But the shrieking is incessant. Almost like ... I dunno ... like they're working double shifts for fear of their tax tap being turned off, or something.
Here's the latest via the British Heart Foundation
A new report by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health sheds light on the clear benefits of tobacco control measures.Increase? Have you any evidence for that?
It recommends the ban on vending machines and point-of-sale tobacco displays goes ahead and says without measures like these, smoking rates could increase".
Course not.
“It adds to the evidence that without these measures, smoking rates could rocket leaving the country with a health headache it could do without."Err, rocket? Again, any evidence? No, seriously. Is there any evidence - anywhere in the world - that smoking prevalence has 'rocketed' in the vast majority of countries who don't ban tobacco displays and/or vending machines, solely because they don't do so?
Course not.
“The report from the parliamentary group is a healthy dose of common sense and the Coalition Government should take note – tobacco control measures work."They work, do they?
Like the smoking ban, you mean? Which the BHF said, err, didn't? No, really, they did say that. I distinctly remember it.
New figures from the NHS show that the proportion of adult smokers has not diminished.And a load of people rode from London to Brighton to finance the wages of these jaw-droppingly failure-addicted fantasists?
A separate 2008 report showed 21 per cent of adults were smokers, the same as in 2007 but lower than the 39 per cent in 1980.
Anyway, enough of that. Let's look at the report from the 'All Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health' since they have provided it. It'll be hosted at Hansard or other official source, yes?
No. It's publised on the ASH website.
The Secretariat of the group is provided by Action on Smoking and Health, which is funded by the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research UK for carrying out this work.So, not only do people ride a bike to pay lobbyist wages, but women also run round fields to bung their £65 towards the salaries of those who are employed at Westminster producing political propaganda. I wonder if the ones responsible for this report are among the 8 who earn over £100k per annum at the BHF (PDF page 27), or the 23 who earn over a hundred grand at CRUK (PDF page 37)?
Crikey, I keep digressing. Must stay on topic.
Right, let's look at the report properly. It's a parliamentary one, so I'm sure it's balanced and fair.
Participants in oral evidence sessions and written evidenceAnd that's it.
- Deborah Arnott, Chief Executive, Action on Smoking and Health
- Professor Linda Bauld, Professor of Social Policy, University of Bath
- Dr Henry Featherstone, Head of Health and Social Care, Policy Exchange
- Professor Anna Gilmore, Professor of Public Health, University of Bath
- Professor Martin Jarvis, Professor Emeritus of Health Psychology at the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London
- Professor Susan Michie, Professor of Health Psychology, University College London
- Howard Reed, Economist, Landman Economics
- Dr Gabriel Scally Regional Director of Public Health for the South West
- Professor Robert West, Director of Tobacco Studies, Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Research Centre, University College London
A who's who of anti-smoker junk scientists and rent seekers, two members of the charities (and one fake charity) which wrote the report (reckon West is on £100k plus?), a union lapdog, and some guy from scrumpy land's public health division.
No view from anyone who may disagree. No corner shop representatives, no consumer organisations, no vending machine suppliers to give evidence of alternatives being used in Europe.
No-one, in fact, who will stray from the 'consensus'.
Quick! Call a journalist! Our politicians are being misled ... again!
No, forget journalists, they're less than useless, let's go straight to the Chair of the All Parliamentary Group - he'll be incensed at being led up the proverbial path, so he will.
But then again, maybe not seeing as we've seen him before here, too. Remember this donkey cock last month on - entirely coincidentally of course - exactly the same subject?
Now, I'm being serious here. What was the fucking point in dragging all these people down to wherever this circle jerk was held, with their associated hourly rates, expenses, and other charges to the taxpayer, when they could have all stayed at home and presented the same pile of one-sided, unproven, nannying bullshit but with less cost to the people who they quite obviously hold in contempt.
Those people being ... us. And that is ALL of us, whether you smoke or not; whether you believe in tobacco displays being hidden or not; whether you believe in vending machines being banned or not; or whether you really don't care one way or another.
This 'report' had written itself before they had even sat down.
These hideous prodnoses are just running a scam - and being paid handsomely for it from your taxes - to push their own agenda, without even bothering to be transparent or accountable anymore.
They use charities to convey the message (because arguing with them is taboo); they use the illusion of parliamentary impartiality - courtesy of useful idiots like Williams - to imply wisdom and authority; then they use an incompetent and inherently lazy press to spread the word.
And the real point of this artful deception - apart from bullying smokers yet again - is what, exactly? Well, we only have look at page 8 for that, don't we?
Government funding for tobacco control should be held at 2009-10 levels and sustained for the future in real terms.No matter how large the deficit, they just can't bear the thought of the till being shut before they've comprehensively rifled it, can they?
