Painter fined for smoking in van

[shodan]

Its a £60 fine round here for the taxi drivers, regardless of wether its a rented car or their own property. We need to get some sense through to the fine givers.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7524526.stm

Painter fined for smoking in van

Gordon Williams says he will appeal against the £30 fine
A painter and decorator from Ceredigion says he is "dumbfounded" after being slapped with a £30 fine for smoking a cigarette in his own van.

Gordon Williams says he had popped to the shops earlier this month, when he was pulled over by council officials.

"I was told that because my van is my place of work I had broken the smoking laws," he said.

A council spokesperson said anyone handed a fine is eligible to appeal against the decision.

"I am dumbfounded - the van is only insured for private use and to get me to and from work," added Mr Williams, from Llanafan, near Aberystwyth.

"It not my place of work - I decorate houses not vans."

The grandfather decried the on-the-spot penalty as the "Big Brother state going too far".

He added: "I respect anyone who chooses not to smoke, but I would also ask for the same respect to have the freedom to smoke in my own private vehicle."

It smacks of some jobsworth council official interpreting the law to the most extreme level

Simon Clark, Forest

Mr Williams was driving on the A487 near Aberystwyth in his unmarked blue Suzuki Carrier van when he was pulled over by council officials carrying out spot checks on the safety of vehicles.

He believes it is the first ticket of its kind handed out by the council since the smoking regulations came in last year - the fixed penalty notice was number 0001.

Mr Williams' wife Sue has already paid the fine, fearing it would increase if not settled promptly.

But her husband remains defiant, and said he would be challenging the punishment.

"I have appealed against this even though I initially paid the fine otherwise it would have increased to £50.

"I've sent up my insurance certificate and am awaiting the outcome.

"Ridiculous"

Simon Clark, the director of smoking freedom group Forest, condemned the fine as "absolutely ridiculous".

He said: "It smacks of some jobsworth council official interpreting the law to the most extreme level.

"This surely is not what the change in the law was intended for - it was not meant to harass and persecute people going about their ordinary lives.

"It is ridiculous that someone should be fined for smoking in their own private vehicle away from any workplace."

Ceredigion Council said they could not comment on individual cases.

A spokesperson added: "The legislation allows for a right of appeal and the procedures in relation to this are set out in the notices."

[legendary]

what they did is actually illegal, if you look in Holland where the same smoking ban is enforced under the same legislation, you are legally allowed to smoke inside designated areas where the staff aren't allowed entry and smokers acknowledge that smoking occurs inside this area

[drhemp]

Yes, but I'm sure actual legality or common sense will not come into consideration with the petty council bureaucrats. What I want to know is where do they actually find them? Who breeds these people?

[legendary]

the lizards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:eek:

[rixxmixxhell]

Yes, but I'm sure actual legality or common sense will not come into consideration with the petty council bureaucrats. What I want to know is where do they actually find them? Who breeds these people?

Who knows, job worths who will be recognised when in times of strife, i will remember these types of people who will be needing from us.....they will regret it..

[sorath]

The grandfather decried the on-the-spot penalty as the "Big Brother state going too far".

The conception was too far. I am appauled when people say this nonsense like a little bit of big brother is ok! That is why we are in this mess in the first place.

[void]

when he was pulled over by council officials.

Pulled over by council officials? Do council officials in cars have the authority to pull people over?

when he was pulled over by council officials carrying out spot checks on the safety of vehicles.

Do they have authority to do this either?

Questions above prompted me to do a little searching on this, because as far as I'm aware, bored council officials who have been watching too many Jason Bourne films can't simply pull someone over. Looking into this, I decided to look on the web for existing legislation that councils 'may' be trying to use to justify what they did in the case above.

My assumption from this point will be that wherever it says - "other public authorities" then it also applys to local councils, and the following thoughts on the matter are based on that assumption.

At the moment, I cannot find anything on the web which says council workers have the authority to demand somebody pulls over in their car, for whatever reason. To me, this is where the guy could potentially slaughter them with law. Nothing seems to cover council workers either on foot in a car being allowed to stop vehicles for 'safety checks' in the first place, and this is what they used in the first place to gain access to him.

As far as I'm aware, only the actual police have the authority to stop a car this way, and even undercover cars must flash blue lights if they decide to stop someone. If council workers in a plain car tried to demand I pull over, I'd just carry on driving and ignore them, my defense being that it could have been a robbery for all I know, considering it was a plain car and I.D can be faked (women could use the 'safety' defense themselves to greater effect). That aside, once they 'illegaly' (it seems) stopped him, they probably ab-used the RIPA.

Below are some excerpts from the The "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2000"

Source ---http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/---

* Certain sections put in bold format by myself, to highlight.



Directed surveillance

Directed surveillance is a type of covert surveillance where police, intelligence agencies and other public authorities follow an individual in public and record their movements. Directed surveillance can be lawfully undertaken to obtain private information about a person if public authorities reasonably suspect that a person has committed, or intends to commit, a crime.

An authorisation for directed surveillance may be granted:

* when needed for a particular case
* in the interests of national security
* to prevent and detect crime or prevent disorder
* in the interests of the economic well-being of the UK
* in the interests of public safety
* to protect public health
* to assess or collect any tax, duty, levy or other charge payable to a government department

Directed surveillance is permitted without an authorisation in circumstances
where authorities need to act immediately and there isn’t time to make an application.



They may have used that one above. Or, if they had been setting this guy up for some time, then below....



Intrusive surveillance

Intrusive surveillance involves the presence of an individual on private residential premises or in a private vehicle (as the was the case with this guy). It also includes any surveillance carried out by means of a device. Due to its invasiveness, this type of surveillance is only used to catch offenders suspected of serious crimes (smoking in your own vehcile is a 'serious crime'?). Only the most senior authorising officer in relevant public authorities can approve intrusive surveillance. A separate authorisation from the Secretary of State is required if the police or other law enforcement agencies plan to interfere with property or with wireless telegraphy when concealing a surveillance device.

Anyway, some of this may be useful for people who in future may find themselves being asked to 'pull over' by council workers with a stasi complex, while out in their car. At the moment, it seems they don't have the right to do so and you can ignore them until something comes to light which says the public must recognize the authority of such people to stop vehicles for whatever pettylaw and fine they may have ready to sting you with to fill their coffers.

[drhemp]

You know, I think you're right! Good point. I hope when he fights this that this is bought up. I think only the Police have the right to pull people over, and then, technically only when they suspect an offense has been committed.

[legendary]

the police are the most biased of all. they discriminate more than most. since the removal of the need for a reason for stop and search(aimed at terrorism) i have been searched under this pretence at least 10 times and as a white 18 year old often without a bag/coat or any of this i'm supposed to be a suspected terrorist??? unlikely i think

[lightworks]

Pulled over by council officials? Do council officials in cars have the authority to pull people over?



Do they have authority to do this either?

Questions above prompted me to do a little searching on this, because as far as I'm aware, bored council officials who have been watching too many Jason Bourne films can't simply pull someone over. Looking into this, I decided to look on the web for existing legislation that councils 'may' be trying to use to justify what they did in the case above.

My assumption from this point will be that wherever it says - "other public authorities" then it also applys to local councils, and the following thoughts on the matter are based on that assumption.

At the moment, I cannot find anything on the web which says council workers have the authority to demand somebody pulls over in their car, for whatever reason. To me, this is where the guy could potentially slaughter them with law. Nothing seems to cover council workers either on foot in a car being allowed to stop vehicles for 'safety checks' in the first place, and this is what they used in the first place to gain access to him.

As far as I'm aware, only the actual police have the authority to stop a car this way, and even undercover cars must flash blue lights if they decide to stop someone. If council workers in a plain car tried to demand I pull over, I'd just carry on driving and ignore them, my defense being that it could have been a robbery for all I know, considering it was a plain car and I.D can be faked (women could use the 'safety' defense themselves to greater effect). That aside, once they 'illegaly' (it seems) stopped him, they probably ab-used the RIPA.

Below are some excerpts from the The "Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) 2001"

Source ---http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/---

* Certain sections put in bold format by myself, to highlight.



They may have used that one above. Or, if they had been setting this guy up for some time, then below....



Anyway, some of this may be useful for people who in future may find themselves being asked to 'pull over' by council workers with a stasi complex, while out in their car. At the moment, it seems they don't have the right to do so and you can ignore them until something comes to light which says the public must recognize the authority of such people to stop vehicles for whatever pettylaw and fine they may have ready to sting you with to fill their coffers.

I think its time that we started resisting this tyranny

[duckingdafta]

the irony, where I live there is a kiddies primary school that whenever you go to pick your kids up, there will be a bus driver having a smoke stood at the door of his school bus! Not one person dare say anything, except my gobby misses (it's always the little 5' ones that stand up) and became the subject of gossip because she doesn't like it. (when term starts again I might just picture this).

[void]

Adding to my previous (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=433544&postcount=7) post, here is an update of something I've found.

Take for example the code of conduct regarding the RIPA (2000) for Sheffield County Council, 2007 :



2.5 Intrusive surveillance, which cannot be carried out by Local Authorities,
is defined in Section 26(3) of the 2000 Act as covert surveillance that:-

• Is carried out in relation to anything taking place on any residential premises or in any private vehicle;

• Involves the presence of an individual on the premises or in the vehicle or is carried out by means of a surveillance device.


Source of information (PDF document) --********************/5hz9eb---

In other words, although they 'might' be able to somehow stretch their case for having used the "Directed Surveillance" section (even though it appears they had no authority whatsoever to tell someone to pull over in the first place to use it), their use of the "Intrusive Surveillance" section could have been 100% illegal, if the Ceredigion County Council follows the same policy as Sheffield Council. Of course, they are trying to claim that his van is his place of work and not his "private" vehicle as such, but if this went to court I still reckon he would slaughter them.

[Ian2day]

Does anyone know which think tank is credited with this interpretation of the no smoking in the workplace law. As it would help me greatly. Thanks.

[bendelapidate]

Who breeds these people?

I was wondering that. What next, people who work from home being fined for having a fag indoors? Useless council dickhead mini-Hitler. I wouldn't have paid it and I would have taken it all the way to court.

[tom bombadil]

I think the story is misdirecting the reader.

One reads the header and thinks that it is all about a guy in a van being told that he is in breach of blah blah.

The story heads to two others, one from Forest, the other his gramps

With his gramps we are being told again that the small man has no say, and we are lead to know that even family holds no sway over the powers that be.

Even with the bloke from Forest on his case, he has no say in the matter.




But its deeper.

It looks like the chaps at Forest have been looking for the first fine to take place. And who told them? Not someone in the office in Wales. I could have been anywhere in the UK. They were informed by those 'above' to make a quote on a situation that was bound to happen.

Why now though and not as soon as the new 'law' came in?
Simple. We are/were in a recession a few weeks ago (worse a few weeks ago anyway) and any news like that in the public eye would be tantermount to the govenment taking it out on 'us' a little too harshly, and would push those that thought that the gov was fair, to a point that made them say to themselves "we are not sure now".

So it had to wait.

And at the end of it all a spokesman says it could go either way so why bother me?





So....The point of the article is this; We (the baddies) are in control.


:cool: (IMHO)

[emanuel]

How can antbody think 'he's smoking in his work van so he should have £30 ripped from him'??? there is no justification at all!!!

[tom bombadil]

we all need water, so meter us.

Lots of us need to smoke so meter us.

Its just a way of fixing a meter to the gobs of thse that smoke cos they know what people will do.

[legendary]

I was wondering that. What next, people who work from home being fined for having a fag indoors? .

That's already being enforced if clients visit their workplace

[pri01]

My car for work is a taxable expense so I am paying for the personal use directly. Although my employer has issued me with a no smoking sign that I have to desplay, I should be able to smoke in my own time. Shouldn't this apply to all work vehicles?

[frankanne]

I think its time that we started resisting this tyranny

Yes, so do I lightworks.
I've written to that driver. Hope the letter gets to him as I don't know his complete address. I've also sent copies to that tyranical County Council. Here's the letter:


Gordon Williams
(fined £30 for smoking in van)
Ceredigion
Nr. Aberystwyth
Wales

Dear Mr. Williams,

I was sorry to hear about your £30 fine for smoking in your own van.

I think that you should take action against the council officials who pulled you over. They were breaking the law, as only police officers are allowed to 'pull' anyone over. Those council officials were way out of line and acting in an illegal manner.

I'm sending a copy of this letter to the Ceredigion Council, letting them know that they have broken the law in sending out 'officials' and giving them 'powers' that only the police have.

Good luck with your appeal. We need more people like yourself to fight the tyranny of officials who think they have the powers of the police.

Yours sincerely,


Copies to:

The Chief Executive
Ceredigion County Council
Neuadd Cyngor Ceredigion,
Penmorfa,
Aberaeron,
Ceredigion, SA46 0PA

The Chief Executive
Ceredigion County Council
Town Hall,
Aberystwyth,
Ceredigion SY23 2EB

[frankanne]

Adding to my previous (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=433544&postcount=7) post, here is an update of something I've found.

Take for example the code of conduct regarding the RIPA (2000) for Sheffield County Council, 2007 :



Source of information (PDF document) --********************/5hz9eb---

In other words, although they 'might' be able to somehow stretch their case for having used the "Directed Surveillance" section (even though it appears they had no authority whatsoever to tell someone to pull over in the first place to use it), their use of the "Intrusive Surveillance" section could have been 100% illegal, if the Ceredigion County Council follows the same policy as Sheffield Council. Of course, they are trying to claim that his van is his place of work and not his "private" vehicle as such, but if this went to court I still reckon he would slaughter them.

Good work Void. I've written to that council and the driver.

[drhemp]

Yes, so do I lightworks.
I've written to that driver. Hope the letter gets to him as I don't know his complete address. I've also sent copies to that tyranical County Council. Here's the letter:


Gordon Williams
(fined £30 for smoking in van)
Ceredigion
Nr. Aberystwyth
Wales

Dear Mr. Williams,

I was sorry to hear about your £30 fine for smoking in your own van.

I think that you should take action against the council officials who pulled you over. They were breaking the law, as only police officers are allowed to 'pull' anyone over. Those council officials were way out of line and acting in an illegal manner.

I'm sending a copy of this letter to the Ceredigion Council, letting them know that they have broken the law in sending out 'officials' and giving them 'powers' that only the police have.

Good luck with your appeal. We need more people like yourself to fight the tyranny of officials who think they have the powers of the police.

Yours sincerely,


Copies to:

The Chief Executive
Ceredigion County Council
Neuadd Cyngor Ceredigion,
Penmorfa,
Aberaeron,
Ceredigion, SA46 0PA

The Chief Executive
Ceredigion County Council
Town Hall,
Aberystwyth,
Ceredigion SY23 2EB

Nice one! I hope it gets the the chap, as well as the petty little Hitlers that work for that council. Wouldn't it be nice if upon reading it, they quit their job to go in search of the soul that they have clearly lost. Well wishful thinking, but it should be known that these kind of jobs are morally unacceptable.

[sukyspook]

I think its time that we started resisting this tyranny

Allow me to introduce you to the 'Anti Terrorist' who has some good advice for all of us under attack from a fascist/zionazi/satanic force we call the new world odour:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SxSntYtkaao


I find his videos on dealing with the police to be particularly enlightening.

[drhemp]

My tuppence worth.


Dear Chief Executive,

I am writing to inform you that you, if reports in newspapers are true, that your Council has broken the law, by sending out petty officials to pull over drivers who are alleged to be in violation of the new smoking laws.

I should like to point out that only the Police currently have the powers to pull over a driver and council officers most certainly do not have this power. I understand that one of your officers pulled over a Gordon Williams, who was smoking in his own van, (so not even a place of work, so dubious if any law was being broken in the first place, as the law permits smoking when working at home, providing there are no clients visiting), however, as council officials have no legal right to pull any driver over, you had no right to issue the fine.

Therefore, I call on you to apologise to Mr Williams and refund him the fine, plus compensation. I also call on you to ensure that in future your officers do not act in such a petty and unpleasant way. I'm aware that these orders do come from above, and it is the policy of all EU governments to turn Europe into a Police State. Fortunately, despite our Government's best efforts, Britain is not yet a fully functioning Police State, and we, the populous, even have some rights left. Furthermore, there is a mass awakening process taking place, where people are learning the true intentions of our Government, as naturally, people do not really want to be enslaved and forced to live in a Police State by a bunch of nasty corporate fascists. When we reclaim our country (and we will), the actions of those who have been complicit in Labour's attempts to turn the UK into a Police State will not go unnoticed; therefore it really is not in your interests to willingly comply with any Government measures that are specifically designed to take away our freedoms.

You have been warned!

Yours faithfully,

[sukyspook]

Could it be that luminous jackets are demonically possessed lol!!! That would explain why it's now compulsory for all French people to carry one in their cars - spead the demons about a bit - plus it's a 'loadsamoney' racket, of course!! 'They' don't do anything unless there's money to be made from us.

Give a man a local authority luminous jacket and you have a fascist lapdog for life.....(I don't mean those who wear them for safety - I mean those who wear them for POWER!!!!!!!!!).

Power to the people!!!!

[drhemp]

PS - Thanks for the anti-terrorist video link - top stuff, the sound is not very clear on my laptop speakers, but with a headset, I could hear it fine.

[lightworks]

Adding to my previous (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=433544&postcount=7) post, here is an update of something I've found.

Take for example the code of conduct regarding the RIPA (2000) for Sheffield County Council, 2007 :



Source of information (PDF document) --********************/5hz9eb---

In other words, although they 'might' be able to somehow stretch their case for having used the "Directed Surveillance" section (even though it appears they had no authority whatsoever to tell someone to pull over in the first place to use it), their use of the "Intrusive Surveillance" section could have been 100% illegal, if the Ceredigion County Council follows the same policy as Sheffield Council. Of course, they are trying to claim that his van is his place of work and not his "private" vehicle as such, but if this went to court I still reckon he would slaughter them.

how about agood smack in the mouth? for that stasi complex council person....just a good hard resounding punch in the mouth...a fat bleeding lip and a jangly head will wake him up....why bother going to the reptiles courts..fuck em....stand up for yourself...thats what id do...has no on got the guts to tell these assholes to fuck off....are people so shit scared of big brother....so a good smack in the mouth...or at least.. if not that tell the bastard to fuck off and grow up for christ sakes.....

[lightworks]

Yes, so do I lightworks.
I've written to that driver. Hope the letter gets to him as I don't know his complete address. I've also sent copies to that tyranical County Council. Here's the letter:


Gordon Williams
(fined £30 for smoking in van)
Ceredigion
Nr. Aberystwyth
Wales

Dear Mr. Williams,

I was sorry to hear about your £30 fine for smoking in your own van.

I think that you should take action against the council officials who pulled you over. They were breaking the law, as only police officers are allowed to 'pull' anyone over. Those council officials were way out of line and acting in an illegal manner.

I'm sending a copy of this letter to the Ceredigion Council, letting them know that they have broken the law in sending out 'officials' and giving them 'powers' that only the police have.

Good luck with your appeal. We need more people like yourself to fight the tyranny of officials who think they have the powers of the police.

Yours sincerely,


Copies to:

The Chief Executive
Ceredigion County Council
Neuadd Cyngor Ceredigion,
Penmorfa,
Aberaeron,
Ceredigion, SA46 0PA

The Chief Executive
Ceredigion County Council
Town Hall,
Aberystwyth,
Ceredigion SY23 2EB
I will echo what darkness eternal said in another post;

Stop
giving
your
power
away

fucking hell,fuck the fucking police and the fucking government and all the fucking illuminati "authority" based sytem of mind control all together...because until we can function as free will what the fuck is the use of living I ask you.....Id sabotage the police the council and all these psycic bloodsuckers as much as possible...by just ignoring them ...ignoring ignoring...brun thier letters in a circle of salt and piss on it..use your sprit guardiansyou vn fuck up thier shit just by changin your whole soul prospective...becaus ethey do rituals to bind you in eternal slavery so take your pwoer back NOW NOW NOW...send them binding from doing evil spells....proetct your self ..learn the art of magical protection
http://www.luckymojo.com/protectionspells.html
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/defence.htm
http://www.psychics.co.uk/ghosts/psychicprotection.html
..harness the energies powers that be all around you...there aremany amany angelic souls who are only too willing to surround you with protective bright loving light...all you must do is find your right way to ask them....and bring them in.....
.use the light against the dark ones... whom only gain power and elctricity from you via your fear and obedience they only have so much power as we collectively give them....this is why we need to take back our power back into the magical awareness stage so that it never has to get to sending letters to courts and going throgh reptilian police and reptilian court rituals...these people are just bloddsuckers wasting your valuable time when you could be enjoying yourself and you life as is your holy divine right...your soul is none but belonging to you...and anyone who by way of official ritual who claims otherwise..these people in "authority" are against the soul...thats why ythey keep muredering so many thousands worldwide through HAARP etc

[drhemp]

how about agood smack in the mouth? for that stasi complex council person....just a good hard resounding punch in the mouth...a fat bleeding lip and a jangly head will wake him up....why bother going to the reptiles courts..fuck em....stand up for yourself...thats what id do...has no on got the guts to tell these assholes to fuck off....are people so shit scared of big brother....so a good smack in the mouth...or at least.. if not that tell the bastard to fuck off and grow up for christ sakes.....

Agreed!

[shodan]

I've just caught up on this thread, wow - the things being doing here are a total inspiration, you guys are the future we all deserve and will have :)

[frankanne]

My tuppence worth.


Dear Chief Executive,

I am writing to inform you that you, if reports in newspapers are true, that your Council has broken the law, by sending out petty officials to pull over drivers who are alleged to be in violation of the new smoking laws.

I should like to point out that only the Police currently have the powers to pull over a driver and council officers most certainly do not have this power. I understand that one of your officers pulled over a Gordon Williams, who was smoking in his own van, (so not even a place of work, so dubious if any law was being broken in the first place, as the law permits smoking when working at home, providing there are no clients visiting), however, as council officials have no legal right to pull any driver over, you had no right to issue the fine.

Therefore, I call on you to apologise to Mr Williams and refund him the fine, plus compensation. I also call on you to ensure that in future your officers do not act in such a petty and unpleasant way. I'm aware that these orders do come from above, and it is the policy of all EU governments to turn Europe into a Police State. Fortunately, despite our Government's best efforts, Britain is not yet a fully functioning Police State, and we, the populous, even have some rights left. Furthermore, there is a mass awakening process taking place, where people are learning the true intentions of our Government, as naturally, people do not really want to be enslaved and forced to live in a Police State by a bunch of nasty corporate fascists. When we reclaim our country (and we will), the actions of those who have been complicit in Labour's attempts to turn the UK into a Police State will not go unnoticed; therefore it really is not in your interests to willingly comply with any Government measures that are specifically designed to take away our freedoms.

You have been warned!

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Hemp, that letter is brilliant. Love it!

[frankanne]

Allow me to introduce you to the 'Anti Terrorist' who has some good advice for all of us under attack from a fascist/zionazi/satanic force we call the new world odour:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SxSntYtkaao


I find his videos on dealing with the police to be particularly enlightening.

thanks for that suky. good video.

[lightworks]

Agreed!
but make sure you hit him hard enough...to not be able to dial for more reptiles

its better to counteract aggression with aggression...fuck gandhi.....its got to a point where unless we stand up together they will have there police state...so fuck gandhi and fuck them...spells also.....please learn about magical protection spells because i assure they do work...I have used them to great effect....and the police never bother me anymore....

[bendelapidate]

I think it's irrelevant whether he was deemed to have been in his workplace or not. He was on his own ffs. Rather than argue over whether it broke the law, we should argue over whether this was or wasn't an outrageous intrusion into the personal privacy of a private citizen going about his normal everyday business. A fat lip would definitely be the order of the day for this pathetic local-council stasi-nazi wanker.

[light_man]

Instead of looking at the 'small picture' of a man fined for smoking in his private motor vehicle, look at the bigger picture!

You are looking, yet you do not SEE!

Do you really think that a government that willingly sends troops abroad to die in illegal wars is really concerned with the effects of smoking on peoples' health?

Do you really think a government that encourages flouride in our water systems is really concerned with peoples' health?

Then ask yourself why the government spends millions on propoganda against smoking, and introduces more and more restrictive laws against smoking related issues under the pretence of saving people's health.

You are looking, yet you do not SEE!

[frankanne]

Instead of looking at the 'small picture' of a man fined for smoking in his private motor vehicle, look at the bigger picture!

You are looking, yet you do not SEE!

Do you really think that a government that willingly sends troops abroad to die in illegal wars is really concerned with the effects of smoking on peoples' health?

Do you really think a government that encourages flouride in our water systems is really concerned with peoples' health?

Then ask yourself why the government spends millions on propoganda against smoking, and introduces more and more restrictive laws against smoking related issues under the pretence of saving people's health.

You are looking, yet you do not SEE!

You are right there light man - this government, as we all know, doesn't give a toss about our health. I think they are trying to kill two birds with one stone with this nazi type 'pulling' people over and fining them for smoking. One, it is to show us that they 'officials' can do what the hell they like to us and we must 'obey' their commands. Of course, we don't have to obey their commands, of course they cannot do what the hell they like to us, but so many people are conditioned into being obedient to officials, of being subsevient and compliant. I personally cannot wait for the day when people start to be non-cooperative, when they start to say 'no' to tyranny such as this.

On another level, and you have only hinted at this, I suspect that smoking somehow protects us from maybe the chemtrail particles in the atmosphere. I read an article ages ago about how in all the laboratory tests they did on beagle dogs, rabbits, etc. getting them to smoke cigarettes, yet not one of those poor animals got cancer. Strange eh? In fact, they did another test using 'ex-smoking' mice and 'non-smoking mice' and tested their response to tiny particular plutonium? or uranium? not sure. Anyway, this is where it gets REALLY interesting. The mice that has been in the smoking test were less likely to die, than mice who had never smoked.

The theory is that smoking creates a film on the lungs.

Now, I'm not saying that smoking is good for us. And in a healthy atmosphere then obviously the smoker is at a disadvantage. But where the smoker has an advantage is in a dirty, filthy atomosphere, because the filming of the lungs acts as a protection.

Until I get more info on all this, I can go along with that. It seems to make sense to me.

Thoughts anyone?

[3stepsahead]

I think the story is misdirecting the reader.

One reads the header and thinks that it is all about a guy in a van being told that he is in breach of blah blah.

The story heads to two others, one from Forest, the other his gramps

With his gramps we are being told again that the small man has no say, and we are lead to know that even family holds no sway over the powers that be.

Even with the bloke from Forest on his case, he has no say in the matter.




But its deeper.

It looks like the chaps at Forest have been looking for the first fine to take place. And who told them? Not someone in the office in Wales. I could have been anywhere in the UK. They were informed by those 'above' to make a quote on a situation that was bound to happen.

Why now though and not as soon as the new 'law' came in?
Simple. We are/were in a recession a few weeks ago (worse a few weeks ago anyway) and any news like that in the public eye would be tantermount to the govenment taking it out on 'us' a little too harshly, and would push those that thought that the gov was fair, to a point that made them say to themselves "we are not sure now".

So it had to wait.

And at the end of it all a spokesman says it could go either way so why bother me?







So....The point of the article is this; We (the baddies) are in control.


:cool: (IMHO)


i agree a lot with your ideas here great

[drhemp]

Instead of looking at the 'small picture' of a man fined for smoking in his private motor vehicle, look at the bigger picture!

You are looking, yet you do not SEE!

Do you really think that a government that willingly sends troops abroad to die in illegal wars is really concerned with the effects of smoking on peoples' health?

Do you really think a government that encourages flouride in our water systems is really concerned with peoples' health?

Then ask yourself why the government spends millions on propoganda against smoking, and introduces more and more restrictive laws against smoking related issues under the pretence of saving people's health.

You are looking, yet you do not SEE!

Of course the Government doesn't care about our health, that is a most ludicrous notion. The smoking legislation is all about control, with the added bonus (for them, not us) of creating the illusion that they actually care about our health, which they do not.

If they cared about our health, they would ban Aspartame, they would ban advertising of junk food aimed at children, they would stop doctors handing out antidepressants like smarties, they would promote alternative health, and they would not introduce Codex Alimentarius .... the list is endless, so let's not go off thread; there are plenty others on this forum about how our Government does not care about our health.

The reason they increase the tax on tobacco every year is because they say it is to make it expensive to give a financial incentive for people to quit. They will only put it up by about 20p each year, as they know smoking is so addictive that all smokers will pay this increase, so more money for the Government, more people dying younger, and the illusion created that our Government cares about our health. If the Government really believes that taxation is the right way to stop smoking, they should put the price up to £20 a packet, of course I don't think they should do this, but if the taxation motive really is to protect peoples health, then this is what they should do. Of course they would never do that, as that almost certainly would stop a lot people smoking and increase the amount of illegal tobacco sales (though if all EU countries did this that wouldn't apply), and then they would lose all that money in taxation.

Tobacco is an evil corporate controlled drug, so smoke ganja instead :-)

[frankanne]

Of course the Government doesn't care about our health, that is a most ludicrous notion. The smoking legislation is all about control, with the added bonus (for them, not us) of creating the illusion that they actually care about our health, which they do not.

If they cared about our health, they would ban Aspartame, they would ban advertising of junk food aimed at children, they would stop doctors handing out antidepressants like smarties, they would promote alternative health, and they would not introduce Codex Alimentarius .... the list is endless, so let's not go off thread; there are plenty others on this forum about how our Government does not care about our health.

The reason they increase the tax on tobacco every year is because they say it is to make it expensive to give a financial incentive for people to quit. They will only put it up by about 20p each year, as they know smoking is so addictive that all smokers will pay this increase, so more money for the Government, more people dying younger, and the illusion created that our Government cares about our health. If the Government really believes that taxation is the right way to stop smoking, they should put the price up to £20 a packet, of course I don't think they should do this, but if the taxation motive really is to protect peoples health, then this is what they should do. Of course they would never do that, as that almost certainly would stop a lot people smoking and increase the amount of illegal tobacco sales (though if all EU countries did this that wouldn't apply), and then they would lose all that money in taxation.

Tobacco is an evil corporate controlled drug, so smoke ganja instead :-)


Hi Dr. Hemp. Any thoughts on my post a few up?

It seems to me that there are some things that would not be good in a perfect world - such as cigarettes. But those things that make us 'gaded or filmed, or protected, or even calloused', not sure where I'm going with this. Thinking on my feet type thing.

What I'm trying to say is this. If we were so 'natural' and 'normal' and as we 'should' be, should, meaning, trusting, loving, caring, considerate, giving, totally generous in nature and in everything we own - I truly believe that that's how we were meant to be - totally giving, totally generous, totally trusting and loving. That's how we WILL be, that's my belief. and also totally grown up, adult, wise, good, like I say, thinking on my feet.

What I'm trying to say is, I don't think we need to be children in this totally trusting, totally loving stuff. We can be wise adults and STILL be totally trusting and loving, IN A PERFECT WORLD.

Until that time happens, maybe we need some protection.

Maybe cigarettes give our lungs protection from the TOTAL KILLERS.

It was found that that was the case with the experimental mice.

The TOTAL KILLER was, I don't know, plutonium, whatever. The damaging stuff was the cigarettes, but they damaged in a way that was helpful against the onslught of the TOTAL KILLER.

Does any of this make any sense to anyone on this forum?

Am I speaking in a wilderness?

[drhemp]

I've never smoked tobacco, apart from occasionally in a spliff, but I don't begrudge others who wish to smoke tobacco.

A friend of mine is a GP who now runs an alternative health clinic in Totnes, and recently, rather than trying to get people to stop smoking, he is giving this advice: "well if you must smoke, then at least smoke the additive free tobacco", as there are lots of nasty chemicals added to most tobaccos, so at least, if you are going to smoke, try one of the additive free ones, such as Pueblo or American Spirit (apparently Pueblo is the nicer, not so dry). He reckons this is half as harmful as smoking the tobacco with chems added, and says he has seen improvement in the health of patients who have switched to Pueblo. He still says it's best to stop altogether, but smoking the additive free stuff is much less harmful.

The native Americans used to smoke tobacco leaves as part of ceremonies. A friend from Argentina sent me some organic tobacco leaf once, but as a non-tobacco smoker, I didn't try it, but some friends I gave it to said it was really nice.

[frankanne]

I've never smoked tobacco, apart from occasionally in a spliff, but I don't begrudge others who wish to smoke tobacco.

A friend of mine is a GP who now runs an alternative health clinic in Totnes, and recently, rather than trying to get people to stop smoking, he is giving this advice: "well if you must smoke, then at least smoke the additive free tobacco", as there are lots of nasty chemicals added to most tobaccos, so at least, if you are going to smoke, try one of the additive free ones, such as Pueblo or American Spirit (apparently Pueblo is the nicer, not so dry). He reckons this is half as harmful as smoking the tobacco with chems added, and says he has seen improvement in the health of patients who have switched to Pueblo. He still says it's best to stop altogether, but smoking the additive free stuff is much less harmful.

The native Americans used to smoke tobacco leaves as part of ceremonies. A friend from Argentina sent me some organic tobacco leaf once, but as a non-tobacco smoker, I didn't try it, but some friends I gave it to said it was really nice.

yes, that's interesting, but what about the research done showing that smoking tobacco can protect you from nuclear fall out? What are your, or anyone else's thoughts on that one?

Do you think the research was flawed? or do you think there may be something in it? I'll try to find the link to the research paper that I'm talking about.

[frankanne]

right. here's the link. Would be really, really grateful if a few people could actually read it and give their opinion on it. Cheers, in anticipation.......... lol.

http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.html

[drhemp]

yes, that's interesting, but what about the research done showing that smoking tobacco can protect you from nuclear fall out? What are your, or anyone else's thoughts on that one?

Do you think the research was flawed? or do you think there may be something in it? I'll try to find the link to the research paper that I'm talking about.

I've no idea about that, the point I was making was if you must smoke, then smoke the stuff without all the chemicals added to it.

[void]

how about agood smack in the mouth? for that stasi complex council person....just a good hard resounding punch in the mouth...a fat bleeding lip and a jangly head will wake him up....why bother going to the reptiles courts..fuck em....stand up for yourself...thats what id do...has no on got the guts to tell these assholes to fuck off....are people so shit scared of big brother....so a good smack in the mouth...or at least.. if not that tell the bastard to fuck off and grow up for christ sakes.....

At times everybody feels like this. But going berserk at them, smacking them in the gob and roaring at them that you're a free being, won't help you one ounce unfortunately (despite how good it would feel). All it will do is help them more than you can possibly imagine (wow, how Obi Wan Kenobi sounding), will make "them" look civil and will let them use "your" lashing out as an excuse why they'll demand to have the harder police powers that currently they are 'not' allowed to use and have screwed up big time by trying to use in this incident. All they'll do is take you to their court, fine you heavily, or even possibly jail you. At times yes things have been wired in such a way that trying to work 'through' the system won't work because they've covered every angle. Now and again I see situations where they have us by the balls and we cannot resist because each direction you move in to counter it, is another squeeze of the balls. But it's more common that you can use their own screwed up over complicated system riddled system to get them because hardly any of these people know their own laws it seems. Look at Mohandas Gandhi.

Ultimately his own enemy trained him, by letting him study British law and the ideology of the Empire. Gandhi knew the British 'intimately'. He knew how far they would go and how far he could push them, with whatever tactic he would use. He knew what morals they held dearly, and used that against them, showing them up for the world to see when they didn't follow their own rules. He knew how to play them because he used their own system against them as his most potent weapon. Personally I don't know why people think his actions got India Independence. It didn't.

The massive toll on the Empire after WWII was the reason. But Gandhi certainly made life very very very difficult for the British, like an irritating mosquito. They didn't expect a "wog" (as they would have put it at the time) to know their own system and use it against 'them'. To me it seems that the best people can do in this country now is to clue themselves up on the various laws regarding surveillance, what police 'can' and cannot do (and what council workers can or cannot do), what you can and cannot do, and all the rest for whenever such situations arise possibly in our own lives. Because it has been shown many times that the average Bobby doesn't even know every section of their own law books regarding things and frequently come out with nonsense saying someone can't do this or that or the other. Occasionally they try this on people who know every section of a certain law being tried on them, and are made the police look utter fools (and shown up as acting illegally themselves).

[bendelapidate]

The main thing was the Gandhi was instrumental in removing the brits from India - and a jolly good thing too. Well done Gandhi for your stubborn refusal to accept the status quo when it was quite obviously wrong and for your steadfast resistance to lies, untruths and popular deceit.

[lightworks]

Of course the Government doesn't care about our health, that is a most ludicrous notion. The smoking legislation is all about control, with the added bonus (for them, not us) of creating the illusion that they actually care about our health, which they do not.

If they cared about our health, they would ban Aspartame, they would ban advertising of junk food aimed at children, they would stop doctors handing out antidepressants like smarties, they would promote alternative health, and they would not introduce Codex Alimentarius .... the list is endless, so let's not go off thread; there are plenty others on this forum about how our Government does not care about our health.

The reason they increase the tax on tobacco every year is because they say it is to make it expensive to give a financial incentive for people to quit. They will only put it up by about 20p each year, as they know smoking is so addictive that all smokers will pay this increase, so more money for the Government, more people dying younger, and the illusion created that our Government cares about our health. If the Government really believes that taxation is the right way to stop smoking, they should put the price up to £20 a packet, of course I don't think they should do this, but if the taxation motive really is to protect peoples health, then this is what they should do. Of course they would never do that, as that almost certainly would stop a lot people smoking and increase the amount of illegal tobacco sales (though if all EU countries did this that wouldn't apply), and then they would lose all that money in taxation.

Tobacco is an evil corporate controlled drug, so smoke ganja instead :-)
fucking exactly..i was being harassed today by a police community support officer....accompanied by a police "office"....now what sort of office do they truly hold in actual fact...anyway....the guys eyes turned to slit....and at the same time his heart rate increased....I said "look youre nervous..your blood pressures changing...whats wrong with you" he said "no im not nervous"..and i kept at him....he started shitting his pants...and was shocked....i said "yes you are nervous..ive been mediataing for twenty years..and I pick up on enrgy"..him and his cop buddy walked off....the cop was laughing out loud....I really made a fool of the bASTARD

[izzy]

what they did is actually illegal, if you look in Holland where the same smoking ban is enforced under the same legislation, you are legally allowed to smoke inside designated areas where the staff aren't allowed entry and smokers acknowledge that smoking occurs inside this area

UNFORTUnately it is not illegal .. i have acompany car and i have to display a no smoking sign ... it is a sackable offence not too.
additionally, if a policeman saw me smoking he could fine me .. plus i would get the sack ..

I just have a golf .. i do not carry clients in the car .. just me

[drhemp]

UNFORTUnately it is not illegal .. i have acompany car and i have to display a no smoking sign ... it is a sackable offence not too.
additionally, if a policeman saw me smoking he could fine me .. plus i would get the sack ..

I just have a golf .. i do not carry clients in the car .. just me

In Holland you can smoke in the coffeshops, as long as your spliff doesn't have tobacco in it, what's more they are actually enforcing it! I was over there last week and saw people asked to go outside when they were mixing their cannabis with tobacco. This was in Amsterdam, I hear it's even worse in other Dutch towns, with Government officials actually going around to check the coffeeshops to ensure that only neat spliffs are being smoked and threatening prosecutions for those that break the law. Unbelievable eh?

As a non-tobacco smoker, I would think Christmas had come early and I'd gone to heaven if I were told I could only smoke neat cannabis spiffs in my local here in the UK.

[lizzy]

In Holland you can smoke in the coffeshops, as long as your spliff doesn't have tobacco in it, what's more they are actually enforcing it! I was over there last week and saw people asked to go outside when they were mixing their cannabis with tobacco. This was in Amsterdam, I hear it's even worse in other Dutch towns, with Government officials actually going around to check the coffeeshops to ensure that only neat spliffs are being smoked and threatening prosecutions for those that break the law. Unbelievable eh?

As a non-tobacco smoker, I would think Christmas had come early and I'd gone to heaven if I were told I could only smoke neat cannabis spiffs in my local here in the UK.

yes indeed Dr Hemp one would certainly think the police state was taking a long lunch break.
The remark I left on the dave S. thread was co-insidental and meant to be humurous.;)

[lizzy]

right. here's the link. Would be really, really grateful if a few people could actually read it and give their opinion on it. Cheers, in anticipation.......... lol.

http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.html

hi annefrank,
I had read recently that tobacco assisted the immune system against chemtrails. The lung cancer argument is interedting and new to me.
I hope you are well. ~ L.

[frankanne]

hi annefrank,
I had read recently that tobacco assisted the immune system against chemtrails. The lung cancer argument is interedting and new to me.
I hope you are well. ~ L.


Hi Lizzy. Yes it is interesting isn't it? The lung cancer and immune system thing. I'll investigate it a bit more I think.

Yes, I'm OK. Going to court this Friday, although there is talk of it maybe being delayed again. I'll let you know how it goes.

Hope you're OK.

[lightworks]

At times everybody feels like this. But going berserk at them, smacking them in the gob and roaring at them that you're a free being, won't help you one ounce unfortunately (despite how good it would feel). All it will do is help them more than you can possibly imagine (wow, how Obi Wan Kenobi sounding), will make "them" look civil and will let them use "your" lashing out as an excuse why they'll demand to have the harder police powers that currently they are 'not' allowed to use and have screwed up big time by trying to use in this incident. All they'll do is take you to their court, fine you heavily, or even possibly jail you. At times yes things have been wired in such a way that trying to work 'through' the system won't work because they've covered every angle. Now and again I see situations where they have us by the balls and we cannot resist because each direction you move in to counter it, is another squeeze of the balls. But it's more common that you can use their own screwed up over complicated system riddled system to get them because hardly any of these people know their own laws it seems. Look at Mohandas Gandhi.

Ultimately his own enemy trained him, by letting him study British law and the ideology of the Empire. Gandhi knew the British 'intimately'. He knew how far they would go and how far he could push them, with whatever tactic he would use. He knew what morals they held dearly, and used that against them, showing them up for the world to see when they didn't follow their own rules. He knew how to play them because he used their own system against them as his most potent weapon. Personally I don't know why people think his actions got India Independence. It didn't.

The massive toll on the Empire after WWII was the reason. But Gandhi certainly made life very very very difficult for the British, like an irritating mosquito. They didn't expect a "wog" (as they would have put it at the time) to know their own system and use it against 'them'. To me it seems that the best people can do in this country now is to clue themselves up on the various laws regarding surveillance, what police 'can' and cannot do (and what council workers can or cannot do), what you can and cannot do, and all the rest for whenever such situations arise possibly in our own lives. Because it has been shown many times that the average Bobby doesn't even know every section of their own law books regarding things and frequently come out with nonsense saying someone can't do this or that or the other. Occasionally they try this on people who know every section of a certain law being tried on them, and are made the police look utter fools (and shown up as acting illegally themselves).

a case in point...last week i was being harassed by an in your face official....after several verbal warnings to back off..the over zealous idiot found himself.....thrown face down....into the pavement.......I then repeated to the overzealous idiot.lying in agony on the floor that "I did warn you " and "you will not persist"
and to my knwoledge....that is as far as it actually went.....self defence techniques can and do work no matter how big and strong or overbearing the overbearing c...t in a uniform might seem....I speak from years of experience....and I do hereby assure you that the best way to deal...with aggrressive persons...whomsoever or whatsover they may be..and however they maybe dressed...is by ruthless and exacting efficiency....turn this illuminati shit right round now..or live in concentration camps...your choice..
I know what mine is

I also point out that having the great courage to break free of the spitual mental emotional conditioning that is fear of authourity
is what is neeeded..And I say to be not afarid of courts ..and police and arrest...just drop the bullshit program