Victims of denormalisation
Wednesday, March 25, 2009 
Yesterday I attended the launch of a study entitled "Outcasts: The Obese and Other Victims of Denormalisation". Written by Patrick Basham and John Luik and published by the Democracy Institute, a public policy research group based in Washington and London, the report "examines the government's increasing use of respective 'denormalisation' campaigns against food, gambling, drinks and tobacco industries".
In practise, denormalisation means that the government attempts to shame adults into changing their behaviour. For the government's denormalisation campaign to succeed these adults must be stigmatised; that is, they will be placed apart from the rest of civilised society until and unless they learn to behave in the approved manner. Denormalisation pushes gamblers, drinkers, smokers and the obese from being a heath hazard to being a moral hazard, nothing less than blots on the nation's moral landscape."
Yesterday's event took place at Portcullis House (above), which has offices for 210 MPs and their staff. Of the dozen people who took the trouble to attend, I counted one MP and one member of staff. (Oh, and one journalist - from The Grocer magazine.)
Draw your own conclusions.
Reader Comments (17)
I would have attended as a journalist had I known about it. Perhaps you could give me a tip next time Simon...?
In the battle for media coverage one is always up against 'events'. I suppose the Governor of the Bank of England captured whatever spare journalistic attention was available yesterday. There is another problem too. News is only news if journalists see it as news. If they don't report it, it's not, therefore, news. If a journalist thinks a rival might cover something he will too, in order to protect himself from hindsight, head office, 'inquests': 'Why didn't we have that story?' On the other hand, if the reporter involved is quietly sure that the story will not be covered by rivals, then, faced with competing calls on him, he will be safe to ignore it. Here we're up against whatever orthodox definition of 'news' is current. Prophets cry in the wilderness because their news is too new.
I offered a way out of the "government's denormalisation campaign". I offered it to Simon by email, and did not even receive the courtesy of a reply. I then took it to F2C and after an initial hot response, as soon as the members there realised that they might have to get up from behind their keyboards, and actually do something, rather than just moan about it, the response quickly cooled down.
The general reaction was, "Me, do something? I don't have to prove myself to anyone". Well let me tell you boys and girls, you do!
I ask everyone on here, do you want to be seen as "abnormal" forever now? Because without getting up and showing that you are not, this is exactly what you are allowing to be done to yourselves.
I am so despondent at the lack of get up and go I have seen in the past week or so, by people I had a lot of faith in. I honestly feel like packing it all in, and watching from the sidelines, as everyone digs themselves deeper and deeper into a hole from which they will never escape.
Apologies, Peter. I have checked my emails and I see that you wrote to me on 13 March. I shall reply to you privately.
Harsh words Peter.
Have you thought for one moment that your idea lacked merit?
I thought long and hard about it before responding and the cost/benefit ratio was weak in the extreme.
When providing ideas for others to consider you should always factor in the worst possible outcome. That's what I did and it rendered your idea a non-starter.
If your feelings are hurt because you came up with an idea that no-one committed to, then you really need to get over it.
I have suggested dozens of ideas over the last four years and very few see the light of day. That's because I see the plan subjectively, but other, wiser eyes, see different angles.
I wonder whether the exchanges on another thread provoked by a very tiny Mizz Foetida Helle-Bore have caused a certain amount of accidie. I mention this on the present thread because I doubted very much whether she should be encouraged on the other. I wondered, indeed, whether she was a plant.
Did you get a chance, Simon, to make other delegates aware of what Dick Puddlecote has described as outright apartheid at the Royal Oldham Hospital?
http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/2009/03/smoker-apartheid-has-arrived.html
Are smokers now to be denied access to hospitals?
I also wrote a couple of weeks back and didn't get a reply.
When the Smoking ban was passed by Parliament in 2006 I thought forest would organise a demonstration or procession and I would of travelled some 250 miles at the time being so livid with the idea of the Ban ,but I was shocked nothing like this was organised when the Iron was hot? ,I have cooled off a bit since then as probably many others have ,a bit of apathy has been forced upon me, even though I will never accept the ban and will always be angry as the reasons for it Passive Smoke harm, are an outright lie as intense scientific studies prove.
Denormalised, not me. The likes of the government and the anti smoking propaganda movement's attempt to demonise and denormalise me hasn't work.
I'm a much better person than Deborah Arnott or that spiteful, vindictive, know-sod-all Martin Dockerell, I accept people for what they are, not what I think they should be. And unlike the anti smoking propaganda movement I don't have an agenda either.
"I thought forest would organise a demonstration or procession" - Chris Whittaker.
Many of us felt the same and the government certainly prepared for mass riots and demonstrations. Time has passed and it seems to me that what we smokers actually did was to surprise them by quietly treating the ban with the contempt it deserves. This has been far more effective. I've noticed many subtle changes in attitude since the ban began. We have not stopped smoking but instead, having no other option, have gathered outside on the street to smoke and chat socially and happily together. This is a quiet law-abiding protest and an entirely new social phenomonen. At first, little zealot women would scuttle past coughing and waving their hands about in protest. They no longer do this because smoking has not stopped and we have not died. We are in the majority at such enforced gatherings and they would simply be laughed at. We are also having a social companionship which they cannot have themselves.
I visited my local A£E hospital shortly after the ban started. The place was plastered with posters screaming at us that "Smoking Kills". Before being offered any treatment for my sprained ankle, I was asked whether I smoked and offered help to stop. They then started filling in my form. As I was over 70, they asked what medication I was on. I told them none at all because, through smoking, I had remained healthy all my life and had little need of doctors. Today I visited the same A&E hospital and found all posters had been removed. No mention was make of smoking. I sat in the waiting room to await my turn. After a while, I asked how many were on the list before me and would I have time to go outside for a cigarette. I was told brightly and cheerfully by the nurse that I would certainly have time to go for a smoke.
I've noticed many subtle differences in attitude as time went on. In retrospect,I'm glad we did not have hysterical protest marches, which would have achieved absolutely nothing more than make us appear to be a bunch of extremists and would-be terrorists.
Regarding the civilised way we smokers reacted to the smoking ban, I should have added to my comments above that having thwarted HMG of their hoped for bloodbath and made surplus to requirements their huge standby of extra riot police - winter came - and the pubs started to close.
Now they have turned their attention to the drinkers, drivers, fatties, etc., and also caused additional unemployment in many regions of Britain. If the latest victims can treat their situation with the same commonsense the smokers did, the hoped for riots and bloodbath can be avoided. So, therefore, can the imposition of Marshall Law.
We just have to sit it out and make our voices heard in the council and EU elections this June and the general election next year. If we don't peacefully sit it out, there will probably never be another general election.
Yes thats the way to go, sit it out and come election time vote the Labour lap dogs of the EU out, because they're only interested in getting big money jobs in the rest home for cronies on the gravy train of the unelected and unaccountable Brussels parliament.
Its amazing about people. Hospitals in Ireland have now banned smoking on hospital grounds. My husband and I had to go for blood tests recently and he went out for a fag while waiting. There was no way he was going to walk the long distance to the street, so he lit up outside the door of the hospital and it wasnt long before a 'heart' patient joined him and said if anyone says anything to me I will sort them out.
My point being, when smokers see someone else 'breaking the law' they will join in, but would be afraid to do it on their own.
Is any of this reaching the ears of Conservative Party policy makers or even, if such there be, a Liberal member of the Liberal(?)Democrats?
Norman, CON MPs who have received letters about possible ammendments to the smoking ban have made clear to their constuents that there is no chance of that happening under a Con govt.
The Illiberal Democrats absolutely support the blanket smoking ban and say there would be no ammendment from them. When I was asked to support their Freedom Bill, I said I couldn't if they didn't recognise that choice was a freedom that should also be respected.
I'd urge anyone not to support it. There really is no point. It's no different to what the Cons propose.
The only party that I am aware of that does support ammendments to the smoking ban is UKIP. A far better voting option that the BNP, I think.
Pat, you've confirmed my impression, as I received a B minus, vacuous, non-committal, unengaged,above-the-fray piece of fence-sitting, dumbing down, blind indifference,Central-Office-version PR flam from my Conservative MP. He lost my vote thereby. What puzzles me is why the Conservative Party of all parties, cannot produce someone impartial enough to listen and stand up for that most English of traditions, a fair deal for minorities. The Tories are letting their own classic raison d'etre down. They are also incapable of seeing where their political interest lies. Perhaps the head prefect in charge of them now truly believes he knows, in a so kind, upright, muscular and paternalistic way, what is best for the young fags (English meaning) for whom he is responsible. Sad, I had hopes of him.
Ann
I don't know about the Irish legislation as it may be different from that of England. If they are not allowing smoking in hospital grounds, then their policy is unenforecable in the eyes if the law.
The legislation is clear in that it is enclosed and substantially enclosed areas that are subject to the ban.
They may not want you smoke in hospital grounds, but there is nothing they can do to stop you. It is not an offence.
If anyone pulls you up about it, ask them what piece of legislation you are not adhering to. They will not be able to answer, because no legislation exists. Not in England anyway. It could be different in Ireland, so check it out first.