I’m out - why I’m done with books about Brexit

I hugely enjoyed Tim Shipman’s first two books about Brexit.

All Out War: The Full Story of How Brexit Sank Britain’s Political Class, published in November 2016, was followed in 2017 by Fall Out: A Year of Political Mayhem.

Now, seven years on, Shipman has published a third volume (No Way Out: Brexit: From the Backstop to Boris), with a fourth and final book (Out: How Brexit Got Done & Four Prime Ministers Were Undone) scheduled for July.

The first two titles were incredibly well researched, and written with a lightness of touch that belied the complexity of the events the author was describing.

Naturally, therefore, I bought the latest instalment but when I sat down this week to read it something strange happened.

I began with the introduction, followed by the acknowledgments, but when I was glancing through the ‘timeline’ - a long list of Brexit-related events from June 23, 2016, the date of the referendum, to July 24, 2019, when Boris became prime minister - I realised I couldn’t go on.

Truth is, I am no longer interested in every last detail of how Britain finally escaped the clutches of the European Union, if indeed we have.

I’m glad the country voted as it did and although things have not gone as smoothly as one might have wished, I don’t regret for one second voting to leave.

Nevertheless I no longer want to read about it. It’s time to move on and make the very best of the situation we find ourselves in. (Whether our current political class is able to do so is another matter.)

Like the first two books, I’m certain that volumes three and four of Tim Shipman’s Brexit quartet will be immensely useful for students and historians in the future.

But me (to paraphrase Lou Reed), I just don’t care at all.

The Musing Individualist goes to Oxford

Remember Charles Amos?

I wrote about him in January after the former IEA intern and local councillor popped up outside the Houses of Parliament with a banner and leaflets opposing the generational smoking ban.

Charles's campaign, 'Defend Freedom, Stop the Tobacco Ban', was launched in the New Year and his first act was to spend a day in East Grinstead, his home town, collecting signatures from shoppers opposed to the ban.

He described the day, and the mixed response he received, in an amusing post on his blog, The Musing Individualist.

He then took his campaign to Westminster.

His most recent action day was in Oxford (above) where he collected more signatures with a handful of friends and associates.

I admire anyone who takes the time and trouble to stand up for their principles, and what I like about Charles is that, as well as enjoying the cut and thrust of political debate, he seems to have a sense of humour.

Chris Snowdon likes him too, interviewing him in February for the Swift Half podcast.

Silk road to Michael Bloomberg Gardens

Great to see Audrey Silk featured in the New York Post yesterday.

Audrey is a retired New York City police officer who, dismayed by the city’s crackdown on smoking, and smokers, founded the smokers’ rights group NYC Clash (Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment) in 2000.

For many years thereafter she protested against smoking bans, testified at government hearings, challenged the authorities in court, and appeared in the media.

Today, however, her campaigning days seem to be behind her. “I am no longer actively fighting it,” she told the NY Post, “Like I said, I can’t reason with the irrational.”

Instead her rebellious streak is focussed on growing and smoking her own tobacco, denying the authorities the exorbitant taxes she would otherwise have to pay. (It’s legal as long as she doesn’t sell it.)

Amusingly, in a nod to the former NYC mayor and billionaire who funds numerous anti-smoking initiatives:

She now calls her backyard ‘Screw You, Michael Bloomberg Gardens’. It’s where she grows her tobacco in 100 five-gallon buckets filled with soil.

What the Post doesn’t mention is that on December 30, 2013, two days before Bloomberg left office, Audrey addressed him directly at an indoor public event.

She then lit a cigarette and declared, “Good people disobey bad laws”, before a security guard rushed to intervene, almost throwing himself at her. (You can watch it here.)

Eight years before that, in July 2005, I attempted to meet Audrey during a trip to New York, but fate - in the shape of a clueless taxi driver - had other ideas.

Audrey had invited me to lunch at her home in Brooklyn and I was looking forward to seeing her and the crop of tobacco that she was growing even then.

Unfortunately, as I wrote here:

I gave the driver Audrey's address but overestimated his ability. Thirty minutes after we crossed the Brooklyn Bridge it dawned on me he had no idea where we were, or where we were going, and I had no idea either.

He was from Armenia, I think. He spoke very little English. He rang someone – his brother, perhaps – to help with directions. Meanwhile he kept on driving, looking for landmarks.

In desperation I tried calling Audrey (this was pre-smart phones) but my battered old Nokia wouldn't connect to her number. Eventually, with the meter ticking and any hope of finding her house long gone, I instructed my hapless driver to return to Manhattan.

We eventually met twelve years later, in 2017, when I invited her to speak at a session I was asked to organise at the Global Tobacco and Nicotine Forum (GTNF) in New York.

Forthright as ever, she described public health campaigners as “lunatics" which is the sort of plain speaking you rarely hear these days, more’s the pity.

Some delegates were a bit shocked, I think. Then again, this was the conference that began with the announcement of the launch of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.

If Audrey has stepped back from active campaigning she will be greatly missed but she will be remembered as a tireless and hugely courageous advocate of smokers’ rights.

One day, perhaps (with the assistance of a half competent taxi driver) I may even get to sit in her backyard where I shall raise a glass to the 20+ years she dedicated to the cause.

Politics and appeasement – be careful what you wish for

According to a newspaper report in Ireland yesterday, the Irish Government is to consider raising the legal age of sale of tobacco ‘within weeks’:

Health Minister Stephen Donnelly flagged his intention earlier this month to seek government approval to ban the sale of tobacco products to anyone under the age of 21 as part of a wider strategy to create a tobacco-free generation.

Full story here.

For the record, Forest is firmly against raising the age of sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Our view is that once you’re legally an adult at 18 you should be treated like one, and if you can legally drive a car, join the army, purchase alcohol, and vote, at 18 you should be allowed to buy tobacco too.

That said, we acknowledge that, in the UK, raising the age of sale to 20 or 21 would be better than Rishi Sunak’s generational ban so although we could never support it, it wouldn’t be the worst option.

In Ireland however an incremental ban is not currently on the table so it’s not yet an issue, hence our strongly worded opposition to increasing the age of sale to 21.

To its credit, the Examiner was quick to report our reaction (Pro-smoking (sic) campaigners challenge plan to raise age limit for buying cigarettes) which led to a comment on X by Tom Gleeson, co-founder of the New Nicotine Alliance Ireland, who tweeted:

TBF This is a good policy idea, raising the age gate is a supportable policy as long as non combustible alternatives remain available. If both are included then all we do move the illegal market up an age bracket.

‘Good policy idea’? Be careful what you wish for, Tom. It might benefit ‘non combustible alternatives’ in the short-term, but how long before even reduced risk nicotine products are subject to similar age restrictions in the future?

The tobacco playbook is coming for vaping too. In fact, the process has already started - public vaping bans, increased restrictions on marketing and packaging, excise duty on e-liquids etc - and it will only get worse.

Meanwhile, in a statement issued yesterday by the UK Vaping Industry Association - who are understandably indignant that neither they nor any vaping groups have been called to give evidence to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee - it was noted that:

The UKVIA is broadly supportive of the aims of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

Of course they are! The UKVIA wants to eradicate smoking and replace it with vaping. But after that? Don’t they realise there is no appeasing government or the ‘public health’ industry?

If government achieves its 2030 smoke free objective in England (which the UKVIA seems to support), does the vaping industry seriously believe that making vaping history won’t be the next logical step?

It can't have gone unnoticed that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill includes a ban on disposable vapes plus potential restrictions on flavours and packaging.

And this from a 'Conservative' government that was thought to be relatively liberal in its attitude to vaping and only a year ago put vaping (and its Swap to Stop scheme) at the heart of its tobacco control policy.

Does the UKVIA seriously believe things will end there, especially under a Labour government whose shadow health secretary Wes Streeting has promised to ‘come down like a ton of bricks’ on the vaping industry?

Appeasement never works and saying you’re ‘broadly supportive of the aims of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill’ will not only encourage government to be even more repressive, it is yet another example of smoking being thrown under the bus by vaping advocates who refuse to acknowledge that freedom of choice should apply equally to future generations of adults who want to smoke, vape, or do both.

Instead, by supporting the Government’s goal of a smoke free society by an arbitrary date, the vaping industry is effectively sealing its own long-term fate.

Then again, why would most vaping entrepreneurs care? They’ll have made their money and sold their businesses long before vaping, like smoking, is marginalised, stigmatised, and eradicated.

Update: After the Examiner posted its report on X yesterday, Green Party TD Neasa Hourigan had a little dig at Forest.

Here’s her tweet, highlighting our UK origins, with our response (below). The link, btw, takes you to this post, John Mallon RIP. I hope she reads it.

From stitch up to carve up – how Rishi Sunak's government works

You've got to laugh.

Last week I highlighted the make up of the Committee that will consider written and oral evidence in relation to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

I noted that of the 17 MPs on the Committee, 16 had voted in favour of the Bill at the second reading two weeks ago, and the only person who didn't – Labour's Mary Kelly Foy – is vice-chair of the APPG on Smoking and Health which is run by ASH so it's clear which way she would have voted had she been in the House.

Guido Fawkes ran the story here and included a quote by me:

“Committees don’t need to be balanced but this is such an obvious stitch-up it’s embarrassing. The make-up of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee is effectively a f*ck you to every MP who voted against the Bill, and every member of the public who opposes the generational smoking ban.”

Four days later I've got more news for you. If the composition of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee was a stitch up, the next stage of the process goes even further.

This morning the Government published the list of people and organisations that have been invited to give oral evidence to the Committee over the next two days.

Aside from how quickly the process is being steamrollered through parliament (just four working days from confirmation of the Committee last Wednesday to 33 witnesses giving oral evidence to members of that same body), it's clear the Government couldn't give a damn about any opinion that differs from its own or doesn't support the Bill.

Starting at 9.25am tomorrow morning, the Committee will therefore 'consider' oral evidence from the following:

• Michelle Mitchell OBE (Chief Executive at Cancer Research UK)
• Deborah Arnott (Chief Executive at Action on Smoking and Health (ASH))
• Sheila Duffy (Chief Executive at Action on Smoking and Health Scotland)
• Dr Charmaine Griffiths (Chief Executive at British Heart Foundation)
• Sarah Sleet (Chief Executive Officer at Asthma and Lung UK)
• Dr Patrick Roach (General Secretary at NASUWT - The Teachers' Union)
• Matthew Shanks (Chair at Secondary Teacher Reference Group)
• Paul Farmer (Chief Executive at Age UK)
• Cllr David Fothergill (Deputy Chair of the LGA, Chairman of the LGA Community Wellbeing Board at Local Government Association (LGA))
• Greg Fell (President at Association of Directors of Public Health)
• Ailsa Rutter OBE (Director at Fresh and Balance North East)
• Adrian Simpson (Policy Adviser – Retail Products at British Retail Consortium)
• John Herriman (CEO at Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI))
• Kate Pike (CTSI Lead Officer for Vaping at Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI))
• Laura Young (PhD Student at Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science, University of Dundee)
• Professor Linda Bauld OBE (Bruce and John Usher Chair in Public Health at University of Edinburgh)
• Professor Robert West (Professor Emeritus of Health Psychology at University College London (UCL))
• Professor Ann McNeill (Professor of Tobacco Addiction at King’s College London)

You couldn't make it up. But it gets better (or worse, depending on your outlook) because on Wednesday the oral evidence session continues with these witnesses:

• Professor Sir Chris Whitty, Chief Medical Officer for England
• Sir Francis Atherton, Chief Medical Officer for Wales
• Professor Sir Michael McBride, Chief Medical Officer for Northern Ireland
• Professor Sir Gregor Ian Smith, Chief Medical Officer for Scotland
• Professor Sir Steven Powis (National Medical Director at NHS England)
• Kate Brintworth (Chief Midwifery Officer at NHS England)
• Professor Kamilla Hawthorne MBE (Chair of the Council at Royal College of General Practitioners)
• Professor Steve Turner (President at Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH))
• Professor Sanjay Agrawal (RCP’s special adviser on tobacco at Royal College of Physicians)
• Dr Tim Mitchell (President at Royal College of Surgeons)
• Mark Rowland (Chief Executive at Mental Health Foundation)
• Dr Laura Squire OBE (Chief Healthcare Quality and Access Officer at Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA))
• Mr David Lawson (Director at Inter Scientific Ltd.)
  Professor Allison Ford (Associate Professor at the Institute for Social Marketing and Health at University of Stirling)
• Dr Rob Branston (Senior Lecturer at University of Bath)
• Professor Anna Gilmore (Professor of Public Health at University of Bath)

Many of the names will be familiar to you and I would be gobsmacked if a single witness is opposed to the Bill, other than complaining that it doesn't go far enough.

Rishi Sunak is clearly so desperate to get the legislation through parliament without delay or proper scrutiny that opponents – including shopkeepers who have genuine concerns about the impact of the Bill on retail crime and the safety of staff – have been completely sidelined.

Unlike PhD student and 'social media influencer' Laura Young, also known as Less Waste Laura, who was almost unheard of a couple of years ago.

Now, thanks to her one woman campaign to ban disposable vapes, she has been invited to give evidence whilst other campaigners, opposed to prohibition, have been frozen out.

Faced with what is sure to be an overwhelming defeat in the election, whenever it's held, it's as if the prime minister is saying: "Damn them, I don't care any more. This is my legacy and I'm going to get this Bill through regardless of opposition even within my own party."

This isn't a stitch up, it's a carve up, yet few people seem in the slightest bit bothered.

Is this the moment democracy died? Probably not, because it's been on life support for some time, but the more I see how the system works the less I trust it, and the less I trust it the less I like it, and the less I like it the less likely I am to vote.

Consequently an increasing number of people like me simply won't vote because ... why should we?

In a democracy I'm perfectly happy to accept the will of the majority, even if I disagree with it, but en route I do expect government to at least consider my point of view, and that of millions of people who share those views, in the course of the political process.

Instead, what we're experiencing with the Tobacco and Vapes Bill is more like Soviet or Russian politics where legitimate opposition to government policy is ignored and opponents are effectively cancelled.

For me, Sunak's legacy won’t be fewer children smoking, but fewer adults voting because ... why bother?

Bridge of sighs

Disappointing result but good to be back at the Bridge.

What a long day, though. We drove to London from Cambridgeshire, leaving just before midday, but our arrival in central London coincided with yet another march that blocked several roads and led to a significant detour before I could leave the car in my preferred car park off Horseferry Road in Westminster.

We then got the tube to Fulham Broadway and had a bite to eat in a restaurant on the Fulham Road.

When we arrived at the ground 45 minutes before the 5.30 kick-off, large crowds - including groups of noisy, excited Barcelona supporters - were milling around outside.

(I was amused to note that the entrance I used to enter the ground in the Eighties is now called the Bovril Gate after my favourite match-day drink.)

Our seats yesterday were in the ‘new’ West Stand, now 30 years old, in a section called Westview.

There was a spacious ‘food hall’ and from our padded seats the view of the lively pre-match entertainment (and the game itself) was enhanced by a big screen directly in front of and above us.

We were pretty much on the halfway line and tickets were a very reasonable £22.50 each. Compare that to the price of a Westview ticket for the men’s team which range from £120 to £280 apiece.

(Season tickets in Westview cost between £1,615 and £3,685.)

As for the match, Barcelona were clearly the superior team, with almost 70 per cent possession and most of the other stats (shots on goal, corners etc) in their favour.

Nevertheless, Chelsea restricted them to very few genuine goal scoring opportunities and the best chances unquestionably fell to the home side who hit the bar, and the post, and missed another glorious opportunity, all when Barcelona were 1-0 up and the score was 1-1 on aggregate.

Chelsea will kick themselves because had just one of those chances been taken the outcome might have been different, but we’ll never know.

Instead, what undoubtedly swung the game in Barcelona’s favour in the second half was the referee’s decision to book Chelsea defender Kadeisha Buchanan twice in four minutes, leading to her dismissal in the 59th minute.

The first booking was justified, the second wasn’t. Indeed, from our position high up in the West Stand, the ‘foul’ was so innocuous it took several moments to realise she had been sent off.

Fifteen minutes later Chelsea conceded a penalty that, again, most people considered extremely soft, and despite pushing for an equaliser in the closing minutes, a slew of late substitutions seemed to hinder rather than help the team which lost its shape.

So, a disappointing if not unexpected result. Barcelona are the best women’s team in the world, albeit not unbeatable in a one-off match.

Two years ago, for example, they lost to Lyon, the other giant of women’s football, in the final of the Women’s Champions League.

Over two legs, however, they’re almost impossible to beat, although Chelsea have come close twice having also lost 2-1 on aggregate at the same stage last year.

Overall though I enjoyed the experience. There was a large number of children, who are no doubt priced out of watching the men’s team, and I liked the fact that, in our section at least, Chelsea and Barcelona fans sat together.

I loved the lack of bile and aggression that you get among supporters in the men’s game, not to mention the often provocative chanting designed to wind up the opposition.

One man in the row behind us threatened briefly to spoil the mood by swearing and shouting “Cheat!” as loudly as possible at the referee, but he was an outlier.

Inspired by the officials’ bright orange shirts, a more humorous, if slightly tiresome, chant was, “The referee’s a carrot”.

I lost count of the number of times it was shouted out, a situation made all the more surreal by the fact that the man responsible sounded exactly like Timmy Mallett.

Forty years ago, when I sat in the old West Stand, I never imagined that, one day, I would watch a Chelsea Women’s team play in front of almost 40,000 people at a sold out Stamford Bridge.

Furthermore, I could never have envisaged being more invested in the women’s team than the men’s, but that’s where we are.

See also: Singing the Blues

Update: “You can’t give the ball back to Barcelona for 90 minutes and expect to win the game.”

Very fair analysis of the match by Chelsea and England defender Jess Carter on the Chelsea website.

Singing the Blues

I’m going to Stamford Bridge (above) this afternoon.

Chelsea Women are playing the second leg of the Women's Champions League semi-final against Barcelona and I want to support them, in person.

The first leg, in Barcelona last Saturday, resulted in a surprise 1-0 win for Chelsea.

To put this in perspective, it was Barcelona’s first defeat at home in any competition since February 2019.

It was also the first time they had failed to score in any match for two years.

Chelsea are good - one of the best women’s teams in England and Europe - but Barcelona are the current European champions and are still favourites to reach the final.

At the start of the week Chelsea’s long-serving manager Emma Hayes - who is leaving in the summer to take charge of the United States’ women’s national team - urged supporters to fill Stamford Bridge for the return leg, and I was happy to answer the call.

Again, some perspective. Chelsea Women normally play at Kingsmeadow in Kingston-upon-Thames where the average crowd is around 4,000.

Stamford Bridge holds 40,000 and when Hayes made her pitch I understand that 24,000 tickets had been sold. Last night the club announced that the match is a sell out and the stadium will be full.

As some of you know, my allegiance to Chelsea began in 1967, when I was eight. The club had just lost the FA Cup final to Spurs and for some reason I was attracted to the losing team. (Sound familiar?)

But it wasn’t the only reason for my choice.

We were living in Maidenhead in Berkshire at the time but my aunt lived in Kensington and whenever we visited her I would see signs to Chelsea (which is in the same borough) and it was the combination of those two factors that led me to support the team in blue.

Two years later we moved to Scotland, at which point I began supporting Dundee United as well, but as soon as I got a job in London in 1980 I became a frequent visitor to Stamford Bridge.

The club was in a bad way, having been relegated twice in the Seventies, and when I started watching them they were in the old Second Division and perilously close to dropping into the Third Division.

The stadium too was very different to what it is today. Behind each goal, for example, was what remained of an old speedway track so spectators at both ends of the ground were a significant distance from the pitch.

The stadium, which once held 80,000 spectators, was now dominated by the three-tier East Stand that was built in the early Seventies and almost bankrupted the club.

Behind one goal was a vast uncovered terrace for away fans, and behind the other goal was more terracing, partially covered.

This was the infamous Shed End where the hooligans gathered, and in the Eighties Chelsea had more than their fair share.

In 1986 I remember sitting high up in the East Stand watching the second leg of the League Cup semi-final against Sunderland.

Chelsea lost the match, and the tie, and at the end so-called ‘supporters’ invaded the pitch and assaulted one of the Sunderland players, a former Chelsea player called Clive Walker.

The then Chelsea chairman Ken Bates, who allegedly bought the club (and its substantial debts) for £1 in 1982, subsequently suggested that an electrified fence would stop people trespassing on to the pitch.

A wire fence was duly erected but the authorities stepped in before it went ‘live’.

The only experience I had of standing in The Shed end was on February 13, 1982, when Chelsea, still a Second Division club, beat Liverpool - winners of the European Cup the previous season - 2-0 in the FA Cup.

That was quite an afternoon but I normally sat in the old West Stand that was demolished and replaced a decade later by the current West Stand, where we are sitting this afternoon.

Some games in the old Second Division were poorly attended and it wasn’t unusual for large parts of the ground to be empty.

The upside was that there was no need to buy tickets in advance. You just turned up and paid at the turnstile, and once inside the ground there was a large choice of seats!

I could also walk from where I lived at the top of the North End Road in West Kensington to the ground, which is close to Fulham Broadway, in just 20 minutes.

As it happens, Stamford Bridge is in Fulham, not Chelsea, and when the original athletics stadium was purchased by the Mears family in 1904, the plan was to turn it into a football ground and lease it to Fulham Football Club.

Fulham however declined the offer so the owners solved the problem by forming their own club, Chelsea FC, to play there.

But I digress.

As the Eighties wore on life got in the way and I went to Stamford Bridge less and less, and when I got married and moved back to Scotland in 1992 I stopped going altogether.

Since then I’ve visited Stamford Bridge just twice, once for a stadium tour with my son when he was eight or nine, and once for a match - also with my son - against Wolves (or was it Bolton?) the following year.

Chelsea scored five goals but that’s about as much as I can remember.

Truth is, much as I would love to have watched, in person, the great Mourinho team, and subsequent stars such as Michael Ballack and Eden Hazard, I haven’t lived in London for over 30 years.

Therefore it’s too much hassle, frankly, to travel into London for matches that, for the benefit of television, kick off at all hours and very rarely (it seems) at the traditional time of 3.00pm on a Saturday afternoon.

Also, I’m just not as passionate about football as I was when I was younger.

In recent years however I’ve surprised myself by developing a genuine interest in women’s football, a subject I wrote about here when England reached, and won, the final of the Women’s Euros in 2022.

Women's football may be far below the men’s game in many respects but, regardless of that, I enjoy it.

Off the pitch especially I am struck by how much more articulate, engaging and unguarded many of the players are compared to their male counterparts.

Their enjoyment of the game is infectious and I hope that never changes, although I suspect it will as the rewards and pressures gradually increase.

Last year I wrote:

What I 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.

PS. Three more (very small) examples of why women’s football is arguably more enjoyable to follow, at present, than the men’s game:

Exhibit 1: In a Women’s Champions League match last year Chelsea’s Melanie Leupolz, a German international who had only recently returned to the side after a year out having a baby, got a kick in the face. With a thick river of blood covering her face, did she roll around and make a meal of it? No. She sat up gingerly, left the field (without complaint) for treatment, and even made a joke of it on social media.

Exhibit 2: Emma Hayes and Carla Ward, the head coaches of Chelsea and Aston Villa respectively, were recently seen laughing together on the touchline. Earlier in the game Villa had their goalkeeper sent off for handling the ball outside the box. Late in the game, with Villa losing 3-0, the substitute keeper developed a calf strain and it seemed she might have to come off as well. Ward was under pressure following some poor results. I for one found it heart-warming that she could laugh about the situation with her friend and rival manager.

Exhibit 3: Following another recent match, Chelsea’s Norwegian midfielder Guro Reiten was filmed accepting a can of Irn Bru from a young female supporter, which she then held up, laughing. The context was that, a few days earlier, the club had posted a video of her teammate, Scotland’s Erin Cuthbert, introducing the Scottish fizzy drink to Reiten and two Swedish teammates who then had to taste it, with mixed reactions. The amusing interaction between player and spectator - and the fact that the club posted it on social media - is not unusual in the women’s game, for now at least. Long may it continue.

See also: Football? It’s a woman’s world now (July 2022) and Not watching the Women’s World Cup final? What’s wrong with you? (August 2023).

Photo: iStock

Stitch up (how low will this Govt go?)

Two days ago the Government quietly published the list of MPs who will sit on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee.

It would have been easy to miss because it was number 41 (under General Committees: Appointments) on a long list of items entitled ‘Chamber Business’.

The Committee is currently scheduled to meet from April 30 to May 23 when it will hear evidence from stakeholders and other interested parties and consider amendments to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

For the record, the 17 members of the Committee, who would have been chosen by Government and Opposition whips, are:

Nickie Aiken, Duncan Baker, Aaron Bell, Bob Blackman, Dr Lisa Cameron, Bambos Charalambous, Mary Kelly Foy, Preet Kaur Gill, Trudy Harrison, Dr Caroline Johnson, Andrea Leadsom, Rachael Maskell, Kirsten Oswald, Angela Richardson, Mr Virendra Sharma, Steve Tuckwell and Christian Wakeford.

Despite the fact that there was substantial and well publicised opposition to the Bill at the second reading last week, with 165 Conservative MPs - almost half the parliamentary party - either abstaining or voting against (58), the 17-member Committee contains not a single MP who voted against the Bill.

Instead, 16 out of the 17 MPs chosen to sit on the Committee voted in favour of the Bill, and the only one who didn't (Labour's Mary Kelly Foy – no vote recorded) is vice-chair of the APPG on Smoking and Health (which is run by ASH) so we know she supports the Bill and would have voted Aye had she been present.

Incredibly, no fewer than FOUR members (almost a quarter) of the Committee are also members of the APPG on Smoking and Health. Apart from Mary Kelly Foy, the others are Bob Blackman (Conservative), who is chairman of the APPG, Rachael Maskell (Labour), and Virendra Sharma (Labour).

Guido Fawkes has the story here with a comment by me. I don’t normally swear when representing Forest but on this occasion I felt it was justified.

“Committees don't need to be balanced but this is such an obvious stitch-up it's embarrassing.

“The make-up of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee is effectively a f*ck you to every MP who voted against the Bill, and every member of the public who opposes the generational smoking ban."

See: Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee members