Petulant For A While

A quotation that somebody left in the comments filtered back to mind today, so I went looking for it. It was left by Magnetic a week or so back, and it was a quotation from Sir George Godber, who’d said:

“Need there really be any difficulty about prohibiting smoking in more public places? The nicotine addicts would be petulant for a while, but why should we accord them any right to make the innocent suffer?”

I wonder how long that George Godber thought that “a while” would last?

Somehow, I think that Godber imagined that they’d be a bit sulky and cross for a few days, or a few weeks. At most, after a few months, the last of them would have come in from the cold, grinning sheepishly, and saying, “It’s a fair cop. I’ve learned my lesson. Let me buy you antismokers a round of drinks. But for you people nothing would ever have changed. And, y’know what? I’ve given up smoking!”

Godber was probably drawing on his experience of previous smoking bans. Like ones on buses and trains and airline jets, where smokers had just shrugged and accepted it. That was how I responded myself to all those creeping bans, after all. I noticed them at first, but a week later it was just water under the bridge. After all, I didn’t particularly want to smoke on buses or trains or airline jets.

But when all those earlier bans came in, smokers weren’t expelled from society. They didn’t lose their communities of friends. They didn’t get vilified and demonised in the media. They didn’t get fired from their jobs. Or refused medical treatment.

Which is what happened with the pub smoking ban, of course. Smokers were pushed and prodded for years. And then they were hit with a really big stick.

It hurt a lot of people. Like Eastenders star June Brown:

“You can’t go anywhere and smoke now – it’s ruined my life. It’s ruined the whole end of my life.”

And to the extent that people really have been badly hurt, and really had their lives ruined, it’s safe to say that those people are never going to forget, and are never going to forgive what was done to them. They’re not going to be angry for a day or a week. They’re going to be bitter for the rest of their lives.

George Godber’s “while” is going to be of indefinite duration.

And one day, when it finally filters through to the powers that be that the smoking ban was a mistake, they’ll relax the ban. The existing law will be seen for what it is – ineffective and unnecessarily draconian -. I think this is bound to happen sooner or later.

But when it does happen, and smokers get their own smoking rooms or their own pubs or whatever, it won’t be a cure. It’ll just be an improvement. For the bitterness and the anger won’t go away. That really is permanent. Because people can’t be given back their communities or their friends. They can’t be given back the jobs and the businesses they lost. Maybe they can’t even be given back their good name.

Whatever happens, the smoking ban will leave a permanent bleeding wound.

And a very large, permanent, bleeding wound. Because this isn’t just one or two people who have been run over by a truck. This is millions of people all over the world. Millions of permanently angry and resentful people.

It’s going to be a very big problem, I think. Politicians and pundits are going to deeply regret what they did. Not the ones who actually inflicted the damage, of course. They’ll never admit fault, ever. But the ones who come after them, who have to pick up the pieces, are going to be shaking their heads and wondering what sort of madness afflicted their predecessors that they could have so vilified and expelled from polite society fully a quarter of their own people. There’ll probably be academic papers about it. “The epic lunacy of the smoking bans: what had they been smoking?”

It’ll be a problem not just here in Britain, but all over the world. Ten, twenty years from now. Longer than that even. And regardless of whether bans have been amended or repealed in the mean time.

That’s my guess, anyway. From looking at my own anger. Three and a half years into the smoking ban, I’m still angry. And I think I’ll always be angry. Even if they repeal the ban, I’ll carry on being angry.

It isn’t going to go away.

But some good may yet come of it. Tobacco Control must be destroyed. Inherently divisive ‘lifestyle medicine’ must be comprehensively discredited and rejected. Epidemiology needs to be refounded. The medical profession must be reformed, and every single antismoker expelled from its ranks.

That would be a good start.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to Petulant For A While

  1. junican says:

    Frank.
    I am going to post one of my horribly long comments. I will have to break it into two (or more) parts:
    Part 1.
    Subrosa has published a guest post about democracy. The author outlines his belief that democracy is becoming less and less democratic; that democracy is being more and more manipulated, to such an extent that THE PEOPLE have no real say and are becoming more and more disenchanted. Finally, he says that if Scotland gains complete independence, the Scottish people should think long and hard about how their government should be organised.
    Not long ago (pre-ban), I would have looked upon the ‘break up of the UK’ with horror. My attitude has now changed completely. I really hope that Scotland becomes completely independent and that they do think long and hard about their democracy. The last thing that they want or need is to have a copy of the English parliament. The English parliament in utterly and totally corrupt.
    I am not talking about expenses or individual failings of MPs. I am talking about the SYSTEM of government. For a start, there is no way that a hundred or so of the MPs of the major party should have government jobs. That practice is corrupt. The people who should be calling the administration to account are themselves the administration. Perhaps the cabinet should be MPs, but no lower. Ignorance begets ignorance.
    The point of the above (the guest post re democracy) is that people are becoming more and more disillusioned, and that is without any direct attack upon them – unlike people who enjoy tobacco. PETS (people who enjoy tobacco) have been directly attacked.

  2. junican says:

    Frank.
    I am going to post one of my horribly long comments. I will have to break it into two (or more) parts:
    Part 1.
    Subrosa has published a guest post about democracy. The author outlines his belief that democracy is becoming less and less democratic; that democracy is being more and more manipulated, to such an extent that THE PEOPLE have no real say and are becoming more and more disenchanted. Finally, he says that if Scotland gains complete independence, the Scottish people should think long and hard about how their government should be organised.
    Not long ago (pre-ban), I would have looked upon the ‘break up of the UK’ with horror. My attitude has now changed completely. I really hope that Scotland becomes completely independent and that they do think long and hard about their democracy. The last thing that they want or need is to have a copy of the English parliament. The English parliament in utterly and totally corrupt.
    I am not talking about expenses or individual failings of MPs. I am talking about the SYSTEM of government. For a start, there is no way that a hundred or so of the MPs of the major party should have government jobs. That practice is corrupt. The people who should be calling the administration to account are themselves the administration. Perhaps the cabinet should be MPs, but no lower. Ignorance begets ignorance.
    The point of the above (the guest post re democracy) is that people are becoming more and more disillusioned, and that is without any direct attack upon them – unlike people who enjoy tobacco. PETS (people who enjoy tobacco) have been directly attacked.

  3. junican says:

    Frank.
    I am going to post one of my horribly long comments. I will have to break it into two (or more) parts:
    Part 1.
    Subrosa has published a guest post about democracy. The author outlines his belief that democracy is becoming less and less democratic; that democracy is being more and more manipulated, to such an extent that THE PEOPLE have no real say and are becoming more and more disenchanted. Finally, he says that if Scotland gains complete independence, the Scottish people should think long and hard about how their government should be organised.
    Not long ago (pre-ban), I would have looked upon the ‘break up of the UK’ with horror. My attitude has now changed completely. I really hope that Scotland becomes completely independent and that they do think long and hard about their democracy. The last thing that they want or need is to have a copy of the English parliament. The English parliament in utterly and totally corrupt.
    I am not talking about expenses or individual failings of MPs. I am talking about the SYSTEM of government. For a start, there is no way that a hundred or so of the MPs of the major party should have government jobs. That practice is corrupt. The people who should be calling the administration to account are themselves the administration. Perhaps the cabinet should be MPs, but no lower. Ignorance begets ignorance.
    The point of the above (the guest post re democracy) is that people are becoming more and more disillusioned, and that is without any direct attack upon them – unlike people who enjoy tobacco. PETS (people who enjoy tobacco) have been directly attacked.

  4. junican says:

    Part 2
    I can only speak for myself.
    Pre ban, I would have regarded the idea of smuggling with some horror. Not now. Smugglers are heroes. Pre ban, I regarded cannabis and other drugs with horror. Not now. Now, I know that the ‘horrors’ are just propaganda. Propaganda is getting worse and worse all the time. I refuse to accept it. Am I the only one? Well, obviously not, since you and many, many others feel the same.
    The direct effect upon me has been to make me rebellious. And, my rebelliousness is getting stronger and stronger. I now look for ways to rebel. I argue with officialdom. I do not accept that ‘officials’ have authority over me. I argue.
    It is not required that the whole population rebel. If 5% rebel, massive disruption will occur. PETS (people who enjoy tobacco), drinkers, fatties, climate change deniers, etc, need to unite.
    Frank, you said that the strength of the internet is its ‘Diaspora’, and that is true. But there is a need to unite, somehow or another. The reason is that the powers that be are even now trying to find a way to ‘censor’ the net. It is to the great credit of google that they did not succumb to the blandishments of China. But the powers that be will continue to seek ways to censor – probably by making ISPs responsible for content – such as, a person blogging slanders another person – ISP gets sued. But if ISPs have any sense, they will already be prepared. They will say that they do not censor IDEAS AND WORDS. They will refuse to attend courts and refuse to pay fines. Only direct government action to take them off the air will silence them. And, all the other ISPs will ‘go on strike’ if this happens. No way will ‘picking one off at a time’ be permitted. If such a ‘strike’ were to happen, billions of people all over the world would scream blue murder.
    People are angry. Politicians know this. Politicians are trying to talk their way out of it, but they will not succeed – the anger is too deep. The anger will only go away when THE PEOPLE accept that the government is ON THEIR SIDE. And, propaganda will not work. Whatever one says about ‘Education’, the fact of the matter is that more and more people are BECOMING AWARE. If I may illustrate, in a simple way, the Irish Gov tried to use a website to rally youth against tobacco with a video purporting to show a tobacco company meeting in which ways of ‘enslaving’ young people to tobacco were discussed. The great thing was that youths who commented saw through it immediately. They thought that the video was comical and silly. Good for them!

  5. junican says:

    Part 2
    I can only speak for myself.
    Pre ban, I would have regarded the idea of smuggling with some horror. Not now. Smugglers are heroes. Pre ban, I regarded cannabis and other drugs with horror. Not now. Now, I know that the ‘horrors’ are just propaganda. Propaganda is getting worse and worse all the time. I refuse to accept it. Am I the only one? Well, obviously not, since you and many, many others feel the same.
    The direct effect upon me has been to make me rebellious. And, my rebelliousness is getting stronger and stronger. I now look for ways to rebel. I argue with officialdom. I do not accept that ‘officials’ have authority over me. I argue.
    It is not required that the whole population rebel. If 5% rebel, massive disruption will occur. PETS (people who enjoy tobacco), drinkers, fatties, climate change deniers, etc, need to unite.
    Frank, you said that the strength of the internet is its ‘Diaspora’, and that is true. But there is a need to unite, somehow or another. The reason is that the powers that be are even now trying to find a way to ‘censor’ the net. It is to the great credit of google that they did not succumb to the blandishments of China. But the powers that be will continue to seek ways to censor – probably by making ISPs responsible for content – such as, a person blogging slanders another person – ISP gets sued. But if ISPs have any sense, they will already be prepared. They will say that they do not censor IDEAS AND WORDS. They will refuse to attend courts and refuse to pay fines. Only direct government action to take them off the air will silence them. And, all the other ISPs will ‘go on strike’ if this happens. No way will ‘picking one off at a time’ be permitted. If such a ‘strike’ were to happen, billions of people all over the world would scream blue murder.
    People are angry. Politicians know this. Politicians are trying to talk their way out of it, but they will not succeed – the anger is too deep. The anger will only go away when THE PEOPLE accept that the government is ON THEIR SIDE. And, propaganda will not work. Whatever one says about ‘Education’, the fact of the matter is that more and more people are BECOMING AWARE. If I may illustrate, in a simple way, the Irish Gov tried to use a website to rally youth against tobacco with a video purporting to show a tobacco company meeting in which ways of ‘enslaving’ young people to tobacco were discussed. The great thing was that youths who commented saw through it immediately. They thought that the video was comical and silly. Good for them!

  6. junican says:

    Part 2
    I can only speak for myself.
    Pre ban, I would have regarded the idea of smuggling with some horror. Not now. Smugglers are heroes. Pre ban, I regarded cannabis and other drugs with horror. Not now. Now, I know that the ‘horrors’ are just propaganda. Propaganda is getting worse and worse all the time. I refuse to accept it. Am I the only one? Well, obviously not, since you and many, many others feel the same.
    The direct effect upon me has been to make me rebellious. And, my rebelliousness is getting stronger and stronger. I now look for ways to rebel. I argue with officialdom. I do not accept that ‘officials’ have authority over me. I argue.
    It is not required that the whole population rebel. If 5% rebel, massive disruption will occur. PETS (people who enjoy tobacco), drinkers, fatties, climate change deniers, etc, need to unite.
    Frank, you said that the strength of the internet is its ‘Diaspora’, and that is true. But there is a need to unite, somehow or another. The reason is that the powers that be are even now trying to find a way to ‘censor’ the net. It is to the great credit of google that they did not succumb to the blandishments of China. But the powers that be will continue to seek ways to censor – probably by making ISPs responsible for content – such as, a person blogging slanders another person – ISP gets sued. But if ISPs have any sense, they will already be prepared. They will say that they do not censor IDEAS AND WORDS. They will refuse to attend courts and refuse to pay fines. Only direct government action to take them off the air will silence them. And, all the other ISPs will ‘go on strike’ if this happens. No way will ‘picking one off at a time’ be permitted. If such a ‘strike’ were to happen, billions of people all over the world would scream blue murder.
    People are angry. Politicians know this. Politicians are trying to talk their way out of it, but they will not succeed – the anger is too deep. The anger will only go away when THE PEOPLE accept that the government is ON THEIR SIDE. And, propaganda will not work. Whatever one says about ‘Education’, the fact of the matter is that more and more people are BECOMING AWARE. If I may illustrate, in a simple way, the Irish Gov tried to use a website to rally youth against tobacco with a video purporting to show a tobacco company meeting in which ways of ‘enslaving’ young people to tobacco were discussed. The great thing was that youths who commented saw through it immediately. They thought that the video was comical and silly. Good for them!

  7. junican says:

    Part 3.
    Frank, both of us are old enough to know that the powers that be will hold onto the status quo for as long as possible. They will ‘hide the decline’. The MSM will go along with it. Eventually, the whole thing will collapse, all of a sudden. The internal contradictions will see to it.
    There are already indications. Little things. For example, both my local pubs and at least one shop in my local precinct no longer display ‘smoking prohibited’ signs, and haven’t for months. So where is the enforcement authority?
    Tobacco Control is fighting a losing battle. Regardless of what politicians say in public, the fact of the matter is that they realise that the war is lost. Tobacco Control will fight and fight again, and they may still have some victories, but they must know that the war is lost.
    As we have said before, Climategate shot the whole of global warming to pieces. Regardless of the ‘whitewash’ produced by the hastily convened committee of global warmist zealots, everyone knows that GW is a con. There is no doubt. Why the Gov does not put them quietly to sleep is a mystery – keeping options open?
    If the Gov go ahead with the plain packaging and the display ban, then they must be crazy. Even the MSM will be unable to resist the comparison with alcohol labels and fattiness. The Gov will appear to be ridiculous.
    Finally (hurrah!), when the whole thing collapses, the anger will not go away. It may be that we cannot hold the likes of Patricia Hewitt and Caroline Flint personally responsible for the decimation of our pubs and clubs, although I do not really see why not. They were the Ministers who told the lies.
    The anger is too deep to go away. Unintended consequences. All the studies, the surveys, the lies, have only had the result of making us all more aware.
    As you say, in a hundred years or so, historians will look back at this era and be amazed. THE ERA OF BANS, they will call it. In a hundred years time, there will not be MAJORITY rule. By then, it will have become apparent that THE MAJORITY is a special interest group. By then, it will have become recognised that each individual has the right to do what he wants to do.
    It may be that environmental tobacco smoke is banned, but heroin and cocaine will not be. That is the unintended consequence of Tobacco Control.

  8. junican says:

    Part 3.
    Frank, both of us are old enough to know that the powers that be will hold onto the status quo for as long as possible. They will ‘hide the decline’. The MSM will go along with it. Eventually, the whole thing will collapse, all of a sudden. The internal contradictions will see to it.
    There are already indications. Little things. For example, both my local pubs and at least one shop in my local precinct no longer display ‘smoking prohibited’ signs, and haven’t for months. So where is the enforcement authority?
    Tobacco Control is fighting a losing battle. Regardless of what politicians say in public, the fact of the matter is that they realise that the war is lost. Tobacco Control will fight and fight again, and they may still have some victories, but they must know that the war is lost.
    As we have said before, Climategate shot the whole of global warming to pieces. Regardless of the ‘whitewash’ produced by the hastily convened committee of global warmist zealots, everyone knows that GW is a con. There is no doubt. Why the Gov does not put them quietly to sleep is a mystery – keeping options open?
    If the Gov go ahead with the plain packaging and the display ban, then they must be crazy. Even the MSM will be unable to resist the comparison with alcohol labels and fattiness. The Gov will appear to be ridiculous.
    Finally (hurrah!), when the whole thing collapses, the anger will not go away. It may be that we cannot hold the likes of Patricia Hewitt and Caroline Flint personally responsible for the decimation of our pubs and clubs, although I do not really see why not. They were the Ministers who told the lies.
    The anger is too deep to go away. Unintended consequences. All the studies, the surveys, the lies, have only had the result of making us all more aware.
    As you say, in a hundred years or so, historians will look back at this era and be amazed. THE ERA OF BANS, they will call it. In a hundred years time, there will not be MAJORITY rule. By then, it will have become apparent that THE MAJORITY is a special interest group. By then, it will have become recognised that each individual has the right to do what he wants to do.
    It may be that environmental tobacco smoke is banned, but heroin and cocaine will not be. That is the unintended consequence of Tobacco Control.

  9. junican says:

    Part 3.
    Frank, both of us are old enough to know that the powers that be will hold onto the status quo for as long as possible. They will ‘hide the decline’. The MSM will go along with it. Eventually, the whole thing will collapse, all of a sudden. The internal contradictions will see to it.
    There are already indications. Little things. For example, both my local pubs and at least one shop in my local precinct no longer display ‘smoking prohibited’ signs, and haven’t for months. So where is the enforcement authority?
    Tobacco Control is fighting a losing battle. Regardless of what politicians say in public, the fact of the matter is that they realise that the war is lost. Tobacco Control will fight and fight again, and they may still have some victories, but they must know that the war is lost.
    As we have said before, Climategate shot the whole of global warming to pieces. Regardless of the ‘whitewash’ produced by the hastily convened committee of global warmist zealots, everyone knows that GW is a con. There is no doubt. Why the Gov does not put them quietly to sleep is a mystery – keeping options open?
    If the Gov go ahead with the plain packaging and the display ban, then they must be crazy. Even the MSM will be unable to resist the comparison with alcohol labels and fattiness. The Gov will appear to be ridiculous.
    Finally (hurrah!), when the whole thing collapses, the anger will not go away. It may be that we cannot hold the likes of Patricia Hewitt and Caroline Flint personally responsible for the decimation of our pubs and clubs, although I do not really see why not. They were the Ministers who told the lies.
    The anger is too deep to go away. Unintended consequences. All the studies, the surveys, the lies, have only had the result of making us all more aware.
    As you say, in a hundred years or so, historians will look back at this era and be amazed. THE ERA OF BANS, they will call it. In a hundred years time, there will not be MAJORITY rule. By then, it will have become apparent that THE MAJORITY is a special interest group. By then, it will have become recognised that each individual has the right to do what he wants to do.
    It may be that environmental tobacco smoke is banned, but heroin and cocaine will not be. That is the unintended consequence of Tobacco Control.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Add me to the angry list.
    Agree with Junican, now I question authority, I argue, I resist. I have become a problem.
    Yes, I will buy from man with a van, yes I will pay cash in hand for whatever I can and yes I will be Mr Awkward probably for the rest of my life.
    I bitterly object to the way I have be treated.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Add me to the angry list.
    Agree with Junican, now I question authority, I argue, I resist. I have become a problem.
    Yes, I will buy from man with a van, yes I will pay cash in hand for whatever I can and yes I will be Mr Awkward probably for the rest of my life.
    I bitterly object to the way I have be treated.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Add me to the angry list.
    Agree with Junican, now I question authority, I argue, I resist. I have become a problem.
    Yes, I will buy from man with a van, yes I will pay cash in hand for whatever I can and yes I will be Mr Awkward probably for the rest of my life.
    I bitterly object to the way I have be treated.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Anger
    I am glad to see that George Godber’s comment has annoyed other people as well. Is it arrogance that makes him (and the anti-smokers) assume that smokers will moan for this “little” while before “coming round to that the smoking ban might actually be a good thing”?
    It is obvious that the smoking ban is not a good thing, it is the step too far that all ‘control freaks’ are tempted to take – and then they are surprised to discover that they are not in control when people just simply wake up and hit back. It may take ‘a while’ before the ‘hitting back’ happens, but it is inevitable.
    In Junican’s words:
    “Tobacco Control is fighting a losing battle. Regardless of what politicians say in public, the fact of the matter is that they realise that the war is lost. Tobacco Control will fight and fight again, and they may still have some victories, but they must know that the war is lost.”

  14. Anonymous says:

    Anger
    I am glad to see that George Godber’s comment has annoyed other people as well. Is it arrogance that makes him (and the anti-smokers) assume that smokers will moan for this “little” while before “coming round to that the smoking ban might actually be a good thing”?
    It is obvious that the smoking ban is not a good thing, it is the step too far that all ‘control freaks’ are tempted to take – and then they are surprised to discover that they are not in control when people just simply wake up and hit back. It may take ‘a while’ before the ‘hitting back’ happens, but it is inevitable.
    In Junican’s words:
    “Tobacco Control is fighting a losing battle. Regardless of what politicians say in public, the fact of the matter is that they realise that the war is lost. Tobacco Control will fight and fight again, and they may still have some victories, but they must know that the war is lost.”

  15. Anonymous says:

    Anger
    I am glad to see that George Godber’s comment has annoyed other people as well. Is it arrogance that makes him (and the anti-smokers) assume that smokers will moan for this “little” while before “coming round to that the smoking ban might actually be a good thing”?
    It is obvious that the smoking ban is not a good thing, it is the step too far that all ‘control freaks’ are tempted to take – and then they are surprised to discover that they are not in control when people just simply wake up and hit back. It may take ‘a while’ before the ‘hitting back’ happens, but it is inevitable.
    In Junican’s words:
    “Tobacco Control is fighting a losing battle. Regardless of what politicians say in public, the fact of the matter is that they realise that the war is lost. Tobacco Control will fight and fight again, and they may still have some victories, but they must know that the war is lost.”

  16. Anonymous says:

    “Godber recollected that he had said in 1962 to Keith Joseph, another of his Conservative ministers, that “we really have to do something about abolishing smoking” (having won the approval of the Health Minister Enoch Powell).
    Joseph looked quite shocked and said: “You really can’t expect to abolish smoking.”
    Godber replied: “No, but I want to see it reduced to an activity of consenting adults in private.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/sir-george-godber-governments-chief-medical-officer-who-helped-to-establish-the-fledgling-national-health-service-1607201.html
    Medicine and the Public: The 1962 Report of the Royal College of Physicians and the New Public Health
    Virginia Berridge
    “The idea of outlining specific courses of action was anathema to a society that associated “propaganda” with wartime central direction, and with earlier Nazi propaganda. Health education at this time placed its faith in the citizenship of its recipients. One can see the government departments edging toward this change in the discussion of smoking, prodded also by tensions in the organization and funding of health education.
    The civil servant Enid Russell Smith, always an incisive analyst of events, commented in 1962 that government could draw in future on two things: parents’ concern for their children, and the changes taking place in the medical profession.
    Publicity would have the authority of the profession.
    So far, she commented, the state had not sought to protect individuals from doing harm to their own health if they were not harming the health of others; alcohol was an exception to the rule, and also drugs of addiction, but for both it was the social consequences rather than individual health that was paramount.
    The new line might be that the costs fell on the state, and so government should stop people from damaging their health—but, she commented presciently, once government took on this role, it would not stop at smoking”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894742/
    “So far, she commented, the state had not sought to protect individuals from doing harm to their own health if they were not harming the health of others;”
    Which is why Godber resurrected Passivrauchen,creating a private army of scientists, to turn the public against people who enjoy tobacco and force them to bend to his will.
    Which is what turned a quiet housewife who enjoyed working in her garden, trusted government to do it’s best, though it frequently got it wrong, into someone who obsessively mans a desk hunting the perpetrators across the internet.
    Talking of desks as they were last week, mine is stripped bare as it has been for the last 4 years, like a corner of Bletchley Park.
    I am not me any more and I will not forget.
    Rose

  17. Anonymous says:

    “Godber recollected that he had said in 1962 to Keith Joseph, another of his Conservative ministers, that “we really have to do something about abolishing smoking” (having won the approval of the Health Minister Enoch Powell).
    Joseph looked quite shocked and said: “You really can’t expect to abolish smoking.”
    Godber replied: “No, but I want to see it reduced to an activity of consenting adults in private.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/sir-george-godber-governments-chief-medical-officer-who-helped-to-establish-the-fledgling-national-health-service-1607201.html
    Medicine and the Public: The 1962 Report of the Royal College of Physicians and the New Public Health
    Virginia Berridge
    “The idea of outlining specific courses of action was anathema to a society that associated “propaganda” with wartime central direction, and with earlier Nazi propaganda. Health education at this time placed its faith in the citizenship of its recipients. One can see the government departments edging toward this change in the discussion of smoking, prodded also by tensions in the organization and funding of health education.
    The civil servant Enid Russell Smith, always an incisive analyst of events, commented in 1962 that government could draw in future on two things: parents’ concern for their children, and the changes taking place in the medical profession.
    Publicity would have the authority of the profession.
    So far, she commented, the state had not sought to protect individuals from doing harm to their own health if they were not harming the health of others; alcohol was an exception to the rule, and also drugs of addiction, but for both it was the social consequences rather than individual health that was paramount.
    The new line might be that the costs fell on the state, and so government should stop people from damaging their health—but, she commented presciently, once government took on this role, it would not stop at smoking”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894742/
    “So far, she commented, the state had not sought to protect individuals from doing harm to their own health if they were not harming the health of others;”
    Which is why Godber resurrected Passivrauchen,creating a private army of scientists, to turn the public against people who enjoy tobacco and force them to bend to his will.
    Which is what turned a quiet housewife who enjoyed working in her garden, trusted government to do it’s best, though it frequently got it wrong, into someone who obsessively mans a desk hunting the perpetrators across the internet.
    Talking of desks as they were last week, mine is stripped bare as it has been for the last 4 years, like a corner of Bletchley Park.
    I am not me any more and I will not forget.
    Rose

  18. Anonymous says:

    “Godber recollected that he had said in 1962 to Keith Joseph, another of his Conservative ministers, that “we really have to do something about abolishing smoking” (having won the approval of the Health Minister Enoch Powell).
    Joseph looked quite shocked and said: “You really can’t expect to abolish smoking.”
    Godber replied: “No, but I want to see it reduced to an activity of consenting adults in private.”
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/sir-george-godber-governments-chief-medical-officer-who-helped-to-establish-the-fledgling-national-health-service-1607201.html
    Medicine and the Public: The 1962 Report of the Royal College of Physicians and the New Public Health
    Virginia Berridge
    “The idea of outlining specific courses of action was anathema to a society that associated “propaganda” with wartime central direction, and with earlier Nazi propaganda. Health education at this time placed its faith in the citizenship of its recipients. One can see the government departments edging toward this change in the discussion of smoking, prodded also by tensions in the organization and funding of health education.
    The civil servant Enid Russell Smith, always an incisive analyst of events, commented in 1962 that government could draw in future on two things: parents’ concern for their children, and the changes taking place in the medical profession.
    Publicity would have the authority of the profession.
    So far, she commented, the state had not sought to protect individuals from doing harm to their own health if they were not harming the health of others; alcohol was an exception to the rule, and also drugs of addiction, but for both it was the social consequences rather than individual health that was paramount.
    The new line might be that the costs fell on the state, and so government should stop people from damaging their health—but, she commented presciently, once government took on this role, it would not stop at smoking”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1894742/
    “So far, she commented, the state had not sought to protect individuals from doing harm to their own health if they were not harming the health of others;”
    Which is why Godber resurrected Passivrauchen,creating a private army of scientists, to turn the public against people who enjoy tobacco and force them to bend to his will.
    Which is what turned a quiet housewife who enjoyed working in her garden, trusted government to do it’s best, though it frequently got it wrong, into someone who obsessively mans a desk hunting the perpetrators across the internet.
    Talking of desks as they were last week, mine is stripped bare as it has been for the last 4 years, like a corner of Bletchley Park.
    I am not me any more and I will not forget.
    Rose

  19. Anonymous says:

    Anti-smoking victories
    I agree with what you are all saying, I would point out that victories are not always what they appear to be. there appears to be a swing taking place, more and more countries are rebelling against tobacco control more and more people are seeing these bans for what they are and are realizing what is at stake.
    Yes the anti smokers may win a few more victories, they will be pyrrhic victories where the cost to politicians may be so high as to make them worthless, that will lead to the demise of the anti smokers MP’s and possibly even the scientists behind it, for a while anyway

  20. Anonymous says:

    Anti-smoking victories
    I agree with what you are all saying, I would point out that victories are not always what they appear to be. there appears to be a swing taking place, more and more countries are rebelling against tobacco control more and more people are seeing these bans for what they are and are realizing what is at stake.
    Yes the anti smokers may win a few more victories, they will be pyrrhic victories where the cost to politicians may be so high as to make them worthless, that will lead to the demise of the anti smokers MP’s and possibly even the scientists behind it, for a while anyway

  21. Anonymous says:

    Anti-smoking victories
    I agree with what you are all saying, I would point out that victories are not always what they appear to be. there appears to be a swing taking place, more and more countries are rebelling against tobacco control more and more people are seeing these bans for what they are and are realizing what is at stake.
    Yes the anti smokers may win a few more victories, they will be pyrrhic victories where the cost to politicians may be so high as to make them worthless, that will lead to the demise of the anti smokers MP’s and possibly even the scientists behind it, for a while anyway

  22. Anonymous says:

    Angree
    I have always been an anti authoritarian arrogant self centred person and as I got older I began to mellow !!
    Since the smoking ban that mellowness has turned to hatred of the people that have dictated my lifestyle.
    I am now the most angry person that I know. Much angrier and hateful than I was before the ban.
    I could literally kill, I feel so ANGRY.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Angree
    I have always been an anti authoritarian arrogant self centred person and as I got older I began to mellow !!
    Since the smoking ban that mellowness has turned to hatred of the people that have dictated my lifestyle.
    I am now the most angry person that I know. Much angrier and hateful than I was before the ban.
    I could literally kill, I feel so ANGRY.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Angree
    I have always been an anti authoritarian arrogant self centred person and as I got older I began to mellow !!
    Since the smoking ban that mellowness has turned to hatred of the people that have dictated my lifestyle.
    I am now the most angry person that I know. Much angrier and hateful than I was before the ban.
    I could literally kill, I feel so ANGRY.

  25. Anonymous says:

    ASH UK news today. Third hand smoke. Quote from ASH:
    ‘Thirdhand smoke’ may be bigger health hazard than previously believed
    Scientists are reporting that so-called “thirdhand smoke” – the invisible remains of cigarette smoke that deposits on carpeting, clothing, furniture and other surfaces – may be even more of a health hazard than previously believed.
    Time for another letter to the Charities Commission.

  26. Anonymous says:

    ASH UK news today. Third hand smoke. Quote from ASH:
    ‘Thirdhand smoke’ may be bigger health hazard than previously believed
    Scientists are reporting that so-called “thirdhand smoke” – the invisible remains of cigarette smoke that deposits on carpeting, clothing, furniture and other surfaces – may be even more of a health hazard than previously believed.
    Time for another letter to the Charities Commission.

    • Anonymous says:

      I imagine eating carpet is one of the more favoured pursuits of the ASH top brass if the photos are anything to go by.
      No wonder they’re worried about it.

    • Anonymous says:

      I imagine eating carpet is one of the more favoured pursuits of the ASH top brass if the photos are anything to go by.
      No wonder they’re worried about it.

  27. Anonymous says:

    ASH UK news today. Third hand smoke. Quote from ASH:
    ‘Thirdhand smoke’ may be bigger health hazard than previously believed
    Scientists are reporting that so-called “thirdhand smoke” – the invisible remains of cigarette smoke that deposits on carpeting, clothing, furniture and other surfaces – may be even more of a health hazard than previously believed.
    Time for another letter to the Charities Commission.

  28. Anonymous says:

    I too am quite angry.
    Grr!

  29. Anonymous says:

    I too am quite angry.
    Grr!

  30. Anonymous says:

    I too am quite angry.
    Grr!

  31. Anonymous says:

    I imagine eating carpet is one of the more favoured pursuits of the ASH top brass if the photos are anything to go by.
    No wonder they’re worried about it.

  32. Frank Davis says:

    Right. Everyone’s a bit brassed off, it seems! :-)
    No surprises there.
    Frank

  33. Frank Davis says:

    Right. Everyone’s a bit brassed off, it seems! :-)
    No surprises there.
    Frank

  34. Frank Davis says:

    Right. Everyone’s a bit brassed off, it seems! :-)
    No surprises there.
    Frank

  35. Anonymous says:

    A bit of a personal meandering here, but your item has got me thinking (again!), Frank.
    I liken the effect of the smoking ban on me as a bit like the effect it would have on my relationship with my gentle, kindly, caring OH should he suddenly turn round and thump me (he never has, incidentally, in case you’re wondering!) He might do it only once; he might be wracked with guilt and genuinely sorry afterwards; he might promise never, ever to do it again; and he might adhere to that promise for the rest of our days together. But deep down inside, the fact that he’d actually done it – that he’d actually been able to physically do it – would leave a terrible scar which would never quite heal and which, even with the best will in the world and after plumbing the depths of forgiveness in my soul, would mean that there would be a little, tiny percentage of me which would never, ever trust him fully again.
    That’s how I feel, too, about my employers’ reaction to the imposition of the ban (to ban smoking totally, premises-wide, even outdoors). Pre-ban, I enjoyed every second of my job, I felt valued and appreciated, I took huge interest in developing new ways to do things better, more quickly and more effectively, and I regularly put in many hours of unpaid overtime simply because it gave me such satisfaction to get the work done. Then 1.7.07 arrived, bringing the ban with it, and the wind was knocked completely, totally and utterly out of my sails. What had happened to the organisation that I loved so much? How had they concealed this inner prejudice for so long? Had their previously reasonable and considerate approach towards all their staff, which I had for so long respected, been just a front all the time? Was this their “real” character showing itself, now that it had finally been given an outlet, rubber-stamped by legislation? Were they only now still being “nice” in other ways (because in all other respects they hadn’t changed at all) because, as yet, they hadn’t got the approval of “the authorities” to be any other way? They were all so proud of themselves for “taking a stand against smoking,” as if it was some kind of moral crusade, and there wasn’t a second’s thought given to those of their staff who were most affected by their decision. “You don’t like it? Tough” was the attitude – most out of character. My response has been to “work to rule” in the tradition of many a disgruntled employee. Well, sauce for the goose, as they say. If they were going to favour other staff over me without a moment’s thought, then I’d stop favouring them over my other activities. New ideas? Nah – can’t be bothered any more. I go in, do what lands on my desk (and yes, I still do it very, very well – that is, after all, the basic deal) and then I go home again. If they aren’t doing things as effectively as they could, they can work it out for themselves now. Overtime? Not a chance. I finish at 5.00 pm and I’m out of that door like a rat up a drain. Short, snatched lunches? No way! I leave the premises and have a lunch hour now – no more, no less. Would this change if they relaxed their rules? No, not now. I’ve got used to having a nice, long evening to myself, and what’s more, I like it! And besides, they’ve done it once, so who says they can’t – given the right circumstances – do it again? The trust I once had in them to be reasonable and to consider everyone equally has, quite simply, vanished.
    And it’s how I feel about the huge number of politicians of all parties who voted the ban in with such undisguised glee. Like my employers, if they can do it once, they can do it again and they therefore aren’t to be trusted to be impartial or fair or reasonable in any of their decision-making. They’ve shown that, if they think they can get away with it, they’ll vote for their own personal preferences even if the effect will be devastating on huge swathes of their voting public. So yes, it’ll take a lot, lot more than just a simple relaxation of the ban to restore in me any sense of trust or respect in our elected representatives, at any level and of whatever political persuasion. And, incidentally, it’ll take a lot, lot longer than just “a while.”

  36. Anonymous says:

    A bit of a personal meandering here, but your item has got me thinking (again!), Frank.
    I liken the effect of the smoking ban on me as a bit like the effect it would have on my relationship with my gentle, kindly, caring OH should he suddenly turn round and thump me (he never has, incidentally, in case you’re wondering!) He might do it only once; he might be wracked with guilt and genuinely sorry afterwards; he might promise never, ever to do it again; and he might adhere to that promise for the rest of our days together. But deep down inside, the fact that he’d actually done it – that he’d actually been able to physically do it – would leave a terrible scar which would never quite heal and which, even with the best will in the world and after plumbing the depths of forgiveness in my soul, would mean that there would be a little, tiny percentage of me which would never, ever trust him fully again.
    That’s how I feel, too, about my employers’ reaction to the imposition of the ban (to ban smoking totally, premises-wide, even outdoors). Pre-ban, I enjoyed every second of my job, I felt valued and appreciated, I took huge interest in developing new ways to do things better, more quickly and more effectively, and I regularly put in many hours of unpaid overtime simply because it gave me such satisfaction to get the work done. Then 1.7.07 arrived, bringing the ban with it, and the wind was knocked completely, totally and utterly out of my sails. What had happened to the organisation that I loved so much? How had they concealed this inner prejudice for so long? Had their previously reasonable and considerate approach towards all their staff, which I had for so long respected, been just a front all the time? Was this their “real” character showing itself, now that it had finally been given an outlet, rubber-stamped by legislation? Were they only now still being “nice” in other ways (because in all other respects they hadn’t changed at all) because, as yet, they hadn’t got the approval of “the authorities” to be any other way? They were all so proud of themselves for “taking a stand against smoking,” as if it was some kind of moral crusade, and there wasn’t a second’s thought given to those of their staff who were most affected by their decision. “You don’t like it? Tough” was the attitude – most out of character. My response has been to “work to rule” in the tradition of many a disgruntled employee. Well, sauce for the goose, as they say. If they were going to favour other staff over me without a moment’s thought, then I’d stop favouring them over my other activities. New ideas? Nah – can’t be bothered any more. I go in, do what lands on my desk (and yes, I still do it very, very well – that is, after all, the basic deal) and then I go home again. If they aren’t doing things as effectively as they could, they can work it out for themselves now. Overtime? Not a chance. I finish at 5.00 pm and I’m out of that door like a rat up a drain. Short, snatched lunches? No way! I leave the premises and have a lunch hour now – no more, no less. Would this change if they relaxed their rules? No, not now. I’ve got used to having a nice, long evening to myself, and what’s more, I like it! And besides, they’ve done it once, so who says they can’t – given the right circumstances – do it again? The trust I once had in them to be reasonable and to consider everyone equally has, quite simply, vanished.
    And it’s how I feel about the huge number of politicians of all parties who voted the ban in with such undisguised glee. Like my employers, if they can do it once, they can do it again and they therefore aren’t to be trusted to be impartial or fair or reasonable in any of their decision-making. They’ve shown that, if they think they can get away with it, they’ll vote for their own personal preferences even if the effect will be devastating on huge swathes of their voting public. So yes, it’ll take a lot, lot more than just a simple relaxation of the ban to restore in me any sense of trust or respect in our elected representatives, at any level and of whatever political persuasion. And, incidentally, it’ll take a lot, lot longer than just “a while.”

    • Frank Davis says:

      That’s a very good description of it.
      In fact, it’s two very good descriptions.
      The first one certainly gets to the heart of the loss of trust. It’s certainly how I feel about our politicians. How could they do this to their own people? If they can do that, then what else are they capable of? Trust has gone.
      Not that I had much trust for them anyway…
      Frank

    • Frank Davis says:

      That’s a very good description of it.
      In fact, it’s two very good descriptions.
      The first one certainly gets to the heart of the loss of trust. It’s certainly how I feel about our politicians. How could they do this to their own people? If they can do that, then what else are they capable of? Trust has gone.
      Not that I had much trust for them anyway…
      Frank

    • Anonymous says:

      I saw a big change at work and I did the same as you.
      The big joke was many non smokers would disappear for hours at a time for lunch (public service) whilst I worked hard with the occasional fag and enjoyed it as well.
      Then it all changed, Guess what, nobody works hard now. Its finished. Treat you like shite and I respond accordingly.

    • Anonymous says:

      I saw a big change at work and I did the same as you.
      The big joke was many non smokers would disappear for hours at a time for lunch (public service) whilst I worked hard with the occasional fag and enjoyed it as well.
      Then it all changed, Guess what, nobody works hard now. Its finished. Treat you like shite and I respond accordingly.

  37. Anonymous says:

    A bit of a personal meandering here, but your item has got me thinking (again!), Frank.
    I liken the effect of the smoking ban on me as a bit like the effect it would have on my relationship with my gentle, kindly, caring OH should he suddenly turn round and thump me (he never has, incidentally, in case you’re wondering!) He might do it only once; he might be wracked with guilt and genuinely sorry afterwards; he might promise never, ever to do it again; and he might adhere to that promise for the rest of our days together. But deep down inside, the fact that he’d actually done it – that he’d actually been able to physically do it – would leave a terrible scar which would never quite heal and which, even with the best will in the world and after plumbing the depths of forgiveness in my soul, would mean that there would be a little, tiny percentage of me which would never, ever trust him fully again.
    That’s how I feel, too, about my employers’ reaction to the imposition of the ban (to ban smoking totally, premises-wide, even outdoors). Pre-ban, I enjoyed every second of my job, I felt valued and appreciated, I took huge interest in developing new ways to do things better, more quickly and more effectively, and I regularly put in many hours of unpaid overtime simply because it gave me such satisfaction to get the work done. Then 1.7.07 arrived, bringing the ban with it, and the wind was knocked completely, totally and utterly out of my sails. What had happened to the organisation that I loved so much? How had they concealed this inner prejudice for so long? Had their previously reasonable and considerate approach towards all their staff, which I had for so long respected, been just a front all the time? Was this their “real” character showing itself, now that it had finally been given an outlet, rubber-stamped by legislation? Were they only now still being “nice” in other ways (because in all other respects they hadn’t changed at all) because, as yet, they hadn’t got the approval of “the authorities” to be any other way? They were all so proud of themselves for “taking a stand against smoking,” as if it was some kind of moral crusade, and there wasn’t a second’s thought given to those of their staff who were most affected by their decision. “You don’t like it? Tough” was the attitude – most out of character. My response has been to “work to rule” in the tradition of many a disgruntled employee. Well, sauce for the goose, as they say. If they were going to favour other staff over me without a moment’s thought, then I’d stop favouring them over my other activities. New ideas? Nah – can’t be bothered any more. I go in, do what lands on my desk (and yes, I still do it very, very well – that is, after all, the basic deal) and then I go home again. If they aren’t doing things as effectively as they could, they can work it out for themselves now. Overtime? Not a chance. I finish at 5.00 pm and I’m out of that door like a rat up a drain. Short, snatched lunches? No way! I leave the premises and have a lunch hour now – no more, no less. Would this change if they relaxed their rules? No, not now. I’ve got used to having a nice, long evening to myself, and what’s more, I like it! And besides, they’ve done it once, so who says they can’t – given the right circumstances – do it again? The trust I once had in them to be reasonable and to consider everyone equally has, quite simply, vanished.
    And it’s how I feel about the huge number of politicians of all parties who voted the ban in with such undisguised glee. Like my employers, if they can do it once, they can do it again and they therefore aren’t to be trusted to be impartial or fair or reasonable in any of their decision-making. They’ve shown that, if they think they can get away with it, they’ll vote for their own personal preferences even if the effect will be devastating on huge swathes of their voting public. So yes, it’ll take a lot, lot more than just a simple relaxation of the ban to restore in me any sense of trust or respect in our elected representatives, at any level and of whatever political persuasion. And, incidentally, it’ll take a lot, lot longer than just “a while.”

  38. Anonymous says:

    Great piece, great comments – a shot in the arm that reinforces my hatred of these worthless, conniving bastards.
    db

  39. Anonymous says:

    Great piece, great comments – a shot in the arm that reinforces my hatred of these worthless, conniving bastards.
    db

  40. Anonymous says:

    Great piece, great comments – a shot in the arm that reinforces my hatred of these worthless, conniving bastards.
    db

  41. Frank Davis says:

    That’s a very good description of it.
    In fact, it’s two very good descriptions.
    The first one certainly gets to the heart of the loss of trust. It’s certainly how I feel about our politicians. How could they do this to their own people? If they can do that, then what else are they capable of? Trust has gone.
    Not that I had much trust for them anyway…
    Frank

  42. junican says:

    db.
    Are you the db who was commenting on the York newspaper site? I think that it must be you.
    Does it not piss you off that the ‘stinkers’ are still at it? It does me. But I have devised a simple answer to the ‘stinkers’ – “your stink is my fragrance”, followed up with “that is not what the ban is about”.
    Did you notice, on that York site, how the ‘stinkers’ got in first? They must be programmed. See an article about the ban and ‘click, click, click’ – stinks, stinks, stinks.
    Really weird.

  43. junican says:

    db.
    Are you the db who was commenting on the York newspaper site? I think that it must be you.
    Does it not piss you off that the ‘stinkers’ are still at it? It does me. But I have devised a simple answer to the ‘stinkers’ – “your stink is my fragrance”, followed up with “that is not what the ban is about”.
    Did you notice, on that York site, how the ‘stinkers’ got in first? They must be programmed. See an article about the ban and ‘click, click, click’ – stinks, stinks, stinks.
    Really weird.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hi J,
      Not this one…
      http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8791403.Should_smoking_ban_be_relaxed_/
      Can’t recall commenting there recently. I tend to pop up all over the place, usually as db or David. I’ve been ‘visiting’ Cyprus these last few days.
      http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/eu-worry-over-cyprus-smoking-ban/20110113#comment-59413
      Ralph – typical anti. Selfish and bigoted, not a good basis for offering a reasoned opinion. But I guess we should take heart that these types are few and far between and that most ‘ordinary’ people have simply been brainwashed. People such as him and KayTie (arrogant bitch) unwittingly provide an ideal opportunity to get the message out to a wider audience, whilst simultaneously demonstrating what hatred lies at the heart of the anti tobacco crusade.
      Anyway, if there were more enlightened people out there, such as you, Frank, LI etc, I probably wouldn’t be writing this….
      David

    • Anonymous says:

      Hi J,
      Not this one…
      http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8791403.Should_smoking_ban_be_relaxed_/
      Can’t recall commenting there recently. I tend to pop up all over the place, usually as db or David. I’ve been ‘visiting’ Cyprus these last few days.
      http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/eu-worry-over-cyprus-smoking-ban/20110113#comment-59413
      Ralph – typical anti. Selfish and bigoted, not a good basis for offering a reasoned opinion. But I guess we should take heart that these types are few and far between and that most ‘ordinary’ people have simply been brainwashed. People such as him and KayTie (arrogant bitch) unwittingly provide an ideal opportunity to get the message out to a wider audience, whilst simultaneously demonstrating what hatred lies at the heart of the anti tobacco crusade.
      Anyway, if there were more enlightened people out there, such as you, Frank, LI etc, I probably wouldn’t be writing this….
      David

  44. junican says:

    db.
    Are you the db who was commenting on the York newspaper site? I think that it must be you.
    Does it not piss you off that the ‘stinkers’ are still at it? It does me. But I have devised a simple answer to the ‘stinkers’ – “your stink is my fragrance”, followed up with “that is not what the ban is about”.
    Did you notice, on that York site, how the ‘stinkers’ got in first? They must be programmed. See an article about the ban and ‘click, click, click’ – stinks, stinks, stinks.
    Really weird.

  45. Anonymous says:

    I saw a big change at work and I did the same as you.
    The big joke was many non smokers would disappear for hours at a time for lunch (public service) whilst I worked hard with the occasional fag and enjoyed it as well.
    Then it all changed, Guess what, nobody works hard now. Its finished. Treat you like shite and I respond accordingly.

  46. Anonymous says:

    “Did you notice, on that York site, how the ‘stinkers’ got in first? They must be programmed. See an article about the ban and ‘click, click, click’ – stinks, stinks, stinks”
    In the first weeks after the ban I used to check the time of the article against the first “stinker” post.
    Sometimes it was less than two minutes which is hardly enough time to find the article read it and compose a comment.
    They must have had them ready in advance.
    “A documentary to be screened on Channel 4 tomorrow, filmed by an undercover journalist who got a job in Labour’s war room, reveals how party members and supporters were systematically used to create the impression of ‘real people’ passionately backing the government.”
    “Campaign materials seen by Dispatches stress that ‘more people trust the letters page than any other page of their local newspaper’ and that local organisers should target it.”
    “The technique, which began with Bush’s Republican party encouraging pro-war letters to local newspapers, and then by Democrats to push Kerry, is said to have originated with pharmaceutical firms encouraging patients to write letters praising the effects of certain drugs”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/may/22/uk.election2005
    That’s why I pay them little attention, if they were real people,rather than parrots, then I’d worry.
    Real people try very hard to explain their point of view.
    Rose

  47. Anonymous says:

    “Did you notice, on that York site, how the ‘stinkers’ got in first? They must be programmed. See an article about the ban and ‘click, click, click’ – stinks, stinks, stinks”
    In the first weeks after the ban I used to check the time of the article against the first “stinker” post.
    Sometimes it was less than two minutes which is hardly enough time to find the article read it and compose a comment.
    They must have had them ready in advance.
    “A documentary to be screened on Channel 4 tomorrow, filmed by an undercover journalist who got a job in Labour’s war room, reveals how party members and supporters were systematically used to create the impression of ‘real people’ passionately backing the government.”
    “Campaign materials seen by Dispatches stress that ‘more people trust the letters page than any other page of their local newspaper’ and that local organisers should target it.”
    “The technique, which began with Bush’s Republican party encouraging pro-war letters to local newspapers, and then by Democrats to push Kerry, is said to have originated with pharmaceutical firms encouraging patients to write letters praising the effects of certain drugs”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/may/22/uk.election2005
    That’s why I pay them little attention, if they were real people,rather than parrots, then I’d worry.
    Real people try very hard to explain their point of view.
    Rose

  48. Anonymous says:

    “Did you notice, on that York site, how the ‘stinkers’ got in first? They must be programmed. See an article about the ban and ‘click, click, click’ – stinks, stinks, stinks”
    In the first weeks after the ban I used to check the time of the article against the first “stinker” post.
    Sometimes it was less than two minutes which is hardly enough time to find the article read it and compose a comment.
    They must have had them ready in advance.
    “A documentary to be screened on Channel 4 tomorrow, filmed by an undercover journalist who got a job in Labour’s war room, reveals how party members and supporters were systematically used to create the impression of ‘real people’ passionately backing the government.”
    “Campaign materials seen by Dispatches stress that ‘more people trust the letters page than any other page of their local newspaper’ and that local organisers should target it.”
    “The technique, which began with Bush’s Republican party encouraging pro-war letters to local newspapers, and then by Democrats to push Kerry, is said to have originated with pharmaceutical firms encouraging patients to write letters praising the effects of certain drugs”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/may/22/uk.election2005
    That’s why I pay them little attention, if they were real people,rather than parrots, then I’d worry.
    Real people try very hard to explain their point of view.
    Rose

  49. Anonymous says:

    Hi J,
    Not this one…
    http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8791403.Should_smoking_ban_be_relaxed_/
    Can’t recall commenting there recently. I tend to pop up all over the place, usually as db or David. I’ve been ‘visiting’ Cyprus these last few days.
    http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/eu-worry-over-cyprus-smoking-ban/20110113#comment-59413
    Ralph – typical anti. Selfish and bigoted, not a good basis for offering a reasoned opinion. But I guess we should take heart that these types are few and far between and that most ‘ordinary’ people have simply been brainwashed. People such as him and KayTie (arrogant bitch) unwittingly provide an ideal opportunity to get the message out to a wider audience, whilst simultaneously demonstrating what hatred lies at the heart of the anti tobacco crusade.
    Anyway, if there were more enlightened people out there, such as you, Frank, LI etc, I probably wouldn’t be writing this….
    David

  50. junican says:

    Db.
    Sorry about that. I must have become confused with some other site – reviewing the York thing, I did not see any comments from you. Never mind, these things happen!

  51. junican says:

    Db.
    Sorry about that. I must have become confused with some other site – reviewing the York thing, I did not see any comments from you. Never mind, these things happen!

  52. junican says:

    Db.
    Sorry about that. I must have become confused with some other site – reviewing the York thing, I did not see any comments from you. Never mind, these things happen!

  53. Pingback: Solidarity | Frank Davis

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.