Google analytics

Thursday, 9 August 2012

Chicanery writ large.

As some of you know. I’m a smoker.

Shortly there is going to be a parliamentary meeting to discuss whether plain packaging of tobacco products should be introduced.

Both sides of the argument have been mustering support for their relevant viewpoints before the closing day for submissions. Tomorrow.

Yesterday the “Tobacco Control Industry” had only managed to garner 75,000 replies in support, whereas the “Hands of our packs” had managed to collect at least 235,000. However the plain packs puritans are not known for the British sense of fair play and have resorted to grubby underhand tactics.

Having seen that their efforts were failing they’ve now resorted to using a Brazilian origin web site to try and reinforce their oppressive message.

You can read more of the story here.

And before any Anti-smokers think about nipping over there to sign the petition, I suggest you think long and hard before you do.

Do you like a drink or two, or maybe you like your food a little too much?

Let me tell you. There are other single issue groups that are looking to see how this tobacco control template pans out. Don’t be surprised if your favourite tipple or gastronomic delight is sold to you with a plain label,covered in health warnings and graphic pictures of diseased livers and high blood pressure warnings.

You have been warned. Soon you will be living in a grey world where all the fun has been removed by the state.


  1. I still think that hiding tobacco behind screens in shops will backfire on them with youngsters keen to know just what it is they are hiding, same goes for plain packaging.

  2. I have just gone through the consultation process - it seemed to me that the questions in the main were designed to get the desired response.
    The last question was "do you think that plaing packaging will improve health inequalities?"
    Apart from the typical PC aspect of the idea of health inequalities it seems to me that this is in fact one of the worst aspect of the proposal.
    If you have plenty of disposable income you can get plenty of high quality tobacco and can even afford to go abroad to get it - if on the other hand you have a restricted income, like pensioners, you will be pushed in the direction of the counterfeiters and god knows what rubbish they will put in their products.
    I don't suppose any notice will be taken of my responses but I felt I had to give them anyway.
    They will be after you booze, salt and fat next - you have been warned.

  3. I see that the parliamentary meeting has been delayed, presumably so that the bansturbators can muster more support. Their mendacity knows no bounds.

  4. After reading about the Brazilian connection, I looked into the site (not recommended) and found that they are claiming the result of a British Government economy will result in 89,000 girls under 15 being subjected to FGM (Don't ask!). Then I looked deeper into their site (I didn't look into FGM, and don't even think of asking), I know, my devotion to facts is awesome, but someone has to do it, and found "...6,500 girls are at risk of FGM within the UK every year...". Something wrong somewhere. Then, still on duty, I looked even deeper into their site and found that the figures are based on a " is estimated that xxx millions are suffering...."
    What this means is that the headline number is something computer generated, by a manipulation of figures to create a "statistic".
    Thought this might help you in your quest, FE.
    Peter Melia



Say what you like. I try to reply. Comments are not moderated. The author of this blog is not liable for any defamatory or illegal comments.