Sign language

The smoking ban is good business for some people. I have just received an email from Ryman that included the picture above and THIS link. I wonder how much money is being spent on 'No Smoking' signs?

On a similar theme, I was speaking to David Hockney's manager the other day. David is currently writing an article for The House magazine (which goes to all MPs) on the subject of the smoking ban. Given the fact that he has a studio (ie a workplace) in his London home, David wanted to know if he will have to erect a 'No Smoking' sign, and where.

The answer is that, yes, he will have to have a 'No Smoking' sign, and it will have to go by his front door. Incredibly, we were also told that the path leading from David's front door to his studio must be smoke free AT ALL TIMES!! This, don't forget, is in his own private home. The whole thing beggars belief.

Having said that, the regulations are still so vague in some areas that anyone writing about them is strongly advised to preface their comments with "It appears that" or "My understanding is that". You couldn't make it up.

Just fancy that!

"Anti-smoking advertising can have the opposite effect of what is intended and actually encourage people to keep smoking, an Australian study says." Full story HERE.

Banned wagon targets patio heaters

The smoking ban has prompted "huge demand" from pubs, clubs and restaurants for gas-fired heaters, reports the Daily Mail. "Experts ... estimate" that the additional patio heaters could produce up to 320,000 additional tons of carbon dioxide. Full story HERE.

Some DIY stores, bowing to political correctness, have banned them already. That's their choice. However Friends of the Earth wants the government to go one stage further and ban "these metal monstrosities" completely. I've a good mind to buy one today.

Smokers are revolting

A gentle reminder: in just 14 days Forest will host Revolt In Style: A Freedom Dinner at The Savoy Hotel, London. Tickets have been on sale for ten working days and we already have 200 guests (our initial target), including several MPs and the chief of staff to a very senior Government minister.

This is not just a good excuse for a really good party. As with all Forest events, there is a serious underlying message which we shall be communicating to every MP, every national and local newspaper editor, plus hundreds of journalists and broadcasters. 

Nor, on the night itself, will we be holding back. I'll have a few things to say, and so will our after dinner speakers.  They include Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas and a regular panellist on BBC Radio 4's The Moral Maze. It was Claire who came up with the line that, thanks to this government's anti-smoking policies, an increasing number of smokers are "reaching for their fags in defiance". We also intend to have a roving microphone so that other guests can have their say.

Tickets cost £95 (£750 for a table of ten). However, in order to meet our new target, we are extending our reduced price offer (£75/£650) for a further week. To book telephone Forest HQ on 01223 370156.

Taking liberties: the bigger picture

I've written about it before (HERE and HERE) but - in case you've forgotten - Taking Liberties (the movie) is released today. It may not be "the most important film of the decade" as it claims, but if you have any interest in civil liberties you must go and see it, and encourage others to do so too.

Director Chris Atkins - whose lively filmmaker's blog can be found HERE - has produced a funny yet disturbing film that highlights the control freakery of the present government.

Taking Liberties is a polemic but it doesn't preach. It highlights the facts and generally allows viewers to draw their own conclusions. It's selective, but if the sight of an 80-year-old man being dragged, unceremoniously, from a Labour party conference because he shouted a single word of protest doesn't alarm you, nothing will. Likewise, scenes of over zealous policemen trying to silence peaceful protestors need no further comment.

The war on smokers, the issue that most interests current readers of this blog, isn't featured, nor are the government's attempts to control the way we eat, drink and drive. In truth, there is so much going on in Blair's Britain that a line had to be drawn somewhere and these issues best suit a separate, lifestyle documentary (though who will be brave enough to make it remains to be seen).

Don't let that deter you from seeing the film. When I saw a preview a couple of weeks ago a number of universal truths emerged, especially during the Q&A that followed. For example, Atkins made the important point that government justifies its actions (new anti-terror laws, for example) by first creating a climate of fear. (The chances of being killed by a terrorist bomb, even if you live in London, are miniscule.) This is exactly what has happened with public smoking. Create a climate of fear about passive smoking and then (over) legislate.

Unusually, Taking Liberties manages to unite people on left and right of the political spectrum. Perhaps, over the next few years, we shall see a breakdown of the old left-right tribal loyalties. Instead of socialism versus capitalism, the battle will be authoritianism/nanny statism versus libertarianism.

To win this battle we need to convince politicians that there are votes in supporting a more liberal, less legislative outlook. But first, we have to persuade a largely apathetic public that these are issues it must take seriously.

Smokers banned from adopting under fives

The Telegraph reports that Portsmouth Council is to ban smokers from adopting children under the age of five "in an attempt to protect young people from health risks such as asthma and lung cancer". (Full story HERE.) Dundee Council introduced a similar policy last year, which is why I was invited to speak at the Fostering Network's annual conference in Glasgow in October.

In the course of my research I discovered that the Fostering Network estimates that 10,000 extra foster carers are needed across the UK, over and above the 70,000 who already look after children and young people on any given day. By excluding foster carers who smoke, or those who smoke at home, we risk reducing the pool of carers by up to a quarter. If that happens, many children will be forced to live in institutions rather than with a loving, caring family. Is that what councils want?

I concluded my speech by saying:

Yesterday, as I travelled up to Glasgow, I heard a news report about a new campaign being launched by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). The message of their campaign is that feeding meat to children is child abuse. Does that sound familiar? Today smoking, tomorrow eating.

Finally, I was struck by a comment by journalist Mary Kenny in yesterday's Daily Telegraph (13 October 2006): "Why can't arguments about smoking be settled with sensible compromise, instead of bullying extremism?"

By all means, discourage carers from smoking in enclosed spaces around children, but it must surely be possible to find a compromise that does not automatically disqualify people who smoke from fostering children.

Full speech HERE.

Dodgy dealings in the House of Lords

Among the many things on my to-do list today is looking for the correct form of address for an earl. In the course of her research a colleague stumbled upon the following. It's from Hansard and the speaker is Earl Ferrers:

I would like some explanations to some serious points, and I hope the Minister will answer them. What happens if an earl has a sex change? In order to make certain that there is no duplicity, we will call him Earl Dodger and his son Viscount Chump. If Earl Dodger has a sex change, does he become a countess, in which case there will then be two Countess Dodgers? Or does he remain as an earl although he masquerades as a woman?

As the earl has changed from being a male to a female, what happens to the title? Does Viscount Chump suddenly inherit the earldom and become an earl as the earldom is apparently vacant? That does not seem right because you would then have two earls. What happens if Countess Dodger, on the other hand, changes sex and becomes a man? What does she become? Does she become Earl Dodger, so that there are two earls? She cannot, because she was not appointed. What does she do?

Let us suppose that Earl Dodger has a son and a daughter. Let us suppose that the daughter is older and that she has a sex change and becomes a man. Does she then become Viscount Chump instead of her younger brother who, up till now, was Viscount Chump? If she does become Viscount Chump, does she inherit everything else? Does she inherit the title of earl instead of the proper Viscount Chump, and all the cash, if there is any? In my experience, earls do not have much cash nowadays, but they used to in the good old days. What happens to the proper Viscount Chump? There may be a trust fund under which it all goes to the holder of the earldom. Does the lady get that and, if so, will she remain friends with her brother?

Well, it made me laugh. Full transcript HERE.

Songs for swinging smokers

Next Monday, June 11th, we are releasing - in association with our friends at Boisdale - a special CD. You Can't Do That! (Songs For Swinging Smokers) features 20 tracks recorded live by the Boisdale Blue Rhythm Band.

Apart from the Lennon/McCartney title track, they include jazz classics such as 'Smoke, Smoke, Smoke That Cigarette', 'Giving Up Giving Up' and 'Cigareets, Whuskey and Wild Wild Women'. My favourite, however, is a brand new song, 'I'm Going Outside', with lyrics by the great British screenwriter Alan Plater, who I wrote about in March (see HERE).

The CD insert includes the following note by me:

As a non-smoker, I find it extraordinary that from July 1st 2007 no-one will be allowed to light up in any pub, bar or private members' club anywhere in the United Kingdom. I accept that the majority want smoke-free to be the norm. But why ban smoking everywhere?

As David Hockney has pointed out, "Pubs aren't health clubs." Nor are bar/restaurants like Boisdale. A refuge from the stresses and strains of the outside world, Boisdale allows customers to enjoy themselves without the heavy hand of the nanny state wagging a puritannical finger in their faces. Until now.

Like Forest, owner Ranald Macdonald believes there should be exemptions to the smoking ban. Like Forest, Ranald is not a quitter. Together, we are launching a new campaign with Boisdale as its spiritical home. Like Ranald, I hope you will join us and become a Friend of The Free Society ...

The CD will be distributed - together with an open letter calling for exemptions to the smoking ban - to MPs, peers, MSPs, AMs, and members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It will also be sent to hundreds of journalists and broadcasters. Copies will be available shortly to the general public via the Boisdale website or you can pick up a free copy at Revolt In Style: A Freedom Dinner at The Savoy Hotel, London, on Monday 25th June.

Prohibition road

Click HERE for a BBC World Service analysis of the effectiveness of smoking bans. It was originally broadcast last Tuesday (29th May) and is only available online until it is replaced by tomorrow's programme. Includes confirmation that anti-smoking campaigners want a ban on the sale of "smoked tobacco" and the replacement of "active smoking" with alternatives (ie "pure nicotine delivery systems").

Man and motors

"Boris Johnson explains why cars are a force for liberty and democracy." See HERE.

Telegraph succombs to tabloid journalism

"Hundreds of pubs to flout smoking ban" screams a headline in today's Sunday Telegraph. "A campaign of civil disobedience against next month's smoking ban will see hundreds of pubs flouting the new laws." (Full story HERE.)

I don't want to be a party pooper, but it's not going to happen. Yes, there are some very angry people, including a handful of publicans, but a mass campaign of civil disobedience? If that happens I promise to eat my traditionally styled cotton sun hat.

Morning after the night before

The morning after the night before, the night before being a stag night in London. I'm still in town, having washed up at a hotel not far from the Forest office near Oxford Circus. Actually, I feel OK, though I had to politely decline an early morning appearance on Sky News.

We began the evening at the Lamb and Flag in Covent Garden, and moved on to Rules, London's oldest restaurant (est 1798), a short walk away in Maiden Lane. Smoking has been prohibited in the main restaurant for some time but thankfully the ban doesn't apply (until July 1st, that is) to the private dining rooms upstairs. We were in the King Edward VII Room, an "intimate, velvet-swagged room" that was (allegedly) "the Prince of Wales' favourite spot for wining and dining the beautiful actress Lillie Langtry".

I'm not a smoker but I do make exceptions for special occasions, No Smoking Day and Forest photo shoots. Last night was a special occasion and Hugo - a solicitor from Oxford - had not only organised the event (on behalf of the groom-to-be), he also came armed with a generous supply of Cuban cigars and, even better, kretek, "the unique clove-infused cigarette of Indonesia".

Thankfully, the air conditioning/ventilation system coped superbly. A fug of smoke never materialised and the signed portraits of Edward VII, Lillie Langtry and others survived their latest brush with tobacco. Me? Well, I did wake up with a corker of a dry throat but a jug of orange juice, three cups of strong coffee and a full English breakfast soon sorted that. Now, where's lunch?

Have I got good/bad news for you

The London Evening Standard yesterday reported that "the smoking ban will not be pro-actively enforced in the West End" (full story HERE). In a suspicious outbreak of common sense, Westminster councillor Audrey Lewis said: "Our approach has always been to educate people about it in advance, rather than all this nonsense about a 'smoking police' banging on your door."

Don't get too excited, though. "If people don't comply and defy the law we could get tougher," she added. Westminster is also the local authority that, a couple of months ago, announced that it might try to ban smoking outside pubs and clubs in residential areas because of "noise pollution".

Smokers face double-whammy

The Daily Telegraph today leads with a story about smokers being liable for an £80 on-the-spot fine for stubbing out cigarettes in the street. Nothing new in that: as the paper reports, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act has been in force for two years and in that time a number of councils have made it their business to fine smokers either for dropping cigarette butts or even (on at least one occasion) flicking ash out of a car window! Until now, however, few councils have enforced the law. Hence my quote:

"It is very unfair to target smokers for littering at the same time as the ban comes in. We don't condone littering, but it is a national problem. It's not just about cigarette butts, it's about drinks cans, fast-food cartoons and chewing gum. If the fines are used a blunt weapon to beat smokers we will resist them."

Another point I made (which didn't get in) was that, yes, smokers should help 'keep Britain tidy', but local authorities should share that responsibility and provide cigarette bins or - at the very least - make it easier for pubs and other businesses to get planning permission for bins. The truth is, many councils think cigarette bins will encourage people to smoke (ie it "normalises" the habit). They would rather employ wardens to catch and fine smokers for dropping fag butts than help people smoke responsibly.

Full story HERE.

Pub watch

I'm on News 24 at 11.30 this morning, if anyone's interested. It's an outside broadcast from the Crabtree Tavern in Hammersmith, part of a series of items being broadcast in advance of the smoking ban.