Think of the children, say tobacco control campaigners. Stop exploiting them, then!
Saturday, February 15, 2014 at 17:59 I'm back from Ireland.
The least said about the return flight the better. We were told to expect turbulence and that's what we got. I wasn't the only one breathing a sigh of relief when the plane touched down.
The purpose of my latest visit was the fourth and final hearing on plain packaging by the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament) Joint Health and Children Committee.
Earlier hearings featured NGOs, doctors and retailers, among others. For this hearing the Committee had invited representatives from the tobacco companies and Forest Eireann.
Yes, Forest Eireann. Quite a coup for a group set up less than four years ago. A tribute, I would say, to our representative in Ireland, John Mallon, and the work we've done as a team.
Many years ago I was invited to address the Health Select Committee in Westminster. I remember it being a daunting prospect so I thought I'd better offer John moral support.
I'm not sure he needed it. If he was nervous he hid it very well.
I was going to watch the hearing from the public gallery but at the last moment I decided to watch it online on my laptop in my hotel. This meant I could tweet and write/send a press release to the Irish media while the hearing was taking place.
It began at eleven o'clock. Participants were invited to give a five-minute opening statement which had to be submitted to the Committee 48 hours in advance.
The CEOs representing PJ Carrolls (owned by BAT), John Player (Imperial) and JTI went first. After a short break for a parliamentary vote, John gave Forest Eireann's opening statement.
Then it was time for members of the Committee to ask questions.
We had prepared for a forensic examination of Forest's position and a flurry of thoughtful questions. What we got was a series of grandstanding statements by politicians who had little interest in what the companies or Forest had actually said.
Their primary goal was to attack the companies with a series of blunt instruments. There were a handful of questions but most of them were of the 'How often do you beat your wife?' variety.
The tone of the hearing was set by a tweet by an Irish Times journalist who wasn't even covering the story. According to Ronan McGreevy:
The merchants of death are in front of the Health Committee today.
Meanwhile Health and Children Committee member Jillian van Turnhout demonstrated her neutrality by tweeting:
#PlainPacks are good as Tobacco industry is clearly targeting children. Delighted to support @IrishCancerSoc
I'll come back to that tweet – and the accompanying image – later.
But first, what are we to make of comments such as this by fellow Committee member Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin TD:
“At the end of the day, I have no other way to say it to you, but you are representatives of an illness industry and that is the bald fact of it ... it’s time for payback with all respect.”
See: Tobacco bosses told in plain packaging debate: 'You represent an illness industry, it's payback time' (TheJournal.ie)
So regardless of the merits (or otherwise) of plain packaging, it's "payback time". How mature.
Not to be outdone, the most outspoken Committee member was Mary Mitchell O’Connor who later tweeted:
"Mitchell O’Connor excoriates tobacco industry in plain packaging debate" - Read my press release here ...
It began:
Fine Gael Dun Laoghaire TD and Member of the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children, Mary Mitchell O’Connor, has today (Thursday) slammed the tobacco industry after its representatives appeared before the Committee today to argue against the introduction of plain packaging for tobacco products.
You can read it in full here. Rarely have I heard a politician so determined to hog the limelight at the expense of her colleagues.
We replied with this tweet:
@mitchelloconnor The ego has landed.
John was a by-stander to most of this. Sitting alone, with the tobacco company execs behind him, it was transparently obvious he wasn't a mouthpiece for the industry.
And no-one said he was. Quite the reverse. Members of the Committee (who were perfectly friendly when the cameras weren't on them) seemed to warm to him and I got the impression that some liked and respected him.
Towards the end of a session that over-ran by 30 minutes, John was even given the final word. He made the most of it, explaining how his own children had dabbled with tobacco before making an informed decision to quit.
Plain packaging, John assured the Committee, would have made no difference either to him or his children.
Finally, let's return to that tweet by Jillian van Turnhout:
#PlainPacks are good as Tobacco industry is clearly targeting children. Delighted to support @IrishCancerSoc
It was accompanied by a picture of four children, none of whom can be older than ten, holding placards with slogans including 'Help save our future. We want plain packaging'.
Ugh!
Seizing upon a similar image, Eoin Bradley, a "former politico now working for the Irish Cancer Society", later tweeted:
Big Tobacco sent an army of suits to Oireachtas to fight #plainpacks. Lucky our own army was outside. @IrishCancerSoc
Bradley's tweet included a link that can be viewed here if you're on Twitter. If not here's a screen grab of his tweet with the relevant image:
A similar if not identical photograph was published on page two of the Irish Independent on Friday.
I rang the paper and asked if I could buy a copy of the image for use on this blog. (I wanted to highlight what could be viewed by some as exploitation of children in a political cause.)
The assistant news editor was adamant. "Absolutely not," she said. "We don't even know what the child's name is."
The underlying message, which I completely understand, is that it would be inappropriate for them to sell an image of a young, unidentified child for use on the Internet.
It hasn't however stopped others from tweeting links to similar images which are now freely available for all to see.
So the next time you hear tobacco control campaigners attacking tobacco companies for targeting children (an accusation they strongly deny), remember these pictures and the cynical tactics employed by advocates of plain packaging.
PS. The Indo did give me, free of charge, a picture of John Mallon on his way in to the hearing. It was taken by the same photographer who took the picture of the child with her placard. Enjoy!
Reader Comments (4)
The exploitation of children is a recurrent healthist theme. It is vile behaviour that ought to be condemned by all decent people, but when it comes to tobacco, the small minded, ethically challenged creatures that dominate all of the parliaments on these islands are more than happy to turn a blind eye. They appear to have no respect for standards in public life and no sense of common decency. That is why we stay away in droves when they urge us to legitimize their tenure from time to time.
The behaviour of these lobbyists and their political supporters should not be tolerated irrespective of one's views about tobacco, let alone rewarded at the expense of tax payers.
Still they do employ the likes of Mr Bradley who I suspect might find getting a job in industry where honesty and integrity are often valued more highly than they appear to be in the "charity" and political sectors.
This is all just window dressing of course. The bigots' minds were made up before the event was even organised. It's a sham and we all know it.
Plain packaging is coming. They want to get at tobacco companies and they want to punish the consumer for not dying. The anti's only concern for children is how they can be used and exploited to push forth political aims.
The child abusing parents of that toddler should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for allowing her to be used in that way. Shame on them.
Dear Mr Clark
Roll on plain packaging.
The sooner these parasites discover that their incomes are dependent upon real businesses producing real products that real people voluntarily consume, the better.
When tax revenues drop and real consumers turn to untaxed sources of whatever they wish to consume, the better.
Let us hope the tax parasites' incomes and pensions on both sides of the Irish Sea drop to zero soon.
DP
PS Assuming that nice Ms Arnott is the highest paid ASH employee. her salary was in the range £70-80,000 for the last two years to March 2013 and her partially taxpayer funded pension contributions were £4,307 for both years (http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends67%5C0000262067_AC_20130331_E_C.pdf Note 5 Staff Costs on p 23 of 26).
Interestingly under Note 1 (p 21 of 26) Accounting Policies / Pension: "Additional contributions are made to the individual personal pension scheme of one member of staff."
I wonder who that 'one member of staff' might be and are these additional contributions over and above the £4,307 detailed under Note 5 if the 'member of staff' happened to be the highest paid member of staff, who may or may not be Ms Arnott?
Just asking, as a taxpayer an' all. DP
PPS I can't imagine Ms Arnott earning anything like £70-80,000 plus pension contributions, in the real world. Can you? DP
Don't be complacent about loss of tax. they've got it covered. Loss of tax will be replaced by criminal penalties. it's already happening. One pack of 20 cigs costs about £7 of which about £6 is tax. One pack of 20 cig ends dropped in the street equates to £1,600 for a pack of 20. See how it works?
Add to that the car drivers who will be fined, the work vehicle drivers and their employers who get fined, plus any landlord who holds a lock in etc etc etc... That's why they need to criminalise consumers. It's the only way the money can keep rolling in to the treasury while keeping smokerphobic politician's consciences clear on the impact on health of primary smoking.