The One Show you might want to miss

You can watch it HERE - if you must. Personally, I'd give it a miss.

PS. Apologies for the quality. It's a lo-res file that was sent to me by email.

Update on Wednesday, March 24, 2010 by Simon Clark

Last night, having watched The One Show report (above), I was feeling a bit hacked off ... This morning, having read the comments about Antony Worrall Thompson and Forest on this post, I feel fighting fit again.

Yes, AWT was hilariously "off message" with some of his comments. So what? The man has a mind of his own (shock horror) and is perfectly entitled to express his views. (In my experience, plenty of smokers share his view about smoking in cars where children are present.) He is clearly speaking from the heart, unlike many of those automatons in the anti-smoking industry who spout one statistic after another, all gleaned from the ASH handbook.

AWT has done a magnificent job supporting Forest for many years. No other "celebrity" is prepared to put themselves in the firing line on such a contentious issue, time and time again. We are very lucky to have him (he has never received a single penny for the many interviews he has done on our behalf, or the events he has attended) and I look forward to working with him for many years to come.

More to follow (in defence of Forest) ...

Duncan Bannatyne on Twitter

Well, it made me laugh.

Early warning anti-smoking alert

The Royal College of Physicians has published a report demanding some pretty severe restrictions on smoking and tobacco. The announcement is embargoed until 00:01 hrs tonight so expect the story to be in many of tomorrow's papers as well as online.

This afternoon Forest issued a response - also embargoed until midnight - which I will publish here tomorrow. Watch this space.

Tonight's television ...

Just to remind you that I am on The One Show (BBC1) tonight between 7.00 and 7.30pm. The filmed report also features Forest patron Antony Worrall Thompson and Duncan Bannatyne, president (!) of No Smoking Day.

A few minutes ago one of the production team rang and said "You definitely got your point across". Why, then, do I feel so nervous?

Sophie Dahl, a former smoker, is tonight's special guest. Or, as The One Show website puts it, "Sophie Dahl joins Adrian and Christine to talk about her new TV cookery show."

I may not be in the studio tonight but at least I can tell my grandchildren we appeared on the same programme.

Update on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 by Simon Clark

You've got to laugh - or cry. The best part of a morning including 20 minutes' filming reduced to a 15-second soundbite.

All credit to Sophie Dahl who clearly didn't feel comfortable with the tone of the studio "discussion", wasn't shy to say that she used to smoke, and even uttered the words "civil rights".

Well, somebody had to. What a farce.

Fairer smoking laws, please

Last week I had a rather bizarre conversation with Paul Dalgleish, a Carlisle based taxi driver. Three weeks ago Paul was fined the maximum £200 for having a cigarette in his cab. He was also ordered to pay £75 costs and a £15 "victim surcharge".

Paul has to take the blame for the size of his fine because he ignored the original fixed penalty notice, which would have cost him £25, and he did the same when the fine doubled to £50. I understand he also ignored two earlier warning letters for smoking in his cab.

I do have some sympathy for him, though, because this is yet another example of Britain's appallingly restrictive smoking laws. As Paul told his local paper in two separate reports:

“I was between jobs when it happened ... I would never have smoked if I’d had someone in my cab but I was on my own with the window down.

“I don’t understand the £15 victim surcharge either. Who is supposed to be the victim? There was nobody else there ... I just want to see some common sense.”

Full story HERE.

I don't want to say too much at this point because Paul is due back in court at the end of the month. He tells me he didn't receive the summons to appear in court when he was fined £200 so the fine has been quashed (apparently) and his case will be heard again on March 29.

In the meantime Paul - who until very recently smoked 40 cigarettes a day - has been told by the taxi licensing officer that he cannot use an electronic cigarette in his cab in case customers think it's a real cigarette and complain.

He has also been advised not to wear a campaign t-shirt because it could be classed as "offensive clothing".

All I can say is, people in Carlisle must be easily offended because this is what it says on Paul's t-shirt:

SUPPORT TAXI DAGGY
FAIR SMOKING LAWS PLEASE

Meanwhile he is allowed to wear his replica West Ham shirt which (if you're a Millwall fan) could be considered equally "offensive" (although you'd have to be a complete moron to be offended).

I'm in a quandary. I would love to stand shoulder to shoulder with Paul, publicising Britain's "unfair" smoking laws.

But - and I have told him this - I am concerned that if we throw our weight behind him and alienate the licensing officer, we could put Paul's livelihood at risk, and I am loathe to do that.

It's one thing to stand up for fairer smoking laws ... it's quite another to lose your job in the process.

So, Paul and I have agreed not to make a song and dance about it. Instead we will review the situation after his court appearance on March 29.

I have also suggested that he has a quiet word with the licensing officer about the legality of using e-cigarettes in the workplace. Perhaps our friends in the vapour world would like to comment and offer examples of service industries that do allow employees to use e-cigarettes while they are working.

(Could someone post a link to this thread on one of the e-cigarette forums? It would be useful to get some information from the horse's mouth.)

I'll keep you posted.

Housekeeping policy

I was interested to read a recent post on ConservativeHome concerning the website's comments policy. Jonathan Isaby, one of the editors, wrote:

ConservativeHome has always prided itself on being an open house for debate ... Of late, there has also been a small minority seeking to turn every other thread into a discussion about one of several pet issues, which is incredibly boring for most readers. We intend to crack down on this and will more regularly delete comments which go off-topic in this way, so please desist from making them in the first place.

Full post HERE.

This struck a chord because one of my pet hates is people writing about their pet subject on a thread that is about something else entirely.

Taking Liberties is a personal blog that reflects my job (which is primarily to do with smoking) but I like to cover other issues too, some of it personal (which I know is a bit self-indulgent but tough.)

Whatever I write, though, some people insist on bringing it back to smoking (or, dare I say, UKIP) which can be incredibly boring, even for me.

Now, I know I can't be too precious about this (I'm grateful, much of the time, for any comments), but traffic to this blog has doubled in recent weeks - most of it due to links with non smoking-related blogs - and I don't want to discourage people who will be driven away if they think it's a single-issue site for single issue fanatics.

If you want to talk about smoking, please restrict your comments to those posts (the majority) that are about smoking otherwise, as Jonathan says on ConHome, "We will ... more regularly delete comments which go off-topic".

Economic cost of enforcing the smoking ban

Before parliament introduced the public smoking ban, Forest ran a two-year campaign entitled "Fight the ban: fight for choice". The campaign included a series of advertisements, including the one above, that appeared in political titles such as The Spectator, The Week and the New Statesman.

I was interested therefore to read the following report which appeared last week:

"A smoke enforcement chief on £44,000-a-year failed to convict or warn anyone in an entire year. Council bosses backed him up with a smoking co-ordinator officer on £38,000-a-year and two part-time assistants to crack down on people illegally smoking in public or the workplace. But even though an estimated 62,000 of the 270,000 adults in Croydon, South London, smoke, the council hit squad failed to nail anyone."

Story HERE.

The report adds that "It is believed the officers are no longer employed in an anti-smoking role." Nevertheless, I wonder how many times this story could be repeated up and down the country and how much public money has been spent on "smoke enforcement officers" since the introduction of the smoking ban.

By coincidence, I have just been sent a copy of letter from the principal environmental health officer at one local council. It reads:

Further to your letter requesting information on money spent by St Helens Council on the implementation of the Health Act 2008 which came into place on July 1st 2007, I have outlined below some budget details relating to this area of work.

The Department of Health provided a lump sum grant to the Council totalling £102,058 in 2007. The money was used to implement the lead up and enforcement of the legislation within St Helens. The majority of the grant was spent on the employment of two smoke free technical officers on an 18 month contract. Their responsibilities included co-ordinating the lead up to July 1st, communicating with businesses, visiting businesses to monitor compliance from July 1st with the legislation and investigating complaints received.

To answer the specific questions in your letter:

The cost of smoking ban materials such as stickers/leaflets/posters - the majority of these materials were provided free of charge to local authorities by Smoke Free England (part of the NHS). Additional internal printing for legal documents and local promotional materials costs £2,840 (part of the Department of Health grant).

Costs of legal actions and or warnings issued to landlords/publicans/club owners; there has been no legal action against any businesses or individuals in relation to the Health Act. One fixed penalty notice has been served and 98 warning letters sent, to date. The estimated cost of this activity is £1,710.

The approximate cost of money to council staff which was linked to the implementation of this new legislation is £88,398 which relates to the two smoke free officers (which came from the Department of Health grant). Other council staff involvement to date is estimated at £2,908.

The cost of the smoking ban seems to grow by the day. My correspondent suggests that if people from all over the UK send a Freedom of Information request to their local council "we could get a lot more info about how much was spent (and is being spent)".

Over to you. Please send a copy of your letter (and the reply) to Forest.

Meanwhile I like the reference to the majority of materials being provided "free of charge to local authorities by Smoke Free England". Free of charge to local authorities, perhaps, but not free of charge to the taxpayer.

I sense another FoI request coming on ...

Back in the USSR

Simon Hills, associate editor of The Times Magazine, is writing a series of articles for The Free Society entitled "Reflections on a Free Society". This month he argues that that the society in which we now live is like a luxury Soviet Union.

Simon writes:

Today’s celebrities are timorous beasties who for half their lives fly around the world to premieres and film shoots to promote their careers and for the other live self-obsessed, cosseted existences driving in Toyota Priuses between their gated residences. They are fortified not by a convivial smoke and glass of champagne, God forbid, but prescription drugs and an army of sycophants. The smoking bans meted out in New York and California didn’t save Heath Ledger and Michael Jackson.

For the truth is that the society in which we live in now is like a luxury Soviet Union. Political debate is encouraged provided there is no dissent. As in the Duma you could discuss ways towards socialism, so in the White House you can argue how best to discourage people using their cars. You cannot say that driving is a good thing if you want a career in politics or, for that matter, the movie business, or in any of the industries in which are run by the intelligensia.

Full article HERE.

Caught on camera for The One Show

Thoroughly enjoyed this morning's filming for The One Show. I've never been to Holland Park, although I've heard a lot about it. For some reason I expected a large area of grass bordered by a footpath, but it is far more like a country park - lots of trees and muddy tracks. I even saw some pigs (above).

I was met by a production crew of three people plus the familiar sight of journalist Matt Allwright (Watchdog, Rogue Traders, Fat Nation etc).

Matt's on screen persona has always struck me as witty but sharp, bordering on sarcastic and, occasionally, cynical. In person he was charming, although I may change my mind when I see the final edit and hear his comments!

I imagine my contribution will be measured in seconds rather than minutes. "This is The One Show!" Matt laughed when I mentioned it, but we were nevertheless filming for 15 or 20 minutes.

On the first take Matt and I took up a position 100 yards from the camera and walked very slowly towards it, talking to one another. (We were both miked up.)

"That was great," said the director when we had finished. "Unfortunately, we couldn't see you at the end because of that bush." She pointed at the offending shrub. "We'll have to do it again from halfway."

So we walked back up the path and did it again. This time we kept to the right to stay in full view of the camera but if you see me with my head permanently bowed it's because I was trying to walk and talk at the same time without falling over or saying something really stupid AND IT'S NOT EASY!

After that the director wanted a close up of the pair of us in conversation, so we walked side-by-side with the cameraman walking backwards a few feet away. We did that twice, I think, and then they took some set up shots of Matt and me chatting to one another.

Off camera we talked about Berlin. Matt visited the city recently so I mentioned that Joe Jackson, one of our supporters, had moved there a few years ago and one of the reasons was the smoking ban. "Joe Jackson? He's one of my favourite musicians," said Matt.

It was all very relaxed, which in my experience is the most dangerous situation to be in when you're being interviewed by an experienced journalist. It's very easy to say something you might later regret.

I had three or four key messages about smoking around children which I repeated ad nauseum. I imagine they will use one, possibly two, because they are also interviewing Duncan Bannatyne later today and Antony Worrall Thompson tomorrow morning.

What I'm trying to say is, don't expect too much (if you watch it), but it was enjoyable to do and Matt was a breath of fresh air (no pun intended).

Fingers crossed ...

AWT, DB ... and me

I'm filming an interview for The One Show this morning. The producer wants to film in Holland Park, west London, so we're meeting at the nearest tube station at 11.30. (It doesn't get much more glamorous than this.)

The producers also wanted to interview a celebrity who smokes and has children so I recommended Forest patron Antony Worrall Thompson.

Given his views on the subject (see HERE), I also suggested they contact my old sparring partner Duncan Bannatyne.

They liked the idea so, to the best of my knowledge, The One Show is going to interview AWT, DB and me. The item will be shown tomorrow night following a press conference by the Royal College of Physicians which is publishing a new report about passive smoking and children's health.

PS. Given the number of times I have suggested his name to producers and researchers, I ought to become DB's agent. Ten per cent of what he earns and I'll be able to pay off my mortgage, get the kids through university and retire in, oh, five years.

Update on Saturday, March 20, 2010 by Simon Clark

Bannatyne was on Desert Island Discs last week. The records he chose were:

Rod Stewart – Maggie May
The Human League – Don’t You Want Me
Tom Jones – Green, Green Grass of Home
Dawn – Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree
Michael Ball – Love Changes Everything
Beverley Knight – Shoulda Woulda Coulda
Chesney Hawkes – The One and Only
The Plastic Ono Band – Give Peace a Chance

What, no "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes"? Duncan! What were you thinking? How could you have missed such a glorious opportunity to browbeat the nation with some smokefree propaganda? That would never have happened if I'd been your agent ...

Update: the Northern Echo explains why Bannatyne chose each song:

Chesney Hawkes – The One and Only
“I think this record was written for me.”

Plastic Ono Band – Give Peace a Chance
“All politicians, every Sunday, should be made to listen to this.”

Uggghhhh!!

Why Peter Tatchell is not such a big potato

I was looking forward to the Battle for Politics on Saturday. In particular I was looking forward to listening to Peter Tatchell, one of the panellists on a Question Time style forum that brought the conference to a close.

There was a time when I really didn't like Tatchell at all. His aggressive style of campaigning - which included "outing" (without their permission) six gay bishops - rankled and occasionally shocked me.

Don't get me wrong. I don't give a monkey's if someone is straight or gay and gay people should have the same rights as anyone else. I don't however like any issue being shoved down my throat in an "I'm right you're wrong" kind of way - and that was my first impression of Peter Tatchell, 20 or more years ago.

Gradually however I warmed to him and I saw him for he is - a passionate, articulate and highly committed campaigner who has sacrificed a great deal for his beliefs. Standing up to Mugabe's thugs in Zimbabwe was an incredibly brave thing to do. No-one can take that away from him, so credit where credit's due.

I was disappointed however when he supported Radio 1's decision (later reversed) to bleep the word "faggot" from the line ""you scumbag, you maggot, you cheap lousy faggot" which appears in The Pogues' "A Fairytale of New York". Taking offence at a much-loved song, 20 years after it was first released, struck me as obsessive, poorly judged and, worse, humourless. It was also censorship.

On Saturday Tatchell disappointed me again, even though he was the most entertaining speaker on the panel. The others played their part but it was Tatchell we wanted to hear.

What a pity, then, that so much of what he said was complete bollocks.

Tatchell is now a member of the Green party and when I heard him talk about the "economic tyranny" under which we allegedly live and his support for the workers on strike at British Airways, I thought I had either fallen asleep and was dreaming or had gone back in time to a student union debate circa 1978.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does anyone really believe that the Greens are anything other than born again socialists with a new agenda to control people's lives in the name of "the environment"? It beggars belief that a civil liberties campaigner like Tatchell can get involved with this shower, but there you go. Stranger things have happened.

At one point, proving perhaps that he and the Greens make excellent bedfellows, he went beyond the pale and suggested that all the bankers who are of course solely responsible for the current financial mess (I paraphrase his remarks) should be sent to jail, even though (as one member of the audience quietly pointed out) there is no evidence that anyone did anything illegal.

You'd have to be Vladimir Putin to get away with it, but I wouldn't put anything past our new Green comrades.

I would still love to meet Tatchell because I'm sure he's great company and I enjoy a good argument. He would certainly be on my wish list for an X-Factor style dinner party where I would sit him between Margaret Thatcher (on one side) and Norman Tebbit (on the other).

Sadly, Tatchell may be a great civil rights campaigner (which is why I would ask him to dinner - he would have some great stories to tell) but he is no more credible a politician than the elderly comrade who stood up and with every word and gesture reminded us why communism and even socialism are so discredited in the UK.

For that contribution alone, I am truly grateful.

Update on Monday, March 22, 2010 by Simon Clark

During the final session (above) a number of groups - including The Free Society - were invited to make a short pitch to the audience which numbered around 200 people. I wasn't expecting to speak (I was given a couple of minutes' notice) so I kept it short and got a surprisingly warm round of applause despite mentioning Forest, smoking and the bully state. (Or was it because I mentioned Forest, smoking and the bully state?)

Other featured groups included No2ID, Academics for Academic Freedom, The Freedom Association and, best of all, an organisation I had never heard of before Saturday but whose name I shall never forget: Big Potatoes.

Visit their website HERE.

Sunday morning somewhere in England

Spent the morning watching my son play rugby near Stansted Airport. We could see the planes coming in but thanks to the flight path - and the "enthusiastic" parents on the adjoining pitch - I could barely hear them.

Most Sundays in winter you'll find me standing in a muddy field, buffeted by the wind, woolly hat and overcoat offering very little protection from the horizontal rain or the perishing cold.

Today's game, against Saffron Walden, was played in a village called Henham (above and below). It took us an hour to drive there but it was worth it. The sun was shining and it was warm enough to shed both the overcoat and the woolly hat. Spring has arrived, I think. (Cue snow and ice at Easter.)

Henham was picturesque but that, in itself, wasn't a surprise. Like much of England, this area is awash with beautiful villages. Today, though, we tend to miss many of them because we are far too busy, hurtling past on motorways, dual-carriageways or busy A-roads, to take much notice.

When was the last time you went for a "Sunday drive"? It seems hard to believe, but when I was young my parents really did bundle us into the car for a "drive in the country". No seatbelts in those days, of course. When we were very small my sister and I used to stand up and hold on to the front seats for a better view.

At this point I was going to make a tenuous link between this and an article by Bill Bryson in The Times yesterday. On reflection it doesn't make much sense (the link not the article), but if you're interested you can read the article HERE.

Born and bred in America (and author of one of my favourite books, Notes from a Small Island), Bryson currently lives in Norfolk. He would like Henham, I'm sure.

And the rugby wasn't bad, either. Stags won. (Sorry, that really was a tenuous link.)

Smithy at Sports Personality of the Year

My children are huge fans of Gavin and Stacey (I am too) and James Corden's Sports Personality spoof for Sport Relief was beautifully done.

Like Gavin and Stacey, the minutiae (alongside the moments of broad humour) was phenomenal. (How many noticed Smithy kissing Fabio Capello on both cheeks as he went to collect his award? There were numerous examples of this attention to detail.)

Gavin and Stacey is gloriously warm-hearted. It is also an ensemble piece, relying as much on the supporting players as it does on the main characters. So was this. Beckham, for one, played his part superbly.

Gavin and Stacey bears repeated viewing and so does Smithy at Sports Personality of the Year. Click HERE. You won't be disappointed.

Painful memory of the Institute of Ideas

I'll be in London today, attending the Battle for Politics, a "pre-election public summit" organised by the Institute of Ideas. It's at Goodenough College, Mecklenburgh Square, from 9.30 to 6.00pm. Tickets, I am told, are available on the door. Full programme HERE.

The last time I went to an IoI event - in November 2008 - I was on a panel discussing the politics of food. I have rarely addressed such a sympathetic, (genuinely) liberal audience.

That's not my main recollection of the day, however, because a few hours later I was taken by ambulance to hospital where I was told I had a kidney stone. I wrote about it HERE.

Ah, yes, the (painful) memory comes flooding back ...

Damning indictment of that PX report

Mark Littlewood, director of the Institute of Economic Affairs, has blogged about the Policy Exchange report HERE. More unhappy reading for the policy wonks at PX.

Here's a taste:

It seems that the authors suffer from two problems identified by Hayek. The first is the “fatal conceit”. They believe they have calculated the exactly correct tax to internalise all social costs – an additional 5%. This is remarkable. If a government has the information to do this, then central planning in the Soviet Union would have been effective. And maybe we should do this for all products: 4.3% tax for chips, 11.45% for cream cakes, a 2.657% subsidy for footballs (because of the “social” benefit of exercise). Why pick on cigarettes?

Secondly, as Hayek identified, once the state provides and regulates certain things (eg the provision of health or labour market contracts) the lovers of state control see external costs and benefits all over the place. There is then literally no limit on the government intervention that can address those costs and benefits and the inevitable result is serfdom.

As put-downs go ("The most exasperating element of the document is its reliance on the theory of Marxist false consciousness") it's pretty damning, even more so when it comes from the head of a free market think tank with a long and respected history.

Unlike some I could mention.