Taking Liberties

Did Deborah Arnott mention that she advertises quit smoking products, made by pharmaceutical companies, which lead to suicides? Did she mention that pharmaceutical make many other products which are addictive and which kill people? I hope that Ms Arnott can sleep at night.

Ah yes, the squeaky clean pharmaceutical industry, responsible also for thalidomide. And just why is it that nowadays everyone over 55 requires pharmacological intervention for diabetes and high cholesterol? And how much is the NRT market worth? I'm sure that Deborah would know being so cosy with the pharma industry. And I wonder if Ms Stephen has a pension or equity-based investment products. I'm sure that she'll immediately take action if she finds that her money's invested in tobacco companies. Wouldn't want her to lose sleep.

Get a life Jaci Steven - and leave other peole to get on with theirs. As a lifelong smoker, how dare you presume to say this and speak for me : "you work for people who peddle a drug that feeds people's addictions and destroys lives"

It is because of people like you that this country is in such a bad way and we live in a dictatorial state. How and why would smoking affect you if we had choice? Why do you think you have the moral right to tell me how to live. People like you make me sick not tobacco - and btw, NO-ONE pays me to defend my own freedom when I know that freedom does not hurt anyone else and doesn't need to bother any one who is as paranoid as you. Go find yourself a decent cause to feel morally superior about. I, and 12 million other people like me in this country, don't need saving, thanks!

What Jaci Stephen and her ilk don't seem to realise is that they create stress - yes, a lot of stress - and stress, I believe, is one of the worst killers. Tell her that and let's hope that she and her fanatical consorts can't sleep at night!

I Spent 20 Years In Therapy... Was Any Of It Worthwhile? - by Jaci Stephen
http://www.nlplifetraining.com/personal-development/20-years-therapy.htm
Answer - NO
Now you're trying to depress millions of smokers.

It appears you have really rattled Ms Stephen's cage - especially as she got so upset about your spelling of her surname, Simon.

To my knowledge, Forest has never hidden the fact that it was sponsored by the tobacco industry, unlike some of the organisations or fake charities that are New Labour financed.

Most anti-smokers will loose an argument when in debate, as most of their responses as based on ignorance, bigotry and spite. We (smokers) have had to put up with enough from this minority anti-smoking lobby and if they get it with both barrels and get upset - tough.

Bill.

Oh, how I agree about stress. The indiscriminate blunderbuss of propaganda can destroy harmony in the individual and in family and social life. I see it everywhere. And a person at odds with himself or with loved ones or with his community, is vulnerable to illness, mental and physical. I wish the medical profession would speak up about this. Thank God there are some noble exceptions among individual practitioners. Whatever facts there may be, let the powers that be put them soberly and objectively before us, without spin and bullying and leave the individual to decide what is best for himself or herself. The new priesthood of health administers only condemnation. This is a health issue. A happy, integrated smoker, considerate of others' needs is, I submit more likely to be a useful and creative citizen, parent and family member than the puritan who quiets his own demons and salves his own ego by persecuting others. I fear that that the unending onslaught on the peace of mind of people who smoke may, thereby be engineering its own fulfilment. Not so far though.

Jaki sounds like one of the parody-characters who sometimes pop up on here. She's really very close to the parody wimmins-character I use on my blog. You can hear the nerny-nerny tone through the brittle defensive tone, with her overuse of exclamation-marks making it sound like she's creaming her knickers at her own cleverness.

Sadly for Jaki, she's written nothing substantive and is telling us nothing we didn't already know about FOREST or "Big Tobacco". It's no more than a hill of slurs with a childish "no comebacks!" thrown in at the end. This is Jaki flicking a V-sign through the back-window as her schoolbus roars away.

Glad her Parisien friends are enjoying their new smoker-ban, but from someone wagging her finger so gleefully at Simon over an alleged but unsubstantiated "misuse of statistics", I should remind her that the nodding-donkey approval of her little clique of metrosexual luvvie chums does not a survey make. Unless she's claiming to speak for all the People of France, of course? Well, having graced them with her presence for 8 years, I'm sure she now knows them better than they could ever hope to know themselves.

One very pleasurable cigarette was enjoyed during the writing of this post.

I see Pat Nurse is hiding her bushel again, as she made this point to me a year ago and it is well worth repeating.

If you put a George Best type alcoholic, smoker and heroin addict in a padded cell for 24 hours without access to their substance, who do you think will cope with it the best?

Methinks the smoker. I would be crotchety and sulky but I would get through it. For example on breast cancer day for charity, I gave up for 8 hours during the working day. Also after time to check in and check out I have flown to California without a fag and survived 16 hours.

Heroin is unique in the sence that alcohol and nicotine are psychological dependancies while heroin destroys receptors in the brain which is replaced by heroin receptors. It is a physical dependancy like food and water.

I do not know of too many people who cannot hold down a job because they smoke or cannot form relationships, sometimes abusive, with people, unlike alcoholics.

Jaci, I will do a deal with you, I'll give up smoking for 24 hours and you give up your pleasure or £50 to a charity of our choices. All I need is the right frame of mind and some Kojak lollypops.

My email address is daveatherton20@hotmail.com, why don't you pick up the gauntlet?

Puritans would not see self-righteousness as a pleasure, rather as a duty.Difficult to give up duty.

If one peruses this ASH link http://www.ash.org.uk/ash_0zzxfrv6.htm it is the master thread on giving up smoking. The notable absence is The Allen Carr Foundation which has a peer reviewed success rate of 53%, as opposed to a 1.4% success rate with NRT.

This came to light on the day that Allen Carr died of lung cancer and Deborah Arnott appeared on Radio4 with a spokesman for The Allen Carr Foundation.

Arnott said the 53% results were "made up" and "plucked from the air." A letter from The Foundation's solicitor extracted this response from Arnott.

"27th November 2007

Today Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the public health charity has apologised to Allen Carr’s Easyway Organisation for unfounded comments made by its Director in November 2006.

In November of last year, Deborah Arnott, Director of ASH claimed that specific success rates quoted by Allen Carr Easyway were “plucked out of the air” and “basically made up.” She made these comments whilst on the BBC Radio 4 “PM” programme during a piece concerning the death of Allen Carr, founder of Allen Carr’s Easyway organisation.

Deborah Arnott’s comments referred to two independent studies conducted by eminent experts in the field of smoking cessation which had already been published in peer reviewed journals indicating a 53% success rate for Allen Carr’s Easyway to Stop Smoking Clinics after 12 months.

Following a complaint by Allen Carr’s Easyway International, Deborah Arnott and ASH now acknowledge that it was wrong for Ms Arnott to have made the comments relating to the 53% success rate and have issued an unreserved apology.

ASH has agreed to pay the legal costs incurred by Allen Carr’s Easyway."

So the most successful way of giving up smoking is airbrushed out of their website. Debs, I'm sure you don't want to upset your chums in the pharmaceutical industry.

While I am here can I ask you if this is still the case for ASH and big pharmacy?

"We have worked with GSK under the auspices of the WHO-Europe Partnership Project on tobacco dependence and at various one-off opportunities. ASH was instrumental in securing greater government commitment to smoking cessation products in the NHS National Plan and we have helped with PR for both Zyban and Niquitin CQ." and "ASH has a small shareholding in GSK and I will be attending with others to question you and the Chairman on this situation".

http://allencarr.com/central/article/133/ash-apologise-to-allen-carrs-easyway.

http://www.data-yard.net/science/payoffs/ash.pdf

Obviously she goes to the empty places in Paris.
No sorry the boring places zzzzzzzzzz.
I bet they talk about there mortgages.

She's perhaps feeling a little vulnerable about her beliefs by the tone of her letter, and rightly so.

Why else should she be attempting to justify the unjustifiable?

Another point, this time about the destroys lives bit .
What about the old people who have to smoke outside their own apartments in the freezing cold.
Or better still wheeled outside a hospital ?
ps a lot of these victims you describe are well over 80 .
You buy every bit of propaganda you hear obviously.
I thought journalists were supposed to be objective ,not subjective.
You do know what the difference is ,well I assume you do, now I acertain ,obviously not.
Two sides to a story, your acting as a politician not a journalist ,yes ?

Jaci, I don't like kicking someone when they are down but I have come across this rather self indulgent article in the Daily Mail on you.

"I've spent 20 years in therapy but was any of it worthwhile?"

Against a photograph of you with a Jeroboam of Champagne and a glass is the legend, "And now... Jaci Stephen's toasts her resolution earlier this year to give up drink after 30 years of humiliating herself at parties." Hmm not with that one.

You go on to say: "Despite having made a success of being a writer and broadcaster in London, feelings of failure and often overwhelming depression were still never far away."

The article adds: "One of the first things I remember saying to Martin is: "Happiness is difficult for me." He asked me to tell him why I thought that was so. "Well, it just is," I responded."

Then: "Everything I said seemed to make logical sense to me - happiness is difficult, depression is central to creativity, I need to live in four places - London, Cardiff, Paris, Spain."

I will tell you this darling, in these thin economic times when paying the mortgage and putting bread on the table is a challenge and you can afford to live in 4 places, spend £550 on therapy and drink very large glasses of champagne, as you are photographed al fresco with X Factor's Louis Walsh having a sumptuous lunch. You have the sheer effrontery to question me and my fellow smoker's lifestyles.

While you have an orgy of narcism and patronising finger wagging, while confessing your inadequacies, expensively in private and for no doubt for reward in public you wish to deprive me of my major pleasure in life. Good company, a glass of merlot and a fag simultaneously.

I suggest you reopen Pandora's box. Hope might flutter out again with its friend tolerance.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-566262/Ive-spent-20-years-therapy-worthwhile.html#ixzz0WVLxLqOK

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-566262/Ive-spent-20-years-therapy-worthwhile.html#ixzz0WVLgZlQv

Pathetique (sounds better in french).

1. Misinformed. She obviously thought you smoke Simon.

2. Anybody who is anybody knows that Forest is supported by Tobacco funds - and?

3. 80% of ASH funds come from the Department of Health. So 12 million people are funding a lobby group to attack them.

Good rusult Simon, you obviously rattled Miss Stephens cage. She obviously didnt get a good nights sleep herself after the debate.
Seems to me she could do with another 20years in therapy to help her cope with the lying smoking statistics she spouts on the airwaves and maybe a refresher in journalist school while she's at at.

It would seem that her BITE is worse than her BARK.

She'll never win 'Best In Show', though.........

Sorry to cut in on this thread, with something which at first might sound as if it is not related, but I can assure you it is.

I wrote a post last week sometime, and it was deleted by Simon, because it was too long. His exact words were "Note to Peter Thurgood: Peter, some time ago I wrote that comments in excess of 350 words may be deleted. Nothing personal, but I am sticking to that policy"

I then pointed out to Simon, that on the same day he deleted my (too long) post, he allowed another by Martin V, which was even longer than mine, by about 300 words in fact!

Now, today, I see that Dave Atherton has posted something which is 400 words, again in breach of Simon's policy, but again, allowed on here.

In Simon's brief note to me, he states, "nothing personal", but it is beginning to look very much that way to me, if everyone else is allowed to use as many words as they want, and only mine are deleted.

Is there a 350 word allowance or isn't there, and does it apply to everyone, or only me?

Note to Jaci Stephen:

I coped perfectly well and was able to socialise and enjoy my life prior to the smoking ban.

Since the ban I am not able to go out and socialise because, being very shy and self conscious, it was my cigs that got me through and allowed me to relax (I am not a drinker). Asd a consequence I have now been on medication since the inception of the ban; I now receive psychotherapy weekly on the NHS because, unlike you, I cannot afford to go private and I being isolated actually makes depression and anxiety worse!

So, while you and your paranoid associates are congratulating yourselves for 'this wonderful ban' perhaps you can spare a thought for those of us who had not been ill prior to the ban, but who are now suffering and being a considerable burden on the NHS!

To allude to an earlier point here too - stress is a much greater cause of cancers than any amount of smoking and if you were to do your homework you would find that out relatively easily, I am sure.

With regards to living in Paris and the Parisiennes apparent glee at the ban, perhaps you should try the real life places that everday people frequent, rather than your high society hangouts? Bit too scary, I expect!

"I have been living in France for eight years and know the benefits that people have and SAY that they have enjoyed through the ban - in Paris, for goodness sake!"

Snobs do not go into real bars.
(see 4000 real bars closed)
They should have just banned it in their own.
So all the Snobs can enjoy their boring snobby environment.

Well said Lyn. Why don't you see if you can find an address for this ghastly woman and send your post to her direct, as I doubt very much whether she will bother to answer on here, or even have the guts to.

Regarding Paris, the woman is talking absolute tosh!

I visit Paris quite often, and in general, the smoking ban is disliked there even more than it is here. It is also openly ignored in many places, and every time I have asked, no one there has ever heard of anyone personally, who has been fined or charged with any offence regarding the ban.

This ghastly Jaci person, probably goes to the tourist spots. People like her, never get to know the real world.

Jaci, if you learn anything in this life let it be that you do not know, full stop.
No do not say but, every human being wants to say but, you are not an angel sent from heaven to save the 'sinners'.
You want a bandwagon to jump on, fair enough, climb down from your high horse and help save the starving masses, they might be glad of your help.
Or would that be too tiresome and of no interest to your sponsors?

Given Jaci's screaming denunciation of 'ADDICTION!', this may be a good place to post some lines from the excellent Ron Paul's 'The Revolution'.............:

Here, he is speaking of the US Government's obsession with MARIJUANA in the late Thirties.

"A substantial motivation for (its prohibition) was a CONTEMPT for all MEXICANS, with whom marijuana was associated at the time. On the floor of the Texas Senate, one senator declared: "All Mexicans are crazy, and this stuff is what makes them crazy."

"Henry Anslinger (Head of the Bureau of Narcotics) said that the "PRIMARY reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on DEGENERATE RACES."

This, and other equally plausible considerations led to the Marijuana Tax Act 1937.

As Ron Paul said:

"(The Act) had little to do with real science or medicine, and a lot to do with petty ethnic grudges, CAREERISM in the Bureau of Narcotics, and DISINFORMATION and PROPAGANDA in the popular press....................."

Only TWO medical experts testified on the subject - one of whom (James Munch) claimed to have tested the 'active ingredient' on 300 DOGS - though he later admitted that he was "not a dog psychologist."

Amazingly, this was years BEFORE the active ingredient was discovered (in Holland).

In Congress, the ENTIRE debate took less than two minutes.

When a congressman asked the Speaker whether the American Medical Association supported the Bill, he replied that it did - "100%".

In fact, it OPPOSED it: there was no scientific evidence to support it.

James Munch was later named the 'Official Expert' on marijuana.

Invited to give evidence as an expert witness at a subsequent criminal trial, Munch was asked about the 'insanity-producing' effects of the drug on HIM.

He replied:

"After two puffs on a marijuana cigarette, I WAS TURNED INTO A BAT. "

As a bat, he flew around the room for fifteen minutes.

(Thank goodness Deborah and Jaci don't smoke).

All this, some seventy years ago.

Any of it sound at all familiar...................?

I do not wish to exploit this unique day of the year to make a point. It is sad, though, to observe that as the pints are called for and medals tucked back in their faded envelopes, there will be ex-servicemen and their relatives and friends, and others who may have lost loved ones in 1939-45, preparing to step out of the warm into a pub or club yard to light a cigarette. David Cameron. if your PR outfit has a search mechanism, I hope it will find this site.

France enjoying the ban?? Figures out this week showed a 3% increase in tobacco sales last year in France. Add to this an increase the year before that. Also, the French tobacconists suffer significant losses due to trans-frontier purchases (Belgium, Italy, Spain, Germany).Ms STEPHEN is using her membership of the Parisien 'chattering classes'-who love having english speakers to practise on- to make another false assumption (eg. hinting that France had a display ban in place). Who does she write for?To be avoided

@Richard Ward - Jaci Stephen is the TV critic for The Daily Mail and focuses on the Soaps in the Saturday edition's 'Weekend' magazine, so she comes eminently qualified to attack "ludicrous statements and misinformation regarding statistics"....

"if your PR outfit has a search mechanism, I hope it will find this site."

But, Norman, WHAT will they TYPE into the Search Box ?

'Noises off (smoking)' ?

'Irrelevant chatter (smoking)' ?

'Dumb masses (smoking)' ?

'They'll go away (smoking)' ?

'Not about Freedom (smoking)' ?

My guess is:

'MORE arguments AGAINST (smoking)'.................

I think you're wasting your time going on shows like Titchmarsh, also trying to lobby the LibLabCon alliance is a lost cause. There are two parties in this country that will view your cause with sympathy, UKIP and the BNP. I reckon time spent trying to get these two into a position of power would be far more productive than appearing on lightweight daytime TV shows.

Simon, I have to beg to differ. The smoking ban in the government's list of priorities is not that high. Here is where it sits.

1. The economy
2. Immigration
3. Europe
4. Unemployment
5. Civil rights

Civil Rights then breaks down into these areas.

1. Terrorist laws, 42 day detention
2. National datatbase
3. Surveillance, CCTV cameras
4. The Smoking ban

So not a burning issue to many. The BNP will just not be allowed to gain any further influence, Alan Johnson has near enough apologised for Labour's past mistakes and has promised to mend their ways. UKIP who privately I have a lot of respect for will need 2 further elections before they have any hope of getting 100+ MPs. I am afraid we are stuck with Lib/Lab/Con. So about 2020 we can look forward to the smoking ban being amended. What are we to do in the meantime?

It is a tribute to Forest, other groups and smokers that we have been able to keep the issue alive when the main political parties wish it to be kicked into the long grass.

Alan Titchmarsh's show is a start.

Dave,

We seem to agree that the main parties will not amend or repeal the ban so that really is a lost cause. As for UKIP / BNP I wonder if things could happen quicker. I was looking at historical polling data the other day, according to the polls only 3% less of the electorate will vote for the main three parties than would have done so prior to the expenses scandal.If that is true then we are doomed to be governed by them for the forseeable future. What makes me wonder about that is the fact that I hardly ever meet anyone who says they will still vote for one of these three, add to that the overwhelming condemnation of all three right across the internet. You never know, we could be in for a surprise.

Are people really stupid enough to vote for more of the same? Who knows, time will tell, meanwhile I will stay optomistic that the whole lot of them will be kicked out. You never know, the Telegraph or one of the other papers may be saving up some sort of mega scandal for the period just prior to the next election. There must be plenty of material lurking in the wings.

Have a look at this, I found it a while back. It's an interesting theory.

http://bastardoldholborn.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-wick-very-british-revolution.html

Simon T -

Thanks for a most interesting link !

We shall see what we shall see.

In the meantime, I pray that Dan Hannan doesn't emigrate to the States....................

Since the ban Forest and others have shied away from the FACT that the Nazis under Hitler were responsible for the modern wave of anti-smoking hysteria,inventing the phrase 'passive smoking' and the de-normalization campaigns that have been followed religiously by, initially, the US anti-smoking bandwagon, now global.
As the three main parties and the media are so adverse to any connection with Nazi thinking, I believe these facts should be aired whenever possible, and that wouldn't be extremist Simon Clarke but honest and powerful. I haven't met a person yet who wasn't very suprised to hear these facts, so it's about time everyone did. Maybe then their precious smoking ban would not feel so clean and innocent.

Simon Thomas you are completely mad if you really believe all that old shit, and you think we're all going to fall for it.

That nutcase Bastardoldholborn who you reckon everyone should read and believe in, end his blog saying Whoops- I think I might be an International Socialist.

Bout says it all doesn't it?

Zitori -

Re:

"I haven't met a person yet who wasn't very suprised to hear these facts......."

The depressing (or is it encouraging ?) fact about Modern Life is how EASY it is to 'surprise' people with the Truth - and not just about the Great Smoking Myth.

Take your pick.

The trouble is, when you've been living in a dark cave for years, coming into the Light can prove rather uncomfortable.

At first...............

The only real way to end the pseudo benevolent persecution of Smokers is to get more people smoking.
And judging by the true figures in the aftermath of the bans, it could be working.
A bit like the old Judge dread records in the seventies or the sex pistols ,bans increase sales ?
D

With respect to Jaci Stephen, Martin V said something a few days ago (last message) that's worth repeating:

I often wonder whether the Banners of this World aren't compensating for something MISSING in their own, sorry little lives.

I like to play this game of imagining them when they were young: the Ugly Girl that no-one wanted to be friends with (and who couldn't get a boyfriend), the Fat Ginger-Haired boy that no-one took seriously, the Class Swot (who was never as bright as he thought) who attracted one too many requests to 'shut up !', the insistent 'Christian' who knows nothing of True Christianity, but nonetheless feels compelled (and qualified) to Save The World etc etc.

Isn't Jaci Stephen a glaring example of this?

"Basically, your personality has been so badly constructed, the only thing to do is knock it down and start again."

That, 18 years ago, was my first introduction to therapy.

Clearly, 18 years of therapy didn't work. It'll have to be done all over again.

Reading her story, I almost feel sorry for her, she's so dysfunctional. But then, I can't feel very sorry for someone who is clearly a virulent antismoker.

I just wonder what the likes of Deborah Arnott are hiding.

Or is it that the Jacki Stephens of this world were all such natural freaks growing up, always on the outside looking in, that when they got a chance to join the rightous brigade, they came into their own and felt so at home and made feel wanted, when they found likeminded freaks like themselves!

If you guys are interested I went to Birmingham today to meet up with the Birmingham Primary Care Trust to formally complain about the video where the man is seen to be beaten up by an unknown assailant to grievous bodily harm status. In attendance were for Birmingham PCT:

Louise Pritchard, Director Of Performance and Organisational Development
Pat Jones, Complaints Manager
Nicola Benge, Health Improvement

For the complainants my good self, journalist Pat Nurse and UKIP Councillor for Dudley, Malcolm Davis.

Their main point was that this was part of a campaign that was aimed at white, males 35-55 to reduce their smoking and was really specifically aimed for the Birmingham area. It was done in conjunction with a poster and Land Rover Defender images. I thought they were open minded and listened to what we said. I also got the impression that were not aware that the Youtube film could be construed as not images of potential harm caused by smoking but an incitement to assault smokers. Pat read a litany of UK and worldwide assaults and even murders where smoking had been the catalyst.

The net result is that the campaign has two weeks to run and probably will be pulled from Youtube, which I think is encouraging. I hope the stop smoking industry continues in this more constructive light.

I have also been asked to supply information on how to quit smoking other than NRT including ECigarettes, Snus and The Allen Carr Foundation. I hope ASH will take this in the right spirit.

Dave -

Congratulations to your good self, Pat etc.

Much appreciated.

If only we could produce a 'campaign' to persuade the Antis to QUIT bullying, nagging, and boring us all to death.

We'd never get the funding, though.........

Idlex -

Re the Jaci Woman:

Isn't that often the way, though ?

People who make a complete MESS of their own lives often take it upon themselves to sort out the lives of others.

Their Irony-Detection Circuit tends to be 'dysfunctional', too, alas.

To a paperback psychologist like me, it all just seems like a classic case of the Compensation Mechanism at work..................

Re:

"I just wonder what the likes of Deborah Arnott are hiding."

Good question !

I have a theory on that one - but it all hinges on whether she ever comes out in the daytime.

I'll get my investigators onto it.............

Dave, Pat, congratulations on your good work and for doing something about that disgraceful add.
The fact that the PCT did not seem to be aware of the consequences that add caused, sums up the type of stupid people they are and how desensitised to such a dangerous degree they have become.
When they asked you for information on an alternative way to quit smoking, you could ask them if they ever heard of will power.
We all have it and it costs nothing.

Dave -

By way of a 'PS':

I note that the 'campaign' was 'targeted' at

"white males 35-55 to reduce their smoking...."

Now I imagine that the age group approximately matched that of the people you saw.

Was there therefore an assumption that white men (why WHITE, incidentally ?) in this age group are ESPECIALLY thick, ill-informed, and ignorant ?

And if so, WHAT does the PCT group of Wise People think IT knows that the 'target group' does not ?

And why didn't it SHARE that information with us ?

I certainly didn't see any FACTS - just a nasty threat:

Do as you're TOLD - or you'll get BEATEN UP !

And this from people who 'care'................

And as for 'Director Of Performance and Organisational Development':

'Director of Performance' = Manager

'Organisational Development' = Empire-Building

Nice work (if you can get it) !

Thanks Peter, I would love to send my comments direct to Jaci Stephen, but so far have not been able to find any contact for her.

If anyone can provide this information I will more than happily send her my comments from above and possibly even a few more!

Hello again Lyn, sorry I haven't been on here for a while, but I have been extremely busy "trying" to earn some money, would you believe?

I do keep popping back to see what is happening from time and to time and have just seen your reply to me.

Ms Stephen does have a blog, which is up to date and you can access here http://lanotsoconfidential.blogspot.com/

She also has an email address, here jacistephen@gmail.com

Her blog gets even less comments than mine. Little wonder; no quality cartoons, acerbic wit and sober analysis [:-)] there; she bangs on and on and on and on about her LA gym, the wonders of Virgin Atlantic's First Class lounge and how galling not to get a window-seat travelling backwards [and well away from the staff-restaurant] on Eurostar.

What's her connection with England again?

Martin V - the PCT said that the campaign was aimed at white males aged between 35 and 55 because their "intelligence" and research revealed that this group makes up the "hardened" smokers who have so far ignored previous anti-smoking propaganda designed to get them to quit (for their own good).

I assumed, therefore, that smoker asians, blacks, Italians, Polish, etc.. in Birmingham and those aged under 35, had quit.

It would also seem, therefore, that smoking is a very British institution and is, as I have said many times before, cultural to some people.

Pat -

Ah, I thought so.

Those silly white middle-aged males only have themselves to blame.

Thank God for the eternal vigilance, wisdom, and compassion of our Health Care Professionals, eh ?

And if I see the Poles around HERE giving up, I SHALL start to get worried.................

MESSAGE TO ALL HEALTH CARE PROS:

If we WANT to give up - we WILL.

If we DON'T want to give up - we WON'T.

And no 'buts', please.................

MESSAGE ENDS

I hope Birmingham is not trying to pull off an assault by stealth with its shock and burn tactics against smokers.
A friend who lives in California has just told me that some states in america are aiming to go 'smoke free'.
Also the fact that the PCT targeted white males (white females dont smoke I suppose) of a certain age makes you wonder why the indiginous natives of all the british isles, ireland, scotland and wales have been singled out, their cultures flogged to shreds, their jobs, benefits and way of life held up as an example for ridicule, that one can only assume is to apease other cultures who decide to migrate to these shores and expect equality.
But if our way of life is considered wrong by our 'leaders', what's it all about, where are we heading, what's their agenda?
Should white indiginous males now start heading to the EU court of human rights for the right to live their lives in their own country?
We seem to be living on a planet where division is being fostered and encouraged by the health policy and backed by the powers that be.
Its time for smokers to start rebelling and make life a little bit uncomfortable for the antis.

Its time for smokers to start rebelling and make life a little bit uncomfortable for the antis.

A little bit? Shouldn't that be a lot? Shouldn't smokers make life screamingly uncomfortable for the antis? It's what they did to us, after all.

But if our way of life is considered wrong by our 'leaders', what's it all about, where are we heading, what's their agenda?

And shouldn't we be making life screamingly uncomfortable for our 'leaders' too? Who cares what their agenda is? It's probably about making Britain a multicultural society or something, which in practice means destroying the indigenous culture, which our 'leaders' always hated anyway, which is why they got into politics - so as to stamp on it and destroy it.