Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 20th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Pubs group sees sales fall on ban



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

ALL Bar One and Harvester owner Mitchells & Butlers has reported slowing sales ahead of the first winter for smoking bans in England and Wales.
Despite a helping hand from the Rugby World Cup and international football, overall like-for-like sales grew by just 1.4 per cent in the seven weeks to 17 November.

This compared with 3 per cent in the 12 months to 29 September and the group added: "The outlook for consumer spending remains uncertain and the first winter of the English smoking ban will be challenging."

Full-year pre-tax profits dipped marginally to £207 million.



The full article contains 108 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 November 2007 8:56 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Smoking issues
 
1

Rollo Tommasi,

30/11/2007 09:14:55

Really? Have a look at slide 49 from Mitchell & Butler's interim results: http://www.mbplc.com/managed_content/popups/prelims07/dow...

They report ongoing growth in both Scotland and England since the ban. And growth in Scotland has been strong in the 2nd year of the ban.

Message to F2C: Stop your jaundiced and blinkered thinking, cut the hyperbolic nonsense and open your eyes.

2

MRab2,

30/11/2007 09:27:37

Hmmm, from Mitchell & Butler's interim result;
Wines and soft drinks; down 2%
Sprits; down 4%
Beer and Cider; down 4%

The only thing that's up is food (3%)

Doesn't really bode well for the wet led pubs.

3

Rollo Tommasi,

30/11/2007 09:40:33

MRab2 - I agree that many wet-led pubs face hard times. But what is the decline due to? Check out slide 38. There has already been a steady 4-5% annual decline in beer sales in pubs since at least Sept 2003 and possible earlier - i.e. long before the smoking legislation came into force.

M&B are not predicting that the introduction of the smoking in public ban in England will make this pre-existing decline any worse. In fact they're anticipating growth in like-for-like sales.

4

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 30/11/2007 11:13:11

#6, chas winfield, suffolk.
Chas is losing his focus. Breweries and landlords must compete in an open market, otherwise they will suffer the fate of Rover. Rover? Oh, they used to make cars.

5

David WB,

in the street 30/11/2007 11:40:24

'Message to F2C: Stop your jaundiced and blinkered thinking, cut the hyperbolic nonsense and open your eyes.'

The irony of this crass statement is tragic - some people are doing the exact opposite by standing up for personal liberty - including your's Rollo....

Its not going to stop at smoking............F2C's eyes are WIDE open

6

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 30/11/2007 11:48:00

#8, chas winfield, suffolk.
If insufficient, all those redundant car workers, perhaps. There is, of course, nothing to stop smokers and non-smokers entering pubs. They just have to leave their tobacco pouches unfurled, and have their fix elsewhere.

7

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 30/11/2007 12:13:23

#11, chas winfield, suffolk.
We non-smokers have no desire to bar smokers, just their obnoxious fug.
Non-smokers and smokers not addicted to the point of desperation are still frequenting pubs. If sufficient chas' choose to stay away, and hence cause some to close from lack of custom, then he may have to sit and fume at home, moaning about the good old smoke filled days and reminiscing about pubs of old, no longer there.
Chas should perhaps remember the old adage "use us or lose us".

8

Rollo Tommasi,

30/11/2007 12:53:07

David WB (9). This is not about personal liberty - stopping Governments from trying to protect people from themselves. It's about ensuring that people use their freedom to smoke in a way that does not affect the health and wellbeing of other people. You can still smoke any time you want, provided you do not so in a public place which exposes others to your fumes.

Most of F2C's arguments are a combination of misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mistruths. Take Bobfm's email. He pins the blame for pub closures on the smoking ban, when pub business has been falling for years. And he claims passive smoking to be a "Lie". It's not a lie; what is unclear is how big a risk factor passive smoking is.

As I say, a combination of misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mistruths (albeit with the occasional valid point). No wonder F2C's judicial review collapsed.

9

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 30/11/2007 13:14:08

#13, chas winfield, suffolk.
Chas needn't fret on my account. As it's quite a pleasant day here in Pleasantville, I'll be out soon to my local Tesco store and other purveyors of alcohol.
He's sounding a bit tetchy to-day, imagining me to be "moaning" about smokers, when I'm quite content that they've been kicked into touch.
Perhaps he should follow his own advice, and get out and about more often to his line dancing sessions and beetle drives at the W.I., but just without the meerschaum.

10

Chuckles,

Italy 30/11/2007 13:14:40

Rollo14- pubs are not public remember who owns them. They are private property.

Im afraid SHS is actually a fraud, perhaps one of the biggest in recent years- F2C is out to seek the truth!

11

Tim85,

Lancs, England 30/11/2007 13:15:08

Anyone who doubts that the smoking ban is having a detrimental effect on business should look at the following links:

http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/wales-news/2007/10/12...

The LVA [Licensed Victuallers' Association in Wales] says some businesses are on the brink of closure, others have already closed down, and there is little optimism that trade will eventually return to pre-ban levels.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/20...

^ Rank group, owners of Mecca Bingo Halls and Grosvenor casinos forecast to lose a massive £12m in profits this year alone.

http://www.sundaymirror.co.uk/news/sunday/2007/10/21/club...

^ 1/3rd of bingo halls facing closure.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7102937.stm :

"The BBPA also said the smoking ban had had an effect, with a 7% drop in pub beer sales this year alone."

Even Wetherspoons have seen a dip in profits - did anyone expect them to be remotely effected?

"You can still smoke any time you want, provided you do not so in a public place which exposes others to your fumes." Not entirely true Rollo - why the ban on open air station platforms? Why the ban on hospital grounds? Why moves to ban smoking while driving when smoking is a statistically low cause of accidents? Why the possibility of limiting the number of people smoking outside pubs?:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.

12

Tim85,

Lancs, England 30/11/2007 13:16:19

Chuckles - shortly after the smoking ban, I decided to try and make the best of the newly designated 'public property'. I went into Wetherspoons with a few cans and a picnic. I soon found out how public it is.

13

Chuckles,

Italy 30/11/2007 13:17:30

Alien123 nothing except for a repeal of the ban and restoration of property rights will save pubs from closure: http://rdg.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5864593878

Remember December 31st national smoking day(id like to change it to world) and smokers smoke wherever you like to the point you make the smoking law unenforcable by giving it the respect it deserves. Remember its based on lies!

14

Chuckles,

Italy 30/11/2007 13:18:23

good point Tim18! DavidNewMills you really should try doing the same!

15

Tim85,

Lancs, England 30/11/2007 13:47:28

It's quite ironic that some people now blame smokers for the adverse effect the ban has had on the entertainment industry.

Prior to the ban, the custom of smokers was deemed inconsequential, as the number of non-smokers that would flock to pubs, clubs, bingo halls, etc., post-ban would negate any loss seen from smoking clientele. When smokers warned that we would attend less, we were merely marginalised - told we were inconsequential because the ban's popularity with non-smokers rendered the loss of our business redundant.

I'd like to know why we haven't had an apology from the people who made such claims, when they are patently untrue. We were right, and they were wrong. It doesn't make any of us feel any better though. And I'd like to know why we're getting the blame when we gave the gov't, publicans and anti-smoking groups plenty of warning that this would transpire.

16

Rollo Tommasi,

30/11/2007 13:55:36

Chuckles. Wrong. The law does not treat pubs as private property. Are landlords allowed to serve alcohol to 12 year olds? Open 24 hours a day? Operate irrespective of health and safety requirements? They are only allowed to sell alcohol if they comply with a range of laws and licensing conditions. The smoking restriction is just one of these.

Tim: Can't comment on your reports about bingo halls, although I accept there may be an issue there. But as for pubs....

The BBPA are calling for a tax freeze for beer - not a repeal of the smoking laws. Your 7% stat reflects a change in the make-up of pub sales, not a fall in overall sales. On which point...

Wetherspoon's overall sales are down just 1% since the ban came into force in England. The JDW boss puts it down to a transitional period, which he predicts might last 12 months. Nowhere does he complain about the new laws.

And the Publican Food Report states that 21% of surveyed venues have reported a drop in overall sales since the bans came into force. In other words, almost 80% have either held or gained sales.

And I'm defending the law as it is now. Not sure about the relevance of your references to hospital grounds, homes in Liverpool, etc - the legislation doesn't ban smoking there. Maureen Moore is entitled to say what she thinks. Don't assume that I (or any other person pleased to see the ban) agrees with everything she says.

17

David WB,

in the street 30/11/2007 13:58:15

Thanks for the response, Rollo.

You refer to misunderstanding - why do you assume that I am a smoker? I'm not, and I don't (like most tolerant people) object to others smoking around me. The presumed dangers are minimal and certainly do not justify mass persecution of a significant proportion of the population. I am willing to take that small risk. Life is full of risk - if we tried to eliminate all of them, life would be dull.

For example, studies have found that c.1 in a 1000 nonsmokers might develop lung cancer. Passive smoking raises the relative risk to slightly less than that 1.25/1000.

Of course, ASH claim(correctly) that this is equates to about 25%increase in risk. Scaremongering to say the least...

Perhaps you are familiar with the study that found that children of smokers are 25% less likely to develop the disease.

What causes all the other instances of lung cancer amongst non smokers? Perhaps it might be something that you're doing and/or condoning. You may (or may not) drive. If so, are you confident that no one is inhaling some of the exhaust fumes, with no ill effect? Most people have no choice but to do so in urban environments, particularly children - who are nearer to the exhaust pipe. An old chestnut, I know, but just as cliched as a lot of the anti smoking claims.

FC2 are seeking a compromise - let people decide for themselves whether or not to enter a smoky establishment. Some places could be totally smoke free. Staff could be protected quite easily by decent extraction/filtration systems. At the very least have a smoking room purely for that purpose.

Do you seriously believe that the smoking ban will not threaten the survival of the traditional pubs/snooker/bingo/WMC's (the list goes on)? Where are all the anti/non smokers? We were told that the pubs would be bursting at the seams with them after July 1st.

Their absence is particularly galling after all their whingeing and wining that pre

18

Tim85,

Lancs, England 30/11/2007 14:23:39

Rollo - 24 - Yes, they are allowed to open 24 hours. Odd example ...

No comments on LVA, Rollo?

"The smoking ban is reducing sales of beer in pubs and will continue to do so," said a spokesman. Admittedly, the 7% drop is on beer sales.

As I said, nobody expected the ban would have an impact on Wetherspoons. Their boss may prove to be correct in his assessments of their long-term future, he may not. Remember their commitment to go 'smoke-free' before the ban, which they then went back on? Why? Because they realised it would have lost them money.

The actual story is that the negative impact of the ban has failed to be offset by food sales, directly contradicting that which was claimed by ban supporters. More than half say there has been no effect on food sales. One of the main benefits of the smoking ban was supposedly that food sales would skyrocket. They haven't. They survey indicated that the average amount spent on food and drink during a meal is almost the same - well, it's declined by a penny, but I'm not going to split hairs.

Rollo - there are provisions in the Health Act (2006) allowing the extension of the ban to outdoor areas.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/uk-smoking-ban-is-...

The above article was originally published in the Independent, but their link to it is dead. The fact remains that the ban can be extended, and probably will.

You are quite right when you say that the Acts in England and Scotland didn't ban smoking on unenclosed station platforms. Network Rail worked with the gov't to impose their own ban. Do you agree with this? It is against the law because pre-existing byelaws have been utilised to bring these regulations into force. There is seemingly no coherent rationale behind such bans, and I'd defy anyone to provide me with a cogent argume

19

Tim85,

Lancs, England 30/11/2007 14:24:41

I ran out of space, Rollo. The above should read:

"Do you believe that ASH have misrepresented the scientific evidence in relation to SHS?"

20

Rollo Tommasi,

30/11/2007 14:28:16

David WB

Thanks for your thoughts too. Have you read this document:
http://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/documents/Mortality...

It estimates that 1,500-2,000 people in Scotland may die each year as a result of exposure to ETS. Around 60,000 people in Scotland die each year. So we're potentially talking about 4-7% of deaths being attributable to exposure to ETS. Let's make this more personal. Even at the lowest range of this estimate, think about the 25 people closest to you. On a statistical average, you might expect ETS to claim the life of one of those people.

You mention small numbers of non-smokers succumbing to lung cancer. This report is consistent with what you say. The principal causes of ETS-related deaths are heart attack and stroke.

I should add I wasn't assuming you to be a smoker, although I can understand why you thought I was. When I said "You can still smoke any time you want", I was meaning the generic "you" (I hate saying "one"!).

21

Tim85,

Lancs, England 30/11/2007 14:32:32

1,500-2,000 deaths Rollo? I'm not going to ask you to name all of them.

But how about this? Can you name 5 of them?

22

Rollo Tommasi,

30/11/2007 14:42:40

Tim

As someone living in Scotland and commenting in a Scottish paper's website, I have nothing to say about the law as it may apply in England but not here (24hr drinking and Health Act 2006). As for Network Rail, I'd want to look at the reasons for and against before commenting.

I gave you what appears to be the best available source of information about the effect of the laws on pub trade overall. I'm not sure why you also want me to comment on every single pocket (such as rural Wales) where pubs might be suffering. The fact is that many rural pubs are suffering - for several reasons (depopulation, large cost hikes, competition from supermarket spreading to the country, etc). And yes, there will be cases where the restrictions on smoking aren't helping. But think about the option F2C prefers. How many of these small rural pubs have the space and shape that would allow partitioning to create smoking rooms?

And I don't have a comment on whether ASH have misrepresented scientific evidence. I very, very rarely look on the ASH website - I prefer checking original sources for myself. Yes, you got it - I am not an ASH stooge!

23

Rollo Tommasi,

30/11/2007 14:50:15

Tim (30)

See when I referred to F2C's "misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mistruths", this was the sort of issue I had in mind.

Ask that question of a doctor. They will tell you that ETS is a risk factor, not a disease. People die of diseases. Risk factors indicate whether a person is more or less likely to succumb to a particular disease.

So nobody dies of ETS, in the same way as nobody dies of high cholestrol or high blood pressure. But in all 3 cases, having that risk factor is making you more likely to contract a particular potentially lethal disease.

24

Rollo Tommasi,

30/11/2007 15:03:21

Belinda. It's not "wild hypothesizing". It's using the best available evidence. It may not be totally accurate - but if so it is as likely to under-estimate the true position than over-estimate it.

And this is what I find particularly sad about F2C. It is that it is more important for your members to have any evidence that might question the existence or extent of ETS than it is to deal with the probability that those who smoking are slowly but progressively putting the health of their own loved ones at risk every time they light up around them.

25

Tim85,

30/11/2007 15:27:43

Rollo - Does the train station platform ban not apply to Scotland then? I was under the impression it did. If so, I find it difficult to believe you have not considered this issue.

"I gave you what appears to be the best available source of information about the effect of the laws on pub trade overall." I must have missed that. Where is it?

I want you to comment on the smoking ban in England and Wales, because the article in question specifically references Mitchell and Butlers' ailing profits in England and Wales. In the article I cited, the LVA didn't mention poor performance specifically in rural areas, but across all of Wales. Many small rural pubs could create smoke rooms. But I don't know how we got on to discussing pubs in rural areas.

Ok, you have declined to comment on whether or not you believe ASH, an organisation which receives tax payers' money from the DoH, and was instrumental in their campaigning for, and contribution to the drafting of, the new law have misrepresented the scientific evidence in relation to ETS. You have previously asseverated that you believe ASH have a valid role in public health. How can this be so if they misrepresent the science in relation to ETS?

Moving to 'original sources', however - do you believe that the Surgeon General's summary of his own report misrepresented the evidence on ETS contained in his report?

Do you believe that the fact that the WHO have drawn criticism for failing to consider EVIDENCE when making pronouncements on world public health hampers their conclusions in relation to every major public health issue, and ETS in particular?

Rollo, I happen to disagree with you on F2C, as you may expect. But they're really not the issue. You mentioned them before any member of F2C had even posted in the comments section. You were attempting to discredit the comments of an organisation who had yet to make a comment!

26

Tim85,

30/11/2007 15:32:10

"See when I referred to F2C's "misunderstandings, misinterpretations and mistruths", this was the sort of issue I had in mind.

Ask that question of a doctor. They will tell you that ETS is a risk factor, not a disease. People die of diseases. Risk factors indicate whether a person is more or less likely to succumb to a particular disease.

So nobody dies of ETS, in the same way as nobody dies of high cholestrol or high blood pressure. But in all 3 cases, having that risk factor is making you more likely to contract a particular potentially lethal disease." Very interesting, Rollo, thank you for your candour.

So when anti-smoking organisations, and indeed the NHS, declare SHS to be a 'killer', they're misrepresenting the facts? When various people say 'the evidence is clear, the debate is over, SHS kills', they are disseminating false information? Information which doubtless influenced the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, and Westminster MPs when they passed their respective smoking bans?

27

Rollo Tommasi,

30/11/2007 16:01:42

Tim

Railway stations: No, I genuinely had not considered the railway station issue. And actually I prefer to look at issues instead of responding in a knee-jerk, defensive way.

Source re overall pub sales, revealing 80% doing as well or better than before bans: http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?sectioncode=7&st...

Mitchell & Butler: Sales up in Scotland and England. In Scotland, they've really taken off in 2nd year. What reason have you to consider the same won't happen in England too?

Welsh pubs: Fair point re not only rural Wales covered. But article only speaks about those hurt in recent months, not about the picture overall - hence my reference to the Publican Food Report.

Later comments: You've given me generic statements without sources. I'm simply not with you.

Reference to F2C: What about BobFM, if he's not part of F2C?

28

Rollo Tommasi,

30/11/2007 16:08:54

Tim (37): ETS can be killers, just as high cholestrol or high blood pressure can be killers. They are killers as being causes of potentially fatal disease.

I'm just glad the various UK parliaments are filled with people who realise this.

I'd have loved to have been a fly on the wall in court if F2C had tried to use the argument in court that a risk factor can't be a killer because people don't die of risk factors.

Okay, that's my last posting for some time. Sorry if that spoils your fun.

29

Tim85,

Lancs, England 30/11/2007 16:32:43

Publican story: equally, it could be said 75% have not seen an increase, or have reported worsening sales. The story has been interpreted in the light of claims that food sales would offset a loss in revenue because of the decline in smoking customers. The survey concludes that, on average, money spent on food and drink by a customer at dinner has declined by a penny, and that 1/5th had seen both food and drink sales decline.

Re: Mitchell and Butler - I haven't any reason to say that it won't, but Mitchell and Butler are merely one pubco. The overall situation seems fairly bleak.

Welsh pubs - yes, those hurt in recent months. Damage which the LVA attributed directly and unambiguously to the smoking ban.

Later comments:

Anti-smoking groups, including ASH and BHF, misrepresenting evidence on ETS: http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/12

Surgeon general:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/search?q=+Surgeon+Gen...

WHO's neglect for evidence:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/05/07/who-evidence.html

No, BobFM is not part of F2C. He is F2C's former chairman, but left some months ago now.

So, now you're saying that ETS is a killer. Allow me to re-phrase my original question. In which individuals has SHS been the most likely cause of disease? What are their names? When did it lead to them contracting a potentially fatal disease, which eventually did kill them?

Actually, that may yet prove to be a valid argument in court. Legal precedents indicate that epidemiological conclusions are not evidential of causation. Perhaps one of the forthcomin

30

David WB,

in the street 30/11/2007 19:22:16

HI Rollo

checked that one out - what a load of waffle
(http://www.healthscotland.com/uploads/documents/Mortality) A lot of ifs, buts, maybes, estimates, etc - not a particularly convincing or credible study. Where's the control group? They even count ex smokers as passive smokers and suggest that other smokers should be blamed for their health problems! Can't you come up with something better than that? Of course you can't because there aren't any. That is the root of the problem - the science is unproven, unreliable and, frankly, in any other context would be totally unacceptable. Particularly as the basis for legislation. The danger of all this is that some people are starting to disbelieve official statistics and advice because they don't trust the source. For example, many seriously ill smokers in the USA smokers are in denial because they know that doctors are giving out misleading information. We're getting the same here - smoking appears to the cause of all illness. If you have an ingrowing toenail, they still want to know if you're a smoker (even ex-smokers get the third degree) - basically treated as second class citizens, despite the fact that they pay far more tax than non smokers.

The most curious thing about discussions such as this is the dogged determination of anti smokers to discredit any challenge from free thinkers. It takes a certain type of person to continue a debate AFTER they have got what they wanted. Perhaps they worry that, sooner or later, common sense will prevail.

Incidentally, there are still plenty of smoking pubs out there. They just lock the doors to keep out the self righteous, the deluded and the smoking police. (I expect this type of behaviour will be blamed when future statistics show no improvement
in peoples' health as a result of the ban)

Apologies for ranting, but we should be banning prejudice, not

31

David WB,

in the street 30/11/2007 19:27:07

Tim85 - try this

http://www.davehitt.com/2004/name_three.html

32

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 30/11/2007 19:30:39

#21, chas winfield, suffolk.
"Some pubs are still open. Go and support them instead of Tesco. Your publican needs YOU."
I gave my custom both to Tesco, and to two of the many pubs I passed that were obviously open, and scarcely devoid of customers.
Perhaps chas' locals don't really need him? Staying at home in the huff is his choice alone. Perhaps he should follow his own advice at#13 and "get out more and support your pub landlord", but then, that is his "freedom to choose".

33

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 30/11/2007 19:39:34

#18 Tim85, Lancs, England and #20 Chuckles, Italy.
Both correspondents are being more than a little fatuous. Apart from picnics being an open air recreation, would either expect to enter his local cinema without charge, sit in comfy seats, and watch a film on his laptop, or listen to his ipod?
Wise up, boys, otherwise expect to be ejected.

34

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 30/11/2007 19:54:09

#26, Mandy v.
Mandy's question reveals a high degree of selective asininity.
Non-smokers are no more required to open non-smoking pubs than they are to set up non-smoking shops or bus operators, as the Health Act, 2006 has covered these various business areas adequately.
Sometimes the state has to intervene where market forces are delinquent, otherwise we might all be eating putrid chickens or mouldy beefburgers.
"Someone should pay!" Well, let F2C dip in their coffers if they feel so inclined, or is the cupboard a little bare?

35

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 30/11/2007 20:38:28

#16 and #19, Carlo of Putney and Padova.
Rollo Tomasso at #24, has responded to Carlo's misunderstandings about conceived "private property rights", but for the sake of our young foreign visitor and correspondents with memory retention difficulties I would remind them as follows.
I do not know the situation in Italy, but in the U.K. anyone wishing to provide alcohol for consumption on or off the premises does not have carte blanche to do so.
In so choosing, he immediately makes himself liable to a whole plethora of regulations regarding serving minors, opening hours, Trades Description and Weights and Measures legislation, fire and hygiene regs., accounting for VAT and other taxation, planning restrictions, and, latterly, smoking restrictions.
If this list, which may not be comprehensive, is not to the landlord's liking, then, assuming he has the freehold of the property, he can apply to have it delicensed, enabling him to have smoke-ins, booze- ins, love-ins or whatever else he fancies with his mates.
If he has no freehold, then he is free to move on to Spain, Italy or wheresoever he fancies.
Regarding Carlo's penchant for National Smoking Day, smokers may well wish to risk a £50 fine to make a point. However, establishment managers may not be so keen on a possible £2,500 fine as the four misguided horsemen of the apocalypse.

36

David WB,

30/11/2007 22:34:39

Mandy - the reason that the antis did not successfully have their own venues is simple - there was no demand for them. Hang on - I do remember a pub in Retford that tried. That was a god (and customer) forsaken place. Needless to say.........

The smoking ban was designed to protect people in the workplace - not to pander to the likes of Rollo and David from New Mills, both of whom are taking pleasure from your loss of freedom, but without the wit and intelligence of Bolton's very own Eric - the king of the antis. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Eric's musing, check out the Bolton News - he'll be holding court somewhere in its comments sections.

Pubs and clubs employ people and are 'public' venues. There could have been workable exemptions and compromises. There weren't of course, despite assurance from the government. We all know that there was a hidden (albeit a not very well hidden) agenda to punish smokers for being naughty.

All in all, and despite this ludicrous ban, we should be glad that we're not anti....most are not the kind of people you'd want to share a drink with anyway.

37

Tim85,

Lancs, England 30/11/2007 22:57:28

David,

Admittedly, my comment was slightly tongue in cheek, perhaps a little facetious. However, I do enter my local cinema without paying their ridiculous prices for food. I generally go to Tescopoly beforehand and buy drinks, sweets, etc., there. If the film is tedious, I have been known to listen to my MP3 player.

Speaking of Ipods though, perhaps, after further research, they should be the next thing on the 'public place' ban list? : http://news.independent.co.uk/health/article3104677.ece

Could you live with yourself, if you were listening to your Ipod in the pub, and an aged and infirmed old man or woman collapsed because it caused their pacemaker to malfunction?

Perhaps further research is needed on the most insidiously evil health hazard of them all. The humble office printer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6923915.stm

Now we're going down the road of banning items which are purported to have an adverse effect on the health of innocent frequenters of public places, a multitude of things can be banned. We can finally conquer death! Rejoice! :

http://www.lesstoxicguide.ca/index.asp?fetch=household

"The most curious thing about discussions such as this is the dogged determination of anti smokers to discredit any challenge from free thinkers. It takes a certain type of person to continue a debate AFTER they have got what they wanted. Perhaps they worry that, sooner or later, common sense will prevail." What on earth are you talking about? Every smoking ban on earth has been an unmitigated success. The Scots have witnessed a 17% decline in heart attacks. It is saving lives!

Er, or so anti-smoking groups claim. It seems the Scottish heart

38

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 30/11/2007 23:15:46

#47, David WB.
I would suggest there was indeed a demand for smoke free venues, in the same way that there was a gradual universal movement towards smoke free offices and public transport. Sadly, most of the pub trade chose to ignore trends, and took the easy option of adopting "smoking allowed throughout" signage, thus pandering to the demands of the lowest common denominator for purely commercial reasons.
I can't speak for Rollo, but feel no personal joy in the smoker's predicament, rather a feeling of pity at the sight of nicotinic saddoes satisfying their addiction, be it outside pubs, restaurants or office blocks and department stores.
I look forward to seeing examples of the wit of Eric in the B.E.N. as something to strive towards. Perhaps David WB could share some with us?
"Pubs and clubs employ people and are 'public' venues." Says it all really.
Smokers are free to be "naughty" in private homes and most open air places, where they can share their affliction with those of a similar bent.
I for one don't miss their imagined scintillating wit and jocularity.

39

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 30/11/2007 23:32:58

#48, Tim85, Lancs, England.
The word I chose was fatuous.
Tim is quite at liberty to make his own catering arrangements in the cinema or theatre, but if he falls asleep or leaves early, it matters little as he's paid his entry fee.
I am in little danger of exterminating the elderly in my vicinity, as Ipods and mobile 'phones are not status symbol toys of my choice.
Free thinkers are indeed free to debate, and even attempt to discredit those not of their opinon, as the smokers' lobby was happy to do in the past. Free thinkers of a different viewpoint are free to respond.
Such is the price of democracy, hard as it might be for those of the discredited régime to accept.

40

David WB,

01/12/2007 00:02:24

David - 'I can't speak for Rollo, but feel no personal joy in the smoker's predicament, rather a feeling of pity at the sight of nicotinic saddoes satisfying their addiction, be it outside pubs, restaurants or office blocks and department stores.'

Believe me, the last thing they want is pity, especially from antis like you. And they are not saddoes - they are persecuted.

What's wrong with people like you? Did somebody blow smoke in your face when you were in your pram?

Fact is - there was no real demand for smoke free pubs - they had to be forced on us. Another thing, you bang on about the trend towards smoke free offices. Most of these places didn't need any laws to prevent people smoking at work. These were merely rules, not always fair, but only rules. Most smokers respected them.

You write - 'Sadly, most of the pub trade chose to ignore trends, and took the easy option of adopting "smoking allowed throughout" signage, thus pandering to the demands of the lowest common denominator for purely commercial reasons.'

Rubbish - most pubs had non smoking areas for years, particularly in dining areas. I'll give you one very good reason why antis want a total ban - its because their smoking friends wouldn't want to sit with them in the non smoking zones. Nothing to do with protecting those in the work place, but for purely selfish reasons. I'll tell you what's sad - the sight of a solitary non smoker waiting for the smokers to come back into the pub.

41

Tim85,

Lancs, England 01/12/2007 00:47:40

David, # 49 & 50 - Here lies the problem with your discourse; your dialectic, if you will, David. Let us be perfectly honest. You don't care about the purported damage to health which it is alleged passive smoking causes. As I have amply demonstrated, the rationale underpinning the prohibition can be applied to many items which most people would deem innocuous. Yet there is a body of evidence that said items can passively damage non-users of the products in public places and work places.

All you were concerned about was that you were not using such products, and not putting others' health at risk. If you were so concerned for the health of staff and patrons of pubs and places of entertainment, you would be calling for bans on the various other items which can passively damage health. As you do not, I can only assume you operate a double standard in relation to cigarettes.

'Pity', David? Your pious magnaminity knows no bounds.

42

David WB,

01/12/2007 01:09:14

Tim - The antis here are unimportant, they're partly gloating and partly worried that there might be a change in the law. What other motive could they have?

Fact is, pubs and clubs are failing - that's what this article is all about. The antis are not bothered, it's a means to an end - of smoking and, for many, drinking as well. This really does stink of puritanism.

This country is fast becoming a crap place to live in.

43

Rollo Tommasi,

01/12/2007 02:48:28

Good grief. I disappear for a few hours and return to find rabid, frenzied polemic from DWB and T85.

The fact is that, while the HealthScotland research is not perfect, it offers a reasonable working estimate for deaths associated with passive smoking. DWB (41) appears to criticise the report for attempting to be balanced and recognise limitations where they exist. It is a study which applies recognised international analyses and meta-analyses (which, DWB, include control groups) in a Scottish context.

To put the results in context. Even if the actual number of deaths from passive smoking were half of what this report concludes, they would the figure would still be 3 x higher than the number of deaths each year from road traffic accidents in Scotland (c. 300). What reasonable government would not want to address this?

And as for Tim's links at 40, none of them criticise research showing health risks of ETS. The 1st two links accept the validity of research showing a link between ETS and lung cancer - the criticisms related to how those finding were referred to in publicity. And the 3rd link criticises how WHO undertake some studies but does not describe them as fundamentally flawed and does to appear to directly criticise the validity of research relating to ETS.

All of this just strikes me as you guys clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to find anything - no matter how trivial - which you hope might cast some doubt on evidence about the risks of ETS. You might as well say to us directly: "My freedom to smoke wherever I want may risk the health of those around me, but that's a sacrifice I'm prepared to make".

And you wonder why David fNM and I contribute to these boards now the law's in place.....

PS. And just in case you thought publicans were clamouring to have the laws repealed, it seems you're not representing their views after all - Report Unsuitable

44

David WB,

01/12/2007 11:07:32

You know - you can design any poll to support your own agenda. Its who you ask, what you ask and what answers you choose to ignore. The Britvic and Publican sponsored poll that Rollo cites is a classic piece of spin - it concludes that pubs should display more soft drinks in order to encourage a new type of customer (up until an imaginary new kind of customer). If you can't see through that one then you are indeed naive.....

Of course the one poll that the trade doesn't appear to want to carry out is this: what do the customers think? They're the ones who keep the pub trade afloat.

I repeat - what kind of person continues to contribute to a debate AFTER they have got what they wanted? In my experience its usually the 'pub bore'. Just likes to hear the sound of its own voice -again and again and again......zzzzzzz.

45

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 11:19:03

#53, David WB.
I took the trouble in my own small way to support "a change in the law".
Those unhappy with this change are free to choose to take the trouble to try to have it amended, rather than to sit on their bar stools or sofas whingeing.
If provisions of the Health Act, 2006 crept up on them while they were busy watching the Simpsons or the football in the pub, so be it.
Emigration is always an option, but DWB should remember the saying about green grass and fences, and ponder as to why this "crap place" seems so attractive to the oft reported flood of immigrants, legal or otherwise. Must be something appealing about the place?

46

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 11:25:46

#57, David WB.
"In my experience its usually the 'pub bore'. Just likes to hear the sound of its own voice -again and again and again......zzzzzzz."
We had noticed DWB's droning.
Perhaps he'd like to open a bar in Spain and bore the poor locals to death, unless they're lucky enough not to understand English.

47

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 11:38:08

#52, Tim85, Lancs, England.
I have never claimed to be concerned about safeguarding workers' health, which I regard as the province of the State and responsible employers, but certainly have always welcomed the cleaner, more pleasant, atmosphere in pubs and other working places, as do many of their employees.
Tim should not delude himself into thinking I believe him to be someone worthy of feeling magnanimous towards.

48

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 11:52:15

60, chas winfield, suffolk.
If chas is referring to Moslem immigrants, smoking and alcohol woudl be forbidden already in their own countries, so that can't be the sole attraction. Chas' theory also ignores the large number of non-moslem European immigrants who are driving our buses, fixing our plumbing and laying lots of bricks.
Perhaps chas should revert to the drawing board and try a new approach.

49

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 12:03:03

#62, chas winfield, suffolk.
I would refer Chas to my #46 for some guidance.
I understand these toilet arrangements to be purely optional, and that the landlord receives payment by way of compensation. He can, of course, decline the offer of this money spinner in his pub, allegedly otherwise "empty" of customers.

50

David WB,

01/12/2007 12:25:48

DFNM says - 'why this "crap place" seems so attractive to the oft reported flood of immigrants, legal or otherwise. Must be something appealing about the place?'

Yep, very attractive - free houses, education, health care and benefits thrown in. A country fit for spongers and bullies. Never mind, we should be proud of our tolerance.

Don't you follow the news? Brits are leaving in droves. I'm not ready to give in just yet, especially not to the bullies. Spain might be an option - at least they know a stupid law when they they see it (and most of the rest of Europe for that matter).

Anyway, there are plenty of prohibition busting pubs out there - you lot know this, but choose to ignore it because you can't stop it. Wouldn't look good on the statistics - ' X number of pubs regularly have lock-ins'. Lock ins aren't exactly a recent invention, but these are in effect - lock-OUTS.

Quote - 'Those unhappy with this change are free to choose to take the trouble to try to have it amended'

That's what we are doing - you just don't listen do you?

Quote - 'You might as well say to us directly: "My freedom to smoke wherever I want may risk the health of those around me, but that's a sacrifice I'm prepared to make".'

The risk is minimal - very minimal. Every time you drive a car you risk the health of those around you. Every time you drink too much, you risk the health of those around you. Most normal folks are prepared to take those risks.

You should get therapy to overcome your phobia of second hand tobacco smoke.

In fact you may be suffering from half a dozen varieties

To find out more, click:

http://www.wordinfo.info/L-Gk-capnophobiaPt1.html

51

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 12:27:26

#51, David WB.
If DWB feels smokers are in some way maligned, perhaps he'd like to consider whether this feeling may arise from the consequences of their inconsiderate tendency to expel their effluence with scant regard for others.
While I can't recall my pramhood days, I certainly remember many instances of smokers charitably puffing smoke in my face, and carelessly flicking ash over my drink and food, as I do their habit of standing with their lit incendiary stick sticking out and causing scorch marks in people's clothing. No the last one isn't imaginary, I've had shirts with the marks to prove the point.
Not clear on the rationale for DWB's acceptance of rules but antipathy towards legislative regulations. One's simply the other in a different guise.
The trouble about no smoking areas of the past is that smoke, like smokers, doesn't respect artificial boundaries, but drifts into adjacent territory in the absence of a Star Trek style force field, hence the need for the state to interfere in commercial judgment, or the lack of it.
What I do find really sad is the sight of a smoker, so addicted to his drug, coming back into a cosy pub or office from his nicotine fix, deluding himself that the "pleasure" was worth the trip.

52

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 12:40:13

#65, chas winfield, suffolk.
I shall be shortly be following Chas' unnecessary advice, as the sun is shining in Pleasantville.
At least Chas recognises the old adage of "buy low, sell high"( see also his #55 plug), though not sure why he wants to stand watching the grass grow at his F.C.
He shouldn't have too many chips, even the poker variety, as the stock market is a better long term investment.
Trust Chas keeps his scarf on, as well as his shirt.

53

David WB,

01/12/2007 13:02:56

Comment 67 -

Fantastic

'While I can't recall my pramhood days, I certainly remember many instances of smokers charitably puffing smoke in my face, and carelessly flicking ash over my drink and food, as I do their habit of standing with their lit incendiary stick sticking out and causing scorch marks in people's clothing. No the last one isn't imaginary, I've had shirts with the marks to prove the point.'

I was right - DFNM has a personal agenda - someone blew smoke in his face..etc..etc..
Did you get through a lot of dummies? (ooops, there goes another one).

Incendiary sticks???? What do pie smokers have - hand grenades?

I bet you've got a phobia of nylon shirts as well...

David - have I your permission to cut and paste your comments on other sites - as an example of a classic Capnophobic and Fumiphobic?

54

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 13:38:01

#69, DWB.
I do indeed have personal prejudices. DWB would do well to ponder the "etc..etc" he chose to gloss over. Then, and only then, he might just have some glimmering of comprehension.
Unlike smokers, I have no need of comforters to stick in my mouth.
Not sure what "pie smokers" have, apart from a strange taste perhaps, but has DWB heard of the King's Cross conflagration? As a reminder, the 20th anniversary recently took place.
I have no problem whatsoever if DWB's penchant is for nylon shirts, or indeed, silk underwear.
No permission needed. This "crap place" permits free speech. Not all countries with all that green grass do.

55

David WB,

01/12/2007 14:32:34

Quote - 'has DWB heard of the King's Cross conflagration?'

Yes - and your point is?

Quote - 'I have no problem whatsoever if DWB's penchant is for nylon shirts, or indeed, silk underwear.'

?????Are you trying to chat me up?

(actually I like both, but I have to admit an irrational fear of nylon pants - more to do with friction than smoking)

David - you need a big 'sense of humour injection'. Perhaps you could have one when they treat you for your phobia..(although in your case - both ailments are probably incurable). On the other hand, it might not be too late to do something about your verbal diarrhea:

Quote- 'Not clear on the rationale for DWB's acceptance of rules but antipathy towards legislative regulations. One's simply the other in a different guise. The trouble about no smoking areas of the past is that smoke, like smokers, doesn't respect artificial boundaries, but drifts into adjacent territory in the absence of a Star Trek style force field, hence the need for the state to interfere in commercial judgment, or the lack of it.
What I do find really sad is the sight of a smoker, so addicted to his drug, coming back into a cosy pub or office from his nicotine fix, deluding himself that the "pleasure" was worth the trip.'

You're a Trekkie, aren't you? This gets better and better

'To boldly go where no man has ever been...

Quote - 'DWB would do well to ponder the "etc..etc" he chose to gloss over. Then, and only then, he might just have some glimmering of comprehension.'

That's illogical Captain - the etc etc were referring to my previous comments (perhaps you should read them)

You should try smoking a pie...might calm you down. I don't think they've banned that yet.

Beam me up Scotty....

56

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 17:54:10

#72, David WB.
Quote #1.
I was explaining the"point" or relevance of my "incendiary sticks" allusion at #67, for his clarification. Trust he can see the wood for the trees now.
Quote#2.
Hardly. DWB's intimate predilections I have no wish to delve into, and am still scratching hard to lay bare his imagined sense of humour. Perhaps a tickling stick might help?
Quote#3.
Not particularly, but DWB seems to know the scripts. Sadly, he ignored most of the points raised in the quotation, choosing to home in on the "Star Trek" allusion, and display his true interests.
Quote#4.
At#67, I mentioned as reasons for my antipathy towards smokers their "charitably puffing smoke in my face etc. etc." It would seem a little disingenuous on DWB's part in his #69 to refer to my "personal agenda", and then to claim the "etc. etc." referred to his previous comments outlining his "personal agenda".
At #69, DWB seemed to profess some knowledge of pie smokers. I claim none.
He seems to be a true Trekkie, as the scripts keep falling off his lips.

57

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 19:27:20

#74, chas winfield, suffolk.
Didn't realise Chas was an investment analyst. Perhaps he shouldn't wait too long for the market to bottom out, otherwise he might miss a good investment opportunity.
I think it's actually the smoker lobby who throw tantrums and continually whinge when things don't go their way, e.g. imposition of smoking restrictions by the Health Act, 2006, and having to abandon their much vaunted Judicial Review.
I'd rather watch paint dry than a football match, but that is Chas' freedom to choose. Fine, but let him wrap up well, poor thing.
If Chas cares to scroll up, he'll perhaps notice that it seems to have been DWB and Mandy v. who spent most of the afternoon composing their treatises.
As for me, I was down at the boozer, which was so "empty" that I had trouble finding a vacant table.

58

Tim85,

01/12/2007 19:33:59

"And as for Tim's links at 40, none of them criticise research showing health risks of ETS. The 1st two links accept the validity of research showing a link between ETS and lung cancer - the criticisms related to how those finding were referred to in publicity. And the 3rd link criticises how WHO undertake some studies but does not describe them as fundamentally flawed and does to appear to directly criticise the validity of research relating to ETS."

You're the one who is obsessed with the ETS issue Rollo. Now your assertion that the smoking bans have not had a deletrious impact upon the profits of the licensing trade, you've moved on to that.

You've said that ETS is a killer, then you said it's not a killer, and now you're saying it's a killer again. If you're going to focus on this issue, at least get your story straight. If it's a killer, can you name five people it has killed? There doesn't seem to be this problem with other apparently killer substances, such as asbestos, or radioactive material.

However, if you want an article which questions the entire basis of the science on SHS, see this article:
http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Science_And_SHS.PDF

The purpose of the links I provided was to demonstrate the ways in which anti-smoking / tobacco control groups have undermined their case for smoking bans. If the case for smoking bans can be made solely on the grounds of health, why do anti-smoking groups frequently exaggerate the impact of second hand smoke? Why the need to make groundless and fallacious claims on the effects of health post ban, such as in the case of the Scottish heart attack study, post-ban? Why do you criticise groups such as F2C for so-called "hyperbolic nonsense", but proclaim a lack of knowledge when such accusations are compellingly levelled against anti-smoking groups such as ASH, who receive t

59

Tim85,

Lancs, England 01/12/2007 19:34:56

As for the WHO link, as the report said, the entire purpose of the WHO was undermined by its findings. Concomitantly, this includes its much vaunted conclusions on ETS.

60

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 20:42:32

#66, David WB.
With all the advantages as outlined by DWB that this "crap place" has to offer, I'm surprised he could even contemplate escaping. I'm well aware that many Brits choose to do so, just as so many others prefer to find their way in. As HMG is not too good with numbers, or even records, these days, we may not know the net figure. Any inspired guesses?
I'm more than happy to be locked out of pubs having secretive smoke-ins, but then I was never one for after hours drinking, where those participating seemed like a crowd of naughty schoolchildren sampling forbidden fruit.
Quote#1.
How, pray tell? The Judicial Review foundered, so what's the next bright move?
Just whingeing on website forums won't achieve much.
Quote#2.
Was actually Rollo's at #54. I suggest DWB wipe his glasses and refer to Rollo.
I very much enjoyed DWB's link, especially the cartoons, even though it was a bit long in the tooth.
Intersting to note that, when you work your way through it, the arguments weren't totally justifying smoking.
Think I'll take a leaf out of his book and call DWB a sanifyphobic, or possibly a phobochondriac.

61

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 21:09:27

#78, chas winfield, suffolk.
Chas is indeed the one who deserves pity, as he seems to be troubled by memory retention. On the "Tobacco initiative lit up" thread of a mere three days ago, he asked at #12:-
"#9. I admit to enjoying a cigarette and a beautifully rolled cigar. I admit that it can be called a habit and could be addictive. There are many, many habits and additions and I believe that everybody has one, even you David. Which habits and addictions do you have?"
I replied at#13:-
"#12, chas winfield, suffolk.
Probably seem pretty tame, but would listening to Billie Holiday and Lester Young count? Mind you, it's also a pretty innocuous one.
F2C passing out their refunds soon, do we know?"
Could Chas please try to stay awake and follow proceedings, if it's not too much trouble?
It's really not too difficult. He just has to try harder.

62

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 21:55:23

#81, chas winfield, suffolk.
If Chas remembered my answer, was he trying to see if he got a different one, or had he just forgotten posing his question?
He asked at #78 "Is there ANYTHING you like?" and was reminded of my previous example. I don't talk about all of the others, though shooting fish in a barrel is somewhat enjoyable, if a little too undemanding.
Chas shouldn't be surprised to learn that his pleasures and tastes are not necessarily mine.

63

David WB,

01/12/2007 22:34:33

DFNM - Apologies for thinking you were Rolo. Or maybe I should be apologising to Rollo. Who cares, not a lot of difference.

Quote - 'I'm more than happy to be locked out of pubs having secretive smoke-ins, but then I was never one for after hours drinking, where those participating seemed like a crowd of naughty schoolchildren sampling forbidden fruit.'

Thank God for that - who'd want to be locked inside a pub with you?

You're not a pub lover, are you?

I googled 'sanifyphobic'

I got this: Did you mean: sociophobic

Ok, near enough.

Definition: pertaining to an abnormal fear of social interactions and public events

Possibly.......if I were a smoker.

64

Chuckles,

Padova, Veneto, Italy 01/12/2007 23:12:46

Kings Cross Fire was an accident FFS would have happened if someone dropped anything lit!

DavideNuoviMulini82 have you ever heard of the word individualism may I ask?

Ive also been doing some research on why smoking bans failed in other EU countries and I can only applaud.

OK DFMN let me enlighten you as to what happened last nite when had a private party in the basement of out hall of residence and people lit up and nobody cared except for this "little Hitler" called Roberta who pointed to the signs and told us to put it out- take it she is a sanctimonios exsmoker who was talking the bulls**t of passive smoking and of no authority whatsoever me and two others(one a fellow Erasmus student from Espana) told the stupid b***h where to stick it. I even requested her to do some research on the subject which basically shut her up! I felt so good after saying it- like I blew off steam entirely! I am proud of what I did!

65

Chuckles,

Padova, Veneto, Italy 01/12/2007 23:13:53

Yes DFNM80 smoking is just as harmless!

66

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 23:18:32

#83, David WB.
No apology sought, but an awareness of who's posting what might be helpful to the thread of any of DWB's attempted arguments. That's the difference. I try to take the trouble to check my data.
Quote#1.
A rhetorical question, no doubt.
Actually, yes, which is why I appreciate the new "sanitised" fug free atmosphere.
"Sanifyphobic, or possibly a phobochondriac."
Both were made up, and about as silly as DWB's two definitions in his link.
Whether he smokes or not is of no interest to me, but then I don't recall assuming he did.

67

Chuckles,

Padova, Veneto, Italy 01/12/2007 23:21:19

Sorry DFNM86 I have no clue what youre on about!

68

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 01/12/2007 23:47:00

#85, Carlo R.
Medical science and a lot of people would disagree. Unless, of course, I were to listen to "Gloomy Sunday" and top myself. Not happened yet.

69

David from New Mills,

Pleasantville, U.K. 02/12/2007 00:03:37

#87, Carlo R.
That's scarcely anything new.
I realise Padova's a long away away, and communications, like Carlo, are a trifle slow, but if he could just blow the smoke away from his screen he would see that my #86 was addressed to DWB. My response to his #85 he'll find at #88.
Carlo has an unfortunate habit of shooting first, and aiming second, hence his reputation of being the loose cannon of F2C.
He really ought to try to control his latin hot headedness before he fires off, as per his account of his outburst at #84, of which he feels so proud. Never mind, as maturity and considered judgment may come to h