Simon Clark is a twat
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 11:25 And a tosser.
Well, that's what I have been called on another "smoker-friendly" blog after I declined to respond immediately to a demand that Forest should organise a cross-channel shopping trip as part of a campaign to encourage everyone to buy their tobacco abroad.
I thought long and hard before commenting because while I'm happy to get feedback on issues like this (that's what this forum is for) I don't enjoy flame wars and I don't conduct 'business' on this or any other blog, and organising a stunt like this clearly comes under the category of 'business' if you want to do it properly.
In other words, you can discuss cross-channel shopping all day long but if Forest was to organise a trip as part of a broader campaign we would do it behind the scenes, in private. Once the details were confirmed we would announce our plan and invite people to support it. We wouldn't discuss the details in advance on a public forum.
Anyway, back to those accusations of being a "twat" and a "tosser" and doing nothing to help cross-channel shoppers or smokers in general.
A little bit of history:
In 2000 Forest launched a campaign on behalf of ordinary cross-channel shoppers who, in our opinion, were being targetted unfairly by Customs & Excise when they returned to the UK with tobacco purchased abroad, quite legally, for their own personal use.
We sent two researchers to Adinkerke in Belgium and they saw, with their own eyes, the extent of the smuggling. It wasn't just criminal gangs who were involved. Students and even OAPs were in on the act, albeit on a very small scale.
I remember too taking a call from a woman who complained that the suitcases belonging to her and her partner had been confiscated by officials. When I asked how many cigarettes they had between them she said, "36,000".
Most people of course weren't breaking the law. They were genuinely buying tobacco for their own personal use but because the guideline for imported cigarettes was then a paltry 800, anyone with anything in excess of that was likely to be taken to one side, searched, and asked lots of questions about their habit.
You would often be asked to produce a lighter to prove that you were a smoker. Sometimes they would make a point of smelling you. If officials were dissatisfied you might have your goods confiscated or, worse, your car impounded.
Our advice to the many cross-channel shoppers who contacted us at the time was to take evidence of previous purchases – receipts, credit card statements etc – plus a letter from an employer or GP to confirm that they did indeed smoke 20, 30 or even 40 cigarettes a day, as they claimed.
This itself was a bit of an imposition but without supporting 'evidence' legitimate shoppers were being treated as guilty until proven innocent and it was an exhausting and unpleasant process to go through if you had done nothing illegal.
Frankly, it was mayhem and Forest was in the thick of it as calls rained in from disgruntled shoppers, so I don't take kindly to people having a go at us for not doing anything to support the consumer.
We did everything we could, including taking on a test case. In 2000, supported by Forest (we found him a solicitor and a barrister and paid his legal fees, around £5,000), cross-channel shopper Gary Mullen went to court and won back 5,000 cigarettes that had been seized by Customs at Dover.
This case, and our campaign against the treatment of cross-channel shoppers, led to a campaign by the Daily Telegraph and, later, the Sun that resulted in the guideline on the number of cigarettes you could bring into the country being increased from 800 to 3,200, a number most smokers seem largely happy with.
I should add that at the height of our campaign we attempted to organise a cross-channel shopping trip involving not one but 20 coaches in convoy. The plan was to take 1,000 shoppers to Adinkerke, but before setting off we were going to stage a small rally in Parliament Square.
The plan came unstuck for two reasons. First, we had a small problem with Westminster Police who told us that the coaches wouldn't be allowed to stop in Parliament Square and would have to drop people off five miles away. They admitted that if we hadn't told them about our plans there was nothing they could have done to stop us, but Forest isn't like UK Uncut or Fathers For Justice. Rightly or wrongly we play within the rules.
The second (and major) problem was the coach company itself. Based in the West Midlands, the owner had originally contacted us with stories of coaches worth £200,000 being ripped apart by officials looking for smuggled goods. We suggested the trip and the rally in Parliament Square and they told us they could supply 20 coaches, each one with 50 people aboard, but two weeks before the proposed date they backed out.
Either they were got at by Customs officials (who were aware of our plans), or the company used the threat of a demonstration in Parliament Square and a potentially high profile publicity stunt to do a deal with officials. I suspect the latter because it emerged later that, unknown to us, the company had had a meeting with Customs the day before.
Either way, the event didn't take place and it demonstrates the difficulty of organising any sort of worthwhile protest. It only takes one weak link and the whole thing falls apart. Indirectly, however, our efforts did result in the guidelines being changed in 2002 to the benefit of cross-channel shoppers.
To cut a long story short, we are looking again at our options but Forest will NOT be telling everyone to buy their tobacco abroad. There are three reasons for this:
One, we never tell people to do anything. That's not our style. We inform, we educate. Thereafter it's your decision, your choice.
Two, for many (most?) people cross-channel shopping is impractical and inconvenient, especially if you live north of Watford.
Three, it could have a devastating impact on convenience stores and in the war on tobacco small retailers are our allies not our enemies and we cannot afford to make enemies of our allies.
Forest's job is to inform consumers about the price of tobacco abroad – and let you decide for yourself where you want buy it. Beyond that our role is to make sure that: the consumers' right to import tobacco from abroad is upheld; current guidelines are maintained (there is talk of a possible reduction, which is worrying); and law-abiding consumers are not harassed or targetted unduly by HMRC.
PS. I should add that standing up for consumers in this sensitive area cost Forest a great deal a few years ago. (I won't go into detail but see Frequently asked questions on the new Forest website.)
I don't expect any thanks or recognition for our efforts so I'll say just this – criticise all you like, but check your facts first.
Reader Comments (40)
Simon - I've known you now for 10 years. I find your support valuable. I don't think you are a tosser and I get annoyed when our "movement" attacks its own supporters. We are too few and Davids in a Goliath world.
Hands up - I've done it myself on occasion in frustration (Iain Dale remember?) but we need to pull together and this sort of insult is best directed at those who deserve it in the anti-smoker industry. I hope this kind of verbal assault doesn't put you off.
I recognise that as a non smoker you could walk away and not have your life affected one bit by this spiteful ban but you've stuck with us from the talk, to the action, to the persecution.
You have done as much and more than many others and I for one appreciate it. Please keep up the good work. I didn't read all of your post as it upset me. We must stand by each other and with each other and that is the bottom line!
Simon, you are the architect of this l'm afraid. All you had to say was that you are looking at it but instead you said nothing at all. How do you expect such an action to be interpreted? l cannot believe you are that naive.
l also note that the way you have written this article gives the impression that Smoking Hot was criticising and insulting you. This is not the case, he actually said nothing of the sort. lt was the posters on his site, not him.
l also have to take issue with your statement that it was because of Forest and subsequent MSM attention that HMRC raised the guidelines. There were many other factors in this, including EU rulings and the subsequent pressure from the Hoverspeed ruling.
Finally your most telling statement you made was ''Three, it could have a devastating impact on convenience stores and in the war on tobacco small retailers are our allies not our enemies and we cannot afford to make enemies of our allies."
You prefer to make enemies of the people then? What do you expect them to do? Pay £14.50 for 50gm of tobacco in order to keep these retailers afloat instead of keeping themselves afloat in these current hard economic times by paying just £4.50 for the same 50gm in Belgium?
Oh and by the way, north of Watford is a large port called Hull, perhaps you've heard of it?
You are doing a good job politically but Smoking Hot (Nothing2Declare) is doing fine work for the smokers on a personal level.
"...it could have a devastating impact on convenience stores and in the war on tobacco small retailers are our allies not our enemies and we cannot afford to make enemies of our allies."
This is the most persuasive reason not to support a booze cruise, it would be stabbing your allies in the back.
I will also say some of the rhetoric from some smokers can be a little caustic and profane.
Anyway I am off to Amsterdam as a speaker for a debate on nicotine 'addiction' and it looks like I am going to bump into a couple of interesting people. More later.....
Dave Atherton, l despair at your post. Look after the businesses and sod the people,eh?
Justine the debate here is whether Forest should support/sponsor a booze cruise, not whether we as individuals should or should not buy our tobacco abroad.
Speaking personally if the government's tax revenues go down from £10 billion to £5 billion or even zero I will take all my clothes off and run round the town square at Adinkerke with a lit roll up in each hand.
Also one of the findings of Dr. Patrick Basham's paper was that convenience stores became the focus for sales of 2 out of 3 packets of contraband tobacco.
They have a display ban and who can tell?
Justine, if a large number of small convenience stores went out of business, how would that help the average smoker, the vast majority of whom buy their tobacco (not to mention their milk, newspapers etc) from their local store and have no wish to spend their precious time on a coach/ferry to Belgium or anywhere else?
We want to see a reduction in tobacco duty as much as anyone but I'm not convinced that calling for a boycott of UK retailers is the way to achieve it. (Convince me, please!) Yes, it would get us a cheap headline and it would be popular among a small band of activists on the internet, but I don't think many consumers would back our campaign and our claim to be the voice of the consumer would look pretty foolish if hardly anyone responded.
For the same reason, Forest never called on smokers to boycott pubs following the smoking ban, although some people did urge us to. In the eyes of almost everyone (including, I believe, the majority of smokers) we would have looked ridiculous and such a campaign would have been doomed to failure before it was even launched.
l don't agree Simon. lt isn't not having the time to go on coaches/ferries, it's the fear of tactics of Customs that stops them going. Smoking Hot may be an activist but he does it legally and l for one appreciate all the info he supplies.
"that Smoking Hot was criticising and insulting you. This is not the case, he actually said nothing of the sort. lt was the posters on his site, not him."
Infact SH went out of his way to 'defend' Simon and called for unity among smokers, whilst questioning his (Simon's) silence.
{gets comfy with a big bag of popcorn}
Simon
“Justine, if a large number of small convenience stores went out of business, how would that help the average smoker”
There are several million smokers in the UK, and just a handful of smokers buying their products abroad aren’t going to put the retailers out of business, (please explain that one) and the resulting publicity wouldn’t be a cheap shot. It would have a major impact.
If anyone is putting the retailers under pressure it’s this greedy and vindictive government by it’s relentless tax increases started of course by the previous Labour cretins. Is it not commonsense that those that can go abroad to buy cheaper tobacco products should do so, and therefore deprive this rotten government of our tobacco taxes that they alone have sought to punish us with.
Anti-smoking zealots wouldn’t have any come back, what could they say or do? We would quite simply be immune from any interference, besides doesn’t the EU want us to buy goods and services within the community, and any profit made by Forest would be free of any link to any Tobacco company, and could be ploughed back into various campaigns.
If anything – organised trips of this kind would in fact highlight the desperate plight of our hard pressed retailers. There are many that buy alchohol products from supermarkets, but that hasn’t been responsible for massive numbers of pubs, bars and restaurants going out of business. Cheap booze from supermarkets has been around for many years.
A few well organised trips of this kind would send a clear message to politicians, that they will over time, lose much revenue, a situation that they themselves have orchestrated.
I would have thought this to be a no-brainer.
I hope I’m not being rude – but I suspect organising trips of this kind would interfere with your various jaunts which you have enjoyed for several years.
Incidentally, out of the 50 or so comments on the Nothing to Declare site, you would be hard pressed to find more than a few comments that you might consider rude. In fact if you hadn’t posted about these comments, no one would ever have known. You take praise easily, but sulk when criticised.
Tell you what. I’ll send you some balm in the post – to thicken your skin.
JJ, I don't think I'm sulking at all! Quite the opposite. The headline alone suggests the self-deprecating sense of humour for which I am known worldwide. (That's a joke, btw, although it's also true.)
You're right, I could have ignored the critical comments but when I did I got criticised for it. Now, when I take the trouble to respond, explain a bit of the history, and open the debate to a wider audience, I get criticised for that too! I can't win.
"explain a bit of the history"
...and that is the real problem it seems. It is HISTORY. Most UK Smokers are probably aware of FOREST's sterling PAST efforts.
Thing is , they do seem to be 'past'.
Hate to sound like a *Insert obscenity of choice* mate but when did you last appear on Radio 4's Today program? Which is of course The Ultimate Test of Creditability.On your Media Coverage page I see lots of appearances on Radio Rabbit Breeder and Whippet Worrier et al but not on Radio 4's Today/PM.
I no longer manage to catch the Today program so if you were on it just after Budget day railing against the obscene duty hikes then I apologise ( I mean that).
But I just punched "Simon Clark+Forest+smoking+Radio 4+Today+program" into Google (other search engines are available) just to find out when your last appearance was.
Try it, you might find it worrying.
I’m one of those smokers (mugs!) who still buys their tobacco legally here and pays the hefty tax tag for the privilege, mainly because I don’t have the contacts to buy from man-in-a-van and neither do I have the time or the inclination to foray over to foreign climes on a coach – not even to save a whack of money on cigarettes and ale.
But as I see it, both types of tobacco-shopper are important in fighting the anti-smoking crusade. Those who go abroad to buy their supplies, or who buy them illegally are hurting the anti-smoking politicians right where it hurts them most, i.e. in their pockets, and quite right too; but those of us who continue to fund them hurt them as well, because the more money they make from us, the less they are in a position to take any action which would really, really prevent us from smoking at all. So we both have our part to play, with one group ensuring our indispensability in funding all the things which the Government needs our money for, but the other group illustrating only too clearly the fact that no matter what they might like to think, we do all still have the power and the ability to take our custom elsewhere (as many do) if they take too great an advantage of our generosity.
Simon - sorry they called you a "twat" and a "tosser
You're definitely not a twat.
Ha ha.
"We sent two researchers to Adinkerke in Belgium and they saw, with their own eyes, the extent of the smuggling. It wasn't just criminal gangs who were involved. Students and even OAPs were in on the act, albeit on a very small scale."
I know that Customs confidently assume that all shoppers are smugglers, even those "on a very small scale", but it's quite a shock to hear that from you, Simon.
"When I asked how many cigarettes they had between them she said, "36,000"...Most people of course weren't breaking the law."
You seem to think that this quantity is damning. I won an appeal after the seizure of my 22,400 cigarettes, and had them returned. They were satisfied that they were indeed for personal use, the seizure was overturned.
"plus a letter from an employer or GP to confirm that they did indeed smoke 20, 30 or even 40 cigarettes a day, as they claimed."
This is ridiculous. Your suggestion is that I might be a liar, but my symaphetic(?) doctor's word can be trusted? Or that of my supportive employer? You imagine that such a document carries any weight? Your advice is not based on experience, so it is worse than useless.
"We did everything we could."
Hmm. You don't seem to have done as much as Smoking Hot, to name one; and he receives no funding. Maybe I'm being unfair, but that is my perception, and I'm not the only one. A case of over 5000 cigarettes is easy to win. Not exactly a test case.
"the guideline on the number of cigarettes you could bring into the country being increased from 800 to 3,200, a number most smokers seem largely happy with."
Whose side are you on, Simon? How many smokers did you ask? Most cross border shoppers want to bring more than that, to maximise their saving at minimum expense and trouble. Smoking is now an expensive habit, and strategic purchasing is important.
"The plan came unstuck for two reasons....the coaches wouldn't be allowed to stop in Parliament Square"
Oh well, that's a real brick wall, isn't it?
"but two weeks before the proposed date they backed out."
Your heart really wasn't in this, was it?
"Indirectly, however, our efforts did result in the guidelines being changed in 2002 to the benefit of cross-channel shoppers."
I may be wrong, but I understood that it was Hoverspeed's court action which got the new (minimum) guidelines enforced on Customs by the European Court.
"for many (most?) people cross-channel shopping is impractical and inconvenient, especially if you live north of Watford."
It's only impractical if you don't buy a lot. The guidelines are only that. Above the guidelines, you may be asked questions. Buy all you can carry, and answer the questions. And expect hostility from Customs. And don't expect much useful advice or sympathy from the "Voice of the Smoker".
"it could have a devastating impact on convenience stores".
What? Are you serious? You want me to pay about £5.50 a pack instead of £2.50, so a shop can have 25p profit? Are you really serious? Most people have abandoned the small retailer for the modest savings at the supermarket for most of their shopping. You too, I expect. But cigs, with a much bigger differential, should be bought as charity?
"our role is to make sure that: the consumers' right to import tobacco from abroad is upheld; current guidelines are maintained (there is talk of a possible reduction, which is worrying); and law-abiding consumers are not harassed or targetted unduly by HMRC."
"Make sure"? Three out of ten for effort.
I'm sure you started well, Simon, but I think you've gone native. Too many jollies, too much networking. You should consider letting someone fresh have a go. The media come to you, and they look no further. I think you may be impeding progress.
This is only my personal opinion. But my experience with Customs tells me that you have very little. Other than agreeable lunches.
Ouch!
Well this is a useful litle spat - ASH et al must be wetting themselves laughing... If the coach trip seems like a good idea - do it by all means. There is of course the danger that smaller retailers will take the hump and with it their support - or more worryingly, that it will be used as further 'proof'' that import restrictions should be returned to previous paltry levels so as not to 'rob' the taxpayer of smoking revenues - they (ASH etc) won't feel any shame in wanting to have their cake AND eat it . FOREST is not obliged - and in some cases, is very wise not to endorse or organise such events. As the most recognised 'name' in the battle for smokers rights, it does however need to ensure - probably to a higher standard due to the nature of the 'cause' - that it retains integrity and behaves responsibly. If you think Simon's job is easy - I suggest you watch the film 'Thank you for smoking'. The war against smokers makes me rage... in his shoes I'd have probably ripped DA's throat out just for starters which is why I'm not the right one for the job, and I suspect most of the people posting here aren't either. Whilst I do agree that our case must be made robustly, and the claims regarding SHS challenged and preposterous 'statistics' and 'studies' shown to be misleading - or to give them their proper name - lies - it is also true that you will often catch more flies with honey....
Finally, Simon has done a great job in liaising with and bringing together a number of organisations who, whilst having a different axe to grind, are united in their fight against the illiberal attitudes and interference in individuals' rights and freedoms coming from various quarters. Strength in numbers ... surely a better way than letting in-fighting do ASH's job for them ?
@ Simon, Nothing2Declare is indeed small and definitely activist ... we pride ourselves on it. We also pride ourselves of working within the law and regulations 100% and will continue to do so. What we will not conform to is myths and fallacies about said laws and regulations perpetrated by the UKBA/HMRC that are then used against our fellow citizens. These we will continue to expose regardless of continuing threats and harassment by the aforesaid organisations.
We have no funding, unlike yourself, and neither do we have the media outlets or esteemed contacts and celebrities that are available to you. However this has not stopped us achieving victories in the short 10 months we've been online.
These include changing Bulgarian Customs tactics at the airports where they were still imposing a 200 cigarette limit on exports and so confiscating large amounts of such from EU passengers. Customs signs have now been changed at the airports to conform to the EU regulations (no limit on amount), Customs staff re-trained and a letter from the Vice Director of Bulgarian Customs to confirm this. We freely give a copy of this letter to anyone travelling to Bulgaria to prevent problems with Bulgarian Customs.
We also educated the British Embassy in Sofia as to these EU regulations and got them to update their online travel advice as it too showed a limit of 200 cigarettes. Further to this we then got the Foreign Office to update all it's Embassy websites to show the correct advice re export of tobacco/cigarettes from all EU countries. Again we have letters confirming this.
Then we got the ferry companies to remove all their leaflets supplied by UKBA as they too were wrong and showed limits of 200 cigarettes from certain EU countries. The ferry companies said they had informed the UKBA about this and were told correct up to date leaflets would be supplied ... these have not materialised. We have letters from the ferry companies confrming this too.
People expect advice from all the above to be correct and current and so follow it. Sadly this advice was totally wrong, l wonder why? Who could possibly benefit from such actions? :)
We have won all the appeals we've been involved in and none of them have ever reached court. Where we've been given permission to publish the details of these appeals, we have done so ... in detail.
Neither we or any of the people we've helped has ever had anything confiscated by UKBA. This is despite that we take no notice of the guidelines whatsoever. They are guidelines and nothing more ... period. Everyone has their own requirements as to what they require and to what they can afford. We give advice on how to achieve this whilst remaining entirely within the law. This advice is extensive and has to be specific to each individual shopper. lt takes no small amount of time and effort on our part but is given freely.
We publicise all our confrontations with UKBA, particularly the unscrupulous and unjust tactics used by some officers in order for them to relieve shoppers of their legally purchased goods. This we will also continue to do so even though it comes at a price. No l don't refer to money, l refer to harassment and intimidation. The latest being detained for over an hour, denied entry to UK and even denied a glass of water. This is now going to the Omsbudman after having to go through the UKBA complaints procedure. This complaints procedure with the UKBA is a total farce but it has to be done. Again this is all publicised.
All this is done for the benefit of my fellow citizen so they can see that they do have rights and how to use them. For too long l have seen them humilated, intimidated and robbed. For the record l don't condone smuggling in any form and will not be party to it or advise on it. Anyone who has tried to get advice on smuggling has been left in no doubt to my position on this. lndeed, recently l warned a certain smokers lobbying site as to their content, as it could have been used by such as ASH to severely embarrass said site.
So, for a small activist 10 month old site, with no funding, no media contacts, no celebrity contacts and no political contacts, l don't think we are doing too bad at all. Perhaps if we had such we could get more results ... would you care to divert some our way?
D'Babe - couldn't say it better - and it's taken me all night to try - http://patnurseblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/counter-productive.html
Sorry D'babe but l disagree. Without debate we are just like ASH who only know how to dictate.
In - fighting D'Babe?
I think it's called having a healthy robust debate, which is something that zealots know nothing about and is one of the great strengths that Forest enjoy. Everyone is entitled to air their views, that’s how we grow and strengthen. If people don’t agree with what’s being said then tough – move on. Agreeing just for the sake of it weakens us all.
The only thing that ASH wet their pants over and is to endlessly dream up new ways of upping the persecution ante in their diseased little heads – and funded by us taxpayers to boot.
This is a distraction. This site isn't a travel agency or local club and it's wholly irrelevant, anyway, whether people choose to buy abroad or at home. It's up to them. Fags and booze have been belted at every budget since big bang and every time people say the same. We expected it. The Great British Turkeys voted for Christmas 3 times in 13 years and there's no point in moaning when Christmas arrives.
The problems are SHS and the ban, therefore lie in the HoC with the House swallowing the garbage given by the All party committee, provided by ASH, and that's where the problem can be solved. To that end, the likes of Simon and Dave Atherton perform sterling work which I wholeheartedly support. Sure, both could do with receiving more exposure in the MSM but I feel they have to fight to obtain what little they get as the views are 'off message' atm. However, when the likes of Peter Hitchens now admit to SHS being 'bollocks' the chances improve.
Keep it up, Simon.
"FOREST and it's selective memory
www.day-tripper.net
Posted by Webbie [User Info] on April 4, 2011, 9:37 pm, in reply to "Forest"
193.252.52.221
Forest is subsidised by the tobacco companies and won't do anything they don't want. Challenging HMRC is definitely not something they would do.
ACCESS (a Day-tripper.net campaign, with no input or support from FOREST whatsoever) visited them to discuss tactics, but got no where because ... the tobacco companies would not allow it. So much for being a campaigning organisation. A front maybe, but campaigning no.
FOREST did not send two researchers to Adinkerke, I personally took them, after suggesting they go (surprisingly for an organisation so active in this field apparently, they had not actually been across to check things out). I did not get paid a penny, nor get any recognition for what I had done. Yes I have been on Radio four (twice) and argued the shoppers position many times on other radio stations.
Of course they must sound important in case the tobacco companies who subsidise them decide to spend their money elsewhere, but omission is a big sin in my book.
Only Day-tripper has argued and lobbied consistently, and more importantly tried to help victims. £5,000 on a high profile case, and little interest afterwards does not allow them to claim "authority" on this matter.
FOREST is iust as bad as ASH, over subsidised by one company (or government) and far from capable of independent campaigning action on a sustained basis.
Would it be unkind to suggest FOREST exists solely as a foil of sorts to ASH? "
Frank, how can you say what happens to UK Shoppers at our borders is irrelevant? These are your fellow smokers who are continually harassed, intimidated and robbed ... day-in, day-out by the Government and yet it's irrelevant?
No-one asked Simon about forming a travel agency. 1 coach, 1 trip was all that was needed. Max of 50 people, hand-picked and record the whole trip. That then gets your illusive media attention that you say we need. The trip could cover so many issues and if handled correctly couldn't be accussed of anything illegal.
Or we continue to bend over and take it in the ...
Zaphod (I see you are one of the co-authors of Nothing2Declare), I'm not sure what this adds to the overall debate. Does it matter how our researchers got to Adinkerke? I said we sent two researchers to Adinkerke and this confirms it!
"Challenging HMRC is definitely not something they would do." Look, I don't mind criticism but don't ignore the facts. Forest did challenge Customs, repeatedly – we even went to court, for heavens sake – and we won (albeit on a technicality, if memory serves).
Little interest afterwards? The reason that cross-channel shopping hasn't been a priority for us since 2002 is because, after the guideline on cigarettes was changed from 800 to 3,200, calls from consumers whose goods and vehicles had been seized almost completely dried up. (Before that we got several calls a day.) This suggested to us that it was no longer an issue for the overwhelming majority of consumers so we moved on and prioritised other issues - the threat of a public smoking ban, for example.
Anyway, this thread has been a great education. Forest may be a single issue pressure group but Nothing2Declare is unique – a single issue within a single issue group!
Smoking hot: Fair enough to try and grab the media attention but how do you think that would be presented by them, if at all? one coach, fifty people? yeah, that'll really make the headlines! Do you really think that people - non smokers - and the Govt. would sympathise? they never have and never will. They'd regard it as a silly stunt, rag week stuff that, imo, would cheapen our case.
Customs, in whatever form, have been a problem since I was at the old granny's knee, it's nothing new. Fags have been belted for years, again nothing new. In fact 'beating' customs was always regarded as a bit of a game, so nothing new there, either. Neitehr are the zealots among them.
Stick to the main event, the mother of it all - SHS and the ban from which all else follows. Fighting the All party committee and ASH requires diplomacy and politics, not stunts. What'll really make the headlines is an equivalent to the East Anglia and Global Warming bit. That's requires patience and perseverance by the likes of Simon. As said it's a distraction.
"prioritised other issues - the threat of a public smoking ban, for example. "
Yes you did and I still remember your campaigning, a lot of it very inspired. Back then you were indeed the Voice Of The Smoker and a powerful one at that.
But since then...well lets just say that this thread seems to indicate that there is a growing disgruntlement among the i-Smoking-movement.
I think we can safely say that lobbying MPs in a civilized, reasoned, adult manner is less effective than a 30 second You Tube Video of you spray painting kittens with 'Forest Says Buy Your Smokes Abroad' or Forest members marching through Dover in SS uniforms.
Silly? Yes.
Childish? All protest is or at least is open to the accusation of being so.
But it gets you heard.
"diplomacy and politics"-Frank
Yes because they have worked soooo well thus far, haven't they?
Shinar's basket case: There is no amendment as yet, certainly, but we really don't know, do we? as Business, as Politics, far more effective work is done quietly behind scenes than any placard waved by a prat could ever achieve. How do you think ASH achieved their position?
What, exactly, do you think the MSM would report (if they bothered) and the clean living sheeple at home would think with such a stunt. I'll give you a clue ' addicts having to go abroad for their fix', 'bet that bus stinks', 'good riddance', 'hope the ferry sinks' and many more like it. They'd have a field day! notwithstanding such action causing some clown MP or member of the DoH raising possibilities of lowering the allowance - in the interests of health, of course and to stop such disgusting behaviour. Come on, get real. Anything like that would set is back a couple of years at least.
Sure, sometimes I wish Simon would be a bit more direct, less diplomatic and ask the proper questions on SHS but it's the only way to go, bit by bit to win the House over and that's where the focus should be.
"far more effective work is done quietly behind scenes than any placard waved by a prat could ever achieve"-Frank
The quiet effective behind-the-scenes work which prevented the Smoking Ban in the first place? The quiet effective behind-the-scenes work which is going to prevent 'white packets', 'under the counter only sale', the obscene duty levels, the smoking ban in private cars, the removal of children from smoking parents (the last two being only a few years away now)?
My lung capacity won't allow me to hold my breath.
The future belongs to prats with placards and an iPhone.
There are a lot of points here to digest and let me try and add some light to the shade.
I think as smokers our biggest hammer blow was the smoking ban. I turned from mild mannered computer services salesman to outraged smoker. Hitherto Forest virtually exclusively looked after smoker's rights. Freedom2Choose was not formed until after the smoking ban in 2007 and actively I have been involved for 1.5 to 2 years. It is really the first time Simon has had to share the stage with others.
Real power in this country lies with Cameron and Clegg and their immediate entourages and the rest of us including MPs are hanging onto their coattails. However MPs think tanks and pressure groups do have influence and collectively 95% of the country is run by 1% of the population, known as the "Westminster Bubble."
The Westminster Bubble tends to be highly educated, articulate and very middle class. Sometimes precious, certainly moderate I very rarely hear people swear, let alone use the F word. The WB is very suspicious of polemics and people with more extreme views. It is the same who use the words tosser and pratt, you will not be taken seriously. Wave as many placards as you like, it will achieve nothing, in fact it might make further legal restrictions easier.
@ JJ
'In - fighting D'Babe?
I think it's called having a healthy robust debate...
Name calling ? Declaring someone a 'twat' very healthy... and robut... and oh - mature.
"Wave as many placards as you like, it will achieve nothing, in fact it might make further legal restrictions easier."-Dave
Thing is though that the restrictions are coming. Does anyone really doubt that and does anyone really think that all Simon's valiant but quiet polite efforts are going to make a damn bit of difference? Not judging by Forest's track record so far.
FOREST claims to be The Voice Of Smoker BUT the voice of more and more smokers is saying "*F-Word* you alls, a plague on all yer houses, I'm off to shop in Belgium and Mr Patell's bank balance be damned"
Shinar: Well, you toddle off with your distraction if it makes you feel better but it'll achieve absolutely nothing other than appearing a joke and runs the risk of making it worse.
"other than appearing a joke "-Frank
I don't disagree. Infact I can distinctly remember laughing my head off back in about 1984 when some Cosmic Tree Hugging Anti Smokers told me that they'd get smoking in pubs banned. I also split my sides laughing when the (German) Green Party told us they thought petrol should cost one pound eighty a litre...
Today's funny distraction is tomorrow's political reality. Today's 'clicks' are tomorrow's votes (more's the pity).
D’babe
I was referring to the robust debate on this site where there hasn’t been abuse. Those words you quote were used in comments on the Nothing 2 Declare site.
Simon can you fix this comment bug – it’s disrupting my imaginative juices.
@ Dave Atherton ... Wasn't Damian McBride in the WB? I know my MP is and he swears like a trooper.
@ Frank ... Best of luck with the SHS issues. ln the meantime l'll concentrate on the illegal and unjust tactics perpetrated by the UKBA/HMRC.
...................
Saying that, l'm out of here as it seems l'm invisble.
Dick, have you got some of that popcorn left?!?
Lots of ducking and diving by Simon to evade valid questions and points. Classic case of when in a hole you should stop digging. Simon just got a bigger shovel and used it.