From the archive: Smokers’ Corner

I'm driving to Glasgow today so I'll leave you with this.

In my previous post about the late James Leavey I mentioned a short film he featured in.

‘Smokers’ Corner’ was produced and directed by Sharon Peng, a student at Bournemouth University, in 2001.

It’s such a long time ago I can’t remember every detail but, as I recall, Sharon contacted Forest and said she was making a film about smokers and could we help.

The ‘help’ she was looking for was mostly contacts - people she could interview - so we put her in touch with several smokers and invited her to attend a party we were organising at Antony Worrall Thompson’s restaurant in Notting Hill (the appropriately named Notting Grill).

To be honest, given her extremely small budget and the fact that it was a student production, my expectations were fairly low.

Nevertheless, she came with her camera to Notting Grill (to interview AWT) and when a VHS tape arrived a few months later with a 24-minute film called ‘Smokers’ Corner’, I was keen to see what she had produced – and it was really good.

Sharon had interviewed smokers young and old, including James Leavey, AWT, and Forest researcher Judith Hatton who was by then well into her eighties, and still happily smoking.

The smoker-friendly film featured several other Forest supporters plus what I assumed were fellow students at Bournemouth.

The most prominent interviewee, however, was totally unexpected and nothing at all to do with Forest.

Somehow, Sharon had managed to persuade The Libertines’ Pete Doherty to take part, and his contributions were (and still are) absolutely priceless - charming, amusing, pretentious, and often all three at once!

(It should be noted that the film was shot before The Libertines enjoyed any great success. That happened in 2002. As for Doherty's relationship with Kate Moss, which featured on the front pages and propelled him to another level, media wise, that didn't begin until 2005 and lasted until 2007.)

I think I still have the tape in a box somewhere. I haven’t seen it for over 20 years, though, and as I no longer have a VHS player I couldn’t watch it even if I wanted to.

I’ve often thought about it, though, occasionally doubting that it really was Pete Doherty in the film. Did I imagine it?

Well, at the weekend I found the film online, on James Leavey’s YouTube channel. (I was searching for some information about James, for my previous post, and ended up going down a series of rabbit holes. This was one of them.)

It’s low resolution, sadly, so the picture isn’t great, but it’s only 24 minutes so I urge you to overlook the technical deficiencies and enjoy it as it is.

At the end Forest and I even get a credit, which I'm rather chuffed about.

The film is bittersweet because several participants are no longer alive, and in the intervening years Pete Doherty has had his demons but, watching this, you can't help but like him.

So if you have a spare moment do watch it.

As for Sharon Peng, I've no idea what she's doing today, but I hope she's enjoying whatever path her studies, and her film, took her. She clearly had a talent for film production and direction.

I do wonder, though, whether today’s students would be allowed to make a similar film, or would the concept be rejected as too 'pro-smoking'?

To view it click here or in the image below.

James Leavey, cigar aficionado and son of a German U-boat captain, RIP

I was very sorry to read that James Leavey had died, aged 75.

The name may be unfamiliar to many of you but in the Nineties James was commissioned by my predecessor Marjorie Nicholson to write two consumer-friendly guides for smokers.

The Forest Guide to Smoking in London, published in 1997, was followed a year later by the Forest Guide to Smoking in Scotland.

Featuring photographs by Jan Olofsson (‘Sweden’s first rock and roll star’), they attracted quite a lot of interest. The London guide featured a foreword by Auberon Waugh and a ‘Last Word’ by Jeffrey Bernard, The Spectator’s Low Life correspondent.

I remember the launch of the Scotland guide because I was living in Edinburgh at the time and sharing an office in Leith with Brian Monteith, who was then Forest’s spokesman in Scotland.

James was interviewed on Scottish television in a clip that has Brian’s fingerprints all over it because it was filmed by the water in Leith, a short walk from our office. (A low-res video clip has survived and can be viewed on YouTube here.)

James was a keen cigar smoker who wrote for a number of magazines including Cigar Journal and World Tobacco.

He edited JJ Fox's occasional cigar newsletter, The Humidor, and The Harrods Pocket Guide to Fine Cigars, and for three years, before the magazine ceased publication in 2002, he also wrote a column, ‘Sharing an Ashtray’, for Punch that featured conversations with celebrity smokers.

After I joined Forest in 1999 I would bump into him at Forest events.

The first time, I think, was at a party at a restaurant owned by TV chef Antony Worrall Thomson in Notting Hill. Another occasion was an event at Little Havana, a Cuban-inspired bar off Leicester Square.

In December 2007 James claimed to have been the first person to smoke a cigar on Cunard's new ship, the Queen Victoria, and he even sent me a photograph to prove it!

Also on board was a certain Jimmy Savile but, according to James, ‘he kept his cigar in his sock, half smoked’.

Two years later James was a guest speaker at a party to mark Forest’s 30th anniversary. (The event, at Boisdale of Belgravia, also celebrated the publication of Chris Snowdon’s first book, Velvet Glove Iron Fist: A History of Anti-Smoking.)

Occasionally, and sometimes at the recommendation of Forest, James would be invited to discuss or defend smoking on television and radio.

In 2006 he appeared on the BBC Horizon programme, ‘We Love Cigarettes’. In 2012 he was interviewed for another documentary, ‘Timeshift: The Smoking Years’, on BBC4.

In 2001 he also appeared in a wonderful film, Smokers’ Corner, produced and directed by Sharon Peng, a student at Bournemouth University, that featured contributions from several Forest supporters plus a young and hugely charismatic Pete Doherty. (More on that in another post.)

In 2015 James was presented with the The Snow Queen Cigar Writer of the Year award.

Born on December 9, 1947, he died on June 24 but I only found out on Friday when I read his obituary in the Telegraph.

It followed an earlier obituary, published by the Guardian last weekend, which I’m sorry to say I missed.

The Guardian obit was written by his daughter who revealed that her father ‘was born in Beckenham, Kent, to Mary Leavy and Werner Pfeifer, a German U-boat captain and ex-prisoner of war’.

Who knew?!

For Forest supporters of a certain age, however, James will be best remembered for having fought what the Telegraph says was:

a valiant but ultimately unsuccessful campaign against “born-again puritans trying to drive forward a nanny state” by editing quirkily humorous travel guides for smokers.

Former MSP and MEP Brian Monteith writes:

James Leavey was great fun. The fact that I cannot remember a great deal about the book launch, except that his sidekick Jan Olofsson brought a particularly enchanting Cuban lady who gyrated at every opportunity, and many cigars were smoked, suggests much alcohol was involved.

The book created a flurry of interest – simply because someone dared to publicise smoking as an enjoyable pastime to be savoured and celebrated. Sadly, it was one of the last hurrahs of fighting the public health puritans in Scotland and typically needed an outsider to tell the clannish Scottish blob they were going down the wrong path.

Within eight years we had the UK's first smoking ban in all public places and the book became an overnight relic of the past.

See also: James Leavey, writer, actor and cigar devotee who wrote smokers’ guides to tobacco-friendly places – obituary (Telegraph), and James Leavey obituary (Guardian).

Above: James Leavey speaking at a party to mark Forest’s 30th anniversary in 2009; below, James and yours truly at the same event

Deflating experience

I had a deflating experience this week.

On the return journey from Wembley (see previous post) a warning light told me the pressure in my rear nearside tyre was low.

Within a few miles I realised I had a slow puncture, although the tyre was actually deflating quite quickly.

Anyway, I managed to nurse the car home - stopping three times to inflate the tyre, which I saw had a large screw embedded in it - whereupon I drove it straight to the small, independent tyre and exhaust centre I have used many times to repair punctures or purchase new tyres.

I’m not such a frequent customer that I expect to be recognised instantly. Nevertheless it’s a small business and the owner is the person I usually speak to and he’s always been fairly helpful.

Well, I arrived at 4.30pm, 30 minutes before the unit was due to close for the day. The owner (I’ll call him Frank) was standing outside with two or three employees. They were chatting and the entrance to the service area was open.

I’m in luck, I thought.

By now the tyre was seriously deflated so I asked Frank if they could fix it temporarily and I would order a new tyre to be fitted the following day.

I paraphrase but Frank’s response was essentially, “No. We weren’t expecting any more customers today so we’ve turned the compressor off.”

Now I know from previous experience (having had an identical puncture last year en route to Chester) that a temporary repair takes about 15-20 minutes, but Frank was adamant.

They couldn’t, or wouldn’t, fix my tyre. Instead, he suggested I go to a rival tyre service, part of a national chain, further down the road.

So that’s what I did. Unfortunately it was busier there and other customers were ahead of me so I had to book an appointment for the following day (Thursday).

They did at least inflate the tyre so I could drive home, but I knew what would happen. Under the weight of the car, the tyre would deflate again, which is exactly what happened.

I woke up on Thursday morning to find the tyre completely flat, leaving me with the problem of inflating it so I could drive it back to the tyre shop, five miles away.

Long story short, my neighbour saw my flat tyre and offered me his tyre inflator. That got me back to the tyre shop where they repaired the tyre and replaced two other tyres that were said to be worn or damaged.

Total cost: £624.73.

As for the small independent tyre company that declined to help, I will never go back. They clearly don’t want the work so I’ll take my business elsewhere in future.

My only regret is that I didn’t say this at the time. Instead, being British, I thanked them and went on my way.

B*stards.

Wembley revisited

As a child, my mother grew up within a mile of Wembley Stadium.

She was born in 1930, seven years after the original stadium (then called the Empire Stadium) was built on acres of green fields. (There is a fabulous picture, taken in 1922 before construction began, that shows just how rural the area was.)

There must have been a huge building programme between the wars because the entire area is now densely populated with houses that were clearly designed and built in the Twenties and Thirties, with not a Victorian or Edwardian property in sight.

I mention this because I had to go to Wembley on Wednesday for a meeting with Forest’s accountants who are based on an industrial estate which is even closer to the stadium, but on the other side.

For decades they were based at York House, a typical Sixties office block that directly overlooked the stadium.

From their eleventh floor office I saw the old stadium being demolished, and then watched as the new stadium, with its enormous arch, gradually took shape until it was finally completed.

The new stadium opened in 2007 (I took this photo the following year) and ten years ago a small, semi-outdoor shopping centre, the London Design Outlet (LDO), was built adjacent to York House and the stadium.

Blocks of modern executive flats, many with feature balconies, have since been built around the stadium and along Wembley Way, the wide pedestrian boulevard that connects Wembley Stadium with the railway station of the same name.

In the last few years York House (renamed Dandi Wembley) has been converted from an office block and is now described as a ‘new high-rise residential development’ with luxury and high end apartments, although I believe there is some work space on the top floors.

Meanwhile the only reminder of the ‘old’ Wembley complex is the grade 2 listed Wembley Arena, formerly the Empire Pool, a 12,000 seat venue that was built for the 1934 Empire Games and now hosts rock and pop concerts.

I’m impressed with the way they’ve transformed the area around the stadium. It’s arguably a bit soulless, but it’s nevertheless a huge improvement on what was there before.

Below: The Hive office building, completed in 2021, with the Wembley Stadium arch behind it.

The problem when a big match is on is access. I was one of those who thought the new national stadium should be built on a brand new site - off the M40, perhaps - so it would be far more accessible to people with cars.

Currently, the best way to get to Wembley Stadium is probably by train, using Chiltern Railway to get to the railway station. Alternatively, you can get to Wembley Park Underground station via the Metropolitan or Jubilee lines.

What I do know is that leaving the area either by road or rail immediately after a game can take ages thanks to the traffic and the crowds.

So in future, if I was to go to another match at Wembley Stadium, here’s what I’d do.

Assuming I knew the date of the match well in advance, I would immediately book a room in one of the hotels - Premier Inn or Holiday Inn - that are within the Wembley Park complex, minutes from the stadium.

(If you want to see England v Italy on Tuesday October 17, you can currently book one of the last remaining rooms at Premier Inn London Wembley Stadium for £181.50 non-refundable, or £199 flexible.)

If it’s an evening match I would arrive and check-in early, five or six hours before the game. Later, I would enjoy a stress free pre-match dinner, booked in advance if possible, at one of the restaurants in the London Design Outlet.

After the game I’d have a drink in one of the bars before retiring to my hotel.

The cost of parking in the Wembley Park car park is, I believe, £50 on match days (a huge increase on the normal price), but it’s arguably worth it for the convenience of driving to the stadium early and leaving the next morning after the crowds have gone home.

Cultural vandalism - the smoking ban decimated pubs in Britain & Ireland

I was interested but not surprised to read that:

Almost a quarter (22.5 per cent) of Ireland’s pubs – almost 2,000 in total – have called time forever since 2005, a report from the Drinks Industry Group of Ireland (DIGI) found.

See: Ireland’s pubs closing at faster rate than ever before in major blow to tourism (Telegraph)

Did anything happen that might, conceivably, have kick-started this startling drop in the number of pubs in Ireland?

Hmmm, let me think. Oh yes, in 2004 smoking was banned in every single pub and bar in the country.

Within months of the ban being introduced, the Vintners Federation of Ireland was claiming that many of its members had experienced a significant drop in sales since the introduction of the ban.

The VFI said small, rural, family-owned pubs and pubs in border counties had been hit particularly hard by the measure.

The VFI claimed daytime trade had dropped off considerably since the smoking ban came into force, with many customers staying in the pub for a shorter period of time.

That was in June 2004.

Two months later, in August 2004, I went to Ireland and visited several towns and cities (including Galway, Waterford, and Kilkenny) to see for myself what impact the ban was having on pubs and bars.

With my own eyes and by speaking to local people, including bar owners and staff, I discovered that some pubs that had previously been open at lunch were now closed until 5.00pm, when they would finally open their doors.

I was told that the elderly pipe-smoking beer drinkers who used to gather for a pint at lunch were staying away now they could no longer smoke indoors.

In 2010 a report commissioned by Forest for the Save Our Pubs & Clubs: Amend the Smoking Ban campaign noted that:

Using data from [Ireland’s] Revenue Commissioners, researchers found that the number of pub losses demonstrate a very close statistical relationship between the introduction of the smoking ban in 2004 and the rapid decline of the Irish pub ...

Analysis of statistics set out in the Statistical Report on the Revenue website showed that Ireland lost 1,097 pubs in the four years immediately following the ban.

Researchers found a striking similarity between the rate of closures in Ireland following the ban, and those in Scotland, England and Wales following theirs – despite considerable differences between the pub traditions.

See ‘Smoking gun: is the smoking ban a major cause of the decline of the pub in Britain and Ireland?’

Needless to say, although the DIGI report has analysed stats going back to 2005, the year after the smoking ban was introduced in Ireland, the report (The Irish Pub: Supporting our communities) doesn’t mention the ban at all.

Am I surprised? Of course not. Despite the evidence, it’s rare to find anyone who will admit that the ban contributed to the serious decline in the pub estates in both Britain and Ireland.

In March 2009, for example, I noted that:

New Labour's favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), has today published a report entitled Pubs and Places: the social value of community pubs.

Supported by the likes of CAMRA and Alcohol Concern, the report found that the main factors contributing to the rise in pub closures include:

* Competition from shops and supermarkets where alcohol is much cheaper, which has led to more people drinking at home
* The current recession which has reduced pub incomes
* Increases in tax on beer
* The prices that some pub tenants have to pay the large pub companies for their beer
* A fall in beer drinking and a growth in wine drinking
* Increased regulation which small community pubs find the hardest to deal with

Incredibly, just two years after the smoking ban had been introduced, it had been airbrushed out as a potential contributory factor in the sharp increase in closures.

Meanwhile, a Forest report published in 2017 to mark the tenth anniversary of the ban in England found that 20 per cent of the entire pub estate in England in 2006 (ie before the ban) had subsequently closed in the decade after the ban.

In total, there were 11,383 fewer pubs in England compared to 2006, a decline of 20.7 per cent since the smoking ban was introduced on July 1, 2007. (‘The Road to Ruin: The impact of the smoking ban on pubs and personal choice’.)

No-one, least of all Forest, denied there were other issues in play, but the smoking ban was clearly a significant factor too, and what infuriated us was the blatant attempt to sweep the impact of the ban under the carpet.

Make no mistake, the smoking ban was cultural vandalism. Introduced on the flimsy pretext that it would ‘save’ the lives of thousands of bar workers who had previously been ‘forced’ to breathe environmental tobacco smoke, the policy was a disaster for the pub industry.

I’m not suggesting we continue to fight old battles - it’s too late for that - but it’s not too late to fight attempts to ban smoking outside pubs and bars, whether that’s in beer gardens or new licensed pavement areas, before even more pubs are forced out of business.

But more on that next month.

Fair play, the better team won

Commiserations to England, but the better team won the Women’s World Cup final.

In my defence, having raised hopes of an England victory (see previous post), I did add this qualification:

They haven’t actually won the World Cup yet and Spain - who outplayed England for a large part of the Euro quarter final in Brighton last year - are extremely dangerous opponents.

Noting the country’s dominance at youth level in recent years, I also suggested that Spain ‘could prove me wrong’ and go on to win multiple tournaments, like the USA and Germany before them.

In the meantime it’s worth pointing out that the best women’s club side in Europe, by some distance, is currently Barcelona who have won the UEFA Women’s Champions League twice in the last three seasons, and were runners-up on the other occasion.

No English women’s team has won a European title since Arsenal in 2007, and only one has even reached a final. (In 2021 Chelsea lost 4-0 to Barcelona.)

I believe that around half the current Barcelona team represented Spain in the 2023 Women’s World Cup, with two (Lucy Bronze and Keira Walsh) playing for England.

That, I think, demonstrates the current difference between Spain and England, so before armchair ’experts’ start criticising Serina Wiegman’s side, consider the context and congratulate England on not only reaching the final of two major tournaments in successive years, but actually winning one of them.

Not a bad achievement, and as my Glasgow born and bred wife said of the World Cup in Australia, “Scotland didn’t even qualify.”

Not watching the Women’s World Cup final? What’s wrong with you?

Last year, on the morning of the UEFA Women's Euro final between England and Germany at Wembley, I wrote:

Football? It’s a woman’s world now

As most people know, England won that match and tomorrow they play Spain in the final of the FIFA Women’s World Cup in Australia.

Whatever the result, it’s an extraordinary achievement for England’s women to reach back-to-back finals, especially when you take into account the loss of five players from the Euro winning team to long-term injury or retirement.

Given the rapid development of the women’s game worldwide, it’s also a feat that will be very difficult to repeat, or improve upon, so enjoy the moment because it may never happen again.

Indeed, the days when two countries (the USA and Germany) were able to dominate the international women’s game, winning tournament after tournament at world or European level, are almost certainly over.

That said, given their dominance at youth level in recent years, it’s possible that Spain (England's opponents tomorrow) could prove me wrong.

What interests me though is the stubborn refusal of many football supporters (mostly men) to watch or follow the women's game, even the World Cup.

A Fulham season ticket holder (whose blog I enjoy reading) gave his reason in a recent post. Commenting on an argument he’d had with a friend, he wrote:

I mentioned how irritated I was by the way women’s football is being forced on us by our clubs and the media. There are pages of it in my daily paper, which I swipe by as quickly as articles about tennis.

My own club relentlessly promotes its women’s team, when the difference in attendances and ticket prices confirms that nothing has changed — except for yet another political drive to make us all pretend something is true that isn’t …

I know what he's saying but it still surprises me that, as a football supporter, he has no interest in the woman's game.

A reader shared his lack of enthusiasm but for a different reason:

When we watch many sports, we admire those players that have the power, pace and or skill to do things we (and other competitors) generally can’t. Women’s football at present is much slower, less skilful and lacks the power of the men’s game. This is true for most (all) women’s sports. As a consequence I find it so much less enjoyable to watch, so I don’t bother.

Fair enough, but had they watched the England-Australia game I think they would have been pleasantly surprised. I particularly enjoyed this comment on England’s performance that was posted on the ABC website:

Hovering around on the edge of fair play, pushing physicality to the legal limit, snatching seconds away from your opponent and taking your chances; it's what every fan wants their team to do.

Spot on. Furthermore, I defy any football supporter not to have been gripped, and entertained, by what they were watching.

For 60 minutes, in a stadium packed with almost 75,000 Australians, England were comfortably the better team and deservedly a goal up.

The goal, I should add, was an extremely well taken strike by Ella Toone whose chip over the German keeper in the Euro final, whilst running at pace, was one of the most glorious, and skilful, things I have seen on a football pitch ever, regardless of gender.

Until she scored against Australia, Toone had had a rather anonymous World Cup. She lost her place in the starting team during the group stage to Lauren James, England’s rising young star, who went on to score three goals, and assist in another three, before being sent off against Nigeria, a game England won on penalties.

The decisive penalty in that game was taken by Chloe Kelly whose shot was recorded – according to data from the official match ball and reported by the Guardian – as reaching 'a speed of 69mph, beating the most powerful strike of the 2022-23 Premier League campaign, by West Ham’s Saïd Benrahma, that clocked in at 66.6mph'.

That's the men's Premier League, by the way.

But I digress.

After James was suspended for two matches, Toone was brought back for the quarter final and semi final, but her strike against Australia, good as it was, wasn't even the best goal of the game.

That fell to Australia’s Sam Kerr, one of the top female strikers in the world (she plays for Chelsea) who missed the group stage because of a calf injury and didn’t start a match until the semi-final.

With England in control and dominating possession, Kerr received the ball inside her own half, in space, which allowed her to turn and run at her Chelsea teammate, the England captain Millie Bright, before shooting, and scoring, from 25 yards.

There are some, no doubt, who will say that an average male goalkeeper would have saved it, but that wouldn’t do justice to the shot, the execution, or the extraordinary theatre of the moment.

At that point many teams in England’s position would have collapsed, mentally. I’ve seen momentum change hundreds of times in football matches, sometimes due to cruel bad luck, but despite enduring a tough few minutes when Australia might have scored again, it was the home team who blinked, a defensive error leading to a second England goal, followed by a third a few minutes from time.

Regardless of gender, this was sport at its competitive best.

No-one is arguing that the men’s game isn’t quicker, more physical, or, at the top level, more skilful than the women’s game.

But that doesn’t make the women’s game, at World Cup level, any less enjoyable.

For example, when I watched Chelsea play Liverpool on the opening weekend of the Premier League last Sunday, the greater speed, athleticism and physicality of the men was immediately obvious compared to what I’d been watching in the Women's World Cup.

The first touch of the Premier League players was noticeably better too.

But did I enjoy the Premier League game more than the England-Australia match? No, I didn't. In competitive terms they were equally watchable.

And the drama was greater in the women's match because it was a World Cup semi-final with a capacity crowd of 75,000 compared to the 42,000 at Stamford Bridge.

What I also love are the frequently unguarded interviews given by England’s women players, a highlight of which was midfielder Georgia Stanway cheerfully telling the assembled press, “Sometimes you don't realise that your head coach is actually human.”

Serina Wiegman, England's Dutch coach, was sitting a few feet away with an amused smile on her face.

Sadly, I suspect that much of that unfettered joy, bordering on naivety, will be knocked out of future generations of female pros so, again, enjoy it while it lasts.

I agree that the women’s game can be over-hyped (by the BBC especially) but the same is true of just about every sport, regardless of gender.

The Premier League? The Six Nations? Wimbledon? Give me strength (no pun intended).

The growth of women’s football ought to interest anyone with a genuine passion for the game. And if the Women's World Cup final doesn’t, at the very least, pique your curiosity … well, I’d have to seriously question your commitment.

That said, spare me the johnny-come-latelies - including countless journalists - who have suddenly woken up to the women’s game and are boring everyone to tears with their thoughts on England’s progress.

This includes ‘advice’ on tactics and substitutions, conveniently ignoring the fact that, since Wiegman was appointed England’s head coach in 2021, the team has lost just once in 38 games, and tomorrow will be her fourth major final in succession, including two as coach of the Netherlands.

Yes, she really needs your help and ‘expertise’, lads. (And, yes, it’s usually men.)

Which brings me to the issue of pay. According to the Guardian (who else?), ‘Sarina Wiegman should be paid the same as Gareth Southgate for England job’.

Wiegman is said to earn £400,000 a year, less than a tenth of Gareth Southgate’s salary for managing the England men’s team.

If the USA (now looking for a new head coach) wants to double, triple or quadruple Wiegman’s salary, good luck to them, and good luck to her if she was to accept such an offer, although she says she’s happy in her current job.

The problem is, if the salary of the women’s head coach is increased to match that of her counterpart in the men's game, what about the players? Should they be paid the same as the men as well?

And here I come back to something the Chelsea midfielder Melanie Leupolz said in 2021:

“I don’t think equal pay is appropriate because you have to see what money men bring in and what women bring in.

“What justification do I have to earn millions when on the weekends I play in front of 3,000 people?

“Clubs are making losses for women’s teams. You have to invest now so that women’s football can support itself in a few years and bring in profits.”

Ultimately, this is a question of market forces. To justify equal pay, the women’s game has to generate the same revenue as the men’s game, whether that’s through sponsorship, ticket sales, and so on, and at present it’s a long way from doing that, especially at club level where the top teams are largely subsidised by the men’s teams.

I suspect however that quite soon the wages paid to the top women’s players in England will become more of an issue. It’s happened already in America and Canada where the players demanded equal pay with their male counterparts at international level.

In the US one of the arguments allegedly put forward was that the US Women National Team deserve equal pay because the USWNT has won more World Cups than the men.

But that’s hardly comparing like with like because for many years the competition in women’s football was pitiful compared to the men’s World Cup.

Four years ago in France, for example, the USA beat Thailand 13-0 in their opening game. Thankfully we’ve experienced nothing like that in Australia.

Anyway, following a long dispute, an equal pay deal was reached last year.

In Canada the women’s international team also demanded equal pay and threatened to strike until Canada Soccer agreed to meet their demands.

Coincidentally neither nation has done well in the 2023 Women's World Cup. The Canadians, having won gold at the Olympics in Japan in 2021, didn't even get out of the group stage in Australia, while the USWNT had their least successful World Cup ever.

How much of this was due to money-related tensions and arguments with their respective federations we’ll probably never know, but it can’t have helped.

Let’s hope this likeable England Women’s squad resist making similar demands. I know it’s a short career but the public will love them even more if they keep their feet on the ground.

That will bring its own reward and I can’t imagine them being short of commercial opportunities.

But that debate is for another day. They haven’t actually won the World Cup yet and Spain - who outplayed England for a large part of the Euro quarter final in Brighton last year - are extremely dangerous opponents.

If England overcome them again it will be one of the country’s greatest and most joyful sporting moments. I wouldn’t miss it for the world, and nor should you.

See also: Hate football? Look away now (2011), European Super League? Who cares, my love of football died years ago (2021)

Why I ❤️ GB News

I was on the GB News Breakfast Show yesterday.

It followed the announcement on Monday that the Department of Health and Social Care is proposing to add inserts to tobacco products that will feature information designed to encourage smokers to quit.

Having appeared on The Live Desk, the lunchtime news programme, the previous day, I was invited this time to go head-to-head with Hazel Cheeseman, deputy CEO of ASH, on the wider question, ‘Should the Government introduce stricter rules for smokers?’.

I had one or two problems on Monday with my internet connection, which seems to be a bit slow at the moment, so I offered to go the GB News studio in London instead of doing the interview on Zoom.

The producer said they would take a chance on the connection being OK, which at least saved me from a very early drive into London, and thankfully it seemed to be alright, although I think I may need a new wireless router.

Anyway, the ten-minute ‘debate’ went reasonably smoothly, with no technical issues, and despite Hazel having the inevitable dig at Forest’s funding there was none of the slightly unpleasant edge that has come to characterise interviews involving me and her boss, Deborah Arnott.

On Monday, for example, I was on the Five Live phone-in with Deborah and as soon as I was invited to speak she started to interrupt, despite the fact that I had listened to her in respectful (!) silence.

She then seemed to suggest that I had once ‘recommended’ that people should smoke, a claim I took strong exception to.

That said, I don’t mind Deborah’s barbs because they make her, and ASH, appear rather petty, so as far as I’m concerned she’s welcome to go on making them.

Hazel, on the other hand, comes across as a reasonable and fairly sunny individual. Time, perhaps, to give her the top job and we can all move on.

Anyway, I wanted to praise the GB News Breakfast Show presenters, Isobel Webster and Stephen Dixon, who gave us equal time and the debate was conducted extremely fairly, I thought, in a relaxed and non-confrontational manner.

It was a far cry from the more gladiatorial approach of ITV’s Good Morning Britain where guests are (or were) pitted against one another and encouraged to engage in what, in my experience, often became a loud and boorish argument.

To be fair, I haven’t been on GMB for some time, and since Piers Morgan left the programme I rarely watch it, so perhaps it’s changed, but after one or two uncomfortable experiences in the ‘debate’ slot (does it still exist?) I would take some persuading to return.

(Ironically, the only time I enjoyed being on GMB was when Piers was the interviewer because I found him to be very fair. Susanna Reid too, the yin to his yang.)

Anyway, despite its critics, GB News seems a happy ship, with a growing audience, and as an occasional interviewee I can honestly say I have never (touch wood) had a bad experience.

Guests are treated with respect and allowed to have their say without repeated interruption. That doesn’t mean we go unchallenged, far from it, but there is a refreshing willingness to debate issues in a way that doesn’t always happen on the BBC, for example.

Like all TV and radio stations there are views broadcast on GB News I don’t agree with at all - some might even be described as conspiracy theories - but if you support free speech that comes with the territory. Ultimately the viewer, or listener, can make up their own minds.

Sceptics should also note some of the recruits to GB News, most recently Christopher Hope, formerly chief political correspondent and associate editor at the Telegraph.

Or Nigel Nelson, ‘the longest-serving political editor and political news reporter in the United Kingdom’, formerly with the Sunday People for which he still writes a column, I think.

Then there’s Olivia Utley, a young (ish) Telegraph journalist, who evidently weighed up her options and decided that GB News was a better bet and arguably more fun.

I particularly like the fact that alongside more experienced anchors such as Webster and Dixon (formerly Sky News), Pip Tomson (a recent recruit from Good Morning Britain), and Eamonn Holmes, GB News has given opportunities to a number of young reporters and presenters.

The energy they bring is palpable, and some of the younger regional news reporters are excellent.

There are still issues, of course. For example, I understand it’s not always easy for producers to attract guests, hence the regular appearances of a relatively small cast of contributors, especially in the evenings and at weekends.

Nevertheless, after yesterday’s discussion on the Breakfast Show, I said to my wife, “I love GB News”. And for all its faults, none of which are insurmountable, or even unique, I meant it.

See also: GB News: ‘So refreshing!’ (July 2021) and The unbearable darkness of GB News (June 2021).

Below: With Hazel Cheeseman of ASH on the GB News Breakfast Show