Tobacco Control Destroys A Family

I regularly mention how socially destructive smoking bans are. Here’s a case where Tobacco Control has destroyed a family.

A two-year-old boy from Hull, in East Riding of Yorkshire, has been taken from his parents after a government health visitor said they smoked too much.

Julie Allen, a health visitor from a local authority, told a family court that she had never come across such a “smoky house” before, and that the child and father were surrounded by a “visible cloud of smoke” when she visited. She claimed this made it difficult to breathe.

Another social worker said the unnamed child’s clothes and toys “smelt heavily of smoke”. The boy had recently experienced breathing problems and had an inhaler prescribed.

The Hull Daily Mail reports that Judge Louise Pemberton, who was also told of numerous other concerns about how the boy was cared for, decided the child should be placed for adoption.

The judge said: “On entering the living room Ms Allen described being able to see a visible cloud of smoke surrounding the father and (the boy).

“(The boy) was asleep on the sofa and had been unwell for some time by this point.

“Ms Allen described the room as ‘so smoke entrenched that I had difficulty breathing’. She immediately expressed concern to the parents as to the impact of such smoke on (the boy), who had already been prescribed an inhaler within the previous month to help his breathing.

“The parents seemed unable both at that stage and when the issue of smoking around (the boy) was raised by any other professional, to acknowledge or appreciate the concern and adapt their behaviour.”

I imagine that the parents were in their turn raised by parents who smoked (and whose grandparents smoked too), and none of them had never been bothered by it.

My father smoked. And so did my grandfather. And I bet my great-grandfathers smoked as well. And so on all the way back to the year dot. And none of it bothered me, and probably didn’t bother any of them either.

The only thing that I think might have changed is that most houses are badly ventilated these days, now that they no longer have chimneys and coal fires. And that might result in higher levels of smoke than they might otherwise have. Although I doubt that Ms Allen really did “have difficulty breathing.” She sounds like she was an obsessive antismoker of the kind that starts paddling the air at the sight of a smoker 200 yards away..

The only good thing about this story is that the parents almost certainly now hate the Tobacco Controllers with a passion. And I imagine that many of their smoking friends do too. And maybe quite a few of their non-smoking friends as well. In fact, maybe their entire community. And of course the story enraged me as well. In this manner, Tobacco Control is making more and more enemies.

Tobacco Control must be destroyed.


About Frank Davis

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

26 Responses to Tobacco Control Destroys A Family

  1. The Blocked Dwarf says:

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m as disgusted, and frightened, by the actions of the Health Visitor, the Court and the other fASHites as the next BUT , to my way of thinking, the parents of the child proved that they were unfit parents by simply allowing a social worker (or ‘Health Visitor’) into their house in the first place. If there is one thing ALL parents know , one thing lesson ALL parents must take from the events of the last decade or two then it is : If you let a social worker into your home you WILL loose your children….even if you’re a true believer, a trained social worker yourself and follow all the edicts of Social Services to the letter.

    I disobeyed that rule and ended up driving at speeds illegal even in Germany one night to get my eldest son on a plane and out the country before ‘Youth Services’ went to court in the morning.

    That’s another ‘rule’ ALL parents should follow: “Make sure your child has a valid passport (or two in my case) from the moment they exit the womb”.

    • Jude says:

      Good advice, I’d go as far as to say that you should never let any “Government” official, of any type, into your home, unless they have a valid court order. Tell them nothing and take em nowhere, least of all into the sanctuary of your home. This applies particularly to those from the “we want to help you” types, they don’t want to help, they want control.

      When you live in a fascist state, as I do in Australia, you need to protect yourself as much as possible, and for the most part live under the radar as far as is possible.

  2. Having read various news reports now on this story, it’s clear that there were many other issues around the decision far more significant than smoking. Another three children had been taken into care before, and so had this little boy for a while shortly after he was born. The father had mental health problems and was a regular cocaine user. We don’t know what other problems may or may not have been there and what neglect or harm the children suffered, but it’s clear this wasn’t an ordinary loving family who just happened to smoke.

    However, it was the smoking bit that hit the headlines, and the health visitor seemed to be particularly antzy in her evidence, and it’s deeply worrying that smoking is the only detail of their alleged bad parenting that got a mention in the press. I want to know how and why this aspect was stressed so much. Was it an ordinary court report, or did someone write a press release deliberately furthering the vilifucation of smokers?

    • waltc says:

      I think it would be the only angle stressed so’s to scare the living s— out of all smoking parents (few of whom would have the other, more relevant, disqualifying features). Point is to get smoking parents to quit by implanting the truly terrifying fear of losing their children to the “caring” state. Talk about ramping up the stakes in this game. It might, however, backfire in that smoking parents, alerted to this vicious totalitarian trend, might see where it’s going and stand up and fight–in the courts, in the press, at the polls or in the streets. Pretty to think so but, in fact, I doubt it. Most will either quit, cower or lie and hope that when their kids are old enough to talk, that they don ‘t rat them out.

    • margo says:

      You’ve hit the nail on the head, Lysistrata – there’s a lot more to this story, but it’s only the smoke that’s made the news.

    • Frank Davis says:

      it’s clear that there were many other issues around the decision far more significant than smoking.

      If there were, they weren’t stated. And furthermore, isn’t it just as likely that the “other issues” included the fact that the parents were obese, drank alcohol, and ate nothing but Kentucky Fried Chicken and Mars bars washed down with coke?

      • If there were, they weren’t stated.

        Well, they weren’t stated explicitly in the newspaper reports, just hinted at. We’d have to read the full proceedings to know. It’s the selective reporting and subsequent headlines concentrating on smoking that concerns me most – as it does junican and others below.

        The other issues may indeed have included ‘inappropriate’ lifestyle choices possibly including UKIP membership, reading the Daily Mail, being AGW deniers, owning a pitbull cross, and poor eating. You are right that everything was certainly washed down with coke, at least by the father!

  3. junican says:

    If this whole thing is not a deliberate plant, I’ll eat my hat. What a perfect opportunity for the Zealots! Poor people unable to defend themselves, mental health problems, habitual cocaine user – and a smoker to-boot. What better scenario to exploit?
    Note especially the implied threat to all parents. THAT is the point of the propaganda.
    Here is a clue to the fraud:
    Another social worker said the unnamed child’s clothes and toys “smelt heavily of smoke”. Imagine the situation. The child is to be taken away. There will be police present. There are likely to be arguments. Who in their right mind would be sniffing toys?
    As BD and Lys said, the true lesson for parents is to keep social workers as far away from you as possible.

    • Actually junican, I didn’t say that!

      In fact, one of my worries about this story is that families who could be helped to cope will no longer feel safe asking for help if they happen to smoke. In the same way that people with mental illness who smoke are now reluctant to ask for or agree to hospital admission even when desperately needed.

      Most ordinary social workers, in my considerable professional experience, do a good job quietly and their help is actually welcomed by families who are struggling; unfortunately we only hear about the heavy-handed or negligent cases.

      Fuck this antismoking madness. More unintended consequences.

  4. ladyraj says:

    The original report of this incident included the Judge stating the action taken shouldn’t be perceived as due to smoking.

  5. Smoking Lamp says:

    The actual circumstance are related to much more grave issues than smoking. The problem here is that the Antismokers, aided and abetted by the media, used this as a propaganda opportunity to vilify smokers in their on-going campaign of denormalisation.

  6. Lepercolonist says:

    Overweight children with chubby parents : You are next !

  7. beobrigitte says:

    As Lysistrata already pointed out, there is much more to this court ruling yet the media pounced on the least of this family’s problems. The full story is near impossible to find.
    There are no comment options for the article below.

    Health and social services staff had also raised other concerns about the boy’s care.

    The judge was told that the boy’s father had mental health problems and that their home had been “dirty, smelly and unhygienic”.

    There was also evidence of drug paraphernalia and the father had also tested positive for cocaine.

    So, a dirty and unhygienic home (as so often seen in these ‘reality’ shows on tv and drug paraphernalia, as well as the father having mental health iussues (e.g. schizoid personality disorder?) are not much of a problem and are listed as ‘other’ concerns?

    Another thing becomes evident. ASH pipes up:
    Responding to this case, Deborah Arnott, Chief Executive of health charity ASH said: “This is a very sad case. It should serve as a reminder to other parents or guardians who smoke that they should avoid smoking in the presence of their children because of the significant harm that can be caused by tobacco smoke.”

    “It should serve as a reminder to other parents or guardians…” Apart from the threat issued by this sentence, it becomes evident that ASH is not interested in “Health and social services staff had also raised other concerns about the boy’s care.” as long as “…they should avoid smoking in the presence of their children because of the significant harm that can be caused by tobacco smoke.”

    That does remind me of a question: ASH is a registered charity. What is Deborah Arnott’s annual wage and how is this wage funded?

    The only good thing about this story is that the parents almost certainly now hate the Tobacco Controllers with a passion. And I imagine that many of their smoking friends do too. And maybe quite a few of their non-smoking friends as well. In fact, maybe their entire community.

    I would so wish for that. Unfortunately there is a huge competitive element to the subject child rearing. The family would not have received much help with the REAL problems it had. As the BBC so often points out, there is little funding for from mental health issues affected, young (child bearing age!) people.
    Over many years (ASH being one of the perpetrators) a deep rift has been created in all communities, so it is likely that the woman beaten by her drunk (often + ‘can’t-keep-it-in-his-trousers’, hence creating a “lovely” atmosphere in the family home) husband puts herself well above this family by saying: “At least WE don’t smoke”.

    I was glad Miliband lost last month and I was hoping that the Tories would work to bring communities together again. Oh, well….

    • nisakiman says:

      That does remind me of a question: ASH is a registered charity. What is Deborah Arnott’s annual wage and how is this wage funded?

      I believe her salary is £80,000 pa plus expenses. Not bad, eh? It’s no wonder she wants to keep the gravy train rolling.

      ASH receive less than 5% of their income from direct donations. Most of it comes from the government and (the bulk of it, I think) via CRUK.

      • smokingscot says:

        @ Nisakiman

        Saw this comment by Mike Brighton.

        “Most of its funding of £750K in 2013 came from the Department of Health (Government), Cancer Research UK (charity) and British Heart Foundation (charity), so money is moving between different forms of anti-smoking charities and the government in a form of carousel. Those charities themselves receive large grants form the government.
        No wonder then need to campaign as the majority of their income goes on staff costs. If not a single person in the UK smoked any more, ASH would still be campaigning on the risk that someone could start again, and to keep the money and salaries rolling on……”

        At this place.

      • beobrigitte says:

        Nisakiman and smokingscot, this is very interesting.

        In short, “charities” are being funded for money laundering? I am curious!
        Isn’t it that donations to charities can be set off against tax? (Being mostly re-claimable from the government)
        Not only donate a number of charities to each other, they offset their donation against tax? AND THEN milk the government for most money they use to take the mickey?

        If – broadly speaking – I am right, I begin to get worried, VERY worried, about our government. Labour did prove that it has no idea of handling cash but I would have thought the Tories were a little wiser.

        Nevertheless, I would be interested in the executive directors of charities disclosing their personal income. There is nothing wrong with transparency and people have the right to KNOW how much of their donation actually is used to keep the head of their chosen charity in the lifestyle he/she has become accustomed to over the last 30-odd years.
        Naturally, I would like to read the cost of their heartstring advertising as well as number of employees and their salaries.

        • smokingscot says:

          @ BeoB

          You’re bang on the money. If one donates to charity and that person is a taxpayer then they can state that and the charity will claw back what tax you paid. So a 20% tax payer gives £50 and they get a further £10 on top from the government.

          Not sure about charities giving to other charities but the amounts are not huge. It’s a pdf of their finances for 2013 and refers to 2012. By the way in 2013 they did receive one actual donation from one person to the tune of £131k. (Never before, never since).

          However the interesting bits are from page 18 and on. Seems £150k came from the DoH in 2012 and 13. But “supporting charities” granted them £366k in 2012 and £378k in 13. Then there’s the “supporting charities” further payments of £129k in 2012 and £68 in 2013.

          They probably say who these supporting charities are elsewhere in their financial statement, but I can’t stomach the prospect of wading though their bumph to find it. Suffice it to say they’re quite small payments by several donors, with the bedrock being the DoH.

          However this archive will give you an idea of who they are.

          What may interest you is an article in the Daily Mail where they’ve picked up on the ties between big pharma and these charitable fronts. This article’s to do with their helping block cheaper drugs in favour of far more expensive ones made by a drug company that pumps money into a charity.

          It is very nice that one tabloid sees fit to air this issue and in due course I expect one or two of the more switched on will note the name of the journalist – Jonathan Gornall – and fire off an email when they pick up on pharma involvement with tobacco control.

  8. John Watson says:

    I spent a sizable chunk of yesterday arguing with anti’s on MSN about this article, I was left wondering what the hell is wrong with people today. I had one guy who had an undisclosed mental problem who when I told him that in the Third Reich he would also have been removed from his family and that would have been killed and that he was supporting a step on that very same road, his response was that he understood the comment before going on to support anti smoking!

    At the end of the day I left them this to ponder over: “There is absolutely no dispute with the local authorities looking out for children whose parents cannot keep their home in order, or use illegal drugs, are alcoholics (although alcoholism is a recognised disease and those unfortunates who suffer from it may often need specialised help that is not always received) or in severe cases of mental disorder (most cope admirably, a few however do not) or are simply abusive to their spouses and or children they may all provide reasonable grounds for the removal of a child, For the social services and the Family division of the judiciary to act on a legal act even as a partial cause to remove children is reprehensible, to then do so knowing that such an act aids political desire and provokes public opinion against a minority group engaged in a lawful activity is abhorrent to both justice or any decent human being, it is the brutal act of a dictatorship.

    That I served to protect such a nation is a source of great shame, that a once great and noble nation has sunk to this level brings disgrace to any patriotic Briton. To those few good people who stand against the evil that has brought our country down, who teach their children right from wrong, to temper justice with mercy, that all people are individuals not clones and most importantly that ‘the book’ is written for the guidance of wise men and the blind obedience of fools will see this country great again, I regret that I may not see that day but I hope that my Grandchildren do”

  9. Twisted Root says:

    One’s suspicions should be immediately aroused on reading about a case that has been near the family courts. Blanket reporting restrictions apply. Reporters can be gaoled even for making a tangential reference to a case. Yet when various shabby agendas converge restrictions are magically lifted.

  10. kin_free says:

    Of course this article that over emphasises smoking and downplays the real issues (mental problems, drug taking etc) is a plant! It is part of a well used tactic by the tobacco CONTROL industry to escalate and coordinate their propaganda, designed to have the maximum impact and specifically timed to influence politicians in particular.

    I knew a day or two ago that a propaganda campaign being ramped up. There has been a noticeable increase in media anti-smoker ads. along with several anti-smoker ‘news releases’, but I couldn’t understand the reason why. eg;

    “Fewer adults dying because of smoking, figures for England suggest, Proportion of deaths in 35+ group ESTIMATED to be caused by smoking fell from 19% in 2003 to 17% in 2013, BUT hospital admissions linked to habit rose slightly” (Guardian 29th May) – See comment by Mark Wadsworth;
    and here;

    “Almost 90,000 children spared illness by smoking ban: 11,000 fewer a year admitted to hospital with lung infections since law was introduced” – That turned out to be a lie;

    It turns out that the Welsh Government are to vote on whether to legislate on the car-ban-children issue today;
    Ahhhh – it all becomes clear! It is the Arnott ‘confidence trick’ repeated again! Note how no comments are allowed on this particular story – when normally the Mail is the closest you can come to Orwell’s 1984 ‘two minute hate sessions’!

    Their ace-in-the-hole was played yesterday – The biggest mis-carriage of justice I think I have ever seen;

    * Justice Riordan awarded $6.86 billion in moral damages to the almost 100,000 Quebec smokers whose serious illness makes them eligible to be members of this class. Once interest and other charges are added, the total could be $15.5 billion.
    *Those who have lung or throat cancer will receive $100,000 if they started smoking before 1976 and $80,000 if they started smoking after 1976. Those with emphysema will receive $30,000 if they started smoking before 1976 and $24,000 if after. Once interest is considered, these amounts could be doubled or more.
    To be eligible for payment, a smoker with one of the covered diseases must have smoked for 12 pack years and be diagnosed before March 12, 2012.
    (In effect, Smokers get a massive payout for smoking – Tough shit for the millions of NON smokers who have died of the same diseases, and in much greater numbers! – Will this wake them up? I doubt it! – Am I bovvered? – nope!)
    Tobacco company response;
    They will appeal this decision!

    Imperial Tobacco;
    “Today’s judgment ignores the reality that both adult consumers and governments have known about the risks associated with smoking for decades, and seeks to relieve adult consumers of any responsibility for their actions,”
    A Gallup Poll in 1963 confirmed that 96% of Canadians were aware that smoking might be a cause of lung cancer.
    It is astounding to be handed this decision when the federal government has set the standard for the conduct of Imperial Tobacco Canada with which the company has always complied.
    Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.
    Plaintiffs sought money for over a million people but not a single class member, in nearly three years of trial, testified under oath. Not one showed up to say that he or she was unaware of the risks of smoking. We believe that, in light of prevailing law and common sense, the judgment should not stand.
    The Québec Court of Appeal has already ruled – in an earlier appeal in these very cases – that by bringing a class action, plaintiffs must prove not only that defendants engaged in wrongdoing but that this wrongdoing caused injury to every member of the class. The trial court had no evidence to conclude that any class members smoked and were injured due to any alleged wrongdoing by RBH, much less regarding the number of class members on which its judgment is based.”
    JTI-Macdonald Corp
    Since the 1950s, Canadians have had a very high awareness of the health risks of smoking. That awareness has been reinforced by the health warnings printed on every legal cigarette package for more than 40 years.
    The government has closely regulated every facet of the tobacco business for decades. JTI-Macdonald Corp. complies with all Canadian and Quebec laws and regulations and follows a strict Code of Conduct in the way it does business.
    The moral for tobacco companies is as old as the hills – pacification of any tyranny will get you nowhere. They should have stuck to their guns years ago (US, Master Settlement Agreement) in relation to the causation debate instead of throwing the towel in and betraying their customers for short term profit and in the hope that if they complied, they would be left alone. Will they learn?
    This may seem like a setback for those of us who fight anti-smoker lies and hate campaigns, but it is not the end of the world. Indeed, for me, it has done nothing but harden my resolve against them. The unsuspecting public are becoming more savvy in the real world, we need to keep plugging on, so more and more of them become better informed about the anti-smoker deception and so can escape anti-smoker groupthink. We need to re-double our efforts in exposing them and become more coordinated somehow so we can have a similar impact on public/political perceptions.
    For me, the primary key is to expose the original fraud that claims ‘smoking kills’, while emphasising the many social, health and cognitive benefits of smoking, rather than just responding to each step of the agenda set by the anti-smoker industry at a time of their choosing.

    • smokingscot says:

      @ kf

      Hadn’t a clue why the two British major tobacco company shares dropped by more than 2%, so had a gander at my favourite on-line source. Yes they’ve been royally shafted in Canada and yes they have no choice but to appeal.

      But what really tickled were the recent share trades (about half the way down the page)! Seems an awful lot of people see this as a buying opportunity – at £35.04 a share!

      And business goes on as usual with BAT snapping up TDR on Monday to get into the Croatian market (that’s slightly further down the page in the discussion bit).

      And it’s somewhat similar with Imperial. Recent trades show a couple of small sales, but one buyer snapped up a cool £1.6 million worth of shares at £32.11!

  11. kin_free says:

    I have a comment awaiting moderation – can you check please Frank

No need to log in

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

You are commenting using your 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.