The One Show you might want to miss
Tuesday, March 23, 2010 
You can watch it HERE - if you must. Personally, I'd give it a miss.
PS. Apologies for the quality. It's a lo-res file that was sent to me by email.
Simon Clark
Last night, having watched The One Show report (above), I was feeling a bit hacked off ... This morning, having read the comments about Antony Worrall Thompson and Forest on this post, I feel fighting fit again.
Yes, AWT was hilariously "off message" with some of his comments. So what? The man has a mind of his own (shock horror) and is perfectly entitled to express his views. (In my experience, plenty of smokers share his view about smoking in cars where children are present.) He is clearly speaking from the heart, unlike many of those automatons in the anti-smoking industry who spout one statistic after another, all gleaned from the ASH handbook.
AWT has done a magnificent job supporting Forest for many years. No other "celebrity" is prepared to put themselves in the firing line on such a contentious issue, time and time again. We are very lucky to have him (he has never received a single penny for the many interviews he has done on our behalf, or the events he has attended) and I look forward to working with him for many years to come.
More to follow (in defence of Forest) ...
Reader Comments (14)
Trust me it is worth missing!!
Worth missing Carlos? I don't think so. As they said in the piece, the smoking ban debate will go on and on, and thank god for that. The pro-banners think they have it all sewed up, but they have not.
This was NOT an smoke bashing video but gave the two views, it was up to the viewers to decide, even though they came out with 'false' government statistics at the end.
You did a good interview Simon. I'm going to use this video if I may.
I was just waiting for AWT to say "I have in my hand a piece of paper".
With friends etc
It is no wonder that Simon said ‘give it a miss’. When the Patron of Forest (what exactly is a ‘Patron’?) goes on record as saying that members of this organisation (Forest) are harming their children by smoking in their presence, in a car or otherwise, we do have a veritable enemy in our midst. Even if he was quoted out of context, it is still as stupid a thing as one can possibly say. AWT is an arsehole and needs to be removed as ‘patron’ without delay. May I suggest Lady Gaga as a replacement? She would surely do a better job as ‘Patron’ (whatever that mat be).
There is something terribly wrong with Forest. It seems to be just a convenience; useful for the MSM to get a quote from occasionally – in order to appear to be impartial. Maybe be it would be better if Forest did not exist and there was nobody to get a conveniently impartial quote from. Or, possibly, that Forest stop being a convenient ‘useful idiot’ – stop accepting these invitations. Forest’s general ethos ought to be – “In some peoples’ bodies, smoke, alcohol, dairy products, sunlight, etc, can be harmful. We do not agree, and scientific papers show this to be true, that ALL the people are at risk. In fact, scientific papers show that only a very small minority of people are at risk. This utterly minimal risk applies to children in just the same way as it does in adults – utterly miniscule”. Push the science.
There is a lot to learn from the video. The presenters are obviously reading from a script; the comments from the guests are scientifically ignorant (meaning ‘lacking in knowledge’); that girl (Sophi something?) is pretty but knows nothing; the other guy is trying to be impartial but his thinking has already been corrupted.
What is there to learn?
The ‘One Show’ is amateurish crap. Do not get involved with it or anything similar.
Get rid of useless ‘Patrons’ – unless you can get Lady Gaga.
Push the science absolutely – ‘children are in no way whatsoever harmed by normal smoking in cars or normal smoking in homes. Workers are not harmed at all by working in normal smoking environments, eg. Pubs. There is no actual ‘science’ which proves otherwise, in fact, the lack of science proves the opposite – if no harm can be proven, then there is no harm – well, when so much effort has been put into trying to prove that there IS harm, and is found to be wanting, then it is reasonable to say that the ‘harm scenario’ is wrong. That is the best that one can say since the old adage that ‘one cannot prove a negative’ is still true.
Nevertheless, it is possible, as Dave Atherton has shown, to prove from studies that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that passive smoking, whether we talk about bar staff or children in cars, is harmful. None at all. I say again, none at all.
I understand that Simon Clark is doing the best that he can within his limited budget. I understand that he is travelling all over the place in order to put the smokers’ case and that all this travelling is no fun. All the more reason therefore to change the ethos of Forest.
I am forced to agree with Junican.
I appreciate your hard work, Simon, and I love reading your blog, but there is absolutely no evidence the people accusing smokers have that make their claims true. Why not fight on the lack of science just as much as the civil rights?
I hate this country so much now. It used to be a lovely place to live before everyone in government (which I am forced to pay for under threat of violence, property confiscation and imprisonment) and their cohorts decided to get in my face.
AWT's Paella recipe is brilliant.
I agree with Junican, yes push the science every time, especially when proof is everywhere that shows up their manipulated sham version.
We all know at this stage that junk science is the only thing the antis and jobsworths have to feed off to keep themselves in employment.
They darent stop, they cant afford to, what would be their purpose, what would they have to talk about and what would they do, only join the dole queues like the rest of us.
And they're never gonna let that happen, they cant afford to.
They have a sizeable proportion of the electorate whipped up to a frenzy on 'not nice habits going forward' or suchlike bullshit mantras and they just have to keep the momentum going.
Otherwise the prolatariat would cop them on and the pack of cards would come tumbling down and their jobsworth would be put at risk.
So lets get serious with real science and statistics and forget about pandering to their egos and giving them airtime with their plants in every audience bolstering their egos further and begin a war of real words!
@Junican
We are all on the backfoot on passive smoking. We know the science is massaged junk, but it is widely believed amongst the chattering classes. I was at the BBC today and they were shocked, come incredulous that there is not only no conclusive proof, but smoking is protective to children on asthma. They then use the "we have all moved on argument."
I wrote to a world renoun epidemiologist and I do mean world renoun scientist, who gave evidence to the government on passive smoking with a specific question on the P53 gene. He either did not know the answer as he is not up on genetics, or knew full well that passive smoking is inert. At least he was polite enough to reply. Another epidemiologist I wrote to now has included my research in his work!!
What I am saying is that the majority of scientists have not bothered to read the papers and science too.
The SCOTH Committee report is the reason that most MPs and government believe in the myth of passive smoking. From what I have read of the minutes the person who collated the "evidence" on lung cancer SHS was Professor Martin Jarvis who is a psychologist not an epidemiologist. The others took his work at face value without any debate. Even then the minutes said "Most of the studies were not felt to be sufficiently conclusive in their findings."
Not many scientists dare say the emperor is naked.
However the positives are that the general public believe us and I hope to have my paper published in a reputable medical journal soon which I hope can stimulate the debate.
In conclusion and I hope you think me sincere but Simon does a very difficult job, very well.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4131879.pdf
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4131879.pdf
I'd accept smoking bans in cars/doorways/parks etc - IF pubs were allowed to choose once again. That's the trade off.
@Mark - these peopole don't do trade-offs
I regret what I said about AWT - it was unfair. I agree that he does a lot for the group. It was the statement that tobacco smoke is bad for children that infuriated me.
I would still prefer Lady Gaga though!
When watching the video, it’s always worth remembering that this is the BBC. And the BBC does as the Government says. And the Government says that they don't want anyone saying, in public, anything good about smoking – bearing in mind that their definition of “anything good” is anything which is not "unreservedly bad.” (Simon, of course, you were a “permitted” exception, because it would just have been too obvious if they'd put similar constraints on you.)
But most interesting is, I think, Sophie Dahl’s reaction when she is asked for her opinion. Her awkwardness says it all. It’s textbook body-language stuff. She fidgets, she hesitates, she chooses her words carefully, she drops her eyes, flaps her hands around and seems visibly relieved when her co-guest/presenter takes the reins once again. And the relief is even more palpable when she’s onto the much safer ground of her smoking during her modelling days. Phew! Now she can be honest – and out comes the smile. Makes me wonder what she might have said if it hadn’t been a nanny-controlled BBC programme. Maybe she's one of the growing number of non-smokers who now feel that enough is enough? Watch it again. If ever there was a guest under strict instructions, it's her!
And AWT? Well, I’m guessing that he has kids, which explains a lot – any interviewer worth their salt knows only too well how asking a parent any question remotely to do with children will cause common-sense, reasonability, principles and any semblance of an objective or balanced opinion on anything to fly out of the window! Cunning beggers!
Why is it only Simon, that is permitted to speak
out on the BBC in this way; saying things that
are unbad about smoking?
The anti smoking lobbyists only counter his and Forest's arguments by saying he is in the pay and representing views from the tobacco industry. Should not the views of ordinary members of the public and other groups similar to Forest, not be equally represented ?
Could their representation at similar interviews not be arranged? This is supposed to be a democracy and it would also add weight to the argument against such measures.The whole debate on tobacco, needs to be reopened.
I agree completely with Misty's comment about Sophie Dahl - I get the feeling that she actually knows quite a bit but realises she isn't allowed to say anything remotely controversial (and of course she's got her own show on BBC and doesn't want to rock the boat)!