Official: Nurses are allowed to advocate death for smokers

The verdict is in.

Health professionals calling for smokers to die is perfectly acceptable.

In June, Jane DeVille-Almond, a nurse consultant to the NHS, said this on BBC radio.



After hearing such staggering lack of care for humanity from a nurse, a non-smoking but suitably shocked phone-in participant from Southend immediately reacted by asserting, quite correctly, "You should be struck off!"

Not surprising, then, that her sick proposal attracted complaints to the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

According to the NMC's code of conduct, all registered nurses are advised:

•You must treat people as individuals and respect their dignity
•You must not discriminate in any way against those in your care
•You must treat people kindly and considerately

One would assume that calling for smokers to be allowed to die contravenes all three of the above guidelines.

There is no dignity in being allowed to die by a prejudiced health professional. There is nothing kind and considerate in broadcasting to the nation, on a major radio channel, that smokers should be left to die because one disagrees with their personal choices.

And Jane DeVille-Almond, without shadow of a doubt, was actively encouraging discrimination towards her smoking employers (unless she declines smoker money, which of course she wouldn't).

However, the case was heard on Friday and promptly dismissed.

The investigating committee panel has considered this referral and has decided there is no case to answer.

The panel’s reasons for this decision are:

The panel considered all the information before it and concluded that there was no information which would lead it to believe that there was a real prospect of a
finding of current impairment of fitness to practise by a Conduct and Competence Committee.

So there you have it. Hatred of smokers is perfectly acceptable in the nursing community. You can even broadcast that hate to the nation and promote the death of those whom you deem less worthy than you.

Best not tell them then. You can never know what these disgusting people will be sharpening behind your back.

Scared yet?

If Gordon wants NHS savings, here are a few examples which won't threaten 'frontline services'

Look at the savings you could make, Gordon.

HOSPITAL bosses have performed an amazing U-turn on Great Western Hospital’s no smoking policy – all in the name of staff safety.

It's a policy now, not a ban.

That could be because Freedom2Choose pointed out to all NHS trusts in the country that their bans were nothing of the sort. The Health Act 2006 contained no provision whatsoever for banning smoking in the open air, and for a very good reason. Even by the hysterical standards of the anti-tobacco dullards, there is not even a germination of an inkling of an idea that outdoor smoking is remotely dangerous. The presence of cars on the roads where smokers are herded would tend to show that notion up as quite laughable.

We are talking about rather backward lunatics here, though, so I suppose some slack must be cut for their cerebral inadequacy.

Of course, any purported 'ban' is nothing of the sort as it is entirely unenforceable in law.

It is the quite giggleworthy 'voluntary ban'. Something that you aren't allowed to do ... except that you are. By law.

You see, these people are consumed with hatred for smokers. They don't care as we are deemed de-normal. We are outcasts and a danger to polite society (except for their friends though as, just like the most digusting of racists, they will all say that they have a 'smoking friend', who quite agrees, to exempt themselves from being single-mindedly hateful bigots).

Oh, I see. You think I'm exaggerating here, yes? Well, not really seeing as they don't seem to be able to distinguish between normal people enjoying a legal product and an unsightly outbreak of cockroach infestation.

Mr Bagnall confessed that feedback from visitors also suggests that the sight of smokers at GWH’s entrance is damaging the hospital’s reputation.

He said: “Naturally we are concerned about how people outside of GWH perceive the hospital and with little else outside the main entrance other than a group of smokers, it doesn’t give the right impression.”

The BNP would argue that a few 'pakis' hanging around their town is 'giving the wrong impression' too. The fact that Bagnall is insulting his staff and his patients by even entertaining such baseless complaints is quite telling.

And Bagnall, haven't you got better things to be busying yourself with on our taxes than this? I dunno, I just thought that the people who are dying from MRSA, C-diff and appalling healthcare might be more deserving of your time than the views of a few anonymous, prejudiced cranks. Just a thought.

Still, at least this hospital have decided that allowing smokers to die is a bit too far, unlike other 'health professionals' I could mention.

But with more staff trekking out to the outskirts of the site at all hours to get their nicotine fix, Carillion managers are concerned that it might not just be their health they are putting at risk.

Mark Bagnall, Carillion’s director of estates and facilities management, said: “Anecdotally we have heard that Wiltshire police have approached staff standing alongside the road and asked them to move further back onto the hospital site for safety reasons.

“We are, of course, constantly reviewing staff and patient safety and don’t want anyone being put at risk from passing vehicles”

So the ban which wasn't a ban is being relaxed, but only in somewhere a long hike away from the rest of those nice, civilised, non-smokers.

“For this reason we have decided to re-erect two smoking shelters toward the boundary area of the hospital site,” he said.

And it still isn't law that you have to restrict yourself to them. Remember that. So therefore no need for smoking wardens.

Don't be silly.

... hospital management is looking into possible adjustments to the roles of its two smoking officers who monitor smokers on site.

Here's a suggestion of an adjustment you could make, Bagnall. How about making them redundant? It won't cost much, they've been around so briefly that it's no more than a week's wages according to redundancy rules. I mean, what else are they going to do? Walk around the grounds pretending to be Bodie and Doyle?

We are in a recession, remember, and money in the public sector must be squeezed, or did you not notice as you were spunking our taxes up the wall of the out patients block?

You want savings in the health service, Gordon? You could start with handing P45s to two irrelevant smoking wardens, and times that by the number of hospitals which still cling to this illegal restriction of perfectly normal activity.

If you could see your way to cutting spending £43m pa on adverts that no-one is interested in watching too, you might start on the long road to being welcomed back by 22% of the voting population as well.

Or you could continue being a dangerous national laughing stock and upcoming general election also-ran. Your choice.

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.

SwineFlu Vac UK: Vaccinate the vulnerable first...

...then see if it works!

Of course, if you want to give up smoking there is Champix and Chantix for the gullible and the suicidal. Oh, and Chantix is on the NHS too...NICE?

Big thanks to chas from the F2C forum.

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.

At least the Queen doesn't lecture us

It's interesting to note that the never-ending supply of public money is being liberally tapped by those who seem to believe they know better than the public how to spend it.

Health officials to spend £30 million on Twitter and Facebook marketing campaign

Health officials could spend up to £30 million on advertising campaigns that will include networking on Twitter and Facebook, prompting criticism that the money could be better used in frontline services.

The budget, which will be spent over three years, has been set aside by the NHS in the North West.

It will help 50 organisations raise public awareness on such issues as healthy eating, the dangers of alcohol, and sexual health.

Up to eight public relations companies are being hired to devise suitable campaigns.

We have MRSA and C.Diff in our hospitals, there is a huge shortage in nursing staff according to the Nursing Times, yet this is considered a good way of spunking our money up the wall utlising public funds.

Not that there will be much value gained from such knob-jockey initiatives, of course, just a bit more righteous back-slapping in the offices of NHS admin clock-watchers the length and breadth of the country. Oh, and can we have a big pay rise and a taxpayer-funded party at Christmas too?

Strangely enough, this story came but a day after an insightful lad pointed out to the business world that Twitter was a bit of an irrelevance to youngsters, the health lobby's usual preferred reasoning for dicking our taxes on hare-brained schemes.

Twitter is for old people, work experience whiz-kid tells bankers

Today he is the talk of Tokyo, Wall Street and the City. Fund managers, CEOs and analysts are poring over his report, How Teenagers Consume Media, which he wrote last week while on work experience at Morgan Stanley.

In it he laid out the world according to the teenager: a confusing place where the PC is a radio, the games console is a telephone, the mobile telephone is a stereo and text-message machine, the DVDs are pirate copies and no one uses Twitter.

As for Facebook, the NHS office dickwads seem to have blithely ignored health concerns about the medium, in their drive to convince us that their daily dalliances on networking sites, at our expense, are somehow health-related.

Facebook is to blame for 'friendship addiction' and is fuelling insecurity in users

and ...

'Social Networking Sites Pose Health Risk'

Still, it's only a small amount of wasted funds, as highlighted by the unnamed NHS apologist.

It works out at around £150,000 per year, per organisation, which is around £1.07 per year per head of population.

Why, that's OK then. Just over a quid each for an initiative which will do fuck all for anyone but those who gain out of working out ways to divert attention to their being paid to flick rubber bands at each other at our expense.

By the same token, that makes the Royal Family quite cheap at only 69p per taxpayer, considering the Queen and the palaces we pay for have a distinct benefit in attracting tourism.

The Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 69p per person last year - an increase of 3p, Buckingham Palace accounts showed today.

The total cost of keeping the monarchy increased by £1.5 million to £41.5 million during the 2008-09 financial year.

Doing the maths, it works out that a bunch of thumb-twiddling overheads cost us each 9p less, with no corresponding income stream to compensate for their draining the health service of badly-needed frontline funds.

And the Queen keeps her nose out of our personal choices too, God bless her Union Flag embroidered socks.

The health service forgetting its remit to cure us first and foremost, and to keep the hell out of wasteful and judgemental idiocy? I should coco.

Health Nazis - HairyChestnuts

To the NHS, you are merely a number

If you've visited your GP recently, you may have seen the NHS 'It's your choice' logo before. Please don't snigger at the irony.

Anyone who chooses to enjoy tobacco (and who doesn't lie to their doctor to avoid the rigmarole) will have endured, at some point, the lectures from their GP when visiting their practice for anything from an in-growing toe-nail to a broken tibia.

The problem is that, to the NHS, you are just a number.

PSA Targets (from the Department of Health Public Service Agreement, 2004):
• Reduce adult smoking rates to 21% or less by 2010 (currently on target nationally)
• Among routine and manual groups to 26% or less by 2010 (currently not on target nationally)

Ever eager to be the bully's best friend, the Lib Dems think we aren't being hectored enough.

The Liberal Democrats have called for an end to the smoking cessation element of the quality framework (QOF).

[Norman Lamb MP] described payment for telling patients to quit smoking as 'crazy'.

'There should be payments when people actually quit, and nothing less,' he insisted.

Really? Like these paid by Warwickshire PCT, for example?

GPs and Pharmacies are reimbursed for service delivery (inflation still to be applied for 09-10):

£10.50 for each client setting a quit date
£40 for each client still quit at 4-week follow-up
£10.50 for each client not quit at 4-week follow-up. No additional payment for those not followed up at 4 weeks.
Pharmacies only - £3 per supply of NRT

So, these paid-for stages, what happens in them then, I hear you ask.

Contact 1: Plan strategy for quitting, including assessment for drug therapy including carbon monoxide test, access to nicotine replacement therapy, Zyban® or Champix®

Contact 2: Possible quit date
Ensure access to NRT, Zyban® or Champix®. Carbon monoxide test

There seems to be a lot of reference to NRT and Champix there. Not much about willpower and Allen Carr, though (note 500+ reviews and a 5 star rating). I wonder why?

Could it be that other PCTs are like Warwickshire?

Joint working with Pfizer around targeting of clinics/drop-ins

Joint working with Pfizer to develop more effective recruitment campaigns in N&B, also targeting health professionals to refer more and more effectively.

If it surprised you to learn that your GP is being paid bonuses for giving you the third degree, perhaps it won't be as astounding to know that Pfizer profit from NRT in general, and are the sole supplier of Champix.

Of course, if you stand your ground and state categorically that you don't wish to quit, there is always the ultimate threat from the healthist lobby.



Well, the smoker prevalence simply MUST come down to that arbitrary 21% ... one way or another.

Taxpayers pay for the NHS, but administrators 'own' the premises

If you pay national insurance contributions, you might want to read the document below.

Blackpool NHS

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Law & Government Business & Law NHS authoritarianism

As you can see, Blackpool Fylde and Wyre NHS trust are well aware that banning smoking on their grounds is entirely unenforceable by law. They admit that smoking in the open air is legal and that there are no plans by government to change that.

Instead, they have taken to enforcing their own made-up laws on the basis that taxpayers are NOT entitled to set foot on property for which they have paid handsomely.

They threaten legal action if their self-important, righteous rules are contravened. And the reason that they feel this is justified should stagger anyone who has ever believed that the NHS are a service, that we are the ones who pay them for that service, and that therefore we should have some say in the matter.

This is because as the legal owner/occupier of the hospital site the Trust is allowed to impose conditions on the use of its premises.

The legal owners are not those who pay for it, according to the NHS.

They take our money, at pain of fines and imprisonment, and then say that those premises are not legally ours. Instead, an unelected body of administrators have installed themselves as legal 'owners' and are dictating what can or cannot be allowed on property which has been built, maintained, staffed, and equipped with our taxes.

They then go further and state that treatment will be withdrawn from those who disobey.

A patient who refuses to stop smoking outside can be advised that they could be asked to leave the hospital; this would be carried out in accordance with the Trust’s policy on withholding/withdrawing treatment from difficult patients.

See, you thought that by paying national insurance contributions, you were entitled to healthcare. After all, Gordon Brown is always saying that the NHS is free to everyone at the point of delivery.

But you were wrong, it seems. The premises your taxes pay for are not property of the taxpayer, and the treatment you have paid towards for all of your life can be withdrawn on the whim of NHS bureaucrats, without any law saying that what you were doing is illegal.

This is just one of the many ridiculous, wriggling replies that NHS trusts up and down the country have been coming out with to justify making illegal what is perfectly legal under law laid down by government.

It was always assumed that by paying NI contributions (along with those paid by your employer), you were entitled to avail yourself of free healthcare when you need it. Not so. According to this document, your local NHS trust can wipe out your years of contributions and the entitlement which that should entail, for whatever reason they deem fit.

No-one voted these people in, yet they are making up laws that go beyond the ones from parliament. We pay their wages yet they ignore us when we don't like what they are doing. We pay for treatment yet they, unelected, have decreed themselves able to deny us what we have paid for. They revel in spreading vile hatred on national radio too.



If you ever thought that you, the taxpayer, had rights in this country. Think again.

If all else fails, ignore

I don't know much about epidemics of swine flu in Scotland, a few cases of an over-inflated scare story, which doesn't appear more dangerous than the flu we already have, isn't too inspiring to be honest.

There does seem to be an alarming epidemic of righteous fuckwititus north of the border though.

Scotland is first with many of the loony initiatives which gravitate south, and it seems there is no let up as the term 'public service' up there is fast proving to be an oxymoron.

The method usually works. Create a scare not backed by any science; issue a 'public' consultation which is hidden from the public; if those who do disagree find it, airbrush out their responses; if caught out, lie.

NHS Grampian must have done something drastically wrong then. Their consultation on banning smoking in all NHS grounds came up with entirely the wrong conclusion, as detailed in their report. Here are a few snippets.

Nearly 500 responses were received during the consultation period, with just over half from staff and nearly three quarters of respondents stating they were non-smokers.

87% of respondents thought there would be problems going completely smoke free. The most commonly cited were:

- Smoking going “underground” leading to a fire risk
- Non-compliance with the ban
- Infringement of human rights/ personal choice
- Rise in aggression, abuse and increase in levels of stress
- Difficulties in enforcing and policing the ban

The most frequently suggested way to deal with potential problems of implementation was to have a designated area for smoking away from hospital entrances.

Well, that seems eminently fair, does it not?

Agreement with the plan was 46%, so there is considerable doubt as to its wisdom. Maybe a middle ground could be trodden?

Or maybe not.

Smoking to be banned at hospitals

NHS Grampian decision comes despite opposition claims that rule will be difficult to enforce

NHS Grampian’s director of public health Dr Lesley Wilkie said: “I am totally in favour of a smoke-free NHS. We should show some leadership on this.

“We want to introduce policies that work and we will look at how to make this work, but we are a health organisation and we need to set an example.”

Leadership? The scottish government has shown leadership and there ain't nothing about smoking in the open air in the already ridiculous Health Bill of 2005. Grampian's 'ban' is entirely unenforceable, as their report acknowledges. As for setting an example - such incredible arrogance by Grampian. They are public servants, no more. Paid for by the public. The public have said no.

Grampian NHS have spent bucketloads of cash on this unenforceable 'ban' (so therefore voluntary) on the whims of Dr Wilkie and a few of his holier-than-thou friends. When the responses, three quarters of which are from non-smokers, show dissent, this public sector organisation simply ignore the public ...

... and the unions too!

[Unison] warned: “It is unrealistic to expect fair and consistent enforcement of a more stringent restriction.”

Taxpayers pay for the wages of these self-important, idealistic, delusional fucknuts, but Grampian NHS have, as is increasingly apparent in the oxymoronic 'public' sector, brushed aside the views of those who pay for their service in favour of their own bigoted and unworkable crusade.

Now, Derby NHS Trust are much more enlightened. They are acutely aware that they are accountable to the taxpayer. Same dreary result, though.

Smoking costs the NHS around £1.5billion a year. As a public service, funded entirely by the tax payer, we cannot condone smoking in our hospital grounds.

If the taxpayer also gives Derby a big thumbs down, do you think they will reconsider? We know the answer to that one, don't we?

So the last word must be left for the Grampian report.

A few respondents commented on the consultation itself, feeling that it was a “done deal” and NHS Grampian was conducting a “paper exercise”.

Now, considering no-one asked for this voluntary 'ban'. That a 'public' consultation provided ample evidence that the public were uneasy with it, that there was a consensus which agreed there were better alternatives, and that the proposals were unenforceable in law, yet they passed it anyway ... perhaps those who commented as such had a very valid point.

There is nothing public about the public sector when it comes to the NHS, merely a cabal who spend our money without recourse to listening to opposing views. And, with the health system currently operated by an authoritarian Department of Health, there are numerous ways for a few righteous morons to inflict their personal preferences on end users, whilst merely paying a passing lip service to public consultation. And if all those methods fail, they can simply stick their fingers in their ears and ignore ... as they tend to do.