The Cheese Toastie - gateway drug to motorcycle gangsterism

I am grateful that Bristol Council is on the case - what would we do without such folk:

Cheese toasties have been banned from sale in a Bristol park amid fears a proposed hot food van could attract booze-fuelled antisocial behaviour and motorbike gangs.

Where would we be without the sort of councillor brave enough to face up to the Dark Evil of the Toastie. The nation would be riddled with booze-fuelled motor-cyclists and other ne'er-do-wells. Here is our heroic councillor Claire Hiscott:

“It’s right next to Orchard School, which is a challenging school that sometimes has a problem with keeping kids in school. They have to have patrols of staff to make sure kids don’t walk off site. The lure of a food concession may encourage kids to take a little walk. The school has made a lot of effort to encourage healthy eating. We have problems with childhood obesity. Historically we had antisocial behaviour, not just motorbikes, from young adults gathering with alcohol and causing a disturbance."

What a load of nonsense and typical of the attitude of too many councillors (and a fair few local residents) to young people. Do they really think that having a van selling cheese toasties is going to turn sweet innocent school kids into obese, booze-crazed motor cycle gangsters?

...

When misusing the precautionary principle kills - the case of vaping bans

Vaping will be banned in smoke-free areas, although 'this is a precautionary measure' as there is no robust evidence of harm from second-hand vapour.

Welcome to the carefully considered decision of New Zealand's public health gauleiters. Yes folks, they're going to ban something they know isn't harmful because, y'know, precaution. Just let's be clear about this - every single drug introduced onto the market would need banning under this principle. No clinical trial, no epidemiological analysis, no Cochrane Review, no metanalysis and no research appraisal can eliminate the possibility that, in some way, there might be harm.

So what is it with these public health people? Why do they continue to ignore the self-evident reductions of harm from a liberal attitude to vaping and focus instead on something without evidence of harm - sidestream vapour?

For all its problems, the precautionary principle makes some sense. But its purpose is not to ban everything that has even the slightest prospect of causing harm. The problem is that the way risk managers might make use of precaution is very different from the idea of "better safe than sorry" because the latter is a recipe for preventing innovation and invention on the basis of risk.

The purpose of the Precautionary Principle is to create an impetus to take a decision notwithstanding scientific uncertainty about the nature and extent of the risk, i.e. to avoid 'paralysis by analysis' by removing excuses for inaction on the grounds of scientific uncertainty.

That seems clear enough - we act with caution (I'm a conservative why wouldn't I support that idea) but we still act. And we don't let the lack of scientific certainty - proof as us laymen might put it - prevent that action. This is, to the annoyance of some, the driving principle behind many environmental interventions - we're confident that greenhouse gas emissions contribute to changes in climate but we know precious little about the when, why or where of this impact or even how great or small it might be. But because the worst case downside risk - human extinction - is big enough we choose to act on that climate risk.

The problem here is that, while we want action, we don't know what policy choices are effective and what aren't effective resulting in a mish-mash of essentially virtue-driven policies rather than a clear, simple intervention. So, if the reason for climate change is greenhouse gas emission (at least in part), the simple response is a carbon tax but instead we get a bewildering collection of subsidy, sub-optimal investment and bans that don't get to the heart of the problem.

All this is probably fine until we start to apply the idea to areas where the worst case downside risk is not so bad. Obesity is a problem but it's downside risk is a shorter and less comfortable life for the obese and a marginal increase in healthcare costs for society - neither of these are existential. The same goes for most of what passes for public health these days and it results in stupid, "gotta be seen to do something" policies like banning adverts for burgers on bus stops. Worse there's a whole industry of pseudo-science developed to provide succour to these policies - a steady trickle of poorly-framed, badly conducted research studies designed with the ideological purpose of justifying bans, controls and limits in the interests of health.

So focus on the simple - for smoking the two things that worked well to reduce consumption of tobacco, public information and price, have run their course because everyone knows smoking is unhealthy and the price has reached the point where the biggest criminal growth industry is smuggling tobacco. So what's left - especially given further evidence that 'stop smoking service' interventions are expensive and pretty ineffective? We're either got drugs like varencline or vaping. And varencline, for all is effectiveness, carries an actual and demonstrated risk. In contrast vaping really isn't harmful - at least if Public Health England's most recent evidence review is a guide (it would be asking to much, I guess, for PHE to show the same degree of robust review when it comes to alcohol harm or obesity).

So to apply the precautionary principle to policies on vaping in public spaces - "we don't have any evidence it's harmful but, you never know, so we'll ban it" - is to completely misuse that principle. And, in doing this, the idea that vaping is harmful gets set in people's minds - and if a smoker thinks vaping is just as bad and the government bans it in public space then those smokers will carry on with much more harmful smoking. The consequence of precaution isn't safety, it's more harm.


….

Public health would really like to ban Christmas (and use your taxes to campaign for this ban)

OK I exaggerate but only slightly. It does feel like it's only the lack of opportunity that's stopping public health from banning Christmas - or at least anything over Christmas involving things they'd like to ban: drinking, staying up late, going out to parties, kisses, eating rich puddings with custard or cream, taking the kids for a festive Happy Meal, lashings of ginger beer, red meat, sausages, cheese, sleeping in the afternoon and anything else involving any sort of pleasure. Including of course the annual (and I'm told, 'much loved') Coca-Cola "Happy Holidays" truck tour.

As you know, I find it very difficult to why it's any part of anyone's business whether or not the Coca-Cola Christmas lorry arrives in town. Especially if your reason for objecting to the bright red truck coming is because you've convinced yourself that somehow Coca-Cola are entirely responsible for children being fat with poor teeth. Here's astroturf "campaign group" Food Active"(100% funded by your taxes):

It is with huge disappointment and concern that we see Coca-Cola are once again using the Christmas period to promote their sugary drinks across the North West in their “Happy Holidays” truck tour.

We are aware of the damage caused by these drinks which play a major role in the soaring obesity and type 2 diabetes figures in our region which place a huge and growing strain on the National Health Service.

The Chief Executive of the NHS has said that “We are now spending more on obesity-related conditions … than we are on the police or fire service.”

In the North West, 35.2% of ten-eleven year olds are overweight or obese and 33.4% of five year olds have teeth decay, largely down to their consumption of sugary drinks.

This contains some untruths - firstly the cost to the NHS of obesity (at least according to those libertarian folk at Public Health England) is £4.2 billion whereas the cost of policing in 2016 was £12.6 billion so Simon Stevens is making stuff up again. And secondly, childhood obesity and tooth rot is not - even a little bit - "down to...consumption of sugary drinks". Even if they were, then it's almost certainly not Coca-Cola that's the primary culprit. More to the point, we know absolutely how to reduce the incidence of dental caries in children - good dental hygeine (you know, brush your teeth twice a day, visit the dentist).

But public health people lying isn't my beef here. Rather it's why on earth they think banning Coca-Cola from promoting its products (including zero and low sugar products that amount to over half of the sales) is any of their business. What is truly offensive here is that your and my taxes are being used to mount an ill-informed and misleading attack on a private business. Hardly a day passes without one or other story about local councils being forced by budget cuts into closing and reducing services. All of the money for 'Food Active' comes from local council budgets in the North West and they are using it for the express purpose of lobbying for national government to change the law (as well as wanting to ban Coca-Cola's "Happy Holidays" promotion).

So next time Manchester or Liverpool council leaders wring their hands about shutting down a library or cutting funding for a community centre ask them how they can justify spending money on astroturf political campaigns like 'Food Active'.

....

In the end bans usually make things worse - the case of cigarettes

The problem with banning things is that it seldom stops them. Even when you take the sort of extreme and violent steps we've seen recently in The Philipines. Yet politicians, policy-makers and their friends in academia still champion bans - de facto or de jure.

One of those bans - although it doesn't look like one because no-one's passed a law with the word 'ban' in it anywhere except Bhutan - is that of tobacco. This is a ban by stealth implemented by steadily raising the price of fags to the point where more and more people can't afford to buy them. Or at least this is the theory.

The problem is that the bigger the gap between the cost of production and the post-tax retail price, the bigger the incentive for people to (illegally) arbitrage that gap. Why take the risk smuggling heroin or cocaine when you can smuggle tobacco! Check out your local paper and you'll see a steady stream of stories about illegal cigarettes (interspersed with stories about cannabis factories). With each increase in tobacco duty, we see an increase in criminal activity around tobacco.

And this is where it ends up - with violence:

The BAT manager was stabbed and bashed by at least three men, after he refused their order that he get into a car. The kidnappers arrived at the man's Sydney home at around 10pm on Saturday June 4.

A source said the manager was forced to "fight for his life" to ward off the kidnappers, who have not been identified. He was rushed to hospital after the attack.

The attack appears to be an unprecedented escalation in the struggle between policing agencies and the syndicates driving the illicit tobacco trade. Evidence suggests the attack was linked to BAT's support of police inquiries.

The manager in question was employed (by that source of all evil, a tobacco company) to support the police in investigating smuggling and illegal tobacco. Why? Quite simply because it's a billion dollar plus criminal business.

Right now, our one-eyed approach to smoking is creating a new international criminal business smuggling cigarettes and tobacco. In the UK, trading standards departments are advised that tobacco companies are the bad boys:

Tobacco companies continue to approach local authorities and local Trading Standards teams in particular with offers to support their tobacco control strategies primarily around tackling illicit tobacco but also in relation to other areas of enforcement including age of sale regulations. Local Authorities are recommended to examine such offers critically in the light of Article 5.3 and its guidelines and only engage in any collaborative work with the industry where this is considered strictly necessary.

That's right folks - the Tackling Illicit Tobacco for Better Health Partnership (essentially a bunch of trading standards officers) thinks it just fine to refuse to work with tobacco companies - businesses selling a legal product - in catching criminals.

So what we have is a new and lucrative business for organised criminals created entirely by policies designed to promote public health. And, rather than recognise the problem, public health and its agents refuse to co-operate with the tobacco companies in reducing the criminal impact of their (public health that is) policies.

Now I call this stupid.
...

Public health campaigners must want smokers to die

You've all seen the news reports about the Welsh government's proposed ban on using e-cigs in enclosed public places - the same places where smoking is banned. This proposal is another small piece in the seemingly relentless barrage of misleading - downright lies in many cases - misleading messages from people who claim concern about public health. On the Welsh ban, Chris Snowdon sums it all up:

The last few years have seen an extraordinarily dishonest campaign of misinformation against e-cigarettes that is as bad as anything I have seen from the ‘public health’ lobby. There has been a concerted effort to portray e-cigarettes as a ‘gateway’ to tobacco, despite all the evidence showing that they are a gateway from tobacco. They have been accused of ‘renormalising’ smoking without a scintilla of evidence. Misleading research has led to numerous unfounded scare stories in the press. Newspaper columnists have written ridiculous articles without doing the most basic fact-checking. Senior medics have explicitly told the public that e-cigarettes are no safer than real cigarettes. At the same time, ordinary vapers who never had any intention of becoming campaigners – and, indeed, are not campaigners – have been accused of being shills for e-cigarette and/or tobacco companies for doing no more than trying to put the record straight.

I have seen this attitude live - Bradford Council enacted a ban on new fast food takeaways close to schools despite there being no evidence to support their proposed ban and despite the Director of Public Health telling the Executive that the proposals would not make any difference. And I have seen other organisations - from the Association of Conservative Clubs and Wetherspoons through to just about every transport provider - using the British Medical Association's anti-vaping position as justification for their own ban.

These organisations - many of them funded by the producers of pharmaceutical nicotine - have set about denormalising vaping, telling people who quit smoking or cut down smoking through using e-cigs that they are just as bad as the smokers and must stand outside in the rain, wind and traffic pollution. Quit or die is the message - and this means that die is the choice made, for all sorts of reasons, by the smoker.

“This is not an area in which you should wait for proof that harm has conclusively happened. We need to take action now to prevent the possibility of harm.”

Read that statement from the Welsh health minister. Read it again - he's saying that he wants the ban because there might be the possibility of harm. The possibility of harm from water vapour. This isn't a public health argument, it's a "we hate you because you're a smoker" argument. Just as the passing of rules to ban fast food is the result of a squeamish "eurggh, all that greasy, smelly food that common people eat" attitude. Plus the argument for 'minimum unit pricing' for booze - "we won't pay extra for our nice New Zealand sauvignon blanc but that smelly man in the Tesco Express will pay more for his disgusting cheap cider."

Today's public health campaigns aren't about health, they're about values. The imposition of a New Puritan attitude to pleasure - an attitude wrapped up in fake science about dopamine and addiction - where only approved pleasures are allowed. And the assertion that everything in our lives must have a purpose, no longer the glorification of god but rather the search for eternal life here on earth. The option of choosing a pleasure now knowing it may have a health consequence is not to be allowed. Above all the loud, brash, public consumption of pleasure - especially the booze, fags and burgers regular folk like to consume - is to be discouraged if not actually banned.

Vaping is a harmless pastime. Better still it's getting people to stop smoking or cut down smoking. But public health folk don't like vaping because it's not promoted by smart men from a pharma company but by a bloke with tattoos and a beer gut in a cheap shop on Yorkshire Street in Oldham.These public health people are commissioning 'smoking cessation' activities, holding meetings to discuss anti-smoking strategies - and pretending that e-cigs don't exist or worse that they're the latest evil plot from Big Tobacco.

When I started to look at public health, I believed that it was a force for good and that the people could be persuaded by evidence and the realities of life for people (especially people in our poorest communities). Sadly I've not seen this but rather an ideological commitment to undermining the freely made choices people make simply because they might be "unhealthy". And the attack on vaping encapsulates the problem - there is no evidence, no justification for the ban but they proceed with it because they disapprove of vaping.

I can only conclude, as many others have done, that public health campaigners must want smokers to die.
....

Nannying fussbucket of the week: Tracey "Ban Alcohol" Crouch MP

****

Some "charity" or other has got some headlines by saying that serving drinks at school events 'sets a bad example' to children. And, as ever there's a politician on hand to call for the ban:

Swanswell (that's the "charity" in question) has given evidence to an all-party parliamentary group on alcohol misuse.

Tracey Crouch, Tory MP for Chatham and Aylesford, who chairs the committee, said she would support reforms to ensure that the sale of alcohol was not permitted in schools. "Alcohol is so visible elsewhere that I don't think it needs to be on school premises."

Ms Crouch has form and joins a growing list of Tory MPs I'd find it very difficult to vote for.

....

Advertising doesn't cause riots, make people gamble or cause revolution!

****

She said she was particularly concerned about gambling advertising before the 9pm watershed and went as far as saying that "excessive marketing" had been a factor in 2011’s London riots, when looters had gone in criminal search of expensive trainer brands.

Read that very carefully. What Helen Goodman (for it is she) is saying here is that some of society's problems - in this case gambling and rioting - can be laid at the the door of advertising. This is clearly illiberal, when it comes to gambling certainly judgemental, but worst of all is utterly ignorant of advertising and marketing and what it does.

It makes me incredibly cross that people like Helen Goodman (who is a leftie but not everyone who wants bans or controls on advertising and marketing is such) simply fail to understand that commercial speech is still 'speech'. And that it is as worthy of us defending it as any other form of speech. I know that Helen probably read 'No Logo' a few years back and has signed up to the Naomi Klein school, that "brands are the work of Satan" line, but the truth is that marketing communications are a tiny proportion of all the communications we receive every day.

If someone like Helen Goodman is going to stand up and talk about advertising, to propose legislative intervention of some kind, then the least we can expect is that some effort has been made to understand the business of marketing. Let's start with whether advertising increases aggregate demand, what we might call the 'false demand' hypothesis:

“The null hypothesis that advertising does not cause consumption cannot be rejected, but some evidence that consumption may cause advertising is presented.”

Unwrapping the academic language this research says that advertising doesn't (in aggregate) cause demand and may even be caused by consumption. Funnily enough us advertising and marketing folk have known this for years - most of our advertising isn't about creating demand it's about us not losing our bit of that demand. As I wrote a while ago:

Why should I spend my client’s scarce cash on making the market bigger – promoting sausages rather than Fred’s Grand Yorkshire Sausage, The Champion on Your Plate?

This isn't to say that an advertisement has never prompted someone to buy something they haven't bought before but it is to say that there isn't a strong connection between advertising and demand growth. To illustrate this, here's a graph of US cigarette advertising against cigarette consumption:

If you can find some sort of causal link here you're a better man than I am!

If shadow ministers (or government ministers for that matter) are going to pass opinion about advertising and marketing - rather than merely court a headline - then they really should start to understand what marketing does and how advertising works. And that it's as much a part of free speech as their address to the house or my torrent of tweets.

And if Helen Goodman wants to know about the revolution - it won't be televised you know!

...

BMA silent on e-cigs evidence...

****

The BMA wants to ban electronic cigarettes. Recently 'Sense about Science' wrote to them:

We sent this letter to the BMA on November 15th asking for the evidence behind their claims about ‘re-normalising smoking’ and ‘passive vaping.’ Despite a number of reminders, we have not yet received a response.

This is probably because there isn't any evidence to support their ban proposal. None.

...

We sent this letter to the BMA on November 15th asking for the evidence behind their claims about ‘re-normalising smoking’ and ‘passive vaping.’ Despite a number of reminders, we have not yet received a response. - See more at: http://www.senseaboutscience.org/news.php/364/whats-the-evidence-for-banning-electronic-cigarettes#sthash.qa29sXWF.dpuf

In which Bradford's Labour councillors vote against free speech...

****

The strange party that is Respect put a motion to Bradford Council calling for the English Defence League (EDL) to be banned. For sure they used a posh word - 'proscribed' - but what they wanted was them banned because they hold some unpleasant and rather racist views. Apparently this makes them terrorists (I understand that Respect are loony lefties and probably believe in collective guilt but this was an argument I just didn't get) so we can ban them under our rather egregious terrorism laws.

The Conservative Group considered this and decided that we would respond with a simple statement of principle:

"Council affirms its support for free speech"

We took the view that this would remind people of how democracy is important and that free speech is central to democracy. Put simply, without free speech democracy is a sham. We also pointed out that banning things - OK, 'proscribing' - is a great way to get publicity (Cllr Glen Miller our group leader managed to get 'Life of Brian', Robin Thicke and 'Spycatcher' into his speech).

Affirming our support for free speech would allow the police and others to manage (or overmanage as sometimes happens) the risks of disorder and to deal with crimes such as inciting violence. The last thing we needed was a headline saying 'Council calls for EDL to be banned'.

However, we lost the vote - Bradford's Labour Councillors chose to oppose free speech so their own mealy-mouthed piece of fence sitting got passed!

I had to smile! I always knew socialists didn't believe in free speech. And now I have it confirmed!

....

On anti-smoking laws...the task of public health is done

****

From The Heresiac:

The pattern revealed by the graph does, however, show something significant about anti-smoking laws.  They aren't really aimed at discouraging smoking, or protecting the health of non-smokers, or even at punishing smokers (as some pro-smoking dissidents like to think).  Rather, they are a form of bandwagon-jumping.  Measures such as "plain packaging" are seized upon by politicians seeking to prove themselves "relevant" and up-to-date, in much the same way that they pounce upon passing moral panics or promote ideas that seem popular with focus groups.  The long-term decline in smoking is a social trend for which politicians would like to claim credit.  Introducing "tough" measures that can scarcely fail - because their aim has already been achieved - and which can claim to be both morally virtuous and medically justified is almost too tempting.

An insightful comment. I don't entirely agree - part of the motivation is sustaining the business of anti-smoking - but the gist is spot on, that anti-smoking is about laying claim to something that results from a social trend rather than from government action. And the job - making sure we know the dangers of smoking and providing help for quitters - is done.

We might also consider that there is a degree of frantic worry as the public health interventions seem to have stalled:

We spend millions on anti-smoking, thousands of jobs are involved and...well it has stopped working. So these people seek out new bogie-men to blame, new ways to 'denormalise' smoking and new strategies (requiring more public funding) to deal with the 'biggest preventable cause of death'.

Nobody smoking now - or taking up smoking - doesn't know the health risks. Nobody. The task of public health is done. If people choose not to take note of the warnings that's their business in the same way that the freeclimber knows he might fall off that sheer cliff and the cave diver knows the high chance of drowning.

By all means provide support to people who want to stop. But let's accept that some people prefer the fleeting joy of a fag and accept that it means a high chance of ill-health, a shorter life.

In the end that's their choice, their business.

...

The flotilla sails.

The happy smiling faces shine through Portsmouth's drizzle as they troop onto the ship. To be fair entering the ship was more queueing than trooping as, at the head of the gangway, stood a phalanx of checklist wielding officials.

But the faces are smiling for they're leaving behind Sodom, turning their backs on the land where - despite all the lobbying, charity campaigns and portentous media announcements of doom - too many people persist in doing things that aren't right. Things that should be banned.

The breakthrough came when the Home Secretary, Helen Graivey announced the transfer of part of Turkey - Yasaklama - to a new United Nations protectorate. So came about the place were things that should be banned, are banned. And there would be grants for those righteous people who wished to relocate to the new state.

Predictable outrage exploded for a while as Royal Colleges, publicly-funded charity bosses and journalists on the Daily Mail realised that the Government was serious. People who wanted everything banned were being paid to go and live in a place where everything WAS banned - including the Daily Mail.

Elsewhere in the country, pub crawls, smoking festivals and burger-eating competitions were held to raise more money to send people to Yasaklama. Cricket and football were played on the grass, fireworks were let off and street parties were thrown.

There were reports (quickly dismissed) of people known to harbour banning thoughts being herded, crated up and shipped in containers to Turkey. And of whip rounds in offices to pay the passage of especially oppressive managers. The government reached new heights in the opinion polls as it dawned on people that it was the jobsworths, fussbuckets and interfering old goats that they disliked most. Even more than Ed Balls.

And so the day arrives at ports from Oban to Falmouth as thousands of Britain's nannies and worrywarts load themselves into smoke-free, low alcohol and low calorie berths for the trip to Yasaklama. The wharves and harbour walls are thronged with (slightly tipsy) spectators clutching bags of chips, cans of lager and ice-creams. All there to make absolutely free all the lovers of bans leave (the looks of disapproval, tutting and 'that should be stopped' comments from embarking passengers viewing the booze, burgers and cigars on display acting as a reminder of the reason for creating Yasaklama).

A few hours later and ropes are cast, the nation's collective breath is held and...yes...the nannying fussbucket flotilla leaves for the land of the unfree, for ban central, for Yasaklama.

And a cheer, at first hesitant but slowly rising to a massive cathartic crescendo, rent the air. Freedom had returned!

....

Prostitution in Bradford - what we should have said in response to that petition

****

Last week Bradford Council received a large petition - over 1500 names - protesting about prostitution in and around Lumb Lane in Manningham. Under the Council's rules such a large petition triggers a fifteen minute debate in full council.

So we had the debate. It was unedifying.

The petitioners were calling for us to "stop, ban and move" prostitution in the area. There was no compromise in their argument - families, women, businesses and the community were damaged by these prostitutes. And worse the trade was associated with drugs, drinking and other bad things that the 'community' wished to see gone.

Now I have a little bit of sympathy. But that stops when I consider what happens if, in that area, we 'stop, ban and move' street prostitutes. I'm guessing that the trade will relocate and that, in a short time, we'll be hearing the same concerns expressed by another community. In fact I'm not guessing, I know this is the case since that is what happened that last time prostitution was run out of Lumb Lane. It upped sticks and moved to City Road and Thornton Road.

This was followed by a set of speeches that - with one exception - barely mentioned the women involved. We heard that prostitution is largely an enforcement issue and that, back in the day, we had the vice squad to keep a lid on it. We were told that of course the ward councillors were concerned, had driven down the roads in questions (no tittering there of course) and were engaged with the community over the matter.

And then we had a long prepared speech on the evils of 'commercial sex', on how we should control 'demand, supply and opportunity' in order to drive the scourge of prostitution from Lumb Lane. The idea that someone might actually want to offer sexual services in exchange for money was rejected - prostitution and 'commercial sex' must not be tolerated and should be banned in all its forms.

Just one speaker indicated that prostitutes were not unspecified semi-humans but were mostly women. And that the problems of violence, abuse and drug-dependency might - in part - underlie the issue (that and the fact that it's a market with buyers and sellers - something no-one mentioned).

Through all this I sat muttering in my beard that perhaps we might like to look at a gentler approach, something other than prohibition - a bit of liberalisation. After all, just because you are morally offended by the idea of sex for sale doesn't mean that it should be banned. You have the choice not to buy that sex and even to argue that others shouldn't buy that sex.

The truth be told, banning things is seldom an effective approach. And this is especially true where something as basic as sex is involved. But us politicians bite our tongues rather than challenge the dominant prohibitionist line on the sex trade. We complain about lap dancing clubs, we tut about sex shops and we call for more and more enforcement around street prostitution. And we think of prostitutes as trashy chavs less deserving of our care than nice 'community members'.

I don't know the extent to which we can - on our own in Bradford - move towards a more European approach to the sex trade. Whether we can use licensing and the drawing of boundaries to ensure that the 'red light' area is well defined (avoiding the disturbance to families or communities) and that health advice and support can be provided to the sex workers. It seems to me that this would be a better outcome than what we'll actually get - more police patrols, the hounding of punters and a lot of hot air about community safety. Not only will this change nothing, it will play into the hands of the worst sorts in the trad.

And in ten years we'll be back talking again about the 'problems' with street prostitution. There must be a better way.

....

On the banning of harmless fun...the case of Hebden Bridge Burlesque Festival

Not a good week for Parish Councils I'm afraid - this time it's Hebden Royd Council (which covers what we more usually call Hebden Bridge). These fine upstanding representatives of the people have banned Hebden's Burlesque Festival:

"The Picture House Committee does not feel that it is appropriate for Hebden Royd Town Council to be associated with the Hebden Bridge Burlesque Festival. Burlesque arouses strong feelings, and many people feel it is demeaning to women, and raises issues of gender equality. It is also inevitable if held in the Hebden Bridge Picture House that it would be seen to be associated with Hebden Royd Town Council, so the committee declines the approach to host a part of the Hebden Bridge Burlesque Festival.”

Now while I'm resisting screaming out "political correctness gone mad" this strikes me as a typical judging (and ignorant) decision from a local council spoilsport - in this case a left wing spoilsport.

The Burlesque Festival is - like Earth - mostly harmless and it's banning an act of po-faced puritanism. And some local folk think so too and have got up a petition where they say:

Far from being demeaning to women burlesque has enabled the organisers (both women) to run their own very successful business, employ other people (both male and female) , support local businesses and provide some jolly good entertainment, both comedic and titillating but never sleazy or demeaning to women. The council has also overlooked the fact that around 70% of burlesque audiences are made up of women. Women do indeed find certain things demeaning and patronising, one of those is having their decisions made for them and assumptions made about what they find offensive.

Absolutely - especially the last sentence. You can sign the petition here.

...

So what shall we ban today then? (A guide for the ambitious nannying fussbucket)

****

There is almost nothing - nothing I say - that we couldn't find grounds for controlling, directing and, if you don't behave properly, banning. However, in order to direct your plans for bans here are some helpful hints.

1. Authorities are more open to bans, restrictions or regulations when the thing in question is pleasurable. Indeed, the ban that today's authorities most wish to introduce is a ban on hedonism, on enjoying something just because it's enjoyable

2. If you've found your target for a ban - let's say it's Kendal Mint Cake - you need to find some sort of vague, probably spurious connection to a problem in society (health and crime are the best bets). You don't need evidence just the bold assertion of your case - 'Mint Cake is sold as a healthy product for the outdoors but is really just pure sugar which causes obesity, rotten teeth and hyperactive children'

3. It's better still if you can claim that the product is addictive and still more wonderful if you've an example of the evil effect - "Twenty-four stone teenager Kylie Spottiswood is hooked on the sugar hit of Mint Cake and eats twelve bars a day." You can add to the misery level with quotes from people about how Kylie was an outgoing, vivacious girl until she ate her first Mint Cake - just one and she was hooked on the sugar and mint combination (even better with the chocolate coating)

4. Some expert endorsement is helpful too - there are thousands of quacks and charlatans out there (not to mention some serious ban-fans who actually have medical degrees) so you'll find one to suit, I'm sure. And the newspapers - even the Daily Mail, famed for the rigour of its investigative journalism - seldom check the credentials of experts. A couple of vanity articles in an "open access" journal published from above a laundry in Calcutta doesn't look any different to the average journalist from being published in the New England Journal of Medicine

5. Set up a foundation, petition or even just a website - look official! "The Cumbrian Sugar Sweet Trust - campaigning to protect our children" or some such line (all shiny and pretty on a nice modern Wordpress site) will work wonders. And sign up a few worthies - a couple of local councillors, a retired doctor, a dentist. But remember it's the enraged parents - the mums and dads - who didn't know about the dangers of Mint Cake that are your real target.

6. Tell a story - it doesn't matter how fast and loose you are with actual facts - about the pain and anguish that this evil sugar confectionery has brought on you and you family. And send this story to everyone - MPs, vicars, bishops, government officials, journalists, Nicky Campbell, the Queen, some more journalists, George Monbiot, assorted charities, more journalists. Someone will pick it up and run with it.

And then you've achieved your aim. Not the ban but a temporary and spurious fame (and a chance for an earner or two). Now, whenever the scandal of sugar confections crops up your phone will ring - media appearance (kerching!), you'll get to write heartfelt pieces in national newspapers (kerching!) and maybe, just maybe, there'll be the magazine feature about Kylie and her efforts to return to a normal life (kerching, kerching!!).

Either that or Kendal Mint Cake will sue the pants off you!

....

More lies about advertising - this time from the Children's Food Trust

****

The Children's Food Trust are back again with their proposals for advertising bans and controls. And, since it's the enemy of choice, the attack on advertising is couched in terms of a criticism of self-regulation.

“The ASA has proved itself unwilling and unable to fulfil this role,” he added.

“In industry after industry – from MPs’ expenses, to phone-hacking, to banks, and now in online marketing – self-regulation has proven to be a failed model. More of the same is not what is needed to protect children’s health or to give parents more help in making healthy choices for their family.”

The problem, we're told, is that the self-regulation of advertising (remember that broadcast advertising isn't self-regulated but regulated by statute) under the aegis of the Committee of Advertising Practice has allowed advertisers of food products to use online advertising. This, of course, means that some of the adverts are seen by children.

What struck me about the reports from the Trust is that the main evidence it presents (about four or five websites) simply doesn't indicate anything different from what is allowable in broadcast advertising already. However, they also demonstrate the scale of parental irresponsibility when it comes to Internet use:

Social networking websites, like Facebook, are especially popular amongst children and young people, 28 per cent of 8–11 year olds and 75 per cent of 12–15 year olds have an active social networking site profile. One third of 8–12 year olds have a profile on sites that require users to register as being aged 13 or over.

So let's be clear about this - Rowntree, Krave, Cheesestrings and Nesquik are advertising in media that have a 13 age minimum. But because irresponsible parents allow their under-13 children to use those sites those advertisers should be banned from doing so?

Yet again we are seeing the use of poor quality research - with no peer review and no robust methodology - to justify arguments for advertising bans. Controls proposed solely because some parents can't say 'no' to their children. Meaning that children see advertising that they would not see on a commercial children's TV channel - advertising that complies with the agree codes of practice. Indeed, because the websites all show TV advertisements, these are codes of practice subject to statutory regulation.

But I guess that blaming advertising gets a better headline than blaming parents for letting their ten year olds go on Facebook (where an advert for Sugar Puffs is probably the least of worries).

....

In which George Galloway wants Twitter banned...

****

I'm not joking:

"[This House] believes that this failure to cooperate with the detection of the sources of criminal behaviour is reprehensible," it adds "and calls on the Government to impose sanctions on Twitter until it agrees to fully cooperate with the UK authorities and police in the detection of crime."

And the crime? This is 'being rude to George', or so it seems:

"Twitter is now used for a variety of criminal activities including sending malicious communications,"

Oh dear George, oh dear! Nannying fussbucket doesn't fully capture the sheer fascism of this proposal!

....

"Prohibition always leads to supply and demand..." Jake Phillips, 15

****

As this little unintended social experiment shows:

Acland Burghley School in Camden, North London, recently decided to implement a "water only" policy in a bid to improve health, pupils' concentration and, as a result, their grades.

However, some entrepreneurial kids have resorted to sneaking in the banned substances and selling them on to fellow pupils at "speakeasies", just like under Prohibition in the US, which ran from around 1920-1933. However, instead of alcohol, the desired goods are cola, lemonade, orangeade and energy drinks.

And the enterprising youngster explain why, too:

"...there is business potential now there's a gap in the market. Gangsters sold alcohol in America when that was banned. Prohibition always leads to supply and demand. That means anyone who sneaks it in can make a lot of money."

It's a shame that their teachers weren't so bright as to realise that this would be the exact result of their ban!

Even where it's pointed out the school's boss buries his head still further in the sand:

“Schools are responsible for showing young people that their own behaviour impacts on their health. We are extremely proud to be Camden’s first water-only school."

Seems nannying fussbuckets never learn!

...

You want real evil? A comment on the idea of banning e-cigs

****

Absolutely:

You want real evil? What's truly evil is attempting to deny people addicted to a profoundly damaging substance the opportunity to transfer that addiction to a product most medical professionals rate as 99% harmless. The gathering European opposition to electronic cigarettes is the result of kneejerk cultural prejudice, puritanical vindictiveness, corporate collusion, and the unconscionable greed of tax authorities that won't be able to heap the same punitive, confiscatory, opportunistic duties on a product that doesn't hurt anyone.

Hard to disagree with a word of this.

....

Ban everything!

We are in the age of the ban. The zenith approaches as a Labour front-bencher calls for the banning of Frosties.

But let's look back at a few of those other proposals for - and actual bans:

Asking people for money - Tory MP Charlie Elphicke want to stop me or you asking people to donate to charity in the street. He got a headline!

Begging - well I guess it's asking for money. This time it's a Labour councillor in Aberdeen who things banning begging will be good for the beggars!

Fast food shops - most recently Diane Abbott has been on this bandwagon but the banning of fast food retail (for the children of course) is popular with councils like Waltham Forest

Advertising - while there are some who would ban all advertising (and probably hang marketers into the bargain), the desire - mostly "for the children" - to ban advertising is common. This includes fast food, drink and gambling.

Food - sugar, salty cheese and rare burgers are all subject to this obsession with banning stuff - the search for the super-healthy, perfect lifestyle!

Computer games - that's right folks! Because some nutter claims a computer game made him kill we believe him and call for them to be banned!

Getting a tan - a popular one this with local councillors. A bit like gambling and drinking, we like to have our say on the high street tan - too often by calling for a ban.

Bored yet with my little list? You do realise that I've hardly started! We continue with some good old friendly attacks on smoking - in cars, in council houses and of the e-cigarette. The war on the smoker continues!

As does the attack on the working-class drinker - this time with bans on high-strength lager and on drinking outside the boozer.  And some want to even ban pop!

Having fun faces a few more obstacles with councils keen to stop busking, to ban fireworks and even street parties. And even circuses are hobbled by not being allowed animals and, in some places, we can't even walk our dogs in the park!

I could go on - doubtless there are hundreds more little pleasures and conveniences that these nannying fussbuckets would have banned. All for our good, to save the NHS some cash or, most commonly, "for the children". This ghastly puritan world or bitter judgemental weasels poking about uninvited in the lives of others as if those lives were anything of their business.

So politicians, doctors, researchers and other so-called 'experts', if you have just one New Year resolution for 2013, can you make it that you'll...

STOP ASKING FOR EVERYTHING TO BE BANNED

Smoking and advertising - some hints why plain packs won't cut smoking rates

****

For many years I've been carefully pointing out to people that advertising for cigarettes doesn't work the way they think it works. The "they wouldn't do it if it didn't work" argument is entirely true. It's just that what you think "works" means in this context isn't the same as what us marketers mean by "works".

The truth is that there's almost no relationship between the amount of advertising and marketing spend on cigarettes and the quantity sold. The advertising is targeted at the smoker not the non-smoker and aims to get that smoker to prefer one brand over another. This preference allows for the marketer to get a bigger margin because the consumer's choice set is limited by that advertising. Incidentally the same goes for soap powder, dog food and lemonade.

By way of proving this, here's US ad spend on cigarettes set against cigarette sales:

As you can see here there isn't any connection at all between advertising spend and cigarette sales - the advertising bans and restrictions have all been "shoot the messenger" campaigns made worse by the fact that the messenger wasn't talking to children or indeed any non-smoker but to smokers.

These facts suggest to me that introducing plain packaging for cigarettes will be just as pointless, just as ineffective. Inconvenience, annoyance and the further ostracising of the smoker will result but it won't make a jot of difference to either take up or consumption of cigarettes.

....