Comments

Trial by media — 35 Comments

  1. GD I really don't see how the fuck you can compare Savile's evidence of guilt or not and the evidence of whether or not Smoking harms.

    Smoking Kills, its a fact. Roy Castle died from cancer caused by second hand smoke. Savile fucked and raped his way up and down The UK. There are victims who have spoken out.

    The Newspapers and Mags only exist to make money by feeding the Sheeple with the shit they love to read and gossip about.

    If the Sheeple did'nt buy them the result would be obvious.

    • In a way you are proving my point, Slab.  The "smoking kills" and Roy Castle myth are both glib qutes that were picked up by an unquestioning media and spoonfed to the masses.

      "Smoking kills" is meaningless.  By the same token anything you care to mention kills as we all die in the end.  Equally the ROy Castle myth was the merely the opinion of the man himself, and he knew as much about the medical effects of smoke as I do about trumpet playing. If people stopped to even think about these soundbytes we would probably live in a better world.

      With regard to Savile, I have no love for the man and don't really care whether he is innocent or guilty.  What I am saying is that the man is dead and therefore cannot defend himself.  It is therefore the easiest thing for anyone and everyone to grab their bit of media fame by leveling accusations against him.

      My bottom line is that people simply accept whatever they are spoonfed without ever questioning the source or veracity.

      • "My bottom line is that people simply accept whatever they are spoonfed without ever questioning the source or veracity."

        Yet here we are, GD , questioning!

  2. @ Slab

     

    Roy Castle smoked cigars, and that fact notwithstanding, there is no evidence that "second-hand smoke" killed anyone, let alone Mr Castle. It's a chimera. Get your facts right.

     

    Jimmy Savile was the most appalling creature as far as slebs go, (I despised him) but he was a creature of his time. He was not a paedophile as far as I can see, but seems to have had a predilection for young girls. Paedophiles by definition have an unhealthy interest in pre-pubescent children.

     

    Screwing (or attempting to screw) young women and interfering with young children is not the same thing. In other parts of the world, marriages are consummated when the wife is very young by our current standards / orthodoxy. Mohammed famously married Aisha at six and consummated the marriage when she was nine. It's a cultural construct. Whether your personal morality agrees with that or not is irrelevant.

     

    Back in the 60s, when he was getting famous, and I wasn't, I remember that me and my peers would chase any skirt that looked like a possible conquest. We didn't ask about age. If it had tits, it was fair game. In my late teens / early twenties I wasn't prejudiced. Anything from mid-teens to mid-thirties (if I got lucky) was in the crosshairs. Underage? As far as I was concerned then, if she was old enough to bleed, she was old enough to fuck. That's not paedophilia. That's rampant testosterone. As far as I am aware, Savile never targeted children. He was just the classic 'dirty old man'.

     

    Ok, it get a bit strange when you're still after teens at the age of sixty, but I think the whole affair smacks of tabloid prurience and self-righteousness. And money, of course.

     

    I'm not yet convinced of his guilt, much as I disliked the man. A case of "a good day to bury bad news", perhaps?

    • Secondhand smoke certainly does kill. http://phys.org/news/2010-11-people-2nd-hand.html

      There is plenty of evidence. Ask your Doctor.

      Roy Castle was a Trumpet Player. In the process of playing that instrument, air is compressed in the lungs and forced through the lips into the mouthpiece of the instrument to create sound. It was the compression of smoke filled air from the clubs he worked in that caused the damage. If he had smoked Cigars and never played the Trumpet, perhaps he would be still alive.

      Savile was a vile creature and of course the newspapers will make money with the intrigue.

      The Sheeple will keep buying the crap though.

      • Actually I have asked my doctor, but you wouldn't like his answer!

        I could show you a thousand links like the one you quote above above.  Essentially they all quote each other in a vicious circle without ever citing the original source.  You will also find that the vast majority, if no all are sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies who stand to make billions.  If you ever do get back to the source you will find manipulation , omission and distortion of data that would make any true statistician's hair curl.

        Incidentally, should you like to try some research of your own, I'm sure you would soon come across the fact the those involved with Sudden Infant Death Syndrome have repeatedly begged the Tobacco Control Industry to stop involving SIDS as there is not even the remotest connection between SIDS and smoke, and it is just stigmatising parents who have lost a child.

        • What you say has some truth, GD. There are vested interests on both side of the coin with their own agendas to make money out of the whole issue. However, the truth lurks somewhere in the mire of information and disinformation.

          I have personal experience of loss due to the effects of smoking, directly and indirectly and apart from the information world, it is good enough for me.

          This constant argument is just like the Pro and Anti-Abortion row that has been festering for the last twenty years.

          Too many vested interests.

          Maybe Noonan will introduce penal taxes on tobacco to cover the cost of smokers health care and you guys can smoke yourselves to kippers, 'cos I don't want to pay for your lung removal by instalments.

          • I respect anecdotal evidence, but I tend to treat it as it is – personal opinion and not evidence.  I could quote a few examples of my own.

            With regard to the cost of healthcare, this is yet another myth put out by the Tobacco Control people.  The actual figures show that the cost of treating "smoking related diseases" [whether the patient is a smoker or not] is still far less than the additional tax and excise duty that smokers contribute to the coffers. 

          • Maybe Noonan will introduce penal taxes on tobacco to cover the cost of smokers health care and you guys can smoke yourselves to kippers, 'cos I don't want to pay for your lung removal by instalments.

             

            Ah, the old chestnut of how smokers are costing you money.

             

            Lifetime healthcare costs for the "healthy"-£225,000

            Lifetime healthcare costs for the obese-£201,000

            Lifetime healthcare costs for smokers-£177,000

            So there you have it.

            Sources:

            1. Forbes

            2. Science Daily

            3. Ausmed

            Some more numbers:
             

            Consumer spending on tobacco products in 2010 amounted to an estimated £14 billion, around 90% of this on cigarettes.

            Tax revenue from tobacco in 2011/12 amounted to £12.1 billion – £9.5 billion in excise duty plus £2.6 billion in VAT.

            The total tax burden (excise duty plus VAT) accounts for 88% of the price of the cheapest cigarettes on sale in the UK.

            Source:

            Tobacco Manufacturers Association

             

            Even the grossly exaggerated "costs of treating smoking related diseases" that are bandied around pale into insignificance when compared with the punitive tax take from tobacco. Add to that the fact that according to the anti-tobacco mob smokers die younger and so don't draw as much in the way of pensions, and we end up with a situation whereby if everybody gave up smoking, your health costs would probably double, given the degree to which smokers are subsidising you.

            • I note your examples of health costs are in Pounds. Am I to assume, you are referring to The UK.

              The issue only has my interest where it affects me, in The Republic of Ireland where we use Euro's (crap) just like The Greeks.

              Have you got any Euro stats for here. That might interest me.

               

              • The UK stats were the only ones I could readily lay my hands on, however I think you can safely assume that they will be representative of all the western nations. I know I've seen the stats for the US, and they pretty much mirror those I've given, albeit with a lower tax take, as they don't, federally, tax tobacco as highly as the UK. However, even there, smokers pay in more than they take out. The lifetime healthcare costs are similar, though.

                 

                I'm sure that here in Greece and there in Ireland, the figures will be much the same. Except, of course, in Ireland smokers pay much more tobacco tax than the Greeks do.

              • As far as I am aware, our own dear HSE use UK figured [adjusted for population size] for their own statistics

                The best I can find is that according to Revenue the figures for 2008 show an excise take of nearly €1.2 billion.  This is excise only and does not include VAT.

                According to the Department of Health [and I quote] "It costs us €1 Billion per year to provide health services for smokers".  I would ask of the department if this includes all healthcare provided to smokers?  If I land in hospital with a broken leg, am I included in those figures?  I think we know the answer to that!

                One way or another the worst case scenario is that the country is still making a cool €200 million profit out of smokers.

    • Is he a GAA Doctor too? Mick. Them fellas are brilliant. They have magic water too. Did you ever see the injured Hurler, writhing in

      pain after a bad tackle. The magic water is poured on the offending limb and Hey Presto! up he jumps, off he goes and flattens the bloke who tackled him.

      GD should gargle with the stuff.

  3. Grandad posted yesterday on an article about Savile with a link, but it's not here, have tried again but still not working, what am I doing wrong?

    • I don't know what happened there, Jan M.  It possibly ended in the spam folder, but I am being inundated by spam at the moment and just deleted a couple of hundred without wading through them first.  Sorry about that.

  4.  

    Slab,

     

    While you are correct to attribute smoking as a contributory factor in lung cancer, the real truth is that we still do not know what causes that one single cell to turn cancerous and begin the whole vicious spiral. Clinical testing has not been able to determine it and therefore, the scientific research, such as it is, is based on questionnaires asking lifestyle questions to see if there is a pattern that might point to a common denominator.

     

    If every single person who developed lung cancer also smoked, then it would strongly suggest that smoking was the most likely cause. However, this is not the case at all. So, if you look for the current guesswork on what the real cause is, you will learn that, Smoking, Asbestos fibers, Radon gas, Familial predisposition, Mesothelioma, Prior history of lung cancer and Air pollution are all blamed. Only this morning, The Radiological Protection Institute said that 200 Irish people a year are dying from lung cancer caused by radon under their homes. On average, 16,000 a year die here from lung cancer (CSO), so one-eight of these are due to radon gas. Recently, the EPA in the USA, who originally designated tobacco smoke as carcinogenic, have cited diesel fumes formally as being also carcinogenic and they are now testing petrol fumes. Should petrol and diesel prices be raised to €30.00 a litre ? It becomes ridiculous then, if as a smoker, I claim that your car is killing me, and your exhausts fumes are filthy and smelly too and it gets on my clothes and hair when I an entitled to fresh air outdoors.

     

    And Roy Castle may have had a family history of cancer, may have been exposed to asbestos, may even have breathed in traffic fumes, who knows. It is just too easy to blame tobacco smoke, particularly if you hate it yourself.

  5. Correction to my last post.

     

    The official figure for annual lung cancer deaths should read 1,600 and not 16,000 as listed. This 1,600 is included in the 29,000 deaths in the State each year from all causes. So, lung cancer accounts for just over 2 per cent of all deaths !

  6. A further correction to the last post.

     

    The 2 per cent figure should of course be 5.5%. It still begs the question though, "How is it that 94.5 per cent of the deaths in Ireland each year have nothing at all to do with lung cancer when we are being told that smoking is the big killer ?

    • Thanks for your efforts John, corrections too. We can debate this 'till the cows come home and maybe we have ventured too far in to the territories of opinion. There are several factors that can cause lung cancer. You forgot to mention Bird Fanciers Lung too.

       Bakers also run into problems from airborne flour. I used to smoke like a trooper and feel the benefit from no longer smoking.

      But I was concerned only with the Smoking issue. Next all the prosmoking fraternity here will be arguing that there is no evidence that shooting up with Heroin does'nt end up in death either.

      My Old Gran used to say, "If we were meant to smoke, we'd all have chimneys".

       

  7. Just think of how much money, Globally, you all contribute to Big Tobacco who has ripped you off and fed you lies while poisoning you with their chemical loaded products.

    Pure Tobacco, unspoilt by processing would probably do a lot less harm, if you could get it and afford it.

    • I'm not trying to be funny but you could equally quote

      Just think of how much money, Globally, you all contribute to Big Pharma who has ripped you off and fed you lies while poisoning you with their chemical loaded products.

  8. Regarding the Jimmy Savile case and his accusers, if you have not already read it do have a look at the annaracoon blog, she is doing what our journalists should do but won't. Her background qualifies her very well for her investigation. Personally I have yet to see any evidence that he was more than a groper of teenage girls and, as a teenager myself then we handled unwanted gropes with a sharp word or a slap. I never liked him but the whole thing is utterly ridiculous. Smoking, well I have a friend dying from lung cancer who has never smoked nor has any of her family and I mean never! grew up in a French village, no exposure to industry or chemicals, she has never even eaten junk food, always into healthy eating and exercise.  Unfortunately as a never smoker she was not diagnosed for two years as lung cancer was not suspected and by then it had spread. As she put it, if you have lungs you can get lung cancer, end of story. I on the other hand have smoked for 52 years, had a small lung cancer picked up by accident, no symptoms. I had immediate treatment, surgery and two years later I am fine, so if anyone is worried do tell them you smoke whether you do or not.

    • Indeed i have been reading Anna for some time [I have linked your mention above]

      One of the worst aspects of the whole Tobacco Control Industry is that they have the world convinced that tobacco is the sole cause of lung cancer, resulting in non-smokers never being tested.  By all accounts research into lung cancer has all but ceased as all funds are being diverted to the Tobacco Control "charities".  

      • I wonder if Big Tobacco also makes contributions to the Tobacco Control "charities" also. They have spent billions on research and developing their products. They at least owe you that.

      • My surgeon said that it is very difficult to get funding for lung cancer because of the belief that only smoking causes it. He has been around long enough to know there is much more to it but the money isn't there for research. Personally I think mine was triggered by my husband's sudden accidental death when my immune system collapsed for months with the shock. I don't think it would have taken 52 years for smoking to start it but who knows.  I won't give a penny to CRUK because of their diverting money to Tobacco Control and I tell them why. In fact I won't give a penny  to any 'charity' that becomes a lobbying group, gets money from the pharmaceutical companies selling useless smoking cessation aids or even gets money from the Government. They are not what I think of as a charity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Hosted by Curratech Blog Hosting