Monday
Mar282011
Coming soon ...
Monday, March 28, 2011 at 14:55 I am spending the day putting some final touches to the new Forest website.
This is not a facelift, as in 2007. It looks totally different and has been built with new software, which we are just getting to grips with. (Actually, it's quite intuitive.)
There are a few bugs and what builders call snagging to sort out, but it should go live in a day or two.
Watch this space.
Reader Comments (5)
Is the new website going to be a little more up front and open about where your funding comes from? At the moment you have hidden it away in FAQs where you say 'Most of our money is donated by UK-based tobacco companies'. You could mention the Tobacco Advisory Council for instance and explain their role, and clarify the meaning of the word 'most'. Is it 51% or as much as 96% as some claim?
Incidentally the Wikipedia article on you says:
"Notwithstanding efforts to create the appearance of independence, the Tobacco Advisory Council controlled leadership at FOREST. Internal industry memos stipulated: "If money invested [in FOREST] is to be properly effective then control and management are essential." Contact between the Executive Director of FOREST and the Tobacco Advisory Council was envisaged "on an almost daily basis" .
We all know how unreliable Wikipedia can be sometimes. If it is wrong about TAC's control of you, you might want to go and edit the page. This stuff appears to have been there for over two years.
What on earth is this government or the past one for this matter playing at? I suffer with mental health issues, and so does my partner. The main thing that is annoying is that I have had to go in hospital several times both as a voluntary patientand also under a 'section' this also applies to my partner.
Now, when you have been admitted to that osrt of enviroment, it is an extremly hostile place to be in, to be honest, it is like hell, but obviously you are there for severe actue ilness. Dealing with that is bad enough without having to trail for miles just to have a smoke. This is even more difficult if you happen to be doped up to the eyeballs. Smoking, and I'm not just saying this as a smoker, actually aids mental health. Smoking eases distress and it has been proven that it helps with phycotic moments. CPN's, social workers, Dr's e.t.c. have seen that even with all the drugs ofen if a very ill patient has a cigarette it will calm them down. They have said they would never take cigarettes of people as it would cause a riot. Yet, with this smoking ban sometimes you have to walk miles just to have a puff and yet you want to have one to calm you dwon? And I'm suppose to be the insane one? Come on!!!
Its suppose to be a free country this, freedom of speech, of expression e.t.c. yet, does this really resenble the case?
And also, with this new lot, that tory clown, does he not realise that those who will suffer most are the vunerable i.e. the elderly, children and the ill, e.g. the physically ill and the mentally ill in the community, or does he want us to go back to the days of the vicotrian asslyum? Maybe that's what these people are hoping for?
I just hope that someone sees the light somewhere along the line...................not that I have that much hope left, if any hope at all.
@James Hewitt - a blogger called Frank Davis is compiling people's experiences of the negative effects - some devastating - of the ban and subsequent persecution of smokers. Just google "Frank Davis". Our politicians need to know that their war on smokers is causing profound misery.
Thank you for the new site. I like it a lot!
Thank you for all your work - you are a godsend.
Same as Margo. If it were not for Forest, I would never have been aware of all the other people like Frank Davis, Dick Puddlecote, Legiron and everyone else (in no particular order!) who are fighting the ban.