Tuesday
Jul092013
That Freedom Dinner video
Tuesday, July 9, 2013 at 9:00 Here's the video of last week's Freedom Dinner.
The uncut version was considerably longer but Dan Donovan edited it down to 12 minutes.
Features interviews with Pat Nurse, Gary Rogers and Angela Harbutt, among others.
We've also included snippets from the after dinner speeches by Mark Littlewood, director-general of the Institute of Economic Affairs, and the 'King of Spin' Lord Bell.
Star of the show is the magnificent Canary Wharf backdrop.
Reader Comments (17)
Decent people enjoying a fun time!
Good speeches from Mark Littlewood and Lord Bell, I liked your interview with Angela Harbutt and her cigar, and a good commonsense interview with Pat who spoke the words that many would have wanted to hear.
I shall get there one day and join in the fun.
Good to hear someone nail the lie of SHS. It is difficult to think of any similar lie which has succeeded in continuing to be believed by so many people for so long. Even the belief in witches pales in comparison.
Nice production. Obviously, as you would expect me to say, great music. A couple of old jokes, but as they say, the old ones are the best. Speakers sounded a little 'half cut', which added to the quality. Of course, I saw and heard my heroine, Angela Harbutt, smoking a fat cigar...mmm...there may be an innuendo but I am not going there. Thanks Simon
‘There is not one shred of substantial scientific evidence of the existence of passive smoking. And it is one of the most terrible lies that a democratically elected government has pursued and imposed on people all around the world.’
So said Lord Bell at the Freedom Dinner. Now he’s entitled to air his opinions, although I’d be very interested to hear him try to justify those accusations.
But he said it at an event co-sponsored by Forest at which he was a keynote speaker. And this statement features in a video produced specially for Forest, a video which heavily edits out the events of the evening to focus on key points which Forest particularly wishes to highlight.
All of which begs the question, why would Forest highlight that statement unless it reflects Forest’s own views?
Simon – Is Forest prepared to distance itself from Lord Bell’s accusations?
"So said Lord Bell at the Freedom Dinner. Now he’s entitled to air his opinions, although I’d be very interested to hear him try to justify those accusations." Tommasi
"Simon – Is Forest prepared to distance itself from Lord Bell’s accusations?" Tommasi
He doesn't have to Rollo. Here is the entire transcript of the HoL
Sub Committee Minutes of Tuesday 14th February 2006.
See:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/
ldeconaf/183/183ii.pdf
The document contains the minutes of a number of meetings so you have to scroll down to:
Pages 143 - 147 - the Examination of Sir Richard Peto.
Peto's evidence is weak and based on extrapolation and some self-contradiction. Moreover, having made some confident assertions he was not even willing to quantify the risk of passive smoking because, in his own words it is difficult to measure LOW risks reliably.
Let's see you sophist and hair split your way out of that one Rollo!
Oh dear Blad. You’re ruining your own argument.
Your transcript proves that Lord Bell was playing fast and loose with the facts. The House of Lords’ Economic Affairs Committee did NOT conclude that “There is not one shred of substantial scientific evidence of the existence of passive smoking. And it is one of the most terrible lies that a democratically elected government has pursued and imposed on people all around the world.”
And Lord Bell might do well to remember that, despite his claims, this Committee had no role in the consideration of the English Health Bill’s passage through Parliament. Instead, it held its own inquiry into management of risk, and included in that a very sketchy and cursory look at passive smoking. Thankfully, the House of Lords passed the Health Bill, as far as I’m aware without objection from Lord Wakeham or anyone else for that matter.
The question is - is Forest prepared to distance itself from Lord Bell's wild accusations?
You obviously didn't watch the HoL debate on this issue, Rollo. Quite a number of Lords objected to the proposals of the 2006 Health Act as it happens - and Freedom to Choose's Lorraine McGregor liaised with a number of them for some considerable time before the debate - so you are attempting yet another little bluff. Plainly you didn't watch the parliamentary film record and have no background knowledge of the discussions or, if you have, you are hoping that no-one commenting here has!
I don't need to spend time arguing the case on Peto as those who read this blog will read the transcript of the Hol Committee and make up their own minds on said testimony and reach their own conclusions - as I have - and no amount of hair splitting or squirming on your behalf will disguise the fact that Peto's testimony about the dangers of second-hand-smoke is significantly based on conjecture and wishful thinking.
Lastly, demanding Forest to distance themselves from Lord Bell's remarks is not very clever and morer than a little pompous. Why should anyone take any notice of you?
Sour grapes Rollo - does the anti-smoker industry distance itself from it's Big Pharma paymasters? Now that it has handed over e-cigs to it's corporate masters in Big P.
Neither one nor the other can claim the moral high ground and in trying to do you sound a right prat.
Lord Bell was there at the start of the propaganda war and he knows how the scam was pulled off. Simon, don't you dare distance Forest from his truthful words. In fact shout them loud and proud and wake up the public to how they've been conned and misled.
SHS is an irritant to those sensitive to it and most people aren't. It isn't sarin gas. It doesn't kill. Do grow up Rollo.
Simon – Two pro-smokers are challenging me. One (Pat Nurse) is demanding Forest scream Lord Bell’s absurdities from the rooftops. The other (Blad Tolstoy) clearly recognises he cannot defend Lord Bell’s nonsense, and so tries to argue instead on detailed points about a Committee inquiry and the nature of any criticism about the Health Bill, which have absolutely no bearing on Lord Bell’s claims.
The fact is that Forest chose to highlight Lord Bell’s claims when it didn’t need to and when it edited plenty else out from its Freedom Dinner. It’s fairly obvious to me that Forest is trying to promote his accusations, so Forest must also try to justify them.
By the way, Blad has a very confused recollection about the Health Bill. Neither Lord Wakeham nor any other Lord voted against the Bill, either at Second Reading on 1 March 2006 or Third Reading on 4 July 2006.
I don't promote smoking Rollo and you know it but as usual you choose to denigrate those you disagree with. I promote an end to hatred against adult tobacco consumers, I promote the right to legitimate adult choices, and I promote truth over lies.
You are just a typical smokerphobic anti having a toddler tantrum because you can't get your own way. Go to the ASH website - if you don't already visit daily as someone employed by the anti-smoker industry - and throw your dummy out there. They will welcome you with open arms.
The truth is you are too much of a coward to come clean about who you are. Why, then, should you be taken seriously? You could work for Big Tobacco's main corporate competitor in Big Pharma for all anyone knows.
Forest doesn't stand up for your rights. You don't need it with a myriad of quangos pushing your world view over everyone else's. Forest represents adult tobacco consumers and those more tolerant than you who don't smoke.
Rollo rolls up as the anti-smoker industry's Philadelphia lawyer cross-examining the accused with all the shrillness and stridency of the zealot.
"he other (Blad Tolstoy) clearly recognises he cannot defend Lord Bell’s nonsense..." Tommasi
Don't put words in my mouth, Rollo, you just aren't good enough!
Moreover, I don't have a confused recollection about the Bill discussed. On whether or not any Lords voted against it or not I DID NOT COMMENT, but a number spoke against it, and one of the foremost was Lord Stoddart. However, we do, once again, take note of the way you like to twist matters to suit your purpose which reinforces what I have already said: you are a sophist and manipulator - so typical of your ilk.
Lastly, there is no shred of real evidence to support the claims that ETS, in the quantities in which we normally experience it, is a danger to anybody but there is plenty of garbage. So by attempting to perpetuate the myth you are either a charlatan or you believe your own propaganda.
Personally speaking, I'm tired of reading your crap and I suspect the only person impressed by it is you yourself!
Blad - You don't need to read what I produce. Remember I was directing my points to Simon.
But, since you don't like my statement that "Thankfully, the House of Lords passed the Health Bill, as far as I’m aware without objection from Lord Wakeham or anyone else for that matter", you might do well to brush up on your understanding of how MPs and peers DO object to Bills. They do so by voting against them. It is votes that decide whether a Bill is passed or not. Did Lord Wakeham or anyone else vote against the English Health Bill? No. Did they therefore object to the Bill? No!!
"Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick..." ASH
The alleged "harm" caused by SHS and alleged public support for a ban without exemptions was and is a scam and even ASH admitted it, nay, bragged about it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing
Congratulations Forest upon your recent campaign success!
I wish to God that we in Australia had an organisation even half as effective. Perhaps then outcomes for smokers here might not have been so dire. Our national complacency costs us dearly.
Kevin Rudd's recent leadership coup, coupled with Labour's poll improvements, could spell further grim news for Australian smokers.
Simon, feel free to emigrate to Australia anytime soon - we desperately need you here!
Bill - HOOS - Hands Off Our Simon!
Mind you, Bill does have a point. Forest should expand both here and abroad as the only consumer rights organisation standing up for persecuted tobacco consumers.
Ok, fair enough Pat - HOOS - teh heh... but seriously, we do need an effective organisation to rectify the misinformation and resultant persecution inflicted upon us by government, the 'anti-smoking industry', bigots and general wowsers.
Forest should expand internationally (beginning with Australia) as I believe that most smokers here would welcome a real voice!