Wednesday
Jun252008
First, I need some sleep!
Wednesday, June 25, 2008 
After a late night (following a 4.00am start), I have just got back from London and our Smoke-Free England? party at Boisdale. A report will follow later. For the moment I can record that an estimated 300 people turned up, including David Hockney (photographed, left, with yours truly), and our guest speakers were Philip Davies MP, UKIP leader Nigel Farage MEP, and "rebel landlord" Hamish Howitt who is standing in the Haltemprice & Howden by-election. More to follow.
BTW, Michael White, avuncular political editor of the Guardian, has THIS to say about the party. You can comment.
Reader Comments (15)
Glad the party went down well.
Wasn't that impressed by Michael White's article.
Majority of smokers have adapted to the ban? Really, Simon? Is this genuinely Forest's point of view? You obviously don't now as many smokers as I do and nor are you then aware of the levels of discontent. The fact that so many acts of resistance and protest - however humble - plus flouting of the ban take place all over country is not an indication of acceptance but its opposite. I have always said that Forest takes far too wishy-washy a line of approach and I have been proved correct again.
Thank you, Simon, for a very lively evening!
What struck me during my journey between hotel and Boisdale was how much provision had been made for smokers. One street that we passed could have been in Paris, there were so many tables and umbrellas. Life for smokers, at least in the centre of London, is much more pleasant than in my neck of the woods.
If the majority have accepted the ban, then who's going to worry about a few old addicts pushed out into the street. You've lost the battle right there Forest, by repeatimg Ash's own press releases. Unbelievable! Exemptions would not be worth the political trouble faced with such success.
But it isn't exemptions that are needed it's a destruction of this law as it stands. By asking for exemptions you are being seen to accept the fraud of the passive smoking hysteria, again losing the battle before you start.
Your Scottish representative ( his name escapes me)is always stating that 'I know smoking is bad but...'!
With this attitude your efforts are all dead in the water.
Well personally I have not set foot in a pub since they brought this ban in and I have no intention of doing so. I can tell you without a doubt that the majority of smokers have not accepted the ban and the way this government has treated them for buying a legal product from which it makes millions in tax. I would never vote Labour again or for any other political party that treats its citizens like this for buying a perfectly legal product.
Hi Simon me, my mate Bill and Anne had a great night out enjoyed the speeches. On acceptance of the ban, even I within certain crtiteria have "accepted" it at a practical level but not at a philosophical level. I will be continuing the fight no doubt with your good self.
Interesting evening and nice to meet you Simon.
A pity that Forest are asking for 'exemptions' though.
A little chaotic and difficult to hear all that was said.
An eclectic mix (as Micheal White) is about right. Doesn't that show all sorts oppose the ban?
This ban is doing social damage and HMG government really need to understand that and Forest need to tell them that.
It is more than a liberty issue, it is about social division, lost of livelyhoods and the 'denormalizing' of a large group of people.
Maybe small groups of people do oppose the ban, many do not want themselves or others to get criminal records and so stay angry, frustrated and silent waiting for leadership.
west
----
Simon Clark, Forest's director, admitted that many smokers had adjusted to the ban, but a minority is still angry and frustrated.
I wonder where Simon Clark got this nugget of information? Does he have some sort of privileged access to smokers that us lesser mortals don't? Would Simon Clark care to tell us on what basis he makes this statement?
And what exactly does 'adjusted' mean?Does 'adjusted' include not going to pubs any more? Would Simon Clark care to give us an example of ways in which smokers have 'adjusted'? I'd love to know.
Michael White used the word "adjusted". The word I actually used was "adapted", but it's pretty much the same and it is true. In terms of compliance (for which there is clear evidence) the vast majority of smokers HAVE adapted to the ban (albeit under threat of fines and other penalties).
The bad news for government is that, far from giving up, as politicians hoped they would, the vast majority continue to smoke but in other places - outside, at home etc. And yes, in some cases "adapted" does mean not going to the pub any more. The point is, the vast majority are still smoking (ie they have adapted!!).
This doesn't mean that the majority like or support the ban. There is a big difference between "adapted" and "accepted" and I have never said that a majority of smokers have "accepted" the ban (although some have and it would be ludicrous to deny it). Unfortunately, some people come on this blog determined to read what they want to read, not what is actually said or written.
Finally, I note that Forest's fiercest critics never attend our events. They look on from afar, prefering to rely on hearsay and third party reports for their information. We don't mind criticism, but base it on fact not fiction.
There are some people who would never dream of looking into the whys and wherefores of anything, they accept anything and everything which is served up on a plate in front of them, as fact. Smoking makes your feet ache? Oh I better give up smoking then. It wouldn't occur to them to maybe buy a new pair of shoes.
They see everything in black and white, with no variations in shade or colour. There are just two types of people in the Monotone man's world, the first being the "man of the people", which of course they always consider themselves to be, and the second, is the "toff", whom they consider to be their sworn enemy, even though the word itself is as outdated as the Monotone man's ideas on the subject.
Because the "toff" doesn't raise his fist in the air and shout such outdated slogans as "power to the people", then why bother talking to him? After all, who listens to politicians and journalists anyway? Certainly not the man in the street, the man of the people, the Monotone man.
Monotone man knows better than everyone else, he listens to himself, he reads just what he wants to read, and expects to read, and if he can spare a moment of his rather precious time, he just might give you his thoughts on the subject, even though the subject he has chosen is not exactly the subject being debated in the first instance.
There is an old saying Mr Monotone man, and that is that there is more than one way to skin a rabbit. I would suggest that instead of constantly knocking Forest for doing things their way, that you might like to come up with some positive ideas on the subject yourself?
Here's a positive idea for you, Peter.
Following everyone's enjoyment of pro-smoker Nigel Farrell's speech last night, how about tuning in to Chennel 4 at 7.55 this evening? Listen to M.P.Dr Bob Spink on the subject of UKIP. It is, after all, the fourth largest political party and the only one dedicated to doing something about the smoking ban.
Or would that be too positive?
As usual Margot, you are picking on the wrong people. I am not your enemy, and I am not anti UKIP, please read my post on my thoughts about the Boisdale party, and read what I said about Nigel Farage.
My post (above) was not attacking UKIP or UKIP supporters, it was attacking the non stop snide remarks against the way Forest conducts their affairs.
As I have always said, everyone is entitled to their thoughts and beliefs, and in that respect, I am entitled to mine as well.
Did you go to the party by the way?
Thanks for the noble response, Peter, I was expecting you to point out my spelling of Nigel Farage - when I would have thanked you for the extra mention, of course!
No, I was unable to go to the party but did email Simon beforehand to make my apologies. I also thanked him for all he does. Many may feel that the Forest approach does not go far enough but by maintaining a conservative apolitical approach, he keeps a high profile and is welcome and heard where it matters most.
He does actually put in long punishing days which include much travelling and succinct, to the point, speeches or interviews on arrivel. I will never forget the success he had in attending that fraudulent EU conference on further measures to enforce the smoking ban. I believe that he single-handedly stopped the press release they then issued which contained their unproven lies,from being published anywhere. If you remember, if actually advised that if editors repeat the same thing over and over again, people will eventually believe it.
I do wholeheartedly agree with Blad Tolstoy, though, and have expressed these views to Simon many times. We have NOT accepted the smoking ban. We do NOT want it amended, we want it abolished and shown for the lying damaging control tool that it is. We do NOT accept that smoking is harmful but are prepared to take the risk. We still await the first proven case that it has actually killed or harmed anyone at all. Just ONE name will do.
I do not make these claims lightly and do put in a considerable amount of research with colleagues on other sites. We are preparing a document which proves this and also shows all the beneficial properties of nicotine which the pharmaceutical companies have always tried to mirror in their prescription drugs. Most of their drugs have nicotine as the base and they are as valued customers to the tobacco producers as are the cigarette manufacturers.
Meanwhile, amidst all the unhappiness and confusion they have caused by the smoking ban, the EU moves inexorably onwards towards total political control of us via the Lisbon Treaty. The whole thing, of course, being part of Global control.
So that is where I stand and why I feel that Simon's approach via Forest is the right one at this particular time.
Good for you Margot, I agree with all you say with the exception of one point (nothing to do with UKIP or you) but which I will not go into, and I think that you probably know which point I am talking about?
Michael White used the word "adjusted". The word I actually used was "adapted", but it's pretty much the same and it is true. In terms of compliance (for which there is clear evidence) the vast majority of smokers HAVE adapted to the ban (albeit under threat of fines and other penalties)... And yes, in some cases "adapted" does mean not going to the pub any more. - simon Clark
Adjusted. Adapted. Both are soft, malleable words open to infinite varieties of interpretation.
There was a German bar owner who committed suicide recently, citing their ban. I suppose that he also 'adapted'. If so, what does 'adapted' mean other than 'did something in response to the ban'? Which, of course, every smoker will have done.
But I'm still puzzled where you get your 'true' information about smokers, such that you feel able to say that the 'vast majority' did X, and 'some' did Y. I have the impression that it comes from straw polls of smokers in pubs. Or smokers found in Boisdale. I can't see where else it can have come from.
But it seems to me that it's quite possible that many smokers that are to be found in pubs these days are not just ones who have 'adapted', but may also have 'accepted', at least by saying things like "There's nothing that can be done about it anyway," and "We're just going to have to learn to live with it," or "It was always bound to happen one day." In many ways, anyone who is a smoker but who continues regularly going to pubs has to have made an accommodation of this sort. But are such smokers the 'vast majority'? By definition a straw poll of smokers in pubs is not going to hear anything from those smokers who no longer go to them. So a straw poll of smokers in pubs employs a skewed sample of smokers.
There's a famous photo of Harry Truman holding up a newspaper whose headline read: "Dewey wins election". The newspaper got the presidential election wrong because it conducted a telephone poll, and most of the people who owned telephones back then voted for Dewey. But they weren't the 'vast majority' of voters.
Anyway, your assessment will be music to antismokers' ears. ASH will now be able to tell wavering ministers that "Most smokers have adapted to the ban. Forest's Simon Clark said so. And he should know." - 'adapted' here being interpreted as 'accepted', and most ministers not having read what it means to you, because this is tucked away on an obscure comment thread somewhere.
Might I suggest that when asked to comment on what most smokers feel about the smoking ban, you preface your response with, "I don't know, There hasn't been a comprehensive survey of smokers. But my impression - from straw polls in pubs, smokers I know, etc - is that..."
Agreed, Frank, especially as Simon can look closer to home for a "straw poll". I can't think of a single smoker contributing to these threads who has adapted or accepted or done anything other than remain hopping mad. All are determined to find some way of opposing and helping to overturn the ban.
So a bit of rephrasing, please Simon, before you next represent us to the public.