X
!

 

Join the fight for your rights. Only £1 per month to be involved in Justice4Smokers.

Media & the Law

Here we have the strangest of anomalies for it seems that the media, or persons mentioned in the media, are protected by ludicrous laws – if someone says the opposite of what someone else says! Make any sense of that? I doubt it, because I still can’t-and what I am about to disclose certainly curtails freedom of speech & freedom of expression.  This situation applies to Environmental Health Officers and, as yet, probably other organisations as yet unknown.

(90% of our customers smoked-sorry, they’ve gone and so have we now!)

 

Lets us take a newspaper article for instance that reports on the closing down or the raiding of smoking establishments. They actually want to introduce “taxes”; ie a new form of licensing to cover ‘fire & health’ risks – have you ever heard of anything so absurd? Businesses already have fire & safety checks yet councils want to impose more and more on establishments that include, or may include smokers. Anyway, if a newspaper article prints the following,

 

“Shisha cafes have to comply with smoke-free legislation by providing open-air canopies. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, health and safety team manager for Xxxxxxxxx City Council, is concerned about a worrying recent trend with shisha establishments trying to avoid legal requirements. He has serious concerns about the health and fire risks, and says the shisha smoking culture “is going underground (as is much smoking these days). We are investigating and prosecuting several places in the city,” he says.

“They’re locating in back streets, even old industrial units, hidden from view.

“Customers hear about them via Twitter or Facebook and gain entry by pressing a buzzer by the locked door or making a call from outside on their mobile phone. These places are enclosed, often their doors are locked.” He also added, “”This is a nationwide problem, it’s no longer a niche pastime, but mainstream”.

One is not allowed to describe these people as ‘smokers No1 enemy’, nor ‘smoker haters’ (even though, in essence, they are otherwise they would not be so zealous in their employment!

 

Apparently you are not allowed to state “… they are determined to wipe out businesses… “ even though that is exactly what they are hell bent on doing!

 

Apparently, when writing to defend smokers, one is not allowed to describe EHOs as, “… nasty minded, undemocratic little Hitlers…” either, even though that is exactly what they are – ask yourselves who it was that began a war on smokers in the 1930’s?

Adolph smoke

 

Apparently you are not allowed to infer that this law, and the power given to various council officials has created a nation of informers, narks, grass’s or whatever else people who snitch may be termed as-yet that is what this law has created, an intolerance of a product fuelled by lies, fabrications, spurious statistics & total utter junk science!

 

And the sin of all sins is to mention the names of any EHO in an unfavourable term, indeed, a list of a town or cities guardians of the smoking ban will bring instant retribution upon your head as they will be deemed as “personal attacks on the person and other officers named”. Any council also has the right to report the writer of whatever article to the police for them to investigate but we have seen just how bothered they are with such trivailities after the Alan Dee saga. Further to this, a council may decide to issue criminal proceedings to have any comments they don’t like removed from any article and to prevent any further suchlike comments. All they have to do is to ask in reality but many council officials like to use the law so that they can then charge the writer exorbitant legal fees for simply writing the truth! I suppose they have to get their kicks somehow. They really don’t like their mission to be printed for all to read do they !!!

The two prosecutions apparently come under the following:

Malicious Communications Act 1988

Protection from Harrassment Act 1997

All the above is deemed OK as it praises the work done by EHOs all over this country, after all, the media have done nothing but ‘suck up’ to government since Day1 of this intolerable ban that will eventually bankrupt this country (well, either this or the EU!). Now when responding to this load of printed garbage it would seem that anything printed that is unflattering to these people (EHOs) is liable to bring prosecution upon one’s head! Pardon me? yes, I’ll repeat that folks. “… it would seem that anything printed that is unflattering to these people (EHOs) is liable to bring prosecution upon one’s head!”

Now when you consider that all these EHOs do is harrass pubs, clubs, in fact anywhere that people choose to socialise, I would have thought that they would be the ones doing the harrassing, wouldn’t you? After all, since the smoking ban was implemented our social structure has been decimated-literally! With more than 12,000 social outlets now closed it is fast becoming apparent that the SB has become a nothing more than than a gigantic economic disaster!

 So, the long and the short of the matter is that you cannot speak against “them” but they can waffle on, endlessly, about you-especially if you smoke or agree with a smokers point of view. This also answers the questions of why court reporters now only report what suits the anti-smoking brigade and not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth! So beware people, your pen may land you in very deep & turbulent water!

 


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Hit Counter provided by orange county divorce attorney