The Transportation of Deborah Arnott

In the Smoky Drinky Bar last night, the Flat-Earth-related discussion came round to wondering why there were no air flights over Antarctica, and we got hold of a rather good 3D globe at MeteoEarth, with me saying that if you wanted to fly from Australia to South America, or New Zealand to South Africa, you’d probably need to overfly Antarctica, and everyone else disagreeing with me.

In the process of spinning the globe, we came across an island in the southern Indian ocean, and zoomed in to take a look at it, and I recognised it to be Desolation Island or the Kerguelen Islands.

I recognised it because this was the remote island to which I proposed last year to banish Deborah Arnott and her fellow antismoking zealots. It would not be in any way a form of punishment for them, because I have no doubt whatsoever that they would all love to live on an entirely “smoke-free” island swept by bracing, near-continuous, 100 mph winds. The glacier atop the island would no doubt delight them just as much, and they would probably build their preferred open-sided (wall-free?) dwellings as near as they could to it.

And it set me thinking once again of the old punishment of exile or transportation, which was used in England in the 17th century to transport convicted felons to colonies, initially America, but later Australia. The French did much the same with Devil’s Island. And of course after his defeat at Waterloo, no less a person than Napoleon Bonaparte was exiled to the island of St Helena, in the southern Atlantic ocean.

So I’m thinking of reviving the the ancient practice of transportation. For I think that Deborah Arnott and her ilk are felons, even if they have yet to be convicted of any felony. According to Wikipedia

The term felony, in some common law countries, means a serious crime. The word originates from English common law (from the French medieval word “félonie”), where felonies were originally crimes that involved confiscation of a convicted person’s land and goods. Other crimes were called misdemeanors. Many common law countries have now abolished the felony/misdemeanor distinction and replaced it with other distinctions, such as between indictable offences and summary offences. A felony is generally considered a crime of high seriousness, while a misdemeanor is not.

And according to etymonline:

felon (n.) c. 1300, “one who deceives or commits treason; one who is wicked or evil; evil-doer,” used of Lucifer and Herod, from Old French felon “evil-doer, scoundrel, traitor, rebel, oath-breaker, the Devil” (9c.), from Medieval Latin fellonem (nominative fello) “evil-doer,” which is of uncertain origin, perhaps from Frankish *fillo, *filljo “person who whips or beats, scourger” (source of Old High German fillen”to whip”); or from Latin fel “gall, poison,” on the notion of “one full of bitterness.” Celtic origins also have been proposed.

According to the same source, a felon could also be a “cock-sucker.”

…Latin fellare “to suck” (see fecund), which had an obscene secondary meaning in classical Latin (well-known to readers of Martial and Catullus), which would make a felon etymologically a “cock-sucker.”

And this would seem to perfectly describe the likes of Arnott and her antismoking chums: they are all poisonous little cock-suckers, full of bitterness.

But what exactly is their crime? And what makes it a serious crime, and a felony?

I suppose for the most part when we think of serious crimes we think of violent crimes like murders and bank robberies in which a large injury is done to a few people. And there can be little doubt that neither Deborah Arnott nor her fellow antismokers are guilty of crimes of this sort.

No, what I am thinking about is small crimes that are committed against very large numbers of people. And it is this sort of crime for which I would arraign Deborah Arnott. She would be charged with conspiring and acting to remove the small freedom of being able to sit in a pub and drink a pint of beer and smoke a cigarette from millions of smokers. And I would argue that taking away small freedoms from millions of people is as bad as taking away large freedoms (e.g. their lives) from a few people (murder victims). So if the crime of murder is a million times worse than the crime of banning smoking in pubs, then banning a million smokers from smoking in pubs is the equal or equivalent of a single act of murder.

In fact I think that the crime being perpetrated against smokers is much worse that this, for in the approach of Idle Theory the cost to someone of being murdered is their lifetime, and this has a maximum duration of 80 or 90 years. The cost to someone of being prevented from going for a half hour drink and smoke every day would amount, over a lifetime, to 90 (years) times 365 (days in a year) times 0.5 (hours), or 16,425 hours. And given some 10 million smokers in Britain, this would be  164,250,000,000 hours or about 235,000 lifetimes. This is, quite simply, mass murder.

In her defence, Deborah Arnott would probably argue that nobody was actually murdered by smoking bans (although even this contestable), and counter that smoking had killed well over 235,000 people in Britain, and far from costing anyone their lives, smoking bans had saved hundreds of thousands – perhaps even millions – of lives.

But where is the evidence of all these lives that she supposes that she has saved? Can she produce a single person in Britain who is alive today who would not have been but for the smoking ban she helped introduce? And the answer is, No she cannot produce a single person. For the numbers of people she supposes to be killed by smoking is not the product of carefully acquired evidence, but is the product of a calculation – and a calculation exactly like the one which I have just performed, based on certain suppositions.

And in fact, although she would be unable to produce any evidence of any lives saved by her smoking ban, I would be able to produce hundreds of thousands of real people who would testify that before the ban they used to enjoy many hours every night in smoky pubs, and have never enjoyed a single such hour since. This is what they lost. And they would be able to produce witnesses in their support.

In fact, such would be the weight of evidence that the trial might be prolonged for years, as the evidence of hundreds of thousands of people was presented one by one to the court.

Can there be any doubt that judge or a jury would find Arnott guilty of doing far more real harm than any imaginary good she claimed to have done?

And can there be any doubt, that in passing sentence upon her and her co-defendants, the judge would not hesitate to impose a term of Lifetime Transportation to Desolation Island on every single one of the nasty cock-suckers? And the judge might add that he hoped that they would greatly enjoy their lives there.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to The Transportation of Deborah Arnott

  1. Roobeedoo2 says:

    Dunno, I’m not sure Debs could prise her puritanical, permanently pursed lips wide enough apart to suck a cock properly…

  2. Rose says:


    “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear.”

    Infecting the body politic.

    Smoke and Mirrors

    “So how does a controversial social change go from being “an extreme solution” (Labour party official) to a “historic piece of legislation” (Labour minister) in under three years?

    The health bill, which bans smoking in public places, was due to complete its parliamentary passage in the Commons yesterday.It marks the culmination of one of the most successful social change lobbying campaigns of recent times. The campaign showed the importance of sound strategy, sharp tactics and a lot of luck, and holds lessons for future campaigners.

    First, frame the argument. For years, action on smoking in public places was mired in discussion about the claimed “freedom” and “rights” of smokers, and the need for “voluntary” shifts towards compromise solutions, particularly in pubs, restaurants and clubs. We changed the terms of the debate to health and safety at work. We argued that secondhand smoke is a killer”

    “We created a coalition around our key messages. A smoke-free steering group was set up involving major health and medical organisations in alliance with the Trades Union Congress, individual politicians, local government officers and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. They ran their own effective campaigns, but remained committed to an agreed strategy originally drafted by Ash. Networks of campaigners can be provided with key resources and a sense of direction without ever being told what to do.”

    “It is essential that campaigners create the impression of inevitable success. Campaigning of this kind is literally a confidence trick: the appearance of confidence both creates confidence and demoralises the opposition.”


    Civil society and the negotiation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

    “..WHO gave a grant to British-based Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in 1999 to identify how to involve civil society in the FCTC negotiation. With the help of Internet, ASH mobilised tobacco control civil society organisations around the world into a loose network, which evolved into the FCA by 2000”

    The Framework Convention Alliance
    “The FCA is a heterogeneous alliance of civil society organisations and coalitions from around the world that worked jointly and separately to support the development of a strong FCTC”

    I think mere exile on Desolation Island would be positively merciful.

  3. garyk30 says:

    How about exile to a ‘Smoky-Drinky Bar’?

    Eternally being exposed to cig smoke and folks having fun and enjoying themselves!

  4. Timothy Goodacre says:

    The fact of the matter is that people should have the option of visiting an establishment of whatever ilk that allows smoking or not. Arnott and her vile associates know that given this option non smoking places would quickly lose custom. Hence aided by weak MP’s they have imposed a totalitarian model on everyone.

  5. Lisboeta says:

    The reason why planes don’t take a short-cut over Antarctica:
    “The real reason no commercial flight over-flies Antarctica is that there are special aviation rules for flights that do. These rules were designed for sightseeing flights but apply to commercial flights as well. Planes flying below 72 degrees latitude need special survival equipment on board, and no commercial carrier would want to stock planes with all this stuff just to save a bit of fuel. It would limit the number of seats available and would require special equipment and training.”

  6. Smoking Lamp says:

    Excellent article and excellent comment too! The smoking ban was indeed achieved through a ‘confidence trick’ and the actual risk to others from second hand smoke is near zero. Of course the extreme social manipulation employed has become the totalitarian mechanism of choice when seeking to regulate the masses. The mass persecution conducted by tobacco control in the name of health (and of course collective and personal profit and power) is exemplary in its excess of corruption. Indeed Cicero (aptly quoted by Rose) would likely recognize tobacco control’s corruption and plunder as being on the scale of that perpetrated by Gaius Verres one of most corrupt government officials of the classical period.

    Yes, ASH and its co-conspirators should face trial and transportation. First, they deserve transportation for their lies about smoking in general and second hand smoke in particular. Casting blame for every disease known to man on smoking leads to mass suffering because the actual causes of those diseases goes undetected. Blaming second hand smoke for these same diseases creates societal division and mass persecution of smokes on top of that. The brutal imposition of smoking and suppression of dissent is designed to hide the corruption and lies behind the bans. After all the bans weren’t sought after by the masses but were imposed by a small corrupt elite. Without active persecution and suppression of dissent they would fall away as quick as they were enacted. The entire tobacco control regime needs to be disbanded and its architects held to account for their mass persecution and defilement of science and governance.

  7. Joe L. says:

    I suppose for the most part when we think of serious crimes we think of violent crimes like murders and bank robberies in which a large injury is done to a few people.

    Yes, I think the correlation of serious crimes with violence is a common misconception. In fact, most US states consider theft to be a felony offense if the value of the stolen property is over just a few hundred dollars (the exact value varies from state to state).

    I would argue that the theft of just one person’s personal freedom is a far more serious crime than the theft of $500 worth of that person’s property, and therefore should absolutely be considered a felony offense.

    Therefore, stealing the personal freedoms from millions of people is a crime of which the seriousness more closely resembles that of genocide.

  8. John Watson says:

    I would argue that such cases have already been tried and legal precedent for guilt and punishment already established. Reference: crimes against humanity tried by the IMT where segments of society were vilified, judicially persecuted, medically discriminated against, whose rights of association, rights to work, to own or run a business, to own their own homes, who were subjected to vilification in the media and worse. All these crimes and more resulted from a single piece of legislation, The Nuremburg Decrees.
    A simple cross reference of offences tried by the IMT and the offenses committed by ASH and the WHO with their Health acts 2006/7, FCTC and other additions to acts that are designed to promote hatred and division among the people of all nations with the partial list above demonstrates that precedent applies.

  9. waltc says:

    “The medical quack who wearies
    With tales of countless cures,
    His teeth, I’ve enacted,
    Shall all be extracted
    By terrified amateurs….
    And prosy society sinners
    Who chatter and bleat and bore
    Shall be sent to hear sermons
    From mystical Germans
    Who preach from ten to four…
    My object all sublime
    I shall achieve in time
    To make the punishment fit the crime
    The punishment fit the crime…”

    Aside from teeth extraction for their quakery and unfathomable sermons for their endless hectoring , I’d deport them all to Pleasure Island, and restrict them to individual glass-enclosed booths in the No-Pleasure section

  10. Lepercolonist says:

    And this would seem to perfectly describe the likes of Arnott and her antismoking chums: they are all poisonous little cock-suckers, full of bitterness.

    I had a big belly laugh. Thanks for that. Frank.

  11. Joe L. says:

    I wonder if the reason why Deborah Arnott is pushing so hard to institute smoking bans in UK prisons is because she’s beginning to realize there’s a good chance she will be forced to spend a considerable amount of time in one.

  12. margo says:

    “swept by bracing, near continuous 100 mph winds” – I love that, Frank! The crimes are enormous – not just the deprivation of the ability to enjoy a drink and a smoke in the pub. Holidays and visits that involve lengthy train, bus or plane journeys and finding accommodation are also now out of the picture for many smokers. So are most parties and ‘gatherings’ of all descriptions. Housing, work, health care – all compromised by the distortions of Arnott & co. It’s appalling.

    • Rose says:

      Well this was the original plan before Deborah took power and began threatening publicans with prosecution followed by a frenzy of banning people from everywhere.

      Nicotine gum and patches to be sold in pubs and clubs

      “NICOTINE GUM is to be sold in pubs, clubs and corner shops alongside cigarettes, following a landmark ruling by the Government’s medicines regulator.
      The Department of Health’s medicines watchdog has lifted a ban on selling Nicorette chewing gum outside chemists to help people give up smoking.”

      “The government also aims to take steps to segregate smokers in pubs and clubs to help combat passive smoking. It wants restaurants and pubs to introduce extractor fans to suck up smoke but will stop short of introducing a total ban to avoid accusations of “nannying”. It also fears that a ban on smoking in public places could lead to pub closures and job losses.”

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.