As "time" is called permanently at a growing number of Britain's pubs, hit by the triple whammy of the recession, dearer beer and the smoking ban, I find myself agreeing with Councillor David Ward who on the T&A Letters page the other day questioned the rightness of the policy.

Like Coun Ward, I hate smoke. It's bad for the smoker and for all those around him or her. I detested it when, in a pub or restaurant and about to tuck into a meal, smokers sat down nearby. I loathed the stench of stale smoke on my clothes the morning after a rare night out at a pub. It's been a real joy to be able to breathe smoke-free air in public places since the ban was introduced.

But I recognise that quite a lot of the people who patronise pubs are addicted smokers, particularly those who just go for a drink rather than for food. So a blanket ban on smoking was bound to have a big impact on them.

Some will have stopped, or be trying to stop - which is one of the consequences of the ban that the Government hoped for. But many will be buying their booze at the supermarket and drinking it at home while they smoke. And others will be sticking with the pub but standing on the pavement outside when they want to smoke, creating an intimidating gauntlet which will deter some would-be customers and littering the ground with their cigarette ends.

When a smoking ban was first being discussed, it wasn't total. The idea, I recall, was for a ban on smoking in all restaurants and cafes as well as pubs which served food. But non-food pubs would be able, if they wanted, to remain as smoking zones.

That seemed fair enough to me, although for the sake of non-smoking drinkers I did favour even smoking pubs having to confine it to a smoking room, served by powerful extractor fans and sealed off from the rest of the pub, including the bar. That way smokers, and those who were happy to drink with smokers, wouldn't have to lurk outside in the cold and clutter up the pavement or stand in hastily-constructed gazebos. With that proviso, it seemed that everyone could more-or-less be happy.

But when the legislation came it was for a blanket ban, a further sign of the shift away from liberal-minded compromise in this country. And now we're seeing the consequences, as pub takings fall and more and more establishments are put up for sale.

We live in a society which is becoming increasingly totalitarian and puritanical, to such an extent that there is now talk of the NHS refusing to treat smokers, drinkers or people who eat too many pies.

I don't like it. People should be able to do whatever they want if the only person they are likely to harm is themselves. And the NHS to which they have contributed should treat them if necessary.

And as far as smokers are concerned, I have no problem with anyone filling their own lungs with smoke as long as they keep it well away from my lungs and those of other non-smokers.

A Rock-solid loser

What a mess the Government have made of the Northern Rock sell-off fudge. As far as the taxpayers are concerned, it seems to boil down to a gamble: heads we lose, tails we don't win. We're heading into a recession, for heaven's sake! Who on earth is going to want to buy bonds in a failing bank at present, or for the foreseeable future? It's going to be us who foot the multi-billion-pound bill one way or another.

And what happens when the next greedy bank that's over-stretched itself through lending money it doesn't have in mortgages to people who can't afford the repayments gets into difficulties? Do the taxpayers underwrite that, too?

The Government might end up regretting that it didn't do the unthinkable and let Northern Rock sink. That way its investors and shareholders would have been losers, admittedly, which would have been very unfortunate for them - a big price to pay for backing the wrong horse.

But this way we're all likely to lose.

Don't let the streets defeat you

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith admitted this week that she wouldn't feel safe walking London's streets after dark.

Many people feel unsafe walking any city's streets after dark. I know some who won't come to the theatre in Bradford because they're afraid to walk to the car park after the show. But they (and Jacqui Smith, who now travels everywhere with burly official minders) shouldn't let fear paralyse their social life.

London's no better and no worse than any other large urban centre. Down there a couple of years ago, to attend the opening of a new show at a gallery our son was then running in Dalston, East London, my wife and I had no idea which bus to catch so we walked from Stoke Newington, where we had booked into a pub for bed and breakfast. It took us about half an hour through what is a long way from being the poshest part of London.

And at the end of the evening, unable to find a taxi, we walked back. I admit we did so rather quickly and uneasily, but we didn't at any stage feel directly threatened.

Our son and his fiancee now live in Stepney and often walk through the streets of the East End at night, visiting friends or other galleries, going to a restaurant or a pub. And when we visit them, we do the same.

The trick is to keep your eyes open and your wits about you, maintain a low profile, avoid eye contact, stay away from dark or lonely places and be prepared to take evasive action if you should sense trouble ahead.

Much the same, in fact, as you might do in Bradford, Keighley, Cleckheaton or Leeds.