Licensing Act 2003

Whilst the Act (and practice) is on the whole better than the previous system, there are some unneccessary hoops within the current system. For example – when applying for a new premises licence the overlong form has to be copied umpteen different times to different departments within the council and to other interested bodies- a complete waste of paper and increase of storage costs all round. It also builds in a beauracracy – creates a need for different departments.  Why cant the forms be submitted electronically to the licensing unit – they then liaise with other departments as necessary and the application viewed by all the necessary departments online?

The premises form could be much reduced. The need to set out how you satisfy the licensing objectives just creates a template mentality – this could be filled in at an interview with the licencing unit who can assess the applicant at the same time – and act as a gate keeper.

Why is this idea important?

Whilst the Act (and practice) is on the whole better than the previous system, there are some unneccessary hoops within the current system. For example – when applying for a new premises licence the overlong form has to be copied umpteen different times to different departments within the council and to other interested bodies- a complete waste of paper and increase of storage costs all round. It also builds in a beauracracy – creates a need for different departments.  Why cant the forms be submitted electronically to the licensing unit – they then liaise with other departments as necessary and the application viewed by all the necessary departments online?

The premises form could be much reduced. The need to set out how you satisfy the licensing objectives just creates a template mentality – this could be filled in at an interview with the licencing unit who can assess the applicant at the same time – and act as a gate keeper.

A better compramise on the smoking ban.

 




I think the smoking ban rules should be relaxed, firstly even smokey France had smoking legalisation long before we did in the early '90s than made it the law for restaurants to have smoking areas, that is something we should have done a long time ago instead of the one extreme to the other law that came in. I can see the argument that pubs are not health farms and that it’s the sort of place you don’t have to go into so therefore it should be up to the people whether or not to go in there, but I can see the need to protect the workers so a complete removal of the ban is not in the greater interest, however I think a relaxation of the law should be in the greater interest. Firstly the ban should be repealed in outdoor places where it is virtually unenforceable, like remote railway stations, at the moment a person standing away from everybody else at the end of a railway platform is breaking the law the same way someone standing amongst everybody else is. Maybe if the law allowed for parts of the platform to allow smoking more people would just go there instead of smoking anywhere. Also the ridiculous law requiring no smoking signs in obvious places needs to go; churches, gyms, hospitals and schools don’t need them they never had them before the ban or they may have been small in inconspicuous, because it was too obvious. Are we supposed these places are the exception to the ban if there’s no sign?

I also think increasing how enclosed smoking areas are allowed to be should be increased to more then 50% as it’s a place specifically for smokers to go, maybe allowing for indoor smoking rooms with legislation similar to that of the ones allowed in France would be a good idea. I also think there should be an exemption for Shisha bars.

Why is this idea important?

 




I think the smoking ban rules should be relaxed, firstly even smokey France had smoking legalisation long before we did in the early '90s than made it the law for restaurants to have smoking areas, that is something we should have done a long time ago instead of the one extreme to the other law that came in. I can see the argument that pubs are not health farms and that it’s the sort of place you don’t have to go into so therefore it should be up to the people whether or not to go in there, but I can see the need to protect the workers so a complete removal of the ban is not in the greater interest, however I think a relaxation of the law should be in the greater interest. Firstly the ban should be repealed in outdoor places where it is virtually unenforceable, like remote railway stations, at the moment a person standing away from everybody else at the end of a railway platform is breaking the law the same way someone standing amongst everybody else is. Maybe if the law allowed for parts of the platform to allow smoking more people would just go there instead of smoking anywhere. Also the ridiculous law requiring no smoking signs in obvious places needs to go; churches, gyms, hospitals and schools don’t need them they never had them before the ban or they may have been small in inconspicuous, because it was too obvious. Are we supposed these places are the exception to the ban if there’s no sign?

I also think increasing how enclosed smoking areas are allowed to be should be increased to more then 50% as it’s a place specifically for smokers to go, maybe allowing for indoor smoking rooms with legislation similar to that of the ones allowed in France would be a good idea. I also think there should be an exemption for Shisha bars.

repeal the smoking ban

I believe that the main reason so many pubs and clubs have closed is the smoking ban and not the price of drinks. Thousands of smokers had their social lives ruined with the ban because for a smoker a drink without a cigarette is like an unsalted meal – bland and not worth the bother. I appreciate that some non-smokers find cigarette smoke unpleasant but a way can be found to keep all of us happy, Landlords could choose whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub or a pub which caters for both with designated areas for each. If this even-handed approach had been adopted from the outset we would not have seen so many people made miserable by taking away one of their main pleasures in life. Neither would there have been the closure of so many great traditional pubs which had been the mainstay of their local communities.

The type of smoker who has stayed away from the pubs since the ban is more often than not a hard-working taxpayer whose only vice is having a drink in one hand and a cigarette (or pipe or cigar) in the other – not a drug-raddled lunatic. We have lost so many of our beloved traditions in this country and I believe this ban is a step too close to a Big Brother society which hopefully no right-minded person wants.

Lastly, it has been a great relief to have the opportunity to voice the feelings of an ordinary person and believe it will be listened to. I think this sort of platform is a good way for the powers-that-be ascertain the feelings of the man-in the street.

Many thanks – and hopefully see you in the pub before very long!

 

Why is this idea important?

I believe that the main reason so many pubs and clubs have closed is the smoking ban and not the price of drinks. Thousands of smokers had their social lives ruined with the ban because for a smoker a drink without a cigarette is like an unsalted meal – bland and not worth the bother. I appreciate that some non-smokers find cigarette smoke unpleasant but a way can be found to keep all of us happy, Landlords could choose whether to run a smoking pub, a non-smoking pub or a pub which caters for both with designated areas for each. If this even-handed approach had been adopted from the outset we would not have seen so many people made miserable by taking away one of their main pleasures in life. Neither would there have been the closure of so many great traditional pubs which had been the mainstay of their local communities.

The type of smoker who has stayed away from the pubs since the ban is more often than not a hard-working taxpayer whose only vice is having a drink in one hand and a cigarette (or pipe or cigar) in the other – not a drug-raddled lunatic. We have lost so many of our beloved traditions in this country and I believe this ban is a step too close to a Big Brother society which hopefully no right-minded person wants.

Lastly, it has been a great relief to have the opportunity to voice the feelings of an ordinary person and believe it will be listened to. I think this sort of platform is a good way for the powers-that-be ascertain the feelings of the man-in the street.

Many thanks – and hopefully see you in the pub before very long!

 

Smoking Ban in Public Houses (From a NON-Smoker)

I have to say, when witnessing the number of pubs and clubs that are closing down now, that this stupid ban was the death knell for many of them.

I should say at the outset that I do not smoke – gave up quite a few years ago – I am not in the licensed trade and have no connection with the tobacco industry. I am a joiner who is currently working part time and looking for full time employment. However, I really feel for the groups of smokers huddled in doorways and outdoor shelters around pubs – especially in the winter. Of course – many smokers don't, now, even bother to go to the pub – they stay at home.

My wife and I were in Spain recently and noticed such a difference in attitudes – far more relaxed about the whole thing (yes, I do realise that other factors, such as the weather, play a part also.)

I'm not advocating the allowing of smoking in all public houses – but that those who wish to allow it provide a seperate, well ventilated room in which smokers can indulge, and that those pubs must advertise smoking/ non-smoking  outside the premises. At least that way, people have the real choice.

Why is this idea important?

I have to say, when witnessing the number of pubs and clubs that are closing down now, that this stupid ban was the death knell for many of them.

I should say at the outset that I do not smoke – gave up quite a few years ago – I am not in the licensed trade and have no connection with the tobacco industry. I am a joiner who is currently working part time and looking for full time employment. However, I really feel for the groups of smokers huddled in doorways and outdoor shelters around pubs – especially in the winter. Of course – many smokers don't, now, even bother to go to the pub – they stay at home.

My wife and I were in Spain recently and noticed such a difference in attitudes – far more relaxed about the whole thing (yes, I do realise that other factors, such as the weather, play a part also.)

I'm not advocating the allowing of smoking in all public houses – but that those who wish to allow it provide a seperate, well ventilated room in which smokers can indulge, and that those pubs must advertise smoking/ non-smoking  outside the premises. At least that way, people have the real choice.

Make it easier for cafes and pubs to have seats, tables & drinks outside.

Pubs and cafes have to apply for licences to put seats and tables outside, and then they are restricted on numbers, allowed hours, and positioning.  My idea is to loosen up the regulations on licencing of pavement usage outside of cafes and pubs.

Presumably there are already laws to prevent businesses from being a nuisance or an obstruction, so why do we need local authority departments presiding over yet more regulation, inspections & paperwork?

Why is this idea important?

Pubs and cafes have to apply for licences to put seats and tables outside, and then they are restricted on numbers, allowed hours, and positioning.  My idea is to loosen up the regulations on licencing of pavement usage outside of cafes and pubs.

Presumably there are already laws to prevent businesses from being a nuisance or an obstruction, so why do we need local authority departments presiding over yet more regulation, inspections & paperwork?

Allow Designated Smoking rooms in pubs and clubs

Allow smoking in enclosed separate rooms with air extraction fitted and efficient separation from the rest of the establishment. The majority fot he establishment must still be dedicated to non smoking areas.

Why is this idea important?

Allow smoking in enclosed separate rooms with air extraction fitted and efficient separation from the rest of the establishment. The majority fot he establishment must still be dedicated to non smoking areas.

Time to review the libel laws.

On the 16th July The Chartered Institute For Environmental Health issued the following press release. "Pro-health campaign ASH has accused the tobacco industry of orchestrating pro-smoking comments on a website launched by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg in a move to get ‘unnecessary’ laws and regulations scrapped." This is patently untrue. Britain's 12 million smokers are not an adjunct to tobacco companies who are sycophantic, lick spittle lap dogs unable to express any opinion without reference to a third party.  Instead as a group deprived of the right of association, unable to enjoy a legal past time with the permission of the owner of private property, we exercised complete freewill and were only too pleased to contribute to the debate.
 

http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820

Why is this idea important?

On the 16th July The Chartered Institute For Environmental Health issued the following press release. "Pro-health campaign ASH has accused the tobacco industry of orchestrating pro-smoking comments on a website launched by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg in a move to get ‘unnecessary’ laws and regulations scrapped." This is patently untrue. Britain's 12 million smokers are not an adjunct to tobacco companies who are sycophantic, lick spittle lap dogs unable to express any opinion without reference to a third party.  Instead as a group deprived of the right of association, unable to enjoy a legal past time with the permission of the owner of private property, we exercised complete freewill and were only too pleased to contribute to the debate.
 

http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820

Don’t like the smoking ban? You know where the door is.

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Why is this idea important?

Other countries have much more freedom than Britain.

Clearly the government intends to ignore ideas submitted to this site.

So why not offer bursaries so that people can move abroad to enjoy more freedom:

1. Freedom to smoke: other European countries are much more relaxed about smoking.

2. Freedom to breathe: traffic pollution is much less severe in Europe and they allow smoking rooms so you can choose which smoke you want to be exposed to.

3. Freedom from tax: Britain now has the highest overall burden of tax in the western world.

4. Freedom to work: mass immigration and offshoring of jobs are much less prevalent in other countries.

5. Freedom to study: most other European countries offer student grants and waive tuition fees for poorer students.

6. Freedom to recover: Britain has some of the worst figures in Europe for recovery from cancer and other serious diseases.

7. Freedom to personal space: Britain is now the most densely populated country in Europe (supermarkets estimate, from the sale of staple items like bread and milk, that the population of Britain is around 95 million)

8. Freedom to own a home: it's almost impossible to enter the property market in Britain.

9. Freedom of movement: British people must now sign the e-borders register to take a holiday.

10. Freedom of assembly: in Britain is it illegal to dance to repetitive music, play live music unlicensed at a village fete and hold a political protest without permission from the police.

11. Freedom from noise: despite the previous point Britain offers no protection against neighbourhood noise unlike most other European countries.

12. Freedom from violence: Britain has the highest violent crime figures in Europe and most people are afraid to walk around their own communities after dark.

13. Freedom of the Internet: only Britain, China and North Korea will block Websites and imprison people whom contradict the will of the digital oligarchs.

14. Freedom to have a stake: in America one third of the population has two thirds of the wealth. However in Britain, comparable to a tin-pot dictatorship, just 5% of the population has 95% of the wealth.

I could go on but you get the picture.

Amend the Smoking Ban

If a group of people who are smokers wish to hire or use a licensed or unlicensed premises indoors for the purposes of recreation they should be allowed to do so. It is a basic human right of association.

I suggest that local authorities can have a quota of premises (dependant on the population of that local authority area) that can be granted conditional indoor smoking permits. Certain public houses that have met basic air quality conditions and are able to seperate non smokers from smokers (or be closed to non smokers) should be able to apply for such permits for certain advertised events organised by smokers.

I would recommend smokers had to pre-register and become members of such events to obtain admission to remove the risk that a non smoker inadvertantly entered such a venue or event.

Staff working at such a premises must sign a waiver wherein they confirm that they are either a smoker themselves or that they waive any right to protection under the public health act, much in the same way people can opt out of working time regulations designed to protect the health and wellbeing of workers at present.  

Why is this idea important?

If a group of people who are smokers wish to hire or use a licensed or unlicensed premises indoors for the purposes of recreation they should be allowed to do so. It is a basic human right of association.

I suggest that local authorities can have a quota of premises (dependant on the population of that local authority area) that can be granted conditional indoor smoking permits. Certain public houses that have met basic air quality conditions and are able to seperate non smokers from smokers (or be closed to non smokers) should be able to apply for such permits for certain advertised events organised by smokers.

I would recommend smokers had to pre-register and become members of such events to obtain admission to remove the risk that a non smoker inadvertantly entered such a venue or event.

Staff working at such a premises must sign a waiver wherein they confirm that they are either a smoker themselves or that they waive any right to protection under the public health act, much in the same way people can opt out of working time regulations designed to protect the health and wellbeing of workers at present.  

Draconian Licensing Regulations restricting public dancing or singing

The regulations under the Licensing Acts and the Local Government Acts restricting the playing of music in pubs, the activities of live musicians and whether the public are dancing or singing should be scrapped. It may come as a surprise to many that if a member of the public spontaneously starts dancing and or singing and the Licensee does not have a relevant license allowing the public to dance or sing then this is a breach of their license conditions and they could faced closure.

People should be free to sing and dance wherever they want in a liberal democracy such as ours. Landlords should not be forced to behave like Cromwellian informants and suppress normal human behaviour. 

I agree that very loud or disruptive behaviour disturbing the peace should be curtailed but under Common Law we already have the means to control this if there is a complaint or if the police have grounds to believe such behaviour could result in a danger to persons or property.

Why is this idea important?

The regulations under the Licensing Acts and the Local Government Acts restricting the playing of music in pubs, the activities of live musicians and whether the public are dancing or singing should be scrapped. It may come as a surprise to many that if a member of the public spontaneously starts dancing and or singing and the Licensee does not have a relevant license allowing the public to dance or sing then this is a breach of their license conditions and they could faced closure.

People should be free to sing and dance wherever they want in a liberal democracy such as ours. Landlords should not be forced to behave like Cromwellian informants and suppress normal human behaviour. 

I agree that very loud or disruptive behaviour disturbing the peace should be curtailed but under Common Law we already have the means to control this if there is a complaint or if the police have grounds to believe such behaviour could result in a danger to persons or property.

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking Pubs ….simples

Some adults CHOOSE to smoke. Some adults CHOOSE not to smoke. We all unfortunately inhale second hand fumes and pollutants because of the car obsessed part of world we live in. However, if a publican and his/her staff are happy to allow smoking on their premises then they should be allowed to. Common sense, tongue in cheek and 21st century choices to make this a viable option are…

1) Compulsory and standardised air filtration systems fitted in smoking pubs to minimise or eliminate supposed (I say this because of the lack of real scientific evidence of passive smoking causing harm) passive smoking by non smokers who CHOOSE to attend these premises. In fact all publicans could have had one of these fitted 3 years ago instead of buying shelters, awnings, gazebos etc. to accommodate outdoor smoking.

2) Smoking Pub or Non-smoking Pub  signs to be clearly shown outside, so no anti-smokers or innocent children can accidentally stray into the building. Anti-smokers (please note these people are different from non-smokers) can enjoy smoke free moaning without the rest of us having to suffer second hand whinging.

3) Smoking Pubs to be for adults only so no child is exposed to even filtrated second hand smoke, not because I think it is dangerous but to stem the inevitable objections from anti-smokers that even if they were willing to risk this environment 'what about the children'.  Actually, this is win win for smokers, a quiet drink, smoke and a child free environment.  (By the way good air filters would provide a less polluted environment than being on the pavement next to any road so your child would be better off in the pub).

4) Selected pubs to be designated as palaces, then just as at Westminster all smokers rather than just MP's who are smokers can CHOOSE to smoke in a civilised adult environment.

5)  The enormous tax revenue from smokers to go straight to the NHS to cover almost 10 times the cost of smoking related illnesses . Or we could share it out between education and health then smokers would be helping save lives and improve the educational standards of the populace. The economy would boom due to our abundance of scientists, engineers and business whizz kids so we could all get self-cert super high mortgages again and kid ourselves that we are all one class now.  (This idea would mean that working smokers were paying tax twice toward these public services but we are an easy going bunch and wouldn't mind).

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking pubs….simples.

Why is this idea important?

Some adults CHOOSE to smoke. Some adults CHOOSE not to smoke. We all unfortunately inhale second hand fumes and pollutants because of the car obsessed part of world we live in. However, if a publican and his/her staff are happy to allow smoking on their premises then they should be allowed to. Common sense, tongue in cheek and 21st century choices to make this a viable option are…

1) Compulsory and standardised air filtration systems fitted in smoking pubs to minimise or eliminate supposed (I say this because of the lack of real scientific evidence of passive smoking causing harm) passive smoking by non smokers who CHOOSE to attend these premises. In fact all publicans could have had one of these fitted 3 years ago instead of buying shelters, awnings, gazebos etc. to accommodate outdoor smoking.

2) Smoking Pub or Non-smoking Pub  signs to be clearly shown outside, so no anti-smokers or innocent children can accidentally stray into the building. Anti-smokers (please note these people are different from non-smokers) can enjoy smoke free moaning without the rest of us having to suffer second hand whinging.

3) Smoking Pubs to be for adults only so no child is exposed to even filtrated second hand smoke, not because I think it is dangerous but to stem the inevitable objections from anti-smokers that even if they were willing to risk this environment 'what about the children'.  Actually, this is win win for smokers, a quiet drink, smoke and a child free environment.  (By the way good air filters would provide a less polluted environment than being on the pavement next to any road so your child would be better off in the pub).

4) Selected pubs to be designated as palaces, then just as at Westminster all smokers rather than just MP's who are smokers can CHOOSE to smoke in a civilised adult environment.

5)  The enormous tax revenue from smokers to go straight to the NHS to cover almost 10 times the cost of smoking related illnesses . Or we could share it out between education and health then smokers would be helping save lives and improve the educational standards of the populace. The economy would boom due to our abundance of scientists, engineers and business whizz kids so we could all get self-cert super high mortgages again and kid ourselves that we are all one class now.  (This idea would mean that working smokers were paying tax twice toward these public services but we are an easy going bunch and wouldn't mind).

Smoking Pubs and Non-smoking pubs….simples.

Lets lift the smoking ban it’s killing England

PUBS CLOSING THE TRADE IS DYING. WE SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE US THE BRITISH PEOPLE NOT TO BE DICTATED TO AND TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND NOT DO FREEDOM OF CHOICE PLEASE. A FAG AND A PINT NOT STANDING IN THE COLD

Why is this idea important?

PUBS CLOSING THE TRADE IS DYING. WE SHOULD HAVE A CHOICE US THE BRITISH PEOPLE NOT TO BE DICTATED TO AND TOLD WHAT WE CAN AND NOT DO FREEDOM OF CHOICE PLEASE. A FAG AND A PINT NOT STANDING IN THE COLD

Withdraw from EC renewed block exemption re UK beer tie

On 20th April 2010 the European Commission (EC) agreed to continue its "block exemption" on certain "vertical agreements" which could pose competition issues, including the "beer tie", until 2022. Effectively the UK's compliance with this EC regulation will ensure the survival until at least 2022 of the national disgrace "beer tie" inflicted on UK public houses by UK pubcos and national and regional brewers. The UK "beer tie" is a major cause of the alarming closure of UK pubs (currently an average of six pub closures per day) and inflates the retail price of a pint of beer to the consumer by almost £1 per pint.

I cannot recommend strongly enough that the UK government urgently legislate to exempt the UK from compliance with the aforementioned EC directive in relation to the "beer tie" and thereby create a competitive business environment for UK pub tenants whilst also benefitting UK consumers. Whilst the "beer tie" may in the distant past have been a mutually beneficial arrangement for pub tenants, consumers and pubcos alike, it is very apparent that the pubcos and brewers have distorted it so much over the years that it now clearly pernicious, inflationery and anti-competitive – quite apart from being a restrictive practice otherwise illegal elsewhere in UK business. Both the EC and OFT have failed to appreciate this drastic change (despite the BISC's recent highly critical review of the "beer tie") although the OFT are now having to consider an appeal from CAMRA who I hope will ultimately refer the "beer tie" to the Competition Commission. However by the time these quangos wake up how many more UK pubs will have closed and thereby whole communities lost? The disappearance of sociable places of enjoyment (already suffering from the removal of the "two in a bar" live entertainment licence – which should be reinstated asap) will doubtless add further to the social problems in the UK in enforcing yet greater insularity by the population in becoming a nation of "couch potatoes".

FYI I am not employed in the UK pub trade but I am an independent accountant, concerned consumer and very worried UK citizen.

Why is this idea important?

On 20th April 2010 the European Commission (EC) agreed to continue its "block exemption" on certain "vertical agreements" which could pose competition issues, including the "beer tie", until 2022. Effectively the UK's compliance with this EC regulation will ensure the survival until at least 2022 of the national disgrace "beer tie" inflicted on UK public houses by UK pubcos and national and regional brewers. The UK "beer tie" is a major cause of the alarming closure of UK pubs (currently an average of six pub closures per day) and inflates the retail price of a pint of beer to the consumer by almost £1 per pint.

I cannot recommend strongly enough that the UK government urgently legislate to exempt the UK from compliance with the aforementioned EC directive in relation to the "beer tie" and thereby create a competitive business environment for UK pub tenants whilst also benefitting UK consumers. Whilst the "beer tie" may in the distant past have been a mutually beneficial arrangement for pub tenants, consumers and pubcos alike, it is very apparent that the pubcos and brewers have distorted it so much over the years that it now clearly pernicious, inflationery and anti-competitive – quite apart from being a restrictive practice otherwise illegal elsewhere in UK business. Both the EC and OFT have failed to appreciate this drastic change (despite the BISC's recent highly critical review of the "beer tie") although the OFT are now having to consider an appeal from CAMRA who I hope will ultimately refer the "beer tie" to the Competition Commission. However by the time these quangos wake up how many more UK pubs will have closed and thereby whole communities lost? The disappearance of sociable places of enjoyment (already suffering from the removal of the "two in a bar" live entertainment licence – which should be reinstated asap) will doubtless add further to the social problems in the UK in enforcing yet greater insularity by the population in becoming a nation of "couch potatoes".

FYI I am not employed in the UK pub trade but I am an independent accountant, concerned consumer and very worried UK citizen.

Down with plastic glasses!

It should not be a requirement that drinkers enjoying a pint of beer in the sunshine should have to do so out of a plastic 'glass'.  I have never – ever – seen anyone attack someone with a glass and resent being made to feel like a potential criminal myself.  It's not just the inherent silliness of the law, it's that beer just isn't as nice to drink out of plastic.

And while I'm about it, is it true or is it a myth that pubs are not allowed by law to serve beer in the traditional dimpled mugs?  The 'reason' I have heard given is that the handle enables the glass to be used as a weapon (see above).

Why is this idea important?

It should not be a requirement that drinkers enjoying a pint of beer in the sunshine should have to do so out of a plastic 'glass'.  I have never – ever – seen anyone attack someone with a glass and resent being made to feel like a potential criminal myself.  It's not just the inherent silliness of the law, it's that beer just isn't as nice to drink out of plastic.

And while I'm about it, is it true or is it a myth that pubs are not allowed by law to serve beer in the traditional dimpled mugs?  The 'reason' I have heard given is that the handle enables the glass to be used as a weapon (see above).

Relax the Repressive Closing times on UK Pubs and Change the Attitude Towards Binge Drinking

Having worked all over the world I believe that the UK laws on licensing  are among the most repressive in the western world. This was illustrated recently when I had some French friends visit and we had to leave the pub at 11pm on a friday. They couldn't believe this was actually the law here and joked 'It's really funny that your government treat you like children'. I can understand what they think. It's frankly embarrassing.

Anywhere else in Europe, Pub opening times are at the discretion of the vender and not the government. And why not? Surely that is the basic freedom that everyone should have? In fact I can tell you that elsewhere in Europe generally people don't even head to the pubs until after 11.

I work all week and pay my tax's like an adult and I'd also like to be treated by my government as an adult. I think if you are worried about noise levels from pubs then the answer is simple. Don't live next to a pub. I think that people should be given the freedom to drink responsibly when they like and the vender should have the freedom to sell when they want without all the bureaucracy that goes with it. Surly that is basic rights of freedom?

For the first few months things would be crazy. The British people have been living in a 'nanny state' and have not been given the freedom to have a drink when they want. The attitude now is to drink as much as possible as quickly as possible before the bar shuts. If the law was relaxed, after a crossover period, I am positive this will change the attitude of the British people towards binge drinking resulting in more responsible consumption of alcohol over a longer period of time. My theory is that if you treat people like adults, then they will start acting like adults. 

I would call upon this government to please give both the people and the landlords of this country the basic rights that the rest of Europe and the western world enjoy in regards to pub closing times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Having worked all over the world I believe that the UK laws on licensing  are among the most repressive in the western world. This was illustrated recently when I had some French friends visit and we had to leave the pub at 11pm on a friday. They couldn't believe this was actually the law here and joked 'It's really funny that your government treat you like children'. I can understand what they think. It's frankly embarrassing.

Anywhere else in Europe, Pub opening times are at the discretion of the vender and not the government. And why not? Surely that is the basic freedom that everyone should have? In fact I can tell you that elsewhere in Europe generally people don't even head to the pubs until after 11.

I work all week and pay my tax's like an adult and I'd also like to be treated by my government as an adult. I think if you are worried about noise levels from pubs then the answer is simple. Don't live next to a pub. I think that people should be given the freedom to drink responsibly when they like and the vender should have the freedom to sell when they want without all the bureaucracy that goes with it. Surly that is basic rights of freedom?

For the first few months things would be crazy. The British people have been living in a 'nanny state' and have not been given the freedom to have a drink when they want. The attitude now is to drink as much as possible as quickly as possible before the bar shuts. If the law was relaxed, after a crossover period, I am positive this will change the attitude of the British people towards binge drinking resulting in more responsible consumption of alcohol over a longer period of time. My theory is that if you treat people like adults, then they will start acting like adults. 

I would call upon this government to please give both the people and the landlords of this country the basic rights that the rest of Europe and the western world enjoy in regards to pub closing times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Repeal the smoking ban in pubs

Since the introduction of the smoking ban in pubs we have seen the demise of this greatest of British institutions; where pubs have survived we have seen or heard of more complaints about noise coming from outside, this is because those who smoke go outside  to smoke. Let us be realistic, this ill thought out piece of legislation has not reduced the number of us that smoke, it has merely inconvenienced us. legislate to allow a room in a pub for smokers

Why is this idea important?

Since the introduction of the smoking ban in pubs we have seen the demise of this greatest of British institutions; where pubs have survived we have seen or heard of more complaints about noise coming from outside, this is because those who smoke go outside  to smoke. Let us be realistic, this ill thought out piece of legislation has not reduced the number of us that smoke, it has merely inconvenienced us. legislate to allow a room in a pub for smokers

Pub Trade

Society has never been so broken as it is today, few people can name their neighbour let alone others on their street. Driven by a shopping culture of cheap booze, many spend the evening guzzling wine etc locked up in their homes. The governments attempts to kerb binge drinking are futile. People are tanked up before they go out.

Alchohol sold from shops should be heavily taxed per unit, making it a luxury item.

Alchohol sold from public houses should have the tax reduced.

The benefit of this would be a helping hand to the dying pub trade, socialisation of communities. Responsibility back to the land lords who should face the prospect of losing their licence/heavy fines, for bad/drunken customer behavior. Reduce alchohol abuse and the sale of fake goods with regular inspections.

Why is this idea important?

Society has never been so broken as it is today, few people can name their neighbour let alone others on their street. Driven by a shopping culture of cheap booze, many spend the evening guzzling wine etc locked up in their homes. The governments attempts to kerb binge drinking are futile. People are tanked up before they go out.

Alchohol sold from shops should be heavily taxed per unit, making it a luxury item.

Alchohol sold from public houses should have the tax reduced.

The benefit of this would be a helping hand to the dying pub trade, socialisation of communities. Responsibility back to the land lords who should face the prospect of losing their licence/heavy fines, for bad/drunken customer behavior. Reduce alchohol abuse and the sale of fake goods with regular inspections.

Prohibition of Smoking in pubs

This law has led to may  inns closing.  It should be a matter for individual landlords to decide on whether they want their premises to be smoking or non smoking, or whether to allocate a separate room for smokers.  Apparently one can still smoke in The House of Parliament, whilst enjoying tax payer subsidised drinks.

The "Nanny State" has gone mad.

Why is this idea important?

This law has led to may  inns closing.  It should be a matter for individual landlords to decide on whether they want their premises to be smoking or non smoking, or whether to allocate a separate room for smokers.  Apparently one can still smoke in The House of Parliament, whilst enjoying tax payer subsidised drinks.

The "Nanny State" has gone mad.

repel the smoking ban

the non smokers have a choice of going into a pub with smokers

i have no choice of going into a pub and having a smoke

wheres the fairness there

come on coalition change this unfair law

Why is this idea important?

the non smokers have a choice of going into a pub with smokers

i have no choice of going into a pub and having a smoke

wheres the fairness there

come on coalition change this unfair law

Lower minimum age for buying alcohol in pubs/clubs to 16

Before 'challenge 21' etc.  since the '50s teenagers went into pubs when they could 'get away with it' around 15 or 16. Because they wanted to be seen as 'adult' they behaved & drank in a sensible manner overall.

When things changed they started hanging around parks drinking copious amounts of cheap booze, causing trouble & getting ill.

Let them back into pubs (they're going to drink anyway) & at least they can follow a sensible (on the whole) template of behaviour around booze.

It'll give them something to do socially & at least they could go dancing etc., something taken for granted by teens in the 'dance hall days' 

For 12-15 year olds there should be far more adequate provision in terms of youth activity centres with music, sport, parkour, etc.

Why is this idea important?

Before 'challenge 21' etc.  since the '50s teenagers went into pubs when they could 'get away with it' around 15 or 16. Because they wanted to be seen as 'adult' they behaved & drank in a sensible manner overall.

When things changed they started hanging around parks drinking copious amounts of cheap booze, causing trouble & getting ill.

Let them back into pubs (they're going to drink anyway) & at least they can follow a sensible (on the whole) template of behaviour around booze.

It'll give them something to do socially & at least they could go dancing etc., something taken for granted by teens in the 'dance hall days' 

For 12-15 year olds there should be far more adequate provision in terms of youth activity centres with music, sport, parkour, etc.

LIFT SMOKING BAN IN PUBS & CLUBS at management’s discretion

Let publicans decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments. Let CIU Clubs decide whether to lift the ban in their establishments. Give Pubs & Clubs, Bingo Halls, Betting Shops and other adult establishments the power to decide whether they want to lift the ban in adult over 18 establishments. Get rid of Nanny State Politics. Let the people decide.

Why is this idea important?

Let publicans decide whether to allow smoking in their establishments. Let CIU Clubs decide whether to lift the ban in their establishments. Give Pubs & Clubs, Bingo Halls, Betting Shops and other adult establishments the power to decide whether they want to lift the ban in adult over 18 establishments. Get rid of Nanny State Politics. Let the people decide.