From the archive: Clive Turner's big breakfast

Over the Easter weekend I'm posting a series of articles that were first published in the Forest magazine Free Choice.

The following piece was written by Clive Turner, former director of public affairs at the Tobacco Manufacturers Association (TMA).

In my previous post I mentioned the charming Charles MacLean. Well, Clive took charm to an even higher level!

For many years he was the principal spokesman for the tobacco industry. I often saw him on television or listened to him on radio and I admired how calm he was, whatever the provocation.

He retired a few years before I began working for Forest but we had met a decade earlier – when I was director of the Media Monitoring Unit – and we kept in touch. (He was as surprised as anyone, though, when I took the job at Forest!)

In my second year I invited him to our 'Eleven Deadly Sins' No Smoking Day breakfast at Simpsons-in-the-Strand and asked him to write about it. This is what he wrote:

BIG BREAKFAST

For 18 years Britain's No Smoking Day has been a feature of the anti tobacco calendar. It normally falls early in March to coincide with, or slightly preface, the Budget. This is no coincidence, of course, although for some years the point was blunted when a former Chancellor of the Exchequer moved Budget Day to later in the year.

Originally conceived by health activists anxious to give moment to the annual rises in tobacco taxation and aimed to hit smokers at a time when yet again they are about to be clobbered by a rapacious Treasury, there was an obvious objective of reminding smokers that here was a great opportunity to give up.

But in latter years there has been a rather stealthy association with the very commercial manufacturers of nicotine withdrawal products – patches and such like, sold to people who believe such methods will assist a quit programme.

It has always been the tobacco industry's contention that if the government wishes to support a quit programme then it's not up to the industry to intervene. For that reason individual companies were seldom heard criticising or rising to the bait of countering ASH statements or proclamations.

It was principally ASH who masterminded No Smoking Day, although there's been a long list of health bodies associating themselves with the endeavour. And it's always been true that most of the money to run the day was taxpayer funded.

Yes, there have been years when the industry spoke out against outrageous campaign statements, like the ASH claim that 50,000 smokers had given up on No Smoking Day – an obvious arbitrary figure drawn from the imagination of those fevered people who work so hard to convince us all that there really is no such thing as a happy smoker.

How does a figure like that get verified? Do ASH make thousands of telephone calls to gather such information? Of course not. They just make it up!

However, there have never been any restraints on Forest in terms of speaking out to counter the more ludicrous claims and to represent those who simply hate No Smoking Day on principle. And that includes hordes of non-smokers too, very large numbers of whom feel distinctly uncomfortable at the nanny state mentality and the persuasive coercion inherent in such an expensively mounted campaign.

In 1999 Forest marked No Smoking Day by spending it in Paris, widely recognised as the European capital of smoking. In January 2000 the organisation celebrated the new century by organising a party for 300 smokers at London's Little Havana, Cigar Bar of the Year.

"The Big Smoke was a great success," said director Simon Clark, "for the simple reason that people who smoke or drink and like to listen to Cuban music, for example, seem to be a lot more fun to be with than people who don't." That's a slightly naughty generalisation, of course, but maybe there's something in it.

For this year's No Smoking Day Simon and his team decided to invite some friends, journalists and parliamentarians to a champagne breakfast at one of London's best known eateries, Simpson's-in-the-Strand.

"Under this government," said Simon, "every day seems to be no smoking day. Drink and diet will be next, so come and join us and enjoy a morning of unalloyed pleasure indulging in an Eleven Deadly Sins Champagne Breakfast."

On the menu was Cumberland sausage, honeydew bacon, black pudding, devilled kidneys, friend bread, eggs, hash browns, grilled tomato, grilled mushrooms, baked beans – and tobacco.

Forest chairman Lord Harris of High Cross urged people to put two fingers up to to intolerance and, as your correspondent discovered, the party was both hugely enjoyable and a small blow against the unremitting necessity the state seems to have to monitor and regulate individual enjoyment and pleasure.

It was only a gesture but, in its way, the party spoke volumes because there is a growing, welcome, and faintly rebellious movement towards kicking against the zealotry of over regulation, the 'Big Brother' syndrome, and 'control freakery', all so sadly evident at present.

There's no doubt that after 18 years the public is bored by the harassment and social engineering that No Smoking Day represents. Maybe a few smokers are encouraged to give up or cut back, and good luck to them, but the vast majority simply ignore the day because they are either not ready to give up or (shock, horror) they may actually enjoy smoking and have no intention of playing the government's game.

Forest's aims are not about encouraging people to start smoking – or to give it up. It stands full square for the right to smoke, but also for the right of people not to smoke. Tolerance from and among both camps is the call from Forest.

It believes the progressive way ahead is to expend money, skill, intelligence and common sense, all with the objective of accommodating the disparate needs of smokers and non-smokers alike, so that neither is at loggerheads.

Forest sees no need for calls to outlaw a perfectly legal social activity and one which across the world raises astounding sums on tobacco taxes for the common good.

Next: Great Scot, interview with former Forest spokesman Brian Monteith.

From the archive: Charles MacLean

I was rummaging through some old files yesterday when I found this.

It's an edition of Free Choice which began life as a Forest newsletter before it was upgraded to a 28-page magazine.

The cover features "bon viveur" Charles MacLean who succeeded Brian Monteith as Forest's spokesman in Scotland.

In a regular feature called 'What's Your Vice?' Charles responded as follows to a series of questions. For example:

Hello, what's your vice?
Scotch whisky

How serious is it?
Some of my friends say, rather enviously, that I drink whisky for a living.

How old were you when you first indulged?
I started at 17 but I didn't enjoy it until I was 25. Whisky is an acquired taste and you have to choose to acquire it, but once you have there are few drinks that give greater satisfaction.

How often do you drink?
Daily, and not only whisky. I also enjoy wine, beer and other spirits. I try hard to have at least one good old-fashioned lunch a week, the kind of lunch that leads to a lost afternoon.

Why do you drink?
Intellectual stimulation. Apart from a glass of sherry at lunch or two or three drams to unwind in the early evening, I rarely drink alone. Alcohol stimulates conversation. That's the joy of it. Just getting pissed is depressing.

Does drinking interfere with your work?
I can't afford to allow it to, but there is a long and honourable connection between drinking and writing and for me the two are entwined.

Have you ever tried to stop?
I tried to stop drinking for Lent once but I cracked after four days.

Best accompaniment to whisky?
Stimulating conversation, entertaining companions, and tobacco. I can't possibly enjoy a drink without a smoke. Tobacco is crucial to my enjoyment.

Has drinking ever got you into trouble?
Continually, especially with Mrs MacLean, but I've never woken up in the cells.

Your vision of Utopia?
Sitting on a yacht off the west coast of Scotland with three good friends, a full bottle of whisky and a fresh packet of cigarettes.

The same issue of Free Choice also features an interview with Brian Monteith who I described as a "smoker-friendly member of the Scottish Parliament".

Over the weekend I'll post that interview plus one or two other articles. Unfortunately most back copies disappeared when we moved office several years ago which is a pity because, according to the promotional blurb:

We've got smoker-friendly advice, comment and information, articles by Auberon Waugh and Edward Enfield and interviews with Kenneth Clarke, Laurence Marks and Antony Worrall Thompson; plus details of Forest events including our Annual Debate and the Summer Boat Party.

As for Charlie MacLean, you couldn't meet a more charming man. Today he is universally acknowledged as one of the world's leading authorities on Scotch whisky.

A few years ago he even appeared in a Ken Loach film, The Angels’ Share, playing himself. See Whisky expert turned movie star on the sweet smell of success (Daily Record).

Personally, I'll always remember sharing a room with him above a pub in Glasgow's Merchant City prior to the launch of a Forest campaign.

The following morning we launched the campaign with a smoker-friendly fry-up in that same pub. We invited some guests and it was featured as a live outside broadcast on BBC Radio Scotland.

We then drove to Edinburgh where we hosted a drinks reception for MSPs and journalists (in the appropriately named Oxygen Bar), and the day ended with me dashing back to Glasgow for an appearance on Newsnight Scotland.

It was possibly the most successful campaign launch Forest has ever done and I'll always remember Charles' calmness and grace under fire!

The hypocrisy of Labour MPs

Breathtaking hypocrisy from Labour MPs following yesterday's announcement that Imperial Tobacco is to close its Nottingham factory.

Chris Leslie, MP for Nottingham East, tweeted:

I hope Imperial Tobacco will work with DWP to redeploy the many affected Nottingham workers who are losing their jobs & need new employment.

Lilian Greenwood, MP for Nottingham South, went one better:

Thanks @UKLabour colleagues inc @Vernon_CoakerMP @Nik_McD & @GrahamAllenMP working together to support Imperial Tobacco workers. #onyourside

"On your side"?!!!!!

It was thanks to legislation introduced by the last Labour government that 500+ workers have now lost their jobs.

In case Greenwood, Leslie et al have forgotten, laws included a ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship, a ban on smoking in all indoor workplaces, a ban on tobacco vending machines and a ban on the display of tobacco in shops.

Today they have the cheek to shed crocodile tears for tobacco industry workers, many of whom may have written to them asking them to oppose those measures in case they cost them their jobs.

The packaging industry has made no secret of the fact that plain packaging could result in more jobs being lost.

Labour supports plain packaging so if plain packs are introduced and packaging companies subsequently announce the loss of jobs, can we expect similar tweets along the lines of:

I hope x will work with DWP to redeploy the many affected workers who are losing their jobs & need new employment.

Thanks @UKLabour colleagues working together to support packaging workers. #onyourside

I think I'm going to be sick.

PS. Via Breitbart.com here's my full response to the closure of the Nottingham factory:

Simon Clark, director of the smokers' group Forest, said, "It's not pro-smoking to mourn the loss of jobs. The reality is however that the closure of Imperial's Nottingham factory will have no impact on consumers.

"What's worrying is that it follows a decade in which successive governments have introduced increasingly draconian policies designed to force adult consumers to quit smoking.

"Instead of focussing on education, government has prohibited tobacco advertising, banned smoking in public places, outlawed cigarette vending machines and banned the display of tobacco in shops. Now ministers want to introduce standardised packaging.

"How many more people are going to pay for the war on tobacco with their jobs? The smoking ban alone led to a huge number of jobs being lost as thousands of pubs closed as a direct result of the ban.

"Sadly, when campaigners are demanding further action on smoking, they don't take the loss of jobs and the impact on workers' families into account."

Via the Nottingham Post, here's an interesting article about the history of Imperial in Nottingham. Worth reading.

Vaping and tobacco trends 2014

The number of people using electronic cigarettes has tripled from 700,000 to 2.1 million in the past three years.

According to yesterday's Sunday Times, 'Ecigarettes full of puff as user numbers triple to 2.1m'.

I'm curious to know more about the ASH/YouGov survey mentioned but it's clear the ecig market is growing fast.

It's clear too the majority of ecig users continue to smoke. This suggests to me that vapers and advocates of ecigs who have turned their backs on tobacco and are downright hostile to smoking are in the minority and must not be allowed to set the agenda because it will only play into the hands of the tobacco control industry.

Another sign of the times is the fact that the Morning Advertiser's annual 'Tobacco Trends' has become 'Vaping and Tobacco Trends'. It includes comments by Forest on e-cigarettes and tobacco regulation in general.

To read it go to the Morning Advertiser website and click on the current digital edition. Or click here and go to page 32.

Here's our Vaping and Tobacco Trends submission in full:

Impact of the Localism Act
Since the introduction of the Localism Act, whose aim was "to devolve more decision making powers from central government back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils", a number of councils have introduced policies that are designed to outlaw smoking in and around play areas and other places where children might be present.

We are concerned that in the name of public health and child protection some councils may use the Localism Act to extend the smoking ban to outdoor areas including beer gardens and existing smoking areas. This is happening in other countries, notably English-speaking nations such as Canada, Australia and parts of the United States where it is becoming harder to light up outside.

The hospitality industry needs to be conscious of this threat because for some anti-smoking campaigners a ban on smoking outside pubs is the next logical step. We can argue on the figures but the smoking ban did an enormous amount of damage to the pub industry. The British Beer and Pub Association may be reluctant to admit it, but the legislation was a significant factor in the closure of thousands of pubs after 2007.

Extending the smoking ban to outdoor areas could have a similar impact on publicans who have spent a considerable amount of money creating comfortable outdoor areas for the many customers who continue to smoke.

Electronic cigarettes
Vaping is increasingly popular among smokers, some of whom are using e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid while others view them as a useful alternative to tobacco in places where they are not allowed to smoke.

Some anti-smoking campaigners want the use of e-cigarettes banned in pubs and bars. With no evidence to support their argument, they claim that e-cigarettes are a gateway to smoking.

Proprietors must be allowed to decide their own policy on e-cigarettes. If they choose to ban e-cigs that's their right but we believe they would be misguided to do so.

Some pubs have banned e-cigarettes on the grounds that they "look like cigarettes". That's like saying water should be banned because it looks like vodka.

E-cigarettes are still in their infancy but as more people use them more people will get used to them and see them for what they are. A simple sign above the bar – 'Vaping allowed here' – will make it clear to customers that people are vaping not smoking.

Smokers know that by lighting up in a bar they put the owner at risk of a fine or worse. That's why the smoking ban was self-regulated. There is no evidence to suggest that people will start smoking in pubs if someone is vaping.

Instead of joining the chorus of disapproval for e-cigarettes, publicans should support their use and defend their freedom to choose a policy that best suits the interests of their staff and customers.

E-cigarettes are an opportunity not a threat. By embracing the use of e-cigarettes publicans have the chance to bring many smokers back in from the cold. That is a business opportunity that should not be wasted.

Smoking shelters
Despite the rise of e-cigarettes, smokers still outnumber vapers by a substantial margin and many vapers are dual use consumers who continue to smoke and don't want to quit.

There are many examples of proprietors spending money on comfortable outdoor smoking shelters and we hope this trend will continue. A well designed smoking area with heating, tables, chairs, even a sofa or two, and an awning is a major attraction not just for smokers but also for their partners and friends.

It may not be politically correct to say so but for a great many people smoking and drinking still go together. In the words of internationally famous artist David Hockney "pubs aren't health clubs" and publicans would be foolish to forget that. A good pub should be an oasis from the stresses of modern life and landlords owe it to their customers not to side with the hectoring public health lobby in areas such as food, drink and tobacco.

For many of us pubs are places where adults go to relax and unwind. The shrill voice of the puritanical health brigade has no place in Britain's pubs and bars but the industry has to take a stand and say so, without equivocation. If they do that they can be assured of a huge amount of goodwill and support from ordinary people, smokers and non-smokers alike.

United, Rangers and me

Call me a masochist but I'm back in Scotland for the second time in a week.

Dundee United are playing Rangers at lunchtime today in the semi-finals of the Scottish Cup and it's a game I couldn't miss, especially after our 5-0 win against Inverness in the last round, which I also went to.

Semi-finals are supposed to be on neutral territory but this one's at Ibrox, home of, er, Rangers. Apparently they've been given the home dressing room too.

Bizarrely, United-Rangers has become a bit of a grudge match. Not sure why. Something to do with United not being sufficiently supportive of Rangers when the latter went into administration and were demoted to the fourth tier of Scottish football in 2012.

There was also the time, a few years ago, when a game at Tannadice had to be abandoned and United had the temerity to charge Rangers fans the full price to attend the rearranged match. (Unlike Rangers, United try to operate within their means and a rearranged match incurs the same costs as the original game. They're not a charity but Rangers supporters took offence.)

Anyway, when the two teams were drawn against each other in the Scottish Cup last year Rangers fans boycotted the game. The idea was to 'hurt' United by reducing the size of the crowd and therefore the gate receipts. In response United organised a 'Beat the Boycott' initiative and thousands who might not have gone to the game, including me, made a special effort to be there.

United won 3-0 with the first goal being scored after 15 seconds. Something similar would help settle the nerves today because I don't feel that confident! Regardless of Rangers' current plight, history is not on United's side. Rangers have won the Scottish Cup 33 times, United have won it twice. (The good news is, I was there on both occasions.)

The first time I watched United was in August 1969. Rangers were the opponents then too. It was a capacity crowd – 22,000 in those days – and my father and I stood in the family enclosure, standing room only.

The enclosure was below the level of the pitch so my ten-year-old head was at ground level. There were adults all around me so I saw very little of the game – which ended 0-0 – but I loved the atmosphere.

After that I became a regular. Most of the time I went on my own, travelling to Dundee by bus, then walking the final mile to the ground from the bus station in the city centre.

Dundee, United's local rivals, were still perceived to be the bigger and more successful of the two Dundee clubs so friends were more likely to support them. In truth, most supported Celtic or Rangers which is one of the problems with Scottish football. Provincial clubs don't get enough support from people in their own area.

I never went back to the family enclosure. My favourite spot was high up on the uncovered north terrace. To my mind you got the best view of the game from there. By modern standards it broke every health and safety rule in the book but I loved it. Later they lopped a bit off the top, reducing the height and making it less steep, and added a roof. Finally the whole thing was replaced by a colourful but rather characterless all-seater stand.

In those days there was no segregation of opposing fans either. Home supporters would stand behind one goal, with visiting supporters behind the other. At half time they would swap ends, rubbing shoulders as they did so.

An average crowd at Tannadice in the early Seventies was 10,000. And that's before the club had any success. Today it's half that.

After I went to university the number of games I could go to fell dramatically but I went to the big games whenever I could.

In 1978 my parents moved to Cumbria. I'd passed my driving test but I had very little experience on the road. Nevertheless I was allowed to drive my mother's Triumph Vitesse from Kendal to Glasgow for a Scottish Cup semi-final at Hampden - against, you guessed, Rangers.

The journey took a lot longer than it does today because the current M74 didn't exist. For long stretches north of Carlisle it was a normal A-road, upgraded here and there to a dual carriageway. Instead of motorway services there was the occasional petrol station.

The match itself was disappointing - United lost 2-0 - but after that they got the hang of semi-finals. With two notable exceptions (in 1979 and 1980 United won the Scottish League Cup, albeit not at Hampden), it was the final itself that proved troublesome.

During the Eighties, when I was living in London, I found myself returning to Scotland at regular intervals to watch United lose a succession of cup finals against both Celtic and Rangers. The most frustrating occasion was the 1981 League Cup final. For 80 minutes United played Rangers off the park but lost two late goals and the match, 2-1.

Thankfully I was there in 1994 when we overcame our long-running Hampden hoodoo. After six Scottish Cup final defeats, United finally lifted the trophy with a 1-0 win against the overwhelming favourites - Rangers. Ironically, the team that won the Cup that year was a pale shadow of the teams that did so well at home and in Europe throughout the Eighties.

Today, despite Rangers' home advantage, most people expect United to win. I'm not so sure. I have a sense of foreboding which isn't helped by the weather (it's wet and miserable) and the fact that the last time I saw United play Rangers at Ibrox we lost 7-1.

That was four years ago. Today's kick off is 12.45. Don't let me down, boys.

PS. A friend did once come to Tannadice with me. Bill was a Rangers supporter and came to watch a United-Rangers match in, I think, 1975.

He lives in Ireland now and we see each other two or three times a year. Sometimes he reminds me of that day and why he has never gone to a match with me again.

Apparently my constant shouting - and the torrent of abuse I hurled at the referee and opposing fans - made him feel "unsafe".

That's not how I remember it but it's true that one team brings out the worst in me. I call it The Rangers Factor. I promise I'll be on my best behaviour today.

Jail sentence for flicking fag end at neighbour

A man has been given a suspended jail sentence for flicking a cigarette butt at a neighbour's head.

According to the Cork Evening Echo, Anthony Lacey was also fined €300 for threatening to wreck the neighbour's car.

I don't condone Lacey's behaviour – he sounds like a lout – but a four month jail sentence (suspended or otherwise) for flicking a fag end at someone?!

It's hardly GBH, is it?

On the other hand, if someone scratched my car I'd want to string them up.

Threatening to do so is just as bad.

A €300 fine? He got off lightly!

The village in Wales that wants to be "smoke free"

Have you noticed? The definition of "public place" has changed.

When the smoking ban was introduced it was understood to mean an enclosed public place.

Today the BBC reports that a village in Wales has launched a campaign "to stop smoking in public places" - by which they mean outdoor public places.

Llanfairpwll campaign to stop smoking in public places (BBC News)

Update: BBC Wales invited Forest to comment. Here's our full response:

"This is not about public health, it's about control.

"What gives local councils the right to nag and harass people when they are not breaking the law but merely smoking outside?

"The smoking ban was introduced, allegedly, to protect the health of bar workers. There is no evidence that smoking outside is harmful to anyone.

"Tobacco is a legal product. Smokers must be allowed to light up somewhere.

"If the council doesn't want children to see adults smoke it should lobby parliament to amend the smoking ban to permit smoking rooms in pubs, clubs and casinos."

Update: Tobacco control campaigners are tweeting that Llanfairpwll is now "officially" smoke free which is quite different to being smoke free.

Is this another example of Orwellian Newspeak?

PS. I'm discussing this on LBC at 6.20, if anyone's interested.

Exclusive: forced to flee as smokers gather outside hotel room

I spent a rather wet weekend in Scotland.

It included an afternoon in Largs where we took refuge in Nardini's, "Scotland's most famous café, restaurant and ice cream parlour".

The feuding Nardini family hasn't run the business for over a decade (see Frozen out) and their absence hangs like a cloud over this historic institution.

The cafe overlooking the sea may have had a multi-million pound refurbishment but it lacks the family touch that made Nardini's such an attraction for families with young children.

I wasn't complaining. We were glad just to shelter from the rain with a cappuccino and an ice cream sundae.

On Friday evening we booked in to a hotel in Eaglesham, a conservation village just south of Glasgow.

My wife grew up in a neighbouring village and we got married, 22 years ago, in St Bridget's, a tiny Catholic church overlooking the famous Eaglesham Orry, a long A-shaped green that dominates the centre of the village.

After the service we walked the 20-30 guests across the Orry to a small tea room, and after that an even smaller group (a dozen or so) embarked on a five-hour drive to Skye where we spent a long weekend at this hotel before driving all the way to Gatwick.

Naturally I had forgotten that the night before the wedding I had stayed in the same Eaglesham hotel with a number of friends, but there are quite a lot of things about my wedding I don't remember!

Anyway, on Friday we found ourselves in a room directly above the main entrance while a party took place in the private function room.

Every few minutes two or three people would slope outside for a smoke and although they weren't rowdy we could hear every word.

I soon drifted off but I'm told it was gone 2.00am before the final guest had puffed his last cigarette and retired for the night.

On Saturday we were transferred to a room at the back of the hotel – where we enjoyed an undisturbed's night sleep – but the shocking truth remains:

Director of world's oldest smokers' rights group forced to flee as noisy smokers gather outside hotel room.

You couldn't make it up.