No-one would accuse the Guardian of being a friend of Forest.
A few days after the public consultation on standardised packaging closed on August 10 we were contacted by a journalist from that newspaper.
His email read:
I just saw your press release announcing you had collected 235,000 signatures for your Hands Off Our Packs campaign. Where can I find a full list of all the signatories? I looked around your website but couldn't find it. Or perhaps you could email me the document of names that you have presumably now delivered to the Department of Health?
The paper also had some questions about our signature-gathering process.
The email concluded:
I have also put the same questions to the rival campaign run by Cancer Research UK, ASH, etc.
I replied as follows:
Happy to respond to your questions if, as you say, you have also asked the same questions of (and received answers from) the Plain Packs Protect campaign which is supported by ASH, Cancer Research, Smokefree South West etc.
I would also like to request that if you run a story you will publish most if not all of the following comment so that our campaign and the techniques we have used are put in their correct context:
"Our campaign tactics have been inspired by the techniques employed for several years by the tobacco control industry.
"For the first time the public has been given an equal opportunity by both sides of the debate to register their opinion and the response is clear.
"When given a chance to express their views, a huge number of people, almost half a million in total, do not support plain packaging of tobacco products.
"This is far in excess of the number of people who support standard packs. However hard they will try, the anti-tobacco lobby cannot spin their way out of that."
The following day, without waiting for confirmation that the Guardian had received replies from Cancer Research et al, I sent the paper the following email:
In response to your questions:
1. We can confirm that the names and contact details of signatories have been delivered to the Department of Health. Data protection prevents us from providing third parties with personal data. Even if we could, it is not our policy to publish names of signatories to consultations, nor pass third party details to journalists or any external party or organisation without the consent of the individuals concerned.
2. We used a range of techniques to canvass opinion and record opposition to plain packaging. This included e-petitioning and street collecting. Support was also canvassed by a variety of groups including retailers, packaging companies and private individuals, and through our own activities.
3. We used Tribe Marketing Limited, a reputable and independent agency, was engaged to help canvass opinion and record opposition to plain packaging.
I then listed a number of steps that had been taken to verify the authenticity of signatures on the Hands Off Our Packs petition before concluding:
Having taken the measures outlined above we are confident that the risk of duplication (or falsification) is very small indeed.
If there is any hard evidence of wrongdoing we would be extremely grateful if you could pass it on to us immediately. We would take a very dim view of it and would obviously act accordingly.
Finally I repeated my request that the paper publish "most or all" of the quote I had given them in my previous email (see above).
The outcome of this correspondence was as follows:
1. The Guardian did not follow up its enquiry. To the best of our knowledge it has not published anything about the Hands Off Our Packs campaign or our signature-gathering process.
2. We never did find out how Cancer Research UK, ASH, etc responded to a similar enquiry, if indeed that enquiry was ever made.
3. At the time of writing the Guardian has neither produced nor passed on to us any evidence of wrongdoing, as requested in my email.
Draw your own conclusions.