Taking Liberties

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.

I have been booked to appear on The Alan Titchmarsh Show next week. The programme will be asking the question “Is it time to put cigarettes under the counter for good”? and I will be debating the subject with Deborah Arnott of ASH and former editor of the Sun Kelvin Mackenzie.

The programme is being recorded "as live" on Tuesday and will air at 3.00pm on Friday 6 November, ITV1.

PS. My previous appearance on the show was in March (above) when we debated the "problem" of binge-drinking. I wrote about it HERE and there is a clip HERE.

Apologies for the lack of blogging this week. What can I say? Too many meetings, too little time.

It's also half-term which means I have had to "entertain" the troops. Added to that it's my son's fifteenth birthday today so tonight we are going to see The Rise and Fall of Little Voice at the Vaudeville Theatre in London.

Before that, though, he wants to buy a new pair of trainers at Nike Town in Regent Street. The Apple Shop (my personal Holy Grail) is only a short walk away so it could be a rather expensive afternoon.

Ruari's present from his sister was a set of weights. Her idea. Last Christmas she gave him a skipping rope that records the actual number of rotations. Our house is rapidly resembling the local gym.

And, no, I won't be joining him in his daily regime of pull-ups, press-ups and sit-ups. I had to bring the weights in from the car last night and I almost gave myself a hernia.

Congratulations to Mark Littlewood of Progressive Vision who has been appointed director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, one of Britain's leading think tanks. Guido Fawkes has the news HERE.

An ardent smoker, Mark chaired and helped organise our recent event at the Lib Dem conference which was co-hosted by Forest, The Free Society and Liberal Vision. He also helped launch the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign in June and appears in the campaign video HERE.

By coincidence the first general director of the IEA was Ralph Harris who became Lord Harris of High Cross in 1979 and chairman of Forest in 1987.

I worked with Ralph for eight years until his death in October 2006. He was a great help but he made no secret of the fact that his number one love was the IEA which he joined in 1957.

In those Keynsian days free marketeers were treated like flat Earthers. It was many years before the IEA's free market ideas were taken seriously but the IEA is often credited with laying the foundations for what became Thatcherism.

In recent years the IEA has been curiously quiet. Mark will, I'm sure, change all that. He has a gift for stirring things up (in the nicest possible way!) and his appointment is a refreshing change of direction for what had become a rather staid and stuffy institution.

I can think of only two problems. What is he going to do with those orange ties? And where on earth is he going to light up when he's at work?

Further to my previous post, Dennis Hayes, founder of Academics For Academic Freedom and Professor of Education at the University of Derby, has this to say about last week's Question Time which continues to arouse strong feelings on all sides.

Writing on The Free Society website, Dennis argues:

That there was a very dull ‘debate’ on this particular Question Time was partly due to the focus of the programme which was a pantomime denunciation of a ‘villain’ who seemingly held nothing but unacceptable ideas. Booing was allowed in case anyone was in doubt about the fact that this was a pantomime debate.

The pantomime inside the BBC was preceded and accompanied by another pantomime outside, a pantomime protest. It was a frolicsome affair, with stunts, fancy dress, face masks and token incident for activists with some arrests. But the protesters were booing not only the BNP but ordinary people, who they saw as stupid and impressionable, so stupid and impressionable that the protesters were worried they would succumb to the BNP’s arguments and go out and commit racial ‘violence’ en masse.

But the real pantomime was the pantomime of protest itself. It was a protest not to achieve any radical social goal but a reactionary act intended to censor and ban. In other words, it was not a ‘protest’ at all ...

But what really came out of the pantomime debate and the pantomime protest was the knowledge that we have all, over sixty-one million of us, lost something. What we have lost is the idea of public debate. That is, debate that takes the public seriously. Debate for participating adults; not debate that is choreographed, or censored, as if it were for children with learning difficulties ...

'Debate' in most of its contemporary forms is nothing more than booing people who have the wrong ideas and pressurising them to adopt the correct ideas through emotional blackmail. This was the sorry truth that was made explicit last Thursday. But that also failed.

The pantomime debate also revealed, in the widespread discussion and the responses of many people, that both the BBC and the banners are wrong. Ordinary people are sensible, thoughtful and up for a debate. The challenge is for the BBC and other institutions populated by our ‘betters’, along with their mobs of banners, to overcome their contempt for ordinary people and engage with them in debate. If they can’t bring themselves to do this they may end up sharing the dustbin of history alongside ‘No Platform’.

Full article HERE.

I missed Question Time last night. (I was guzzling champagne and stuffing my face with canapes and "light bites" at the Royal Academy of Arts, but that's another story.) Nevertheless, an article by Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail on Tuesday reminded me of something.

"Back when I had a show on Sky TV," Littlejohn wrote, "my producer thought it would be a good idea to invite Griffin to appear. After all, we'd had the Islamist headbanger Omar Bakri on the programme a couple of weeks earlier, so why not?

"Interviewing the shifty and unsavoury Griffin was like trying to nail jelly to a wall ... Afterwards, I felt rather grubby."

As it happens, I was a guest on that very same programme. So, too, was Henry Olonga, the first black cricketer to represent Zimbabwe at international level.

Henry and I were chatting in the green room when we were joined by the BNP leader. I'm not sure if Henry knew who he was, or what he represented, but Griffin's presence certainly put a dampener on the conversation!

In the event, his appearance on Sky came and went without comment. There were no protests, no editorials, nothing (as far as I can recall).

Truth is, only the BBC could make a mountain out of a dunghill.

I haven't commented on this before but it's interesting to note that the winners of the first two open primary elections to select Conservative candidates have both been GPs.

In August the Daily Telegraph reported that "Sarah Wollaston, a GP with no experience of politics, has been chosen as a Tory candidate in Britain's first "open primary" election" (GP becomes Tory candidate in first 'open primary' election).

Last Saturday, in Bracknell, local residents again opted for a GP - Dr Phillip Lee (Family doctor is Tory candidate, BBC News).

Unlike politicians and estate agents, doctors are clearly held in high regard by the electorate - and I have no reason to doubt that these two candidates will do a perfectly good job, should they get elected.

I do, however, question our slavish devotion to the idea that doctors are always right and cannot be questioned on health and lifestyle issues.

In particular there are huge question marks over the role of organisations such as the British Medical Association which routinely distort medical (and statistical) evidence to justify some of the most illiberal legislation this country has ever seen.

Before they voted for the public smoking ban, a number of MPs told us that they had been heavily influenced by the BMA on the issue of secondhand smoke. The MPs admitted that they knew little or nothing about the subject and if doctors were telling them that passive smoking kills ... well, who could argue with that?

Of far greater concern than a few more GPs in parliament, however, is the knowledge that a future Conservative government will "enhance the Chief Medical Officer's Department to give greater powers and responsibilities over public health" (Mark Simmonds MP, 20 March 2009, and repeated at a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference on 6 October).

The current CMO Sir Liam Donaldson kick-started the campaign to ban smoking in all public places in 2004. Earlier this year, following Sir Liam's latest intervention in public health, Rod Liddle had this to say about him in The Spectator:

If I were as promiscuous with statistics as is the Chief Medical Officer, I would tell you that, on the latest available figures, doctors are twice as bad for your health as lung cancer and substantially more deadly than a stroke. Sir Liam Donaldson is very fond of waving his figures around so I assume he’d approve of my methodology. Any normal person would argue that I was talking rubbish, that such figures have to be seen in context. Sir Liam, though, doesn’t really do context. He once warned that the death toll in Britain for bird flu would most likely be 50,000 but that a figure of 750,000 was ‘not impossible’. The actual death toll proved to be, uh, nil.

He’s been waving more figures around this last week in support of his wish to see a minimum 50 pence charge per unit of alcohol in order to combat the effects of ‘passive drinking’. I used the phrase ‘passive drinking’ in an article four or five years ago: I thought I’d made it up and was being very bloody satirical. But these days real life out-satirises all satire. Sir Liam has said that his 50p minimum tariff will mean 3,393 fewer alcohol-related deaths per year in Britain. Aw, come on Sir Liam, surely it’s 3,394? There will also be 97,900 fewer hospital admissions. Nothing like a few good, precise numbers, is there?

And the Tories want to give this man MORE powers?

Full article HERE.

My grandfather was a GP. So was my uncle. I have never been treated by a GP I didn't like and I have no reason to believe that the overwhelming majority of doctors are anything other than very decent people who work very hard and deserve every penny they earn.

But they are not infallible and it's about time that the medical profession - especially those who want to restrict our liberties in the name of "public health" - was held to account like any other professional body.

Instead we doff our caps and let them spout any old rubbish. Why?

PS. I understand that many GPs now earn in excess of £100k a year. Perhaps I'm missing a certain public service gene, but why would anyone want to give up a job and a salary like that to become a member of an increasingly discredited and emasculated parliament?

I have just taken part in a phone-in on the Ed Doolan Show (above) on BBC Radio WM. There were three guests - me, Paul Hooper (regional director, Department of Health, and a former spokesman for ASH) and ... Duncan Bannatyne (see THIS post).

Much of the discussion concerned children and smoking - especially smoking in cars, smoking in the home, and smoking outside public buildings (like Toys 'R' Us!!).

In the second half of the 45-minute phone-in, when the "debate" moved on to the tobacco display ban, we were joined by Pravin Chauhan of the National Federation of Retail Newsagents.

I don't think Bannatyne liked me very much. At various times during the programme he accused me of being "deluded", "disgusting" and a "hypocrite". Charming.

Something else I said (I can't remember what) then prompted him to retort that it "shows what sort of person he is".

Finally, cackling like a deranged hyena, he dismissed my arguments with the words: "He's off his rocker". Truly, a bizarre performance.

Oh well, I can't complain. It was my idea that they get Bannatyne on the programme in the first place!

This week the European Commission launched a "provocative, audacious and humorous anti-smoking campaign". The Helpers is a 12-episode animated series that depicts "three super-heroes who try to save smokers and non-smokers from the negative effects of tobacco, by giving them bizarre tips and advice".

The first episode is introduced as follows:

There's no apparent reason why Chuck, Skinny and Loona would ever meet up. Until the day when they all decide to take revenge on a cigarette factory, that is. They all blame it for a tragedy that's affected their personal lives and want to get their own back, but once they get there, they are splashed with toxic waste from an explosion, and undergo a crazy metamorphosis that will change their lives for ever. From now on, they have one sole aim in life: to protect people’s health before it’s too late.

The interactive web series is available in 23 languages. It doesn't take a linguist, however, to spot the "evil smoker". Two clues: he's holding a cigarette with one hand and a chainsaw with the other!

Click HERE.

H/T - Alex Deane/Big Brother Watch

Last night at the London launch of The Bully State: The End of Tolerance (see previous post) I took a call from the Dundee Courier who wanted a quote for a local story. I stepped out of the room (it was quite noisy with so many people talking) and we had a quick chat.

Today, under the headline "Call to defy hospital smoking ban", the paper reports that:

"The director of a pro-tobacco lobby group last night urged smokers to rebel against the ban on smoking in the grounds of Ninewells Hospital in Dundee.

Simon Clark, who represents Forest, said measures by NHS Tayside to force smokers off hospital grounds before lighting up were “dictatorial and draconian.”

He also said NHS Tayside had no legal authority to insist hospital staff, patients and visitors should not smoke.

“It’s rather petty and vindictive to enforce a no-smoking policy in an outside area,” Mr Clark said.

“Hospitals are supposed to show compassion and demonstrate a duty of care towards all patients. I’m sure they think they’re acting in peoples’ best interests but they’re actually making people’s lives a misery.”

“There was a hospital in Swindon that actually reversed its policy of smoking off hospital grounds because it forced smokers to congregate beside an A-road.

“The hospital decided this was unreasonable and I think the same thing could happen with Ninewells Hospital, because it is unreasonable to expect staff and patients to go further and further away from the hospital.”

He continued, “It is also quite inhumane to expect patients who are ill to walk some distance just so they can smoke.

“I think hospitals need to show a little humanity because, like it or not, some people smoke as a form of stress relief and being sick or having a relative in hospital can be quite stressful.

“I hope the people of Dundee continue to rebel and refuse to accept this dictatorial and draconian policy—maybe if enough people do then the hospital will have to change its policy.”

Full story HERE.