Better late than never, Sunday Mirror wants to save the British pub
Sunday, June 19, 2011 at 14:35 The Sunday Mirror has launched a campaign to Save Our Pubs.
Needless to say there's a political angle – British Pubs facing closure under the Tories reveal their battle to survive, screams a headline in today's paper:
They have been at the heart of our communities for centuries - but now Britain's pubs are under threat. Six close down every day and those still open face a constant struggle to survive.
The local is in crisis. So today the Sunday Mirror calls on PM David Cameron to honour his election promise that his Government would be "pub-friendly and take the urgent action needed to protect a treasured national institution".
The paper highlights four areas for the problems facing the British pub – cheap supermarket alcohol, tax and duty, pub chains and, yes, the smoking ban:
The smoking ban dealt a devastating blow to thousands of traditional pubs. Takings nosedived by as much as 40 per cent at some town centre and inner city locals as smokers decided to drink at home. Supporters of the ban - introduced in Scotland in 2006 and the rest of the UK in 2007 - say it has made pubs more family friendly and people healthier. But street corner pubs with no beer garden have suffered badly.
Funnily enough, I distinctly remember the Daily Mirror (if not its sister paper) supporting the smoking ban when it was introduced by the previous (Labour) government.
Oh, well, at least our message about the impact of the smoking ban is finally getting through.
Welcome aboard.
Reader Comments (15)
Fissures are appearing in the dam.
I remember writing to the editor of the Daily Mirror when the ban first came in. I cannot now remember what precisely I was complaining about, but I think that it was, but I think that it was the "filthy habit" angle. Perhaps they have realised that a lot of their readers (as I reminded them at the time) are smokers
Further,I have just reads the article itself. The article is clear about the effect of the ban. But, do we notice what the spokesman from CAMRA is reported as saying? "Supermarket prices, supermarket promotions, pub demolitions" - not a word about the smoking ban. Cloud-cuckoo land?
CAMRA has a long history of supporting the ban very wholeheartedly, so any campaign involving them is likely to gloss over this vital factor in our pubs' demise. And as a result it is highly likely to come to absolutely nothing. Nice to see the Mirror actually mentioning the ban, though.
We know and have proof that the main cause of pub closures is the smoking ban despite there being other factors. Supermarket deals on alcohol were around and the same in 2005/2006.
More than SIXTY percent of regular pub goers were smokers in 2007. No one likes standing outside in the cold, so understandably thousands have deserted their local pub.
The price of pub drinks increased I'm sure, as a result of them having far fewer customers.
Its not just CAMRA glossing over the truth, what's wrong with these other stupid people ?
They just don't get it, do they !
Nevada this week amended their smoking ban to allow smoking in restaurants if a totally separated room is used and smoking in taverns which serve food as long as it is for adults only, no children. Nevada businesses were devasted within months of their 2006 ban and it has finally dawned on them the cause of the trouble. Why can't something like that be done over here, simply amend the law to permit freedom of choice and give smokers their own separate room which they can utilize to smoke. Doesn't sound all that difficult, it's not like rocket science, more like common sense, fairness and decency the thing.
This is Mike Benner writing about the impending smoking ban in 2004, very prophetic.
"Smoking Ban Threat to Community Pubs 16/11/2004
CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale, expresses concern that the smoking ban will be divisive for community pubs. Community pubs will face the stark choice of tearing up their food menus or alienating regulars by banning smoking.
CAMRA calls on the Government to allow pubs where there are two or more entirely separate rooms to allow smoking in one, while other rooms where food is served are made smoke free.
Mike Benner, Chief Executive of CAMRA, raised concerns about the proposals"
http://www.camra.org.uk/page.aspx?o=180806
One hopes that this is the beginning of a chink in the armour and that countries are beginning to realise that the loss of business and the closure of pubs far outweighs the bungs and jobs the smoking ban created that was put in place by their finger wagging wanker cohorts in the EU.
After all it must be getting very lonely, and the feeling of privilige not quite the same in those elitist smoking rooms in Brussels, when the great unwashed are happily smoking their contraband fags in the comfort of their own homes.
While there are no comments facility on the internet version, you can e-mail a comment at
voice@sundaymirror.co.uk.
I have seen the paper version. Two page spread .
Very prominent but five different landlords stating their case. None of them blaming the ban.
Perhaps they could,nt find one who would openly suggest the real reason.
or perhaps they did,nt look for one.
Looks like as far as the mirror is concerned it,s down to the customers to tell them why these pubs are having such a hard time.
"Five years ago this pub had about 300 customers in on a Saturday night. Now, we're seeing half."
That quote says all anyone needs to know.
Jason, in my view it would be far better to have smoking pubs and non smoking pubs, rather than separate rooms - it would eliminate the pathetic, mostly non pub going antis from complaining that the 'killer SHS' could seep through and harm them!
However, if I recall, prior to the ban Weatherspoons tried having some of their pubs as non smoking and it was a complete disaster as they were more or less empty! I believe this was partly the reason for the total ban in pubs, in order to give a 'level playing field'!
That backfired rather spectacularly, it seems as so many have closed and are still closing as many smokers just stay away altogether.
As others have said, it would be refreshing to see some concessions from this government, as Holland has done and some States in the US. However, with the number of U turns they have already made perhaps they are too scared to consider any form of smoking ban amendment. If they opened their eyes they might just see that some amendments would give them a little more credence with many people, especially if it helped a little with the economy and jobs, but there are none so blind as those who won't see!
I agree with Lyn. It is very difficult to argue against the existence of something which cannot affect you and it's difficult to argue that someone cannot smell smoke, however absurd their claim is.
For the NV amendment, for taverns serving food, there is no requirement for a separate smoking room. It may be entirely smoking, all in the same room, as long as nobody under 21 years of age is allowed in and it is truly catering to adults. This is how it already is under NV law for casinos and for bars that serve only alcohol, no food.
For restaurants, they still require the separate smoking room in their amendment.
Well spotted, Sheila. Email sent.
I acknowledge your point Jason that the separate smoking room in the Nevada amendment is for premises that serve food.
This does, however, beg the question, why shouldn't smokers, in a smoking pub or club, be able to enjoy food too? No-one would be making anti/ non smokers eat in a smoking venue, so what perceived harm would there be to anyone?
Many smokers enjoy eating and smoking between courses or after a meal, without having to leave their table to stand outside in the street!