Refreshing news

The new-look BBC website - introduced this morning - has come in for a ferocious pasting on The Editors blog (HERE). Personally, I like it, and I'm sure that within a few days most people will get used to it and will like it too.

I do, however, have the advantage of having access to several computers that use a variety of browsers and I can understand why some people are complaining. Looking at the site using Internet Explorer (allied to Windows XP) on a PC laptop is not a great experience.

However, when I use Firefox or Safari on my new MacBook Air, the site looks fantastic. OK, it benefits from the crystal clear screen, and I guess the screen resolution will play a significant part, but the design just ... works. It works better too on my iPhone where the less compact design is not only easier on the eye but also aids the touch screen navigation.

I'm interested in this not just because I use the BBC website all the time but because we are currently "refreshing" the Forest site and I'm curious to see the latest design trends and how people react to change. From a technical standpoint, there is also the issue of how a website will work using a particular browser. In the days when almost everyone used Internet Explorer this wasn't an issue, but it is now.

Fingers crossed, the new-look Forest site will go live this month and I hope it will look good whatever browser and/or computer you're using. In the meantime I'd be interested to know what browser you are using to read this and whether you have any comments on the matter. For example, I am so impressed with Safari on my Mac that I downloaded it on to my PC - where it looks dreadful.

Likewise, I recently (and belatedly) downloaded IE7 on to my PC but there are so many icons and navigation bars - for Google, Yahoo and the rest - that the screen is hopelessly cluttered. Give me Safari (or Firefox) on a Mac any day. As with government, less is more.

Another Englishman in New York

Five years ago New York banned smoking in public places. Unlike Ireland and the UK, however, the city exempted cigar bars so it is difficult but not impossible to find somewhere to smoke and drink. (See HERE.)

My first and - to date - only visit to NYC was in 2005 and I can vouch for the fact that cigar bars exist because I managed to find one. Trust me when I say that, as a non-smoker, it was a relief to escape the stifling heat outside (it was July) and enjoy the cool, well-ventilated environment of a busy smoking room.

I was only a visitor, however. To find out what it's really like to live in NYC, post smoking ban and other restrictions, read Ken Macmillan's article on The Free Society blog HERE.

Update on Monday, March 31, 2008 by Simon Clark

Joe Jackson writes: "[Ken Macmillan's] article certainly struck a chord with me. I lived in NY for many years and left for all the reasons listed here, though I still go back quite often. But believe it or not, London is now even worse. There are eight bars in NY with exemptions from the ban – this is one legal smoking bar per one million inhabitants (!) but it’s still eight more than London. Also, it’s true that a lot of places let you smoke after about 11 or 12 – when most pubs in London are closing. Also the NY ban has loosened up a bit in night clubs: places which enforced the ban strictly a couple of years ago are now turning a blind eye. " Joe's full response is on The Free Society blog HERE (scroll down to Comments).

Update on Tuesday, April 1, 2008 by Simon Clark

Late last night Ken added a comment to his own article. Using his iPhone and accompanied by "a nice scotch and a cigarette in one of the last smoking bars here in NYC", he wrote:

"I visited London recently for business, and aside from my mother’s Sunday roast, I had a truly miserable time there. Not being too familiar with the city during a cold February week, I struggled to find anywhere to spend my dollars. And dined several nights alone in my thankfully smoking permitted hotel room ...

"I had proudly enjoyed my visits to London, especially after the ban here. Now I am reluctant to go back. I have found my friendly smoking havens in New York whereas, aside from a few very nice outside cafés, I am an unwelcome smoking visitor in London now. I will continue enjoying my smokes with a scotch after work, afterall, I smoke for my mental health, and for pleasure, in a world that seldom makes sense."

Monteith: "I wonder how I ever was a Conservative"

Before Tories start celebrating (see post below), a former Conservative MSP has added his take to the David Cameron story (HERE). Writing in the Edinburgh Evening News, former Forest spokesman Brian Monteith, now policy director for The Free Society, comments:

There are days when I wonder how I ever was a Conservative. This Monday was one of them. Dawn Primarolo, the English Health Secretary announced she was considering banning cigarettes from being displayed in shops.

This prim paternalist believes that kids are seduced into smoking by the serried ranks of fag packets on walls – why cigarettes should have such an effect when shelves of toothpaste or condoms don't make them clean their teeth or practice protective sex hasn't occurred to her all-knowing mind. If this wasn't bad enough, David Cameron then said the idea is "worth looking at".

If the Conservative leader can't see that making tobacco smoking more mysterious, more rebellious, more unconventional will also make it more desirable amongst the young then he's in the wrong job. Cannabis smoking has grown immensely while being illegal and without the benefit of shop displays – just ask the question why David. I look at the political parties and I really, really struggle to say there's any that will get my vote next time round.

I have known Brian for 25 years. During that time he has never wavered from the Conservative cause and his political CV makes impressive reading. From his days as chairman of the Federation of Conservative Students to his nine-year stint as MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife, Brian has frequently been the most outspoken Tory on the block, always taking the fight to the opposition and never holding back.

The idea that someone so committed to the Tory cause is having second thoughts about voting for the party should give even Dave "It's worth looking at" Cameron pause for thought. The Conservatives may be ahead in the polls but come the election they will need every vote they can get. Governments can lose general elections but it rarely happens by default. It needs a strong Opposition - as in 1979 and 1997 - so people have a genuine choice. Like Brian, I'm not sure that Cameron represents anything radically different. And why would we vote for more of the same?

Labour loses another lifelong supporter

Further to my post HERE, a reader has written to her MP as suggested. It's calm, considered - a model of its type - and I thought I should share it with you:

I am a lifelong Labour Party member and have regularly campaigned for the Labour Party in Bedfordshire and London.  I wanted to write to you to express my utter dismay at the way our Government has forced anti-smoking policies onto the nation.  Incredibly, it is now proposing even more restrictions on the sale of tobacco.

I used to feel irritated when people talked about Labour and the “nanny state”, but now I can see they have a point.  Providing information and encouragement to promote healthy living is one thing; riding roughshod over personal choice is another. 

Although I believe the scientific case for the supposed health risks of passive smoking have been hugely overstated, I fully support the right of people in this country to not be bothered by other people’s smoke if they don’t want to be.  A smoking ban that applied to just a proportion of premises (as happens in Spain, for example) would have been the fair way to allow those who don’t like smoke to enjoy a smoke-free environment, while not ruining the social lives of those of us who do, not to mention the livelihoods of many in the hospitality trade.

I believe you voted for the smoking ban so may have little sympathy with my views, but I wanted to urge you to consider the fact that the Government's anti-smoking policies have become a serious election issue.  I can scarcely believe I am saying this, but for the first time in my adult life, I am considering not voting Labour anymore.  I have an uncomfortable feeling that the power has gone to the Government’s heads and I worry about what is going to be banned next if Labour are re-elected. 

Update on Saturday, March 29, 2008 by Simon Clark

Another Labour supporter writes:

Having come from a family of Labour voters and trade union shop stewards, and having been named after Robert Owen and Keir Hardy, it is with great sadness that I have to say that I will not be voting Labour at the next election. I live in Islington South and Finsbury, the 2nd most marginal ward in the country, with a Labour incumbent on a 484 majority.

The complete ban on smoking in bars and clubs has devastated the pub trade as well as my social life and that of my friends and was a clear breach of the commitment stated in the Labour manifesto. This latest persecution is the last straw. Clearly the current incarnation of the Labour party cannot be trusted any longer.

What planet is ASH on?

This week's issue of the Economist, out today, reports that Britain is more hostile to tobacco than any other country in Europe and asks the question "How much harder will life get for smokers?"

My colleague Neil Rafferty is quoted. So too is Amanda Sandford of ASH. Not content with the long list of anti-smoking measures that have been introduced already (or are in the pipeline), ASH would also like to restrict the number of cigarettes smokers can bring back from holiday. Doh!

The reason the government changed the guidelines in 2002 and increased the amount of tobacco smokers could bring into the country is because the old "guidelines" (rigidly enforced) invited a smuggling epidemic, the Treasury haemorraged £3 billion a year, and ordinary cross-Channel shoppers were regularly harrassed by over zealous Customs officials. (Welcome back to Britain!) Is that what ASH wants to happen all over again?

Full article HERE. The magazine is inviting comments. Over to you.

Not tonight, Darling - you're barred!

A campaign to have the Chancellor barred from every pub in the country is gathering pace. Campaigners say "Alistair Darling has raised taxes on beer by 4 pence a pint with annual increases of 2% above inflation year on year for the next four years. This comes at a time when 27 pubs a week are closing due to the smoking ban and rising industry costs."

The group, which has a Facebook page HERE, wants supporters to print off the poster above and display it in their local pub. The BBC has the story HERE and you can also read about it (from the horse's mouth, as it were) on Devil's Kitchen HERE.

Smoke-free movies: the next logical step?

Last week those nice people at SmokeFree Liverpool called for all movies with smoking scenes to be given an 18 certificate. The idea isn't new - anti-smoking campaigners in America have been banging on about this for years - but it got SmokeFree Liverpool some headlines and maintained the pressure to "denormalise" smoking, which was the real point of the exercise.

Most commentators believe the idea is barking mad but they fail to draw the connection with the ban on smoking in public places. Writing in The Herald, for example, Martin Laing says, "I'm all for the ban on smoking in public places and wish more people would stop. But Liverpool City Council's plan is the last gasp of the lunatics."

The point is this: the only reason we are even discussing 18 certificates for films that show people smoking is because the habit is banned in every pub, club and bar. Give these fanatics an inch and they'll take a mile. Each capitulation encourages them to go for the "next logical step".

Forest's response to the original story is featured HERE (in the Liverpool Daily Post) and on The Free Society blog HERE.

Why I would NEVER vote for Cameron's Conservatives

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!"

Time to make YOUR views known

Just when my back is turned (we were in the Peak District, beyond the reach of a decent mobile phone signal) Health minister Dawn Primarolo announces proposals for tighter controls on the sale of tobacco, including bans on above the counter cigarette displays and cigarette vending machines in pubs and restaurants. Fortunately my colleague Neil Rafferty was able to handle the majority of media enquiries, including a request from The Sun for THIS op-ed piece.

A so-called "public consultation" will begin in May. I think we all know just what a sham these consultations are. In most cases the government has already decided what it intends to do. The "consultation" is merely a tool that helps rubber stamp the policy.

If you are opposed to further restrictions on the sale of tobacco, you must make your views known NOW. Write to your MP - especially if he/she is in a marginal constituency - and emphasise that the government's anti-smoking policies have become a serious election issue that will influence the way you vote. Ask his position on the issue and be sure to request a written reply.

Please send a copy of all correspondence to Forest, Sheraton House, Castle Park, Cambridge CB3 0AX.

When is an invitation not an invitation?

Further to my post below, which he featured on his own blog, Iain Dale has attracted a number of comments HERE. One person (who inevitably prefers to remain anonymous), writes of my original post (are you following this?):

If you invite yourself to a meeting the purpose of which is to discuss how to reduce smoking, and your raison d'etre (don't be frightened, it's a French phrase) is to oppose the purpose of the meeting, then being told to go away is not exactly surprising. He [Simon Clark] fails to say whose meeting it was - perhaps because this would undermine his role as "victim".

The same comment, now written by someone called "Simon" (good name!), also appears on The Free Society blog. To clear up any misunderstanding I have replied - on both blogs - as follows:

The meeting was organised by the European Commission's Health & Consumer Protection Directorate-General. Officially it was called a "consultation meeting with EU experts, civil society and social partners on an impact assessment on smoke-free environments". Informally, it was described as a "stakeholder consultation on Commission's smoke-free initiative".

Forest was not originally invited, but that doesn't mean to say we shouldn't have been there. (I don't know about you, but I would have thought that the consumer is a fairly obvious stakeholder in such a discussion.)

When we queried why we had not been invited (bearing in mind that, last year, we contributed to the EU Green Paper consultation on the subject), we received, from the Health & Consumer Protection DG, the following email: "Please accept my apologies for this oversight. You will find enclosed the background document and the agenda of the meeting. Could you kindly confirm who will represent Forest at the meeting?"

I think that's an invitation. Don't you?

As it happens, the facilitator made a similar claim during the meeting when she turned to me and said (in a rather accusing tone), "You invited yourself to this meeting." There were a number of thoughts racing through my head at the time so I let it pass, but the more I think about it the more annoyed I am because it was clearly designed to undermine my position at the table.

The full story is that I initially asked if I could attend a different meeting, but after a flurry of emails it was suggested to me (by the Health & Consumer Protection DG itself) that a more appropriate meeting for Forest to attend would be one involving "civil society and social groups".

If people still want to say I invited myself, so be it. Personally, I don't see a problem. If Forest was to sit around waiting for "invitations" to do this or that our voice would rarely if ever be heard. In short, we wouldn't be doing our job. Is that what people want? (I think we know the answer.)

More to the point, how come four major pharmaceutical companies were allowed to attend a meeting for "civil society and social groups" while Forest - representing the consumer - was asked to leave? Questions must be asked and, believe me, we won't let it rest.

BTW, I was delighted to receive, late last night, the following cheery message from a friendly MEP.

"Well done Simon! You couldn't make it up, could you?  There is an emerging theme here.  The EU hates dissent, and simply cannot tolerate it. Lisbon Treaty, climate change, smoking.  Either you're on message, or you're a non-person."

Now there's a man who knows what he's talking about!

EU couldn't make it up

Hilarious! That's the only word for it (although I can think of a few others). I don't, as a rule, use this blog to report private meetings and conversations, but here's what happened when I attended yesterday's meeting (in Brussels) of "EU experts, civil society and social partners to support the Commission's Impact Assessment on the forthcoming initiative on smoke-free environments":

I sensed, as soon as I entered the room and introduced myself ("Hello, I'm Simon Clark - from the smokers' lobby group Forest"), that there could be trouble. The guy from Pfizer (yes, the pharmaceutical company) didn't look pleased, and there were mutterings from some of the other delegates. (There were around 20 in all.)

No surprise then, when, as soon as the meeting began, and we had all formally identified ourselves, two or three hands shot up. As I suspected, some of my fellow delegates were none too happy that a representative of Forest was in the room. If I didn't leave, said one, she would. Others nodded their heads in agreement.

The facilitator (chairwoman) looked at me. "Sorry," I said, "I'm not trying to be difficult because I know some of you have come a long way for this meeting, but Forest represents adults who choose to smoke and tolerant non-smokers like me. The consumer is entitled to be represented in the political process. So, on a point of principle, I'm not going to leave."

And that was how it stood until the facilitator suggested a compromise - of sorts. I could stay for the presentation and return to have my say at the end of the meeting. For the duration of the "facilitated discussion", however, I would have to leave the room. (For some reason the other delegates didn't want me to hear what they had to say. So much for transparent, open government! What do these people have to hide?)

I agreed. I suppose I could have stood my ground and refused to go, but to what purpose? The meeting would have broken up and they would have reconvened at a later date in my absence. In this situation it's best to make your point and leave them to it.

Anyway, the principal reason I was there was not to hear what they had to say (interesting though it may have been) but to communicate Forest's position. And that, in the end, is what I was able to do - helped, I have to say, by the facilitator who, faced with a tricky situation, did her best to keep all parties (including me) happy.

And so, at the end of the meeting, after the other delegates had left, I was invited back in and given 15 minutes to answer questions and make our views abundantly clear. Amusingly, even this session didn't go entirely smoothly. At one point, having pointed out the flaws in the "evidence" on passive smoking, I was asked to apologise (seriously!) by a woman who said she was an epidemiologist with a degree at Harvard. (So what? as Ed Balls might say.) Apparently my comments had upset her, poor soul. (Don't worry, I didn't apologise.)

Needless to say there was no written list of participants (I wonder why not?!), so I had to make my own. Make of it what you will, but the companies and organisations present (or invited) included:

Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline (all pharmaceutical companies), Eurofound (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions), InwatEurope (International Network of Women against Tobacco), International Health and Social Affairs Office, NHS Health Scotland, Business Europe, EUN, HOTREC (representing hotels, restaurants and cafes in Europe), AESGP (Association of the European Self-Medication Industry), SFP (Smoke-Free Partnership) and EHN (European Heart Network).

Disappointingly, but not surprisingly, even the hospitality guy failed to support my presence at the meeting so I tackled him afterwards. We represent your customers, I said. Why didn't you say something? "I felt uncomfortable but it wasn't my meeting," he bleated. Pathetic. Sometimes, I told him, you have to have the courage to stand up and be counted. Hospitality? With "friends" like that who needs enemies.

Update on Thursday, March 20, 2008 by Simon Clark

Britain's premier political blogger Iain Dale has added this comment HERE. Pass it on.

Don't do this, don't do that

Further to my post HERE about unnecessary signs, I have just driven to and from Cambridge on the A14 and on both sides of the dual-carriageway temporary electronic signs have been erected with the message DON'T PHONE WHILE DRIVING.

I think most people now know that using a hand-held phone while driving is illegal. But - and this is what annoys me - it is still legal to phone while driving, as long as you use a hands-free kit (see HERE). 

But the authorities don't care for the small print. After all, in today's bully state it's easier to tell everyone not to phone while driving. Period. That's the problem with Britain. When it comes to telling people what to do, we always have to go that extra mile.

PS. As you know, anti-smoking campaigners now want to ban smoking while driving, although there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that smoking is a serious distraction. It's not illegal - yet - so if anyone sees a sign that says DON''T SMOKE WHILE DRIVING please let me know immediately.

Battleground moves to Europe

This time tomorrow I shall be in Brussels for a "consultation meeting" with "EU experts, civil liberty and social partners" (whoever they are). The purpose of the meeting is to assess the impact of smoke-free environments.

No doubt we will hear how "successful" smoking bans have been in Ireland and the UK. My job - as I see it - is to put this "success" in perspective and highlight the negative impact. I also want to make the point that you don't have to introduce a comprehensive ban to offer a "smoke-free" environment to the majority of the population.

The momentum is with the anti-smoking movement but if we can persuade the EU to adopt one of several options short of a draconian, UK-style ban, such a policy could yet filter back to Britain and Ireland. If that means we have to fight our corner in Brussels - that's what we'll do.

Eddie Thompson's final hurdle

Yesterday, at Hampden Park, Dundee United played Rangers in the final of the CIS Insurance Cup. I wasn't at the game because I couldn't get a ticket, but I watched it on BBC Scotland which is available in England on digital TV.

I went to my first United match in 1969. I was ten years old and we had recently moved to Scotland from Maidenhead in Berkshire. Rangers were the opponents then as well and although the game ended 0-0 I was hooked. My father took me that first time but after that I went on my own, rarely missing a home game until, seven years later, I went to university in Aberdeen.

Needless to say, it was only then that a small miracle started to happen. United developed into rather a good team, a team that was good enough eventually to beat some of Europe's top clubs (including Barcelona, home and away) and reach a European final (the UEFA Cup) in 1987.

I supported the club from afar and even when I was living in London I did everything I could to get to the big games, including the match in 1983 when we won the League for the first (and only) time in the club's history. (That year, the title was a three-horse race and was decided on the last day of the season. United had to win, and they did, courtesy of a nail-biting 2-1 win over our city rivals Dundee at their ground, Dens Park. It was one of the best moments of my life.)

Unfortunately, winning at Hampden was a different proposition and I (almost) lost count of the times I watched United dominate cup finals before throwing away yet another trophy. In fact, prior to yesterday United had reached 13 domestic finals since 1974, winning just three and two of those - the League Cup wins of 1979 and 1980 - were at Dens Park.

Famously, the club lost six Scottish Cup finals at Hampden (five of them between 1981 and 1990) before winning at the seventh attempt - against Rangers - in 1994. (Thankfully, having been present at five losing finals, I was there to see it happen. In fact, I think I can pinpoint that day as the moment my obsession with football began to wane. Having, finally, achieved the Holy Grail after so much grief, it was as if, football-wise, I could rest in peace.)

And so to yesterday's game which had more poignancy than most football matches because United's chairman Eddie Thompson, a lifelong fan who has spent £5.5 million of his own money on the club in recent years with little or no success, is dying of cancer and there was speculation - following an emotional semi-final win over Aberdeen - that he might not live to see the game.

I'm delighted to say that he did. And I'm thrilled to say that United played better than I have seen them play for years. In fact, they dominated the match (which went to extra time) to such an extent that the Scotsman reports that they "outplayed Rangers for about 100 of the 120 minutes", which is as good as it gets.

Of course, being United - and this being Hampden - they couldn't quite finish Rangers off. And so, having led twice, the game ended 2-2 and United lost the penalty shoot-out 3-2. Disappointed? Of course. But Graham Spiers, writing in The Times HERE, sums up what I and many United fans feel this morning, even those of us who weren't at the match:

For the 17,000 United fans at Hampden, it was still an unforgettable occasion. They chanted "There's only one Eddie Thompson" throughout the match, and he responded by waving and pumping his fist with resolve. As cruel as the outcome was for United, Thompson will still have savoured this occasion. He is a special man, at a special club.

Full match report and comment HERE and HERE.

Sign language: what does it tell us?

A few weeks ago I stayed at a hotel in Oxford. In the bathroom, stuck to the wall above the bath and the towel rail were ugly and ostentatious signs warning guests that both the rail and the bathwater might get very hot. Frankly, I would have been annoyed if they hadn't. I stayed in another (very posh) hotel in London last week and the bathwater was, at best, luke warm. Perhaps I should have been warned about that, too.

Anyway, this is Britain today - a country swamped with signs warning us of every peril under the sun. The most offensive are those that order us to behave in a certain way, even if we're not committing an offence. Recently, I used a public loo and above the handbasin was a sign that screamed: NOW WASH YOUR HANDS. As it happens, I usually do - but that sign made me want to rebel and do the exact opposite.

Simon Richards, director of The Freedom Association, touched on this issue a few weeks ago on The Free Society blog. Today, Joe Jackson takes it a bit further. According to Joe, who is currently on tour promoting his new album:

In my hometown, Portsmouth, I saw NO SMOKING signs in bus stops and car parks, and no less than five signs in a phone box ... It was the same story in the rehearsal room just outside town where we prepared for the tour. The signage screamed at us even in the toilets. DO NOT THROW PAPER INTO THE URINALS. I wonder how many people go into a cubicle to get some paper, use it for God knows what, and then try to stuff it down a hole into which it obviously cannot fit. Meanwhile, in the cubicle: PLEASE FLUSH THE TOILET BEFORE LEAVING. Now, I’ve known to do this since I was maybe three, but perhaps I’m unusual.

Full article HERE.