Search This Site
Forest on Twitter

TFS on Twitter

Join Forest On Facebook

Featured Video

Friends of The Free Society

boisdale-banner.gif

IDbanner190.jpg
GH190x46.jpg
Powered by Squarespace

Entries by Simon Clark (1602)

Tuesday
Apr132010

The sun sets on Labour

You can't help but like the cover of Labour's election manifesto. It's bright and cheerful, with a nuclear family (shome mishtake shurely?) holding centre stage and not a house or high rise development to spoil the view of Britain's beautiful, rolling countryside.

As some people have commented, though, it is highly reminiscent of one or two posters from the old Soviet Union empire (China too). They had a sun-speckled vision of the future as well.

Story HERE.

PS. I have just seen the cover of the Conservative party manifesto. The contrast with Labour's is ... well, see for yourself. Click HERE and scroll down.

The Tory slogan - "Invitation to the join the government of Britain" - is original. And clever.

The polls may not show it, but as things stand Cameron is going to win this election without breaking sweat.

Next: what the parties are saying about smoking and tobacco ...

Tuesday
Apr132010

Sun, sea and (passive) smoking

My children are reasonably good swimmers. Despite this I was (and still am) a bit nervous about going to the beach, especially a crowded one where it's easy to lose sight of people, in or out of the water.

The smallest distraction and, when you look back, they've diappeared. Even now I find it a bit unnerving and it's one of the reasons why I don't enjoy a beach holiday.

For most parents the thought of a small child drowning or being abducted is enough to worry about (even though the chances of that happening are very, very small). But no.

In the eyes of some, secondhand smoke - outdoors - is a also a threat. And so Whiskeytown National Recreation Area has become the latest authority to ban people from smoking on its beaches in order to create a "safe place for everyone to breathe".

I think I'm going to be sick.

According to the local paper:

Park officials say that the public response to the proposal, when unveiled this winter, was overwhelmingly positive. So were earlier surveys of beach-goers.

That’s no surprise, adds the paper. But it doesn't explain why. The reason is simple. The majority of people no longer smoke so the majority are "overwhelmingly positive".

It doesn't matter how ridiculous or nonsensical new anti-smoking regulations are, we are in the grip of a new form of tyranny - tyranny of the majority.

Monday
Apr122010

Payback time for Labour's broken promise

Looking forward to the publication of Labour's election manifesto today. If you're expecting a work of fiction you won't be disappointed. Iain Dale has listed 27 broken promises from the party's 2005 manifesto and that was without mentioning the one that every reader of this blog knows by heart - the clearly stated commitment to exempt from the smoking ban any pub that doesn't serve food and ALL private members' clubs.

Fortunately Dick Puddlecote has added a comment to Iain's post, quoting the 2005 Labour manifesto as follows:

"The legislation will ensure that all restaurants will be smoke-free; all pubs and bars preparing and serving food will be smoke-free; and other pubs and bars will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free. In membership clubs the members will be free to choose whether to allow smoking or to be smoke-free."

Post and comments HERE.

Fortunately the forthcoming election means that we have the freedom to choose to remove Labour from office in three weeks' time.

Monday
Apr122010

Freedom from loutish behaviour

Forest had a meeting, a few weeks ago, with Keep Britain Tidy. It was a convivial affair and I don't rule out working with them in future to encourage smokers to dispose of their litter "responsibly". The main condition however is that it mustn't become yet another quit smoking campaign.

I mention this because Simon Hills (associate editor of The Times Magazine and a smoker) has written a piece about litter louts for The Free Society. He doesn't mention smokers, although he did confide that "I was having a smoke right by an ashtray outside a pub in Edinburgh over the weekend and a guy still just chucked his fag-end into the street. Why?"

Instead he writes:

I have seen grown men chuck litter from their windows, though, and beeped my horn and flashed my lights at them. This gives me immeasurable pleasure. Some tattooed yob glares at me, makes wanker signs, jumps up and down in his car seat, gets more and more stressed. Then I pout, screw my eyes into a vacant expression and scratch my head in the manner of a chimpanzee.

Litter yob by this time is desperate to beat my head into a pulp, he’s apoplectic with rage and, I hope, his day has been diminished in some way equal to the way mine has reflecting how grown-ups will (1) act like three-year-olds and (2) despoil their immediate environment so wilfully ...

Then there's the teenager "chucking his Coca Cola can" on to the grass outside the youth club:

Teenagers have never been the most housetrained of creatures. With hormones jumping like jellybeans, slouching around in bus shelters and hanging around in menacing gangs has always been the hallmark of your adolescent.

Up until some time in the Sixties, though, their behaviour was tempered by the fact they were scared, basically, of grown-ups or coppers or anyone reporting them to their parents. Not so long ago, even yob dad would basically be on the side of the Old Bill.

If we’re to enjoy a free society we need to bring a bit of that back. If old people are to be allowed to leave their homes in the evening without being genuinely frightened, if our children aren’t to be stripped of their mobile phones by gangs of yobs, if we are going to maintain some sort of decorum in our civic life, then we need adults to be free to behave as adults.

Full article HERE.

Saturday
Apr102010

Gord help us if Raith win tomorrow

Tomorrow my team (Dundee United) play Gordon Brown's team (Raith Rovers) in the semi-finals of the Scottish Cup. Sadly I can't be in Glasgow for the game because I shall be in Bury St Edmunds watching my son play rugby. (His club are currently "on tour" in Suffolk.)

Raith are in the bottom half of the Scottish First Division while Dundee United are enjoying their best season since 1997 and are currently third behind Rangers and Celtic in the SPL.

That means nothing, however, because the match is at Hampden and United have a shocking record at the national stadium where we have won just one Scottish Cup final in seven attempts.

In Scotland you expect to get beaten by Celtic and Rangers. Even if you outplay them - as United occasionally do - the referee will find some excuse to give them and their legions of screaming supporters a helping hand. (Bitter? Moi?)

United, however, like to go one better. Who can forget 1987, the year we reached the UEFA Cup final (beating Barcelona and Borussia Mönchengladbach on the way)? OK, we lost to Gothenburg in the final but, unaccountably, we also managed to get beaten by St Mirren in the final of Scottish Cup. No-one saw that coming, least of all me.

Four years later the Scottish Cup was again there for the taking. We just had to turn up and collect the trophy ... except that Motherwell (Motherwell!) won 4-3 after extra-time.

(A few years earlier United beat Motherwell 6-0 at Tannadice and the manager, Jim Mclean, fined the players for not winning by an even greater margin. Following the cup final defeat in 1991 the United players were so mortified that three of them got sent off after the match. And, yes, I was there.)

The Hampden hoodoo - broken only by a solitary Scottish Cup win in 1994 - continues in the League Cup. To date we have lost three out of four finals in the stadium. The fourth was a 0-0 draw with Aberdeen in 1979 following which we won the replay 3-0 at Dens Park, home of our neighbours Dundee. (The following year we retained the trophy but only because our opponents were Dundee themselves and they decided to play the final in ... I see you're ahead of me.)

The good news, I suppose, is that United wouldn't have such a terrible record in cup finals if they hadn't won so many semi-finals in the first place.

The bad news is that losing to Gordon Brown Raith Rovers would be worse than losing to Dundee (which is very very bad indeed).

That, my friends, is how important tomorrow's match is. If Gordon's team prevails, I fear it may be a sign that he is going to win the general election.

Only Dundee United can save us.

Friday
Apr092010

Dr Phil Button - the "lost" interview

Dr Phil Button is an NHS anaesthetist. (No, that's not him above.) He's a smoker and has his own blog, Pro-Choice Smoking Doctor. A colleague, Marion Finlay, interviewed him in 2006 but the article was never published. I can't remember why.

Yesterday, having typed the name "Ken Denson" (another pro-choice smoking doctor) into my computer (see earlier post), up popped the "lost" interview. I thought you might like to read it. Note: I have checked and Phil is happy for it to be published. Better late than never!

TRUST ME, I'M A DOCTOR

“I think if you go to your doctor for advice, you should be given advice. Not be told what to do. People are bombarded with health advice from the media. If you haven’t heard the publicity that says smoking is bad for you, then you must have been living on another planet.”

That’s a view most sentient people would agree with. What’s unusual is - it comes from a doctor.

The doctor is Phil Button, a 47-year-old anaesthesiologist at a NHS Trust hospital in North Hampshire and a former GP. He’s decided to come out of the smoking closet – despite the inevitable attacks on his professional reputation – because he says we are not being given accurate information about smoking in general and ETS (environmental tobacco smoke or “passive smoking”) in particular. “It’s very politically incorrect to be a smoker and very politically incorrect to talk about it,” he says.

He’s also angry about the increasing “demonisation” of smokers. “Smoking, once labelled as something that is bad for you, has now been transformed by the anti-smoking lobby into being more than just bad for you, but into a bad thing – that smokers are in some way lesser people. They have been demonised, and are considered either weak or somehow substandard.”

Dr Button is also unusual in that he started smoking at the age of 40. “I think I’d always been a ‘closet smoker’ or ‘tempted smoker’, wondering what it would be like. Once I tried it I thought ‘I like this’ and decided to carry on.”

But isn't he concerned about his health? “It’s quite a complex question to answer,” he says. “I’ve always been a great believer in the quality of life rather than the extension of life. Ultimately, I have no control over what is going to happen to me and I don’t regard me smoking as being the one single overriding factor that’s going to cause my demise. There are so many other factors involved.”

He says he smokes – about 30 a day - because he enjoys it. “I like the flavour, smell and I enjoy the contemplative moments. When I’m smoking I’m usually thinking about something else. It helps me to concentrate. Certainly that applies to when I’m driving. If I find myself nodding off, if I have a fag I concentrate again. I just enjoy doing it. I don’t believe I’m doing anyone any harm.”

Undemocratic

Dr Button argues that the dangers of second-hand smoke have been wildly exaggerated and that “I can see only one reason we should be talking about smoking being a problem and that is the smell. Some people - and I include smokers in this group - don’t like the smell of smoke in the atmosphere or on their clothes. Ventilation would clearly go a long way to solving this problem.

“As far as I’m concerned, there is no other issue with regards to smoking in public. To push through heavy-handed legislation, and implement anti-smoking policies on hospitals on the basis of smell, is petty and undemocratic.”

Having read studies about the effects of ETS he says: “If you examine the statistical analysis and look at the methods they all - without exception - do not prove a link between ETS and harm to non-smokers.” More controversially he says, “I also believe that the effects of smoking on the smoker as been exponentially exaggerated over the years.”

Then why do doctors say second-hand smoke is so dangerous? “Doctors believe that smoking is bad for you. They believe it with fervour. And that no one should smoke – except them occasionally – and it’s perfectly reasonable to not do anything about an ETS scare as they don’t want to be seen to condone smoking.

“My experience of my medical education is very much about brainwashing. You really are taught every day that smoking is bad for you, further reinforced by anecdotal information in the media,” he says.

How many doctors smoke at your hospital? “I don’t have an accurate figure as to the percentage of hospital staff that smoke. I would say over 25% of the doctors in my department smoke, which is higher than the average number of smokers in the general population. They are the ones I know that come down into the smoking room and smoke openly.

“In the NHS the job, at whatever level you do it – nurse, health care worker, doctor – is very stressful because you are dealing with people’s lives. And some members of the health service take a break to have a cigarette to calm their nerves, keep themselves together, collect their strength.”

Indoctrinated

So why is he speaking out? “I’ve been through a medical education so have been indoctrinated in the medical story of smoking as it is believed to be by the medical profession. But increasingly, since about the age of 35, I’ve been more inquisitive and questioning. And I have become convinced that the truth about the harm caused by smoking is not as bad as it’s been made out.”

He says, “I don’t have a real issue about smoking. The wider issue is, why do we only see one side of the story and no one ever speaks out on behalf of the other side?

“There is terrible media bias towards the publication of opinions about ETS which sides with the anti-smokers. And the anti-smoking lobby has become an enormous machine. As a result, I treat all media health information as fundamentally flawed.”

Dr Button says he is more concerned about the ill effects caused by stress and the rising incidences of anxiety and depression-related illnesses. “I believe the pressure people are under to live healthy lives is likely to be adversely affecting their mental lives. For example, putting pressure on people who are depressed to quit smoking will add stress. I suspect stress is a bigger killer than anything else as it clearly has obvious physical affects on your cardiovascular system - you sweat, your pulse goes up.

“I attempt to run my life without stress. I don’t believe I’m addicted to cigarettes. I smoke because I like it. If it’s not convenient to smoke, I’ll be happy where I am. Personally, I don’t feel comfortable smoking in front of no smoking signs, particularly if it says you might be removed from the building. I want to relax with a cigarette.”

What about hospital smoking bans? “I understand that hospital managers don’t want to be seen to condone smoking. But I don’t believe that the actions they are taking will deal with that. All the people I meet in the smoking room are going to go to the perimeter of the hospital twice a day or so. I’m sure it will have no effect on the number of people who smoke.”

Dr Button is extremely angry about the murder of a nurse while she was having a cigarette break outside the hospital grounds. “It is not in anyone’s interests to expose people to this level of harassment whereby they are hounded to unsafe places to smoke a cigarette.”

He also thinks the policy is callous towards patients and visitors: “They are potentially abusing the patients’ relatives because they are the people most affected by a patient’s admission. Often they will have to visit the hospital for long periods of time, and while they’re there they don’t want to leave the relative for any length of time. I think that’s cruel.

“And it’s also cruel to patients. I’ve been to hospitals with smoking bans and you still see patients with their catheters and drips smoking outside the entrance. And I defy anyone to tell them not to.”

Question

Of course Phil Button is not the only doctor to stick his head above the parapet and question some of the claims of the powerful anti-smoking lobby. Dr Ken Denson of the Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation in Oxford is one of Britain’s top experts on the effects of tobacco. He has published two major review articles, together with many letters in leading medical journals, criticising the evidence about the alleged effects of second-hand smoke.

Dr Denson was quoted in the House of Commons Health Select Committee report 2005-06 Smoking in Public Places as saying: “The scientific evidence for any deleterious effect of ETS is wholly false. The hard evidence for any deleterious effect of second-hand smoke is so tenuous and equivocal, that similar evidence would not be seriously considered, let alone published, in any other field of medicine.”

Dr Mike Fitzgerald, a London GP and author of The Tyranny of Health: Doctors and the Regulation of Lifestyle, has questioned whether smoking is an addiction. He has written in the online magazine Spiked about how the smoker has become a pariah, the failure of coercive anti-smoking policies and how anti-smoking propaganda directed at adolescents has proved counterproductive, and the increasingly childlike character of political discourse about smoking.

Dr Theodore Dalrymple, a columnist in the Spectator and other national media, wrote about the ban on smoking in public places in The Times: “The pettiness of this official persecution of smokers (who are not prevented from paying a lot of tax) can hardly be exaggerated.”

While Dr Button is willing to go on the record to voice his concerns about anti-smoking campaigns, he says he doesn’t “evangelise” at work. “It’s not the right forum and I have work to do.” As for anti-smoking policies at his hospital he says, “increasingly NHS Trusts have indicated that disobeying smoking policy would involve disciplinary procedures. If it came to that, I think I might have to back down because ultimately my job is too important.”

In the meantime he says, “My joy in life is very simple: going into town with my wife and doing a bit of shopping then going to a café and having a cigarette. In future, I won’t even be allowed to do that. And for no good reason.”

Friday
Apr092010

Cost of fuel won't stop me driving

Petrol prices reached an all-time high yesterday, reports the Daily Telegraph, with the average tank of fuel £5 more expensive that it was at the start of the year. The paper predicts that the £6 gallon is not far off.

I'm so old I remember the furore when the price of a gallon of fuel hit £1. Over the years the cost of a tank has risen from £30 to £50 and, now, £74. (Well, that's what it cost me when I filled up yesterday.)

However, like a smoker who refuses to quit despite the exhorbitant cost of cigarettes, I have no intention of letting the price of fuel change my lifestyle. Eventually something may have to give but it certainly won't be my car or the number of miles (approximately 30,000) I drive each year.

I love my car, and I love driving. Always have, always will. Commuting into London by train is one thing (it's quicker, for a start) but faced with a longer journey - to Edinburgh, for example - and a flexible schedule I will almost always choose to drive rather than go by train or plane.

For all the traffic jams, speed restrictions and "safety" cameras (which are, I admit, an increasing issue), nothing can take away the sense of freedom you get from sitting behind the wheel.

In the UK the best place to drive has to be Scotland, epecially the west coast and the borders, but it doesn't really matter because once you're in your car you can create your own micro-climate and habitat whether that be music, talk radio or (shock horror) the wonderful sound of ... silence.

The government knows this which is why it can get away with taxing fuel so heavily. All I know is, if I am forced to think twice about jumping in my car because of the cost, another bit of freedom will have died and life will not just be different - it will be significantly worse.

Thursday
Apr082010

The truth about smoking and health

"You can eat five portions of fruit and veg a day and exercise regularly, but healthy behaviour means little if you continue to smoke" (NetDoctor).

"There are many things we can do to lower our chances of developing cancer such as not smoking, keeping a healthy weight, cutting down on alcohol, eating a healthy balanced diet, being physically active and staying safe in the sun." (Cancer Research UK, Daily Telegraph, April 7, 2010).

Now, I'm no doctor (as I'm sure you know) but I can't help recalling the words of the late Dr Ken Denson of the Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation in Oxfordshire who was adamant that if you enjoy a healthy diet, keep yourself physically fit and smoke moderately (less than ten cigarettes a day), the risk to your health is significantly reduced and you may be at no more at risk than those who do NOT smoke, eat "unhealthily" and get little or no regular exercise (ie people like me).

His exact words, in an article circa 2005, were:

The greatest ill effects from smoking are for heavy smokers of two and three packs a day. Risks are much lower for light smokers. Studies on lung cancer and heart disease have shown that for those who smoke ten a day or less, the risks are very much lower. In a study on female British doctors there was no increased risk for heart disease or lung cancer in those smoking one to 14 cigarettes per day ...

The problem is, the medical and political establishment isn't interested in promoting this message. All they want you to hear is: quit smoking or die. And that, perhaps, is why the message falls on so many deaf ears because most of us can point to people who smoke who appear, in general, to be perfectly fit and healthy.

PS. If I remember rightly, Dr Denson smoked from the age of 15 and was in his early eighties when he died three years ago. Of course, if he hadn't smoked he would still be alive today. Well, that's what they would like us to believe.

Thursday
Apr082010

Reading, writing and ... biometrics

Schools are not under a legal duty to consult parents before collecting biometric data, writes Karen McTigue for The Free Society, which means your child could be fingerprinted or iris-scanned without your knowledge.

Last week Hank Roberts addressed the Association of Teachers and Lecturers annual conference in Manchester. “Parental consent should be compulsory," he said. "It is outrageous that children’s fingerprints can be taken without parental consent."

He added: “There has been a severe diminution of civil liberties and freedoms in this country and we face the danger of more and worse to come.”

Unfortunately, writes Karen, "Mr Roberts was defeated on his motion to oppose the use of biometric data.

"To ensure your child fully understands the implications of being fingerprinted, or iris-scanned, on their return to school, ... take a trip to the library and borrow a copy of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four for them. Job done."

Full article HERE.

Wednesday
Apr072010

Election 2010: if in doubt, ask

The extent of Labour's problem has been evident on this blog for some time as former supporters have lined up to declare that, thanks to the smoking ban, they will never vote for the party again. This mirrors much of the correspondence that Forest has received since 2006.

Last night I received an email from a long-term Labour voter and activist (and smoker) who wrote:

Clearly I’m so over Labour. My MP is Nadine [Dorries]. Do you expect me to vote for her? Of course I’d rather have Dave than Gord, but vote for Nadine? Or do I assume she’s a shoe-in anyway and vote for UKIP as my pro-smoking protest vote? (I’m not going to vote BNP naturellement). I need your guidance.

At risk of upsetting some readers, I replied as follows:

Hmmm, I see your problem. Personally, I couldn't bring myself to vote UKIP not because I don't sympathise with many of their policies but because most of the UKIP activists I have met are weird and I'm not sure that a vote for UKIP would be seen as a protest against the smoking ban because I would be surprised if many UKIP candidates mention it in their election literature.

Given that you don't have to make an immediate decision I would send a short email to Nadine and explain your predicament as a long-term but ex-Labour voter. Nadine voted for the smoking ban (she's an ex-nurse) but you could ask her whether she would support an amendment to the ban plus her reaction to extending the ban to outdoor areas (parks, cars, the home etc) and the tobacco display ban. If she responds it would give you a bit more to go on.

The more I think about it the more I think it would be a good idea if you all sent an email to the candidate (or candidates) who is most likely to become your new MP. Odds are it will be the old MP, unless you live in a marginal constituency or the previous MP has stepped down.

If you write to them as a constituent you are more likely to get a response and it won't look like an organised campaign. Explain that you haven't decided who to vote for and could they indicate their position with regard to (a) an amendment to the smoking ban that would allow some choice for smokers as well as helping those community pubs that have suffered from a loss of business, and (b) what is their attitude to further tobacco control measures such as the tobacco display ban, smoking in cars and public parks etc.

If you get a reply I would be very interested to read their response.

Wednesday
Apr072010

Tories set for comfortable victory (unofficial)

Spoke to Madsen Pirie at last night's TNG event. Madsen is president of the Adam Smith Institute and someone I have known for 30 years. Never shy to voice an opinion, he told me that the Conservatives will win the election with a majority of 40-60 seats.

(I think it was 40-60. It could have been 14-16 but I'd had a few glasses of wine by then and it was quite noisy. Anyway, 40-60 sounds right. Who would risk humiliation by suggesting a majority with so little room for error?)

My own prediction, for what it's worth, is a Tory majority of between 20 and 40. This is based not on people wanting to vote for Cameron but on the fact that come May 6 a lot of people will wake up and think: "Do I really want Gordon Brown, waving and grinning like a demented Cheshire cat, at the door of No 10 tomorrow? Bye, bye, Gordon, it's time to go."

Or words to that effect.

Tuesday
Apr062010

Eamonn Butler's alternative manifesto

So, Gordon Brown has finally called the election. Call this an educated guess, but I shall be surprised if there is a single party that warrants my vote other than to remove the present incumbents from office.

If only there was a party prepared to adopt the policies featured in The Alternative Manifesto by Dr Eamonn Butler of the Adam Smith Institute. Reviewed by Simon Hills (associate editor of The Times Magazine) for The Free Society, the book offers a "12-step programme to remake Britain". There are chapters on bureaucracy, education, healthcare, welfare, regulation, crime and justice - even the bully state.

Simon writes:

You could sum up the book, and the manifesto, thus: ‘Stop taking our money and wasting it’. And it should be waved under the nose of every self-important, spendthrift politician, whose pay should be docked until he has proved he has read and understood it.

Full review HERE.

Tuesday
Apr062010

Memories of Palace Street

Tonight I am the guest speaker at The Next Generation's monthly meeting. TNG is the youth (well, under 30) wing of the Adam Smith Institute, although I see from their Facebook events page that several oldies intend to sneak in under the radar.

Tonight's subject is Cigarettes and Civil Liberties. They want me to speak for ten minutes and there are no questions so I assume we will spend most of the time drinking and talking about the election, which is fine by me.

By coincidence the meeting is at The Phoenix pub in Palace Street, a few minutes from Victoria Station and directly opposite the office Forest occupied for six years until February 2005.

We spent many a long lunch in The Phoenix but I preferred the cafe a few doors down. Owned and run by a hard-working Spanish family, I loved going there early in the morning, especially if I had stayed overnight in the office. (Several times a month I would sleep on a sofa after working late or going to some late night soiree. In the morning I would wake up to the rumble of a tube train as it passed through a tunnel directly beneath the building.)

That office cost us, though. I inherited it when Forest was 12 months into a ten-year lease with the option to cancel after three or six years. (The idea that we would sign a ten-year lease seems rather incongruous now, but those were different times.) Anyway, I grasped the escape clause after six years because the office was by then costing us £50k a year.

In the long run it was the right decision but at the time it cost us an additional and unexpected £40k in "reparations" (ie restoring the office to the condition it was in before we moved in).

Some reparations were plain petty - replacing the "Exit" sign above the main door, for example, because it had allegedly got scratched. Likewise the stainless steel sink in the kitchenette.

All these things added up, especially the cost of removing (yes, removing) a state of the art air filtration system that had been installed to allow staff and visitors - notably our genial pipe-smoking chairman Lord Harris - to light up without exposing everyone to a fug of smoke. As a non-smoker it was my first experience of such a system in an office and it worked beautifully.

In fact I never had a problem with anyone smoking in the Palace Street office and I defy anyone to tell me that my health was at greater risk in that office than it was in Palace Street itself which was frequently used by cabs and cars as a short cut between Victoria Street and Buckingham Palace Road.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, we employed solicitors to appeal against the cost of the reparations. They reduced the figure to £29k, charged us £7k, and so the final bill was a mere £36,000. Result!

This evening's event will bring back a lot of memories. One thing I can guarantee. I won't be sleeping on a sofa in the office tonight.

Tuesday
Apr062010

Here is the news - in Arabic

Last week I was interviewed for the Arabic television station Alhurra. Filming took place in Wardour Street, Soho, where Forest shares an office with a media consultancy that, by coincidence, has been working in the Middle East for several years.

I was struck not only by how friendly the two-man crew was but how sympathetic they were towards Forest's position on smoking in general. (The idea of banning smoking in cars, for example, seemed incomprehensible to them.)

Subsequent investigation revealed that Alhurra is operated by the Middle East Broadcasting Networks Inc (MBN), a non-profit corporation "financed by the American people through the US Congress".
 According to their website:

Alhurra (Arabic for “The Free One”) is a commercial-free Arabic language satellite television network for the Middle East devoted primarily to news and information. In addition to reporting on regional and international events, the channel broadcasts discussion programs [sic], current affairs magazines and features on a variety of subjects including health and personal fitness, entertainment, sports, fashion, and science and technology. The channel is dedicated to presenting accurate, balanced and comprehensive news. Alhurra endeavors to broaden its viewers' perspectives, enabling them to make more informed decisions.

Sounds like a good business model for the BBC.

Monday
Apr052010

Feeling nauseous?

Too much chocolate? Too many hot cross buns? If it's any consolation, here's my friend Gary, pictured at the weekend, soon after he and his family came to stay. We're still recovering.