cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Airbrushing history

Midnight_Caller
Rising Star
Posts: 4,143
Thanks: 7
Fixes: 1
Registered: 15-04-2007

Airbrushing history

[quote="Spot the difference"]
How today's airbrushing PC censors decided Churchill could do without his cigar
The face is instantly familiar, the two-fingered salute unmistakable.
But are these actually the same photograph of Sir Winston Churchill?
In the original photograph the war leader has his cigar gripped firmly in the corner of his mouth.
But in the other image - currently greeting visitors to a London museum - his favourite smoke has been digitally extinguished.

 

I knoe most of the well-known pictures of  Winston Churchill show him with his famous cigar, but the PC brigade have now decided it should be airbrushed out.  
Nex thay will be airbrushing out cigarettes from old films.
Oh and films which have smoking in them, for example Casablanca, now have to have a 18 certificate to protect the young.
Bloody ridiculous.  Angry
9 REPLIES
Community Veteran
Posts: 1,850
Registered: 11-08-2007

Re: Airbrushing history

yep, we're almost back to being as prissy as the victorians.
Community Veteran
Posts: 18,551
Thanks: 195
Registered: 12-08-2007

Re: Airbrushing history

How ridiculous.  The cigar was one of his trade marks. Notice his lips still look as if he's smoking Undecided
SRD
Grafter
Posts: 300
Registered: 29-04-2010

Re: Airbrushing history

Damn good thing, if we want to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of those who choose to poison themselves then we have to ensure that anyone who might be a role model must give out all the correct signals.
Lurker
Grafter
Posts: 1,867
Registered: 23-10-2008

Re: Airbrushing history

What state would the NHS be if there were no smokers in the country?
I suspect you will find it would be worse off in some respects.
Yes, some treatments are expensive; but those treatments are also useful for people who do not and never have smoked.
Would these treatments exist without the numbers of people requiring treatment being so high? (And would they cost more or less per incident if the number of incidents was lower?)
How would research into them have been funded?
I don't smoke, but I do disagree with the notion that the financial pros and cons to the country are black and white.
Like everything, I suspect many shades of grey.
scootie
Grafter
Posts: 4,799
Registered: 03-11-2007

Re: Airbrushing history

Quote
Damn good thing, if we want to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of those who choose to poison themselves then we have to ensure that anyone who might be a role model must give out all the correct signals.

reduce the cost to the tax payer, am betting that the gov comes out with + balance and not minus from the tax they collect and the amount it costs to treat the smokers on the NHS
if it cost the gov for us to smoke they would of made it illegal along time ago
Community Veteran
Posts: 38,253
Thanks: 940
Fixes: 56
Registered: 15-06-2007

Re: Airbrushing history

Out of interest I did a bit of digging
http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx
Total tax income from tobacco products £10.0 billion in 2008/9
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cigarette_tax_receipts_v_cost_of
Estimated cost to the NHS of smoking related diseases £1.7 billion
Lurker
Grafter
Posts: 1,867
Registered: 23-10-2008

Re: Airbrushing history

I suspected as much, but didn't have time to research, so couldn't be too "assertive". Wink
If you layer my other point about the beneficial research for non-smoking related cancers, which is only there as a direct result of the analysis and treatment of smokers, and one can easily see why it's still beneficial to the country if folks smoke.
There are other shades of grey though too: The cost of cleaning up cigarette butts might be another example (but again, one can argue that it keeps people in work, and means that in some places the streets are cleaner [but perhaps more untidy] than if people didn't smoke.
There are also the retail impacts too, and the profits keeping various businesses afloat.

So I would suspect they are a pretty important part of the fabric of our country - no matter how unpopular that might be in fashionable circles.
SRD
Grafter
Posts: 300
Registered: 29-04-2010

Re: Airbrushing history

And so we return to my previous point about legalising all drugs, the income generated would far outweigh any costs to the taxpayer and if it's acceptable to have the damage done by nicotine why is it not acceptable to have the damage done by other drugs?
matt_2k34
Grafter
Posts: 1,300
Registered: 09-07-2007

Re: Airbrushing history

thats *Very* liberal SRD Cheesy somehow dont think that will ever happen...
And i wouldnt say it looks like hes still smoking, more like hes had a stroke  Shocked
Ridiculous, The more people that complain about it the better.. Angry