PacificOcean
Unhinged User
Yay for no compromise and a blanket ban despite what staff and punters of certain pubs may want.
All hail North Korea!
All hail North Korea!
London pubs closing at the rate of one almost every other day....
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
lots of pubs have air-conditioning and lots of modern systems are virtually silent
smaller pubs could have been offered grants to have them fitted to help working class pubs survive
as ever this is about class, guardian reading liberals wanting to inflict their puritan morals on the proles
editor
hiraethified
Yeah! Those pubs were literally surviving on smokers fumes so everyone should pay up for them to stay that way!!
Damn right! It's a class thing! Toffs don't inhale! Guardian readers don't smoke! And all working class people smoke!
Meanwhile, in the real world:
Boo to the fascist oppressor government giving the people what they, err, overwhelmingly wanted.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
no, those pubs were surviving on the income from their customers many of whom smoked. but tell you what, you walk into any estate pub or working mans club and ask what they think about the smoking ban, see how long you last
there were plenty of options for compromise but petty authouritarians who want to force their prohibitionist attitude on everyone else shouted loudest and the government bowled over to the tarquin and miranda types who only go to foodie pubs
the people want a lot of things such as capital punishment and drug users thrown in jail
editor
hiraethified
Not at all, but have you got these supporting facts or not?I hope you're not suggesting that carbon monoxide is a harmless substance editor!
LOL. Can you find something that actually backs up your claims please, rather than a selective quote from a commercial outfit flogging air filters?
Or it might be because I've worked in pubs and clubs for years on end (and still do) and I'm fucking delighted to no longer have to come home stinking of other people's fag smoke and wake up coughing up other people's noxious fumes.I don't think that the editor really is a crusader for health and safety in the workplace smokedout just that he happens to leap to the defence of pub workers because it suits his personal anti-smoking agenda.
But please explain why you think workers should have to put up with anyone making them inhale dangerous fumes, because I'd really can't think of any justification.
If you want a fag, step outside and respect the right of others not to breathe in your toxic fumes. Looks like a basic courtesy to me.
Simple question. Two people sit in two rooms - one has nicotine smoke blowing in and the other car exhaust fumes.
will there be much difference in their mortality rates do you think? Do people sit in cars with nicotine smoke blowing in in order to commit suicide?
There's no need to be disingenuous. The facts are widely known.
editor
hiraethified
What?! Who sits in a room with car exhaust fumes being blown in their face? What a truly bizarre comparison.
Do you want to try again with something that actually makes a bit of sense in the real world?
So garage workers aren't subjected to car fumes in the line of their work then? You seem to be suggesting that there isn't a risk. In most other industries no worker would be subjected to that kind of exposure to poisonous gasses without breathing apparatus.
editor
hiraethified
On that basis, there's a risk for everyone who has a gas cooker in their house.
But have you got any figures to back up the supposed risk to UK garage workers which you claim is comparable to that from passive smoking?
If not, I'll leave you to it.
Superdupastupor
fun to funky
The understanding is that employers SHOULD be obliged to take every chance to eliminate any harm that their employees could be exposed to. These are labour rights FFS.
If you want to smoke do it where people aren't working eh?
(writing as a casual smoker and someone who feels that the odour of establishments is in need of improving)
If you want to smoke do it where people aren't working eh?
(writing as a casual smoker and someone who feels that the odour of establishments is in need of improving)
Well what facts do you have about the effects of passive smoking and I'll see what I can find too?
Oh, and household cookers burn gas not petrol.
editor
hiraethified
Lots of well sourced references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking, but here's a few to get you going:
Still waiting for your appraisal of the comparative risks faced by garage workers, by the way - you brought it up, so it would be awfully nice if you could back it up.
Oh, and even if you'd like to quibble about the medical research on the long term effects of smoking, the immediate short term effects are well recognised and inconvertible for some folks: sore eyes, coughing, stinky clothes, shortness of breath and even a triggering of an asthma attack. Why should anyone have to put up with that when all the smoker has to do is to walk a few feet outside?
I didn't say the risks were comparable and nor am I necessarily against the smoking ban, these are things that you are projecting onto me. I said:
To which you immediately got defensive about for reasons that remain completely unclear to me. I'll have a look if there's any information available when I've got a bit more time, probably tomorrow, but that still doesn't change the fact that exhaust fumes are incredibly harmful to both the environment and human health. So your strange stance that anyone who comes into contact with these fumes in their line of work shouldn't be awarded the same protection as you believe you deserve in the industry in which you work leaves me as baffled as you often claim to be.
editor
hiraethified
I'm right with you there bro' just as soon as you produce evidence that the risk is real, quantifiable and comparable.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4138684.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/02/18/scipoll118.xml
http://www.topnews.in/health/car-exhaust-fumes-may-damage-heart-21104
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10471-warning-over-chemical-risk-to-developing-brains.html
Are they immune to the hazardous effects or something?
Equally, if this is how you want to play it, do you have any links to stories of hospitality workers where it has been proven that they died as a result of passive smoking without wheeling Roy Castle out?
Minnie_the_Minx
someinenhhanding menbag and me ah bollox
I know of a guy who worked in a garage as a welder. He's now got Goodpastures Syndrome.
Totally unrelated but just felt the need to point it out should anyone want to become a welder
Pubs were closing at this rate WAY before the smoking ban. I'd say the price of booze/beer in supermarkets had more to do with it, but the main thing is in somewhere like London, you can sell a Victorian boozer for somewhere between 1 and 2 million quid to a developer. That's a lot of pork scratchings.
The pub closure explosion seems to tally with the house price inflation, ie, starting mid-late nineties.
The pub closure explosion seems to tally with the house price inflation, ie, starting mid-late nineties.
8ball
World is a fuck
Garages are closing too, as it happens.
editor
hiraethified
Are you really denying that shoving fag smoke in someone's face isn't detrimental to their health?
You don't have to die of something for it to be harmful to your health and I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a reasonable explanation why workers and drinkers should be forced to inhale other people's dangerous smoke.
I've never denied that shoving fag smoke in someone's face is detrimental to their health. Are you still taking the unusual stance that exhaust fumes aren't at all dangerous to people who's jobs bring them into contact it?
You asked me for examples, I asked you for examples which you haven't provided.
The greedy and unfair lease deals that the big pub-owning companies offer to prospective landlords don't help.
They usually tie the hapless wannabe "landlord" into buying their drinks at massively above the open market price, as well as high rents and fairly arbitrary rises in these.
If you can buy a freehold pub, even with a big loan, it is inherently more profitable because you can then buy drinks etc from whoever you want at a much cheaper price.
The issue of pubs being worth more as actual properties than as viable businesses IS a major factor - especially as you say with your typical big London boozer. The thing is with a lot of these pubs, is to "look up" - they often have 2, 3 or even more floors of accommodation above which ends up being worth so much to developers.
There's some that have made this into a money-spinner and not closed the pub, though - there's one near me in Kilburn that is a massive building with (I think) four floors above the ground level pub bit, and a few years ago someone bought it, did it up into a nice pub, with decent food, a proper restaurant bit on one side, and turned some of the many rooms above into a B & B, which now seems to be doing fine.
What really annoys me is the way councils (which have a planning rule generally against losing pubs) allow plans which involve making ALL the upper floors into flats, and supposedly keeping the ground floor as a pub, and then unsurprisingly no-one will take it on because there's no live-in accommodation, and no prospects of loud music / late opening, because of all the people living upstairs. And then after a while the owner says "well, no-one will rent it as a pub, can we have a change of use, please?".
They must KNOW this method by now - why do they allow it?
Giles..
Similar threads
