Stop press: how the BBC scrubs up
Tuesday, June 16, 2009 Further to my previous post I have discovered that the "smoking should be banned in cars where children are present" story is based on ... a column on the BBC website!!
I have just been told: "We will be running it as a first person opinion piece as part of our Scrubbing Up column, but your comments will be good for TV and radio".
I'm sure they will. I rather suspect, though, that my contribution will be limited to a few seconds here and there while the author's comments (in favour of a ban) will feature heavily throughout the day.
Meanwhile Forest's response will be ignored by the BBC website where the "story" actually appears because it's a column not a report and columns don't have to be "balanced" with quotes from the likes of Forest.
The overriding message across the BBC tomorrow will be: smoking should be banned in cars where children are present.
And they expect us to pay for this preposterous propaganda!
Simon Clark
The column will be published tomorrow (Wednesday).
Reader Comments (49)
Funny, I smelled a rat this morning when the Today programme advertised some kind of forum in which people were to be asked for ideas about how to save money in the NHS. I don't know whether there's any connection but as for the effects on children of smoking I've said this before on this site. I'm 73.I remember sitting in blackout sealed rooms during the war, the windows taped over to prevent, flying shards of glass. I remember grandad's Woodbines, my grandma's Senior Service, my mum's 10 packets of Players, which I sometimes fetched from the newsagents. I remember the coal fire and its cosy, smoky smell on winter's nights as my grandad listened to Happidrome and Itma and we made toast using a toasting fork and our ankles were blotched by the heat, while the hallway was chill outside and the bathroom icy. I'm still here, and probably half my acquaintance are older than I am. How did we do it? What was not prevalent in that period was paranoia about health and safety. Just as well. Hitler might have made it. Really. Will this tedious professor please look at all the oldies in the community and ask himself:how did we do it? I've sense for a long while the zealots frustration that people still had some autonomy in their own cars. What we have here is an attempt at social engineering through a mixture of emotional blackmail and unscrupulous, unfounded propaganda. Oh and I only remember one child among my acquaintance in the 40s who was said to have atmosphere. And don't forget that after the war we had smog.And now the state, paradoxically is worried about providing for so many oldies. Like me and my peers.
PS for 'atmosphere' in post just sent, please read 'asthma'.
Great post Norman, really "astma-feric".
Bit of a pun, but I really do mean it, well done!
'Your comments will be good for TV and radio' ... as the spokesman for a tobacco industry front group!
Sorry to be brutal Simon but that is exactly how they see you ... you remember being questioned about it in Scotland by the Health & Sports Committee, exactly how much money the tobacco industry pays Forest and how Katherine Graham was rebuked for daring to suggest that a self-funded retail group could have been invited to give evidence to the committee!
There is nothing on the Scrubbing Up part of the BBC web-site yet. Unless they are talking about the last time this was mentioned on there ... back in February by Alan Maryon-Davies.
Thanks for rescuing my mistake, Peter
"..We made toast using a toasting fork and our ankles were blotched by the heat, while the hallway was chill outside and the bathroom icy." - Norman.
Brilliant writing, as always, Norman. Power to your Pen!
Being slightly older than you, I love your evocative descriptions of our childhood during the war years. We had to make our own entertainment too. My mother didn't smoke herself but her party trick was to borrow a lighted cigarette from someone, fill her mouth with smoke and pop out a string of perfect smoke rings. We marvelled at it and the game for the children was to try to put our fingers up through the smoke rings. The higher they went, the large they grew. She never failed. Smokers present would try but very few could achieve even one.
Most people smoked, including my father when he was home from the war. It was never a subject for discussion and was as natural as eating and drinking. My brothers and I smoked from being teenagers until now. We've always been slim, active and healthy. Our children, having grown up in smokers' households are the same.
So what's to be done with all us smoke-filled old 'uns? We are living proof against the lies of the smoking ban. Apart from our state pensions we rarely cost the NHS a penny. We create no profit for the pharmo's. Our minds remain as alert and active as our bodies. True medical science shows that smokers seldom get Alzheimer’s, and you will find that the drugs treating dementia are nicotine based. [Look on the labels for Niacin, Vitamin B3 and Nicotinic Acid.]
It is only when we are persuaded to stop smoking that all the illnesses rush in -obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, etc. This is then blamed on the fact that we used to smoke. Anyone over 70 who visits a doctor is almost certain to be diagnosed with something. Diabetes seems the favourite closely followed by high blood pressure. Then the prescription medication will start and the smoking be stopped. The medications will compound and increase. Ill health will increase and when the patient dies it will be blamed on the fact that they used to smoke.
Left in peace and not shoved out into the freezing cold to smoke, there is only one ailment that ancient habitual smokers can be sure of and that is old age itself.
I've tried to compress the above into a nutshell. Of course there are exceptions. I do recommend, however, that in our war against the lies and tyranny of anti-smoking Big Brother, we arm ourselves with the true facts about the benefits of smoking and turn our defence into attack. There is a mine of information on the F2C site in their "Benefits of Smoking” topic. This is in the Lounge Bar of the Forum.
[With apologies to regular posters, you’ve heard all this before. Newcomers may not have done.]
Here is the column in question.
It said that children need to be protected from cigarette smoke. Children today are protected far too much and have been told to scrub up every five minutes. No wonder children today suffer far more from allergies, hay fever and asthma, as they have very poor immune systems.
I agree Chas. The children these days are very unhealthy because of the protection they have been given.
I pity their health when they get a little older with the reduced immune systems that they now have.
To me, that will be the biggest killer of our children in years to come, not SHS, obesity or diabetes.
It was announced on the radio the other day that the number of smokers in Ireland has increased, but at the same time the revenue to the tax man has gone down, which tells its own story.
One of the few positives of EU membership is, to a certain extent, the free movement of goods
Of course the latest twist to this tangled web of bullshit was when the person announcing this awful news followed it up by saying that people who smoked were mostly found to have psychological problems and were usually under privilaged and from working class backgrounds (my psychological problem is trying to find somewhere to have a smoke in peace).
During a recent trip abroad 45 of the people on our tour smoked while the national average is just 31%, which tells us that smokers are going abroad as much as possible.
Dublin's most glamourous nightclub has just closed down and according to the owner it was due to the economic downturn and lack of a smoking area.
We sure know how to bring down the economy in Ireland.
FOREST was mentioned on the Today program and I've kept a copy of the Professor's input here:
The Nutty Professor
Freedom To Choose
I notice Arnott is saying she wants a complete ban on smoking in cars.
Belinda is spot-on. I don't know what the point of this post was beyond a thinly disguised whine at that darned liberal media again. Surely this is what you must have expected?
Anyway, there is an actual BBC news report that gives the balanced (insert scare quotes as you feel appropriate) story that went up this morning with your piece tagged on. So, no problem?
Unless you want to get some credentials to write in the medical column for them yourself I don't see where you're going with this. That's the game.
A 'news' report about the opinion of one person, backed up by 80% of the piece being nonsense from government-funded fake charities, and that's 'balanced', is it?
It was also featured on the lunchtime news, with a graphic popping up to tell us that one cigarette is somehow 23 times stronger in a car - the source was stated though ... ASH.
The attack on the BBC is perfectly valid.
The comments on the BBC site also show that we are no longer living in a democracy, but an ochlocracy - marginalisation of the minority by the majority. Otherwise known as mob rule.
Blueblackjack is right in the sense that the BBC always wins. Even its own R4 statistics programme "More or Less", often featuring David Spiegelhalter, Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Cambridge University, is ignored by the air-heads and health neurotics who write the web pages and the programme scripts. What chance does anyone else have? The Paediatrics Professor, probably with the best of intentions, has unwittingly stepped into the dirty world of anti-tobacco activism. His comments are largely irrelevant. Most smokers wouldn't smoke in the car with their children and, were there not a general smoking ban in place, most smokers would not object to this proposal. What is important is that Arnott has come out and said she wants a complete ban on smoking in cars. I presume in future that this will be justified either as a health measure, or a road safety measure, depending on the audience and the circumstances. In the BBC article she appeared to be justifying it as saving the health of the smoker - the smoker incapable of opening the car window. The poor people at BRAKE have probably lost relatives in road accidents and can't be blamed for backing any measures which might conceivably improve road safety. I emailed BRAKE to point out that, in all the studies carried out, smoking was found to be far less of a contributing factor to accidents than distraction by passengers or fiddling with the radio - not that it will make any difference.
It must now be obvious from this new attempt to ban all smoking in cars, that sweet reason will not accomplish anything. How can any organisation fight against this torrent of state-funded propaganda? Instant heart attacks, cot deaths, smoke in a car so many times as bad as in a pub. It just goes on and on. As I never tire of pointing out, the hunting ban wasn't made unenforceable by argument and debate. How about encouraging smokers to stop donating blood (now that would be serious) and, if they are on the organ donor register, to remove themselves? How about all smokers buying a small white pencil and holding it between the first two fingers of their right hand while driving? Will this be outlawed? It will fool the cameras. Burning incense sticks in cars - is that dangerous? Let's do it and find out. There are so many ways to cause so much trouble, without even breaking the law.
Deborah Arnott says "Cars are small tin boxes, with not much air in them".
I wonder what type of car Ms Arnott drives, if she indeed does drive at all? Must be some dirty, old fashioned car from way back when, when cars didn't have air conditioning which changes the air in a car every few minutes or so.
She should be ashamed of herself, polluting our roads with filth like that, doesn't she think of all the children she must be killing?
Deborah Arnott's head is a box with not much brains in it.
I left a comment this morning which hasn't been published and I see that the invitation to comment's now been withdrawn.
It's disappointing to see the comments of so many smokers who've swallowed the 'fact' that passive smoking kills/poisons. If comments were still allowed I'd be tempted to leave a spoof one calling for smokers to be compelled to publicly self-flagellate three times a day...
Doesn't it make you despair....
Joyce. My two comments did not get published ether. This quote "As (I'm ashamed to say) a smoker of 30 years" made me want to shout in anger.
So our friend debbs thinks cars are made of tin, obviously somthing else she knowes sod all about.
It only goes to show Joyce that we come back to the fact that 'most' smokers do not know of Forest, F2C , Forces etc, and have no idea of the fraud of the SHS claims.
I've always maintained, and still do that THE most important goal is to push and push' the passive smoking fraud' to the public, the media and politicians, as ALL of the problems we have, with the thousands of closures and jobs lost, and petty laws eminate from this lie.
You can talk of choice and liberty, but until this deception is known across the board ,the drug company puppets will be allowed to take this all the way to prohibition. It has to stay as the top priority for every group fighting these well paid conmen/women.
I absolutely agree, Zitori, and I'm always perplexed when Forest appears to agree with the line that passive smoking is harmful (as Neil Rafferty implies when he is quoted in this BBC piece as saying, "We don't think that children should be exposed to smoke in a car...") It might be that Forest thinks that it's expedient to take this cautious tone but I'm always left with the impression that Forest suspects that the 'Antis' might be right but just haven't produced conclusive evidence.
I came into my living room just in time to catch Simon on the end of a BBC programme about this subject. Did anyone see it and know what Simon was allowed to say?
Oh I see, "PRAVDA" otherwise previously known as the BBC .
Have you noticed the way they only allow "comment" on "certain stories",
I would have loved to have read the comments on this one.
Anybody who works for this lot (BBC),is a bit "STASI".
Sorry thats spelt S-T-A-S-I.
Peter,
I saw it. Simon said words similar to those he wrote above.
Essentially, he said that most people would not want to smoke in their cars with children inside, but he thought that it would be wrong to force people not to.
Today, the Telegraph had a report about this matter. A spokesman (strangely enough, a 'she') from BRAKE is quoted as saying, "Having one hand off the wheel and dropping ash over yourself, or obstructng your view with smoking, means you are not concentrating on your driving."
Clearly, the lady knows nothing about driving or she might be aware that one is constrantly taking one hand off the wheel to change gears, switch indicators on, switch lights on/off, etc. Nor does she know anything about smoking in cars - for example, that a slightly open window literally DRAWS the smoke out - which is what I always do. The idea that one is driving while peering through a cloud of smoke is positively risable.
Several more clear and obvious examples of a deliberate intention to mis-inform.
Could they not be sued for misrepresentation by a car manufacturer for implying that their cars are death traps? That would be fun.
"Having one hand off the wheel and dropping ash over yourself, or obstructng your view with smoking, means you are not concentrating on your driving.
EEEEOW!
SNOBBY !
Further to my last post, on CBBC childrens news, the BBC wheeled out several children to pronounce on what they thought of smoking in cars. Talk about nazi propaganda methods!
It's about time someone with media connections spoke about the real facts about SHS and children, not the crap that Neil Rafferty apparently said, giving them an open goal. What's that all about!
Children not exposed are far more likely to develop breathing complaints, and less likely to develop better immunity. We have an elderly population now that was force fed smoke EVERYWHERE, and if this garbage we are hearing was true, there wouldn't be hardly anyone left alive or able above the age of 50.
Come on Forest get your act together and start forcibly challenging these lies, instead of giving out this ' we know smoking's not good but...'.It will NEVER work.
Someone on here said there is a lot of information on F2C website so being new to this game I searched and did find it. And at first I thought it looked good, with a picture of Churchill on the front, a perfect site from freedom, but on closer inspection, when I logged onto the forum section, the level of discussion is not exactly intelligent is it?
It seems to go round and round in circles with about 5 or 6 regulars saying the same old thing over and over again. Sorry to be hard on it, but I think I'll stick to Taking Liberties from now on.
Bill from Reading.
I was the one who directed you to F2C. My reason lies within Zitori's comment above. We have to swing the argument against anti-smoking to the positive not the negative. We need to be armed with the knowledge that smoking is actually good for you. There is no easy way. There are many books written on the subject and many scientific studies and conclusions back these books. But who has the time or inclination to read a whole book - just on this one subject? We attempted, and succeeded, if you read the whole lot, to do this on the F2C Benefits of Smoking thread. Even so, it got a bit muddled and disseminated by random contributors.
I can't continually write the whole thing down ad infinitum - as I have doen often in the past. So either do your own research, which takes a lot of time and effort, or take our word for it, that smoking itself has many health benefits. As Zitori says, the cautious approach taken by Simon & Neil really does us no good at all. I have even asked Simon on this blog which part of the junk science he believes in when he says, [in effect], "While we acknowledge that smoking is harmful..we reserve the right of freedom of choice."
This argument does us no good at all and gives credence to the junk science. Perhaps Zitori has found the right attack when he asks simply that they look at the number of healthy people like myself, [aged 75]. Why are such people, who were inundated with smoking and passive smoking throughout their childhood and then their entire lives, not dead? As he says, if there was any truth in the smoking lie, there would be no-one over 50 left alive.
If you take the time to research the subject, you will find that smoking gives a natural immunity to many illnesses, including Astham,Alzheimer's, high blood pressure, excess obesity - the list is endless. Even the smoker's cough is an asset. Smoking puts in a protective coating of mucus which collects the germs we beathe in. The cough and phlegm which it then creates gets rid of those germs.
This is such a huge subject in the face of the present comprehensive lying brainwash, you really do have to do your own research to believe it.
I too fear for my grandchildren. In the smoke free atmosphere of schools, cars, homes, airports, buses, etc., they are building up no immunity at all. Consequently, like so many children and non-smoking adults, they seem constantly to be ill.
I'd like to make another small point. Neil (Rafferty) is both a spokesman for Forest and co-founder and writer of the excellent "Daily Mash". Satire is an extremely powerful tool and the "Mash" does satire brilliantly. I'd like to see Neil make more use of the "Mash" as a vehicle to satirise the antics of the anti-smoker zealots.
I would say, Margot - and thanks for your comments earlier in this sequence - that in my working days, the smokers and drinkers worked on until the job was done, often through the night, after a full day's work, until they were revived by bacon sandwiches ( a delicious smell) made by the lone member of staff in the canteen at dawn. And then they went on to write it all up again for the coming day's evening papers. People who went to the gym sometimes were off sick. I am talking about the Parliamentary Press Gallery before family friendly hours, if such they are, made a mockery of the only power which the backbenchers controlled to thwart the Executive: time.
Margot is right when she says that most people would never get to read a whole book on this subject, and that made me remember a condensed leaflet I read called 'The Secrets of the Passive Smoking fraud' ( I just checked it again) on the musician Eamonn Mallon's website, who played 'Jackboot'at the TICAP conference wwww.eamonnmallon.co.uk.
Very informative and short that should be circulated to the public. It's that type of information that should be pushed by those with the means. It could make a difference.
'The Secrets of the Passive Smoking fraud' on the musician Eamonn Mallon's website, who played 'Jackboot'at the TICAP conference wwww.eamonnmallon.co.uk."
Thanks, Zitori. I'll take a look at it and pass it on.
I have been reading various BBC 'have your say' comments on a variety of subjects. I have made myself a 'member' so that I can comment directly (without moderators intervening before my comment can be published).The reason for this is that the BBC gets hundreds of comments from all over the world, and if one is to get a word in, it is as well to have an advantage, if possible. My intention is to have a go whenever anything involving our harmless habit is published. It might be worth our while for all our friends on this site to do likewise.
I read the article by the nutty professor about banning smoking in cars - and the comments. It was SO depressing. Masses and masses of people saying that smoking in cars with children present should be banned, What was so depressing was that almost all the bloggers were unable to differentiate between UNPLEASANT and HARMFUL. For example, many described their experiences as children when an adult smoked in the car that they were in and how much they disliked it - the smoke made them feel sick, cough, etc. I read dozens of these comments and NOT A SINGLE ONE said, "And therefore I have heart disease...lung cancer...cannot add up...etc. (Sorry, I tell a lie - one person said that she had developed asthma because of her parents smoking)."
What was particularly depressing was that the government is likely to COUNT THE NUMBERS of people who make these flawed judgements and calculate that such a ban would be popular and gain votes and so go for it.
Isn't that depressing? Even more so when one takes into account that spokespersons from BRAKE, who obviously know nothing about driving, can say anything they like, true or not, and get away with it.
However, there is a silver lining.
It struck me, as a result of the observation that so many people were confused about the difference between UNPLEASANT and HARMFUL, that it is just about possible to BYPASS these killjoys.
What came into my mind was that Ministers of the Crown (notably, Patricia Hewitt and Caroline Flint - where are they now?) were very fond of stating that the smoking ban is 'what the people want'. Of course, nobody ever asked the question, "WHICH PEOPLE?" In particular, what does it matter to people who never go into pubs whether people who DO go into pubs smoke or not?
It struck me that it might be a good idea to spread a petition around pubs, AND ONLY AROUND PUBS, with a view to changing the law to allow smoking rooms, or something of that nature. The beauty of the idea is that only pub goers would be involved, thereby bypassing the 90% who never go to pubs.
I wonder if FOREST has the contacts to promote such an idea?
The comments on that BBC article are ridiculous. Talk about 'managed'. I would say 90% of them are in favour of the jackboot.
This reminds me of those communist dictators who used to win 'elections' with 90%+ of the vote. The BBC mimics Pravda, again.
Come off it Margot! I am a smoker, which is why I have decided to join this website, and I think the lies we hear about smoking are ridiculous, and although I agree with certain parts of your post, such as your age and other people's ages who have smoked all their lives etc etc., I do think that your comments here, are exaggerated beyond belief, and will only help the anti smoking brigade to ridicule us even more than they are already doing.
MARGOT: If you take the time to research the subject, you will find that smoking gives a natural immunity to many illnesses, including Astham,Alzheimer's, high blood pressure, excess obesity - the list is endless. Even the smoker's cough is an asset. Smoking puts in a protective coating of mucus which collects the germs we beathe in. The cough and phlegm which it then creates gets rid of those germs.
Actually Bill from Reading,in a horrendous animal experiment, mice which were exposed to tobacco smoke were the ONLY ones not to die from their lungs being exposed to radiation, and the conclusion was a probable protective layer of mucus, so it's not that laughable, as ALL of the unexposed mice died.
I do not want to get into an argument here Zitori, and I am most definitely on the side of the smoker, but I am finding it harder and harder to believe some of the 'facts' which are being put forward here.
I don't believe hardly anything which the anti-smokers say as I know they are cranks and liars, but please convince me (and anyone else) that what you re saying is true? Who did this so called experiment with the mice and when and where did they do it?
Bill, you could go here http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap9.htm and you will find information concerning rats/mice experiments.
Just as I suspected Zitori - porkies - prize porkies and worse still this type of porkie does our cause no good at all.
Porkies? Explain, seeing you didn't seem to know much about the subject that comes as a suprise. Our cause? Are you sure about that?
Nothing to explain from me Zitori. I looked at the site you gave me and did not find anything relating to the story you told me about the mice. I dont understand why you question the word 'cause'. I am a smoker like most people on here and my cause is to try and bring it back as a normal pursuit which I hope is the same as everyone else on here?
Excuse me Bill, I thought that particular story was on that site. I'll check and find the source,but your 'just as I suspected' routine and 'porkies' sounds like you have made your mind up your reading lies before checking them out.
http://speakeasyforum.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/173601742/m/7541044041?f=173601742&a=tpc&m=7541044041&s=757607732&cdra=Y
Bill from Reading, you'll find mention of the mice experiment here of which 60% survived
I'm sorry I cannot at this time find the source which I originally read, a few years ago, but I will continue to try, but it certainly exists.
I have no reason to lie, and I do not appreciate being called a liar,and especially from someone who pre-judges before you even have the facts.
As Einstein said, 'condemnation without investigation, is the height of ignorance.'
With regard to smoking in vehicles, please see my comment on the issue below - 'Professor Calls for Yet another Smoking Ban'.
Something I have said before, if smoking is a dangerous distraction in cars, so much so that it should be banned, then the first thing to ban would be children as they are far more distracting and annoying much of the time and are not so easy for the driver to control or deal with as a cigarette is!
Bill from Reading - you may like this very brief summary about the benefits of smoking from Dr KW E Denson, Thame Thrombosis and Haemostasis Research Foundation, Thame, Oxon:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/3593568/Smoking-is-not-all-evil.html
There's lots of other sites. I'm not scientific, but I also know that smoking and asthma cannot be linked, even though the majority have been brainwashed into they are linked. Asthma is an allergic reaction to certain proteins and there are no proteins in SHS
Bill of Reading.
I really do rather resent your rudeness to Zitori and for the second time to me.
Please do some research yourself. We are not here to spoon-feed you. Take even a fraction of the time and dedication that contributors here have put into researching the things they say. We can only offer a brief outline. You must read the many books and articles yourself.
I really cannot understand why you guys are falling out among yourselves. Isn't this precisely the reason that the Government (DHS) can can emit the most ludicrous statements without the back-up of real, scientific data? We need always question the scientific data that is emitted by the powers that be. For some reason that I do not understand, the Powers that Be cannot seem to ask the question (and this also relates to global warming) ARE THE so-called facts CORRECT? There are lots of reasons to believe that the 'facts' are not correct - and therein lies our reasonable arguement that the smoking is IRRATIONAL - which idea is pretty obvious to anyone with any sense whatsover.
I do not know how it would be possible, IN A SIMPLE WAY, to show that all almost all the 'science' about smoking is crap. People live for a period of time and then they die. That is a FACT. What they do, between being born and dying, is, for the vast majority of people, of no importance as regards their longenvity. All this crap about smoking is irrelevent as compared with 'the genetic imperative'.
It is very hard to understand the Government's desire to perpetuate life. It may be possible to consider that a scientist (or whatever) has such a brilliant idaa that it is REALLY, REALLY important that he should be kept alive.
But, ......Well, if you do not see where I am going to, forget it.
What the hell is wrong with you people? I didn't ask anyone to look anything up for me and I am not particularly interested in looking anything up myself.
Zitori offered some info which he said was true. I looked up the link he gave and found no such info on there. So I told Zitori that fact.
As for Margot Johnson telling me she 'resents' my rudeness to Zitori. Hard bloody luck! This is not Friends Re-united you. I came on this site firstly just to read the comments which I found to be very interesting until Margot started using these boards as a political posting board for UKIP. I and many others resented that Margot. You might rule the roost in your local tea-rooms, or your village hall but you certainly are not going to rule me.
I am on these boards to fight little Hitlers who try to boss me about not to accept even more of them.