Who told ASH?
Wednesday, November 21, 2012 at 12:10 Update to my posts about the Guardian, the APPG on Smoking and Health and the Hands Off Our Packs campaign.
Dick Puddlecote has spotted something I hadn't noticed. He writes:
The APPG [on Smoking and Health] bulletin to MPs of October 19 has a dig at Tribe Marketing ... The question is, who told Stephen Williams MP and the APPG/ASH that HOOPs were using Tribe? Did they get the info from the Guardian?
It was never confidential information but it's an interesting point. Who told ASH?
In recent months I have sent two letters to the Department of Health. The second (September 7) needn't concern us here.
The first (August 30) confirmed that "Tribe Marketing Limited was engaged to collect signatures in support of the HOOP campaign".
To the best of my knowledge that letter has not been made public, unlike the letters to Forest from the Department of Health which were released under FOI on September 9.
Consequently, if you exclude Forest itself, I can think of only two sources for the information about Tribe – the Guardian and the Department of Health.
Actually, make that three. Following the release of the DH's letters and emails to Forest we were contacted by the Observer which invited us to respond to one specific complaint about the Hands Off Our Packs campaign.
I sent the Observer the same information I gave its sister paper the Guardian on August 17. It included details about Tribe and our signature gathering process but the paper chose not to publish our response or any of the information we gave it.
So, where did ASH get the information about Tribe? I think we should be told.
Reader Comments (3)
[Begin cynicism]
Good luck getting that info without a FOI request.
[End cynicism]
Unethical behaviour to say the least
I most certainly would write to all three potential protagonists and ask each in turn if they passed this information on to ASH, if anyone should own up to this, then I suggest you request a full and frank explanation for this unethical behaviour. They should have asked you first Simon as a matter of common courtesy, whether or not you provided that information is another matter.
You could also make it clear that failing this line of enquiry, you will without reservation put in a FOI request to ascertain the facts.
If dirty tricks of this kind are established by certain quarters, then you must draw up demarcation lines as to how much co-operation you are prepared to give in future. It might be worth contacting Tribe and ask them if they have had any communication that might be considered a fishing exercise with regard to Forest's involvement with them.
At the very least they will be under no illusion that you are not going to countenance such unwarranted behaviour.
TC wouldn’t stand for it – why should you?
Why should one expect otherwise? ASH is the advertising/publicity/propaganda arm of the 'experts' in the DoH. It has no other function, except, perhaps, to absorb criticism which might otherwise be levelled at the 'experts'. The College of Physicians is also involved.
It is very odd that there is not a blog in the UK similar to Michael Seigel's 'The Rest of the Story'. I should imagine that most people here know that Siegel was an archbishop of the Holy Zealots, but was ostracised and excommunicated when he objected to the use of junk science to push the Tobacco Control agenda. Why do we have to rely upon French, Canadian, German and American 'Luthers' to draw attention to the corruption of the Holy Zealots? Surely, there must be at least one professor/doctor in the UK, who is nearing retirement or is recently retired, who is prepared to blow the whistle?
But it may well be true that the circle of top people is a very small one and has managed to isolate itself from general view. For example, only recently have we discovered that an Australian/ New Zealander who might have the name Black and who might be a Holy Zealot, is in control of the 'Consultation'. Who is monitoring the activities of that person? I suppose that it ought to be the Chief Medical Officer who does so, but what can he/she do if the College Physiciansans is arraigned against him/her?
Essentially, the problem comes down to the fact that the Minister of Health and the Prime Minister are not doing what they are appointed to do, which is to control their Government Departments. The Departments are controlling the Ministers.
Our democracy stinks.