Taking Liberties

To read the newspapers you might be forgiven for thinking there was drunken riot on the Underground the other night as thousands of revellers descended on the Circle Line to protest against the ban on drinking alcohol on the Tube.

I wasn't there but Suzy Dean of the Manifesto Club was and she reports that "Boris’s booze ban seems to have annoyed a whole spectrum of people – from football fans who will no longer be able to enjoy a pre-match beer on their way to the stadium, to hen parties, students and city boys who like a tipple when they travel". More important:

The ban follows various other restrictions on our behaviour, all of which have been introduced in the name of making our public spaces more pleasant – from the smoking ban brought in last year to the ban on the wearing of hoodies in certain shopping centres. Instead of tolerating this increasing invasion of our public space by the authorities, we should stand up and say that public space is always more pleasant if we are free to behave in it in ways that we see fit.

Full article HERE.

Hot on the heels of the announcement by the Scottish government that it intends to ban the display of tobacco in shops, UK health minister Alan Johnson has announced that the Westminster government is considering similar moves.

Johnson's comments - on yesterday's Andrew Marr programme on BBC 1 - have been picked up by many of today's newspapers. Comments by Forest are featured in the Financial Times, Independent and Daily Mirror, to name a few.

Today sees the second reading of a private member's bill that would outlaw the promotion of so-called "unhealthy foods" until after the 9.00pm watershed and from child-centred websites altogether. On today's Free Society blog, Brian Monteith attacks the latest threat to Tony the Tiger, Coco the Monkey, and Snap, Crackle and Pop. Full article HERE.

I have just received an email urging Forest to "mobilise smokers to vote Conservative". Er, why? First, Forest has a strict policy whereby we do not support any one party. Check out the information on our new website (to be launched next month) and make your own choice.

Second, given his latest, spineless comments, why on earth would we encourage anyone to vote for a Cameron-led Conservative party? According to today's Financial Times:

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, gave a cautious welcome to proposals for a further crackdown on smoking which would ban shopkeepers from displaying cigarettes and pubs from having tobacco vending machines. "I think this is worth looking at. As someone who struggled with giving up smoking, it helps if you take away some of the temptation," he told the BBC.

Full story HERE.

There are times when I have exercised my right not to vote. Every time I have voted, however, whether it be in a national or local election, I have always voted Conservative. If Cameron supports (or doesn't oppose) these ridiculous, patronising proposals, the Tories will never EVER get my vote, so long as he leads the party.

I know the Conservative party quite well and I know that libertarians are a minority, outnumbered by authoritarian or paternalistic Tories who will happily regulate and tell us what to do (in our own best interests) until they are blue in the face (no pun intended).

What is the point of getting rid of Labour if the alternative is more of the same? Is Cameron so blinkered he can't see what an incredible opportunity this is to establish clear blue water between a liberal Conservative party and the control freaks represented by New Labour?

Few Conservatives are going to jump ship in favour of Labour if Cameron adopts a laissez-faire approach on this and other lifestyle issues. (Education not legislation should be his mantra.) However, there are plenty of people (like me) who won't vote at all if we are denied a proper choice. Who knows, if Cameron adopted a more aggressively liberal attitude he might even pick up some disenfranchised Labour voters not to mention the handful of liberals who (unaccountably) continue to support the illiberal Liberal Democrats.

I can't imagine I am the only person who feels so strongly about this. As Alan Sugar might say (and if he won't I'll say it for him): "Cameron, you're a lightweight. You're fired!"

Just catching up on recent news stories and I see that Liverpool Council is at it again. Not content with having led the race to ban smoking in all public places, the Lib Dem-controlled authority now wants to ban McDonalds Happy Meals as well. Or does it?

What the report in the Mail on Sunday actually said is, "Members of Liverpool City Council's Childhood Obesity Scrutiny Group want a bye-law that would forbid the sale of fast food accompanied by toys", which is slightly different.

Nevertheless, toys or no toys, what's it got to do with the council? Lib Dem councillor Paul Twigger talks about "Pester Power" as if no-one has ever heard of the word "no". As for describing McDonalds as "cash-hungry vultures" - what a cheek. No-one is forced to eat there.

My kids - who get taken to McDonald's once or twice a month - still consider it a treat. I'm not such a fan. Nevertheless, when I'm on the road, far from home, feeling every so slightly peckish, I'm more than happy to see those gleaming golden arches.

If anyone needs pestering it's politicians with their insatiable appetite for interfering in other people's lives. Full story HERE.

Last week's sports pages were dominated by one story - the 50th anniversary of the Munich plane crash that killed 23 people including eight members of Manchester United's famous "Busby Babes". All week there were dire warnings that some Man City fans might abuse the minute's silence to honour the victims. Before yesterday's Manchester derby some commentators were even calling for a "lifetime ban" for any supporter caught shouting out.

In the event everything passed off smoothly and supporters of both teams respected the occasion. Nevertheless, it has to be said. A lifetime ban? For shouting during a minute's silence? Bad manners, yes. Tasteless, certainly. But why should it be considered a major offence punishable by a "lifetime ban"?

What next? Are we going to ban everyone who boos the opposition's national anthem or calls Frank Lampard a "wanker"? In a free society people have a right to be offensive, up to a point.

I say "up to a point" because there has to be a limit to our tolerance. I once had someone thrown out of a football ground for making "monkey" chants at an opposition player and I don't regret it for a second. I didn't however want the guy banned for life.

More often than not peer pressure will govern people's behaviour without the need for draconian penalties - and that's what happened yesterday.

OK, it's a bit gratuitous and hardly the most sophisticated advertisement I've ever seen, but did it have to be banned?

The Ryanair ad which showed a Britney Spears-style model posing in a classroom has been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority who say it is "irresponsible".

As it happens, I don't think Ryanair will be too bothered. The company can save money by pulling the ad - and in return they gets lots of free publicity. Job done.

Full story HERE.

I am on Five Live at 8.20 9.10 tonight discussing the government's proposal to ban cigarette vending machines. If I miss Top Gear (or Cranford) I shall be very cross.

While most of you were still asleep, I was driving to Television Centre in London to appear on Five Live Breakfast closely followed by Breakfast on BBC1. They wanted me to comment on the story that the British Heart Foundation wants legislation to ban the sale of cigarettes through vending machines. (See HERE.)

My opponent on both programmes was Deborah Arnott, director of ASH. Echoing the BHF, Debs insisted that one in six child smokers get their fags from vending machines. Having spoken at length last night to Rod Bullough, managing director of a tobacco vending machine supplier and founder of the original Freedom2Choose campaign, I hotly disputed this.

Are they seriously suggesting that over 50,000 children regularly march in to pubs, clubs and hotels with the correct money (£5.80) and walk off with their booty without being stopped? It doesn't make sense, bearing in mind that cigarettes from a vending machine are as expensive as you can get; there are rules about the siting of vending machines; and allowing children to use them is illegal (and potentially costly for the proprietor).

Truth is, the proposal to ban vending machines has very little to do with reducing the number of underage smokers. It's just the latest in a series of proposals designed to "denormalise" smoking. Other ideas include the suggestion that tobacco products be placed "under the counter" (ie not displayed) in shops and supermarkets.

Then again, if the use of vending machines by child smokers really is a problem, there's a simple solution - adapt them so they will only work with a token (which you have to buy from the bar or hotel reception) or a credit card. Needless to say, Deborah didn't think much of that idea. Fancy that!

"Drivers under the influence of drugs or alcohol will be targeted during a summer crackdown in England and Wales." Fair enough (full story HERE). But wait:

Steve Green, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, says legally available prescription drugs should be included in the ban. "We've got to err on the safe side. If a drug can have that result [of impairing driving ability] then I think we've got to say to people I'm sorry, if you need this drug, then you shouldn't drive."

So, drivers on legally available prescription drugs could be asked by police to take a roadside test and those who refuse could be arrested and (as a result) fined or even banned from driving.

Think about it. There must be hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people on prescription drugs. Thousands of older people (organ transplant patients, for example) rely on prescription drugs to keep them alive. Are all these people to live in fear of being pulled over by the police and arrested?

As for drivers who want to quit smoking, I'd think twice about using a prescription drug such as Champix or Zyban. It may help you stop smoking, but at what cost to your independence and even your livelihood?

The smoking ban has prompted "huge demand" from pubs, clubs and restaurants for gas-fired heaters, reports the Daily Mail. "Experts ... estimate" that the additional patio heaters could produce up to 320,000 additional tons of carbon dioxide. Full story HERE.

Some DIY stores, bowing to political correctness, have banned them already. That's their choice. However Friends of the Earth wants the government to go one stage further and ban "these metal monstrosities" completely. I've a good mind to buy one today.

I spent the early part of this morning at BBC Television Centre in London. And I mean early. I had to get up at four o'clock in order to drive to London from my home in Cambridgeshire to be on the Breakfast programme at 6.20.

My fellow guest was Simon Ettinghausen of the Local Authority Road Safety Officers' Association (Larsoa). Simon insisted that smoking while driving is a major distraction, although the studies I have seen suggest otherwise, but we agreed that proper research needs to be done.

The programme received so many texts and emails on the subject that I was interviewed again at 8.10. While I was waiting I did a quick interview with BBC Radio Wales. This time my opponent was Simon's colleague David Frost. Like Simon, he couldn't give any figures for the number of accidents caused by smoking while driving in the UK - because, to the best of my knowledge, there aren't any. The whole thing is an absolute farce.

Meanwhile the Government says it has no plans to ban smoking in cars. (See HERE.) If you believe that, you'll believe anything.