I have complained to the Press Complaints Commission successfully – not that it has done any good, as far as I know. Now, I have complained to the Advertising Standards Agency. I have complained about THAT advert – the one showing the guy smoking a cancerous cigarette.
I have complained especially because I smell CORRUPTION. When that ad came of the TV tonight, it was closely (but not too closely) followed by an ad for Niquitin. Erm… What is the connection between the two? How many brown paper envelopes have changed hands? You see, when there is no opposition on the horizon to ask questions, human nature will dictate, without fail, that some people will make it their business to gain personal remuneration. There is no doubt whatsoever. It has always been so. I have no doubt whatsoever that ‘considerations’ have changed hands.
And so I have complained to the Advertising Standards Agency. Below is a copy (for the record) of my complaint:
The advert which I criticise is the one which show a man smoking a cigarette outside his home (presumably). It shows what purports to be a tumour growing on a cigarette.
It may be said that the advert is ‘a public information broadcast’ and, therefore, not an advertisement as such. However, that advert was closely followed by a commercial advert for ‘Niquitin’, which is sold as a ‘smoking cessation product’ and makes profits for its makers. It is also well-known that the Department of Health actively promotes such products, even though they have a failure rate around 90+%.
My complaint falls into two parts:
1) I believe that there is active collusion between certain officers in the Dept of Health to use this ‘public information broadcast’ to promote the sale of Niquitin.
2) The advert itself is misleading.
As regards 1):
The question arises as to what extent the makers of Niquitin are paying for the ‘public information broadcast’. If they are paying any money at all towards the production costs of the advert, or anything similar, then it follows that the Dept of Health is using its influence to promote the products of that drugs company. In any case, even if the makers of Niquitin are not paying towards the costs of the advert, the drugs company is still profiting from the DoH advert.
These matters should be investigated.
As regards 2):
I have no doubt that the content of the advert has been cleared by the Dept of Health’s legal experts. Nevertheless, it is still misleading. It is misleading because it claims that mutations which result from the enjoyment of tobacco cause tumours. I have it on good authority that every cell of the human body ‘mutates’ thousands of times a day. We would not be able to live it that were not so. When we drink liquids and eat foodstuff, our cells mutate. There is nothing odd about ‘mutation’. The advert implies that there is something wrong in ‘mutation’. The Tobacco Control Industry had every opportunity to produce evidence that smoking causes tumours in the McTear versus Imperial Tobacco case (in the supreme court of Scotland before Lord Nimmo Smith, which concluded in 2005). In the event, Lord Nimmo Smith complained that Tobacco Control produced NO EVIDENCE that such was the case. Tobacco Control could not even show, with any inclusiveness, that Nicotine is addictive, even simply on ‘the balance of probabilities’. Animal experiments have shown no indication of such addiction. [Should you wish to look at the McTear V Imperial Tobacco case, it can be accessed here:
NB. I must emphasise that the Bolton Smokers Club has no connection WHATSOEVER with the Tobacco Industry]
I am concerned about the misleading contents of the advert. I am concerned about the collusion between officer of the Dept of Health and commercial companies and the possibility of corruption.
It is incumbent upon you to investigate.
Not for one moment do I believe that my complaint will bear any fruit. But we have to try. I hesitate to suggest that others should do likewise, because I know that they will not. However, we have no way of knowing whether or not such complaints have already been made.
It will be interesting to see what reply I receive……………..
Whenever an organisation silences its opposition, it becomes corrupt. It is human nature. Even if the original participants were as clean as clean, others will see an opportunity to enrich themselves. The less the opposition, the greater the corruption.
Strange events occur. For example, I read somewhere that Tobacco Companies have given millions of euros to Tobacco Control in the EU to combat smuggling. Are these companies out of their minds? Do they not realise that they are helping the very people who wish to destroy them completely? Do they not realise that most of the ‘smuggled’ tobacco is their own products? But who knows what deals are being done, and what brown paper envelopes are changing hands.
But there is also intellectual corruption. For example, we have heard recently that the UK wants to limit the increase of the EU budget a bit. For heaven’s sake! Rather than mess about with percentages, why not tell the EU that we will reduce our contribution by £X? “Your organisation is obese – slim it down”. Politicians in the UK are so inept! Solutions for the deficit are easy and immediate:
1) Stop foreign aid, apart from specific projects.
2) Refuse to fund those aspects of the EU which are the rightful prerogative of national governments (eg, Health).
3) Do not fund the UN – it is useless.
4) For the time being, stop immigration completely. Encourage full employment for UK citizens.
5) Put ‘Public Health’ back into its box. The free choice of individuals is exactly that. Public Heath is about ‘contagious’ conditions, and not ‘non-communicable diseases’. If such ‘non-communicable’ diseases exist, they are not a subject for Public Health, precisely because they are ‘non’-communicable.
It is an incontestable fact that, somehow or other, a few academics have managed to enrich themselves on the backs of The People. This is particularly obvious in connection with the academic in the Eat Anglia Uni who acted, at public expense, in collusion with the UN. Thus, these people, because they were in cahoots with ‘a potential world government’, felt able to IMPOSE THEIR VIEWS.
But who are these people? We find, on enquiry, that they are ‘quack’ doctors and ‘quack’ professors. The most vociferous of them have little or no scientific credentials. They are quacks.
There are lots of people who deserve the title “Professor” and “Doctor”. They are genuine. But it is also true that Tobacco Control has deliberately caused the elevation of nondescript rent-seekers to “professorial” status. IT MUST BE SO!, since opposition has been totally silenced. In ancient times, the equivalent would have been the silencing of Sir Isaac Newton, on the grounds that his theory of gravity forbids ‘angels’; also, in ancient times, the relativity, and thus the uncertainty, of events in the universe would have caused Einstein to be boiled in oil, because his theories implied uncertainty in the one thing what we thought we could be certain of – being THE PASSAGE OF TIME. Almost everyone imagines a celestial clock which ticks, and ticks, and ticks – but there is no such thing. Einstein proposed that there is no godlike celestial clock. Changes can occur in the universe, but these changes cannot be ‘timed’ because the changes create the time.