.png.5ff10cca1d0967e44a17e4a2edde2a80.png)
Soundings
-
Posts
667 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Articles
Posts posted by Soundings
-
-
1 hour ago, springsong said:
Something MM said about a landlord choosing whether his pub was smoking or non smoking. I kind of agree with him, our pub was our home, does that mean I could not smoke upstairs or for that matter downstairs when closed ? If a person was caught "doing" drugs in the loo I as the landlord was liable for a very hefty fine and possibly a criminal record, so nowadays if they were to have a crafty spliff would I have committed three offences ?
I do not believe the "ban" stops smoking upstairs in your living quarters. But it, I think, does stop you smoking in what are the public areas even if closed (I stand to be corrected on this) and quite right to. If you were to allow the landlord to make his/her own rules then by allowing smoking you are discriminating against those non-smokers who do not wish to put their health at risk or have smoke laden clothes. That to me seems to work against the reason the license was granted in the first place - to prove a public facility.
I would however have no objection to a drinking house that was specifically licensed to accommodate smokers only. It would then be a business choice for the landlord. I cannot see this happening though as the thrust is to discourage smoking and how do you ensure non smokers are not encouraged in.
-
It is irrelevant what pollutes, it is how governments/public opinion will deal with it. Cars, vans, buses, trains etc are necessary to keep the wheels of the economy turning and to provide personal transportation. Investment will be made in reducing emissions and in finding other ways to propel motorised vehicles. Smoking however does nothing to drive the wider economy and there is a compelling argument that it works against it due to its adverse effect on health. Indeed it could also be argued that an alternative has been found already in these vapour things a lot of people use.
Returning to transport, I can see none essential vehicles being banned from all city/town centres. It will all be out of town parking; park and ride will rule ok. I already use it whenever I go to Norwich. Such a course makes perfect sense and will alleviate if not completely eliminate city/town centre congestion.
The genie is already out of the bottle. It is now just a matter of time.
-
2 hours ago, littlesprite said:
I understand and support the ban on smoking in public enclosed spaces, if however smoking is banned in public open spaces then what next, ban cars because of the harmful emissions, and what about all that diesel fuel burnt by boats.
Freedom needs some control for the benefit of all but be careful or freedom will be the next thing banned.
Give it time, Littlesprite, all things will come. Pollution at all levels will be hit one way or another.
Freedom is a wonderful concept and it is a truism that one man's freedom is not necessarily anothers. Those who love to walk through the streets smoking may consider it a right, a part of their freedom but those who suffer as a result of stale smoke and dog-ends all over the place might well see it another way. They may well consider it discriminates against their right to clean air.
Never easy
-
11 hours ago, Gracie said:
I do not smoke, it seems to me that the Government are allowing a product to be sold but banning people from using it in most places........I wonder why, wouldn't have anything to do with taxes and profits to be made on selling said cigarettes would it?
Grace
You have a good point, Gracie. Tobacco companies are very influential as well - they have effective ways to lobby. It is also difficult to ban sopmethin that has been legal for ever and a day. Smoking is a health risk. secondary smoking is also a health risk so banning it from public places is the right thing to do in that it protects those who do not smoke.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:
Smoking is not against the law. If the government wish to ban it then they should make it illegal.
They will not make it illegal but they will make it illegal to smoke in all public places and rightly so imo. There is no doubt in my mind that this will follow. A pub is a "public" house open to all and it is reasonable to ban smoking inside the building - it does not ban smokers, just smoking on the premises. If you allow smoking on the premises you are effectively excluding the majority of the population who do not like a smoke laden bar. Do you fancy a restaurant where the punters can smoke?
-
Disagree away MM, but banning smoking was right and I know pubs that are still successful despite it. I for one applaud the day that ban came in and pray its extended to more public areas - it is an antisocial thing and if people wish to damage their health then that is fine by me but they can do it in private. End of.
As far as what pubs may or may not survive, we all have our opinions but the number of pubs closing goes to show their heyday is well past. Drinks are too expensive for a lot of people and driving makes having more than a pint or two risky. And even that permitted level will change idc so what then?
At the end of the day, it is cheaper to buy at the supermarket an drink at home. Personally I do not see that as a great alternative to a nice traditional pub but times an attitudes are changing - indeed have changed.
-
5
-
-
16 hours ago, Wonderwall said:
Each to their own of course, and it would be a very dull world if we all liked the same thing. But a couple of games of darts or and pool before and after a bit lunch or dinner is just dandy. It also helps the mix of the pub I think. Brings others together where otherwise they would unlikely crack up a conversation.
And after being cooped up all day with Mrs and miss wonderwall, myself and the lad quite enjoy a distraction
.
The last thing the broads need is another empty pub. Although it must be hard in the winter months to say the least. I always do my best to boost their funds during my holiday. All from the goodness of my heart of course
The problem is the winter months without doubt and the holiday trade is not enough on its own. The Falgate had a regular quiz night, a darts team and a pool team but did not work. People do not drink much any more. The price of a pint in one of the reasons but so is driving - there are a lot of pubs that whilst being in a residential area are a mile or so away from some of the "locals". I hate to say it but imo the days of the drinking man's pub are, with a few exceptions, sadly gone.
-
I think the problem is that not many pubs have a snow flakes chance in hell of making a living on the back of drink, and especially so if tied. When you add to that the fact that some pubs are quite small the options are very limited indeed.
-
2
-
-
On 2 December 2015 at 22:05:38, JennyMorgan said:
I must be a Luddite! This blossoming dependence on technology, for me is a real turn off! When on holiday I leave the laptop at home and although I take a mobile it tends to stay turned off. Of choice I would consign my mobile to a lead lined bucket, the phone sealed in concrete, for the duration. I do take a radio but a TV afloat, no way! Each to their own but I reckon a holiday is about being away from such distractions.
Spot on JM, I could not agree more. Regrettably the area is changing and despite what some might think I believe it is changing fast - it is Dave's plan to keep people employed. Look at the building that is going on in our area and then the roads being improved. Whether or not it really is needed is a personal thing but sure as eggs are eggs the tech revolution will come with it (is it not here already to a point?). For what it is worth we have had a very small development here at Potter and from what we can work out the majority of the homes have been sold to retirees. Its that the idea? I though locals needed houses!
I know you will hate me for saying this, and I hope I am wrong, but development of the area could well lead to the Broads becoming a linear marina full of overpriced boats paying inflated fees. Come back all ye woodies I say
-
1
-
-
Just received a letter from the above saying I have won a considerable sum of money ....in a lottery I never even entered! The Action Fraud website not surprisingly says its a scam - http://www.actionfraud.police.uk/fifa-world-cup-online-lottery-scam-jan14
Just a heads-up
Colin
-
1
-
-
Sad news, Speedtriple. Condolences to all......terrible.
-
1
-
-
Ah dear old Gravesend, I lived in a small (then) village called Hartley near Longfield. A neighbour of mine has just returned from visiting New Barn and says that there is so much building going on around that area it is difficult to remember how it was!
-
Could not agree more, one should enjoy what one likes. Some like a challenge some like to drift around and enjoy the sun (if we get it). Good job we are not all the same as things would get more crowded.
-
2
-
-
Tiresome but true, JM. Tiresome but true. A fact indeed. A fact that cannot be denied but can be ignored if you are that way inclined (or if you are tired of it). As for me - I just don't give a damn but pray nothing ever changes the blockage that is Potter Bridge.
There never was street lighting on the Broads - might stop outboard thefts though :-)
-
If it was a general post, Poppy, then I apologise. If it was not I do not. Seeing as it was my post that mentioned that all 140 miles is not open "to all" I obviously have/had my suspicions.
-
5 hours ago, Poppy said:
I do find it tiresome when people whine about ( or make reference to the fact that ) not all of the Broads Navigation being available 'to all'. Potter Bridge was there LONG before the Broads Authority - and it was there before they bought/ booked their boat
Poppy, please read my post correctly before you comment. Where did I mention Potter Bridge. There are other restrictions on the broads apart from Potter - some cannot get under Ludham, some cannot get under Wroxham, some cannot get under Wayford...etc, etc.
5 hours ago, Charlie said:Even 100 miles is a great deal to explore in its ever changing seasons. I have been coming to the broads since the 60's as hirers but latterly as owners i never tire of it and am happy to poodle about at 3.8- 4 mph all the time enjoying the ever changing scenery
If it works for you Charlie that is great. All I am saying is it does not work for us any more. Actually not sure it ever did really, not from a motor cruising perspective. I much prefer walking around the quieter bits and taking in the general marshy landscape. I am also besotted by the North Norfolk coast. Cracking a sail on Hickling is great fun though.
-
I'd hardly call 140 miles extensive (that is the navigable length I have been told exists) and even that is not available to all. But I can see how it can work for the offshore stuff that can just hop in and out of the Broads as and when circumstances permit. Does not work for me anymore though - but there you go
-
Thanks Strowager. It all comes flooding back - I can remember some of the conversations and debates prior to the restriction being implemented. It is so annoying when public/toll payer funds are used to bankroll what turns out to be a needless alternative (if indeed the restriction has been relaxed).
Fashions can be costly! -
No idea, Bobdog,. Certainly the current owner was working there when LBBY took access away. It could be that he is less concerned about the associated risks - whatever they were/are.
-
I believe LBBY stopped access for safety reasons?
-
The water! Actually the trend seems to be to destroy moorings so they can either remove the water or the river beds - either way it will make mooring difficult
Seriously though, what is going on here? Increasing boat traffic, more larger boats and less moorings. Add to that the fact that everybody seems to want leccie points and you have a recipe for a somewhat less than relaxing Broads experience.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BroadScot said:
Someone on this planet must be liking him!
Or someone in even higher authority :-)
-
2
-
-
I have no words that can help but my thoughts go with you.
-
Very sound advice, LeoMagill
.
Smoking in pubs
in Broads Chat
Posted
1) No I did not say that - if you smoke and want to be suffocated whilst eating that is your shout (in a smokers only establishment)
2) Choice is not the issue when one is trying to protect the health of the uninitiated.
3) Well I won't disagree that is the way it might seem and I applaud it if that is indeed the case.