Allowing Debate Is Wrong, Says 'Liberal'

Sometimes, comedy gold just leaps out of the ether and makes you wonder if someone is on a wind up.

There's no other way of describing this odd diatribe from a random Twitter guy, generously brought to my attention by Simon Cooke.

My letter to @guardian on their decision to accept lobbying ads form the tobacco industry: 

Dear Sirs 

I have been a keen subscriber to your iPad app for a while now, so I was most perturbed to see an ad for the tobacco lobby in the last few editions of The Guardian on iPad.

Colour me unsurprised at the intro.

The ad purports to be against plain packaging of cigarettes on the basis that it will assist organised crime and lead to further evasion of duty which will cost the UK taxpayer money. It gives no explanation as to how or why this will be the case, of course.

The bloke obviously has his ear to the ground Guardian-wise. Sadly, he seems to have entirely missed anything published anywhere else. Had he done his research, before firing off a self-satisfying pile of bollocks (and sharing it on Twitter), he might have noticed some well qualified people offering exactly the explanations he is too limited - or uninterested - to find for himself.

He might also - if he had taken time get off the right-on hobby horse - been able to see that there is no evidence in favour except that which has been rigged in advance. Y'see, we're all still waiting for a proper explanation of how plain packs is going to help when even the idea's biggest booster say kids barely notice the packets, which is - we are told - the precise reason for all this pointless dick-waggling.

Its true however, that the tobacco lobby is concerned about loss of revenue - their own. Despite assertions to the contrary by the industry, they are opposed to plain packaging because it impacts their ability to differentiate their product and hence affects marketing which in turn affects profits.

See, I love people like this as they do us a massive favour. There the tobacco control industry are trying to pump some fantasy line that plain packs are designed to stop kids from starting to smoke, and then someone like this blunders into a debate - of which he obviously has no clue whatsoever - to reveal the prime justification behind it. Which we kinda knew anyway.

The simple fact is that - however many 'ambassadors' are sent to schmooze MPs - this is solely about arrogant tobacco-haters doing all they can to destroy a legal business. Many of which are red in tooth and claw and really don't give a stuff about health, instead preferring the ideological undergrad bashing of corporations which they should have grown out of by now.

The children have nothing to do with it, nor does it have anything to do with health. Just pure envy, jealousy and prejudice.

The sheer gall of the tobacco industry to suggest that they are concerned about the loss to the UK Exchequer in duty when the products they sell cause illness and death on such a grand scale which the taxpayer pays for via the NHS is eclipsed only by the rank hypocrisy of The Guardian in accepting such an ad.

The tobacco industry will quite obviously be as worried about the loss of duties for the same reasons as the Treasury. If duties aren't being paid, it's because tobacco is being bought from criminals who don't pay it rather than an industry which does. Criminals, as it should not require explaining, who care little for state controls on who they sell it to. Surely even a committed statist should recognise that kind of threat and consider it worrisome. After all, what's the point of state control if it isn't to regulate markets?

As for the cost to the NHS argument, anti-smoking organisation ASH make him entirely wrong.

Tobacco tax more than pays for NHS health costs associated with smoking.

And this well before governments caught on that hanging onto the coat tails of blinkered fruitcakes was a way of levying charges which could free them from the shackles of that inconvenient Laffer Curve.

Perhaps this guy has an agenda we should be looking at. He reads the Guardian, we know that much, but he can't be the comically hackneyed Islington rich boy who hasn't grown out of teenage socialist farty politics, surely?

Oh yes, he can.

Be-wigged defence Counsel, working in the City of London in criminal law

Tweeting from ... wait for it ... a North London location in the shadow of Islington. Seriously, you couldn't make it  up.

There is more here if you're interested, but I think the real justification for his anger is contained in this tweet.

All very confusing considering he is someone who should very much understand the concept of minority rights being respected in a democracy, no matter the bigotry lined up against them.

Link Tank 06/10

Saucy little numbers, for accompaniment with bacon or a light omelette.

The moral case for a truly free press is overdue a hearing

The war on drugs goes after evil daisies

Coercion never works, persuasion does

Shades, dives, and other varieties of British bar

The perks of page 3

Rome introduces compulsory sandwich free zones

Scientists believe drug that makes you feel good could treat depression - genius!

Oktoberfest nears record consumption ... in the first week

Finally a ban that San Francisco hippies don't like

Tobacco control industry employee re-writes laws of economics and reason ... again

Sex-obsessed bats

Power To The People!

You may remember Gerard Hastings from past mentions where he advocates banning alcohol advertising and is part of the systematic rigging of the plain packs consultation.

See, Hastings hates popular businesses and loves the public health driven state. He's a real defender of the proletariat, so he is (well, except when he is resisting state laws on transparency he doesn't like, of course). He just wants to protect you from bad choices, that's all.

His latest book, though, states his position more clearly than ever before. There we were thinking he was just a regular public health bore, when in fact his agenda is far further reaching than that. Here's the synopsis accompanied by some entirely-unrelated random images.

In the hands of the corporate sector, marketing has turned us into spoilt, consumption-obsessed children who are simultaneously wrecking our bodies, psyches and planet. Given the fiduciary duties of the corporation, notions like consumer sovereignty, customer service and relationship building are just corrosive myths that seduce us into quiescence, whilst furnishing big business with unprecedented power.

Corporate Social Responsibility, the ultimate oxymoron, and its country cousin, Cause Related Marketing, are just means of currying favour amongst our political leaders and further extending corporate power.

So it is time to fight back.

As individuals we have enormous internal strength; collectively we have, and can again, change the world ...

... (indeed marketing itself is a function of humankind’s capacity to cooperate to overcome difficulties and way predates its co-option by corporations). From the purpose and resilience Steinbeck’s sharecroppers (‘we’re the people – we go on’), through Eisenhower’s ‘alert and knowledgeable citizenry’ to Arundhati Roy’s timely reminder about the wisdom of indigenous people ‘are not relics of the past, but the guides to our future’, there are lots of reasons for optimism. If these talents and strengths can be combined with serious moves to contain the corporate sector, it is possible to rethink our economic and social priorities. The book ends with a call to do just this.

This compelling and accessible book will be of interest across the social sciences and humanities – and indeed to anyone who has concerns about the current state of consumer society. It will also be particularly useful reading for those marketing students who'd prefer a critical perspective to the standard ritualization of their discipline.

I think we all know where Gerry stands now, don't we? He has painted the tone of his book on Amazon quite clearly, I reckon. 

His previous effort - referencing Naomi Klein and George Monbiot - only received one review, which I'm sure Gerry must have found quite disappointing. Hopefully, he'll get lots and lots of really good ones this time. 

His Amazon page is here, in case you wanted to have a look around.

Government Badgering Government

We all knew one. The weasel-like kid in the playground who got his kicks running to teacher and tittle-tattling. Well, they grew up and now spend their time surfing the net; avidly watching the airwaves; and dedicating their lives to destroying fun and enjoyment wherever they come across it. Except that now, they steal your money to pay for it.

The ever-vigilant Harridanic site has already reported on Sustain trying to stop kids playing games involving Chewie the dinosaur and the Honey Monster, as well as objecting to videos which show youngsters being happy.

Now Harridanic has spotted them going after ice lollies.

Ad 

Claims on www.loveicecream.com, for Wall's ice cream: 

(a) One ad featured product information about the Twister lolly, including text which stated "Do the twist ... Life is twisted. So why not tangle your tongue around a Twister lolly? Chill out with the smooth pineapple flavour ice cream and refreshing lemon-lime flavour fruit ice. Then twist it to the max with the unexpected strawberry fruit ice core. Live life your way!". A side banner contained images of strawberries on a chopping board with the slogan "Love fruit". 

(b) A second ad featured product information about Mini Twister lollies. Text stated "An eight pack of Twister lollies in two enticing flavours: creamy pineapple ice cream and strawberry fruit ice twisted around a core of delicious strawberry fruit ice; and creamy pineapple ice cream and strawberry fruit ice twisted around a fruity core of lemon fruit ice". There was an image of two Mini Twister lollies surrounded by two small strawberries and two pieces of citrus fruit. The page had the same "Love fruit" side banner as in ad (a), but with peaches rather than strawberries.

Seriously, is this what taxpayer funds were designed to pay for? Miserable bores to spend their waking hours desperately searching for messages which only exist in their joyless, self-enriching imaginations?

(c) A third ad was accessed by clicking on the "Love fruit" side banner in ads (a) and (b). This page showed an image of a Solero ice cream and a mixing bowl full of ice cream and fruit carrying the text "What makes our ice cream taste so fruity?". Clicking on the bowl revealed the statement "... we combine fruit with ice cream to create a delicate balance of softness and sweetness in a light yet indulgent eating experience". Other parts of the page contained information about different types of fruit, a fruit horoscope quiz and a banner showing pictures of the Wall's range of "fruity ice cream" (Solero, Calippo, Cornetto and Frusi Pots). There were also links to other areas of the website entitled "Love milk" and "Love chocolate".

Yes, I know. Shocking, isn't it? The future of modern civilisation is obviously in danger because Walls are claiming that their fruity products contain fruit and taste like they do.

The complaint was quite rightly dismissed, but not before your cash had paid for the exercise on both sides of the equation. Sustain to raise their pathetic complaint, and the ASA to spend a day or so rejecting it. What a fucking waste.

Doesn't this give us a revealing taster of what these people do all day, though? With the country on its knees financially, and even the Labour party admitting that cuts need to be made to what the state pays out, this utter insult to hard working taxpayers is going on every day.

A great big merry-go-round of state-funded futility. With one government agency wasting cash fielding daft complaints from others who are dependent on what they are shovelled by Westminster out of productive pay packets.

Remember that next time you look at the deductions on your payslip. And weep that you're supporting people who make benefit cheats look like benign saints.

Harridanic has also caught the lemon-sucking tax leeches at Alcohol Concern being their usual screw-faced selves. Firstly objecting to Heineken then, latterly, Estrella beer.

Do go have a look. Their gripes are quite hilarious. Fortunately, they were told to stick their head in the nearest bin too.

BBC And Guardian Played Like Fools On Minimum Alcohol Pricing

This is a message from the highly irresponsible blogosphere.

You know, the one that Andrew Marr once portrayed thus.

"A lot of bloggers seem to be socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed, young men sitting in their mother's basements and ranting. They are very angry people. 

"OK – the country is full of very angry people. Many of us are angry people at times. Some of us are angry and drunk. But the so-called citizen journalism is the spewings and rantings of very drunk people late at night. 

"It is fantastic at times but it is not going to replace journalism."

Perhaps he is referring to top quality journalism like this in the Guardian, for example.

The lives of 5,000 older English people who drink too much could be saved each year if the government sets its promised minimum price for alcohol at 50p a unit, new research suggests. 

Academics at Sheffield University produced the estimate for next Monday's edition of the BBC's Panorama programme, which highlights the growing problem of over-65s drinking dangerously.

It repeated, without question, the conclusions of the BBC who - in turn - repeated, without question, the 'evidence' provided to them by the University of Sheffield. Apparently, over 10 years, 50,000 old people would be miraculously saved by a 50p minimum alcohol price.

All very well, except that the claims were disastrously wrong, as admitted this week.

Correction 28 September 2012: The main figure in this story has been amended from 50,000 to 11,500 after it emerged that there had been an error in the calculations carried out for Panorama by the School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield.

Wow! That's a pretty significant cock-up, isn't it? Well, yes. So much so, that the BBC iPlayer edition of the show has been pulled until it can be re-recorded!

Correction: 28 September, 2012: 

The School of Health and Related Research at the University of Sheffield has confirmed to Panorama that unfortunately, due to human error, figures they produced specifically for the programme Old, Drunk and Disorderly?  broadcast on 10th September 2012 were incorrect.  The figures are in fact 4-5 times lower than those originally given to Panorama. The University emphasised the human error was wholly on their part and has apologised unreservedly to the BBC. The programme has been temporarily removed from iPlayer and is being re-edited to reflect the correct figures.

It's hardly surprising really. The information is in the public domain for any inquisitive journalist to find if they could be bothered to look. Snowdon expressed some doubts before it was even aired.

Forgive me if I sound jaded when I discuss these people's crystal balls, but it was only six months ago that a 50p minimum price was predicted to save 2,000 lives a year across the entire population. The government-funded sock puppet website www.minimumpricing.info says that it will save exactly 1,000 lives, again across the entire population. Suddenly saving 5,000 lives only amongst pensioners seems to be upping the ante somewhat, no? (The BBC is running the same story, but incorporates the old trick of multiplying the figure over a decade, hence 'Minimum alcohol price 'would save 50,000 pensioners'.)

This, while our respected (pfft) mainstream media didn't even so much as raise a sceptical eyebrow.

In fact, it was much worse than that. Sheffield University's self-aggrandising page is quite clear about how many lives are to be miraculously 'saved' by minimum pricing.

Various public health groups have recommended a minimum unit price of 50 pence. Our model suggests that, in England, this would [lead to]: 

3,060 fewer deaths and 97,700 fewer hospital admissions over ten years.

It's quite incredible that Panorama's fact-checkers are so shoddy that they didn't see that claiming 50,000 old people dying is quite laughable when their source has previously declared - experts as they are - only 3,060 in the entire population! And even that is more than debatable if you have read their rent-seeking reasoning (in fact, their latest report contains a different fantasy figure of 2,941).

OK, let's take that as being a mistake. That they intended to claim 3,060 per year, not over ten years. It is still nowhere near the 50,000 ten year figure that Panorama, the Guardian, and others took as read. It would also be a second cock-up from Sheffield University if that were the case. That's quite a large helping of incompetence right there, I'd argue (oh yeah, and did I mention their research was funded out of your taxes? But you kinda feared that, didn't you?).

In fact, the BBC's retraction came about not because of Andrew Marr's lauded journalists, nor from anyone who follows them. It was, instead, a regular jewel-robbing reader of this blog and others in the same vein who refused to let them get away with such blatant inaccuracies and challenged them on it. Successfully.

OK, so journalists are poor, over-worked creatures these days yada yada, and it's not their fault, we are constantly told. However, there is one profession which has no excuse whatsoever for being pathetically credulous fools.

The UK government is to back the Scottish government when its minimum alcohol pricing legislation is challenged in the courts. 

Advocate General, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has said UK ministers will not "sit on the sidelines". 

He is due to discuss the UK government's position on minimum pricing at a legal conference in Edinburgh later this week.

Who do they trust for the information which underpins this newly-found confidence in tackling the EU?

Research by Sheffield University has indicated that setting the minimum price at 50p would lead to 60 fewer deaths, 1,600 fewer hospital admissions and 3,500 fewer crimes in its first year.

Really?

The same government who follow the EU line on every diktat laid down in front of them; the same government who willingly throw your freedoms away once Brussels barks an order; will jump up and down indignantly when told minimum pricing is wrong and should be abandoned.

Makes you feel so proud of your elected arseholes doesn't it? The only way they can be cajoled into resisting the unelected EU is when it is to further interfere in your life and make your freedom of choice more expensive based on the say-so of - let's face it - a University with the rigour and double-checking acumen of Mr Bean.

How safe do you feel that idiots like this are in charge of your defence, policing and the education of your kids?

I wonder where Marr's indispensable and questioning journalists were when all this crap was pumped out on prime time BBC1? Perhaps they'd have done a better job if they were in their mother's basement doing what others have done more effectively and for free.

Epilogue: Will the Guardian admit they have been misled and give the same prominence to an article rubbishing their previous one like the BBC have failed to do? Well, what do you think?

Lies and boots yet again.

UPDATE: At Spiked, Snowdon reminds us that this 300% error is reminiscent of the BMA's quietly withdrawn "23 times" fabrication of November last year. Do go have a read.

UPDATE 2: My attention has been drawn to a well-written article by Stephen McGowan from earlier this year.

The Government seeks to implement policy based on facts; but the Sheffield research is not positivism or empiricism, it is speculation.  It is also a re-hash of their previous statements commissioned by Westminster and published in December 2008. I have some difficulty with Holyrood’s decision to instruct Sheffield University when they already knew what the results were going to be. 

[...] 

The results of the Sheffield research are, after all, a totem carved from conjecture and guesswork (something which the authors of the report have themselves point out).

Quite. You can read the rest here.

UPDATE 3: Do see also Pub Curmudgeon's viewpoint here.

UPDATE 4: Simon Cooke comments that "hundreds of thousands watched a Panorama documentary founded on a lie", and Liberal Vision point out how policy-driven research is perverting public health credibility.

#Stoptober Fail

Stumbling around the internet - as you do - I came across this warm account of a Stoptober inductee who is finding e-cigs a very useful aid in quitting.

Yes, yes, we know that they are actually useless (the tobacco control industry says so) but perhaps this person is yet another industry stooge, I dunno.

Anyhow, this bit struck me as quite amusing.

"I had myself prepared for the day despite the let down of not getting my Stoptober pack in time (GRRRRR)"

Really? Now, I'd have thought that for a campaign which revolves around starting the quit attempt on the 1st of October, it is pretty damn vital that the 'support' arrives before that date. No?

But then, further on ...

"I popped by my brothers after work to swap some Nicorette gum for an e-cigarette to try. He showed me his Stoptober pack that did arrive and he was quite disappointed with, seemed to just contain loads of leaflets, a chart that doesn't related to smoking roll ups and a stress bass that wasn't even really squidgy."

So not that much of an aid, after all. That was £2 million well spent, then.

Good grief.

Know Your Place, Plebs

It was only last week that we learned about how damaging high sin taxes are for those on a low income.

Poor smokers in New York State spend about a quarter of their entire income on cigarettes, nearly twice as much as the national average for low-income smokers, according to a new study. 

The study, conducted by the non-profit research group RTI on behalf of the state's health department, found there was no statistically significant decline in the prevalence of smoking among poorer New Yorkers between 2003 and 2010, even as the habit declined by about 20 percent among all income groups.

As usual, the people who have enforced this are adamant that it's not their fault. Oh Lord no! What is required is more money for them, and - of course - more spanking of those who continue to ignore their diktats.

So the response to this study shouldn't be to deplore the "regressive" effect of cigarette taxes on the poor, but to address the regressive effect of tobacco industry marketing and resultant high smoking rates on the health and economic well-being of the poor. 

The best way to do that is to that is to return more of their cigarette tax dollars to the poor in the form of enhanced and expanded tobacco prevention and cessation efforts

That's right. To tackle the problem of poor people being hit hard by overwhelming taxation, the state should give more money to those who got us into this situation so that they can punish the poor further.

Meanwhile, another policy of theirs is similarly damaging to those on low incomes, as recently published (again, thanks to fellow jewel robber Alan B for getting past the public health secrecy wall). In fact, arguably more so.

CONCLUSIONS 

The move from restrictions on smoking in the workplace to non-smoker and, more recently, nonnicotine hiring policies represents an important shift in tobacco control that can have significant costs for smokers, those living with them, and those attempting to quit. That smoking is increasingly concentrated among disadvantaged groups who are also more susceptible to job insecurity suggests that such policies must also be assessed from a social justice perspective.  Tobacco control and health care organizations have sought to support this move by linking employment restrictions to their organizations’ commitments to broader antismoking goals, focusing on the requirement that employees act as advocates and role models and on the contribution that hiring restrictions can make to the denormalization of smoking. Neither of these arguments stands up to scrutiny, suggesting that nonsmoker and nonnicotine hiring policies may damage, rather than support, the fight against smoking.

Just to break that down for you, it means that policies demanding smokers are refused employment - which is something the tobacco control industry are actively pursuing - predominantly hurt those on low incomes. The study has - no shit, Sherlock - concluded that this is a bad thing.

Those in the tobacco control  industry whose only ongoing concern is where to take their skinny latte and goat's cheese pannini of a lunchtime don't care much, though. They don't just want to take as much money off of people on meagre incomes as possible, they are also trying their hardest to stop them earning it in the first place.

Such a caring profession, don't you think?

And all because their targets refuse to bow down to this self-installed middle class cognoscenti who - irony of ironies - leech their handsome salaries off the back of taxes paid by precisely the working class people they incessantly impoverish.

Know your place plebs. Obey your rich public health masters or end up on a park bench with your kids.