No excuse

A round of applause for the handful of e-cigarette advocates who are actively supporting the UK launch of A Billion Lives.

The pro-vaping documentary finally makes its UK cinema debut next week.

Ignore the cancellation of screenings in Manchester and Preston. In Scotland the Glasgow Braehead screening is going ahead on Wednesday (October 26) with 77/100 tickets sold.

Credit to organiser Andy Morrison.

Vapers have also risen to the challenge in Wales with a screening in Swansea on November 23 almost certain to reach its target thanks to Vapers In Power (Wales) and some local vape stores.

Elsewhere the news isn't so good.

Screenings in Tamworth (eleven tickets sold) and Worcester (two) on November 1 both look doomed. Lincoln, on the same date, has sold 19 tickets but needs to sell 40 more.

Three tickets have been sold in Bracknell (November 3), four in Bristol (November 7).

A screening in Greenwich on November 16 has sold 25 tickets and should reach its target of 61, but Newark (November 3), Belfast (November 14) and Hatfield (November 16) have sold the sum total of 0 tickets.

That's right, zero, zilch, nada.

With a few noted exceptions I'm astounded the UK's leading vaping advocates have shown so little interest in organising their own screening or promoting someone else's. (The occasional tweet doesn't count. Getting out of bed takes more effort.)

Compare this to the effort that has gone into organising screenings of the film in LA and New York City next week. According to director Aaron Biebert:

October 26th is our global launch day. We will kick off the launch with our Hollywood Premiere at the famous Cinerama Dome Theatre on Sunset Blvd and a smaller after-party on top the W Hollywood Hotel for invited media, celebs, and special guests.

We'll have a huge red carpet at the theater for media to get pictures and footage of the attendees. Getty will be there. LA Weekly will be reviewing the film. It's on the calendar for the LA Times.

Two days later on October 28th, we'll be headed to NYC for our New York City Premiere and Media Panel at the Cinépolis Chelsea. Thanks to planning committee chairman Jeff Stier, this event will be a massive success. I'll be interviewed on The Street TV. The New York Times will be covering the film, so will The Village Voice.

After the premiere, we'll have a panel for the media that is moderated by a Forbes writer, including: "Winston Man" David Goerlitz, Dr. Sally Satel MD, and myself.

Now that's the sort of event that could and should be happening in London.

NYC planning committee chairman Jeff Stier is someone I know a little because each year we bump into one another at the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum. A few months ago he was also a guest at the Forest Freedom Dinner.

Jeff is an impressive advocate and organiser. But he's not unique. I've lost count of the number of UK-based bodies that advocate vaping, some of them funded by the e-cigarette industry. Where is their 'Jeff Stier'? Where is their planning committee?

Meanwhile, commenting on my own (aborted) attempt to organise a screening in central London, Liisa in Norway wrote:

I'm sorry to hear that because this movie is very important for us to get out to the public as well as to press and politicians. Here in Norway we took matters in our own hands and rented a movie theater so we have our Norwegian premiere in Oslo November 14th. We really hope for attendance by press & politicians!

To which I replied:

That's exactly what vaping advocates should have done in the UK. For whatever reason - incompetence, apathy etc - they didn't. I was happy to host a central London screening with a Q&A but you have to understand that my job is to protect the rights of adults who choose to smoke and don't want to quit so there's a limit to how far I'll go to promote a film with a questionable title based on crude WHO propaganda!

That's my excuse. The UK vaping industry and its leading protagonists have none.

To be fair the problem is not exclusive to the UK. See this powerful diatribe – #ABillionLives and the #teamfreeshit Brigade (VapeMeStoopid).

What I detect in the UK however is a lack of leadership and imagination. For whatever reason no-one in the UK vaping community grasped the initiative or saw the opportunity for an LA or NYC style premiere.

Whether that's due to complacency, born of the UK's relatively liberal attitude to e-cigarettes, I don't know. It's still a lost opportunity though.

Finally, there must be some readers who are utterly confused by my position on A Billion Lives. After all, I've made it clear that I have reservations about the film yet here I am banging on about other people's failure to promote it.

Does that make me a hypocrite? Possibly. 

Perhaps I'll reconsider after I've reviewed the film in Scotland next week.

Watch this space.


Crimes and misdemeanours - British Transport Police targets smoking on trains

Such is my hectic, global trotting lifestyle I'd completely forgotten about this.

Last week I was asked to comment on the fact that the British Transport Police has launched an advertising campaign to encourage people to text them if they spot any nefarious or anti-social behaviour on trains.

The campaign gives examples of the type of "incidents and crimes" the public might like to report. Smoking, inevitably, is one of them.

The reporter and I had a bit of a laugh about this. After all, when was the last time you saw anyone smoking on a train? Also, by the time you've sent a text and waited for the arrival of the police (!), the miscreant will have finished his cigarette and could be long gone.

Anyway, we both thought the focus on smoking was ridiculous. I said I didn't want to sound too po-faced so I spent the next few minutes trying (and failing) to think of something funny to say.

The report appeared yesterday and I was quoted as follows:

"You can only laugh," said Simon Clark, director of Forest. "I'd be interested to know how many texts they get. I can't remember the last time I saw someone smoking on a train.

"I would have thought you might ask the person to stop or point at the many no smoking signs or tell a member of staff. I'm not really sure there's a need to alert the police.

"I wonder what the police will do when they get the text from one of this army of citizen spies? Will there be a Swat team at Watford Junction ready to follow a trail of smoke."

The quote that wasn't used read:

"Can we text complaints about people using mobile phones in the quiet carriage ? Or people eating a late night curry on the 11.30 from Kings Cross to Stevenage?"

Full story: Police want people to 'discreetly' text them about incidents on trains - including smoking.

ITV News also has the story, and a quote by me: Rail passengers asked to text police over smoking on trains.

Ditto the Daily Express: Passengers urged to text police if they see a smoker on a train so they can speak to them.

And the London Evening Standard: Police urge passengers to report people smoking on trains via a 'discrete' text.

Update: The BTP campaign is called 'Let's make a difference'. As far as I can tell it's very similar to a previous campaign, 'We get the message', launched in 2013.


Email all contacts (oops)

I'm on LinkedIn but I very rarely use it.

Occasionally someone invites me to join their 'network'. Sometimes I'll get a message from a person I barely know saying they have endorsed me for a skill I didn't know I had.

I've never reciprocated, obviously.

A couple of weeks ago – in a moment of mild curiosity – I clicked on a button I thought would show all my current LinkedIn contacts.

It didn't. Horror of horrors it appears to have sent a message to all my email contacts inviting them to join my network, such as it is.

To put this in context, I've been on LinkedIn for years and until now I don't remember asking anyone to join my network.

Well, the response has been interesting but not in a good way.

I've no idea how many people the request was sent to (it must have been hundreds if not more) but only a handful accepted. (If you're one of them, thank you!)

Others were understandably quizzical:

I've received an email saying Simon wants to add me to LinkedIn but I haven't replied as someone in the past sent me one but it wasn't from them, it was some sort of virus/scam. Please would you let me know if it's genuine.

Another wrote:

I've had an email request to connect with you via LinkedIn. I do of course want to keep in touch but not through the medium of LinkedIn which I have studiously avoided having anything to do with. To respond to the email request necessitates joining LinkedIn! So, let's keep in touch in the normal way.

A third read:

Hi Simon, I'm guessing you pressed 'email all contacts' as I cannot for the life of me imagine you particularly value my 'friending' you (or whatever LinkedIn call it) in which case please ignore this email. However there is a chance, I suppose, that your Linkedln has been hacked and someone is playing shenanigans in which case you might like head over there and check.

I would love to say my account had been hacked. After all, it's the du jour excuse for every peccadillo these days.

Instead I fessed up:

You're absolutely right. I pressed 'email all contacts' by mistake. How embarrassing.

Anyway, if you're one of the hundreds of people who ignored my invitation, I don't blame you but it has been noted.

Update: It gets worse. My aunt, 79, has rung my mother. According to the latter my aunt was perplexed to receive an invitation from her nephew inviting her to join his "network".

Put like that it does sound a bit suspicious.

Worse, I may have to revise my estimate of the number of people LinkedIn has contacted. If my aunt got an email it could run into thousands.



The Smokers' Survey

Delighted to announce the launch of The Smokers' Survey.

The survey is funded by Forest. The research however is being carried out independently by the Centre for Substance Use Research.

We're very keen that as many smokers as possible take part so here's the blurb we're sending friends of Forest this morning:

ANTI-SMOKING campaigners like to bombard politicians and the media with 'facts' about smokers. 

The most common 'statistic' is that 70 per cent of smokers want to quit. More generally they like to give the impression that most smokers wish they'd never started.

Some smokers probably do fall into one or both of those camps and if you want to quit smoking or switch to a safer alternative such as electronic cigarettes, good luck to you. That's entirely your choice.

But it's not the full story. Despite the well-known health risks many smokers say they enjoy smoking and have no wish to stop. Sadly their voices are usually drowned out by politicians, the public health industry and even the media who all think they know better.

To find out what smokers really think about these and other issues the Centre for Substance Use Research (CSUR) in Glasgow has designed an in-depth survey.

It includes questions about your experience of smoking and how you feel about the habit. 

It asks whether you feel stigmatised for smoking and what impact quitting would have on you.

The survey also asks about your experience (if any) of NHS stop smoking services and new tobacco or nicotine products such as e-cigarettes.

Most important it invites you to say whether or not you enjoy smoking.

You don't have to answer any questions you don't want to. All the information you provide will be kept completely anonymous and stored securely.

Depending on the number of submissions we receive the plan is to publish a report that will be free to download and will be made available to a wide range of interested parties.

"The Smokers' Survey," says Neil McKeganey, director of the Centre for Substance Use Research, "is a way of getting the voices of smokers heard above the clamour for ever greater regulation."

We can't do that without your help so if you're a smoker please complete and submit the survey as soon as possible.

Click here.

Thank you in advance!


Memo to Bob Blackman MP: call yourself a Conservative?

It was described as a 'debate' but it was nothing of the sort.

Tobacco control doesn't do debate. Instead it was an echo chamber, every speaker endorsing the views of the speaker who went before.

Yes, I'm talking about the Westminster Hall 'debate' on the Government's Tobacco Control Plan that took place in the House of Commons on Thursday.

I may have been a bit premature when I congratulated Nicola Blackwood, the new public health minister, for her polite refusal to be rushed into publishing the Government's new tobacco control strategy.

A desperate attempt by ASH and the APPG on Smoking and Health to bounce her into announcing a publication date was met with a calm "wait and see". What I missed was her comment that:

We can be proud of the progress that successive Governments have made on helping people to quit smoking, preventing them from starting in the first place and creating an environment that de-normalises smoking.

With prevalence rates at an all-time low, there is no question that good work has been done, but as the issues raised in this debate clearly show, there is more ​work to be done. The Government are committed to doing that work as a matter of urgency.

To avoid doubt she added:

The Government recognise this area as a top priority and will continue to work on it as such.

That said the Government will have noted the feeble turnout - just six backbench MPs plus Blackwood and shadow public health minister Sharon Hodgson.

Much as ASH and others will huff and puff, nothing demonstrates the level of priority parliament gives an issue than a poorly attended 'debate' that has clearly been stage-managed and exploited by a taxpayer-funded lobby group.

The event was also useful for shining a light on those MPs who will make it their business to campaign for further tobacco control measures regardless of public opinion.

In no particular order they were Alex Cunningham (Labour), Bob Blackman (Conservative), Sarah Wollaston (Conservative), Norman Lamb (Lib Dem), Kevin Barron (Labour) and Martyn Day (SNP). I'm loathe to single out one particular person but I will anyway.

Bob Blackman is chairman of the APPG on Smoking and Health which is run by ASH and is effectively a Trojan horse for ASH to swan around parliament lobbying MPs and peers. During last year's election campaign I had this to say about the Conservative candidate for Harrow East:

Bob Blackman was one of the more prominent anti-smoking MPs in the last parliament. A supporter of plain packaging, he championed the ban on smoking in cars with children and believes the major priority of local authorties in terms of public health is "to reduce the number of people smoking and reduce the consumption of tobacco-related products".

Two weeks ago however he surprised many people when he told a fringe event at the Tory party conference:

"I come instinctively from a position where I believe that people should be allowed to do what they like so long as it does not impact on others."

Cough, splutter.

The event (Personal freedoms vs. protecting the vulnerable: How should we strike the balance?) took place within the IEA Think Tent so it's fair to say the audience would have been of a slightly more liberal or libertarian persuasion.

Perhaps that influenced his choice of words (I couldn't possibly comment). All I know is, if anyone fell for his impression of a laissez faire politician they can think again. Faced with a rather different audience on Thursday Blackman adopted a very different tone:

"As someone who has been an avowed anti-smoker all my life, I will continue to oppose smoking. I take the view that there are two categories of people here. We have to help people to stop smoking, but even more importantly we have to prevent people from starting to smoke, because we know that once people are addicted it is a very difficult job for them to give up their addiction."

So much for people being "allowed to do what they like so long as it does not impact on others".

Here are some more examples of Blackwood's paternalistic, even socialist, attitude to private health:

On this side of the House it is not unusual to hear people argue that the smoking habit is none of the Government’s business. Of course, it is an important source of tax revenue, but some people say – they are not necessarily employed or funded by the tobacco industry — that those who choose to smoke understand the risks, and have exercised their free consumer choice.

I would say that informed choice and people understanding the damage they are doing to themselves is up to them, but that does not mean that we should not increase the pressure on those individuals to understand the damage they are doing to themselves and to others by continuing to smoke. I seek to make sure that we continue with the regulations and ramp up the tobacco control programme ...

One important lesson that we have learned from previous control programmes is that efforts to reduce smoking must be sustained and progressive. Sustained because, as I have said, nicotine is a powerful drug, it increases dependency and requires powerful interventions to persuade people to quit. Progressive because people who continue to use tobacco after the control programmes are in place can be said to have discounted their effect.

For example, many smokers quit after the introduction ​of the workplace ban in 2006, but most did not. The need for progressive steps is particularly important when it comes to tax and price policy, because the economic impacts of tax rises on reducing demand for tobacco products depend not simply on absolute price levels, but on affordability. If taxes rise more slowly than incomes, tobacco will become more, not less, affordable and consumption will tend to rise, not fall ...

Some colleagues may think that an intervention in the market is not required, but I think one is needed more than ever before. Since the programme was first published in 1998, the fall in our smoking rates has been similar to that of Canada and Australia, as has been mentioned. In France and Germany, which do not have comprehensive strategies, the rates have hardly changed in 20 years. The evidence shows that these programmes work, and that where there is no programme there is no movement forward ...

The targets for the past five years of the [tobacco] programme seemed difficult, but they have all been achieved, so we should set challenging targets now that will lead to a smoke-free Britain. That has got to be our ultimate aim.

Speaking at Forest's fringe event at the Tory conference Iain Dale, LBC Radio presenter and publisher, said, "I don't know how any politician can support excessive regulations on what we consume and call themselves a Conservative."

Well, Bob Blackman not only supports excessive regulations on what we consume, he also calls himself a Conservative. Sarah Wollaston is another.

The question is, where does Theresa May and her 'Conservative' Government stand? The new Tobacco Control Plan, when it's published, will provide some interesting answers.

Read the full Westminster hall 'debate' here.


A Billion Lives - it's on!

Well, that's weird.

Having been thwarted in my attempt to host a central London screening of the pro-vaping documentary A Billion Lives, I booked tickets for the 'Scottish premiere' in Glasgow on October 26 (as I explained here on Tuesday).

At that stage only 17 tickets had been reserved, 50 short of the number required for the screening to take place.

Yesterday I got an email to say 67 tickets have now been sold (with 33 remaining) and the screening is going ahead.

How did that happen? I've no idea. I'd like to take credit - Tuesday's post did after all invite people to join me - but I'm guessing one or more vape stores have purchased blocks of tickets and are giving them away. I'll find out when I meet organiser Andy Morrison who is keeping his cards close to his chest.

Anyway it seems I chose wisely when I selected Glasgow because the other UK screenings scheduled for October 26 are still struggling. Seven tickets have been reserved in Manchester, three in Preston.

Of the 12 screenings currently scheduled in the UK (Belfast has just been added) only one (Glasgow) has been confirmed. The others look doomed although I thought the same about Glasgow three days ago so what do I know?

I still find it extraordinary that a central London screening hasn't been arranged. The E-Cigarette Summit on November 17 is at the Royal Society, a short walk from the Odeon Panton Street. Just a suggestion.

Meanwhile credit to Andy Morrison. His screening of A Billion Lives is going ahead and I'll be there. Hooray!


Taxpayer-funded lobby group lobbies government to publish tobacco control plan "without further delay"

At 1.30 this afternoon there's a debate on tobacco control in Westminster Hall at the House of Commons.

The leading figures appear to be Alex Cunningham (Labour), Norman Lamb (Lib Dem) and Mrs Flick Drummond (Conservative). No, I've never heard of her either so it will be interesting to hear what she has to say.

The driving force behind the debate is almost certainly ASH, hence this press release, issued this morning:

Members of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health will today be calling on the Government to publish its promised new Tobacco Control Plan without further delay. The Government committed to a new plan after the previous one expired in December 2015 and to publication in summer 2016, but summer has passed and there is still no publication date.

There is widespread public support for Government action to limit smoking. A recent large public poll found that over a third (35%) of adults in Britain thought the Government’s activities to tackle smoking were about right, while nearly 4 in 10 (39%) thought the Government was not doing enough. Only 11% thought the Government was doing too much. [2]

In today’s debate members of the APPG will be focusing on the stark health inequalities across the country, of which smoking is the major driver. The importance of tackling health inequalities was recognised by Theresa May when, in her maiden speech, the new Prime Minister committed her Government to “fighting against the burning injustice that if you’re born poor you will die on average nine years earlier than others.”

The release quotes Tory MP Bob Blackman MP who is chairman of the APPG on Smoking and Health:

"The UK has an excellent record in tackling smoking but we can’t afford to rest on our laurels. The evidence is clear: without a renewed strategy there’s a real risk that smoking rates will rise again.

"I recognise the need to control public expenditure but measures to drive down smoking are cost-effective and will result in reductions in heart disease, lung cancer and respiratory disease, with the potential to save the over-stretched NHS billions of pounds a year.”

Leaving aside the crass economic ignorance of that remark (fewer smokers mean far less revenue for the Treasury), Blackman added that he "strongly believed that the tobacco industry should be required to contribute to the costs of treating people with diseases caused by smoking".

"Given the appalling damage the tobacco industry causes, and given that the major companies are vastly profitable, I cannot see why they should not be required to make a greater financial contribution to help solve the public health disaster they have worked to create. I can’t imagine a more appropriate application of the polluter pays principle."

Anyway, this is part of Forest's response:

Forest has criticised members of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health, run by the anti-smoking group ASH, who are urging the government to publish a new Tobacco Control Plan "without further delay".

Simon Clark, director of Forest, said: "Like Brexit, the government must take its time and get its strategy right. How can ministers introduce new measures when we're still waiting for an independent review of existing policies, and measures such as plain packaging have yet to be fully implemented?"

He added: “Anti-tobacco campaigners are lobbying the government to introduce new tobacco control measures. Research however suggests there is little public support for further anti-smoking policies.

"What is equally clear is the public’s desire for a common sense approach to policy making in the area of tobacco control. Regulation should not be made at the behest of taxpayer-funded lobby groups but on the basis of credible, independent evidence."

You can read it in full here.

I'll keep you posted on this afternoon's debate. Last I heard very few MPs had noted their intention to speak so it could be a bit of a damp squib. We'll see.

Update: Well, I listened to the 'debate'. Needless to say it was completely one-sided and predictable.

The best bit was at the end when new health minister Nicola Blackman declined to give a publication date for the Government's new Tobacco Control Plan which she said had to be "evidence-based". That would certainly make a change.

Pushed on whether this meant this year or next she replied, sweetly, "You'll have to wait and see."

Oh, I wish I'd seen Deborah Arnott's face at that moment.

PS. I've no evidence for this but I wonder if Deborah's long-standing influence at the Department of Health may be coming to an end.

Given the nature of ASH's press release, and the minister's subsequent statement, they don't appear to be singing from precisely the same hymn sheet.

We can but dream.

Update: Tobacco control plan debate (Hansard).


The smear factor

A couple of weeks ago I was in Brussels attending the annual Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF).

I've been meaning to write about it but I've been too busy. I still am but I'll try and post something tomorrow if not before.

In the meantime The Times has today devoted an entire page to a 'story' inspired by Cancer Research UK which has "condemned scientists who accepted tens of thousands of pounds from tobacco companies to carry out research into e-cigarettes".

Under the pejorative heading 'Academics making a packet' The Times names four people – Karl Fagerstrom, Riccardo Polosa, Clive Bates and David Sweanor – whose speaking roles at GTNF 2016 are highlighted in the main report.

The implication is clear, although only Polosa is credited directly with receiving money from a tobacco company, "a $316,060 grant from Philip Morris in 2003-05 for research on nicotine addiction".

Instead you have to scroll down to the bottom of the report (paragraph 16 of 18) to read:

There is no suggestion that the academics acted improperly and they all declared competition interests as appropriate.

Nevertheless there's a sting in the tale because the report concludes:

Nearly 80,000 people a year die of smoking-related illness and smoking costs the NHS £2 billion a year. Cancer Research UK has a "blanket ban" on working with researchers who receive money from tobacco companies.

"The tobacco industry has a long history of producing misleading research," [George] Butterworth [campaign manager at CRUK] said. "We would be very worried about trusting any research produced by someone associated with these companies."

To criticise Big Tobacco for funding studies on vaping is not just laughable, it's mind-blowingly obtuse because it ignores the very important role the tobacco companies can play in future harm reduction products – from research and development to marketing and distribution.

Likewise, to censure the handful of public health campaigners who are trying to work with the companies is pathetic.

Anyone who reads this blog knows I'm not Clive Bates' biggest fan. In fact I'm not a huge fan of any anti-tobacco campaigner because however much they bang on about choice I've never met a single one who genuinely believes in the right to smoke without undue harassment.

Everything they endorse (including smoking bans and other anti-smoking measures) is with a view to coercing smokers to quit combustible cigarettes or denormalising their habit.

Nevertheless I respect the likes of Bates, Sweanor et al for at least being willing to engage with the companies - unlike many of their colleagues in public health - and I hope they will respond to this mean-spirited attack.

The fact is this is yet another example of a section of the anti-tobacco industry trying to corner the market when it comes to altruism and harm reduction.

They really don't like it when others park on what they wrongly perceive to be 'their' territory.

I genuinely don't know where CRUK gets all its money from but the first question that must be asked is, "Do you receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry?"

Meanwhile The Times has also resorted to type with a highly sanctimonious dig at GTNF itself. Under the headline 'Scientists wooed in charm offensive', health correspondent Katie Gibbons writes:

Clouds of cigarette smoke enveloped the red-carpet enhance of Hotel Metropole in Brussels as delegates at the fifth annual Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum stepped out for their first break. There wasn't an e-cigarette in sight.

Well, Katie, I was there and I stepped on that carpet several times each day and I was never "enveloped" in "clouds of cigarette smoke".

As for the dig about e-cigarettes, did it occur to her that anyone who wanted to vape was probably inside the hotel where they were allowed to use e-cigarettes?

In fact, with Belgium still being relatively liberal on the issue of smoking (and this being a private event), there were two public rooms within the hotel where you could also light up.

One was the bar just by the main entrance. The second was the Rubinstein room that became, for the duration of the conference, The Liberty Lounge sponsored (I'm proud to say) by Forest.

Gibbons didn't care much for that either:

Delegates were treated [my emphasis] to a "liberty lounge" where they could puff away without interruption ....

Quick, nurse, pass the smelling salts!

But wait for this:

The organiser [of GTNF] was Tobacco Reporter, an industry-funded trade publication that features articles such as "the upside of nicotine" and "non-smokers also get lung cancer".

You can almost hear Gibbons' disdainful sniff as she is forced to write that. How dare they say "non-smokers also get lung cancer" – even if it's true.

Of course it wouldn't be The Times without a pompous leading article to accompany their 'exclusive' report and the good news is, they didn't disappoint.

Below the headline 'Smoke in their eyes – tobacco companies should not be funding public health researchers', the paper huffed:

Smoking remains the largest cause of preventable death in Britain. E-cigarettes provide the best hope of preventing them. Academics who demonstrate the benefits are doing important work. Attending jollies on the tobacconists' dime, however, need not and should not be part of it.

The remarkable thing is, GTNF 2016 was completely open and transparent, with journalists invited to attend each and every session.

Compare that to the forthcoming Conference of the Parties to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (aka COP7) that takes place in Delhi in November.

Will The Times expose that racket? Don't hold your breath.