Via Dick Puddlecote and Simon Clark, we are introduced to the egregious Alan Dee. Alan Dee doesn’t just dislike smoking, he thinks that the matter should be stamped out by snipers taking pot shots at people as they light up (page 8).
I confidently predict that the prospect of having your head blown off while enjoying what you didn’t realise would be your last cigarette would give smokers up and down the country an extra incentive to kick the habit.
Presumably this puerile wanker thinks he is being clever – or witty. Neither is the case. Humour may well be a funny thing, but incitement to murder isn’t exactly one of them. Besides, outrageous humour that is in bad taste (and I do enjoy a good example when I come across one) demands a greater writing and delivery skill than Dee clearly possesses. A deft touch with the pen or keyboard using intelligent language skills might have pulled it off. The unfortunate juxtaposition with the events in Norway this weekend merely exposes it as the crass, childish and psychotic outburst of an immature and puerile fantasist with a fixation on something that really is none of his concern. If people wish to risk their health by smoking tobacco, well, that’s up to them. They know the risks, after all.
I am amazed, frankly, that the editor allowed this execrable piece of piss-poor journalism (and I use the term loosely) past his desk. Shame on him.
If it’s a joke then it’s in astonishingly poor taste. The coincidence of its appearing the same time as the Norwegian massacre means that it’s probably the last article that will appear by that writer.
I am amazed, frankly, that the editor allowed this execrable piece of piss-poor journalism (and I use the term loosely) past his desk
It’s not journalism. It is an opinion piece. It compares to the sort of crap that Melanie Phillips writes, though her targets are Muslims and lefties, rather than smokers
Worry not. In the best tradition of statism he writes that the snipers will have to be licenced. That’s OK then.
Does Stephen mean crap like this from Ms Phillips?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2010972/From-human-rights-EU-tides-turning-liberal-thought-police.html
I don’t necessarily agree with everything she says but it is a bit unfair to compare her to Dee on any kind of level.
It’s amazing, the amount of people on Digital Spy who treat the rights and choices of individuals with utter contempt. As with the endless smoking debates had on there that get endlessly filled with the rants of anti-smokers.
One takes little comfort when something that those pondlife enjoy is taken away from them.
I fear we are heading into a horribly illogical puritanical world.
I don’t necessarily agree with everything she says but it is a bit unfair to compare her to Dee on any kind of level
True. Dee is her intellectual superior on every level, in much the same way that a rat is the superior of a cockroach.
“Dee is her intellectual superior on every level, in much the same way that a rat is the superior of a cockroach.”
From which we may conclude that intellectual superiority is directly correlated to the extent that Stephen likes a person’s views. Perhaps you could help us with a comparison between the two on each of the levels you allude to, Stephen.
I take it that we have all emailed the editor? I have.
I understand that the police have been notified – not that they will do anything – totally politically motivated, except when it comes to persecuting citizens.
Complain to the Press Commission? Why not?
I personally won’t be emailing the editor or complaining to the Press Commission, Junican. The bloke may be a tosser but that is no reason to restrict his right to free speech. It is clearly no more an incitement to violence than some blogs making reference to hempen rope and lampposts when discussing politicians. The beauty of free speech is it gives people ample opportunity to let us know they are tossers rather than hiding such a fact for fear of prosecution.
I have to say that Docbud is spot on, here. Being a total, immature, twat is not, yet, illegal.
I do feel, however, that pieces such as this should be pointed to our various MP’s to indicate the bile that they seem to have sanctioned from a minority.
I have to say that I am, on balance, in agreement with Doc Bud and Frank. Let him have his say and let us see him for what he is. I don’t think the editor should have let it through, though as it reflects very badly on the paper.
I agree with all who say that articles like Mr Dee’s should not be banned but highlighted as examples of the depths to which our society has sunk. Leave it to the antis to try to stifle debate and opinion that opposes their will. They do it so obviously and so frequently that perhaps even the feckless bunch currently inhabiting the corridors of power might eventually notice something is awry.
Having said that, according to ASH, “We are, in short, pro-health. Our opponents are pro-death.” So I suppose that’s argument over then.
I would like to thank Stephen, despite his insult to rats, a species that I admire greatly, for helping me overcome one of my personal prejudices and actually read a Daily Mail opinion piece. I have now read Dee and Phillips and I predict that unlike Phillips, Dee will never win the Orwell prize for journalism.
I can see where Doc Bud and Frank are coming from, however I do fear that with pieces such as this there are enough ‘idiots’ (to put it kindly) out there for at least one to try out the idea on the basis that as it was written in the press, it must be ok to do it!
Lets face it, it is radical extremists that are behind the attrocities of recent years, both pre and post 9/11, the most recent obviously being Norway.
On this basis I see this artice as no less dangerous that radicals calling for a Jihad on certain people because they do not like what they think or say.
Perhaps I should have been clearer about the nature of my complaint to the editor. It wasn’t about the ‘incitement to violence’. Perhaps if I reproduce it below:
“”What on earth is Mr Dee’s problem?
The people of Stony Stratford voted about 148 – 2 against the councillor’s proposals. What is difficult to understand about that? People are sick to death of doom-mongering and bans, and they want their freedom back. I enjoy tobacco – that is my lifestyle choice. I have done so since I was 20 and I am now 72 and fit and healthy for my age. I do not care what the likes of Alan Dee think about the enjoyment of tobacco. Oh…and he is totally wrong in saying that smokers stink – they do not. It is a vicious lie.
There is a front group called ASH. It is a front group for the DoH, the Chemical Industry (drugs companies) and the BMA. Is Mr Dee a member of that front group and is he using your newspaper to push the agenda of that front group?
Perhaps intolerant and brutal people like him should wear a yellow star on their foreheads, just above their eyes, so that they could be picked off in the streets with a sniper’s bullet between the eyes.””
I have complained twice to the Press Commission in the recent past. I did not expect either of them to be successful. The first was to complain about a Scottish paper and referred to an article by Duffy from ASH Scotland. I complained that the newspaper stated that the Save our Pubs and Clubs campaign was orchestrated by Tobacco Companies. In the second, I complained that the Independent had published an article by Arnott from ASH which was full of inaccuracies in point of fact.
In both cases, my complaints were about factual inaccuracies and aimed at the newspaper for printing them and not at ASH.
The first was rejected on the ground that Forest were involved and Forest receives funding from Tobacco Companies. In their reply, they said that the would pass on my concerns to the newspaper.
As regards the second, they seem to be taking my complaint rather more seriously since they have told me that they are waiting for a reply to their queries from the paper. In the second one, my principle complaint was that Arnott accused the chap from the Pubs Union of lying.
I do not expect success, but just maybe stirring things up a bit might make newspapers think a little before ‘copying and pasting’.
Fair do’s. I’ll be interested in any reply you get.