Tuesday, February 8, 2011 at 7:12 There will be little if any blogging for the next two days.
I am currently at Stansted waiting for an early morning flight to Madrid.
Saw Roxy Music at the O2 in London last night. Had to leave early to catch a train home but enjoyed the evening.
Got three hours' sleep before I had to get up and drive to the airport. Definitely in need of some strong coffee ...
Monday, February 7, 2011 at 8:17 I was reminded this morning of the song Joe Jackson wrote in protest at the introduction of the smoking ban in New York City in 2003.
Joe moved to America in the Eighties and lived in New York for 20 years. On his website he explains that "The song was written to send up Mayor Bloomberg and the New York smoking ban, but also to help those fighting to get the ban repealed and to prevent similar bans elsewhere. All proceeds from CD sales and downloads will go to activist groups Forces, NYC Clash, and Forest".
Listening to it today it sounds as fresh and topical as it did seven years ago, but you be the judge:
In 20-0-3
a man drank a whisky
and a martini
or three, maybe four
He climbed in his car
and roared off at eighty
and that night he checked out
along with three more
So they cleared up the mess
but they didn't ban cars
and they didn't ban whisky or gin
[CHORUS]
So do what you want, or do what they tell you
It's the land of the free but don't take it too far
You can do what you want
You can smash up your car
But in 20-0-3 you can't smoke in a bar
In 20-0-3
a man ate a burger
and then ate another or two
Every day
at last he keeled over
but no-one could lift him
And there's millions just like him
and millions to pay
So they issued more warnings
but they didn't ban eating
and they don't ban potatoes or grease
[CHORUS]
So do what you want, or do what they tell you
It's the land of the free but don't take it too far
You can do what you want
You can live just on lard
But in 20-0-3 you can't smoke in a bar
In 20-0-3
a man joined the army
and soon he got shipped out
to fight in Iraq
He was caught in a crossfire
and lost his right arm
But they didn't ban bullets
or missile attacks
He's on his way home now
and who wants to tell him
he can't have a smoke with his beer
[CHORUS]
So do what you want, or do what they tell you
It's the land of the free but don't take it too far
You can do what you want
You can march off to war
But in 20-0-3 you can't smoke in a bar
Sunday, February 6, 2011 at 15:01 New York is often lauded as one of the world's great cities.
Not in my book. I've only been there once but I'm in no hurry to go back. OK, I chose the worst possible time to go. NYC in July is uncomfortably hot - so hot, in fact, that the open air theatre in Central Park was closed because no-one wanted to sit outside, even after dusk.
But, stifling heat apart, nothing about the city grabbed me apart from Ellis Island and the remarkable story of American immigration. Ironically many were driven to America to escape social and economic repression in Europe. How, I wonder, would they view New York today?
Brendan O'Neil, editor of the online magazine Spiked, recently drew my attention to the second of a series of reports he wrote from NYC.
Entitled 'When smoking becomes freedom of expression', it highlights the fact that NYC theatre companies are now prohibited from featuring real cigarettes in their plays. If any character smokes they have to use the herbal variety, although producers can apply for a waiver.
Worth reading.
Friday, February 4, 2011 at 12:24 You may have read that New York city council has voted to ban smoking in the city’s parks, beaches and public squares.
Supporters of the new measures say it will help improve the health of New Yorkers and prevent non-smokers from having to breathe other people's tobacco smoke. The Telegraph has the story here: New York bans smoking in parks, beaches and public squares.
John Mallon, spokesman for Forest Eireann, has been doing some interviews on the subject and we have just released his response:
“It’s nonsense to suggest that non-smokers are at risk from people smoking in the open air.
“Banning smoking in parks and squares has nothing to do with the health of non-smokers. It’s designed to force people to quit smoking whatever the consequences for civil liberties.
“It is completely unreasonable to ban smoking in all public places, indoors and out.
“Tobacco is a legal product and a huge proportion of what people spend on tobacco goes to the government. If the government wants our money we have to be allowed to smoke somewhere, and not just at home.
“We encourage people to smoke responsibly, but fining people if they light up outside is a step too far.
“Unfortunately anti-smoking zealots won’t be happy until smoking is outlawed completely. If that happens people will still smoke but in an uncontrolled environment and the main beneficiaries will be criminal gangs and the manufacturers of illicit cigarettes.”
I think they have a name for that. Oh yes, Prohibition.
I'll comment further when I get a moment.
See also: NYC bans smoking ... in parks (Big Brother Watch)
PS. Rob Lyons, deputy editor of Spiked, has just commented on my Facebook page:
This is a country where you can be arrested for not crossing the road in a state-approved place or for having a drink when you're 20 years old. Bloomberg seems to be just tidying up a few loose ends.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011 at 14:51 I am currently on a train returning from Edinburgh.
I am in the 'quiet' carriage. Sadly, while mobiles are banned, the rules don't exclude screaming babies and small children.
Seriously - get me out of here!
Tuesday, February 1, 2011 at 12:38 I attended a conference yesterday on the subject of illicit trade.
Delegates included civil servants, trading standards officers, tobacco lobbyists and representatives of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC), to name a few.
Venue was the National Liberal Club which used to have a portrait of Winston Churchill, painted by Ernest Townsend in 1915, in the foyer. (I think it's still there. I didn't look.) Townsend was my paternal grandmother's brother which makes him my, er, great uncle.
Anyway, speakers included Mark Garnier MP, Treasury Select Committee; Andy Leggett, deputy director, Alohol and Tobacco Policy, HMRC; Joe Barrett, a member of Retailers Against Smuggling, an Irish campaign group; and Peter Astley, Public Protection Manager (I kid you not), Warrington Borough Council.
It was during Astley's presentation - during which he talked of "coordinated enforcement activity", "improving [the] intelligence base", "funding specialist teams", not to mention more scanners and using prison sentencing to tackle tobacco smuggling - that I finally became so exasperated that I stood up, introduced myself, and pointed out that there was an elephant in the room that no-one was addressing.
The number one reason for the booming black market in tobacco, I said, was the high level of taxation. "We all know that the Department of Health is driving tobacco control policy in the UK. What," I asked, "is Peter, and the stakeholders represented in this room, doing to lobby the DH to support a reduction - not a freeze - in tobacco taxation to bring it into line with other EU countries?"
Silence. Astley ignored the question and instead mumbled something about his priority being "smoking prevention".
So there you have it. Truth is, there is a very simple way that government could address the problem of tobacco smuggling - which costs the Treasury hundreds of millions (if not billions) of pounds every year - but they won't consider it while the tobacco control lobby is pulling the strings.
Meanwhile criminal gangs - who are happy to sell cigarettes to anyone, including children - reap the dividends while officials such as Peter Astley propose spending even more public money tackling a problem of the government's own making.
Nice work if you can get it.
Simon Clark
As a retailer Joe Barrett understandably wants a reduction in the amount of tobacco consumers can bring into the country. Worrying, HMRC appear to be moving in that direction too. According to Andy Leggett, it's something that is currently being considered.
Over lunch I discovered that new guideline for cigarettes imported from Europe could be reduced from 3,200 to 800, which is what it used to be until the previous government realised the error of its ways and increased the guideline from 800 to 3,200 in 2001/2002.
Of course, it's only a guideline. Unless they go a step further, consumers are allowed to bring into the country as much tobacco as they like as long as it's for their "own personal use".
The problem with reducing the "guideline" is that, above 800 cigarettes, you may have to produce evidence that you smoke as many cigarettes as you claim. That means presenting Customs officials with receipts (proof of regular purchase), plus a letter, perhaps, from your doctor or employer confirming that you do indeed smoke 20, 30 or whatever cigarettes a day. (But do you want your employer to know?)
As we know from experience, it increases the hassle and the feeling of "guilt" as you re-enter the country with your "stash of cigarettes" (as Nick Clegg might call it) in your suitcase.
The government will no doubt see this as "nudging" smokers to change their behaviour. I think they're taking liberties.
Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 9:26 The Herald has this exclusive story:
Passive smoking ‘victims’ to challenge prison service
I accept that if you are a non-smoker it might not be very nice to be stuck in a small cell with others who are smoking, but a direct cause of ill health?
One would expect the former inmates, at least, to have to prove that their health has suffered as a result of sharing a cell with smokers. Yes, there have been out-of-court settlements (a cheaper option for employers than going to court, even if they win), but I am not aware of a single case in the UK where someone has proved successfully in court that their illness was caused by other people's tobacco smoke.
For that reason alone this could be interesting. On the hand, it wouldn't surprise me if the Scottish Government chose not to fight the issue and agreed instead to burden the taxpayer with the cost of compensation. After all, to do otherwise would defeat their argument that passive smoking is a serious health risk, wouldn't it?
Update: Brian Monteith, who brought the story to my attention, writes: "I think this will run and run. It is of course a direct consequence of governments lazily accepting junk science to justify their control freakery. Now they will have to pay for the mistake - only we pick up the tab in the long run."
Thursday, January 27, 2011 at 9:05 Tonight, at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, there's an event to mark the publication of Gambling: A Healthy Bet, a new report by the Democracy Institute.
Gambling is good for us, say the authors, Patrick Basham and John Luik. Writing for The Free Society today, Basham points out that:
As of 2002, only one peer-reviewed scholarly journal article had been dedicated solely to the beneficial impacts of gambling on individuals. And there were no studies that dealt specifically with the potentially beneficial impacts of gambling on the gambler's proximal environment, defined as spouse, children, family, friends, and life at work, at school, or in the local community.
Gambling should be viewed for what it is. That is, commonplace behaviour practised responsibly by the vast majority of people in our society.
My own experience of gambling for money is limited to a handful of horse races and never spending more than I could afford to lose (usually around £5). I was never attracted to fruit machines (they're called one-armed bandits for a reason) and the current obsession with poker leaves me bemused. But good luck to those who enjoy it.
In fact I was furious when the Labour Government reversed its decision to allow a super casino to be opened in Britain. If I remember there was a terrific battle between Blackpool and Manchester to host the first (and only) one but the question that should have been asked was, why should super casinos be restricted to just one city in the entire country? Like smoking and drinking or going on expensive foreign holidays, no-one holds a gun to your head and says you have to do it. People do have a choice.
Of course some people get addicted to gambling, just as others get addicted to nicotine or alcohol and the consequences can be serious. But there are millions of people who get a great deal of pleasure from gambling (and smoking and drinking) and we have one in our midst who enjoys all three. Take a bow, Dave Atherton.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to this evening. I may even place a bet on who will be there.
PS. Looking forward to seeing Patrick Basham. I haven't seen him since we made our escape from Bangalore at three o'clock in the morning. I didn't record that story here but it involved several armed guards, a very helpful BA official (operating unofficially) and ... No, I'm sorry, I can't. What happened in Bangalore stays in Bangalore.