A while back I started on a dystopia novel, in which people are tracked by embedded chips, no child grows up with its real parents but are allocated to Party members and workers, and an underground movement of de-chipped people are known as 'ghosts'. Real-life work makes it slow and it's proving hard to keep ahead of the game anyway. Just when you think you might have some new horror thought up, it turns out Labour have already written it as policy.
Frank Davis is just starting a similar themed novel - his is based on a world where smokers and anti-smokers are approaching open warfare, and for him too, reality is fast catching up with imagination.
In real life, of course, it's always the smoker who gets the entire blame. No matter who started it. The antismoker who approached and insulted the smoker is blameless. They can do no wrong. Any retaliation by the smoker will attract the full force of the law.
Senior management consultant Linda Buchanan warned Ionel Rapisca against smoking at the station, telling him: 'I don't like the smell of cancer,' jurors were told.
Yes, well, we've all come across these. People who are so utterly useless at anything that they have to refer to themselves as a 'management consultant' and take it upon themselves to demand everyone follow their narrow and spiteful little lifestyles. They have proliferated in the last 13 years. It's best to be ready for them. Comebacks include -
"I don't really like smoking but it's the only thing that masks the stench of you" (now that one's worth a T-shirt).
"I don't like the sound of a voice that's not connected to a brain, so if you wouldn't mind turning it off, that would be nice."
Antismokers never expect a comeback because they imagine the mere act of nonsmoking is enough to guarantee intelligence and at the same time, they assume we smokers are all stupid. It's standard procedure. Anyone who does not agree with the dogma must be stupid and it's fun to push the stupid around. The bully culture of government extends all the way down to their drones. It's fine, insult the smoker, thump the smoker, they aren't allowed to fight back and if they do, the courts will always treat them as scum.
Righteous Linda enjoyed her bullying session so much that the next day, when she saw the smoker again, she made straight for him intending to have another go. He's a smoker. They can't fight back.
Well, this one did.
It is alleged he then pushed her on to the track as she had her back turned to it, causing her to land 'dangerously' near a live line carrying 750 volts.
Was it deliberate and malicious on the part of the smoker, or did he just want this irritating little harridan to leave him alone? Could it be that he just didn't want to take the bullying any more?
The antismokers reading this have already decided it was deliberate, and will no doubt have a ready explanation for what happened next.
On the track, as she lay there, Ms Buchanan could see him standing over her and she thought he might do something else.
'But in fact he jumped down and dragged her back on to the platform.'
The actions of an attempted murder or could it be, just maybe, that all he wanted was for her to go away? Could it be that he did not intend to push her off the platform at all? She was, after all, the initiator of the altercation on both occasions so she must accept part of the blame, surely?
Opening the prosecution's case, Mr O'Higgins said Ms Buchanan suffered a fractured wrist, bruising to her thigh and post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the fall.
It seems not. Breach of the peace does not apply to non-smokers when smokers are their target. Only the smoker is on trial and the hideous raddled bint is going for the full compensation package as the only victim in the case. She is the victim of a fight she started. Twice. She stands accused of... nothing.
The smoker? The one who was twice accosted by this revolting wench and who pushed her away, the second time? Who, when he saw she had fallen off the platform, risked his own life to jump down and haul her up? What is he accused of?
Romanian Rapisca, of Joyce Green Lane, Dartford, denies grievous bodily harm with intent and two alternative charges of GBH and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
He is a smoker. Therefore he must be evil by default. She is an antismoker. She was following the Smokeless Path and therefore is pious and Righteous in all things. Her testimony is worth twice that of a smoker. I wonder where they got the idea? Smokers are second class citizens. Less than that. You'd be prosecuted for kicking a dog but not for kicking a smoker. Smokers are evil. They were evil in 'Waterworld' and that's enough proof for most of those drones.
Well, antismokers, if evil is what you want, evil is what you're going to get.
With horns and tail included. No apology, no conscience and no prisoners. But only where there's no CCTV.
You offer no quarter. Expect none in return.