The first interview I ever gave as director of Forest was with BBC Radio Leicester.
I remember it because it was booked two days in advance and, given all that time to think about it, I was extremely nervous.
I had done radio interviews in previous jobs but never in front of colleagues on a subject I was still getting to grips with.
Fortunately, in our old London office, I had a small office within an office so I was able to close the door so none of my colleagues could hear my first stumbling steps.
Since then I've done hundreds of interviews, probably more (I've lost count), the majority on BBC local radio.
The great thing about local radio is you generally get more time – seven or eight minutes perhaps – and although there is never enough time to say everything you want, it's better than the two or three minutes you’re lucky to get on national radio (which is sometimes reduced to no more than a soundbite).
Anyway, I was on BBC Radio Nottingham yesterday. The seven-minute discussion was prompted, I think, by the fact that a local publican has decided to ban smoking on his premises, by which I mean outside. (He was on before me but we were kept apart on air.)
As it happens, I don't have a major issue with his decision. If I was a landlord it wouldn't be my choice but it’s his pub and if he wants to ban smoking on his own property that's up to him.
Before the current smoking ban was introduced we took the same attitude to smoking indoors. If proprietors wanted to ban smoking in their pub or restaurant that was their choice and good luck to them.
In practice very few pubs banned smoking before the legislation was introduced. The Free Press in Cambridge was one but at the time it was the only non-smoking pub in the city, and who could object to that?
Today, if we are to be consistent, the same must apply to smoking in beer gardens or outdoor terraces. It should be up to the proprietor not government whether smoking is prohibited.
What I do have an issue with is the argument that the ban should be extended to outdoor spaces to 'protect' the health of non-smokers, hence the following exchange with BBC Nottingham presenter Mark Dennison:
Me: When the smoking ban came in … we were told it was to protect the health of bar workers. Now they're talking about extending the smoking ban to outdoor areas, like parks, beaches and so on, where there is absolutely no risk to anyone else's health whatsoever. You're in the open air.
Dennison: How do you know? How do you know that?
Me: Because it's my job to study the evidence … 🤣
Dennison: Yes, but hang on there ...
Me: ... and there is no evidence that there's [a] risk to other people's health.
Dennison: Sorry, Simon, there's been a lot of science and research into secondhand smoke inhalation, hasn't there? And how do you know that that is only a thing indoors rather than outdoors?
Me: Well, it's up to the anti-smoking lobby to produce clear evidence that smoking outside is a risk to other people's health [and] they've been unable to do it.
After that the discussion continued as follows (I’ve edited it for brevity):
Dennison: OK, well, you say that but, equally, a lot of people are already saying, look, I don't want to breathe in, apart from just the health side of things, I don't want to breathe in other people's smoke, whether that's indoors or outdoors. Let's leave that to one side just for a moment.
I want to talk about what you mentioned there, about being pro-choice, people have smoked for years and years and years. Isn't the difference nowadays that we know so much more about the harm that smoking does? You can't deny that we know so much more about the science, what it does to the human body, don't we?
Me: Oh, indeed, and that's why it's important that in a free society adults should be allowed to make an informed choice. The trouble is, these days we're treating adults increasingly like small children. We're infantilising Britain and it's not just with smoking.
I mean, although Forest is primarily about smoking, what we're really against is excessive intrusion into people's private lives and excessive regulation. And that's what we've seen over the last 20 years with smoking. We began with the ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship. Then we had the smoking ban. Since then, we've had a ban on display of cigarettes in shops, as if we cannot be allowed to see a packet of cigarettes, otherwise we're going to be reaching for our bags. And then we've had plain packaging, a ban on menthol cigarettes.
What we're seeing is creeping prohibition. And I think most people in this country would be very alarmed at the idea of prohibition, because this won't stop with smoking and tobacco. The public health lobby is now so powerful, we already see that they're moving on to things like alcohol. We're constantly told that even a single drink of alcohol is bad for our health.
I'm afraid this is just utterly nonsense. People get through life in different ways. Some people choose to smoke. Of course some people wish they'd never started smoking, and wish to quit but there are great many people who take pleasure from smoking. And I think the war on tobacco could actually be said to be a war on pleasure, just as the war on alcohol could be said to be a war on pleasure. We have to be allowed to make these choices for ourselves.
Dennison: What do you say, Simon, to people that say, and this applies to smoking as well as drinking now that you bring that up, what about the burden on the NHS? Why should I pay? And why should an already overburdened NHS be dealing with all of these self inflicted problems?
Me: Well, that's a very good point, but the actual facts are that the estimated cost of treating smoking related diseases on the NHS is £2.5 billion a year. Smokers contribute over £10 billion through tobacco taxation. That's a combination of excise duty on tobacco and VAT. So smokers more than pay their way. And the trouble is, if you go down the route of saying, well, hang on, why should the NHS pay for self inflicted problems, do you therefore ban contact sports like rugby, where you could be seriously hurt? Where does this stop?
Dennison: It's been fascinating. Simon, we'll have to leave it there for time reasons, but thank you for coming on. A lot to unpick from that. What do you make of what you've just heard? And maybe as a smoker, you are livid at the idea of being pushed further and further out. And the prospect of it being illegal might just well make you reach for your cigarettes because it stresses you out so much, to be honest.
I’ve not published the full transcript but can you imagine getting that much time on most national radio programmes?
Sadly BBC local radio faces significant cuts to programming and that could have major repercussions for public debate on a range of issues.
TalkTV and GB News are doing their best - with variable degrees of success - to tackle what might be called the democratic deficit by giving less mainstream views a platform, but BBC radio has its part to play too and I worry that we are in danger of losing some valuable programming where issues can be debated at greater length.
So let’s hear it for BBC local radio. In the words of one producer, “We’ve spoken to you in the past and really enjoyed the discussion.”
Me too!