Since the total ban on smoking in pubs, there hasn't been much discussion about the insurance savings to the average pub. Surely the fire risk is reduced since the ban, and this should be reflected in the premiums being paid. Otherwise, pubs are paying for cover they probably do not need, or at least, which the insurance companies are now far less likely to have to pay out on. Which is more to the point.
What is this reminiscent of?
It's almost as if there was a once tax or other charge which was initially included in your rent, but then became payable directly by you seperately, but your rent stayed the same. As if the landlord was given a bonus at the expense of the tenant, and neither noticed!
But how could that happen? Surely the sturdy British Yeomanry with its famous business sense knows when it is paying for nothing? And yet it did happen, unless someone in private rented accomodation at the time can provide evidence that their rent was reduced when the ill-fated Poll Tax was introduced.
Until that point, A Portion of Your Rent Was Rates. We were reminded of this in a public information film of the same name. After the poll tax, private landlords all received an instant bonus, and private tenants paid for it. And neither seemed to notice - though the subsequent property boom showed that some small landlords read their bank-statements, at least.