Friday 10 February 2012

BBC in cahoots with Big Tobacco, suspects raving lunatic

I have always feared for Stanton Glantz's mental health, but it's only since he started blogging that I've realised that the guy is genuinely certifiable. His latest post is an absolute belter. It seems that the Welsh government is consulting on whether to allow television and film actors to smoke in the studio. This is because the BBC has opened a production centre in Cardiff—there is already an exemption for actors in England—and the corporation has kept some productions in England as a result of the über-draconian favoured by the sheep-worriers.

The exemption is ridiculously narrow. No children can be present (as ever, I urge you to think of the children) and no members of the public are allowed to watch the scene being filmed. The exemption will only apply if "the artistic integrity of the performance makes it appropriate for the performer to smoke."

The swivel-eyed professor of nowt has, of course, gone ballistic.

BBC lobbying to weaken Welsh smokefree regulations: Yes, this is real.

From Glantz's vantage point way down the rabbit hole, the BBC is a pro-smoking organisation. wonders what else is going on in the shadows. After all, there is a long history of collaboration between Big Tobacco and the movie industry.


There is absolutely no evidence that any movie production moved from one place to another because they couldn't smoke.

But the BBC is saying exactly that, Stanton, and that definitely counts as evidence. As the consultation document states...

The exemption for performers ... would make Wales a more attractive place for programme making and would remove current costs involved with taking smoking scenes on productions being filmed in Wales to England. The smoking ban has been a major issue for a number of productions that have been filmed in Wales, especially period dramas set in a time when smoking was commonplace.

This means that you can believe one of two things. Either the Welsh Assembly and the BBC are lying because they're engaged in some kind of pro-tobacco industry plot to undermine the smoking ban, or they are telling the truth and the smoking ban is deterring the Beeb from filming more shows in Wales. If you look at the output of both the BBC and the Welsh Assembly in recent years, I think it's pretty clear that if they are are engaged in a pro-smoking conspiracy, it has been phenomenally well-camouflaged.

Glantz continues to rant on about his theories in his usual illiterate style...

Are we really to believe that the BBC has ignore [sic] the fact that it just opened a major new production center in Cardiff, Wales to take advantage of lower labor costs that exist in London just so they can favor actors [sic] generate secondhand smoke? I think not.

A prize to anyone who can explain what the hell he's babbling about.

It gets better...

Moreover, there would be nothing to stop BBC [sic] from having an actor wave around an unlit cigarette, cigar or pipe, then put the smoke in with CGI.

Yes, that's a much simpler solution, Stan, you old fruitcake.

The only beneficiary of this change would be the tobacco industry.

That's not quite true, is it now? If the BBC is lobbying for this unutterably trivial amendment, it would strongly suggest that they stand to benefit from it—by, for example, not having to spend hours pissing around with CGI. Companies don't generally lobby for policies that won't benefit them, y'see. The tobacco industry, on the other hand, is not lobbying for it and stands to gain—at best—the sale of a couple of packs of cigarettes to be smoked in some god awful period drama.

If the BBC wants to lobby to get smoking laws changed, they should be lobbying the government in London to remove the exemption that allows actors and other film makers to be poisoned by secondhand smoke at BBC studios in London.

Yes, yes. But as I've just explained, they're not going to do that because (a) they would not benefit from it; au contraire, they would be damaged by it, and (b) if they wanted to stop actors being, ahem, "poisoned by secondhand smoke at BBC studios", they would do so voluntarily. I know, Stan, that you struggle to comprehend the difference between public and private action, but not everything in life needs to be dealt with through repressive legislation.

I do hope someone at the BBC comes across Stan's blog. It might give them an idea of the type of crack-pots they've been giving such credulous coverage to all these years.


HITMAN said...

well its just scary that people like him are allowed to roam free.

Pat Nurse MA said...

I think there's money in it for researchers who can investigate Smokerphobia as a mental health condition and mega bucks for Big Pharma in designing a drug to keep it under control.

Mag said...

“What do you no, any ways. How can be BЪC poison actors ignoring the tobacco industry?
The shadows get bigger an big, then bigger still. The shadow industry has always
lobby for actor. Who…peep….. can they think when the poison smoke comes?
If I was in charged, them come say why. Why Я them smoke? Me tell – saying wally-wally no more
shadow poisoning the cake. If I take cake.”

S. Glantz

Mag said...

Are we really to believe that the BBC has ignore [sic] the fact that it just opened a major new production center in Cardiff, Wales to take advantage of lower labor costs that exist in London just so they can favor actors [sic] generate secondhand smoke? I think not.

A prize to anyone who can explain what the hell he's babbling about.

This is one of Stan’s easier ones.
He’s saying that Cardiff and London generate the same secondhand smoke. Wales is not happy with actors, so, ignoring lower labor costs, the BBC has just opened a major new production center favoring secondhand actors – from Wales (this is the only blurry bit). But is the BBC to be believed that they have opened a new production center? Does it really exist? I (Stan) think not.

There! What’s the prize, Chris? :)

Anonymous said...

A trip to a non-smoking restaraunt with the fine paid in advance just bring your own ashtray. Might even consider a smoke in at some posh london eatery while your at it! Get us some coverage!

Anonymous said...

Hmm, sounds like Stanton's been hitting the mind altering prescription drugs a little too much lately. Maybe those are freebies he gets for being a pharmaceutical lackey, but he might make better sense in his babblings and be more acute in his thinking if he were approached by Big Tobacco which offered him some of their mental enabling and alertness wares instead - to counteract all the heavy drug treatments which he probably obtains from his sponsors. Wouldn't it be a hoot if Glantz ends up with Alzheimers (he's showing the early stages) or else goes insane, well before old age, but is then forced to live a super long physical existence here on earth, but with someone in attendance to change his nappies, feed and burp him. Of course, had he been a smoker, all that tobacco might have kept some of that from happening, if he is going Alzheimer's at this point.

Anonymous said...

Hey, instead of just wondering if someone at the BBC happens to stumble onto Glantz's rantz, why not send a copy to...whoever's in charge there, along with a note asking if they still want to feature this guy as a competent expert on stories about smoke.


JJ said...

Sorry to be pedantic: That's not quit [sic] true, is it now?

Mark Wadsworth said...

"there is a long history of collaboration between Big Tobacco and the movie industry"

This claim is not entirely untrue, they mentioned it in that TV programme in which you appeared.

Christopher Snowdon said...

JJ, thanks - corrected.

Mark - indeed it is true, as Glantz never stops saying, but you'd have to be bonkers to think there is an arrangement with the BBC

Jonathan Bagley said...

More interesting than Stan's madness is the implicit admission by the Welsh Government that any effects of passive smoking are negligible. It is ssuggesting that film crews can subject themselves to tobacco smoke during the course of their work. Stan's worries are well founded. Why should workers in the hospitality industry be treated differently to film crew? By even having a consultatation, The Welsh Government has completely destroyed the credibility of its smoking ban - remember it was brought in solely to protect employees. Its hypocrisy is breathtaking and if this proposal become law, prosecuting pubs which allowed smoking, and which are staffed only by their owners, would be widely seen as comical - not just by those of us who read these blogs, but by a much wider section of the public.

Anonymous said...

Maybe we could ease up a little on the 'nurse!', 'insane', 'madness', 'mental health' ad hominem attacks.

A true libertarian understands how many innocent people are dealing with lifelong trauma from being forced into the mental system in real life. I don't like to read this infantile name spewing from someone I respect so much. I do respect Snowdon's work. I just think he can do better than the base name calling on display here. It is childish.

Jonathan Bagley said...

Yes Chris, find out the correct medical terms to describe exactly what part of Fruitcakeshire Stan is living in.

Fredrik Eich said...

You can play the game of how long you can put up with Stan droning on before reaching for the shot gun and doing away with your self.


I only lasted a couple of minutes and I am now proper dead.

Jay said...

Well, I just posted a comment on that blog, but somehow I doubt it will make it past moderation and show up on the site. So, in consideration of that likely scenario, the comment I posted was:

"Wow! This is absolutely outrageous! We should also consider the viewers being exposed to televised second-hand smoke, which, as you know, sir, is at least 50 times more dangerous than real second-hand smoke. /sarcasm"

Anonymous said...

If Glantz posts illogical rants and sounds like he's sitting at the keyboard spitting venom when he writes them, by looking at how he puts the words together, then it's worth criticism and it's not name-calling in my opinion, just someone telling the truth of the matter - that he sounds like he's gone mad. Glantz is not above cricisim, nor is UCSF.

Anonymous said...

In response to Jay - good post, but doubt very much if it will make it onto the site. Curious isn't it that 1) the site really doesn't seem to attract many comments and 2) when it does, such comments are inevitably fawning as seem to be the case in this instance!

Anonymous said...

Do you have a contact form anywhere on this blog? Great post but I have some questions about the ban in general as well as your blog. Might have a proposition. Give me a heads up.

Thin-Skinned said...

@ anonymous who posted 2/10/12 at 13:04 re: name calling.
Since you seem to be a person sensitive to the feelings of others, especially those dealing with mental health I just have to say this: I have a twenty-six year old son who must have some sort of mental problem cuz he refuses to grow up! He has the emotional and mental maturity of a four year old; and when you used the slurs(that's what they were, slurs) of "infantile" &"childish"....well it really hit a nerve and just....well, it really hurt my feelings!

Jackson said...

I've got a son 12 months old and I too was upset at the use of the words "childish" and "infantile".