Given the penchant for the right-wing press to blame just about everything on Muslims, I though we should have a thread to see over time the number of ills that are considered their fault. Start with this: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ments.html So, dens of iniquity are now closing because there are too many Muslims! This in a country where the same right-wing press like to be outraged at the drunken debauchery that blights our country! Funny old world.

Given the penchant for the right-wing press to blame just about everything on Muslims, I though we should have a thread to see over time the number of ills that are considered their fault. Start with this: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ments.html So, dens of iniquity are now closing because there are too many Muslims! This in a country where the same right-wing press like to be outraged at the drunken debauchery that blights our country! Funny old world.

If that picture is of the Cross Keys in Leeds (it's hard to tell), then that pub is now thriving and is probably one of the best pubs in the city centre.

The reason? It's not being run by another god-awful PubCo like Marston's who look to drive up rents at every opportunity. Instead, it has been taken over by a local independent firm (the same people who run North Bar I believe), who have invested in making it a fantastic pub serving excellent beer. Unfortunately, that approach doesn't really fit in with the Marston's business ethos.

It's not the only one - The Hop (owned by Ossett Brewery) is another great pub, Leeds Brewery now run several and outside the city centre, The Bridge has been transformed from a failing ****hole into a cracking pub by Kirkstall Brewery.

Given that you can't walk more than five minutes around Leeds City Centre without coming across somewhere selling craft ale, I'd say that there is still a massive market for the traditional pub. The problem that the likes of Marston's, Punch and Enterprise want to ignore is that market is, by and large, no longer interested in spending close to £4 on a pint of whatever nitro-keg swill that they want to pass off as lager in grotty surroundings.

I suspect Lord Hodgson names Leeds and Manchester in his critique because those cities seem to be embracing the culture of indy breweries and bar operators selling craft ale - and that's a much bigger threat to Marstons' business than the local Muslim population.

Spot on. This is just some PubCo old boy who isn't happy about people actually doing something about their market dominance. The pubs that are closing deserve to close in my opinion. They're obviously not doing things right. There are loads of pubs that are thriving and it's because they're doing their own thing and offering customers what they want, quality and choice.

I doubt whether his Lordship "blamed" Muslims, but the DM used "blames" in its headline, which was rather my point.

Seems pretty unequivocal to me.

What a prat.

If I have 50,000 potential customers in my catchment area, then it's up to me to attract my share of that trade.

If 25,000 non-drinkers move in to that area, it makes little difference to my trade. It may increase slightly, as non-drinking is not mutually exclusive to visiting pubs, but my 50,000 market is still there.

If 25,000 of my former market move away, and are REPLACED by 25,000 non-drinkers, then my business will be affected. But not by the "increase in the muslim population" but the decrease in target market. For which he can't blame muslims. They may choose to move into a house. But it is not their choice or doing or responsibility if the people next door choose to move out. It's a free country. If his target market moves away, he should castigate his target market for having the temerity to move. Or maybe he thinks someone moving away should be blamed if they "sell to a muslim". Pillock.

No, he is just a small part of the huge lobby that has fought tooth and nail against abolition of the beer tie, and he and they are smarting, and mounting a rearguard action, when CAMRA finally had a substantial victory the other week when the government was defeated in the Commons on pub tenants' rights to exercise a market rent option. That's what's upset him. even this crass and pigheaded government has decided to stop flogging a dead horse and announced they won't overturn the vote, and he doesn't like it.

He also seems to be trying to articulate a yearning for the "good old days" when the area around the pub was heavily populated by good ole white drinking boys, and is railing against the indisputably massive changes in demographics that have occurred in short order in a number of large conurbations. But whilst these changes are a valid topic for discussion, if bringing them into the topic of pubs, it is selective and disingenuous since we all know that the biggest recent influxes of immigrants have been from white, hard-drinking countries such as Poland and other parts of East Europe not noted for abstinence. And they have taken their turn to move, in large numbers, into areas that previously had become largely Asian-populated. So as a country, the target market of potential pubgoers has, far from diminishing, considerably increased.

Yes, if what used to be a noted and busy pub, but has lost its market because only a small percentage of its former locals now bother coming, if it isn't possible to market and attract enough old or new punters into a well-run pub then supply and demand dictates that it must close. But we must be extremely vigilant as the tactics of various pub owners regularly include causng a good pub to become a bad, badly run, pale shadow of a pub, so its trade declines, and then saying tehy have no choice biut to get PP for conversion and sell it as a dwelling, when in fact cashing in on development potential was the actual aim. Again, CAMRA has been having some success so that for example locals can get a pub listed as a community asset etc and while asset stripping (because that is what it is) has done irreparable and widespread damage to the nation's pubs, at least the surviviors belatedly are getting some limited weapons at their disposal to fight against such malpractices.

What has led to legion pub closures is a large mix of things. These include rapacious pubcos, in multi-billion debt, trying to screw tenants to the ground and penalise them for making a successful pub; exorbitant taxation (where CAMRA had another notable victory a year ago in halting, if not yet abolishing, the so called "beer escalator"; the cost of running a pub; rapidly changing social habits; and the widespread availability of cheap alcohol from supermarkets etc.

So far as I know, no significant numbers of former pub regulars have fled the country because of muslims, and if they have then they are terminally stupid as no other country, er, has pubs, so that was a bit self-defeating, I'd say.

Last month we took a short break in Ambleside and frequented a few (less than a dozen) pubs in the area, one of our party is/was a lab technician in a large Yorkshire brewery until it closed (can you guess which one) and so he likes his beer, so do I but unfortunately my brain doesn't so I have to limit myself to just a couple of pints which makes it all the more important to make sure that the beer you're choosing is a decent pint - we never had a bad beer and loved the third of a pint "tasters" which most pubs were proud to offer when you asked them what they had on, I love cask beer and having six different thirds is a great way to enjoy it.

Contrast this to our monthly Friday night lads nights out in Otley in which "they" (not me) always choose to meet up in one of the huge Pubco owned premises, probably the largest PubCo in the country (can you guess which one it is), and in which on the last two occasions they have sent beer back to the bar to be met with a blank stare from the young bar staff who don't understand what the former (almost) master brewer on the customer side of the bar is telling them. One night they sent two rounds of six pints each back to the bar and ended up ordering cooking lager just so they'd get a pint that even the inept cellar man couldn't ruin, I don't know why they choose this pub every time (well I do, its cheap) when not 100 yards away there are two independent owned free houses selling some cracking cask beers, breaks my heart to have to have my two pint ration taken in the cheap-but-crap PubCo owned premises.

I liked the pork scratching comment

On a more positive note, Citizen Khan is on at 8.30pm. I am finding this series even better than the first. Great stuff.

Could be better though, the last time the BBC did this sort of thing they had Spike Milligan blacked up to play a Pakistani, that was much funnier, as was Peter Sellers in a similar role, its alright these asians getting in on the act but they aren't as funny as a white man playing blackface.

I think you're missing a point here though. If your 25,000 additional non-drinking population have moved in, where are they living? Unless the housing stock has increased by 50%, something doesn't add up.

I could take you round several areas close to where I live, which, 25 years ago were predominantly white working-class, a population that liked its beer and therefore had plenty of small, local pubs dotted around. These are heavily developed old industrial areas, mainly filled with terraced houses and old semis, and the occasional newer development although land for development is limited, similar to many inner-city areas. Those areas are now almost exclusively filled with immigrant populations - mainly Pakistani, some Indian, and more recently Poles and other Eastern Europeans.

These areas were always cheap places to get a foot on the property ladder and then move on, so I would imagine the rate of exchange is fairly high. In more recent years large numbers have also been snapped up as rental properties - again, largely by the Pakistani population - and guess who they rent to. In amongst that mix you have elderly long-time residents, who - in one of life's few guarantees - eventually die, their houses sold. Perhaps there's even some element of 'white flight' in there, who knows.

So, the incumbent population has been replaced, not added to. Replaced with a mostly non-drinking population. The pubs, bar one or two, have all closed and are now carpet stores, solicitors, flats or have been flattened.

'Blame' isn't the word to use, but such a polar change in the demographics of these areas will inevitably have consequences. There are other factors of course, and cheap booze and economic hardship certainly will have an effect.

BTW, many Muslims DO drink. They just don't do it in pubs or in general view of their community.

Quote ="Cronus"I think you're missing a point here though. If your 25,000 additional non-drinking population have moved in, where are they living? Unless the housing stock has increased by 50%, something doesn't add up.'" The population of the UK has gone up by a few million in recent years. It doesn't matter where they are living, you have to accept that they are living somewhere. As a percentage, only a tiny minority are homeless. Here are the facts Up from 54m in 1964 to 64m now and the trend is a steady and quite steep increase. Quote ="Cronus"I could take you round several areas.... ....So, the incumbent population has been replaced, not added to. Replaced with a mostly non-drinking population. The pubs, bar one or two, have all closed and are now carpet stores, solicitors, flats or have been flattened. '" there is no dispute that as any given district became predominantly Asian, this led to pubs and clubs closing for lack of trade. However a) ALL those pubs' ex-customers, potentially, would be available for trade at some OTHER pub, near to wherever they moved to. As we all accept, social habits have changed but those people largely would still drink, and COULD be persuaded into pubs if the right deal (to them) was on offer. b) The more recent influx of white European drinkers was sadly much too late for many pubs, as once they have closed, they have tended to be converted to other uses, and I don't know of any that have later re-converted back to a pub. So you again have drinkers back in a given area, but they have to make other arrangements for their drinking unless and until someone takes a punt that there is enough demand to open up a hostelry. Quote ="Cronus"'Blame' isn't the word to use, but such a polar change in the demographics of these areas will inevitably have consequences. There are other factors of course, and cheap booze and economic hardship certainly will have an effect.'" But who suggested otherwise? The points are so obvious as to be banal. Anyway, there are those whose job it is to analyse trends and habits in the minutest detail and it is a whole host of factors. You may find some very interesting reading, for example, here: store.mintel.com/beer-uk-december-2013 Quote ="Cronus"BTW, many Muslims DO drink. They just don't do it in pubs or in general view of their community.'" Indeed they do. And much more than I'd venture most people think. But you wouldn't I take it suggest that the additional sales of alcohol to muslims is anything other than a statistically insignificant percentage? You've raised an interesting point, though. Here's a couple of short articles on Muslims and alcohol, which will have quite a few eyebrow raising snippets for most people. [urlhttp://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Alcohol_and_Drugs#Pakistan[/url [urlhttp://www.economist.com/node/21560543[/url Quote it’s interesting to see how the prophet Muhammad handled his liquor. There are plenty of examples in the Hadiths (tales about Muhammad’s life that are used to understand the meaning of the Quran) that prove he indeed drank alcohol. Here is the most interesting one: Muslim 3753 “We were with the prophet of Allah and he was thirsty. And a man said: ‘O prophet of Allah, do you want to drink wine?’ Prophet of Allah said: ‘Yes’. The man went to get the wine. The prophet of Allah said: ‘Make it intoxicated’. And he drank.” Because the Arabian word that was used ‘nabeed’ can also mean alcohol free wine, the addition by the prophet that is must be intoxicated is a very valuable one. There are plenty more passages where Muhammad is drinking wine, both in the morning and in the evening. In many cases the Islamic opponents of alcohol can hide behind the double meaning of the word ‘nabeed’, but in the last habith the Arabic word ‘khamra’ is used, which means alcohol.'" The stats are that between 2001 and 2011 alcohol consumption in the West increased by around 30%. In Muslim countries it increased by over 70% and that ain't all tourists. However the fact is that no Muslim would openly admit to drinking, and even though alcohol is seemingly not at all prohibited, the position is that it may as well be, as the religious fundamentalists who are present everywhere have in recent times taken the position that a muslim must not drink alcohol, and whilst in private many may disagree, in public nobody is brave enough to open a debate about it. For these reasons, alcohol consumption in the UK by members of the muslim population isn't going to make any pub landlord rich.

Quote ="Cronus"I think you're missing a point here though. If your 25,000 additional non-drinking population have moved in, where are they living? Unless the housing stock has increased by 50%, something doesn't add up.'" The population of the UK has gone up by a few million in recent years. It doesn't matter where they are living, you have to accept that they are living somewhere. As a percentage, only a tiny minority are homeless. Here are the facts Up from 54m in 1964 to 64m now and the trend is a steady and quite steep increase. Quote ="Cronus"I could take you round several areas.... ....So, the incumbent population has been replaced, not added to. Replaced with a mostly non-drinking population. The pubs, bar one or two, have all closed and are now carpet stores, solicitors, flats or have been flattened. '" there is no dispute that as any given district became predominantly Asian, this led to pubs and clubs closing for lack of trade. However a) ALL those pubs' ex-customers, potentially, would be available for trade at some OTHER pub, near to wherever they moved to. As we all accept, social habits have changed but those people largely would still drink, and COULD be persuaded into pubs if the right deal (to them) was on offer. b) The more recent influx of white European drinkers was sadly much too late for many pubs, as once they have closed, they have tended to be converted to other uses, and I don't know of any that have later re-converted back to a pub. So you again have drinkers back in a given area, but they have to make other arrangements for their drinking unless and until someone takes a punt that there is enough demand to open up a hostelry. Quote ="Cronus"'Blame' isn't the word to use, but such a polar change in the demographics of these areas will inevitably have consequences. There are other factors of course, and cheap booze and economic hardship certainly will have an effect.'" But who suggested otherwise? The points are so obvious as to be banal. Anyway, there are those whose job it is to analyse trends and habits in the minutest detail and it is a whole host of factors. You may find some very interesting reading, for example, here: store.mintel.com/beer-uk-december-2013 Quote ="Cronus"BTW, many Muslims DO drink. They just don't do it in pubs or in general view of their community.'" Indeed they do. And much more than I'd venture most people think. But you wouldn't I take it suggest that the additional sales of alcohol to muslims is anything other than a statistically insignificant percentage? You've raised an interesting point, though. Here's a couple of short articles on Muslims and alcohol, which will have quite a few eyebrow raising snippets for most people. [urlhttp://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Alcohol_and_Drugs#Pakistan[/url [urlhttp://www.economist.com/node/21560543[/url Quote it’s interesting to see how the prophet Muhammad handled his liquor. There are plenty of examples in the Hadiths (tales about Muhammad’s life that are used to understand the meaning of the Quran) that prove he indeed drank alcohol. Here is the most interesting one: Muslim 3753 “We were with the prophet of Allah and he was thirsty. And a man said: ‘O prophet of Allah, do you want to drink wine?’ Prophet of Allah said: ‘Yes’. The man went to get the wine. The prophet of Allah said: ‘Make it intoxicated’. And he drank.” Because the Arabian word that was used ‘nabeed’ can also mean alcohol free wine, the addition by the prophet that is must be intoxicated is a very valuable one. There are plenty more passages where Muhammad is drinking wine, both in the morning and in the evening. In many cases the Islamic opponents of alcohol can hide behind the double meaning of the word ‘nabeed’, but in the last habith the Arabic word ‘khamra’ is used, which means alcohol.'" The stats are that between 2001 and 2011 alcohol consumption in the West increased by around 30%. In Muslim countries it increased by over 70% and that ain't all tourists. However the fact is that no Muslim would openly admit to drinking, and even though alcohol is seemingly not at all prohibited, the position is that it may as well be, as the religious fundamentalists who are present everywhere have in recent times taken the position that a muslim must not drink alcohol, and whilst in private many may disagree, in public nobody is brave enough to open a debate about it. For these reasons, alcohol consumption in the UK by members of the muslim population isn't going to make any pub landlord rich.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"The population of the UK has gone up by a few million in recent years. It doesn't matter where they are living, you have to accept that they are living somewhere. As a percentage, only a tiny minority are homeless. Here are the facts Up from 54m in 1964 to 64m now and the trend is a steady and quite steep increase. there is no dispute that as any given district became predominantly Asian, this led to pubs and clubs closing for lack of trade. However a) ALL those pubs' ex-customers, potentially, would be available for trade at some OTHER pub, near to wherever they moved to. As we all accept, social habits have changed but those people largely would still drink, and COULD be persuaded into pubs if the right deal (to them) was on offer. b) The more recent influx of white European drinkers was sadly much too late for many pubs, as once they have closed, they have tended to be converted to other uses, and I don't know of any that have later re-converted back to a pub. So you again have drinkers back in a given area, but they have to make other arrangements for their drinking unless and until someone takes a punt that there is enough demand to open up a hostelry. But who suggested otherwise? The points are so obvious as to be banal. Anyway, there are those whose job it is to analyse trends and habits in the minutest detail and it is a whole host of factors. You may find some very interesting reading, for example, here: store.mintel.com/beer-uk-december-2013'" All good points, however Lord Hodgson is being berated for stating that, "in areas of Nottingham, Leicester, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham the increase in the Muslim population who don't drink leads to many pub closures", a statement which is entirely true, given he hasn't even named this as the sole reason, but cites other influences. I would also add the smoking ban and simply the ever-growing cost of a pint, but a huge increase in a non-drinking population in an area will clearly be a significant factor. While indeed the UK population has grown, break that down to the small catchment area of a local pub and the numbers become insignificant. I'd also wager that many pub closures are in areas similar to those close to me - old working class industrial areas now massively dominated by immigrant, mostly Muslim, populations. And yes, the population that has moved away no doubt now drink elsewhere - probably one of the soulless pub chains that seem to be the only pubs opening these days, or at home (or perhaps they have families and don't frequent pubs as often, or have died) - but that doesn't change the key fact: they have been replaced by a non-drinking population and their old local pubs have gone. It's a simple equation: overwhelm an area with a population that doesn't drink (publicly), and the local pubs will see a decline in business. Similarly, many churches in areas dominated by Muslim communities have closed. If an area was suddenly dominated by Hindus I expect a fried chicken joint would see a decline in business. I don't really see what the issue is - actually I do, it's knee-jerk media looking for a story. In reality, anyone choosing to 'take offence' really is scraping the barrel, yet there they are...and predictably they've rolled out quotes from "leaders of Britain's Muslim community"... Quote Indeed they do. And much more than I'd venture most people think. But you wouldn't I take it suggest that the additional sales of alcohol to muslims is anything other than a statistically insignificant percentage? You've raised an interesting point, though. Here's a couple of short articles on Muslims and alcohol, which will have quite a few eyebrow raising snippets for most people. [urlhttp://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Alcohol_and_Drugs#Pakistan[/url [urlhttp://www.economist.com/node/21560543[/url The stats are that between 2001 and 2011 alcohol consumption in the West increased by around 30%. In Muslim countries it increased by over 70% and that ain't all tourists. However the fact is that no Muslim would openly admit to drinking, and even though alcohol is seemingly not at all prohibited, the position is that it may as well be, as the religious fundamentalists who are present everywhere have in recent times taken the position that a muslim must not drink alcohol, and whilst in private many may disagree, in public nobody is brave enough to open a debate about it. For these reasons, alcohol consumption in the UK by members of the muslim population isn't going to make any pub landlord rich.'" I never said it would. Simply making an observation. I once discussed this with a Muslim friend who liked his beer - his reply as he supped his lager was, "yes, I'm a Muslim, but I'm a bad Muslim." Oddly, a Muslim waiter in Kalkan, Turkey said exactly the same thing a few years later, word-for-word.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"The population of the UK has gone up by a few million in recent years. It doesn't matter where they are living, you have to accept that they are living somewhere. As a percentage, only a tiny minority are homeless. Here are the facts Up from 54m in 1964 to 64m now and the trend is a steady and quite steep increase. there is no dispute that as any given district became predominantly Asian, this led to pubs and clubs closing for lack of trade. However a) ALL those pubs' ex-customers, potentially, would be available for trade at some OTHER pub, near to wherever they moved to. As we all accept, social habits have changed but those people largely would still drink, and COULD be persuaded into pubs if the right deal (to them) was on offer. b) The more recent influx of white European drinkers was sadly much too late for many pubs, as once they have closed, they have tended to be converted to other uses, and I don't know of any that have later re-converted back to a pub. So you again have drinkers back in a given area, but they have to make other arrangements for their drinking unless and until someone takes a punt that there is enough demand to open up a hostelry. But who suggested otherwise? The points are so obvious as to be banal. Anyway, there are those whose job it is to analyse trends and habits in the minutest detail and it is a whole host of factors. You may find some very interesting reading, for example, here: store.mintel.com/beer-uk-december-2013'" All good points, however Lord Hodgson is being berated for stating that, "in areas of Nottingham, Leicester, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham the increase in the Muslim population who don't drink leads to many pub closures", a statement which is entirely true, given he hasn't even named this as the sole reason, but cites other influences. I would also add the smoking ban and simply the ever-growing cost of a pint, but a huge increase in a non-drinking population in an area will clearly be a significant factor. While indeed the UK population has grown, break that down to the small catchment area of a local pub and the numbers become insignificant. I'd also wager that many pub closures are in areas similar to those close to me - old working class industrial areas now massively dominated by immigrant, mostly Muslim, populations. And yes, the population that has moved away no doubt now drink elsewhere - probably one of the soulless pub chains that seem to be the only pubs opening these days, or at home (or perhaps they have families and don't frequent pubs as often, or have died) - but that doesn't change the key fact: they have been replaced by a non-drinking population and their old local pubs have gone. It's a simple equation: overwhelm an area with a population that doesn't drink (publicly), and the local pubs will see a decline in business. Similarly, many churches in areas dominated by Muslim communities have closed. If an area was suddenly dominated by Hindus I expect a fried chicken joint would see a decline in business. I don't really see what the issue is - actually I do, it's knee-jerk media looking for a story. In reality, anyone choosing to 'take offence' really is scraping the barrel, yet there they are...and predictably they've rolled out quotes from "leaders of Britain's Muslim community"... Quote Indeed they do. And much more than I'd venture most people think. But you wouldn't I take it suggest that the additional sales of alcohol to muslims is anything other than a statistically insignificant percentage? You've raised an interesting point, though. Here's a couple of short articles on Muslims and alcohol, which will have quite a few eyebrow raising snippets for most people. [urlhttp://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Alcohol_and_Drugs#Pakistan[/url [urlhttp://www.economist.com/node/21560543[/url The stats are that between 2001 and 2011 alcohol consumption in the West increased by around 30%. In Muslim countries it increased by over 70% and that ain't all tourists. However the fact is that no Muslim would openly admit to drinking, and even though alcohol is seemingly not at all prohibited, the position is that it may as well be, as the religious fundamentalists who are present everywhere have in recent times taken the position that a muslim must not drink alcohol, and whilst in private many may disagree, in public nobody is brave enough to open a debate about it. For these reasons, alcohol consumption in the UK by members of the muslim population isn't going to make any pub landlord rich.'" I never said it would. Simply making an observation. I once discussed this with a Muslim friend who liked his beer - his reply as he supped his lager was, "yes, I'm a Muslim, but I'm a bad Muslim." Oddly, a Muslim waiter in Kalkan, Turkey said exactly the same thing a few years later, word-for-word.

You again make the mistake of pointing to "a huge increase in the ... population who don't drink". It is NOTHING to do with them. If the drinkers who'd previously lived in the pub's catchment area still did, then the addition of a million non-drinkers would make no difference. Of course, speaking in very broad terms, it was more a case of "replacement" of a mainly drinker population with a mainly non-drinker population. But as in this case the non-drinkers who come in don't affect the pub one way or the other, then if you are going to "blame" any section of society for the pub's ills, it is illogical to blame the incomers. They were never customers, and never will be. You would surely have to blame the ex-customers, for stopping giving their trade to the pub. Thus, to blame "increase in the Muslim population" is pointing the finger at them with absolutely no justification. If he had said "decrease in the drinker population" then that at least would be accurate and fair. Why didn't he?
I know people take offence at anything nowadays but I'm not interested in that game.

And there you go, doing the same reverse trick. Who exactly is doing the "overwhelming", in your view? If you want to be fair, then what you are actually referring to is NOT non-drinkers "overwhelming" an area. As I keep saying, it wouldn't matter if they did, if the pub's old customers were still there. What you seem to be repeatedly missing is that it ain't the people moving IN - it's the drinkers choosing (as is their right) to move OUT. I therefore think you use of the word "overwhelm" in this context is unnecessary and if anything a bit inflammatory. You aim at those coming in, yet leave entirely out of the argument the ones truly "responsble" for the pubs' decline, the ex-customers moving out.

Indeed, but you'd presumably agree that the hypothesis I outlined (that the prophets Mohammed and Jesus liked a drink) is one that it would be impossible for most muslims to argue or articulate in the climate of fear and paranoia that their more fundamentalist leading lights, who brook no dissent, have created across the world.

Inflamatory? Really? Never had you had you down as that sort. I use the word simply because the population I'm talking about is overwhelmingly Muslim, and therefore non-drinking. I think given the scale of the demographic changes the word applies quite nicely.

You're making the mistake of thinking I'm 'blaming' anyone. I'm not, just stating facts. For some reason you feel blame needs to be appointed, and in your opinion this should be placed on the previous inhabitants. Fair enough, though I won't agree as I'm not interested in blame.

How's this: a massive shift in the demographics of some areas, namely the growth of a non-drinking population and decrease of the incumbent population, has contributed in part to a decline in pub revenues and ultimately the closure of many pubs. See, no blame, just how it is.


Well, yes. Interestingly, alcohol in Saudi Arabia was not banned due to religion, but because King Ibn's sons kept getting wasted and killing people, including the British Consulate.

Good pubs don't close, they thrive.

The only pubs that close are sh[ii[/itholes that would close, whoever moved into their catchment area

Not sure it is - the windows look different.

Some good pubs in that part of town now - Cross Keys, Midnight Bell, Pour House.

You just need a full wallet for a night out in them !

No, definitely not the Cross Keys in Leeds.

The Southern end of Leeds City Centre is thriving for pubs/real ale bars at the moment. Over the past year, there are around 7/8 new ones in the Boar Lane/Mill Hill area alone, there's another one up near Cross Keys too that opened a couple of months ago, and a 'Brazilian Bar' over the canal from the Pour House.

As Cod'ead said, it's usually the bad pubs that close.

Absolutely. If for instance a pub is serving ropey pints of John Smiths and Fosters and expecting nearly £3 in return they quite rightly deserve to go to the wall. The pub industry is thriving, it's only the dives that will tell you otherwise.

it's really not. On average, 31 pubs a week are going to the wall. Many for a quick buck to convert to housing, regardless of the stripping of a community asset, or conversion by rapacious supermarkets into stores. The decimation of British pubs has been going on for years, with government taxation policy, useless planning laws, and greedy pubcos at the forefront of pricing pubs and landlords out of business. It's a complicated situation and CAMRA has (and is) fighting a good battle to try to stabilise the decline and save many brilliant pubs. But to say the industry is "thriving" is, with respect, just nonsense.

On the other hand, and I'll use an example of The Queens on Burley Road, SOME dead pubs can be turned into useful community assets again long after they have been shunned as pubs by the local community (you can argue whether or not Tesco are worthy of the term "community asset" as a separate argument).

The Queens was an extremely busy pub 20/30 years ago, situated behind the YTV studios its clientele included the esteemed Richard Whiteley and most of the staff of the studios as well as the local working class community that surrounded it, and for that matter still does surround it.

Fast forward to ten years ago and its local clientele just don't support it so that on the last time I visited early on a Saturday evening on the way to a game at Elland Rd it was populated by a handful of local boozers with the boozers complexion to match and a couple of young kids running around the place.

Its now a Tesco Express and as I pass it frequently in an evening it looks to be very well supported - its a community asset again albeit you take its beer home to drink it.

Notice how the pubco's will blame anything and anyone but themselves, they increase the price of a paint by way more than the tax increase but it's all the governments fault, they create cavernous soulless places but its the fault of the smoking ban, they employ clueless managers who are only interested in the bottom line and its the economy.

Yeah, right. The only reason Tesco will have taken over the pub is taking advantage of planning loopholes which mean they don't have the bother of full planning applications for a new store. There is NO REASON why they couldn't have opened their "community asset" nearby, next door even, leaving the pub alone. If you discount that they probably either wouldn't have been allowed to, or else it would have cost them, a load of time money and effort. I don't know of a Tesco store that serves as a social meeting or gathering place, but it could be the exception I suppose. And it is in no sense a "community asset" unless locals had nowhere else to shop. It may be a convenience for some but that hardly clears the bar, now does it?

So they opened a shop for commercial reasons, its probably what they do.

And is it a community asset ?

Well I'm sure you probably know the pub and the area it sits in, and while a lot of its drinking customers in the past were from the commercial businesses around it the main bulk were from the council estates behind it , the simple fact is that like a lot of pub businesses the drink at lunchtime and after work clientele is non-existent these days and the "locals" who live in the estates behind just didn't go in there, if you look along that whole stretch of Burley Road and Kirkstall Road you'll see a lot less than half of the pubs remaining that were there 10 years ago, they are just not regarded as an asset by the community despite the old fashioned rose tinted spectacle view of being a social gathering place for them and in this respect the old bag Thatcher was probably correct in that there is no such thing as society anymore (which makes her protege Cameron wrong in his view that there is).

So what do the community do when Tesco take over the premises - they use it to shop there in enough numbers so that Tesco think its worth keeping it open, and again if you know the area you'll know that there is no other similar facility within walking distance for that community - hence it becomes a valuable asset to them, more than the pub ever turned out to be - and the beer is cheaper.

I assume you're wrong on this, as we have clearly been told by another poster that the pub industry is in fact thriving, so what you say simply can't be true. There must be double the pubs, and they are surely all packed to the gunwales.

I was hardly denying that there have been major changes in society and social activity, though, nor was I trying to advance some simplistic one-size-fits-all panacea. The fact is, supermarkets and developers have been responsible for closing down of hundreds of well-used community pubs by taking advantage of lax planning laws, these being the reason they target pubs if sited where the supermarkets want to be. They can be soft targets. Whether this particular pub was one of them doesn't affect the wider point, and if a pub really has lost its trade and can't replace it, then like any business, it is doomed, there's no argument there. The argument is that in very many cases the closing of valuable community pubs is a scandal, against the wishes of locals and nothing to do with viability. I don't argue that's the case in every closure.