Memo to @ACunninghamMP: don't flatter yourself!

Comments

[Jonathan Bagley]

WTF is "build awareness"? Maybe it comes from the same dictionary as "inappropriate"?

[Gary Rogers]

What a fool.

[Junican]

It seems to be the objective of TC to get legislation. Whether such legislation can be enforced or not is not their concern - they just want legislation. Lies and propaganda are perfectly fine, in their book, if they produce legislation. Legislation makes people afraid, and that is what they want. That is all they want. It is persecution by remote control.

[Dennis]

Give us the benefit of your non-wisdom Cunningham!

Who on earth cares about railing against a prick like you Cunningham? Don’t strut around like some fancy peacock please – it’s embarrassing. Your career path is nicely defined by its conspicuous lack of achievement.

But since you've popped your daft empty noggin above the parapet, and you obviously read the views on this site, then perhaps you can give some answers to a couple of questions.

I’ll make them easy, because I know you only believe whatever compost filled junk is shovelled down your trousers – by the way that’s called prejudice don’t you know.

1. Can you point us in the direction of a definitive scientific study that has been carried out to justify such a ban? Since there will be no general set of circumstances (journey time, speed of journey, number of windows open at any one time, rate of smoke dissipation , number of people smoking in car, pollution entering car from the outside and coming through the heating system and so on) that can be covered by a single study. After all you can’t have a myriad of studies since you wouldn’t know which to believe.
2. Douglas Noble, a British Medical Association public health expert, made this claim as his colleagues called for tougher tobacco and alcohol controls. 'It would be safer to have your exhaust pipe on the inside of your car than smoke cigarettes in terms of fine particular matter released…’ Is this goon serious –and more importantly do you agree with him. How deeply insensitive to all the living realatives of those that were murdered in this way during the second world war.
3. This irrelevant sod says that 'In cars, particle concentrations are 27 times higher than in a smoker's home and 20 times higher than in a pub, in the days when you could smoke in public places.
4. How would he conclude this if no such scientific studies have ever been carried out to validate this crap.
5. His figure is 27 times; the BMA said 23 times which they subsequently altered to 11 times. Eleven times now? So which figure do we believe? What kind of error is that and how many more errors might exist in this erroneous fabricated nonsense – can you tell us?
6. Who supposedly carried out these studies, when were they peer reviewed, and where were they published. Do you know?

I can't possibly imagine someone like you of non-entity status doing any research at all...you're a journey-man who simply follows the crowd without imagination - please don't pretend otherwise.

[Simon]

Sorry, Dennis, can't agree with the tone of your comment which I confess I published with serious misgivings. Clearly I don't agree with Alex Cunningham but personal attacks do nothing to help our cause. Indeed they could be quoted back at us in parliament or elsewhere.

I understand the strength of feeling on this and other smoking-related issues but we cannot and must not sink to cheap abuse.

Personally I don't doubt that Alex Cunningham means well. Our job is to convince him (and, if not him, his colleagues) that a ban on smoking in cars (with or without children) is unnecessary and a step too far.

If I was an MP comments such as this would make me more bullish (if I was in favour of legislation). If I was undecided it would probably make me less likely to support your cause.

We're on the same side but we HAVE to moderate our language and avoid name calling and petty abuse.

[Dennis]

I stand by every word of my comment.

[Junican]

If you take the vituperative words out of Dennis's comment, of which there are few if you count them - I counted nine words and phrases - then his questions are very apposite. Where does Mr Cunningham get his knowledge from? Has he studied the literature himself? He may well have. On the other hand, he is a member of the Anti-tobacco Parliamentary Group. ASH provides that Group (which is not an official committee) with secretarial assistance. ASH tells the Group about studies and what the studies say. Thus, the probability is that Mr Cunningham receives his information from ASH. But we must remember that ASH is just a propaganda organisation. It does not do investigations itself. It receives its information from elsewhere, probably the College of Physicians.

The horrible thing is that Mr Cunningham believes what he is told. Thus, he believes that smokers kill their babies (the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome research); he believes that parents who smoke in their own cars occasionally, in the presence of their own children, are, in effect, battering their children. We are smokers and he accuses us of killing and maiming babies and children. Is it any wonder that we bridle?

As Dennis complains - I wonder if Mr Cunningham could produce one singe piece of actual evidence of a child being injured because a parent smoked a cigarette in the car, in the child's presence. Interestingly, such evidence is the onlyvalid proof of such harm. Statistics prove nothing.