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, 30 March 2011

A Blank Response!

 Houses of Parliament (Dumb)
Holyrood parliament in Scotland (and Dumber)

Some weeks ago I wrote to the Ministry of Health with some rather pertinent questions. My letter, strangely, was forwarded to the Scottish Parliament where one Lee-Anne Raeburn undertook to respond. Her response, as you can imagine, was concocted of all the old stand by's-public consultations, peoples wishes, evidence based, etc etc, so I picked the most relevant parts of her response and sent the following letter back asking for further clarification/proof-basically whatever they had got that would substantiate her sub standard reply.....

Dear Lee-Anne

Thank you for your response to my letter to the Department of Health in London on 3 February 2011 regarding smoking in hospitals.Not quite sure why email has been passed to the Scottish Government for reply, then the good Lord moves in mysterious ways! Some points I need to raise re your response and points to which I would very much like answers.

Quote:- "The decision to protect public health through the introduction of smoke-free legislation in public places was not taken lightly, but after a comprehensive process of evidence gathering and public consultation".

Lee-Ann, we all know that the 'public consultation' was not, in fact, a public consultation as it only involved Smoke Free organisations already in place;ie, Smoke free NE, NW, Smoke Free Yorkshire etc-it has been well documented in the MSM. 'the comprehensive process of evidence gathering' entailed what exactly?

The next point I will deal with individually if I may?

Quote:- "There is strong evidence from the World Health Organisation (WHO)" - and what evidence would that be then Lee-Ann? Would that be the massive study they compiled which showed absolutely no effects/relationship between SHS & mortality? You know the one Lee-Ann, it's the one they did their very utmost to hide from public scrutiny but was unearthed by a rather nosy journalist!

Quote:- "UK Scientific Committee on Tobacco and health (SCOTH)" -now this is interesting Lee-Ann because the SCOTH Committee was purposely hand picked by Blair's henchmen to ensure the predetermined result was achieved. Fourteen of the sixteen members of that most un-illustrious committee were either in the pay of ASH, connected to ASH and/or total anti tobacco fanatics. It is interesting to note that one of the only two totally independent members of that "committee" later opined that it had been a 'considerable waste of time and effort'. Certainly, we would have to concur with this statement as it is patently obvious that all major studies were ignored until Jamrozic's superbly flawed effort (ranked 28th I believe) was mercuriously produced as 'absolute evidence' of harm. Jamrozic incidentally, died a year ago of cancer-a sarcoma actually, (bone cancer) of which there is no known cause! Professor Jarvis is even recorded saying that there was not enough evidence but that seems to have been completely ignored as the paymasters (Pharmaceutical Industry) payed their way to the required result. I will happily provide a comprehensive list og those members and list all their associations and conflicts of interest-but then I am sure that you already know the truth Lee-Ann!

Quote:-" Ventilation is not the solution so far as second-hand smoke is concerned. It does remove the smell and the colour of the smoke; it does not fully remove the harmful substances it contains. So while the air in a ventilated room may look and smell good, in reality it isn’t harmless. Ministers want to protect the public from the health risks associated with exposure to second-hand smoke."
This as you are well aware is a totally fallacious statement! Modern techology has advanced far and away above the simple fan Lee-Ann. Modern Air Quality Filtration machines now filter the air to a standard which is four times cleaner than the air we breathe daily on our streets. That is why such ventilation systems have been installed in hospital theatres-to remove superbugs from the air thus minimalise infections.

Quote:- "The smoke-free legislation was introduced in all wholly or substantially enclosed public places as the evidence demonstrated that passive smoking was dangerous in those places."
Slightly incorrect here Lee-Ann as it was those scientific bods in the pay of Big Pharma that produced the 'evidence' so required (ultimately by the WHO). I doubt you will find one true scientist, attached to smoking bans, who has put his integrity above the massive lure of Pharma paypackets; check out the "Brussels Declaration of Scientific Integrity"

Quote:- "We hope that the ban will improve the nation’s health and illnesses will be prevented. There are no immediate plans to review the fundamental principles of the legislation."
Ah, 'we hope' do we! It is a great shame that you and others in government have been so completely hoodwinked by ASH, Big Pharma & the WHO, but you see the blueprint, as laid out by Godber in 1975 has been extremely well plotted over the years, sucking all manner of politicians into the net. With 75% of the country (myself included) being non smokers, it was a simple job to gain majority verdicts for whatever was needed. It will not improve the health of a nation for the simple reason that cancer is rife-it is not simply a matter of 'stop smoking'. In the first year of our wonderful English ban (2007) cancer cases grew by 4% (M) & 3.75% (F). Add to that the fact that cancer cases have steadily increased since the 50's while smoking has equally steadily decreased it doesn't really put one as causation of the other does it Lee-Ann! However, when one looks at motorised transport emissions & cancer rates one can certainly find the similarity-now just why have government ignored that obvious fact Lee-Ann?


Quote:- "I am aware that some NHS Boards have implemented smoking policies that go beyond the requirements of the national legislation and in particular their desire for active discouragement of smoking on their hospital premises."
And exactly what right have they to do this? Impersonation of the law is to be treated as surely as impersonation of a police officer-is it not? Hospitals may not desire people smoking anywhere on hospital grounds but, legally, they cannot enforce a law that does not exist-for outdoors is outdoors!

Quote:- "Health improvement is a key aim of NHS Boards and a smoke-free environment and the provision of tobacco education and cessation support are recognised methods of achieving this aim."
Education, education, education-I couldn't agree more Lee-Ann, prohibition is the quickest way to civil disobedience is it not? Smoking will never be eradicated for the simple reason that the poorer elements of our society have very little else to cheer them as it is and the humble cigarette is certainly a major social comfort to many. Please don't insult my intelligence with "... and cessation support are recognised methods of achieving this aim." because even the Dept of Health have announced that NRT has a wondrous 98.4% FAILURE rate-yet as a nation, we keep throwing more money at it, why?

Quote:- "However, the decision to move to a completely smoke-free environment is a matter for individual Board’s to determine and it is their responsibility to ensure that the smoking policies that that they have imposed are adhered to and enforced appropriately."
Is this an advancement on 'smoking wardens' patrolling our hospital grounds?
All patients are already advised about no smoking policies during their stay in hospital and offered advice and support to assist them with the restrictions that may be imposed and in particular offered appropriate smoking cessation advice. Whether they actually take up any advice is purely a personal matter, but given records to date I wouldn't hold your breath! As you know Lee-Ann, all government cessation figures are based on a 4 week cessation period. This, naturally, gives a hugely distorted view of results possibly achieved as a 12 month period is by far and away a safer factual collection point.
Finally Lee-Ann, would you be kind enough to forward a precise figure of cost, since implementation, of this discriminatory ban which will do two things to this once great country: totally bankrupt it (note S Irelands financial prowess) or result in civil riot.
Again I look forward to your response with great interest Lee-Ann.
yours sincerely

Phil Johnson

Now I thought it was a pretty fair letter of response indicating that i needed clarification of various points raised by herself. here is her response.......


Err...sorry folks, all I got was a blank page, so I can only assume that the English Government could not answer my questions hence sent it over Hadrians Wall but they are equally unable to answer even the simplest of requests for truth. Any suggestions fellow bloggers?


Anonymous said...


The letter and "their " response needs to be made Public, we need it to be published in one or all of the great newspapers, if only .


Anonymous said...

Perhaps a Freedom of Information on the breakdown of specific costs would get an answer ?
Possibly your words of more than one syllable confused the lady as civil servants are not known for their intelligence.

Anonymous said...

"The letter and "their " response needs to be made Public, we need it to be published in one or all of the great newspapers, if only."

Try doing it by Press Release through a Public Relations website. The cost is minimal, unlike paid advertising, because there is no guarantee newspapers will pick it up and run it. But it will for minimal cost put it on the PR wires which all the news and magazine offices subscribe to and will be offered to them for publication, should they so decide.

It's not guaranteed publication, as paid advertising, but is an inexpensive way to get it in front of the media's attention.

If they ignore it, then make an issue online and in letters back to the government about being ignored.

Anonymous said...

What we need is to club together for a fighting fund and fight the ban through the courts, prove SHS harm is a load of twaddle and their whole house of cards comes tumbling down.

auntieban said...


What we need is to get the evidence out that moderate smoking is A BONUS for health, and then we can all stop wasting time on a non-subject like SHS.

Anonymous said...

Last year I was diagnosed with early stage lung cancer, purely an incidental find while being investigated for something else. I had no symptoms at all and resisted the surgery for six months. I was 67 then , smoked since I was 16, I eventually agreed to it and tried to stop smoking before surgery, the consultant was fine said do your best as it will reduce the chance of pneumonia. With the help of an e cig I got down to about 2/3 a day. Surgery went fine, no complications and not as bad as I feared. I managed to stay off for a couple of months then after reading so many comments from smokers who had given up decades ago and were still getting it ( on the excellent lung cancer site GRACE ) very non judgemental. I thought sod it, I missed smoking too much and although the e cig is quite good it is not quite good enough. So I am back to enjoying a cigarette and will take my chances, my surgeon just told me the increased risk but said it was up to me. I just wish anti smokers would understand that the alternative to smoking is not immortality. It is 8 months now and my X-Rays and CT scans have been fine. It is a risk I accept as I agree smoking is far from the only cause. In my own case I think it was due to acute stress at the sudden death of my husband when my immune system seemed to collapse for months. Another friend developed it after the suicide of his daughter after smoking for even longer than me. So far we are both fine.

opinions powered by


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Pages on this blog