|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 17, 2004 13:34:37 GMT
"A paedophile is in line for a payout of up to £15,000 to soothe his hurt feelings... because prison officers opened his post"
That's what the Mirror told me today, however unreliable it can be then Prisoners are very often recieving huge payouts for ridiculous things. Apparently in this case the letter had a soliciters seal on it and so by opening it the officers were wrong. However the prisoner in question has fought and won the case before but as he suffered no mental damage was not given huge compensation payouts. However an appeal court have sent it back to court where the man could get the £15,000 payment.
Another crazy case is when Karl Jones, a conman, recieved £248,000 after a fall in the shower whilst in jail apparently left him unable to work and impotent. However after this then his wife had a daughter who was concieved AFTER his injury left him 'impotent'. A thug, Marvin Pomfret, was given £75,000 blaming Bolton education authority because they failed to suitably educate him!
The worst thing about thisd is that the tax payers are forced to shell out money so these people are given legal aid for ridiculous payouts. Prisoners are allowed to manipulate the legal aid system and are using the system to claim money. What should be done about this farce?
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 17, 2004 13:53:31 GMT
In the case of the £15,000 it is entirely right that he recieves a payout. Any letter from a client to or from their legal advisor should remain entirely and completely confidential, and any breach of that confidence cannot be tolerated.
The other two cases have nothing to do with prisoners really, they're just standard compo cheating. It happens all the time and while it should be dealt with, the government doesn't investigate such things at all thoroughly.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 17, 2004 14:53:51 GMT
I agree the man was wronged in the £15,000 case, but how does someone reading his letter caused him 'mental stress' that amounts to that much money, the case already ruled the officers who did it at fault and I believe they were disciplined for it, but he's only fighting it again to get money for him and his solicitor. The other two are related to prisoners, Karl Jones got the money based on accusing prison showers of being unsafe but even after it was obvious he lied then no action has been taken. Plus a criminal blaming an education authority for his situation is like blaming the shopkeeper they tried to rob for it, ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Oct 18, 2004 10:29:43 GMT
Concerning the opening of the letter, Rob has informed me that a court decided that the officers were wrong in opening it. Those responsible for opening it were then disciplined. The issue should end there. The prisoner is merely making a mockery of the legal system for claiming £15,000 of TAXPAYERS MONEY, which could be better spent on either the NHS or Public Services, which serve to benefit the innocent.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 18, 2004 19:50:50 GMT
Oh the old mantra of "TAXPAYERS' MONEY"... Yawn.
There are around 36 million taxpayers in this country (and that's ignoring how many other people pay things like VAT). £15,000? 35 million people? So that's less than one twentieth of one penny each taxpayer will have to cough up, which I suspect is the reason why I feel distinctly underwhelmed by this particular act of larceny.
However, the broader principle is sound; the guards in question have already been punished and so the matter can and should be laid to rest there.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 19, 2004 8:20:38 GMT
It's alright for them to pay him that at the moment, Will, it can come out of the money smokers subsidize the taxman with. Not that you care about that money enough to go against a public smoking ban, even though it's 10 billion quid a year profit. Which the tax payer will have to cough up once I can only smoke a third as many fags a day. However, we should still consider the potential for mental stress in this case. Having a letter from your legal representative opened and read by some one else is a serious breach of prisoner's rights. It's the kind of thing that they did in Soviet Russia, or worse... Bush's US. In this case, I think the money is more important as a knock to the prison system, to make sure that the wardens ARE punished properly, so that there's no complacant "they're only cons, who cares?" attitude toward said punishments. Not sure that the prisoner should have recieved it, mind you, but we are indeed headed toward that same old compenstion culture everyone's worried about, and it's not helped by our tendancy to fanatical import US culture and values. Been fired? Sue your boss! Been shot? Sue the gun company, the bullet manufacturer, and also Walmart for selling the items! Been invaded by the US so they can execute a regime change, and later, you? Sue for peace!The insistance that we should be able to claim compensation for EVERYTHING is clearly a US import, but as our legal system is different and we can't sue for stupid things, we insist that the government sorts it out. Boy, are we dumb. This country sucks balls, eh, Will ? This thread shouldn't be focusing on prisoners, it should be about the compensation culture that's reaching epidemic proportions, and the bill for which actually MIGHT make HStorm feel a little more bothered.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Oct 20, 2004 18:18:40 GMT
I firstly feel I should inform you that I've changed by stance on the ban on smoking in public. I am now neutral. It does indeed, in certain areas. I definately agree that the compo culture is another encumbrant output of the states. Despite the insistance of some of the papers, the Compo Culture is very real. There was another case in the news recently about a girl who sued for an injury about a decade ago - she broke her arm whilst playing PE, and now she's a sports-woman. Thankfully the judge threw it out for the ludicrousy that it was, but that misses the point: The legal bills of a case that just reaches court are immense. These add up and leave the taxpayer with a hefty bill (bit higher than £15,000 though, Martin ). It is a disgrace that cases of this sort even reach court. These cases add up, Martin, to far greater amounts. But anyway, why should the taxpayer have to cough up anything? From the sound of it, this con isn't even worth the twentieth of a penny. And what do we think he will do with the money? Probably blow it all on hi-tech cameras for photographing children.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 20, 2004 18:48:50 GMT
That's all we've actually heard about this guy, Will. Two words. And from those two simple words, you can work out: From the sound of it, this con isn't even worth the twentieth of a penny. And what do we think he will do with the money? Probably blow it all on hi-tech cameras for photographing children. Alternatively, he might be a doctor, or a lawyer, who slept with a fifteen-year-old girl. It's still paedophilia,technically, and the paper's are going to use that term if they get the chance. Even if the guy is a kiddy-fiddler, and not just an unfortunate bastard who found out a girl lied about her age (This happens all the time. Why can't women just accept their damned age? They claim they're older until their 21, then the claim they're younger for the rest of their lives. Damnation.), studies have shown Paedophilia to be a mental condition, not a criminal choice. He might, just might, not be the evil scum of the universe you've already concluded he is, with just those two words: Why not find out more about the case? Have you become so conditioned by the media that you instantly assume that 'paedophile' means 'Satanic Evil Goatshagger of Doom?' Are you no longer willing to find out more about the person in question before damning them with your judgement? If you sleep with a 12-year old kid nowadays you're a paedophile. If you didn't in ancient rome, they thought you were a pervert. Cultural standards, eh? Some people are just born at the wrong time. I accept that he may well be the perverted sick individual you have assumed he is, which still isn't his fault if he's ill (would you lock up someone who does something wrong during a schizotypal episode?), but for christ sake, give the guy a break. Not all criminals are bad people, Will, including more that a couple of my friends, so don't give me that damn labelling shite the moment you hear a crime involved with someone.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 20, 2004 19:03:32 GMT
The Compo Culture is very real I'm not arguing that it's a good thing, I'm just saying that there aren't as many cases of these things happening as sometimes it seems, and that the amounts involved, even when totalled, are really very minor. There are far, far worse drains on the public purse than this, and while some of these cases shouldn't be allowed to get as far as court, I'd rather we first took care of problems that waste billions, not thousands. And I do get very sick of the eternal conservative chorus of "You're using taxpayers' money!!!!" as though that's the most obscene failing in the human capacity. In this case, it's not even a case that should be dismissed out of hand anyway. Seeing that the guards have already been punished it should probably be defeated, but a clear violation of basic human rights is a serious matter, so the prisoner has a right to say so if he thinks that justice is not being done. Even assuming that's true (which it probably isn't as he'd be grotesquely stupid to return to such vile habits after having been caught before), what's to say he wouldn't do that anyway? Wehn he gets out he'll be looking for a job, and he could just as easily pay his wages on the same things. Should that be stopped too? Are you arguing that people convicted of sexual deviancy should be banned from possessing money?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 20, 2004 20:55:39 GMT
Nas, in response to your points I will add the following information that might make this a bit clearer. The story also had some information on this guy who had intentionally molested and sexually abused two 12 year old girls, he was a nasty person and showed no remorse. I understand what you mean about people hearing those words and instantly assuming the worst about a person and that instantly labelling someone based on this is wrong entirely, even worse is where people are judged even when the case against them was bollocks. I mean Michael Jackson has been accused of this and it is very highly likely he did it, but he has been heavily mocked and slandered before he has actually had his trial for it. If he got of innocent everyone would claim he bribed the jury, rightly or wrongly. Although in this specific case the man in question is a sick individual whos is trying to push his luck and see how far he can push his legal aid before it is judged that the case can be laid to rest.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Oct 22, 2004 18:24:27 GMT
Naselus, your fine rant on how I allegedly condemn paedophiles would be very legitimate if it were not for one thing that I said in the post on which you based your argument:
Notice the 'from the sound of it' part? You say that I’m assuming a lot and basing my argument on nothing. I took the liberty of looking up the following in a dictionary:
paedophile n : an adult who is sexually attracted to children
Hmm. Adult who is sexually attracted to children. I wonder… So when I say ‘from the sound of it’, I am referring to my (and most people’s) interpretation of the word ‘paedophile’, by which the facts would appear to be backed up from a dictionary definition.
No, dictionaries have conditioned me too much, to the extreme extent where I think being a paedophile is a bad thing. Oh my God, what have I become?
I didn’t need to find out more, because if you re-read my original post, you might just realise that my indefensible comment was actually more of a tongue-in-cheek sidenote. It was not intended with the seriousness with which you have interpreted it. If it was I might have asked Rob for the facts…which he appears to have given us anyway. Many thanks Rob.
I didn’t say he should be banned from possessing money, but he should not be given money by the authorities for the unauthorised opening of one of his letters. And yes, criminals can be very stupid; look at the re-offending rates. I know it involves other factors aswell, but stupidity must come into it somewhere.
And anyway, from the facts provided by RMR it would appear this paedophile is the person I assumed him to be (big surprise), so I consider this issue closed.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 22, 2004 19:06:24 GMT
This is getting a bit out of hand, Naselus you made a very good argument about how we percieve someone by being a paedophile and just hearing 2 words. Will you were also correct in that you didn't really imply all that Nas disagreed with in his post, I think you should really agree to disagree on this subject to save pages of circular debate.
|
|
Pooka
Member of Parliament
Pacifist
Posts: 22
|
Post by Pooka on Oct 24, 2004 15:11:28 GMT
I've got nothing against paedophiles.
Okay, before you attack me, hear me out.
I'm opposed to people going around raping, stalking, etc. small children - 'cuz that's just wrong. Raping, stalking, etc. anyone is wrong.
But if you get your sexual kicks out of looking at pictures of small children, even though it seems weird, then that's your sexual fetish.
If you get your sexual kicks out of one thing and then people try to take it away from you by the banning of images and/or removing of the material from your possession, then surely that's sexual repression and shouldn't be allowed.
Not every paedophile rapes children. In fact, the consideration of paedophilia as taboo is insulting towards paedophiles. Removal or repression of the material is, in fact, more likely to increase sexual attacks because paedophiles would consequently get no release.
Back on topic:
Prisoners are not just criminals.
Prisoners are human beings just like anyone else and should have the same rights as anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 24, 2004 19:07:04 GMT
Your argument is fine up to a point, but there are a few questions it leaves unanswered. The most important one, but by no means the only one, is this; -
I imagine we'd all agree with you that rape of a child, or of anyone, is very much a crime, but would you argue that it is morally acceptable to have sex with a consenting underage minor?
|
|
|
Post by The mekanik on Oct 27, 2004 9:02:10 GMT
***I return from Turkey***
Here i am, along with my extreme views and all.
Replying to Hstorms question, I would say yes.
But this is far to complex for a one word answer!
The laws installed to prevent sexual intercourse with people under a certain age were mainly aimed at the intent to protect minors from people over the age of consent. Generally, if two consenting minors engage in the act, then the police etc tend to turn a blind eye. Only when people over the age mix with those below, it becomes unnaceptable in the eyes of the public.
In certain other countries (Turkey is one of them) the law states:
It is illegal for anyone over the age of sixteen to participate in sexual acts with those under that age, but: Those under the age of sixteen are perfectly allowed to engage in any activities they wish with any other people(s) in their age group.
What do you think of that idea?
Another law turkey employs i would like to see over here:
Death penalty for drug abusers.
Fantasimo!
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 27, 2004 9:32:45 GMT
So, what you're saying is 2 people under age are alright providing BOTH are consenting. However one person over the ages and one under is going into the dodgy territory. I'm inclined to agree that someone over the age going with someone below the age is generally a bad idea because should the relationship end unfavourably and the minor is particularly spiteful they could claim they were raped, cue a long legal process. Plus there is Naselus's example of
Which is fairly common, in answer to HStorm's question i'd say that if two minors want to do and providing they are totally aware of the risk and, more importantly, are very careful then there isn't a problem with that. Obviously it has to be minors of the right kind of age, say one or two years below the legal age.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Oct 27, 2004 13:22:31 GMT
But where do we draw the line? Girls are, physically at least, capable of bearing children by the age of 12. Some younger. Boys are by about the age of 14. So, is it therefore acceptable to be a grandmother when you're 25?
It's a right tricky bugger, this one, and it varies completely depending on culture. As I mentioned, Roman girls were usually married and pregnant by the age of 12. However, to balance this, I might point out that the average life expectancy for a woman in those days was 25.
Should life expectancy be factored in? Accidental pregnancy is a certainty given any population over a few million, and therefore so is overpopulation unless strict controls are enforced. If we're all living to 80, can we afford the generation gap to drop down to 16 years?
Incidentaly, death penalty for drug abusers? Absurd.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Oct 27, 2004 16:52:07 GMT
Well I was talking about two consenting minors whose bodies won't be damaged, i.e. are developed enough, and those using protection. I doubt there would be many minor couples that would want to have children at age 16 or under but as you said accidents will happen, this is a difficult one and as Nas says finding the cut off point is difficult, who's to say when someone is ready and can be trusted?
|
|
|
Post by HStorm on Oct 27, 2004 17:21:44 GMT
Evolution is the problem with finding when to draw the line, as kids appear to be 'coming of age' younger and younger with each passing generation. It's scary to wonder how soon they may be reaching puberty in 50 years time. And as such, the Law will keep becoming obsolete.
By the way, Oliver, why do you look to the Turks for ideas for shaping our laws? Beyond Turkey's classification as having one of the ten worst human rights records on the face of the Earth, it's also set to become a member of the EU. Aren't the Europeans supposed to be your implacable foes?
Anyway, we're not only off-topic, we're even missing the point of my question slightly. What I meant when I asked it was, sex with a minor is paedophilia just as much as looking at pictures, more so in fact, and with Pooka saying he has nothing against paedophiles as a whole, I'd like to understand exactly what aspects of paedophilia he finds acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Nov 1, 2004 11:55:20 GMT
That's possible, but the inverse could also happen - watching child-porn could motivate paedophiles to have sex with children.
Oliver, death penalty for drug abusers might be a bit too far, but death for drug suppliers would be great. There must be a distinction between the crimes.
By the way, which drug abuses constitute death in Turkey?
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Nov 1, 2004 13:36:16 GMT
I don't think it'd be great, supplying others with drugs isn't really an offence that merits such harsh punishment. You don't know who the suppliers are, they're not always the people who hang around school gates selling to kids, some people supply friends and such and the people they sell to are as desperate to buy as they are to sell. Plus a lot of suppliers are addicts who are only selling to pay for their habit, so executing supplier after supplier until you get to the big boss is ridiculous, chances are you'd never catch whoever started it.
Oh, and the death penalty for ANYONE isn't 'great' if anything it's the only punishment for a heinous crime, one I personally disagree with but there's already a topic for that, whether you're in favour of it or not then you certainly shouldn't see that for society to be so screwed up that the death penalty is the most fitting punishment, again not my opinion, then it's not a good thing at all.
Getting back to the subject at hand;
I think that's the more widely accepted belief, and for the images to be so strongly banned then they must contribute to the problem more than making attack less likely. I'm afraid I agree that getting the stuff banned is a good idea, if it wasn't then it would also encourage people to use children against their will to make the porn in the first place, it's not like the stuff is made with consent which is why it's so illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Naselus on Dec 20, 2004 20:50:38 GMT
Just replying to Will's question. ANY contact with ANY opiate earns a death penalty in Turkey. Turkey is currently on the way to being Europe's heroin gateway, with thousands of mobile refineries. However, the penalty is only death because the police force there is a colossal joke.
And which drugs would you support the death penalty for supplying, and in what quantities? I suppose I could just about understand sentencing someone to death for bringing two thousand kilos of high quality crack cocaine into Liverpool airport, but since passing a joint around is also 'dealing drugs', would you have stoners shot on sight?
|
|
|
Post by TheCritique on Dec 21, 2004 18:16:16 GMT
I would support the death penalty only for the dealing of 'hard drugs', such as herion. The quantities would be dictated by common sense, as they are now - in airports they can tell quite easily whether or not the drugs are intended for use by the smuggler by the quantities.
|
|
|
Post by ringmasterrob on Dec 21, 2004 19:29:11 GMT
Why does dealing hard drugs call for death outright? That's capital punishment taken too far surely, it's not even the 'eye for an eye' arguement you can use with the death penalty for murderers. The people this person would sell to would still have chosen at one point or another to take the drugs, and will want to buy it, this person's crime does not fit the ridiculously harsh punishment you're fitting to it. As Nas said, the Turkey police force is a farce and so the death penalty for all drug users is a deterrent to stop people out of fear because the police can't just catch them. Even using the death penalty in the situations you've suggested is ridiculous, immoral and unethical (oops, there are those morals again Will).
|
|
|
Post by modeski on Dec 21, 2004 21:33:53 GMT
The death penalty for drug offences is too ludicrous for words. The fact is, drug categorisation, drug laws and sentencing guidelines need a colossal overhaul. Thank <deity/bob> we don't have the "3 strikes" law over here.
The fact is that you can't lump "drug users" and even "drug dealers" into distinct, all-encompassing groups. Perhaps those high in the food chain, killing, people smuggling and fuelling civil wars...(er...CIA anyone? lol) should be punished very harshly. I'm talking about rebel leaders enslaving people to work in poppy fields to sell smack to buy guns.
But there is a whole spectrum of drug dealers and users, from the chav who sells cheap e's to his mates on a friday night, to the local top dog with an army of stoners distributing dime bags, to johnny druthers smoking the odd joint at a party. You can't punish them all the same. If that is, you agree drug use/abuse is a crime.
I mean, the government is who decides what's legal and what's not, what drugs are "bad" and what aren't. It changes very much with the times, and thankfully we seem to be heading towards a more lenient stance on softer drugs (Class B/C). The corporations, government, cigarette companies and the media collude to push alcohol and tobacco at every given opportunity. And tax the shit out of them both. I can guarantee that the first thing the government would do if they legalised dope would be to regulate and tax it. And that may well be no bad thing. No longer would people have to suffer the agony of knowing whether their shit was good or not, or where it came from and what was in it. Commercially produced, regulated, clean, taxed drugs would create a whole new tax revenue which could be pumped into rehabilitation schemes, addiction counselling and health services for those who desired them. Through education strategies and a healthy approach to drugs, many of the so-called "problems" would disappear. (Violence/Crime/overdoses etc).
But I digress somewhat from the original question. I heartily agree with other posters that prisoner-lawyer confidentiality should *never* be breached by a 3rd party, and that the people who opened the letter should be sent to jail. It is after all, a criminal offence to open mail that is not in your name.
As for paedophiles, well yes I would say there are degrees of severity there as well. From the people who kidnap, rape and murder kids, to the 16 year old guy who slept with his 15yo girlfriend a week before her birthday. There are so few black and white areas aren't there?
Thank f**k each case is actually judged on its own merits, rather than there being mandatory sentencing upon accusation! Maybe in 10 or 20 years, the way we're headed...
The compensation culture is also another gnawingly horrible american import to this country, and it sickens me. I've read about people administering first aid to a dying person, saving their life but leaving them with, say a disfigurement or mental problems, and then being sued for it! Things are headed in a dangerous direction, with ads on telly for accident compensation for 5-year-old cases and the like.
That of course ties in with the economy being so highly focused on the credit industry (£1trillion+ owed at last count). The abdication of personal responsibility is growin g in popularity, and it worries me. I'll stop rambling now.
Prisoners are still humans, and are entitled to their rights, same as us.
|
|