Andrew Lansley, himself, could not have been clearer on the matter.
"Would plain packaging of the type you are demonstrating, would it offer a significant additional health benefit? At the moment actually our minds are open on this subject - mine too."Strange, then, that he is listed amongst other enthusiastic supporters of the proposal on the Plain Packs Protect campaign site, eh?
Now, either Lansley is a liar or plain packs campaigners are trying to con the public into believing that the Secretary of State for Health - and thereby the government - are fully behind the plan.
So who is lying? The Plain Packs Protect Campaign, or Andrew Lansley? I think we should be told, don't you?
(by the way, Tory policy-former Oliver Letwin is listed too, which explains a lot)
14 comments:
I mentioned it in this post http://patnurseblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/from-scientific-truth-to-propaganda.html and the fact that while the Govt condemns sick kids to death by closing heart hospitals, they are pouring that stolen money and more into the Tobacco Control Industry to push through anti-smoker political ideology.
Lansley is the most dangerous health secretary we've ever had. For the sake of the children he must go.
Lansley - greedy. Lansley - tosser. :) He's a ratbag, which is why he was made our Super Twat for June. That completely made-up figure of 100,000... a few years ago it was only 70,000, then it was 80,000 and 85,000. How soon before they raise it to 120,000?
Now, either Lansley is a liar or plain packs
campaigners are trying to con the public…
[Hand thrust upward] Mr. DP, Mr. DP….. I know…. I know. Mr.
DP, they’re all a bunch of fraudsters.
It's an overworked word but I really am 'appalled' at national journalists' lack, even of an acquaintance, with a critical faculty
I suspect it's just a politician trying to be all things to all men.
Who exactly are the fraudsters in this instance, though? Surely if Lansley is truly of an open mind, he wouldn't take kindly to his quotes being used to say he supports plain packs. If he knows about it, and is happy that it is being used, then it is he who is the fraudster.
We know someone is playing fast and loose with the truth, though. That's the only certainty.
Unless he isn't aware of it (see reply to Mag01), and it's someone else using his words in a fraudulent way.
Lansley seemed to have very definite views on plain
packaging back in 2010, whilst also spouting all the standard antismoking rhetoric:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11796903
And earlier this year:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-14/australia-inspires-uk-to-seek-cigarette-plain-packaging/3950160
I'd say that they’re both part of the same [deranged] cult. But that's just me :)
The Aussie article is particularly damning, definitely. This bit especially.
"The kind of strength that the Australian Government is showing in response to the current tobacco industry legal action and bullying and so on, I think has also helped us as well."
If by 'strength', he means ignoring objections because a bunch of state-funded lobbyists tell him to, he has an entirely different definition of the word than most of us. I'd call it cowardice, myself. ;)
Let us be fair to such as Lansley and other high profile politicaians of all persuasions,they may not ,deep down, aggree with a certain campaign,but to keep their positions
THEY HAVE TO TOE THE LINE
Talking ,chatting,discussing,debating,complaining,whimpering about
the smoking issue is well beyond it's sell by date,5 years and a billion words
unheard,unread and hardly a ruffle in the Puritans polyfoil armour.
Time we hope for a new beginning,where action catched the eye
Into the breach
Quick update: Plain Packs Protect / Smokefree South West have now updated their supporters page. Lansley is gone and a disclaimer has been added: "These comments have been taken from the public domain and do not
necessarily represent an endorsement of the Plain Packs Protect
campaign."
Lying, deceiving bastards. For months and months they never had that disclaimer. I've got the google cache image as evidence. They confidence tricked the public once again.
The only reason that Lansley could be concerned with his
reference on the Plain Packs Protect site - particularly now that it's been exposed - and wanting it removed is that it
would blow the masquerade of attempting to give the appearance that he has an “open
mind” on the matter (plain packaging).
I always wonder why people do such quiet and surreptitious changes to websites when the damage has already been done. The info has been captured upteen times either as a screen grab or saved page or even saved away on the WayBackMachine and Google cache.
Better to note the change and explain it rather than do it on the hush hush hoping no one will notice. It is ALWAYS noticed because the internet is a huge levelling mechanism and it only needs one person to notice. And then when the truth comes out it is more harmful to the image than to have acknowledged the "mistake" in the first place.
Basic internet media skills 101.
To be fair to Mr Lansley, I think he must have an open mind, how else could so much stupid have got in there?
Post a Comment