Big Tobacco Control's Intimidation Tactics

So, the Guardian's piece on bloggers intimidating tobacco control is out and it is blinder!  Written by Denis Campbell and "special correspondent" James Meikle, this is the first attempt to silence the bloggers who disagree with tobacco control policies.  Make no mistake about the article's intent -- it is designed to intimidate the bloggers.  Dick, Pat, and Frank have already written about it, and those links are scattered below.

There is no evidence that these two authors of this Guardian hack piece are in collusion with the Root of All Evil and the other tobacco control fanatics mentioned in the article, despite that it looks exactly that way.  I mean, look how quickly Simon Chapman retweeted the article to his sheep minions of hate. This image was grabbed at 11:30 p.m. GMT, just a few short hours after the article published while he slept.

 

I checked his Twitter "mentions," nobody tweeted it to him. How could he have found out so fast?  So maybe he has a search set up for "Pro-smoking activists" or "threaten" or "health campaigners," but I doubt it.  No, somebody told him, or perhaps he was expecting it.  Anyone in tobacco control could have alerted the Root of All Evil. It could have been anyone mentioned in the article. But it is most suspicious... Oh, well, I can't prove anything here so I cannot say that it happened.

What I can tell you is that, in my opinion, both authors are a fucking disgrace to the field of journalism. They failed to fully research the article. This was not a fair and unbiased article. They didn't provide any instances of smokerphobia as Pat Nurse calls it, and no instances of the hate that tobacco control advocates espouse towards smokers.  We smokers and bloggers are more likely to be attacked than anyone in tobacco control.  Indeed, there is no instance of anyone attacking someone in tobacco control, because we aren't evil bastards. There are plenty of instances of us being attacked online and in real life.  The authors also failed to contact Dick Puddlecote for context on what they quoted, nor did they contact Frank Davis. The authors truly should have contacted both of them. For some reason, they contacted Simon Clark, who didn't write any of the comments.  Naturally it was quite easy to get quotes from Dreadful or Bauld or Williams, all of them champions of tobacco control's hateful lies. 

So it looks to me as if the Guardian is complicit in following the WHO's new playbook:  Lie if you have to. Make shit up. Get the press involved.  Say you're being harassed and intimidated by words on a screen. Take things out of context. Link anyone who disagrees with tobacco control as being paid by Big Tobacco to do it.   It's bullshit.  And the Guardian fell for it obviously, because there is no evidence at all that they are in collusion with Big Tobacco Control's campaign of hate against free-thinking people. And because of this article, because you failed to be proper journalists, we now have people calling for "police action" on Twitter.  How long before the police do come knocking on our doors over the misrepresentations made in your article?

This is a bald-faced lie. Nobody has threatened anyone. But now you see what all of us are up against, how tobacco control and their supporters work.  If you ever had any doubt that this is a hate campaign against smokers, please stop doubting now.

Oh, but it gets better.  Linda Bauld of Bath University along with Eveline Lubbers and Andrew Rowell have created a wiki on almost everyone who has ever spoken out against them or tobacco control policies. It's priceless, to be honest.  It's a "Look how awful Linda, Deborah and Simon have been treated" site. Good for a laugh, particularly Dick's entry on the site.  But who funded this wiki project.  Let me show you:

Click to enlarge image

That's right.  Cancer Research UK and Smokefree SouthWest funded these haters! Can you believe that?  A government institution, the NHS, is funding this wiki.  So in fact the government is actually trying to out the pro-choice bloggers, trying to intimidate them.  Now, let us read these few lines at the disclaimer page on the wiki:

The making of TobaccoTactics was funded by by Cancer Research UK Limited and Smokefree South West. These funders have had no input into the research or its conclusions. They are not responsible for any content on or the publication of the wiki, and they do not necessarily endorse any of it.

Although we work to rigorous standards and adhere to a strict guide to writing, there is no undertaking by either TobaccoTactics.org or the University of Bath that any part of this site is accurate, complete or up to date. You use this site at your own risk, and for guidance only.  

None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, administrators, sysops, or anyone else connected with TobaccoTactics.org or the University of Bath will be responsible for the appearance of any material considered defamatory, offensive, inaccurate, unlawful or misleading, nor will they be responsible for your use of the information contained in these web pages, or the pages TobaccoTactics links to.

TobaccoTactics retains the right to invite and accept contributing editors at its discretion. All contributors must first register with Tobacco Tactics and sign the Terms of Use that can be found at the Team of Editors page. Those interested in contributing in this way can contact the editors by email, to: [redacted - because they'd probably think I was harassing them if I published their e-mail address, but I would have redacted it anyway.]

Sorry guys, it doesn't work that way. You are indeed responsible for any content you create.  Are you somehow above defamation and libel law just because you say you are not responsible?  Disclaimers like the above do not count in the legal world.  So expect to get sued, haters.  But of course you thought of that, too, didn't you?  A quick check on the registrant of the domain tobaccotactics.org shows that it is registered by a Dutch organisation, Stichting Res Publica which appears to be part of  Buro Jansen & Janssen.  Who are they?  Below is a translated version version of the Wikipedia article on them:

Click to enlarge image

It reads (keep in mind that it's Google translated, but note the linked name):

Buro Jansen & Janssen is a research company that police and intelligence agencies as the BVD (now the AIVD ) critically follows.
 
The agency in 1984 by Eveline Lubbers and Peter Klerk established. The name of the agency is derived from two clumsy detectives in the Tintin - comics . The squatters' movement and other activist groups were then increasingly confronted with the investigation by police and intelligence services. Jansen & Janssen began as a reaction against the collection of counter-information. During the nineties, the research firm shifted more towards controversial issues in general.
 
The agency has different activities, such as publishing on the extension of powers of the police through a collective journalists . There is also a support group for people who have run against an investigation and a reference point for politicians, journalists and other researchers.

Here's the domain check:

Wow! It really does look like Bath University and other tobacco control advocates hired a foreign hitman security research firm. Nice going.  Because the site is registered to a Dutch organisation, it could make lawsuits difficult here in the UK.  I suppose we'll see how this plays out.

All of this clearly shows the lengths that tobacco control goes to defame and harass bloggers who speak out against the hate and government waste of taxpayer money.  They will lie. They will steal. They will deceive. They will use foreign agents. They will publish demonstrably false information in order to further their agenda of eradicating dissent and smokers. 

And we're the ones who are intimidating?  Please.