally illegal under both UK and EU competition law. And hopefully, by bringing the “Tory snob” factor into the debate on minimum pricing, it will help expose the idea as a direct attack on the lifestyles and living standards of the poor, and make it less likely to happen, not more.

PRIZE PRICK SPIKED

THIS STORY on Spiked effectively analyses the recent news that Smoker parents are child abusers and finds it full of nonsense based on the real actual evidence of child's deaths from illnesses.

The author of the article also calls into question the sanity of the "leading doctor" who put this libellous information based on nothing but propaganda into the public domain.

Personally, I think each and every one of us smoker parents and grand parents should sue that monumental dickhead Douglas Banantyne who followed up on that announcement with "smoking in cars with children present is child abuse FACT" . Clearly it is not and the scientific and statistical evidence disputes it.

Once that evidence is collected and collated, and the right lawyer sought to handle the case, then the likes of Mr Banantyne may well be forced to wash out his mouth with soap before uttering such libellous profanities in future.

Success is still possible

The main roads through West Yorkshire are notable for the large number of closed pubs and Indian restaurants in former pubs. So I was struck the other week when driving past the Turnpike Inn at Rishworth near Ripponden, at about 7.30 pm on a Friday evening, to see the pub’s car park completely full, and large numbers of cars parked at the roadside and on the verges. This is a formerly closed pub that has been revitalised in the past year, as reported here by the Morning Advertiser.

Clearly the Turnpike is a pub that majors on food, but they must be doing a lot right to bring in so many customers, and it’s always good to see a business venture proving successful. Looking at the menus, it’s not at all cheap, either. (The menus are also notable for their “round pound” pricing.) I’d like to bet, though, that, despite its obvious popularity, the Turnpike is nonetheless selling a lot less beer than it did in previous incarnations in the 60s and 70s. But it does prove the point that, even in an overall declining market, you can still be very successful by providing something that people are prepared to make the effort to come for.

The one pub operator who are proving a success on a national scale where others are falling by the wayside is, of course, Wetherspoon’s. Now, as I’ve said before, on a personal level I am lukewarm about the chain. To me, they’re just not proper pubs in the sense that pubs like the Nursery, Arden Arms, Griffin and Davenport Arms are; they are impersonal, echoing, eating and drinking barns. But you can’t argue with success, and they are opening new pubs at a rapid rate, while it’s rare to go in a Spoons and not find it busy. They have done so by ripping up the established orthodoxies of the pub trade, and by actually taking the trouble to research what customers want. The company is also very adept at site location and playing the property market.

If other pubs want to compete successfully with a nearby Wetherspoon’s, they have to do at least one thing markedly better. The days of the nondescript, bog-standard town-centre pub are over.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Hazel Grove when the new Wetherspoon’s, the Wilfred Wood, opens at the end of this month. The main road through the village has no less than eight Robinson’s pubs in about half a mile, many of which are distinctly down-at-heel and forgettable. Will the Spoons put some of them out of business, or will it increase the total pub market in Hazel Grove?

SMOKING WHEN PREGNANT

Phew! I got myself into a debate yesterday in a right old Viper's nest of anti-smoking/smoker feeling on a friend's page on Facebook. I must say that she is a lovely person - I think she is a never smoker - but her status about seeing lots of pregnant women in town on a hot day must have melted their brains didn't pass my attention.

Now, I know that once you get into debate on this subject it can go on for hours as it is a subject where both sides of the argument are always diametrically opposed with extremely strong views. Add into this mix the emotional issue of unborn babies and pregnancy and it spirals off into a whole guilt-ridden flurry of judgement on those women who choose to continue smoking when pregnant.

I can only say that I smoked throughout my pregnancies and my babies were born healthy. The first two were late arrivals and had to be delivered by Ceasarian section. I was advised not to have any more children because it could put both my life and that of any future baby at risk - not because of smoking when pregnant but because the operation is a major one and the wound trauma to the woman's body is massive. My first pregnancies were more in danger from the violent relationship I was in at the time. I'm always amazed my second child didn't come to harm in my womb after my then partner dragged me out of bed one night when I was heavily pregnant and threw me down the stairs before throwing me out into the cold. I have to say that while pregnant with this child, I smoked my heaviest because of my fear and stress of living with a violent relationship. 80 a day. She was my biggest baby. Not premature, not underweight. Not affected in any way, shape or form.

Life had other plans for me than to stop after the advised two pregnancies. My third baby decided to come on time, naturally, but I was told that because I'd had two previous Cearerians, I had to have a third. My natural labour was stopped and I was taken off for an emergency operation. Oddly, she was exactly the same weight as her child born 18 years later. She gave up smoking when pregnant. I didn't. How come we ended up with same weight babies? Genetics perhaps?

My fourth pregnancy ended in tragedy. This pregnancy was in the early 90s and I can assure you I smoked less, hooked by the anti-smoking propaganda. It was a terrifying time. A fourth Ceasarian. You would have thought the medical staff responsible for me would have kept a closer eye on my progress but they did not. In eight and a half months of pregnancy, I had one - yes ONE - anti-natal appointment - none at hospital. This was because after escaping from said violent relationship, and finding myself branded as one of the former Tory social secretary Peter Lilley's feckless single parents, I set about changing my life. I was half way through my A levels with a view to entering journalism when I finished my two year course, met my current partner, and fell pregnant. My doctor's antenatal surgery was held on a day when I simply couldn't attend and getting past his receptionist to arrange to see him another day was like asking for personal access to the Queen at Buckingham Palace.

Perhaps I chose wrongly but back then the pressure was on to stop being a waste of social space and get a job and I prioritised my course over my pregnancy which I told myself would be fine. I cycled to college three days a week and I lugged my heavy bag full of text books around all day. My dates were such that I should have just been able to finish my exams before baby came.

Everything appeared to go well until one day I woke extremely ill, sweating, and lapsing in and out of consciousness. My doctor was called out. He seemed annoyed. He had been at a garden party and objected to being called out. He said I had a bug. Told me to drink water and left. I knew something was wrong but was too weak to convey that to my other half and he just took the doctor's word that there was nothing seriously wrong with me or my baby. At some point, I begged him to call an ambulance. One came. I felt my baby kick as I went down the stairs. By the time I had gone the the three miles to the hospital, and was seen in the Maternity ward, medical staff could not find his heart beat. My son Thomas was born dead. We changed doctors immediately. My other half wanted to sue him. I was not so sure because of the physical trauma I had put on my body through my college work. I did not want anyone to say it was my fault because I should have dropped out and rested.

Then, 15 months later, well into my training as a journalist and after my A levels had finished, I fell pregnant again but I had no idea until I collapsed at home one morning. No mistake this time, straight to hospital to be told that at 26 weeks pregnant my baby was not worth the public money that would be spent on saving him. "Not viable" the doctor said and left me. A nurse approached and told me not to accept that.

"Don't tell him I said so, but demand to be taken to Nottingham where they have specialist teaching care. Your baby can be saved," she told me. I did so insist but the doctor told me I would be dead within 20 minutes if I tried to make it. I still insisted and after a further 11 weeks of bed rest in hospital my son, who is now a very healthy 17 year old, was born by my fifth Caesarian. Is this a record when women are told to have no more than two? I have no idea but I know that it was the lack of antenatal care, trauma and weakening of my body that led to the last two "bad" pregnancies and not my smoking.

Nowadays, women are told that any smoking while pregnant WILL kill their babies, make them prem or small, or weak, give them asthma or something horrible and of course they want to give their baby the best start in life. Who wouldn't? I support those who do choose to quit when pregnant but I absolutely abhor anyone who sits in judgement on those women who choose to continue smoking and this leads me back to the debate yesterday on Facebook.

I simply wanted to highlight how it is wrong to judge smoker pregnant women given the contested medical "evidence" when other studies show differently and that the use of derogatory language against smokers is not on - however much people are encouraged these days to be abusive towards smokers to hype up the guilt factor - especially when pregnant. I said smokers were a minority group. I felt like I had been pushed up against the wall by playground bullies who felt justified in calling smokers irresponsible, stupid, smelly etc...

Below are some of the comments in this mass debate. I begin with that of a smoker and the guilt she feels. Note how smoking is "bad,bad,bad" but drinking alcohol is Ok. Not one of the debators took her to task for that and neither would I. Her choice. Her body. Her baby. Her life.

"Wow.. what a debate.. I have never been a heavy smoker and did give up when I found I was pregnant with my first but I must admit I used to have the odd puff on friends fags when I was on rare nights out (although I never actually bought ciggies to smoke at home.. or out for that matter) and that was before the smoking ban came in.. but I was very discreet for fear of getting evil looks off people.. I didn't actually want any1 to see me smoking as I was very embarrassed and annoyed with myself at my lack of willpower.. I was BAD BAD BAD.. but luckily both my girls turned out OK. I definately wouldn't take that chance again.. although I would flatly refuse to give up my litre bottle of Brandy a day!!!"

Then of course in sticking up for my right too choose to smoke and other women's right to choose if they so wish, I am met with the usual "pathetic addict" syndrome as below.

"OMG Patsy!!! Just because you have no will power to give up something that is so unhealthy, smelly and life shortening-do not play the 'minorities' card!! It is selfish and irresponsible to smoke whilst pregnant and indeed around your children. Just because you think it did not affect you because your Mum smoked, the facts are there that is can and DOES. You played Russian roulette with your children's lives, in my opinion. There have also been many studies on passive smoking which also show that it can increase risk of asthma and other breathing related problems. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to realise that what is in cigarettes will damage you and your children. In my opinion, it is child abuse and if I ever see anyone smoking whilst pregnant it makes my blood boil. IT IS SELFISH, FULL STOP!!!!!"

I think the clue to the bigoted comment below comes from his own mouth as he admits to not being the sharpest knife in the drawer.

"I can't beleive that this has gone on this long!?!?!?! It's wrong plain and simple!!! I'm not the most educated person in the world but I DON'T CARE if a second rate study says that it's not harmful, my daughter will not be subjected to it!!! And to compare smokers 'daily abuse' to that of an ethnic minority is hilarious!!! One thing has come out of this though.............I now wonder if Martin luther was more worried about people finding out he was a smoker!?!?!"

And again below when someone feels justified in slinging abuse when I am sure this person has never read a single study in her life but has simply read re-written propaganda press releases in a local or national newspaper.

"Excellent comment Matt-It makes me laugh when smokers feel persecuted...as if!! If you choose to smoke-fair enough, but if you choose to smoke when pregnant and around children-you are just selfish, in my opinion!"

Another debator said how her husband's "mother's neglect" when smoking whiloe pregnant gave him really bad asthma, the evil woman. I responded by saying how it is odd that asthma rates are rising rapidly and yet smoking rates are declining massively. What could account for it? I suggested that perhaps the increase in traffic congestion and pointed out how she probably has no qualms about getting in her car and poisoning the rest of us - pregnant women as well - with her fumes as she drives while we walk. I had forgotten and, as I reflected on this debate last night, recalled my husband's brother died in his teens of asthma in the 1970s - his mother was a never smoker.

I was ridiculed for daring to suggest that smokers were in a minority and the language used against smokers would not be used for any other minority group. I mentioned calls for violence against smokers being printed without thought on newspaper websites and pointed to job ads in this smoke free world we live in, that deem it acceptable to advertise vacancies to "non-smokers only".

But I know well the language of abuse as I pointed out :

"I am post world war 2 ethnic minority Italian. I was abused as a kid - called wop, greasy smelly spic, coward, lazy, - etc... I recognise the language now that I am in a minority of lifelong smokers. I do not say that this group is an ethnic minority but it is a lifestyle minority. Just to clarify."

The comment above was in response to this comment below.

"I have nothing against smokers...I have smoked in the past and it truly is a personal choice...I think calling yourself an 'ethnic minority' is a little bit misguided but I understand where you are coming from. Where I have a BIG problem is when people choose to inflict their 'choice' on those that do not have one-i.e an unborn baby or child. That to me is selfish. I apologise if you feel I was being personal about the 'smell' but I now find it horrible and it strengthens my view on why we should not smoke. I am a tolerant person but when innocent people are affected by a personal choice..I have to speak up!!!"

Yes indeed, we smokers are certainly affected by our personal choice as it seems it is a licence for others to abuse us and call us names.

The debate lasted all night. The other debate that has wasted so much of my time was somewhere way back in this blog when Baz and I were at it hammer and tongues over the course of a whole day. Our only agreement at that time was that we had probably taken part in one of the longest blogging debates ever.

My final comment in the debate below acknowledges how I always feel worn out both physically and mentally with this issue but because of all that I have said above, I feel compelled to respond. It also sums up exactly how I feel about pregnant women who smoke.

"Yes, indeed - I am also worn out with this debate but feel obliged to answer. I have searched out this evidence for balance because of the way that hostile feeling has gone towards smokers who have been marginalised and outcast and I'm sorry if that amuses some of you. I feel this is undeserved. Older smokers like myself only say we and ours were fine. Younger smokers make their own decisions based on modern evidence which, if you are honest and informed about this subject, you will agree is selective and only allows for one health choice. I support the right of those who choose not to smoke when pregnant. I condemn judgement on those who do. I hope this, and please let it be my final comment, clarifies not justifies."

I would advise anyone interested in the health debate about smoking and pregnancy also check out the link from Forces above which concludes : "Thus a mother's smoking during pregnancy could help prevent stomach ulcers/cancer and heart disease in their children."

I doubt the playground bullies on my friend's page would agree. One dismissed alternative evidence as "second rate studies". Those of us who are more informed about this issue would say the studies he relies on are "second rate". The truth between these opposing strong views must surely be that there is enough "evidence" out there on both sides to make the effects of smoking on an unborn child while pregnant inconclusive which is not enough grounds, in my view, for cause to be judgemental against pregnant women who smoke. When pregnant, they go through one of the most emotional and worrying times in their lives. I sincerely believe that to lay further stress at their feet about smoking is unacceptable.

More hard truths

Sorry to disappoint those who have been calling for a bit more sweetness and light on this blog, but the table below from The Publican showing quarterly on-trade beer sales since the beginning of 1997 (in ’000s of bulk barrels) gives precious little ground for optimism. Compared with the same quarter the year before, sales have not risen in a single quarter for thirteen years. So I doubt whether John Clarke is going to be able to take me up any day soon on my offer to buy him a skinful of beer if any future quarterly sales figures show annual growth.

In 1997, total sales were 25.6 million barrels, but for the year from July 2009 to June 2010 they were down to 14.8 million, a fall of 42.1%. The biggest single fall was 10.6% between April-June 2007 – the last quarter before the implementation of the smoking ban – and the same quarter in 2008. July 2007 to June 2008 was 8.3% below the preceding 12 months, and the most recent 12 months continue to show a 6.0% fall. The lowest year-on-year fall since the smoking ban has been 4.5%.

This is not doom-mongering: it is pointing out a hard truth that supporters of pubs need to face up to. While obviously there are some pubs here and there doing well, being honest, for the trade as a whole there is nothing to suggest that things are going to turn around in the foreseeable future.

IN REPLY

I began to reply to comments left by JJ and TBY on the "Goodbye" post below but it was so long, I thought I'd post it here. It might also make the comments section less cumbersome


TBY - I know what you mean. I only left a comment today on the F2C post about antis because Baz named me specifically, again, and suggested I was "pro-smoking." I am not. I don't encourage people to smoke when they have chosen to quit, and neither do I try and get non-smokers to start. But, I do defend the rights of those who choose not to quit, or who choose to start, or who choose to start again after quitting.

I also defend those who want to sink three pints of beer quickly and then follow it immediately with a fat cream cake if that is what they choose to do.

Baz does know about hurtful comments urging violence against smokers are but he dismisses them. See comments under the "Powerful Posts" piece on my blog further down.

Yes, you're right about tit for tat JJ but sometimes it's hard to ignore because like TBY says, it is often directed personally at me.

If you google Pat Nurse, the first thing that comes up is an accusation from Baz that I am a conspiracy theorist. I am not, actually. I believe men walked on the moon, I'm sure there was more to the JFK shooting but I don't doubt Lee Harvey Oswald was involved somehow. I don't think Princess Diana was murdered by the Royal Family either.

Yes, Baz has a talent for poetry and I would ask him to submit some on my fiction blog but that might prevent me from posting my own which falls short of talent in comparison :)

I don't know how old Baz is but my guess would be about 30 which means that I've smoked for 12 years longer than he has been breathing.

No one ever complained about my smoking back then. My mother never knew that I'd started. This recognised or unrecognised "anti-smoking/er zealotry" is a modern phenomenon brought about by having the right amount of money to throw at the right sort of junk studies to show the right sort of result that's paid for by a self interest group. Big Tobacco did it in the 70s, 80s and 90s and Big Pharma has been at it for a good 30 years. It is only because BP funds to Tobacco Control either directly or indirectly that we now have laws and regulations that prevent tobacco companies from standing up for themselves or their product.

Between BT's and BP's fight for the market control of nicotine is me - a lifelong smoker from childhood (aged 8 in 1968 and not unlike the girl's image above) who now has to decide the best way forward with my health and based on what? Certainly not truth from either side. But then I don't matter anyway because I am a smoker. All of this health and Govt backed exclusion is for those that don't smoke.

Not one tax paid for agency or political party (except for UKIP) gives a damn about those smokers who choose not to quit either because they enjoy it or because they fear the health consequences of quitting which I am sure there are based on studies that have seen and my own life experiences.

Because smokers have never fought previous restrictions, and have sat back and not bothered to fight the abuse that has now built up to a very serious point, we have left ourselves too far behind in the battle and we can only bat off that abuse as it comes in - and boy - does it come in daily along with a press release about some new paid for study that shows we are monsters. I believe that money and PR in this modern age is the only difference between what is "true" and what is "false".

And finally, now that I have mentioned Baz personally on this blog, I should give him the right of reply on this blog and there we have the problem.

A HOLIDAY

Thanks to all for the words of encouragement and making clear that you don't want Tea and Cigarettes to end. I feel quite humbled by it all. I didn't think my own internal rages would matter so much to other people. I also accept that Baz did not intend to make me feel so intensely under siege and I am relieved that he will be more diverse in his place of debate on an issue that obviously interests him.

I will take a break to finish my dissertation - 5 pages, 6000 words and a lot of organisation to do in about the three weeks and then I'll be back with new rants, opinions and reflections. Meanwhile, I will be hanging around here for a bit . It's my new blog which I hope will keep me writing fiction after I graduate.

Gone in a flash

The five years from 1997 to 2002 saw an incredible expansion of the numbers of speed cameras in the UK. Scarcely a day passed without some report about speed cameras in the news. They were, apparently, ushering in a new era of road safety, and all reputable commentators were agreed that, like them or not, they were “here to stay”. The late Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed campaign, recognised them from the start as a counter-productive quack remedy, but was widely dismissed as something of a crank.

But what is happening now? They’re dropping like ninepins. Swindon led the way, and other authorities such as Oxfordshire and Wiltshire are following. Obviously this is in response to government budget cuts, but if local councils genuinely believed they were effective, surely they would be fighting to keep them and cutting other areas of expenditure instead. In reality, cuts are being used as a cover to beat a retreat from a discredited and unpopular policy. And, despite the shroud-waving anguish from pressure groups such as BRAKE and RoadPeace, I would confidently forecast that we’ll see a further fall in road fatalities in 2010, following the very encouraging figures in 2009. I’m sure Paul Smith will be looking down from above and feeling thoroughly vindicated.

And this underlines the point that, however permanent and entrenched something seems to be, it is not a law of nature that anything endures forever. You don’t have to “accept it” and “move on”. Nobody can predict whether the wheel may turn full circle. No doubt in the early 1920s US Prohibition was widely seen as “here to stay”. But it wasn’t.

Drink-drive deaths at record low

Hat-tip to RedNev for reporting the welcome news that road deaths attributed to drink-driving fell to a record low in 2009. Let us hope this gives further ammunition to Philip Hammond and Mike Penning to reject the call of the North Review for a cut in the drink-driving limit. The report I linked to suggests the encouraging trend has continued in the first quarter of 2010.

GOODBYE

Simply a final post.

Thanks for reading but Tea and Cigarettes will not be updated anymore. I really can't handle day after day of having to deal with Baz. If he came here - or was sent here - to stop me blogging because he doesn't like my views then he's won. I expect that makes him feel great but I am sick of having to justify how I feel all the time to someone I don't even know. I feel bullied and worn down with it.

Check out my blogroll for future reading. I may update it as I find new blogs.

Goodbye all.

Holed below the waterline?

Some gloomy, but sadly all too realistic words here from Robert Sayles about the decline of beer sales in the on-trade. He describes the 6.3% year-on-year fall that I referred to the other day as “calamitous”.

The tied sector is, it must be said, looking increasingly uncompetitive in comparison. It is an unpalatable fact but many of us are now in the business of selling a product that less and less want to buy, at a price that less and less can afford to pay. Hardly a recipe for long term success, is it?

For the first time I have to say I am genuinely fearful of what lies ahead, we are in freefall with little sign of respite. An imminent rise in VAT, increasing pressure on disposable income, high unemployment and inevitable increases in beer prices ensure that difficult times lie ahead.

I have never claimed that the smoking ban was a monocausal explanation for the decline of pubs, as obviously it began well before 2007. I set out a number of reasons for it here. However, the ban has undoubtedly made matters much worse, and to my mind Sayles understates its impact. But it is clear from what he says that the underlying problem of the pub industry is not business structure or incompetent licensees, but a straightforward lack of demand.

There’s no easy answer or quick fix, but the last thing that is needed is government measures making things worse. The pub industry might well feel that Ronald Reagan had it right when he said: “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I'm here to help.’”

Pubs as we know them are not going to disappear completely, but it’s easy to see them over the next twenty years being cut back to a small rump that only exists in the kind of socially mixed, prosperous urban areas that provide the environment and culture to support them. There are many pubs still open but obviously doing a very thin trade that must be candidates for further closures in the future. I remember the days when, approaching the door of many pubs, you would be worried whether you would be able to get a seat. All too often nowadays, the worry is more that you’ll be the only customer.

And, sadly, CAMRA, happily ensconced in their love-in at Earl’s Court this week, cannot or will not see it, and continue to delude themselves that once hard times are past a somewhat smaller, but revitalised pub industry will spring forth.

STUDY TO "PROVE" SMOKERS ARE LEPERS

When the idea of THS (A load of bollox to you and I) or Third Hand Smoke, first reared it's bigoted head, most people laughed it off and saw it for what it was - a cranking up of anti-smoking propaganda aimed at encouraging fear of smokers and further exclusion of a minority group.

In fact, to be fair, it was greeted with the same derision as SHS 40 years ago. Like the concept of SHS, the antis have thrown money at "research" into THS to come up with results they paid for so no doubt it won't be long before we smokers are forced to shower before we can even be allowed to speak to a fellow human being.

Just imagine what that money could do in actually doing some proper scientific research into what causes cancer and how to cure it instead of spending it on inciting fear and hatred of a minority group.

It's another case for me to put my fingers in my ears and start with the la la la because it's just too terrifying to see the lies that will be created to incite such hatred. They really are going all out to "prove" we are lepers judging on the "expected" plan to prove standing next to us suddenly causes open sores to appear on those within a mile of us.

Sheesh - I've had five Ceasarians and the medical staff caring for me after the birth of my children were always astounded at how quickly I was on my feet and how quickly I healed. By way of information, for those who don't know, only two are recommended so it looks that the anecdotal evidence doesn't tally with this latest bigoted study which aims to use the same familiar tactics of junk science.

As someone on DP's blog points out, if this study is "true" then how come smokers are not walking around looking like lepers, full of sores and holes with their skin dropping off? But then, isn't that what the anti-smoking industry wants? It wants to prove smokers ARE lepers and then get the general public on side in treating them as such. Smokers should be given legal protection against the propagation of such hatred but then that isn't going to happen under the hateful coalition ConDem party is it?

Still think direct action is not necessary to make ourselves heard? I think it is.

TO BAN OR NOT TO BAN...?

It's not often I ask my readers what I should do on an issue because as you know I'm pretty opinionated about all sorts of stuff and not easily intimidated. But after reading THIS I must admit it's made me think twice about my resident anti Baz who despite several requests, will not tell me who he is and what he does or who he works for.

This is an anti-banning blog so to think about banning Baz is quite a huge step to take but after reading this personal attack on my legitimate view about ministers and particularly the former health sec Pat Hewitt's role as a "taxi for hire" (not my words) I have to say my patience with him is well and truly thin.

Baz says:
August 4, 2010 at 9:54 am
Pat Nurse, even if you got an answer you wouldn’t believe it anyway! so why ask. you’ll still say it’s all a conspiracy.."


Link here if you want to find the comment yourself or make one

Baz has every right to make his views known here on this blog and elsewhere on the web but he does not have the right to attack me personally. Last time he attacked my ability to do my job and he questioned my professionalism.

He even felt fit to rant at me about someone else's post on F2C which I simply highlighted as poignant and thought provoking at a time when I was too busy to be able to blog a piece myself. In short, Baz seems to be trying to discredit me, and given that he will not tell me which organisation he works for, I don't feel much like tolerating him anymore.

Yes, I'm really angry and so the comment moderation will be back on until I calm down. But I'll leave it to the majority of other people who read this blog to decide whether or not Baz stays or gets blocked ... and before Baz pipes up with crap about how the smoking ban was "democratic", I will just point out that the pre-ban ONS survey showed clearly that a majority of people in this country wanted choice and not a blanket smoking ban!

Unlikely champion

I was astonished to read that, as part of his campaign for the Labour leadership, David Miliband had decided to pose as the defender of pubs. Now Miliband strikes me as the kind of patronising, upper-middle-class Hampstead socialist who actually finds the working classes in the flesh deeply distasteful, and who has never had a good session in a pub in his life. And it is a bit rich coming from someone who previously served in a government that had spent thirteen years doing its best to do down the pub trade, and all too often seemed to see pubs as a toxic health hazard rather than a valuable community resource.

While there may be issues with the pub company tie and planning law, the fundamental problem with the pub trade today is not one of structure but of lack of demand. If demand was strong, nobody would be too concerned about the tie and very few would be trying to get a change of use for pubs. Pubs are struggling and closing because not enough people want to go to them. Some of that is due to social trends, but much stems from specific government actions.

The way I see it, any government with any interest in standing up for the pub trade should do the following:

1. Amend the smoking ban to allow for separate indoor smoking areas if licensees wish
   
2. Undertake not to cut the drink-driving limit
   
3. Abandon the alcohol duty escalator
   
4. Stop all this hysterical lying anti-drink propaganda that claims three pints in a session is a binge and eleven pints a week makes you a hazardous drinker

And then, apart from that, leave pubs alone. No new laws, no new initiatives, no new restrictions, no new red tape.

And would Miliband do any of that? If not, his posture as a champion of pubs is hypocrisy of the most contemptible kind. I must say I’m inclined to agree with Mr Eugenides’ blunt assessment here.

TERRIFYING

I have been interested in the debate taking place over at David Milibland's site for leader and the comment below terrified me.

Asif Khan says:
August 2, 2010 at 11:02 pm
As a British Muslim, I feel offended that pubs still exist. The fact that many are closing is a message that Allah has spoken. Islam is rising in the UK and alcohol will soon be history.

I've rather got my fingers in my ears and singing la la la rather than accept such hatred of British culture. Some people may not agree that smoking is cultural but few can deny that the British pub has been a cultural plank of British life since Geoffrey Chaucer told his Pilgrim's tales on his journey around the ale houses of olde Englande.

I am saddened by the comment and cannot understand why people must force their culture and their views on others. I believe in live and let live.

As Oscar Wilde said : "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live. It is asking other people to live as one wishes to live."

Illegal and unworkable

...but that doesn’t stop the Greater Manchester local authorities once again proposing to introduce a 50p minimum unit price for alcohol within the boundaries of the former county.

Calum Irving, from Manchester-based prohibitionist alcohol awareness pressure group Our Life said: “If you are a sensible drinker you will hardly be affected.

What utter drivel. Let us assume a family each week buy 8x440ml cans of 5% lager at £6, and two 750ml bottles of 13% wine at £3.49 each. If there are two adults, this would not mean anyone exceeding the “recommended” limits. But the proposal would mean the lager would cost £8.80, and each bottle of wine £4.88, thus increasing their weekly bill by £5.58, or £290 a year. Hardly small beer to someone on a low income.

I discussed this here back in March when it last surfaced. The authorities don’t have the power to do this, and anyway it would be illegal under competition law. It would also obviously lead to a vast amount of cross-border shopping for alcohol, including proxy purchases for friends and neighbours. And if you were going over the border to get your booze, you might well end up doing the rest of your weekly shop there, too. A better way of damaging the grocery trade within Greater Manchester is hard to imagine.

Ironically, it would hurt the poor most, as not only are they the biggest consumers of cheaper drinks, but they are also least likely to have access to a car. It’s only a quick fifteen-minute drive for me to Tesco at Handforth Dean, just over the Cheshire border.

It won’t happen, of course, but in a way I’d almost like to see them make a serious try, as it would end up being such a total disaster that it would set back the neo-Prohibitionist cause for decades.

The comments on the Evening News article I linked to make amusing reading.

POWERFUL POSTS

A poignant and thought provoking post from TBY over at the F2C blog.

Still think the war on tobacco is about health?

I have nothing to say about this post except OH's words are so powerful they must be read.

Another thought provoking read to end the weekend, is this piece which claims a report that cannabis could cure cancer was buried by Govt for 36 years.

UPDATE : And just to add balance to Old Holborn's powerful rant on Isreal.

How do you get to the pub?

I recently concluded a survey asking “What means of transport have you used to visit pubs in the past month?” There were 96 responses, of which 21 (22%) said they had not visited a pub at all. The remaining 75 were broken down as follows:

Foot: 64 (85%)
Pedal cycle: 10 (13%)
Motorcycle: 1 (1%)
Car, as driver: 28 (37%)
Car, as passenger: 25 (33%)
Taxi: 19 (25%)
Bus: 36 (48%)
Train or tram: 34 (45%)

So, a wide variety of choices there, including one solitary motorcyclist. Interesting that 15% of people who had actually visited a pub did not have one within walking distance that they thought worth going to. I would also like to know how much overlap there is between car drivers and passengers.

Glimmers in the darkness

According to the British Beer and Pub Association, total UK beer sales actually grew by 2.9% in April-June 2010, compared with the same quarter last year, the first such like-for-like increase for four years. However, beer sales in pubs continued to fall, being 6.3% down on the previous year. They were higher than in January-March, but surely that happens every year, as the post-Christmas period is traditionally one of sales doldrums, and more people go out once the weather warms up a bit. The widespread snowfalls in January won’t have helped either. That can hardly be regarded as cause for celebration.

So, mildly encouraging news that people are ignoring the Righteous anti-drink hysteria and actually getting a bit more beer down their necks, but scant consolation for the pub trade, which continues to suffer from a tide of legislative and social trends running strongly against it. If volumes continue to decline at 6.3% a year, they will halve in ten years.

Wet-led and rural

The BBPA’s submission in response to the North Review understandably concentrated on the dining trade in rural pubs. However, more pubs than many urbanites might imagine survive in rural areas that are “wet-led”. Some do serve a bit of food, but drink and chat is their primary purpose. Over the years, many have closed (such as the amazingly basic Hop Pole at Risbury in Herefordshire) or have been “improved” into conventional food-led pubs, but if you know where to look a surprising number can still be found, especially once you escape from the orbit of the big towns.

Most of rural Cheshire is too close to the major conurbations for pubs of this type to survive, although the Traveller’s Rest at Alpraham and the Harrington Arms at Gawsworth (first picture) are honourable exceptions. Go further south into deepest Staffordshire and they are more numerous, such as the Anchor at High Offley (second picture) and the Red Lion at Dayhills near Stone. Other well-known examples that spring to mind include the Barley Mow at Kirk Ireton in Derbyshire, the Case is Altered at Rowington in Warwickshire and the Square & Compass at Worth Matravers in Dorset.

One pub of this kind only just outside the Greater Manchester conurbation is Sam Smiths’ Vine at Dunham Woodhouses, which does serve food but seems to mainly function as a locals’ meeting place. It isn’t a pristine gem, but it remains a characterful, old-fashioned multi-roomed pub, not to mention serving Old Brewery Bitter at £1.49 a pint.

Often these pubs are fascinating, unspoilt time capsules and, as places that are the centre of a local community rather than venues for townies to drive out to for a meal, are amongst the most atmospheric and characterful of all pubs. But it is this sort of establishment that would be most at risk from a reduction in the drink-driving limit. I am not suggesting that at present they are heavily used by drink-drive offenders – the police will be well aware of their existence and their customers will have to develop their own modus vivendi of visting them without endangering their driving licences.

The pub descriptions in the Good Beer Guide often make politically correct noises about certain rural pubs being “popular with walkers and cyclists”, and no doubt up to a point they are. However, with a few exceptions (such as maybe the two pubs in Edale) that will only be a significant source of trade on a few sunny summer weekends. There aren’t many walkers and cyclists around on cold, rainy November evenings. In any case, many of the walkers and cyclists out and about in the countryside on a summer Sunday will have first travelled out from a town by car.

(Incidentally, both photos are my own, not just ones grabbed from Google Images)