LETTERs

High cost of freedom

As the smoking ban draws nearer, the discussions around my bar go on.

I don't think the Government has thought about the implications for a licensee trying to enforce the ban.

We are being put in a potentially confrontational situation. My customers will not smoke, so that won't be a problem, but what about the strangers who come into the pub for the first time?

If they smoke, I will have to ask them not to do so but I don't know how they will react. If they choose to be abusive, I will face a situation that may well put me and my customers in danger.

If this happens and my customers or I sustain injuries, or my pub is damaged, who will foot those bills? The cost of the resources to accommodate this ban has to be paid by us, and for some licensees such as myself who are just starting out, it's a cost we can well do without.

I know where my bill will be sent if I or my customers suffer any injuries or my pub is damaged.

There aren't many of our local pubs left and if the Government has its way there won't be any at all.

If this really is a free country, what happened to freedom of choice?

Caroline Brownbill

Licensee, the Red Lion,

Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire

Councils are just doing their duty

I am amazed that Kate Nicholls believes the London boroughs are being officious when they are simply doing their duty by preventing local communities from suffering noise and other forms of anti-social behaviour that may be caused by bars and clubs (Councils slated for calling for fees rise, MA, 26 April 2007).

Boroughs work closely with venues in their areas, and are not against them wishing to extend opening times and host live music.

But in highly populated areas such as London it is important that this desire is balanced with ways of stopping the lives of local residents from being blighted as a result.

The current fees structure fails to take account of extra costs faced by London boroughs in ensuring that venues, many of which operate late at night, stick to the conditions of their licences.

This is despite continual Government promises that the costs of local authority administration, inspection and enforcement should be met by those choosing to engage in licensed activities and not by taxpayers.

Unless this happens it will be London's council tax payers that will continue to lose out.

Cllr Daniel Maylan

Chairman,

London Councils Transport & Environment Committee

Legal implications of honesty

I would like to ascertain the real purpose of a reference as it seems you are only allowed to give good references.

As an employer of 20 people in a Portsmouth restaurant, I would appreciate being sent a reference for a prospective employee warning that they had faced disciplinary proceedings for drug-taking.

Recently, however, I was asked to give a reference for someone who had moved out of the area and was applying for a bar-assistant's job at a holiday camp.

I ticked all the right boxes; when asked if the person had been subjected to disciplinary action I ticked "yes", mentioning a written warning for taking cocaine.

But my honesty could have back-fired on me in a big way.

The new employer rang me to ask what proof I had of the alleged drug-taking. I was also asked whether the employee had the chance to appeal, and whether we had experienced a personality clash.

I thought that all the information I had given was in confidence, but the new employer phoned my ex-employee to say I had provided a bad reference.

I was worried that I might have committed libel. In future I will probably leave certain parts of a reference form blank because I won't sign my name to lies.

Name and address supplied

MA's legal editor Peter Coulson will provide an answer next week