Plans to ban smoking on a beach in beautiful Pembrokeshire have been described as "idiotic and bonkers" by, er, me.
See: Britain plans first 'no smoking' beach on the Pembrokeshire coast to discourage children from taking up the habit on holiday (Mail Online).
An edited version of the same quote (but always including the words "idiotic" and "bonkers") has also appeared in The Times, Daily Express, Daily Mirror and Daily Telegraph.
The funny thing is that while the sentiment is 100 per cent accurate, "idiotic" and "bonkers" were put in my mouth by an agency journalist who rang me, listened for 30 seconds, then asked: "Would you say the decision is silly or bonkers?"
I laughed because I knew exactly what he wanted.
And so it came to pass that "bonkers" (not a word I often use) became Forest's considered response to yet another ban on smoking in the open air.
In truth my private reaction is much stronger but – to answer those who want me to use words like "thugs" and "bullies" – I am of the opinion that overtly aggressive language rarely plays well in the mainstream media. In fact I can almost guarantee Forest wouldn't get quoted at all if we went down that path.
Nor does it generate support from middle England (or Wales or Scotland). To get people – non-smokers especially – on our side we have to laugh at the absurdity of these petty rules and regulations which are not supported by scientific evidence.
We have to hold them up, not to abuse but to scorn and ridicule.
Calling our opponents "thugs" or worse is unhelpful. They may be wrong, in our eyes, but many tobacco campaigners and politicians are genuinely well-meaning and sincere. (Others aren't but we'll deal with them separately.)
The wrong language makes us appear the aggressor, and that's counter-productive.