I was on The Big Questions (BBC1, above) yesterday.
The programme was broadcast from a secondary school just outside York. They wanted guests to arrive by 8.45 so I had to leave home shortly after six to drive the 138 miles from Cambridgeshire.
When I arrived there were outside broadcast vans in the car park and the staff room had been commandeered as a green room.
I introduced myself to one or two guests including Tam Fry of the National Obesity Forum and we talked about Formula 1 (which he likes) and boxing (which he doesn't).
Presenter Nicky Campbell then came to say hello. As I've mentioned before, Nicky and I were at Aberdeen University together. I didn't know him well - he was one or two years below me - but our paths crossed via a student newspaper I edited and I've followed his career with interest.
We had a brief chat before we were taken downstairs to a large room that had been converted into a makeshift studio.
Prior to the live broadcast there was a 'rehearsal' to check mics etc. Guests and members of the audience were encouraged to talk about the election but as I was wearing my Forest hat I preferred to keep quiet.
If you watch The Big Questions you'll know that each week they feature three topics, devoting approximately 18-minutes to each one.
This week the subjects were 'Should the NHS ration according to lifestyle?', 'Is welfare reform working?' and 'Are your actions more important than your beliefs?'
The lifestyle issue was first up but instead of developing into a debate it was more a series of non-related statements by various guests, followed by two or three comments from members of the audience.
My contribution was limited to a handful of soundbites.
It's "morally wrong", I said, to deny people operations because of their lifestyles.
It's also "cruel" because if you're waiting for a hip or knee replacement you may be in "massive, physical pain" or unable to move.
Delaying operations would still cost the NHS money, I said, because patients may need medication and physiotherapy while they are waiting for their operations.
"No smoker should feel any guilt for smoking," I added, because they make a "massive contribution" to the welfare state and the NHS would "struggle without the tobacco taxes that smokers contribute."
I got a smattering of applause for saying I was overweight and would like to lose weight but didn't want the government to force me to lose weight by "introducing, for example, sugar taxes."
Later I got a bit more applause when I tackled a member of the audience who complained about the food and drink industries "supersizing us" (sic) with "giant capucinos you could take a swim in."
"People have a choice not to drink these things," I retorted. "We can make up our own minds."
There appeared to be very little support for the idea that the NHS should ration treatment on the basis of lifestyle but the 'debate' was so unfocused it was difficult to draw any conclusions.
As usual some speakers seemed to think the answer to everything lies in pouring more and more money into the health service or increasing taxes.
In hindsight I regret not suggesting that health is the new religion, with people increasingly classified as saints or sinners.
Given the nature of the programme, which describes itself as a series of "moral, ethical and religious" debates, it would have been more apposite.
Next time, perhaps.
PS. You can watch yesterday's episode of The Big Questions here.
They were going to describe Forest as "pro-smoking". After I put them right the caption on the screen was changed to 'Forest, lifestyle choice lobby'.
That has a nice ring to it.
PPS. My daughter, after seeing the programme, said, "You always seem so angry."
It's not me, it's my job!