What More Proof Does One Need?

Never a truer word spoken by Andrew Alexander in the Wail

Alas, there is something about smoking which damages the mind - of anti-smokers. Normal as they may be in other respects, they rave and rant about tobacco.

And never again will he be proven so spectacularly correct in as short a period of time as today. Evidenced by mouth-frothing from psychopathic smoker hater, Duncan Bannatyne, whose Twitter feed seethes with righteous anger at the impudence of a writer expressing his view that tobacco can be a pleasurable pastime.

Here is a selection of level-headed comments retweeted by Bannatyne, which are obviously not posted by anti-smokers having a rave and a rant about tobacco. Not at all.

"All I can say is good luck to his children in trying to avoid lung cancer"

"What an imbpcile. It's, without doubt, a form of child abuse"

"thats disgusting, weve just stepped forward with the smoking ban and he wants to go backwards!"

"Why does the Mail editor let this tripe to be published!?"

"the man is a idot when i wasa kid my dad smoked in the car he has stoped now the smell made me sick"

"I think people who smoke in cars with children should have their licences taken away. Child cruelty!"

"People like that should be castrated for the good of all children."

Right. So that's thinking of the chiiildren, smoking in cars, and the smoking ban in workplaces covered, with a sprinkling of gagging free press thrown in, gratis. Why? Alexander's article didn't attempt to touch on any of that.

Nope. But the perfectly calm and reasoned Bannatyne did.


Really, Duncan? Where was that bit? I read the whole article but must have missed it. Don't come near your children? Is Alexander a predatory paedosmoker for penning an article in the Wail? Good grief.

Hilariously, Bannatyne chose to post an erudite response (or two) in the article comments. He's rather miffed at being misquoted.

"Mr Alexander has invented what he says 'I look forward to' it follows therefore than nothing he says can be believed. The man has no concept of the damage he is doing to children who need to be protected from hie views on smoking"

Err ... what children, Duncan? Or are you seriously saying that kids should be protected from the written word? I know that is a very emotive angle for anti-smoking nutters, but it's not a catch-all for active smoking. It just doesn't work on that level. To argue against Alexander's wish to enjoy his right to peaceful enjoyment of tobacco, you're going to need to use a bit more imagination than merely regurgitating ASH tear-jerk targeted soundbites.

"Mr Alexander has mis quoted what he calls my wishes and it is therefore not possible to believe anythinbg he says. Children are being damaged by the inhalation of smoke and to back that is a form of chiled abuse"

Again, Alexander didn't back that at all, but hey ho. The misquote is that Bannatyne didn't say he was looking forward to it. Merely that he thought kids should be able to report their parents.

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.

A subtle difference, but one which, according to Bannatyne's logic, means that Alexander's entire article should be ignored.

By the same token, one must assume that wilfully misrepresenting an entire opinion piece, by insinuating that the author is advocating smoking in front of children when he wasn't, renders everything Bannatyne says irrelevant too.

Nice one, Duncan. We've sort of known that for a while, but you can't beat Dragons Den approval for ignoring hysterical anti-smokers. It's the Gold Standard.

So, to recap, Andrew Alexander writes an article labelling anti-smokers as normal people who mutate into Tasmanian Devils when the subject of smoking is raised, at which Bannatyne and pals respond with misdirection, hysteria, ad homs, wild accusations, mistruths and general tearing out of hair.

QED.