Smoking ban -'late'

 Bob Humphrys - journalist

“It did, though, seem rather unjust. In my life, I'd had just one puff of a cigarette when I was ten and spent all of the following day throwing up. Punishment enough, it seemed, but no! Lung cancer was meant to affect those who'd smoked cigarettes next to me in pubs all my adult life. I'd always been in favour of the smoking ban in pubs. A pity it was all a little late.”

Those are the words of BBC Wales Sports Commentator, the late Bob Humphrys in the Daily Mail in June. He had just been diagnosed with lung cancer. He put the pain in his shoulder and chest down to bending over computer writing a book.

He was haunted by examples of others who died shortly after retirement. He was 58 and the brother and best friend of Radio 4’s Today presenter John Humphrys.

Bob was breezy and good-humored journeyman reporter who was praised for his professionalism tonight in a moving tribute by veteran broadcaster Vincent Kane.

This website has hosted a mountain of claims and counter-claims of cancers acquired as a result of secondary smoking. 

The Humphrys family needs no convincing.

Space Wasters

In addition to swarming (see yesterday’s blog) there is another irritating web menace called ‘space wasting.’

Bloggers with forlorn sites that are visited only by other space wasters do it. They get bored with no one dropping in to their racist vulgar witless ramblings.

It starts with a half sensible inquiry. When that is answered, the ante is up to a more belligerent one. If that is answered there will come a coup de grace and the host will be roundly denounced on the lines. I have read your answer, I am not convinced and I believe you are a thorough blackguard/monster/fraud/dissembler. 

That’s what the ‘space waster’ thought originally. But he is desperate for attention. He seeks an audience for his deluded views because no significant numbers will ever be attracted to his own deserted site.

This site welcomes oursplendid regular thinking correspondents. Long may you write.  Space wasters beware.  We know where you come from.

You will henceforth be invisible.

Stealing Credit

Britain’s great success at the Olympic is creating a ‘feel good’ mood that challenges the weather and the credit crunch.

Gordon Brown’s decision to attend the closing, not the opening, ceremony seems a sound one. Labour has been in charge of sports funding for ten years now and deserved some of the credit for an unprecedented success. It could some way to balance the blame that the Government gets for everything that goes wrong.

There is no way that Cameron can claim any reflected glory so today’s wheeze was to hand it all to John Major. Certainly the former Prime Minister deserves thanks for the lottery cash. Tessa Jowell was generous enough to say so.

But if our Olympic squad had failed, it would have been Labour’s fault. But success has many fathers. After John Major, watch Boris Johnson claim some of the credit too.

The press will obediently report this further distortion of the truth to further their daily dose of fiction.

Comments

[Fredrik Eich]

Paul,
It is very sad to see any person die from any kind of disease whether they be poor,rich,famous or unremarkable. It is even sadder that people think that this could be caused by smoking when we have known since the 1970 that smoke exposure increases survival rates of lung diseases caused
by environmental and occupational pollution.

http://tobaccodocuments.org/rjr/506848315-8507.html?zoom=1200&ocr_position=hide_ocr&start_page=131

It is shocking to see so many millions die from a lie.

[paulflynn]

That has been the lie perpetrated by the Tobacco Industry for a century. The great majority of scientific opinion has recognised the link between smoke and cancer. We understand the motivation of Big Tobacco.

What is your reason for taking this position?

[Fredrik Eich]

Paul,
If cigarettes were sold at 37p/20pack,
the tobacco companies were made to compete,there was 100% male/female smoking rates - they, the tobacco companies, would lose money and lose market security/share. The real polluters would would face huge,huge class actions.
Everyone wins apart from poor people exposed to toxins and getting cancer.

Big tobacco control and Big tobacco share the same goal - make money out of sick/poor people.

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/a2126_01.html

[Fredrik Eich]

Paul,
"What is your reason for taking this position?",
I have simply been trying to understand the truth about smoking. My investigations, with the help of other people, has taught me that the
truth about smoking is not shown in an unbiased light. I was shown, at school, pictures of dark smokers' lungs compared to clean never-smokers lungs.
One of the first things I found out about smoking, is that smoker's lungs are no different from never-smoker's lungs, except (maybe) under the microscope - and even this is
dodgy. After finding that out - I motivated myself to find out more.
I now believe that the tobacco control lobby and the tobacco industry are cold and calculating liars – they both lie for money.

http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/futuretc/pdfs/spoilt.pdf

[Chris]

I do feel extremely sorry for Bob Humphreys having had such a short life, from what I saw of him he was one great guy with wonderful character and surely missed by family and friends. If this is what he and his family believe, then so be it and their thoughts on the subject should remain private amongst their own private website.

On saying this, however, I find it extremely difficult to understand why an MP should be highlighting this. I may sound hard, but surely an MP should be examining all the reasons why lung cancer occurs.

I really am finding it hard to believe the blog that has been written. I do apologise, but I'm not even bothering to find any links. So, according to this blog, if nobody smoked there would be no such thing as lung cancer? Absolutely and utterly beyond comprehension.

It is this kind of attitude that is preventing funding being given to the research and prevention of this disease.

Mr Flynn. I must ask because your blog compells me to. If tobacco was totally eradicated from the planet, do you honestly believe that lung cancer would not exist?

[Wolfie]

Space waster's callous and childish comment deleted.

[paulflynn]

"if nobody smoked there would be no such thing as lung cancer? " says Chrs.

You create your own absurdity and then attack it. No one made this claim. Certainly not me or the late Bob Humphrys.

This is a wholly illogical and disreputable way to argue. Read the post again.

[paulflynn]

Fredrich Eich, I recall the photographs of healthy lungs compared with cancerous lungs. They did not lie.

When I was in school Big Tobacco advertised that smoking improved health. For their own greedy reasons they continued with this claim for decades after the overwhelming majority of independent scientists accepted the link between smoking and several diseases.

There are always dissenters to any scientific belief. Recent threads have established that smokers and those with financial interests in opposing the ban will clutch at any straw to support a poor argument. Most are seeking any evidence, however tenuous and ill-founded, to fit their own view that smoking should be allowed everywhere.

The great bulk and quality of the science is in favour of a ban in public places.

The report you mention contains telling historic examples of the cynical deception of Big Tobacco and their heartless indifference to the suffering of their customers.

[Fredrik Eich]

Paul,
The point I was making is that the lungs of smokers are not two sacks of black tar - as I was lead to believe at school. Lung cancer in the lungs of people look no different regardless of whether they smoke or not.

Animals do not lie.

http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content-nw/full/81/2/280/FIG2

[andy]

"Recent threads have established that smokers and those with financial interests in opposing the ban will clutch at any straw to support a poor argument"

Who on these threads has financial interests in oposing the ban.
Are you clutching at straws again talking about an organisation that your shoddy research led you to confuse with another?

So, is lung cancer only caused by tobacco smoke?

[paulflynn]

Andy you are confused

Two who identified themselves as havng financial interests were a pub landlord and a pub entertainer.

Confusion is invited when an allegedly new organisation is set up with the identical aims and title as an existing organisation.

YOUR FINAL SENTENCE HAS THE 'ONLY' IS THE WRONG POSITION. I PRESUMED YOU MEAN 'IS CAUSED ONLY BY TOBACCO SMOKE.' THAT IS NOT A CLAIM I HAVE MADE.

[Jolly Roger]

"The press will obediently report this further distortion,
Of the truth to further their daily dose of fiction."
These words of yours, seen as fit to embolden.
Produces a question for which I'm beholden,
If you can answer a troubling query,
That transcends all the doubt and the theory.
This simple question needs a good sleuth.
To guide us to where we can find the truth.

You claim that the Papers are so many liars.
I'll counter that with the name, Stephen Byers.
Our leaders are untruthful with acumen and flair.
Do you remember whatsisname Blair.
Forty five minutes for the WMD.
My tin hat was ready and I stocked up on tea.
But no, it was just more spin and a spoof.
Just where can we go to seek out the troof?

[Basil Brown]

Paul,

Pub-entertainer vested-interest here, reporting for battle.

Bob Humphrys wrote his piece for the Mail four hours after being diagnosed. The comment he made about the smoking-ban was really an aside - not a considered judgement. It is quite understandable as to why he may have made the comment at that time, for "passive smoking" has become a folk-devil and it is in our nature to find something tangible to blame when faced with such dreadful news.

There are something like forty statistical-confounders for lung-cancer. Exposure to vehicle exhaust and industrial-pollutants should not be ruled out as causative agents. RRs for lung-cancer have been variously reported at around 1.5 comparing urban versus rural populations, for example.

http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/68/1/71

The Humphrys brothers grew up in Splott, an economically-poor area of Cardiff housing a large steelworks. According to the Boffeta/Nyberg study linked above:

"Increased risks have been reported for living close to industries such as smelters, foundries, chemical industries, and others with various emissions, with up to doubled risk, although confidence intervals were mostly wide."

A doubling of risk... or an RR of around 2.0. A much stronger indication of a causative effect than has been reported for ETS.

I found the following exchange on Hansard, concerning Splott's air-pollution in 1958:

"84. Mr. Callaghan asked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he is aware that living conditions are becoming bad in the part of Splott Ward, Cardiff, adjoining Guest Keen Iron and Steel Works due to fumes and grit from the works; and if he will use his powers to require an abatement of this nuisance.

§ Mr. H. Brooke: I am not aware that conditions have deteriorated, but I am seeing that the position is watched. Since the major processes at these works were brought under the Alkali Act a year ago, the Alkali Inspectorate has been doing its best to make sure that pollution from the works is reduced to a minimum."

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1959/jul/07/air-pollution-cardiff-splott-ward

[paulflynn]

What a tortuous explanatiOn Basil. I am amused to be lectured on Splott. In spite of James Callaghan question (1958) my knowldge of Splott does not come from Google searches.
I went to school off Splott Road from 47 to 53 and I worked in GKN steelworks from 55 to 63. It would be a travesty to brand it a heavily polluted area. It's all theory distorted into a fantasy because you are in denial of the obvious explanation.

As a journalist he had no choice but to spend a great deal of time in smoke polluted bars.
Why go to such lengths to deny what is the likely explanation for Bob's premature death?

[paulflynn]

Truth immaculate

Jolly Roger, look no further
Truth abundant?... no dearth here,
Feast your eyes on this copious site
On no foul lies will they alight

Check the posts and comments too
Pure truth unsullied shining through,
No fibs, nor lies nor mild deceptions
Stain these immaculate conceptions

[paulflynn]

In case there is any doubt about F@C dependence on Big Tobacco money, this quote from the F2C website is instructive:-

"We thank our friends over at FOREST for organising this simple way to register our distaste for the Prohibition Syndrome "

Forest make the bullets for their lackeys of F2C to fire. No question that FOREST is a front for Big Tobacco who funds them for their greedy ends. Come clean F2C you are dependent for information and organisation from FOREST and are thus compromised.

[Basil Brown]

Hardly lecturing, Splottmaster Paul. :-) Just a suggestion.

It is hardly "obvious" that either ETS, industrial-pollution or any other single agent caused Bob Humphry's cancer. There are only theories. You dislike smoking, so prefer the ETS theory.

[Jolly Roger]

UNTRUTH ALERT, Let care be taken.
I think that Paul's been sadly mistaken.
As it happens Paul, dear chap.
Your words re: Splott are absolute crap.
I've lived in Splott, Portmanmoor Rd. too.
And I can assure you, the place was absolute poo.
The only part of Cardiff, it's plainly said,
Where slate clad roofs were darkish red.

Elsewhere in the City, washing day's Monday.
Not so in Splott. Washing day's None-day.
Wives had to wait 'til the coke ovens had spewed.
Their filthy red dust on your clothes and your food.
Your memories of Splott seem slightly defective.
To see the pollution needed no detective.
You said that the area wasn't "heavily polluted".
That's wrong Paul, your 'truth' is disputed.

If you had lived there, you'd know that I'm right.
Splott Rd. School was well out of sight.
GKN Steelworks was far from the spring,
That poured red dust pollution on everything.
You should have tried living 50 yds. from the ovens.
It was dirtier than the foulest of covens.
As a scientist, tell me, what was that red shit.
That my family and I breathed in and then spit?

Despite this patently "heavy pollution",
That interfered with ones every ablution.
That got in your hair, your teeth and your clothes.
Everyones orifices and in 'tween their toes.
This was a place where doors stayed ajar.
A problem was shared, we were all on a poor par.
Tick at the shop, the slate in the Pub.
Splottites saw no one go short of grub..

[paulflynn]

Roger desist from fret and panic
The red dust, though not carcinogenic,
caused noisy fuss and uproar
When it hit Portman's lower moor

Higher Splott was Humphrys’ domain
Beyond the reach of the red rain,
No need for gloom and doggerel snide,
It was merely inert iron oxide

[John]

I recently attended Gunther von Hagens' BODY WORLDS 4 exhibition in Manchester. This is the German anatomists exhibtition who has perfected the art of preserving human anatomy. a truly breathtaking exhibit of real human bodies exposed like never before.
If anyone doubts the affect of tobacco on the human lung he couldn't do worse than look at the healthy lung and the smokers lung in this exhibition.
TO deny the lethal affects of tobacco is absurd but yet personal freedom should be protected. If someone is daft enough to smoke they should be allowed to in places away form others and taxed to excess of what it costs the health service to look after them when they fall ill.
I would have no problem in smokers clubs but I revel in the smoke free pubs and restaurants I can now visit. Maybe the law did go a bit far at restricitng personal freedom but smokers can still smoke if they want.

[Jolly Roger]

So it was "inert iron oxide", well there's a relief.
Not "heavy pollution"? Is that your belief?
This particulate dust, of course, was our saviour.
And probably accounts for my poetic behaviour.
But you don't go far enough with your answer.
I'm not that keen to be such a chancer.
Was the Red Shit good for my chest?
As a a scientist Paul, I'm sure you know best.

Now here's where it gets a bit tricky.
There are 16 oxides according to Wiki.
Which ones were we breathing for all those years?
Is there a chance that it'll all end in tears?
Or was this "inert" stuff good for us,
And you don't know why I'm making this fuss.
Here's a chance for a final solution.
Just concede the point Paul, it WAS heavy pollution.

[paulflynn]

The red dust fell not far but near,
Even the Wimborne was in the clear,
The coke ovens made their own nasties,
That gave the flavour to Clarke’s pasties.

St Illtyds, St Albans and Splott School,
Had air that was sweet, pure and cool,
The Humphrys tribe never strayed
Into the fog that tempers frayed.

[patrick]

John
You made some interesting points in your post.If you read the posts of Basil you will clearly see the confused dilemma of the
poisoned.Four Hundred posts (collectively) in one thread bickering about percentages and different science all debating the known scientific fact that smoking kills.
They will cling to any possible option and clasp any random straw rather than accept death by smoking.
Think the word is deluded.

[paulflynn]

Thanks John. That's powerful evidence. I had doubts about these exhibits because of the stories that the cadavers were being bought from prison and mental asylums.

I believe you and Patrick speak for the great majority of people in celebrating the freedom to breathe clean air in public spaces. 'Vote Tory to bring the stink back to pubs' is not an enticing slogan for the next election

[Martin Hensman, LLB (Hons)]

At 11:55pm yesterday Paul Flynn asserted that

“In case there is any doubt about F2C dependence on Big Tobacc money, this quote from the F2C website is instructive:-

"We thank our friends over at FOREST for organising this simple way to register our distaste for the Prohibition Syndrome "

Forest make the bullets for their lackeys of F2C to fire. No question that FOREST is a front for Big Tobacco who funds them for their greedy ends. Come clean F2C you are dependent for information and organisation from FOREST and are thus compromised”.

Forgive me for asking but are you able to point me to the evidence that underpins such an assertion?

You also claim that

“The great bulk and quality of the science is in favour of a ban in public places”.

Is it now? Perhaps you would like to examine in detail some of the material my own published research has just revealed. Here are the links to my two part article ‘Convicting the innocent?

http://www.freedom2choose.info/news1.php?id=781

http://www.freedom2choose.info/news1.php?id=783

I await your response with considerable interest.

[patrick]

Hensman
When your comical tabloid cloned links have changed the British medical professions views on cancer sticks come back and let us know.

[patrick]

A quote from Hensmans comic
"tobacco smoke contains no carcinogens, while diesel fumes contain four known carcinogens; "

The reality-

The mainstream smoke emerging from the mouthpiece of a cigarette is an aerosol containing about 1010 particles/mL (20). About 95% of the smoke is made up of gases, chiefly nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. In experiments, these vapor-phase components are separated from the particulate phase by a glass-fiber filter. The particulate phase contains at least 3500 compounds and most of the carcinogens (20). The components of cigarette smoke and how they have changed over time have been reviewed previously (19,20,37,38).

There are 55 carcinogens in cigarette smoke that have been evaluated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and for which there is "sufficient evidence for carcinogenicity" in either laboratory animals or humans (19). Other carcinogens not evaluated by the IARC may also be present. For example, among the PAHs, multiple alkylated and high-molecular-weight compounds have been detected but are incompletely characterized with respect to their carcinogenicity (39,40). Individual pulmonary carcinogens in cigarette smoke, selected from the classes of carcinogens in Table 1 , A, are listed in Table 1 , B. The 20 compounds included in this list have been found convincingly to induce lung tumors in at least one animal species and have been positively identified in cigarette smoke.

[paulflynn]

Your meaning is not clear Martin Hensman.

Do you deny that FOREST is financed almost entirely by Big Tobacco?

Do you deny that F2C acknowledged their debts for help from FOREST?

If your answers are No, then F2c is dependent on FOREST and through FOREST on money from Big Tobacco. Q.E.D

[west2]

Patrick...

How many are specificaly human carcinogens?

What are the levels of any human carcinogens in ETS?

Have the levels of these carcinogens, in a place where having a lit substance capable of being smoked is banned, changed since the ban?

Are any human carcinogens you have identified, present only in ETS?

west
----

[Dave Atherton]

Sorry to burden you with scientific studies amd academic opinion, rather than parrotted 3rd hand opinions, here is peer reviewed study which confirms that carcinogens in cigarettes are so miniscule your exhaust is more dangerous.

CALCULATED NUMBER OF CIGARETTES REQUIRED TO REACH A THRESHOLD LIMIT FROM ETS IN A SEALED, UNVENTILATED 100m3 ENCLOSURE AT STP (1)

ETS Component CAS Number Molecular Weight ETS Output (mg/cigarette)(2) Threshold Limit (ppm) Threshold Limit (mg/m3) Cigarettes Required
2-Toluidine (3 isomers) (3) 107.15 0.003 2 8.7 290,000
Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 44.05 1.26 111 180 (4) 14,285
Acetic acid 64-19-7 60.05 1.5 10 25 1,666
Acetone 67-64-1 58.05 1 500 1187 118,700
Benzene 71-43-2 78.11 0.24 1 3.1 (5) 13,300
Benzo[a]Pyrene 50-32-8 252.30 0.00009 0.02 0.2 (6) 222,000
Cadmium 7440-43-9 112.40 0.0007 0.002 0.01 1,430
Catechol 120-80-9 110.11 0.14 5 22 15,700
Dimethylamine 124-40-3 45.08 0.036 10 (7) 9.2 25,555
Formic acid 64-18-6 46.02 0.525 5 (8) 9.4 1,790
Hydrazine 302-01-2 32.05 0.00009 0.01 0.013 14,444
Hydroquinone 123-31-9 110.11 0.16 0.4 2 1,250
Methylamine 74-89-5 31.09 0.1 5 13 13,000
Methylchloride 74-87-3 50.49 0.88 50 103.0 11,170
Nickel 7440-02-0 58.71 0.0025 0.4 1 40,000
Phenol 108-95-2 94.11 0.25 5 19 7,600
Polonium 210 (9) 210 0.4pCi na 3pCi/liter (10) 750,000
Pyridine 110-86-1 70.01 0.39 5 16 4,100
Toluene 108-88-3 92.13 0.000035 50 375 1,000,000
These calculations are not complex. They assume a 100m3 enclosed and unventilated space at Standard Temperature and Pressure. STP assumes 24.45 = molar volume of air in liters at STP conditions (25oC. and 760 torr). Conversion equations are as follow:

(TLV in ppm)(gram mol wt of substance) (TLV in mg/m3)(24.45)

[west2]

Paul Flynn

Be careful here as if F2C were to put an acknowledment to this effect...

'We thank our friend Paul Flynn over at Read My Day for giving us a simple way to express our distaste for the Prohibition Syndrome'

Would you then claim that F2C were in fact dependent on you? QSD?

west
----

[MartinHensman]

Paul,

Thank you for responding.You posed the following questions

1) Do you deny that FOREST is financed almost entirely by Big Tobacco?

2) Do you deny that F2C acknowledged their debts for help from FOREST?

You go on to say-
"If your answers are No, then F2c is dependent on FOREST and through FOREST on money from Big Tobacco. Q.E.D"

In response I can categorically state that I have absolutely no connection whatsoever with the organisation FOREST. Their funding is a entirely a matter for them.

Freedom2choose is a properly constituted membership organisation funded solely by it's owm members. If you believe otherwise please direct me to your evidence. I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

What financial link do you believe exists between the entirely separate organisations Freedom2choose and FOREST.

What debts of help have been acknowledged from FOREST by Freedom2choose?

[paulflynn]

Martin Hensman please read my comment again carefully. The evidence is there.

[patrick]

west2
I refer the honourable gentleman to the 700 posts some threads ago.

[Dave Atherton]

For the hard of thinking and those who's only contributions are smears and innuendo, let me spell it out in plain English.

F2C get no direct or indirect funding from Forest or the tobacco industry. We are entirely self funded from private contributions.

F2C and Forest have a common agenda and as well as being regional director I describe myself as a patron of Forest. I contribute to their website. We obviously share information.

Any activity on the smoking ban is done in my own time using my own money.

Is there any part of NOT funded by Forest or the Tobacco industry you do not understand?

[Martin Hensman, LLB (Hons)]

Paul Flynn said

"Martin Hensman please read my comment again carefully. The evidence is there".

I have done so and respond as follows

What your stepped sentences provide me with is merely an expression of your own personal opinion.

Upon what direct evidence do you base your assertion that

"Forest make the bullets for their lackeys of F2C to fire. No question that FOREST is a front for Big Tobacco who funds them for their greedy ends. Come clean F2C you are dependent for information and organisation from FOREST and are thus compromised".

Are you endeavouring to assign the label 'lackey’ to me?

[Jim]

Thank you Patrick,
I just found this by googling the text in your earlier post
-----
Levels of polonium-210 in tobacco smoke are not believed to be great enough to significantly impact lung cancer in smokers (68).
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/91/14/1194
68 Harley NB, Cohen BS, Tso TC. Polonium-210: a questionable risk factor in smoking related carcinogenesis. Banbury Report 3: a safe cigarette? Cold Spring Harbor (NY): Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory; 1980. p. 93-104.
----
You also state,

"About 95% of the smoke is made up of gases, chiefly nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide."

In other words - AIR!!!

[Martin Hensman, LLB (Hons)]

Patrick,
Just in case it escaped your attention the two articles are backed by a 21 page 9,500 word research paper entitled
THE ANTI-TOBACCO FRAUD: VESTED INTERESTS AND THE INVERSION OF TRUTHFULNESS
You can download it here
http://www.snapdrive.net/files/492358/Martin%20Hensman/The%20anti-Tobacco%20Fraud.doc

Your post commences with the line

“A quote from Hensmans comic”

You appear to have pasted your response from some source or other but in the absence of citations your statements are absolutely meaningless.

[paulflynn]

Why is this fraudulent?

Fraudulent funding of the anti-smoking lobby

We have learned that between 1999 – 2004 ASH received grants from the Department of Health totalling £783,000. ASH Wales received £450,00. Source – Hansard

For the year ending April 2006 ASH’s total income of £821K was 50% higher than the previous year - largely as a result of an increase in funding for new research. 87% of this income came as grants or research contracts- predominantly from government agencies and from the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research UK. source (ASH financial statements for the year ended 2006).

[timbone]

FOREST, who are funded by the Tobacco Industry, which is a known fact, and not hidden as it is not a crime, set up an 'e-response', a kind of petition to the Department of Health, as a lawful part of the consultation exercise concerning the proposal to remove tobacco products from the counter, put it in plain packaging, and remove cigarette vending machines.
SIMON CLARK, the director of Forest, also referred to this on his personal blogsite, which is not a single issue site, it is a blogsite like this one.
TAKING LIBERTIES is the name of this blogsite, which has a link on another site which is not a single issue site, this being
THE FREE SOCIETY
COLIN GRAINGER of FREEDOM2CHOOSE mentioned this 'e-response' to the Department of Health on the Front Page of the F2C website. This was so that readers, regular visitors and memebers of F2C, who may not visit the Forest or Taking Liberties sites, could follow the link if they so wished, and add their name to the petition.
Colin Grainger referred to 'our friends at Forest' because Forest is one of the organisations who oppose the severity of the anti smoking lobby, (yes, and there are more than just two). Colin Grainger also put a comment on Simon Clark's blog, thanking him for creating a "simple and quick method for people to register their condemnation."
So let me sum up:
FOREST which is funded by the Tobacco Industry
TAKING LIBERTIES which is a personal blogsite of Simon Clark
THE FREE SOCIETY which is a multi issue website with many links
FREEDOM2CHOOSE which is founded on the pricipal that Clubs and Pubs should be free to choose whether to be smoking or non smoking establishments, and receives donations from people who choose to become members.
While I am on the subject, let me just mention the two websites called Freeom2Choose.
There is freedom2choose.org.uk which was set up in Blackpool in 2005. This is a 'dead' site which has not been updated for two years.
There is freedom2choose.info which was set up in Swindon at the end of 2006 by someone who had never heard of the organisation in Blckpool. The one in Blackpool was set up before the vote for a complete ban, and by the time the current F2C was set up, it was no longer functioning anyway - but websites can stay online for ever.

[paulflynn]

Before recent correspondents get too deeply into their obsessive campaign, could I suggest a careful re-reading of my posts.

The fatuous F2C website has demanded an apology for something I did not say. A new foolish fictitious allegation is being manufactured out of your own bruised sense of victimhood . I can understand why you want space on a well read blog because your blogs appear to be self-absorbed tedious repeats of irrational ideas among the mutually deluded.

Enough space has been given to you on this site. There are many other subjects apart your fixations.

[Jolly Roger]

There you go Paul, you're at it again.
Sometimes you really are a pain.
You still won't concede that Splott was polluted,
With your contrary verse, quite convoluted.
The Steel Works and School from long ago,
Were actually sited in Tremorfa and Upper Splo''.
We, the real Splottites nearer the Stink,
Were in a far less salubrious area, I think.
The air was foul with "inert" shit.
And did we like it? No, not a bit.

I don't know from where you've got your Cardiff history.
Believe me mate, it's a bit of a mystery.
Splott and Clark's pasties? What's the connection?
Clark's was in Grangetown in a westerly direction.
You say that the Wimborne was in the clear?
It was across the road from the coke ovens, my dear.
You've never inhabited real Splott at all.
You're having us on, you've got some gall.

So come on Paul, let's get a conclusion.
There's nothing wrong in your apparent confusion.
It's just that you find great difficulty,
In recognising the truth and reality.
The fact is simply SPLOTT WAS POLLUTED.
This well known fact is never disputed.
Never? Sorry that's my mistake.
Not when you've got a point to make.

It takes a big man to say he was wrong,
But I can't really hear you singing that song.
The simple fact is, you're wrong and I'm right.
It's not a big deal, I don't want to fight.
Your memories of Cardiff are simply disputed.
The plain fact is Splott was "heavily polluted".
The "travesty" of this is you just can't admit it.
That's the real problem and I think I've just hit it.

[timbone]

If I may, I would like to make a point about the original subject of this particular blog. I personally am unable to make 'yes he did/no he didn't' statements on such sensitive issues. Having said that, I don't think anyone is able to reach a verdict of 'beyond reasonable doubt' either. Let me give two comparisons, both relating to things which have happened on more than one occasion. I am not going to mention any real people, although there are some we can all think of.
Person A is murdered in cold blood. We have to find an offender. There are many possibilities, but sometimes there is a chief suspect, even though there is lack of strong evidence. The weak evidence is exagerated until everyone believes it is true. Someone is convicted. It turns out some time later that it was not them.
Person B gets lung cancer and they are a non smoker. We have to find an offender. There are many possibilities, but there is a chief suspect, even though there is a lack of strong evidence. The weak evidence is exagerated until everyone believes it is true. There is a conviction. It was caused by second hand smoke. Was it?

[Martin Hensman]

May I respectfully point out that on 29th June 2008 it was you who in fact published the provocative blog article "Freedom to poison - Smoke damaged brains".

For your information we did in fact meet briefly in Christchurch some thirty years ago when we were both much younger men.

I have re-read your posts and also visited the FOREST website. I am yet to find any direct or indirect connection between Freedom2choose and any of the Tobacco manufacturers.

The issue of public health is indeed an extremely important one for all of us but so too is the question of personal liberties.

It would be all to easy for those of us on opposite sites of this debate to dismiss scientific reports simply on the basis of their funding.

It is also unfortunate that a contributors post can be similarly dismissed as "repeats of irrational ideas among the mutually deluded".

My research reveals that during the past 30 years you lost some close family members and attribute that to their recreational use of tobacco. Might I extend my condolences to you.

My own personal experience is somewhat different. My paternal and maternal grandfathers lived to the ages of 90 and 76 respectively. Both had a long history of recreational tobacco use.

I respect the views you have expressed although I obviously do not share them.

In the spheres of politics and law there are always two sides to every debate. Fine distinctions sometimes have to be made on the evidence in front of us.

There are indeed "many other subjects" for lively and constructive debate!!

[Basil Brown]

ASH funding:

They don't declare pharma-funding for the group, but what about for leading individuals within the group? The Register of SCOTH members' interests is illuminating. For example:

PROFESSOR MARTIN JARVIS

Cancer Research UK Health Behaviour Unit
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
University College London Medical School

Commercial Interests (including shareholdings)
Assistant director, ICRF Health Behaviour Unit. Has received honoraria for speaking from several pharmaceutical companies with smoking cessation products including Pharmacia and Upjpohn, Novartis, SmithKline Beecham and Glaxo. Has also done ad hoc consultancy for Pharmacia and Upjohn. Has no shareholdings and no research funding with either companies. Member of Scientific Advisory Board, Star Scientific.

Non commercial interests

Director of ASH and on the Executive Council of the Society for the Study of Addiction. Member of Scientific Advisory Committee on Tobacco, World Health Organisation.

Political Activity: Labour

http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/scoth/members.htm

Incidentally; count the number of SCOTH's members who have declared pharma-links, then tell me this is a neutral body. Political affiliations are either "Labour" or "none declared".

The following link is also of interest:

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/pressreleases/2004/october/49674

[paulflynn]

My judgment of F2C is of an amateurish group who are stubbornly, sometimes, neurotically convinced of a view because of their addiction, or their financial or political interests.

The group depend on information and leadership from FOREST, the Big Tobacco front organisation. This is admitted on the F2C site.

Thus, F2C is INDIRECTLY dependent on funds from Big Tobacco.

Q.E.D.

[paulflynn]

DREAM TICKET

The memories cells are fading, Roger,
Schools Illtyd, Alban, Splott are not Tremorfa,
My dream ticket carries no blot,
Born in Grangetown, schooled in Splott.

[paulflynn]

Basil, you cannot undermine SCOTH by suggesting that one member is influenced by Big Pharma. It's a hopeless, desperate tactic. This is the reason why I have compared F2C with hysterical revivalist movements.

You are in danger of making a cult of yourself

[Basil Brown]

Paul, You alleged that ASH are clean of BP involvement so I brought up Martin Jarvis as an example of an ASH director receiving BP funding.

Far from being the only SCOTH member with BP links, he is one of TWELVE on the sixteen-strong group; i.e. 75% of the members have received money directly from GSK, Novartis etc.

You reject this evidence, yet you pick up on FOREST's e-card campaign being given an informal statement of support by F2C, in order to suggest they are Big Tobacco lackeys.

Who's "in denial" now?

[Jolly Roger]

No fading of memory here old chum.
It's you with the problem, So, up your bum.
The facts of the matter are simply this,
With no intention of taking the piss.
GKN Steelworks, the Nettlefolds one,
Was sited in Tremorfa, not Splott, old son.
The Steelworks spreading the "inert" Red Shit.
Was Guest Keen Iron and Steel, geddit?
Situated parallel with Portmanmoor Rd.
It's just a fact in this laborious ode.

The Schools that you refer to were all 'up the top'.
They were nowhere near the Works. Why don't you just stop,
And freely admit that I'm right after all,
That your school was well away from the long concrete wall.
To emphasise the point and not just to goad,
Have you ever actually been below Walker Road?
That's where the pollution made attitudes harden.
Where your school was, people had a front garden.

Please check your history with others, not me.
And you'll find that I'm as right as right can be.
The "travesty" of the Dark Red Dust.
Has been played down by you, but hey! I'm not fussed.
The air's a lot cleaner now the Works has closed down,
And we've all been moved to other parts of the town.
And before you try to rewrite my history,
Your Splott-Gate story is simple casuistry.