« Hypocrites! | Main | Review of the week »
Monday
Mar122012

Why is Forest supporting death and illness, asks Paul Bartlett

Paul Bartlett, the man who wants to ban smoking on the streets of Stony Stratford, has made a surprise appearance – on the Forest website.

He writes:

Why is Forest supporting death and illness through smoking?

That smokers pay tax is no reason to encourage a life threatening product. Many pay tax that covers education, law, war etc. and oppose some or all apsects of these and more.

Smoking does nothing to improve health and most patients of illness would rather have not started to smoke. Why does Forest consider that death is better than life?

In my town not one business has closed due to the current smoking legislation. Indeed, if patrons of pubs spent less on cigarettes they would have more to spend in pubs and other businesses.

If you'd like to respond click here.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (12)

When the name Paul Bartlett springs to mind, so does the word "nutter".

Monday, March 12, 2012 at 8:22 | Unregistered CommenterGary Rogers

Trying to resurrect himself? Carry the fight to the lion's den?

What feeble comments. What a feeble man. When nobody else takes him seriously, we don't have to bother.

Monday, March 12, 2012 at 9:47 | Unregistered CommenterFrank

Paul Bartlett says "smoking does nothing to improve health and most patients of illness would rather have not started to smoke"

From what I have read, smoking does indeed improve one's mental health and alertness, and if Paul Bartlett wants absolute proof of this, he has only to look to himself - a non-smoker and an anti-smoker who seems to have severe problems in these areas himself.

A few discreet puffs on a fag might possibly raise Mr Barlett's mental capacity and enable him to write something sensible and discerning, instead of the sentence above, i.e. "most patients of illness would rather have not started to smoke" - what on earth is a "patient of illness"?

Monday, March 12, 2012 at 11:42 | Unregistered CommenterPeter Thurgood

Can't be bothered - he talks through his bum-trumpet.

Monday, March 12, 2012 at 14:37 | Unregistered CommenterJohn Henson

Will no one rid us of this comedian?

The proposition is simply stated, Mr Bartley. What you do is your business. What I do is mine.

In the McTear case (in which ASH was THRASHED), ASH was unable to show, even on the reduced basis of 'balance of probabilities' that smoking even might cause cancer, never mind does cause cancer.

Bartlet has been well and truly conned rotten by a small elite.

Monday, March 12, 2012 at 15:03 | Unregistered CommenterJunican

I'd be interested to read the McTear case. Has anyone a link I can follow?

I have no comment to make about Mr Bartley (yawn!)

Monday, March 12, 2012 at 18:13 | Unregistered CommenterPensioner Ellie

Ellie, Junican did an excellent job of summarising the McTear case. It's a long read but the summary is at the bottom, I think. It also shows, as mentioned above that the case (no piddling matter, having the resources to call the likes of Richard Doll, The Godfather of Antismoking to the stand!) found that saying smoking "might" cause lung cancer was unproven, let alone saying it does cause it. Also interesting is the anti-expert witnesses all proclaiming loudly that smoking causes cancer then being forced to admit, under questioning, that they had never seen any empirical evidence for it, it was just something they'd been taught in medical school..... largely as a result of Doll's work in the 60s. And Doll himself failed to answer the many criticisms of his work, which is presumably why the judge came to the conclusion that he did. No proof, not just in the specific case of McTear, but in general!! Oh how, I'd love to see ASH forced onto the stand to put up or shut up, once and for all.....

http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/2012/03/08/the-mctear-case-the-analysis/

Monday, March 12, 2012 at 23:55 | Unregistered CommenterMr A

Ellie,

Go to:

http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/

There, you will find an analysis of the case (a 'précis' of the case - about one tenth of the case itself) and a link to the actual OPINION of the Judge, Lord Nimmo Smith.

I managed to cut it down in size (from about 600 pages to 60!) by leaving out huge chunks of legalistic discussions and documents while retaining the essential arguments.

Monday, March 12, 2012 at 23:55 | Unregistered CommenterJunican

Here are two quotations from his email:

"That smokers pay tax is no reason to encourage a life threatening product. Many pay tax that covers ... war ...
Smoking does nothing to improve health ..."

...bless him

Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 0:08 | Unregistered Commentertimbone

Thank you Mr A & Junican - I believe I am going to enjoy this read.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 11:23 | Unregistered CommenterPensioner Ellie

Phew! I've just stumbled to the end at 16.35 - what a gem and what an incredible achievement on your part Junican.

Thank you very much.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 16:48 | Unregistered CommenterPensioner Ellie

Clicking a hyperlink to a Paul Bartlett comment is not even worth the effort. This sad man is very much on the fringes of intelligent debate on any subject I suspect.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012 at 17:28 | Unregistered CommenterBill C

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>