Note from the Ambassador
Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 12:40 Cancer Research has published an article by one of 17 volunteer 'ambassadors' who attended this year's party conferences.
David Collins is a former police constable and a good guy by all accounts. He must read this blog occasionally because he posted a comment a few weeks ago in response to a piece about the plain packaging consultation.
I didn't publish it because it included a word that suggested criminal behaviour. That was a bit strong, even for a former police officer!
I emailed David and we agreed it would be best to wait until "all the facts are known" before making serious allegations.
In the meantime, you might like to read The party conference – our Ambassador’s view.
Sadly, I don't think David contributed to the Liberty Lounge discussion, even though he was in the audience. That's a pity because, as anyone familiar with Forest will confirm, we welcome debate.
PS. I wonder what David has to say about the revelation (disclosed in a letter from ASH to the Department of Health) that pro plain pack campaigners were encouraged to duplicate signatures.
The opinion of a CRUK ambassador and former police constable would be very interesting!
Reader Comments (10)
Absolute rubbish. Can't read all of that nonsense.
Does this man smoke? Has he ever smoked? Does he buy tobacco? Has he ever bought tobacco? Then what the hell does he know in reality that he hasn't been fed by his own prejudicial organisation.
Because of CRUK's political lobbying to further exclude and punish me I go out of my way to ensure that org never gets a penny of my money or anyone else I know. I still have some precious stones ready to donate to a worthy charity after refusing to hand them over to the CRUK when I sold some jewellery recently.
My son in law recently did a cycle ride for sponsorship. He was going to donate to CRUK until I said don't bother because your money will be wasted on political lobbying against people who may get cancer in future.
He donated to another cancer charity instead that uses all donated cash on what it is supposed to use it for - helping people with cancer not politicking to create yet more social exclusion and disgust of the very people who may one day need to services of a cancer charity themselves.
I'm fed up of these people deciding what is best for lifelong smokers like myself when my life is none of their damn business and I wish they'd keep their bigoted noses out of it.
What with Dalli and tobacco control corruption of signatures to force through unwanted and unpopular laws, it's pretty obvious these people are not honest. They rely on useful idiots as above to push their political ideology along.
May I say that I utterly agree with Pat Nurse. I am beginning to believe that the reason these people have so much to say about the lawful behaviour of other people is their own low self esteem. They do not feel worthy and desperately crave respect and adulation from others. Being basically intolerant, unkind and bigoted people they will never get the respect they crave so they jump on any bandwagon that they think will give them the respect and praise they so desperately need. Sadly it is fashionable to kick smokers at the moment. It used to be the Germans then the Russians but that’s racist and therefore illegal but smokers have no such protection in law so we are fair game. We know that they do not have a valid argument as everything they say has been disproved, but as they are enjoying their current high profile and the buzz they get from it they can’t give in. Therefore they find more and more childish reasons to get their names in the paper. Well let me give them some advice: you need to stop doing this as you are making yourself look very stupid, you would be much better applying to go on Britain got talent. Then the world would see you, and you could just get the adulation you want so much. Barbara De'Ath
Usefull idiot, or a sucker?
As Phineas T Barnum said, there's one born every minute.
A cancer charity which makes no mention of passive smoking or even smoking on its website is Breast Cancer Care. I went over it with a fine tooth comb when asked to sponsor somebody. Remarkable considering Wikipedia claims smoking as a cause of breast cancer. If you are asked to sponsor someone in aid of CRUK, tell them you will give the money to BCC.
I don't think we need worry about David - his bilge pump is full of all the effluent churned out by Tobacco Control - and he's been drinking it by the gallon.
I hope he never takes a brain scan - I'm sure he would be sorry to learn his brain doesn't go all the way to the top of his head.
A place he hopes to make a name he wouldn't otherwise be able to obtain.
Pat is correct. He has nothing else to offer.
I have left a comment on the CRUK blog. I expect to be attacked by the loonies that these days comprise its supporters. It is all a bit sad really as CRUK does actually make a major contribution to real research in the UK. Unfortunately, the lunatics are running the show now and I fear it will all end in tears. I advise anyone who wishes to make a charitable donation to look for a better cause until such time as CRUK ditches political activism and refocuses on cancer research.
Folks, disagree all you like with David's views, particularly on tobacco control and plain packs.
But let's not attack his character. We are better than that I hope. I personally feel David is a stand-up, honest and decent guy from what I can see and what I've read about him (there's a good blog post by a girl named Penny which illustrates this perfectly). He truly wants to help children and prevent cancer. Believe me, David is not the enemy. Yes, he's tenacious and mildly confrontational at times, which can be annoying, sure, and we can all agree that maybe he's going about this the wrong way -- but David makes no money from what he does. Not a single penny. In that regard, he's not in the tobacco control industry. He's just like any of us, only on the other side.
I also believe that CRUK has misled David a bit, much like any organisation would do to garner support for a cause. But then David is his own person and can come to his own conclusions. Attack the beliefs, attack the tobacco control industry who profits on using unpaid volunteers to do their work for them, but don't attack the man. It's not right.
Agreed?
I didn't think I had but when I feel attacked, I attack. I'm sure he's a decent bloke which is why I wish he'd open his eyes to how the tobacco control industry and it's lobbying arm CRUK are using him and others like him.
My anger here is reserved for CRUK which pretends to care for cancer victims but attacks the very people who may one day get cancer because we won't buy into their ideology on tobacco control.
I am also sick of being treated like someone else's commodity. The bottom line is that this is my life, my family, my choice, my money, and my body and no one - not even David - has a right to make my life as a consumer difficult just because they can, and they have a personal desire to see the eradication of something I have enjoyed for a lifetime when no one had a problem with that choice before July 1, 2007 when denormalisation, which inches ever closer to criminalisation,. began in this country.
Don't forget that Amanda Sandford from ASH let slip in a radio debate with me that denormalisation was the real reason behind the public smoking ban. It was never about health but forcing smokers to quit or to be viewed as undesirables.
I fail to see how decent people, David included, can support such inhumane and biased treatment of people who have harmed no one and wish to harm no one and simply ask to be left alone in peace without harassment.
Hi Simon, I didn't contribute to the debate as the two Doctors covered the points I would have raised. Anyway the compare kept giving the mic to that reformed smoker bloke banging on about Gay Marriage . I thought I'd better head for the free wine before he realised his glass was empty again.
As for the point about the petition. I think it was covered quite well in the letter. What impressed me was the way it was condemned by the organisation. Your response to a similar incident was to attack the messenger. It's hardly surprising that I should suffer similar treatment from your followers in the comment to this blog.
And lastly. Thanks Jay. I hope your Street Cred isn't damaged mate. Not that I consider us" enemies" but as JK Rowling wrote , "It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but a great deal more to stand up to your friends.” Respect Mr Tyrannts.
Any way, must dash, off to get a scan on my head. That comment from Dennis got me thinking and would explain a lot.