Ireland targets al fresco smoking areas

I was going to write about the UK Vaping Industry Association Forum that I attended yesterday.

At seven o'clock this morning, however, I read a comment on this blog.

It was posted by Vinny Gracchus and included a link to a report in the Irish Times (Smoking ban to be extended to outdoor areas where food served) that I hadn't yet seen.

Vinny's link set in motion a series of actions including a hastily written press release: Forest Ireland condemns motion to ban smoking in outdoor dining areas.

Within an hour our response had been reported online by several media outlets including the Irish Examiner, Irish Daily Mirror, Today FM, Cork Evening Echo and Wicklow News.

At the same time our spokesman in Ireland, John Mallon, was booked to appear on RTE Radio One, Newstalk and LMFM Radio. Since then he's been invited to be on Ocean FM (this afternoon) and Highland Radio (tomorrow).

RTE Radio One and Newstalk put John head-to-head with Senator James Reilly, the former minister for health who campaigned religiously for plain packaging and is also driving this latest initiative.

According to the Irish Times:

An unintended consequence of the smoking ban has been the prevalence of smokers in the outdoor areas of bars, cafés and restaurants, Mr Reilly said.

I'm sure I don't need to highlight the irony of the so-called "unintended consequence" but this was Forest's full response:

"The war on smoking has gone far enough. There is no justification for banning smoking outside, even where food is served.

"Smoking in the open air poses no risk to third parties and although it may occasionally be annoying for non-smokers this is a matter for the individual establishment not the government.

"If this proposal is in response to an unintended consequence of the smoking ban, which forced smokers outside, the obvious solution is to allow comfortable, well-ventilated smoking rooms indoors.

"There has been no public debate about this issue and to the best of our knowledge no consultation with the hospitality industry.

"A large number of pubs closed following the smoking ban in 2004. This proposal could have a similar impact on cafes and restaurants because many more smokers could decide to stay at home."

According to the Irish Times the current minister for health Simon Harris will today ask for Cabinet approval to extend the smoking ban to outdoor dining areas.

I'll keep you posted.

Update #1: The Irish Times has published a second report on the subject. This time the headline reads, Smokers group opposes restaurant proposals and it begins:

Restaurant proprietors should be given the option to have smoking and non-smoking outdoor eating areas, according to a smokers advocacy group.

Forest’s John Mallon told RTÉ’s Today with Sean O’Rourke show that the market should decide if restaurant owners are willing to make this decision.

However, former Minister for Health James Reilly, who is calling on the Government to extend the ban on smoking where food is served to include outdoor areas, said he was horrified at the suggestion that the market decide health policy.

Horrified? There isn't a shred of reputable evidence to suggest that smoking in the open air endangers anyone nearby – not even a small child.

I can understand that it may be mildly unpleasant for those of a ridiculously sensitive or anti-smoking disposition, but there is no risk at all to their physical health!!

Far more horrifying is this extraordinary thought – Senator Reilly is a qualified GP.

Update #2: I hear the Restaurants Association will support the proposal while the Vintners (VFI) will oppose a ban.

The question is, will there be a public debate (or consultation) or will the Government merely rubber stamp the proposal?

Finally, if you live in the UK and are wondering if this has any relevance to you, cast your mind back to 2004 and the introduction of a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places in Ireland.

Remember what happened after that? Here's a clue:

Scotland – March 2006
Wales – April 2007
Northern Ireland – April 2007
England – July 2007

Bad day for advocates of choice

Well, that was sadly predictable.

Following a challenge by Swedish Match, the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice today announced that, in his opinion, the EU-wide ban on snus is ‘valid’.

Can't say I was surprised.

The ECJ has yet to make a final decision on the matter but it’s rare, apparently, that advice from the Advocate General is ignored so don't expect any change to the status quo.

Truth is, we’re living in a risk averse age and on issues like this judges and politicians rarely stray from an anti-tobacco consensus.

Prohibition (especially when the product is banned already) is much easier to support than a more radical (and liberal) approach to consumer choice.

The Swedish Match challenge reminds me of an earlier case concerning tobacco vending machines. This 2011 Forest press release sums it up:

The UK Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal over legislation to ban sales of tobacco from vending machines in the UK.

The ruling upholds a decision by the High Court in December 2010 to reject a legal challenge by Imperial Tobacco's cigarette vending machine subsidiary Sinclair Collis.

Two of the three Court of Appeal judges agreed that the High Court's decision should be upheld. The view of the third judge was that a ban on tobacco vending sales was disproportionate.

The Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, admitted the DoH's arguments were "not very convincing" [my emphasis] but said tobacco's health risks meant courts should not interfere with Government restrictions.

He added that given the health risks posed by tobacco, "virtually any measure [my emphasis] which a government takes to restrict the availability of tobacco products, especially to young people, is almost self-evidently one with which no court should interfere".

Although statistics used by the DoH to justify the ban were "little more than guesses" [my emphasis], Lord Neuberger said they did "not appear fanciful" and the ban was "lawful" and "proportionate".

Imperial won the original challenge but the Labour government appealed and the Appeal Court judges voted 2:1 in favour of upholding the ban.

According to the presiding judge, if the ban saved a single life [my emphasis] he had to support it.

For me that comment is as ridiculous today as it was then but the thinking behind it is instructive because it explains many of the paternalistic laws that have been passed since the introduction of the seat belt law in (I think) 1982.

The ban on snus makes even less sense when the product is evidently 'safer' than other products that are already on the market, but when did common sense dictate legislation?

Of course I applaud Swedish Match for challenging the ban but I would like to have seen the court case accompanied by a high profile, consumer-driven PR campaign to raise awareness of the product and the issues.

As I suggested a couple of weeks ago, it's important to win over public opinion and to win that battle you have to engage with more than a handful of like-minded people. You've also got to have a loud voice in the media and if you can't get it through editorial you buy it through advertising and advertorial.

Yes, it costs money – a lot of money – but legal challenges don't come cheap either. It's not one or the other, the battle has to be fought on both fronts.

Apart from a handful of articles by Chris Snowdon and Clive Bates, however, consumers and advocates of snus have been largely invisible in the UK.

I'm not having a go at anyone, by the way. I know how hard it is to organise any sort of campaign, let alone motivate people to support a niche product like snus.

Nevertheless the PR battle was there to be fought and I don't understand why so little effort has been made to challenge the ban in the court of public opinion.

I don't underestimate the difficulties. Snus may be a genuine harm reduction product but it's not part of British culture in the way it is in Sweden or Norway.

In fact, I'd wager that most people in the UK have never heard of snus and the majority of those that have (including smokers) are dubious about its appeal.

Anecdotally, in my experience, most people find the idea of a moist tobacco pouch in the mouth quite unpleasant. I don't know why, given the popularity of chewing gum (for example), but there it is.

Meanwhile opponents of snus are quick to raise the grim spectre of oral cancer. The risk may be small, as advocates claim and evidence seems to suggest, but images of that horrible disease are pretty gruesome and, once you've seen them, hard to forget.

What I'm saying is, if the advocates and manufacturers of snus want the ban to be lifted it will take more than a legal challenge.

Without an educational, well-funded, consumer-driven PR campaign that gives equal weight to choice and pleasure, harm reduction and risk, the sale (if not the consumption) of snus will almost certainly remain illegal in Britain.

Even then the odds on legalisation are small but, post Brexit, why not give it a go?

Stubborn bastards

I attended a private event in London last night called 'How long until smoking is history?'

I say 'private' because I don't think it was widely publicised. Nevertheless there were a lot of familiar faces present, many of whom (I'm guessing) had received a personal invitation.

Organised by the New Statesman 'in association with Philip Morris International', it was described thus:

Last year, the Government published its new Tobacco Control Plan for England that outlines a range of proposals to achieve a ‘smoke-free generation’.

More recently, Public Health England outlined a series of ambitious ideas to encourage smokers to switch to less harmful alternatives including encouraging hospitals to sell e-cigarettes and converting smoking shelters to vaping shelters.

Philip Morris International has committed itself to a smoke-free future and commissioned a report from Frontier Economics, ‘Towards a Smoke-free England’, to help understand the potential timescales for England to become smoke-free.

This event will discuss when, based on current trends, England may become smoke-free, and how this might be achieved sooner.

When I read that my heart did sink a little and I vowed to go if only to invoke the elephant in the room – the fact that many people enjoy smoking and don't want to quit or switch to vaping.

As it happens I didn't need to say anything because two of the three panellists covered that ground, to a greater or lesser extent, and I didn't feel there was much more to add.

Chaired by health journalist Anna Hodgekiss, the speakers were 'GP and smoking cessation expert' Dr Roger Henderson; Sarah Jakes, chairman of the New Nicotine Alliance; and Mark Littlewood, director general, Institute of Economic Affairs.

Dr Henderson was bullishly anti-smoking and quite full of himself. He was overly dramatic about the health risks of smoking, making frequent references to smokers having to choose between smoking or losing their legs. If I was a smoker I'd dread having someone like him as my GP.

I don't always see eye to eye with Sarah Jakes (or the New Nicotine Alliance which she chairs) but credit where credit's due. A former smoker, she's not anti-smoking and she does stand up for choice. She grasps why many smokers are not yet prepared to switch to vaping. And she understands that punishing smokers in order to force them to switch or quit is not the answer.

Mark Littlewood made some telling points in his usual entertaining way. Describing himself as a "stubborn bastard" who enjoys smoking and is too lazy to quit completely, he began by mocking the definition of a 'smoke-free' country.

"If five percent prevalence is the measure of smoke-free," he declared, "I am pleased to announce that Britain is heroin-free."

Dismissing the idea that smoking rates will fall to zero or even one percent in the foreseeable future, he warned against setting targets.

To sum up, it was a well-organised, well-attended event with three good speakers, four if you include Nick Fitzpatrick of Frontiers Economics who kicked things off with a short presentation that highlighted estimated smoking rates between now and 2050 when some people predict it will be zero.

Henderson's anti-smoking rhetoric wasn't to my taste but he was forthright and never boring. His views were also balanced by his fellow panellists, neither of whom was anti-smoking and both offered some welcome nuance.

So credit (on this occasion) to PMI. Credit too to the New Statesman for putting aside a long-held distaste of tobacco companies to organise the event. (I can't imagine what persuaded them!)

If I took one thing from the evening it's this. Forget forecasts and targets. The answer to the question 'How long until smoking is history?' is simple: no-one knows.

Everything we hear and read is speculation based on trends that, as Mark Littlewood noted, will be hard if not impossible to maintain as the smoking rate edges towards single figures and confirmed smokers (aka Mark's "stubborn bastards") dig their heels in and continue to smoke.

One thing's for sure. Even if the smoking rate does fall to five per cent of the adult population, that still represents two million smokers in the UK alone.

Smoke-free Britain? You're 'aving a laugh.

Postscript: I couldn't help notice that every time the dangers of smoking were emphasised by Roger Henderson a young guy in front of me would nod his head several times in agreement.

Later, during the Q&As, his mate – who was sitting next to him – asked how many young people smoke in comparison to the elderly.

When informed (incorrectly as it happens) that the highest percentage of smokers is in the 18-24 age group (it's actually more common among those aged 25-34, according to the latest ONS figures), he muttered, "Shocking."

What a prig, I thought.

Imagine my surprise then when, as I was leaving, I saw the pair of them outside, in the street ... smoking.

Update: I've told this story before but, many years ago, I took part in a debate about smoking bans hosted by the English-Speaking Union.

I was partnered by the late Lord Harris, chairman of Forest and a distinguished speaker in the House of Lords and elsewhere.

Our opponents – who were speaking in favour of smoking bans – were two young world championship winning debaters. They were brilliant and won the debate hands down.

Afterwards, to add insult to injury, they told us they were both smokers.

Scotland's "barmy bid" to wean prisoners off cigarettes

Just back from a short post-Easter break.

Last year we went to Lisbon where it was warm and sunny. This year we split our time between Harrogate (wet) and Glasgow (cold).

I don't think I've missed very much, unless you count the introduction of the new sugar tax.

There's been a great deal of weeping 'n' wailing on social media but it's been a long time coming and the protests I read on social media were, as ever, too little too late.

The template for using tax as a form of social engineering was established a long time ago but the ennui that habitually greets the annual increase in tobacco duty has undoubtedly encouraged ministers to use the same tactics when battling obesity, regardless of whether it works.

In fact, I still don't think people get it. The tobacco template has proved so lucrative to the 'public health' industry it was inevitable they would use it on other products (and consumers).

Anyway, back to the day job.

I was contacted yesterday by a journalist from the Scottish Sun who sent me a copy of a survey that is being conducted by the Scottish Prison Service.

It invites prisoners to say whether they smoke and if they want to quit and then asks, 'What kind of things do you think would be helpful in your attempt to quit smoking?' Options include:

Jigsaws, stress balls, relaxation CDs, colouring books and pencils, word games, other (specify)

There are several more questions, including a couple about e-cigarettes, but the Sun was naturally more interested in the jigsaw/colouring book angle.

Invited to comment, I said:

"Smoking is one of the few pleasures many prisoners enjoy. That's why tobacco is an important currency in prison. It's laughable to think you can replace it with jigsaws or colouring books.

"Smoking is not a right but if inmates wish to smoke there should be areas where they can light up without the long arm of the nanny state denying them that small comfort.

"If, on the other hand, the plan is to treat them like children, don't be surprised if they behave like children."

My quote wasn't used but what the story indicates is that the Scottish Prison Service is aware that forcing smokers to quit isn't going to be easy and won't work unless you offer them a alternative.

I'm just not sure that jigsaws and colouring books are going to be a satisfactory replacement.

VApril partner declares "war" on tobacco

As last Friday's post made clear, I wish VApril, the new pro-vaping campaign, well.

Fronted by Dr Christian Jessen – who seems refreshingly open and willing to engage with the tobacco companies ("what a good thing that the tobacco industry is supporting harm reduction") – the VApril campaign does seem to be primarily about choice and education.

From today, for example, smokers who want to quit are being encouraged to take the 3-step VApril Challenge:

1. Drop into a Vaping Masterclass (in cities across the UK)
2. Receive your free 6-page VApril guide
3. Be social (post thoughts, pics, videos on social media)

Who could possibly object to that? It's entirely voluntary, it offers practical help and advice to smokers who want to quit, and unlike Stoptober (the publicly-funded Public Health England campaign), the promotion of VApril has been largely free of the usual anti-smoking rhetoric.

This morning however one campaign partner adopted a more belligerent tone. Vapourized, the 'UK's largest e-cigarette and vaping retailer with over 100 stores nationwide', tweeted:

We are declaring the war on cigarettes.
We want to help you make the switch from smoking to vaping. Will you be joining us and thousands of other recruits on the path to being tobacco-free?#WarOnCigarettes #vapril #vaprilchallenge pic.twitter.com/qZCH8vlNYz

— Vaporized (@vaporizeduk) April 2, 2018

Declaring war? I thought the vaping industry had moved on from that type of tub-thumping nonsense.

Let's be clear, if you're fighting a 'war on smoking' you're also declaring 'war' on the millions of adults who enjoy smoking and don't want to quit.

As for being 'tobacco-free', does that include every tobacco product including reduced risk heated tobacco devices?

I wonder what the manufacturers of iQOS and Glo (who are also supporting VApril) think about that?

Anyway, the actions of one rogue partner won't stop me supporting VApril. But targeting thousands of potential customers with that sort of bellicose language is no way to win friends and influence people.

See also: Dr Christian Jessen is no VApril fool.

A sorry silence on snus

Snus is taking a bit of a hammering. It began on Thursday with the publication of a Daily Mail 'investigation':

'THE DRUG THAT IS SWAMPING FOOTBALL', the headline screamed.

Sportsmail's investigation reveals use of banned stimulant 'snus' prevalent in the sport ... with some players using drug during matches

Since then almost every tabloid, and even the BBC, has piled in:

What is snus? Chewing tobacco adored by England star Jamie Vardy does far worse than just cause cancer (The Sun)

What is snus? Previously used by Jamie Vardy and banned amid cancer links, the stimulant flooding the Premier League (Mirror)

Premier League footie stars 'using banned TOBACCO during matches', investigation claims (Daily Star)

The story has even gone global.

America's leading anti-tobacco campaigner Stanton Glantz told the Sun:

Linked to several cancers, snus is unequivocally a bad thing. Tobacco firms promote it as “safer” than smoking, but whether you jump from the tenth storey of a building or the 20th, the effect is the same. Studies show kids who see their favourite sportsmen using tobacco are more likely to go on to use it too. And tobacco products like snus or e-cigarettes are gateway drugs to cigarettes. So these sportsmen are harming a lot more people than just themselves.

Cancer Research UK also commented:

"Snus use has been linked to pancreatic and oesophageal cancer."

Absent from any of these reports was a response from the pro-snus camp – you know, the people who are always telling us that 'snus saves lives'.

It's not easy, I know, getting your voice heard in these circumstances. You should at least try however and it's now almost 40 hours since the Mail published its 'investigation', plenty of time for pro-snus advocates to issue a statement (or statements) in response.

Instead ... silence.

Snus is rarely in the news in the UK where oral tobacco has been banned for 28 years and the overwhelming majority of people are, if not unaware of its existence, ignorant of its harm reduction role in Sweden.

The Mail 'investigation', and the subsequent media coverage, was – and still is – a great opportunity for advocates to smash perceptions of this unfairly maligned product.

What frustrates me is that far too many harm reduction activists are happy to attend tobacco control conferences, rub shoulders with public health lobbyists, talk repeatedly about 'saving a billion lives' etc, but when it comes to tackling media firestorms like this they go AWOL.

Had I known the #SnusSavesLives lobby was going to adopt a vow of silence I would have issued a statement myself (on behalf of Forest). However, as we tweeted this morning:

Forest supports harm reduction and choice but unlike some organisations we are not proactively campaigning for the legalisation of snus. Would be happy to comment, if asked, but we have never pretended to be advocates or experts on the issue.

— Forest (@Forest_Smoking) March 31, 2018

It could be this story will run its course over the weekend. The damage however may take rather longer to repair, especially if football clubs start to ban the use of snus by their players.

Nevertheless, if I was a snus advocate I know what I'd be doing this weekend. I'd be on the phone to national newspapers offering to write an article that defends not only snus but nicotine in general.

After all, when even its detractors admit that nicotine improves 'alertness, concentration, strength and power' it's amazing that employers don't make its consumption compulsory!

Update: Good news! The New Nicotine Alliance has (finally) issued a response to the Mail's 'investigation'. You can read it here.

Sarah Jakes, chairman of the NNA, tweets to say they've "had this in hand since we first saw the story yesterday lunchtime. Response written this morning, signed off and sent to journos at lunchtime, then published on website."

So, nothing to do with this post or the tweet below which I posted at 10:43 this morning. Happy to clear that up.

Absence of reaction from pro-snus lobby is disappointing. No press release, nothing. Doesn’t guarantee coverage (as I well know) but remaining mute while this story gathers legs is poor. https://t.co/npg8usFv0y

— Simon Clark (@simonclark_) March 31, 2018

Doctor Christian is no VApril fool

VApril, the new pro-vaping campaign, was launched yesterday.

It's early days but the signs are it won't be the four-week festival of anti-smoking rhetoric some may have feared.

Indeed, what I like about the VApril website is that it focuses on the positive (the potential health benefits of vaping) instead of the negative (the often hysterical arguments against smoking).

Yesterday I watched interviews with Dr Christian Jessen and Mark Pawsey MP, chairman of All Party Parliamentary Group for E-Cigarettes, and I have to say it was a far cry from the stern, humourless propaganda one associates with tobacco control campaigns.

At one point, speaking on the Daily Politics in the aftermath of a long, Brexit-driven interview with Nigel Farage, Dr Christian (as everyone seems to call him) good-naturedly invited the former Ukip leader to take up the ‘VApril challenge’.

Presenter of the BAFTA award winning Embarrassing Bodies, Dr Christian is VApril's poster boy. Getting him on board is a major coup for a campaign run by the UK Vaping Industry Association (UKVIA) whose members include BAT, JTI, PMI and Fontem Ventures (owned by Imperial Brands).

Compare Dr Christian with the comedians and 'celebrities' that have been hired – at the public's expense – to promote anti-smoking events like Stoptober.

Why anyone would care what Al Murray, Bill Bailey, Rhod Gilbert or Shappi Khorsandi have to say about smoking I can't imagine. What a waste of money (£195,000, reportedly).

Even worse was the year they enlisted ex-footballer Chris Kamara, former Atomic Kitten Natasha Hamilton and serial quitter Phil Tufnell.

Most important, I've seen Dr Christian tweet about vaping many times and he strikes me as someone who is genuinely interested in the issue.

At the same time he doesn’t seem judgemental about smoking. He believes there are healthier habits and smokers would benefit from quitting, but I’ve never seen him deliver an unneccesarily derogatory comment about smoking, or smokers.

He's also comfortable with the fact that the VApril campaign is organised by a body whose members include the world's leading tobacco companies. As he himself tweeted:

And what a good thing that the tobacco industry is supporting harm reduction. Given that the nicotine in pretty much any smoking cessation product comes from tobacco plants this is hardly a surprise either, is it? https://t.co/cIax26CYt2

— Dr Christian Jessen (@DoctorChristian) March 29, 2018

In short, an inspired choice by the UKVIA (or the Westminster-based PR company hired to work on the campaign).

It's worth noting too that VApril is entirely self-funding with not a penny of public money asked for or spent on the campaign.

In contrast, Stoptober has cost the taxpayer millions of pounds since it was launched by Public Health England in 2012.

As we know, because I've written about it several times, including here and here, the fall in the number of smokers registering to take part in the Stoptober 'challenge' has been so dramatic that PHE no longer records the figure, preferring to spend public money on a whim and a prayer with little or no evidence that the taxpayer is getting value for money.

Like vaping, VApril is a harm reduction initiative driven not by government, the public sector or taxpayer-funded lobbyists, but by business and the free market.

That probably explains why the tobacco control industry is ignoring the new campaign but it doesn't explain why public health minister Steve Brine has also adopted a monk-like vow of silence. I mean, how pathetic is that?

Anyway, that's a subject for another post. (We are monitoring their tweets and public comments and will report back.)

In the meantime, if the focus of the VApril campaign is genuinely on choice and education, then I'm happy to support it. I'll keep you posted.

A pleasure to meet @DoctorChristian today during the launch of the @Vaping_Industry #Vapril campaign. Having a high profile, forward thinking medical professional supporting this campaign is fantastic. #VaprilChallenge pic.twitter.com/48WsjsddvB

— Robert Sidebottom (@sidbob1504) March 29, 2018

It all makes sense now. @DoctorChristian chose his outfit to match the campaign literature. A true pro! https://t.co/QX0SVbvAqh

— Forest (@Forest_Smoking) March 29, 2018

Detail is EVERYTHING! 🤗 https://t.co/wp9PKEhwYn

— Dr Christian Jessen (@DoctorChristian) March 29, 2018

Unlucky strike

I was in Brussels this week.

Some people, influenced perhaps by the presence of the European Parliament, don’t like the place, but I don't mind it.

Forget the thousands of politicians, officials and lobbyists intervening unnecessarily in our lives. In truth they’re no worse than their counterparts in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff.

Focus instead on the cafes, bars and restaurants that spill out on to the pavements and squares. Al fresco drinking and dining is almost compulsory in the warmer months and that creates quite a relaxed atmosphere.

Most of my trips have been business related but a couple of years ago I chose to spend a long weekend in Brussels and I’d happily do it again.

Eurostar is a huge factor, of course, because it makes getting there so easy. In my case I get a train to Kings Cross, walk across the road to St Pancras, and after a short wait I’m on another train travelling at a reasonable speed towards the continent.

Compare this to the early days of Eurostar. Trains on the English side of the tunnel would run so slowly you could literally see into people’s houses as the train crawled through the suburbs and out through Kent.

Approaching the coast the train would finally speed up and hurtle through the tunnel, maintaining a similar pace as it raced through France and Belgium. The contrast was hilarious, and embarrassing.

Today any transport problems are more likely to occur in France or Belgium. This week, for example, there was a taxi strike in Brussels.

The first I knew about it was when I tried to book a car to take me to a meeting. Cool as you like (which suggested she had done this many times before), the hotel receptionist casually mentioned the strike, handed me a map and suggested I walk to the nearest Metro station, which she helpfully marked with a large cross.

I would have to travel two stops, she explained, then walk a further distance to my destination. It wasn’t a massive hardship but I could have done without the exercise.

Later I had to figure out how to get to the terminal to catch the return train to London. Thankfully, after a little pleading, a colleague offered me a lift in his car.

En route we passed several roadblocks where taxis had been parked across the road to try and stop or delay the traffic.

The police stood by and watched. Ironically we were guided through one roadblock not by a policeman but by a helpful taxi driver.

The odd thing was, most residents seemed unaware of the strike and no-one could tell me what the dispute was about.

I spoke to a Frenchman who told me this sort of thing happens all the time in France. He thought his government should adopt a hardline, Thatcher-style approach to striking workers.

The problem, he added, was that public opinion in France tends to be on the side of the strikers, whatever the dispute.

Anyway, the sun is shining, Easter is on its way and I'm home after two back-to-back trips abroad.

Enjoy the weekend!

Photo: Dan Donovan