Your say
Portman and a flurry of White Lightning
Having read your article in the MA (12 June 2008), I find myself in shock at the response from the Portman Group. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't its job to advise, regulate and implement, not to whimper and limp at the behest of the Government?
It was asked a simple question — what it thought of the cheap beers and cider situation. Its response was vague and evasive to say the least. Lo and behold, what should happen? The Government has now decided to implement a minimum price on supermarket beer despite the Portman Group.
My question is quite simple. Whose palm had to be greased to induce this so-called governing body to run away from the task it was charged with? Step up to the plate or allow someone to pinch hit you and sit back in the bleachers Mr so-called "interest of the industry".
Cheap beers have all but crippled the working licensee. Long gone are the days of meeting in the pub at seven and heading off in your own direction after a few pints. This has been replaced with going to the supermarket, buying a cheap bottle of vodka and a 12p bottle of cola. Then it's off to the pub at about 10.30pm, two pints of real beer and off they go — 10 men can fight anyone, the police arrive and we the licensees end up getting the blame for it while Mr Supermarket is safely tucked up in bed.
Can the Portman Group not see this? If we, at street level, can see this daily then I suggest a bit of back-to-the-floor training is needed.
Now the decision has been made, let's see how much it backtracks now someone has had the balls to stop the teenage steam train from exploding in a flurry of White Lightning cider. Just to reiterate, Mr Portman Group — help the pub game out, or step out of the game.
Name and address supplied
Where Tchenguiz has got things wrong
Re: "Will Tchenguiz do another Laurel on M&B?" (MA, 19 June).
The big problem that exists with Tchenquiz's objectives to free up freeholds is that he looks on pubs as properties, pure and simple. They are not. Pubs in a company such as Mitchells & Butlers should be valued according to their retail profitability. The alternative-use value does not exist unless a change of use has been agreed with the local planners. And given that turnover is down, gross profit margins are under fire and operating costs are going up, it follows that profit has gone down and will continue to go down.
Recovery to current levels cannot reasonably be expected for two years and another three or four to get back to where they were last year. That makes gambling on real estate investment trusts or the extraction of greater property value almost certainly a loser.
Brian Jacobs
via morningadvertiser.co.uk
Low-flying pigs alert — judge talks sense
With reference to "Judge rejects pubwatch ban appeal" (MA, 26 June) — blimey! A judge making a decision based on common sense. That's a bit of a novelty.
If the local pubwatch faced costs of £45,000 I wonder who has funded the applicant's appeal. I very much doubt he has risked his own money in his quest to force his local pubs to put the welcome mat out to a thug. No doubt our noble law lords will be called upon to demonstrate once again that the judicial system should favour the thug rather than those trying to make an honest living.
Robin Scott
via morningadvertiser.co.uk
