Re: Things that get blamed on Muslims : Fri Dec 05, 2014 9:02 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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.

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.

Re: Things that get blamed on Muslims : Sat Dec 06, 2014 5:06 am  

Cronus wrote: 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. Cronus wrote: 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. Cronus wrote: '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: http://store.mintel.com/beer-uk-december-2013 Cronus wrote: 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. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Alcohol_and_Drugs#Pakistan http://www.economist.com/node/21560543 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.

Cronus wrote: 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. Cronus wrote: 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. Cronus wrote: '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: http://store.mintel.com/beer-uk-december-2013 Cronus wrote: 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. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Alcohol_and_Drugs#Pakistan http://www.economist.com/node/21560543 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.

Re: Things that get blamed on Muslims : Sat Dec 06, 2014 2:26 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: 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 [img]snip[/img] 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: http://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"... 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. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Alcohol_and_Drugs#Pakistan http://www.economist.com/node/21560543 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.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: 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 [img]snip[/img] 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: http://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"... 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. http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Alcohol_and_Drugs#Pakistan http://www.economist.com/node/21560543 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.

Re: Things that get blamed on Muslims : Sat Dec 06, 2014 5:07 pm  

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.

Cronus wrote:

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.

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.

Cronus wrote:

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.

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.

Re: Things that get blamed on Muslims : Sat Dec 06, 2014 5:47 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Things that get blamed on Muslims : Sat Dec 06, 2014 10:29 pm  

Good pubs don't close, they thrive.

The only pubs that close are shitholes that would close, whoever moved into their catchment area

Re: Things that get blamed on Muslims : Mon Dec 08, 2014 10:20 am  

bramleyrhino wrote:

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.

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 !

Re: Things that get blamed on Muslims : Wed Dec 17, 2014 2:36 pm  

vernon wrote:

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.

Re: Things that get blamed on Muslims : Thu Dec 18, 2014 8:33 am  

cod'ead wrote:

Good pubs don't close, they thrive.

The only pubs that close are shitholes that would close, whoever moved into their catchment area

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.

Re: Things that get blamed on Muslims : Thu Dec 18, 2014 2:36 pm  

King Street Cat wrote:

... The pub industry is thriving...

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.