The uglification of England

The "uglification of England" that David Hockney refers to and Barry Goodman describes in practise (below) is reflected by some of the emails that are flying into our inbox. Today, we received the following (this is the edited version!):

"Hello Mr Simon Clark of FOREST, I am 'THE ANTI SMOKER'. On 1st July 2007 Smoking WILL be totally banned in ALL PUBLIC PLACES.  This will be permanent and there is NOTHING you will be able to do about it!  Then your Pro-Smoking Club will be declared illegal and people will give up smoking  in their droves like in Southern Ireland which is now a 'Non-Smokers Paradise'. Yes, Mr Clark, come and have a nice chat with me. I'd eat you alive (verbally I mean). You don't want me inside your head, you'd have a nervous breakdown. Goodbye Mr Clark."

OK, he's barking mad. But there's plenty more where that came from. Other emails include:

"Smoking in public is obnoxious and always has been. Next you will be suggesting that the slave trade was perfectly acceptable, or maybe that paedophile's [sic] are robbed of their human rights."

"No more medical treatment for smokers. Let them die slowly and in agony. They all scum [sic] especially FOREST members."

"Smokers are ignorant, abhorrant and arrogant little twats who couldn't give a shit about anyone but
themselves. They are fucking idiots and I hate them."

"You people are SCUM. Hope you all get cancer and die a slow death you evil bastards."

"Smokers are a dying breed of smelly individuals with little willpower, even less self esteem and probably no common sense. Have fun and die happy in an oxygen tent :-)"

You might think these people are all nutters (or, as we now say, not fit for purpose) but you'd be wrong. Two years ago a local councillor returned a letter Forest had sent to thousands of councillors throughout Britain. Across the top he had scrawled, "I hope you get cancer and die." When we mentioned this to the local paper, the news editor laughed and said, "Oh, he's quite a character!", and ignored it.

The smoking debate has long been characterised by extremism on both sides. But the level of abuse from anti-smokers is definitely getting worse and, interestingly, it has got worse since MPs voted to ban smoking in enclosed public places. Encouraged by our elected representatives, and the government's increasingly radical anti-smoking campaigns, some people clearly feel they have been given the green light to say (and do) whatever they like if it involves smokers. How far this will go remains to be seen. I'll keep you posted - if I haven't been eaten alive.

Mourinho and the state of the nation

I have no idea what went on at Jose Mourinho's house last night, or whether his dog has had the necessary innoculations (full story HERE). But what does it say about our society that Mourinho was (allegedly) forced to rush home to stop the police forcibly removing the family pet from his home? Clearly, someone has tipped off the police, and someone (possibly a police officer) has tipped off the press. Is this the sign of a vibrant, free society where everyone is treated equally, regardless of their wealth, talent or celebrity status? Or is Britain is slowly losing the plot?

Update on Thursday, May 17, 2007 by Simon Clark

The picture is now a little clearer, thanks to two amusing and informative articles in the Daily Telegraph (see HERE and HERE). I was wrong to say the police had been tipped off. It is thought that a vet alerted animal welfare officers and the police were only called when Mourinho refused to let them take the dog away. I know, I know, no-one is above the law and the threat of rabies is no joke blah blah blah, but the authorities do seem to have behaved in a rather heavy-handed way. Am I alone in thinking this is cause for concern?

ASA to uphold complaint against DoH

The Advertising Standards Authority will tomorrow announce that it is to uphold complaints against the Department of Health for its anti-smoking advertising campaign. Advertisements showed smokers with giant fishhooks piercing their cheeks. Another showed a hook pulling a mother away from her small daughter. A third depicted a man being pulled through traffic and into a newsagent’s shop to buy cigarettes. Full details will be published on the ASA website tomorrow. Health minister Caroline Flint will no doubt try to wriggle off the hook (no pun intended) but this is still an embarrassment for her, health secretary Patricia Hewitt and the DoH.

Update on Tuesday, May 15, 2007 by Simon Clark

I have now seen the final adjudication, copies of which have been sent to the 774 people who complained to the ASA. I have also been asked to debate the issue with ASH on Sky News tomorrow. I'll comment further after that.

Assault on decency

On the Forest website we have a section called 'Writing Worth Reading' with links to what we think is useful reading if you're interested in the smoking debate. Today we have added three articles. In the first, the Independent's Philip Hensher speaks for many of us when he writes:

"There must be some limit to the expansionist ambitions of the [anti-smoking] campaign - I would think that they must concede that it isn't actually reasonable to demand that people be prevented from smoking in the open air, or when they are alone at home. But who knows?"

 In the Guardian, David Hockney (a member of Forest's Supporters' Council) derides the smoking ban and concludes:

"In England people should speak up more, defend themselves, but it's hard against all the forces at work. Two million anti-smoking signs are going up on July 1, including inside Westminster Abbey. The uglification of England is under way by people with no vision. I detest it."

The third article was published yesterday on the online daily magazine First Post. What Hockney calls the "uglification of England" is far more serious than unappealing no-smoking sign. Barry Goodman reports that he has been physically assaulted three times while smoking in perfectly legitimate places - twice at street tables outside cafes, and most recently in a restaurant when there was only one other table occupied.

"I've never in my life experienced such hatred among strangers and I shudder at what it bodes for the future, and not just for smokers."

Remember those words, the next time you hear the anti-smoking lobby whine, "We're not against smokers, just smoking."

Driven to distraction

I spent the early part of this morning at BBC Television Centre in London. And I mean early. I had to get up at four o'clock in order to drive to London from my home in Cambridgeshire to be on the Breakfast programme at 6.20.

My fellow guest was Simon Ettinghausen of the Local Authority Road Safety Officers' Association (Larsoa). Simon insisted that smoking while driving is a major distraction, although the studies I have seen suggest otherwise, but we agreed that proper research needs to be done.

The programme received so many texts and emails on the subject that I was interviewed again at 8.10. While I was waiting I did a quick interview with BBC Radio Wales. This time my opponent was Simon's colleague David Frost. Like Simon, he couldn't give any figures for the number of accidents caused by smoking while driving in the UK - because, to the best of my knowledge, there aren't any. The whole thing is an absolute farce.

Meanwhile the Government says it has no plans to ban smoking in cars. (See HERE.) If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

Update on Monday, May 14, 2007 by Simon Clark

Just spotted in today's Scotsman:

Larsoa chairman Malcolm Burns told Reuters the organisation had no evidence smoking was a contributory factor to road accidents and the organisation's initiative has been criticised by the anti speed-camera group Safe Speed.

"I'm amazed Larsoa should propose such a thing," said Safe Speed founder Paul Smith. "Smoking at the wheel isn't a known cause of crashes - the risk is purely theoretical.

"One thing is for sure -- while a police officer is giving you a ticket for smoking at the wheel, he's not catching drunk drivers or stolen cars."

Driving and smoking: a criminal offence?

The Observer reports that the Local Authority Road Safety Officers' Association, which represents local councils, is calling for a ban on smoking while driving "in an attempt to cut the number of crashes". According to the paper, the Department of Health said it would "seriously consider" a ban. (Full story HERE.)

I'm not sure what this has to do with the DoH. Surely smoking and driving is a matter for the Department of Transport? Last year the Driving Standards Agency, part of the DoT, invited a list of 'stakeholders' to contribute towards a review of the The Highway Code. "We wish to take account of the views of a wide range of stakeholders and others with an interest in road safety."

Needless to say representatives of smokers were excluded from the list, despite the fact that it was being suggested that smoking might be added to a list of distractions that should be avoided when driving. (Other activities, already on the list, include loud music, eating and drinking, reading maps, and arguing with passengers.)

Undeterred, Forest submitted a document to the DSA pointing out that "International studies show that smoking is one of the least distracting things a driver can do. Worse distractions include tuning the radio, changing a CD, or adjusting the climate controls. Talking to other passengers, even singing to oneself, is far more distracting than smoking. Accidents caused by smoking are negligible by comparison." (See HERE.)

The point is, while there are other distractions that are far more likely to lead to accidents, no-one has suggested that tuning the radio, adjusting climate controls or chatting to passengers should be made illegal while driving. In any case, we already have laws to combat reckless driving or driving without due care and attention. If it can be proved that smoking while driving is the direct cause of an accident, by all means prosecute the driver under existing laws. What we don't need is yet another law that is designed not to reduce the number of accidents but to stigmatise smokers and limit what adults can do in their own private space.

The Routemaster: London's symbol of liberty

I was asked last week why a Routemaster bus is included in the Taking Liberties masthead. My family moved to Scotland when I was ten but before that I grew up in Maidenhead, Berkshire, and from time to time I would spend weekends and holidays in London with my aunt. I must have been five or six when these visits began and everywhere we went we travelled by bus. (I don't recall ever going on the Tube at that time.) My love of London - and the Routemaster - dates back to those exciting, liberating days.

Years later, when I moved to London, I travelled to work on the No 6, never tiring of the freedom to jump on and off that unique open platform without waiting for permission from driver or conductor. Like millions of people, I cannot begin to count the number of times I ran to catch the bus as it pulled away, leaping on to the platform and grabbing the pole to stop myself falling off. Elation tinged with relief!

A favourite memory is hanging off the platform one day as the bus sped off down Whitehall while a friend on a bike pedalled furiously, inches from the tailgate. Today, health & safety would frown on such behaviour - but in 50 years how many people were killed or seriously hurt jumping on or off a Routemaster bus?

By coincidence, another guest at the ICA on Friday night was Travis Elborough (left), author of The Bus We Loved: London's affair with the Routemaster (Granta, 2005). If anyone doubts the liberating qualities of this special vehicle I urge you to read the book. Or read THIS interview in which he says: "That bell, with its school orchestra triangle 'ding-ding', such a comic, comforting sound, will be hard to forget ... And lastly, of course, the open platform at the rear for that liberty to hop on and off, in a way that seemed somehow to acknowledge all the spontaneity of life in the capital."

Needless to say it was an interfering politician, Ken Livingstone, who abolished the Routemaster and replaced it with the notorious 'bendy bus' that Travis correctly describes as having "all the aesthetics of a Hoover attachment". Thanks to Ken we have lost a little bit of freedom. It's not much but all these things add up. Without the Routemaster our lives are a little less spontaneous and a little less fun.

A little taste of hedonism

I met some interesting people at last night's ICA event. Tamara Tyrer is co-founder of The Whoopee Club. She looks 18 but assured me that she celebrated her 30th birthday only last week. She brought with her four dancers who entertained us with their burlesque routines. There is a fine line between 'art' and, er, stripping but Tamara insisted that this was 'art'. Actually it was quite tame - these girls would have been equally at home at a vicar's tea party.

Another guest was musician Alexander M. who also looked absurdly young. By coincidence, Alex is the brother of Will Mayor whose company Livewire Design is developing the new Free Society website. Alex's band is the grandly named Alexanders Festival Hall. As I was leaving he gave me a CD with some of their songs. I'm listening to it now. He's also part of Baxendale - spot the Pet Shop Boys' influence!

Less engaging was 'Soho artist' Sebastian Horsley. Wearing a shocking pink suit he certainly stood out from the crowd, but saying "FUCK" loudly, aggressively and often isn't hedonistic, it's just boring. This self-styled dandy claims to have  slept with over 1,000 prostitutes at a cost of £100,000. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with someone who, when he was no longer centre stage, declared, very loudly, that he was "bored" and wanted to go home. No-one was stopping him.

PS. Entering into the spirit of the occasion, I had my first taste of what I was told was laudanum. It tasted rather like port. Perhaps it was port. I'll never know. But I'd like to think that it wasn't.

The pleasure principle

If I don't post again today it's because I am frantically doing some research for my appearance tonight at the Institute of Contemporary Arts. Subject: hedonism.

The ICA website (see HERE) only tells the half of it. A fellow guest is Tamara Tyler, co-founder of The Whoopee Club, and the event begins with a "Whoopee maids routine in which five performers mingle with the audience, then strip from being maids into chorus girls". It ends with a "Whoopee kitsch hearts routine, with giant hearts as props" and during the interval the audience will be entertained by "the Whoopee Beaux Belles' routine to Kate Bush’s Hounds of Love with bows and arrows as props".

Meanwhile I have been sent the following email by my contact at the ICA: "By the way, I've got permission to allow smoking during the event (the ICA has been no-smoking since September). A small but very satisfying little victory!"

Update on Friday, May 11, 2007 by Simon Clark

I've just been told that tonight's event is sold out. Hedonism is alive and well!

Tony Blair: taking liberties?

I was invited to attend an advance screening of Taking Liberties (the movie) in London tonight. Sadly I can't go but in view of Tony Blair's announcement today I thought you'd like to see the trailer. The film goes on national release on June 8th.

Blair: Britain's changing culture

Speaking in his Sedgefield constituency, Tony Blair today announced that he will step down as Labour leader and Prime Minister on June 27th. I have just received a synopsis of his speech from our parliamentary monitors. Here are some highlights. Feel free to comment. 

Setting out his political outlook, he said that he was born a decade after the Second World War, grew up during the social revolution of the Sixties, and became politically aware towards the end of the Cold War. And he noticed that his country seemed "old fashioned".

He said people now wanted a respectful society but a tolerant one as well. "Britain is not a follower today, Britain is a leader," he declared. He praised a change in culture that had seen the development of paid holiday rights, a minimum wage, thriving arts, and the movements to help Africa and tackle climate change.

He argued that for all the faults of the UK it was now a country comfortable in the 21st century and able to be proud of its past and confident of its future.

Doing the "right thing according to conventional wisdom" was not always the right thing. Instead, he said, prime ministers had to "act according to your conviction" even where that would be attacked as "messianic zeal". He accepted that the pain could never be justified for some people. But he argued that challenging terrorism and global threats of that nature was a battle of wills that had to be won.  

Drawing to a conclusion, Mr Blair justified his mistakes and failures, saying "Hand on heart I did what I thought was right," adding "I may have been wrong, that's your call. But believe one thing above all else, I did what I thought was right for our country."

He gave thanks to the people for his successes, and apologised for times when he had fallen short, and praised them saying: "The British are special. The world knows it. In our inner most thoughts we know it. This is the greatest nation on earth."

Update on Friday, May 11, 2007 by Simon Clark

Yuk! Tobacco Campaigners Bid A Fond Farewell. Pass the sickbag.

You've got to laugh

From the Newry Democrat in Northern Ireland:

"Hello again and welcome, and thank you for not smoking. Yes strange isn’t it to see hordes of people standing outside pubs, clubs and hotels.

"It's only now you realise how many people actually smoke. On the plus side girls are getting chatted up, but on the down side two guys were smoking outside a local pub and they started to argue on the pavement.

"As the row heated up, one guy said to the other: 'Right you, inside.' "

Valdano's shit hits the fan

I'm a Chelsea fan (since 1967, I might add, when I was eight and Chelsea lost to Spurs 2-1 in the first all-London FA Cup final) but I couldn't help laughing when I read that Jorge Valdano, the former Real Madrid coach, had described the Champions League semi-final between Liverpool and Chelsea as like "a shit hanging from a stick". Valdano, a World Cup winner with Argentina, didn't mince his words:

"Football is made up of subjective feeling, of suggestion - and, in that, Anfield is unbeatable. Put a shit hanging from a stick in the middle of this passionate, crazy stadium and there are people who will tell you it's a work of art. It's not: it's a shit hanging from a stick.

"Chelsea and Liverpool are the clearest, most exaggerated example of the way football is going: very intense, very collective, very tactical, very physical, and very direct ... If Didier Drogba was the best player in the first match it was purely because he was the one who ran the fastest, jumped the highest and crashed into people the hardest."

Great stuff. I don't agree with everything he says but that's not the point. The point is, he's allowed to say it. In Britain, footballers, managers and chairmen are forever being censured or accused of "bringing the game into disrepute" if they say anything critical of opponents, referees or administrators. Whatever happened to free speech? Laws already exist to stop people going too far (or betraying confidential information). That apart, people should be allowed to say whatever they like. The alternative - banal books, interviews, press conferences - is a waste of everyone's time. If you've nothing to say, keep it to yourself. If you've something to say, you should be allowed to speak out without fear of fines or even suspension.

Why we accept censorship in any field is a mystery to me. Within reason, a free society should embrace colourful opinions. Personally, I draw the line at comments that are deliberately spiteful or malicious. But maybe that's the problem. If free speech is subjective how can we ever agree on the boundaries?

Big Brother is watching you ... smoke

An NHS Tayside smoking policy leaflet has the following advice for 'In-Patients Who Want To Smoke': "Staff will advise you that it is not in your best interests to leave the clinical area to smoke. Should you choose to leave to smoke a note will be made in your records [my italics]."

The good news is that "If you suffer symptoms of nicotine withdrawal while an in-patient, you can request staff to prescribe nicotine replacement therapy." Well, it's good news for the pharmaceutical industry.

Update on Tuesday, May 8, 2007 by Simon Clark

Bruce Parish, who alerted me to the above, adds, "Medical staff screen all patients on admission so they know whether they smoke or not, and this information will already be stated as 'a note in your records'. Either this information is being duplicated repeatedly by overworked ward staff for no reason, or it is intended to intimidate." I'll let you be the judge.

Another step towards prohibition

The war on tobacco continues with anti-smoking campaigners today renewing their campaign to restrict - and ultimately ban - smoking on film and television. According to ASH, any film that features 'smoking scenes' should be preceded by strong anti-smoking ads; and films containing 'tobacco images' should carry an 'adult' rating. Actors, added the director of ASH ominously, are also accountable. My response ("Films have to reflect real life. In most of the western world, a quarter of the adult population smokes and I don't see why films shouldn't represent that, as long as it's not totally gratuitous.") is included in this BBC report.