Sunday, 10 July 2011

ASH take a step closer to the gas chambers.

(Tipped by Stephen via Email)

ASH have teamed up with lawyers for the next stage in their hate-fest. They now plan to encourage the hypochondriacs to sue their employers if that employer has allowed them to be smoked at.

This will leave employers only one option if they are not to be sued into penury by bleating weaklings with the full support of the NASHI party. They will refuse to employ smokers, and they will sack the ones they already have.

They can do that. It's legal. If they refuse to employ someone female, disabled, ethnic or of particular religious beliefs (including Climatology), and there is even a hint that the person's gender, lack of limbs, skin colour or beliefs were in any way part of the decision, then they can be sued to Hell and back.

If they refuse to employ someone who smokes, there's no comeback. If they employ someone who smokes, they risk a whiner claiming the smoker has given them one of those imaginary diseases and then they get sued to Hell and back.

The Dreadful Arnott is not just denormalising smokers. She is eradicating smokers with cold, evil efficiency. Her spite-driven followers will cheer this on and send in their applications to be camp guards and gas chamber operators at once. They are exactly that kind of people.

If Arnott had been around in the past, Einstein would never have set foot in a university and Churchill would never have been Prime Minister. 'All smokers are stupid'. Say it until you believe it. The drones have.

Already, ads appear with 'Smokers need not apply'. Have you seen one that says 'Smokers only'?

Do you imagine for a moment that would ever be allowed?

Try it. Try advertising for smokers only. You will be sued by an antismoker at once, for discrimination, and it will be upheld.

That is what this cretinous government, of any badge colour, has done. That is what they have allowed to happen. Twenty percent of the population is persona non grata everywhere, and those who are working soon won't be. We might as well have a BNP government. It really could not be worse now. In fact, from a smokers' viewpoint, the BNP would be an improvement.

No wonder Slaphead and his useless wasters couldn't get a majority. I wonder if twenty percent is enough to get UKIP in? It has to be worth a try.


timbone said...

That is dated 2004. This was one of the 'frighteners' used to get the hospitality industry to eventually agree to a comprehemsive ban. This is 'done and dusted'.

Sorry to be a devils advocate.

JJ said...

Timbone's right on this.

Leg-iron said...

2004? Hm. First time I'd seen it.

So this is more the reason behind the 'no smokers' adverts than an extension of it?

It's still a filthy thing to do.

Anonymous said...

I am surprised that you were not aware of that, LI. It must be a couple of years since I became aware of it. But, there again, we all live and learn.

What amazed me when I became aware of it was that, apparently, NOT A SINGLE EMPLOYER understood the future connotations of the statement in the letter, but, at the time, I suppose that the understanding was that ASH were just another insignificant, unimportant pressure group. File the letter under 'pending'.

If employers had taken the matter seriously at the time and contested the question of liability, maybe the smoking ban would never have got off the ground. Health and Safety would have been obliged to legislate upon tolerable levels of SHS. We have seen no such legislation - SHS is intolerable at any level. That must be a serious weakness in the SHS argument, surely? Why has Health and Safety not pronounced upon safe or unsafe levels of SHS?

One independent minded MP could scupper the whole thing by tabling a parliamentary question asking the Dept of Health and Safety to pronounce upon the safe level of SHS in the workplace.

ozzie mozzburn - fuming fascist (anti-smoking league) said...

although, i believe einstein to have been, in later life, a lecturer at several universities, to my knowledge, he never, strictly speaking, studied at one - and therefore his non-attendance at such an establishment had no bearing on his ability to cook up the atom bomb theory, which he developed early on in his career.

likewise, winston churchill's failure to become prime minister would also have been no great loss to humanity - as his most notable political achievement, having been an avid student of their incubation in cuba and south africa, was to export concentration camps from nazi germany to kenya.

moreover, since, under the government of the brutish national party, non-aryan smokers would probably find themselves puffing their way up an extermination-camp chimney, i think you'll find your hypothesis to be damp to the point of causing a good deal more smoke than fire - although, to be fair to gas-chambers, it must be acknowledged that, without their assistance in sacrificing six million ordinary jewish folk to the god of racial-purity, the zionist leadership might never have gained the required emotional leverage afforded by collective racist european guilt to set up the state of israel. a repulsive truth, i suppose - but not, in my opinion, one which decently validates the adage that every cloud comes ready-fitted with a silver-lining.

the grotty groping grammarian said...


remove first comma in first line

the pernickerty punctuator said...


fuck off cunt, that's my job

wild bob kitemark ( the three 'r's union) said...

all right boys - everybody out

Leg-iron said...

Junican - I took no interest in ASH until they threw me out of every pub in Scotland five years ago. I had no interest in politics before that either.

And I was much less volatile, even with the Italian ancestry, in those days.

My driving was always hair-raising though, or so I'm told.

Anonymous said...

Somebody from the previous government signed us up to this -

That we -
"Recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco smoke causes death, disease and disability, and that there is a time lag between exposure to smoking and the other uses of tobacco products and the onset of tobacco-related diseases."

But it seems after the Ecclestone affair in 1997, people in F1 were still watching.

DECEMBER 16, 2004
Britain ratifies anti-tobacco treaty

"The British Department of Health has issued a statement saying that the United Kingdom has become the latest country to ratify the World Health Organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control - the first global health treaty."

"The announcement was hidden away in a statement about a reduction in the number of smokers in the UK."
Grand Prix

More than a million fewer smokers since 1998, UK
17 Dec 2004

"On the same day as these statistics were published, the UK ratified the World Health Organisation Framework Convention on Tobacco Control."
Medical News Today

Anyone would think that they didn't want the British public to know.

But then again, there was an election coming up.

Anonymous said...


"Many plants of the Solanaceae family, which includes the genus Nicotiana, of which the tobacco plant is a member, contain solanesol; particularly those that contain trace amounts of nicotine.
These include the tomato, eggplant, potato, and pepper.

The potential interference due to these sources is negligible, cooking being the only likely potential source of interference.
An interference of this type would bias results high, overestimating the contribution of ETS to RSP."


Briefing on the evidence base and ASH Scotland conclusions regarding the definition of smoking materials in the current draft legislation

"With secondhand smoke, the main concerns are exposure to levels of carbon monoxide and respirable particulate matter.
While air nicotine metabolised as cotinine provides a marker for measuring exposure to tobacco smoke, the nicotine is not present in such quantities as to present health concerns".

ASH Scotland non-tobacco smoking materials

Anonymous said...

"Why has Health and Safety not pronounced upon safe or unsafe levels of SHS?"

errr, because they already published a document saying there was no proven risk?

Jennifer said...

I hear as well a council is trying to implement law where people are not allowed to smoke in any public places!

Anonymous said...

You're shat on by all the layers of the cake, EU, MP's, MSP's, coucillors.

Just after the ban in Scotland some arsehole on the council jumed on the bandwagon and proposed a smoking ban in beer gardens, never heard much about again thank the Lord..

George Speller said...

"I took no interest in ASH until they threw me out of every pub in Scotland five years ago. I had no interest in politics before that either. "

Me too, LI. Thousands of people radicalised by the now discredited ASH. Is that what they wanted

smokervoter said...

Leg-iron, just for the halibut, consider this. Let's suppose four million smokers go UKIP and the other seven million stay home or vote for the Big Three. Now UKIP ends up with five million votes (a 440% increase) wouldn't that fact alone get a whole lot of attention? Add in some fatties, libertarians and salties and who knows? It's amazing what only one-third of smokers could accomplish. Not pie-in-the-sky, just one in three, that's all.

smokervoter said...

Who wants to cast their precious vote over the right to smoke a ciggie with your pint at the local pub? Look, your Average Bill and Kate will have 12 elections in their lifetime. Focus on War and Peace, the Economy or saving the three-finned blenny next time around I say.

Leg-iron said...

Jennifer - that's Stony Stratford. Dick Puddlecote is on the case.

Leg-iron said...

Smokervoter - if it was only about smoking, there would be almost no chance of raising the rage of the average voter.

However, encouraged by the ease with which they have been allowed to slap the smokers, they have turned tehir attention to drinkers, the overweight, anyone who eats 'disapproved' foods and more.

Now they are trying to blame parents for the feral children that parents have not been allowed - by law - to do anything about.

It's about much, much more than smoking now.

smokervoter said...

It most certainly is about much more than smoking. I was being a bit facetious there. I should have italicized the next in next election, as in 2020. Go after the smoking issue in 2015 and it'll send a potent message on those other issues as well. Our bodies, our temples, our homes, our castles, our lives, our business.

opinions powered by