Bullying, intimidation and censorship - the dark arts of Tobacco Control
Monday, May 28, 2012 at 11:30 For some years Forest has used the expression "bully state" in preference to "nanny state".
In 2009, using The Free Society imprint, we even published a book by Brian Monteith entitled The Bully State: The End Of Tolerance.
Barely a week goes by without some new example of the "bully state" but, sadly, some of the worst cases are never publicised.
This is because the people who are being targeted are so intimidated, or fearful of the consequences of the story being made public, that they ask us not to make all the facts publicly available.
For example, there is a story I am not at liberty to tell about a leading blogger losing a "massive advertising contract" because he wrote a blogpost that was sympathetic to smokers.
It happened two years ago and even now I am sworn to secrecy. The identity of the advertiser was never revealed to me but I believe it was a member of the public health/tobacco control lobby.
Then there is the tale of freelance designer Dan Donovan. Unusually Dan is happy to go public with this story but he has asked me not to name names or be too specific.
Dan first worked for Forest in 2007. A few years ago, via a third party, he also did some work for an NHS Primary Care Trust. Proud of the work he had done for Forest and the NHS he added both bodies to the client list on his website.
Imagine his surprise when, a few weeks ago, he received a request – prompted by the work he had done on the Hands Off Our Packs campaign – to remove the reference to the NHS from his site. "Working for the NHS and then being funded, albeit indirectly, by the tobacco industry" represented a "conflict of interest", he was informed.
Effectively he was being asked to pretend that the work he had done in good faith in a professional capacity had never happened. Talk about re-writing history! It reminds you of those old Soviet photographs in which out-of-favour officials were quietly erased, never to be seen again.
No doubt Dan has been blacklisted by the NHS, the Department of Health and other tobacco control organisations. The man is a professional designer, for heaven's sake! He should be able to work for anyone, within reason, without it harming his job prospects.
As an aside, it demonstrates the extent to which people who have worked - even on an occasional basis - for groups such as Forest are being monitored by the tobacco control industry. A clearer example of a Big Brother state is hard to imagine.
Furthermore, I wonder how many companies, including top design agencies, will think twice about opposing plain packaging of tobacco for fear of losing a contract with the NHS or some other state-funded body.
What this suggests is that bullying, intimidation and censorship are now standard practise for Tobacco Control.
Yet, hilariously, it is they who squeal "foul" if Forest – or members of the public – question their methods, which include the use of public money to manipulate the outcome of a major public consultation.
In their eyes they are the innocent "victims" of "sabotage" and I suspect that they truly believe it, so warped is their current mindset.
In the meantime keep those stories coming. One day all will be revealed, in detail. Watch this space.
Reader Comments (13)
I suppose "bully state" and "nanny state" are synonymous, as is "tobacco control" and "the NHS".
Tobacco control are a law to themselves, they constantly quote The WHO FCTC as if this was a democratically elected body, it is not and god only knows what type of people are influential in this body of people, they openly discriminate against smokers by refusing to employ anyone who smokes, and the countries that signed up to this never had a mandate from the people to follow their priscribed hate campaign, which has destroyed 100's of thousands of jobs and peoples livlihoods, and brought misery and social isolation to many millions, here is a link to their organisation shame on them.
http://www.who.int/fctc/en/
Gordon Bennett, the effing Exchequer takes over 80% of the retail cost of fags - £11,000,000,000pa (much more impressive looking than £11billion don't you think). No wonder the money grabbing, politically lightweight hypocrites at the top have never suggested total prohibition. No, at best it'll be 'nudge' and increased taxation elsewhere all the way. In any event the taxpayer loses.
Absolutely outrageous and typical of the way government bodies behave. Very few organisations have the clout that vast government organisations have, so few private businesses can really challenge this. He should get his MP to talk to the organisation concerned - after all creatives depend on their past work for their livelihoods. His MP should be asking where and when this policy (that undertaking work for NHs and indirectly for the tobacco industry is a conflict of interest) was agreed and by whom?
He will, of course probably be on some black list as you say - but what he should do is submit a Subject Access Request to the NHS organisation - they must then provide him with every scrap of information they hold about him. If this throws up emails about him being blacklisted he should get a lawyer. It wont get him another job in that sector but he should get compensation.
What we really need is a fund to help people like this fight the system.
McCarthyism comes to mind. Stalinsm too. What have they done to this once tolerant, fair and considerate country that just 10 years ago would have shied away from such obvious hate campaigns.
Smokers are not being listened to in the channels available to every other citizen and subject. There is only the ballot box and anyone who votes LibLabCon is just asking for more for us and more for those they will move onto next.
Those who support the Tobacco Control Industry support hatred. Either they are too stupid to see the wool being pulled over their eyes or they buy into what are clearly propagandic lies because they believe hate has a place in the world if they don't like the target.
There should be an independent public inquiry into the fraud of SHS, THS, Smoker social exclusion, denials of healthcare to smokers, denial of housing to smokers and denial of jobs.
There would be for any other group.
I s it within the remit of the NHS to take on the role of tobacco control? Heck, is it even legal?
Any conflict of interest here is entirely the problem of the beholder. Hope he told the NHS where to go.
Perhaps there should be a way we can withdraw our NI contributions due to conflict of interest. That way too, it would be viable for many of us to afford private healthcare and get seen when we need to be seen and the treatment we require when we need it!
It will be illegal for an organisation funded by the taxpayer to operate a such blacklist for contract bids. There are very strict laws regarding bidding for contracts.
The type of behavior you have described here, including withdrawal of advertising and asking for a name to be removed from a freelancer's site are very common in all industries. The fact that it is because of the tobacco industry is completely irrelevant. This is common practice because people want to protect their brands and don't want them tainted with an association that doesn't fit. I think for you to call them bullies when all they are doing is managing their reputation, just like any other brand or company in any other situation, is fairly ridiculous.
If you were on the end of it "Natalie" you would think differently. This isn't yet another front group stooge for Tobacco Control is it? They do pop in from time to time and sometimes get caught out.
Oh, and let's not forget that the NHS is not a "brand" it is a public service which we pay more into than anyone else. If it is a "brand" then let it fend for itself like other corporate businesses rather than sponging off the taxpayer.
I think that most people who comment here would find the idea of a freelance graphic designer being asked to conceal his past jobs due to 'conflicts of interests' very objectionable.
In a free market, such a person should be judged on the quality of his work, and if the NHS was pleased with the work he did for them, and, perhaps grudgingly, impressed with the work he did for the smokers' rights lobby, they should be pleased to recommend him to other prospective clients.
Perhaps this kind of behaviour is commonplace, but I find it very disturbing that it is going on, by the very government, no less, in a so-called liberal democracy.