Anti-smoking whores don't care whose bed they get into

Just to revisit that recent viral anti-tobacco ad. You know, the one where some sick NHS fuck thought it wise to depict the hatred of smokers by the righteous, and their dreamed method of violent response, via the medium of film.

The blurb on YouTube describes it thus.

Hard hitting new campaign filmed by renowned directors Rankin and Chris for NHS Birmingham East and North.

And renowned they very much are. Especially Rankin. He has been commissioned by the likes of Kylie Minogue, Madonna, The Rolling Stones, David Bowie, U2, Mikhail Gorbachev, Tony Blair, and - bugger me sideways - The Queen!

One must assume that he doesn't come cheap, then. Doesn't it warm the cockles of your over-taxed heart that the NHS are so awash with money that they can afford such fees? The rest of their operation must be going swimmingly, obviously.

Of course, it could be that he is so very anti-smoking that he would donate his services gratis. But then, if that were the case, wouldn't he object to being associated with images such as these?


Well, considering these pictures, of people who don't appear to be subject to any kind of gruesome physical abuse, are being proudly exhibited in promotion of Rankin's work on his web-site, one must draw one of two conclusions.

Either the NHS are spunking a hell of a lot of money, which could be better directed towards front line services, on this disgusting advert. Or Rankin is a quite egregious hypocrite.

Or maybe both.

You couldn't make it up, could you?

All sensible people know that researchers and their "research" agenda is set in stone by their paymasters, none more so than the myriad of researchers in the pay of anti tobacco.

It was with great amusement to me that I came across this little gem of shite, (I know, I shouldn't laugh,) from Dr Guy Eslick, an international fellow of the International Union Against Cancer & Marielle Eslick? A relative perhaps? (Well why not, everybody else is dabbling in nepotism, aren't they?)

They both were paid, god knows how much of taxpayers/smokers money, to "research" and "analyse" how many instances of smoking and smoking related episodes, all 400, of the first 18 seasons of the Simpsons.

These esteemed "researchers" pointed out that:

They found a whopping 795 instances of smoking or references to smoking.

They went on to say that:

More than half involved male characters, a fifth female characters, and about 16 per cent non-gender characters such as animals.

(They don't mix their metaphors, do they?)

Oh chit, here we go, quoting statistics again, just too much for my humble brain but I'll try: you take half of a whole then a fifth from somewhere else and you devide it by 16 percent? Don't you??? (When they mentioned "non-gender" characters my mind went somewhere else entirely before I saw it in it's full context.)

Now this next quote tells me something which negates the whole "research" and one wonders what the fuss is all about?

Smoking was mostly portrayed in a neutral way, but in 35% of cases it had negative connotations and 2% of the time it was shown to be positive.

"Smoking was mostly portrayed in a neutral way" So it doesn't sway the viewer one way or the other, that's what I read.

"But in 35% of cases it had negative connotations" Eh, that's what the anti tobacco industry, for it is an industry; have you seen the money they get from taxes, your taxes and more importantly, smoker's taxes!

From these daft statistics smoking was portrayed in a neutral way, as should ALL "research" and 35% of this "research?" had 'negative' connotations and only 2% had shown to be positive!

Given this show has a world wide audence I think that 2% positivity has the smoking ban fraternity quacking in their boots; in other words they don't believe a bloody word your 'research' says!

I'll leave you, the reader, with one more quote from these dubious pair of anti tobacco fanatics:

While the researchers acknowledged the move may have been intended as satirical, they said that even when smoking is portrayed in a negative way, it can still influence young people's behaviour.

Now, ladies and gents, when, in the last few years, did you see smoking being portrayed in a possitive way? (In the light of all the 'denormalisation' of smokers?)

To paraphrase "know your enemy" because they lie to you!



What a great way to make a living, watching cartoons all day. Geesa job!

Many thanks to Emiliano Zapata, a F2C member, for bringing this to light and contributions from John Watson.