Paper-roll scam firms are still hitting pubs'
I write to inform you about a firm called Paperroll Logistics Ltd from Stockport.
They phoned our pub on our day off and told staff about an order for thermal till rolls that they were sending to us. The rolls arrived, with a bill for £209.15, just the same as in the scam featured in last week's letters page.
The big difference with us is that the week before they rang, we had installed a new Chip & PIN machine, and that is what caused the confusion for our member of staff, because the till rolls were for use with the new machine.
We have two questions. Firstly, how did they know what sort of machine we used to have? And secondly, how many of these out-of-date till rolls do they have left?
These till rolls cost about £20 per box normally, so two boxes for £209.15 is definitely a matter for Trading Standards!
Diane Hawley
Knox Arms
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
Pubco power only the names have changed'
I write with concern about the long-awaited Trade & Industry Select Committee report into pubco power.
I have been reading a book by a Christopher Hunt entitled The Death of the English Pub. While the book is in many aspects out-dated it was printed in 1973 I did come across a particular passage that I think has relevance to the above report.
This quotation is from a delegate to the Watney Tenants Association held in East London (I would hazard a guess that this was the East End of London, not the port in South Africa).
The delegate said: "You are not dealing with brewers today. They look on your houses as profitable building sites. Don't be complacent and think that things will get better. They will get worse. Maxwell Joseph and Charlie Clore are not brewers either. They are property tycoons. That is the way they look at your pubs as property investments."
For Maxwell Joseph and Charlie Clore substitute names that you think might fit and there you have it, plus ca change, plus ca reste la meme!
By the way the name of my pub is not necessarily a clue to anyone's identity.
DR and SM Roberts
The Thorley
Meir
Stoke-on-Trent
Staffordshire
Are hosts facing the final nail in the coffin?'
I am writing as licensee of the Buck House Hotel and as chairman of Wrexham Licensed Victuallers Association on behalf of more than 90 members.
Firstly I would like to comment on the new Licensing Act that comes into force next year. At present, we have to pay £30 every three years for our licence. This will increase with the proposals to £37 every 10 years for a personal licence and to between £150 and £350 every year for a property licence. I'm sure you must agree this is a substantial increase.
Secondly, we were this year hit by a 400% increase by Sky. We complained, but unfortunately we had to pay up and shut up. In the papers this week it was announced by Sky that for new customers only, because they lost so many accounts, they have given a 25% reduction in the second-half payment of Prem Plus. I phoned to say my second payment was due and asked whether that meant I also had the reduction, but was told no.
Thirdly, we read in the papers that we now face a 500% increase by PPL, which all pubs have to have to make our customers happy.
We have the no-smoking policy waiting to be settled. This I do agree with, as I have never been a smoker. But I listen to my customers who have fought in the war for their country, saying you are depriving them of a cigarette and a pint.
I do agree with no-smoking in restaurants, but our understanding is that where food is being served we would have to stop smoking as the food is cooked on our premises. At the same time someone could go to a local shop, buy a sandwich, bring it in to the pub, and this would be acceptable. Is this correct or has the world gone mad?
Then we remember April 2005 when another rise on the rateable value is being brought in. Is this the final nail in the coffin?
Licensees would be better off, if they got out of this trade which isn't a job, but a way of life and join the many on the dole.
F Allan Hayes MBII
The Buck House Hotel
Bangor-on-Dee
Wrexham
Passive smoking doesn't cause terminal ill health'
I write in response to the Morning Advertiser article on the risk assessments of passive smoking in pubs, which appeared on the front of your last issue.
What I am about to say may come as a surprise to those who know me, because I am totally against a smoking ban. However my objection to it is actually on the grounds that this ban is not about staff health. If it were, then as Lancaster Council rightly say, the risks should be assessed. Rather than run and hide from doing a Risk Assessment the British Beer & Pub Association should seek to help their licensees to present a case that shows the myth of passive smoking. Sadly what we have over this issue is "official spokespersons" on both sides of the argument not addressing the core issue. Is passive smoking harmful?
The latest SCOTH report, if analysed, proves that the risk to health is 0.00002% of contracting any terminal or serious ailment. Readers may be interested to know that the risk of cancer from eating mushrooms is 0.00003%. From open fires and griddles the risks rise exponentially but are still not significant.
By carrying out a risk assessment using the mountain of science that shows the lie of passive smoking, the BBPA could help stall the whole ban.
However, it always seems that these type of organisations want to take the least line of resistance.
Passive smoking does not cause terminal ill health there has been no recorded death from passive smoking. That is a fact that the World Health Organisation and the Government are afraid to have debated. It is bizarre that trade bodies also seem afraid to press for that debate.
R Feal-Martinez FBII
The Carpenters Arms
South Marston
Near Swindon
Wiltshire
