Down memory lane

A few weeks ago I mentioned, in passing, the Oxford Bar in Edinburgh.

It featured in Rebus, the recent TV series that portrayed a younger version of the fictional detective created by Scottish crime writer Ian Rankin.

Unlike Rebus, the Oxford Bar is not a figment of the author’s imagination. It actually exists and Rankin has been drinking there since the 1980s.

What I didn't say is that the Oxford Bar is just a few hundred yards from where I once lived in the early Nineties.

By coincidence the flat we rented for almost two years was on sale recently and I can honestly say that only one property I have ever lived in - the Camberwell house I bought with a friend at the height of the Eighties housing boom - had as much character or history.

Both properties were Edwardian, I think, but in terms of size they were complete opposites.

The Camberwell property (which I lost money on after the market collapsed before I moved to Edinburgh!) was a substantial Grade II listed four-story town house with 2-3 reception rooms, three bedrooms, a kitchen and utility room in the basement, plus a rooftop terrace.

In contrast the Edinburgh property was a small but perfectly formed flat with a sitting room, two bedrooms, and a kitchen just big enough for a small dining table.

It was owned by the father of the friend I had bought the house with in Camberwell.

Through Peter I had known Aldric since we were at Aberdeen University in the late Seventies. His father was one of the nicest, most generous people you could meet.

(Among other things, he underwrote our legal costs when we were sued for defamation while producing an independent student newspaper in 1978!)

He was also a bit eccentric but that was part of his charm.

As well as owning an antiques shop in the heart of Edinburgh’s New Town, Aldric owned several other properties in the same street, including a number of flats.

As luck would have it, when my wife and I decided to move back to Scotland, eight months after we got married, one of them became available to rent.

Better still we were the very first tenants because although the building, like the street, was 200-years-old, the flat itself was ‘new’. Let me explain.

Before we moved in the flat as we know it today didn’t exist. Instead - and this probably dates back to the 18th century when the New Town was first developed - the building was a patchwork of individual rooms with, I assume, shared toilets and bathrooms, although the latter were probably a 20th century addition.

The rooms were owned by people who either lived there or rented them to tenants.

Over time individual rooms would come on the market and Aldric would buy some of them until he was able to reconfigure and convert them into proper flats with their own kitchen and bathroom.

Thankfully he kept some of the original features so it was like stepping back in history.

The two largest rooms in what became our flat overlooked a narrow cobbled street and were the same size. One was designated as the sitting room, the other as the main bedroom.

Originally, however, those two rooms had to accommodate entire families and above the door to what was our sitting room was the original plaque that read:

No more than 14 people shall live in this room

A similar restriction would no doubt have applied to the room that was now the main bedroom, so imagine that - up to 28 people living in two adjacent rooms, with no indoor toilet!

Two smaller rooms had been converted into a kitchen and second bedroom (which I used as an office).

Together with a small bathroom, they overlooked the mews behind the building where what were once stables would have housed all the horses in the 18th and 19th centuries.

In 1992 that random collection of rooms – now converted into a modern two-bedroom flat – was perfect for us.

Situated in the heart of the New Town, we could not have found a better location. Bars, restaurants, and cafes were right on our doorstep, but Thistle Street was relatively quiet.

We lived there for 18 months before buying our own flat in Morningside, a couple of miles from the city centre, but while we were there we absolutely loved it.

As I wrote here:

Today, although it’s been gentrified, Thistle Street has an irresistible Dickensian charm and we were very happy there, living above Aldric’s antique shop, popping in to the Thistle Street Bar or having tea and cakes in the wonderful James Thin bookshop (now closed) on George Street, a few minutes' walk from the flat.

But perhaps my favourite memory took place within 24 hours of our moving there on December 28, 1992.

Like a scene from a Victorian Christmas card, large snowflakes began to fall and the cobbles - indeed the entire street - quickly disappeared under a thick white blanket of snow.

Even today, when I’m in Edinburgh, I sometimes revisit Thistle Street because I still have very fond memories of the place.

Our old flat has now been sold and I envy the new owners. It’s a lovely property in a fantastic location so I wish them every happiness in their new home.

PS. It may not be online for much longer but here’s a gallery of photos.

See also: Thistle Street: UNESCO World Heritage Site:

Thistle Street, tucked away in the heart of Edinburgh’s New Town, was … originally built as affordable homes. However it was not long before shops started opening up, offering luxury goods to the residents of the New Town …

Its intimate scale and historic architecture provide a unique backdrop for a thriving community of local businesses.

Also: Recollections of Thistle Street (circa 1956-1966):

“Further along past Burkes and in the middle of this section of Thistle Street was an antique shop and a little farther on a stair where the local ‘ladies of the night’ used to hang around waiting for custom.

“I used to chat to them and vividly remember when I was about 10 being invited upstairs if I had a shilling – I didn’t go and, anyway, why should I pay a bob to go upstairs?"

Update: It seems my late landlord was not universally loved and admired. According to one of his peers in the antiques world:

Thistle Street was home to the late Kenneth Jackson, a man of great taste and bitter humour, who more than once greeted me at the shop door fresh from his bath, wearing just a pink silk bath robe! Nearby was Aldric Young a man of bitter moods as ill-tempered as the parrot he kept in a cage in the showrooms.

As someone once said, recollections may vary …

Sounds like the Seventies

Classic Seventies sitcoms are having a bit of a moment.

In the West End a stage version of Fawlty Towers has been drawing large audiences since it opened in the spring and the run has been extended to January, I believe.

Meanwhile, in Cirencester, another much loved TV character, Frank Spencer, can also be seen on stage in Some Mothers Do ‘Ave ‘Em.

First broadcast in February 1973, I actually remember seeing the first episode because my parents were out and I had the TV to myself.

I had never seen Michael Crawford before and I only watched it because the alternative was Coronation Street, which we didn’t watch, on ITV.

It began inauspiciously but despite the cheap sets and wobbly closing credits, it was clear, even to a 13-year-old, that this was not your typical, Terry and June style, suburban sitcom.

Crawford’s performance, in particular, bordered on genius, although it probably took a few episodes to fully appreciate that.

Arguably, Some Mothers hasn’t aged as well as the other top sitcoms of the era - notably Porridge, The Likely Lads, and Fawlty Towers - but if you need any reminding of how funny it could be do watch the clip below.

I honestly can’t remember the last time I heard a live studio audience laugh like that.

Sinn Féin at war on smoking?

Two months ago the government in Ireland announced plans to raise the age of sale of tobacco from 18 to 21.

It’s not as extreme as a generational ban (raising the age of sale by one year every year until no adult can legally purchase tobacco), but it’s still problematical.

One, young adults are still being discriminated against. Two, there will be similar unintended consequences including an increase in black market sales.

Despite that the policy has received very little scrutiny in Ireland and there has been even less media or public debate on the issue.

(I appeared on several TV and radio stations but I seemed to be the lone voice publicly opposing the measure.)

Anyway, on July 4 minister for health Stephen Donnolly introduced the second stage of the Public Health (Tobacco) (Amendment) Bill 2024 (aka the 'smoking 21 bill') with these words:

The purpose of this measure is not to further regulate tobacco products but to begin to eliminate them from our lives and the lives of our children. It is, to use the public health term, an "endgame measure", signalling the beginning of the end of tobacco in our country.

The big surprise however was not the policy but the fact that it was opposed by Sinn Féin. According to the Irish Examiner:

Sinn Féin will not be backing the Government’s bill to raise the smoking age to 21, the Dáil heard yesterday.

The proposed bill was called unreasonable and unenforceable by the party’s spokesperson for health, David Cullinane ...

“The idea that an 18-year-old can join the Defence Forces, buy a vape or buy alcohol, but cannot buy a cigarette is unreasonable, and probably more importantly unenforceable,” he said ...

He added that if the bill is passed it would push more trade into the “tobacco black market”.

Where have I heard those arguments before?!

Sadly, much as I would like to reach out to Sinn Féin to congratulate them on their stance, I'm not sure the party would welcome an approach from a UK-based smokers' rights group, so we are keeping our distance.

But here's the interesting thing.

In Northern Ireland, Michelle O'Neill – first minister and Sinn Féin vice president – has taken a completely different position, actively welcoming the UK government's plan to raise the age of sale of tobacco not just to 21 but by one year every year.

Curiously, I seem to be the only person who has noticed this because to the best of my knowledge no-one else has commented on it, but it does seem odd, and inconsistent for a party that wants a united Ireland.

To add to the confusion, Sinn Féin last week called for their MPs – who refuse to take their seats in Westminster – to be given speaking rights in the Dáil.

In the unlikely event that were to happen, would they oppose one another en bloc, like warring tribes, on this issue?

Meanwhile it's been said that the only reason the Irish Government isn't pushing for a UK-style ban on the sale of tobacco is because a ‘smokefree generation’ plan is precluded by EU law. Allegedly.

My guess is this will be addressed when the EU's next Tobacco Products Directive is introduced in 2027 (or thereabouts), but we'll just have to wait and see.

Back in Dublin parliamentarians are now enjoying a long summer recess and the Dáil won't resume until September 18, following which the smoking 21 bill will go before the Committee on Health which includes not only David Cullinane but also his Sinn Féin colleague Seán Crowe.

Although they are heavily outnumbered by TDs and senators whose parties support the policy, it will be interesting nevertheless to hear what they have to say.

Watch this space.

How to make smoking cool again

Excellent piece by Kara Kennedy in the Daily Mail today.

Like most opinion pieces on the Mail website it's behind a paywall but the headline gives you the gist:

I gave out bowls of cigarettes to my wedding guests. Like so many people my age, I like smoking precisely because we're sick of being told what not to do

Alternatively (and I strongly recommend this) you can pay £1.10 for a copy of the print edition.

Readers may remember that Kara was a panellist at an event Forest organised at the Institute of Economic Affairs in March last year. (See Smoking Gun: Prohibition and the Infantilisation of Britain.)

We invited her to take part after reading 'An ode to smoking' which she wrote for The Spectator World, the US edition of The Spectator, and she didn't disappoint.

At the time she was working as a staff writer for The Spectator but she subsequently went freelance, moved to Washington DC, and has since written for various publications including the Telegraph, Mail, Tatler, and the New Statesman.

She also got married and is currently seven months' pregnant, hence this introduction to her piece in the Mail today:

It has been 162 days since my last cigarette, not that I'm counting or anything. I won't and can't smoke until the baby I'm carrying is born in September, but already I know this doesn't mean I'm giving up.

Tongue-in-cheek (?) she adds:

I've asked my husband to deliver me a nicely wrapped packet of Newports as my 'push present'.

As it happens I wouldn't be surprised if Kara has smoked her final cigarette because a lot of parents quit permanently after they've had a baby.

Then again she may go back to smoking ‘no more than five or six’ cigarettes a day, and not even every day.

That will make her, like many people, a social smoker who smokes because she genuinely enjoys it, not because she's hopelessly addicted.

Either way it's her choice and any liberal-minded person ought to respect that.

Instead it’s anticipated that the new Labour Government will use the King's Speech tomorrow to announce that it will reintroduce a bill to ban the sale of tobacco to future generations of adults.

The policy won't directly affect Kara, 26, but it won't be long before people of a similar age WILL be prohibited from legally purchasing tobacco.

When this happens there are three likely outcomes.

One, fewer people will smoke.

Two, it will drive more smokers to the black market.

Three, it could make smoking cool again because, as Kara rightly points out, one thing many young people don't like is being told what NOT to do.

None of these outcomes are mutually exclusive so a generational ban could result in all three.

Anyway, credit to the Mail for publishing the article (a double-page spread, no less) the day before the King's Speech and a week after Cancer Research UK made the absurd claim that cancers caused by smoking have hit a record high - despite a huge fall in smoking rates since the 1950s.

It even includes a quote from me.

PS. Quelle surprise, today's ASH Daily News bulletin has just landed in my inbox and the anti-smoking lobby group has chosen NOT to include Kara's piece.

Instead they sent the following links to their subscribers:

More NHS cash ‘not feasible’, adviser tells Labour (The Times)
Hospital discharges limiting home care in England, councils say (Guardian)
Labour pledge on junk food adverts aimed at children may still face delay to 2025 (i)
Dad demands vaping ban after both his daughters hospitalised (Cumberland News)

And, from the USA:

Campaigners target Philip Morris' flagship heated tobacco US launch (Daily Mail)

It begs the question, why would they NOT want their subscribers (many of them politicians, civil servants, and public health sector workers) to know about Kara's article?

I think we know the answer but draw your own conclusions.

Below: Journalist Kara Kennedy at Smoking Gun: Prohibition and the Infantilisation of Britain last year. Photo: Stuart Mitchell

C’mon, England!

Three years ago, before England played Italy in the final of Euro 2020 (which had been postponed by twelve months due to Covid), I wrote:

I shall watch tonight’s match hoping for but not expecting an England win. Experience has taught me not to be so presumptuous.

Also, while many people will say the result is the only thing that matters, that’s no longer true for me.

I want England to win but if Italy are clearly the better team – and win – I will be fine with that.

The same is true tonight. I’d like England to win but if Spain are by some distance the better team, and win, I’ll be disappointed but will accept it with good grace.

Truth is, I’ve had a difficult relationship with men’s football, including the England football team, for some time.

At the World Cup in Qatar in 2002 I didn’t bother watching the quarter-final against France because I sensed the inevitable defeat, and I was right, although reports suggested England played well and, had it not been for a missed penalty near the end, they might have gone on to win.

Having watched every England match up to the semi-final in Euro 24 I couldn’t bring myself to watch most of the Netherlands match because I found the previous games so frustrating I was actually shouting at the TV (at the age of 65!).

Instead I kept an eye on the live updates on the BBC News website while watching a new police drama on iPlayer.

At half-time I turned over to ITV where the pundits confirmed that England were playing quite well but my natural pessimism kicked in and I returned to The Turkish Detective, going back to the football only when I saw they had scored in the last minute.

I’ll watch the final tonight but is it too much to ask for good football from both sides? Three years ago, when a European Super League was briefly on the table, I wrote:

A clip was posted on Twitter recently that showed Dundee United playing Hibernian in the mid to late Sixties. It was quite short but it was a revelation.

It showed wave after wave of attacks on the opposition goal. As soon as United lost the ball they would win it back. Old-fashioned wingers and inside forwards ran at the defence at every opportunity.

Compared to the football we often see today it was exhilarating. Yes, today's game at the very top level is more skilful, more athletic and better organised tactically, but it can also be very boring.

I’ve been watching football for over 50 years and the poor matches have always outnumbered the good, but for me there is something rather sterile about a lot of today’s football. Aside from isolated moments of great skill, it rarely gets you on your feet.

That's the real elephant in the room no-one wants to address. More often than not modern football is not a great spectacle.

Personally, I blame Pep Guardiola, the former Barcelona manager now approaching his ninth season at Manchester City where he has enjoyed extraordinary success.

I’m not disputing that Guardiola is a fantastic, innovative coach whose possession-based teams can, at their very best, be brilliant to watch.

The problem is, the experience can also be very tedious - hundreds of passes, the majority going side-to-side or, worse, backwards.

Opponents are inevitably set up to defend en masse and the result is a tactical chess match whose outcome is often decided by an error or a moment of great skill.

The problem is, those moments - even at the highest level of the game - are few and far between.

Worse, Guardiola’s success has encouraged teams at all levels of the game to ‘pass out from the back’ and keep possession of the ball as if their lives depend on it.

In practise this means a generally cautious, safety first approach that is robbing the game of much of its appeal.

To be clear, I support possession-based football, with the ball played to feet rather than up in the air, and there’s nothing particularly new about it.

But there has to be balance between a short and long passing game that can stretch the opposition, and in the modern era football has gone too far in favour of keeping the ball at all costs.

Watching England in Euro 24 has been the most frustrating experience because how often has one of our ‘world class’ midfielders taken on an opponent and run past them?

Instead, the default pass has been sideways or back, often to the goalkeeper.

Other teams have done it too but it’s worse when England do it because some of our players are better than that.

Given England’s historically poor tournament record I accept that Gareth Southgate’s record as head coach - two finals, a semi-final and a quarter-final in four attempts - is remarkable, but how many times have we played really well and entertained supporters?

Don’t get me wrong, I want England to win tonight but I also want victory to be deserved. A ‘moment’ of brilliance amid a sea of sludge will not be enough if we bore the rest of the world to sleep.

That’s why, whatever happens tonight, it’s time for Southgate to move on. Considering the mess he inherited (England losing to Iceland at Euro 2016), he’s done an excellent job in many, many respects.

But it’s not just about winning a single tournament with a handful of moments that obscure the mind-numbing tedium of many England performances. We need a coach who can unlock something more.

In my lifetime the two greatest international teams have been Brazil in 1970 and again in 1982.

It’s true that Brazil didn’t win the 1982 World Cup but they were the most exciting team by some margin, and who remembers much about the eventual winners Italy, apart from the match against Brazil where they surprised everyone by winning 3-2.

As for 1970, Pele’s Brazil won every match they played with brilliant attacking football and never looked like losing.

It says everything that one of England’s finest World Cup performances was in defeat, losing 1-0 to that extraordinary Brazilian team.

But here’s the thing. In 1970 England were the defending champions and although they played well in that match they played with caution and only came out of their defensive shell when they went behind.

After that they scorned several opportunities, including Geoff Astle hitting the bar when it seemed easier to score.

I’d like to think tonight will be different and England won’t wait until they are behind before giving it a good go, but I’m not convinced Southgate has that in his locker as a coach.

In any case, he would probably argue, why change a winning formula.

It’s true too that in 1966 England didn’t play that well and their sole World Cup winning tournament is best remembered for a few ‘moments’ - Bobby Charlton’s goals against France and Portugal, plus Geoff Hurst’s hat-trick in the final against West Germany - but it’s hard to argue they didn’t deserve to win the tournament because no other side was obviously better.

In Euro 2024, however, Spain have clearly been the best team and therefore deserve to win.

Better technically, they will probably give England more space in their own half, but I do hope we give it a real go and take risks rather than hoping to nick a win with a ‘moment’ or, worse, on penalties.

In sport, and especially in football, the best team doesn’t always win so although I predict a 3-0 win for Spain, Gareth Southgate’s side are not without a chance.

C’mon, England!

David Hockney, eighty-seven up

I’m a day late but happy birthday to David Hockney, 87 yesterday.

As readers know, because I’ve told the story several times, Britain’s most famous living artist (and smoker) was responsible for the best day of my working life.

It took place in September 2005 at the Labour conference in Brighton after the great man accepted our invitation to speak at a fringe event opposing the Labour Government’s plan to ban smoking in all enclosed public places.

Chaired by Claire Fox (now Baroness Fox), other speakers included musician Joe Jackson and the late Sue Carroll, a much-loved columnist for the Daily Mirror.

Brighton 2005 wasn’t the first time we had met Hockney because the previous year he had joined a handful of guests including Oscar-winning screenwriter, the late Sir Ronald Harwood, for a private dinner hosted by Forest at Boisdale of Bishopsgate.

On that occasion he arrived direct from Heathrow, having received our invitation from his manager when he flew in from Sicily. (I had sent it several weeks earlier and had assumed he wasn’t coming because we hadn’t received a reply.)

The following morning we spoke on the phone and he surprised me by describing the evening as a “life-enhancing experience”.

It turned out that doing things on a whim was David’s modus operandi, and although it was frustrating from a PR perspective we just had to get used to it.

Brighton, for example, was notable for the fact that we were given less than 48 hours’ notice that he was coming and we couldn’t promote his appearance until it was confirmed.

PR wise it made things more difficult than they might have been. On the other hand, it was arguably more exciting.

In 2008, on the first anniversary of the smoking ban in England, David attended another Forest event, a party at Boisdale of Belgravia.

Three years later, in July 2011, he spoke at a Save Our Pubs & Clubs reception we organised on the terrace at the House of Commons.

It’s no exaggeration to say that on each occasion we had no idea he was coming until he actually turned up.

During the Noughties he was living in Bridlington in Yorkshire, but in 2012 he returned to California where he had lived previously and where he painted many of his most famous works.

For the past six or seven years he has lived in Normandy and although we’ve continued to invite him to events via third parties, I’m not certain that our invitations have ever reached him.

Most recently, before our ‘Beat the Ban’ lunch in May, we were told, ‘Please know he is deeply engaged in his painting and responding to few invitations at this time.’

My hope is that Forest can host a special event to celebrate his 90th birthday in 2027. If he could join us for that, that would be something.

See also: Unforgettable - David Hockney at the Labour Party conference

PS. Asked by The Oldie, ‘Do you still love smoking?’, Hockney replied, ‘I think tobacco is a great gift to the world.’

Above: David Hockney with Sir Greg Knight MP on the terrace at the House of Commons, July 2011; below: Hockney (and me!) at Boisdale of Belgravia, July 2008.

CRUK: smoking-related cancer cases at an 'all time high'

According to a study published today and reported by The Sun, among others:

Cancer cases caused by smoking are at an all-time high, according to Cancer Research UK.

Analysis by the charity suggests 160 people are diagnosed per day – nearly 58,000 per year.

All time high? Seriously?

To put this in perspective, smoking peaked in the 1950s when 80 per cent of men and 40 per cent of women in the UK were smokers.

Seventy years later, having been in decline for most of that time, smoking rates are currently at their lowest ever recorded levels, with fewer than 13 per cent of the population currently smoking.

Given the nature of cancer I accept there will be some lag effect, but 60-70 years? Not even CRUK has made that leap.

Instead, on GB News this morning, head of public affairs Shaun Walsh spoke of the lag effect in relation to people who smoked 10-15 years ago.

At that time the UK smoking rate was 21 per cent (2009), falling to 17 per cent five years later (2014).

How then can the cancer cases allegedly caused by smoking possibly be at an all time high compared to previous generations when far more people smoked?

Even if the lag time was 30 or 40 years, cancer cases would have reached their peak in the 1980s or 1990s.

So what's behind this absurd claim? I'm sure it's a coincidence but there’s the little matter of the generational tobacco sales ban.

Furthermore, according to the same report in The Sun:

A letter signed by 35 health experts and charities will be sent to the new Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, on Tuesday [today] calling for ministers to end smoking.

Published in the British Medical Journal, the open letter calls for Labour to adopt Rishi Sunak’s plan to stop children born after 2009 ever being allowed to buy tobacco.

Ah, yes, it all makes sense now. The tobacco control industry is desperate that the new Labour Government includes the generational ban in the King’s Speech on July 17 and this is their latest attempt at lobbying ministers, not that Keir Starmer and health secretary Wes Streeting need much persuading.

As for organisations lobbying government, potentially in breach of their charitable status, I'll leave that for another day. Watch this space.

PS. I should add that most cancers – with the notable exception of lung cancer – are multifactorial, which means there could well be factors other than smoking involved.

Even lung cancer isn't 100 per cent attributable to smoking. About 80 per cent of lung cancer sufferers have been smokers, but the reasons for the other 20 per cent have never been clear – general air pollution, perhaps, or even genetic reasons.

One report said the cancer cases in today's study include breast cancer which is curious because, as far as I’m aware, breast cancer has rarely if ever been associated with smoking. So why now?

Update: According to the CRUK press release:

This is also the first time Cancer Research UK has included breast cancer as a cancer type caused by smoking in this kind of analysis.

The scientific research for this link has been growing for years and the charity is now confident in the evidence showing that smoking causes around 2,200 cases of breast cancer every year in the UK.

Below: Yours truly with Andrew Pierce and Beverley Turner on GB News this morning

Guernsey - don’t mention the war!

Guernsey is to consider extending smoking bans to beaches and other outdoor areas, as well as raising the age of sale of tobacco.

According to the BBC:

Smoking bans on beaches, public parks and children's playgrounds are among the ideas the public has been asked to comment on, as part of a public survey launched by the Health Improvement Commission (HIC).

On Thursday I was asked by BBC Radio Guernsey to respond to the story, which I did on the breakfast programme, and a soundbite from the interview (which was recorded on Zoom) was later used on Channel Island News, the local evening news on BBC1.

It reminded me that 20 years ago I flew to Guernsey to support a local campaign, Support Our Smokers (SOS), that had been set up by a local hotelier to fight calls to ban smoking in enclosed public places.

His name was Paul Leigh and he was particularly worried about smoking being banned in pubs and bars. He therefore contacted Forest to ask if we would provide a speaker to take part in a meeting he had organised.

I had never been to any one of the Channel Islands so I jumped at the chance.

I’m not the world’s best flyer so initially I investigated getting the ferry from Poole (three hours) or Portsmouth (seven hours), but in the end I bit the bullet and flew to Guernsey from Gatwick on a twin-propellor plane operated by Aurigny, the state-owned Guernsey airline that had been nationalised a year or two earlier.

(As an aside, Wikipedia records that ‘In 1977, Aurigny banned smoking on all services, the first ever airline to do so’.)

Paul met me at the airport and took me to his bar/hotel where he had offered to put me up for a couple of nights. He also gave me a tour of the island.

It’s a bit of a blur now but I remember visiting St Peter Port, the main town, driving along the coastal road, and taking a detour through one of the residential areas where some of the richest people on the island live.

The meeting took place at another hotel and was attended by several other licensees and members of the public opposed to a smoking ban.

I don’t remember much about it apart from the fact that I was introduced and treated like a minor celebrity, which is the first and only time that has ever happened to me.

I’m not sure I lived up to my star billing but if they were disappointed they hid it well. On the whole, I think they were just pleased that someone from the UK had taken the trouble to come and back their campaign.

In the end, of course, the outcome (a public smoking ban) was the same as everywhere else, but it did strike me as ironic that an island that 60 years earlier had been liberated from the Nazis had now succumbed to another form of fascism - health fascism.

Not that I actually said that, because it may have been in bad taste as well as a wild exaggeration, but it was what I was thinking!

Nevertheless, in September 2018, in another interview on BBC Radio Guernsey, I did hint at the connection when I told presenter Jenny Kendall-Tobias:

I think Germany is quite a good example of a nation, possibly for historical reasons, that does not want to appear to be too oppressive in its lifestyle regulations. In Germany of course they actually have smoking lounges in airports. They are well ventilated, they are not smoky because they've got the latest state of the art ventilation, and that seems to be a very good compromise. Also in Germany, not in every state but in some states, and in Berlin for example, you'll still find some bars where you're allowed to smoke and again that seems to me a reasonable compromise.

We are not asking for people to be able to light up whenever or wherever they want. Those days are gone and we wouldn’t expect a return to that, but we don't see why you should not be allowed to have smoking rooms in bars if the owner decided that it was a good thing for his business. What you will actually find is that very few bars and restaurants would allow smoking but at least there will be some element of choice. At the moment I think Germany is quite a good example of a country that gets the balance right.

That interview was in response to a previous call to ban smoking in outdoor public places. For the full transcript of the 24-minute interview click here.

Below: Channel Island News, July 4, 2024