MauriceMynah

I have to admit that this is the first year I've followed it closely, and now look forwards to next year's offering. I didn't watch ITT as it struck me as a bit "overkill". Oddly enough something that really winds me up with competitions these days, is indicated exactly by this threeads title. "And the winner is.........(goes to make a cup of tea, put the kids through uni, and listens to the recorded music one hears when trying to get through to the doctors surgery, before saying...) Jim Cringingnut!" I can go along with a short pause, but Oh! come off it!

I'm with you Ray, Very nice with avacardo and a glass of fizz.

"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." 1. Are you saying that you would not permit such an establishment to serve food? 2. There could be a sign on the door warning potential customers that this was a "Smoking allowed" pub. The customer would then have the choice. 3. No, the "thrust" is to ban smoking, not discourage it.

Saving the world £3.00. Saving Chelsea united Priceless... or should that have been "Pointless", I don't know, maybe I should ask 100 people

Well THAT should make him smile!

No Bobdog, This is a discussioin forum for like minded people who like the broads. The discussions need not necessarily be confined to the broads, although in this case there is a link. What two things do the following pubs have in common? ... The Stracey Armes, The Complete Angler, The Station Inn (Coltishall), The Kingfisher (Stalham) and The Broadshaven? To name but five. Answer they are Broads pubs ande they are closed. This debate covers one of the possible causes for the general demise. My point all along is not whether one should be allowed to smoke whilst in a pub, my argument is who should make that decision, the landlord or the government. I believe it should be the landlords choice. It is the landlords choice as to whether he allows all male parties, children or dogs, It is the landlords decision at to whether he does food or not, and it's his choice as to whether or not he does kareoke. What goes on in his pub should be his decision. Chris, I too will have been "clean" for twenty years next year, I made a choice!!!

"I know it's been hammered out before but it amazes me that a government will allow you to buy fags and then tell you that you can't smoke them in public places " I understand that the government has a similar policy towards condoms.

" 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. " Soundings, I thank you fow allowing me to disagree and indeed I have to. Smoking is not against the law. If the government wish to ban it then they should make it illegal. I wouldn't either disagree or even disapprove of such an action. What I do not like is the government telling a publican that he cannot allow smoking in his pub. This should be the landlords choice not the governments. I hear said that the pubs are doing better since the ban. Fair enough, that means the ban can be lifted if that's true. No publican will allow smoking in their pub if such action is going to lose them money. Actually to lift the ban and allow publicans that choice would end up with some non smoking pubs and others smoking. Freedom of choice. now there's an idea.

Now start looking out for an i-Hammer

Right, first the unpopular statement. The smoking ban has been the undoing of many pubs up and down the land ever since it's introduction. The numbers of non-smokers who now visit pubs has nowhere near replaced the smokers who have left or reduced their drinking. This ban has alone been more damaging than the drink-drive laws and the price of drinks put together. My Source? or the basis of that statement? I have been in the pub trade, I have been in the supermarket trade, I am a regular visitor to many pubs. I am usually on my own so tend to chat to landlords on my visits. I use my eyes and keep my ears open. Finally I am thinking of buying a pub, broadland if possible. I do keep my finger on the pulse. I read things like "pubs don't have a snow flakes chance in hell of making a living on the back of drink" (paraphrased not a quote ) This is wrong. There are quite a few pubs which make a reasonable living without doing food or doing minimal food. They make their money from the sorts of people who moan about the demise of the traditional English pub. I was in a broadland pub last year when the landlord, after repeatedly warning a customer about his unruley children, told the man to leave the premesis. The landlord did this quietly and discreetly. The customer stormed out shouting abuse at the landlord, swearing his head off and generally making it known what he thought of the place. It was an unpleasant experience. I can fully appreciate why a landlord might not allow children in. These days there are few children about who know how to behave. The hayday for the traditional pub may well have passed, but the trade itself is far from dead. There is plenty of room for all the different types of pub from Gastro to spit'n'sawdust on the broads, and I just hope that people (within the trade) will try to find what's missing rather than blindly follow other businesses.

Looks a bit dodgy to me, I'm wondering if it's phishing or worse!

Not bad Paul, but I'll stick to mine at 25p per litre.

For my part, I went in twice this year (2015 for anyone reading this next year or later). I was not eating just having a beer or three. I was made very welcome and the pub will stay on my list of "good places to visit". Yes it is more foody than I would ideally like, but not as bad as others. To get over the "no all male" issue, and given that I was cruising on my own, I did offer to go tranny, but the landlady told me that this would not be necessary.

I'm sorry Batrabill, but that petition throws no light on either sides argument, indeed just the reverse. It has already been used to illustrate victory for each of the opposing sides. It is BECAUSE there is no irrefutable evidence for either side, that the debate returnes more frequently than birthdays and Christmases put together. ( I might add that the older we get, the less we look forwards to them. and I'm not saying which!!! ). We each hold views, some more strongly than others. I for example have no great objection to the closing of the afore mentioned moorings, but that's because I never used them and I am, at heart, one of the most selfish unsociable critters you'rer ever likley to meet . If I don't want to use them then nobody else would ( I'm arrogant as well as selfish.) and if nobody want's to use them they're a waste of money. Personally I'd rather see the dredging of Waxham cut!

"I sent the card to myself" You expect to be able to say something like that without it being noticed? Oh William of few amiable acqaintances!

Oooo,,, mmmm Ahhhh.... Eat a piece of chocolate and before it's all gone from your mouth take a generouse mouthful of whisky... sheer bliss

"Last time I had it was in the Fur & Feather" Ahhh, So that's why you got banned from there.

"It is handy to give things a go and see what happens when you are away from other boats and bridges to get the hang of what happens" But much more fun to do it slap bang in the middle of it all

"MM , where is your Christmas spirit?" (I'll lend you the question mark for this quote ) My Christmas spirit is in my Christmas booze cabinet. I need it for when I've eaten loads of Christmas chocolate and loads of Christmas cake. Not to mention Christmas pudding and Christmas log. Am I the only one here who likes to wash down Chocolate with a (large) drop of Scotch? /

Thanks Strow, Much whgat I was trying to say. I don't think this to be so much a slagging match, so much as more a debate about the person responsible for the upkeep of the broads. For that he is fair game, however, I think we need to consider his policies individually. Sure, give him a verble slap for the bad ones, but don't write off everything he does in the name of a few.

Yep, Nelson's revenge is about the best of the Woodfordes brews for me, but it's a poor show if all the beer you can get is from a local brewery. Do people in Norfolk not like choice? Do the publicans of Broadland heaven think that holiday makers are their only customers? I like Spitfire and I like London Pride, I also like Speckled Hen as well as Hob Goblin. What I like most of all is CHOICE.

Sadly I find these beers (Humpty Dumpty & Woodfordes ) just a little too acidic for my taste, Can't beat a bit of Broadside for me.

A little blunt but not entirely unfair Mr Marshman sir! OK, We all know about the on-going Packman/NP-status issues (and let's not get into that one here) but what about other things going on for which he may have some responsibility? Shouldn't we be looking at these things entirely independantly? What we want Dr Packman to deliver is good value for our toll money. If a "BA 24 hour mooring" has constant high usage, this should be continued, but if there's a mooring that has minority usage, but is expensive to hold and maintain, then perhaps they should be dropped and other, better 'value for money' places should be sought?

Does that mean you're dumping your grill friend?

What a lot of faff !!! My method. Eat chocolate, buy a cake! Simples !!!!!