Denise Hogan on SunTalk Radio

I may have mentioned it but earlier today I was on SunTalk Radio discussing the Nick Hogan situation with presenter Jon Gaunt.

Ninety minutes later Jon spoke to Nick's wife Denise who gave her reaction to Nick's imprisonment.

Both interviews are featured on THIS SunTalk podcast.

Update on Monday, March 1, 2010 by Simon Clark

18:20 ... Current total donated, £3,775.50

20.39 ... It's now £4,274.50

Nick Hogan in "violent" jail

I understand that this is where former landlord Nick Hogan is being held following his imprisonment on Friday (see previous posts).

In 2007 the Manchester Evening News described Forest Bank jail in Salford as "one of the most violent jails in the country". The paper reported that:

"In 10 years, there have been 2,329 attacks by prisoners at Forest Bank jail in Agecroft. Last year alone there were 339."

Help get Nick Hogan released. Click HERE.

Nick Hogan featured on SunTalk

STOP PRESS: I'll be discussing the Nick Hogan situation with Jon Gaunt on SunTalk at 10.10 this morning. Click HERE to listen.

Update on Monday, March 1, 2010 by Simon Clark

Nick's wife Denise talked to Gaunty at 11.38. The programme asked: "Is the smoking ban working? Did a man deserve prison for flaunting the law? Email: gaunty@suntalk.com".

Update on Monday, March 1, 2010 by Simon Clark

14:45 ... We have just issued THIS eBulletin to Forest subscribers. Donations currently stand at £2,032.

Update on Monday, March 1, 2010 by Simon Clark

SunTalk has just updated its website:

Should landlord Nick Hogan have been jailed over his stance on the smoking ban? Director of the pro-smoking group Forest, Simon Clark, and the wife of jailed landlord Nick Hogan, Denise Hogan, join Gaunty to discuss the smoking ban in pubs.

Click HERE.

Update on Monday, March 1, 2010 by Simon Clark

16:00 ... Current total donated, £3188.50

Free Nick Hogan ... how you can help

There has been a lot of online activity over the weekend concerning Nick Hogan, the former landlord given a six month prison sentence for refusing (or being unable) to pay fines in relation to people smoking in his premises. (See earlier post HERE.)

Old Holborn, in particular, has been very busy. According to Anna Raccoon:

His wife, Denise, is now managing their present pub in Chorley herself. Their trade is so low that they don't even bother to open the downstairs bar. Nick is bankrupt, and had gone to court intending to argue that he could not afford the £500 a month payments demanded by the council towards their £11,600 bill for prosecuting him.

He has already paid off £1,600. The court gave him a six month sentence instead, and he is currently in Forest Bank prison in Pendlebury, unable to help to earn the money which would ensure his release.

Denise has not even been able to speak to him since he was sentenced. She has merely been told to phone the prison on Monday to enquire when she might see him. She is confused, frightened, and feeling very lonely.

If all the people who disagree with the smoking ban contributed a few coppers, then Nick would be released ... Denise has just said to me 'All the people who disagree with the ban - where are they now? - and my Nick is in prison'. Quite.

Denise has no idea how to use the Internet, she has no idea how many of us are against the smoking ban. Let's show her.

Full post HERE.

Old Holborn has set up a PayPal account where you can make a donation towards Nick's unpaid fine and costs. Click on the link above for more details.

I have made a donation and I have asked OH to keep us informed of the running total. I understand that £10,000 is needed to get Nick out of prison so all contributions welcome.

Later today we will be sending an e-newsletter with news of Nick's plight to the 2,000 or so Forest subscribers. A similar bulletin will be sent to the 2,500 registered supporters of the Save Our Pubs and Clubs campaign.

More info to follow.

Update on Monday, March 1, 2010 by Simon Clark

As of 09.45 this morning donations stand at £1,522. Check our tweets (top right) for updates.

Iain Dale on tomorrow's leaders

Talking of Iain Dale (see previous post), I once produced and edited a magazine for Iain. It was called The Politico and we published a handful of issues before pulling the plug because, sadly, we couldn't generate a profit (ie make any money).

Primarily The Politico featured book reviews (Iain owned a political bookshop called Politicos which was a short walk from the old Forest office in Victoria) but we also included articles, interviews and profiles.

Among those we interviewed were Gyles Brandreth, Tony Benn, David Davis, Mark Oaten, Jeremy Paxman, Adam Boulton (Sky News), Sandy Toksvic and many more.

One day, I will reproduce the Brandreth/Benn interviews on this blog. Before he stands down as MP for Winchester, I may even dig out my interview with Mark Oaten in which I predicted a long and successful career for the Lib Dem politician dubbed "The Terminator" by a friend of mine who was once his political opponent in Watford.

Speaking of predictions, I was reminded when writing about Iain and David Cameron (below) of an article Iain wrote for The Politico in 2003. It was called "Tomorrow's Leaders" and the sub-heading read: "Iain Dale dusts off his crystal ball to consider which of today's politicians will be at the political summit in 2013".

Where shall I begin? Well, how about "the omnipresent David Lammy [who] has it in him to be Britain's first black prime minister". Or "the leather clad Hazel Blears ... Britain's first biker PM?" Hmmm, perhaps not.

Other predictions are equally wide of the mark, but it's a tough job, predicting the future. For example:

"John Bercow's resignation from the Shadow Cabinet has done his career immense harm both in terms of his reputation among his colleagues but also in the country. His oratorical skills and debating abilities are unsurpassed on the Tory benches, yet he's regarded as prone to bouts of temperamental outbursts which he would do well to control ..."

Or he could end up as Speaker of the House.

Most accurate was Iain's prediction that:

"Yvette Cooper's and Ed Balls's chances of success depend in large part on the patronage of Ball's current boss Gordon Brown. If Brown does succeed Blair these two are likely to shoot up the greasy pole with almost indecent speed."

And how about this:

"A Lib Dem MEP called Nick Clegg, who is desperate to get into Westminster, is another Big Brain who might make it."

Uncanny. Or this:

David Cameron is another Tory who Left wing journalists are keen to promote [my italics]. Yes, he's the reasonable face of the Tory party, yet it's difficult to point to what he has actually achieved in a short time in parliament. But he's certainly one to watch."

How true. More comforting is the knowledge that ...

"I have always believed that William Hague would one day re-emerge as Tory leader and if you bear in mind that in 2013 he will only be 52 that is not at all fanciful."

So, it's official. In the words of leading Conservative blogger Iain Dale, William Hague could be PM in 2013!

You read it here, er ... second.

The challenge facing David Cameron

Writing from Brighton, where the Conservatives are holding their final conference before the election, Iain Dale discusses the challenge facing David Cameron in the wake of a poll that suggests a lead of just two per cent over Labour (See HERE.)

Two per cent? How has it come to this? Faced with one of the least-loved prime ministers of all time, a great clunking fist of a man with the charm and charisma of a wet weekend in Glenrothes, Cameron's Conservatives should be looking forward to a landslide victory. Instead there is talk of a hung parliament, a coalition government - even (heaven forbid) a Labour victory.

As someone who has never voted for any party other than the Conservatives, I have listened to a succession of Tory spokesmen with mounting exasperation. In particular, if I hear the word "change" one more time (and I'm sure I will because they have been programmed to say it as often as possible) I will "thcream and thcream until I'm thick", to quote Violet Elizabeth Bott.

This morning, during the paper review on Sunday AM (BBC1), Andrew Marr quoted someone who suggested that Cameron is approaching the general election as if he was holding a priceless Ming vase. In other words, very cautiously, in order not to trip up.

It's true. "Dave" is so desperate not to offend anyone (including people who will never vote for the Tories anyway) he's become a pale shadow of a political leader and the party has been bled dry of any personality.

I still don't understand what Cameron - and the party he leads - actually stands for. Oh, I've heard all that guff about getting Big Government off our backs. But where is the detail? What are they actually going to do?

On Friday, as readers of this blog know, a former landlord was sent to jail for six months for the "crime" of allowing people to smoke in his own property and failing to pay a £3,000 fine. I understand that Cameron cannot condone law-breaking, but he can condemn the law that has been broken. Instead, when he was asked whether he would amend the smoking ban, he allegedly, and facetiously, replied, "I don't smoke." Well, not any more. (See HERE.)

Perhaps he thought he was being funny. Well, it's not funny that as a result of an unnecessarily draconian piece of legislation (which could be amended within months, if Cameron saw fit), an otherwise law-abiding citizen is currently in jail.

Excessive use of speed cameras; increasing use of CCTV cameras; restrictions on this, health warnings on that ... what are the Tories really going to do about it?

"Broken Britain" should include the impact of the smoking ban on community pubs and clubs. But no, backstreet boozers and working mens' clubs don't fit into the New Labour/Cameron's Conservatives' vision of the future.

When the Tories talk of "change", what does that mean? Can they be specific? Of course not, because that would risk alienating certain groups. Instead, we get a bunch of meaningless platitudes. Well, I'm sick of it.

Do they think we're stupid? I'm a natural Conservative, for heaven's sake, yet the only reason I will vote Conservative in 2010 is because I want Labour out and the Tories are the only viable alternative.

The majority of people however are not natural Conservatives and they need rather more reason to make them vote for the party (as opposed to one of the opposition parties).

Time is running out for Cameron. He has a few more weeks (if that) before Brown calls an election. Like many other people I want to know exactly what I'm voting for. At present, it looks like more of the same (slightly diluted, perhaps).

That's not good enough. I need to know that a Cameron government has the heart (and the will) to tackle Big Government and genuinely roll back the frontiers of the state, and before the election I want the Tories to list half a dozen specific policies that will confirm their good intentions and will be implemented within 100 days of achieving office.

I still think the Tories will win the election with a majority of 20-30 seats, but the longer this campaign drags on I believe it will be in spite of, not because of, David Cameron's luke-warm and soporific leadership.

Update on Sunday, February 28, 2010 by Simon Clark

Here's a different analogy. I believe that David Cameron is suffering from the same problem that afflicts many sportsmen when they are in sight of the prize.

Take Andy Murray. In the really big, career-defining matches - against Roddick at Wimbledon last year, and against Federer in the US Open final in 2008 and again in Australia this year - Murray has played a conservative game in the hope that his opponent will make more mistakes than him.

It doesn't work like that. They say that fortune favours the brave, and it's true in sport as in life. In boxing a challenger has to clearly defeat the champion in order to win the fight, otherwise the champion keeps the title. Playing it safe very rarely works.

In boxing parlance, if Cameron is to win the election with a working majority there has to be a significant difference between the leading parties or, metaphorically speaking, he has to knock out his opponent. And he can't do that by sitting on the fence.

Smoking ban costs landlord his liberty

I know some of you will want to comment on the six-month jail sentence given to Nick Hogan (left) for refusing to pay fines for allowing people to smoke in his Bolton pub after the introduction of the smoking ban in 2007. The Daily Mail has the story HERE.

I'll comment further, when I get a moment.

Update on Saturday, February 27, 2010 by Simon Clark

England Expects describes Nick as a "political prisoner". Click HERE and scroll down.

Chris Snowdon (Velvet Glove Iron Fist) has THIS to say. "A quick Google search," writes Chris, "shows us what company Nick Hogan has been placed amongst." You couldn't make it up.

Update on Sunday, February 28, 2010 by Simon Clark

I know Nick resigned as the party's candidate for Chorley, but he is still described as UKIP's "national spokesman for licensing and night-time economy". So why the deafening silence from UKIP about his predicament?

Not a peep on the party's website or any of the official "UKIP blogs". (See HERE.) Honourable mention, though, to Paul Nuttall, chairman of UKIP and MEP for North West England, who writes on his own blog:

"It makes me sick to the stomach to see Nick ‘go down’ because prison is for real criminals, for bad people who seek to hurt other human beings, not for people like Nick Hogan ... Nick may be behind bars today, but it is the wrong bar in my opinion and I for one will be there to meet him when he is released."

See HERE.

Update: I'm told that UKIP has issued a press release, but there's no sign of it on the party's website. (The report in the Mail bears no relation to the UKIP press release so the paper clearly didn't get it from that source.)

Government consultations: why bother?

I have just been reading the summary of responses to the consultation on proposed tobacco control regulations for England, which was published this week. (You can download it HERE.) The seven-page Forest response was submitted on Monday 4 January (the closing date). At 16:23 we received an email that read:

Thank you for responding to the 'Consultation on proposed tobacco control regulations in England (under the Heath Bill 2009)' ...

Yours faithfully
Tobacco Consultation Team
Department of Health

The following day we received a second, identical, acknowledgement so there is little doubt that our submission was received - and before the deadline.

Odd, then, that the summary document contains a list of organisations that responded to the consultation and Forest isn't listed. (I've read it several times and, no, we're not there.)

In fact, we're not mentioned anywhere in the document. In contrast, quotes from ASH are prominent throughout - to the extent that three of the four comments attributed to ASH are highlighted in green to make them stand out!!

Perhaps the DH was upset by the tone of our submission which concluded with this observation:

We note that the introduction to the consultation on proposed tobacco control regulations states that: “In 2008 the Department of Health published the Consultation on the future of tobacco control which received almost 100,000 responses and prompted further debate on what measures need to be taken to move toward a tobacco-free future.”

What the document does not make clear is that, of the 96,515 responses, the overwhelming majority were pre-written postcards or e-mail campaigns organised by publicly-funded anti-smoking groups, notably Smokefree Northwest (which was responsible for 49,507 respondents), Smokefree North East (8,128) and D-MYST, SmokeFree Liverpool’s youth organisation (10,757).

In total, 79,272 of the 96,515 responses were generated by anti-smoking organisations, most of them funded with public money, a classic example of a government consultation being manipulated to suit government policy.

With this in mind, we look forward to seeing a breakdown of responses to the proposed tobacco control regulations in England (under the Health Bill 2009). It should be at least as interesting as the regulations themselves.

I note that in the introduction to the summary of responses, it reads:

The Department of Health wishes to thank all respondents for taking the time to send us their contributions to this consultation.

Frankly, I don't know why we bother.

What does Gillian Merron know about pubs?

Gillian Merron has certainly put her foot in it. I was in a meeting yesterday morning when someone arrived hot foot from the meeting in which the public health minister declared: “The pub trade does have challenges ... but it isn’t the case that the [smoking] ban has led to pub closures.”

According to Merron, the ban has been a “tremendous success” with a 95 per cent compliance rate and the support of 80 per cent of the public. (The Publican has the story HERE.)

Now, I can understand why the government might think that the ban has been a great "success" (see above), but to suggest that the ban is not responsible for any pub closures is unbelievable. I would have far more respect for her if she said, "We accept that the smoking ban has resulted in some pub closures but we believe that this is a small price to pay for the sake of the nation's health." Or words to that effect.

It would at least have a ring of truth to it. Instead, like so many politicians, she tries to brazen it out and ends up being, well, economical with the truth.

Additional reading:
The missing interview with Lincoln MP Gillian Merron (The Linc)
Progress on alcohol labelling 'disappointing' (BBC News)
Public health marketing campaigns will not be cut, says minister (Marketing Week)

Update on Friday, February 26, 2010 by Simon Clark

By coincidence, I hope to be in Lincoln (Gillian Merron's constituency) next week when I will be visiting Emma Chapman, licensee and sole proprietor of The Jolly Brewer. Emma is a supporter of our campaign to amend the smoking ban and last year she devoted a day of her annual music festival to promote this and other similar initiatives. Why would she (and other publicans) do that if the ban had been such a great "success"?

See also: Time called on city pub. According to the Lincolnshire Echo, "The credit crunch, cheap booze in supermarkets and the smoking ban have been all cited as causes of several pub closures in Lincoln in recent years."

PS. Gillian Merron has a majority of 4,613 ...

Update on Friday, February 26, 2010 by Simon Clark

11.20 ... Listening to a programme on Radio 4 called Last Orders. It's about the demise of the local pub. References to smoking ban, nanny state etc around 20 minutes in.

Landlord: "People aren't coming because of the smoking ban."

Landlady: "Final nail in the coffin, if you'll pardon the expression."

Two more soundbites:

Pubs closing at a rate of seven per day. And it is predicted that if closures continue at that rate the door will be closed on the last pub in the UK by 2028.

H/T Jacqui Delbaere

Why so many rules and regulations?

"More people were killed building the Channel Tunnel than the Empire State Building," writes Phil Whiteley on The Free Society website today. "Yet official and unofficial records put the death toll at less than the 10 who perished building the underground link between Britain and France.

"Does that mean we should abandon hard hats? No, but it does mean that rules may play a much smaller role than we suppose in health and safety – and in many aspects of work and life.

"What saved lives in Manhattan in the 1930s, as indicated by the phenomenal productivity, will have been close camaraderie and high levels of trust among the workers looking out for each other.

"The common response from a politician to a problem is a new law banning something. But however unpleasant that thing can be, a new rule can have unintended consequences."

Full article HERE.

Put tobacco on school curriculum, say NICE

Those terribly nice people at the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence have come up a terrific wheeze to educate our children on the perils of tobacco. According to a journalist who contacted me for a response, "They want to put information about tobacco across a wide range of subjects - as part of a drive to prevent young people from becoming smokers.

"They're saying that when people start smoking at a young age it becomes harder for them to give up in later life - so early intervention is best. They're suggesting that as well as lessons about the physical impact of smoking that tobacco should be looked at in subjects such as citizenship and media studies."

After a bit of thought, I sent the following (rather long) quote:

"It's important that young people are well educated about the risks of smoking, but if tobacco is featured across a range of subjects there is a real danger of warning fatigue. No-one likes to be nagged, least of all teenagers, and this could be counter-productive.

"It's important that smoking is seen in its social and historical context. Lessons about the health risks should be accompanied by lessons about the history of smoking, which I'm sure would interest a great many students, and changing social attitudes towards tobacco.

"If they include tobacco in subjects such as citizenship and media studies, I sincerely hope that they discuss issues such as freedom of choice, personal responsibility and the role of government in changing people's behaviour. There are strong arguments on both sides of the debate and older children should be given the opportunity to make up their own minds and draw their own conclusions.

"The majority of teenage children are not stupid and they know when they are being fed a diet of one-sided propaganda. Schools must stick to the facts and give children a broad education on the issues surrounding tobacco. Above all, they should encourage children to think for themselves so when they become adults they can make a proper, informed choice about tobacco and other issues."

The BBC has the story HERE. It includes a shorter version of the quote above.

Knight in shining armour

Conservative MP Greg Knight, a leading supporter of the Save Our Pubs and Clubs: AmendTheSmokingBan campaign (click on the image above), spoke briefly during yesterday's Private Members' Debate on "The future of the British pub" (see earlier post).

Greg was responding to opening remarks by Nigel Evans MP, who introduced the debate. According to Hansard:

Mr. Knight: There is another issue that my hon. Friend has not yet mentioned but which has been devastating for many pubs and clubs-the smoking ban. It is not the ban per se that is the problem, but the heavy-handed way in which it has been introduced in the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is ludicrous that the only way in which a licensee can provide an indoor smoking room for his or her customers is if they happen to operate on a boat?

Mr. Evans: The way in which the smoking ban was introduced was far stricter than in almost any other country. There are 12 million smokers out there, and a lot of them used to go to pubs, but now that is clearly not the case. I know that my right hon. Friend and hon. Members from other parties are trying to get changes in the law, not to lift the smoking ban but to amend it sensibly so that smokers will at least be treated like human beings when they go to pubs and clubs, and be looked after as opposed to being treated like lepers.

Evans also quoted Antony Worrall Thompson (from a Save Our Pubs and Clubs press release): "The smoking ban has had an extraordinary detrimental effect on pubs and clubs. The legislation as it stands is excessive and I would like to see it amended."

He (Evans) then added:

"As I have noted, MPs from all parties have co-operated with my right hon. Friend in his campaign [to amend the smoking ban]. We are all familiar with seeing people standing outside pubs having a cigarette in sub-zero temperatures, in the rain and the snow with all the elements against them. Hypothermia has become a smoking-related disease under this Government."

Hansard also reports this exchange:

Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he agree that his arguments in favour of the British pub apply equally to non-profit-making clubs in the UK, such as Labour clubs, Conservative clubs, working men's clubs and British Legion clubs?

Mr. Evans: Absolutely. I agree with my right hon. Friend that such clubs are very much at the heart of communities. The things that make pubs attractive places for people to visit are the same as the things that make people go regularly to clubs in this country.

Afterwards I spoke briefly to Nigel Evans, who is vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Beer Group. He agreed to add his name to our campaign to amend the smoking ban, and also agreed to be interviewed for our next campaign video.

Watch this space.

And the Free Enterprise Award goes to ...

Last night I attended a reception to celebrate the presentation of the National Free Enterprise Award to Dr Eamonn Butler (left) and Dr Madsen Pirie, directors of the hugely influential Adam Smith Institute. (Photo: Amanda Pyatt)

The NFE Award is presented annually and the winners are chosen by a group of independent experts. Previous winners include Lord Lawson, Richard Branson, Lord King, Baroness Thatcher, Lord Forte and Sir Freddie Laker.

Yesterday's event featured short speeches by Terence Kealey (vice chancellor, Buckingham University, and a former winner of the award) and Andrew Neil, former editor of the Sunday Times and currently presenter of the Daily Politics and The Week on BBC1.

I've known Madsen and Eamonn for 30 years. I think I've told this story before, but they helped me get my first job after I graduated from university in 1980. I was in London for an interview with a rather boring business magazine. It didn't go very well (thanks for asking), although they had a rather nice office overlooking the green in Richmond.

Afterwards I arranged to meet an old friend (who was also at last night's event). We met in the Albert pub in Victoria Street and he introduced me to Madsen and Eamonn. Also in the pub was their friend Michael Forsyth (now Lord Forsyth of Drumlean). In those days Michael was director of a PR company. We were introduced and he invited me for an interview before offering me a job with an initial salary of £3,500 pa (enough to pay the rent but not enough to afford a car!).

Four years later Madsen got me another job - working for a well-known organisation whose magazine I edited for 15 years - so I have a lot to be grateful to him for.

As for Andrew Neil, the last time I saw him in person he was addressing 400 guests at a Forest dinner at the Savoy Hotel in London (see below). You can read a full report HERE.

Smoking and oral sex

Here is a new anti-smoking ad that will appear in newspapers and bars in France this week. Full story HERE.

I couldn't possibly comment.

Update: "As far as I know, practising fellatio doesn't cause cancer," said a spokeswoman for the Movement for Women's Liberation. I think this misses the point of the advertisement which, as I see it, implies that under-age smoking is on a par with a teenager being forced to have (oral) sex with a middle-aged man (ie child abuse or sexual assault if not rape).

Or am I reading too much into this?

What future for the great British pub?

This morning I am going to a Private Members' Debate in Westminster Hall (in the Palace of Westminster) on the subject 'The Future of the British pub'.

The debate is sponsored by Conservative MP Nigel Evans, vice-chairman of the All Party Beer Group. Writing for ePolitix.com ahead of the debate, Evans argued:

The smoking ban, low supermarket prices, constant tax hikes and higher running costs of pubs including some problems with pricing through the tie has pushed many pubs over the edge. Some would argue that there was a need for thinning the pub estate, but the last few years has seen a severe culling of the numbers. Some villages have no pubs, and others are under threat.

Unless we look carefully and quickly at what has happened and why, and then address the problems that exist - the future for the British pub is bleak. Ministers must look and listen, but then they must act. Taking the pub for granted has got us to where we are.

Full article HERE.