Tuesday, 10 January 2012

BHF's Latest Piss Poor Plain Packaging Propaganda

You may remember a piece last month highlighting The British Heart Foundation spending good faith donations - which the public believe is spent wholly on charitable activities - on lobbying government instead. Here they are, again, not keeping their noses out of politics.


See? I did warn you that there was going to be some desperate scratching around for justification in the matter of plain packaging, didn't I? But this one from precocious Adam really is a bit of an own goal.

Tobacco companies have always maintained that packaging has one purpose, and one purpose only - that being to compete for market share with other companies and brands. So what does Adam do to disprove this? Why, ask smokers which brand they would choose based on the packaging, of course. Way to go advancing big tobacco's defence, dickhead. It is, after all, illegal for under 18s to buy cigarettes (we have laws to stop them and everything), and if they're over that age, it's their choice and none of your business Adam, d'you see?

Interestingly, the likes/dislikes votes for this on YouTube are around 50:50 which is encouraging, with comments underneath equally dismissive if not more so. And this, we must presume, is from those sent to it by BHF's publicity. None of us have even got stuck in yet (though who am I to dissuade you?).

On that basis, Adam did nail one thing squarely in the video (43 secs in) ... the vast majority of the country don't think it matters, nor do they feel legislation is required. In fact, almost no-one gives a stuff. But then, we're not the ones trying to do something - anything - to keep that salary coming in on the back of tin-shakers who believe it is spent on things like palliative care instead of political lobbying.

After all, they have been a bit short of things to badger MPs with with since getting vending machines and tobacco displays banned, haven't they?


13 comments:

alanxxx said...

Anybody know how much this staggering knob rot cost to produce?

Meanwhile, I shudder from the distressing effects caused by the video of secondhand capitalism. How much do those hair cults cost?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone really, GENUINELY believe that the "smokers" in this video have ever held a fag, let alone lit one up? If so, we're all in bigger trouble than we thought.....

Anonymous said...

They'd have far more success if they put a pic of the ugly cow on the pack.

Junican said...

Over at the Bolton Smokers Club, I have been looking at the way in which Tobacco Control was set up by the United Nations. Very briefly, they set up Non-Government Organisations to put their plans into effect, thus bypassing actual democratic Governments. They set things up in such a way that no Health Minister would dare go against their plans. At the same time, they ensured that opposition would be silenced by bringing in the MSM as 'partners'.
The problem with such systems has always been that there is no internal criticism either. That is why the '23 times' stuff from the Heart Foundation slipped through. The LEADERS said 23 times, and no one in the organisation dare say, "Erm....are you sure?" Such errors then 'cascade' as one untruth piles up on top of another. Climate Change is collapsing, partly because it was always iffy, but more that it tried to eliminate opposition. The UN set up Climate Change in just the same way that it set up Tobacco Control. The UN also set up Alcohol Control, and national Governments are out of the loop - apart from introducing legislation as instructed.

but I have digressed. The video is rubbish. The BHF figures are based upon the opinions of a few youths who fell for questions equivalent to, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

They make mistakes - serious mistakes. They put people's backs up. they are single minded and do not see that an attack on 'smoking' is an attack on 'smokers'. They have no concept of 'pleasure' or 'happiness' or 'contentment'. All is merely a question of living longer.
But they have set up the systems (the NGOs) and the training and excluded anyone who does not agree.
It will take some time to dismantle this monster.

timbone said...

...couldn't watch it, shite. About a year ago, I had a difficult decision to make. A very good friend (well into his seventies) died after years of heart trouble (non smoker). The request was for donations to the BHF. I did make a donation, out of respect for Bill and his widow. I knew however, that this donation would not go to any kind of care and research, just shite like that video.

Junican said...

Isn't that a terrible situation, Timbone? You cannot say, "No!", out of respect, but you understand that the persons suggesting such a gift do not know what your gift is financing.
But that is what has happened. The BHF has lost its soul. The core has rotted. The honest people who wanted to help people who had 'heart conditions' are now contributing to a 'dark force', being a group which desires an end to pleasure, which has become an instrument of the WHO.

To quote a well-known phrase, "Something must be done".

Anonymous said...

Used to be one went to the pharmacy and in a soft low voice whispered, "condoms". And the druggist quietly obliged, from under the counter, slipped into a plain brown bag, out of shame on the face of the buyer who didn't want to be made into the image of improper non-child producing or perhaps extra-marital sexual encountering amongst the pious and righteous keepers of morality for the community, some of whom might be standing somewhere in the pharmacy to over hear and begin a devastating rumour.

Nowadays it's the same soft low voice, is whispered, "fags". And they come out in a plain package and quickly into a plain brown sack, just in case any righteous keepers of morality for the community might happen to be somewhere in sight and overhear and spread a nasty rumour.

I hear in Canada they're not even allowed to say they have them hidden beneath the counter. And if one asks, they have to be shown a plain type-faced booklet describing the names of the immoral objects hidden beneath out of sight in plain brown packaging or face a large fine should they not allow the customer to whisper, "fags", first, or substantiate his age identification, prior to showing him the pornographic catalogue which describes the immoral brown packaged goods hidden beneath.

Anonymous said...

One feature of Plain Packing is
the appeal to the smuggling fraternity especially in the Slavic Mafia and the Triads
Much easier to copy,easier to distribute,easier to conceal and better all round to deceive the
unknowing.
We wonder why so many British smokers have to use dodgy back street dealers when one can hop across the sea for the real thing ,tax paid and legit.

Before we forget
North Sea Freedom Cruise
Hull-Zeebrugge
February 4-5th
All who speak,blog,proclaim and
gesture about liberty are most welcome.
It would be so nice to see some of our southern fraternity in the flesh rather than digital spirit.


The North will fight on

Lyn said...

Timbone, I sympathise with your dilema and have been there myself, but in the end I still do not donate to BHF, CRUK, or any other such 'charities'.

If I say anything to the relatives it is just that I cannot donate money to causes that do not use the donations for what they are saying they do. I expand on that if requested.

I am totally gutted that just over 15 years ago I requested dontations to CRUK after my first husband died of lung cancer; my only defence is that at the time I was not thinking at all, nevermind clearly. I still regret every penny that went to them, but thankfully it was not a great deal! Obviously people, even back then, were not enamoured with CRUK!

I don't think it is disrespectful to the family not to donate. It is some time after the funeral that they receive the list of donors, by which time a little of the edge has gone from the trauma. Plus, many people do not send flowers or floral tributes because they do not feel it is necessary and are not looked on badly because of this, so I see no difference in not donating, especially if it is something that you do not believe in or have faith in.

At the end of the day you just have to follow your conscience and go with what you are most comfortable with.

Lyn said...

To video. What utter crap!

Unfortunately there are still too many gullible people out there who will take it at face value and not see that it is a complete set up!

Advertising of tobacco products still go on; millions of little adverts everywhere - on the packs themselves! Whoopee Doo! So, brand names on any product that we buy are not safe, if, in the future some moron decides that that product is 'bad'?

Perhaps, in the future, things like baseball bats will be banned from having a brand name - you can kill someone with a baseball bat! Better still, what about cars? The list is endless because at the end of the day just about anything can kill you - even a Birds Eye Pea, if you choke on it!

By the way, only saw an option at the end of the Video for 'Like' - didn't fancy trying that one!

Leg-iron said...

The point of plain packaging, as far as I can see, is to hide the sight of the packs from people who were never going to buy them anyway.

Perhaps more likely, it's to make it more and more difficult for smokers to buy them, adding the 'guilt' aspect that anon 05:58 mentions.

This will obviously make it not only easier, but preferable, to buy from the non-judgemental 'Man with a Van' and the longer it goes on, the higher the risk that Man with a Van won't bother going to Belgium any more.

He'll stock cheap stuff in easily faked packs, made out of a hint of tobacco plus a load of dried cabbage leaves.

As this spreads, we won't even be sure if the stuff we buy in the EU is genuine. Put yourself in the position of a shopkeeper whose customers will be several countries away before they use what they bought in your shop. How tempting is it to sell them fake-crap at real-thing prices? How much pressure will the Mafia put on him to stock their version of Marlboro that have more to do with the horse than the cowboy?

That's why I'm practising growing and curing my own. This year I'll be seeding the waste ground and woodland meadows nearby, ready for when the idiots ban gardening. If they're wild, I'm not growing them.

I had limited success with curing this year but made enough to break even on startup costs. I have also smoked dried tobacco flowers, an experience I would never have had otherwise. Next year I know what won't work so should do better.

The year after that, better still.

Single acts of tyranny said...

This was substantially conducted in Festival Place in Basingstoke. I know this because (apart from recognising the local environment as I live here) I was approached to comment on 'Adam's' video. I opined, that if he could ever get a girlfriend, and lose his virginity, he might possibly chill TFO and leave people alone to make a free choice.

Having seen what was displayed, I may suggest that if someone uses the word 'like' three times in five seconds (1.48 to 1.52) you may not be getting a well considered comment, like.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Gotta tweet that SAOT. :)