Re: smoking and the pub
 

but what you gotta remember is then both subjects will be passively smoking off the other ;)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Yes, but according to the data, take 100 smokers who passively smoke off themselves and others, and 100 non-smokers who only passively smoke off others, and 3 more non-smokers will die from smoking related heart attacks than smokers.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Come on this sort of thing was bound to happen so that all concerned could say "we told you it was right to ban smoking". Smokers actively and passively smoke so to say more non smokers died from smoking related illness is a complete load of bs.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

How does one tell the difference between a heartattack caused by passive smoking and a heartattack caused by other reasons, both in non-smokers?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I suspect the smoke leaves detectable deposits in the arteries around the heart.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

If they are definitely able to state that someone died of a heart attack from passive smoking, then the statistics show you're less likely to have a heart attack by actually smoking than you would by passive smoking.

Unless of course its due to something unrelated to the smoking ban...

Re: smoking and the pub
 

well you can contest the stats and ill agree but you can not contest the risks to non smokers from passive smoking ;)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

It may even be something as simple as non-smokers not building up a certain level of resistance to the effects of the chemicals in cigarette smoke.

All I can say is a 17% drop is a hell of a lot less people clogging up the hospital wards and the smoking ban is the most radical change in the day to day health of Scots (until a ban on deep-fried pizza comes in) recently I'd be amazed if the two weren't linked.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you, just pointing out how I think they may have done it.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Indeed, as a passive smoker myself, I hate it.
I've chosen to never smoke a cigarette directly, I wish others would respect that and not smoke around me.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

What? It doesn't mean anything of the sort, you're reading the statistics backwards.

There has been a 17% reduction in post-heart attack hospital admissions amongst smokers in the 18 months since the smoking ban in Scotland. There has been a 20% reduction in post-heart attack hospital admissions amongst non-smokers.

This means that for every 100 smokers who might have been expected to be admitted to hospital after a heart attack before the ban, only 83 are now being admitted. And for every 100 non-smokers, only 80 are now being admitted.

The benefit is greater for non smokers. This is entirely what you would expect to find, considering that non smokers are exposed to less smoke than smokers are.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Meaning that if the ban hadn't been introduced 20 extra non smokers would have been brought in with smoking related heart attacks, and only 17 extra smokers would have been brought in with smoking related heart attacks.

Take 200 people, lable half of them smokers, and the other half nonsmokers.
That's how many of those people who would have had smoking related heart attacks if the ban hadn't been brought in.
Now, introducing the ban prevented some of them having having heart attacks.
Take 17 away from the smokers, and 20 away from the non-smokers.
You now have the people from this group who would have had smoke related heart attacks had the ban not been brought in.
Only 17 of those who'd carried on smoking directly, and 20 of those who had only passively smoked.
So a greater proportion of passive smokers would have suffered smoke related heart attacks had the ban not been brought in than the proportion of smokers.
Unless of course the science behind the statistics is actually wrong in order to make it look like the ban was a good thing (duh like dodgy statistics are required for that).

Re: smoking and the pub
 

The only thing that's dodgy here is your extremely mangled mistreatment of the statistics. ;)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Personally like i said this sort of statistic was to be expected if they wanted to surprise me one showing it had made sod all difference would have worked.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I'll be interested to see if the results for England match up bearing in mind that statistically Scotland has had a worse rate of death from heart disease in the past.:erm:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I would have thought they ought to, seeing as we are dealing with rates of decline rather than absolute numbers - unless of course Scotland's relatively high starting point makes for a steeper initial fall.

As you say, it will be interesting to find out - presumably someone, somewhere is preparing to look into it, 12 or 18 months from now.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I guess there is not a huge reduction because they are probably eating packets of pork scratching instead of smoking fags.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

You yourself said that for every hundred of each, they expected only 17 more smokers to have heart attacks compared with 20 more non-smokers to have smoking related heart attacks.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Oh you are doing my head in..why not leave it at that?

Frankly it's only been a year and I'd like a longer period of time to allow the stats to level out more...Or to continue to drop.I'd like a look in say in another 4 years to get the average or mean or mode or whatever they use these days.:)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

In the last ten years any faith i had in statistics is gone and i no longer believe a single set of them as they all seem to backup the current favourite mind set.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Time to resurrect this old dog-end of a thread with some more statistics. :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7480856.stm

Apparently, England's smoking ban has caused more than 400,000 people to quit. Researchers say this could translate into 40,000 lives saved over the next 10 years.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Funny thing is, imagine how much tax the govt is losing on that, wont be liking that ;)

Though..."100% compliance" is a farce.....barely any pubs round here have paid any attention to the ban.

Not that i care because 1)going out for a drink these days is just too expensive and 2)pubs have always been about going in to have a drink and a smoke

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I dont go out for a drink that much these days but I'm glad the ban came in.

I dont smoke and I dont feel that I should have to breathe in other peoples smoke. If they want to smoke thats up to them but I should not have to as well :)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

"Apparently, England's smoking ban has caused more than 400,000 people to quit. Researchers say this could translate into 40,000 lives saved over the next 10 years." What a great result and all we had to do to achieve it was trample on the rights of a large section of the population and restrict an activity that is legal. Hey imagine how many lives we can save by banning alcohol and fast food man those figures would be great. This wasn't some sort of victory for anyone you had one group being oppressed by the government and another group because they saw a benefit in it for themselves standing by and allowing it to happen.

What should have happened was what most wanted a clear distinction between smoking pubs\clubs\whatever and non smoking that way everyone was catered for and no one had to lose out. Given how it worked out i am amazed that some people complain about this government not listening to the people because it only bothers some when they are not listening to what you want.

For me the lesson in this was you may not indulge in something that others do but we must all defend the rights of others to do legal activities without restriction from the government. Oh and before someone says i am no longer a smoker but i still feel the ban was a disgusting trampling of people's rights by an ever increasing control obsessed government.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

And some people ust didn't want to breathe your smoke, when they chose not to smoke.
Why should they not go to the pub because you can't smoke outside?

Anyway, congrats on stopping. Bet that saved you a packet :)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I have always supported the ban 100%. The rights of the smoker have never been more important than the rights of the non smoker and for the smoker to have his rights infinges on the non smoker. This of course could lead to ill health not just for the smoker but for the non smoker also so the smoker is inflicting personal injury and therefore the ban is just

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I've never smoked (only one out of my family) and lost my father (55) and brother (36) to smoking related cancers, I also hate the smell and welcome smoke free areas....

But I also agree that people should have a right to choice.....pity an outright ban was brought in, surely a simple law stating that pubs/clubs had to have an equal sized smoking/non-smoking areas would have then given people the choice....

Kymmy

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Pubs have all got much larger smoking zones its called outside ;)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I never said people didn't have the right to a smoke free area hence "a clear distinction between smoking pubs\clubs\whatever and non smoking that way everyone was catered for" which would have given both groups what they wanted guess that passed most of you guys by eh.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

No not at all . I have friends who smoke and friends who do not smoke . If we all went out for a drink we would have to split up or one or the other would suffer.Just imagine the enviroment if everyone in a pub smoked talk abotu pea soup lol . The ban imo and by your post will save lives and a lot of people money it has to be a good thing. Smoking kills and effects not just the smoker.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

You still have to pass by the smokers to get in the pub.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

On the few occassions I visit such places I go to ones that have a garden for smokers so in actual fact I do not have to pass them ;)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Ergh, I knew I was opening a can of worms here ...

This thread has been on the go for years, and it has all the arguments for and against in its many pages. However, to summarize the most important one, the smoking bans implemented in the various home nations of the UK were all legislated for on Health and Safety at Work grounds. The primary justification for it, in law, is that bar workers do not have the choice not to go into a smoking room. It is unfair to ask them to do so now there is such a wealth of evidence that even passive smoking can be deadly. That is why there are so few exemptions. Allowing smoking areas to continue would have completely defeated the primary purpose of the legislation.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

So 400,000 have quit, the duty on a £5.00 packet of ciggies is for arguments sake £4.00, 400,000 used to smoke 20 a day they have since packed up thats a loss of £1,600,000 in duty per day, add that over the year and you have £83,200,000 in lost revenue, that's alot of money slipping through the treasury's hands, this loss will have to be clawed back, which way is it going to be clawed back?? Hike beer up to £4.00 a pint? Hike up petrol and diesel again? Up VAT to 20% it's got to come from somewhere.

The Government get £6billion a year in tobacco taxes, the cost to treat smoking related illnesses is £500million, they are making a tidy packet there aren't they?

Beer.....the Government gets £8billion a year in alcohol duty, the cost to treat, prevent violence, clean up after the weekends goings on are £12billion, of this money you've got the Police to pay who police the weekends drinking sprees, you've got the nurses who are at the A&E waiting for the low life to be bought in, you've got the Paramedics who have to take them to the hospital, you've got the clean up squads who have to work weekends to clear up the pavement pizza's left by the people who've had to much beer, there's the damage to pay for after violence has flared like smashed windows etc etc, you've then got to pay £50 to the alcoholics who are on disability payments each week.

The Government won't increase alcohol duty because most of the MP's are on the brewery's pay roll.

Keep hitting the smokers who get a raw deal every time, there are more alcoholics in this country than there are people who suffer from smoking related diseases.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

£83 million a year is, if you'll pardon the pun, small beer in the context of an annual UK budget that's now in the region of £600 billion.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Yeah but by that measure Chris you should ban alcohol as well then as bar staff are routinely exposed to abuse and aggresion due to drunken customers. I am not saying smoking is a good thing i am not suggesting anyone should have to endure it if they don't want to. What i am saying is that it is still legal to purchase tobacco in the UK in fact the government needs the revenue so unless they have the balls to make it illegal and stop taking money from it they have no right to restrict it in the way they did. Also most of the bar staff i know smoke and so i doubt it would have been hard to organise that side of it either.

As far as i am concerned this was an exercise by the government to see how far it could go to restrict personal activity and smoking won't be the last thing they hit. Personally i don't drink alcohol but i routinely have to put up with drunks being abusive and throwing up on my road not to mention the broken glasses that litter the town centre after a weekend if we want we all have a reason to want something restricted\banned doesn't mean it should be or that we should actively pursue that end. I have also loved the "selfish" argument that non smoker's put up as they were thinking purely of themselves when they called for it to be banned pot calling the kettle methinks.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Bar staff have the right not to be abused at work. Drunk punters can and do get dragged through the courts because it's already illegal for punters to expose the bar staff to aggression. Actually the Licensee could wind up in court as well, as it's his responsibility to keep order on his premises. Just as it is now his responsibility to ensure his staff are not exposed to smoke.

I don't think it follows that tobacco being legal means there is no grounds for strict controls on it. Alcohol, for example, is already a lot more restricted than tobacco in where and when you can buy and consume it.

I don't believe any of the main political parties in the UK have an agenda that goes something like, "Bwuhahahahaaaaaa ... let's see how many personal freedoms we can remove this week!" so I'm really not buying in to your idea that the smoking ban was Labour's experiment in seeing how far they can cow the populace.

And as I've already said, the drunken activity you describe is *already* illegal. Anyone doing any of the things you mention can be prosecuted for any of a whole range of offences.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

£83million can buy quite a few things for the Anti Smoking brigade in the UK. How about buying them all a free air con unit so they can breath cool air in the summer instead of trying to blame the smokers for the greenhouse effect which will be the next step.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Sorry Chris it might be illegal but it is something that rarely results in any action other then a cooling off period in the cells where i live. End of the day it is a mute point as the non smoker's the "unselfish" lot got what they wanted and damn anyone else. What will we make the next big nasty now that smoker's have been successfully clubbed into submission and the revenue from tobacco annually is around 9-10 billion but the non smoker's will be happy to pay the extra income tax so they can breath smoke free air (just don't mention the exhaust fumes).

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Hang on ... we're trying to discuss whether it's fair to ban smoking in enclosed public places, and you're complaining that your local plod is too lenient on drunks.

Please explain the connection?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I was just answering what you said when trying to explain alcohol problems. Fact is while smoking might not have been the most pleasant thing for non smoker's to endure it didn't instantly lead to health problems as many in the non smoking camp were making out when campaiigning for the ban hell you'd have thought the NHS was overwhelmed by smoking related illnesses which it clearly isn't.

I wonder what will have to be restricted\banned for some people to see this ban was overkill on an activity that despite what some people think wasn't the biggie it was made out to be. As for pubs being so much better now the smoke is gone yeah your absolutely right i love sitting in one drinking my coke smelling the sweat off the guy that just finished work for the day and the lovely smell of the urinals if your close enough to them, and lets not forget that lovely stale beer smell that is such a complement to the atmosphere.


It's funny because a few of the people i socialise with that used to moan about smoking are now saying they miss it and it wasn't that bad what a funny little world we live in :).

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Lets get this thing into context, pubs used to be frequented mainly by smokers, until the so called middle class decided that they wanted to go out for something to eat. Instead of going to a restaurant the decided to go to a pub that resembled a restaurant and then complained of the smokey atmosphere,the smoking drinkers were there first, they didn't start going to restaurants to drink. It's like the american indians and the aboriginies all over again, move in take over and restrict what the indigenous population can do. What next slip some disease into our beer and rid yourselves of all beer drinkers.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

^^ welcome to the planet:rolleyes:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Actually the drinkers were there first.... Beer and wine and establishments selling them have been around a lot longer than tobacco ;)

Kymmy

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Hello? And how exactly did the evil middle classes decide to go to a pub that resembled a restaurant, unless the pub's owners first decided to turn it into a pub resembling a restaurant?

Sorry but the line you're taking here has more holes than a colander.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

are you talking about the 50's when smoking was encouraged by some doctors as stress relief? everyone and their dog knows smoking is bad for you (the dog will cough splutter and not be happy if you blow smoke in its face)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

So why should I have to walk further to the pub, because the one closer to me was a smoking pub? It doesnt work, No one has had their rights removed, if you want to smoke you go outside, you can still do it freely, but why would you want to inflict it on other people who hate the smell and also suffer from breathing in smoke.

But no, people wanted me to walk 1 mile further to go to the other pub because some lazy people couldnt walk 20 metres to the outside of the pub for 3 minutes every 30 minutes to 1 hour.

---------- Post added at 16:49 ---------- Previous post was at 16:45 ----------

Do you have a problem with smokers having to walk 20 metres to the outside of a pub? Dont you feel more for the people with asthma who just want a quite drink who under what you would rather have happened, have to walk 1 mile to the none smoking pub?

---------- Post added at 16:53 ---------- Previous post was at 16:49 ----------

Thats utter tosh. You try walking into a smoke filled pub when you have asthma and then tell me it "it didn't instantly lead to health problems". Breathing in smoke, any type of smoke is bad for your health no matter how much or how little.

---------- Post added at 16:55 ---------- Previous post was at 16:53 ----------

I would say that was utter tosh, and has no basis of fact to it what so ever.

Infact the smokers I did know already went outside to smoke so they would not be rude and inflict smoke onto people who didnt like it.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

See above post on the point i was making about how smoker's are called the selfish ones. Because it is nothing but a constant ramble about how YOU might have had to walk a bit further for a pub but it is ok for others to have to do it for your benefit :rolleyes:. All of this is of course mute as the law got passed and the unselfish ones got their way. Oh and those figures i wouldn't put too much stock in them as many people don't get their tobacco from the UK anymore and so don't show up on the figures.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Selfish? How? Ive got asthma, its your choice to smoke, so why choose to do it close to people who dont like it. The whole point was that you might have to move 20 metres where I would have to move 1 mile, but hey Im the selfish one because people cant be bothered to walk 20 metres to be considerate. There is no two ways about it, when you choose to smoke, please only breath in the smoke yourself, its not selfish to not want to breath in your smoke, especially being asthmatic.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Many people have personal health problems that could be used as a reason for this and that and thats why it's pointless. Also i DON'T smoke anymore i can just see it from the smoker's side of the argument having once been a smoker and no one ever inhaled my smoke as i didn't smoke in pub's. Thats the thing in this whole debate no one wants to see anyone's else's side of the argument and as i have said it's pointless now as smoking is banned in enclosed public places.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Its not pointless at all. Breathing in smoke wether or not you have a health problem IS dangerous for your health. This is a point blank fact, the lungs are not designed to breath in smoke, thats not how the Human body works. This has nothing to do with none smokers being selfish, only we cant fathem out why it is so much bother to go and smoke 20 metres which is outside, rather than make everyone breath it in, of which some of them people might have health problems, like myself.

Also there is no smokers side to the argument, they are arguing for arguments sake and I have seen all the arguements they come up with, none of which top the most important factor in debates about this topic, the persons health who is sat a few chairs away from the smoker, who either before the ban had no choice of either not going to the pub or going and suffering, not just from health problems, but stinking also. Walking 20 metres outside to smoke for 3 minutes, is much better than a smoke filled pub and much better than sending customers who want a none smoking pub, 1 mile down the road.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

If we are going to bring health into it, might I point out that your body was not designed to process Alcohol either. Or meat. Although we have evolved the ability to deal with meat, Alcohol still does as much (if not more) damage as smoke. Admittedly, as long as you just drink, and don't get violent or drive, you are just damaging yourself.

Depends where you live. I should imagine that in most towns (certainly in the South East and London), there is more than one pub a mile.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Obviously both these points are not real points are they. Like you said, I dont get violent or sick when I drink, so the only person I am affecting, is myself. That is my choice. Before smoking was banned, I had no real choice now did I, you cant equate the two together as smoking damages both people.

Your last point again, is no real point as you mention, it depends where you live. What it would also depend on (if they let people choose to open smoking or none smoking pubs) is maybe the 3 pubs within 200 metres are all smoking and the none smoking one is 1 mile away.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

The whole issue is entirely moot now as smoking is banned in public spaces..so is it really worthwhile pursuing this avenue of discussion?:erm:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Any minute cash the government lose from ciggies, they are getting a 1,000 times plus from fuel duty

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Wow 9-10 billion just became minute :shocked:.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

There were way's to stop smoke getting to other areas of pubs but they weren't even considered, no far better for nanny to tell us what to do under threat of prosecution, next time some one moans about CCTV or 42 day detention it might be worth considering that we are getting exactly what we deserve

---------- Post added at 17:11 ---------- Previous post was at 17:07 ----------

You know the chap that proved the link between smoking and cancer isn't convinced by the passive smoking arguments.

---------- Post added at 17:15 ---------- Previous post was at 17:11 ----------

There is no need to hike fuel up they are already making unexpected billions from it and I remember hearing an interesting report saying that even at the height of the smuggling the government hadn't lost a penny in revenue, the 'health tax' that they put on every year is covering the losses and more, I bet that equated to more than 400 000 people quitting at it's height.

---------- Post added at 17:17 ---------- Previous post was at 17:15 ----------

That is hardly fair, 83 million missing is still 83 million missing regardless of how many billions you have, it still has to be accounted for assuming I was wrong in my last statement

Re: smoking and the pub
 

As an argument, that's a fallacy - an appeal to authority.

I'm not saying it doesn't need to be accounted for, I'm suggesting that Nidge was overstating the impact of its loss to the Exchequer.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

So what's quoting reams of ASH funded research?



This may be true if the government has enough money to run the country (in which case where's my rebate?) but otherwise it still has to be replaced. Add to that that its 400000 so far, say another 200-300k people stop in the next year, and the year after that... The hole in the finances gets bigger.

So they ramp up tax on tabacco causing the black market to soar (even more) until they've effectively priced legitimate smokers out of the market.

All that tax will have to be replaced and eventually it won't be just by smokers.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

... and that's another fallacy: ad hominem.

You're still not taking adequate account of the relative size of the amount compared to the overall budget. £48 million is absolutely tiny. Such an amount can be saved by shelving a couple of initiatives here and there, that very few people will ever notice. It is far, far away from the "oh no we can't afford to build that hospital!" scale of budget cutting.

A £48 million hole doesn't have to be plugged, they can just rearrange the furniture to hide it.

Yes, the tax revenue from smoking will eventually need to be found from elsewhere. And it will be. The key thing is, change is happening at a gradual enough pace for it to be planned for.

Unless you're suggesting that it's beneficial that we let a few hundred thousand people needlessly kill themselves in order to help keep the country afloat?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Bumpetty bump ... some interesting info in Mark Easton's BBC News Blog today that puts a different slant on the Pub industry's ongoing claims that it's getting slaughtered by the smoking ban:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereport..._are_evol.html

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Interesting. I personally much prefer Pubs where they do good food. You can go in, sit down, have a meal and talk while continuing to order drinks throughout the evening. Pubs which don't serve food usually means a case of eating before or after. As for the smoking ban, I would classify it a success, on the rare occasion I get smoke in my face I am reminded of how unpleasant it is and as a result how much nicer pubs are not they are not full of smoke.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Parameters have been changed and the slew of places that have gotten alcohol selling licences in my town are certainly not pubs but i bet they are included in the figures. I always wanted a compromise so that all groups had a fair and equal choice and i still believe that is and was the best solution. End of the day come on figures coming out to support the ban were always going to happen and the bbc reporting them in anyway is also no surprise given how far up the backside of this government they are :).

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Well he gave and analysed the data. Dismissing it as the BBC being biased in favour of the government is not a valid counter-argument. It's the classic get out clause when anyone has statistical analysis they don't like; Say the figures are manipulated and the media is biased and move on.

There cannot have been that many new places applying for licences which are not pubs and did not have a licence before. Restaurants and others would have had licences before hand as well.

The main points of the article seem to be that some pubs are 'closing' when in actual fact they are changing classification. There is a reduction of drink-only pubs but there is an increase in 'pubs' serving food and drink. Finally he points forward evidence that pubs may be more popular than before. Presumably as they now double as a destination for food.

If anything the statistics seem to have been manipulated by the pro-smoking lobby to try and claim pubs are closing across the country when they are simply changing.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Well yes, they have - but that's exactly the point of the article. 'Pubs' as we have understood them during the 20th century are giving way to other kinds of establishment. Easton quotes analyst Jon Collins who says:

So the answer is to diversify. If people are staying away because they can't smoke, offer something else that is more tempting than the prospect of a fag and a can of wifebeater in the livingroom.

Oh come on ... the BBC are a news organisation. Reporting this stuff is what they do. One article does not an agenda make.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Your right one article does not an agenda make but whenever there is bad news for this government why is the bbc last to air it i usually can see the bad news first on sky news and itn before the bbc. I am not disputing that pubs are changing but there are a lot of places now that are licenced to sell alcohol that were not in the past such as greasy spoons and suchlike that are not a direct replacement for the traditional pub.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

They aren't a direct replacement, but they are not supposed to be. The suggestion is that the market for the 'traditional' pub is dying out, and those establishments that wish to survive the change in society that is driving that are the ones that are evolving, rather than standing still.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

It was the BBC that unleashed the fury of the Government after one of their 'journalists' claimed they faked the dossier and led to the Hutton Report. Panorama often has pretty heavy stories focusing on government failures in the social services or police. They are the ones who did a big episode on dirty hospitals, racism in the police, and investigations into the social services after the various inquires.

Then even have comedies which poke fun at the government, In the Thick of It for example which is a pretty harsh ribbing of the current spin doctors in number 10. Have I Got News For You is often pretty harsh on (admittedly all) politicians.

I don't see where they are soft on the government, they might be more considered when breaking news but fast != accurate. It's not as if they don't cover the stories. Since neither Sky nor ITV do any proper analysis they simply break a story and put a couple of talking heads on for a few minutes. Whereas the BBC slaughters politicians on shows like Newsnight and Question Time.

Bias in favour of the Government from the BBC just doesn't hold up. I suspect people view the fact they call Gordon Brown the "Prime Minster" instead of "That lying, cheating, unelected git" is evidence of bias.

Anyway, this is off-topic and the blog post offers data and reasoned argument which cannot be dismissed so easily.

I doubt the increase in greasy spoons serving alcohol is a touch on the pubs that decided to sell food as well, which is the more likely path in the evolution of the pub.