Dan Donovan: "Brooding cocktail of coal black imagery and nocturnal poetry"

If you've attended Forest events with any regularity you'll be familiar with Dan Donovan (right).

Dan is usually present is his role as a professional photographer but he's also a film-maker, graphic designer and musician.

Over 30 years Dan has recorded twelve albums. The last four have been recorded with his two-piece garage band King Kool.

Released in February, his thirteenth album, Dan Donovan 12_12, Acoustics Sessions, was a return – as the title suggests – to his acoustic roots.

Revisiting his back catalogue, Dan chose one song from each of his previous twelve albums and recorded new versions. According to his website:

Live performances throughout the UK, Belgium and Netherlands followed the release of the album.

International folk and blues magazine Rock’n’Reel wrote “Twelve shots of howling murder blues, part growling part soaring” and gave the CD a high 4 star rating.

FATEA magazine called the album “a tribute not only to the quality of Donovan’s writing but also to his performance - a brooding cocktail of coal black imagery and nocturnal poetry.”

Dan has now combined his photography with lyrics from the album for a book that also offers insights into each song.

The book launch takes place on Friday (May 29) at The Angles Theatre, Wisbech. As well as wine, visuals and song, there will be music videos from the album.

I can't make it unfortunately but if you're in the area and want to go, Dan would be delighted to see you. RSVP info@battenberg.biz.

PS. You can preview the book here.

Smoke On The Water 2016 – register now

We began promoting our annual boat party in earnest yesterday and within hours over 100 guests had registered.

Smoke On The Water 2016 takes place on Wednesday 29th June, the week after the EU referendum, so as one parliament based person commented, "I may need an unwind by then."

As usual guests board the boat, a Mississippi style paddle-steamer, at Westminster Pier from 7.00pm.

At 7.45 we'll leave the pier and cruise down river to Canary Wharf, returning to Festival Pier where guests disembark at 10.00.

There will be complimentary drinks for the first hour, cash bar after that.

Smoking and vaping are permitted on the rear open deck and the two covered walkways either side of the upper deck.

If the weather is nice The Elizabethan benefits from a unique sliding roof that gives passengers a fantastic view of London's skyline and the many famous bridges we pass under.

One guest registered after our event email was forwarded to him with this personal recommendation:

"Thought this would be right up your street. Their events are always very good and what more would a Tory smoker want than this?"

Unconvinced? Here are some more comments:

"I'm really looking forward to it."

"Sounds great fun."

"I'll be there!"

"Can't wait!"

Click here for full details. Places are limited so advance registration is essential.

Finally, the picture on the Smoke On The Water poster (top right) was taken by Dan Donovan at last year's event, together with these equally fabulous photos.

What next, tobacco retailer licensing?

Most of you probably have lives so this may have passed you by.

For people like me however Friday was the closing date for submissions to an HMRC consultation on Tobacco Illicit Trade Protocol – licensing of equipment and the supply chain.

The official description read:

This consultation is about Article 6 of the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) Protocol. The aim of the Protocol is to eliminate illicit trade in tobacco products.

At Autumn Statement 2015 the government announced its intention to consult on Article 6 of the Protocol. Article 6 of the Protocol is concerned with registration or licensing of participants who trade in tobacco and tobacco products.

The consultation is seeking views on two aspects of Article 6:

– the mandatory control of tobacco manufacturing equipment
– whether the UK should license wholesalers, retailers, brokers etc of tobacco products

The government is keen to ensure that any response to the illicit tobacco trade is proportionate and does not add an undue administrative burden on business. It will therefore be seeking views from a wide range of stakeholders to establish clear evidence-based rationale for its decisions.

No decisions have yet been made in relation to whether parties in a supply chain should be licensed or whether some but not all parties should be licensed.

What should set alarm bells ringing for consumers (as well as retailers) is the suggestion that the UK should license retailers of tobacco products.

Curiously, though, the government doesn't seem interested in the views of the consumer. Section 2 of the consultation began:

Understanding your interest in this tobacco consultation

Businesses, organisations and individuals may have different perspectives and HMRC is interested in understanding the context of the answers you give to all the questions in this consultation.

– a tobacco retailer
– tobacco wholesaler
– a tobacco manufacturer
– a manufacturer of tobacco equipment
– a manufacturer of component parts of manufacturing equipment
– an importer/exporter of tobacco products
– an importer/exporter of tobacco manufacturing equipment
– a transporter/broker/warehouser of tobacco or manufacturing equipment
– a representative body – please specify
– a public health body or group
– Local Government (including Trading Standards) or other enforcement agency
– a member of the public
– Other: please specify

Consumers could, I guess, come under 'a member of the public' or 'other' but why not include 'consumer' as an actual category?

Undeterred, Forest submitted a five-page, 40-point letter on behalf of the consumer. Here are the first ten points:

1. Tobacco is a legal product and it would be wrong to introduce regulations that might unnecessarily restrict the number of legitimate tobacco retailers.

2. Tobacco retailer licensing would place an unnecessary administrative burden on legitimate retailers. It would discriminate against small and independent shops and some retailers could be forced to stop selling tobacco.

3. Current tobacco retailers denied a licence to sell tobacco could lose many of their regular customers. This in turn could force some retailers out of business. Such closures would affect not only customers who smoke but also non-smoking customers who might lose an important local facility.

4. A reduction in the number of retailers selling tobacco would unnecessarily inconvenience many adult smokers by forcing them to travel longer distances to buy tobacco.

5. To save them the inconvenience of these journeys it could encourage consumers to buy larger quantities of tobacco rather than, say, the single pack of cigarettes they might buy currently. This in turn could conceivably increase their consumption of tobacco.

6. Increasing the administrative burden on retailers could lead to higher prices as retailers pass the cost on to the consumer. Price increases could be added to non-tobacco products so the impact of licensing would unfairly hit non-smoking customers as well.

7. By making it difficult to buy tobacco close to someone’s home or place of work, the government will make it more attractive to buy tobacco on the black market.

8. Offered illicit cigarettes in a pub, for example, and it won’t only be the price that’s enticing. The fact that it’s so much more convenient because the local shop no longer sells tobacco could push many more people towards illicit tobacco.

9. There is no good reason we can think of why tobacco licensing should reduce illicit trade. People turn to the black market for one reason only – it’s much cheaper to buy illegal cigarettes than it is to purchase tobacco from legitimate, law-abiding retailers.

10. Tobacco licensing won’t change that. Instead, by potentially reducing the number of retailers selling tobacco, demand for illicit tobacco could increase because cost and convenience could combine to make black market tobacco even more attractive than it is already.

Tobacco licensing is being considered, apparently, as part of a wider programme to tackle illicit trade but as our response above makes clear there is no good reason why it should.

There are already laws to prosecute retailers who sell illicit tobacco. Why would tobacco retailer licensing deter anyone?

Trading Standards already have the power to prosecute shop owners who sell illicit tobacco. Councils can also revoke a premise's licence.

So enforce existing laws, don't introduce new ones that won't make any difference other than inconvenience legitimate, law-abiding retailers and consumers.

Call me cynical but I suspect the real motivation behind tobacco retailer licensing is not to tackle illicit trade but to reduce the number of retailers selling tobacco in order to make it more difficult for people to buy legal products. This is turn will force people to quit.

Anyway we concluded our submission with these three points:

38. We urge HMRC to enforce existing regulations rather than imposing new regulations on small businesses.

39. We also urge HMRC to put the needs of legitimate retailers and consumers first and not succumb to the demands of the tobacco control industry whose goal is to force smokers to quit regardless of whether they want to.

40. If adult consumers choose to purchase a legal product on which they pay a huge level of taxation, their lives should not be made unnecessarily difficult by the imposition of regulations that could conceivably fuel illicit trade and affect many more people including legitimate and hard-working retailers.

A summary of responses to the consultation will be published later this year. I'll keep you posted.

See also: The Government should reject tobacco retailer licensing and If the Government ignores tobacco retailers, regulation will be poorer for it (ConservativeHome).

That TalkRadio interview in full

Earlier today I spoke to Julia Hartley-Brewer on TalkRadio.

The station has now posted our ten-minute discussion online together with a brief report:

Government legislation forcing cigaratte manufacturers to sell their products in non-branded packaging infantilises adults and is doomed to failure, according to Simon Clark, director of the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco (Forest).

From today (Friday), all cigarette packets are required by law to be the same size, shape and colour. More than 60 per cent of the surface must be covered with health warnings, and brand names must be written in a standard font rather use easily identifiabe logos.

Legislators believe these steps will help to reduce the number of smokers in the UK, but Clark disagrees.

"We're saying to adults 'we're going to treat you like children'," he told Julia Hartley-Brewer. "We're going to take away all these fancy colours, and produce these cigarettes in plain packaging because we think you're too stupid."

Strict packaging guidelines have already been introduced in Australia, but Clark, who has led FOREST's 'hands off our packs' campaign against the new legislation, believes the change does not have sufficient evidence to support claims of success.

"Smoking rates have continued to fall in Australia, but only in line with historical trends," he said. "There's no evidence [the new packaging] actually works.

"We're going to have less choice, because companies are not going to spend time researching and developing new brands if they can't distinguish them."

Clark also disagrees with claims that children are influenced into smoking by cleverly branded packaging.

"I don't think children do start smoking because of packaging, it's because of peer pressure," he said. "Yes, you want to look cool - but that's the cigarette between the lips, not brandishing a packet of cigarettes."

To listen to the full interview click on the image above or click here.

Muted media response to introduction of plain packaging law

Quick round-up of media coverage.

In terms of broadcast media there has been far less interest in the introduction of plain packaging than might have been expected. 

As I mentioned in my previous post I was booked to appear on Good Morning Britain (ITV) with Deborah Arnott, and BBC Five Live this morning but both interviews were cancelled, the latter at 30 minutes' notice, because of "other news".

We've done interviews for LBC, Talk Radio, Global Radio and a couple of local radio stations (including an interview with former Lib Dem MP Lembit Opik on BBC Radio Kent) but I anticipated far more.

Print coverage has also been relatively muted too.

In contrast there has been a huge number of online reports and Forest's response to the introduction of plain packaging has been reported far and wide, at home and abroad.

Our monitoring agency has picked up well over 200 clips. Examples include:

Press Association
Guardian
BBC News
BBC Newsbeat
ITV News
Sky News
Daily Mirror
Independent
Metro
Scotsman
Western Daily Press
Sky News Australia

and many many more.

I'm guessing that the restrained print and broadcast coverage is because it will be several months before plain packaged products start appearing on shelves and the best part of a year before we see them ranged alongside one another, so the story lacks a strong visual message.

Compare that to the introduction of the smoking ban (a huge cultural change for many people) and even the display ban when it was first introduced in supermarkets.

The difference is that those bans had an immediate visual effect. Smokers were forced outside and the shutters came down on tobacco. The introduction of plain packaged products will be very gradual.

Another difference is that consumers don't feel that strongly about plain packaging. ASH may be hugging themselves with glee but I can't imagine any smokers are losing sleep over it.

Speaking to journalists I also found a general lack of interest in the issue. They didn't want to repeat the arguments, for and against, all over again with the result that one or two focussed on some of the TPD measures – the ban on 10-packs, for example, or menthol cigarettes.

Again, these measures will take a while to be noticed and the ban on menthol cigarettes won't be enforced until 2020.

So not quite the media frenzy some people anticipated but nothing surprise me anymore. I'm just glad I didn't have to get up at 4.00am to drive to London for GMB at 6.40!

Update: I'll be on BBC Radio Scotland at 5.50 or thereabouts.

Plain packaging: judge dismisses "full scale attack on Regulations"

The tobacco companies have lost their High Court challenge against the new plain packaging rules.

No surprise there. Not because I don't think the companies had a good case. They did. No, what surprised me was the judge's take on things.

You would expect the summary of judgement to be rather dry. Not a bit of it. According to Mr Justice Green, "the tobacco claimants have sought to launch a full scale attack on the Regulations."

"A full scale attack"? That's a bit tendentious, surely. Also, if anyone's conducting a war, it's government and public health, and the enemy is every member of the tobacco chain including manufacturers and consumers.

Today's announcement – the day before the new rules are introduced – also feels remarkably stage-managed. Perhaps that's too cynical, even for me, but it guarantees that the introduction of plain packaging tomorrow gets a fresh new hook.

The Press Association for example has reported, Tobacco giants lose High Court challenge over new plain packaging rules.

ASH, naturally, are cockahoop:

Chief executive Deborah Arnott said: "This landmark judgment is a crushing defeat for the tobacco industry and fully justifies the Government's determination to go ahead with the introduction of standardised packaging.

Yeah, yeah. The only reason the Government went ahead with plain packaging was to get it out of the way before the General Election following pressure from Labour. It had sweet FA to do with health. This was politics, pure and simple.

The PA report also features responses from JTI and Forest. I'm quoted as follows:

Simon Clark, director of smokers' group Forest, said: "The judgment is very disappointing. Plain packaging treats adults like children and teenagers like idiots.

"Everyone knows the health risks of smoking and very few people start because of the packaging.

"Plain packaging has nothing to do with health. It's gesture politics designed to appease public health campaigners who are forever searching for new ways to force smokers to quit.

"Plain packaging is a declaration of war on consumers because the aim is to denormalise not just the product but also millions of adults who enjoy smoking and don't want to quit.

"If you don't smoke but enjoy alcohol, sugary drinks and convenience food you should be concerned by this judgment because the health police are coming for you too."

Anyway, if you've time read the judgement summary and tell me what you think.

I've got some radio interviews to do this afternoon but I'll update this post later.

PS. I'm on Good Morning Britain in the morning. Please, ITV, don't force me to share the green room with Deborah. Not at 6.30. I couldn't bear it.

Update: While I'm on GMB my Action on Consumer Choice colleague Rob Lyons will be on LBC. A little later I'm on Five Live Breakfast and later still Talk Radio.

Update: It's just been confirmed. I shall be on the GMB sofa with Deborah Arnott. What a wonderful start to the day.

Update: Forest has been widely quoted online at home and abroad this afternoon. Here are a handful of examples:

BBC News, Guardian, Daily Mirror, Press Association and many more.

Update: Good Morning Britain has dropped the item on plain packaging. The good news is I don't have to get up at 4.00pm and drive to London and I don't have to share an early morning sofa with Ms Arnott.

I'm still on Five Live at 7.40, hopefully in a studio in Cambridge.

Update: Even better, I'm going to use Skype so instead of a 40-mile round trip I will be addressing the nation from my kitchen.

Update: Dropped by Five Live 30 minutes before I was due on air. Same reason as GMB - "other stories".

Shows there are far more important things in the world than plain packaging and tobacco control. Someone should tell the government.

Battle of the Brands

Capacity was 120 and that's exactly how many guests attended last night's Battle of the Brands event at the Churchill War Rooms in Westminster.

Hosted by Forest and the Tobacco Retailers Alliance, the aim was to mark the introduction of plain packaging of tobacco from Friday May 20 and warn consumers of other products (alcohol, sugary drinks and convenience food) what the future may hold for them.

The health warnings on our bottles of wine were particularly well received. We also showed the short film we filmed in London last week. I'll post it here tomorrow.

Proof that ASH is the enemy of consumer choice

Fancy that.

Having kept very quiet when vaping was banned along with smoking on a Pembrokeshire beach, and again when the use of e-cigarettes during work breaks was prohibited by Nottinghamshire County Council, the "pro-vaping" tobacco control group ASH has finally angered even the most gullible vaping activists by declaring that "new EU rules on electronic cigarettes need not cause problems for most vapers".

Concerns raised in Parliament about the EU rules are not borne out by the ASH Smokefree GB Adult Survey [published today].

Only 9% of vapers report using e-liquid containing 19mg/ml or more of nicotine (the limit set by the EU Tobacco Products Directive is 20mg/ml). And only 11% of daily vapers use more than 4ml of liquid (the EU limit for tanks and cartridges is 2ml), indicating that only a small proportion of them are likely to need to refill their device more than twice a day.

The minority of vapers using higher strengths and higher volumes of e-liquid will continue to be able to buy these until 20th May 2017, leaving time for products to evolve to meet their needs.

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of ASH said: “The new ASH research shows that most vapers use less nicotine than the limit set in the new EU regulations and are likely to have to refill their devices no more than a couple of times a day. Concerns that the EU regulations would force the products most vapers use off the market seem to have been overstated.”

See New EU rules on nicotine strength not a problem for most vapers (ASH).

Strictly speaking ASH is broadly correct. The overwhelming majority of vapers will not be inconvenienced by TPD regulations. But what the press release reveals - not for the first time - is their complete and utter contempt for consumer choice.

So what if "only" 9 per cent of vapers report using e-liquid containing 19mg/ml or more of nicotine and "only" 11 per cent of daily vapers use more than 4ml of liquid? That's still a significant number of people who will be denied their preferred product.

As readers know I have been extremely cynical of ASH's transformation into the "vapers' friend". Jumping on the bandwagon doesn't even begin to describe it.

I've also been discreetly critical of some of the leading vaping activists (ie I've never named them) who have naively sucked up to Deborah Arnott in the hope she will lead them to the promised land where vapers and public health can live happily ever after.

ASH, I have warned repeatedly, will never be the consumers' friend because they have no interest in or commitment to choice.

For the 500th time, this is not about health, it's about control. In the eyes of ASH e-cigarettes are a smoking cessation tool – nothing more, nothing less – and the quicker consumers move to lower strength, lower volume e-liquids the better because it means they are well on the way to another 'public health' target – a world free of any nicotine dependence, least of all the sort you might actually enjoy.

If ASH's support for TPD regulations on e-cigarettes opens a few eyes today that will be a step forward but this is just the tip of the 'public health' iceberg.

If there is anyone in the tobacco control industry who truly supports vaping as a long-term recreational activity I would be very surprised, but I can guarantee you this.

No-one in 'public health' believes in or supports choice. The concept is anathema to them.

Update: Last week it was reported that "Vaping has been permitted outside Nottingham hospitals, making them the first in England to embrace it."

You would imagine that 'pro-vaping' ASH would have been delighted. If so they concealed it well:

Amanda Sandford, from anti-smoking group ASH, said her group were likely to welcome the news too.

She said: "I think in principle we would support it. There's evidence to show e-cigarettes are helping people to quit smoking.

"E-cigarettes aren't 100 per cent safe and we don't want to be in a situation where there are products that young people are supported to use.

"(But) where people are using them as an alternative to smoking or to quit smoking, we shouldn't put restrictions on their use.

Have you ever heard anything so mealy-mouthed? With 'friends' like that etc.