LETTERs

Don't be a whipping boy

Re your article: Licensee's fury after thug is cautioned, (MA, 23 August 2007).

Why do we let ourselves be this industry's whipping boys? Does anyone agree it seems ironic that licensees are required to enforce the law but get no protection?

And we get the privilege of paying extortionate business rates!

This situation is an absolute disgrace.

Charles Yaxley

Bristol leaseholder

posted on www.morningadvertiser.uk/forum

Real reason for terrible summer

Re: Fears over "terrible" summer for pubs (www.morningadvertiser.co.uk, 24 August 2007).

Anyone who knows their onions could tell the pubco bandwagon would come to a shuddering halt. The problem is not just the weather, the smoking ban, holidays and lack of live sport on TV: it lies with the contracts these guys make you sign before you can get into their properties.

The contracts are one-sided to keep money rolling in from every angle for the pubco until they are ready to sell on the property to a developer.

Kyle Sturvs

West Midlands licensee

posted on www.morningadvertiser.uk/forum

Time to fight the nanny state

I felt compelled to write in response to your article: Safety prompts host to switch to plastic (MA, 16 August 2007).

Unfortunately, some people in this world are so supine when confronted by examples of the behaviour of the nanny state that they may as well be agents of that very same nanny state.

Our businesses are under threat from the modern-day nanny state to such an extent that in my opinion it's time to either fight back now or give up the struggle completely.

But I absolutely refuse to give up, unless I have no choice left whatsoever. Whether the issue concerns smoking, age of maturity, plastic glasses or anything else, the time has come to say a resounding no to the nanny/police state.

We will be holding a freedom rally in Bristol during October with the explicit aim of sending a message to the powers that be. We'll make sure they get the message that this time, they have simply gone

too far.

Join us, instead of wasting energy on anti-smoking health and safety fanatics. They only cause damage and destruction in the end.

Iain Page

posted on www.morningadvertiser.uk/forum

Clearing the air on smoking ban

I refer to Peter Coulson's reply about staff smoking breaks, which would have cleared the air for many licensees (MA, 23 August 2007).

During the business session held at the Guild's annual conference in May, a delegate asked the Eastbourne environmental health officer whether the smoking ban regulations would allow staff smoking breaks. It was noted that this is an employment-law issue, and as such is not covered by the smoking ban regulations.

This is an employment- law issue because where the written terms of a staff member's employment contract state that he or she is entitled to a smoke break, that staff member will still be entitled to this. But the employee won't be allowed to smoke inside the premises. A licensee will have to ensure that staff go outdoors to smoke and not do so anywhere that falls under the rules on semi-enclosed areas, where smoking is forbidden.

Licensees are unlikely to have included smoking breaks in their employees' contracts - instead, they may have simply allowed staff to take breaks. An employee may claim it has become customary to take breaks and insist on continuing.

Licensees won't be allowed to smoke in the premises except in private accommodation, but if staff have to pass through it to fetch stock, such as crisps, it could be considered part of the workplace and subjected to smoking ban regulations.

John Madden CMBII

Executive Officer,

The Guild of Master Victuallers