by Paragon
on July 20, 2010 at 10:26PM
Before it's suggested that this idea would be better placed on the spending challenge website, I believe it's essential that it's debated openly on this site - as it relates specifically to democracy and freedom.
To quote the website: Rules in society create good law and order. But too many nannying, unnecessary rules restrict freedom and make criminals out of ordinary people.
I'd therefore suggest that this idea sits best on this forum, as funding groups with public money, who then lobby politicians is restricting freedoms and making criminals of ordinary people.
Both areas that this site is specifically set up to combat.
Additionally, providing funding to these kind of groups is undemocratic - they aren't elected, and serve their own mandate. (ASH receives funding from the Department of Health).
To quote from an article written by them: It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition. The week before the free vote we made sure the government got the message that we "knew" we were going to win and it would be better for them to be on the winning side.
The full article can be read here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2006/jul/19/health.healthandwellbeing
Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry - thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/repealing-unnecessary-laws/time-to-review-the-libel-laws
I therefore submit that this idea fits perfectly with 'freedom' in a democratic country, as any unelected group having political sway should be closely examined.
Why the contribution is important
To ensure that lobby groups are impartial, and any pressure bought to bear on goverment isn't funded by public monies - ensuring decisions reached are more transparent, and lobby groups don't hold undue sway.
Most importantly, when ideas are discarded out of hand, we need to be 100% certain that it isn't at least in part down to an unelected but part publically funded group.
This idea would go some way to ensuring decisions taken are by our elected representatives, and stop the funding of organisations that seek to hold influence over our decisions and choices.
Is this idea inappropriate? Please login to report this idea to a moderator
Current tags
Posted by
TickledPink
July 20, 2010 at 23:56
Although I do not agree with the person above, I have to agree to some extent with the proposal. A major problem with British Governments during the past 20 years is that they have often given in to lobbyists, either from the media or charities, and produced knee-jerk legislation that can be seen as nothing more than a lurid attempt at vote grabbing. Two cases in point being the Dangerous Dogs Act and the Protection from Harassment Act.
I would certainly like to see The Network for Surviving Stalking having its funding from Government reduced due to its support, and its founder's lobbying, for the PFHA.
I would certainly like to see The Network for Surviving Stalking having its funding from Government reduced due to its support, and its founder's lobbying, for the PFHA.
Posted by
cat_bee
July 21, 2010 at 01:46
@ Voter
Thank you for posting that video. I'd never seen it before, and I thought I'd seen everything by now.
Thank you for posting that video. I'd never seen it before, and I thought I'd seen everything by now.
Posted by
dastardly
July 21, 2010 at 13:37
I agree with this proposal 100%.
To see how ASH deliberately misled MPs and Lords on the tobacco display ban see: http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/[…]/thedarkmarketredux.pdf
This is a collection of Freedom of Information requests that show ASH and the Department of Health working together to mislead MPs and Peers in the days up to the vote and was delivered to MPs as a presentation on the 20th of July 2010.
Disgusting behaviour. Can we expect that they did less in the days running up to the Smoking Ban? We need more Freedom of Information requests....
To see how ASH deliberately misled MPs and Lords on the tobacco display ban see: http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/[…]/thedarkmarketredux.pdf
This is a collection of Freedom of Information requests that show ASH and the Department of Health working together to mislead MPs and Peers in the days up to the vote and was delivered to MPs as a presentation on the 20th of July 2010.
Disgusting behaviour. Can we expect that they did less in the days running up to the Smoking Ban? We need more Freedom of Information requests....
Posted by
chaswin
July 21, 2010 at 15:08
ASH lie to the Government to extend the smoking ban.
Posted by
sholloway
July 21, 2010 at 15:08
this ban not only hits pubs clubs bingo halls restaurants etc it stops social activity and makes informers out of the non smoking public wasent this how natzi germany started?
Posted by
georgespeller
July 21, 2010 at 16:38
Posted by
Chuckles
July 21, 2010 at 18:37
ASH are a waste of money and funding should be reduced- we are in an economic crisis.
Posted by
me
July 21, 2010 at 22:40
Ash are a bunch of lunatics
Posted by
Paragon
July 21, 2010 at 23:05
Although not actually related to this idea, anyone with an interest in the smoking review may find this interesting: http://www.thepublican.com/story.asp?storycode=67370
Posted by
cirrusminor
July 22, 2010 at 00:30
There are a few occasions when ASH are economical with the truth, quote things out of context or come up with wildly misleading interpretations of data.
At all other times, they're telling barefaced, shameless lies.
It's high time that this parasitical, useless and worthless bunch of taxpayer-funded, self-serving busybodies was told precisely where to get off.
At all other times, they're telling barefaced, shameless lies.
It's high time that this parasitical, useless and worthless bunch of taxpayer-funded, self-serving busybodies was told precisely where to get off.
Posted by
chrisbro
July 22, 2010 at 00:42
ASH is a prime example of misspent public funds.
"Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) was established in 1971 by the Royal College of Physicians. It is a campaigning public health charity that works to eliminate the harm caused by tobacco."
They have a single aim and have shown themselves quite willing to make sure that all evidence supports that aim. It's a shame they have to use underhand tactics to support their view. The only facts they accept are those provided by fellow anti-smoking lobbyists and the science they support is only that which is peer reviewed by those same professional anti-smokers. They even have the nerve to infer that any dissenting voice is in the pay of evil big tobacco and no one but their anti-smoking friends should play any part in any discussion.
ASH and friends cost this Government/the tax payer many 100s of millions a year in direct funding but have cost the Country far more due to the adverse effects that they denied would happen.
Charities are not allowed to take part in political lobbying but ASH have a close working relationship with the DOH and their biased science and opinion is promoted as fact to MPs. How accurate were the assurances they promoted just hours prior to Health Bill vote? How many of their facts have since been proved false? How stupid should many MPs have felt when they read the arrogant "Smoke and Mirrors" article by Arnott & Willmore? - http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/health.healthandwellbeing
Their worst 'sin' however is that they have been allowed to make claims based on bad science and biased statistics thus undermining the integrity of all true scientists and statisticians.
Should we throw money at an organisation whose pronouncements are about a valuable as qualifications based on candidates marking each others exam papers? Why do we throw money at faux charities like ASH?
"Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) was established in 1971 by the Royal College of Physicians. It is a campaigning public health charity that works to eliminate the harm caused by tobacco."
They have a single aim and have shown themselves quite willing to make sure that all evidence supports that aim. It's a shame they have to use underhand tactics to support their view. The only facts they accept are those provided by fellow anti-smoking lobbyists and the science they support is only that which is peer reviewed by those same professional anti-smokers. They even have the nerve to infer that any dissenting voice is in the pay of evil big tobacco and no one but their anti-smoking friends should play any part in any discussion.
ASH and friends cost this Government/the tax payer many 100s of millions a year in direct funding but have cost the Country far more due to the adverse effects that they denied would happen.
Charities are not allowed to take part in political lobbying but ASH have a close working relationship with the DOH and their biased science and opinion is promoted as fact to MPs. How accurate were the assurances they promoted just hours prior to Health Bill vote? How many of their facts have since been proved false? How stupid should many MPs have felt when they read the arrogant "Smoke and Mirrors" article by Arnott & Willmore? - http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/health.healthandwellbeing
Their worst 'sin' however is that they have been allowed to make claims based on bad science and biased statistics thus undermining the integrity of all true scientists and statisticians.
Should we throw money at an organisation whose pronouncements are about a valuable as qualifications based on candidates marking each others exam papers? Why do we throw money at faux charities like ASH?
Posted by
cirrusminor
July 22, 2010 at 00:56
All absolutely true, Chrisbro, but there are a couple of other things...
Firstly, their status as a "charity" means that they're exempt from Freedom of Information requests (and just how convenient is that?);
Secondly, how is it that every single time a news story full of ASH quotes appears on a web page, there's never any scope for comments? You might almost think they're scared of the public.
Firstly, their status as a "charity" means that they're exempt from Freedom of Information requests (and just how convenient is that?);
Secondly, how is it that every single time a news story full of ASH quotes appears on a web page, there's never any scope for comments? You might almost think they're scared of the public.
Posted by
myplasterer
July 22, 2010 at 08:22
I'm dissgusted that as a tax payer I fund ASH, makes me wonder how many other single issue narrow minded little nazi's I am funding?
Posted by
benmoorhouse
July 22, 2010 at 13:25
As to the last comment and a previous one comparing ASH to the Nazis, I think you will find that the Nazis used rather more extreme measures than stopping people smoking.
Posted by
chris7
July 22, 2010 at 17:32
ASH are a duplicitous organisation who stop at nothing to get their proganda across...they even tell lies. They say that 'passive smoking' kills but cannot supply evidence no matter how many times they are asked for it.
They want at all costs to eradicate smoking and smokers...just like the Nazis tried to do...but without success.
They want at all costs to eradicate smoking and smokers...just like the Nazis tried to do...but without success.
Posted by
Paragon
July 23, 2010 at 07:39
As with other suggestions, I doubt if this one will be taken seriously - which is a shame.
I'd therefore urge anyone reading who feels strongly (either for or against the idea), to contact their MP.
Thanks to everyone who's responded to this idea thus far.
I wouldn't compare ASH to historical regimes, but I do fervently believe that all funding should be withdrawn from a charity that lobbies Parliament.
Whether for or against their stance, and whatever our individual views, there seem to be too many publically funded (and unaccountable) organisations like this.
At a time when public funding is being cut everywhere else, it seems ridiculous to be undemocratically funding those who seek to reduce liberty and freedom.
Undemocratic because not one of us has ever voted to give them public money.
Undemocratic because surveys, research and 'opinions' aren't impartial - but heavily weighted in the favour of these organisations vested interests.
------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, for anyone with any interest in the current threads, I'd urge you to look at the current EDM regarding the smoking ban, and contact your MP asking them to sign it.
Hardly seems to be a rush of MP's signing up to the current EDM motion to review the smoking ban:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/E[…]EDMID=41347&SESSION=905
I'd suggest that anyone who feels strongly about this issue contacts their MP, and asks them to sign it.
Given the numbers who voted against it last time, it seems ridiculous it has 23 signatories at the time of writing.
The EDM seems to be common sense, so it makes you wonder if pressure is being bought to bear in some quarters.
At least those who've signed it still believe in debate and a democratic process. (Both areas that were sadly missing from the current legislation).
I'd therefore urge anyone reading who feels strongly (either for or against the idea), to contact their MP.
Thanks to everyone who's responded to this idea thus far.
I wouldn't compare ASH to historical regimes, but I do fervently believe that all funding should be withdrawn from a charity that lobbies Parliament.
Whether for or against their stance, and whatever our individual views, there seem to be too many publically funded (and unaccountable) organisations like this.
At a time when public funding is being cut everywhere else, it seems ridiculous to be undemocratically funding those who seek to reduce liberty and freedom.
Undemocratic because not one of us has ever voted to give them public money.
Undemocratic because surveys, research and 'opinions' aren't impartial - but heavily weighted in the favour of these organisations vested interests.
------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, for anyone with any interest in the current threads, I'd urge you to look at the current EDM regarding the smoking ban, and contact your MP asking them to sign it.
Hardly seems to be a rush of MP's signing up to the current EDM motion to review the smoking ban:
http://edmi.parliament.uk/E[…]EDMID=41347&SESSION=905
I'd suggest that anyone who feels strongly about this issue contacts their MP, and asks them to sign it.
Given the numbers who voted against it last time, it seems ridiculous it has 23 signatories at the time of writing.
The EDM seems to be common sense, so it makes you wonder if pressure is being bought to bear in some quarters.
At least those who've signed it still believe in debate and a democratic process. (Both areas that were sadly missing from the current legislation).
Posted by
exile001
July 25, 2010 at 17:12
I agree, a groups lobbying a government should have no direct ties to that government, especially financial.
Posted by
homegrownoutlaw
July 27, 2010 at 02:35
Taking any other personal issue out of the equation, as a non smoker, I agree with this proposal.
You simply cannot conduct a democratic country in this way. I've had a look at the video posted and have tried to read as much as I can on this, and it does seem that underhand tactics have played a part.
It was summed up for me in the video posted, you present evidence and let a debate wage from there, you do not look behind the scenes to who is doing what to whom and how can I influence them.
To lobby is one thing, you provide information and evidence, we all do this to one degree or another... however, to lobby with money, influence, power and propaganda is simply not democratic. The worrying thing is, this is now an accepted tactic of politics. "Oh it's always been that way" well, quite frankly it shouldn't and to accept it is to concede democracy entirely.
You simply cannot conduct a democratic country in this way. I've had a look at the video posted and have tried to read as much as I can on this, and it does seem that underhand tactics have played a part.
It was summed up for me in the video posted, you present evidence and let a debate wage from there, you do not look behind the scenes to who is doing what to whom and how can I influence them.
To lobby is one thing, you provide information and evidence, we all do this to one degree or another... however, to lobby with money, influence, power and propaganda is simply not democratic. The worrying thing is, this is now an accepted tactic of politics. "Oh it's always been that way" well, quite frankly it shouldn't and to accept it is to concede democracy entirely.
Posted by
Paragon
July 27, 2010 at 21:47
Though closed, this idea has some interesting snippets:
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.[…]n-on-smoking-and-health-ash
As does:
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.[…]l-public-funding-to-ash-etc
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.[…]n-on-smoking-and-health-ash
As does:
http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.[…]l-public-funding-to-ash-etc
Posted by
Paragon
July 28, 2010 at 23:40
Never mind, these organisations are praising ministers for their undemocratic dismissal of peoples views.
Not that it matters much, as we have a government who'll 'consult' and 'listen'...........on issues they approve of.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/doctors-feat-obese-warnings-health
Though the article's on 'fat', scroll to the end and find this:
"However, anti-smoking groups today praised the minister for confirming that the smoking ban would stay in place despite the previous administration's promises of a review, which would have examined whether it should have been extended to beer gardens and pub doorways.
"We are not rolling back the smoking ban, nor are we deploying austerity as an excuse for deregulation," Milton told an audience of health experts in central London."
-----------------------------------------------------
Deomocracy, debate and listening to the electorate - a pipe dream or so it seems.
Not that it matters much, as we have a government who'll 'consult' and 'listen'...........on issues they approve of.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/[…]/doctors-feat-obese-warnings-health
Though the article's on 'fat', scroll to the end and find this:
"However, anti-smoking groups today praised the minister for confirming that the smoking ban would stay in place despite the previous administration's promises of a review, which would have examined whether it should have been extended to beer gardens and pub doorways.
"We are not rolling back the smoking ban, nor are we deploying austerity as an excuse for deregulation," Milton told an audience of health experts in central London."
-----------------------------------------------------
Deomocracy, debate and listening to the electorate - a pipe dream or so it seems.
Posted by
Voter
July 29, 2010 at 18:03
I, too, have read this
"However, anti-smoking groups today praised the minister for confirming that the smoking ban would stay in place despite the previous administration's promises of a review, which would have examined whether it should have been extended to beer gardens and pub doorways.
"We are not rolling back the smoking ban, nor are we deploying austerity as an excuse for deregulation," Milton told an audience of health experts in central London."
Just curious, which ministers did confirm that this government will not honour the promise of review of this ban, which was based on hyperbole of anti-smokers and their "charity"?
It is beginning to look like this government has even less of a back bone than labour.
(I don't particularly agree with some of UKIP's ideas, but they seem to have enough of a back bone to review this idiotic ban which has cost this country's pub trade dearly.)
"However, anti-smoking groups today praised the minister for confirming that the smoking ban would stay in place despite the previous administration's promises of a review, which would have examined whether it should have been extended to beer gardens and pub doorways.
"We are not rolling back the smoking ban, nor are we deploying austerity as an excuse for deregulation," Milton told an audience of health experts in central London."
Just curious, which ministers did confirm that this government will not honour the promise of review of this ban, which was based on hyperbole of anti-smokers and their "charity"?
It is beginning to look like this government has even less of a back bone than labour.
(I don't particularly agree with some of UKIP's ideas, but they seem to have enough of a back bone to review this idiotic ban which has cost this country's pub trade dearly.)
Posted by
chrisbro
July 29, 2010 at 22:35
Amazing!
At least the previous government had the neck to hold a sham consultation.
Could it be that this coalition intends to rule behind closed doors without regard to the public, parliament or Parliamentary promises.
At least the previous government had the neck to hold a sham consultation.
Could it be that this coalition intends to rule behind closed doors without regard to the public, parliament or Parliamentary promises.
Posted by
clancybowes
July 30, 2010 at 12:24
A recent public enquiry in Scotland revealed that ASH (Scotland) recieves over 90% of its funding from the Scottish Government. That amounted to just over £900,000 last year. They claim that all of 2% of their funding comes from Joe Public. This outfit is about as representative of the people of Scotland as the Scottish Liberation Front and it's an outrage that any funding is handed over on behalf of the Scottish taxpayers.
I agree with this proposal and would suggest it be extended to cover secondary funding from the likes of the NHS. Zero taxpayer money to any pressure group, they get enough from the likes of Mayor Bloomberg & The Bill Gates Foundation.
I agree with this proposal and would suggest it be extended to cover secondary funding from the likes of the NHS. Zero taxpayer money to any pressure group, they get enough from the likes of Mayor Bloomberg & The Bill Gates Foundation.
Posted by
Voter
July 31, 2010 at 22:57
Well, if the public likes ASH and support it, it can continue to exist on VOLUNTARY donations alone!
No taxpayer's money for pressure groups!!!!
No taxpayer's money for pressure groups!!!!
Please log in to add comments and rate ideas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtvH8IbV3F4
as well as
"Not content with admitted confidence tricks, they also try to create the impression that any suggestion of compromise with the current smoking ban is being orchestrated by the tobacco industry - thus trying to undermine the legitimate debate and voice of smokers everywhere. See http://www.cieh.org/ehn/ehn3.aspx?id=31820 and another idea on this site http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/[…]/time-to-review-the-libel-laws"
With respect to the "donation" the ASH club receives every month from MY income tax paid - ASH, get lost! (My money is covered in "third hand smoke" - the one that travels along telephone lines and causes instant lung cancer, so you better send it back to the government that it can be used for something useful!)
CancerUK et al lost my support for as long as it has connections to you.
Harsh? Not as harsh as the people who withdrew their organ donor permission on account of a recent revolting publication, intended to turn Society against smokers, viciously attacking a surgeon who transferred a healthy (!)smokers lung.
I have as yet not done so - unless I find here people stating that they do not wish my healthy organs. (Please ask politely if you fear my organs are not good enough - it is easy for me to withdraw my consent and I will do so if it is wished.)
It looks like ASH was creeping into every aspect of life - it is high time it found it's way out!
Please login to flag this comment as inappropriate