Search This Site
Forest on Twitter

TFS on Twitter

Join Forest On Facebook

Featured Video

Friends of The Free Society


Powered by Squarespace
« More questions than answers | Main | Displays of ignorance »

Where does all the money go?

Serious questions must be asked about the use of public money to fund organisations and "charities" that unashamedly promote government policies. Last Sunday, two days before the Health Bill was due to be debated in the House of Lords, this full page advertisement appeared in the Observer. It was placed by Smokefree Action and was signed by "one hundred national, regional and local organisations and medical and scientific experts".

According to the Observer rate card, this ad could have cost between £11k and £13k. No doubt the groups involved (many of them publicly funded) will say the money came from private donations, but they would say that, wouldn't they?

All we know is, there are millions of pounds of public money in the anti-smoking purse. The public has a right to how our money is being spent. Misrepresenting the facts (see previous post) and manipulating "public" consultations to help drive government policy is totally unacceptable.

See also: Why do taxpayers fund the anti-smoking lobby?

Reader Comments (11)

Where indeed is the accountability for all this money.
The electorate should be able to have sight or more knowledge, if as they say the money came from private donations. We should be told who these private concerns are and what benefits or agendas, if any, are attached to them.
If as they say the funds are coming from the public purse, what consensus did the public give for £llK to £14K to be spent on these sickening ads.
I'm absolutely sure that if people had a choice they would most certainly opt for all these 'donations' to be put to the front line of the health service by creating proper jobs where they are so desperately needed, and not in some obscure glass mega structure building housing government quango cronies.
There is no need for all these sickening ads and bill boards on anti smoking that cost a fortune.
The no smoking posters that are dotted around the entire country on every concievable building wherever you go is doing the job as it is.
If the ASH wankers and their cohorts think this wont be effective they have to have a hidden agenda and are making a money spinner out of it.
Are they trying to prove that we need shock therapy by putting up these sickening ads to make us doubly or trebly aware?
We should be given a breakdown by the anti smoking lobby as to what donations, what public funds, what wages are paid, how many staff employed etc and then people should have a choice on where the best place for the money be spent, especially in these recessionery times.

April 30, 2009 at 9:39 | Unregistered Commenterann

I work damn hard for my money in the private sector.
These "parasites", just blow it on rubbish like this.
God this goverment are "monumental idiots".

April 30, 2009 at 11:48 | Unregistered CommenterMcgraw

The more radio and tv ads I see/hear and more they appear in press and on billboards, the more determined I am to carry on smoking and NEVER give up!

I am sure I am not alone.

April 30, 2009 at 12:40 | Unregistered CommenterLyn

Scientifically speaking smoking is NOT addictive but habit forming.

April 30, 2009 at 13:43 | Unregistered CommenterJohn

Lyn. I only smoke to keep those lovely people at ASH in a job. If everybody quit they would all be on the DOLE.

April 30, 2009 at 16:35 | Unregistered Commenterchas

I can't see banning displays reducing smoking prevalence. Most young people try smoking. If they get a buzz from it, as I did, they will continue. if you've got the nerve to buy a condom at Boots, then asking for a packet of cigs at your corner shop won't be a problem. I don't smoke dope - not because it isn't on display, but because it never did anything for me.
I think what anti-tobacco is really after is plain packaging. This is just a first step. Will that contravene EU law? A natural consequence is that attention will be drawn to those with tobacco or cig packets which have obviously come from abroad. Perhaps anti-tobacco envisages the police being able to harass these people in some way? They can't do much about foreign tobacco unless customs bring back the 200 cig limit, which would surely be impossible under EU law. France has a very ingenious method of preventing people from buying tobacco in Belgium, where it is now much cheaper. It is illegal to be in possession of more than 200 cigs on French soil. Perhaps something similar might be attempted here. What do others think?

April 30, 2009 at 17:22 | Unregistered Commenterjon

Jon wrote: "...attention will be drawn to those with tobacco or cig packets which have obviously come from abroad."

An interesting thought, but it would be easy to get around this. Buy a ‘plain’ packet once and use it for all your foreign-bought cigs afterwards.

April 30, 2009 at 21:55 | Unregistered CommenterAnna

If they can't even enforce the law on illegal drugs people using phones when driving etc,they have no chance of stopping smuggled tobacco at all.
Just flout the foreign fag packet.
Dunno mate it's not mine someone must have left it on the table.
Put the fags in a cigarette case. .
They don't live in the real world and they are obviously not very bright.
This is obvious by the constant stream of dumb decisions politicians make.
In essence not fit to make any rational decision at all.
They just make a mess out of everything.
In EU terms they have the "merde touch, not the midas touch.

April 30, 2009 at 22:34 | Unregistered CommenterSpecky

I seem to remember it was mooted in the EU parliament before Christmas to reduce the alcohol and tobacco allowance again, 200 cigs I think. There seemed to be a slight majority, then it wavered, and the result (keep it as it is) seemed to get alloted to a one inch column on page 100!

May 1, 2009 at 0:02 | Unregistered Commentertimbone

Going back to the original blog - I'm OK at times for money, and then a few months later, I'm skint.

Before the ban, if I had a bit of money (very rare occasion for me) I would give to charities. Post-ban, I refuse to give a penny.

I've never been over-political until the ban came along.

Since the ban, I've learned a lot and have become more politically active. I know that I have heard on this blog before (or more than one occassion) that the smoking ban will never be an election issue. I do agree with that. However, it has made many that were previously inactive in politics, turn to activism. That will be Nu-Labs downfall in an indirect way.

Tough I say - because social engineering is defunkt - just like Nu'Lab and the EU.

Social engineering was defeated in the last century (it should stay that way - it's history and it was defeated).

The blanket smoking ban was definitely a step too far. This government will be punished for it when they let us have the chance to tell them.

May 1, 2009 at 0:31 | Unregistered CommenterMary

There is very few charities I will give to, a few days ago I got 2 girls at my door looking for money for a very large charity, I said to them, No, I will not give money to a charity whose biggest cost is staff. I always thought charity was that and the people that worked for them were doing their bit, until I had to look for a new job and found out that they are amongst the best paid in the country.

Charity my ass.

May 1, 2009 at 23:14 | Unregistered CommenterMargaret

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>