He is, of course, not trivialising child abuse. No, not at all. In fact, he's very generous in not quite putting smokers on the same level as paedophiles.
@TracyA1972 Yes of course there should be a sliding scale, i didn't sa (sic) they were the same as Gary GlitterHow very generous. But child abusers they are, nonetheless. Quite a sweeping statement, one would think, yet the first reply suggesting that anyone who agrees with his majestic fuckwittery could be a trifle distracted by 'slebrity' is met with righteous anger.
@HoneyTicketyBoo You just verbally abused most of my followers & you don't even know themBut he knows all 12 million smokers intimately enough to make and pronounce judgement, apparently.
Yes he's a royally head-fucked prick but, being a philanthropic sort, I'd like to work out why this seemingly privileged guy's keen business brain appears to go into hypocritical meltdown at the merest mention of tobacco.
For example, surely you must remember his complete denial of ever saying that he wanted kids to be able to report their parents to the police?
Smoking should be banned in cars, and particularly any vehicle with children in it. On a school visit I met a 12-year-boy who wanted to be an athlete who told me that every morning his mother lit up when she was driving to school, even though he'd begged her to stop. He should be able to report her to the police.There it is in black and white on the Guardian website, yet he has twice denied saying anything of the sort. Strenuously.
Firstly, in a flurry of media appearances following the article - where, go figure, he felt justified to throw a salvo of personal insults at tolerant non-smokers too - and again in the comments to a piece by Andrew Alexander in the Wail.
Interestingly, the latter challenge to his all-pervading authority elicited a stunning contortion of the written word.
Read the article yourself - two or three times if you like - you won't find anything remotely resembling such an assertion.
So Bannatyne, the turgid fuck, entirely fabricated it to enrage his deluded - and yes, sleb-fawning - followers.
And, as he stressed today, Duncan is so very much against drawing conclusions that weren't made, so he is.
@fids I did not liken then (sic) to paedophiles, only you have done thatPerhaps these are new rules for life, Bannatyne-style.
- Dunc can make sweeping statements about people he doesn't know, others can't
- Dunc can throw personal insults, others aren't allowed
- Others are ludicrous for suggesting Dunc's words are inflammatory, Dunc can draw conclusions which don't exist with impunity
- Your kids are Uncle Dunc's concern
- Dunc is a hideous cunt
So now we're clear. OK?