"E-cigarettes would also be included in the voluntary ban"

Here's last night's report on plans to introduce a "voluntary" ban on smoking in children's play areas in Basingstoke.

It includes a soundbite from me and concludes with this statement:

E-cigarettes would also be included in the voluntary ban as some fear they attract children to tobacco, and that's a slippery slope.

The report starts at 08:00 but the programme is only available online until 6:55 tonight.

Another "voluntary" smoking ban

Those "voluntary bans" on smoking in children's play areas are gathering momentum.

Yesterday I was on BBC South Today discussing plans to introduce the policy in Basingstoke. According to reports councillors have taken inspiration from similar measures elsewhere but they've added their own unique twist - an exclusion zone ten yards beyond the play areas.

Actually, 'discussing' may be an exaggeration. I was originally booked for an 'as live' studio interview but that got downgraded to a pre-recorded interview in an empty meeting room where I was filmed sitting in front of a single plant imported from another part of the building to liven things up a bit.

I haven't seen it but if they used more than a ten second soundbite I'll be surprised.

Anyway, I'm on BBC Radio Berkshire in a few minutes talking about the same issue.

Update: Amazing. Just discovered that Basingstoke Council decided to act following a complaint by ONE resident who objected to people smoking while his child was in the vicinity.

One person, one complaint. That's all it took for the wheels of authority to roll into action.

Council say they are now "consulting" but as I understand it they've already asked local children to design posters asking people not to smoke.

Some consultation!

What are the limits of freedom and regulation?

Woke up to the Today programme discussing the Manifesto Club's latest report.

The group's press release is worth reading in full:

Councils' bizarre new bans are 'return to 19th century'

A new law which allows councils to ban activities in public spaces is leading to bizarre new criminal offences.

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

A Manifesto Club briefing - published on Monday 30 March, and available to view here - has identified eight already enacted 'public spaces protection orders' (PSPOs), which create new criminal offences. These include:

• In Colchester it is now a crime to drive into a retail park after 6pm unless you are using the retail park facilities;

• In Poole 'begging for money' is now a crime;

• In Cambridge it is a crime to have an 'open container' of alcohol;

• In Oxford it is a crime for a young person to enter a tower block unless they are visiting a resident of the block;

• In Lincoln, from 1 April it will be a crime to consume any 'intoxicating substances' in the city centre (defined as 'substances with the capacity to stimulate or depress the central nervous system').

Another four PSPOs are out for public consultation, and 19 are under consideration. These include:

• Bath City Council wants to ban amplified music in parts of the city centre.

• Oxford City Council has proposed a series of restrictions on activities in the city centre, including bans on unlicensed busking, begging, rough sleeping, pigeon feeding, drinking and dogs off leads.

• Kettering Borough Council is currently consulting on a similarly broad PSPO to restrict: street drinking, skateboarding, charity collectors, 'using a motor vehicle in an anti-social manner', begging, 'anti-social parking', 'loitering' and 'obstructing the highway'.

• Blackpool Council is proposing an order to ban activities including 'loitering around cash machines', street drinking, legal highs, 'rag mag sellers', and the sale of lucky charms and heather.

Josie Appleton, director of the Manifesto Club and author of the briefing on PSPOs, said:

"These powers are so broad that 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". It is astonishing that in the 21st century you could be punished for the crime of selling a lucky charm, 'loitering', or failing to leave a retail park within 20 minutes. This looks like a return to the meddling and moralism of nineteenth-century bylaws."

The Manifesto Club is calling for greater restraints on the use of these powers to be included in the Statutory Guidance accompanying the Act.

The Manifesto Club is also calling for councils to consult widely before introducing these orders, since legally an order can be passed by a single council officer - and for councils to explore alternative solutions to local problems before leaping to criminalisation.

See Council ban legislation creating 'bizarre' laws, campaigners say (BBC News).

Much as I support it in theory, this is what decentralisation does. It gives powers to every local Tom, Dick and Harriet to introduce the weirdest of rules and before long you have the most extraordinary array of laws up and down the country.

The Manifesto Club report also begs the question, how soon before smoking in a public space is a crime in some areas, and how will the innocent visitor know whether he or she is breaking the law?

But the bigger question is this: who controls our quality of life and in an urban environment, where large numbers of people have to co-exist together, what are the limits of freedom and regulation?

For example, as someone who hates loud music and has suffered in the past from a noisy neighbour, I'm not averse to laws restricting their freedom to turn up the volume.

But where should my 'right' to a quiet life and someone else's 'right' to make a terrible racket begin and end?

I'm not sure I have the answer. Over to you.

Whitening detector

One problem with appearing on television is that people are quick to comment on your appearance.

Social media has made this a whole lot worse and I sympathise with those (women especially) who are targeted for criticism about their looks.

Thankfully I've escaped the worst excesses of the Internet. The other day I was described as a "chubby twat" but I've no complaints. It could have been so much worse.

The most personal comment I've received came via a private email sent by someone in South Africa:

Just seen you on Sky. Your teeth are disgusting - don't you have or can't you afford dental care? Why do so many British people have terrible teeth? Curious that you think that its normal to walk around like that?

Far from being offended I thought "He's right!" and decided to do something about it.

The first step was registering with a dentist.

Step two was a long overdue check-up during which I suggested teeth whitening.

Step three was another appointment to begin a course of professional bleaching.

I won't bore you with the details (you can read about the process here) but according to the blurb, "Teeth whitening can’t make your teeth brilliant white, but it can lighten the existing colour by several shades."

I was dubious about my ability to stick to the daily routine but I have and after four weeks I've noticed a difference.

Unfortunately, following root canal treatment many years ago, a couple of teeth are impervious to bleaching gel. The only solution for them is veneers.

Veneers, I've discovered, cost £500 per tooth. Teeth 'whitening' has already set me back £350 so I'll give that a miss - for now.

Then again, if a plain speaking South African sees me on TV and still isn't happy, rest assured I'll be on the phone to my dentist. Again.

The changing faces of public health

Thanks to the BBC Britain's public health minister has undergone a Doctor Who-like regeneration.

As has the CEO of Action on Smoking and Health, pictured below speaking at the Despatch Box in the House of Commons.

H/T to the eagle-eyed viewer who sent me the images.

Fancy that! Minister's "dedicated DH team" includes CEO of ASH

Breaking news.

Whether by accident or design, public health minister Jane Ellison has just revealed what we all secretly thought.

Deborah Arnott, CEO of taxpayer-funded fake charity Action on Smoking and Health, is actually part of the "dedicated" Department of Health team that was last week awarded a Luther L Terry award for Exemplary Leadership in Tobacco Control.

Named after the late US Surgeon General:

They recognise outstanding global achievement in the field of tobacco control, in six categories: outstanding individual leadership, outstanding organization, outstanding research contribution, exemplary leadership by a government ministry, distinguished career, and outstanding community service.

Among those honoured this year was 'The United Kingdom Department of Health’s Tobacco Program[me]' which received the award for 'Exemplary Leadership by a Government Ministry'.

See 2015 Luther L Terry Awards.

This year's awards were presented by the American Cancer Society at a ceremony on March 19 in Abu Dhabi at the 16th World Conference on Tobacco or Health and here is a picture of the "dedicated DH team", tweeted by Ellison earlier this evening.

Arnott is standing second from left, next to Ellison. On the far left (no pun intended) is Andrew Black, tobacco programme manager at the Department of Health.

The other man looks familiar but I can't put a name to the face. Someone may be able to tell me who he is.

Delighted that Luther L Terry award for Exemplary Leadership in Tobacco Control awarded to dedicated @DHgovuk team. pic.twitter.com/KCxRCMHDnP

— Jane Ellison MP (@JaneEllison) March 25, 2015

Update on Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 22:42 by Simon Clark

Here's another picture of Deborah Arnott.

This time she's rubbing shoulders with Anne Milton, public health minister from 2010-2012.

Draw your own conclusions but it's clear ASH enjoys a remarkably close relationship with government ministers – even a Conservative led administration.

How healthy is that?

See Anne Milton - paradise lost and ASH's credibility goes up in smoke.

Standing room only, and no smoking!

Those nice people at the National Institute for Clinical Excellence have issued more guidelines.

This time it's about standing up rather than sitting in meetings.

Nice also called for better education in schools about the risks of drinking too much, and no public health diktat would be complete without mentioning smoking.

Forest's response, quoted by the Telegraph, was:

"Health workers should be judged on their ability to do their job, not on some politically correct picture of the perfect person.

"As long as it doesn't interfere with their job it's immoral to threaten hard-working people with disciplinary action just because they enjoy a smoke before or after work or during a legitimate break. Health workers shouldn't have to be role models."

See Bosses 'should make staff stand in meetings' (Daily Telegraph).

I was also quoted by the Sun but it's behind the paywall.

Update: The Sun quoted me saying:

"Health workers shouldn't have to be role models. What happens if they're overweight? Will they be forced to lose weight in order to keep their jobs?"

Politicians, what are they like?

That's weird.

I've just received a letter from my MP. It was written in response to the letter I sent him, asking him to vote against plain packaging.

It reads:

Thank you for contacting me about standardised packaging for cigarettes.

As you know, the final agreement by members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords delivers on the Government's commitment to introduce standardised packaging regulations before the end of this parliament.

I realise that you have strong feelings about this issue. However, I think this is an important measure, and the evidence from Australia – where similar measures have already been put in place – has shown that this will reduce levels of smoking and save lives.

Smoking remains one of our most significant public health challenges. It is a major cause of cancer, heart and respiratory disease and almost 80,000 people in England alone die every year from ill health caused by smoking. It places an enormous strain on the NHS.

That is why I believe that the policy is a proportionate and justified response to the considerable public health harm from smoking tobacco.

Thank you again for contacting me on this issue.

The weird thing is this: on March 11 the MP concerned voted against plain packaging!!

And that's not all. A few days before the vote I emailed another MP:

I know you have previously voted in favour of plain packaging but ahead of a possible vote on the issue this week I attach some information that may be of interest to you.

This was his reply:

I must say that I cannot remember why [I voted in favour of plain packaging]. At present I'm minded to vote against it, on the grounds that it makes counterfeiting easier. Isn't that the best argument against it?

I'm pleased to say the MP concerned did vote against plain packaging on March 11 but it's odd he "can't remember why" he previously voted in favour.

Meanwhile my own MP votes against but, two weeks later, says the measure is a "proportionate and justified response to the considerable public health harm from smoking tobacco".

Politicians, what are they like?