A recent survey (commissioned by a soft drink manufacture) has concluded that the pub industry is loosing £700m pounds worth of profit each year by serving free water rather than "up-selling" a thirsty customer with a soft drink.
It is of course the law of the land that free tap water must be available and supplied when requested, so not quite sure of the ethics (or legality) of the tactic. However, leaving such technicalities aside, they go on to assert (from the survey) that 45% of those surveyed would stay longer in the pub if the range of soft drinks improved.
So if the survey is correct and if the range needs to improve (and "honest", I am not on commission, or have any vested interest other than seeking to always support my mates), local producers are always seeking ways to keep people longer in pubs; you could perhaps try out Bensons Totally Fruity range.
Produced in the Cotswolds from a farming family, led by "Bean" Benson, here is an extract from their web-site which makes the product sound irresistible:
"We use the finest British apples, which are pressed on our farm using a simple, traditional process, which captures all of the juice naturally, needing no additives. The farm is on a beautiful old country estate owned by the National Trust, right in the heart of the Cotswolds in Gloucestershire.
We never add water, sugar, additives or preservatives and we only use British apples sourced locally whenever available. We never ever use concentrates and we use the best natural ingredients which taste so good we never need to add anything else. We're proud to say this also makes them suitable for diabetics."
What is the Bensons Philosophy?
"Our philosophy to use only the finest seasonal British apples is at the core - no pun intended - of what we do. We believe that by using only British apples we are doing our bit to keep the orchards in the UK thriving especially as 60% of orchards have disappeared since the 1950s. Bensons is a bustling community of Benson believers - not just grandparents, parents and children, but friends, neighbours, locals, farmers, bookkeepers, shopkeepers, the postman, the butcher, the truck driver, the barista, the apple pickers, the pulp-eating pigs and not least of all, our loyal drinkers too. Everyone plays their part in keeping us going and growing. That's the beauty of families, there's always room for more at the table."
www.bensonstotallyfruity.co.uk
By the way, I have little doubt that the company, FREEDRINKS, who commissioned the survey, have great soft drinks as well!
Monday 24 February 2014
Friday 14 February 2014
Blackpool Rejects Night-time Restrictions On Local Businesses
The licensed trade has welcomed the decision by the Licensing Committee of Blackpool NOT to invoke an EMRO (Early Morning Restriction Order) on a vibrant night-time district of the town. Should such an order have been approved, some 22 great licensed venues would have been forced to stop selling alcohol between the hours of 3.00 till 6.00am - with the subsequent loss of revenue, jobs and tourist enjoyment.
Perversely, whilst the selling of alcohol would have been banned, the venues could have continued with food, music and dancing. Just imagine the amount of alcoholic 'pre-loading' up to the hour of 3.00am!
This has been a mighty legal battle, with barristers galore no doubt earning a fortune during the process. The decision has also set somewhat of a precedent. If it had gone the other way, many other attempts across the UK to impose such restrictions would have ensued.
There is undoubtedly an issue in Blackpool and many other towns where significant levels of violent crime within town centres exist, and all parties concluded that "something must be done to address this". Curtailing hours however was not seen as the answer.
Evidence also suggested that a specific postcode within the Blackpool area provided most of the trouble makers and Stag and Hen parties were not the protagonists of most of the crime.
The Committee was not convinced that 'turning off the tap' at 3am (as was the phrase commonly used throughout the hearing) would have a positive impact on the prevention of crime and disorder. The Committee noted that one effect might be that a great number of individuals would be spilling out onto the streets at the same time, and this had the potential for increased levels of crime, disorder and nuisance. The Committee was of the view that there was also a real risk that patrons would 'hoard' drink in anticipation of any 3am terminal hour, and that this also mitigated the 'turning off of any tap' at 3am. Whether there was hoarding or an exodus at 3am, the Committee was of the view that both scenarios may have a negative impact on the licensing objectives, which include the Prevention of Crime and Disorder.
Having denied the EMRO here are some of their (very sensible) recommendations:
(1) That the Council supports the formation of a multi agency Night Time Economy Working Group, including but not limited to, the representatives of the Lancashire Constabulary, the Licensing Committee, the relevant Cabinet Members, the Heath Sector, Pubwatch, Trade Organisations and more general Tourist Organisations, and asks the Licensing Committee to meet at the earliest opportunity to formalise its membership.
(2) That subject to the agreement of (1) above, the Night Time Economy Working Group present its initial recommendations to the Licensing Committee within three months of its creation.
(3) That the Council requests the Chief Executive to write to the Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary requesting him to give urgent consideration to increasing the levels of policing in the night time economy, having regards to the Licensing Committee’s stated view that additional police officers deployed in strategic locations reduce crime and disorder within the night time economy. This letter should request the Chief Constable to report back to the Licensing Committee within 3 months.
So we are going to have all of the interested parties talking to each other, sharing problems and opportunities and agreeing a way forward to satisfy all, thereby seeking to create a safe environment for responsible people to enjoy a great night out, and not invoke more laws and regulations which allow the bad guys who caused the problem in the beginning to spoil it for the rest of us.
Wonders will never cease!
Perversely, whilst the selling of alcohol would have been banned, the venues could have continued with food, music and dancing. Just imagine the amount of alcoholic 'pre-loading' up to the hour of 3.00am!
This has been a mighty legal battle, with barristers galore no doubt earning a fortune during the process. The decision has also set somewhat of a precedent. If it had gone the other way, many other attempts across the UK to impose such restrictions would have ensued.
There is undoubtedly an issue in Blackpool and many other towns where significant levels of violent crime within town centres exist, and all parties concluded that "something must be done to address this". Curtailing hours however was not seen as the answer.
Evidence also suggested that a specific postcode within the Blackpool area provided most of the trouble makers and Stag and Hen parties were not the protagonists of most of the crime.
The Committee was not convinced that 'turning off the tap' at 3am (as was the phrase commonly used throughout the hearing) would have a positive impact on the prevention of crime and disorder. The Committee noted that one effect might be that a great number of individuals would be spilling out onto the streets at the same time, and this had the potential for increased levels of crime, disorder and nuisance. The Committee was of the view that there was also a real risk that patrons would 'hoard' drink in anticipation of any 3am terminal hour, and that this also mitigated the 'turning off of any tap' at 3am. Whether there was hoarding or an exodus at 3am, the Committee was of the view that both scenarios may have a negative impact on the licensing objectives, which include the Prevention of Crime and Disorder.
Having denied the EMRO here are some of their (very sensible) recommendations:
(1) That the Council supports the formation of a multi agency Night Time Economy Working Group, including but not limited to, the representatives of the Lancashire Constabulary, the Licensing Committee, the relevant Cabinet Members, the Heath Sector, Pubwatch, Trade Organisations and more general Tourist Organisations, and asks the Licensing Committee to meet at the earliest opportunity to formalise its membership.
(2) That subject to the agreement of (1) above, the Night Time Economy Working Group present its initial recommendations to the Licensing Committee within three months of its creation.
(3) That the Council requests the Chief Executive to write to the Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary requesting him to give urgent consideration to increasing the levels of policing in the night time economy, having regards to the Licensing Committee’s stated view that additional police officers deployed in strategic locations reduce crime and disorder within the night time economy. This letter should request the Chief Constable to report back to the Licensing Committee within 3 months.
So we are going to have all of the interested parties talking to each other, sharing problems and opportunities and agreeing a way forward to satisfy all, thereby seeking to create a safe environment for responsible people to enjoy a great night out, and not invoke more laws and regulations which allow the bad guys who caused the problem in the beginning to spoil it for the rest of us.
Wonders will never cease!
Friday 7 February 2014
New Laws Threaten To Cripple UK Pubs
The Anti Social Behaviour Bill is meandering through parliament, and is due to be introduced into Law in the near future. This bill has a number of aspects – some of which are very controversial – for example, new legislation on dangerous dogs and forced marriages. Also tucked away are new laws controlling pubs!
The concern of the pub industry is that the new licensing laws will "slip through under the radar" as the more controversial subjects gain most attention. There are however serious consequences for pubs, which many industry players see as potentially being "enormously damaging" to the pub sector. Part of the new law is that police will be able to close pubs for within 24 to 48 hours if there has been, or is likely to be, nuisance or disorder. Currently they must seek an order from magistrates thus to do. Theoretically, a closure order could subsequently last for 3 months!
Even more worrying is that for the first time the bill includes what is known as a "community trigger", which means that if there are three 'complaints' about a pub within a six month period, then police and local authorities are 'bound' to investigate. If either then decide to take no action, they must respond to the complainants giving their reasons why not. They will obviously be under great pressure to do 'something', which could include a pub being closed down! This opens up a whole can of worms. Any resident can complain about almost anything – noise for example. I once dealt with a case where a person bought a house next to a pub and complained about the noise of the balls going up the skittle alley! playing skittles was subsequently banned until balls made of rubber replaced the balls made of wood. (Load of balls, really!).
Traditionally, in a sane, adult world, a neighbour would pop into the pub and have a chat with the landlord to find a compatible solution to issues; now all they have to do is run to the police or local authority. History is full of people buying houses next to pubs and then complaining about the travesty of living next door to a pub! I am all for pubs being run responsibly and for being part of the "big society", and 99% of them are! (as are 99% of pub goers!)
The law of unintended consequence could have a field-day here. Think of the power available to entire minority lobbyists, including anti-alcohol groups, anti-pub groups and life’s disenfranchised losers. They can really let their imaginations run wild and complain about a thousand and one things, which could possibly include: kids being in pub gardens where alcohol is being consumed, smokers outside pubs causing obstructions on the pavements, car parking too near the pavement, Wetherspoon’s selling alcohol too cheaply, "I don’t like the landlord", "I have been barred from the pub unfairly", one licencee recruiting complainants to close down a competitor, residents associations choosing anti-pub members, do-gooders visiting the pub to seek under-age or intoxicated drinkers, previous landlords spying to find a fault with new owners, the menu is rubbish, the beer is lousy, the staff are rude, the toilets stink, the beer is too expensive, the hours are too late, the hours are too short, the lights are too bright (I once dealt with a complaint against a pub where the headlights from cars leaving the pub were shining into a neighbours bedroom and apparently putting up blinds was not a solution!) - the list is endless.
Do police really want to have to investigate such trivia, and do Licencees really have to suffer such intrusions to impact on their livelihoods? The Victor Meldrews of this world must be in heaven and think that Christmas has come early!
When will HMG cease their attack on pubs? 99% of them are fine, and 99% of people who drink alcohol are fine. Leave us alone!
The concern of the pub industry is that the new licensing laws will "slip through under the radar" as the more controversial subjects gain most attention. There are however serious consequences for pubs, which many industry players see as potentially being "enormously damaging" to the pub sector. Part of the new law is that police will be able to close pubs for within 24 to 48 hours if there has been, or is likely to be, nuisance or disorder. Currently they must seek an order from magistrates thus to do. Theoretically, a closure order could subsequently last for 3 months!
Even more worrying is that for the first time the bill includes what is known as a "community trigger", which means that if there are three 'complaints' about a pub within a six month period, then police and local authorities are 'bound' to investigate. If either then decide to take no action, they must respond to the complainants giving their reasons why not. They will obviously be under great pressure to do 'something', which could include a pub being closed down! This opens up a whole can of worms. Any resident can complain about almost anything – noise for example. I once dealt with a case where a person bought a house next to a pub and complained about the noise of the balls going up the skittle alley! playing skittles was subsequently banned until balls made of rubber replaced the balls made of wood. (Load of balls, really!).
Traditionally, in a sane, adult world, a neighbour would pop into the pub and have a chat with the landlord to find a compatible solution to issues; now all they have to do is run to the police or local authority. History is full of people buying houses next to pubs and then complaining about the travesty of living next door to a pub! I am all for pubs being run responsibly and for being part of the "big society", and 99% of them are! (as are 99% of pub goers!)
The law of unintended consequence could have a field-day here. Think of the power available to entire minority lobbyists, including anti-alcohol groups, anti-pub groups and life’s disenfranchised losers. They can really let their imaginations run wild and complain about a thousand and one things, which could possibly include: kids being in pub gardens where alcohol is being consumed, smokers outside pubs causing obstructions on the pavements, car parking too near the pavement, Wetherspoon’s selling alcohol too cheaply, "I don’t like the landlord", "I have been barred from the pub unfairly", one licencee recruiting complainants to close down a competitor, residents associations choosing anti-pub members, do-gooders visiting the pub to seek under-age or intoxicated drinkers, previous landlords spying to find a fault with new owners, the menu is rubbish, the beer is lousy, the staff are rude, the toilets stink, the beer is too expensive, the hours are too late, the hours are too short, the lights are too bright (I once dealt with a complaint against a pub where the headlights from cars leaving the pub were shining into a neighbours bedroom and apparently putting up blinds was not a solution!) - the list is endless.
Do police really want to have to investigate such trivia, and do Licencees really have to suffer such intrusions to impact on their livelihoods? The Victor Meldrews of this world must be in heaven and think that Christmas has come early!
When will HMG cease their attack on pubs? 99% of them are fine, and 99% of people who drink alcohol are fine. Leave us alone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)