Forest Unfiltered






40 Years of Hurt

Prejudice and Prohibition

Road To Ruin?

Search This Site
The Pleasure of Smoking

Forest Polling Report

Outdoor Smoking Bans

Plain Packaging

Share This Page
Powered by Squarespace
« Government extends plain packaging consultation period | Main | That Freedom Dinner video »

Forest v. Tobacco Free Futures

As previously reported, I was on BBC Breakfast on Sunday.

I did two slots, one at 6.50, the other at 8.46, during which I "discussed" the impact of the smoking ban with Andrea Crossfield of Tobacco Free Futures (formerly Smokefree North West).

Click on the images above and below to view.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (17)

Sorry Simon I can't watch this again I get so wound up - I watched the original "discussion" on breakfast and you won hands down. With politeness and logic.

Andrea Crossfield was both intolerant and rude and would not allow you to make your points. I don't care how nice she might have been in the green room. The presenter in the first interview did try hard to shut her up and allow you your say, and he did give you the last word.

Thant's good enough for me.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 11:39 | Unregistered CommenterDennis

Good job, Simon. You kept your cool and made coherent points. The sanctimonious antismoking blob was constantly trying to speak over you – “only what I say is important; only what I say is important”. That’s OK. They need to be seen for the abrasive, obsessed-with-control nitwits that they are.

Simon, here’s a story that shows up the Tobacco Control Industry for the dangerous fools they are. You might want to refer to such.

According to the TCI, “the children” are attracted by the “glitzy” cigarette packaging, risking them becoming one of those “perverse, terrible” smokers. So, the cigarette packs must be hidden from display, lest “the children” become overwhelmed with the desire to smoke. Now the TCI wants to remove all the “seductive, tempting colours” on the packs to “save the children” – plain packaging draped with medical pornography.

Yet here we have “the children” now smoking [more than cigarettes] a substance (marijuana) that isn’t on retail display, doesn’t come in glitzy packs (or packs at all) – I believe it comes in [probably used] cling-wrap, and ….dare I say it…. is illegal for children and adults alike.

And “the children” think marijuana is safer than tobacco. Given the denormalization and inflammatory rhetoric surrounding tobacco, it wouldn’t be surprising if “the children” thought that heroin and cocaine…… or even drain cleaner and sulfuric acid, or a petrol and broken glass cocktail (avec little umbrella)…. were safer than tobacco (and cheaper?).

Three cheers for the Tobacco Control unintelligentsia.

CDC: More US teens smoke marijuana than cigarettes

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 11:57 | Unregistered Commenteroh brother

She'd better watch out.... Obesity Concern, Action on Obesity and Health or some other sock-puppet, fake charity quango will start denormalising her, if she isn't careful. I wonder what she'll think of the Tobacco Control template then?

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 12:01 | Unregistered CommenterMr A

In the first video it seemed Simon was interrupting Ms Crossfield quite often and it was bloody good. Well done indeed. Came across with strength and conviction. As a result I don't think anybody was interested in what she had to parrot and I think she knew it, hence her feeble attempts to interrupt in the later video.

Trouble is all the decisions are taken behind closed doors by the 'select' few.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 12:46 | Unregistered CommenterFrank J

Well done Simon on your first interview with Crossfield your argument won hands down.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 15:31 | Unregistered Commentermark

Well done Simon. She's nothing more than a sound bite merchant. And it obvious to all that she and her ilk are not the slightest bit interested in the rights of adult smokers and business owners.

Cue Grandad:

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 16:06 | Unregistered CommenterDavid

So Simon, what did you and Andrea talk about in the green room between slots? :)

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 16:11 | Unregistered Commentermark butcher

2 - 0 to Simon. I think the point needs pressed that it is illegal to sell cigarette to children,and that (most) shops and supermarkets make every effort NOT to do so, given the hefty fines if caught. Hence the most likely means for children obtaining cigarettes is via so called 'fag houses'. These may well be counterfeit, containing God knows what,and the task of passing them off as 'legitimate brands' will be all the easier with plain packaging. Moreover, it is frequently stated that this market is funding wider criminal activities and/or terrorist groups. We know this, it needs to be raised more prominently in the public domain.
One last point - I know that there is always a finite amount of time on these TV slots, but I DO wish you would correct the interviewers who refer to FOREST as a 'pro-smoking' group. The phrase implies that it 'wants', or encourages people to smoke. FOREST is NOT pro-smokING, it is pro-smokERS, possibly the most hectored, bullied and maligned minority group in the country.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 16:46 | Unregistered CommenterLiz Barber

The second interview on your website was even better. Many thousands (probably more) people have stopped using pubs since the introduction of the smoking ban. Preferring to not stand outside in the cold they now smoke and drink more in the unregulated environment of the home instead.

Not allowing smoking rooms means that many thousands continue to be completely excluded from society. And yes, it is this that is totally wrong.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 17:26 | Unregistered Commentermark

LIz - I take further issue with the "Pro-Smoking" tag for the same reasons but I believe that FOREST is a consumer rights group. We may be smokers but we are also consumers and the day will come when Forest's work encompasses other bullied minorities like the obese and those who like an alcoholic drink.

But yes, Simon, you must always correct them until they get the message that Forest does not actively seek out people to force them to smoke but defends the rights of those adults who have already made an informed decision to enjoy the consumption of a heavily taxed legal product without harassment.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 17:50 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

Well done, you ruled that interview. I'm so happy that I can now get a breakfast and coffee in Weatherspoons. It totally makes up for my local shutting down.

I agree with the others above though who say you should correct people who call you a pro smoking group. It's like they are trying to reduce your credibility before the interview even begins.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 19:23 | Unregistered CommenterBucko

About health ? No its not. Restrictions on smoking in pubs would sufficiently have ensured that bar staff and non smokers were not exposed to ets achieving exactly the same thing but not causing smokers to be displaced or excluded. The total indoor smoking ban is about adults having the freedom to socialise in the way that they chose. The ban being about taking away that freedom completely.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 20:06 | Unregistered Commentermark

Good job Simon. You were firm but fair and you put across well how we feel. Thank you

Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 22:02 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

"More US teens smoke marijuana than cigarettes"
And the US is about 13 trillion in debt, no wonder that it's going to pot.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 9:22 | Unregistered CommenterFredrik Eich

Well done Simon you got all relevant points accross, yer woman got very nervous when you mentioned the huge funding her outfit gets from taxpayers and she tried to shout you down but you won hands down.
Sock it to em.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 9:17 | Unregistered Commenterann

I did note how Ms Crossland stopped just short of saying they were coming for smokers in homes as well as their own cars - she probably didn't want to frighten too many away yet until they get the next in the agenda and enough idiots to sign up their Smoke Free Homes "voluntary" code before they then enforce it upon the rest of us who don't agree.

If it was about protecting the kids they would have come for kids in homes and cars first and not drunken adults in pubs. The ban was about forcing smokers out of their communities, scaring the public to death about smoking, and laying the ground work for the next stage in their hate agenda.

The interviewer asked "have we gone far enough?" The truth is we have gone way too far and thanks to Simon's strong objectives they never got to move the question on but halted it in it tracks.


Friday, July 6, 2012 at 15:31 | Unregistered CommenterPat Nurse

Congratulation Simon on your clear cut points and well presented arguments (when you were alloved a word).
I can't help to feel sorry for the lady and her likes.
It must be terrible to have failed so badly that you end up with so little content in life that you have to mess with other people's life and lifestyle, to fill the gabs and get a bit of that all important and much wanted attention.
Perhaps something went terribly wrong in childhood.
Who knows, - very sad Indeed.
Try "Live and Let Live". - That might help some feel better about them self without trying to save a world that does not want to get saved, - and certainly not by do-good'ers.

Friday, December 6, 2013 at 16:56 | Unregistered CommenterPoul Non Smoker

PostPost a New Comment

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