Neil Rafferty - no rest for the wicked!

I am sorry to report that from today Neil Rafferty is stepping down as a spokesman for Forest. Neil has represented Forest for three years. Prior to that he worked for the Press Association and the Sunday Times, which is how I got to know him. (He would occasionally ring me for a quote.)

A couple of years ago Neil founded a satirical website - The Daily Mash - which has gone from strength to strength and is now taking up most of his time. As a result of this, a spin-off book, and a forthcoming series for BBC Radio Scotland, something had to give.

Last month Neil told me:

"The Mash is, slowly but surely, becoming a successful business. More importantly we really want to push it to its full potential and that means I have to give it my full attention. Between books, the upcoming radio series, developing merchandise and finding new writers, it's starting to add up to pretty much a full time job.

"I have genuinely enjoyed working for Forest from start to finish. I will always be really proud that I was involved and it has been great to be be able to say the things I want to say about freedom of choice - and get paid for it - but it's time to prioritise."

I should add that Neil and his wife are expecting a baby in November so there's no rest for the wicked!

Anyway, on behalf of everyone associated with Forest, I'd like to thank Neil for all his work and support. We send him and his family our very best wishes for the future.

Smoking: more statistics to chew over

I am just about to do an interview on LBC in response to the latest smoking-related survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics (Opinion Survey Report No 40: Smoking-related Bahviour and Attitudes, 2009/09).

According to the Press Association:

Fewer Britons support the ban on smoking in pubs than in other public places, a survey has revealed.

While 93% agreed lighting up should not be allowed in restaurants, a smaller proportion of 75% believed it was right for cigarettes to be illegal in pubs.

Smoke-free legislation was enforced across the UK by July 2007.

A survey carried out by the Office for National Statistics since the ban showed the majority supported no smoking in the workplace (85%), indoor sports centres (94%), indoor shopping centres (91%) and railway and bus stations (85%).

Meanwhile, the proportion of smokers who said they would like to give up dropped to 67% in 2008-09 from 74% in 2007, although this was not significantly different to previous years, according to the ONS.

Half of smokers intended to quit within the next year, the study found.

Health was the most common reason for people wanting to stop smoking, cited by 71%, while almost a third (31%) gave financial reasons.

The survey into smoking-related behaviour and attitudes, which covered the period September 2008 to March 2009, also revealed an awareness among smokers of the dangers of tobacco to children.

A total of 77% claimed they did not smoke at all when they were in a room with a child - a figure that has increased from the 54% recorded in 1997.

In terms of taxation, there was a clear divide between smokers and non-smokers, with 17% of smokers saying tax should be increased by more than the rate of inflation compared with 64% of those who had never smoked who supported inflation-plus rises on tobacco taxation.

The Guardian covers the ONS survey HERE.

I will check but it is highly unlikely that respondents were offered the choice of separate smoking areas (or rooms) in pubs or in the workplace.

Likewise, I doubt very much whether respondents were divided into pub-goers and non pub-goers.

Ask those questions and I am certain that the answers would be very different.

Update on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 by Simon Clark

The full ONS report can be found HERE. The key findings are listed HERE.

Victory for common sense and decency

I have the result of the Oxford University online debate - "The NHS should not treat self-inflicted illness" - which I have previously posted about. Following those posts some of you took part in the debate, and many more voted, so I thought you might be interested in the outcome. Here it is:

For 15.2%
Against 84.8%

Now that's what I call a result.

Save our pubs and clubs open thread

Further to yesterday's news that 52 pubs are closing EVERY WEEK, I am creating an open thread today so that people can comment on our campaign to amend the smoking ban. This also coincides with the distribution, this morning, of e-bulletins to supporters of Forest and Save Our Pubs & Clubs. Please keep your comments short and to the point.

To receive occasional e-bulletins from Forest, sign up HERE.

If you have not yet registered your support for the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign, click HERE. To date over 1250 people have signed up, including 250 publicans.

Update on Friday, July 24, 2009 by Simon Clark

As a result of Thursday's e-bulletin a further 249 267 286 301 people have joined the campaign.

Sark: no need for smoking ban

The island of Sark has demonstrated how these things should be done. I am informed that Medical Committee chairman Diane Baker persuaded Chief Pleas members to approve a ban in a list of publicly-owned buildings. They include all committee rooms and offices, Sark School and the nearby play school.

However, conseillers (correct spelling!) decided against introducing legislation or further restrictions for the time being. Conseiller Baker explained that many island businesses had already introduced a voluntary ban and/or designated smoking areas and asked whether Sark really wanted legislation for something that could be dealt with on a voluntary basis.

Give that woman a medal!

John Bercow and those EDMs

Following his election as Speaker of the House of Commons in June, John Bercow has removed his name (as a matter of parliamentary convention) from three Early Day Motions. However, the fact that he signed them in the first place is evidence enough of where his sympathies lies. You may be interested to see what they are:

EDM 189
Point of Sale Display of Tobacco Products
Taylor, David (Labour)
That this House welcomes the Government's announcement of legislation to prohibit point of sale display of tobacco products in the 2008 Queen's Speech; notes that the Department of Health estimates that this will lead to up to 2,800 fewer young people taking up smoking each year, saving many thousands of lives in the longer-term; and calls upon the Government to commit itself to open, full and genuine consultation with all affected and interested parties on the most effective means of implementation of this legislation, in line with its obligations under the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which requires it to protect its public health policies from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry.

EDM 554
Plain Packaging of Tobacco Products
Taylor, Richard (Independent)
That this House notes the recently adopted Article 13 guidelines to the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which define tobacco packaging and display as a means of advertising and promotion; acknowledges that research has found that current tobacco packaging is misleading by implying that some tobacco products are less harmful than others; believes that misleading packaging is in contravention of the EU directive on tobacco products and that research also shows that removing colours and brand imagery from packs increases the effectiveness of health warnings; supports the prohibition of retail display of tobacco products; and urges the Government to introduce measures to require plain packaging of all tobacco products by regulation.

EDM 768
Sale of Tobacco from Vending Machines
Ruane, Chris (Labour)
That this House supports the call of over 100 health organisations for urgent action to ensure a new generation of young people do not become smokers; believes that children's easy access to cigarettes through tobacco vending machines undermines other important tobacco control measures; notes that the British Heart Foundation estimates that over 46,000 11 to 15 year-old regular smokers bought cigarettes through vending machines in England and Wales in 2006; recognises that this number may now be higher as the age limit for purchasing tobacco has been extended from 16 to 18 years; expresses concern that age verification systems for vending machines using remote-controls, tokens, identity cards or other means are insecure; further notes the UK's commitments as a party to the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and its guidelines which recommend banning sales of tobacco from vending machines as they constitute a means of advertising and promotion for smoking; and therefore calls on the Government to bring forward legislative proposals to bring an immediate end to all sales of tobacco products from vending machines in England and Wales through the Health Bill.

Good to know that the House is in such "liberal" hands.

Lest we forget: "John Bercow welcomes the decision for a complete ban on smoking in public places" - see HERE.

Record number of pubs closing

Just had a call from GMTV. The British Beer and Pub Association will tomorrow disclose that "new research" shows a record number of pub closures.

Update on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 by Simon Clark

A spokesman for the British Beer and Pub Association added that the industry has moved on since the [smoking] ban. "The industry has adapted to the challenge. Pubs have invested £100m on outside smoking areas and there is no going back now," he said. Source: Caterer Search, 9 July 2009

Update on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 by Simon Clark

Forest's Neil Rafferty discussed pub closures on SunTalk Radio.

Update on Wednesday, July 22, 2009 by Simon Clark

ITN has the story HERE.

Forest barred from "Smoking Conference"

Further to my post about "Holyrood's Smoking Conference" (HERE), there have been developments, which I will come to shortly.

But first, take a look at the conference agenda as it appeared earlier this week. (Click on the top image and it will take you to a cache version of the web page.)

The second image shows the agenda as it was on Thursday morning. Interestingly, a line had been deleted from "Session one: Strategic overview". The missing sentence reads:

"Speakers will also address the question of whether legislation such as this is blurring lines of personal choice and responsibility and illustrating a move towards limits on personal decision-making."

Just fancy that!

What happened next is that I had a telephone conversation followed by an exchange of emails with the organisers who responded to my concerns by complaining that I had blogged "in relation to this event when there was ongoing dialogue in relation to the conference agenda".

Ongoing dialogue? The "ongoing dialogue" went something like this: THEY asked ME if Forest could help promote the conference. I did. I blogged about it. I also offered some constructive criticism of the agenda - too one-sided, I said. Perhaps they could invite me or former MSP Brian Monteith to speak.

This suggestion was effectively ignored. Instead, I was asked to come up with some more names. Or, to put it another way, some more acceptable names. (Hence, "ongoing dialogue".)

Don't get me wrong, I have enormous sympathy for the organisers. They need the support of the public sector to make this conference work financially. Unfortunately that allows certain groups to call the shots and veto speakers (and topics?) they don't like.

Clearly, that is what is happening here.

In fact, let's not be coy about this: I have it on good authority that ASH Scotland is refusing to share a platform with Forest at Holyrood's Smoking Conference. Or, to put it another way, "there are some issues with ASH Scotland in respect to their willingness to work with certain sectors and groups".

Make of that what you will.

UPDATE: late on Thursday afternoon I was informed that a Scottish Conservative will address the conference on the subject "Arguments against increased legislation". Good to know that not even ASH Scotland can veto an elected politician.

Nevertheless I suspect that whoever speaks will probably stick to the theme of over-regulation. They might mention personal choice and responsibility but I will be very surprised if they touch upon issues like denormalisation and the bully state. Why would they? The Conservatives probably agree with the denormalisation of smoking.

Anyway the good news is that the deleted sentence been reinstated! See HERE.

The bad news is that the consumer has effectively been barred from addressing Holyrood's self-styled "Smoking Conference". Go figure.

My brush with swine flu

Well, that was 24 hours I'll be happy to forget. It began at 3.00am on Friday when I woke up feeling nauseous and dizzy. I spent the next few hours in the bathroom - vomiting, sweating profusely, and feeling permanently faint. At times it felt as if I was somersaulting, over and over, head first, into a deep, dark well.

The next morning, after I had struggled back to bed, with a large plastic bowl by my side, my wife called the local surgery. Ten minutes later a doctor rang back. Clearly thinking I had swine flu, he went through a list of symptoms and even volunteered to see me at home!

(Can you remember the last time a doctor offered you a home visit? I can't.)

Anyway, although I did have some symptoms of swine flu, the dizziness seemed to persuade him that I had what he called a "middle-ear infection".

"If you feel any worse," he said, "come in to the surgery."

Well, I did develop an increasingly severe headache (another symptom of swine flu) but I resisted the temptation to pop round.

After all, as Antony Worrall Thompson pointed out HERE, you don't know what you might catch.

UPDATE: I'm having a quiet weekend, watching the golf and the cricket. I may not have swine flu but I still need a little pampering.

Bavaria relaxes smoking regulations

"Smokers in Bavaria rejoiced on Wednesday as the state’s parliament loosened the regulations on a smoking ban instituted 18 months ago." The new regulations are said to reflect reality and Bavaria’s “live and let live” attitude. Story HERE.

Funnily enough, we recently commissioned an article by musician and writer Joe Jackson. A supporter of Forest and the campaign to amend the smoking ban, Joe now lives in Berlin. He is currently on tour but took time out to write an 800-word article comparing British pubs and German bars. Here's a taste:

I’ve always loved pubs, but just how awful they are becoming wasn’t completely clear to me until I relocated a couple of years ago to Berlin. While too many English pubs these days are soulless, generic commercial enterprises, staffed by people who clearly don’t give a damn, Berlin bars are often wonderfully idiosyncratic, and operated and patronised by people who clearly love them.

In my neighbourhood there are, for instance, a bar run by a Frank Zappa lookalike who brews his own beer, a surreal dive run by an Albanian refugee who has Gypsy musicians playing on the street outside, a bar where patrons sit outside in an ex-Soviet Army jeep, and the world’s campiest gay bar, whose walls and ceilings are lined with pink fur.

Many bars are just holes in the wall, furnished with flea market junk, but made welcoming with a few candles, a few flowers, some local artwork, good music or good beer. Most allow smoking, though some don’t and others have separate rooms. They also keep their prices reasonable, keep their vodka in the freezer, serve mojitos in the summer and hot chocolate laced with rum in the winter, and open and close whenever they like. And why not? We’re adults, aren’t we?!

The full article will be published shortly. Watch this space.

Tom Harris supports our campaign

Liberal blogger Frank Davis reports that former Labour minister Tom Harris MP has declared his support for our campaign to amend the smoking ban. "When Tom Harris moves," says Frank, "something must be happening." See HERE.

H/T idlex (see comments HERE)

Money talks in Holyrood

You can now book to attend "Holyrood's Smoking Conference" which will examine "the impact and enforcement of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill".

"Support for the Bill amongst the public is strong," say the organisers, "with 89% supporting the licensing scheme and 57% supporting the removal of promotional displays in a recent YouGov poll commissioned by ASH Scotland. A recent study published in the Tobacco Control Journal put the cost of smoking to the NHS in Scotland at £409 million.

"However, there are other arguments which also need to be addressed – smokers purchases make a significant contribution to the Scottish economy, and tobacco sales are arguably key to the survival of many small retailers. While anti-smoking campaigners refer to public support for display bans, retailers have warned that this will remove one of the key draws bringing customers to small shops rather than supermarkets and the fears of retailers need to be addressed."

The first session of the conference, in Edinburgh on September 23, "will set out the content of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill and outline the Government’s intentions ... The session will also include information on the health impact of smoking in Scotland, particularly focussing on the relationship between tobacco consumption and inequalities and how the smoking ban has affected communities in Scotland.

"Speakers will also address the question of whether legislation such as this is blurring lines of personal choice and responsibility and illustrating a move towards limits on personal decision-making."

I've no problem with any of that ... except for one thing. Who is going to address the questions of personal choice and personal decision-making? Take a look at the speakers:

• Shona Robison MSP, Minister for Public Health and Sport, The Scottish Government
• Eamonn Rossi, Chief Executive, Office of Tobacco Control, Ireland
• John Drummond, Chief Executive, Scottish Grocers Federation
• Dr Laurence Gruer OBE, Director of Public Health Science, NHS Health Scotland
• Dave Roderick, Chairman, SCOTSS

Three of the five "key speakers" are fully paid up members of the anti-smoking industry. Dave Roderick represents trading standards. John Drummond will stand up for retailers, but what about the consumer or the liberal non-smoker? Who's going to represent us?

The cost of attending the conference ranges from £249 (commercial organisations, central government departments, agencies and other national public bodies), £199 (local authorities, NHS, police, trade unions, professional associations, and charitable organisations with an income over £1m) to £149 (charitable organisations with income of less than £1m).

In other words, apart from a handful of delegates, the vast majority will be there courtesy of the taxpayer (you and me!).

That, of course, is the crux of the matter. This is a commercial venture. It's also where the private and public sector meet. The organisers want to see bums on seats and they will have calculated that the public sector isn't going to pay top dollar to listen to the likes of me.

Therefore, I have suggested a compromise speaker - Brian Monteith, former member of the Scottish Parliament, former spokesman for Forest in Scotland, now policy director of The Free Society and a columnist on the Edinburgh Evening News.

Watch this space.

Adrian Sanders sets the record straight

Last week I wrote that Adrian Sanders, the Lib Dem MP for Torbay, had argued that it was now "unacceptable" to even talk about amending the smoking ban. Sanders posted a response saying he had been misrepresented. Having looked at the evidence again (see HERE), I am happy to put the record straight.

Nevertheless, to clarify the situation I sent him an email with the following questions:

1. You say that the way you have been quoted "does not reflect my personal view". Could you clarify what your personal view is?

2. Given that the government has said that it intends to review the ban in 2010, do you welcome a public debate on the issue?

3. Given the impact of the ban on some pubs and clubs and local communities, would you support a review of the legislation that takes into account the views of all interested parties?

4. If there was a to be a free vote on the issue in a future parliament, what would your position be (ie would you support an amendment to the ban and, if so, what amendment/s would you support)?

5. If you support an amendment to the ban would you be prepared to support our campaign?

Adrian has replied as follows:

1. My personal view is that every law should be open to review and amendment.

2. Of course!

3. Yes

4. Probably, but it would depend on the results of the review, otherwise what's the point of conducting one.

5. See answer to 4

He adds:

This all began because the South Devon branch of the LVA invited me as a member of the Culture, Media & Sport Select Committee to their monthly meeting to talk about the licensing act. They were aware that the CMS Select Committee was reviewing the Act. I was not there as an expert on the smoking ban and the question about it was one of many questions raised by publicans.

Issues relating to pub ties, binge drinking, taxation, public safety regulations, supermarket pricing, local licensing decisions, and many more all attracted at least as much, if not more, participation and interest from those present than did the smoking ban. Consequently I was more than a little annoyed at my local paper (and other papers that took their feed) for ignoring the other issues that had been raised and my answers to them, and for then inaccurately reporting what I did say!

So there we have it. I doubt that Adrian Sanders will ever be the most committed supporter of amendments to the smoking ban. Nevertheless, while he (and MPs like him) remain open-minded there is a glimmer of hope.

PS. I know there is a huge flaw in the above scenario - namely, the government review of the ban. I don't think it's being overly cynical to assume that this will be a massive whitewash that will seek to emphasise how "successful" and "popular" the ban has been.

If, as is likely, our evidence is ignored we will just have to produce our own review. MPs can then read both documents and decide for themselves.

Update on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 by Simon Clark

In case it gets lost, I would like to highlight the comment made by Rose Whiteley on a previous thread. Rose wrote:

"I was more than a bit surprised to see the venom against Adran Sanders MP, especially as he made it clear he did NOT personally agree with the Government's position. What's more, I think he was just reasonably saying he doesn't want to be represented as having a view he doesn't, with which we can probably all agree. Let's not turn potential allies into opponents."

I couldn't agree more. Some of the comments on this blog are not just myopic, they are unnecessarily mean-spirited. If you don't believe me, see some of the comments about AWT on my previous post.

Pork and ride

This evening I am going to a "pig roast and summer drinks" party to mark the re-opening of The Greyhound in Rotherfield Peppard near Henley. The owner (and our host tonight) is Antony Worrall Thompson. Story HERE

Antony has asked me to supply him with some Save Our Pubs and Clubs beer mats so hopefully we'll pick up some more supporters when the pub officially re-opens on Wednesday.

In the meantime the weather had better perk up. A couple of hours ago the sun was shining brightly and I was complaining about the heat. Now it's raining and the temperature has dropped dramatically. Welcome to British summer time!

Update on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 by Simon Clark

All's well that ends well ... the sun shone on Rotherfield Peppard and we had a very enjoyable evening (see picture above).

Guests included Sir John Madejski, chairman of Reading football club, Angie Best (yes, that Angie Best) and TV chef Ainsley Harriott. The most entertaining guest however had to be Sir John's chauffeur who revealed that at the ripe old age of 63 he has begun a new career in film. In fact, only yesterday he was working as an extra on the new St Trinian's movie.

The Greyhound is a beautiful pub with good food and an excellent choice of beers. If you're ever in these parts don't hesitate to pop in and say hello.

Your vote counts

Voting is now open on the Oxford University online debate "The NHS should not treat self-inflicted illness". I am told that this has been a popular debate, with the second highest number of comments for any of their debates. Personally, I think we've won the argument (ie against the motion) hands down so it would be a pity to lose the vote through apathy. Click HERE to vote.

Update on Tuesday, July 14, 2009 by Simon Clark

I have just been reading the comments! If you disagree with the motion that says "The NHS should not treat self-inflicted illness" click the button that says AGAINST. How hard is that?!!! (And please, no more conspiracy theories.)