Web cowboys

I have been giving the subject of freedom of speech some thought today for some strange reason.

In my book, freedom of speech means just that – speech is free, subject to certain conditions.  I am free to express my thoughts and opinions provided they are just that and not statements of fact.  I can however state facts if they are common knowledge and in the public domain. 

I can for example say that I think James Reilly is an absolute cunt and that I wouldn't let my grandkids near him, because that is my opinion.  If I said that I had proof and stated categorically that he was a kiddie fiddler, that would be libel so I don't say it.  Equally people can [and have done] call me a cunt and I ignore them.  If they state as a fact that I'm a kiddie fiddler I will sue them.

This little web site is stuck in a little box of magic tricks somewhere in Dublin, or maybe Carlow [I’m not sure which] but I do know it is somewhere in Ireland.  As such it is subject to the laws of Ireland, Europe [*spit*] and International law.  It is not subject to the laws of Great Britain or the U. S. of A.  My terms of service state just that.  I abide by those laws in that I don't load up porn, pirated shit or any of the lovely stuff to be found on the Dark Web.  Anything else is fair game.

So I write an opinion piece on Elton John and David Furnish, not commenting on their shenanigans and threesomes but on their attempt to cover up the lurid details to "protect their children".  I heard about their latest escapades entirely from the infamous injunction, and found the details on International sites that are outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales.  As such, that information is common knowledge and British [excluding Scotland] injunctions don't apply.

But then the Web Sheriff rides into town demanding I cease and desist and not only remove all mention of Elton John and David Furnish, but that I delete all files containing their names, including all cached files both at home and on the server.  Who the fuck do they think they are?  And how far do their threats extend?  Are they going to complain because I have mentioned the [redacted] names yet again?  Am I forbidden to ever mention Elton John for the next hundred years?  If that applies to every mention of his name then they are in for a bit of overtime, as according to Google, his name appears in 149,000,000 results.  It ain't going to play well with his public persona either.

I did a little research on the Web Cowboys, and the best explanation I came across was in Encyclopedia Dramatica. So this self appointed guardian of the Interweb proclaims itself to be the "Internet Protector to the Stars" and is going to police the Interweb and harass anyone they are paid to not like?  They must spend their time just Googling the Interwebs just looking for people to harass?

They seem to be quite well known for their blanket bomb approach.   They are demanding that Google removes links right around the world, despite the injunction only applying to England and Wales.  Solely because of their efforts to hide the story, they are keeping the story running.  I have no interest whatsoever in Elton John or David Furnish.  As far as I am concerned they are just two people who got up to a bit of naughty, and my attitude is so fucking what!  But because of the Web Cowboys the story will roll and roll, and it is all because of those threats.

So the Web Cowboys can fuck off into the sunset.  I have no time for threats, intimidation or bullying.

I'm siding with the Indians.

 

Muzzling Grandad

I received an email today.

It went straight into my Junkbox where I probably should have left it.

I can't tell you that much about it because it says [and I quote] –

This e-mail is the copyright of Web Sheriff®. The contents of this e-mail are strictly private confidential, are for the attention of the addressee(s) only and may also qualify for legal privilege. This communication may not be disclosed or otherwise communicated to anyone other than the addressee(s), nor may it be copied or reproduced in any way without the written authorization of Web Sheriff®. If received in error, please contact our London office on +44(0)208-323 8013, or our Los Angeles Office on +1-424-238 4551 or our New York office on +1-212-601 2723 (as applicable and depending upon time-zones), quoting the name of the sender and the addressee(s), then please delete it from your system. Please note that whilst we have taken all reasonable steps to ensure there are no viruses contained within this e-mail and any attachments, it is your responsibility to ensure they are scanned and virus free. Neither Web Sheriff® nor the sender accepts responsibility for any interception of this e-mail by unauthorized persons and please be aware that internet e-mail is not a completely secure method of communication.

Quite a mouthful?

I looked up Web Sheriff® and apparently they are some kind of Interweb Police force – "Internet Protector to the Stars"?  What the fuck?  The stars need their own police force now?

Anyhows, they tell me I'm in breach of something but they can't say what because of an injunction.  I was going to write to ask what I was breaching, but actually they tell me –

UK CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT (CONTEMPT OF COURT NOTICE)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 §1 (INVASION OF PRIVACY NOTICE)
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ARTICLE 8 (INVASION OF PRIVACY NOTICE)
FEDERAL DATA PROTECTION REGULATIONS (CRIMINAL DISCLOSURE NOTICE)
EU DATA PROTECTION DIRECTIVE (CRIMINAL DISCLOSURE NOTICE)
UK DATA PROTECTION ACT (CRIMINAL DISCLOSURE NOTICE)
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE §646.9 & §653.2 (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 1708.7 (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
UK COMMUNICATIONS ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
UK PREVENTION OF HARASSMENT ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
UK COMPUTER MISUSE ACT (MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS NOTICE)
DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT (COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOTICE)
EUROPEAN UNION COPYRIGHT DIRECTIVE (COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT NOTICE)
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION E-COMMERCE REGULATIONS (CONSUMER PROTECTION NOTICE)
EUROPEAN UNION E-COMMERCE DIRECTIVE (CONSUMER PROTECTION NOTICE)
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON CYBERCRIME (PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING NOTICE)
– and –
NOTICE OF BREACH OF ISP'S / HOST'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE
NOTICE OF BREACH OF WEB-SITE'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE

Holy fucking cow!  Have I been a naughty boy or what?  I'm even breaching my own sites Terms of Service?  [In fact they are breaching my terms of service as I never got the brown envelope]

So what in the name of Jayzus are they on about?

Well, they provided me with a link which provided me with 70 pages of the type of shit that lawyers roll around in, but was of little interest to me.  Why should I be interested in a judgment in a foreign court?

I was beginning to see the light. 

Lest there be any doubt, they gave a brief synopsis of the complaint –

1. Complainant : APPELLANT (COMPLAINANT’S IDENTITY PROTECTED BY COURT OF APPEAL RULING / ORDER)
2. Rights Agent : WEB SHERIFF®
3. Infringed Rights :
A. PRIVACY RIGHTS (PROTECTED BY INJUNCTION / CONTEMPT OF COURT),
B. DATA PROTECTION RIGHTS (DITTO),
C. HUMAN RIGHTS (DITTO),
D. RIGHT-OF-PUBLICITY (NAME & IMAGE RIGHTS),
E. PERSONAL GOODWILL & REPUTATION,
F. BUSINESS GOODWILL & REPUTATION,
G. COPYRIGHT
H. CONSUMER PROTECTION RIGHTS (AS APPLICABLE – PLEASE SEE URL LIST BELOW)
4. Infringed Individual(s) / Entities : APPELLANT (COMPLAINANT’S IDENTITY PROTECTED BY COURT OF APPEAL RULING / ORDER)
5. Infringing / Violating Materials :
A. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION & ALLIED REPORTING RESTRICTIONS GRANTED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE HIGH COURTS OF JUSTICE, LONDON, ENGLAND (AND THE PUBLICATION OF WHICH CONTRAVENES & VIOLATES THE TERMS OF THE SAID INJUNCTION & REPORTING RESTRICTIONS),
B. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC DATA PROTECTION LEGISLATION & TREATIES,
C. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE HUMAN RIGHTS / RIGHT-TO-PRIVACY OF THE SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES,
D. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE RIGHT-OF-PUBLICITY OF THE PERTINENT SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES,
E. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE PERSONAL GOODWILL & REPUTATION OF THE SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES,
F. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE BUSINESS GOODWILL & REPUTATION OF THE SUBJECTS OF THE RELEVANT INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES,
G. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION & TREATIES,
H. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS & CYBER-STALKING LEGISLATION & TREATIES,
I. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THAT VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING LEGISLATION & TREATIES, J. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED & PIRATED COPYRIGHT CONTENT / IMAGES THAT INFRINGE THE COMPLAINANT'S COPYRIGHT,
K. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THE PUBLICATION OF WHICH BREACHES THE ISP'S / HOST'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE & ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY,
L. ILLEGALLY PUBLISHED PRIVATE INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES THE PUBLICATION OF WHICH BREACHES THE INFRINGING / VIOLATING WEB SITE'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE & ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (AS APPLICABLE – PLEASE SEE URL LIST BELOW).
6. Infringing / Violating Activity (as applicable) :
A. PUBLICATION IN CONTEMPT OF COURT (ILLEGAL PUBLICATION, DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION & EXPLOITATION OF PRIVATE INFORMATION, DATA & IMAGES WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF A COURT INJUNCTION GRANTED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL, LONDON, ENGLAND AND IN DIRECT CONTRAVENTION / VIOLATION OF SUCH ORDER / INJUNCTION AND ALL RELEVANT REPORTING RESTRICTIONS RELATING THERETO)
B. HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS (VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AND TREATIES THROUGH FAILURE TO ABIDE BY RIGHT-TO-PRIVACY PURSUANT TO, INTER ALIA, ARTICLE 8 OF THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & ARTICLE 1 §1 OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AND WAY OF THE ILLEGAL PUBLICATION, DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION & EXPLOITATION OF PRIVATE INFORMATION WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF A COURT INJUNCTION AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE SUBJECTS OF SUCH INFORMATION / DATA / IMAGES HAD A REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF AND LEGAL ENTITLEMENT TO PRIVACY)
C. DATA PROTECTION VIOLATIONS (VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC DATA PROTECTION LEGISLATION & TREATIES THROUGH FAILURE TO ABIDE BY SUCH DATA PROTECTION LAWS AND BY WAY OF THE ILLEGAL PUBLICATION, DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION & EXPLOITATION OF PRIVATE INFORMATION WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF A COURT INJUNCTION)
D. RIGHT-OF-PUBLICITY INFRINGEMENT (UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION, EXPLOITATION & DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION OF NAMES AND / OR LIKENESSES PLUS FALSE ENDORSEMENT OF THIRD PARTY GOODS & SERVICES THROUGH UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION, DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION & EXPLOITATION OF NAMES AND / OR LIKENESSES IN DIRECT CONJUNCTION & JUXTAPOSITION WITH UNAUTHORIZED ADVERTISING FOR SUCH THIRD PARTY GOODS & SERVICES AND / OR OTHERWISE BY WAY OF ILLEGALLY IMPLIED ENDORSEMENTS)
E. PERSONAL GOODWILL & REPUTATION INFRINGEMENT (UNAUTHORIZED EXPLOITATION OF PERSONAL GOODWILL & REPUTATION PLUS FALSE ENDORSEMENT OF THIRD PARTY GOODS & SERVICES THROUGH UNAUTHORIZED EXPLOITATION OF PERSONAL GOODWILL & REPUTATION IN DIRECT CONJUNCTION & JUXTAPOSITION WITH UNAUTHORIZED ADVERTISING FOR SUCH THIRD PARTY GOODS & SERVICES AND / OR OTHERWISE BY WAY OF ILLEGALLY IMPLIED ENDORSEMENTS)
F. BUSINESS GOODWILL & REPUTATION INFRINGEMENT (UNAUTHORIZED EXPLOITATION OF BUSINESS GOODWILL & REPUTATION PLUS FALSE ENDORSEMENT OF THIRD PARTY GOODS & SERVICES THROUGH UNAUTHORIZED EXPLOITATION OF BUSINESS GOODWILL & REPUTATION IN DIRECT CONJUNCTION & JUXTAPOSITION WITH UNAUTHORIZED ADVERTISING FOR SUCH THIRD PARTY GOODS & SERVICES AND / OR OTHERWISE BY WAY OF ILLEGALLY IMPLIED ENDORSEMENTS)
G. HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS & CYBER-STALKING VIOLATIONS (VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC HARASSMENT, MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS & CYBER-STALKING LEGISLATION & TREATIES THROUGH THE POSTING OF MALICIOUS COMMUNICATIONS AND OTHERWISE THROUGH THE PUBLICATION OF MATERIALS WITH THE INTENTION TO WILFULLY & MALICIOUSLY HARASS)
H. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT (UNAUTHORIZED PUBLICATION, DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION & EXPLOITATION OF COPYRIGHT MATERIALS PLUS FALSE ENDORSEMENT OF THIRD PARTY GOODS & SERVICES THROUGH UNAUTHORIZED DIGITAL DISTRIBUTION & EXPLOITATION OF COPYRIGHT MATERIALS IN DIRECT CONJUNCTION & JUXTAPOSITION WITH UNAUTHORIZED ADVERTISING FOR SUCH THIRD PARTY GOODS & SERVICES)
I. CONSUMER PROTECTION RIGHTS VIOLATIONS (VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION & TREATIES THROUGH MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES & FALSE ENDORSEMENTS AND / OR THROUGH FAILURE TO PUBLISH LEGAL OWNERSHIP DETAILS OF INFRINGING / VIOLATING WEB SITE AND / OR FAILURE TO PUBLISH FULL, ADDRESS & CONTACT DETAILS FOR INFRINGING / VIOLATING WEB SITE)
J. PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING VIOLATIONS (VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL & DOMESTIC PROCEEDS OF CRIME & MONEY LAUNDERING LEGISLATION & TREATIES THROUGH THE HANDLING AND / OR LAUNDERING OF THE PROCEEDS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY)
K. BREACH OF ISP'S / HOST'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE & ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (BY REASON OF THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS & INFRINGEMENTS)
L. BREACH OF INFRINGING / VIOLATING WEB SITE'S PUBLISHED TERMS OF SERVICE & ACCEPTABLE USE POLICY (BY REASON OF THE ABOVE VIOLATIONS & INFRINGEMENTS) ** TRADEMARK & GENERAL RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ** ALL REGISTERED, COMMON-LAW & PENDING TRADEMARK RIGHTS ARE HEREBY STRICTLY RESERVED – AS ARE ALL OTHER RIGHTS OF AN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NATURE (WHETHER EXPOUNDED HEREIN OR OTHERWISE).
7. Infringing / Violating Web Site : HEADRAMBLES.COM
8. Infringing / Violating File Location(s) : http://headrambles.com/2016/05/26/cannot-be-named-in-england-and-wales/

Aha!  So it's yesterday's post they are whinging about?

Now I don't give a shite about Web Cowboys[®] as I'm not under the jurisdiction of England or Wales, and certainly not California.  I have never even heard of the vast majority of the above.

However…….

They might just start hassling the people who host my site [who don’t give a shit what I write about] and I don't want to give them any trouble.

So I have redacted the names from the wee yoke I wrote yesterday.  I'm fucked though if I'm going to trawl through cached files on all the servers in the world, as they demand.  Who the fuck do they think they are?

Of course they are going to bitch about this post too.

But there again, if they don't want the contents of their letter published they shouldn't have sent the fucking thing.

Safety zone my arse

Today is National Speedtrap Day here in Ireland.

This is the day when they stick our Boys in Blue [actually florescent yellow] at the side of the road to catch those unfortunate motorists who are unaware of the day that's in it.

They advertise the day well in advance, and are even kind enough to tell us where those speed traps [sorry – Safety Zones] are placed.  There is a sting in the tail though as they have just introduced 355 extra "Safety Zones" which become effective today, so I would imagine quite a few will be caught.  I'm sure the extra cash raised in fines will come in useful?

I sometimes wonder how many accidents and near misses are caused by these operations.  How many drivers today are concentrating on the speedometers instead of watching the road ahead?  How many of those speedometers are accurate?  How many speedometers are still displaying the old Miles Per Hour, instead of the new money?

I tend to use the SatNav on a long journey for two reasons – it works brilliantly as a hands-free for the mobile phone and its speed indicator is more accurate than my speedometer.  I know the latter is true as I have tested it and when I am doing 50, my speedometer indicates around 53, so if I relied on the car, I would be well below the limit.  It also has in irritating little habit of pinging at me at intervals when I am over the limit [which is most of the time so I usually switch that “feature” off].

Of course National Speedtrap Day is the day when they chant their old mantra at us – "Speed Kills" – which I maintain is a load of bollox.  Bad driving kills, not speed.  I judge my speed not by limits but to such simple factors as visibility, the state of the road and the state of the car.  There is a road near here about a kilometre long which is dead straight with no entrances, houses or hazards yet it has a 50 limit on it.  I rarely go below 60 on that stretch.  There is another road nearby, also with a 50 limit which has a long succession of nasty bends for about two kilometres and I defy anyone to get anywhere near the limit without smashing into something.

As it happens, I was out yesterday [doing 80 in their 50 “Safety Zone”] so there is no need to go out again today.

I'm keeping my money where it belongs.

Normal service resumes tomorrow.

Cannot be named in England and Wales

UPDATE:

I have just received what purports to be a legal threat telling me I cannot name names [but they can’t tell me who as there is an injunction involved].  I am therefore removing any names from the following article just to be on the safe side and replacing them with pseudonyms. My apologies to [redacted – Reggie D White] and his partner [D. Furniture].  Far be it from me to slur the name of a singer of such classics as "Rocket Man", "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" and "Crocodile Rock"?

Please note that whoever you think I'm talking about is probably not the people you think I'm talking about.  It could be someone else altogether.

END OF UPDATE.

In the course of my morning readings, I stumbled by The Last Furlong.

Remember those people who cannot be named? This is about them…

Unfortunately the link was dud [but is since fixed].  Now I vaguely remember the story as it broke a few weeks ago, but I had ignored it at the time.  However my interest was piqued [as they say] so I decided to investigate further.

So It transpires that "Reggie D White" and his partner [redacted] have been naughty boys and have been indulging in a little threesome [or three].

Now I have absolutely zilch interest in "Reggie D White".  As far as I am concerned, he is some bloke who produced a couple of good tracks back in the Seventies and has a bad taste in spectacles.  I have less than zilch interest in "D. Furniture" as I haven't the foggiest who he is [apart from hanging around with the other “Mr White”].  I assume there is a third bloke somewhere otherwise it wouldn’t have been a threesome, but unless it was Prince Charles I just don’t care.  [If it had been Prince Charles it would be worth a giggle?]

So why are these two so desperate that I don't read their little sordid tale?  I don't give a flying fuck what they get up to.  Their antics are about as important to me as the private life of a pigeon in Waterloo Station, yet these two somehow throw their money about and waste the Courts' time by taking out injunctions forbidding anyone from mentioning their sordid little games.  If they are so fucking embarrassed by their antics then they shouldn't have indulged in the first place?

I have to laugh though.  If they had just kept their head down the whole thing would have died the death within milliseconds, but as it is they have illustrated to perfection the Streisand Effect.  They deserve all they get from trying to muzzle free speech, and may the story roll on and embarrass the fuck out of them.

Don't they know that the Forbidden Fruit is the sweetest?  Like kids trying out cigarettes, the more you try to prevent things the more people will want to try them.  It's human nature.

What a pair of tossers!

Conservative dressing

Please respect these gentlemen's desire for an inconspicuous and private life!

 

And before I forget – I wrote this is Ireland and it sits on my little server also in Ireland, so yiz can fuck off with your injunctions!

Introducing the Tobacco Control Comedy Show

I wasn't going to write about e-cigarettes again today.  Repetition can be tedious.

However, Herself had been listening to the radio yesterday and informed me that I had missed my dear friend Luke Clancy in a programme about the Horizon thingy.  I had to listen for myself and managed to find an archive.  So if you are tired of the subject, blame her.

For those of you who don't know my bosom pal Luke, he's a dried up arsehole of the Irish Tobacco Control scene.  He runs his own little empire grandly called the "Tobacco Free Research Institute Ireland" which essentially is the Provisional Wing of the Anti Smoker movement here.

The interview is a classic example of the rarified atmosphere in which Tobacco Control lives.  Research is dubious if it gives the wrong results.  One month trials aren't long enough, despite being the period used in TC trials.  Logic is a sort of Alice in Wonderland phenomenon where nothing is quite what it seems.  They live by their own logic where up is down and black is the same as white.

There is the impeccable logic that the tobacco companies didn't invest in NRT patches because that might have stopped people from smoking, but they are investing in e-cigarettes, which proves conclusively that e-cigarettes don't stop people from smoking.  Blindingly obvious logic?

There is the obvious fact that anything the tobacco industry is involved in ends in disaster, ergo e-cigarettes are a disaster.  How did we miss this fact?

He mentions the survey that reported that 0.02% of vapers were never-smokers, but that is all wrong because our Luke's survey showed something different.  Everyone is marching out of step except our Luke?

We learn that Nicotine is highly addictive yet it isn't if you don't like cigarettes.  Conditional addiction?  How come no one ever discovered this before?

Then there is the great Laugh Out Loud [and Roll on the floor laughing] moment – "It doesn't matter that it's not smoke.  You see this vapour in the distance – plumes of it – in places where we have forbidden smoking and the children will see it".  So you see – all that denormalisation is for nothing!

The crack up moment for me though was the logic – "most people who use e-cigarettes use cigarettes as well. Now how many of those would have stopped smoking altogether if they didn't have this device as well?"  [Aaaargh!! The little shits are cutting down on cigarettes but they're not doing it our way?]

There is the glorious moment where he discounts an expert's opinion because that expert is engaged only in smoking cessation.  [*steps back through Alice’s mirror a few times…. did he really say that?  Yes he did!  Scratches head.*]

The bottom line though seems to be that e-cigarettes may well be harmless but the Americans are against them and the Australians won't even let them in, therefore they must be bad.

I urge you have a listen.  It's only ten minutes but I guarantee you'll have a laugh. 

I also guarantee a few what-the-fuck moments.