The risk factor

Following the story that laissez-faire politician Boris Johnson is to stand as a Conservative candidate for mayor of London, more good news. The Daily Telegraph reports that Ed Balls, the new Schools Secretary, "is to tackle the compensation culture which has led to bans on playground games such as marbles and tag".

Children should not be "wrapped in cotton wool" but allowed to have snowball fights in winter and play conkers in autumn, he said as he urged parents to take a more balanced approach to risk.

"The idea you decide as a society that people aren't going to make snowballs because of a compensation culture is not the kind of society I want to live in," he said at the launch of a consultation on how to keep children safe while allowing them the freedom to explore.

At last, another politician talking sense. There are, of course, two issues involved here - the nanny state and the litigious society. Yes, there are lots of interfering, paternalistic do-gooders out there, but there is also a genuine fear of being taken to court. The two go hand-in-hand. In order to roll back the frontiers of the nanny state we first have to remove the threat from m'learned friends.

I still think things will get worse before they get better, but it's encouraging to hear a government minister speak in these terms. Hopefully, Ed Balls and others will realise that this is not just about children (who, I accept, need some protection), it's also about adults being allowed to take risks too, as long as their behaviour doesn't pose a serious threat to other people.

The headline of the Telegraph story is, 'Playtime needs risk if it's to be fun, says minister'. Perhaps The Free Society's motto should read: 'Life needs risk if it's to be fun'. Other suggestions welcome. Full report HERE.

Boris for mayor!

Excellent news! Boris Johnson is to stand as a Conservative candidate to become the next mayor of London. Politics suddenly got interesting again. If my reading of Boris is right, he's a laissez-faire politician and therefore the opposite of most of today's politicians (of all parties) who increasingly favour state intervention as a means of controlling people's behaviour.

Unfortunately, our elected representatives are under enormous pressure to justify their existence (which usually translates as more and more legislation), so there is no guarantee that BJ wouldn't fall into the same trap. Nevertheless, his selection and election - should it happen - could be the turning point that many of us are working so hard to achieve.

Support Boris - the revolution starts here!

PS. BJ on smoking - see HERE.

Another fine mess

STOP PRESS: I have just been contacted by The News in Portsmouth. Apparently, the council in Fareham has made the same mistake as Stoke and is unable - for the moment - to enforce the smoking ban in local pubs and clubs. Is this the tip of a very large iceberg? How many other councils have got themselves in a similar mess? I think we should be told.

Update on Tuesday, July 17, 2007 by Simon Clark

The story has now appeared HERE.

Breast cancer? I'll have a fry-up, please

I'm confused. Today's Daily Mail (the paper that systematically chronicles every health scare under the sun) reports that a fry-up washed down with grapefruit juice could make some cancer drugs more effective. Doctors (who are always right) "believe that taking the breast cancer drug lapatinib at the same time as a fatty meal may make it work at least three times as well".

At least the Mail has the good grace to point out that other, recent, research showed that eating grapefruit "may raise the risk of breast cancer". And what about the effect of all that fatty food? Decisions, decisions.

Tobacco: "one of nature's miracles"

I have just received a copy of The House Magazine, the parliamentary weekly, that was sent to every MP the week before the introduction of the smoking ban. It included a full page Forest ad (left), drawing attention to our 'Nanny state? No thanks' campaign, plus an article by David Hockney, a member of our Supporters Council. Among other things, David wrote:

The major negative effect of the smoking ban is a terrible loss of faith in parliamentary democracy. It's a great big thing to stop people smoking in pubs after 400 years. It was never mentioned at the last election ... in effect, it was sneaked in. Debate was stifled, obviously to get this passed as quietly as possible ... This is appalling in a social democracy as the UK is supposed to be.

To tell 12 million people they cannot be doing socially what is still a legal thing is odious politics. What will happen is that people will now drink at home. Slowly pubs will close ... new 'public houses' will spring up unofficially in people's living rooms and kitchens, and the relentless push of the pharmaceutical industry will supply peope with 'alternatives' - anti-depressants and painkillers, now heavily advertised in California.

OK, take a pill. But I've always preferred the marvellous calming effects of one of nature's miracles: tobacco.

I support the Chief Medical Officer!

For the first and possibly the last time, I am in agreement with Sir Liam Donaldson (left). According to the Sunday Times, "The chief medical officer wants everyone to be treated as organ donors after death unless they explicity opt out of the scheme."

Perhaps I'm biased because my own father had a long wait before he could have a heart transplant a few years ago and was at death's door when, eventually, he found himself at the top of the queue, but there is clearly a severe shortage of available kidneys, livers and hearts. One reason is that there are fewer deaths from road traffic accidents; another is that the vast majority of people (even smokers!) are living to a ripe old age.

No-one is being forced to donate their organs. We still have the freedom to choose, so on this issue I (choke) support the CMO! Full story HERE.

Dan's the man to normalise smoking

I spent the afternoon with photographer, musician and designer Dan Donovan. As well as being a smoker, Dan is a committed Forest supporter whose dedication to the cause was recently tested by a nationwide tour that took him from Cambridgeshire to Cornwall via Yorkshire, Kent and Oxfordshire (to name a few).

Phase one of the project will be published online next month. It features the portraits of no fewer than 90 smokers, many of them Forest supporters. They include an artist, engineer, musician, landlord, student, coastguard, tobacconist, doctor and mental health worker. Actor Neil Morrissey is featured; so too a survivor of HMS Sir Galahad, the landing ship that was sunk during the Falklands War.

Each portrait was taken in an enclosed public space just before the ban was introduced, the point being that if they did so now each and every one would be committing an offence. The experience has left its mark on Dan who told me: "I was struck by the common feeling of helplessness. The government wants people to believe that all smokers are addicted and want to give up. But the people I met enjoy smoking and resent the stigma and discrimination that has sprung up.

"The people who have contributed to this project come from all walks of life. They are sick of their habit being demonised and they jumped at the opportunity to counteract the denormalisation of smoking."

Full story HERE and HERE.

Rumour and reality

Don't know how true this is (I am sceptical, to be honest), but we have received the following email:  

"I spoke today with a lorry driver from Sheffield. He told me that most of the pubs in Sheffield have formed a pact to defy the ban and are so far getting away with it. This, if true, is the sort of lead that the rest of us need to follow. The trouble is, such defiance isn't being advertised. Publicans throughout the country feel alone and unprepared to stand up against a lost cause. If the level of defiance in Sheffield is as high as I've heard then the word must spread. If only every pub in Britain could band together, then the government would have to listen."

What we have to understand is that most publicans are neither for nor against smoking on their premises. They are businessmen who want to manage their businesses in the best way they can. What the majority want is a level playing field.

That's why the pub trade, when it was suggested that government might give local authorities the power to ban smoking on a borough by borough basis, lobbied for a national policy. Then, when it became clear that smoking was to be banned in every pub, they lobbied government to ban smoking in private members' clubs as well. (Choice? Don't make me laugh! They didn't want what they saw as unfair competition.)

Yes, there are individual publicans who are sympathetic to the plight of smokers and want to choose their own policy on smoking. But the only way that publicans will revolt - en masse - is if there is a dramatic, across-the-board slump in business as a direct result of the ban. And that will only happen if smokers desert pubs and bars in their droves. Some of you may be prepared to do that - but are hundreds of thousands of other people?

Many pubs will suffer from the ban and some will close, but others will see that as a business opportunity (a chance to pick up new customers). It's a cut-throat world and most of us are mere pawns in the game.

Walk this way

On Saturday I linked to THIS report. Paul Toole, one of the two men at the centre of the story, subsequently got in touch to tell us that he is organising a "protest walk" in Wells, Somerset, this Saturday, July 14th. 

"We will all meet at Penniless Porch, Cathedral Green, Wells, at 12 midday, and will continue down the High Street, ending at The Sherston Inn, Glastonbury Road. Please come and support us, if not in opposition to the ban but for freedom of choice!!"

To demonstrate our support we have donated 75 Forest t-shirts featuring our 'Fight the ban: fight for choice' logo. For more information call Paul on 01749 672747 or 07722852224.

Update on Friday, July 13, 2007 by Simon Clark

Spoke to Paul again this morning. He has never done anything like this before and is rather nervous! The walk, he says, will take about 30 minutes. Estimated number of walkers vary from 70 to 200. En route Paul will address Saturday shoppers via his own professional sound system and there will also be some stirring music - Elgar's Pomp and Circumstance was mentioned! If you live anywhere near Wells, please support this initiative.

Update on Sunday, July 15, 2007 by Simon Clark

Paul's business partner Chris Elliot told the BBC that some 40 people took part in the walk. Report HERE.

Nothing to lose?

On my way home from Blackpool yesterday I took a short detour and dropped in on the Swan Hotel in Bolton. Landlord Nick Hogan - who has been defying, very publicly, the smoking ban - was unavailable, so I ordered a drink, took a seat, and had a look around.

It was early afternoon so there were less than a dozen customers, a couple of whom were sitting, outside, in the courtyard. Given the time of day, most were middle-aged or elderly, although the Swan is clearly aimed at a younger clientele. (The sound system, dance floor and disco ball were fairly obvious clues!)

Inside, several people were smoking, ignoring the 'No Smoking' signs that, somewhat incongruously, have been put up in compliance with the law. A letter, photocopied on A4 paper, had been placed on each table. Addressed 'To whom it might concern', it read:

As of 1st July 2007 the government has made it illegal to smoke in enclosed public spaces. Any persons found to be smoking within these spaces may be fined up to £50 or receive a court appearance. The management and staff of The Swan believe you have the freedom to choose whether or not you wish to smoke. If you choose to smoke it is entirely your responsibility and for persons who do not smoke you have the freedom of choice whether or not you enter this private establishment.

According to reports, the council has issued the landlord with a written warning. Nick says he wants his day in court and will continue to ignore the ban. Some of you have questioned why other publicans aren't taking a similar stand. The truth is, few publicans can risk being fined up to £2,500 (plus costs) or, worse, losing their licence.

If councils value local pubs, let's hope the majority take a sensible, pragmatic approach to the ban - or, better still (but less likely), support efforts to amend the legislation. If not, we could see an increasing number of 'for sale' signs outside Britain's pubs and clubs.

Update on Friday, July 13, 2007 by Simon Clark

Conspiracy theorists on this blog (there are a few!) may be wondering what happened to the comments on this post. Truth is, I accidentally deleted them by hitting the wrong button. If I get a moment later today I will try to restore them.

Illuminating Blackpool

I am currently in Blackpool, sussing out venues for a Forest/Free Society event at the 2007 Conservative party conference. (Next week I will be in Bournemouth, doing the same for this year's Labour conference.) We arrived last night - fresh from sunny Cambridgeshire - to be greeted by rain, wind and brown choppy waves crashing on the beach.

Last year, at the Tory conference in Bournemouth, we hosted a speakeasy-themed prohibition party that attracted 400 people with hotel staff having to turn others away for reasons of "health and safety". By all accounts it was the best fringe event of the year. According to the Financial Times:

In addition to tobacco smoke, the air was thick with warnings about further restrictions on drinking and eating. Guests swilled down champagne and Kalashnikov vodka and guzzled "politically incorrect canapes" - not for those with high cholesterol. 

Ranald Macdonald, founder of the Boisdale restaurants where cigar smoking is encouraged, declared his opposition to the ban - and was promptly arrested by three improbable-looking policemen. But there are still battles to be won if the Tories are really to be the party of liberty, according to Forest, the pro-smoking campaign that co-sponsored the evening."

So, a hard act to follow. The major problem this year is finding a venue that is 'smoker-friendly' - and legal. In practice this means finding a room in a prime conference location that offers direct access to a smoking area. It's not perfect but we think we've found one. Sadly - given the limitations of budget and location  - the scale of the event will be very much smaller than last year's production, so we will try to be even more inventive. Watch this space.

Liberty and law - challenging the smoking ban

The following was posted by RedCat as a comment on another post. We removed it not because it isn't interesting in its own right but because it had nothing to do with the post in question and effectively killed the thread. If you want to raise lengthy issues that aren't mentioned in the blog posts feel free to drop me a note (click on Email Simon). I can't guarantee they will feature (as I keep saying, this is a blog not a message board) but they will be considered.

On this occasion - given the current interest in judicial reviews as a means of challenging the smoking ban - I'm sure many of you will find RedCat's analysis illuminating:

As someone who has just completed a post grad in Law I am interested in the judicial review of [the smoking ban]. However, a challenge through judicial review has certain problems. Any law made by Parliament cannot be overturned by the courts because of Parliamentary Supremacy (no matter how unreasonable the law).

However, any decision of any government body may be subject to judicial review. Since the Human Rights Act 1998 all new laws have to have a declaration of compatibility with this Act when they pass through Parliament, so this law will have been declared to be compatible with the Human Rights Act.

In judicial review a judge could decide to make a declaration of incompatibility - that is, the Act is not compatible with HRA 1998. If this were to happen then the Executive would be given the opportunity to amend the Act so that it was compatible, by removing anything incompatible. However, whether or not to do so would be the decision of the Executive so even if this Act is declared incompatible they would be unlikely to change it.

Unfortunately the courts do not have the power to force Parliament to change bad law. The only way that a law can be changed is by another Act of Parliament that repeals all or part of it. One way of attempting to challenge this law would therefore be for as many people who are against this law as possible to contact all the MPs who voted against it and ask each and every one of them to bring forward a private members bill asking for exemptions to the original law. Any such bill being passed would repeal the offending parts of the Health Act.

Another way forward would be a challenge to the European Court of Justice. Within European Union law each country signd up to the Treaty agrees to abide by certain rules. One of the areas covered is that of competition law. Within this area no government has the right to impede businesses from competing with other businesses of a similar type.

This protection prevents member states preferring home grown businesses over those of other member states. However, the law also provides that they cannot do anything to impede any business from competing on a level playing field by merit of any domestic law even when the businesses affected are only those within their own country.

A challenge could be made against this law on this basis. The fact that some pubs have the facilities to provide outside smoking areas while others are street locked and do not have the facilities is preventing the street locked bars from competing fully in the hospitality market. Their ability to compete is impeded directly by a domestic law which has not allowed for protective exemptions in the way that other member states have with their smoking legislation.

If this analysis is correct (I'm no expert but it's very similar to other advice I have seen) the best hope of a successful challenge lies with a wealthy publican or a millionnaire club owner (Dave West, perhaps?) whose business is under direct threat. I'm sorry to disappoint some of you, but challenging the legislation on the grounds of "smokers' rights" is not - and never has been - a serious option.

Smoking ban song on DVD

Last year, in the wake of the smoking ban in Scotland, we were sent a very funny (well, it made us laugh) song by Glasgow musician Terry Moore called 'The Smoking Ban Song'. Featuring Tam ("the smoke detector") and Ross ("who couldn't give a toss"), the lyrics (expletives deleted) included lines such as:

My name is Tam and I'm yer man
I'm here to enforce the smokin' ban
I used to be a bus inspector
Now I'm an official smoke detector

Oh, is that right?
Well, my name is Ross an' I couldn't give a toss
Don't dae this, don't dae that,
Ye cannae sneeze, ye cannae fart

Don't hit yer kids, don't pick your nose,
Don't have sex, you might catch a dose
Ye cannae park here, ye don't park there,
The blue meanies are everywhere

Now, with the ban in place throughout the UK, Terry has produced a limited edition, 12-minute DVD featuring 'The Smoking Ban Song' plus a number of (very Scottish!) sketches. (If you're familiar with the likes of Gregor Fisher you'll have some idea of the style.)

To order click HERE. If you want the song but not the DVD, you can still download the former as an MP3 file. 

Tory paternalism a threat to freedom

The Conservative party's Social Justice Policy Group will tomorrow publish a 200,000-word report, commissioned by David Cameron (above) and written by former party leader Iain Duncan-Smith.

Weekend reports say that in order to tackle Britain's "binge drinking culture" IDS will recommend increasing tax on alcohol, adding 7p on the price of a pint of beer and 20p on a bottle of wine (ie 4p a glass).

Now, I don't pretend to know much Britain's "binge drinking culture" (other than the fact that I am one of those who undoubtedly consume more than the "recommended" units of alcohol each week), but I do know that politicians whose knee-jerk response to any 'problem' is to tax and legislate must be challenged. If - after rigorous debate - they can justify their actions, fine, but there has to be a full and open discussion that is not dominated by "experts", campaigners and woolly thinking paternalists.

Worryingly, a reader of this blog reports that when he wrote to David Cameron about the smoking ban he received the following response:

Dear Martin,

The Government's ban on smoking in public places has now come into force. Whatever one's own views, it is very clear that public opinion has demanded a ban on smoking in public places for some time. There is also a considerable body of scientific evidence to point to the harmful health effects of second-hand smoke.

While the smoking ban certainly does place restrictions on where people can smoke, it does not ban what is still a lawful activity and people are free to smoke in their own homes and outdoors where the impact of their smoke on others will be minimal. The Government has now published five sets of regulations which set out the detail of smokefree legislation. You can view these within the policy and guidance section of the Department of Health website.

They are all currently being considered by Parliament, where we have raised some reservations, for example about smoking in vehicles, prisons and mental health units. Nevertheless we hope that the Bill and its regulations will play a positive role in reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and, in turn, help to improve public health.

It is clear that we need to tackle smoking, just as we need to tackle the other causes of ill-health. Without action, what should be preventable ill-health in its various forms will cost the country an extra £30 billion a year by the 2020s.

It is important to remember that we're all in this together - individuals, families, communities, and Government, as well as employers, have a social responsibility to ensure that we do not place unnecessary pressures on our stretched NHS services in the years to come. Of course, employers will have to come to their own decisions about whether it is worth their while to provide stop smoking support.

While stop smoking advice at work is a matter for employers, we can say what a future Conservative Government would do. Three-quarters of NHS bodies are currently cutting their 'stop smoking' budgets as a result of the NHS financial crisis, so we would ring-fence these budgets to ensure that they are used for what they were intended: helping people to stop smoking.

The author of this letter is someone called 'Alice Sheffield' but, as Martin points out, "It could just as easily have been penned by the icy fingers of the sadly departed Patricia Hewitt herself." Forest will be writing to David Cameron, taking issue with many of the points in Alice Sheffield's letter. I strongly suggest that others do too.

Smoking ban: case studies

In the wake of the smoking ban, Forest is working on a number of projects. They include a series of case studies designed to highlight the petty, almost farcical, nature of the ban. Here's one:

"I am a 56 yr old, long distance lorry driver. I start work on Monday and get back home Fri night/Sat morning. Since Sunday July 1st my company, has banned me and others from smoking in our cabs. The reason given is that someone else drives my lorry for four weeks out of 52. I have two weeks hols in spring, and two in the autumn.

"Bear in mind, my lorry is my home, Monday to Friday. I have my laptop, TV/DVD player, fridge, etc, yet I cannot smoke in the cab, even when my work is done for the day and I am no longer  getting paid. What possible damage could I be doing to others by smoking in my cab? There is at least a 48 hr break between me, finishing for my hols on a Friday, and someone else getting in the lorry on Monday.

"I have a responsible job, driving 44 tonnes of steel on the highways and byways of Britain. One mistake and I could wipe out quite a number of people. That's responsibility, yet I can't un-stress myself with a fag. And, if I do stop for a smoke, I can't lean against the lorry while I'm smoking. I have to be two metres away. What rubbish."

If you would like to describe, in a similar vein, how the ban affects you, email info@forestonline.org. Another example can be found HERE.