Rumour and reality
Friday, July 13, 2007 
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.
Reader Comments (51)
Simon, you seem very resigned to the fact that we are all pawns while playing down the feelings of many pubs to this ban.A defeatist attitude if ever I heard one, and from the boss of Forest. Says a lot. What you should be doing is getting behind these people 100% and encouraging more and more to join them and defy, and create a growing unrest that the politicians and the media just cannot ignore.Just what is your job.
You seem amazingly sceptical about ANY protest, and I'm wondering why you give out NO encouragement to anyone to fight this.What exactly is your position. Are you instructed from above not to ruffle any feathers?
If you think that going through accepted political channels, that you're so used to, will achieve exemptions, then I'm afraid your either fooling yourself, or trying to fool everyonelse. Exemptions are called for by people who coudn't give a stuff about the rest of the establishments, the majority by far, who wouldn't be exempt.That's certainly not on!
The ONLY satisfactory way is to have choice for everyone, and that means overturning this law, and all the bile that it stands for.
As I've said before, they didn't expect a fight or want one, so lets give them one!
Yes, I have to wonder what 'voice of the smoker' actually means if Forest insists on putting a damper on these genuine attempts for smokers and smoker-dependent businesses to be heard. There seems to be no real recognition of the frustration, stress and despair many people are feeling.
I would happily make a contribution to Forest if I could only work out what Forest is actually going to DO about all this. As things are, I fail to see how Forest is speaking for me.
We are not being told the truth - a lot of real news is not getting through to ordinary people. The more the real truth gets out, the more people will want to defy this ban. The only way to overturn unpopular legislation is to get out there and show disapproval (eg. Poll Tax protests back in 1990). I have thought that people have been remarkably quiet and well-behaved throughout all this - too quiet, in fact. This ban is affecting and upsetting millions of people - the truth must be out there somewhere!
That's just it Jenny, if those millions of people had a central point to rally around, there's a chance they would be heard.
If Forest had a real and purposeful campaign that they could sign up to, it would be more likely to carry some weight.
I have to wonder how many of those millions even know that Forest exist.
Since I actually do know they exist, but can't work out what their plan of action is to 'Fight the ban', nor get an answer to that question, what hope is there for the rest of them?
Rumour and reality? Was it reality to expect the media, in all its forms,to give great coverage to the expensive 'Do' at the Savoy hotel? I think not. Simon, you should know by now, after all these years, that the smokers' rights extravaganzas etc.although enjoyable, are seen as a bit of fun, or even a freak show by the media, and as such will never be widely covered, as you would want them to be, or even known about by the majority of the public.
The reality is that if the smoking regulations, at work and play, were based on fairness to all, compromise and real scientific facts, then there would be no need for Forest. What would be the point, but they're not. Quite the opposite. So as Forest does exist, and is faced with this abborant law, which will have dire cosequences in this heavily populated country in a short time,when are you going to face this law head on, and show genuine support for any defiance, of what amounts to the most disgraceful, dictatorial law ever passed in Britain.
If you don't do that, then I can't honestly see the point of Forest existing.
I think the walk in Wells is an excellent idea - people who know about it in the area have the opportunity to join up and carry banners, placards and distribute relevant information to bystanders (showing useful websites such as Forest and other like-minded groups). The problem lies in the fact that such events as the 'Wells Walk' won't get into national papers or be given any real publicity because it will show people protesting against
the draconian government line when we are all supposed to be so happy about this and welcome it!! Well we are happy, aren't we?!!
Zitori and Gerry H;
I think we three, and perhaps others, are the "conspiracy theorists" Simon referred in his update to the previous post.
We have all raised similar questions about Simon yet his only response so far is to say that he accidentally deleted our comments (and might "if he has time" restore them later today) and dismissed them as conspiracy theories. So he must have read them in order to form such an opinion.
A very basic PR idea is that when people have no answers to their questions they will fill in the gaps themselves and they will seldom fill them in favorably. Not knowing that, or choosing to ignore it, makes Simon at the very least a liability as a PR man for FOREST.
Reading his press releases on the FOREST site I can only conclude that if he is not in the direct pay of ASH or the pharma companies then he is a wonderful boon to them anyway. He doesn't overtly state the ASH line but he doesn't challenge on anything but things he will lose on.
He tacitly agrees that SHS is highly dangerous and then asks for exemptions. If it is agreed that SHS is highly dangerous and that the government has a right to intervene to remove the danger how can the government possibly justify exemptions? If they do so on the grounds that some publicans should have the right to choose but others shouldn't they would be illogical as they would still be allowing the great danger of SHS to be exposed to people.
If they lifted the ban for reasons of liberty they would be accused of not caring about health. But if they lifted the ban because SHS is shown to be b/s and they really don't have the right to interfere with property rights then they would look honorable even if still gullible. The last is the only strategy I can see that doesn't look like smokers are being excused their disgusting habit.
Answer the questions Simon. They will not go away by just dismissing them as "conspiracy theories". And while you are at it answer the post on my blog "Forest, Friend or Foe?"
www.icanhelpit.co.uk/blog
I have been advocating a boycott for some time as the only way to defeat the ban. Financially hurting the government would have the ban rescinded. FOREST should be organising cheap flights to European countries where we could buy our legal allowance and have a break at the same time. The cigarette companies could open supermarkets at the airports so their own sales would not suffer.
The savings for a one packet a day person would finance these trips and the idea of 4 weekend breaks a year would appeal. I personally do it using the low cost airlines but if organised from all regional airports the impact on the Exchequer would be horrendous and they would have to back down.
We owe the publicans and the breweries nothing. Other than a few exceptions they have caved in and bought the government line so if some go bust then that is additional losses for the Exchequer in VAT, PAYE and income tax. This would only hasten the demise of this awful piece of legislation.The poll tax was abolished when it hurt financially so this act can be destroyed also.
No exemptions, total abolition.
Good to see some interesting ideas coming through. I hope Forest will take note.
I'd be very curious to know what the Forest dinner acheived in real terms. Since I haven't seen anything other than a little press attention, I am wondering whether it was just a chance for the privileged to have a knees up.
Meanwhile poor little old ladies contract illnesses from being thrown out in the rain for a smoke.
Which of those do you think is most deserving of press and ministerial attention? Which of these forms the basis of an effective campaign?
I am simply at a loss to understand why Forest seems so focused on the upper echelons.
Simon, I really, really wish you would throw your weight behind this defiance. With the weight of Forest behind it, it would have a much greater chance of success. Just think of what you could gain!
I post these quotes in the hope that they might help fire the belly of Forest and propel it forward:
"Loss of freedom seldom happens overnight. oppression doesn't stand on the doorstep with toothbrush moustache and swastika armband -- it creeps up insidiously... step by step, and all of a sudden the unfortunate citizen realizes that it is gone. "
Baron Lane
"The history of an oppressed people is hidden in the lies and the agreed myth of its conquerors."
Meridel Le Sueur
"When any government, or church for that matter, undertakes to say to it's subjects, this you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motive."
Robert Heinlein
"Everybody knows there is no fineness or accuracy of suppression; if you hold down one thing, you hold down the adjoining."
Saul Bellow
"You cannot raise the standard against oppression, or leap into the breach to relieve injustice, and still keep an open mind to every disconcerting fact, or an open ear to the cold voice of doubt."
Learned Hand
"No oppression is so heavy or lasting as that which is inflicted by the perversion and exorbitance of legal authority."
Joseph Addison
"He that undervalues himself will undervalue others, and he that undervalues others will oppress them."
Johnson
"Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others. "
John F. Kennedy
"The Government of the absolute majority instead of the Government of the people is but the Government of the strongest interests; and when not efficiently checked, it is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised. "
John C. Calhoun
"The oppression of any people for opinion's sake has rarely had any other effect than to fix those opinions deeper, and render them more important"
Hosea Ballou
"They have given us into the hand of new unhappy lords. Lords without anger and honour, who dare not carry their swords. They fight by shuffling papers; they have bright dead alien eyes; They look at our labor and laughter as a tired man looks at flies. "
Gilbert K. Chesterton
"Even today a crude sort of persecution is all that is required to create an honourable name for any sect, no matter how indifferent in itself. "
Friedrich Nietzsche
There are now at least 1600 pubs across the UK allowing smokers to smoke in the pub. the publicans have realised how much money they are losing and knowing they have nothing to lose they are lighting up again. if they bring in the ban, they go bust, so what the heck. if we were given what the Labour Party promised us in their last Manifesto every thing now would be OK, but they lied to us and now will have the problems of a full Judicial Review in the High Court in London. stand up for your rights and find a smoking pub, if every one did this the law would be changed within days.
Tony Blows
Simon, something you have that most of us don't, is access to senior politicians. Perhaps you could point them to the following article and then ask them to look in the mirror. If they can still face themselves, that is.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/250407antismoking.htm
Michael,
I run trips to belgium up to 4 times a month,if the robbing gits known as HMRC even suspect you are a regular traveller,(which is is even easier for them now because of all the added security, your passport is swiped into their system,)you will have your goods taken away, even if you try to reason with them,then you are threatened with arrest for verbal abuse,I dont bother bringing anything back now because it just is not worth the hassle.
Unfortunately this will be my last posting on here because I no longer feel that FOREST is no longer "the voice and friend of the smoker."
Hello, I really think that many pubs and clubs to will close down altogther. I was told by a taxi driver that he have the rights to refuse a smoker if that smoker has smoked 15 mins before being picked up. This is real madness. Yet the drinkers still drink and throw up in Taxis. At least us smokers are a peaceful lot. But this Law is so daft and where are those Smoking POLICE?Its so so sad the NANNY country we all live in now. Many resterraunts too will close down as they too have banned smoking from the OUTSIDE. regards AmandaH
amandah,
Presumably, if your taxi driver is employed by a firm it's just that company's policy not to accept a fare from...someone-who-smells-of-cigarettes-so-must-have-had-a-cigarette-in-the-past-15mins. I'd be writing to the company challenging their incredible stupidity and I'd make sure that the company was told that you would be advising your MANY, MANY friends that you'd be boycotting them.
I have the personal mobile numbers of taxi drivers who allow me to smoke. I do not drive and use taxis a lot. If they do not like it they do not get the business.
With regard to comments on this blog about Simons' apparent defeatist attitude towards this email and other issues on this site in the past, I feel its a case of Simon does not smoke and at the end of his day he can sit back without worrying about being treated as a second class citizen or the weather when considering going out, this smoking ban has not affected his life like it has ours, he cannot possibly feel the anger and rage that we feel and sheer frustration.
When you hear smokers talk it comes from their hearts because its an issue directly affecting them and not just a job.
Hi Tony. Where are all these pubs that allow smoking? I can't find one near me in Birmingham!
Tony - I can't find one near me in Yorkshire. How do you know this and how can we find out?
Forest have made their position very clear they think the fight has been lost, Freedom to Choose do not. We have increased our membership considerably since the announcement of the Judicial Review. Many of these new members are from Forest. They too feel Simon is failing them. If you want a real fight go to www.freedom2choose.co.uk. Together we can win.
Robert Feal-Martinez
Further to my last post. It is time Simon Clark resigned his total apathy on this issue is appalling. FOREST have totally lost site of the fact that pubs customer base is 75% smoking. With the right support at an early stage from FOREST this would not have happened. Frankly Simon Clark is a disgrace.
Jenny... take a trip across the M62 and go to The Swan or The Barristers in Bolton
Alison, that's a very good point. I hadn't considered it.
You also mention that this is Simon's job, and I think Forest needs to realise that for many of us our jobs are actually under threat due to these bans. Not just the pubs, clubs and shisha bars that will close, but the fact that, as this noose tightens, employers are likely to become more reluctant to employ smokers. If it goes the way it has in the U.S., we will reach a stage where neighbours will have us evicted from our homes if a whisp of smoke drifts across their fence. So our livelihoods and our lives are at threat here. We are likely to become a new underclass, no matter how educated or intelligent we are, no matter how much good we've done in our lives, we will become no more than dogshit - because all that will matter is that we dare to enjoy a habit that others dislike the smell of (and I firmly believe that that is what this really all about).
None of these things affect a non-smoker directly, but one would hope that they would be incensed enough by this persecution of 14 million people who are paying over the odds to prop up the NHS even though they themselves will be denied treatment, ALL on the basis of the tiniest (if any) risk, to really fight for them.
Perhaps non-smokers will begin to understand when their body fat calculation becomes a condition of employment - where, if they're going through a bereavement or a divorce and they start to comfort eat, they can get fired for it, and when the mere smell of a fried egg cooking can get them evicted from their home.
Of the two pubs in Wedmore, Somerset that I go to, one, one day this week, had about 10 people outside smoking with no-one inside, not even anyone behind the bar. The other one is trying to enforce the ban, even though they serve no food and the family that runs it all smoke. It has caused bad feeling and an immediate fractured atmosphere as people moving in and out to smoke disrupts the noemally easy conversation. How can you or someone organise and co-ordinate a mass disobedience to this. If enough pubs agreed to let people smoke for, say, one hour at 7.30 on a Friday evening, it would be impossible to police and maybe show the bad thinking behind the legislation. It worked for the Poll Tax and hunting. The English have a tradition of overturning inequitable legislation. Please let me know how you think this can be done.
Simon
You are not responding.
Do Something constructive, or give way to someone who can.
private clubs are regarded in law as an extension of their members' homes, ergo if it's legal to smoke at home then it is legal to smoke in a club
I don't wish to discredit Forest for all the lobbing they have done over the years but their approach has just not been aggressive enough, and, it has been far too polite. I am sad about this as there is an organisation that is now in the doldrums. However, Simon, now that there are plenty of acts of defiance going on and many more planned, Forest should throw its weight much more heavily behind the concerted actions of many people by giving LOUD vocal support. Failure to do this will confirm many people's worst suspicions that either Forest has given up, or, that has now become a sort of fifth column for tobacco control.
Indeed, Simon, it is nice of you to permit people to post so frankly on this blog but can Forest please stop pussy footing around with the antis; it just doesn't work because they are not reasonable people.
And please, please can Forest be much more selective about the news posts it has going up the centre of its site. A lot of them are extremely negative and not only run contrary to the notion of a pro-choice site but are downright depressing and counter productive!
On the FOREST website you indicated a massive increase in the number of 'hits' in the run up to, and post implementation of the smoking ban. These people, many new to FOREST, will have come to the site in the belief that FOREST was the most likely organisation to have a plan in mind, some action against the ban, some means of connecting the many smokers who feel isolated and alone in their fury and opposition to the ban.
I can well understand the huge dissapointment, anger and frustration that people feel at what seems to be a 'rollover' by FOREST, and its reluctance to harness this anger and give it a direction and strategy for making known the massive opposition to the ban. People are afraid to act alone, uncertain that anyone else even feels the same way. For eveyone you know who has openly voiced their opposition, there will be many more who would join the backlash, if they knew they were not alone.
This is how Unions came to be, how women got the vote, how slavery was outlawed, how the poll tax was defeated - by a small number of people being drawn together, growing in number and making their voices heard in the face of establishment opposition to their cause.
The name of this blog indicates what we know to be true - Freedoms and liberties ARE being taken from us. How do you suppose they can be taken back? By surrender?? I think not - indeed the lack of organised resistance will only serve to embolden those who would seek to dominate and direct every aspect of our lives having established their right to do so'for our own - or the public good'.I should think the late Chris Tame, famed libertarian and former director of FOREST will be spinning in his grave at the proliferation of the nanny state and our inaction in the face of it.
With regard to the smoking ban, the way ahead is clear, the disection and destruction of the myth of ETS.FOREST patron Joe Jackson is entirely correct that the premis of smoke bans EVERYWHERE rest upon this house of cards. It should be THE focus of FOREST in the future, as without it we may as well all give in.
Finally, in another posting you stated that the idea of 'smokers rights' was a non starter.I find it incredible that this statement should come from the director of an organisation dedicated to the FREEDOM and RIGHT to enjoy smoking tobacco!!
However, if this is the view now held, perhaps the acronym FOREST should be amended to stand for the Futile Organisation Resigned (to) Extremist Smoking Tyranny
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I do not want to brownnose Simon but I have to write in support. The last thing we want to be as smokers is divided. I think some of the comments here are unfair, but I do agree we should be more millitant. I think the total ban came as a complete shock to everyone. John Reid who was the architect was going to allow non food pubs and private members clubs to continue smoking. Hewitt got carried away. Forest gives us a respectable and establishment type image and you have to infer that Simon does get the smokers message across in the media in quality and quantity. It is the bias in the media that is our problem. If we come across and inarticulate yobbos we will be marginalised. So lets all calm down have a fag and be united, we do not want to be the victims of divide and rule.
Dave, we already ARE the victims of divide and rule, executed beautifuly by HMG and ASH on a hospitality industry that was too busy with protectionism to see the endgame. There ARE no level playing fields, never were. Had the pubcos and clubs united against any outright ban proposals, we might have stood a chance. In the end, and despite what they say, they did not have sufficient confidence in their product to believe that smokers would not abandon the pubs en- mass join their local Wheel Tappers and Shunters Club. They did not think that in that event, they had a good enough product to win new customers following a ban. Instead they ensured that their smoking customers got shafted EVERYWHERE.
Liz Barber you are spot on.
Dave Atherton you are not :-)
Dave were it a minor issue about the colour of the banners we should be carrying I would agree that we shouldn't be divisive. But where a reading of Simon's actual press releases, not just the bits that got through the media filters, reveal him to be in total agreement with the ASH/pharma/government line barring the fact that he thinks we'd have a fairer fascist state if we had a few exemptions then I think it totally justified to take him to task.
Read the man's own press releases. If you just wanted to console smokers and publicans over losing completely you couldn't do a better job than what he says in those.
Simon
I have spoken to you at lenghth regarding the smoking ban and the consequences and you educated me in various departments, however, with the ban now two weeks old I am experiencing more and more frustration from people I talk to regarding their rights
Only last week there was talk of taxing fatty foods to prevent obesity and tax on alchahol to combat binge drinking - where does this stop.
As you know I am organising an evening at my local pub with live music, hog roast etc to promote FOREST, under a very large structure our landlord has just forked out £6500.00 for - totally in compliance with the no smoking laws.
We hope to attract around 300 people together with local mp's and press together with local radio advertising.
I must say though, I tend to agree with some of the comments posted earlier, there appears a defeatest attitude from FOREST and maybe it is time the joined forces with an organisation such as freedom2choose to regain the momentum.
This is not a reflection upon you or your organisation but just possibly the public anger is growing too fast for FOREST to deal with alone.
To Bernie and Liz,
Thanks for your replies. I agree that the tobacco companies and breweries have been cravern in dealing with the government. I also agree we have to be more millitant too, I am. I have had 3 confrontational conversations with the jobsworths. However I still stand by my original points that we have to have a respectable front and not come across as too aggressive. We must not fragment and descend into fractricide.
That's all very well Dave.
I see that Simon has been Taking Liberties. He took the liberty of banning two posters, Andrew and Bob F-M for daring to suggest that he picked up the pace a little and started fighting back, instead of appearing to be a diluted version of the opposition.
The message seems to be quite clear: agree with me, or I will ban you.
Nice.
Richard
I think there may be a clue in the name - but where will this hog roast take place? - and have you taken steps to ensure that no carcenogenic fumes will be released into the lungs of nearby anti smokers ( in Devon, for example) by roasting of said hog?
With regard to the FOREST/Simon issue, I have met Simon on a number of occasions,most recently at the 'Revolt in Style' dinner held at The Savoy Hotel in London. There were media people everywhere, in numbers that no other organisation has come close to enticing to cover their 'events'. There were celebs, MPs and more 'posh folk' than this nothern lass has seen in one room at any time - giving lie to the idea that the only people still smoking are the white trash of the land.
I do not wish to see FOREST loose credibility or support - far from it. FOREST remains the highest profile organisation in the anti - anti-tobacco sphere.However, I have to say that Simon, being the gentleman he is, is not given to gutter fighting. Until recently, the pro/anti smoking issue retained a sense of proportion and good humour which suited his style completely.
Those days are gone. The new reality in which we find ourselves is one of lies, distortion, fearmongering and encouraged intollerance being employed against smokers and smoking. Whilst Simon may baulk at the 'more millitant and extreme' views on sites such as US Forces, one only has to read what has already happened in the US to understand which way the wind will blow here.
The only response to the aggressive and frankly terrorist tactics being employed by the anti smoking lobby is to meet them head on, and with equally aggressive vigour.
The public SHOULD know that ASH and the WHO are funded by HMG and BigPharma,in exchange for promoting their nicotine replacement products, that they not only condone, but actively encourage policies of refusing housing, employment and healthcare insurance to smokers in the US, that they distort and misrepresent science, and encourage the intollerance towards, and segregation of decent, law abiding citizens from all areas of society because they smoke.They should be shown up for the lying, bullying thugs that they are. Until or unless we go on the attack they will continue unabated.
The time has come to get SERIOUS. What we need now,as Alice Cooper said, is a 'No more Mr Nice Guy'approach. I suppose I, like many, defered to FOREST as the established voice in the anti-anti smoking debate. However,if Simon and/or FOREST are unwilling or unable to take a more hardline stance then they should state their position and intentions, so that they cannot be accused of 'letting the side down', and leave it to the 'more millitant ' activists to carry the fight forward. This does not mean that FOREST, under Simon's directorship, has nothing to contribute, and I wholly agree that discord amongst pro choice groups is entirely counter productive.
I, too, share the frustration that's apparent on this and other threads on the blog. (I'm also, quite frankly, rather afraid; I live in a country whose government bases public policy on the recommendations of a vested interest group and then proceeds to drum up support for its implementation by demonising and promoting zero toleranceof law abiding people).
FOREST is, in essence, a political and media lobby group. The problem is that its lobbying has resulted in failure. So now what? There's no point in lobbying for exemptions. As, I think, Bernie said, SHS having been hyped as a killer, then no responsible government could countenance exemptions. Indeed, the only course of action open to a responsible government is to outlaw tobacco products altogether, which is, of course, the way ASH will be pushing even now.
Since the moral authority of this ban rests solely on the SHS myth and the SHS myth gives moral authority to extend it until tobacco becomes a legal product which it is illegal to consume, then only by exposing the lie can all this be halted. If lobbying has failed to do this then it seems to me that the only way forward is action from the bottom up. If FOREST's campaigns can't include the man in the street then I would hope that they at least direct people to sites that will welcome them. As for tactics, well, ASH stopped playing nice a long time ago.
BTW I think that FOREST could be fulfilling a useful practical function for smokers such as clarifying the powers of enforcement officers and the rights of smokers, gathering info re hotels that accommodate smokers and smoker friendly pubs. Someone else made the excellent suggestion that they organise cheap flights abroad for smokers.
I thinks we must forget the rights of smokers and concentrate on the rights of business and individual liciece owners to run their business as they see fit.
Forget the word 'militant' as this provokes a suggestion of violence and 'anti law'. We are peaceful people wanting what is rightfully ours - the freedom of choice. We are not 'anti smoker' but believe everyone can be accommodated within the law without discrimination.
Lets not turn this into a war, but instead fight within the law for common sense - together as one - lets not forget there are 12 million smokers and together maybe we can make a difference.
now i'm off for a glass of wine and a ciggie!
The law is the law. It is only enforcible if there is broad agreement. That appears to be the case at the moment, so the law needs to be changed.
The only way to achieve that is to persuade the people who make the laws to change it.
The 11 million who smoke do have the power to modify the law, if organised sensibly. The most powerful lobby group ever?
Can they do it?
Except that the 'war on smoking' has already been declared by the WHO and ASH - and it is that which lies (and lies) at the heart of this ban.
Rely on common sense to win the day when claims of SHS killing thousands of people AND PETS - yes, the RSPCA even got on the bandwaggon - are being taken as gospel by supposedly intelligent thinking people? I think we can reasonably assume any common sense regarding an activity as villified as smoking is long out of the window. In the current environment in fact it's as likely as giving paedophiles the benefit of the doubt and letting them in the play park.
As for business rights - not a chance. The success or failure of your pub/coffe shop/club matter not a whit to the anti smoking brigade, whose end justifies whatever means and business casualties.
Finally, if the word militant doesn't suit - pick another, as long as its antonym is weak, half hearted, inneffective and limp wristed.
What about a point I've seen raised elsewhere? Someone in another forum asked, when previously has HMG created legislation on the basis of an opinion poll of approx 1,000 people. It did seem that Hewitt used the 'public opinion has changed towards smoking' as the catalyst for the bans and the monstrously over-intrusive signage.
I wonder if there is a fundamental issue there in basing such intrusive and disruptive legislation on such a naff premise. Surely a referendum would be the only reliable source of asessing public opinion?
This is not a reflection upon you or your organisation but just possibly the public anger is growing too fast for FOREST to deal with alone. (Richard of Cornwall)
If that's true, then the debate here is probably entirely academic, because that anger will boil over onto the streets. There'll simply be no other place for it to go, once all political and legal redress has been forestalled.
There is an old Chinese saying 'Destroy the image and you will destroy the enemy''
There could not be a better time for this to make sense.
I believe that the resignation of Sir Liam Donaldson should be called for, no DEMANDED by Forest and all other organizations against this ban, using all the media connections they have. The reasoning being.....that he has brought dishonour to his profession by using scandalous claims about ETS that are blatant lies, not based on scientific facts, and furthering his fanatical anti-smoking stance with a fraud leading to immense mis-information, and a change of Law, and this CAN be proved in court.
Are you willing to do this Simon? Are you angry enough? I hope so.
His recently stated his wish to extend this ban to even more extreme levels, so this has to be done quickly. Anyone who occupies his position, and misleads to this degree needs to be exposed.
They may laugh at this at first,and that's why it needs to be repeated and repeated, until it registers with the public, it wouldn't be so funny then.It has to be unrelenting.
Learn from the Antis.
Remember 'Destroy the image'.
In light of Dr Andrew Wakefield being hauled before the GMC and accused of using misrepresentative/misleading data for his studies into autism and MMR is it not wholly approppriate to demand similar scrutiny of the ETS studies that claim to 'prove' the dangers of SHS? Should they too, not be subject to independant analysis, as Liam Donaldson, CMO has demanded in this case? The quality of many of these studies is so poor, the interpretation of the results so overstated and/or misrepresented that the editor of the BMJ has even expressed his concern.
Or does it depend on the product under examination -MMR good,SHS bad?
i have to throughly agree with zitori on this one.forest needs to face this ban head on and show support for defiance and put its backing into landlords like nick,tony and hamish who are defiying the law and making a stand.but most importantly DEMAND the resignation of sir {how can a man like him who has told that many lies become knighted?) liam donaldson.destroy the image.well said zitori.
I have quit smoking and I have lots of cigarretts that I have bought in the US, if anyone is interested, almost free!
thanks
Dear smokers, it would appear that from the above comments FOREST is not doing it’s job. That much is patently clear. I sadly concluded that some time ago.
Antony Worrall Thompson is a patron of Forest. Has anybody ever seen him interviewed on television criticising the ban – has he made any effort to do so?
Holding some lavish lunch in London does not represent the general smoking public. Having bigwigs enjoy themselves, only serves to massage their own egos.
As a pipe smoker of 37 years, who used to go out with a friend in Nottingham, who also smokes a pipe, our social life has been effectively destroyed. What is the point of meeting up now, if we can’t be allowed to smoke and drink at the same time in our favourite pubs? I am extremely angry…and FOREST is not angry enough. Simon should organize meetings with our famous patrons and come up with some kind of strategy, which will be effective.
Only non-smokers have been catered for…and smokers have effectively been ostracised from social integration.
I want to see a televised debate where the main anti-smoking protagonists like Sir Liam Donaldson, can be forensically questioned about any empirical evidence that they have, which has led to this draconian blanket ban.
Rather than have rich and famous patrons sat around on their well-upholstered backsides, how about devising some kind of effective strategy that would bring some useful results?
Come on FOREST…get angry!
I am an avid pro-smoker, but I am rapidly beginning to lose hope. I staunchly refuse to patronise places which do not provide pleasant outside areas to smoke. Many of my friends smoke, and I try to get them to do the same. But we do not have a Mediterranean climate in this country. We are a sociable group and have always enjoyed going out, but even I sometimes wonder what I'm doing sitting under an umbrella shivering in the cold. We try to make light of it, but it is making me so miserable. The problem is, I do not and have never liked people telling me what to do. I refuse to yield, probably to my own detriment. Perhaps I should just bow my head and accept the inevitable. I feel angry towards other smokers, too, because they just will not boycott these places. Only a few brave souls like us dare to take a stand against this dreadful law and try to bolster each other up. But I have an awful feeling that the public at large is either apathetic about it, or actively against us. Their minds have been poisoned against us. We are the devil incarnate!! If you'd said even ten years ago that things could have got this bad, most people would have laughed. I do believe it's a kind of brain-washing. It saddens and enfuriates me. We are the not the only country - this venom seems to be stretching out across the globe from Italy to Australia. I wish I could feel hopeful about the whole thing, but I feel smokers are their way out. We will be victimised, harrassed, bullied in petty and spiteful ways until the last vestiges of smoke disappears from our society.
It wont happen Kate. Smoking will always be around, and it may well get worse before it gets better,but once the effect of this ban in England starts to sink in, I believe the tide will start to turn. Helped, of course,by making everyone you can aware of the scandal that it is based on.
Simon
I’m sure you are aware that on August 1st, pub landlord, Hamish Howitt will be appearing at Blackpool magistrates court. He will be the first pub landlord to be prosecuted for flouting the ban on smoking in public places in England. His intention eventually will be to take his case to the Court of Human Rights.
Has FOREST sent any message of support, and will you somehow get some media attention to highlight this case.
How about this…perhaps well fed Antony Worrall Thompson could bake Hamish a cake to show his fulsome support…or better still…FOREST could organize one of it’s sumptuous dinners at the Dagenham working men’s club…oops! Savoy, and any money raised could help pay towards Hamish’s costs or fines.
Well – how about it?