Human Rights ???
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 4:40 am
Heard parts of that on the news, last night. I couldn't believe what I was hearing and I just despair :-5
Page 1 of 1
Human Rights ???
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:01 am
This is what happens when people forget to link rights with responsibility. Sometimes I think they try to purposely separate the two.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:22 am
Even though all the drugs the offenders were addicted to were illegal, they argued that the prison system had no right to make them stop, or to put them through detox programmes without their consent.
Okay so give them the choice...detox or cold turkey.
I could SPIT, I am SO disgusted with this!
Local radio interviewed an inmate of Winchester prison yesterday. It was obvious this chap was foreign from his accent. He was banged-up for shoplifting, which he alledgedly did to feed his habit and he was whining that it was the governments fault he was caught shoplifting when he was 'forced' into it as the only way he could afford to feed his habit and now he's been made to go cold turkey and we 'owe' it to him to pay him for his suffering!
Didn't someone (Acc?) say recently that if we all threw our votes away in the same direction, we might make a difference?
Well there is NO WAY I'm voting Labour or Tory...so what's left?
Why don't we all vote for the Green party or the Monster Raving Loony Party?
Wouldn't it shock the socks off everyone if a minor group won an election?
It would certainly show the 'Big 2' how unimpressed with them we are!
Okay so give them the choice...detox or cold turkey.
I could SPIT, I am SO disgusted with this!
Local radio interviewed an inmate of Winchester prison yesterday. It was obvious this chap was foreign from his accent. He was banged-up for shoplifting, which he alledgedly did to feed his habit and he was whining that it was the governments fault he was caught shoplifting when he was 'forced' into it as the only way he could afford to feed his habit and now he's been made to go cold turkey and we 'owe' it to him to pay him for his suffering!
Didn't someone (Acc?) say recently that if we all threw our votes away in the same direction, we might make a difference?
Well there is NO WAY I'm voting Labour or Tory...so what's left?
Why don't we all vote for the Green party or the Monster Raving Loony Party?
Wouldn't it shock the socks off everyone if a minor group won an election?
It would certainly show the 'Big 2' how unimpressed with them we are!
Human Rights ???
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 5:24 am
Accountable;458728 wrote: This is what happens when people forget to link rights with responsibility. Sometimes I think they try to purposely separate the two.
I'll be unpopular and say the following about responsibility.
I think there should be an inquiry as to who decided that the prisoners should be denied methadone and that person should be punished. Methadone is a very inexpensive drug that ended up costing tax payers a fortune because of the ridiculous decision that the prisoners should have to suffer without it. I can't imagine any good reason why that decision was made.
The accountability here is the public servant to run the prison properly and reasonably.
I'll be unpopular and say the following about responsibility.
I think there should be an inquiry as to who decided that the prisoners should be denied methadone and that person should be punished. Methadone is a very inexpensive drug that ended up costing tax payers a fortune because of the ridiculous decision that the prisoners should have to suffer without it. I can't imagine any good reason why that decision was made.
The accountability here is the public servant to run the prison properly and reasonably.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:14 pm
koan;458750 wrote: I'll be unpopular and say the following about responsibility.
I think there should be an inquiry as to who decided that the prisoners should be denied methadone and that person should be punished. Methadone is a very inexpensive drug that ended up costing tax payers a fortune because of the ridiculous decision that the prisoners should have to suffer without it. I can't imagine any good reason why that decision was made.
The accountability here is the public servant to run the prison properly and reasonably.
Why is the public servant responsible for the consequences of the criminal's choices? The public servant didn't force the criminal to take the drugs. The criminal's decision; the criminal's consequence; the criminal's accountability.
I think there should be an inquiry as to who decided that the prisoners should be denied methadone and that person should be punished. Methadone is a very inexpensive drug that ended up costing tax payers a fortune because of the ridiculous decision that the prisoners should have to suffer without it. I can't imagine any good reason why that decision was made.
The accountability here is the public servant to run the prison properly and reasonably.
Why is the public servant responsible for the consequences of the criminal's choices? The public servant didn't force the criminal to take the drugs. The criminal's decision; the criminal's consequence; the criminal's accountability.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:21 pm
koan;458750 wrote: I'll be unpopular and say the following about responsibility.
I think there should be an inquiry as to who decided that the prisoners should be denied methadone and that person should be punished. Methadone is a very inexpensive drug that ended up costing tax payers a fortune because of the ridiculous decision that the prisoners should have to suffer without it. I can't imagine any good reason why that decision was made.
The accountability here is the public servant to run the prison properly and reasonably.
How about...because it's prison?? What's next, the taxpayers are at fault when someone gets infected from a jailhouse tattoo?
It sounds to me like not wasting money on methadone is a pretty reasonable choice. They suffered? Maybe we should define what real suffering means.
It's the smackhead's fault he's a smackhead. Prison is not supposed to be a compassionate clinic for druggies, it's supposed to be a hellish place on earth you never want to return to.
I think there should be an inquiry as to who decided that the prisoners should be denied methadone and that person should be punished. Methadone is a very inexpensive drug that ended up costing tax payers a fortune because of the ridiculous decision that the prisoners should have to suffer without it. I can't imagine any good reason why that decision was made.
The accountability here is the public servant to run the prison properly and reasonably.
How about...because it's prison?? What's next, the taxpayers are at fault when someone gets infected from a jailhouse tattoo?
It sounds to me like not wasting money on methadone is a pretty reasonable choice. They suffered? Maybe we should define what real suffering means.
It's the smackhead's fault he's a smackhead. Prison is not supposed to be a compassionate clinic for druggies, it's supposed to be a hellish place on earth you never want to return to.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 2:20 am
Human Rights ???
After reading the daily newspaper I dont think humans should have rights. Down with humans !
After reading the daily newspaper I dont think humans should have rights. Down with humans !
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:51 am
The public servant has a duty to perform a job in a way that prevents the public from unnecessary expense. The decision to deny the prisoner a prescription that helped them detox from a drug addiction accomplishes what? The prescription costs very little. The decision to deny it has now cost a lot. I think the public servant made a poor choice. And I'll bet the choice was made because he/she liked the idea of the person having to suffer more extensively.
Why are there methadone centres anywhere? Because society decided there is benefit from reducing the number of drug addicts. Who is this public servant to decide that theory is wrong. In fact this public servant is in a place (the prison) to believe in that theory more strongly.
It was sadistic behaviour to deny the methadone. I'm glad the prisoners were awarded and I think the public should demand an investigation.
Why are there methadone centres anywhere? Because society decided there is benefit from reducing the number of drug addicts. Who is this public servant to decide that theory is wrong. In fact this public servant is in a place (the prison) to believe in that theory more strongly.
It was sadistic behaviour to deny the methadone. I'm glad the prisoners were awarded and I think the public should demand an investigation.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:57 am
koan;459751 wrote: The public servant has a duty to perform a job in a way that prevents the public from unnecessary expense. The decision to deny the prisoner a prescription that helped them detox from a drug addiction accomplishes what? The prescription costs very little. The decision to deny it has now cost a lot. I think the public servant made a poor choice. And I'll bet the choice was made because he/she liked the idea of the person having to suffer more extensively.
Why are there methadone centres anywhere? Because society decided there is benefit from reducing the number of drug addicts. Who is this public servant to decide that theory is wrong. In fact this public servant is in a place (the prison) to believe in that theory more strongly.
It was sadistic behaviour to deny the methadone. I'm glad the prisoners were awarded and I think the public should demand an investigation.I agree! An investigation is certainly called for - of a judicial system that's so f'd up that it would compensate criminals for being uncomfortable experiencing the consequences of their own decisions/actions.
As for the rest, I suggest that you purchase some inexpensive methadone and send some care packages to those you feel need it, rather than calling for the taxpayer to foot the bill.
Why are there methadone centres anywhere? Because society decided there is benefit from reducing the number of drug addicts. Who is this public servant to decide that theory is wrong. In fact this public servant is in a place (the prison) to believe in that theory more strongly.
It was sadistic behaviour to deny the methadone. I'm glad the prisoners were awarded and I think the public should demand an investigation.I agree! An investigation is certainly called for - of a judicial system that's so f'd up that it would compensate criminals for being uncomfortable experiencing the consequences of their own decisions/actions.
As for the rest, I suggest that you purchase some inexpensive methadone and send some care packages to those you feel need it, rather than calling for the taxpayer to foot the bill.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:09 am
Accountable;459753 wrote: I agree! An investigation is certainly called for - of a judicial system that's so f'd up that it would compensate criminals for being uncomfortable experiencing the consequences of their own decisions/actions.
As for the rest, I suggest that you purchase some inexpensive methadone and send some care packages to those you feel need it, rather than calling for the taxpayer to foot the bill.
Why do you insist on missing the point? The taxpayers pay for the bad decisions made by the public servants. Part of their job is to act in a way that will not result in lawsuits at the expense of the public.
As for the rest, I suggest that you purchase some inexpensive methadone and send some care packages to those you feel need it, rather than calling for the taxpayer to foot the bill.
Why do you insist on missing the point? The taxpayers pay for the bad decisions made by the public servants. Part of their job is to act in a way that will not result in lawsuits at the expense of the public.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:19 am
koan;459755 wrote: Why do you insist on missing the point? The taxpayers pay for the bad decisions made by the public servants. Part of their job is to act in a way that will not result in lawsuits at the expense of the public.
Suddenly you're concerned about the taxpayers??
The bad decision was not made by the public servant, but by the politically-minded judicial. If the job of the public servant was to avoid lawsuits they would be giving away the farm to avoid giving away the farm.
Suddenly you're concerned about the taxpayers??
The bad decision was not made by the public servant, but by the politically-minded judicial. If the job of the public servant was to avoid lawsuits they would be giving away the farm to avoid giving away the farm.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:32 am
Accountable;459763 wrote: Suddenly you're concerned about the taxpayers??
The bad decision was not made by the public servant, but by the politically-minded judicial. If the job of the public servant was to avoid lawsuits they would be giving away the farm to avoid giving away the farm.
No judge ruled in the prisoners' favour. The case was settled.
The bad decision was not made by the public servant, but by the politically-minded judicial. If the job of the public servant was to avoid lawsuits they would be giving away the farm to avoid giving away the farm.
No judge ruled in the prisoners' favour. The case was settled.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:39 am
koan;459781 wrote: No judge ruled in the prisoners' favour. The case was settled.
Then the public servants did what you said they should. I find it disgusting.
Then the public servants did what you said they should. I find it disgusting.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:49 am
Accountable;459785 wrote: Then the public servants did what you said they should. I find it disgusting.
They did what I said they should, but after they failed to do it the first time and remain out of court. I don't imagine the second decision was made by the same public servant.
They did what I said they should, but after they failed to do it the first time and remain out of court. I don't imagine the second decision was made by the same public servant.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:50 am
koan;459795 wrote: They did what I said they should, but after they failed to do it the first time and remain out of court. I don't imagine the second decision was made by the same public servant.
As I said, If the job of the public servant was to avoid lawsuits they would be giving away the farm to avoid giving away the farm.
As I said, If the job of the public servant was to avoid lawsuits they would be giving away the farm to avoid giving away the farm.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:54 am
Accountable;459798 wrote: As I said, If the job of the public servant was to avoid lawsuits they would be giving away the farm to avoid giving away the farm.
There are lots of situations where someone makes a decision that turns out to have been a bad one. In a company that person is accountable to shareholders and they will be fired...even if they come up with a good reason for the decision at the time. For some reason you don't seem to think public servants should bear the same accountability.
Call it an employment risk.
There are lots of situations where someone makes a decision that turns out to have been a bad one. In a company that person is accountable to shareholders and they will be fired...even if they come up with a good reason for the decision at the time. For some reason you don't seem to think public servants should bear the same accountability.
Call it an employment risk.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:58 am
koan;459801 wrote: There are lots of situations where someone makes a decision that turns out to have been a bad one. In a company that person is accountable to shareholders and they will be fired...even if they come up with a good reason for the decision at the time. For some reason you don't seem to think public servants should bear the same accountability.
Call it an employment risk.
Why do you insist on missing the point?
The individal who made the decision to abuse the drugs should be held accountable to deal with the consequences of that decision. The suit should never have been heard, settled or anything else.
Call it an employment risk.
Why do you insist on missing the point?
The individal who made the decision to abuse the drugs should be held accountable to deal with the consequences of that decision. The suit should never have been heard, settled or anything else.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:13 am
Accountable;459808 wrote: Why do you insist on missing the point?
The individal who made the decision to abuse the drugs should be held accountable to deal with the consequences of that decision. The suit should never have been heard, settled or anything else.
But they didn't decide to go to jail. In general society they would be able to fix their own drug problem, why should they not also have access in jail?
The individal who made the decision to abuse the drugs should be held accountable to deal with the consequences of that decision. The suit should never have been heard, settled or anything else.
But they didn't decide to go to jail. In general society they would be able to fix their own drug problem, why should they not also have access in jail?
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:25 pm
koan;459819 wrote: But they didn't decide to go to jail. Of course they did! They knew the risks and broke the law anyway. Actions have consequences, like them or not.
koan wrote: In general society they would be able to fix their own drug problem, why should they not also have access in jail?Cold turkey is a time-honored way of kicking a habit. It's free, too. Why should taxpayers pay for their addiction? They didn't decide to give them drugs, did they?
You honestly don't see how skewed your view is, do you?
koan wrote: In general society they would be able to fix their own drug problem, why should they not also have access in jail?Cold turkey is a time-honored way of kicking a habit. It's free, too. Why should taxpayers pay for their addiction? They didn't decide to give them drugs, did they?
You honestly don't see how skewed your view is, do you?
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:30 pm
Accountable;460647 wrote: Of course they did! They knew the risks and broke the law anyway. Actions have consequences, like them or not.
Cold turkey is a time-honored way of kicking a habit. It's free, too. Why should taxpayers pay for their addiction? They didn't decide to give them drugs, did they?
You honestly don't see how skewed your view is, do you?
I think you have "selective accountability" concerns.
Perhaps some good public humiliation would be a better way of dealing with petty criminals and why not bring back the guillotine? Everyone loves a good game of catch the head.
Cold turkey is a time-honored way of kicking a habit. It's free, too. Why should taxpayers pay for their addiction? They didn't decide to give them drugs, did they?
You honestly don't see how skewed your view is, do you?
I think you have "selective accountability" concerns.
Perhaps some good public humiliation would be a better way of dealing with petty criminals and why not bring back the guillotine? Everyone loves a good game of catch the head.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:31 pm
what country are we talking about here? i know prisoners in america get free health care, eye screens, mental health exams, free dental. and any hiv prisoner has full access to all the latest drugs. AND we are paying the bill. 
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 5:42 pm
Follow my logic:
Doing heroin is illegal
People who do heroin can get free methadone to help them kick it
We don't arrest people who go to methadone clinics
People who commit a crime and get caught go to jail
Their punishment is going to jail
If they are also punished for being a heroin addict then the law is not equal
If we also punish criminals for needing methadone then we should arrest everyone using a methadone clinic as well.
Doing heroin is illegal
People who do heroin can get free methadone to help them kick it
We don't arrest people who go to methadone clinics
People who commit a crime and get caught go to jail
Their punishment is going to jail
If they are also punished for being a heroin addict then the law is not equal
If we also punish criminals for needing methadone then we should arrest everyone using a methadone clinic as well.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:11 pm
koan;460654 wrote: I think you have "selective accountability" concerns. Please explain what you mean. Don't you feel adults are accountable for their own decisions and actions?
koan wrote: Perhaps some good public humiliation would be a better way of dealing with petty criminals and why not bring back the guillotine? Everyone loves a good game of catch the head.There ........... feel better?
koan wrote: Perhaps some good public humiliation would be a better way of dealing with petty criminals and why not bring back the guillotine? Everyone loves a good game of catch the head.There ........... feel better?
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:24 pm
someone please tell me why a heroin addict on the street gets free methadone?
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:34 pm
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1599132006
here is an article to back up acc's viewpoint that they should just dry out on their own. ......ninety seven percent of the time methadone fails to help heroine addicts get clean. they only thing that does it is to just stop using heroine. period.
here is an article to back up acc's viewpoint that they should just dry out on their own. ......ninety seven percent of the time methadone fails to help heroine addicts get clean. they only thing that does it is to just stop using heroine. period.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:34 pm
I've been looking for a place to interject my opinion and just could not find a good place to do it. When I was doing chemotherapy that I HAD TO PAY FOR BECAUSE I DID NOT HAVE INSURANCE...........there was a prisoner that was brought in every Tuesday at every chemo I had. I got extremely resentful because he was not having to pay a penny for his treatment and I was trying to figure out how NOT to lose everything I had worked for my entire life...........my house, my car, my job. I thought at one time....well hell, I'll just go commit a crime and get this all paid by the government. My hard earned taxes paid for his chemo but did not pay for mine. How about some human rights for people who contribute.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 6:54 pm
i remember a prisoner parolled out of the prison i worked in. he walked out and flattened the wardens tires in the parkinglot. was back a few days later. someone asked him why he did it? he said he didn't want to work and he got free meals and free medical in prison and a place ot sleep.......go figure.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:00 pm
The solution then might be to eliminate free methadone for anyone.
As it stands, the criminal does have the right to it because he could have received it in a clinic. They would have had no case otherwise.
As it stands, the criminal does have the right to it because he could have received it in a clinic. They would have had no case otherwise.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:00 pm
ArnoldLayne;460726 wrote: Exactly nv, we have a scenario in, it seems here and the states, where it is often beneficial to be a criminal in jail rather than an honest tax payer. I for one resent picking up the tab for someone elses lack of personal responsibility. Stop making excuses and make THEM pay
Thank you....my opinion.....I do not want to pay especially when I don't get the same treatment........or any of us out here working and paying taxes.
Thank you....my opinion.....I do not want to pay especially when I don't get the same treatment........or any of us out here working and paying taxes.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:02 pm
As to the other things criminals might get for free, those are different circumstances.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 7:14 pm
koan;460743 wrote: The solution then might be to eliminate free methadone for anyone.
As it stands, the criminal does have the right to it because he could have received it in a clinic. They would have had no case otherwise.
So are you agreeing that the criminal could have taken personal action before going to prison for their crime and therefore avoided prison?
As it stands, the criminal does have the right to it because he could have received it in a clinic. They would have had no case otherwise.
So are you agreeing that the criminal could have taken personal action before going to prison for their crime and therefore avoided prison?
Human Rights ???
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:01 pm
nvalleyvee;460752 wrote: So are you agreeing that the criminal could have taken personal action before going to prison for their crime and therefore avoided prison?
why are you sure that the drug abuse was the cause of the crime?
I'm not convinced that stopping the use of the drug would have prevented the crime. There are far too many non addicts that are convicted for that be a reasonable assumption.
why are you sure that the drug abuse was the cause of the crime?
I'm not convinced that stopping the use of the drug would have prevented the crime. There are far too many non addicts that are convicted for that be a reasonable assumption.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 8:20 am
nvalleyvee;460720 wrote: I've been looking for a place to interject my opinion and just could not find a good place to do it. When I was doing chemotherapy that I HAD TO PAY FOR BECAUSE I DID NOT HAVE INSURANCE...........there was a prisoner that was brought in every Tuesday at every chemo I had. I got extremely resentful because he was not having to pay a penny for his treatment and I was trying to figure out how NOT to lose everything I had worked for my entire life...........my house, my car, my job. I thought at one time....well hell, I'll just go commit a crime and get this all paid by the government. My hard earned taxes paid for his chemo but did not pay for mine. How about some human rights for people who contribute.
Methodane should be free only to those in rehab where there is a chance of it working. And I would a thousand times prefer to be able bodied and working my butt off for my drugs than to be a criminal in prison getting stuff free. And I would feel the same as the above in being put off that I was paying for the guys in prison but I would still rather be free and working and have my self respect.
Methodane should be free only to those in rehab where there is a chance of it working. And I would a thousand times prefer to be able bodied and working my butt off for my drugs than to be a criminal in prison getting stuff free. And I would feel the same as the above in being put off that I was paying for the guys in prison but I would still rather be free and working and have my self respect.
Human Rights ???
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 10:22 am
ArnoldLayne;458702 wrote: I'm sick of the abuses of human rights in this country. Aided and abbeted by our government.
I've believed for a long time now that criminals are looked after far better than the real victims of society. Why they even gave Abu Hamza, the hook handed cleric in jail, a laptop, bless him
Now we learn that the poor loves who went cold turkey in prison will be compensated for their trauma.
So what about the human rights of their victims. What about the trauma the old ladies suffered when they were mugged for their pension or the burglary victims putting back the pieces of their homes and their lives
The Human Rights Act in this country is just a charter to compensate criminals and to make people like Tony Blairs wife very rich.
It stinks
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... article.do
I'm with you all the way Arnie.
Michael Stone caused havoc at Stormont today....he was sentenced to 99 yrs (or something similar ) for killing 3 people at an IRA funeral...he was released as part of the Good Friday Agreement. I know this was a 'political' situation...but where's the justice ?
I've believed for a long time now that criminals are looked after far better than the real victims of society. Why they even gave Abu Hamza, the hook handed cleric in jail, a laptop, bless him
Now we learn that the poor loves who went cold turkey in prison will be compensated for their trauma.
So what about the human rights of their victims. What about the trauma the old ladies suffered when they were mugged for their pension or the burglary victims putting back the pieces of their homes and their lives
The Human Rights Act in this country is just a charter to compensate criminals and to make people like Tony Blairs wife very rich.
It stinks
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/arti ... article.do
I'm with you all the way Arnie.
Michael Stone caused havoc at Stormont today....he was sentenced to 99 yrs (or something similar ) for killing 3 people at an IRA funeral...he was released as part of the Good Friday Agreement. I know this was a 'political' situation...but where's the justice ?
Human Rights ???
Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2006 5:46 am
I'm right behind you....all the way.