Post by Teddy Bear on Jan 14, 2013 18:51:27 GMT
Though the author of the following article refers to 'Biased BBC' for the way they ran the story described, it seems more a case of poor journalism.
When I first saw the article below in The Commentator I assumed it must be because they blamed taxation, and thereby the present government for the decline of pubs in this country. However, when I read the BBC article linked to, they do actually state Tax has increased by 40% since 2008, when Gordon Brown introduced a 2% above inflation annual rise. The so-called beer escalator now means 30% of what you pay goes direct to the government.
Perhaps it's the case that when you usually only seek the facts that will support a particular agenda, as the BBC appears to regard their purpose for existence, it becomes the norm not to bother seeking out the facts for any story.
When I first saw the article below in The Commentator I assumed it must be because they blamed taxation, and thereby the present government for the decline of pubs in this country. However, when I read the BBC article linked to, they do actually state Tax has increased by 40% since 2008, when Gordon Brown introduced a 2% above inflation annual rise. The so-called beer escalator now means 30% of what you pay goes direct to the government.
Perhaps it's the case that when you usually only seek the facts that will support a particular agenda, as the BBC appears to regard their purpose for existence, it becomes the norm not to bother seeking out the facts for any story.
Biased BBC: Curious case of the forgotten smoking ban
The BBC is guilty of 'churnalism' once again as the smoking ban is completely ignored as a cause of Britain's boarded-up pubs
David Atherton
While the beards and sandals of the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) are choking on their Bishops Finger, many of Britain’s bankrupted pubs are being turned into either flats or convenience stores and the politicians are hand wringing. Toby Perkins, Labour’s Shadow Business Minister, said, "Britain's pubs are economically vital."
This week, the BBC reported on pub closures: “Sadly, the corner pub is now boarded up and getting derelict day by day. Over the last four years 5,800 pubs - like the Castle - have closed down. Last year alone, pubs were shutting at a rate of 18 a week.”
The BBC, along with the others, is blaming high taxation on beer; even in the Midlands they are paying £3.50 a pint; tenants in pubs are subject to the ‘beer tie’, i.e. obliged to get their beer from a pub company (PubCo) at inflated prices; punters are said to be turning to supermarkets. I am sure none of this helps and tied pubs are at a disadvantage for sure.
But take a closer look at pub closures from 2001 to 2010. (Figures from the British Beer and Pub Association who report on 95 percent of UK pubs)
2001 – 100 (pubs closed)
2002 – 600
2003 – 700
2004 – 400
2005 – 400
2006 – 400
2007 – 1,409
2008 – 1,973
2009 – 1,352
2010 – 1,466
Being the sad numbers man I am I have worked out that from 1980 to 2006 the average number of pubs closed per year were 0.65 percent. Post 2007 that figure climbed to 2.8 percent, a fourfold increase. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that something happened in 2007 – something the BBC, CAMRA, and the politicos’ research departments are missing.
The answer may well be that rather large mammal moving from the public bar to a draughty shelter outside – the grey one with the long nose and big ears, lighting up. Of course, the elephant (sporadically) in the room is the smoker, last seen lighting up inside in England on June 30th, 2007.
I am in no doubt that the ‘beer tie’ is a weight around publican’s necks – its origins go back to The Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order 1989, commonly known as the Beer Orders. Baroness Thatcher wanted to break up the monopoly of the brewers. It is hardly a new phenomenon.
The supermarkets have been mentioned; but, post ban, Britain’s supermarkets did not suddenly discount alcohol. On the March 28th, 2007, three months before the smoking ban, Ian Loe, Research and Information Manager of CAMRA, wrote to the Competition Commission and whined: “Research by CAMRA in the period just before Christmas found that supermarkets were selling Fosters and Carling lager for the equivalent of 54p a pint.” Yet, in 2006, Tescos sold a bottle of Red Smirnoff Vodka 70cl for £9.79 whereas today it is £15.90 – more than a 50 percent increase. Similarly, 4x 500 ml cans of Fosters were sold for £3.53 in 2006, today they will set you back £5.00; a bottle Jacob’s Creek Shiraz Cabernet 75Cl was then £4.73 and now £7.49.
The credit crunch of 2008 has been blamed too. And again, it has certainly played its part. But not citing the smoking ban as the primary reason for pub closures is negligence.
If you want conclusive proof of the effects of the smoking ban look no further than the Wetherspoon chain’s pre-ban experiment.
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) was saying pre-ban that non-smokers were longing for smoke-free pubs, and, in February 2003, that “Smoking bans are good for business. Study shows hospitality industry fears of falls in trade are unfounded.” But in 2005 JD Wetherspoon did give the punters a choice. In newly opened pubs smoking was banned; others were converted into smoke-free and it was to be rolled out to their entire 630-strong chain.
Like Katie Price’s neck line, profits plunged. The converted non-smoking pubs saw profits drop by 20 percent. Revenues fell by 7.6 percent. Fruit machines and alcohol sales were hit particularly hard (25 percent and 17 percent respectively). By February 2006 the project was abandoned as a complete failure, only to be replicated in the UK by law.
The British Institute of Inn Keeping found barely a year after the ban in September 2008 that: “The proportion of smoking customers dropped from 54% to 38%; 66% reported that their smoking customers were staying for shorter periods; 75% reported that smokers were visiting less frequently; 47% of businesses had laid off staff, although 5% had recruited additional staff; Income from drinks fell by 9.8%; Income from gaming machines fell by 13.5%.”
It concluded: "The smoking ban has had a serious and continuing effect on trade with the very important custom of smokers much diminished, and little positive news in terms of increased non smokers or family business."
This study is by no means unique. AC Nielsen and PricewaterhouseCoopers reached similar conclusions.
With 9,534 pubs closed out of 58,200, a staggering 16.4 percent of our pubs have disappeared. What is more, the average pub employs (directly and indirectly) 10 people so some 100,000 people will have lost a job.
The Publican’s Morning Advertiser reported that 68.3 percent of pubs want to introduce a smoking room. It is worth noting that pubs remain private property and smoking remains legal.
And as for the medical establishment and the harm of second hand smoke (SHS), well, frankly, I believe SHS is one of the greatest pieces of unreconstructed, erroneous spin ever invented. Non-smokers breathe in 1/100th to 1/10,000th of what a smoker does. Make your own estimations as to what those figures would be when a smoker is smoking in a separate room.
I have been interviewed many times by the BBC, on TV and radio, and have found it, by and large, to be quite fair. Some presenters obviously do not like smoking and have a wagging finger, some are sympathetic. And if you do not like tough questions or an aggressive line against you, do not put your head above the parapet and say yes to the researcher.
But the BBC’s latest piece on pub closures does not even mention the smoking ban as a possible cause of pub closures, let alone point out it may be the fundamental reason. Many of its Health Correspondents are only too happy to indulge in unprofessional journalism, cutting and pasting Department of Health and ASH press releases and presenting them as fact. This ‘churnalism’ is no more than the politically correct prejudices of the writer.
The BBC was keen in November 2011, for example, to cut and paste the British Medical Association’s (BMA) press release “...research showing the levels of toxins in a car can be up to 23 times higher than in a smoky bar.” At the time I pointed out (via Chris Snowdon) on the radio that even anti-smokers view this as junk science and that the Canadian Medical Association Journal had said: “We recommend that researchers and organizations stop using the 23 times more toxic factoid because there appears to be no evidence for it in the scientific literature.” The BMA was forced to retract and apologise; the BBC was guilty of printing ill-researched inaccuracies.
We may not get an apology on this occasion. But it’s worth remembering why others have been issued in the past. And from a public-funded broadcaster we deserve far better.
The BBC is guilty of 'churnalism' once again as the smoking ban is completely ignored as a cause of Britain's boarded-up pubs
David Atherton
While the beards and sandals of the Campaign for Real Ale (CAMRA) are choking on their Bishops Finger, many of Britain’s bankrupted pubs are being turned into either flats or convenience stores and the politicians are hand wringing. Toby Perkins, Labour’s Shadow Business Minister, said, "Britain's pubs are economically vital."
This week, the BBC reported on pub closures: “Sadly, the corner pub is now boarded up and getting derelict day by day. Over the last four years 5,800 pubs - like the Castle - have closed down. Last year alone, pubs were shutting at a rate of 18 a week.”
The BBC, along with the others, is blaming high taxation on beer; even in the Midlands they are paying £3.50 a pint; tenants in pubs are subject to the ‘beer tie’, i.e. obliged to get their beer from a pub company (PubCo) at inflated prices; punters are said to be turning to supermarkets. I am sure none of this helps and tied pubs are at a disadvantage for sure.
But take a closer look at pub closures from 2001 to 2010. (Figures from the British Beer and Pub Association who report on 95 percent of UK pubs)
2001 – 100 (pubs closed)
2002 – 600
2003 – 700
2004 – 400
2005 – 400
2006 – 400
2007 – 1,409
2008 – 1,973
2009 – 1,352
2010 – 1,466
Being the sad numbers man I am I have worked out that from 1980 to 2006 the average number of pubs closed per year were 0.65 percent. Post 2007 that figure climbed to 2.8 percent, a fourfold increase. It is reasonable to conclude therefore that something happened in 2007 – something the BBC, CAMRA, and the politicos’ research departments are missing.
The answer may well be that rather large mammal moving from the public bar to a draughty shelter outside – the grey one with the long nose and big ears, lighting up. Of course, the elephant (sporadically) in the room is the smoker, last seen lighting up inside in England on June 30th, 2007.
I am in no doubt that the ‘beer tie’ is a weight around publican’s necks – its origins go back to The Supply of Beer (Loan Ties, Licensed Premises and Wholesale Prices) Order 1989, commonly known as the Beer Orders. Baroness Thatcher wanted to break up the monopoly of the brewers. It is hardly a new phenomenon.
The supermarkets have been mentioned; but, post ban, Britain’s supermarkets did not suddenly discount alcohol. On the March 28th, 2007, three months before the smoking ban, Ian Loe, Research and Information Manager of CAMRA, wrote to the Competition Commission and whined: “Research by CAMRA in the period just before Christmas found that supermarkets were selling Fosters and Carling lager for the equivalent of 54p a pint.” Yet, in 2006, Tescos sold a bottle of Red Smirnoff Vodka 70cl for £9.79 whereas today it is £15.90 – more than a 50 percent increase. Similarly, 4x 500 ml cans of Fosters were sold for £3.53 in 2006, today they will set you back £5.00; a bottle Jacob’s Creek Shiraz Cabernet 75Cl was then £4.73 and now £7.49.
The credit crunch of 2008 has been blamed too. And again, it has certainly played its part. But not citing the smoking ban as the primary reason for pub closures is negligence.
If you want conclusive proof of the effects of the smoking ban look no further than the Wetherspoon chain’s pre-ban experiment.
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) was saying pre-ban that non-smokers were longing for smoke-free pubs, and, in February 2003, that “Smoking bans are good for business. Study shows hospitality industry fears of falls in trade are unfounded.” But in 2005 JD Wetherspoon did give the punters a choice. In newly opened pubs smoking was banned; others were converted into smoke-free and it was to be rolled out to their entire 630-strong chain.
Like Katie Price’s neck line, profits plunged. The converted non-smoking pubs saw profits drop by 20 percent. Revenues fell by 7.6 percent. Fruit machines and alcohol sales were hit particularly hard (25 percent and 17 percent respectively). By February 2006 the project was abandoned as a complete failure, only to be replicated in the UK by law.
The British Institute of Inn Keeping found barely a year after the ban in September 2008 that: “The proportion of smoking customers dropped from 54% to 38%; 66% reported that their smoking customers were staying for shorter periods; 75% reported that smokers were visiting less frequently; 47% of businesses had laid off staff, although 5% had recruited additional staff; Income from drinks fell by 9.8%; Income from gaming machines fell by 13.5%.”
It concluded: "The smoking ban has had a serious and continuing effect on trade with the very important custom of smokers much diminished, and little positive news in terms of increased non smokers or family business."
This study is by no means unique. AC Nielsen and PricewaterhouseCoopers reached similar conclusions.
With 9,534 pubs closed out of 58,200, a staggering 16.4 percent of our pubs have disappeared. What is more, the average pub employs (directly and indirectly) 10 people so some 100,000 people will have lost a job.
The Publican’s Morning Advertiser reported that 68.3 percent of pubs want to introduce a smoking room. It is worth noting that pubs remain private property and smoking remains legal.
And as for the medical establishment and the harm of second hand smoke (SHS), well, frankly, I believe SHS is one of the greatest pieces of unreconstructed, erroneous spin ever invented. Non-smokers breathe in 1/100th to 1/10,000th of what a smoker does. Make your own estimations as to what those figures would be when a smoker is smoking in a separate room.
I have been interviewed many times by the BBC, on TV and radio, and have found it, by and large, to be quite fair. Some presenters obviously do not like smoking and have a wagging finger, some are sympathetic. And if you do not like tough questions or an aggressive line against you, do not put your head above the parapet and say yes to the researcher.
But the BBC’s latest piece on pub closures does not even mention the smoking ban as a possible cause of pub closures, let alone point out it may be the fundamental reason. Many of its Health Correspondents are only too happy to indulge in unprofessional journalism, cutting and pasting Department of Health and ASH press releases and presenting them as fact. This ‘churnalism’ is no more than the politically correct prejudices of the writer.
The BBC was keen in November 2011, for example, to cut and paste the British Medical Association’s (BMA) press release “...research showing the levels of toxins in a car can be up to 23 times higher than in a smoky bar.” At the time I pointed out (via Chris Snowdon) on the radio that even anti-smokers view this as junk science and that the Canadian Medical Association Journal had said: “We recommend that researchers and organizations stop using the 23 times more toxic factoid because there appears to be no evidence for it in the scientific literature.” The BMA was forced to retract and apologise; the BBC was guilty of printing ill-researched inaccuracies.
We may not get an apology on this occasion. But it’s worth remembering why others have been issued in the past. And from a public-funded broadcaster we deserve far better.