Plain packaging: judge dismisses "full scale attack on Regulations"
The tobacco companies have lost their High Court challenge against the new plain packaging rules.
No surprise there. Not because I don't think the companies had a good case. They did. No, what surprised me was the judge's take on things.
You would expect the summary of judgement to be rather dry. Not a bit of it. According to Mr Justice Green, "the tobacco claimants have sought to launch a full scale attack on the Regulations."
"A full scale attack"? That's a bit tendentious, surely. Also, if anyone's conducting a war, it's government and public health, and the enemy is every member of the tobacco chain including manufacturers and consumers.
Today's announcement – the day before the new rules are introduced – also feels remarkably stage-managed. Perhaps that's too cynical, even for me, but it guarantees that the introduction of plain packaging tomorrow gets a fresh new hook.
The Press Association for example has reported, Tobacco giants lose High Court challenge over new plain packaging rules.
ASH, naturally, are cockahoop:
Chief executive Deborah Arnott said: "This landmark judgment is a crushing defeat for the tobacco industry and fully justifies the Government's determination to go ahead with the introduction of standardised packaging.
Yeah, yeah. The only reason the Government went ahead with plain packaging was to get it out of the way before the General Election following pressure from Labour. It had sweet FA to do with health. This was politics, pure and simple.
The PA report also features responses from JTI and Forest. I'm quoted as follows:
Simon Clark, director of smokers' group Forest, said: "The judgment is very disappointing. Plain packaging treats adults like children and teenagers like idiots.
"Everyone knows the health risks of smoking and very few people start because of the packaging.
"Plain packaging has nothing to do with health. It's gesture politics designed to appease public health campaigners who are forever searching for new ways to force smokers to quit.
"Plain packaging is a declaration of war on consumers because the aim is to denormalise not just the product but also millions of adults who enjoy smoking and don't want to quit.
"If you don't smoke but enjoy alcohol, sugary drinks and convenience food you should be concerned by this judgment because the health police are coming for you too."
Anyway, if you've time read the judgement summary and tell me what you think.
I've got some radio interviews to do this afternoon but I'll update this post later.
PS. I'm on Good Morning Britain in the morning. Please, ITV, don't force me to share the green room with Deborah. Not at 6.30. I couldn't bear it.
Update: While I'm on GMB my Action on Consumer Choice colleague Rob Lyons will be on LBC. A little later I'm on Five Live Breakfast and later still Talk Radio.
Update: It's just been confirmed. I shall be on the GMB sofa with Deborah Arnott. What a wonderful start to the day.
Update: Forest has been widely quoted online at home and abroad this afternoon. Here are a handful of examples:
BBC News, Guardian, Daily Mirror, Press Association and many more.
Update: Good Morning Britain has dropped the item on plain packaging. The good news is I don't have to get up at 4.00pm and drive to London and I don't have to share an early morning sofa with Ms Arnott.
I'm still on Five Live at 7.40, hopefully in a studio in Cambridge.
Update: Even better, I'm going to use Skype so instead of a 40-mile round trip I will be addressing the nation from my kitchen.
Update: Dropped by Five Live 30 minutes before I was due on air. Same reason as GMB - "other stories".
Shows there are far more important things in the world than plain packaging and tobacco control. Someone should tell the government.
Reader Comments (27)
It sounds as if the judge was biased and the decision therefore was decided in advance. Didn't you write recently on how ASH was given exclusive access to present their "evidence" in private? If so, do you have a link?
No surprises for me. However i'm amazed that it is that easy to steal a company's intellectual property rights. Every other company now had better watch out whatever they make. It appears that if a minority pressure group take a dislike to what you make, if they can coerce MPs and know how to obtain public money through bogus scientific claims they can put you out of business. Not my idea of democracy.
Amongst other bizzare things, that "Summary of judgment by Mr Justice Green" states that:
"Smoking generates a vast financial burden for the State in terms of medical and care costs... "
Which according to all the research I've seen (and common sense) is utter nonsense even if you ignore the huge income from tax.
The document also refers readers to the full judgement. Any idea where that is?
"Very few people start smoking as a result of plain packaging..." Untrue. No one ever started smoking because of a packet except Anna Soubry when she was the minister pushing for plain packaging. Don't let them pervert the facts or spin the truth.
If we vote to stay in the EU, correct me if I'm wrong, If TTIP, The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership, become involved in the UK, would this mean the Tobacco company's could claim compensation from the British Government for a drop in profits?. However I'm out, We will have to see what happens after the Tobacco company's latest appeal.
Plain packaging has not resulted in a reduction in smoking in Australia and recent statistics there suggest youth smoking may be on the increases after plain packages were introduced. It's time for concerted political action to stem the widespread assault on liberty in the name of tobacco control.
Pat, I think the figure is very, very small - an insignificant number - but it would be hugely inadvisable for Forest to say no-one started smoking as a result of packaging because all it would take is one or two smokers to say otherwise and our credibility would be shot. I certainly can't speak for every smoker in the world and it would be foolish to try.
Well it just shows how the Tories follow and swallow the lies of those with the money just like Labour did.
We're living in sad and temperance times.
If anyone is surprised at this judgement they should wake up and smell the coffee. This is not the only farcical judgement in regards to tobacco. Once l'd have wrote about them but to be honest l can no longer see the point. Judges are coming out with such ridiculous and plainly wrong statements to quantify their judgements that l no longer have any faith whatsoever in the justice system. You'd achieve more by taking a colouring book into court than trying to present evidence to fight your case if it involves tobacco ... whatever the form,
Simon, I'm surprised that, after everything that has been happening, you are still prepared to concede ground to your enemies' arguments.
Of course Pat is right, no doubt about it. She and I started smoking many decades ago, at a time when the vast majority of our friends and parents smoked. I can assure you that no-one - not one person - has ever started smoking because they liked the look of a cigarette packet's branding. Many will have changed brands for that reason, that is quite feasible, but starting to smoke because they were attracted by the packet? No - that is totally risible. If you were a smoker yourself, you wouldn't entertain such a daft notion.
And so what if ASH brought forth some patsy who claimed that he/she did, in fact, take up the habit because of attraction to the pack? You know, and I know, and most people in the UK now know that ASH lie for a living. So all you would ever need to do is call them out on the lie. Ask for proof (not possible, of course), and call into question their credibility, rather than playing softball for fear that someone may call Forest's credibility into question (which ASH will, and do at every opportunity anyway).
To the best of my knowledge (which is substantial) the only person ever to make such a ridiculous claim was, as Pat pointed out, the egregious Anna Soubrey. But then she lied, didn't she? She lied and no-one from our side (Forest or other) bothered to state this obvious fact for the public record - so she got away with it.
You're losing the war of words, Simon, while you keep trying to steer a 'safe' course to protect Forest's 'credibility'. We - those who are most affected by this constant drumbeat of hate coming from ASH and their odious acolytes - want to hear tougher words, including firm rebuttals of every one of Arnott's little soundbites (she can get half a dozen out in one sentence before you ever get a chance to speak). You should concede nothing, and start calling a spade a spade.
We have nothing left to lose, frankly.
I don’t think that judges are allocated cases on a random basis, so there presumably was some kind of “decision” as to which judge should act in this case, and it sounds for all the world as if this one was “selected” precisely because of his anti-smoking views. If not then it’s – err - extremely convenient that he just “happened” to hold those views, wasn’t it? I thought that one of the tenets of the whole justice system was that the judge – indeed the whole courts system – was supposed to be impartial, so that they could take an objective, unbiased view of the case and thus come to the fairest conclusion. So is there no way that the judge could be cited for not declaring what is, in effect, “a personal interest” in the case? I can’t help but think that if, for example, the judge in charge of the case had just happened to be a well-known pro-smoker (fat chance!), the antis would have been all over it, complaining of bias. So doesn’t it work the other way around? Aren’t all members of the court (including the judge) supposed to stand down if they have some kind of personal interest (such as knowing someone involved in the case or being in some other way personally involved)? Perhaps this will be one of the facets brought out in an appeal against the decision. I’d certainly think that any history of the judge making anti-smoking remarks or comments (or just being known as someone who despises smoking) would strengthen the case for an appeal, even if just to protect the reputation of the whole legal system as unbiased, fair and impartial.
The decisions of Parliament are supreme - provided that they go further than EU directives. Parliament is NOT supreme if it does less than EU directives, or does something not in accordance with EU directives. Thus, it is OK to persecute a minority MORE THAN an EU directive dictates, but not less.
Without reading the full judgement, it is hard to know on what grounds the Judge decided that International agreements about intellectual property did not apply in this case. If it was really about health, then the question must arise as to why tobacco products are permitted at all.
Assuming the Tobacco Companies are a test case for the removal of intellectual property rights, I wonder what other products the World Health Organisation may have in mind.
16. Plain packaging.
"without any logos or other features apart from health warnings, tax stamps and other government mandated information or markings"
http://www.who.int/fctc/guidelines/article_13.pdf
There were a lot of stories going round in 2008 that cheese would have to carry cigarette style warnings before the saturated fat theory was debunked.
FSA rubbishes cheese health-warning rumours
By Neil Merrett, 03-Mar-2008
"The UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) has this morning played down claims that dairy processors could face having to include cigarette-style health warnings on products like cheese and butter."
http://www.dairyreporter.com/Regulation-Safety/FSA-rubbishes-cheese-health-warning-rumours
Simon - Brian is right. Stick to facts and leave lying to ASH. By falling into their rhetoric and accepting that even one person may pop out of the woodwork to say they did indeed start smoking because of the colour of pack, (even though they would be lying for Ash or on some other lobby group's behalf) that then leaves open the wedge for ASH to then say not that a minuscule number of adults (ie - 1 - Anna Soubry) began because of the colour of a pack but that ALL children began smoking because they were bedazzled by the sight of a B&H.
There is nothing more to lose. Forest, like us and the tobacco industry, will be declared an illegal and a criminal organisation - what - in the next 10 years probably. You must stop pandering to these thugs. This matter for us is now critical. We need our representatives to be more adversarial. I know tobacco companies don't like that but they have little to lose too and they do owe us lifelong consumers at least a decent defence against these attacks. We are sick of being nice. Nice and considerate has never got us anywhere. We must fight harder, better, and in a way that is visible.
If the tobacco companies would fund me to take legal action against the Govt for the loss of my consumer rights that others are entitled to then I'd sue like a shot. Sadly, like just about everyone else browbeaten on this issue, they wouldn't and they couldn't care less.
They will still make money in 3rd world countries while their lifelong smokers here face jail and those in new found smoke free North Korea probably face execution (as they do in Syria where no one says a damn thing about it)
Please do not forget also that the Govt first dismissed this rubbish and said it was not going to do it until ASH wailed and whined and made clear they run health and the Govt had better do as it was told and implement PP even though there is no evidence it does anyhting other than abuse adult consumers.
Better off OUT - as in out of this vile fascist country full of thugs and bullies.
On Twitter yesterday someone responded to a tweet by Forest about plain packaging by saying "Nobody agrees with you." Silly thing to say. It's equally silly to make other broad brush statements. I know it works for ASH (eg 'Passive smoking kills') but I won't do it.
Btw, Pat, I'm banning the use of the words "thug" and "thugs" from this blog. You're a journalist. I'm sure you must have other words in your locker.
I do of course but none fit them better. Be nice all you want but it won't help. That is all I am saying and that I have no intentions of being nice.
Nor should any of us be nice Pat. We are all fed up with being bullied by the likes of ASH and paying through the nose. FOREST now needs to push for basic consumer rights for tobacco conpany customers. Ingredients list for a start !
“Btw, Pat, I'm banning the use of the words "thug" and "thugs" from this blog.”
Aw, c’mon Simon. Believe me, when you’re on the receiving end of these people’s activities there really aren’t very many more accurate words to describe what they’ve done to the lives of smokers. They may not yet be coming at us with baseball bats or knuckle-dusters, but they take advantage of their position of huge advantage to use the law and the public authorities in the exactly same way as any Mafia henchman uses the tools of his trade. You’ve already banned the “N**i” word, and you’ll be banning the word “bully” next – and then we simply won’t have any more accurate words to describe them! “Meanies” and “nasty people” under-describes how vicious and hateful these people truly are. I think you can tell from the tone of these comments that smokers are finally getting very, very angry, and people only get that angry when there’s nowhere else to turn. It really is becoming a case of “submit or die” for many smokers, and for many of us the “submission” option is worse than the other. A life lived according to the dictates of people who hate us, who enjoy persecuting us, who laugh at our unhappiness and who delight in thinking up ever-increasing ways of making our lives more miserable is, to my mind, not one worth living. Honestly. And it’s not about the smoking, either – it’s about the principle. So please, at least leave us with the option of describing them as we experience them, because our experiences are very real and very painful. And the descriptions, distasteful as they are to yourself, are genuinely accurate.
I should have put an exclamation mark after that sentence ("I'm banning the use of the words "thug" and "thugs" from this blog!) to show that I wasn't 100 per cent serious but I don't think language like that helps and Pat is prone to using the term in every comment she posts. Think of it this way, it would never get published in a newspaper so why use it on a blog? You can make the same point in other ways.
How about vicious, conniving, extortionist psychopaths, Simon?
I've read their studies on how to stigmatise and socially isolate law abiding, respectable people.
And I have checked my definitions carefully.
"Psychopaths, on the other hand, are unable to form emotional attachments or feel real empathy with others, although they often have disarming or even charming personalities. Psychopaths are very manipulative and can easily gain people’s trust. They learn to mimic emotions, despite their inability to actually feel them, and will appear normal to unsuspecting people. Psychopaths are often well educated and hold steady jobs. Some are so good at manipulation and mimicry that they have families and other long-term relationships without those around them ever suspecting their true nature.
When committing crimes, psychopaths carefully plan out every detail in advance and often have contingency plans in place. Unlike their sociopathic counterparts, psychopathic criminals are cool, calm, and meticulous. Their crimes, whether violent or non-violent, will be highly organized and generally offer few clues for authorities to pursue. Intelligent psychopaths make excellent white-collar criminals and "con artists" due to their calm and charismatic natures."
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wicked-deeds/201401/how-tell-sociopath-psychopath
Now that surely must sound familiar to you, having dealt with them regularly.
I can no longer bring myself to use their names. Thugs is a term used in newspapers but sadly not always aimed at the right people such as those who have smokers in a cage and happily keep prodding them with with the big stick of punitive legislation because they can.
I know how you feel about the use of those words but they are accurate. If the likes of ASH don't like it then maybe they should change their behaviour and stop bullying smokers. When they doI'll stop calling them thugs.
Meanwhile the use is right and I'll keep using it until they get the message and just leave us alone without any further harassment or social or health exclusion.
The problem is, Pat, it comes across as repetitive, witless abuse and I don't think it does you or our cause much good. It frustrates me because I know you're much more thoughtful and articulate than that.
One wonders where ASH can go next with the advent of plain packaging and cigarettes behind shutters. I suppose now it will be prohibition. We all know how well that works don't we. Its now time the Tobacco companies got off the pot and looked after their consumers. I for one want to know whats in the very expensive cigarettes i buy and why it isnt on the packet.
Simon if I have become non sensical it is because the issue makes no sense anymore so I just lash out whern I am attacked and plain packs is an attack. I will keep repeating that they are nothing but a bunch of ..... until they get the message or Govt gets the message that I am sick of being bullied and I am sure most smokers are too.
Incidentally, Timothy, it is clear where they are going. They are forcing smokers into criminality and each step from now on is one more to criminalising the industry and the consumer.
Instead of a "caring" charity that wants to help smokers, ASH is to become a Govt enforcer stomping on smokers to ultimately give them the only option left - quit or face prison.
That is where it is heading. Never be complacent that tax will save us. It won't when so much more can be gained for the treasury via criminal penalties.
Looks like i'll be in prison then Pat ! I shan't be kowtowing to the likes of ASH or a bunch of crazed doctors !
As to where ASH et al will go next, I would expect them to now focus on the brand name itself which still remains albeit in standardised font surrounded by tumours, diseased lungs and corpses. Surely having got their way on plain packaging, they could persuade politicians to take away the brand name itself and force cigarettes to no longer be called seductive names like Vogue or Marlboro and instead be labelled as "cancer sticks" or "coffin nails" or such like. This will stigmatise smoking even further. I expect them to try something like this to really rub Big Tobacco's nose in it.