Simon Clark is a twat
Monday, April 4, 2011 at 11:25 And a tosser.
Well, that's what I have been called on another "smoker-friendly" blog after I declined to respond immediately to a demand that Forest should organise a cross-channel shopping trip as part of a campaign to encourage everyone to buy their tobacco abroad.
I thought long and hard before commenting because while I'm happy to get feedback on issues like this (that's what this forum is for) I don't enjoy flame wars and I don't conduct 'business' on this or any other blog, and organising a stunt like this clearly comes under the category of 'business' if you want to do it properly.
In other words, you can discuss cross-channel shopping all day long but if Forest was to organise a trip as part of a broader campaign we would do it behind the scenes, in private. Once the details were confirmed we would announce our plan and invite people to support it. We wouldn't discuss the details in advance on a public forum.
Anyway, back to those accusations of being a "twat" and a "tosser" and doing nothing to help cross-channel shoppers or smokers in general.
A little bit of history:
In 2000 Forest launched a campaign on behalf of ordinary cross-channel shoppers who, in our opinion, were being targetted unfairly by Customs & Excise when they returned to the UK with tobacco purchased abroad, quite legally, for their own personal use.
We sent two researchers to Adinkerke in Belgium and they saw, with their own eyes, the extent of the smuggling. It wasn't just criminal gangs who were involved. Students and even OAPs were in on the act, albeit on a very small scale.
I remember too taking a call from a woman who complained that the suitcases belonging to her and her partner had been confiscated by officials. When I asked how many cigarettes they had between them she said, "36,000".
Most people of course weren't breaking the law. They were genuinely buying tobacco for their own personal use but because the guideline for imported cigarettes was then a paltry 800, anyone with anything in excess of that was likely to be taken to one side, searched, and asked lots of questions about their habit.
You would often be asked to produce a lighter to prove that you were a smoker. Sometimes they would make a point of smelling you. If officials were dissatisfied you might have your goods confiscated or, worse, your car impounded.
Our advice to the many cross-channel shoppers who contacted us at the time was to take evidence of previous purchases – receipts, credit card statements etc – plus a letter from an employer or GP to confirm that they did indeed smoke 20, 30 or even 40 cigarettes a day, as they claimed.
This itself was a bit of an imposition but without supporting 'evidence' legitimate shoppers were being treated as guilty until proven innocent and it was an exhausting and unpleasant process to go through if you had done nothing illegal.
Frankly, it was mayhem and Forest was in the thick of it as calls rained in from disgruntled shoppers, so I don't take kindly to people having a go at us for not doing anything to support the consumer.
We did everything we could, including taking on a test case. In 2000, supported by Forest (we found him a solicitor and a barrister and paid his legal fees, around £5,000), cross-channel shopper Gary Mullen went to court and won back 5,000 cigarettes that had been seized by Customs at Dover.
This case, and our campaign against the treatment of cross-channel shoppers, led to a campaign by the Daily Telegraph and, later, the Sun that resulted in the guideline on the number of cigarettes you could bring into the country being increased from 800 to 3,200, a number most smokers seem largely happy with.
I should add that at the height of our campaign we attempted to organise a cross-channel shopping trip involving not one but 20 coaches in convoy. The plan was to take 1,000 shoppers to Adinkerke, but before setting off we were going to stage a small rally in Parliament Square.
The plan came unstuck for two reasons. First, we had a small problem with Westminster Police who told us that the coaches wouldn't be allowed to stop in Parliament Square and would have to drop people off five miles away. They admitted that if we hadn't told them about our plans there was nothing they could have done to stop us, but Forest isn't like UK Uncut or Fathers For Justice. Rightly or wrongly we play within the rules.
The second (and major) problem was the coach company itself. Based in the West Midlands, the owner had originally contacted us with stories of coaches worth £200,000 being ripped apart by officials looking for smuggled goods. We suggested the trip and the rally in Parliament Square and they told us they could supply 20 coaches, each one with 50 people aboard, but two weeks before the proposed date they backed out.
Either they were got at by Customs officials (who were aware of our plans), or the company used the threat of a demonstration in Parliament Square and a potentially high profile publicity stunt to do a deal with officials. I suspect the latter because it emerged later that, unknown to us, the company had had a meeting with Customs the day before.
Either way, the event didn't take place and it demonstrates the difficulty of organising any sort of worthwhile protest. It only takes one weak link and the whole thing falls apart. Indirectly, however, our efforts did result in the guidelines being changed in 2002 to the benefit of cross-channel shoppers.
To cut a long story short, we are looking again at our options but Forest will NOT be telling everyone to buy their tobacco abroad. There are three reasons for this:
One, we never tell people to do anything. That's not our style. We inform, we educate. Thereafter it's your decision, your choice.
Two, for many (most?) people cross-channel shopping is impractical and inconvenient, especially if you live north of Watford.
Three, it could have a devastating impact on convenience stores and in the war on tobacco small retailers are our allies not our enemies and we cannot afford to make enemies of our allies.
Forest's job is to inform consumers about the price of tobacco abroad – and let you decide for yourself where you want buy it. Beyond that our role is to make sure that: the consumers' right to import tobacco from abroad is upheld; current guidelines are maintained (there is talk of a possible reduction, which is worrying); and law-abiding consumers are not harassed or targetted unduly by HMRC.
PS. I should add that standing up for consumers in this sensitive area cost Forest a great deal a few years ago. (I won't go into detail but see Frequently asked questions on the new Forest website.)
I don't expect any thanks or recognition for our efforts so I'll say just this – criticise all you like, but check your facts first.