BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6925587.stm

"Nine out of 10 landlords said the ban was easy to enforce and of those
questioned, 60% said they had received a positive response from
customers.

However, 16% said that customers had reacted negatively and a fifth
claimed that the ban had had a negative impact on their business.

Just under 50% said that business has stayed the same while 32% revealed
that the smoking ban had improved it."

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

Following up to [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:

>"Nine out of 10 landlords said the ban was easy to enforce and of those
>questioned, 60% said they had received a positive response from
>customers.

I got a negative response from a landlord, we accidentally sat in the
staff puffing area, I might have mentioned before.

>However, 16% said that customers had reacted negatively and a fifth
>claimed that the ban had had a negative impact on their business.

most negative, three customers shot and killed person who told them to
stop.

>Just under 50% said that business has stayed the same while 32% revealed
>that the smoking ban had improved it."

fingers crossed then.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

The Reid <[email protected]> wrote:

> Following up to [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:
>
> >"Nine out of 10 landlords said the ban was easy to enforce and of those
> >questioned, 60% said they had received a positive response from
> >customers.
>
> I got a negative response from a landlord, we accidentally sat in the
> staff puffing area, I might have mentioned before.

Yes you did. I'm going to make sure I sit in such places whenever
possible now! :)

> >However, 16% said that customers had reacted negatively and a fifth
> >claimed that the ban had had a negative impact on their business.
>
> most negative, three customers shot and killed person who told them to
> stop.

Indeed- but that kind of incident could have have happened another way.

> >Just under 50% said that business has stayed the same while 32% revealed
> >that the smoking ban had improved it."
>
> fingers crossed then.

The bars here seem busy enough. Also, apparently a chef's salary is
going up on average due to supply and demand- a lot of pubs which didn't
focus much on food before are looking into it as a way of boosting
profits.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

David Horne wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/6925587.stm
>
> "Nine out of 10 landlords said the ban was easy to enforce and of those
> questioned, 60% said they had received a positive response from
> customers.
>
> However, 16% said that customers had reacted negatively and a fifth
> claimed that the ban had had a negative impact on their business.
>
> Just under 50% said that business has stayed the same while 32% revealed
> that the smoking ban had improved it."
>
One report was of a customer who thought the empty bar was such a downer
he said "I'm going into the garden for a bit of passive smoking".
Smokers are generally more sociable you see.

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

mike o'sullivan <[email protected]> wrote:

> David Horne wrote:
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/6925587.stm
> >
> > "Nine out of 10 landlords said the ban was easy to enforce and of those
> > questioned, 60% said they had received a positive response from
> > customers.
> >
> > However, 16% said that customers had reacted negatively and a fifth
> > claimed that the ban had had a negative impact on their business.
> >
> > Just under 50% said that business has stayed the same while 32% revealed
> > that the smoking ban had improved it."
> >
> One report was of a customer who thought the empty bar was such a downer
> he said "I'm going into the garden for a bit of passive smoking".
> Smokers are generally more sociable you see.

Not in my experience- it's one of the most anti-socia(b)l(e) things you
can do. Most people on Canal Street are outside at the moment because
the weather's nice- it was the same in the warm weather last year.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

mike o'sullivan wrote:

> David Horne wrote:
>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/6925587.stm
>>
>> "Nine out of 10 landlords said the ban was easy to enforce and of those
>> questioned, 60% said they had received a positive response from
>> customers.
>>
>> However, 16% said that customers had reacted negatively and a fifth
>> claimed that the ban had had a negative impact on their business.
>>
>> Just under 50% said that business has stayed the same while 32% revealed
>> that the smoking ban had improved it."
>>
> One report was of a customer who thought the empty bar was such a downer
> he said "I'm going into the garden for a bit of passive smoking".
> Smokers are generally more sociable you see.

Really? I never found them so in the U.S.! I'm not sure
how many states have adopted the "no smoking in public
places" rule, but California has had it for years with
little negative feed-back. Arizona just started it in May
of this year, and except for a few disgruntled bar-owners
who were charged hefty fines for non-compliance, I can't see
it has made much difference. We seem to be the DUI capital
for the country, and the number of drunk driving arrests
appear to have remained constant. (Indicating people are
still drinking as much in bars as they did before the
smoking ban.)

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

Who cares, really except the usual bunch of spammers

"David Horne" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de
news:1i25x54.1vbhgju107z03tN%[email protected]...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/6925587.stm
>
> "Nine out of 10 landlords said the ban was easy to enforce and of those
> questioned, 60% said they had received a positive response from
> customers.
>
> However, 16% said that customers had reacted negatively and a fifth
> claimed that the ban had had a negative impact on their business.
>
> Just under 50% said that business has stayed the same while 32% revealed
> that the smoking ban had improved it."
>
> --
> (*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
> http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
> "Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
> Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

Lol I typed spammers and presto !
Super spammy granny out of the USA, always on topic.


"EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le
message de news:[email protected]...
>
>
> mike o'sullivan wrote:
>
>> David Horne wrote:
>>
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/6925587.stm
>>>
>>> "Nine out of 10 landlords said the ban was easy to enforce and of those
>>> questioned, 60% said they had received a positive response from
>>> customers.
>>>
>>> However, 16% said that customers had reacted negatively and a fifth
>>> claimed that the ban had had a negative impact on their business.
>>>
>>> Just under 50% said that business has stayed the same while 32% revealed
>>> that the smoking ban had improved it."
>>>
>> One report was of a customer who thought the empty bar was such a downer
>> he said "I'm going into the garden for a bit of passive smoking". Smokers
>> are generally more sociable you see.
>
> Really? I never found them so in the U.S.! I'm not sure how many states
> have adopted the "no smoking in public places" rule, but California has
> had it for years with little negative feed-back. Arizona just started it
> in May of this year, and except for a few disgruntled bar-owners who were
> charged hefty fines for non-compliance, I can't see it has made much
> difference. We seem to be the DUI capital for the country, and the number
> of drunk driving arrests appear to have remained constant. (Indicating
> people are still drinking as much in bars as they did before the smoking
> ban.)

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

On Aug 1, 2:35 pm, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> mike o'sullivan wrote:
> > David Horne wrote:
>
> >>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/m...er/6925587.stm
>
> >> "Nine out of 10 landlords said the ban was easy to enforce and of those
> >> questioned, 60% said they had received a positive response from
> >> customers.
>
> >> However, 16% said that customers had reacted negatively and a fifth
> >> claimed that the ban had had a negative impact on their business.
>
> >> Just under 50% said that business has stayed the same while 32% revealed
> >> that the smoking ban had improved it."
>
> > One report was of a customer who thought the empty bar was such a downer
> > he said "I'm going into the garden for a bit of passive smoking".
> > Smokers are generally more sociable you see.
>
> Really? I never found them so in the U.S.! I'm not sure
> how many states have adopted the "no smoking in public
> places" rule, but California has had it for years with
> little negative feed-back. Arizona just started it in May
> of this year, and except for a few disgruntled bar-owners
> who were charged hefty fines for non-compliance, I can't see
> it has made much difference. We seem to be the DUI capital
> for the country, and the number of drunk driving arrests
> appear to have remained constant. (Indicating people are
> still drinking as much in bars as they did before the
> smoking ban.)

We've had one municipally for several years and provinically for a
year or two at least. Once the moaners get used to the idea everything
returns to normal except that asthmatics and those with tobacco
allergies can now go for a drink. It makes live much more pleasant.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:28:46 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:

>The bars here seem busy enough. Also, apparently a chef's salary is
>going up on average due to supply and demand- a lot of pubs which didn't
>focus much on food before are looking into it as a way of boosting
>profits.

That could have been written 40 years ago.
--

Martin

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:28:46 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:
>
> >The bars here seem busy enough. Also, apparently a chef's salary is
> >going up on average due to supply and demand- a lot of pubs which didn't
> >focus much on food before are looking into it as a way of boosting
> >profits.
>
> That could have been written 40 years ago.

But 5 years ago?

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:46:17 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:

>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:28:46 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:
>>
>> >The bars here seem busy enough. Also, apparently a chef's salary is
>> >going up on average due to supply and demand- a lot of pubs which didn't
>> >focus much on food before are looking into it as a way of boosting
>> >profits.
>>
>> That could have been written 40 years ago.
>
>But 5 years ago?

Why not?
--

Martin

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:46:17 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:
>
> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:28:46 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:
> >>
> >> >The bars here seem busy enough. Also, apparently a chef's salary is
> >> >going up on average due to supply and demand- a lot of pubs which didn't
> >> >focus much on food before are looking into it as a way of boosting
> >> >profits.
> >>
> >> That could have been written 40 years ago.
> >
> >But 5 years ago?
>
> Why not?

Because the last half year or so has been unusual. Employment agencies
are reporting demand for chefs has skyrocketed in the last 6 months- in
some cases over 100%. The average salary is now around 30k, last year it
was 25k.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:27:56 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:

>Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:46:17 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:
>>
>> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:28:46 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >The bars here seem busy enough. Also, apparently a chef's salary is
>> >> >going up on average due to supply and demand- a lot of pubs which didn't
>> >> >focus much on food before are looking into it as a way of boosting
>> >> >profits.
>> >>
>> >> That could have been written 40 years ago.
>> >
>> >But 5 years ago?
>>
>> Why not?
>
>Because the last half year or so has been unusual. Employment agencies
>are reporting demand for chefs has skyrocketed in the last 6 months- in
>some cases over 100%. The average salary is now around 30k, last year it
>was 25k.

You said "But 5 years ago?" not 5 months ago. Pubs that only sell drinks have
been going bust for decades, one way out is to sell food.

BBC London News claimed the average London salary was GBP35K earlier this week.
--

Martin

Re: BBC- Mixed reactions over smoking ban
 

Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 10:27:56 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:
>
> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 09:46:17 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 11:28:46 +0100, [email protected] (David Horne)
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >The bars here seem busy enough. Also, apparently a chef's salary is
> >> >> >going up on average due to supply and demand- a lot of pubs which
> >> >> >didn't focus much on food before are looking into it as a way of
> >> >> >boosting profits.
> >> >>
> >> >> That could have been written 40 years ago.
> >> >
> >> >But 5 years ago?
> >>
> >> Why not?
> >
> >Because the last half year or so has been unusual. Employment agencies
> >are reporting demand for chefs has skyrocketed in the last 6 months- in
> >some cases over 100%. The average salary is now around 30k, last year it
> >was 25k.
>
> You said "But 5 years ago?" not 5 months ago. Pubs that only sell drinks have
> been going bust for decades, one way out is to sell food.

The trade itself says that the sharp increase in chef demand is
particularly recent. Demand for chefs has probably increased here for
decades, but it's spiked recently- so that's what's different.

--
(*) ... of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
http://www.davidhorne.net - real address on website
"Abominable, loyal, blind, apparently subservient."
Pres. Carter on Ex-Pres. Blair- May, 2007