National media ignores Brighton's rejection of beach smoking ban

Can't say I'm surprised but the following is worth recording.

There has been a huge contrast in the way the media reported the announcement in July of Brighton Council's consultation on extending the smoking ban to beaches and parks, and this week's news that the proposal is to be dropped following strong opposition from residents and visitors.

Before I review the latter (which won't take long), let me take you back a few months. On Monday July 14 Brighton and Hove News reported that 'Brighton and Hove could become one of the first places in the UK to ban smoking in its parks and on its beaches.'

The following day the story appeared in The Argus (Potential smoking ban for Brighton and Hove beaches and parks).

The Telegraph then became the first national newspaper to cover the story (Seaside resort proposes banning smoking on beaches).

Both reports included a quote from Forest, unlike BBC News Sussex which noted simply:

Smoking could be banned on Brighton beach under plans being considered by the city council.

Anyway, I wrote about it here (Extending smoking ban to include parks and beaches unwarranted and illiberal) and again here (Weather conditions allied to smoking may pose additional risk to non-smokers says director of public health) but for several days after that it all went quiet.

Five days later the story unexpectedly burst back into life when the Press Association reported that 'The first step has been taken towards making Brighton beach a smoke-free zone.

I was in Ireland that day but I was able to give the PA Forest's full response and this led to a second PA report – Plans for smoke-free Brighton beach 'unjust'.

Meanwhile the story was being reported nationally and locally, in the press, on television and on radio.

The Guardian (Brighton beach could go smoke-free under council plans) was one of many newspapers to publish news of the consultation.

BBC News chipped in with Brighton seeks views on beach smoking ban.

It was even on CBBC Newsbeat (Brighton looking into banning smoking on beaches and Brighton beach smoking ban plans - what people think).

My colleague Rob Lyons discussed the issue on ITV's Good Morning Britain, ITV News and Channel Five News. The IEA's Chris Snowdon was on Sky News.

In short, no-one who takes the slightest interest in current affairs could have been unaware that smoking on Brighton's beaches was under serious threat.

So what has been the media's response to the equally important news that a large majority of respondents to the consultation were strongly opposed to extending the smoking ban to beaches and parks?

I'll tell you.

To the best of my knowledge there have been just three reports (Brighton and Hove News, The Argus and Worthing Herald) plus one item on local radio (BBC Radio Sussex).

To date the news that smoking will NOT be banned on Brighton's beaches or in the city's parks and 'historic' squares has received not a single column inch outside Sussex. Nor has it been mentioned by national TV or radio.

It's not even been by mentioned by BBC News Sussex.

Now it's not impossible the story could still develop legs. After all, there's not been an official announcement by Brighton Council (hence I am still not counting my chickens), but that's no excuse.

The information is out there for all to read and it beggars belief that the media has largely ignored it.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist so there must be some other explanation. Sadly I can't think what it is apart from the fact that the prospect of a ban must be considered news, while a non-ban isn't.

Nevertheless it's still a very positive statement by the general public.

What I do know is that thanks to the media's coverage of the story in the summer, a huge number of people, including many councillors around the country, will be under the illusion that smoking is going to be banned on Brighton's beaches. The headlines alone will have seen to that.

Somehow we have to make them aware of the outcome of Brighton's public consultation.

PS. On July 30 the Press Association reported, 'Majority in favour' of Brighton beach smoking ban:

The poll was also reported by The Argus, Brighton's daily newspaper. ASH, naturally, tweeted the results.

Bizarrely it was commissioned by Pharmacy2U, "the UK's leading NHS approved online pharmacy". See Look who's behind poll that says majority favour smoking ban on Brighton beach (Taking Liberties).

Neither the poll, Pharmacy2U or the Press Association are looking too clever now, are they?

'Majority in favour' of Brighton beach smoking ban http://t.co/gCgPBJCsH1

— ASH (@ASH_LDN) July 31, 2015

APPG on Smoking and Health wrote to ministers 592 times over five years!

Still on the subject of ASH ...

A written question to the Secretary of State for Health from Conservative MP David Nuttall has revealed the staggering information that the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health (run by ASH) has written almost 600 letters to ministers over five years, and may have written many more letters to government officials.

Here is David's question and the minister's answer:

David Nuttall:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many items of correspondence his Department has received from (a) the Chair and (b) other members of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health in each of the last five years.

Jane Ellison [Secretary of State for Health]:
The Department would incur a disproportionate cost in calculating how many items of correspondence have been received from the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health (APPG) in each of the last five years.

592 letters from the APPG have been recorded as received by the Department’s Ministers over that period. The Group may also have written to officials direct but this information is not collected centrally.

Frankly, that borders on harassment!

Imagine the time, effort and cost of replying to all those letters.

In the meantime let's not forget that ASH receives £200,000 from government (ie the taxpayer) every year.

More than enough to pay for the cost of drafting those letters and the postage.

Update: Here's a further written question and the minister's answer:

Andrew Rosindell [Conservative MP]
To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 23 November 2015 to Question 16779, if he will assess the extent to which grants made by his Department to Action on Smoking and Health were used for activities designed to influence his Department, other departments or Parliament.

Jane Ellison
The conditions applicable to grants awarded to Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) are set out in the grant award letters. The Department has made clear that none of this funding is to be used for lobbying purposes.

ASH’s compliance with the conditions of the grant is assessed at the grant monitoring meetings held between the Deputy Director of tobacco control and representatives from ASH as well as in the final full year grant monitoring and governance reports.

So that's all right, then.

Actually, no, it stinks. When will ministers put a stop to this abuse of ASH's charitable status and the funding they receive from government?

ASH to make "oral arguments" in High Court case on plain packaging

Credit to ASH. The anti-smoking protesters leave no stone unturned in their crusade against Big Tobacco.

Last week, after Panorama broadcast alleged evidence of BAT employees making payments to politicians and civil servants in Africa, CEO Deborah Arnott called for a "criminal investigation under the Bribery Act".

This week (or next) ASH also has a walk-on part as four companies (British American Tobacco, Imperial, JTI and Philip Morris) challenge the Government's plain packaging legislation.

I've no idea why ASH has been given this opportunity but, in their own words, the group is "intervening in the case".

Lawyers representing ASH will present "oral arguments" designed, I imagine, to support the Government's case and derail the companies' argument that plain packaging is unlawful.

"Acting for ASH are solicitors from Leigh Day and barristers Peter Oliver and Ligia Osepciu of Monckton Chambers." I wonder how much they cost and who's paying?

ASH currently receives £200k of taxpayers' money per year. Or, to put it another way, the Government uses public money to fund lobbyists who not only lobby government to introduce further tobacco control measures (like plain packaging), they are also given a platform to make statements in a court case in which they are neither the plaintiff nor the defendant.

Oh, and another thing. It's my understanding that ASH will be allowed to present their "arguments" without challenge or cross examination.

No different to many media interviews then.

Tobacco "is not a consumer product" says anti-smoking campaigner

Further to my previous post, I was on my own for all bar one of the interviews this morning.

The exception was BBC Radio Scotland which put me head to head with Linda Bauld of Stirling University.

The most surprising thing about Linda's contribution was not her insistence – against the evidence – that plain packaging is working (ie reducing smoking rates) in Australia, or her endorsement of the Chantler Review, it was her declaration that tobacco "is not a consumer product".

I checked with the Office for National Statistics and the latest figures for the Consumer Prices Index quite clearly includes alcohol and, wait for it, tobacco.

Other items include food and non-alcoholic beverages, clothing and footwear, furniture and household goods, and so on.

Sorry, Linda, I'm with the government on this one.

Then again, if tobacco and indeed alcohol aren't consumer products, what on earth are they?

It also begs the question that if Linda doesn't classify cigarettes as a consumer product, what about e-cigarettes (which she is very keen on promoting as a smoking cessation aid)?

They're both nicotine delivery systems. Why should one be a consumer product and not the other?

Sounds to me like the next step in the denormalisation of smoking. Deny tobacco is a consumer product and remove it from convenience stores.

Anyway, you can listen to the full Radio Scotland interview here.

Update: Linda has responded in the Comments (below). I'll have to listen to the clip again to see if I've misrepresented her but I haven't got time now because I'm going out for dinner. (I need a drink!)

In the meantime listen to the interview and judge for yourselves.

Plain packaging goes to court

Today sees the start of a six-day court case involving four tobacco companies and the Government.

The companies (BAT, Imperial, JTI and Philip Morris) believe that plain packaging – effectively the theft of their intellectual property – is unlawful.

Beginning at 7.15 this morning I'm doing the rounds on BBC radio, eleven interviews in total.

I won't be talking about the court case (I don't know anything about it beyond what I've read) but I will be talking about plain packaging, why Forest is against it, and the latest evidence from Australia.

Brighton spin watch

I was on BBC Radio Sussex this morning.

They wanted Forest's response to the news - which I reported yesterday - that Brighton Council is set to reject proposals to ban smoking on parks and beaches.

Make no mistake, that is the headline-grabbing fact to come out of the public consultation because when it was announced in the summer every report - and it was very widely reported - highlighted the threat to smoking on Brighton's beaches.

Some headlines even inferred - before the consultation had even begun - that it was a fait accompli.

Instead, in the clip that preceded my interview, BBC Sussex chose to highlight the relatively minor fact that smoking is to be 'banned' in children's play areas and outside school gates.

To emphasise the point they even included some vox pop interviews with members of the public recorded, I think, outside a school.

The mindset seemed to be, let's spin this to create a positive a result for tobacco control. Smoking may have been reprieved on beaches, in parks and 'historic' squares but let's focus on areas where smoking will be further restricted.

In addition, much is being made of the fact that Brighton Council is to work with pubs and restaurants to encourage them to introduce a voluntary ban on smoking outside. Good luck with that.

Anyway I'll be interested to see whether the consultation report - especially the decision to drop the proposal to ban smoking on Brighton's beaches - is picked up by the media at large.

To date it's only been reported by Brighton and Hove News, the Brighton Argus and BBC Radio Sussex. (Nothing, as yet, on the BBC's regional online news let alone their national news.)

In the summer however, as I've already mentioned, the consultation was reported by every national newspaper and the BBC News (nationally and locally) was all over it.

I lost count of the number of interviews I did. Forest was even quoted on CBBC's Newsround (a first!).

So far, with the exception of the local media, silence.

That puts the onus on us - bloggers, readers and other interested observers - to spread the message far and wide.

If (I don't want to count my chickens) Brighton Council supports the recommendations of the consultation report, this could be a very important moment.

I can't stress how damaging it would have been had the decision gone in favour of extending the smoking ban to parks and beaches.

Thankfully that hasn't happened - yet - but this is no time for complacency.

PS. As an aside, I've never understood why Brighton's horribly pebbly beach is considered an attraction. I like parts of the town but the beach? Meh.

Smoking could be BANNED at the school gate in #Brighton and #Hove https://t.co/2deRZEMhBJ pic.twitter.com/k4rA8NT3lf

— BBC Sussex (@BBCSussex) December 9, 2015

Are you seriously suggesting this is the headline story? Try 'Beach smoking ban proposal dropped'. https://t.co/WzUMB5mgsC @BBCSussex

— Forest (@Forest_Smoking) December 9, 2015

Rejoice!

Reports suggest that Brighton and Hove Council has rejected proposals to ban smoking on beaches, parks and squares.

According to Brighton and Hove News, 'Controversial plans to ban smoking on Brighton and Hove’s beaches and in its parks look set to be dropped by the council after a huge public response.'

Fancy that!

Confirmation of the decision is expected when the Council meets next Tuesday.

Rejoice!

See also: Response to Brighton consultation on smoke free areas.

PS. More good news:

Bid to ban smoking in Ayr's street cafes is thrown out by councillors (Daily Record).

Council extends smoking ban to car parks and courtyards

'Smoking ban for Edinburgh city council play parks.'

The BBC has the story here but read on and you'll see that the council's new 'smoke free' (sic) policy also includes car parks and courtyards.

You'll find our full response on our website – Smokers treated like lepers says Forest.

Meanwhile, what next – a ban on smoking in council houses?