Sheffield steel's herself for press attention
Saturday, February 2, 2008 If you write to David Cameron to complain about the public smoking ban and enquire about Conservative policy on the issue you will get a reply not from the great man himself but from someone called Alice Sheffield. It will almost certainly read:
The Government's ban on smoking in public places came into force on 1st July 2007. Smoking is now banned in all enclosed public spaces and workplaces. Whatever one's own views, it is very clear that public opinion has demanded a ban on smoking in public places for some time. There is also a considerable body of scientific evidence to point to the harmful health effects of second-hand smoke.
While the smoking ban certainly does place restrictions on where people can smoke, it does not ban what is still a lawful activity and people are free to smoke in their own homes and outdoors where the impact of their smoke on others will be minimal. The Government has published five sets of regulations which set out the detail of the smokefree legislation. You can view these within the policy and guidance section of the Department of Health website.
If you require any further information about the ban you can contact the SmokeFree England information line on 0800 169 1697, or find more information at www.smokefreeengland.co.uk.
Conservatives have expressed some reservations about the ban, for example about smoking in prisons and mental health units, and about the requirement on all public places and businesses to display no smoking signs. The Government Minister previously responsible for the smoking ban, Caroline Flint, has assured us that the Government are committed to a review of the legislation, so if any problems occur which were not expected while the legislation was being formulated, the legislation may be reconsidered.
We hope that the new measures will play a positive role in reducing exposure to second-hand smoke and, in turn, help to improve public health.
According to the front page of today's Daily Telegraph (which features an extremely fetching photograph of the lady in question), Alice Sheffield works three days a week as Cameron's correspondence secretary. Interestingly, she is also David Cameron's sister-in-law. Full story HERE.
Reader Comments (11)
So it dosnt seem worthwhile voting for this wimp either does it.I think the British people should get together and select a peoples party one that takes everyones interest into account. Smoking maybe very annoying to some people and some people enjoy a cigarette, so why couldnt this government let the publicans, club owners make up their own mind if they wanted it to be a smoking establishment or not. This government has given smokers no thought at all they are dictating and very much a bullying party. And as for David Cameron he should listen....... He could easily win the next election if only he would listen to the british people and acted on what he heard. As far as im concerned every MP is hypocritical and greedy and is only doing the job to line their own pocket. What have they done for me sweet F. A. Slung me out into the cold.
I think it’s crystal clear that David Cameron will not be questioning the iniquities of the smoking ban…whether socially or scientifically. Judging by the obligatory response from Alice Sheffield, which of course is bereft of any imagination or vision…. it’s a non-starter.
No amount of evidence to the contrary that SHS (second hand smoke) is harmless, will make the slightest difference to politicians who believe gaining brownie points from following a politically correct line is all important.
I’m as far as he’s concerned…we’re flogging a dead horse.
As always you’re on your own.
I wonder if DC might like to educate himself with this.
Colin Grainger’s article on http://www.freedom2choose.info/index.php click on Volenti Non Fit Injuria
On the 31st May 2005, The Right Hon. Lord Nimmo Smith, as part of his judgment in the Margaret McTear case Vs Imperial Tobacco Ltd, which she lost…he said this.
…‘Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious’.
Needless to say this stopped any pending actions dead in their tracks.
Superb!
I absolutely agree with you Pat - government, local and national is full of egotistical, money grabbing, lying, spineless, corrupt wimps who do not deserve to be where they are, the trouble is, people who could and would make a difference don't stand because of the years of red tape and beaurocracy that has piled up and would take them a decade to unravel! They have better things to do with their lives, much of which probably includes spending a great deal of time in countries that are a little freer than the UK currently is. The biggest fear is it is going to get a lot worse!
Pity we can't have a reincarnation of Guy Fawkes, and having learned by his previous mistakes, should make a good job of it this time around!
Guys, I do not think nepotism is the story, but what a brainless cow she is. This is my email to her July 2007, suffice as to day no reply.
Ms. Alice Sheffield
Office of David Cameron MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Dear Ms. Sheffield,
I trust you are well. I hope I am not intruding into reading private correspondence but I am a reader and contributor to Taking Liberties a Simon Clark's blog on Forest, the smokers web site. http://takingliberties.squarespace.com/home
I quote your letter to "Martin" below. You seem to be, pardon my bluntness Patricia Hewitt's mouthpiece. Let me go through your letter line by line. http://www.forestonline.org/output/page276.asp The popularity is a matter of opinion and which one you read.
Let me say there is no scientific, medical or anecdotal evidence that passive smoking has any long or short term effects on the passive smoker. This is the URL for the Enstrom and Kabat survey into passive smoking. It was conducted between 1959 and 1998 and involved 118,000 people and is the most comprehensive study ever done. It was originally funded by the American Cancer Society and when it was coming up with the "wrong results" they withdrew their funding to be replaced by Philip Morris.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057 May I quote: " Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
I quote: "Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, primarily asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema, has been associated with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, but the evidence for increased mortality is sparse."
May I further add.
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/000000005501.htm
"In 1998, Professor Robert Nilsson revealed that the increase in the incidence of lung cancer attributed to passive smoking is one order of magnitude lower than that used to justify regulating environmental risks in the USA - so passive smoking poses less of a risk than natural arsenic in water or eating mushrooms twice a week (2)."
This is from your very own House Of Lords.
"Other evidence we received suggested that the health risks associated with passive smoking are relatively minor and the main harm, if there is one, concerns children who are exposed to passive smoking in the home, which is something the bill is not designed to address51. Sir Richard Peto did suggest that ex-smokers might be more at risk from ETS than those who had never smoked at all, but the general tenor of his evidence indicated that the risks are uncertain and unlikely to be large."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/183/183i.pdf
If anyone from the anti-smoking lobby can show me one bit of scientific evidence to counter or agree what you mistakenly believe that passive smoking is bad for you, I will join the Labour party. Smokers cost the NHS £1.3 billion per year and pay £10 billion in cigarette taxes. By the way sports injuries cost the NHS £1 billion, so let's close down all the nation's gyms. I have not factored in that we die on average 5.2 years less than most people, my estimate is that saves in state pensions alone £10 billion per year. Surely we want more smokers not less, I say with bitter irony.
You have not covered in your letter personal liberties, private property rights and seem to be aping the nanny state of Nu Labour. I look upon these qualities as being the home of liberty loving Tory voters. I have always been the Labour Party's nemesis as I am a working class Tory . If you are going to be no different to Labour I can see me failing to care for the Conservative Party any more , along with many of your natural voters, as you will never get in again. I shall either lose all my interest in politics and not bother to vote or look at parties like UKIP.
Frankly, when you believe in Labour spin and lies what hope is there for the rest of the country. You are at liberty to contact me on any communication above.
Yours sincerely
David Atherton
Nice one Dave. Think I'll fire off a little something myself too. If enough people quote their standard response back at them, they'll be forced to rethink their approach.
It does rather sound as if, other than with the signage-issue, the Tories will actually be seeking to extend the ban even further rather than making meaningful amendments. They think this will be popular.
ASH have defined what is "popular". The whole non-debate was framed on their terms, they created a feeling of inevitability. It was, in Arnott's own words, "a confidence trick". Creating the illusion of a groundswell of support. On this board we all know about the rigged polls, the conflation of those agreeing with the concept of there being restrictions on public-smoking with those wanting total prohibition in order to provide Patsy Hewitt with that legendary "70% support" figure. A near-perfect inversion of the truth. But it's not enough to debunk statistics. Most people have such little awareness of statistical and epidemiological techniques and the manner in which they are used for political ends that they will not engage the arguments beyond a shrugging "well, I suppose there's two sides to every story".
What we need is a juicy whopping financial scandal or two. One which springs to mind is the corruption of the late Sir Richard Doll. The evidence against him is well-documented and incontrovertible. He took [and admitted to taking] big payola from Monsanto, from Turner & Newell [asbestos], from the Chemical Mfrs Association, from the nuclear industry. But not from "Big Tobacco". So who became scapegoated for the rising cancer-rates in the second half of the last century? [rhetorical question :-)]
All the better though, if such a scandal could be used to confer party-political advantage onto anyone opposing authoritarianism. Better still if such a scandal were to isolate nu-labor career-politicians at cabinet level from their backbenchers. I reckon a significant proportion of Labour backbenchers went along with the ban because their hearts told them it would be plucky little David giving a good kicking to Goliath Tobacco. I'm feeling charitable. Perhaps many of these esteemed members could be open to persuasion should fresh evidence emerge concerning Big Pharma's financing and control of the anti-tobacco corps resident in nu-labor.
Hmmm, this looks promising: Alan Johnson went from voting against the ban to endorsing it once he'd been given the Health brief. Might some Pharma money to his failed deputy-leadership bid have been at all influential here?
http://tinyurl.com/2v4kku
Hello - Simon, Dave, Basil and all the other Friends of Liberty !
It was some time ago that I received the above response from the saintly Alice Sheffield, but I had no idea at the time that the creature lecturing me was young enough to be my daughter: she would have been just 25 when she dazzled me with her brilliant insight into the needs of a Modern Society.
And I was ESPECIALLY moved by her appeal to the Spirit of the Blitz ("We're all in this together, Martin"). Clearly, another one with little sense of historical irony !
Never a truer word was spoken, however: THEY are 'all in it together', that's for sure.
Spurred to further action by Dave Atherton's example (well done, that man !!), I decided to phone Central Office a few minutes ago, and seek some clarification on current Conservative thinking on this most SIMPLE of issues.
I was put through to a very well-spoken young dame (friend of Alice's, perhaps ?), and enjoyed the following brief exchange:
"Hello ! I notice that under what you describe on your website as the 'Opportunity Agenda', you declare yourselves in favour of 'giving people more opportunity and POWER OVER THEIR LIVES' - so I assume you're rather against the ghastly Nanny-Statism of New Labour ?".
"Yes, absolutely !"
"Excellent ! In that case, how soon after a Conservative election victory will you give ME the opportunity once again to have a fag with my pint - a freedom I've enjoyed for over 40 years now ?"
"Er, we're not !"
"So, you're not THAT committed to individual freedom, after all ?"
"Yes, but we've already had a full debate (?) on this subject and blah blah blah................."
"So, you're not going to allow a sensible segregation of smoking and non-smoking customers, with proper ventillation etc etc "
"No - we've already tried that, and IT DOESN'T WORK (?????)"
"Well, it hasn't been PROPERLY tried, actually"
Clearly, the lady was allowing no challenges to her unalterable view of the Universe. Why allow an Ugly Fact to mar a Beautiful Prejudice ?
Already - as you may well imagine - I was edging rapidly into White Knuckle mode, and enquired (rather naively) why she felt that SHE and her colleagues were somewhow entitled to tell ME how to lead my life. Her riposte was finger-waggingly simple:
"Well, it's VERY bad for you, you know !"
So much for 'opposition' to the Nanny State......
Sadly, I'm now of the opinion that all such people currently engaged in the Political Process - however marginally - are INCAPABLE of free, independent thought and critical analysis.
Any General Election will merely be a re-shuffling of the pack.
I am now driven to the belief that we need nothing less than a complete revolution in the way we are governed (and I'm NOT talking about Che Guevara posters and Molotov cocktails): otherwise, all the sacrifices of our freedom-loving ancestors will merely have resulted in a Land Fit For Traffic Wardens.(And I do so hope that this paragraph DOESN'T result in alarms going off all over place at GCHQ: the staff are frightfully overworked as it is).
In the meantime, I urge every one of you out there to keep a sharp lookout for Strange People in your locality carrying pods: they seem to be getting everywhere.............
Anyone have a Tardis for sale ?
Martin, if a Tardis comes up for sale, there'll be a stampede of people screaming 'I wanna go back, I wanna go back!!'
Martin it was her reply to you was the reason that I wrote to her.I will be in touch with Central Office too tomorrow.
Dave -
That's EXCELLENT news ! If only more people were as 'pro-active' as they were complaining.............
And don't forget to share any nuggets with all of us on this site.
The best of British to you !
Dave -
That's EXCELLENT news ! If only more people were as 'pro-active' as they were complaining.............
And don't forget to share any nuggets with all of us on this site.
The best of British to you !