Fear and loathing in Edinburgh

Day two: this morning I attended a seminar entitled 'Using the media'. For anyone with a media/PR background this was all standard stuff, although you have to admire the creativity behind some of the anti-smoking campaigns.

Some, but not all. For example, we were shown a series of television ads in which cigarettes are replaced by paper whistles. The idea, I suppose, is to associate smoking with behaviour that is obviously childish and irritating, the very opposite of 'cool'. I just thought the concept was stupid.

Another thought struck me. Given the current controversy concerning TV programmes being 'faked', isn't it time that the Advertising Standards Authority came down hard on ads that are similarly fake? I am thinking, in particular, of the so-called 'smoke snake' ads, which we were also shown. You know the ones: computer generated images of 'secondhand' smoke are portrayed as snakes preparing to strike non-smokers nearest and dearest to us, including small children.

It was unsettling to hear health and PR professionals openly admit that two of the key messages driving recent anti-smoking campaigns are 'fear' and 'disgust' - fear of secondhand smoke (which, as many of us know, is greatly exaggerated), and disgust for a perfectly legal habit. If anyone should be disgusted, it's the taxpayer who is funding these unpleasant, spiteful campaigns that are deliberately designed to foster fear and loathing and foist pariah status on a substantial minority of the population.

David Hockney, as I have mentioned before, has spoken of the "uglification of England". Here, in Edinburgh, was proof that the anti-smoking industry will not rest until the uglification process has gripped the entire world.

Named and shamed!

An amusing footnote to the day's events. During the Q&A session in the main auditorium, Cecilia Farren, founder of GASP, a self-styled "smoke-free action website", got hold of the roving mike and asked that anyone associated with Big Tobacco should be invited to stand up for all to see. For some reason, she felt the need to name me personally, implying that I had somehow sneaked in to the conference and was lying low. In her words, "I have never known Simon Clark to be so quiet."

The paranoia of some anti-smoking campaigners never ceases to amaze. Needless to say I was more than happy to jump up and introduce myself to the 400 delegates (who were looking a bit bemused). I just wish they had asked me to address the conference from the stage!

PS. I bumped into Cecilia later and thanked her for the "free publicity". She wasn't happy.

Reasons to be fearful

This afternoon I attended two genuinely interesting workshops. The first was an absolute revelation. In order to assess the impact of the smoking ban on social behaviour, researchers are sent - incognito - into pubs and bars where they conduct "covert observation". Trained to watch and record events without attracting the attention of staff or customers, they avoid detection by using crosswords or sudoku grids to jot down notes which they then elaborate upon back in the office.

One researcher told us she had to "dress down" and remove any jewellery before entering some bars, in case she gave herself away. She spoke of witnessing drug deals, but turned a blind eye because her job was to monitor people's smoking habits! Apparently, this type of work has been going on for years, but usually with a view to observing the behaviour of gangs and neo-Nazi groups. To this little list we can now add smokers.

A second workshop revealed the results of the public consultation that followed the publication of the EU's Green Paper, 'Towards a Europe free from tobacco smoke: policy options at EU level'. I had a particular interest in this because, aside from the tobacco industry, Forest was one of only four 'smoker NGOs' to submit a response.

In total, 17 governments and four parliaments replied to the consultation which was launched in January with the EC declaring (with no hint of impartiality):

Cigarette smoke can kill you even if you never light-up yourself.  That is why the European Commission has launched a public consultation on the best way to promote smoke-free environments across the EU.

The Green Paper examines the health and economic burdens associated with passive smoking, public support for smoking bans and takes stock of measures taken at national and EU level are all examined.

The paper presents the pros and cons for five options ranging from maintaining the status quo to binding legislation.  In conclusion, the Commission believes that a comprehensive smoke-free policy would bring the greatest health benefits to European citizens.

EU Health Commissioner Markos Kyprianou added:

"Passive smoking kills more than 79,000 adults each year in the EU. The evidence from European countries with comprehensive smoke-free policies is that they work, produce results and are popular. A Eurobarometer survey found more than 80% of EU members of the public in favour of a ban on smoking in workplaces and indoor public places. The question is, how can we build on the trend towards smoke-free environments in member states, and what should be the extent of the EU's involvement?"

Given this view of smoking (and passive smoking in particular), the result of the 'consultation' will come as little surprise. Given five policy options, ranging from no action needed (status quo) to binding legislation across Europe, only the Dutch opted for the status quo. Four (Austria, Germany, the Czech Republic and Denmark) support exemptions for some hospitality venues (bars, for example), but France and Poland want smoking bans to extend to entrances to buildings and even some outdoor areas.

The health sector, needless to say, wants a comprehensive ban, with some non-smoker NGOs calling for a ban in outdoor areas such as parks and beaches. The tobacco industry was unanimous in calling for exemptions, although the nature of the exemptions varied slightly. Interestingly, the UK and Slovenia are opposed to binding EC legislation on the grounds that it may not be robust (ie comprehensive) enough - which seems a good reason to support it!

Unbelievable!

Day one of a two-day international conference entitled 'Towards a Smoke-Free Society' sponsored by the Scottish Government (nee Executive) and other taxpayer-funded organisations. I arrived at the Edinburgh International Conference Centre (EICC), grabbed a cup of coffee, bumped into an old sparring partner (Paul Hooper of ASH), and together we made our way into the main auditorium for the opening session.

One of the first speakers was Dr Harry Burns, Chief Medical Officer in Scotland, who told the audience - 400 people from almost 40 countries - that the Scottish ban was introduced with the overwhelming support of the Scottish people. He said this while keeping a straight face which is some achievement because, according to the Scottish Executive's own research, only 13 per cent of people in Scotland supported a comprehensive ban prior to its introduction. But why let details like that get in the way when you're trying to convince Asia, the Americas and the rest of Europe to copy a draconian piece of legislation?

Chief topic of conversation in the morning was the report claiming that the number of non-smokers admitted to hospital with a heart attack fell by 20 per cent in the ten months after the public smoking ban came into force in March 2006. This information was of course leapt upon with relish by delegates who could scarcely believe their luck. Whether there is a direct causal link is another matter. The anti-smoking movement has played fast and loose with the facts for so long that many of us treat almost everything they say with a pinch of salt. Why should this be different?

Farewell, GNER

I'm writing this on board a Great North Eastern Railway train to Edinburgh. On December 9 GNER will hand the east coast franchise to National Express. I have mixed feelings about this, not least because - in my mind - I associate National Express with (often uncomfortable) long distance coach travel.

The longest journey I ever did by coach was Aberdeen-London. That was with Stagecoach, and it was a double-decker bus, not a coach. But in my penniless early twenties (when owning a car was out of the question) it was National Express I usually turned to for those overnight treks from London to Edinburgh when passengers invariably arrived hungry, tired and dishevelled.

In contrast, I have fond memories of GNER. I was (and still am) a huge fan of privatisation. My old friend Madsen Pirie, who runs the hugely influential Adam Smith Institute, once said, "If it moves, privatise it", and I endorse this completely. Yes, yes, I know that privatisation of the railways hasn't been an overwhelming success (how could it?), and there are a lot of things wrong with the network, but what we've got (including the level of investment) is far better than pre-privatisation. 

As an arch disciple of privatisation (and someone who grew up with ramshackle old British Rail) I remember to this day the pleasure I felt when I clapped eyes on my first 'privatised' train - a GNER locomotive, in what was to become the company's distinctive blue livery, at King's Cross station.

Since then I have travelled on GNER many, many times, and rarely have I been disappointed by the service - or seriously delayed. To be honest, I prefer, whenever possible, to drive, but that has less to do with the train companies and more to do with the independence and flexibility that a car can offer.

Anyway, if this is to be my last-but-one journey with GNER (I return to London on Wednesday), I for one will be sorry to see them go. National Express East Coast? Doesn't sound quite right, does it?

Top of the Fopps

I spent most of last week in Cambridge - where Forest has an office - and I was pleased to see that the local branch of Fopp has re-opened, two months after the independent music store was forced to close every one of its 105 shops. Thanks to HMV, six Fopp stores - three in Scotland, three in England - have been resuscitated, and Cambridge was one of the lucky ones.

Hopefully, HMV will allow Fopp to continue in its own, idiosyncratic way. I don't know about you, but I hate shopping in megastores such as Virgin or, indeed, HMV. It's not a relaxing environment and - at my age - I feel totally out of place. The music department in a chain such as Borders doesn't do it for me either - the choice is way too limited.

Fopp is different. It reminds me of the tiny, independent record shop in South Street, St Andrews, where, 34 years ago, I bought my first Velvet Underground album. (None of the bigger shops had even heard of it, let along stocked it.) I loved shops like that. (Remember the record shop in Nick Hornby's High Fidelity? It was similar.) Needless to say it closed down years (decades) ago, together with hundreds, possibly thousands, of similar stores throughout the country.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against the Virgins of this world (ditto Tesco, Sainsbury, Currys, PC World etc). I just want choice. The loss of Fopp wouldn't stop me buying the CDs and DVDs I want, but it would deny me a retail environment I and many other people enjoy.

A free society needs diversity. If you agree, pop into Fopp (Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Manchester, Nottingham and Cambridge) today.

Living the Dream (sic)

I know, I know, it's three weeks since I last posted (a heinous crime in blog world) but I have an excuse. First, I went on holiday. Second, I had a mountain of work to deal with when I got back. More of that later.

The holiday was a 12-day Baltic cruise, stopping at Warnemunde (Germany), Tallin, St Petersburg, Helsinki, Stockholm and Copenhagen, in that order. I'd never been on a cruise before so I didn't know what to expect, but I was very pleasantly surprised.

The speed and efficiency with which we embarked and disembarked (at Dover) left most airports in the shade. The ship arrived and departed every port on schedule and without a moment's delay.

The Norwegian Dream (above), was staffed by 50 different nationalities who could not have been more helpful or more friendly - better than any hotel I have ever stayed at. The cabins were comfortable and quiet. And the food - well, the food was excellent. The only problem was, with so much time to sit, eat and drink, I came back half a stone heavier. (I was fat before. Now I'm gross.)

I won't bore you with anecdotes (worse, even, than showing you our holiday snaps), but I can reveal that coaches in Estonia and Russia still have ashtrays in the headrests although (for the "comfort" of Western visitors) smoking was banned on board.

I will definitely go back to Finland, Sweden and Denmark and explore further. And I will definitely go on another cruise. It's the only way to travel.

Update on Saturday, September 8, 2007 by Simon Clark

OK, just one anecdote. In St Petersburg our Russian tour guide introduced herself as follows: "Hi, I'm Ira. That's I, R, A - Irish Republican Army." You couldn't make it up.

Cowell's no quitter - is he?

I almost fell off my stool in Costa Coffee this afternoon when I saw this headline in today's Daily Mirror: 'Cowell: I'm quitting'.

Simon Cowell to quit smoking? Surely not?! Needless to say, I had jumped to conclusions. According to the paper the TV mogul will quit American Idol in three years when his contract is up, and he may quit the X-Factor at the same time. As for smoking:

One vice Simon hasn't managed to give up is his smoking habit - he gets through 10 to 15 Kool menthol cigarettes a day. He's adamant he will keep lighting up despite the smoking ban, which has been a problem at the X Factor auditions. "I'm still smoking and I'm not getting on well with the ban," he says.

"I enjoy smoking and I feel discriminated against. It's humiliating being made to stand in the street - it reminds me of school and smoking behind the bike shed. I had a bit of trouble during the auditions when I forgot. I lit up and it was like I pulled out a hand grenade. Someone practically came out with a fire extinguisher."

Thank goodness for that. Full article HERE.

Conference calls

Holding my credit card in one hand, and my nose in the other, I have just applied to attend a two-day conference in Edinburgh that should indicate very clearly (as if we don't already know) where the war on tobacco is heading.

'Towards a Smokefree Society' is a major international event that promises to "bring together researchers, policy makers and practitioners with the overall purpose of mobilising further effective action on smokefree legislation".

The programme is extensive. As part of the application process you have to decide in advance which workshops you want to attend. I was spoilt for choice! Eventually I plumped for sessions on 'International Tobacco Control Studies', 'Developing EU Policy for Smokefree Environments', 'SHS Exposure & Respiratory Health', 'Smokefree Legislation & Health and Economic Trends', 'Smoking in the Home' and - my favourite - 'Using the Media'.

I also applied to attend the conference dinner and ceilidh. (I couldn't resist.) Venue is the Edinburgh International Conference Centre (EICC, above) and it all kicks off on September 10. Full details HERE.

War on drinking: right or wrong?

I may be wrong, but when I was growing up in Scotland you weren't allowed to take your drink outside the pub. Nor were you able to see inside the pub from the street because the windows had frosted glass. (The idea, I believe, was to stop 'minors' seeing adults drinking.) Pubs shut at 10.00pm and everyone had to buy their round - which meant that between nine and ten there was a mad rush to consume as many pints as possible before you had to leave.

The first time I went into a pub and got served I must have been 14. I was 18 (and at university) before it became an intoxicating habit. We weren't 'binge drinkers' because we couldn't afford to be, but we did get pleasantly tipsy and - occasionally - we got pie-eyed. When we were drunk we fell about laughing, or we fell asleep, or we felt queasy and some of us may even have been sick.

At no point did we EVER get drunk and become violent or break the law in other ways. (I was completely sober, m'lud, that night we nicked some traffic cones.) We knew right from wrong - even when we'd had a few.

This week, in the wake of a terrible, disgusting murder, it is being suggested that the drinking age could be raised to 21, or that drinking might be banned in the street. Others would like to see the price of alcohol increased, and the 24-hour drinking laws repealed. Even the Daily Telegraph, the most libertarian of all our newspapers, had a leader entitled the 'Curse of cheap booze', as if 'cheap booze' is the problem.

What's going on? Yes, some people drink too much, and some become anti-social and violent as a result. But the vast majority (I suggest) do not. Why, yet again, should the majority suffer for the actions of a minority?

Instead of penalising everyone, surely this is a matter for the police (and the authorities generally) to target those who break existing laws? Why do we need stiffer rules and regulations when the legislation already exists to weed out violent, anti-social criminals?

David Green, director of Civitas, has written an excellent piece in today's Telegraph. The title says it all: 'Alcohol ban is no answer; proper policing is'. Full article HERE.

PC plod and the health police

You can tell it's the silly season when - not for the first time - I get asked to comment on the story that an IT technician had refused to fix a woman's computer because, when he took the back off, it was (allegedly) covered in nicotine.

The story originally appeared in the local paper last week. This afternoon I was whisked off to the Millbank studios in Westminster to be interviewed for Granada's evening news. What could I say, apart from the fact that I have never EVER heard of such a complaint before, and it cannot be coincidence that this has happened within weeks of the smoking ban being introduced.

Now that the authorities have declared war on smokers, no doubt other, similarly ludicrous, complaints will become commonplace. I am thinking, in particular, of neighbours who will claim that smoke from next door is seeping into their homes through walls and floorboards. Barworkers might even refuse to work in a pub - simply because the walls are stained with nicotine.

Full story HERE.

What's the point?

I've lost count of the number of times I have been asked to publicise a petition on the Downing Street website. I'm not unsympathetic, but I refuse to play Downing Street's patronising little game. I am pleased to read that Iain Dale (left), Britain's premier political blogger (and a friend of The Free Society), feels the same - see HERE ('The pointlessness of No 10 petitions', Monday August 13). 

Protestors take to the streets

More photographs of the Glastonbury protest march on Saturday August 11 can be viewed HERE. Update HERE.

Must have iMac

Have just seen the all-new iMac. Looks stunning. I want one!

Polite notice

Another reason for our trip to the seaside (below) was a meeting with Dorset Police. In addition to the Forest/Free Society reception, we are considering some form of public protest during the Labour party conference. A march, perhaps, or (more likely) a static protest against the smoking ban outside the conference centre in Bournemouth - if there is sufficient support.

Security is particularly tight at party conferences and with everyone being a little jumpy it's best to do things by the book. Our meeting on Thursday lasted an hour during which we were given a very clear indication of what we can and can't do.

One of our proposals - a live rock band outside the conference centre or on a passing float - was politely knocked back. So too was my preferred march route. Dorset Police have a set route and woe betide anyone who veers off that path!

A detailed five-page document entitled 'Guidance to organisers' left us in no doubt of our responsibilities. Sections include 'Statements of intent', 'Briefing of stewards',  'Fitness of stewards', 'Communication with organisers', 'Communication with police', 'Safety officers', 'Additional guidance' and 'Debriefing'.

Before going ahead with a public protest we first have to submit plans for the police to consider. Proposed date is Tuesday September 25th, the same day that Gordon Brown is due to give his first speech to conference as prime minister and leader of the Labour party. If you are interested in taking part, email protest@forestonline.org.