MHRA slander .... is it time ?

[Szaxe]

Sorry think this deserves its own thread ....

Please click to enlarge ...



Please click to enlarge ...



The MHRA have defamed businesses, products, reputations of vapers and groups representing vapers (this list is not finite) .... The MHRA have offered no ill harms
proven from vaping ....

Vaping is NOT smoking, so any cigarette not smoked through vaping is reducing the harm from smoking .... regardless of any ill
effects subsequently attributed to vaping.

IS IT NOW TIME FOR LEGAL ACTION ????

The above is one example of slander from one organisation ... I am sure many more can be added for both the MHRA and other bodies and individuals ...

 

[thedarthVap3r]

its going to be a very messy couple of yours in the world of vaping isnt it. ah the trials and tribulations that occur when money is involved.

 

[Mawsley]

I'm sure the MRHA have a far better access to legal resources that mod builders or juice vendors whereas foreign manufacturers don't give a stuff because they know it won't effect their sales to the public. All they need to do is change the description of the product and it'll still sail through customs. Redress through the courts would be expensive and ultimately a pyrrhic victory...if victory at all.

No products are named, no companies cited, no case to answer.

 

[KulrMeStoopid]

I'm sure the MRHA have a far better access to legal resources that mod builders or juice vendors whereas foreign manufacturers don't give a stuff because they know it won't effect their sales to the public. All they need to do is change the description of the product and it'll still sail through customs. Redress through the courts would be expensive and ultimately a pyrrhic victory...if victory at all.

No products are named, no companies cited, no case to answer.

Im half wondering if a class action lawsuit by the vendors in the industry as a whole (not just ECITA vendors) in the entire EU, would be enough to make them think twice.

 

[Mawsley]

Again, it's going to be cost. We could do with a vaping barrister acting on a pro-bono basis.

Any willing legal beagles out there?

 

[Blossom]

This reminds me of Edwina Curry and the salmonella in eggs scandal.

 

[Szaxe]

Im half wondering if a class action lawsuit by the vendors in the industry as a whole (not just ECITA vendors) in the entire EU, would be enough to make them think twice.

It is viable, if vendors were inclined ... It is actually an advantage no products are named (individually), no companies cited, as this is an easier action.

If I a body said Joe Blogs's batteries were not good, it could be argued there was or wasn't an effect on his sales/business.

If an authoritative platform (like MHRA) lie, such as stating nickel cadmium batteries are radio active (or e-cigs emit the equivalent of smoke), it is without doubt going to effect all nickel cadmium battery (e-cig) vendors.
[FONT=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT]

 

[Szaxe]

Mum, let me be clear here .... (assuming this is an actual MHRA statement), this is legally a lot different than anything else I have seen. They can state they do not believe e-cigs to be safer than smoking ... they could also opine that e-cigs could be more dangerous than cigarettes, but the included statement is without doubt untrue.

If you vape instead of smoking all harmful effects from cigarettes will cease to be transmitted via smoke ... regardless of what is contained within vapour.

 

[Mawsley]

I will restate, there is nothing actionable contained within the statement in your picture.

"...are not good enough at reducing the harms of smoking..." does not slight any product or manufacturer, it simply is a comment on their measures.

Go back to look at Mean's video announcement on Youtube because in it he clearly states that all current products are of poor quality:

“What evidence there is shows that the products currently out there are of poor quality, are variable and are far from as effective as we would want them to be.”

That is actionable.

 

[Szaxe]

MHRA ... "But our reseach has shown that existing electronic cigarettes are not good enough." They do not say electronic cigarettes, but "EXISTING". That means that all present manufacturers goods are substandard.

with out getting into nitty gritty ... If it is stated nickel cadmium batteries are radio-active, maybe defamation is the wrong route .... however if it is stated those manufactured in Wales are radio-active, that is a different matter ..

P.s "Research has shown" ... that is not an opinion.