Suffering in silence
Sunday, July 1, 2007 
You've got to laugh. All week we were anticipating a media blitz, beginning on Friday. I was primed. Neil Rafferty (another Forest spokesman) was on red alert. And yet - it hasn't happened. Thanks to events outside our control (flash floods, car bombs and the Glasgow Airport attack), we have been dumped by CNN, Sky News, BBC Breakfast and News 24.
Only Voice of America and New Delhi TV went ahead with pre-arranged interviews - which is why I am sitting in my London office, on a Sunday afternoon, munching chocolate, reading the papers and watching Sky while waiting for calls that never come. Ironically, I turned down an appearance on BBC1's regional Politics Show - broadcasting live from a dog track in Brighton - saying I was needed in London. Doh!
What does this tell us? Well, it certainly isn't a conspiracy. Unexpected things happen and when they do the priorities of news editors can change in an instant. That's why anything that involves the news media is so precarious and the outcome so unpredictable. It's like organising a barbecue. You're dependent on the weather and if you get hit by a tropical thunderstorm at the last minute you're well and truly f***ed.
Truth is, the introduction of the ban isn't 'our' story so the pro-choice lobby was always going to struggle to be heard this weekend. (To use another analogy, Labour has dominated the media this week because Blair stepping down and Brown succeeding him as PM is 'their' story. The Tories just had to make themselves available and hope to pick up a few scraps, like George Osborne's interview on Sunday AM this morning.) But it is frustrating that events have conspired to silence us, apart from the odd comment HERE and THERE - and HERE.
Simon Clark
In the absence of Andrew Marr (an ex-smoker and a friend of David Hockney), Sunday AM was presented by Peter Sissons. A non-smoker, Peter was joined for the review of the papers by another non-smoker, Fiona Bruce, who welcomed the ban, and Simon Hoggart of the pro-ban Guardian. Hoggart is an ex-smoker (60-a-day, apparently) who, surprise, surprise, doesn't like Forest. A few weeks ago, in the Guardian, he made a disparaging reference to "Forest, the displeasing pro-tobacco lobby", and followed it by saying, "Their predecessors were no doubt around centuries ago defending the right of householders to empty their chamber pots into the street." Today, picking up on a quote I gave the Sunday Telegraph, he repeated his little 'joke'. Simon, it wasn't funny, or clever, the first time. Drop it.
Reader Comments (9)
Suffering in silence - there has been very little media coverage of anything apart from the official news reports pro-ban. Our new prime minister today maintained we should fight against those attempting to destroy the British way of life! Greatly ironic. One of our most enjoyable and traditional ways of life has been abolished overnight by our own government. And - what's more - they have helped us to now be subjected to what will become a new British way of life - threat of terrorism. Perhaps Gordon Brown and his new government should start to look at themselves -
after all, they are indirectly responsible for the bombings and upheaval now ie. the foreign policy and decisions under Blair which have led to those who now wage terrorist activities on British soil. If they spent as much time, money and publicity on encouraging people to come forward with information re: those who would kill/maim our citizens instead of snooping on and criminalising tobacco smokers, perhaps we would maintain a good British way of life. Tobacco smokers are being given marginally more negative publicity than terrorists or is this a figment of my imagination?
Jenny
Your right, I think all those science fiction films we watched years ago are now reality.
But one important fact is that some “anti smoking cults” convert (Hoggart) can, without any consequences offend the Forest that for years fight for smokers right.
Before we demand or expect some progress in movement for smoker’s right we need to find way how to protect leading activists from harassment.
We need to form formidable political organisation.
It is utterly predictable that the smoking ban has been barely mentioned on any of the news programmes. I did see one article on ITV news, but this was aimed at tips on how to give up; this is interesting considering the Government categorically deny the ban is aimed at forcing people to give up but at protecting people from second hand smoke. They have to take this line because they are constitutionally prohibited against legislating for the good of an individual's health or religion, but can legislate against things that 'harm others'.
Anyway, back to the point, obviously there have been dominant news stories within the news in the last week, but the news programmes have still managed to focus on some less major stories, such as the Princess Diana concert, Wimbledon (Oh no its raining) etc. The fact is that the Government don't want too much attention drawn to the smoking ban as in a 'democratic' society coverage of this story would also have to allow the dissenters to have their say and if they do they may rally support against it.
The Government want the ban to come in with as little murmur as possible - they brought it in in July because they thought the impact would be less because of the 'better weather' (I must say its made me glad its rained, more impact). In this the Government have covertly admitted there will be an impact which is the same as admitting this is not a popular measure (though ASH claim smokers are embracing the ban - name three!) Let's not take this lying down.
RedCat; The MSM (mainstream media) are the running dogs of the ruling class. The law starting on July 1st is a clue, as you say, that the government wants to pretend this is a popular measure. If the MSM were truly independent they would have asked seemingly obvious questions some time ago. Like;
If the majority of people want this then what has stopped them from just making it happen by opening smoke free pubs and clubs or demanding it from those that are not already smoke free?
Are pub and club owners so stupid they miss a chance to make a lot of money catering to all this pent up demand?
If there will be no resistance to the law then why is there a need to spend £30 on smoke police?
That should obviously have said £30 million.
I heard the comment the other day on the news, can't remember which one, but it said the ban is not intended as persecution of smokers but as protection for others. I said to my husband that is the biggest joke I have heard in a long time - don't they realise that smokers are now the only ones that can be legally discriminated against? Unfortuntately, my fear is this is what will happen, especially where jobs are concerned. The only way around this is for the question 'are you a smoker' to be abolished from application forms and interviews, but I doubt it will happen.
Of course they knew this was not going to be a popular measure, it is quite clear that a mode of behaviour which everyone wants does not have to be enforced by Law - as Bernie has said, if all pubs wanted to be smoke free they would have had the proprietorial right to introduce the measure themselves. It has been legislated for in order to force compliance (compliance, not cooperation). It is also interesting that there was no mention of a blanket ban in the white paper and the blanket ban was indeed not mentioned until the last reading in Parliament of the Bill - if it had been in the first reading there would have been an opportunity for groups who did not agree with the Law to lobby Parliament on the actual issues raised and for individuals to lobby their MPs and get them to actually represent the views of their constituents when they voted (which is supposed to be how democracy works). Of course the fact that this opportunity was not afforded throws up questions of whether this legislation has been passed using the correct procedures.
I have been checking newspapers and news programmes and there is still silence about this ban.
I can only say cigarettes are legal to buy, and alcohol also, why is alcohol allowed to be drunk in a certain place but fags are not, because one person in five who uses the establishment does not smoke, not democratic. The person who runs the establishment should be the one who dcides who smokes or not, not the government.