Rapid response to Smoke On The Water and not a ligger in sight!

Forest's annual boat party appears to be more popular than ever.

Twelve hours after inviting people to attend this year's event, no fewer than 133 guests have registered.

That's considerably more than half the number of places available (220). And to the best of my knowledge, not one of them is a ligger (see The secret world of liggers)!

PS. To register email events@forestonline.org or call Kristina on 01223 370156. But don't leave it too late.

Campaign against outdoor smoking bans

Delighted to report that Forest is joining forces with the Manifesto Club to campaign against outdoor smoking bans.

The joint initiative is in response to calls for smoking bans in London's parks and squares and the imposition of 'voluntary' bans in outdoor areas in towns and cities including Basingstoke, Ashford and Bristol.

According to the Manifesto Club:

There are growing moves to ban smoking in outdoor areas, including playgrounds, parks, public squares, and outside buildings such as hospitals or schools. Some of these bans are led by councils, others by health authorities or private owners.

Outdoor smoking bans are rarely justified on health grounds, since smoking outdoors presents no harm to anyone aside from the smoker themselves. Instead, restrictions generally aim to 'denormalise smoking', to reduce children's 'exposure to smoking behaviours' or to pressure smokers to give up.

See Campaign Against Outdoor Smoking Bans.

The Manifesto Club has monitored the "hyper-regulation of public spaces" for several years.

In 2008, at the inaugural Freedom Zone in Birmingham, we co-hosted a panel discussion, 'You Can’t Do That! The Anti-Social Regulation of Public Space'.

In 2010 we co-hosted another discussion, 'Hyper-Regulation and the Bully State', which was part of Forest's Voices of Freedom series of debates in London.

In March this year the Manifesto Club reported that:

Councils are using the 'public spaces protection order' power, contained in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, to ban activities they judge to have a 'detrimental effect' on the 'quality of life'.

Josie Appleton, director of the Manifesto Club and author of the briefing on PSPOs, said: "These powers are so broad they allow councils to ban pretty much anything. The result is a patchwork of criminal law where something is illegal in one town but not in the next, or in one street but not the next. This makes it hard for the public to know what is criminal and what is not.

"These orders will turn town and city centres into no-go zones for homeless people, buskers, old ladies feeding pigeons, or anyone else whom the council views as 'messy'."

Now the spotlight is on smokers lighting up in the open air, whether it be parks, squares or beaches.

For further information about the campaign click here, or watch this space.

Smoke On The Water – register now!

Add to your diary and register now!

Smoke On The Water, Forest's popular annual boat party, returns on Wednesday June 24.

Join us aboard The Elizabethan, a Mississippi-style paddle-steamer, as we cruise down the Thames past some of London's most iconic landmarks including the London Eye, St Paul's, Tower Bridge, The Shard and Canary Wharf.

As usual guests will embark at Westminster Pier next to Westminster Bridge. From 7.00-8.00pm, while the boat is static, there will be a complementary drinks reception. After that, there's a cash bar.

At 8.00pm we'll begin a two-hour cruise, returning to Festival Pier (by Festival Hall) where guests will disembark at 10.00pm.

This year we're going for a Cuban theme. On the top deck, which features a unique sliding roof, guests will be entertained by a four-piece Cuban band, The Sugar Kings, supported by three costumed dancers.

Smoking and vaping are permitted on the two covered walkways and the rear (open) deck so whatever the weather you should be able to smoke in comfort!

Smoke On The Water traditionally attracts a wide variety of people from the Westminster village and beyond including MPs, parliamentary researchers, think tank execs and many more.

Places are limited so if you want to join us you must register in advance. RSVP events@forestonline.org or call Kristina on 01223 370156.

What would Chris Snowdon say?

What would Chris Snowdon, a Middlesbrough fan, think of this? 

Wembley officials have apologised to Middlesbrough fans for misspelling their team's name on tickets for the Championship play-off final. Tickets for Monday's game with Norwich called the club 'Middlesborough'.

It's easily done. I've done it myself.

Years ago I edited a magazine for chartered accountants. I had no interest or expertise in accountancy so most of the articles were of a general business nature.

To lighten things up I slipped in a regular feature called 'Money Talks' which gave us the excuse to interview well-known people on the subject of, er, money.

Subjects included Gyles Brandreth, Sir Clive Sinclair, Jeffrey Bernard and (whisper it) Jimmy Savile.

Ironically the publishing company lurched from one financial crisis to another which meant advertising always took precedence over editorial.

In a desperate attempt to generate income the sales team approached local councils and chambers of commerce in the hope that they would pay us to produce a 24-page supplement about their town or city.

I remember doing one on Manchester. And another on Middlesbrough.

When the Middlesbrough supplement was delivered to our office in south London it's fair to say no-one broke sweat in a rush to read it.

In fact, until a fateful phone call two days later, we were totally oblivious of the fact that the town had been spelled 'Middlesborough' on every page including, would you believe, the cover.

But here's the amazing thing. Even though it cost the company thousands of pounds in lost revenue our young MD never once shouted the odds or held anyone to account.

Even the sales team, with whom the editorial staff had a love-hate relationship, found it amusing.

What could have been the most embarrassing day of my career ended with drinks all round and the MD laughing ruefully at my costly error.

And for that I am eternally grateful.

See Wembley sorry for misspelling Middlesbrough play-off tickets (BBC News).

Update: Chris is not a "native of Middlesbrough", as I originally suggested, merely a fan of the team.

My mistake. Again.

Trust me, this is the last time I will ever write about the place.

Not NICE: call to exclude tobacco industry from smoking cessation talks

I'm in Bristol this morning.

There's a meeting of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the city that will debate a proposal that tobacco companies should no longer be stakeholders in NICE's decision-making process.

It was news to me that the tobacco companies are stakeholders but it seems perfectly reasonable that they should be included.

After all, the tobacco industry is a legitimate business and it ought to be a legitimate stakeholder in any discussion about tobacco whether it be illicit trade, litter or smoking cessation.

The industry invests billions of pounds in harm reduction products including e-cigarettes so it would be crazy not to include them in discussions about smoking cessation.

Tobacco companies know better than anyone what works for their customers and what the consumer wants. Their knowledge and expertise should be invaluable but the likes of ASH and Smokefree South West are more interested in exclusion and political idealism.

BBC Radio Bristol and BBC Points West are covering the issue and I've just done an interview for BBC Radio Bristol. I'm also doing an interview for BBC Points West.

Update: On BBC Radio Bristol Fiona Andrews, CEO of Smokefree South West, said the Department of Health don't have direct meetings with the tobacco industry so why should NICE?

She's wrong. If I remember correctly, several tobacco companies had meetings with the DH about plain packaging, including Bristol-based Imperial Tobacco.

I'm surprised she didn't know that.

PS. If I was working for NICE I would include in the decision-making process not only the tobacco industry but also consumers and retailers.

Why not? If smoking cessation is your goal it makes sense to include several elements of the tobacco chain. That way you might better understand the consumer and what makes some people smoke and others quit.

It might also help you understand why some smoking cessation products work and others don't.

Update: I can't remember who it was (the BBC Radio Bristol presenter or Fiona Andrews) but someone said there might be a commercial conflict of interest if the tobacco industry was involved in discussions.

Duh! What about the pharmaceutical industry? The same argument could be made for them but I don't see ASH or Smokefree South West lobbying to have Big Pharma removed from discussions.

Reject censorship and paternalism, vote for choice and personal responsibility

Here's my speech to the Oxford Union, in response to the proposition 'This House believes that the tobacco industry is morally reprehensible’.

A couple of sections were dropped because I was running out of time (rookie mistake) but I've included them here because they strengthen the argument:

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, this side of the House fully accepts the health risks of smoking. In fact, there can’t be a sane person above the age of 16, and possibly younger, who isn’t well aware of the health risks of smoking tobacco.

Historically, as far as health is concerned, mistakes have been made on all sides. For decades most people were ignorant of the health risks including governments and the medical profession. Let’s not forget that cigarettes were once handed out to the armed forces while doctors were more than happy to promote certain brands of cigarette.

Even if it was ever true, the description of the tobacco industry as morally reprehensible is decades out of date. The tobacco industry doesn’t hide the potential health risks of smoking. On Imperial Tobacco’s website, under ‘Smoking and Health’, you will find the following:

Smoking is a cause of serious diseases in smokers, including lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema. We agree that governments and public health authorities around the world should provide clear and consistent messages about the health risks of smoking. Adults should be guided by those messages when deciding whether or not to smoke. Children should never smoke.

Similar messages are on other tobacco companies’ websites.

When the opposition talks about the tobacco industry they are talking about thousands of people, decent, honourable men and women. In Britain alone it is estimated that 5,000 people are directly employed by the industry. A further 80,000 people have jobs that depend on tobacco retailers, packaging companies, logistics and so on.

Across Africa there are hundreds of thousands of small farmers who make a living selling this "reprehensible" crop. Then there are the hundreds of factory workers who process tobacco and turn it into tobacco products. The next step is the retailers, thousands of small retailers who sell tobacco across the UK.

If people are going to make moral judgements on the industry then you are making a judgement on everyone in the tobacco chain, including government. In the UK, on average, 86 per cent of the price of a packet of cigarettes is tax. British American Tobacco alone estimates that it contributed 30 billion in excise globally last year. This is eight times the group’s profits after tax.

So let’s be clear, the biggest benefactors from smoking are governments not Big Tobacco. Governments and industry are partners in the tobacco business and governments are the senior partners.

I’m not here to represent the tobacco industry, and I will come on to their absence later, but I do want to make the following points:

One, tobacco is a legal, highly regulated product. The idea that the tobacco industry can do whatever it likes is laughable. It is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the world.

Two, regardless of the health risks, what the tobacco industry manufactures and sells is a quality product that has undergone years of research and development. Compare that with the smuggled or counterfeit cigarettes widely available on the black market in Britain today. According to reports ingredients have included human excrement, asbestos, mould and dead flies.

Three, the modern tobacco industry is spending billions on the development of smokeless tobacco and other harm reduction products like e-cigarettes. Does that sound like a “morally reprehensible” industry? What is morally reprehensible and irresponsible are the policies advocated by tobacco control campaigners: extreme taxation, for example, has resulted in a black market awash with counterfeit or unregulated tobacco.

And what about the consumer, the people Forest represents? Tobacco is consumed by approximately 25 per cent of adults worldwide. In the UK 20 per cent of the adult population smoke; that’s not a small minority – that’s a fifth of the adult population. Are we seriously supposed to think ten million adults in the UK alone are in thrall to some evil, immoral industry?

Tobacco control activists are quick to accuse the tobacco industry of profiting from and feeding people’s addiction as if consenting adults have no say in the matter. Ladies and gentlemen, smoking is a lifestyle choice. No-one is arguing it’s good for you but it’s YOUR choice. Yes, it’s potentially addictive but for most people it’s a habit and there’s a big difference between habit and addiction.

Like it or not smoking brings pleasure to a great many people. The tobacco industry doesn’t create demand, it meets demand. Smoking was around long before the tobacco industry. David Hockney, one of Britain’s greatest artists, is an ardent smoker. He smokes for pleasure and to relieve stress. Hockney has attended several Forest events and I’ve never heard him blame the tobacco industry for his nicotine dependency.

Yes, there are smokers who wish they’d never started or would like to quit. But lots of people smoke because they enjoy it. It’s not something you hear very often these days because it doesn’t suit the anti-smoking zeitgeist. Hence a lot of people are “shy smokers” in the same way a lot of voters are “shy Conservatives”.

Anti-smoking campaigners argue that the tobacco industry targets children. The truth is many children like to experiment. Many will experiment with alcohol. A small minority will experiment with tobacco. It’s called growing up. You cannot blame the tobacco industry for the fact that some children choose to experiment.

Tobacco companies have also been accused of deliberately targeting women with so-called "pretty" packaging. This is not only patronising to women it’s deeply sexist. But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Claire Fox, director of the Institute of Ideas and a regular panellist on Radio 4’s The Moral Maze, had to say:

The World Health Organisation once accused tobacco companies of “exploiting women’s struggle for equal rights by creating the impression that tobacco makes women confident … more in control of their destiny”. What a cheek. It’s the public health brigade who deny women the right to control our lives, by campaigns aimed at limiting our free choices by regimenting us all into dull, miserablist conformity.

If the tobacco industry is morally reprehensible what about other industries – food and drink, for example? Drinking alcohol can lead to alcoholism; it can lead to binge drinking. Who’s responsible, the manufacturer or the consumer? Sugary drinks and convenience food can lead, we are told, to obesity. Again, who’s “morally” responsible, the manufacturer or the consumer?

And that’s the problem. Tobacco control is no longer about public health. It’s a moral crusade, like the old temperance movement. We’re far too quick to pass moral judgements on people and even industries we don’t agree with. Disagree by all means but what makes the tobacco control industry morally superior to those of us who believe in freedom of choice and personal responsibility?

In my experience most of the attacks on the tobacco industry have nothing to do with health. It’s politics, pure and simple. In Britain most of the campaigners who attack the tobacco industry work in the public sector, or their campaign group is funded with public money, our money. They represent a new form of socialism – lifestyle socialism – and the enemy is big business.

I mentioned the absence of the tobacco industry from tonight’s debate. I have no quarrel with the Union because I know they invited a representative of Imperial Tobacco to take part. However, as readers of Cherwell [the Oxford student newspaper] will know, the Union came under enormous pressure to withdraw that invitation.

Dr Vaughan Rees, a lecturer at Harvard University commented, “The nature of the debate itself is deeply disturbing. The tobacco industry has a history of engaging in deceptive behaviour to further their interests while improving their public image. More recently, they have attempted to adopt principles of ‘corporate social responsibility’ and I see this debate as part of that effort.”

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of the fake charity Action on Smoking and Health, said: “The tobacco industry truly is morally reprehensible and I find it hard to believe that any students with half a brain could come to any other conclusion.”

So there you are, ladies and gentlemen, God has spoken. If you vote against this motion tonight you only have half a brain.

What is morally reprehensible is not the fact that the tobacco industry wanted to engage with young adults and have a serious debate, it’s the fact that the tobacco control industry, represented by our opponents here tonight, regularly tries to ‘no platform’ a legitimate industry from defending itself both in public and in a private.

Ladies and gentlemen, the underlying assumption of the motion is that the tobacco industry has huge power. I would suggest that after 15 years of almost constant regulation – bans on tobacco advertising and sponsorship, the prohibition of smoking in the workplace including every pub and private members’ club, a ban on tobacco vending machines, a ban on the display of tobacco in shops, a ban on smoking in private vehicles carrying children and, most recently, a ban on branding, all the power lies in the hands of the modern temperance movement.

I urge you to reject this motion, reject paternalism, reject censorship, and vote for freedom of choice and personal responsibility.

(See also my previous post, Warning: this post contains a gratuitous reference to Jimmy Savile.)

Warning: this post contains a gratuitous reference to Jimmy Savile

One moment aside, Thursday night's Oxford Union debate ('This House believes the tobacco industry is morally reprehensible') was fairly uneventful.

Don't get me wrong. It was an enjoyable evening and very well organised. The attention to detail, before and after the event, was impressive.

At 6.20, as arranged, I was met at my hotel by a personable young undergraduate from Amsterdam. He was there to escort me to the Union, half a mile away.

Pre-dinner drinks in the Gladstone Room were followed by dinner in the Macmillan Room. The President, Olivia Merrett, gave a toast to the Queen and said something in Latin I pretended to understand but didn't.

After dinner (which included wine and port) we trooped downstairs for the official photograph – speakers and Union officers at the front, Union members lined up behind.

Then it was time to walk over to the debating chamber where we stood outside waiting for the call to go in. Eventually, like footballers entering a stadium, we marched in to warm applause.

This was the second Oxford Union debate I've taken part in. The first was on the subject of the smoking ban.

There are three speakers per side and speeches can last up to eight minutes. Unfortunately when I rehearsed my speech that afternoon I found I'd written 15 minutes' worth of material. Cue frantic editing.

Proposing the motion were Isaac Virchis, a first year student at Oriel College; Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, professor of palliative medicine and the peer who proposed the bill to ban smoking in public places in Wales; and Professor Gerard Hastings, founder of the Centre for Tobacco Control Research and a special advisor to the House of Commons Health Select Committee.

While the rest of us were wearing dinner jackets Prof Hastings was in full Scottish evening dress, kilt and all.

Opposing the motion were Toby Tricks (his real name), a first year student at St John's College; the IEA's Mark Littlewood; and me.

The tobacco industry should have been represented but wasn't. (Full story here.)

Isaac kicked things off. Afterwards he told us it was his maiden Union speech but you wouldn't have guessed.

Toby was described as a "competitive debater" and a "breaking speaker at the World Championships". It was easy to see why because he injected a welcome touch of humour, even whimsy, into the debate.

He did however come unstuck when Baroness Finlay responded brilliantly to a point of order he raised during her speech.

In his own speech Toby made several references to rugby which he hated and wasn't very good at thanks to his, er, delicate physique. His argument was that the game can result in very serious injuries but no-one thinks rugby should be banned or the coaches denounced as "morally reprehensible".

Responding to his point of order (another reference to sport, if I remember), Baroness Finlay shot back, "I'm so sorry you had such a terrible experience of PE at school, Toby."

She said it with a twinkle in her eye. In debating terms it was the best and funniest moment of the night.

After Baroness Finlay it was my turn. I knew when I stood at the dispatch box that my speech was still too long so I had to omit one or two passages but it finished as planned so it wasn't too bad.

Then it was time for members of the audience to take the floor.

We heard from six people, three for the proposition and three against. A medical student from Newcastle spoke and that was the moment I felt we would probably lose.

What I hadn't anticipated was Prof Hastings' contribution.

I've met him before and on a personal level he's perfectly pleasant. We shook hands before and after the debate and we also had a brief chat about his travel arrangements. (He came down from Scotland on the overnight sleeper, if you're interested!)

Get him on the subject of tobacco, however, and he's a completely different person.

Close to tears (it seemed to me) he pleaded with the audience to vote for the proposition. Citing Bob Dylan's 'The Times They Are A-Changin', he implored the younger generation not to make the same mistake as his own.

One of the sections I had to cut from my speech concerned the tobacco control industry becoming a moral crusade akin to the old temperance movement.

Now, right in front of us, Britain's foremost anti-tobacco evangelist was in full crusader mode, beseeching members of the Union to turn their backs on an evil industry. Or something like that.

Then, out of the blue, he made a quite gratuitous reference to Jimmy Savile. I'll have to check the video to confirm exactly what he said but if I understood him correctly he was equating the activities of the tobacco industry with Savile's predatory behaviour towards children.

I couldn't believe it. Was it my imagination or was there a stunned silence in the chamber?

I looked across the floor and Baroness Finlay had the look of someone who thought her colleague had taken leave of his senses.

Union rules state that "Booing or hissing a speaker is both a grave and a pointless discourtesy and an abuse of the Forms of the house" but I was sorely tempted.

Instead I called out, "That's sick!" and "You've crossed a line".

Startled, his response was to demand I declare who my "paymasters" are.

This sudden and unexpected turn of events rendered me speechless.

So he repeated his demand.

"Jimmy Savile!" boomed a grim, mocking voice to my left.

It was Mark Littlewood, the final speaker.

As ever, Mark's speech combined biting commentary with witty soundbites. Hastings' appropriation of Bob Dylan was remarked upon and he took the opportunity to out himself as a white, male, middle class .... smoker.

Debate over, speakers were the first to leave the chamber. Members then followed through the relevant 'ayes' and 'noes' exit with tellers totting up the numbers.

Outside we were joined by a small group of smokers. They thanked us for our efforts.

Fifteen minutes later, in the Gladstone Room where we were invited to join members of the Union for a post debate drink, the President announced the result:

For the proposition, 77. Against the proposition, 60.

We didn't expect to win but I thought Hastings' performance might have cost his side a few more votes. Perhaps it won the day, who knows? My guess is it lost the proposition support but not enough for us to win the debate.

Could we have done better? In the absence of a speaker representing the tobacco industry (which was effectively 'no platformed') our case was undermined by allegations that young children are targeted by the industry in the Third World and accusations that tobacco companies have been complicit in tobacco smuggling in Europe.

These are matters that only Big Tobacco can answer with any authority.

How can you decide whether an industry is "morally reprehensible" if that industry is not allowed to defend itself in person?

In the circumstances I think we did OK.

See also: Tobacco controllers will debate, but only on their terms

Update: Re that comment about Savile, another participant has interpreted it to mean that smokers buying tobacco products are no freer in their decisions than Savile's victims.

If the Union posts the video of the debate online I'll publish the exact quote and you can decide for yourselves.

Happier times?

An old friend has just posted a photo of us on Facebook.

He also wrote, "Simon Clark, Director of Forest, in happier times."

It was taken over 35 years ago when we were at Aberdeen University.

To avoid doubt, I'm the one with the full head of hair and pronounced curvature of the spine.

Oddly enough I have no recollection of the production.

The look the girl is giving me is familiar, though. That happened quite a lot, on and off stage.

Update: I have just been reminded that other performers in the above production included former Sky News reporter Glen Oglaza; Frances Guy, UN women's representative to Iraq, and former British Ambassador to Lebanon and to Yemen; and Tommy Sheppard, the SNP's new MP for Edinburgh East.

H/T Harry Aves who also featured (he's in the dress on the right of the picture).

Further update: Apparently it was the Aberdeen University Student Union Christmas panto (1979).

PS. I'm back at university tonight, Oxford not Aberdeen.

Mark Littlewood and I are at the Oxford Union where we are teaming up to oppose the motion ‘This House believes that the tobacco industry is morally reprehensible’.

I'll let you know how we get on.

Update: We lost 77-60. Gutted.