Comments on: Shame of Government paying criminals for suffering "cold turkey"

By: Prisoners’ payout for cold turkey in jail at Bel on politics

Prisoners’ payout for cold turkey in jail at Bel on politics — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 00:20:37 +0000

[...] UPDATE. Every blog I read on this topic yesterday was of a contrary view to mine (see, for example, Ellee Seymour, West Brom Blog and The Thunder Dragon). I hadn’t seen Tim Worstall’s post, which argued on broadly the same lines as mine. He states (in my view, rightly) that it is not altogether unreasonable to expect the Home Office to take responsibility for the standard of medical care received by prisoners in their care. It really is not about the heroin at all. It is about treatment. [...]

By: Jeff Williams

Jeff Williams — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:00:24 +0000

This was a bad move by any stretch of the imagination. What is to stop alcoholics bringing a test case stating that it breaches their human rights to be denied a drink, what about chain smokers and gamblers?

Even though the government has paid out on this case there is nothing to stop other prisoners bringing more ridiculous test cases.

By: Tom Amos

Tom Amos — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 11:16:44 +0000

I disagree with all of you!

This case is a good example of the Legal System working well. You are deprived of your liberty while in prison but not your human rights.

What if one or two of these prisoners were later found not guilty of their offence? You would then be depriving them of their right to proper medical treatment.

As for the compensation money, it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the over-generous sums given to some Cabinet Ministers and MP’s. I find it more distasteful that the likes of Prescott, Blunkett and Bob Kiley are receiving taxpayers money than the poorest members of our society. Sort out the debacle of Bob Kiley’s salary and then I will get worried about this compensation package.

By: ThunderDragon

ThunderDragon — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 01:59:36 +0000

Criminals automatically forfeit pretty much all human rights by breaking the law. If you break the law, why should you then receive it’s protection?

http://thethunderdragon.blogspot.com/2006/11/payout-for-drug-addicted-convicts.html

By: simon

simon — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 21:45:34 +0000

Nothing surprises me anymore. It seems that it is the victims of crime who suffer more than those behind bars.

What a waste of tax payers money! 100%

By: Ellee

Ellee — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:21:55 +0000

WL and Bel, Hopefully the Prison drug rehabilitation programme will be reviewed as a result of this case. And what is being done to increase searches and prevent the illegal distribution of drugs on the inside?

By: Bel

Bel — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 20:15:00 +0000

I agree with Welshcakes Limoncello. Compensation may have been a move too far, but cold turkey without any proper planning behind that, not a good move.

As I have argued on my blog, the prisoners who were receiving treatment before going into jail should have had their treatment continued. Let us draw a parallel with someone who is being treated for an illness by the NHS. The fact that they are jailed doesn’t mean the treatment should stop.

Drug addiction is an illness. I would be tempted to say ‘leave them to it, they brought it on themselves’, but if someone is taking steps to be clean, they should not have treatment withdrawn.

By: Ellee

Ellee — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:41:22 +0000

Nick, Great minds then, and I am delighted to add your link.

By: Jean-Luc Picard

Jean-Luc Picard — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:04:12 +0000

Perhaps prisoners will be able to vote from now on so that Tony Blair will be able to do so after he gets arrested?

By: Nich Starling

Nich Starling — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:29:43 +0000

Elee, I’ve posted in a similar vein also today.

After leaving comments on my blog before, I’ve linked you. Any chance of a reciprocal link under “Lib Dems” ?