Debating matters

Founded in 2014, the 104 London Debaters club organises an impressive programme of events, online and in person.

Debates take place every second and fourth Tuesday of the month, with in person events taking place at The Windsor Castle pub in Victoria, central London.

Close to Westminster Cathedral, it’s a short walk from Forest’s old office in Palace Street. Despite that I don’t remember ever going there, but it looks very traditional, very Victorian.

According to the website:

The pub has ornate interiors with a high corniced ceiling, brilliant cut glass, stained glass skylight as well as an interesting collection of artwork depicting the eponymous royal residence. 

It also has a ‘beautiful upstairs function room’ which is where 104 London Debaters, part of the Toastmasters International network, host their events.

I found out about the club after a member, William Hagerup, posted a note on the Forest Facebook page drawing our attention to a debate on the subject, ‘This House Would Allow Smoking In Privately Owned Public Spaces’.

That was last week and the debate took place on Tuesday, two days ago. I would like to have gone but it was the same day as the second reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill and I had to follow that to its conclusion, and then write about it.

Anyway, Will has kindly sent me the following report:

Swing To Smoking But No Cigar

104 London Debaters is a debate club founded 10 years ago by Paul Carroll and others, meeting twice a month at The Windsor Castle pub in Victoria. It is part of Toastmasters International, a US-based international network of public speaking clubs with thousands of clubs across the world. 104 is the only one specialising in debating in the UK.

On Tuesday 26th November the club met to debate the topic ‘This House Would Allow Smoking In Privately Owned Public Spaces’. The motion had been suggested by William Hagerup, the club’s VP PR, who has never smoked cigarettes but who believes in freedom of choice and is an enthusiastic occasional cigar smoker.

Two teams, one Proposing the motion and one Opposing it, with three speakers each, had prepared the various arguments in advance, following a process of rigorous research. When the vote was taken before the debate it was clear that the Proposing team had their job cut out: out of the 27 people present, only five voted in favour, 12 opposed, with the rest abstaining.

The Proposition put forward the case that business owners should have the right to decide what happens on their property, as long as they take reasonable care to look after the health of employees and non-smoking guests. People should also have the freedom to choose, and thirdly that the draconian 2007 law has contributed to the rapid decline of pubs, especially small ones that couldn’t transition to become restaurants.

The team therefore proposed the Danish model, where you can have separate smoking rooms in larger establishments as well as allowing smaller establishments where they don’t serve food to permit smoking if they so wish.

The Opposition called on the memory of smoky times past when people lit up anywhere and everywhere, which was a bit of a straw-man fallacy, or perhaps I should say a smoke screen, as that is not what had been proposed. But they went on to say that most people are now happy with the current arrangements, there are no great calls for a change, and that smoking is very addictive and therefore all efforts to curb it are to be welcome rather than be weakened.

When the vote was taken after the debate there had been a slight swing in favour of the Proposition, with two votes added, so seven in all, but the Opposition still managed to defeat the motion with 13 votes opposed and the rest abstaining.

During the Open Floor part of the debate, many audience members spoke of how they were in favour of freedom of choice, BUT … many were concerned with smoking as a health issue, and this is for many allowed to trump personal liberty. But at least the debate showed that people are willing to consider a more relaxed smoking regime, and some important facts were spread, such as the slowing rate of smoking cessation after the 2007 law came in, the California study showing that the health risks of second-hand smoke is probably overstated, and the worryingly increased rate of pub closures after 2007.

As the current government seems ready to push much further than most people are happy with, the debate about government overreach and individual freedom in this area is one that will continue to be important and current.

So motion defeated. Well done to the Opposition but, with a small swing to the Proposition, well done to us as well.

According to the 104 Debaters website:

After debates at the first floor function room of the charming pub, The Windsor Castle, we stay back for a drink and a chat, and perhaps even to continue the discussion. 

It is a nice and convivial atmosphere, and you are more than welcome to come as a guest to see if you like it before you commit.

I’m sorry I missed what sounds like an enjoyable evening, even if the vote didn’t go quite as one might have wished!

PS. If, like me, you are asking why the club is called ‘104’ London Debaters, I asked Will who replied:

‘As we are part of Toastmasters Int., they have various rule books and instructions for the various types of public speaking meetings one can hold. The rule for debating is Rule 104, hence we are the 104-club.’

Below: William Hagerup (far left) with his two Proposition teammates, the debate chair, and (on the right) the Opposition team