EXPECTED Consequences

VGIF has today highlighted the unpreparedness of ‘the authorities’ for riots in prisons when smoking bans are introduced:

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/send-ash-to-prison.html

He particularly draws attention to Arnott’s statement in ‘The New Scientists’ dated July 2015, in which she said, “The cultural change that has taken place everywhere else in society needs to be extended to prisons so that inmates and staff no longer have to put up with the harm caused by second-hand smoke. After it happens, just as with pubs and bars going smoke-free, we’ll all wonder what the fuss was about.

According to Arnott, smashed up urinals etc and other, even more costly destruction is ‘nothing to fuss about’.

THERE HAS BEEN NO CULTURAL CHANGE!!!! There has only been propaganda and the spread of hatred thereby. On the whole, the British people are as tolerant as ever. How could we live together in harmony, and in such close proximity, if that were not true? What Arnott et al have tried their best to do, is to destabilise our harmonious coexistence.

I suppose that ASH ET AL are even now advising Ministers that ‘it will all pass’; that smoking bans will be accepted. They may be right, but only in the sense that prison officers will turn a blind eye to tobacco imports, and, by extenuation, other substances. It follows as day follows night, that ‘turning a blind eye’ turns a blind eye to anything that is imported. ‘Turning a blind eye’ means not bothering to inspect packages and such.

But what is important for ASH ET AL is that a law has been passed. They do not give a toss whether the law is enforced or how much the enforcement will cost. If the cost of enforcement is a million pounds, and the cost of repairs from riots is ten million, ASH ET AL care not one jot. They have achieved their objective, which is another experimental ban. The imposition of a smoking ban in mental institutions is also an experiment.

The consequences of prison and mental institutions were expected. The intention was to measure the consequences. How bad were they? To what extent did they continue? What was the result of removing ‘trouble makers’? It was no accident that ‘trouble makers’ were moved to other jails. It was a deliberate plan.

The imperative is to get past Arnott. She is of no importance whatsoever. Absolutely none. ASH is of no importance at all. It is a noise, and nothing else. I find it terribly sad that people like Arnott, just whisperers in the ears of politicians, are tolerated at all. All their predictions turn out to be self-glorification. If what they predict turns out to be the opposite, they suffer no consequences. They just continue to absorb tax monies.

I think that the problem is that the tax monies are too small to be worth bothering about by The Exchequer. ASH ET AL get ‘spending money’. The only thing that will put ASH ET AL to sleep is lack of publicity. For ASH ET AL are just hot air. The studies that they claim to have instigated have been created by people other than Arnott and her 20 staff. ASH ET AL are ‘fake news’.

The prison riots were EXPECTED. I do not know if there were similar ‘riots’ among mental institute patients. The only thing that we have to go off is the treatment of Anna Raccoon in her final days before the cancer killed her. Not only was she deprived of a cigarette in her final few hours, but she was even deprived of the comfort of an ecig.

Such cruelty is unimaginable. Who decided that such cruelty was acceptable?

Is it not wonderful to turn the word ‘acceptable’ around and apply it to the actions of ‘unacceptable’ authorities?

Anna’s legacy must not be forgotten. She was a true heroine. But so also was Harleyrider, in his way.

Should we create a website of ‘Smoker Saints and Martyrs’? How could we do it? Perhaps Kate Moss would agree to be a ‘saint’. ‘Martyrs’ would not need approval. By martyrs, I do not mean people who have fallen off balconies and such. I mean people who have been subjected to MSM ridicule in accordance with EU demands for ‘celebrity trials’.

So I finish tonight with hope. My ‘hope’ is that politicians will realise that ASH ET AL is/are fraudulent. For example, that the pics on cig packets are not real depictions of the result of smoking. They are photos of someone with a condition, which might or might not have something to do with that individual smoking.

So the EXPECTED CONSEQUENCE is that more and more people will object.

Is that not precisely what Brexit is about?

Advertisements

5 Responses to “EXPECTED Consequences”

  1. Samuel Says:

    “Who decided that such cruelty was acceptable?”

    The British people did… in conjunction with their post war political “leaders”. After the war the economy was in shambles and everyone was broke. A trade off was accepted. The government would “provide” health care for everyone while keeping “costs” down (how can anyone tell? No one knows, now, how much anything “costs”).
    The fact is government “provides” nothing that it does not first take – by force – from the people. Only the people produce anything, through their labor and creativity, and only the people enjoy a profit or a surplus as the reward for their labor.
    Government is always a parasite off the labor of the people.
    But, when you are broke and sick and see little change in the immediate future, and the devil comes and makes you an offer of cheap health care, today, with only a minimal cost to pay, later, people will grasp at what looks like a good deal.
    Formerly, the system wasn’t perfect. Some had more, some had less, some had nothing (except charity). But it was private and you got to choose who you did business with (health care is a business) and what you would – and would not – pay for. Doctors and hospitals had to negotiate with customers to secure their business and make a profit – or go out of business. The customer was “king”.
    Now, none of the people are customers. They still pay 100% of the costs for doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. but now they are just numbers on a list coming from the NHS and they get whatever the government decides to let them have or force them to have.
    That’s how this cruelty clawed its way into the heart of society. The devil asked to be let in and the people welcomed him and signed away their freedom willingly.

    • Rose Says:

      Only if they voted Labour.

    • junican Says:

      I don’t think that it was so simple, Sam. For a while, after WW2, ‘unearned income’ was taxed at 95%, as I recall. Perhaps that was a penalty for the rich to pay for the preservation of their wealth. What was the fate of banks in Germany in the end days of WW2? Did bank deposits have any meaning at all? I would expect not – at least at the time.
      I like the NHS. Well, I would, would I not?, having a wife with a serious health condition. I cannot imagine what the costs of her condition would be if I had to pay for them out of my own pocket.

      The paradox’ seems to be that the NHS has become a means of keeping dying people alive longer. It really is a paradox.
      I do not see how that paradox can be solved. And yet, that is the most important thing.

  2. Rhys Says:

    But the United States doesn’t have national health, and they’re barely a step behind. A step ahead, perhaps, if they decide to go ahead with the very low nicotine cigarette madness.

    This isn’t mostly about money. Organisations like ASH get far too much of it, true, but I don’t think it’s primarily an issue of cost that motivates the kind of cruelty we’re seeing. It’s gone beyond that.

    • junican Says:

      I agree, and I would posit that ‘beyond that’ means ‘One World Government’. In the UN, TC and the IPCC etc are all linked. We pay vast amount of money for ‘Experts’ to discuss world land use, wealth distribution, health, etc. They make plans covering decades. Getting rid of tobacco plantations and converting them to food production is an obvious, long-term objective.
      The whole ‘long-term plan’ is leading us back into primitive times.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: