E-petition spin

 

It's pure spin but the media fall for it.

Yesterday it was fraud-abroad that was to be tackled. It was nothing more than dusted-down measures introduced by the Labour Government in 2008. This morning I was called at 7.00 am to talk about today's headline seeking gimmick of e-petitions.

Tony Blair did that. The most popular petition, with more than 180,000 people in support, opposed road pricing. If the same people had been asked if they wanted safer roads, with fewer accidents and less pollution they would also have said yes . World experience has shown that public will always vote to lower taxes and improved services. 

On Tony Blair's site, more than 70,000 supported the one word suggestion that Gordon Brown should "resign". And almost 50,000 signed up to the idea that TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson should become prime minister. In the last census 400,000 people gave their religion as Jedi and name Darth Vader as their religious leader.

Foolishly the Tories put this piece of vacuous populism into their manifesto so they have to go through the motions. I am sure that House Leader George Young is wearily resigned about wandering down this parliamentary cul-de-sac.  There has been serious progress in opening up the parliamentary agenda through the Backbench Committee that has new control  over some parliamentary time.

For the first time in ten years of war in Afghanistan parliament voted on our deployment there. The great reform that is long overdue is to free up private members business which is easily sabotaged by opponents - mostly Government nerds.

The successful Government use of the Internet has been DirectGov. It provides instant practical up-to-date information. It works and is good value.

E-petitions is an idea whose time has already gone.

 

P.S. One blogger claims that he could raise a 100,000 signatures demanding the public executions of David Cameron and Nick Clegg.  He may be right. Can't see that becoming a bill before Parliament.

 

Comments

[Chanel Bags Outlet]

Treaty without convening a full-blown Convention and simply convene a conference of the representatives of the member States.

[Kay Tie]

"Kay Tie: I noticed you avoided every one of my corrections to your ill-informed nonsense."

I'm not aware that you supplied any corrections. You merely ignored what I wrote, belittled the harm your ilk used to do to me, and re-asserted your right to monopolise public spaces.

Fortunately those who wish to restore freedom to non-smokers have prevailed. You remain free to smoke as much as you want where it does not affect others. Enjoy!

[Patrick]

Puddlecote
No doubt the Tobacco companies are so pleased with the ban that they will be campaigning with anti-smokers for an outright ban on smoking and the total elimination of the product they sell.

You are indeed a puppet of the tobacco industry.

By smoking in the past, present, and future. By campaigning (i'm being very generous) for smoking
to continue in public places you are attempting (in vain) to prolong a disease giving anti-social habit to a future generation.

The future as clearly demonstrated by Spain recently is more bans throughout Europe.

[Dick Puddlecote]

Blimey, this thread caught on, didn't it?

Patrick: "Big tobacco are now desperate."

So desperate that their share prices are amongst the best performing in the city. Every anti-smoker initiative throws money their way. The ban on advertising was a Godsend since they no longer had to waste funds defending their market share. It also completely eliminated new entrants to the market which destroyed competition, it's all been one way traffic in thekr direction since the early 80s thanks to dozy MPs. This is basic economics, baby.

The tobacco industry is awash with cash PURELY as a result of anti-smoking initiatives. Phillip Morris has even gone so far as to endorse anti-smoking groups and ally with them in the US because it actively boosts their profits.

"You are simply a puppet of the tobacco industry."

That old chestnut again. Yeah, OK, whatever. Except that I drive a van and am arguing against policies which thrust money into the hands of tobacco companies.

By your reasoning, you surely must be a puppet of the pharmaceutical industry on whose products the whole anti-smoking crusade is based.

Excellent that this is on Paul Flynn's blog. You know, the MP who hates the pharma industry while enthusiastically voting in measures which chuck billions their way.

Kay Tie: I noticed you avoided every one of my corrections to your ill-informed nonsense. I'll take that as your being shy of admitting that you really haven't a scooby. It's OK, I won't rub it in. ;)

[Rollo Tommasi]

Okay Iro.

[Iro Cyr]

Rollo,
I think our discussion has become boringly redundant. I will be the more reasonable of the two and stop right here as neither one of us will convince the other and we have totally hijacked the thread in the process. I am sure we will get plenty opportunity to rehash the whole thing somewhere else in the future.

[Rollo Tommasi]

Just to clarify the last sentence, in case there's a smartypants. Th "ill-informed tendatiousness" is of course Iro's! Hopefully, I'm prepared to read arguments from either position reasonably dispassionately.

[Rollo Tommasi]

Iro - Your critique of the Jamrozik study made me LOL! I’m delighted you’ve now lowered yourself to read it. How strange, though, that you should still take give preference to SOME of the rapid responses (those which just happen to criticise Jamrozik, naturally) over his own report, the other rapid responses which run counter to your prejudices and of course my own earlier comments on those responses (which you’ve conveniently chosen to ignore).

Your approach to the US Surgeon General’s report is also fascinating. Step 1: Let’s take a single quote (“There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke”). Step 2: Use it completely out of context to suggest something different from the actual message (have the world believe Carmona thinks one single draw of SHS will kill even the healthiest adult, when his actual remarks said “For some people, these rapid effects can be life-threatening. People who already have heart disease or respiratory conditions are at especially high risk.”). Step 3: Use that one quote as an excuse for completely disregarding the rest of his report. Voila!

But these examples just sum your approach up, Iro. Never mind the merits of the arguments, lil’ Iro will believe an argument if it fits her prejudices. I don’t get paid for my research into this either, Iro. But that is no excuse for such ill-informed tendentiousness.

[Rollo Tommasi]

Iro: Which paper is which? It’s quite simple. The “earlier paper you cited” was the first paper you cited in response to me, i.e. http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2010/12/beliefs-manipulation-and-lies-in.html. The “second paper” is therefore the other paper you cited, i.e. http://cagecanada.homestead.com/AnalyseCritiqueMolimard.html.

As for expectations of pinpoint accuracy, here are a couple of examples. Molimard says “The level of exposure is variable and difficult to quantify. The size of apartments for example, can play a determinant role in accounting for the differences between continents.” “No figure is indicated for France” (figures are extrapolated from results from other countries instead). And of course his argumentation about how ex-smokers are covered, where he is looking for either precision in assessing the impact of passive smoking vis-à-vis previous acting smoking or for their results to be disregarded altogether.

Or how about this? Molimard claims “As it is, without a word of warning, without any statistical confidence level allowing for the evaluations of the statements brought forth, the report calculates ‘’to the nearest death’’ the estimated number of deaths.” But that is completely wrong. The seemingly precise numbers are simply the result of using the formulae referred to in Chapter 1 – so it is right that such apparent precision is shown. But the status of those figures could not be clearer. The foreword of “Lifting the Smokescreen” states “Chapter 1 of this report sets out the scale of the problem” – note the word “scale”, not “precise number”. Chapter 1 states “This chapter presents an estimate of such harm as it relates to deaths in adults…..” It also states “As will be evident from the preceding sections, the accompanying results depend on several assumptions. They are best regarded as estimates only.” It also refers more than once to the authors having erred on the side of conservatism in making assumptions. Either Molimard hasn’t read “Lifting the Smokescreen” properly or he’s deliberately set out to create mischief.

I’m also intrigued why Molimard would discuss the relative risks of diseases from passive smoking by firstly looking at meta-analysis results and then, bizarrely, cherry-picking a few individual studies in order to take issue with those meta-analysis results! Surely an eminent scientist should be above such selective cherry-picking????

[Iro Cyr]

In an effort to show good will and an open mind, I read the Jamrozik study. Well...it's actually not a study per se but a mumble jumble of statistics and calculations based on past studies, assumptions, and well... guesswork of the type we are so accustomed to read from ban proponents.

There are 30 footnotes that he refers to from which he based his estimates and ''facts''. Certainly Rollo doesn't expect me to go into every footnote in order to analyze the validity of each one of them in order to evaluate Jamro's extrapolations! If Rollo has actually done this work, why doesn't he present it to us here telling us why he so blindly believes in Jamrozik's work. Surely if he's so convinced that there are no biases, flaws or errors, he did all that meticulous work that is required. Please Rollo, explain it all to us step by step and tell us why it has convinced you.

As for myself, contrary to Jamrozik and other such epidemiologists and public health advocates who make tens of thousands of dollars every time they add 2 + 2 to come to the sum of 5, I don't get a solid penny for my activism. So instead of spending valuable time that I could be devoting to more meaninful work, I will rely on the rapid response commenters' opinions who debunked this study for the propaganda piece that it most certainly appears to be.

[Iro Cyr]

Rollo writes: ‘’You claim that, in the earlier paper you cited, Molimard “questions the whole report and the way it was conducted with a very approximate and questionable methodology.” No he does not. The only discussion he makes about the report is in relation to those figures. The rest is evidence-lite hyperbole.’’

Which paper were you referring to? Produce the link or the name of the paper so as there is no misunderstanding as to which one we’re referring to as the ‘’earlier paper’’ in the future. I for one was referring to http://cagecanada.homestead.com/AnalyseCritiqueMolimard.html which is the paper he had published much ‘’earlier’’ than the one that will be published (if it isn’t already) in ‘’Le Courrier des Addictions’’

Rollo writes: ‘’In the second paper, Molimard employs a trick used by the tobacco industry, to instil unreasonably high expectations about precision of results.’’

No he doesn’t. He actually does exactly the opposite. He can’t possibly comprehend how they can state the number of deaths from SHS with such precision as having it down to exactly 5863 deaths when in fact there are so many variables involved when attempting to estimate any deaths allegedly caused by SHS. When we strive to present ‘’broad and general terms’’ we don’t calculate and present the deaths down to single units such as 5863. Not 5900, not 5800, but 5863!

There are acceptable ‘’broad and general terms’’ and there is sloppy work such as the type this report did to come to the desired fear mongering pre-determined and politically motivated results.

Rollo writes: ‘’ Molimard doesn’t come anywhere close to showing how the actual number of deaths attributable to passive smoking might actually be tiny or non-existent.’’

He’s accurately shown how deaths in the hospitality industry where bans have been implemented are down to 2 ‘’possible’’ as opposed to ‘’real’’ deaths. Is this what you call a public health problem that warrants such drastic public policy that causes job losses, division, stigma and waste of tax payers’ money? Hell we would be saving more lives if people with the flu were not allowed to enter a pub or if disposable glasses and plates were mandated by law!

Back to Jamrozik. Rollo, I have wasted more time reading studies that you have referred me to than I really care to. They are all the same hogwash with the same biases, financial conflicts of interest, flaws and corrupt methodologies and epidemiologists. You have read one, you have read them all. By the way, do you believe the latest surgeon general report that says that one whiff of smoke can drive you to your grave as much as you believed Carmona’s that you last referred me to? Keep drinking the Kool Aid Rollo. The only one who looks like a fool or a pharma stooge trying to justify such fraud is you! How pathetic!!

[Rollo Tommasi]

Iro: Your blinkered pro-smoking zealotry is shining strong. Shame you offer little sense of reason or objectivity to go along with it.

You claim that, in the earlier paper you cited, Molimard “questions the whole report and the way it was conducted with a very approximate and questionable methodology.” No he does not. The only discussion he makes about the report is in relation to those figures. The rest is evidence-lite hyperbole.

In the second paper, Molimard employs a trick used by the tobacco industry, to instil unreasonably high expectations about precision of results. The report (and Jamrozik’s UK article in the BMJ, by the way) were not seeking to produce pin-point accurate numbers about the numbers of deaths attributable to passive smoking. That would have been impossible. As the reports themselves make clear, they were intended to produce estimates about the likely level of deaths attributable to SHS, which would allow people to understand in broad and general terms how big a public health issue it is. So Molimard has invented a Straw Man, in the form of impossibly and needlessly precise measurement requirements for the study, which he then tries to knock down. The truth is Jamrozik’s results showed deaths in the UK and France in the thousands each year. By any standards, that’s a HUGE public health concern. It’s so great that the final tally of deaths attributable to passive smoking would still be unacceptably high, whether the actual number of deaths was 10 times higher or 10 times lower than the estimates produced by the reports. And Molimard doesn’t come anywhere close to showing how the actual number of deaths attributable to passive smoking might actually be tiny or non-existent.

As for your response to Peto’s views, well that’s your choice of course. But your comments betray a deep ignorance of the issue (it will be clear to an unbiased and knowledgeable reader that nobody is claiming that “it was a given that all smokers will one day or other inevitably get cancer!”). And it is entirely logical that a person who is at risk of lung cancer and who quits smoking, will find their return to a lower level of risk compromised if they are exposed to SHS.

And you really make me laugh about the Jamrozik study. You’re not even prepared to read an article in full! This is in spite of running a list of criticisms which have supposedly been made against the report. Criticisms which you conclude are compelling, even though you haven’t even read the report and you can’t point me to these specific criticisms! And to think you accused me of bias!! How pathetic!!!

[Iro Cyr]

"One other group that gets ignored is ex-smokers - they have got some damage to their lungs already so they're half way to getting cancer. If they don't get extra exposure then they may well avoid getting the disease, so the ban will protect them."

Of all the ridiculous statements I have heard in my travels this one takes the cake! Half way to getting cancer? As if it was a given that all smokers will one day or other inevitably get cancer! Yet doctors and patients are quite happy to use chain smokers’ lungs in transplants! Do you even stop and think of what you parrot sometimes? Sheesh!

Again if you would have read with your anti-smoker glasses off, you would have read that Pr. Molimard questions why the true number of non-smokers was not used instead of extrapolating from surveys that differ greatly from one another depending of who had conducted them, resulting in having a totally arbitrary number of former smokers included in the statistics without any adjustment whatsoever as to how long ago they have quit to a point that ‘’ The way the report is designed, it can very well classify as a non-smoker anyone who has smoked for 30 years and stopped 15 days ago! ‘’

You ask: ''where exactly in that earlier paper did Molimard question the validity of a 1,114 deaths figure? ''

His whole paper explains why he seriously questions it with more than substantiated criticisms well evidenced and documented. . If you read carefully, he doesn't only question the smokers inclusion in the statistics, he questions the whole report and the way it was conducted with a very approximate and questionable methodology.

About former smokers specifically.
He is far from saying that some former smokers should not be included, but he would have hoped for at least a linear risk adjustment according to their smoking and quitting history. ‘’ However, after having stopped smoking, one does not from one day to the next retrograde to the same risk levels as one who has never smoked. Indeed the risks decrease with time depending on the duration of the abstinence. ‘’

Back to Jamrozick. Nooooo I will not read the whole study and substantiate every criticism that was made against it. Others have done it and quite brilliantly thank you. You’re just being sour grapes now.

[Rollo Tommasi]

Iro Cyr – I read the Molimard paper with bias, did I? So tell me, where exactly in that earlier paper did Molimard question the validity of a 1,114 deaths figure? Bias indeed!

I’ve now read the latest article you cite. Molimard seems to take this ludicrous position that no death involving an ex-smoker should be attributed to passive smoking. While it is understood that it takes some time for an ex-smoker’s health to return to as if they had never smoked, it is also understood that the risks of passive smoking are additive and do not simply bypass ex-smokers. Richard Peto, for example, has expressed particular concern about the potential effects of secondhand smoke on ex-smokers. He said:

"One other group that gets ignored is ex-smokers - they have got some damage to their lungs already so they're half way to getting cancer. If they don't get extra exposure then they may well avoid getting the disease, so the ban will protect them." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6244926.stm#Peto)

As for Jamrozik’s report, where exactly are all these accepted fundamental criticisms of it? I’ve shown how there are no fundamental, sustainable and generally accepted criticisms of Jamrozik’s work from the Rapid Responses. All you do is list a series of vague points which you purport are “flaws that were found in this paper”. Yet you are unable to specify what they relate to, who made them, nor why the criticisms should be treated as correct, so that the report must be “flawed”.

You have clearly read this paper with all the bias typical of someone who just hates to admit that she’s been fooled.

[Iro Cyr]

@R Tommasi

Point to me where Pr. Molimard admits that passive smoking accounts for over 1000 non-smokers’ deaths each year. It is not because he’s not specifically questioning this part of the report that he actually ‘’admits’’ to it. Obviously you have read this paper with all the bias typical of someone who just hates to admit that he’s been fooled.

You should also read his complete analysis at http://cagecanada.homestead.com/AnalyseCritiqueMolimard.html

And these are only the papers that I translated it. He wrote plenty more in French. You should look them up!

As for Jamrozik – How much of a ‘’medical scientist’’ does one have to be to detect biases and flaws such as:

- A predetermined conclusion which totally disregards the null hypothesis right from the start
- No adjusting for confounders
- That smokers were also part of the equation
- Mathematical errors
- Wrong statistical data used
- Recall bias
- Unsubstantiated assumptions and interpretations

And this is only a partial list of all the flaws that were found in this paper.

What are your scientific credentials Rollo?

[Rollo Tommasi]

Bill Gibson - You're hoist by your own petard! Even the report you refer to shows that smoking has declined in the UK - from 33% in 2006 to 28% in 2009!!!

Don't try to come up with a conclusion by comparing one statistic from one source from another statistic from a different source. That is completely phoney use of stats.

[Bill Gibson]

Paul Flynn needs a bit of educating ... go to page 11 of this document which clearly shows UK smoking rates to be 28%

http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_332_en.pdf

I would like to know how he believes that smoking has declined when his masters in the EU say otherwise

[Rollo Tommasi]

Iro Cyr – I’d rather be on the Koolaid than whatever juice is bending your judgement.

You claim Molimard believes that SHS causes “totally insignificant harm”. Really? Even if you take his own paper at face value, even Molimard admits that passive smoking accounts for over 1,000 non-smokers’ deaths each year. Maybe you’re not concerned by the odd thousand or so people in a country the size of France dying needlessly each year. But I am – as is anybody with a social conscience.

As for the comments about Jamrozik’s article, have you actually read them? As many support him as oppose him. When it comes to opposition, what exactly are the lines of argument? There are a couple of non-scientists (Browne & McFadden) whose remarks enter the world of tangential irrelevance to the substance of Jamrozik’s study. Bonneux accepts the veracity of the figures re lung cancer but questions whether heart disease deaths are over-stated (thankfully, he overall quality of evidence re heart disease has been closely assessed by SCOTH, the US Surgeon General and others, and has stood up to scrutiny). Fell suggests the number of workplace deaths may be lower than Jamrozik estimates – but this has absolutely no bearing on Jamrozik’s estimate of total deaths which he does not challenge. Lee’s remarks are debunked by Sarah McGhee. And Gori returns to his hobbyhorse about the quality of feedback from surveys. Of course, his concerns – if true – would only apply to case-control studies, which involve participants reflecting on previous experiences. They do not affect cohort studies. But the results of cohort studies into passive smoking are virtually identical to the results of case-control studies – meaning that Gori’s concerns are misplaced.

So how exactly do you draw a conclusion from Jamrozik’s report that the number of UK deaths attributable to passive smoking is too small to worry about?

[Iro Cyr]

@Kay Tie

Oh but if I was consenting to golden showers it would no longer be assault, would it?

Obviously, you're the type of person that would crash a BDSM party to only later complain about how badly you were ''treated''. LOL

@Tommassi - Obviously the Jamrozick study didn't quite make the ''scientific'' unanimity either judging from all the flaws, biases and errors that were pointed out to him. Notice how he too somehow included smokers in his estimates :-) http://www.bmj.com/content/330/7495/812/reply

As for Pr. Molimard, if he can't even get public health to look at such blatant fraud as including smokers into the total theoretical SHS deaths and debate him, imagine how successful he would be at inviting them to discuss the totally insignificant harm of SHS! Yes, theoretically (by splitting hairs 4 different ways) one can come up with harm and theoretical deaths for just about anything, even getting off bed in the morning, but how do these estimated theoretical deaths apply to the real world and how much of a public health problem are they?

What flavor is your Kool Aid today ?

[Fredrik Eich]

"So think of the ban as a polite way to get you to stop" - Kay.

Kay, there is nothing polite about putting people into prison.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254126/Pub-landlord-Nick-Hogan-given-smoking-ban-jail-sentence.html

I visited smoke-free pubs prior to the ban and to my knowlege the landlords were not politely asked to go smok-free
they just excercised their liberty to do so and did not go to prison. If we had locked up all licensees that provided
non-smoking and smoke-free areas we would have had an additional >40,000 prisoners (I am just guessing here). I think
it would be wrong to lock people up for providing all these spaces for people to enjoy. This is all smokers are asking
for is some space -such as pubs and restaurants for example. How much space I don't know. I only knew of one cinema that
I could smoke in prior to the ban but I suppose it is up to smokers to make non-smoke-free places popular and not up to
people that don't want to go to these places.

[Kay Tie]

Take it whatever way you like, David. Just wise up as to how horrible you're being when you light up your infernal stick and offend everyone else.

[David]

I'll take that as 'Yes, I am nice as pie to them in the real world because I don't want to upset them and also because I'm a coward'.

[Kay Tie]

"I'd imagine you're as nice as pie to them in the real world."

And that's why you've not been tackled until now: the stark words we'd have to use to drive the message through your thick hides would cause you great upset (as demonstrated by the reactions here). So think of the ban as a polite way to get you to stop.

[David]

Hi Kay Tie, have you told these people how you feel? You know, expressing exactly how much resentment you have for their selfish behaviour (along the lines of comments you have made here)? Or do you confine your rabid anti smoking rants to internet discussions, anonymously and from a safe distance? I'd imagine you're as nice as pie to them in the real world.

[cirrusminor]

"Who can fathom the minds of slightly deranged people?"

Your best and funniest comment yet - who indeed?

[Kay Tie]

"Of course they do. All of them. All the time. On purpose."

In two office buildings I've worked in, yes, on purpose: to provide a heat source in the cold (cooling the building, of course). And in both cases, stubbornly refusing to stop despite letters and formal warnings (another example of the thick rhino hide).

I realise that 2 out of 2 isn't a statistical sample. But since Belinda would count that as "science" I'm going to draw conclusions from it too.

"Meanwhile, can you explain how it is that in the real world you often get friendships, relationships and even marriages between smokers and non-smokers?"

Who can fathom the minds of slightly deranged people?

[cirrusminor]

""Smokers as employer liabilities"

Correct. They take time out for smoking breaks and leave doors open in cold weather.

----------

Of course they do. All of them. All the time. On purpose.

Really, don't you think your opinions are just a little sweeping and extreme?

Meanwhile, can you explain how it is that in the real world you often get friendships, relationships and even marriages between smokers and non-smokers?

[Kay Tie]

"Smell is subjective. I can count on the fingers of one hand the people I've met who give off a noticeable odour of stale smoke. I can't tell whether most people I meet are smokers or not."

Of course smell is subjective: smokers have dulled their sense of smell. The fact you can't spot a smoker by the stink is no evidence at all.

"As for smokers being malingerers and a waste of time, that's just rubbish. Non-smokers also waste time."

Smokers cause resentment amongst a workforce because of the frequent breaks they take. Call centre software has functions to detect these breaks and deduct wages.

"The point is, why is it acceptable to use demeaning statements as a means of trying to change behaviour – it is clearly inciting hatred as Ms Kay Tie's statements show."

I don't hate smokers. I just want them to realise the impact of their decisions (fat chance!).

"anti-smoking organisations are promoting the right of landlords to evict them."

If it's a condition of renting that the accommodation is non-smoking, it's entirely fair to evict. If a smoker contaminates a non-smoking hotel room then it is now common for hotels to make a cleaning charge. This is no more anti-smoker than holding drinkers to account for their vomit is anti-drinking.

[Kay Tie]

"'Golden Showers Allowed Here. Enter only if you consent''."

You can't consent to assault.

[Rollo Tommasi]

So Belinda, you still make no defence of the Brussels Declaration, despite having been one of the first to sign it. The fact is that you signed up to a declaration which attempts to butcher proper scientific principle. And you are unable to defend what you signed up to!

All you say is that "the science behind passive smoking needs to be challenge". But that's because you don't like the results of that science, not because you know the science was wrongly applied.

And if you look at my critique about Molimard's paper, you'll find it absolutely does cover the point at issue. That point is that, even if you accept Molimard's position, then not even he claims that passive smoking is safe.

I also invited people to challenge the results of the Jamrozik report, the UK equivalent to the figures Molimard was trying to criticise. Funnily enough, you have no critique to offer on the content of Jamrozik's paper?

If you have compelling arguments that Jamrozik's work is fundamentally flawed - or (as I have already asked you) that evidence about the long-term health risks from secondhand smoke is based on butchered science - I'd be very interested to read them.

[Belinda]

Science is not the preserve of peer review and eminent journals, Rollo. You don't speak for proper scientific principle. The science behind passive smoking needs to be challenged.

Attacking a paper on the grounds that it is not peer-reviewed and it is authored by someone known to be what you call a 'smoking apologist' is not scientific either. It is simply prejudiced, ignoring the point at issue. I'll leave you to it.

[Rollo Tommasi]

Belinda – I’ve now noticed your remark about butchering scientific principle. I see you are not denying that the Declaration you personally signed up to does this. Your only defence is that evidence about the existence of thirdhand smoke might also be poor.

Well Belinda, the reference to thirdhand smoke is a red herring. I know for a fact that none of the UK’s smoking laws were introduced because of a possible risk from thirdhand smoke. They were all introduced to reduce the long-term risks of lung cancer and heart disease from exposure to second-hand smoke. So where are all your compelling arguments that this evidence is based on butchered science?

[Rollo Tommasi]

Belinda - I have genuinely tried to understand your point about epidemiological studies. If I have unwittingly not understood your point correctly, then you are welcome to clarify your position.

At the same time, you might like to defend your decision to sign the Brussels Declaration on scientific grounds, when you clearly have limited understanding about how it might affect the interpretation of scientific studies not related to passive smoking.

I repeat my contention that you only signed the Declaration because its jaundiced principles would allow you and your friends to challenge the science around passive smoking, and you had little understanding or interest in how geneuinely true it was to proper scientific principle.

[Rollo Tommasi]

Iro – Thanks for that link. But if you think that one or two reports by confirmed smoking apologists, which are not even peer-reviewed works, somehow are worth more than scores of peer-reviewed reports in eminent published journals, then I very much question your judgement.

Looking at Molimard’s article, it is first and foremost a statement of hyperbole with only a small number of supporting references. That ought to be one warning for you. Furthermore, when you consider his analysis of the deaths table, not even Molimard is denying that passive smoking kills! He tacitly acknowledges it is a killer – his point is that it may not kill as many as reported.

The main assessment of the number of UK deaths attributable to passive smoking was by Konrad Jamrozik (BMJ, 2005). That report calculated that around 1,400 lung cancer deaths and 5,200 heart disease deaths each year are attributable to passive smoking. If you seriously believe that passive smoking kills nobody or just an insignificant few, then you need to be able to show that Jamrozik’s conclusions are fundamentally unsound. Funny how none of the pro-smoking cabal seem able to do this.

[Belinda]

I don't think you understand my point about epidemiological studies Rollo: either that or you are pretending not to.

[Belinda]

Clearly the general public includes people like Kay Tie who takes such statements entirely literally, and believes them as absolute fact. As a non-smoker (only in recent years a five-a- month smoker I have kissed many smokers as it happens. Smell is subjective. I can count on the fingers of one hand the people I've met who give off a noticeable odour of stale smoke. I can't tell whether most people I meet are smokers or not. As for smokers being malingerers and a waste of time, that's just rubbish. Non-smokers also waste time. The point is, why is it acceptable to use demeaning statements as a means of trying to change behaviour – it is clearly inciting hatred as Ms Kay Tie's statements show. ASH in the US is actively promoting the rights of employers to sack smokers and other anti-smoking organisations are promoting the right of landlords to evict them.

As for butchering science to meet policy ends, that's what anti-smokers do all the time. You need look no further than the heart attack 'miracles'/third hand smoke to see that.

[Iro Cyr]

Tommassi writes: ''Actually, "they" have a good idea of how many people die each year from secondary smoking, because of epidemiological research. ''

You mean research like the ‘’Lifting the SmokeScreen’’ European report which served as a basis for European bans, where they estimated and loudly proclaimed that in France for example, 5863 statistical deaths occurred because of second hand smoke? But that after carefully reading the report it is revealed that the majority of these statistical theoretical deaths were active smokers inhaling their OWN second hand smoke? Yup that sounds soooooo scientific and soooooo honest!

http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2010/12/beliefs-manipulation-and-lies-in.html

Keep drinking the kool aid Mr. Tommassi. You might as well get used to it because that's all you'll be drinking once these bureauKrats come after your favorite alcoholic drink after inventing and producing similar fraudulent studies as ''scientific'' evidence for alcohol quasi-prohibition!

Oh and by the way Ms. Tie, I would have no reason to complain about your bucket of urine if you actually showered me with it inside a venue that clearly posts a sign ''Golden Showers Allowed Here. Enter only if you consent''.

[Rollo Tommasi]

Belinda – Let’s see who’s talking absolute rubbish about denormalising. I see you can’t refute the fact that “denormalising” activity occurs in relation to radon gas and air pollution. So you instead claim that smokers are deliberately being marginalised for the sake of it. Only the article you cite doesn’t support your claims. That article simply considers whether smokers respond to these negative statements by smoking less. It concludes that these messages can be effective, but it also warns of potential negative consequences.

I’ve not suggested you’ve commented on epidemiological evidence other than for passive smoking studies. In fact, my point is that I haven’t seen you make any such comments – because you can’t make your claims stick for other risks. You and your pro-smoking chums are simply trying to reinvent scientific principle so it fits your prejudices about passive smoking, and to hang with how well it fits other risks. The Brussels Declaration is a recent attempt by pro-smokers to butcher proper science in order to meet their policy ends. I see you were very quick to sign it despite – by your own admission – not having a detailed knowledge of scientific principle. Other signatories include the usual pro-smoking conspiracy theorists and neo-liberals….but precious few professional scientists.

The fact of the matter is that, if we applied your version of scientific “truth” to other issues beyond passive smoking, then we would have to reverse our positions on many things we now accept to be true. And none of that would be for any sound scientific reason.

[Kay Tie]

"Smokers as malodourous"

Correct. They are. If you didn't smoke, you'd be able to tell.

"Smokers as litterers"

Correct. Cigarette butts are not seen as litter and are scattered. One was thrown out of the window of the car in front of me just last night.

"Smokers as unattractive"

Correct. Try kissing one.

"and undesirable housemates"

Correct. They stain fabrics and wallpaper, stink the place out, and lead to higher rents or devalued property.

"Smokers as undereducated and a social underclass"

Correct. Smokers are over-represented in the C2DE socio-economic classes.

"Smokers as excessive users of public health services"

Correct. There are many illnesses attributed to smoking, not just the usual cancers.

"Smokers as employer liabilities"

Correct. They take time out for smoking breaks and leave doors open in cold weather.

What's wrong with telling the truth? Is it really that unpalatable?

[Belinda]

You are talking absolute rubbish about denormalising, Rollo. This is what is meant by denormalising smokers, it is a deliberate campaign of marginalising smokers, proudly promoted by people like the authors of this article: http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/17/1/25.full. This article discusses:

Smokers as malodourous
Smokers as litterers
Smokers as unattractive and undesirable housemates
Smokers as undereducated and a social underclass
Smokers as excessive users of public health services
Smokers as employer liabilities

(But of course all this is to help smokers.)

I don't believe that I have discussed epidemiological evidence in areas other than secondary smoking. I believe that the numbers are too small for secondary smoking to indicate real damage. I haven't looked into the relative risks regarding other kinds of pollution, which is why I don't think I have discussed it. Obviously if the relative risks are higher there is more reason to think the connection could be causal, rather than only a correlation. It is quite logical to find epidemiology shows a link for some sources of pollution and not others.

I can't campaign on every issue that I find unreasonable because my time isn't elastic.

[Rollo Tommasi]

Belinda: You say "They still don't know who has died from secondary smoking". Actually, "they" have a good idea of how many people die each year from secondary smoking, because of epidemiological research. That's the same kind of evidence which helps "them" understand that exposure to radon gas and air pollution are causes of lung cancer. You're not comfortable with epidemiological evidence when it comes to smoking. Yet you seem to have no problem with epidemiological evidence being used in other contexts.

As a result, even though the same evidence tells us that passive smoking, radon gas and air pollution each causes lung cancer, the only one of those factors to which you object is passive smoking.

I also don't accept your "denormalisation" argument. The government provides help for householders in areas exposed to radon gas in the same way as it provides help for smokers who want to quit. And governments having been "denormalising" causes of air pollution for years. Which is why there are restrictions on factory emissions, there are smokeless coal requirements in many cities and why your car won't pass its MOT unless its exhaust emissions are below a certain level.

If you are so opposed to "denormalisation", why are you not arguing that people should be allowed to spew however much pollution they want from their cars, homes and factories?

[Belinda]

Patrick: why is arguing that smoking is good for you an extension of what I said? I can't comment on whether smoking kills, what I can comment on is that persecuting smokers does not make them less likely to smoke.

What makes you think I should be concerned whether the tobacco industry agrees with me?

Rollo: I didn't mention death certificates. They still don't know who has died from secondary smoking. I'm on this issue because it involves denormalising a behaviour and (by extension) tobacco users. No campaign of this sort is employed in radon use. The same applies to air pollution.

[Rollo Tommasi]

Belinda - If you are so convinced that passive smoking is safe, because it's not referred to on death certificates, why are you only interested in passive smoking?

Why are you not campaigning that radon gas is harmless, because no named individual is proven to have died from that?

For the same reason, shouldn't you also be campaigning that air pollution is not a cause of lung cancer?

[Patrick]

Belinda
Next you’ll be saying that smoking is good for you. Someone has made a mistake on the fag packets for decades it should read ‘ Smoking fights cancer.’
I must have imagined that half my family died from smoking and that cancer wards are sadly full of smokers. Go down to your local NHS hospital or go and ask your GP about it.

The jury is out and has been for decades about the harm smoking and SHS does.

Not even the bread head tobacco industry agrees with you.

[Paul Flynn]

Paul Flynn

01633 262348/02072193478/ 07887925699

[David]

Patrick @9.21.

You missed one group Patrick (unless you regard it as corporate, which it is of course). Government, who have exploited drinkers and smokers to a much greater extent than manufacturers, by bleeding them of cash in the form of duty. All have enjoyed the benefit of this, including you. So, now we live under an insidious system that cheerfully takes £billions off ordinary law abiding group of people, whilst using some of this money to brainwash the rest of the population into believing that these people are spreading disease.

You see, it boils down to one thing only. Until the sale and use of all tobacco products are banned, those in government(and their puppets) who occupy the moral high ground and who lecture and demonise a significant group of the population actually make tobacco and drinks manufacturers seem honest in comparison.

It's not as though they don't have the power to do this. What, exactly, is stopping them? Surely it can't have anything to with money, can it? Maybe Paul knows?

[Belinda]

Patrick

Do you really believe that most of the problems of the working class are the result of drink and smoking?; that makes you a puppet of the health lobby - arm in arm with the corporate world, they prefer to divert any attention they can from corporate abuse of working people to health issues, which they can blame poor people themselves for.

Tobacco desperate?: I don't think so: http://www.investorplace.com/22500/6-smoking-hot-tobacco-stocks/. The tobacco bashing that health departments take such pleasure in hurts only smokers, by depriving them of social outlets, and making them killers in the eyes of society even though no evidence that secondary smoking kills. How many people can you name who definitely died of the results of secondary smoking? (forget Roy Castle, one person isn't enough and in any case he was known to have been exposed to other carcinogens).

[Patrick]

Puppet Puddlecote
It’s very touching to see that you spend so much of your time campaigning (in vain) for the rights of the working man.
The biggest betrayal of the working classes that history has ever witnessed ,and has even surpassed that of war generals, is the role of both the Tobacco and alcohol industries.
They (the working class) smoke and drink, we (the corporate directors) don’t.
They spend their cash and die of multiple diseases. We deny and withhold information, gain shares, get rich and laugh at them.

Deniers of health risks until forced to by law (that will be health fascist’s to you).
Promoters of smoking to kids .Instigators of cheap booze ,happy hour’s and anti –social consequences.

Big tobacco are now desperate. People that were gullible enough to start a habit that costs them Thousands of pounds a year and years of their lives are perfect grooming targets.

Hype them up about their ‘rights being eroded’ and point them in the direction of sane people that prefer their children to breathe fresh air (health fascist’s again).

You are simply a puppet of the tobacco industry.

[Smilenka]

Ah, l see now. Kaytee is the resident troll.

[Dick Puddlecote]

"The average family is fabulously wealthy compared with families of my childhood."

You're not wrong Paul, and it is mostly down to the free market. I always find it funny that these days, Labour attack alcohol for the reason that it is "much more affordable than in 1980". Hmmm, I wonder how that happened, eh?

You're right that everyone is better off, yet you actively campaign to stop the reason for the progress.

Keep bashing the working man, Paul, I'm sure they'll be quite happy to keep giving you a vote through blind generational loyalty while you and your middle class ideological chums nail them, and their humble pleasures, into the dirt. ;)

[David]

It's the £trillions of personal and national debt that gives the illusion of fabulous wealth. Money is created on the back of nothing to prop up the house of cards. This country has been asset stripped.

A Golden Age made of fool's gold.

[Paul Flynn]

You are absolutely right. The average family is fabulously wealthy compared with families of my childhood. We thought then that ending the dirt poverty of then would make us happy. The relative poverty of today seems to be a source of even deeper anxieties.

[Frank Davis]

Kay Tie wrote: We are living in a golden age, and that should put our squabbling into perspective.

Squabbling?

Squabbling???

This is becoming Total War.

[Frank Davis]

P.S. Happy New Year.

[Kay Tie]

"Thanks and Happy New Year to KayTie and all my regular correspondents. Your wisdom and humour has always been greatly aprreciated"

Happy New Year to you. Here's hoping 2011 is better than 2010, and even if not let us rejoice that we still live in the best of times: human knowledge is further advanced, medical science means we live longer and more fruitful lives, and that we have a material standard of living our ancestors could not even dream of. We are living in a golden age, and that should put our squabbling into perspective.

[Frank Davis]

I really don't understand you, Mr Flynn.

I have you down as something of a campaigner for cannabis. Good for you! I was also one, 20 years ago. Heck, I even got to shake the hand of Howard Marks.

These days though, I'm fighting for tobacco. Because if smoking tobacco becomes illegal, then it's hardly likely that smoking cannabis is going to become any less illegal, is it? All the paraphernalia of cannabis (papers, pipes, lighters, etc) is also the paraphernalia of tobacco.

Furthermore, all the medical objections to smoking tobacco apply also to smoking cannabis. It's equally "unnatural". And cannabis smoke contains exactly the same 5,000,000+ chemicals (CO2, C, CO, Benzapyrene, etc) as tobacco smoke (all except for the nicotine). And you know quite well that cannabis smokers are also regarded as just as much "addicts" as tobacco smokers or opium smokers. And also there are quite a few people who hate the "stink" of cannabis as there are people who hate the "stink" of tobacco.

So go on attacking tobacco, the elder brother of cannabis. But at least be dimly aware, somewhere in the recesses of your addled brain, that in doing so you are destroying any possibility of cannabis ever being legalised. Because once tobacco has been made illegal, there will be NO POSSIBILITY WHATSOEVER that cannabis will be made legal.

Incidentally, when I met Howard Marks, he wasn't smoking cannabis. He was smoking Marlboro. Funny old world, eh?

[Dick Puddlecote]

Kay Tie: "The police have brought you to heel."

Wrong YET again. The ban is not anything to do with the police, it is enforced by local authority Environmental Health Officers.

Do you know anything about this subject at all except that you don't like smoke?

[Dick Puddlecote]

Kay Tie: "Society tolerated one of the two, and now society tolerates neither. You had better get used to it."

Wrong again. Society still allows pissing indoors.

[Dick Puddlecote]

Kay Tie: "Democracy says that the majority [...] dictates to the minority"

No dear, that is 'ochlocracy', otherwise termed mob-rule. Seems you don't understand the idea of democracy either.

[Dick Puddlecote]

Kay Tie: "Because there are times when the market doesn't work. As Tim would agree."

Except for the fact that he has consistently posted articles against the smoking ban on the basis that the market would cope quite admirably without it. And is a member of UKIP who have a longstanding policy to allow separate smoking rooms/venues for smokers.

Are you sure you're talking about the same Tim Worstall here? In fact, do you even understand the idea of a free market?

Face it, you're talking exclusively from your own insular prejudice and ignoring anything which may disagree with it ... the unselfish person that you obviously are. ;)

[David]

What? You agree with everything she ('she', that's been settled, thanks) has said here? Including the lack of sympathy for Jane and the piss threat?

(Ps. I see that you're not thanking us rare visitors. Nor wishing us a Happy New Year)

[Paul Flynn]

It's a rarity for me to agree with KayTie but she is 100% right on the smoking ban.

Thanks and Happy New Year to KayTie and all my regular correspondents. Your wisdom and humour has always been greatly aprreciated.

[Paul Flynn]

Only obscenities have been deleted

[David]

'"Oh, and Kay Tie, while you're out celebrating tonight spare a thought for Jane and those in a similar predicament."

I have, and I think I may have found something to help:

http://smokefree.nhs.uk/quit-tools/quit-kit/'

98+%* failure rate, so not much help there.

*Government's own figures, based on all attempts over 12 months. (Almost) a total waste of public funds @c.£250/attempt.

[KinFree]

Okay Paul, You are quite happy for that piece of **** (word deleted) Kay tie to spout his/her hateful bile against smokers but you pull my comment presumably on the pretence that it is abusive. All I did was to expose a few home truths about degenerate, abnormal anti-smokers - who are in a very small minority. More and more NORMAL people are coming to recognise the detrimental affect anti-smoker fanatics are having on our country and they WILL be stopped.

Stopping further comments on here because you don't like your champion shown up for what he/she is will NOT stop the growing discontent amongst normal decent people in normal decent society.

It took 13 years to defeat the fanatical prohibitionists in early C20th US - It will take much less time for reasonable people to defeat You and your kind. In the unlikely event that it takes any longer then so be it, but it will not end until the fanatics ARE beaten down!

[Kay Tie]

"Still, you get what you pay for.."

Indeed. And that's my point: the destruction of pubs is mostly down to the tax on booze since people will flock to a cheap place even when it's a bad cheap place.

[Kay Tie]

"Oh, and Kay Tie, while you're out celebrating tonight spare a thought for Jane and those in a similar predicament."

I have, and I think I may have found something to help:

http://smokefree.nhs.uk/quit-tools/quit-kit/

[cirrusminor]

"the vileness of tipping piss over their head is exactly the same as smoking"

Sorry, but it isn't. It just isn't.

Let's see. If you had a plate of food and someone had just smoked a cigarette near it, would you still eat it? Or if someone had smoked a cigarette near a book you'd put down, would you still pick it up again and read it?

Now let's substitute "urinated over" for "smoked a cigarette near"...

[David]

Oh, and Kay Tie, while you're out celebrating tonight spare a thought for Jane and those in a similar predicament.

Happy New Year.

[David]

Tell you what, if the new model pubs are based on Wetherspoons, you're bloody welcome to them. Couldn't imagine they'd open one in our village anyway. My daughter's boyfriend briefly worked in the kitchen of one. From what he says, it's no wonder they're cheap. Still, you get what you pay for..

[Trooper Thompson]

"Perhaps now that not smoking is the "new normal" things might be different."

Well then, again, you should have no objection to letting bar and pubs cater specifically and solely to smokers. Then you will not have to be anywhere near smokers, they will be at another establishment down the road, and it will be even easier for you to get a table, and you won't have to walk through so many filthy polluters outside the door.

[Ibotson]

Some comments there straight from the ministry of disinformation keyfacts screen at HQ.

Must be on treble time at the moment -

After their relaxing smoking breaks they come back to paid employment to bully smokers to suit the social engineering policy.

[Kay Tie]

"It's hardly surprising how many pubs have shut down since the ban."

Given that non-smokers have flocked to pubs, and smokers have merely popped outside, the closure of pubs is to do more with tax rises and the cost of the beer. Wetherspoons, who specialise in low-cost drinks, have been expanding.

"your answer is really a tacit admission that your opinion is held by a small minority, so small that you couldn't even keep one pub running with your custom."

It's an explanation of the way the market was manipulated by smokers. Perhaps now that not smoking is the "new normal" things might be different.

[Trooper Thompson]

Kay Tie,

your answer is really a tacit admission that your opinion is held by a small minority, so small that you couldn't even keep one pub running with your custom. It's hardly surprising how many pubs have shut down since the ban.

[Kay Tie]

"Then you can have no objection to bars, pubs and other establishments which cater only to smokers."

That would end up "all of them" because of the way smokers monopolised public spaces prior to the ban.

[Trooper Thompson]

"I support the right to smoke. But only insofar as it doesn't harm others."

Then you can have no objection to bars, pubs and other establishments which cater only to smokers. If you like, they can have bouncers on the door to make sure you can't come in.

[Ibotson]

Most will not be working on the bank holiday and their bullying centre will be closed.

But:-

As we speak they are reloading their HQ databases with more anti smoking insults and comments to brow beat the public in 2011, all in the name of establishment social engineering.

Shame on them and the establishment for trying to dupe the public in North Korean fashion.

[Kay Tie]

"Don't you realise how fascistic you sound?"

It's not fascism: I support the right to smoke. But only insofar as it doesn't harm others. So take it outside.

[Kay Tie]

"As stated in my post you would have absolutely no need to enter a smoking establishment so I don't see what your problem is."

I would if you monopolised all the establishments. Which is what happened before the ban. In any case, you've no need to smoke in an establishment, so I don't see what your problem is.

[David]

"knock yourself out"? Can't recall anyone saying that....is it a popular saying?

[Kay Tie]

"Democracy is fairness & equality to all, not majority rule."

No it's not. I think you should look up the word in a dictionary.

You're probably referring to the fundamental rights that society puts in place to protect unpopular minorities from the majority. Smokers are unpopular, but the right to harm others with smoke isn't one of those fundamental rights.

[Kay Tie]

"Kay Tie (earlier post)"

David, do you have scars from skull fractures? I ask because someone must have said "knock yourself out" to you before.

[Trooper Thompson]

Don't you realise how fascistic you sound?

[Phil J]

Quote:- "Democracy says that the majority - non-smokers - dictates to the minority - smokers. Which is what happened. Stop whining and give up smoking."
Your response has shown exactly what a one sided, saed sack you really are 'Kay Tie'. Democracy is fairness & equality to all, not majority rule. Just because you don't like smoking does not mean that everyone should immediately give up smoking-whether it be cigarettes, cigars, pipes, hookah or cannabis! I think not.As stated in my post you would have absolutely no need to enter a smoking establishment so I don't see what your problem is.
Do you drive? Are you aware of the report that stated that 50,000 people per year die from air pollution? Are you aware that exhaust fumes are proven to have killed people-SHS hasn't!
And just to top your day up 'Kay Tie', I don't smoke but I don't expect someone who enjoys smoking to give up just because I don't.

[David]

Kay Tie (earlier post)

'I take it you'd be really outraged if I pissed on your clothes and hair. Tell you what, I'll prepare a jar of the stuff and you tell me where you're going to be.'

[Kay Tie]

"I'd rather be a pedant than a control-freak fanatic."

I don't need to control you. The police have brought you to heel.

[Trooper Thompson]

I'd rather be a pedant than a control-freak fanatic.

[Kay Tie]

"Yeah, the whole world seems to have gone mental.."

Well you know where to go: a mental hospital, hotel room or home.

[Kay Tie]

"because psychiatric hospitals are one of the very few exceptions to the smoking ban!"

If you're going to be a pedant, at least actually be right. The exception extends only to areas deemed a private residence within the hospital. The same as for hotel rooms vs. hotels.

[Kay Tie]

"you threatened to do so earlier today."

No I didn't. I was making a rhetorical point. One which you failed to address. And still haven't.

[David]

'Just as there are none in pubs, bars, theatres, cinemas, restaurants, trains, taxis, offices, airports, libraries, hospitals, planes and all the other places that at one time or another you people used to contaminate.'

Yeah, the whole world seems to have gone mental..

[David]

'"Surely you wouldn't condone that"

Of course not. And I'm sure Paul would also not condone the contamination of the lungs, throat, clothes and hair of innocent people.'

Sorry, I thought I'd posed that question to Paul. I already know you would - you threatened to do so earlier today.

[Kay Tie]

"Well, if Kay Tie ended up in a psychiatric hospital at least there be no smokers to trigger off a tantrum."

Just as there are none in pubs, bars, theatres, cinemas, restaurants, trains, taxis, offices, airports, libraries, hospitals, planes and all the other places that at one time or another you people used to contaminate.

[Trooper Thompson]

Kay Tie,

the joke's on you, because psychiatric hospitals are one of the very few exceptions to the smoking ban!

[David]

Well, if Kay Tie ended up in a psychiatric hospital at least there be no smokers to trigger off a tantrum.

[Kay Tie]

"I'll get off with a fine, you'll probably be held for psychiatric evaluation."

In which case, only one of us would be a criminal.

[Kay Tie]

"Surely you wouldn't condone that"

Of course not. And I'm sure Paul would also not condone the contamination of the lungs, throat, clothes and hair of innocent people.

[Trooper Thompson]

Kay Tie,

I'd rather be up in front of the beak for smoking in a designated non-smoking area than for assaulting someone with a bottle of my own piss. I'll get off with a fine, you'll probably be held for psychiatric evaluation.

[David]

Come on Paul, threatening to punch someone on the nose is indeed bad form, but dousing someone in piss is stooping a bit low. Surely you wouldn't condone that? Particularly if the piss wielder had already got what they wanted?