Legal disclaimer

The opinions expressed by the authors on this blog and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of the Freedom2Choose organisation or any member thereof. Freedom2Choose is not responsible for the accuracy of any of the information supplied by the blog Authors.

Wednesday, 12 August 2009

Jane DeVille-Almond: Health professional?!? Revisited.

As the original video by HairyChestnuts was taken of Youtube at the insistance of the health psychopath er, profesional concerned I thought it was timely to bring it back.

27 comments:

Brenda said...

Die you bitch !!

Anonymous said...

Will someone give her a little bit of advice,
she is beginning to upset Daft Derek from
Hemel Hempstead.


Watford probation service

Anonymous said...

Completely agree with Jane. Why do smokers have a deluded view that it is not harmful or life threatening? If this person had been lucky enough to have surgery once and continued to smoke, then he should not have had a second chance of life. Bev

helend498 said...

Why shouldn't he Bev? It's his choice to smoke and he's certainly paid for his treatment 6 times over with the duty on tobacco.
Also, there are many reasons for heart problems. You're not one of those so blinded that you believe that only smoking causes heart problems?
Some people are just so naive aren't they?

Anonymous said...

If you smoke you should expect and deserve to die. Good on you Jane! At least someone has finally said what all the normal non-smokers are thinking!!!!!

Belinda said...

No, there is nothing normal about believing that only smokers expect to die, or deserve to die (an odd concept). If that's what you think you have a strange view of morality.

Belinda said...

And of mortality!

marley said...

Anonymous is obviously anonymous for a reason. no sane person would have a good argument for wanting people dead just because they live life rather than being afraid of it. That way of thinking would mean that boxers, rugby players, mountaineers, racing drivers, soldiers, people who drive cars, people who like a drink or two of an alcohol product, drug takers or anyone who likes to live a little deserves to die if they choose not to follow the miserable existence of 'anon'

Chris said...

Quote Anon " If this person had been lucky enough to have surgery once " What a strange thing to say, I was under the impression that paying ones income taxes and legal theft from HMG in tobacco tax was enough to entitle everyone to unlimited medical care in this country. Perhaps Anon knows something the rest of us don't. Also why Anon? Have people so little honour that they must hide their identity? Are they so small and frightened. Anon you are pathetic.

Anonymous said...

Bev, I have been to the funeral of a great lad who just turned 20, he was in hospital for less than 24hrs, blot clot and heart failure, he went in with a broken bone in his foot. He was not a smoker, and the young people in the church must have thought, what a load of shite you people talk sometimes!
How many people go in hospital and get bugs and clots ect but smoking would get the blame, you people make me want to vomit.
Antis die too, do they deserve to die because they are bigots! Do drivers who have accidents, then get back in their cars (if they are lucky enough) deserve to die. Get a fu**ing life, you sad specimen.
Thank you John, for allowing me to vent my spleen. I needed that.
mandyv

Emma said...

Smokers make a lifestyle choice which they know is going to adversely affect their health. If they come to the point where they are offered a second chance by way of, for example a coronary artery bypass graft, and are not willing to do what they can to save their own lives, why should I as a taxpayer be obliged to pay for them to kill themselves. Smokers cost the health service exorbitant amounts of money every year, which I do not feel I should be obliged to cover when paying my dues to society. Smokers make a choice to smoke, and they can afford to buy cigarettes, maybe they should also put aside the money to pay for their own healthcare as well as their own poisons, if they are unwilling to mind themselves while they have the chance, why should I look after them?

Dick Puddlecote said...

"Smokers cost the health service exorbitant amounts of money every year"

Sigh. No they don't. Cost to the health service is estimated by anti-smoking organisations to be in the region of £2.7bn. Smokers pay duties in the region of £9bn. This doesn't even take into account the fact that as smokers are supposed to die earlier, their burden on elderly health services and pensions is massively reduced. Unless you're saying that smokers don't die earlier?

"maybe they should also put aside the money to pay for their own healthcare as well as their own poisons"

Suits me. The problem being that one is not able to opt-out of NI payments. If that were the case, then what you describe is perfectly feasible, but if not, it is nothing less than extortion.

"if they are unwilling to mind themselves while they have the chance, why should I look after them?"

As stated above, you don't. In fact, it is the complete opposite. So, to turn it back on you, why should smokers pay to subsidise the healthcare of ignorant gullible types who wish smokers nothing but grief?

Emma said...

Well that did give me a good laugh Dick. Are you trying to say that smokers do not put any burden on the health service and that they do not cost society money? And that smokers are actually looking after the non smokers? Some severely deluded thoughts there if you ask me.

Smokers may die earlier on average than non smokers, but they use the services proportionally more during their lifespan.

If people have self destructive habits, that is their own choice, but most smokers do not live in a bubble. They have friends and relatives who have to suffer from their choices. Passive smoking, money being burnt, literally, and worry about the health of their friend / relative are enough reasons for me to believe most smokers are being selfish in their choice to smoke. However, it is an addiction, and smokers are addicts, so perhaps smokers are not actually actively making a 'choice' to smoke.

Maybe you disagree with me Dick, and can explain what benefits you get from smoking?

Dick Puddlecote said...

Laugh all you want, but you were the financially illiterate one who brought up the cost to society of smokers. I've given you the figures, care to try to dispute them? Take your time.

"Are you trying to say that smokers do not put any burden on the health service and that they do not cost society money?"

Again, I've given you the figures. Smokers pay in hugely more than they receive in benefit.

"Smokers may die earlier on average than non smokers, but they use the services proportionally more during their lifespan."

Source?

Go ask your doctor which area of healthcare costs the most and they will tell you it is long-term geriatric care. It's unarguable.

You really have been comprehensively duped, haven't you?

The rest of your diatribe is an entirely different argument from the one you started with. Now, let's bring it back to the painful (for you) problem here. Jane DeVille-Almond has said that she would let smokers DIE as they don't pay their way.

I've proved that isn't the case. Tell me again why they should be allowed to die?

Because you don't like the way they live their lives? How very concentration camp.

What I get from smoking? Enjoyment. Plus, I pay a lot of money for it which you benefit from in my taxes.

Now go back to watching the soaps if you can't offer more than ignorance and a lack of economic understanding.

B7 said...

Just reading over the comments on the bigoted, misguided nazi specimen DeVille Almond that parades as Gods judge and jury.

Love the Winston Churchill "Two fingers up to the air brushing anti-smokers" graphic.

It appears that some of the anti smoking comments here have been placed by the paid stooges of the Smokefree department.

Emma said...

Statistics can be made to support whatever you want them to if 'calculated' in the right way, that may be the amount of duty created from the sale of cigarettes, but I doubt that the amount you quote for health related expenses is anywhere near the true cost. Also whether the duties paid on smoking actually reaches the health service is another matter.

You say you pay money to smoke, that actually isnt a plus point as far as I can tell.

Either way, the physical and emotional cost of smoking, is not balanced by the taxes.

Dick I never said I thought people should die, and to be honest, I don't think that Jayne meant what she appeared to say. But I do think that everyone has a duty to care for themselves. It is your health, and your loved ones that you are harming by smoking, why should the doctors be expected to do it for you, if you cant do it for yourselves.

Dick Puddlecote said...

"Statistics can be made to support whatever you want them to if 'calculated' in the right way"

Yep, you said it. The taxes paid on cigarettes are precisely measurable. The cost to the NHS is an estimation which is assessed by ... anti-smoking organisations.

"I doubt that the amount you quote for health related expenses is anywhere near the true cost"

So let's get this straight. You think that the cost I quoted to you, assessed and promoted by people who despise smoking, is not the true cost?

That they have somehow under-estimated their figures?

Do you live in the real world, Emma?

Crikey, I knew there were idiots around but I had no idea there was fuckwittery on your scale before.

"Also whether the duties paid on smoking actually reaches the health service is another matter."

I've got news for you, Emma. Hypothecation of taxes died a long time ago. There's no guarantee that national insurance payments reach the NHS either. ALL taxes go into one big pot. Simple as that.

So ALL taxes can be classed as reaching whichever part of the system one cares to choose.

You're seriously underqualified in this debate. Try doing some research, eh?

"You say you pay money to smoke, that actually isnt a plus point as far as I can tell."

Now we get down to the nub of the matter. I say it is equally as valid as your dislike of what I do. Your reasoning is shot to bits so you only chance is what we all know. YOU think you know how I should live MY life better than I do.

With all due respect. Fuck you!

"Dick I never said I thought people should die"

Jane did. I have the recording.

"I don't think that Jayne meant what she appeared to say."

Has she apologised, then? Of course not. She said that smokers should be allowed to die on national radio and has done nothing, and said nothing, to correct what you consider to be an innocent mistake. That is inexcusable.

If it was a genuine slip of the tongue, I'm sure she would be happy to set the record straight. How about you get in touch with her and request she do so?

I have two predictions here. One, you won't bother. Two, she would ignore you or tell you to get lost.

I double dare you to prove me wrong.

"It is your health, and your loved ones that you are harming by smoking"

I'll put this as politely as I can.

None of your fucking business.

You tried the cost argument, it doesn't stack up. You changed the subject as you knew you were on dodgy ground, it didn't work.

Why not just admit that you want to interfere in the lives of others, eh? It would be more honest.

Like I said, go back to your soaps until you are less ignorant, or more respectful of the way others wish to live their lives.

Emma said...

So Dick, it comes down to swearing, name slinging and insults. Sorry I wont rise to that, because I still believe each person has a responsibility to look after their own health. You included.

You didn't answer the questions about why the doctors should look after you if you will not take the first move to do so?

Can I ask you another question, say you have a 12 year old son, and he is dabbling with cigarettes, would you be happy for them to continue to smoke? It is his choice and he knows the side effects. Seriously, would you encourage him?

Emma said...

As for cost, you agree then that the smokers taxes go into a 'big pot', ie not to the point where the harm smoking is doing is being damage controlled - the health service. Either way, cost to society is far more than purely financial.

As for the contacting Jayne, have you done so?

TheBigYin said...

I can't beleive the bare faced cheek of you Ems. A smokers health is none of your bloody business as stated by DP. What gives you the right?

You didn't answer the questions about why the doctors should look after you if you will not take the first move to do so

Apart from the fact that he/she gets paid handsomely to heal the sick there is the oath they took.

Your rants above are on the basis of what Almond said about a heart attack victim and her/your assumption that his smoking was the cause of said heart attack. The 'heart attack' scam has been widely debunked as anti smoker junk science. Go read Christopher Snowdon's blog and he'll put you right on the science side of things.

As for your little stunner about DP and 12 year olds well...I can't wait for his reaction.

PS: This blog is not moderated for newer posts but posts older than 14 days are to filter out spammers. Hence your wait for moderation.

Dick Puddlecote said...

"So Dick, it comes down to swearing, name slinging and insults. Sorry I wont rise to that, because I still believe each person has a responsibility to look after their own health. You included."

Good idea Emma. Here's a deal. I'll take responsibility for my health, you take responsibility for yours. OK? It really is that simple.

As for the swearing. If I was mowing my front garden and someone righteously told me I was doing it the wrong way and demanded I stop, I'd say "Fuck you"" to them too.

"You didn't answer the questions about why the doctors should look after you if you will not take the first move to do so?"

TBY above has answered this already but ... *sigh* ... it's because they are PAID to do so.

If I take my car to a mechanic and he refuses to fix it as I've been driving it wrongly (according to him), but he still demands the fee for fixing it, that is fraud/theft (here is an example) and he/she/it would be hauled up in front of a court.

What's the difference here? I have paid taxes all my life so that the NHS will treat me when I need them to. If that is withdrawn, then I want my money back or it is theft.

You're quite a fan of theft and extortion, aren't you?

"Can I ask you another question, say you have a 12 year old son, and he is dabbling with cigarettes, would you be happy for them to continue to smoke? It is his choice and he knows the side effects. Seriously, would you encourage him?"

Nice attempt at a tangential strawman. And, as the righteous tend to do, well done for squeezing in an emotional "for the chiiildren" plea. When will you lot learn that such morally-bankrupt tactics can be spotted a mile off?

The 12 year old has not reached the age of majority, thereby in law he is not considered old enough to make his own decisions. It's why we don't allow sales of cigarettes to under 18s. Or had the reason for age-related legislation escaped your radar?

So of course I wouldn't encourage him, quite the opposite.

Conversely, I am over the age of consent, and as such able (or should be in somewhere which terms itself as a free society) to make my own decisions regarding my own risk-taking.

Government is not my mother, father, or guardian, therefore it's none of their business.

Understand?

"As for cost, you agree then that the smokers taxes go into a 'big pot', ie not to the point where the harm smoking is doing is being damage controlled - the health service. Either way, cost to society is far more than purely financial."

Firstly, if you're trying to dismiss tobacco duties because it all goes into the same pot, you're truly barmy.

All taxes go into the pot, therefore all taxes go to the health service. By the same token, all taxes can be deemed (by selectively blinkered people like you) not to go to the health service. It's a laughable argument and you know it, so stop being deliberately obtuse (if it's not deliberate, then you're just plain daft).

Jeez, battling your quite ridiculous logic is like wading through Dunning-Kruger treacle.

"As for the contacting Jayne, have you done so?"

Of course. The ignorant, offensive, evil bitch didn't reply.

The Filthy Engineer said...

Emma. Where do you get "but they use the services proportionally more during their lifespan."

I've smoked since probably before you were born and I can count the visits to the Doc on one hand. Don't make up false statistics as it won't wash here.

Oh, and the "think of the cheeldren" crap is most definitely the last refuge of an anti-smoking scoundrel. Last time I looked my cheeldren were alive, fit and well.

Vapers Network said...

It's very sad that healthcare is a (human) right for selected groups of people but only a privilege for marginalised groups who happen to be out of fashion at any particular time. We don't have any rights if we don't do what we're told by the lifestyle police.

DaveA said...

@Emma

ASH saying "Smoking Costing NHS £2.7 billion a Year."

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs receipts, tobacco £8.779 billion plus VAT = £10.3 billion

I have not factored in the tobacco industry employs 80,000 people all paying taxes, corporation taxes etc and because we die earlier than non smokers £2 billion a year in pensions.

Any more junk science to debunk?

http://www.ash.org.uk/media-room/press-releases/smoking-costing-nhs-pounds-27-billion-a-year

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-2.pdf

Angry Exile said...

Emma, have a read of this. The relevant paragraph is the last but one.

"Many years ago, I attended a lunch with Professor Richard Doll, the physiologist credited with establishing the link between smoking and lung cancer. Also at the lunch was a then prominent member of the anti-smoking lobby, who complained bitterly about the health costs to the nation of this life threatening habit. To the contrary, replied Professor Doll. Smokers tend to die young before they become a burden on the taxpayer, and net net therefore cost rather less in healthcare than someone who lives to a ripe old age. The same argument might be made about obesity, which costs the nation heavily while the sufferer is still alive but saves mightily in later years because of premature death."

Tends to bear out what DP and others have said rather than your claim that smokers cost more than the £9-10bn they put in.

Declaration of interest: non-drinking ex-smoker (≈2 yrs) who just doesn't care what other people do to themselves.

Emma said...

A 12 year old is old enough to decide on their medical treatment if they are deemed to be Gilllick competent. They are educated in the complications of smoking. And realistically that is when a large proportion of smokers get hooked on cigarettes. But interestingly you wouldn't encourage a child to take up the habit. I suspect because deep down you know that all your arguments are really just a smokescreen, and the reason you don't want to give up is because you are addicted.

Dick you seem to be very defensive about your habits, which suggests to me that you regret your actions, even if you don't want to admit it.

I see people on a daily basis who can not do their normal activities because their heart is failing and their lungs are full of fluid, who die from heart attacks. I have cut off smokers legs because they are rotting because the blood supply is blocked. I have had to support the families of those people who are unable to walk from one room to another without carrying oxygen. Don't fool yourselves, it is due to smoking! That is no quality of life for the smoker, and it is selfish to the friends and family who have to endure watching their loved ones living in that condition.

But of course it is your choice...

Dick Puddlecote said...

Where did your cost argument go, Emma?

Hello? I did ask you a couple of questions on that point. The very point which you began with.

You've had plenty of time to garner loads of illuminating information to show that my sums are incorrect. So where is it?

So, by that token, can we conclude that Jane DeVille-Almond's justification for allowing people to die is flawed? And that she is a hideous stain on humanity for even suggesting it?

Which was kinda the point of this article, doncha think?

"But of course it is your choice..."

Emma, have you bothered to look at the name of this blog?

Nice that you have finally worked out that, yes, it is entirely my right to choose my lifestyle, and not yours.

Just like I will defend your right to make yourself look damn stupid with a constantly shifting lack of debating skill.

"A 12 year old is old enough to decide on their medical treatment if they are deemed to be Gilllick competent. They are educated in the complications of smoking."

So you're saying that there shouldn't be a law stopping 12 year olds from buying fags? It's either that, or you admit that the government are interfering in educated, competent, freedom of choice.

I've heard some toss in my time but ...

"Dick you seem to be very defensive about your habits, which suggests to me that you regret your actions, even if you don't want to admit it."

Defensive? Err, where? You have some serious mental issues, dear.

Just to recap. Tell me again how:

1) Smokers cost the country money
2) Jane Deville-Almond is a good nurse for advocating death
3) You think you shouldn't do a job for which you are paid (don't answer that, we've already established that you like theft and extortion)

Any luck getting that apology from Jane? You know, the one who says people should die for not thinking the same as her?

Shouldn't be difficult, Emma. After all, it was only a slip of the tongue, wasn't it?

Loving this. Where will you squirm next, I wonder?

:-)

opinions powered by SendLove.to

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Pages on this blog