Drink Talking: Toby Walne

Toby Walne, Daily Mail contributor, pleads with pubcos to connect with their communities.

Foaming at the mouth like a rabid dog, the Daily Mail newspaper regularly sinks its fangs into the drinks trade in the hope of drawing blood. Under the rabble-rousing campaign banner of "Say No To 24-Hour Drinking" it appears to relish any opportunity to give the pub industry a good mauling.

Town centres will soon be dangerous no-go areas if we believe every binge tale we read - raucous fights, mindless vandalism and unprotected sex, all washed down with an unhealthy dose of public urination and vomit.

Of course, this simply isn't true. The newspaper is offering a black-and-white vision of the future when the reality is likely to be a much less hedonistic hue of grey.

I am "one of them" having recently been "exposed" by this esteemed publication as a Mail journalist involved in a campaign to fight the late-night opening of a local pub.

Rather disappointingly, it did not involve me dressing up as an undercover sheikh or lurking around in a dirty mac, but rather phoning the newsdesk after lawyers wrote to explain they would seek costs if my family lost an appeal against late opening.

There is nothing like a threat to raise the hackles of a journalist so it was certainly fair game for The Publican to connect me with a subsequent Mail article - for sure, it might otherwise never have appeared.

But what is disturbing is that without the media savvy to call the paper, I and the other 170 objectors fighting the local Hogs Head in South Woodford, East London, may have faced a bill of thousands. The PR behind the multi-million pound machinery of Laurel Pub Company that sanctioned the letter only switched into reverse gear after appearing in the Mail.

Pubs should certainly not be blamed for wanting to make money. Neither should they be held accountable for the failings of poorly handled decisions made by the government. Yet heavyweights within the drinks industry should feel ashamed of themselves when they start treating journalists differently from everyone else.

Rather than making ham-fisted attempts to silence critics, surely their resources can be much better utilised consulting directly with aggrieved local communities.

Wouldn't that make a better story to read in the Mail?