how to sue the ITV?

[ohmygodwhathaveyoudone]

before i start i should say that i'm not for or against smoking as you will find out
have recently been watching those adverts on tv where people are dying of cancer due to smoking which are really horrible & make you think about quitting.the point is what if you started smoking when they advertised it on television years ago? they were blatently impling smoke as it will make you more sociably acceptable & was all the rage@ the time.the point being what if i'd seen those adverts and started smoking because of those adverts then 30 yrs later contracted cancer won't the people who advertised there cigarettes responsible,no one would have forced me to go to a shop and buy fags but the product was shown on peak time viewing to make people go out and buy fags.(don't think bernie ecclestone would have been happy as well as all the the multi billions that has been generated by tobbaco)i think there was a court case in america that cost a company millions $$$$$ to settle.
what are other people views?
btw. i do not mean to offend anyone that has cancer.

 

[jasy]

tut, tut. oops, how can you sue a tv company for showing those ads. I know lets sue carlsberg for making us alcoholics and ford for that car crash on the M25...............common sense evades the uneducated

 

[AdamW]

I think they should definitely continue with the "smoking is bad, mmmkay?" adverts. Possibly they should make them more gruesome after the watershed... perhaps showing actual cancerous lungs, or even the last breaths of someone dying from smoking-induced cancer.

Remember when Robert Winston did that series on "The human body", and in the last episode they showed a man actually dying? There wasn't a dry eye in the house when I saw that, it really drives home the concept of mortality. Imagine the impact if it was someone who was dying because of smoking?

But in terms of suing, I can't imagine any judge in the UK letting that one through court. People have known smoking to be harmful for decades. I have read a particular novel, written in the late 1920s, where someone mentions that giving up smoking is healthy. They may not have realised just how bad it was, but they certainly knew it wasn't good!

I am pretty sure that you could prove "Hai Karate" repelled more women than it attracted them, but I severely doubt you could sue ITV for advertising it in the 1970s if you are 50 years old and single. There is a certain amount of responsibility that people have to take.

Unfortunately because of the stupidity of people and their eagerness to litigate for their own f**kwittedness, car brochures now say "where speed limits and road conditions allow" next to the "top speed" figure. And alcohol adverts tell us to "drink responsibly". Riiiiight. You see, I was going to get p*ssed up and drive my car at over 100mph, but then I saw those little messages. Phew, thank goodness for them, I won't do it now!

However, I am yet to see a little caveat on "Sue others for your own stupidity" adverts, which should say "Please sue innocent people responsibly", or even "Only use Direct Sueing Agents as a last resort, try getting someone to castrate you first, so you don't pass on your genes to another generation of poor unfortunate morons, you f**king f**kwit"

 

[GRC]

If you're going to sue ITV for carrying the adverts, then also in the firing line are ;

the magazine & newspaper publishers, who carried adverts (without any input to their content or involvement in the manufacture of ciggies),

the folks who rented the billboard space to the ciggie makers (again with no direct manufacturing involvement, etc),

the Formula 1 teams who carried the adverts on their cars, again with no direct involvement,

the ethnic shopkeeper at the end of your street who was given an A3 size poster by the ciggie wholesaler ......

At which point it all gets a bit silly.

Doesn't the sue-able liability start and stop with the manufacturers?

Regards, Graham