For example, under the line at the Morning Advertiser's article, "PM brands smoking ban a success", comes this anecdote from a self-declared publican.
I know [most publicans support the smoking ban] because of the evidence I saw with my own eyes whilst at a debate in the House chaired by Greg Mulholland and attended by representatives of all political parties along with many many publicans.Now, the guy who wrote it tends to offer many a straw man in his defence of the ban in pubs and is generally oblivious to the confidence trick that has been played upon him but, if that is true (we can't tell as it appears to be a meeting not covered by Hansard), hearts will bleed with renewed anguish when reading articles about the desperate plight of the hospitality industry, eh?
The question was asked who would support a return of any kind to smoking in pubs and only one person put their hand up. When asked who want it to stay as it is the room was full of hands. Now I know this isn't everyone, but as a representative sample of publicans it was quite a gathering.
13 comments:
You do recall the twat called Saga of Nails who had a spell of commenting on my blog? He belonged to the élite group of "smokers for the smoking ban" ;-)
Oh I do hope it is true.
Bearing in mind the forthcoming festivities, a better analogy to turkeys voting for Christmas would be difficult to imagine.
Hands up all those publicans in favour of joining the dole queue... right, that'll be nearly all of you then.
F'nur, f'nur.
Ah, yes, Richard Yates. I've debated with him before on that site. He claims to run a 'successful' chain of hostelries (with rather a lot of time available to debate on that site) He claims he is a smoker and that all his staff everywhere think the ban wonderful.
Quite simply, he's against any amendment as he knows that as he would 'choose' to stay non smoking (his staff's wishes, apparently) he would lose custom to Pubs that then allowed smoking. He will not admit it, of course, but after lengthy debates, that what it boils down to.
Actually, I don't believe he's anything to do with the trade, at all, but an astroturfer. He's a turd and can rightly be ignored as can be seen from the other comments on the site.
Frank: Perhaps his claim needs to be tested. Anyone close enough to ask Greg Mulholland if the anecdote is true?
One way or another, we'll have something useful to refer to. Either publicans can expect no sympathy whatsoever, or Richard Yates is a liar. Can't be both. ;)
This Richard Bates chappy is
obviously some sort of Judas Goat,
a prententuous self elevating
tuppence ha'penny village pump prat.He knows as we all know,let
some non food,no children pubs have
an exemption and watch the other backstabbing,butt kissing ,yellow
livered,cap doffing,two faced,
three feathered toerag landlords
squeel .Even worse we still have
so called noise boxes still patronising the cowardly covens.
Time to start pointing fingers at the Quislings in the trade
Sub dic verbo
We know there are 'Quislings' in the trade who are, normally, smoke haters themselves but this Yates character claims to be a convert.
No idea whether this show of hands took place and it's the second time Yates has mentioned it on the site but had it happened I feel that the likes of Simon Clarke and/or Dave Atherton - both nearer to the centre than I am - would have readily informed us and they haven't.
Is his name really Greg Mulholland, or is it Jim Jones?
So an amendment shouldn't cause a problem if virtually all pubs remain non smoking. Non smokers won't notice the change.
" GM then asked for a show of hands to see how many agreed with DF and just 10 or so hands went up in favour of rescinding the ban entirely.
GM then rephrased the question to ask how many would support an “amendment” to the ban (ie by introducing separate smoking rooms). This time about 40-50 hands went up.
"
HERE
Not quite one hand!
Nice find, Fredrik, the isolated link is here.
Now, anyone registered at the Morning Advertiser want to call bullshit on Richard Yates? ;)
"Now, anyone registered at the Morning Advertiser want to call bullshit on Richard Yates? ;)"
Too bloody true when I can get on it. It works office hours
Nice one, Frank. Feel free to send the lying toad over here so we can rip massive holes in his other moronic arguments. ;)
"The question was asked who would support a return of any kind to smoking in pubs and only one person put their hand up. When asked who want it to stay as it is the room was full of hands." - Yates.
There is no mention of a third show of hands for retaining the smoking ban in the report in the link. And I think it worth remembering that GM voted in favour of allowing smoking areas in the ten minute rule vote.
Post a Comment