Skye news

Today is our 33rd wedding anniversary.

It's not a big one like our 25th or 30th, both of which we marked by going on a cruise with friends who got married the same year, but – as my mother has been saying for several years – "It's an achievement".

I won't bore you with another account of our wedding day, which I wrote about here, other than we began the day in Eaglesham, just south of Glasgow, and ended up on the Isle of Skye following a five hour drive.

As it happens we are returning to Skye quite soon and it will be the first time we've been back since that miraculously sunny day in 1992.

I'm really looking forward to it and if we're as lucky with the weather as we were then I'll be very happy.

Watch this space.

Below: Yours truly on the Isle of Skye on our first visit to the island in May 1990. Two years later we stayed at the same hotel following our wedding in Eaglesham on April 3, 1992. That yellow car was not mine, by the way. Mine was bright red.

Vapers suck - literally

The image above was posted on social media by a pro-vaping campaigner.

I won't mention their name because I don't want this to be a personal attack on someone I think is well-intentioned, but it begs the question, if 'smoking sucks' what does it say about the millions of people who enjoy smoking and don't want to quit?

At the very least it reveals a belligerent intolerance of someone’s else habit. That would be bad enough coming from a never smoker, but the person concerned is a former smoker. Naturally.

I'm going to control my language, but I genuinely don’t understand why ex-smokers feel the need to disparage and denigrate their old habit, impervious to the potential impact their comments may have on those who continue to smoke.

‘Smoking sucks’ is the sort of childish taunt you might hear in the playground and is arguably, in modern parlance, a form of bullying.

Why should current smokers have to put up with it, especially from former smokers?

If you have chosen to stop smoking and have found an alternative nicotine product that reduces the risk to your health and makes you happy, good luck to you.

But stop trying to make those who enjoy smoking (and don't want to quit) feel bad about something you previously engaged in, and probably once enjoyed.

Oh, and before anyone else claims that ‘smoking sucks’, there’s something they ought to know. Vapers suck too. Literally.

PS. Since we’re on the subject of smoking and vaping, this article - published yesterday on the BBC Science Focus website - is worth reading:

Is smoking or vaping worse for you? It depends who’s asking

No stopping the stop smoking brigade

It will surprise no-one that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is not the end of the war on tobacco.

Not content with banning the sale of tobacco to all future generations of adults, tobacco control campaigners also want to ban cigarette filters (effectively outlawing most cigarettes) and impose a “polluter pays” levy on the tobacco industry.

The latter idea has been around for a decade at least and it's important to anti-smoking campaigners because the aim is to use the money to fund their activities for decades to come.

Anything else? Oh yes, they also want to ban cigar lounges, the type that can be found in cigar shops and are used exclusively by cigar smokers wanting to sample the product before buying.

All these demands were reported today following the publication of a ‘major new report by the influential cross-party All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health’.

Led by Conservative MP Bob Blackman, the APPG has called for ‘all political parties to back a bold, fully funded strategy to make smoking obsolete within 20 years’. 

So, what next, a ban on smoking terraces such as the one at Boisdale of Belgravia where Forest hosts our annual lunch?

And what about smoking in the home? Last week Professor Sean Semple of the University of Stirling called for legislation to stop people from smoking in houses with children.

Truly, the tobacco control industry won’t stop until there is not a single smoker in Britain.

Anyway, you can read my response to the APPG’s report here.

Bristol was predicted to be smoker free by 2024 - how’s that going?

Kick the habit, change your life: take the first steps of your smoke-free journey with friendly guidance and professional support from Bristol City Council.

Whenever I read articles like this advertising feature I am reminded that Bristol was supposed to be smoker free by 2024.

In 2018 research commissioned by (who else?) Philip Morris predicted that Bristol would be the first English city to achieve this distinction. According to one report:

Bristol is likely to be the first city to kick the habit entirely, with data suggesting the West Country hub will not have a single smoker by 2024.

Six local authorities were predicted to follow Bristol including Wokingham and York (2026), East Riding (2027), and Portsmouth (2028).

In contrast London was not expected to be smoker free until 2042, with the likes of Derby and North Lincolnshire lagging even further behind (beyond 2050).

At the time of the smoke free city research Philip Morris had opened 16 stores in Britain dedicated to selling its iQOS heated tobacco device.

Two of them were in Bristol, home of Imperial Tobacco, and the following year (2019) it was reported that Philip Morris was considering opening ‘hundreds’ of iQOS outlets across the country.

Instead, in 2021, most of the 16 iQOS stores in London, Manchester and Bristol were shut down.

Since then, far from eradicating smoking, it has been documented that ‘14.8% of Bristol adults smoked in 2022, higher than the national average of 12.7%’.

Last year, as a riposte to the prediction of a smoker free Bristol by 2024, I was tempted to commission a glossy publication featuring photos and interviews with some of the city’s many smokers.

I didn’t but it’s something we might consider for 2030, the random year chosen by Theresa May when she targeted a ‘smoke free’ England in one of her final acts as prime minister in 2019.

Put it this way, while the Labour Government may be on track to introduce a generational tobacco sales ban from 2027, few people genuinely believe a single English city will be smoker free by 2030.

As for the suggestion, by Jacek Olczak, PMI’s chief executive, in 2021 that the company could stop selling cigarettes in the UK within ten years, that also appears to have been a case of wishful thinking.

Either that or it was a PR stunt because I don’t recall it ever being mentioned again. I wonder why.

See also: PMI’s 2030 vision

Origin tale of cigarette ash and trouser cuffs

Last week I was interviewed on Newstalk radio in Ireland.

The subject was cigarette litter and it followed this report in the Irish Times - Tobacco companies give €250,000 in first street-cleaning payment.

I began by saying that smokers should take more responsibility for their cigarette butts but councils should also do more to provide cigarette bins.

I suggested that smokers should try and carry a pocket ashtray, explaining that they vary from small plastic wallets to large leather pouches.

A friend was listening and sent me a message:

My dad once told me that the turn ups in trousers were used for cigarette ash back in the day.

His father was renowned for obsessively telling jokes so I assumed this was a joke too until my friend sent me a link to an American tailor’s website that features a list of ‘mythical tales’ concerning the origin of trouser cuffs.

They include:

• Cuffs started with men rolling up their trousers to avoid getting mud splashed on them when roads were still unpaved.
• Parents used cuffs to extend the life of children’s clothes by buying pants that were too long, cuffing the legs and then unrolling them as the child grew taller.
• Cuffs were invented by fashion designers to add weight to the bottom of the trouser, improving the overall drape and line of the pant on models strutting down the catwalk.

But in the context of cigarette litter, the origin tale that appealed to me most read:

• Men used trouser cuffs to catch the ashes from their cigarettes, before there were proper ashtrays in places like trains and public waiting rooms.

It can’t be true, can it?

See: Cigarettes buts are most common litter item - should smokers pay for the clean-up? (Newstalk).

Includes a quote from me and a link to the full eleven-minute interview.

Pro-vaping group embraces anti-smoking propaganda, again

I’ve been banging on for years about vaping activists consistently throwing smokers, and smoking, under the bus.

In January 2015 I wrote, ‘Is there anything more nauseous than listening to vapers calling for a ban on smoking in public places?’, and I’ve been highlighting similar cases ever since.

This week, on the eve of the report stage of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill in the House of Commons, I spotted another example, a classic of its kind. Posting on X (formerly Twitter), We Vape, the pro-vaping lobby group, declared:

21.8bn—that’s how much smoking costs UK taxpayers every year. Harm reduction could slash this by up to £12.6bn.

If £21.8bn sounds familiar it’s because it’s an estimate courtesy of the anti-smoking group ASH - you know, those bastions of truth who never, EVER, exaggerate the cost of smoking to society.

But are they right? Here’s the IEA’s Chris Snowdon on the subject (September 5, 2024):

Despite smoking rates continuing to decline, ASH are claiming that the cost of smoking has nearly doubled in just five years. I shall write about ASH’s ridiculous estimate in a future article. Suffice to say it is an insult to our intelligence …

Two months later Snowdon did indeed write about ASH’s ‘ridiculous estimate’ - see Taking the liberal mask off prohibition.

I suggest We Vape and their supporters read it before repeating the claim that smoking costs UK taxpayers £21.8bn a year.

The fact that the discredited ‘estimate’ was reposted as fact by We Vape on the eve of the report stage of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill in the House of Commons isn’t coincidence.

The aim is to drive the anti-smoking narrative in the hope that MPs, peers and government might amend the Bill and go easier on vapes. Good luck with that.

In reality, if smoking is eventually eradicated, as intended, vaping will suffer the same fate, sooner or later. It’s possible it could even be eradicated, in a decade or two, at the same time as smoking.

If, for example, Dr Michelle Haywood (who I wrote about on Monday) gets her way, the sale of all nicotine-containing products - including cigarettes and vapes - could be banned to future generations of adults in the Isle of Man at the same time.

And don’t for a second think Dr Haywood is an outlier. The only difference between her and many other politicians is that she’s said out loud what many of them are thinking.

Long before creeping prohibition is extended to the sale of all vapes, however, I fully expect vaping to be banned in the same public places as smoking.

The process has already started and it won’t stop until it’s illegal to vape in every indoor public place, and many outdoor spaces too.

But back to We Vape because this isn’t the first time I’ve had to write about their campaign.

In September 2021 I noted that the vaping advocacy group had organised a rally in Parliament Square (attended by 14 people) and among the neatly printed placards were several that read:

BACK VAPING PROTECT THE NHS

‘Back Vaping Protect The NHS’, I wrote, ‘is the sort of mindless slogan thought up by anti-smoking campaigners to denigrate smokers and their habit …

‘It’s particularly nauseating,’ I added, ‘because it implies that the health service is in danger of being overwhelmed by millions of sick smokers …

‘The irony is that advocates of e-cigarettes are quick to condemn anti-vaping propaganda but disinformation about smoking is alright if it furthers their cause.’

In contrast I was on Newstalk radio in Ireland last week talking about cigarette litter during which I denounced the ban on disposable vapes, despite the environmental issues that do need to be addressed (but not by prohibition).

That’s because I believe in the freedom to smoke, and vape, and unlike We Vape I don’t play one off against the other in a transparent, pathetic and vain attempt to curry favour with the stop smoking brigade.

I’m sure most people can see it for the gross opportunism it is, and that’s not a good look.

See: Propaganda wars (September 2021)

Update: Benjamin Elks of the TaxPayers Alliance posted an excellent thread on X in which he addressed the claim by ministers that the generational tobacco sales ban will boost productivity by £24.6bn, save the NHS £3.3bn, and cut social care costs by £2bn over 30 years.

In response Ben noted that:

Treasury will lose £26bn in tobacco duty. Retailers, manufacturers, and wholesalers will lose £3.6bn. And the tax hit from that? Mysteriously "unquantifiable" in the impact assessment.

ASH claims smoking costs the public finances more than tobacco tax revenues. But they count "lost productivity" (not actual Treasury costs) while ignoring the £10bn tobacco tax revenue vs £2.6bn NHS costs. Shall we ban annual leave too?

Where tobacco bans exist, black markets thrive. Australia now has gangland violence linked to illegal tobacco. South Africa saw 95% of smokers switch to the black market when sales were banned during COVID. Demand creates supply.

The UK already loses £2.8bn a year to illegal tobacco sales. When legal sales disappear, this hole will be filled by smugglers—not tax revenue. To cover the shortfall, we’d need to raise income tax by 1p and cut the personal allowance.

All valid points. The Government however only hears what it wants to hear. Likewise We Vape. Sad.

Football focus

If you have no interest in football look away now.

What I didn’t mention in my previous post (Once more unto the Bridge) was the extraordinary performance of Chelsea Woman, in the first half in particular, on Thursday night.

Watching the highlights on YouTube the commentator talks of a “blue wave” of attacks, and that’s how it felt in the stadium as well.

In recent years I have rarely witnessed such a relentless performance that combined high pressing with hard and direct running. It was wonderful to watch.

There were outstanding performances throughout the team but one player who stood out was the 19-year-old Dutch midfielder Wieke Kaptein who ran and ran and tackled all night, while demonstrating a considerable degree of skill and composure on the ball.

I know most of you aren’t interested but the reason I mention this is because I have written before about how boring modern football can be, with the ball frequently passed from side to side, and backwards, often very slowly, in order to keep possession.

A low point was watching England at last year’s Euros but even the best practitioners of the ‘modern’ style of play can be very tedious to watch.

Call me old-fashioned but I’d rather go to the dentist than sit through 90+ minutes of that turgid rubbish.

In 2002, during the women’s Euros, I wrote:

Spain’s first half performance against England was arguably one of the best of the tournament but - and I’m keen to point this out - their clever inter-passing style of play failed to find the net.

Like Barcelona’s men’s team it was also quite boring to watch. Heresy, I know, but possession football for the sake of it can be very tedious.

God knows I have no wish to go back to the old British style of lumping the ball up the park in the hope that some bruiser of a centre-forward will flick it on with his head with the ball spending more time in the air than on the grass.

But there has to be a happy medium and for me the most watchable matches in Euro 2022 were those in which teams tried to push forward with a combination of driving runs and short and longer passes.

Inevitably they will lose possession more often than not but that leads to counter-attacks and the result is goals and entertainment, often at both ends of the pitch.

At Stamford Bridge on Thursday night the football wasn’t perfect, far from it (there were lots of mistakes), but it was exciting and as a spectator that’s what you want, isn’t it?

The first half in particular flew by and I remember thinking I didn’t want it to end because the half-time break is notorious for changing and sometimes killing the momentum of a game.

As it happens the second half wasn’t as good but the reason I was checking the clock was not because I was bored but because, at 3-2 on aggregate, the tie remained on a knife-edge and I wanted the game to end so Chelsea would go through!

Since I was nine or ten I have spent thousands of hours watching football and if you like the game it’s hard to beat the drama of a really good match.

In reality the majority of football matches are neither exciting nor entertaining, which is why the best games or performances stand out and you remember them forever.

(Alternatively the game might be rubbish but there’s an exciting denouement, which is what everyone remembers, not the soporific stuff that came before it.)

Funnily enough, one of the best performances by a team I support was a game they lost.

In November 1981 Dundee United were playing Rangers in the Scottish League Cup final at Hampden in front of 70-80,000 spectators, one of whom was me.

The overwhelming majority (90%) were Rangers’ fans but for 80 minutes United, who were defending the trophy, absolutely battered their opponents. It was thrilling to watch, especially in that context.

Crucially though they missed numerous chances and scored only one goal, and with ten minutes left Rangers got a slightly fortuitous equaliser.

The momentum changed, and with the crowd roaring them on Rangers scored the winning goal in the final minutes.

Crushing though it was at the time, United’s pulsating performance that day is something I will never forget.

I won’t forget Thursday night at the Bridge either. Yes, the women’s game is not on the same level as the men’s (and never will be, physically), but as a sport in its own right it is well worth supporting for games like that.

See also: Once more unto the Bridge and Singing the blues.

Once more unto the Bridge

Went to Stamford Bridge last night to see Chelsea Women play Manchester City in the second leg of the Women’s Champions League quarter-final.

Last season I saw the team go out at the semi-final stage, losing 2-0 (2-1 on aggregate) to European champions Barcelona despite having won the first leg in Spain.

Having gone to a lot of matches at a very different looking Stamford Bridge in the Eighties (when I lived a mile from the ground and could walk there in 20 minutes), it was the first time I’d ever been to a women’s match, although I’d been following Chelsea Woman from the comfort of my armchair for several years.

Despite the result I enjoyed the game, and the occasion, which was played in front of 39,000 people, a record for a woman’s match at Stamford Bridge.

Last night the attendance was estimated to be around 12,000, so large parts of the stadium were empty or closed.

(To put this in perspective, however, Chelsea Women more often play at Kingsmeadow in Kingston-upon-Thames where the capacity is 5,000.)

The atmosphere last night was nevertheless pretty good, especially as Chelsea came from behind (having lost the first leg 2-0) and were 3-0 up at half-time (3-2 on aggregate).

The section I was in, in the Lower East Stand, was full and we got a great view of the goals which were all scored at our end of the pitch, with Chelsea fans also packed into the lower part of the Shed End behind the goal.

As you would expect there are a lot more women and children (girls especially) at women’s football matches, and the upside - for now - is that there is no obnoxious chanting and almost no baiting the opposition supporters (who were in one corner of the ground, close to where we were sitting).

As each goal went in, however, the celebrations were equal to anything you’d get at a men’s match, albeit a bit more high-pitched.

Overall it’s a world away from watching men’s matches where many spectators are in a permanent state of impotent fury with the referee, the opposing team and the opposition supporters, and there’s as much aggression off the field as there is on it.

After last night’s match, when the City players came over to our corner of the ground to applaud their small band of supporters, a significant number of Chelsea fans (including me!) even clapped the visiting team.

Chelsea could, and should, have won by more last night, but the 3-0 victory puts them into the semi-final of the Women’s Champions League for the third year in a row where they will play Barcelona for the third year in a row, having lost narrowly on the two previous occasions.

They also lost to Barcelona in the final in 2021, and bearing in mind that Barcelona beat Wolfsburg, a top German team, 10-2 on aggregate in their quarter-final this week it won’t be easy.

The second leg of the semi-final is at Stamford Bridge on April 27. As things stand, I’ll be there!

PS. On Wednesday, at the Emirates Stadium in north London, Arsenal Women beat Real Madrid 3-0 in another Champions League tie.

Like Chelsea they came from 2-0 down after the first leg and watching it on TV the atmosphere looked fantastic.

I believe the attendance was around 23,000, but I would expect nearer 50,000 for the semi-final against Lyon who are Barcelona’s biggest rival as the powerhouse of women’s football in Europe.

Although Chelsea Women have been more successful in recent years, Arsenal Women had a head start of at least ten years in building a fanbase and they remain the only English club to have won the women’s European Cup (now the Champions League), albeit almost 20 years ago, in 2007.

If I could I’d go to the Arsenal-Lyon match as well, and as a neutral I might enjoy it more! Either way, if you’re interested in football I’d definitely recommend it.