Taking Liberties

I had a meeting with a senior parliamentary researcher on Thursday. We were discussing the best way for campaign groups (or non-constituents) to attract the attention of MPs and I mentioned that Forest was planning to send a Save Our Pubs and Clubs video on disk to every MP.

"Hmmm," he said. "Most MPs will probably throw a disk in the bin without watching it. On the other hand, if you put the video on a memory stick there is a much better chance that they will watch it, erase it, and keep the memory stick for their own use."

Who says MPs aren't careful with their expenses?!

Brian Monteith, author of The Bully State: The End of Tolerance which we published last month (see HERE), has written a piece for Conservative Home. Picking up on David Cameron's pledge to tackle Big Government, Brian writes:

It is not enough to say that overbearing inspectors, prying officials, quality assurance jobsworths and the like will be given their P45s without repealing the screeds of legislation that have brought them into being. I’ve heard it said that thousands of faceless bureaucrats will go, but I’ve yet to hear which of the laws that created them will be abolished.

In fact Conservatives often voice their own ideas about what government can next do in our own best interest such as introducing minimum prices on alcohol and giving more power to the Chief Medical Officer - who is responsible for starting many of the health-based "it’s for your own good" bans and restrictions. And then there’s the idea of just giving a "nudge"- also known as an elbow, push or shove - if you are on the receiving end.

The answer is for a Conservative government to return responsibility for health to the individual by allowing us to make informed choices for ourselves - and adopting the localist agenda where decisions are taken at the lowest possible level rather than by centralised ministries or unaccountable quangos. It can pay electoral dividends. Last year in the New Zealand general election the outrage at the incumbent Labour government’s proposal to restrict shower flow rates caught the public imagination and summed up all that was wrong with an arrogant and petty-minded elite. They were given a cold bath.

Cameron has pledged to stop and demolish Labour’s plans for identity cards - but we are yet to hear if its database backbone will also be dismantled. Campaigns to save our pubs and clubs are in vogue - but where is the willingness to let them offer smoking rooms with licensed air quality standards that would help give them a financial lifeline?

Those who, like me, believe we should be free to make the wrong choices so long as we pay for them ourselves want to hear more from Cameron about how Conservatives will stop the bullying of the state and its agencies. It could be a new second front that Labour - as architects of our Bully State - would find indefensible, and Labour voters in marginal seats that still have to be won would respond with open insurrection.

My experience tells me ordinary punters are just looking for a lead. If Cameron can respond with details behind his end to big government slogan, then the bullies will be on the run.

Full article HERE. You can comment.

Note: The Bully State is available on Amazon HERE.

Forgive the lack of posts lately. I am rather busy on a number of projects. Tonight however I shall be relaxing at a black tie dinner at the Dorchester Hotel in London. Guest speaker is the editor of The Times. Excuse me while I go and get my dinner jacket ...

Last month, speaking to representatives of 17 countries at the Major Economies Forum in London, Gordon Brown spoke of a "catastrophe" if action to tackle climate change was not agreed at the UN talks on global warming. He talked about the effects of drought, floods, loss of farming and fishing yields and the spread of disease.

According to the PM, the costs of failing to address global warming would be greater than the impact of the first and second world wars and the Great Depression.

Around the same time the Press Association reported that:

Global warming will threaten London's wildlife habitats by increasing the risk of flooding in the winter and drought in the summer, according to a new report ... by the London Climate Change Partnership.

This week the Met Office published a new report which led the Daily Telegraph to report that:

Heatwaves that kill thousands, tropical-style storms and widespread flooding could be regular features of Britain's climate within a generation if global warming is not checked.

Now, I'm no expert, but 50 years on this planet has made me a bit of a cynic and I simply don't accept this apocalyptic vision of the future.

Let's take flooding. How often are we told that global warming will cause sea levels to rise dramatically? According to Jonathan Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona in Tucson"

"The consequences would be catastrophic. Even with a small sea level rise, we're going to destroy whole nations and their cultures that have existed for thousands of years."

That was in 2004 (see HERE), the same year that the Guardian reported that:

Risks of flooding are growing to "unacceptable levels" because of climate change with up to four million Britons facing the prospect of their homes being inundated, according to a report to be published today by the government. The report by the Office of Science and Technology gives the most chilling picture yet of how global warming will affect the lives of millions of Britons over the next half century.

The reason I have a small interest in the threat of flooding is this. First, I live in a small village in Cambridgeshire. A river runs through the village and occasionally - following prolonged rain - the water level rises and the surrounding roads are flooded.

We have lived there for ten years and only once has the water got into people's homes. (Fortunately our house is a few hundred yards from the river so we escaped any damage.) As far as I am aware, there is nothing to suggest that the threat is greater now than it was a decade ago.

Second, and more important, an old friend recently tracked down someone we both knew at school. (They were in the year below me.)

It turned out that Chad Dick (for that is his name) had been working for the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso and on 9 March 2005 the Scotsman reported his work as follows:

The melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global warming, Scottish scientists have found.

After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature.

The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change.

The amount of sea ice is currently near its lowest point in the cycle and should begin to increase within about five years.

As a result, Dr Chad Dick, a Scottish scientist working at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso, believes the next five to ten years will be a critical period in our understanding of sea ice and the impact, if any, of long-term global warming.

Concern has been expressed recently that animals such as polar bears could become extinct because sea ice is disappearing. The new research by Dr Dick and a colleague, Dr Dimitry Divine, gives rise to hopes the melting will stop soon.

However, Dr Dick warned that if the ice carried on melting, it would mean that man-made global warming had disrupted the natural process - with potentially disastrous results.

He said: "Cycles of 60 to 80 years have been identified before in atmospheric temperature records in the Arctic. The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice.

"I’ve this gut feeling that within ten years from now we’ll know for certain whether we’re losing sea ice long term or whether it’s coming back.

"If it doesn’t come back it shows we are in serious trouble. Sea ice has a whole lot of effects on climate and it is pretty important."

Sea ice protects the northern coastlines of Canada, Russia and the United States from erosion caused by storms. If it melted, waves crashing on to the shoreline could release vast stores of carbon dioxide stored in permafrost, which would increase global warming still further.

Dr Dick said the research did not suggest that global warming was not a reality.

"You couldn’t say, ‘The sea ice is coming back so therefore there’s no global warming’. It’s never going to be that simple," he said. "But the question now is the extent of global warming, how fast it will happen and whether there are any surprises on the way.

"We know there is warming and that it’s caused by humans, but it will be a great relief to many people if the ice comes back as opposed to going away."

He added that some people might be pleased to see less ice in the Arctic as it would finally open up the North-west Passage trade route - sought by many of the explorers whose log-books were used in the study - between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

"If the sea ice continues to disappear it could cut something like 5,000km off the sea route from Europe to Japan and China. There are people who think that’s a good thing," Dr Dick said.

"Humans are great at adapting to change. We might lose polar bears and some species of seal, but most people don’t worry about that, it doesn’t affect them. And if it means their stereo can be shipped from China more quickly, they are happy with that."

This all sounds very plausible. The threat of rising sea levels caused by melting sea ice may be real but there's no need to panic just yet because there is every chance that what is happening is part of the normal cycle whereby the amount of sea ice expands and contracts.

If cities are in serious danger of flooding, we ought to have a better idea in ten or so years.

No room for complacency, then, but no need for all those apocalyptic warnings either.

The Taxpayers Alliance has today announced its first nationwide cinema advertisement - the first, they claim, by a UK campaign group for ten years.

The advert promotes a new book, Ten Years On: Britain Without the European Union, which took 22,000 orders in its first week.

Chief executive Matthew Elliott says: "This advert focuses light heartedly on the very real costs of the EU, and features a number of brief scenes exploring different ways that the EU rips all of us off."

The advert can be viewed online HERE. Copies of Ten Years On are available HERE.

Photographer, musician and graphic designer Dan Donovan has worked with us for a number of years. In 2007 he created a personal photographic journal entitled Ninety Smokers. Featuring many friends of Forest, it was published online HERE.

Today Dan is keen to help promote the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign. One half of garage rock band King Kool, he writes:

Hi Everyone

You may or may not know but I play in a band called King Kool. We have a launch party coming up in London to promote a single release.

My band will headline the gig and musicians from the 90 Smokers project will be playing with their bands also. Forest are funding the gig and we'll use it to promote the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign.

The gig is in the basement bar at The Cross Kings near Kings Cross in London. It's more of a rock 'n' roll dungeon and the event will be loud and raucous.

If this is something you fancy please come along.

King Kool are a grunge sounding outfit, not dissimilar to Iggy Pop and The Stooges.

Also playing are Larp (post punk outfit similar in sound to The Clash or Ramones) and Native Souls (ball crunching funk rock).

Let me know if you're coming so we can get an idea of numbers. The venue is pretty small so we need to know in advance.

Rock 'n' roll dungeon is a pretty good description of the downstairs bar at The Cross Kings. The colourful main bar however has a very different and rather bohemian aura and outside, weather permitting, there is a comfortable smoking area.

If you'd like to join us, email dan@battenburg.biz. You can download the flyer (see previous post) HERE.

My new friend, journalist Jaci Stephen (note the spelling), has responded to my blog about The Alan Titchmarsh Show (see HERE). In the interests of balance, it is only fair that I share her thoughts with you and correct any inaccuracies in my original post:

My surname is Stephen, not Stephens. You totally/deliberately misunderstood what I was saying about the nature of addiction and pleasure re. addiction (no surprises there) and I did not refer to your literature in reference to the section of the programme to which you refer.

In fact, by the way, I had been brought in to balance a few points, but you came out with such ludicrous statements and misinformation regarding statistics, I took a different line on specifics. I have been living in France for eight years and know the benefits that people have and SAY that they have enjoyed through the ban - in Paris, for goodness sake!

Nor, by the way, did I have the last word! That was the lady to your left, I believe. The "yes" that came out in relation to chocolate/alcohol was supposed to be the start of a point I was going to make in relation to alcohol in particular, but it was cut across for time reasons.

You, in fact, got the chance to make the most points, and you did so very aggressively from the start - you did not, as you believe, build up to the aggression! Perhaps you should have had a cigarette before you came on!

I am sorry that you felt hard done by, but believe me, you weren't. Both you and I received applause (and I know how much you like that, from reading your other blog), and it was a two horse race. I have participated in hundreds of debates, both on and off TV, and have been outnumbered on many occasions; so what! It's telly! You got your points across; and you did not respond to one of the most important ones - that you are financed by the tobacco industry!

Yegods; you work for people who peddle a drug that feeds people's addictions and destroys lives. I really hope you sleep well at night. You do not have to reply to this - it is merely in response to the comments and misquotes you have already put in the public arena. Yours, Jaci STEPHEN.

You couldn't make it up.

Last Monday I attended the funeral of an old friend, George Miller. I hadn't seen George for a long, long time so it was a bit of a shock when I got a message - via Facebook - followed by a phone call to say that he had died. He was 55.

In the Eighties I saw an awful lot of George. We worked together, we socialised together, and when he got married he asked me to be his best man.

(Worryingly, I had to be reminded about this by another guest at the funeral. How could I have forgotten? After all, the wedding took place in Frankfurt and I spent a large part of the three-hour service holding aloft a large golden crown. We stayed with friends of the groom and even the flight was an experience. A friend was so nervous of flying that we had to get her drunk on a bottle of Malibu before she would board the plane at Gatwick. Today she would be barred from flying in that condition but back then it was a simple solution to a chronic problem.)

English-speaking friends knew him as George and he spoke English without a hint of a foreign accent. In fact George was Russian and to his family he was known as Yura. Russian was his first language and to visit his home was to enter a deeply conservative but always hospitable Russian environment. I enjoyed countless meals with his family and they could not have been more welcoming.

The Millers attended a Russian Orthodox church in Kensington. Occasionally I would join them. I also attended services at a smaller Orthodox chapel in a private house in Baron's Court, west London. I couldn't understand a word but everyone was very friendly and I met some interesting characters.

As I understand it, George's grandfather emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1925 and took his family to Chile. Years later his son Boris (George's father) brought his own family, including George, back to Europe and they settled eventually in Baring Road, SE12.

Boris was a leading member of NTS, a group of Russian emigres that was actively opposed to the Soviet regime. As a result the Millers home in south London became a magnet for Russian dissidents in Europe and beyond.

George inherited his father's passion for politics and it was in that capacity that our paths crossed. (Coincidentally I wrote about it HERE a couple of months ago, although I didn't mention the role that George played. He longed to embark on a similar mission but his background, and his nationality, made it far too dangerous. Instead his role was to recruit people like me to act as couriers on behalf of NTS.)

A couple of years later he asked me to help him write a regular English-language newsletter called Soviet Labour Review. To me it was stupendously dull. A typical headline would read "Tractor production in Turkmenistan halted by striking workers" but George was very proud of it and assured me that it made "a difference".

(The point was, the Soviet government didn't want anyone to know that Russian workers went on strike or that production targets had been hit because it demonstrated a weakness in the Soviet system. Our job was to bring such news to the attention of the wider world.)

George himself was anything but dull. With his distinctive black beard and cheery grin, he could be utterly charming and was always great company. He was like a giant teddy bear and we had many, many laughs together, some of them involving alcohol.

Brian Monteith, a mutual friend, has just told me of a dinner when he and George got seriously drunk on vodka. It sounds remarkably similar to the time George and I celebrated a Russian New Year by drinking 12 or 15 glasses of neat vodka, one after the other, until I slid under the table, waking up in a dishevelled heap several hours later.

But we also shared some despondent moments that brought us even closer together. Hence the invitation, I think, to be his best man.

Eventually our circumstances changed. After George got married he had two children with his Russian wife Lilia. A few years later I too got married and moved to Edinburgh. Around the same time, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, George finally achieved his dream and moved his young family to Moscow where he got a job at the ministry of economics.

There, as far as I can tell, the dream died. Having worked and waited for the Soviet system to implode, reality intervened. George and other reformers were gradually squeezed out by the return of the old guard and their former KGB comrades.

Disillusioned by the lack of reform and the wild west politics of post-Soviet Russia, George eventually returned to London and, I am told, abandoned politics completely. His death followed a series of heart problems and he died in hospital during an operation.

The funeral took place at Brookwood Cemetary in Surrey. Apparently it's the largest cemetery in Britain. It was opened in 1854 as the London Necropolis and was designed to house the deceased from London's rapidly increasing population. According to Wikipedia:

Brookwood originally was accessible by rail from a special station – the London Necropolis railway station – next to Waterloo station in London. Trains ran right into the cemetery on a branch from the South Western Main Line – the junction was situated just to the west of Brookwood station.

The original London Necropolis station (near Waterloo) was relocated in 1902, but its successor was demolished after suffering bomb damage during World War II. There were two stations in the cemetery itself: North for non-conformists and South for Anglicans. Their platforms still exist. It is still possible to enter the cemetery directly from Brookwood station.

George's service was conducted in Russian by an Orthodox priest. The chapel was quite small and it was standing room only with a number of people having to stand outside.

Towards the end of the service we made our way to the open coffin to pay our individual respects. It was the first time I have seen a dead body at close hand. Some people offered a silent prayer. Others kissed his hand.

I took my cue from a friend and rested my hand on his chest. His beard had been trimmed and he looked slimmer than I remembered him. I was struck by how peaceful he looked. A rather obvious thing to say, perhaps, but true, and I was glad to have had the opportunity to see him for one last time.

After that we walked to the burial site half a mile away and watched as the coffin was laid to rest beside his mother's grave.

It was all very sobering but afterwards, over a glass of wine and a light buffet, we had a few laughs as friends recalled some of George's madder moments which included all sorts of weird and wonderful schemes that were going to make him a millionaire. (They never did.)

Many of his old political friends attended the funeral and there is talk of a memorial event organised by his brother Vladimir (a musician) and a dinner hosted by one of his oldest friends, the MP for New Forest East, Dr Julian Lewis.

Let's hope George is looking down on us when we raise a glass to south London's most gregarious Russian dissident.

A quick reminder that The Alan Titchmarsh Show, which I described HERE, is being broadcast this afternoon on ITV1 from 3.00pm. The debate about the tobacco display ban will, I think, be in part three of the show.

You can also watch it on ITV Player HERE.

BBC Wales is reporting that smoking could be banned in hospital grounds in Wales. Health minister Edwina Hart described the level of smoking she saw at one maternity unit as "quite amazing". She is now considering an amendment to the legislation that would ban it.

What is it with today's politicians? It's so easy to ban something instead of looking at the underlying factors. Perhaps Hart and her colleagues should ask themselves why so many people, including young mothers, continue to smoke? After all, research suggests that if you tackle poor housing, poor education and reduce unemployment, smoking rates fall.

Then again, many people from all backgrounds enjoy the habit and have no intention of quitting. Alternatively, whether they are patients, visitors or staff, they find hospitals a stressful environment.

But no. Politicians only have eyes for the easy, headline-grabbing option. Ban it, they say, and we'll enforce the ban with tough penalties for those who dare to light up (even in the open air!).

Hart also supports a ban on tobacco vending machines which she describes as "just another natural step".

Full story, including quotes from me on this and the threat to tobacco vending machines, HERE.

Yesterday the (Glasgow) Herald reported that "Adults could be prosecuted for buying cigarettes for under age smokers under new Scottish Government proposals."

The move has the support of ASH Scotland, the Scottish Grocers Federation and the Association of Convenience Stores which wants the Department of Health in Westminster to follow the Scottish example.

The paper added that:

"The Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco (Forest), while supporting moves to cut youth smoking rates, seriously questioned how effective such a move would be.

Forest director Simon Clark said: "The problem about bringing in a law like this is that it will be almost impossible to enforce. Enforcement is clearly a major problem and introducing laws reeks of grandstanding.

"If you criminalise adults in this area, it opens up a can of worms. What about adults who don't feed their children the right food?"

Writing on this blog on another thread, someone queried this last comment and said that it made no sense and sounded, well, odd.

He is absolutely right. When I read it I too thought that it sounded ridiculous. To be honest, I don't remember saying those exact words, but the error is entirely mine.

The main point I made was to do with enforcement. How on earth do you prove that an adult has bought cigarettes for someone who is under age? Another point I stressed was the need to enforce existing laws (ie cracking down on shopkeepers selling cigarettes to under 18s) before introducing new laws.

In the course of a three or four minute conversation, I then speculated that if you make it illegal for adults to buy cigarettes for children, what is the next step? Do we make it illegal for adults to buy alcohol and share it with their teenage children? And should we prosecute adults for buying the "wrong" type of food and giving it to their potentially obese offspring?

When you speak to a journalist and you know that they only want a soundbite, it's important to keep your comments short and to the point. In this instance my mistake was to speculate about wider issues rather than sticking to the core question.

Part of the problem is that, on the subject of proxy purchasing, I am torn. I believe it is wrong to buy cigarettes for children but I don't believe that large numbers of adults are doing it. (Why would they?) And if it's not a major problem, why go to the trouble of introducing yet another new law? Haven't we got enough already?

Another problem is this. It's not illegal for teenagers to smoke yet for someone under the age of 18 to possess a cigarette politicians want to create a world in which someone, somewhere, will have to commit a criminal act. This seems to me excessive.

The truth is, the only way to really crack down on adolescents smoking is to make it illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to light up. And do we really want our children prosecuted for such a minor offence? I don't.

It's not illegal (yet) to drink alcohol under the age of 18. Nor is it illegal for adults to give their children alcohol. Personally, I believe it is stupid and irresponsible for an adult to give a child cigarettes, but should it be made illegal? I'm not so sure.

The police and the courts are already fully stretched. Do we really want to get them involved in issues such as this?

From the Department of Health:

Liverpool’s Go Penguins have joined a major Smokefree Northwest campaign after it was revealed that 55 people across Merseyside are killed every week by smoking.

Two of the Go Penguin colony, one decorated in Liverpool FC colours the other in Everton FC colours, met up with campaign mascot, Percy the Smokefree Penguin, at a secret location ... Together, the penguins hope to encourage smokers to access free NHS support to quit smoking.

This is Percy’s final stop on a tour to encourage people to quit smoking which has taken in 25 shopping centres across the region. The roadshow has formed part of a new television advertising campaign ‘One Way Street’ which features Percy the Smokefree Penguin. The tour has been chronicled in the blog www.percypenguinontour.blogspot.com.

Percy the Penguin and our team are meeting smokers face to face to encourage them to use the free help available from the NHS. We urge smokers to get in touch and find out how we can help them reclaim their health.

Go on, you know you want to. Click HERE.

Yesterday, at the invitation of the local Licensed Victuallers Association (LVA) which represents independent licensees, we held a Save Our Pubs & Clubs meeting at The Bramingham pub in Luton. The meeting was well attended and we made some very useful contacts including Nigel Huddleston, Conservative PPC for Luton South, who even donned a SOPAC t-shirt for the obligatory photograph.

I was otherwise engaged (see previous post) but a colleague attended on my behalf. Registering his support for our campaign, Nigel told her: "We've had enough of Gordon Brown's nanny state. Politicians should respect people's freedom to choose."

The local paper was also present at the meeting which is one of many that we intend to organise or participate in as we approach the general election.

Above: Claire Kerslake (The Bramingham), Sean Spillane (Luton Social Club) and Nigel Huddlestone (Conservative PPC).

"Alan," I whispered, "it's not your fault, but I don't think that was very balanced."

A little defensively, he replied: "I gave you more time than anyone else."

Yesterday, as most of you know, I was a guest on The Alan Titchmarsh Show (ITV1). I was invited to take part in a six-minute discussion about the rights and wrongs of the tobacco display ban. I knew I was going to be outnumbered but I had expected it to be two against one: Deborah Arnott, director of ASH, and Kelvin Mackenzie, former editor of The Sun, versus me.

In the event it was THREE against one, a fact that was kept from me until the very last moment. I was sitting in my dressing room having a chat with one of the producers when he casually mentioned that there would be a fourth guest, journalist Jaci Stephens, and - surprise, surprise - she too turned out to be a fierce anti-smoker.

Eventually, having sat in my (rather cold) dressing room for 90 minutes, a runner came to take me to the studio where the programme was being recorded in front of a live (if elderly) audience. Ten minutes later we were led on to the set.

The six-minute "discussion" flew by but this is what I can remember. After a false start (caused by Kelvin's microphone not working), Alan turned to Deborah who trotted out the usual statistics about the number of deaths (allegedly) caused by smoking.

Kelvin (whose father died of a smoking-related disease suffered a heart attack eight years after giving up smoking) weighed in to say that he is in favour of choice but (there's always a "but") he supports anything that discourages people, especially young people, from smoking.

"Simon, surely you can't argue against that?" said Alan.

"Yes, I can," I said, "and I will."

I explained that I am a non-smoker who grew up surrounded by tobacco advertising and sponsorship. Likewise, all my life I have been exposed to the sight of cigarette packets in corner shops and superstores and, like millions of other people, none of this has ever encouraged me to become a smoker.

It is nonsense, I said, to say that people impulse buy cigarettes and there is no evidence to suggest that display bans have a significant impact on youth smoking rates. The New Zealand government, I added, has just rejected a display ban for that very reason.

None of the other guests agreed with me. In fact, said Jaci Stephens, the legislation doesn't go far enough. All smokers (she seemed to be saying) are addicts and we have to do everything we can to help them quit.

"I accept that some smokers are addicted to nicotine," I said, "just as some people are addicted to alcohol and others are addicted to chocolate. Do we put alcohol and chocolate under the counter too?"

Yes, said Jaci. Or, at least, I think she did. I'll have to check the recording.

She then said that she had been looking at the Forest website and was particularly irked by the suggestion that some people actually enjoy smoking. As if!!

What happened after that is a bit of a blur although I remember Alan asking me to respond to the desperate cliche that "your freedom to smoke ends at the tip of my nose". I replied by talking about designated smoking rooms and the fact that the smoking ban has closed thousands of pubs and clubs. A tobacco display ban, I said, could have a similar impact on community stores.

The last word, inevitably perhaps, went to Jaci Stephens but I can't remember what she said because by this time I was pretty pissed off.

Let me be clear. I don't think this was a deliberate ambush. It was a cock-up, nothing more. Nevertheless, three against one - on such a controversial issue - isn't acceptable and it certainly doesn't encourage a decent debate or show people in their best light. (I was so determined to have my say that I was forced to be unduly aggressive which I know can be counter-productive.)

To show how bad it was, Deborah Arnott heard me complain to Alan Titchmarsh and sought me out afterwards to say she agreed with me!!!

Oh well, make up your own minds. The discussion will be aired on Friday at 3.00pm. Or you can watch it later on ITV Player.