Friday, 10 August 2012

Fun And Games With Calculators

"Truly desperate" is how Taking Liberties described a bunch of lefty, anti-every-business, hunter-gatherer wannabes* being irresponsibly conned into promoting the plain packs campaign.

But it's also an accurate description of the tobacco control industry's reaction to the news that 235,000 people had rejected their silly idea.

Firstly came the "you're all stupid" defence, from someone who tweeted and then immediately blocked any further conversation (it's a common trait, isn't it?).

It was followed by world class truth-twister Simon Chapman (who also blocks anyone with differing views, coincidentally).

And fawning like-minds, of course.

You know what? For once, I think they may have a point, as highlighted by another antipodean leather-bonce who was unimpressed with the 235,000 total.

All this negative energy towards people who engage in the political process, eh? Is it not the fundamental root of a consultation to welcome opposing views? Not for the dictators of tobacco control, no. It was expected to be an uncontested stroll and they're smarting.

Whatever subsequently happens with the daft plan packs idea, it's clear to these people that they've tested the public's credulity to breaking point, and they're worried. Worried enough to torture stats into 'proof' that a record number of responses is somehow inconsequential.

OK, let's apply the same mathematical wizardry to their own propaganda, shall we?
More than 75,000 Cancer Research UK supporters want to ban tobacco branding

Jean King, Cancer Research UK’s director of tobacco policy, said: “Our submission to the consultation outlines the evidence to back plain packaging and the public overwhelmingly support it."
"Overwhelmingly", love? No, it's 0.0011% of the population taking the base as tweeted above. And, on Chapman's logic, it means 99.83% of the adult population didn't sign CRUK's petition.

I suppose this blog wouldn't be complete without highlighting Debs Arnott burbling her customary poppycock, would it? Here you go then.
ASH chief executive Deborah Arnott said: "Shown what plain standardised packs could look like they are overwhelmingly in support of this proposal. They want to protect our children and save the next generation from the death and disease caused by smoking.”
That's right. All tiny fraction of 1% of them 'overwhelmingly' said that.

Hey, I didn't make the rules, Debs, I'd advise you to sternly look to your own for that.

Using the tobacco control calculator, it'll be interesting to find out what huge majority of the public didn't sign any of the petitions in favour of plain packs when the campaign announces their final total in the next few days, won't it?

* Description with apologies to one self-declared 'lefty never-smoker' who e-mailed to say he is none too happy with Avaaz's gullibility.


Pogo said...

"Matthew Fairhurst" is out by a factor of 100... Not a good advert for the numerical ability of the anti- lobby. And, as you say, if "only" 235,000 of the 10,000,000 smokers signed the petition an even more derisory 200,000 of the 35,000,000 adult non-smokers bothered to sign (or be coereced into signing) the plain-packs. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Dick_Puddlecote said...

Very true, so the 200k trumpeted by ASH today is 0.0057% of the non-smoking popn, or 0.0045% of the whole popn. Fun this, isn't it? :)

sillyusername said...

There is a piece of plain packs propaganda at CiF on the guardian. The picture at the head of the article shows a group of three twelve to fifteen year old girls smoking. I have already been on thread as "defendyourself" pointing out that these children are already banned by law from buying cigarettes and tobacco and the image is a dishonest piece of propaganda. Some twat has responded by saying "dishonest, please explain". How about dishonest as in Liar, liar pants on fire.

ivandenisovich said...

I wonder how many people who donate to CRUK realise that they are funding the significant salaries of the likes of Jean King and Deborah Arnott? Most people who I have mentioned this to have been highly surprised. Many have made a point of switching their generosity to "more worthy causes". None have had a good word to say about either of these "charity" workers.

Clearly tobacco control groupies like Becky Stokes will always support CRUK but they are a tiny minority of those who actually donate their spare cash to the organisation. They do however have a lot of influence because CRUK only really gets feedback from such groupies and has no real idea what the majority of their supporters are thinking. The problem for CRUK is that the tobacco control movement with which they are allied with is becoming increasingly and demonstrably more dishonest as its campaigns become more draconian and /or ridiculous

At some point, a significant number of people who donate in the belief that CRUK is an honest research led organisation are going to notice that it is keeping very bad company and that may have consequences for cancer research in the UK.

Legiron said...

Yep, they started this war, so we play the game by their rules. They don't like that.

They expect us to try to compromise and to fawn and beg for a scrap from the table.

I've said all along: no compromise. Play the game using their own rules. Leave out the lies and fraud that they use, and we'll play a better game than they ever could.