Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'd heard about that, it kind of makes sense in a stinky kill yourself type way, of course that happened in NY!


I've just spent the whole afternoon writing a document about how we're enforcing it where I work, what a riveting read that was. Any questions about the legislation I'm your gal.


The law officially comes into effect at 6am on Sunday 1st July so would be interesting if you're at a 24 hour boozer. Isn't there one at London Bridge - The Market Porter or summat that's open till the early mornning?

well im fcuking pissed off about the whole thing i personally enjoy a fag with my pint of porter and now im going to either be forced to stay at home or else step outside to have a smoke prime example being i was back home when the uefa cup final was on and i missed every goal except the pens as i was out having a tab at the time. all these ex and non smokers are now coming out of the woodwork to say how great it is that they can now have a drink in a smoke free environment well it didnt seem to bother them too much when smoking was allowed and now its the thing since sliced bread and no more will bar staff be dropping like flies due to their passive smoking habit. its a bloody disgrace and yet again another example of the oppressive state in which we live.

Caimar Aha


I spent a bit of time in Gods Own Country where the smoking ban has been in place for a year or so.


The pubs seem to have dealt with it pretty well, indoors is quieter, cleaner, and brighter; ingenious methods of paddocking smokers [and inpubs I'm one of them] outdoors have worked well. It almost seems to have revived the lounge/tap divide of many years ago.


Hardest hit in scotland have been the wee family cafes, mostly italian owned, where folks could go for a fish tea or an ice cream. Every town has one and it has been an insttiution since the fifties; rightly or wrongly it has done for them.



UC

Spadetownboy said:


"all these ex and non smokers are now coming out of the woodwork to say how great it is that they can now have a drink in a smoke free environment well it didnt seem to bother them too much when smoking was allowed"


You are kidding right? I think it says a lot about the attitude of smokers that DESPITE years of people tutting, moving away from the, asking them not to smoke, campaigning for smoke free pubs etc that apparently we were never heard. Quelle Surprise


(I should point out that some of my best friends are smokers etc etc - and I love them dearly but I say the same to them)


There has been a lot of heated debate on radio and tv shows lately about civil liberties, nanny state, my-health-is-my-own-business etc


And I am pro civil-liberties. pro minimal state interference. and pro-my-health-is-my-business argument


But this isn't about that. It's not about YOU. It's about the people around you. Relating to a previous thread where the merits of old-school pubs versus what now constitutes a modern pub is the fact that a much wider constituency now frequents pubs. And like people traveling on buses, trains, planes it just isn't on for smoke to be in peoples faces anymore. We can jump up and down about it as much as we like but that's the bottom line. And no-one would seriously repeal those laws on planes/trains/buses now.


You can still smoke yourself to death as fast as you like. But the rest of us get to enjoy life a bit more


As for the argument - therre should be "choice" ( a word devalued by successive governments. I don't want CHOICE of hospital, I want my local one to work properly) - this usually means:


1) I should be able to choose to smoke: well so should people be able to choose not to inhale smoke - even in the pub


or


2) there should be a choice of smoking and non-smoking pubs. Well, of course at ANY time before the ban was mooted all pubs had that choice - to be smoking or non-smoking. The reason so very very few were non-smoking is that it stops it being a level playing field. Groups of friends inevitably consist of both smokers and non-smokers but if they all went out together do you seriously thing the smokers would accept the non-smoking venue?


This is democracy in action, not a nanny state. Most people do want this and in a few years time it won't even be an issue.

It is not the thin end of the wedge. "But if they stop smoking in pubs drink will be next!!!"... Sit down, take a deep breath and... relax. That. Isn't. Going. To. Happen. Because, unlike the smoking ban, it doesn't have anythink like sufficient public support


So my advice to smokers is to stop acting like a junkie tied to the bed by their parents and come join us for a pint


Slainte

Come on spadetowndboy - you are more sussed than that comment let's on.


Democracy doesn't mean anyone can do what they like. As Spock said, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"


I understand how being told you can no longer spark up does affect you - and is a pain in the behind. But you can see the bigger picture as well surely?

That's not democracy you propose spadetownboy, that seems to be anarchism. As fine a political philosophy as you'll find but not one that works.

This country voted back this morally bankrupt government back in 2005 and thus probably deserves everything it gets. I sure as hell didn't but I'm stuck with it too.

As it goes I happen to think this new law is marvellous, not in principle, just because I've been to your fair isle and it's such a breath of fresh air being in smoke free pubs.

Utterly selfish of me I know, but sod it, do I look like I care?

Mark Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> where's the democracy in this, I can no longer

> carry an 8inch knife in a pub, I was given no

> choice in this, doesn't sound very democratic to

> me

> (of course I never have really, just trying to

> make a daft statement look dafter)


you obviously havnt succeeded so try again.

Dear all -


Sean mocked those smokers who will say "But if they stop smoking in pubs,drink will be next!!!" In the Guardian, they quoted a woman who said ..they have stopped us smoking in pubs - what's going to be next, sex?


Takes a while to sink in...


citizen

I think all fat people should be fined for abusing themselves!! (of course I dont) All or most of us smokers know it isnt a nice hobby but unfortunately for some of you, some of us actually enjoy a smoke. It should have been a democratic decision. It Wasnt!
That could have been more succinctly put but it gets my goat that you think this was a democratic decision. I object to having to listen to coked up assholes all night or drunken ones come to that but its a part of life and what ever happened to each to their own. Of course I know that non smokers have had to share the smoke but thats why I believe that grown ups should have been limited but not more or less completely quelled with regards to smoking. I think its scary that we are governed in this fashion.

spadetownboy said:

"you obviously havnt succeeded so try again."


nah, can't be bothered if that's the level of your argument


23% of people smoke so therefore and if my maths is correct, 77% don't.


http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42442000/gif/_42442244_smoking203x224.gif


Do you really think it's worth having a vote/referendum on whether smoking should be banned in a public place?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...