Sunday, 21 February 2010

Smokers To Be Banned From Working With Kids

Overly alarmist? You think?

Innocent teachers and nurses could be banned from working with children because of their attitudes or lifestyles.

Guidance seen by The Sunday Telegraph, which has been given to more than 100 case workers at the ISA reveals that those referred could be permanently blocked from work if aspects of their home life or attitudes are judged to be unsatisfactory.

It says case workers should be "minded to bar" cases referred to them if they feel "definite concerns" about at least two aspects of their life, which are specified in the document.
Smoking isn't specified just yet, but remember this?

Researcher Lara Gundel, of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, said: "Smoking outside is better than smoking indoors but nicotine residues will stick to a smoker's skin and clothing.

"Those residues follow a smoker back inside and get spread everywhere. The biggest risk is to young children.

"Dermal uptake of the nicotine through a child's skin is likely to occur when the smoker returns and if nitrous acid is in the air, which it usually is, then TSNAs will be formed."
All bollocks, of course, but Great Ormond Street Hospital believed it even before any study existed, and evidently still do.

It's not going to be long before smoking, on one's own time and in one's own home, is on the ISA's blacklist.

The US are well down that road already, with rancid anti-smoking hysteric, John Banzhaf, proudly encouraging the refusal of any type of employment to smokers.

So, not alarmist at all. In fact, it's almost certain that smokers will very soon be categorised as a risk to children by the ISA.

If you enjoy tobacco, how does it feel to be seen as standing shoulder to shoulder with paedophiles?

(BTW, even Mayors won't be exempt)

UPDATE: It looks like a notable US anti-smoker is thinking along the same lines. That's settled then.


Anonymous said...

OK, I'm not a fan of smoking, especially in front of children. But that does sound pretty foookin' ridiculous.

Curmudgeon said...

Yes, I saw this in today's paper in thought it looked extremely alarming. All kinds of people could be excluded if they didn't conform to politically correct norms - for example those who drank more than the officially-approved weekly thimbleful, and those who belonged to "subversive" organisations.

BTS said...

It really is for the best that I loathe children after all then. I don't like people much either and plenty already have 'definite concerns' about me.

At this rate I may be forcibly retired before I'm old enough to grow a real beard..

Anonymous said...

We need to wake up here.
The more authoritarian these cunts get.
The nearer they get to their own demise.
The see saw will tip when the state victimises more than half as a whole.

Anonymous said...

The article mentions "Lonely with a chaotic home life." Oh shit. Well that's me gone and every university shut down. Actually this is serious, although it is hard to take seriously. Pay people to sit around your kitchen table discussing next week's country dancing when the inspectors come around.

Bucko said...

Its about time everyone just quit working with children. Leave them to thier own devices and see what happens.

What I cant understand is why anyone would want to work with the smelly, noisy, whiney, pimply, self absorbed little scrot bags anyway.

Demetrius said...

If this had applied when I was at school there would not have been a teacher left. Mind you, at the time we may well have thought that this was a brilliant idea.

Felix said...

Did you honestly just link to a SMOKING LOBBY GROUP for a scientific analysis of a smoking study?

Not commenting on the rest of your article, but that seems to be some pretty horrendous sourcing.

JJ said...


Knowing the quality of DPs research I would think many sources have been scoured to bring us such good can of course illuminate our darkness with your contribution.

Dick Puddlecote said...

Felix: The article in the post I linked to explains itself. I challenge you to find fault with it.

It is written by a published historian with a medical background, and probably one of the world's experts in the field.

Also, there are no other peer reviews of the science because it is new and there is not likely to be any considering it is such execrable bollocks.

If you can point to another source which delves into the science objectively, I'd be happy to look at it.

Anonymous said...

Felix, the problem here is that these smoking studies are not science as any professional scientist would recognise it. Scientists don't take them seriously and ignore them. They have better things to do than attempting to correct passive smoking nonsense. And the journals generally don't publish criticism of anti-tobacco papers. After a few months of reading blogs on subjects about which you have some knowledge, you get a feel for which can be trusted; although it is always best to go back to the source material. Other than on blogs, online articles and the odd D. Telegraph columnist, there is no discussion. The only other option is to believe the Government's scientific advisors and the anti-tobacco propanda organisations such as ASH UK, the British Heart Foundation and, increasingly, CRUK. I recommend Chris Snowdon's book. It is fully referenced so you can check the veracity of every sentence.

Anonymous said...

Yea at the moment it seems like nonsense ,surely no one would go along with a vitreolic idea like this would they.
Think again.
I remember when the first ban came out ,no smoking at the bar ,remember.
Then no smoking in the bar.
Then the "evil sinister party" are going to vote on no smoking outside.
It just escalates I would not put anything past these fuckers anymore.

Felix said...

"I would think many sources have been scoured"

Fine. Then why on earth not link to one of them, rather than an an agency which is paid purely to distribute biased information?

"you can of course illuminate our darkness with your contribution."

Sarcasm is the refuge of the witless. My post pointed out a reasonable issue and you have in no way addressed it with your response.

Dick Puddlecoat:
"I challenge you to find fault with it."

I described the fault in my post: To prove your claim, you linked to a post created by an organisation who's whole purpose is to distribute propaganda supporting your claim. You also failed to note this in any way.

My argument was not with the content of the link, but the source, and the fact that you failed to acknowledge the source's bias.

"these smoking studies are not science as any professional scientist would recognise it"

To be 'science' they simply need to follow the scientific method
If they don't do this then they don't have worth as evidence anyway.

"They have better things to do than attempting to correct passive smoking nonsense"

I think research into the medical consequences of smoking is wildly recognised as very important.

"After a few months of reading blogs on subjects about which you have some knowledge,"

Most blogs with a political slant are very very biased - left and right. Don't rely on blogs for information, read them to discover other people's information and arguments. This exact example shows that bloggers frequently do not hold themselves to standards of good journalism.


Again. My problem was that you linked to a propaganda organisation to validate a claim you made, then failed to acknowledge this. That is bad sourcing, and bad journalism.

Felix said...


By "information" in that second to last paragraph, I meant "opinions"