Dummy-Pram-totally out of!

Today, courtesy of The Guardian, comes the most hilarious tale of  underworld style threats of retribution to a government funded bunch of prohibitionists who are doing their very damnedest to economically bankrupt this country. To grasp the full absurdity of these claims I'm afraid you will have to bear with me as I trawl through this pathetic article and the bleatings of these holier than thou specimens of humanity.

Academics and health campaigners are being subjected to threats of violence, harassment and personal abuse by pro-smoking activists as UK ministers consult over whether tobacco should be sold only in plain packets.

Translated, this simply means that out there in blogland some people have the audacity to object to the manner in which tobacco control activists conduct themselves and rule the media.

 Leading advocates of tobacco control have been targeted in an apparent escalation of hate campaigns and intimidation by bloggers and groups who view moves to curb smoking as assaults on personal freedom.

Aha! so leading advocates of the 'live & let live' brigade are employing a hate campaign against those who would wish to rule others lifestyles regardless of whether 'others' actually want lifestyle change or not!

 One article, called "sniper the flappers," hosted by the campaign group Freedom2choose's website in March, suggested shooting staff of Action and Smoking and Health and Cancer Research UK, entrepreneur and anti-smoker Duncan Bannatyne and Shona Robison, a former health minister in the Scottish government. The blogpost gave the addresses of Ash offices in London, Edinburgh and Cardiff. Ash called the police.

Typical media glorification of a hilarious situation without actually reporting the true (original) article from one of their own: Alan Dee (July 21st, 2011). Now this dullard obviously thought he was being exceedingly funny when he penned the supposed 'death sentence' for smokers: So let's set a squad of licensed snipers on the streets, with permission to pick off smokers whenever there's a clear shot. Now I don't think that the amazingly unfunny Mr Dee considered the consequences of his pathetic penning because his idiotic piece obviously angered those opposed to seeing all their human rights being evaporated. Complaints were hurled at the police (no charges), the editor (stoutly defended her journalist) and the PCC, who also (and very predictably) denied there was nothing of any consequence in the article as it was obviously written 'tongue in cheek'! Therefore the original article was credited as nothing more than an amusing view of smoking.smokers.prohibition.
Very strange therefore, that when the article was completely and hilariously reversed.....ASH called in the police! Now why would they do that I wonder?  Do you think the author hit a raw nerve or five? And what does it matter that names and addresses of business premises were quoted online as they are all freely available to anyone who chooses to search on Google. Simple Simon does not recall ASH 'calling the police' when it was clearly stated that smokers should be shot! (In fact, by their very silence it is blatantly obvious that ASHeither agreed wholeheartedly with the idea or simply thought it to be satirical writing). Furthermore, what did ASH think dear old 'plod' would be able to do about the article "Sniper the Flappers" when they did absolutely nothing about the original? They probably told Arnott & Dockrell to get back in their prams and shove the dummy back in the gaping orifices!
Called the police-how pathetic can you get? It severely smacks of "we can say whatever we want but don't anyone dare to respond negatively or we will squeam and squeam and squeam!"

 "Snipers could soon snuff out prohibitionists ... It is time the humble smoker fought back against this intolerable persecution, for persecution is exactly what it is ... After 'popping' a few termites ASHites, CRUK'ers and a few 'flappers' they might start to take some notice and report the truth," it said.

According to the original article: "Snipers could soon snuff out smoking". Well, there it is, in black and white. The intimation/threat of shooting all smokers is extremely clear so in essence Alan Dee is advocating killing all smokers-some 15 million of them. I believe, from reading the reversed article several times that the writer is only talking about 'snipering' approximately a dozen 'hard boiled' prohibitionists-a slight difference of 14,99,988 people methinks!

Freedom2choose, which campaigns "to prevent the victimisation of smokers," removed the article, which it said was satirical. It is still hosted by the website of Smokers Justice, which calls Ash "this new cancer in our society [that] needs to be eradicated.

ASH are the new cancer without a doubt. They were set up in 1975  by the RCP and now, virtually dictate health policies yet they are are not even elected to do so! A cancer is something that eats away at you until it kills you (seen the similarity yet?), it never lets go unless it can be cut out and incinerated. ASH see themselves as the morally righteous crusaders yet all they are doing is persecuting the 15 million people of this country who choose (quite legally) to smoke. It doesn't occur to these anti smoking zealots that they might be upsetting people, the ordinary rank & file, the very people that unwittingly pay their exceedingly high wages and therefore the rank & file may get a little agitated now and again. They seem oblivious to the fact that 'they get right up people's noses', which has the same effect as smoke on them; exceedingly irritating!
ASH do need controlling-severely- for they cannot see what they have started, they are blinded by the light of success, having conned Blair's government into passing the smoking ban through parliament in its present, intolerable form. Indeed, the Guardian itself reported this fantastic 'smoke & mirrors' achievement by a small group of activists!

Researchers say abuse and threats intensified first with the public debate on removing branding from cigarette packs and now a formal government consultation on the idea.

This writer is unaware of any direct threats being made to any one person within the tobacco control mob and completely fails to see how the reversal of a 'totally approved' satirical piece written by a supposedly educated bona fide` journalist (Alan Dee) can result in a government funded terrorist group calling in the police!
On the other hand, and as a non smoker, Simple Simon can quite easily see the immense threat, courtesy of these people, being made to 15 million people in this country. And when the peple are not happy, uprisings usually occur!
On the subject of the 'plain packaging consultation' we already know that the entire performance is simply a charade as nobody, other than anti tobacco merchants  is included in the 'consultation'. The only question that really arises from this charade of |Lansleys is the cost to the public purse.
Gilmore, Bauld and other anti tobacco merchants have all apparently  received nasty emails or phone calls courtesy of their interference into other peoples lives. Are you surprised? I'm not as these social pariahs can only see the world as they want to see it.

Liberal Democrat MP Stephen Williams, chair of Westminster's all party parliamentary group on smoking and health, has received abuse...

No big surprise there then for for his all party group brook no interference from anyone remotely in favour of choice and huddle behind closed doors before 'finding' whatever it is they need to be debating or finding-providing of course that it is anti tobacco based. In actual fact, they are a complete waste of time and public money as they only have one aim in mind-the united destruction of the humble smoker!

There are various front groups for the tobacco industry, and , I think, front individuals who post negative comments.

Here we go again! Because someone has the audacity to object to the insidious methods used by the anti tobacco activists, that person, or that group of people are automatically  accused of being 'in the pay of Big Tobacco'. What has happened to 'free speech? or does that only appertain to the 75% who now wish to persecute the 25%? Excuse me here, but I must admit that I completely forgot the $11bn per annum I get from tobacco organisations to keep me afloat......oh silly me, it's not me that gets the £11bn it's...it's...it's my government! I actually get zero, zilch, nix, blanko, nowt (whatever you want to call it) from tobacco sources of any kind whereas ASH, CRUK, Stephen Williams MP, Farren, Bauld, and all the others mentioned do receive money from Big Tobacco. Government takes exorbitant taxes from tobacco sales and pays/part pays the anti tobacco lobby from those taxes-I will gladly stand corrected if they can prove that not one single penny from tobacco taxes collected goes to any of the above in one form or another.
The 'vitriol' has increased (@Deborah Arnott) for the simple reason that you are not satisfied with casting the working man out of his second home-the pub/club. No, you want further restrictions, in fact you want smoking banned altogether just because YOU and a few other NAZI styled extremists abhor the smell of smoke. I don't smoke but I love the smell of cigarette or pipe in my immediate vicinity...so I don't bother with pubs anymore because you have turned them into cheerless mausoleums! And Frank Davis is quite right to label you as Nazis for smokers might as well walk round with a yellow circle on their clothes just in case one of madman Alan Dee's acolytes does decide 'to pop off a round or two'!

Another libertarian pro-tobacco blogger, calling himself Dick Puddlecote, wrote that the NHS-funded Smokefree Southwest campaign was made up of "grasping bastards" and called Gabriel Scally, until recently NHS regional director of public health, "part of a bullshit spreading campaign".

To be fare here I'm struggling to see anything wrong in Mr Puddlecote's description-for it is spot on the money (no pun intended of course). A quick bit of researching shows me that Smokefree SW wasted £500,000 on hoardings promoting governments plain packaging-with governments own funding! All this of course is being payed for by the tax payer-you & I.The only organisation definitely funded by BT money is FOREST and Simon Clark says.

"The blog in question does not represent our views but it is representative of a small and increasingly vocal minority who are angry at the excessive nature of the smoking ban and the never-ending measures designed to denormalise both smokers and their habit."

Which particular blog would that be then Simon (?) for I see many blogs that are extremely angry at the way this smoking ban war is shaping up. People fed up of more and more restrictions, people are fed up with having no voice, people are raging mad at the media ever sucking up to Tobacco control-I know I am! What happened to the basic human right of choice? Why have in excess of 11,000 businesses now closed-for good. Why are 150,000 more people needlessly on the dole? When are the people in No 11 going to admit that we can no longer withstand this horrendous loss to our countries finances thanks to all the financial penalties caused by the smoking ban...beer taxes, income tax losses, Job-Seekers allowance payments.....oh forget it, there are too many to list!
Arnott, Bauld, Dockrell, Farren et al do need to look over their shoulder for sure...just look at Stivoro and the Dutch view of 'live & let live'. Can you ever imagine tolerance again in this once wonderfully democratic country that has now become nothing short of a Healthism Dictatorship?