Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Support for smoking rules

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 July 2009
MORE than seven out of ten adults in Scotland say they support proposals to put tobacco out of sight in shops, a new survey has shown.
The study also revealed that 80 per cent of adults in the poll back abolishing cigarette vending machines.

The survey, carried out for Cancer Research UK by YouGov, questioned more than 2,000 people from across the UK.

It also showed 82 per cent of people questioned in Scotland support the smoking ban in pubs, clubs and enclosed public places.

Sixteen per cent opposed the smoking ban.









Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 June 2009 7:15 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

helend498,

01/07/2009 01:28:43
I'm a YouGov member. Why did I not get this survey?

A paltry cherry-picked 2000 people for the entire UK population and you expect us to believe this survey?

2

Rollo Tommasi,

01/07/2009 08:17:26
Helen - Yes, actually - you should believe the survey. Most polls of this type deliberately look to reflect a representative cross-section of the public - to get a good mix by age, gender, location, etc. Polls of this type are much more reliable than those which are open to anyone with a strong view to comment on.

When the sample is representative of the population as a whole, you don't need a large sample size. As far as I know, polls asking about people's voting intentions in elections typically have a sample size of 1,000.

Most people in the UK like the ban on smoking in enclosed public places. Get used to it.
3

Belinda-2,

01/07/2009 09:32:38
How do you know that, Rollo? Don't tell me, you read it in a poll!
4

soapy1,

01/07/2009 09:55:14
If you wrote the questions corectly you could prove that the amoeba is more intelligent than mankind!
People tend to forget that others are paid handsomely to phrase questions to get the required answer. That alone is sufficient to cast doubt on any survey or poll.

If you held the same poll twice within a week it is highly probable you will get two different results depending on who is polled, there is then no real way to establish the validity of any given poll so statements like the majority most people in the UK like the ban are not facts but opinions that like scientific or medical opinion change with the weather!

Does anyone find it interesting that phrases get used to it or get over it are the most used phrases of the fools who believe they have won?

Invariably it is when they have caused suffering to to innocent children by destroying their parents living!
5

Horrible Cankers @Cyber Shebeen,

01/07/2009 10:05:02
4...What about the parents who die from lung cancer or emphesema?
6

Rollo Tommasi,

01/07/2009 10:10:44
Soapy - this is the sort of argument the dyed-in-the-wool pro-smoker uses when they don't like the results of a survey. If only we could be sure they would be so critical of surveys if they came up with results that pro-smokers actually liked!
7

Belinda-2,

01/07/2009 10:26:13
Rollo

What you should be concerned about is that the same organisations that lobby for these policies and laws are the ones that commission survey after survey to tell us how much people want them. They would absolutely not issue press releases about survey results that they did not want people to know about.

The rights and wrongs of the policy cannot be decided on the results of a survey. As far as the display ban is concerned, even the Health Minister was not able to offer any conclusive evidence in favour of the move to ban tobacco displays. She more or less said there was evidence on both sides but the more fundamental point was that tobacco companies want to keep their displays (in order to lure children: not much evidence offered there either) and that her duty as a mother was paramount.

I was under the impression from previous discussions that you have doubts about whether the government has sufficient evidence to justify a display ban?
8

BeeGee,

01/07/2009 10:47:17
Here is a study that goes much further than the ban culture

http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/family-child/your+smoker+Blame+your+demographic/1735895/story.html

Yet more information worthy of consideration

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/earticle/7071/
9

111thstreet,

01/07/2009 11:00:16
Quite depressing that your first reaction when a survey shows something that you disagree with = THE SURVEY MUST BE RIGGED!

2,000 is a reasonable sample size for a survey to draw generalisable results. Yougov have been fairly astute in the past at not designing leading questions. The client is not permitted to ask questions, or design a scale, which would introduce unacceptable bias.

Some comments here clearly express surprise/outrage that people see things differently from them. Perhaps they should learn to Bertrand Russell:

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."



10

Belinda-2,

01/07/2009 11:52:07
#10

Bertrand's words apply to you as well!

Common sense should tell you that a survey of 2,000 out of 5 million people is not very big and the chances of it being an accurate reflection of opinion as a whole are no more than even.

There is no real evidence to support this policy that holds water, regardless of its alleged popularity.
11

Belinda-2,

01/07/2009 11:52:36
sorry, Meant #9.
12

soapy1,

01/07/2009 12:26:28
Rollo you have said nothing that disproves what I say, if you could have you would have!

5, those of us who get to 'play god' and decide if someone lives or dies often have a more realistic view of of life and death, they appreciate life more and realise that death is inevitable. It matters not if it is a child or adult, you are born and you will die, it is not in the hands of doctors, it is in natures hands, cancer is listed as death by natural causes that means it is normal, it is not like an accident, or a deliberate act as in war or crime or even suicide.

Nature balances the numbers of a species to what is available to sustain it, disease in one many methods nature uses to ensure that numbers are sustainable, man is one of the few animals that does not have a set breeding cycle, which is why man is the only animal that culls its own numbers through war in addition to natures way.

This is the way it is, the way nature designed it, the way mankind survives so play with it at mankinds peril.

So now I wait for the anti smokers fear of life and death to kick in and give me a label I understand that fear, I do not understand why they should gain pleasure by spreading it perhaps its just natures way of culling out the weaklings!
13

english charlie,

01/07/2009 12:40:02
YouGov is a company and are paid to do surveys. They know the lifestyles of the people who answer the surveys, so if a company asks them to do a survey to help their cause, it would be very easy to ask the 'right' people.
14

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/07/2009 12:49:50
#10, Belinda C.
If Belinda seeks a higher level of sampling to substantiate her viewpoint, perhaps I could remind her of the ignomnious failure of the ill fated Publican Party candidates, including hon. member Eddie Douthwaite, to attract more than about half of one per cent of the votes cast. Perhaps that sampling truly indicated "an accurate reflection of opinion as a whole", or would Belinda and her F2S mates prefer to dream on? How's membership doing? Not hit four figures yet? I can't really tell as F2C's site seems to have dropped the membership list. Perhaps the numbers aren't so good.
15

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/07/2009 12:53:35
#14, self.
Oops! I missed it! Down in the small print was the relevant number 848. I'm sure it was over 900 recently. Perhaps support is dwindling despite, or because of, cheerleader Gee's best efforts.
16

Belinda-2,

01/07/2009 13:12:45
#14

A general election isn't the same as an opinion poll. Sorry you have little better to do than count the members on our forum (which bears no relation to the members of our organisation, not all of whom participate in online discussions).

The party that introduced the smoking ban endured enormous losses at that election.

Back to the issue, even if 120 per cent of the population wanted to see a policy in place that will damage corner shops and guarantee a blossoming of black market tobacco, it would not show that the Scottish government can support the idea that a display ban will deter youth smoking, and not even the Health Minister can demonstrate that it will.
17

english charlie,

01/07/2009 13:53:46
Once again David of NM make comments which have no relation to the story.
Have you any comments to make about the story?
18

Rollo Tommasi,

01/07/2009 13:59:27
Before Belinda, Soapy and Chas utter any more scurrilous comments suggesting that the Yougov survey must be fixed, they should read this about the accuracy of their work: http://www.yougov.co.uk/about/about-researchquality.asp.

As usual, their comments reflect more than a little hypocrisy. They may claim that surveys should not be trusted. But their organisation (Freedom2Choose) commissioned their own survey last year, into the effects of the smoking laws on pub businesses and F2C tried to publicise the results of this survey. Apparently, it is wrong for ASH to commission surveys, but it is alright for F2C to do so. And it’s interesting that F2C only surveyed on issues on which they felt confident they might get answers to help their case. So, for instance, no survey of medical experts into their views about the risks to health of passive smoking and no survey of bar staff about how their working environment has changed. Have you any comment to make on that, Belinda?

I might add that the F2C survey looked pretty ropey to my eyes. It was far from representative of the pub industry. Only 7% of those invited to comment bothered to do so (and licensees with the biggest chips on their shoulder would be most likely to respond) and no adjustment was made to the results to make it more representative of the industry as a whole (in terms of type of business, location, size, tenanted or freehold, etc). But perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised, since the Director of Yorview (which conducted F2C’s survey) is also a UKIP candidate. So, no possibility of twisting results for political ends there!?!?!
19

Rollo Tommasi,

01/07/2009 14:10:03
And Belinda, in case you're wondering, yes I do still remain unconvinced about the merits of a display ban. But, while the attitude of F2C members is to ignore, criticise or misrepresent any evidence with which they disagree, I am prepared to consider all the evidence before making up my mind.

Isn't that the way we should all work?
20

Rollo Tommasi,

01/07/2009 14:20:06
Sorry, post 19 should read:

And Belinda, in case you're wondering, yes I do still remain unconvinced about the merits of a display ban. But, while the attitude of F2C members is to ignore, criticise or misrepresent any evidence which challenges their own pre-determined and prejudiced views, I am prepared to consider all the evidence before making up my mind.

Isn't that the way we should all work?
21

soapy1,

01/07/2009 14:25:39
Scurrilous? scurrilous is when scientific opinion is bought and paid for, scurrilous is when blatent propaganda and scaremongering is passed off as truth to attain a political end, scurrilous indeed Mr Tommasi!

ASH, CRUK, HMG, are all guilty of of what you accuse F2C of!

why are so afraid of an organisation that has limited access to the mass media Tomassi when the above organisations own it?

Why are you so afraid of anyone with the courage to stand up for freedom of choice Tomassi that you have to produce garbage to defend them joseph Goerbals would be proud of your efforts would he not?

Why are you so afraid to face the truth?

When you seek to accuse others you should ensure your side is whiter than white yours is closer to red white and black! mine may not be white either but at least it is red white and blue!

Were did I mention you gov Tomassi, it was a general comment, where did I mention this specific poll, that too was general which makes it a general opinion. which makes your comment scurrillous!
22

Belinda-2,

01/07/2009 14:31:07
Rollo

The thrust of what I said was that the survey sample was small, and that government-funded groups commission surveys to show that the policies they are lobbying for are popular. It is an apology for providing evidence to support the policy.

I was not involved with the Yorview survey, but the purpose of the exercise was not to collect data about medical evidence. All surveys are selective about what they question subjects about. As for 'licensees with chips on their shoulders' responding to our survey, that does not undermine the case that we are losing six pubs a day in the UK, and before the ban came in we were losing a fraction of this number (was it two a week). I can't comment on the adjustments you think should have been made.

23

Belinda-2,

01/07/2009 14:33:46
#20

The government in Scotland as everywhere else routinely misrepresents the views that opposes its own on this issue.

Of course we should be open minded. Don't pretend that blinkered attitudes are all on our side though.

24

english charlie,

01/07/2009 15:43:13
'The survey, carried out for Cancer Research UK by YouGov, questioned more than 2,000 people from across the UK'.
The results are given for Scotland, so the number of Scots questioned was only a fraction of that number.
25

Rollo Tommasi,

01/07/2009 18:01:00
Belinda - You make my point for me in post 22. You say about the F2C survey "All surveys are selective about what they question subjects about." Yes - and F2C chose as the subject of its survey issues which they thought they could get "helpful" results on.

So don't complain when CRUK selects the subjects of its surveys in the same way.
26

soapy1,

01/07/2009 18:01:07
Not even a Scottish survey, how SCURRIILOUS!
27

Rollo Tommasi,

01/07/2009 18:02:41
Soapy says "Were did I mention you gov Tomassi, it was a general comment, where did I mention this specific poll, that too was general".

So Soapy - I take it from that comment that you obviously have no complaint to make about this particular survey. That's fine and it also means I don't need to respond to the more nonsensical comments in your post.
28

Belinda-2,

01/07/2009 18:28:19
As I said Rollo, the survey was about the economic damage done to pubs, which was under-reported at the time.

I didn't complain about the results of the survey. I just made the point that they are used by lobby groups to 'prove' the popularity of their position - quite frequently, it seems to me.

I expect lobby groups to make frequent use of companies like Yougov and to pay them handsomely for their trouble.

And I also expect that we only hear about survey results when the lobby groups like them enough to write press releases about them.
29

english charlie,

01/07/2009 19:17:38
I note that YouGov didn't give the figures for the whole of the UK, but just for the small proportion who where questioned in Scotland
30

Rollo Tommasi,

01/07/2009 19:40:51
Chas: YouGov did give the figures. The Scotsman chose not to report them. The UK figures are 76% supporting the ban on smoking in enclosed public places; 20% opposing. So pretty similar. You could have found this out for yourself if you could be bothered doing a little research.
31

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/07/2009 19:57:01
#17, chas.w.
To assist chas.' thought processes, let me explain my "irrelevant" comments. The pro-smokers' lobby have attempted to denigrate the YouGov survey on the basis that a sample of 2,000 could not possibly be representative of public opinion, and hence should be disregarded. In the Scottish Regional elections, candidates for the Publican Party gained some 0.5% of the votes cast in their regions. F2S had to abandon their judicial review because of " lack of support". Does this not tend to substantiate the statement in the report that "82 per cent of people questioned in Scotland support the smoking ban in pubs, clubs and enclosed public places." In the words of chas' esteemed chairman - "go figure".
32

Rollo Tommasi,

01/07/2009 19:58:09
Belinda - there is nothing wrong with lobby groups using pollsters like YouGov - if they pay for their services, as you say. If a survey comes out with results that the groups don't like, well that's a risk they have to take. They might not publicise the figures much, but they've wasted money in the process.

I still don't see why you're so vehement in commenting on the practice of other groups when F2C has done EXACTLY the same thing itself. What was the purpose of F2C commissioning its survey, if not "to 'prove' the popularity of their position"?

The biggest difference between the YouGov research for CRUK and the Yorview survey for F2C is that the YouGov survey was clearly handled in a professional, objective and independent way. While the Yorview survey comes across as having been developed for party political ends and has little indication of balance. What adds to this sense is that the Yorview report includes a few statements which imply as "fact" issues which went far beyond the scope of the survey and are highly arguable (e.g. "The smoking ban was enacted to protect employees from the effects of passive smoke, yet all of the potentially harmful components of SHS are covered by the Health and Safety Executive’s Workplace Exposure Limits. None of these components could ever come close to exceeding these limits in any
hospitality venue").

I know you weren't involved in the Yorview report. But you can hardly say you don't know the full facts of that and so can't comment on whether it was conducted properly or not, when you are so quick to criticise other surveys before you have the full facts behind them.
33

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/07/2009 20:20:31
#16, Belinda C.
"A general election isn't the same as an opinion poll." Nothwithstanding that I had referred to the Scottish Regional elections, is Belinda saying that elections don't matter, but that opinion polls do, unless, of course, their results don't agree with her viewpoint? I hadn't counted F2S's membership total, as the site had showed, and still shows, "Total members 848". That number wouldn't appear to the same as "Registered Users", and on the old membership list, many, if not most, members had never posted a contribution. So how many members does her movement pretend to have? If she chooses not to reveal the number for reasons of confidentiality, let me give her a yardstick. CAMRA has about 100,000 members. Has F2C > or "The party that introduced the smoking ban endured enormous losses at that election." And will probably endure more at the next, U.K. or Scottish. So which party does Brenda believe will save her forlorn cause?
"Back to the issue":- I have little truck with the emotional claim that all these corner shops peddling their toxic products will founder. If smokers choose to buy tobacco from dubious sources, then let them remember the phrase "caveat emptor", and take their chances accordingly, as they inhale goodness knows what. Bit like junkies buying narcotics. In fact, more than a bit.
34

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/07/2009 20:40:59
My #33.
I had tried to post "CAMRA has about 100,000 members. Has F2C > or <, or in non-mathematical terms, more or less." Perhaps this clarification will help Belinda to answer the question.
35

english charlie,

01/07/2009 21:53:49
Rollo said in #19 'I do still remain unconvinced about the merits of a display'. ASH Scotland and Trading Standards Scotland were unable to provide any such evidence to the health and Sports Committee.
36

Belinda-2,

01/07/2009 22:03:03
Rollo: as far as I am concerned that survey was done professionally and with integrity. The matter can't be resolved with surveys anyway. Not everyone who answers surveys is fully informed of the facts. As far as I am concerned the policy is an ill-judged attempt to stop people being prompted to smoke when in shops. Many people who witness shoppers on a daily basis are not convinced it will work and that people (especially the young) will get involved with black market trade when they stop seeing tobacco in shops. (Of course some people like David NM care little if shops go to the wall and less if smokers resort to harmful black market tobacco.) David ... a few less than 100,000 last time I counted ;).
37

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 01/07/2009 22:35:16
#36, Belinda C.
If shops are supposedly unable to continue trading without recourse to a toxic product range, perhaps they are best left foundering. While I feel no personal animosity towards smokers per se, smoking is really their unfortunate choice. If their addiction is so very strong as to override concerns for their personal safety and wellbeing, perhaps their plight derives from the greed and indifference of the tobacco companies.
"A few" less than 100k. So, up to four figures, five figures, or even down to three?
Belinda has pointed decided to ignore my comments about the failure of the Publican Party and F2S to achieve any degree of success. Perhaps her hopes rest on a certain bearded chef?
38

soapy1,

01/07/2009 22:48:24
"So Soapy - I take it from that comment that you obviously have no complaint to make about this particular survey. That's fine and it also means I don't need to respond to the more nonsensical comments in your post"

You are not required to respond to anything I post, why did you think you had to?
Its called freedom of choice, it's what I am fighting for!

I see that non of the antis have raised the issue of where the poll was conducted, throughout the UK so the scottish participation would be a fraction of the poll, this does not give any indication of Scottish feeling one way or the other.

Before I get leapt on for hypocrisy the fact I disaprove of polls does not mean I have abdicated my right to free speech and free expression of my opinions!
39

Rollo Tommasi,

01/07/2009 23:11:14
Belinda: If you had said at the outset that poll results may be relevant but shouldn't be treated as the only relevant evidence, as you're saying now, then I would have agreed with you.

Some of your F2C chums seem not to agree with you. They have tried to treat the results of the F2C survey or an old, old poll suggesting there was more public demand for segregated smoking areas than a complete smoking ban in enclosed public places as being conclusive proof that the laws should be changed. Perhaps you could try to persuade them to change their minds???
40

Rollo Tommasi,

01/07/2009 23:18:10
No Soapy. I'm just pleased you've been able to clarify what was unclear from your earlier postings - that you have no criticism to make of this particular survey.

I'm not sure about your other point. This survey was conducted across the UK, but it also is able to give results across the nations and regions of the country. So, for example, support for the ban on smoking in enclosed public places enjoys 75% support across the UK but 82% approval in Scotland.

The survey results not the only deciding factors in this debate, but it's good to know that at least you accept the legitimacy of the results and that they are a relevant issue for consideration.
41

english charlie,

02/07/2009 07:33:50
If ASH and Trading Standards can find no evidence that a display ban would stop youngsters from smoking, why should ordinary members of the public be able to vote to have a ban, simply because they don't smoke?
42

Rollo Tommasi,

02/07/2009 07:49:38
Chas: No ordinary members of the public are voting to have a ban. This is not a referendum. It is a survey.
43

english charlie,

02/07/2009 12:02:54
Rollo. With a vote, a person puts a tick or cross on their selection.
With a survey, a person puts a tick or cross on their selection.
Are you saying that CRUK do not use surveys to influence policies?
44

soapy1,

02/07/2009 12:21:26
Sorry my criticism of these polls is the format of the questions, they should be formatted in a neutral manner giving a full range of choice, but they are not not one of them! the questions are biased toward what ever the client pays for and as such not a valid 'snapshot'of public opinion.

That is a reasonable and valid crticism. All the fancy words, the names ect cannot change those simple facts, as Chas says in effect you are voting for an idea instead of a person, so I would agree it is a form of election and that polls have no other use than to determine policy. So because the questions are not neutral you are getting a biased picture no different to the junk science used for the same purposes!

as for the percentages you quote they appear highr in scotland because fewer people are polled in scotland compared to the whole UK which is an added bias, try polling the same number of Scots as the rest of the UK see what a difference that makes!
45

english charlie,

02/07/2009 14:23:15
I answered a You Gov survey today and it said if you don't know the answer, then guess. Are You Gov surveys reliable? NO.
46

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 02/07/2009 19:26:07
#45, chas.w.
Perhaps chas. should just try sharpening his game, if that's at all possible.
E.G.:-
Q.Who was the foremost jazz guitarist in recent years? A.Pass. Correct!
47

Rollo Tommasi,

03/07/2009 09:02:53
Soapy - you are running round in circles! Earlier on you were at pains to stress you had no criticism to make of this particular survey ("Were did I mention you gov Tomassi, it was a general comment, where did I mention this specific poll, that too was general"). Now you're saying your criticisms DO apply to this particular survey. Make your mind up!

I see you've just decided that the questions behind this survey must have been loaded, even though you've no idea what questions were actually asked. How very open-minded of you.

You're right that the results for Scotland might have changed slightly had a larger sample been used. Note the word slightly. The results might have moved up as well as down. In any case, it will be at least as high as the 75% support for the smoking laws across the UK as a whole. No matter what way you try to twist it, the survey shows overwhelming support for the current laws.

I have to say I admire your honesty through your blanket criticism of polls in acknowledging that the survey conducted by F2C also gave a "biased picture".
48

Rollo Tommasi,

03/07/2009 09:06:25
Chas: I've already answered the question you're asking. See post 32 -

"there is nothing wrong with lobby groups using pollsters like YouGov - if they pay for their services, as you say. If a survey comes out with results that the groups don't like, well that's a risk they have to take. They might not publicise the figures much, but they've wasted money in the process.

I still don't see why you're so vehement in commenting on the practice of other groups when F2C has done EXACTLY the same thing itself. What was the purpose of F2C commissioning its survey, if not "to 'prove' the popularity of their position"?"

As for your post 45, I note you didn't mention what the question you were apparently asked was.
49

english charlie,

03/07/2009 09:51:53
#48 Rollo. It was a question about what shares would perform better (a) or (b), if you don't know, guess. It doesn't matter what the question was, it just goes to show how reliable YouGov surveys are. As you say, the lobby group could ask YouGov to phrase the questions so that they get their required answer.
50

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 03/07/2009 12:45:09
#49, chas.w.
It might be interesting to learn the topic of the survey to which chas. is referring, assuming he knows what he was guessing about. Has he considered entering "Mastermind" yet?
51

Stuart Holmes. Anti smoking campaigner,

London/Manchester 03/07/2009 20:29:23
The following argument was put to the UK.s top criminal judge in order to protect children from being enticed into tobacco addiction via actors smoking: For the full transcript go to www.ActorsSmokingFilmsTV.blogspot.com

Transcript.
JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS: High Court (Royal Courts of Justice. The Strand London) p.42 CO/8239/2006 THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (DEFENDANT) 1 February 2007

SIR IGOR JUDGE: Mr Holmes, good morning. Thank you for coming. We have read your papers and we now would like to invite you to address us. 2. THE APPLICANT: In terms of weight of harm, this is probably the most important case that has ever been brought to these courts. It concerns the premeditated killing of one billion people this century via tobacco addiction, and the intentional enticement of children into that addiction. The root cause of this holocaust is political corruption, corporate crime and the enticement of children into addiction via tobacco advertising and promotion. 3. Actors smoking in films are the most potent form of promoting cigarette addiction, according to the 72 scientific papers in the bundle, tab 3 page 76 -- that is the thick one.

Also on page 67 there is a list of 165 press articles regarding the same. One billion tobacco deaths this century -- that is one thousand million deaths -- is forecast by the World Health Organisation. That figure is so large it works out to be more than 15 times the total War dead of the entire 20th Century, excluding genocide, or one-sixth of the world's population. It works out to be approximately one death and one new recruit every three seconds, this holocaust being due to a consumer product sold in children's sweet shops. 4. As stated in the judgments of the European Court of Justice on 12th December 2006, six weeks ago or so, from Directive 89/552/EC and Article 10 of the European Court of Human Rights: "(1) Article 13. All forms of television advertising for cigarette and other tobacco products shall be prohibited,
52

soapy1,

03/07/2009 21:44:05
"I see you've just decided that the questions behind this survey must have been loaded, even though you've no idea what questions were actually asked. How very open-minded of you"

Either prove or retractthat statement Rollo such statements are merely hot air on your part, they demonstrate that you will say or do anything with or without evidence to score points, it may work well in the schoolyard but not here!

You are the one making the allegation and the onus is on you to prove it.

I regard to court cases Mr Holmes I refer you to Mcteal v Imperial tobacco, Mrs Mcteal whose husband died from cancer allegedly due to SHS and his smoking habit in his place of employment was refused compensation because it could not be proved that tobacco smoke caused his cancer.

Now if what you claim is correct why was Mrs Mcteal not compensated for her loss?

Clearly the courts disagree on the matter of SHS killing people, perhaps it may of been that if they paid out on Mrs Mcteal the government would have to would have to pay out on any government employee in the same position!

So legally SHS does not kill, but because ASH say it does they pass a law on that basis. Would you not agree that it could open the door to a lot of law suits which are costly to defend and which the plaintiffs would lose because because legal precedent says SHS does not kill. Please tell me who is lying here the government and ASH who says SHS does kill or the courts who say SHS does not kill?
53

Rollo Tommasi,

03/07/2009 22:47:22
Soapy: Put up or shut up. If you'd known the questions, you would have quoted them.
54

Iris Beltram,

U.K. 03/07/2009 23:28:52
I am signed up for YOUGOV and haven't been asked to take part in any poll. Nor has my husband.
How were the 2000 people chosen ?
Did YOUGOV know in advance from the applications if the respondents were smokers or non smokers ?
Why is it when we hear results of so called 'polls' when you ask people in your circle THEIR opinions it ALWAYS differ totally from the 'results' of YOUGOV polls.
YOUGOV :
"The last big opinion survey on the subject was conducted in the wake of the Soham murders three years ago and showed 56 per cent support for the death penalty for child killers."

Who are the other 46% who would not want to see the death penalty for the likes of Ian Huntley ? I don't know one person that would not like to see him dead.
These YOUGOV figures are a laughing stock.
55

soapy1,

04/07/2009 00:04:55
Are you denying me my right of reply Tomassi?

Do you refuse to prove your allegations then?

I am not obligated to follow your script, I have the right to ask what I like, and what I asked was within the bounds of your post! the fact you choose to bark orders at me proves how wrong you are and that you know it.

All you have done is proved once again that when cornered anti smokers can only hurl abuse, thank you for your time and demonstration of anti smoking tactics.
56

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 04/07/2009 11:42:40
#52, soapy1.
Soapy will find that Mrs. McTear's case failed because it was not proved to the court's satisfaction :-
(1) That cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer, in the sense that both in the general population and in any individual case it can be said that but for the smoking of cigarettes lung cancer would probably not have been contracted (general causation).
(2) That cigarette smoking caused Mr McTear's lung cancer, in the sense that but for his having smoked cigarettes he would probably not have contracted lung cancer (individual causation).
(3) That Mr McTear smoked cigarettes manufactured by ITL for long enough and in sufficient quantity for his smoking of their products to have caused or materially contributed to the development of his lung cancer.
(4) That Mr McTear smoked cigarettes manufactured by ITL because ITL were in breach of a duty of care owed by them to him.
(5) That such breach caused or materially contributed to Mr McTear's lung cancer either by making at least a material contribution to the exposure which caused his lung cancer or by materially increasing the risk of his contracting lung cancer (fault causation).
The case failed on all counts, all of which would have had to be proved. SHS was not alleged.
Why does soapy feel the government would be obliged to compensate any government employee who died of lung cancer?
Perhaps he will note the pursuer's name for future use.

57

Rollo Tommasi,

04/07/2009 11:52:39
Oh for goodness sake, Soapy. If you consider yourself mature and adult enough to contribute to this board, then you should be mature and adult enough to have your views challenged when you’re talking nonsense.

In this thread you have completely reversed your position with no reason given. In post 21 you were at pains to stress your general complaints about polls did NOT apply to this latest YouGov survey in particular (“Were (sic) did I mention you gov (sic) Tomassi, it was a general comment, where did I mention this specific poll, that too was general which makes it a general opinion”). But then you suddenly change our stance, so that by post 44 you ARE including this YouGov survey in your criticism (“Sorry my criticism of these polls is the format of the questions, they should be formatted in a neutral manner giving a full range of choice, but they are not not one of them!”).

Secondly, in that last quote (“they should be formatted in a neutral manner giving a full range of choice, but they are not not one of them!”) you make a specific allegation about the YouGov survey which you do not substantiate. You say in post 52 “You are the one making the allegation and the onus is on you to prove it.” Actually, it was you who was making the allegation – in post 44, that the questions in the YouGov survey were not neutrally set. The point I was making in post 47 was that you were making an allegation with no supporting evidence.

So where is that supporting evidence?
58

Rollo Tommasi,

04/07/2009 12:42:25
Obviously David, if F2C were so convinced that as a result of the McTear verdict "legal precedent says SHS does not kill" as Soapy claims, they would have rolled out their resident paralegal paraeagle (Martin Hensman, who sometimes posts articles on their site) to say so. But, curiously, they don't. I wonder why not???
59

soapy1,

04/07/2009 12:48:25
The comment was a general comment not specifcally you gov your assumption is completely unfounded, unless you have the capability to read minds of course! The judgement that questions are not neutrally set is the result of every published poll, there is no reason to believe the the format of You Gov's questions are any different. Maybe you would like ot explain why it is given 75% does not smoke a simple two question poll like should smoking be banned in pubs yes/no gets an average 80% no?

A direct question clearly gives a direct answer, look around some of the local papers Tomassi you may just learn something.

Finally if you do not like my style of debate you not have to debate me, it's not as if I hold a gun to your head is it? Freedom of choice Tomassi freedom of choice!

The government also have a duty of care equal to that ITL under the health and safety act, it extends to every citizen of the UK. If ITL were found to be negligent then so would the government be negligent. is that political ambivilance? Maybe, maybe not but it is an excellent reason not to pay out.

60

Rollo Tommasi,

04/07/2009 13:07:14
Soapy: Thank you for confirming that you have not read the questions in YouGov's survey. You just ASSUMED they must be flawed.

To think you also said "You are the one making the allegation and the onus is on you to prove it." How utterly hypocritical of you.
61

Rollo Tommasi,

04/07/2009 13:11:30
Wahey!! Soapy now comes up with another conspiracy theory!!! "If ITL were found to be negligent then so would the government be negligent. is that political ambivilance? Maybe, maybe not but it is an excellent reason not to pay out."

Any supporting evidence? Of course not. But this is just a suggestion, just a bit of innuendo, isn't it Soapy?

Isn't it funny how so many of your arguments are based on assumption, suggestion and innuendo, and how few are based on hard facts????
62

soapy1,

04/07/2009 14:18:52
Theory? maybe, maybe not, some may well believe it some not, who's to say? you say it's theory yet you too provide no evidence.

Until such time as I choose to comfirm or deny your comment yours is also innuendo, is innuendo perfectly fine for the anti smokers but not for smokers then?

Speaking of hard facts I note you cannot give an answer to the question of direct question polls, a nice attempt at diversion though!

Maybe you would like to explain why it is given 75% does not smoke a simple two question poll like should smoking be banned in pubs yes/no gets an average 80% no?

Is your case so weak that you will not answer a direct question?

Clearly, given that you are execising your freedom of choice to engage you fear that some of my comments are very damaging! Any other reason and you would not even bother with me! I wonder what havoc the others are causing elsewhere while you are tied down here?

You and clearly have different agendas it actually does not matter if I win or lose on the boards, it may all be just a spoiling tactic while others make the real point elsewhere, it may not, if it is by now it is done, if not you are committed here for as long as you choose. Is it real or a feint Tomassi?

Is anything I say or do merely to tie you down or not? Can you afford to take the risk either way?
63

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 04/07/2009 16:23:28
#58,Rollo Tommasi.
Soapy is perhaps a bit like Andy Murray, in that he's run out of stamina and inspiration, and now seems to believe that HMG, the Scottish Executive, the pharmaceutical companies, the law courts, you and I and Uncle Tom Cobley are all part of some mega conspiracy to in some way subvert the truth. Perhaps he needs some of his F2S chums to ride to his rescue.
As he runs round, ever more frantically, in circles, he's become noticably more aggressive towards yourself, in that the previous form of address of Rollo, has become Tommasi, even though he hasn't taken the trouble to spell it properly.
Perhaps my turn for his venom and virulence is still to come.
64

soapy1,

04/07/2009 17:41:41
Since when did spelling bar anyone from freedom of expression if thats the best you've got then why should anyone take you seriously?

Perhaps you would like to provide the answer tothe question above?



65

soapy1,

04/07/2009 17:51:33
The question being:

Maybe you would like to explain why it is given 75% does not smoke a simple two question poll like should smoking be banned in pubs yes/no gets an average 80% no?

I would hate to be accused of trying to confuse you!
66

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 04/07/2009 18:02:04
#64, soapy1.
Soapy is as free as any of us to express his opinions, but failure to pay attention to detail merely underlines what is normally a very weak argument on his part. Soapy and others are free to accord me the seriousness they think I am deserving of. Personally, I find it difficult to take seriously the flawed arguments of soapy and his assorted F2S chums, chas.w. et al.
I trust soapy regards this as an answer to his question above.
I wish the pro-smokers' lobby were as good as I at answering questions, as they do tend to switch off when they are presented with questions they feel uncomfortable with.
67

soapy1,

04/07/2009 18:22:12
Wrong question sport if you bothered to read it the question was:

Maybe you would like to explain why it is given 75% does not smoke a simple two question poll like should smoking be banned in pubs yes/no gets an average 80% no?

I wish the pro-smokers' lobby were as good as I at answering questions, as they do tend to switch off when they are presented with questions they feel uncomfortable with

Is it just irony or deliberate policy that neither of you two are willing to answer the question asked now for the fourth time incidentally in posts 59,62,65, and now here?

Maybe it is perfectly acceptable for the antismoking lobby to dodge questions but not smokers!

68

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 04/07/2009 18:57:19
#67, soapy1.
If soapy had bothered to absorb my #66, he might just have spotted that it was in response to his #64, and clearly labelled accordingly. See what I mean about attention to detail, sport?
As #59 and 62 seemed to be directed at Rollo, I had left it to him to answer more than capably, but in order to avoid confusion, just what "two question poll" is he referring to, particularly as it would only seem to contain one question. As it wouldn't appear to feature in the original report at the head of this thread, perhaps soapy could indicate the source, or is it just one of the favoured ones of pro-smokers, dating from before implementation of smoking restrictions, and hence somewhat outdated, rather like soapy's thinking?
69

soapy1,

04/07/2009 19:09:47
As you chose to answer a post to Rollo you inhertited the question go back read through the posts again do as suggested and you will become enlightened, I am not here to do your research!

It involves a little work so you could be forgiven if you don't want to trawl through recent polls in local papers throughout the country, in fact it is fine by me if you don't!

Enjoy you're research.

I note that you have no opinion on the acceptability of anti smoking lobbyists doing something and objecting to smokers doing the same, still never mind you dont need to comment on that now, the point is not lost!

70

Rollo Tommasi,

04/07/2009 19:27:32
Soapy: My question is basically the same as David's.

What do you mean by "two question poll"? And can you point us to which polls give the results you speak about?
71

soapy1,

04/07/2009 19:45:11
My apologies, having read back what I meant was a single question with a yes/no answer! I.E. one question with a dual choice answer. a number of these type polls have recently been carried out on some of the local papers, they indicate that an average of 80% of the public do not support the ban. Of course these are not government sponsered polls which probably explains the reversal of trends, I hope that helps you.
72

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 04/07/2009 21:34:20
#69 & 71, soapy1.
I didn't actually "choose to answer a question to Rollo", but simply sought explanation of the "two question" poll reference, and clarification of the source, so that Rollo wouldn't be too confused.
Having gone back through soapy's postings, I see no early explanation, so am not enlightened.
As Rollo has posed much the same question without response, could soapy give us some clue about these "local" polls. Local to where? Rainworth, Beijing? And just what was the wording of the question?
I should hate to think, as I'm sure soapy would, that the poll(s) was / were in any way flawed.
Hope this helpful to sport.
73

Rollo Tommasi,

04/07/2009 23:45:05
Good grief. Apparently Soapy thinks these polls which appear in newspaper websites should be taken as an accurate reflection of public opinion! Never mind the fact that very few people actually participate in them and there seems to be very little which prevents people from multiple voting.
74

MrsJJS,

England 05/07/2009 07:30:53
As I've come across survey's in the past that were worded in such a way, no answer I gave would have truely reflected my opinion and as there seemed to be issues surrounding what questions were asked and how they were worded, I've been to the YouGov website. They seem to provide all published results which also include the questions asked. However I was unable to locate this particular survey on their site.
75

Rollo Tommasi,

05/07/2009 10:29:44
Well I've found the results, from a little googling: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/pressreleases/2009/july/two-year-smokefree-england.

And here is how the question was framed:
"How strongly do you support or oppose the ban?"

Looks pretty neutrally worded to me.
76

soapy1,

05/07/2009 11:23:55
I Would David but the information would come from F2C which you would simply label as biased I recommend you search all the local British Papers your self that way I cannot be accused of undue influence (I do however claim responsibility for the loss of the Titanic having dropped my ice, World Wars I and II and the current recession if there are any other accusations, allegations or anything else you would like to level at me by all means feel free! The sarcasm is of course free just consider it as quid Pro Quo.) Beijing is optional!

So because a newspaper creates a poll its automatically suspect if the government does it isn't rather defeats your views on polls Tomassi! they are either all good or they are all bad generally speaking, they cannot be both. and no you have not found the results, which part of local newspapers eludes you? I offer you the same recommendation as David search the local papers!

I note you do not supply the multiple choice answers to the question that you quote, is that because they will prove my point?

Appologies for the absence of the
others I think they're elswhere causing mayhem, or it may be me here causing havoc, being the idiot you take for I cannot be sure!

Mrs JJS, the polls I am refering to are conducted in the local press which is why you are unable to find it on You Gov, but the point I made refering to the neutrality of questions posed could be applied to any poll created from any source. Yes as you point out from past polls, polls can be worded to get a tailored response which is the heart of the problem.
77

Rollo Tommasi,

05/07/2009 11:39:23
Soapy says: "I note you do not supply the multiple choice answers to the question that you quote". That's because your complaint has been about the framing of the question asked, not what percentage of respondents agreed or disagreed. Or don't you remember that? You seem to be shifting your ground on enough other issues on this board.

If you bothered to look at my last response, you'd have seen I provided a link to the CRUK news release about the survey. That provides details of the results as well as the questions. But since you obviously like having everything laid out exactly for you, let me give you the results:

Question: How strongly do you support or oppose the ban?

Strongly support: 57%
Support: 19%
Oppose: 12%
Strongly oppose: 8%
Don't know: 3%

If only you would be as helpful, and actually provide details of these supposedly high quality newspaper polls you refer to.
78

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 05/07/2009 12:32:11
#76, soapy1.
I think it would be only reasonable to consider the views of F2Ss to be more than a little biased, but to save my trawling through every publication from The Orkney Observer to the Truro Times, perhaps soapy could enlighten us as to the standard and range of his reading material?
As Rollo has pointed out, these newspaper polls tend to be very simplistic and only reflect the opinions of that part of the market sector that reads the particular publication, and then takes the trouble to respond, with multiple postings often being possible, as I've discovered myself where I've chosen to participate. Hence, readers of the Times may well give different responses from Sun readers to the same questions. So, let me guess. Was it the Sunday Sport our soapy was reading?
Soapy's omnipotence in being able to effect world events is quite impressive, so goodness only knows what the anonymous "others" are up to.
As soapy is scarcely causing havoc, here or elsewhere, perhaps he is simply the idiot he imagines we take him for, though apparently he can't even be sure of that.
Still, 11.23 at night is a bit late for cogent thought processes.
79

soapy1,

05/07/2009 13:25:17
Keeping you tied up though David and your dismissal of what the others are doing is amusing. I have told you I am not here to do your research look through the localpapers if you are that interested in the topic you will do what it takes! Do you really think I read the Sunday Sport? Actually I'm stunned that you think I can read!

Simplistic or not they are still polls, national polls are extropolated from a core sample to produce a possible percentage, local polls are more specific, ie the North may take a different view on any given topic than the South, even within the North alone the views may polarised by district, so many variations, what may be good for West Yorkshire may not be for North Yorkshire! what may be good in a national poll may not be good for either N. or W. Yorkshire! So local polls are very valuable to the people who live there.

Tommasi commen sense (remember that) dictates that the answers would be useful the wording is biased in that it dilutes the answers! if the poll was run again as do you support the smoking ban yes/no, you get a clear picture with none of the dilution of the answers!

Given the propensity that CRUK and ASH have for junk science and Nazi style propaganda and you your support for Nazi like policies I am not surprised that you chose it. David of course had the good grace to admit that he would consider anything coming from F2c to be very biased so there is no real surprise that David and I at least agree on the point of neutral polls.

I do however accept your tacit agreement that newspaper polls are automatically suspect and government ones are not since you have not challenged the issue no point in challenging it now it would make you look like what you claim I am!

Since the scources for the polls are on F2C and you are likely to consider F2c to be biased I direct you to my comment to David regarding research above.
80

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 05/07/2009 14:32:41
#79, soapy1.
Entertained, rather than "tied up", would be apposite, I think. I await with non-bated breath to learn what the mysterious "others" will achieve. Not another Judicial Review collapsing from lack of support?
Not many such polls in the "Pleasantville Post", I'm afraid.
I had assumed that soapy could read, and wasn't just having the answers read out to him by his Mum. What's wrong with the Sunday Sport? Items too far fetched, even for soapy?
Soapy's dissertation on the merits of local polls is very enlightening, but overlooks the fact that most of those he refers to are just a means of filling some column inches, and entertaing the reader. A bit like crossword puzzles or sudoko in a way.
David didn't actually say "he would consider anything coming from F2c to be very biased", rather that "it would be only reasonable to consider the views of F2Ss to be more than a little biased". More than a trifle different, I feel. So, once more soapy has failed to pay attention to detail, and followed his chum chas. w.'s practice of misquoting correspondents.
At least he's troubled to spell "Tommasi" properly, even though, like Sarah Palin, he struggles to name a newspaper he actually reads.
81

Rollo Tommasi,

05/07/2009 14:56:52
Like David, I'm also finding Soapy's hypocrisy entertaining.

At post 76 Soapy said "I note you do not supply the multiple choice answers to the question that you quote, is that because they will prove my point?" That was even though I'd provided him with a link to the relevant website!

And yet when Soapy fails to provide examples of these newspaper polls, his line suddenly changes to "I am not here to do your research look through the localpapers [sic]".

One more thing, Soapy. You say "local polls are very valuable to the people who live there" and that they give a good impression of different patterns of support for issues region by region. That of course assumes that only people from that locality vote in these polls. Can you hand on heart tell David and me that you have never participated in an online poll from a local newspaper which does not cover the Rainworth area???
82

soapy1,

05/07/2009 16:57:40
I'm glad you are entertained, you obviously have experience of the Sunday sport old horse so I'll accept your word for it! David said he thouhgt anything comin from F2c would be biased, the degree is immaterial you cannot cannot make claims like that and demand in formation from that scource and you call me hypocritical?

Tmmmossszsi is that better? a lot of people online have spelling difficulties, grammer difficulties ect. Do you intend barring anyone who has them from debate? what if they have dyslexia? does that exclude them from your Nazi world?

The trouble with Nazis is that they get too arrogant, they think they are better than anyone else, like anti smokers they believe they can coerce everyone to their way of thinking, and if they won't play then they are second class citizens. you have your right to opinion, what you do not have is the right to run everyone elses lives for them, one day you workout what is going on when you do it will be too late, neithe rdo you have the right to belittle another Nazi trait for all you know I could be dyslexic, poorly educated, a victim of bullying anything!

Well boys I do not expect any sign of conscience, or regret, Heoss the commandant of Auschwitz before his execution expressed but one regret h e did not spend enough time with his family, anti smokers are no different! if you smoke, drink too much or fat, if you differ from their idea of the norm then you are not human, neither of you are under obligation to communicate with me, if you do not like my views thats fine, but if your aim is to convert me to Nazism it will a cold day in hell before you do!

Have fun boys, while you still can bye!
83

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 05/07/2009 18:08:24
#82, soapy1.
Soapy's doing it again. David didn't quite say "he thouhgt anything comin from F2c would be biased". So is that really the source he feels we should be researching for true facts? Colin Gee's little vituperative homilies, attached to some smoking connected report he's culled from the world's press? Even good old FOREST is noteworthy for being decidedly less partisan.
Sadly, soapy has now descended to Petrol Man's level of so-called debate, namely that any one favouring smoking restrictions is an adherent of Nazi doctrine.
So is soapy claiming to be "dyslexic, poorly educated, a victim of bullying anything!", or perhaps some permutation of these?
Maybe he should just spend more time with his family, and have fun while he can. Au revoir!

84

english charlie,

05/07/2009 18:34:30
Rollo talks about hypocrisy in #81 and accuses soapy of ASSUMPTIONS in #60, when he is often using ASSUMPTIONS himself.
85

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 05/07/2009 18:56:03
#84, chas.w.
Hey, charlie's back on board! To quote #17, "Have you any comments to make about the story?"
86

english charlie,

05/07/2009 19:06:15
#85. I don't normally answer your stupid comments, but I think you'll find that I have made comments on the story.
If Rollo can make accusations, then others should be able to question them.
87

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 05/07/2009 19:51:07
#86, chas.w.
Chas. usually does respond to me, but is welcome to stay in the huff, if he so wishes, after previous thrashings, but he will observe that I also have made various comments relative to the thread, from #14 onwards. I shall leave Rollo to reply to chas.' late intervention on soapy's behalf, as the latter is presumably "resting".
88

Rollo Tommasi,

05/07/2009 21:30:22
Chas: The issue is about making accusations without supporting evidence. In post 44, Soapy described "all" surveys as being tainted, including this YouGov survey. He gave no supporting evidence to back up this claim, and in particular no examples of how the YouGov survey was tainted. I challenged him on that. He had a right of reply (in fact, he still does). However, he has to date chosen not to use that. An accusation which he cannot demonstrate is invalid.

It is not unlike a recent situation where you claimed "Over 30,000 people die every year in Britain because of air pollution". Since you had chosen to make that claim, again the onus was on you to justify it, but again you provided no substantiating evidence. On that occasion, I found sources which actually made your point. I gave you every right of reply. But you refused to use that right of reply and were unwilling to acknowledge those were the sources you were thinking of.

If you make more claims in future which you can't back up, expect me to challenge you then too.
89

english charlie,

06/07/2009 08:41:39
Rollo. Instead of coming back with answers to my comments of ASSUMPTIONS, you come back with not answering one question from past stories. You, yourself, do not answer all questions. If you don't want to believe that 30,000 die from air pollution in Britain each year, that is your right.
90

Fj,

06/07/2009 09:45:00
With surveys you need several in order to obtain a guide. No one on it's own is reliable. In politics e.g. there are YouGov, Populous, Mori, ICM, Comres etc. and the monthly results provide an overall picture as their samples are from different people, their questions phrased differently and are commissioned by organisations with differing views with, quite often varying results. As all are entitled to vote, their responses are, obviously, relevant.

I've been asked to partake in the above, several times, but as a regular pub goer, I have never been asked in a survey on smoking. I've no idea who they've asked or indeed, if they've asked but I've never heard of a regular pub goer being asked. On this basis alone I wouldn't trust this 'survey'.

It is also noticeable that the ban is now being commented on by mainstream politicians and it will take a bit more then the usual response of 'It's a success' to deal with.

91

Rollo Tommasi,

06/07/2009 22:30:59
Chas (89): I call it reasonable inference. You and Soapy both made claims. Neither of you provided substantiating evidence. I gave you and Soapy every opportunity to get your facts straight. You both chose to remain silent.

In the circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that you are both trying to hide the shortcomings in your argument. I’ve not just made up this rule by the way. You’ll find the same principle applies in courts of law where inferences can be drawn from a person’s deliberate decision to remain silent.

In your case, of course, you were desperately trying to hide the fact that the 30,000 deaths per year from air pollution figure was calculated using epidemiological evidence.

I believe that 30,000 deaths per year is a reasonable figure and I believe the underpinning epidemiological evidence. Do you?
92

Rollo Tommasi,

06/07/2009 22:39:07
FJ (90): I don’t agree with you when you say “With surveys you need several in order to obtain a guide. No one on it's own is reliable”. Organisations commission one-off surveys all the time and they are considered reliable. That said, political opinion polls need to be repeated regularly to allow trends to be measured.

There may be a margin of error to this YouGov study, but it’s unlikely to be any more than +/- 5%. In other words, public support across the UK for the ban on smoking in enclosed public places very probably lies between 70-80%, perhaps even more. Any way you cut it, it still reflects very strong support for these laws.
93

Fj,

07/07/2009 07:05:29
For political polls, the margin of error is generally +/-3%. To be a member of the BPC (which YouGov is) you must also provide the supporting data - questions, demography, weightings, dont knows, etc. and many times studying this, is enlightening. E.G. Politically, there may be a headline rise for Labour but studying the data you find that the increase is in their heartland areas, effectively no increase at all in FPTP. So, therefore, irrelevant but a good headline. At best, It's a snapshot of that particular demograph. Nobody risks money on one poll and political polls occur regularly to establish the trend.

The main point here is relevance as in political polls those 'certain to vote'( important question) are the relevant responses. Whilst it can be argued that a ban could be applied in offices etc, pubs and clubs are a totally different demograph. Not everybody uses them and therefore, logically, a poll should be of the regular users - I wouldn't ask a Frenchman how he would vote in a British election. For some reason, they don't want to do that.
94

english charlie,

07/07/2009 08:11:59
#91 Rollo says 'epidemiological evidence'.
When a smoker dies of lung cancer, heart disease or any other 'smoking related' disease, it is ASSUMED that the death was due to smoking.
Let's use the same logic with the elderly. The vast majority, if not all, would have taken a prescription drug before their death. Would it be correct to ASSUME that prescription drugs were the cause of their death?
95

Rollo Tommasi,

07/07/2009 08:47:01
FJ says "political polls occur regularly to establish the trend". I've already accepted that a series of polls is necessary if you want to ascertain information about trends. But trend information isn't necessary in many circumstances, beyond political voting intentions. In other cases, one-off surveys are valid.

I don't agree that surveys should be restricted to "regular users" of pubs and clubs. First, public health concerns all of us (e.g. we're concerned about working conditions on construction sites and oil rigs, even though relatively few of us work there). Second, any of us can, and many of us do, visit pubs, clubs and restaurants from time to time. So the condition of these premises is relevant to the adult population generally.
96

Rollo Tommasi,

07/07/2009 08:54:33
Wrong again, Chas. Far from assuming that all deaths from lung cancer, heart disease, etc are smoking related, epidemiological evidence helps us understand how many of these deaths would have occurred when they did had smokers not smoked.

It works for smoking and passive smoking in the same way as it works in relation to air pollution, so that it is not assumed that all lung cancer deaths in a year are due to air pollution.

Clever, isn't it?
97

english charlie,

07/07/2009 09:19:48
#96. That is exactly my point. Lung cancer, heart disease, etc are not caused by smoking, but if a smoker get one of these diseases, it is ASSUMED that smoking caused the disease.
98

english charlie,

07/07/2009 09:30:27
#97. Maybe I should have said that there a number of causes of these diseases, but when a smokers gets one of them, it is ASSUMED that smoking caused it.
99

Rollo Tommasi,

07/07/2009 22:56:43
Ehm Chas, smoking is by far the largest single cause of lung cancer and also a major cause of heart disease. Our understanding of that is not based on assumptions. It's built on a lot of research.
100

english charlie,

08/07/2009 06:57:27
Rollo. Only a small percentage of smokers get lung cancer. A small percentage of non-smokers also get lung caner. The same goes for heart disease. If a smoker gets lung cancer or heart disease, it is ASSUMED that smoking caused it.
Smoking does not cause cancer or heart disease, otherwise ALL smokers would get them.
101

Rollo Tommasi,

08/07/2009 07:27:44
Chas: Your comment "Smoking does not cause cancer or heart disease, otherwise ALL smokers would get them." is utterly bizarre.

Using your logic, exposure to asbestos would not be a cause of asbestosis, because not every person exposed to asbestos gets asbestosis.

The risk of contracting lung cancer is MUCH higher for a smoker than for a non-smoker - research (not assumption) tells us this. A lifelong male smoker has a 15.9% chance of developing lung cancer by age 75. For a lifelong non-smoker, that chance is 0.4%. For former smokers, the risk of contracting lung cancer by age 75 decreases quickly the earlier they gave up smoking (http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?artid=444618).



102

Fj,

08/07/2009 07:43:10
Rollo, I and the BPC disagree totally. Weightings are given on certainties and frequencies of use. no morality or ideology is involved. You don't accept the BPC requirements, which are there for a reason, and previously you don't seem to accept CI's in statistical surveys either, which are there for a reason. Simply you just want the ban and will support the slightest thing in it's favour irrespective of it's veracity or how its manipulated. Make hay while the sun shines.
103

Fj,

08/07/2009 07:54:41
Rollo,101: Figures are correct according to Doll, 16% at age 70. 6/1 odds. I thought every smoker was guaranteed a horrible death before the average male life should end! According to Pinto, smokers will die on average 10 years earlier. The average male life should therefore be 85. Surely some mistake.
104

english charlie,

08/07/2009 10:12:53
Rollo. As you say there are other causes of lung disease.
A friend of mine died a few years ago and he suffered from asbestosis, but he received no compensation because he was a smoker and it was ASSUMED that smoking was to blame.
Another friend suffers from COPD. He blames it onto working in very dusty conditions and once again, being a smoker it is ASSUMED that smoking is to blame.
105

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleantville, U.K. 08/07/2009 12:26:42
#104, chas.w.
Perhaps it would be PRESUMED that smoking would be a contributory factor in both cases.
106

soapy1,

08/07/2009 13:02:53
83 I am not claiming anything I am asking how do you know that I am not?

If I were I honestly doubt you would change your attitude!

You clearly enjoy belittling those who make mistakes in spelling to the point of bullying I can only assume that because your case is so weak the only recourse is to terrorise those who either have dyslexia or are poorly educated in the hope that will not return.

NEWSFLASH:

Dylexics and the poorly educated have as much right to express their opinion without fear or predujice as anyone else, oppose their viewpont by all means but do not bully, intimidate or abuse them.
107

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 08/07/2009 14:33:20
#106, soapy1.
Not what? Spending more time with his family, and having fun while he can, or dyslexic, poorly educated, a victim of bullying, anything!
Soapy doesn't realise that my principal bone of contention with him, and I believe Rollo's, is that he'll make some claim then fail to substantiate it with some facts or research.
If he's so bothered about his spelling or grammatical failings, I suggest he composes his postings as Word documents, uses the spell check feature, then copies and pastes with any necessary corrections.
Dyslexia is not something to be ashamed of, as I believe the actress Susan Hampshire suffered from it, but managed to overcome her difficulties. If it's any consolation, I often refer to my dictionary to verify spellings and nuances of meaning when I am in doubt.
The important thing is to continue the debate, rather than just abandon it because you run out of answers. Hope this helps.
108

soapy1,

08/07/2009 14:49:00
It is not I who regularly condemns posts because of spelling or grammar David it is you, my point is that by condemning people spelling,grammer ect. Frightening them off the way you do is not debate but bullying!

It displays that you have no case, that you fear anyone who threatens your percieved norm and will use any form of abuse to get your way, typically anti smoking and worse still typically Nazi, your attitude is directly comparable to any Nazi who ever baited a jew and just as dispicable.

Dictionary or not, spellchecker or not, people have the right to express their point of view without prejudice, belittlement or bullying, it is sad that some people cannot see this.

Research has nothing to with what is under discussion here if you honestly believe that research is more important than any persons dignity then I regret that there is little or no hope for you as a human being.

109

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 08/07/2009 14:58:30
#108, soapy1.
I welcome any one making constructive contribution to debate, but I also feel free to attack them with counter arguments.
Soapy, however, has lamentably shown a lack of such ability by dragging in the Nazi allusion, a ploy commonly used in the face of defeat.
May he continue to debate vigorously, and keep his dignity, otherwise the big boys will continue to attack him and his lack of argument.
110

soapy1,

08/07/2009 16:31:57
Oh dear is that it then? a comparison of bullying be it Nazi and Davidite is still a comparison not an assumption or presumtion of victory or defeat which you appear to excell at, presumptions and assumtions that is.

Interesting phrase 'big boys' should I come back when you've grown up then?

Yes I am unashamedly mocking you as there is little point in debating you! your inability to see a comparison of any description be it historical fact or conceptual, your propensity to try to bully anyone who disagrees with you makes an entertaining diversion to normal operations elsewhere which I may add are showing great promise and support elsewhere. Of course I am free to choose whether or not to debate you and as you can see I am exercising that choice.

I digress, bullies are by their very nature are cowards, they depend on fear and perceived strength to get their way, they pick on people who are disadvantaged, or less able to articulate themselves or who just roll over and take it.

Once a few good people make a stand against them they fade away to find other victims, they will bluster and act tough in front of their own kind but caught alone are easily dealt with. So it was with the Nazis, so it will be with the anti smoking lobby, another comparison David just so that you know!

To be attacked for defending the dignity of others is no hardship, it is part of the duty of all decent people to defend those who for whatever reason have difficulty defending themselves, whether that be be due to a medical condition, poor education or any other reason. Then of course duty is something a coward will sneer at as being of no value and I fully expect you will do that or run away. There is no justification for bullying, the Nazis were not justified in bullying their opponants and a six year war demonstrated that, the anti smoking lobby are not justified in their bullying either and that will also be proved no matter how long it takes. Yes another comparison of historica
111

soapy1,

08/07/2009 16:33:05
historical fact and todays cowardly, bullying anti smoking lobby
112

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 08/07/2009 18:59:16
#110/111, soapy1.
I hope soapy feels better after that long diatribe about not a lot.
Shouldn't he be out assisting his mates in "normal operations elsewhere which I may add are showing great promise and support elsewhere", or is that just another unfulfilled hope, like all those Judicial Reviews and futile court cases?
Whether soapy debates with me or attempts to mock me is entirely his freedom to choose.
113

soapy1,

08/07/2009 20:24:27
So now your reduced to ridicule, your case is a dead man walking!
114

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 08/07/2009 20:47:27
#113, soapy1.
Still walking, and very much alive, despite soapy's oxymoron.
115

soapy1,

08/07/2009 20:51:35
what will you do when this bill dead and buried David?
116

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 08/07/2009 22:05:09
#115, soapy1.
So, what will soapy do if it's not?
117

soapy1,

08/07/2009 22:22:32
carry on fighting until it is!
118

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 08/07/2009 22:24:22
#117, soapy1.
His prerogative.
119

soapy1,

08/07/2009 22:31:06
Naturally David of course it's my perogative and on that amicable note I bid you goodnight!
120

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 08/07/2009 22:35:31
#119,soapy1.
Soapy's beginning to sound a bit like Ed Murrow.
121

Rollo Tommasi,

08/07/2009 22:58:15
FJ (102 & 103): I really don’t know which of the BPC requirements the YouGov survey fails to meet. So methinks you are being just a tad premature to reach judgements about my perspective.

I’d also be interested to know how you arrived at the opinion that “I thought every smoker was guaranteed a horrible death before the average male life should end!” But Doll’s 50 year study of doctors makes a persuasive argument that smoking can typically cut 10 years off a person’s life. Based on the participants of that survey, 19% of non-smokers had died by the age of 70. But 19% of smokers had died by the age of 60. Likewise, 41% of non-smokers had died by age 80, while 42% of smokers had died by age 70. And, while 26% of smokers were still alive at age 80, 24% of non-smokers (and only 4% of smokers) were still alive at age 90.
122

Fj,

09/07/2009 05:53:36
Rollo: Doll's figures were related purely to Lung cancer. A non smoker has a 0.01% chance of deveopment. Start smoking in teens and give up at 30, it becomes 2%, at 50, 6%, at 70, 16%. After smoking 50 years, you have a 6/1 chance, this against an average male lifespan of 78 in UK. It was Pinto claimed the '10 year plan'. Smokers, at any age, have vastly more chance of death by other means and some of us, given these figures, can't understand the obsession.

All surveys should have supporting data, commissioners, main questions, subsidiaries, weightings, undecideds, demograph. Without this, it's not worth the paper it's written on.
123

Rollo Tommasi,

09/07/2009 07:32:47
FJ: I disagree on both counts.

Doll's figures related to comparative mortality generally between smoking doctors and non-smoking doctors (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7455/1519, figure 3). Although the 6/1 chance you refer to only refers to lung cancer, Doll's figures relate to other causes of death too.

Overall, Doll concluded that lifelong smokers on average lose around 10 years of life expectancy, compared with lifelong non-smokers. Around half of smokers die prematurely as a result of their smoking habit. As a result, those in the unlucky 50% would on average lose more than 10 years off the average life expectancy for a non-smoker.

As for the YouGov survey, how do you know it does not contain the features you refer to? The BPC Statement of Disclosure requires members to either publish reports containing specified information or "or make such information available on request." Have you or anyone requested this information from YouGov, and have they refused to make this information available????

You seem determined to disregard the findings of the survey without proper cause.
124

english charlie,

09/07/2009 07:41:31
Rollo ASSUMES. David PRESUMES. MAYBE, POSSIBLY or PROBABLY because they have no proof.
125

Rollo Tommasi,

09/07/2009 08:00:01
Chas: My proof is clear - from the scientific evidence I have referred to and which you have not criticised.

All you have offered are a couple of sketchy hearsay examples in post 104. I don't know what kind of assumptions you think were made or what they applied to. But I'm prepared to suggest that neither example related to the building of scientific evidence to assess how dangerous smoking is to health.

In particular, you claim as far as your late friend with asbestosis was concerned, it was assumed that his death was caused by smoking. Was that not simply a negotiating ploy by the insurers which wasn't challenged? Did the case go to court? It's unlikely that a court of law would resort to assumption.
126

Fj,

09/07/2009 08:28:50
Rollo: I think you're confusing Doll's initial work with the Drs. survey later, which involved MI as well as LC and was taken over by Hill and Peto (not Pinto as said above, apologies) This is a very contentious study based on heresay as all are. I accept Doll's LC work but this one is more dubious. Smokers don't doubt a risk, certainly of LC, but we keep it in perspective and don't become excessive or obsessional about it. We wonder why others do.

The data for this survey is not published. Just the headline.
127

Rollo Tommasi,

09/07/2009 08:36:49
The Doll & Peto study was a well-established cohort study. Cohort studies are recognised as valid types of research and, as far as i can see, there is no more issue of hearsay in the Doll & Peto study than in any other cohort study.

I've never been obsessional about people's smoking. my main interest is in the risks of passive smoking. it was English Charlie who introduced the issue of the risks to smokers' own health to this debate.

You say "The data for this survey is not published. Just the headline". Actually, data is published on the CRUK website. But, as i have already pointed out, it doesn't matter that YouGov has not published the info themselves, provided they make it available on request. I see you are not trying to claim that YouGov is unwilling to release the details from this survey.
128

english charlie,

09/07/2009 10:01:02
125 Rollo. That is another word Tobacco Control often use SUGGEST.
As you ask, 'Was that not simply a negotiating ploy by the insurers'. Tobacco Control use the same ploy.
Why do scientific studies keep using the words 'probably', 'maybe', 'couldbe', 'suggest' etc'?
129

soapy1,

09/07/2009 12:05:32
It appears that anti smokers are anti courtesy too since wishing an opponant goodnight is now another heinous crime and merely provides opportunities for ridicule I had better cease and desist!

In my opinion any document that peredominantly uses words like 'probably' ,'maybe', 'could be' 'suggests', 'may' 'should'ect. make statements opinions and not facts, this is why scientific and medical opinions are so vague, they do not say this will happen (fact) but that it there is a possibility that it could happen (opinion).

This is not a sound basis for law,or scientific fact if such a thing exists, this is not fact, the two are not interchangeable, if they were then scientific opinion could not change, never mind change as much as it does! On that basis scientific opinion is as much use as a chocolate fireguard as it presents no solid facts.

Perhaps Rollo will dispute that and demand evidence or ridicle as he does, but he should remember he will be expressing an opinion too.
130

Rollo Tommasi,

09/07/2009 19:48:13
Chas and Soapy - You're boring me with your sweeping and unsubstantiated generalisations.

Soapy knew I'd say this, but he still chose not to offer any evidence or examples to back up his claims. I wonder why.

Here's the deal, guys. If you can't be bothered to offer supporting evidence, don't expect me to bother responding to you. I've better things to do with my time.
131

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 09/07/2009 19:49:00
#129, soapy1.
Just in case soapy had not recognised it, the Ed Murrow allusion had referred to the broadcaster's finishing his reportage with the phrase "Good night, and good luck."
Murrow was reputedly a heavy smoker throughout his life and was rarely seen without his trademark Camel cigarette, smoking around 60 to 65 a day, or roughly three packs.
He developed lung cancer and lived for two years after an operation to remove his left lung.
He died in at his home in April 27, 1965 two days after his 57th birthday.
Just thought I'd inspire soapy.
132

soapy1,

09/07/2009 22:12:03
Fair enough Rollo I have no objection to that.

Thank you David for both the annecdote about Ed Murrow and the inspiration.
133

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 09/07/2009 22:53:42
#132, soapy1.
Just happy to tell it as it is.
134

Fj,

10/07/2009 06:03:35
Rollo: Another 'true or false' survey, untrustworthy, like all 'true or false' surveys. It's quite common, designed to elicit one answer. Limited questioning, no demograph, no subsidiaries, no weightings. Like Peto's study, limited in design and scope to one thing only and mostly dependant on hearsay.

I won't go into ETS, as the 'surveys' aren't worth commenting on. A simple question. Why, after 50 years and billions/trillions spent, have they failed to come up with a direct factual link between tobacco and 'smoking related illness'
135

Rollo Tommasi,

10/07/2009 09:06:05
FJ: You say "another 'true or false' survey". You don't make clear what you're referring to - the Doll & Peto research or the YouGov study. But I don't recognise your claim as relating to either.

As far as Doll & Peto was concerned, the original and follow-up questionnaires covered a range of issues, e.g. past and present smoking habits, height, weight, blood pressure, alcohol consumption, medical history). And of course the study also involved analyses of death certificates for those participants who had died before the end of the study. I don't see any hearsay in any of this.

You claim passive smoking 'surveys' (as you describe them) are not worth commenting on. You're entitled to your view. I disagree. Profoundly. And the links between passive smoking and lung cancer and heart disease are clear, as you'd discover if you bothered reading the 2002 IARC monograph, the 2004 SCOTH report or the 2006 US Surgeon General's report.
136

english charlie,

10/07/2009 09:29:08
Rollo. Have you read this article by a practising attorney in the States?
http://www.lcolby.com/b-chap7.htm
137

Rollo Tommasi,

10/07/2009 09:57:48
I have now. And I think it's fundamentally flawed. It misrepresents the Doll & Peto study. Beyond that, it concentrated on very old US Surgeon General's reports - why nothing more recent??
138

english charlie,

10/07/2009 10:20:55
'think'. Another great word of Tobacco Control. Obviously when somebody gives a report that contradicts Tobacco Control, you will say that it is flawed. Perhaps you would like to say where it is flawed.
He is the only person that has critised the Doll & Peto study.
139

english charlie,

10/07/2009 10:22:45
I should have said he is NOT the only person that has critised the Doll & Peto study.
140

Fj,

10/07/2009 11:48:58
Rollo: I relate to the CRUK 'survey' done above. It's black or white and surveys of this nature are simply not bettable on as they don't accomodate the position of most people, their individual knowledge and experience and their certainties and frequencies of use and, therefore, their relevance. The Hill and Peto survey relied heavily on what they were TOLD by the patient as they all do. It was only verifiable (subject to being TOLD) from the moment they became a patient or subject and that was devoted purely to their line of enquiry. This is getting silly.

Whatever you say, the ban is contentious and legislation based on this, partic. the way it was done in UK, makes bad law. I know 123 'surveys' the vast majority showing NO Change. However, they will run away with themselves until stopped, paying heed only to their righteous and insular views.
141

Rollo Tommasi,

10/07/2009 17:18:48
Chas: I find your latest posts ironic for a couple of reasons.

First, you are demanding justifications from me, when you usually duck and dive in a desperate effort to avoid having to justify your own comments!

Second, did you not notice what Colby said about the Doll study: “ This seems to me to be a fallacious approach ”? “Seems”? I thought you despised such terminology. Shouldn’t you automatically be writing off any statement which uses such language ?

Colby is highly selective in the research material he refers to. For instance, w hy concentrate on a US Surgeon General’s report from 1964-82? Why ignore the Surgeon General’s 1989 report? And why ignore the WHO’s IARC Monograph from 1986?

His comments about the lack of smokers in the Doll study are also flawed. He may say that only 6% of participants in 1991 were smokers. True, many original smokers had since quit. But by that time over half of the original participants had died. And who was most likely to die? The smokers, of course. Look at the lung cancer figures, for instance. Doll’s 1991 report took account of almost 900 lung cancer deaths (that’s 3.5 times bigger than the Enstrom & Kabat study sample (which pro-smokers describe as a large study)). Based on those deaths, he found that 209 smokers in every 100,000 would die each year from lung cancer, compared with 58 ex-smokers and just 14 non-smokers.

Of course, Colby wrote his piece around 2001 and there have been important reports since, further confirming the risk to harm from smoking – notably the IARC Monograph of 2002-04.
142

Rollo Tommasi,

10/07/2009 17:20:23
FJ: The CRUK survey was not black or white. Respondents were invited to indicate how strongly they agreed or disagreed with statements. That ’ s exactly what most other opinion polls do. The material you ’ re looking brings in qualitative elements to testing people ’ s opinions. Testing people ’ s levels of understanding, reasons for their views, etc are relevant pieces of evidence . But you ’ re not going to get results to those kinds of questions in a typical opinion survey, which gives percentage-based results. In short, as far as I can see , the YouGov survey was as reliable as any other opinion survey and its results are absolutely valid. But, as I have already said, it is not the only relevant piece of evidence to this debate. Other factors (including reasons underpinning people ’ s views) will come through other routes (e.g. when governments hold public consultations).

You’re again referring to the “ Hill and Peto survey”. I don’t know what you have in mind. And I also don’t know what you mean by “123 'surveys' the vast majority showing NO Change”.

143

english charlie,

10/07/2009 18:48:39
Rollo. I did not demand, I asked.
So now you don't like the words like 'seems'. How strange, when you are often quoting such words. You then go on to say 'may' and 'most likely'.
You state that 'Colby is highly selective in the research material'. Of course, you would never be selective, would you and that is why you cannot accept his research?
144

Rollo Tommasi,

10/07/2009 19:28:13
Chas: In case you hadn't noticed, I've no objection to Colby using terms like "seems". But you seem to be applying double standards by not being overly concerned if he says it, even though you criticise me if I use such terminology.

You've been highly selective in responding to the points Imade about Colby. Have you anything to say on the other points I raised?

You may say I'm being selective in my use of evidence. I just happen to think that I've a fuller awareness of the range of evidence than you display (and, without appearing to be rude, also fuller than you know). I genuinely use the evidence I consider to be strongest. It's not my fault if it doesn't match your opinions or if you have no competing evidence to match it.
145

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 10/07/2009 19:45:24
#143, chas.w.
Perhaps floundering chas. should just give up while he's behind.
146

english charlie,

10/07/2009 19:48:25
Of course you don't object to Colby using such words or terms, as you would be lost without using them.
You just happen to 'think'! Next you'll be telling me that you are an 'expert' on something or other.
You do not 'genuinely use the evidence I consider to be strongest'. You select what suits your anti-tobacco stance.
147

Rollo Tommasi,

10/07/2009 20:48:04
Chas: I just prefer to let my arguments do the talking. If you can't deal with that, that's your problem.

I'm happy to let you continue to make your groundless, unsubstantiated remarks and your trademark hypocrisies to yourself.
148

soapy1,

10/07/2009 23:11:43
You are happy to let?

Do you control everyones right to free expression Rollo?

Dont you mean that you accept his right of free expression but disagree with how he expresses himself? Of course by saying that that you admit that he has freedom of choice in how he expresses himself, admit one freedom of choice then you are obliged to accept a landlords freedom of choice as to how he runs his buisiness which wether you like it or not is the heart of the smoking issue.

Freedom of choice, is not changeable according to concept, remove one freedom of choice and it weakens all freedoms, your much vaunted proof is within the news, the proposal to ban smoking in Beer gardens, the proposals to use the anti smoking blueprint to stop the consumption of alcohol currently fielded by anti alcohol charities and prohibitionists.

It is not just Alcohol it is staples like food and salt, if someones lifestyle is not yours, if someone dares to be different you and your cherry picked scientific studies, biased epidemiology and polls with loaded questions are there to save them from their heresy!

Is it because the law won't allow you to bully Homosexuals and ethnic groups, that you persecute anyone who dares to think differently or enjoy life in any measure?

Think on, the Inquisition, the Nazis, Apartheid and Communism in Eastern Europe all failed because the will to be free was stronger than tyranny they represented.
149

Fj,

11/07/2009 09:01:51
Rollo: This is, definitely, silly. You know well what I refer to. Nobody puts money on the results of 'true or false' surveys. Questions which ask strong or mild support or opposition are not subsidiaries designed to show the veracity of their statement.

You are using the 'knowledge filter'. You discard any results that disagree with your position. If you are genuinely open minded check out all surveys to do with ETS. You will be very surprised. Enstrom and kabat was a study of @35000 people over 30 years? I think that qualifies as fairly large.

We are aware of Doll's figures. Endlessly repeating them adds nothing.


150

Rollo Tommasi,

11/07/2009 10:39:06
And so Soapy decides to re-enter the fray. So does he offer any perceptive insights or valuable evidence to inform the debate?

No, he simply returns to his ubiquitous name-calling.

Some things don't change.
151

Rollo Tommasi,

11/07/2009 10:52:29
Fj: I ask the question because you are conflating a number of issues. First you are mixing up evidence on the dangers of smoking with materials dealing with passive smoking. And you are also confusing opinion polls (like the YouGov survey) with detailed epidemiological research.

Let me tell you straight. The great majority of epidemiological evidence into passive smoking shows that exposure to passive smoking increases a person’s risk of lung cancer of cardio-vascular disease. You are wrong to claim at 141 “the vast majority showing NO Change”. Not even Enstorm & Kabat conclude that passive smoking presents no risk to health.

You accuse me of “using the 'knowledge filter’”. It’s ironic, because you are the one cherry-picking studies, by referring to Enstrom & Kabat. You claim theirs was a study of 35000 people over 30 years. Well, that’s wrong. Somebody else did that work (the American Cancer Society). All E&K did was look through results from it. Would it surprise you to know that they based their findings about the risks of lung cancer on only around 250 lung cancer deaths? It’s still a reasonable number, but hardly the overwhelming size pro-smokers claim it to be.

Far from cherry-picking evidence, I want to get a sense of the totality of evidence. That’s why I prefer to focus on reviews of evidence, such as the 2002-04 IARC Monograph, the 2004 SCOTH report and the 2006 US Surgeon General’s report. All are comprehensive in the evidence they cover (SCOTH evens states that the addition of the Enstrom & Kabat findings alongside other evidence makes hardly any difference to the overall results – such is the size of the other evidence). And all are clear that passive smoking presents a clear risk to health.
152

soapy1,

11/07/2009 10:59:47
Which loosely translated means that you cannot defend your position as you have persistantly failed to do whenever anyone gets near the heart of the matter.

Five Union Flag bedecked coffins came home last week, the men inside them killed defending freedom in a foreign land. They come home to a country where their comrades and countrymen are denied freedom of choice, justify that to their families with your scientific evidence, skewed polls and with what even moderate scientists call flawed epidemiological studies.

When you reply consider this, I was once in their position, I survived my opponant did not, tell me Rollo do the comrades of those heroes deserve to come home after fighting for freedom only to have their freedoms curtailed?

153

english charlie,

11/07/2009 12:05:09
Rollo. I have lived on this earth long enough not believe a liar. If you want to believe liars like ASH, then that is your problem.
154

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K 11/07/2009 18:27:26
#150, Rollo Tommasi.
Chance, as they say, would be a fine thing. Rather than indulge in robust argument, soapy prefers to ramble on about homophobia, dyslexia, racism, ethnic prejudice, alleged Naziism, his concept of "Freedom of Choice", or whatever is his latest topic of dissent.
Does he really, honestly, that our troops have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that Chamberlain declared war on Germany in some kind of struggle for freedom for the right to smoke? Perhaps he should tell us so.
155

soapy1,

11/07/2009 19:03:07
No just the right to freedom, something you appear to object vehemently to.
156

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 11/07/2009 19:35:32
#155, soapy1.
Trouble is that the concept of freedom that soapy shares with his F2S chums is to go back to the old days of smoking wherever and whenever they like. Perhaps that is what I "object vehemently to".
By the way, why "soapy"? Did he work for Lever Bros. in the past?
157

soapy1,

12/07/2009 10:48:26
so you admit vehemently opposing freedom, you cannot pick and choose freedom, you have freedom or you do not, there is no middle road!

Now if Landlords were free to choose if their premises allowed smoking, and such premesis were clearly designated as such, staffed by smokers for smokers then smokers would be free, non smokers would be free to drink in clearly marked non smoking with non smoking staff in premises free from smoke.

Both sides would clearly have their freedom with neither side in contact with the other, both sides clearly free to live their lifestyles as they choose, unless of course a non smoker chose to visit a smoking premises, but then they would be exercising their freedom to choose to visit a smoking pub. That is freedom David the right to choose for yourself any vehement objections to choosing for your self?

As for Lever Bros well I appreciate the thought, their products tend to make things whiter than white!
158

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 12/07/2009 21:35:20
#157, soapy1.
Soapy has chosen to miscontrue my words, as is his wont. At #156, I suggested "that the concept of freedom that soapy shares with his F2S chums is to go back to the old days of smoking wherever and whenever they like. Perhaps that is what I "object vehemently to"".
His "freedom for landlords" theory might suit soapy and his F2S chums, but would put pubs at odds with all the other substantially enclosed public places encompassed by the provisions of the relevant legislation.
Soapy is thus confusing freedom and some kind of anarchic free for all where we all have carte blanche to do as we please.
I am free to punch some one on the nose because I hate the tie he is wearing, but society and it's boring old restrictions would chastise me accordingly. It may be a question of degrees of harm towards others, but hopefully soapy can appreciate the parallel.
So why soapy, or is it too embarrassing to disclose?
159

soapy1,

13/07/2009 00:09:40
Smoking pubs would not affect smoking in factories or offices, people work in factories and offices, pubs are for socialising and smoking is a social activity just like drinking.

If the staff in smoking pubs smoke then there is no problem, if a non smoker chose to work there there then that is their choice, if a non smoking customer entered it would be their choice.
So why do you object to people making their own decisions?

Given that you would not have go into a smoking pub how does it actually affect you anyway?


Since when has common assault been a lawful pursuit?

One exception to that law is in combat in a state of war or a state of emergency just as killing is, but only by the military or the authorities! Even then there are strict rules of engagement.



160

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 13/07/2009 10:28:51
#159, soapy1.
Factories, shops, offices, cinemas, theatres, airports and libraries are all substantially enclosed public places where people work, as are pubs, bars, restaurants etc. Some people choose to socialise in shops, theatres, cinemas, restaurants and internet cafés where smoking is not permitted, so why are pubs somehow deemed to deserve special treatment in soapy's eyes?
Following his analogy, Tesco's could be a non-smoking supermarket, but Sainsbury's might be a smoking one because "the staff in smoking supermarkets smoke then there is no problem, if a non smoker chose to work there there (dupn.?), then that is their choice, if a non smoking customer entered it would be their choice."
Apart from legal restrictions, the obvious drawback would be that people's choice would be restricted, in that non-smokers would be dissuaded from entering Sainsbury's when it may previouslyhave been their supermarket of choice.
"So why does soapy object to people making their own decisions about which supermarket, library, café, cinema, theatre etc. they can use."
Patrons and employees of all these kinds of establishments have to smoke outside, and seem capable of working and passing through without the need to smoke. How do soapy and his F2s chums justify some special treatment for pubs, clubs and bingo halls?
Punching some one was a simple illustration, similar to spitting, littering, driving and parking without restrictions.
Q." Since when has smoking in enclosed public places not been a lawful pursuit?"
A. Since ist July, 2007 in England, and earlier in the rest of the U.K.
Still shy about the "soapy" nomenclature, then?
161

soapy1,

13/07/2009 11:13:02
I actually covered staff in my post David if you read it that is, pubs and clubs would be an exemption not the rule and you know it so your claim is invalid, people prefer to socialise in social settings like Pubs and clubs, they do not go to the supermarket for a chat and a pint, they go to pubs so your analogy about supermarkets is flawed.

Do you really think that by turning my argument around and applying it to supermarkets is valid, do you not have a valid argument of your own?

Do you think that minority groups should be persecuted then? Smokers are as much a minority group as the gay community, Religious groups and Ethnic groups who are protected under law is it because smokers are not that you persecute them, still bullies have to bully someone don't they, and it is sad that they allowed to hide behind the law to do so.

You used a criminal act to compare with a legal activity David there is no comparison there.

Are you flirting with me David you seem very interested in personal details?
162

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 13/07/2009 13:09:04
#161, soapy1.
Oh dear, soapy still hasn't got the hang of this arguing lark, and I had indeed troubled to read soapy's effort. In #160 I specifically referred to "Patrons and employees of all these kinds of establishments".
If soapy got around more he would realise that many people socialise in internet cafés, reference libraries, bookshops, and shopping malls and have a coffee or snack in the facility provided without being able to smoke. Some, usually women although to a lesser degree those spending the pink pound, enjoy browsing in clothes shops with a friend for hours, again with no cigarette dangling from their lips.
Thus soapy should see that smokers are not being persecuted, but simply restricted, just like all those shoppers, passengers, and other users of enclosed public places.
So can soapy divulge why pubs should have some special rules? A cry of "smoking having been allowed for centuries" cuts no ice, as the same could be said of slavery and the employment of children in factories, mines and up chimneys. So, what's his specific justification for some exemption from legislation? Pray, tell.
Spitting and littering, like smoking in enclosed public places, are offences, rather than crimes, so will they do for comparison?
Soapy must be a sad, lonely person if he sees some kind of romantic overture in my enquiring about the source of his soubriquet. I do not know either soapy's gender or sexual persuasion, nor do I care to.
Perhaps he should get out to more pubs, and enjoy some "smirting"?
Now that that I've satisfied him on that point, or perhaps failed to, perhaps he'll tell us about "soapy"?
163

soapy1,

13/07/2009 13:38:13
we are not asking for smoking in internet cafes, supermarkets, et al we are asking for smoking rooms in pubs and clubs!now please would you stop muddying the waters with Tom Foolery.

Can you justify the Commercial terrorism you support, the destruction of an entire industry thousands of pubs and clubs closed, pensioners being confined to their homes for lack of somewhere to socialise, over 100,000 added to the benefits system which the country cannot afford. £43million! money that is targeted to saving life used to persecute a minority how many real people have to die to satsify your ego?

Can you name just one person the the anti smoking legislation has saved with medical proof that says smoking would have killed them?

Just one David, can you name just one person that smoking lawfully killed?

Without that David all the claims of the anti smoking lobby are just one big lie and the destruction of an industry would have been for nothing, Terrorists are enemies of the people, enemies of freedom Commercial Terroists are no different.

Offences /crimes hair splitting both are illegal!

My personal life is mine to disclose to whom I choose clearly you have no respect for the right to privacy either, yet another aspect of freedom to choose you wantenly disregard just like smoking, you claim you are not interested in my details yet demand them?

I fail to see what relevence my details have unless you are practicing for a future role in the Gestapo if so you failing miserably! just like your anti smoking arguments.
164

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 13/07/2009 19:16:05
#163, soapy1.
Smoking rooms in pubs and clubs soapy just can't have, and he hasn't even tried to justify any "special case" status for them, and just who is this "Tom Foolery" guy? Another figment like Ponochio / Ponnochio?
Pensioners, like the smoky mob, are not confined to their homes. They are not barred from pubs, clubs or bingo halls, merely their sad addiction. So what's this "commercial terrorism" line about?
Both the 100,000 unemployed and £43million budget figures cited by the pro-smokers seem to keep creeping up for some strange reason.
I've never made claims about any "person that smoking lawfully killed", whatever that might be intended to mean, just expressed satisfaction about fug free pubs etc.
Offences and crimes are legally quite different, incurring different penalties.
Soapy's personal life or details are of no interest to me, though I'm now beginning just why he's so reticent about his chosen nomenclature. Just what is he hiding?
Soapy falls into the old Nazi / fascist /Gestapo allusion trap when he runs out of cogent arguments, as always.
165

soapy1,

13/07/2009 19:38:07
you really dont know who he was? Oh well what you dont knowwont hurt you! Commercial terrorism the wilful attack on commerce by terrorists, Simples as the meerkat says.
As always David can be relied upon for his inability to compare cultures, there is little point in allowing him to continue displaying his lack of knowledge of political personages or indeed comparisons of political policy between eras, the trap is that no one is willing to admit that they are of an mentality that attacks minorities except for you!

so adieu and farewell to you fair.....
166

David from New Mills,

Fug free Pleasantville, U.K. 13/07/2009 20:42:40
#165, soapy1.
Tomfoolery is a noun, indicating a state of foolish behaviour. Apparently, it was also an American cartoon comedy television series made and first broadcast in 1970, but I can find no allusion to any "Tom Foolery" character, fictitious or real, so presumably this is yet another soapy figment.
So just who are these "commercial terrorists"?
I can't make any sense of soapy's para.2. Can any one help me out?
Goodbye, dear soapy one.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.