LIARS WHO SPREAD FILTH

The antis are regressive. Technology can find a solution to soothe their phobic fears

I suppose this is good news of a sort but really the main points to come out of this trial are that James Repace is a lying scumbag and the law can stop you smoking in your own home when you pose no risk to anyone.

Repace is the smokerphobic who invented a dodgy machine that came along at the same time that the anti-smoker industry looked for an excuse to turn the screws tighter on smokers.

It allegedly shows the level of carbon in the atmosphere and the fact that Repace's machine measured carbon in a courtroom where no one was smoking is evidence, if it shows anything at all, that carbon is around us everywhere from other sources at levels that don't harm anyone at all - including those of SHS.

Unfortunately Repace, probably because of his mental phobia about smokers, tried to persuade everyone that they are all in danger everywhere just because a smoker is about - even outside.

The Judge in this case of a greedy neighbour looking to try and make a fast buck from another resident in a street of townhouses ruled :

... David Schuman deserved no compensation for his claim that his neighbor’s secondhand smoke created a nuisance that Greenbelt Homes Inc. (GHI) failed to solve.

It's just a shame the judge wasn't courageous enough to rule that the hyped up SHS scam is a fraud and Repace proved it. But then why would he when he believes the crap himself? The judge lays his sister's lung cancer at the feet of smoking without mentioning that she was unlucky not to be among the 92% of smokers who don't get it or if she never smoked that she was among the unlucky 17%. Neither does he stop to think what other factors may have been responsible. It's convenient and easy to blame smoking and that's fine until the fraud moves to the smoker with a view to ostracising him or her from their neighbours, friends and work colleagues.

Because the Judge's father smoked, he lays all his adult ailments on that. It's such a shame they didn't get an impartial judge but at least Northropp wasn't a raging Smokerphobic.

Sadly, instead, he decided to force a smoker out of his own home with not an ounce of compassion or encouragement of tolerance.

Most of the comments on the linked article above are fair except for one raging loon Lisa Thill whose bile would be worthy of a top place in Dick Puddlecote's psychotic smokerphobic list of fruitcakes.

The judge based on his own reservations about smoking tried to be fair but people like Repace who gain financially by harassing smokers, and Thill, who takes perverse pleasure in being abusive to smokers, are just foul and frankly the law and Govt should not be wasting cash and time humouring them. But then there is money in law suits, I suppose, and smokers are easy and vulnerable targets after all.

Of course this case will now be used in the battle to commit the perfect Third Hand Smoke fraud - designed to make smokers homeless, unemployable, and isolated, the real motive behind it's invention.

WE DEMAND AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW – NOW!

An obviously impartial Govt minister (not)


An obviously impartial academic paid to produce biased results for her masters in ASH among others in the anti-smoker industry

I am so sick of these sort of people scrounging their personal wealth from the taxes I have paid on my legal product since the age of 8 and Govts who are too stupid to realise they have been taken for idiots.

You see, after getting Nanny Anne Milton's response via my MP Karl McCartney yesterday, I thought I'd do a bit of Google research into self-interest sociologist Linda Bauld who carried out a (snigger) “evidence based review” of the smoker ban in England.

Ages ago (although I can't now find the link to the blog post I did at the time – I really must sort out these tag lines into some kind of order that allows me to find things) when it became clear that former health secretary St Gillian of Merron had been given a completed review of the devastating smoking ban, I did an FoI request to get a copy of that report. I suspected that it would show that everyone loved the ban – even before it had been complied – and I was proved right. They didn't have to pay almost one million pounds to get it done – they could have just made it up – oh, but then the author did, didn't she?

I was told that I couldn't have the review until it had been “peer reviewed” which I assumed meant “cherry picked”. And cherry picking is exactly what Linda Bauld did with her smoking ban review that selected evidence, hyped up non-existent health scares like a miraculous drop in heart attacks since the spiteful blanket ban which were proved to be false and made up of manipulated junk science to pull the wool over the eyes of the stupid while supporting the ideology that these enemies of the people planned to push forward at any cost to society.

I did find a link to a critique carried out by Imperial Tobacco and it was quite comforting to know that the company does actually care enough about the denormalisation of it's consumers that it has actually questioned the alleged “impartiality” of Bauld's work HERE. OK, so big bad baccy did it but I say hoo-fucking-ray.

Others have also asked questions about how lead players in the persecution of legal consumers have infiltrated our parliament. How did the UK Centre for tobacco control, which is a network of nine universities all troughing their snouts into the £17 million pounds of OUR money given to add credence to the lies of ASH, CRUK, the BHF and related self-interest groups that really can't be called “charities” anymore, get to make health policy? We didn't elect them. I don't recall seeing any of their names on the ballot list of candidates at the general election.

Bauld, a member of ASH, vice chair of CRUK tobacco control's Third Reich, and an advisory member of the Smoke Free South West programme board (whatever that bollox means) and a member of the International Network of Women Against Tobacco (INWAT – or should that read slightly differently) does not work for the public but self interest organisations to push through their own bigoted agenda. Why on earth was this woman given the job of a so called “evidence based review” when it was so obvious she was going to fake it? She certainly has a conflict of interest. The Govt might just as well have given it to someone in the tobacco industry to compile – the “impartiality” would have been just the same although no doubt a different result would be seen.

You only have to look at what Bauld says about the “beneficial effects on the hospitality industry” to know that her greatest skill is lying of the first grade. Anyone who skipped school in the fourth year and left without any qualifications can surmise that since the smoking ban of 2007 our pubs and clubs have suffered enormously. Why didn't she ask those pub landlords now out of business – or jailed like Nick Hogan? There are thousands of them to choose from. Or the smokers shunned and avoided by their communities who now sit at home lonely with no where to go? She didn't ask them of course because she must want everyone to believe the crap that she spouts but as tax payers, and citizens of what used to be a tolerant and fair country, we deserve to be told the truth and not spin fed selected data from people with self interest motives.

Before the likes of her political lobby groups including ASH reintroduced discrimination, phobia, hatred and untruths into our society, in ways not seen since the days when the hospitality industry posted notices on their doors such as “No Irish, No Blacks and No Dogs”, this country was one that could be proud of how it treated people from all different faiths, lifestyles, and ethnicity. Now it really should hang its head in shame for what it is doing to selected minorities because it hates the product that they consume.

We've also seen that as soon as anyone wants to challenge these academic ideologically driven reviews and sociological biased behavioural studies on how to further exclude and isolate smokers, through the exploitation of young people and children, she cries like a spoiled child and demands Govt covers up this jiggery-pokery fakery.

These people should not only be sacked for failing to be impartial in the area of academic study but prosecuted for hate crime. Bauld, for example, has no intention of providing impartiality if it means it goes against taking this to the "Next Logical Step." The truth wouldn't allow the phobia and untruths about smokers to end, would it. Neither would it earn yet more tax coffers for those she works for.

We smokers, the biggest tax payers in this country, demand an independent review by a truly independent third party and for the political smokerphobic lobbyists to be removed from pushing forth their own agenda and frauds in the Parlt that is supposed to represent and work for us - not highly paid political lobby groups and their pet academics. And we demand that a new study is done now in the name of fairness, impartiality and honesty. Perhaps they could get back the money they paid Bauld because of the shoddy service she gave. (Unless of course truth and independence was not something the Govt wanted.)

Download a copy of the Imperial Tobacco critique from the link above and send a copy to your MP, or local councillor along with a letter DEMANDING a truly independent review of this monstrous piece of legislation. We must expose these people for what they are - greedy liars who hate smokers and are happy to ruin people's lives if it brings in money for themselves or the ideological aims of political lobby groups they work for.