Portman shoots its own foot over Kalashnikov'

Am I alone in thinking the Portman Group has lost its marbles? Last week's decision on banning Kalashnikov vodka left me totally bewildered. The justification for this being that the name was synonymous with violence and terror. So where does that leave a whole range of other products?

Claymore whisky for example. What image does a Claymore conjure up? A rather large, red-headed, kilt-wearing gentleman, about to disembowel anyone English, or Janet the nurse in Doctor Finlay using one to stir the porridge!

What do the civilian survivors of bombing raids on German cities associate with the words Lancaster Bomber? Will Daniel Thwaites, which produces the bitter, be next on the Portman hit list?

We have in our industry a plethora of pubs and brands associated with instruments of war and violence, from the Armstrong Gun (Surrey) to beers such as Rebellion Mutiny and household favourites like Bombardier and Spitfire.

Mikhail Timofeevich Kalashnikov was a tank commander who conceived the idea for a lightweight machine gun while recovering from being seriously wounded in 1941/2. His motivation was to assist the Russian soldiers in the defence of their Motherland and defeat the invasion by Hitler's forces. The first prototype was made in 1944. He has always been adamant that it was (he was self-taught) a weapon for the defence of the nation. He is a hero to millions and respected for his scientific abilities throughout the world.

The vodka is clearly labelled in tribute to the man, not the weapon. Portman Group you have got this one seriously wrong. Think again.

Phil Dixon CMBII

BA Hons Politics, Warwick ­ honest

Dip Soviet Studies, Tallin

Cash-card use should be banned in pubs'

I read the 10 February issue of the Morning Advertiser in my doctor s waiting room, and was particularly interested in the comments expressed by MA Cater in your letters column.

I have to say I agree with his statement that brewers are partly to blame for drink-related crime.

Some years ago my father ran a pub. In his time drink was controlled by the amount of money you had in your pocket. When you were skint, you had to go home.

Today you can walk into a pub without any money, get drunk and walk out out with £20 to £30 in your pocket, simply by using your cash card. This service in pubs should be banned.

J Hudson

Eighth Avenue

Hull

Ill-thought-out smoke ban needs a major rethink'

The plan to force pubs effectively to choose between allowing smoking and serving food is just another example of ill-thought out legislation from this "nanny state" Government.

Yes it's not pleasant returning home with your hair and clothes smelling like you've smoked a pack of 20, when in fact you gave up some years before. But surely consumers vote with their feet­ with the ensuing consequences for smoky pubs.

If a pub's too smoky for me, I don't go there. Simple. I don't need some politicians in Whitehall safeguarding my interests, thanks all the same.

So who says pubs must do one or the other ­ surely both can exist within the same venue. It hardly takes a member of Mensa to work out that separate dining rooms and "smoking" bars ­ particularly with the level of air conditioning that now exists ­ can keep both smokers and non-smokers happy.

With such a high price at stake ­ 900 pubs at risk of closure in Wales if a smoke ban comes in (Morning Advertiser, 17 February) and earlier estimations that a ban would force a total of 16,000 pubs to drop food in favour of fags ­ this proposed ban needs a major rethink.

A Wild

Mansfield

Notts

Future's bleak with SIA doorstaff regulations'

I read with interest your report (Morning Advertiser 17 February) that Mr Jon Collins of BEDA fears poaching chaos and disaster for the nightclub industry if the police enforce the new SIA regulations. I have recently written to Mr Collins cancelling my membership of BEDA in protest at its support and connivance in the new legislation, and its gross negligence in allowing it to pass unchallenged into law. Mr Collins has woken up far too late to the disastrous effects of this legislation.

There were no major problems with doorstaff before the new legislation, especially considering the nature of the job. Doormen were generally patient and respected figures, often former tearaways themselves. Their intimate knowledge of the local population was essential, and they knew exactly who was and was not allowed on the premises. They frequently worked closely with the police, and the local authority maintained a register of doorstaff that was subject to police scrutiny and approval.

Now the SIA seeks to attract a new breed of doormen with no previous record. These new recruits cannot be assessed until they have completed the compulsory 30-hour training course and undergone detailed checks lasting as many weeks. Only then can they begin a trial period of employment. If they decide the work is not for them, the recruitment process must start all over again. If they are poached as Mr Collins fears, not only has a great deal of time and money been wasted, but three months may elapse before they can be replaced.

Prior to this Draconian legislation, managers could normally call upon a small group of occasional doormen, chosen because of their physical presence and local knowledge. They were not necessarily interested in working every weekend, but would work whenever regular doorstaff were not available. It is now illegal to employ these reliable back-up doorstaff, and they are to be replaced by agency staff where they exist. These individuals have neither local knowledge nor respect, and are hopelessly inadequate for the job. In rural towns far away from security firms, there are no replacements, and the future for entertainment venues in these areas is bleak.

Quite simply, if your doorstaff are not available you do not open. If they quit, you remain shut for three months while you register replacements. How absurd is that?

David Thornton Jones MBII

The Hibernian Tavern

Holyhead

Isle of Anglesey

North Wales