April 23rd, 2008

More please

Posted in Other Stuff by 200

You may not have heard of the ‘Opiate Dependent Prisoner Litigation Scheme’, if so, let me enlighten you.

This is a scheme where yet more criminals get yet more free cash from the tax payer.

In this case it relates to prisoners who have been awarded up to £4,000 in compensation. These prisoners were/are heroin addicts who were forced to go ‘cold turkey’ when they were imprisoned & their methodone treatment was withdrawn.

The government had, until their imprisonment, been funding their methodone which is a heroin substitute designed to gradually wean addicts off heroin & stop their need to to commit crime to fund the purchase of heroin.

In May 2006, the High Court ruled that withdrawing their methodone was a breach of their human rights. The government have paid out £750,000 compensation to 197 inmates. Following the court decision the tax payer has now funded 9,250 inmates’ methodone at a cost of up to £15,000 per course.

I wonder of the founding fathers of the Human Rights Act envisaged that it would have such far reaching consequences & would actually protect those who seek to break the law more than it does everyone else in society?

 

You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site. RSS 2.0

3 comments

  1. Litew8 says:

    I am sure it breaches my human rights to have my tax money spent on something/someone other than law-abiding society.

    The act should be revised to state that it applied only to people who themselves abide by the law… as far as I am concerned criminals give up their rights when they contravene those of others…

    :(

    April 23rd, 2008 at 00:57

  2. Civ_In_The_City says:

    200 said: “I wonder of the founding fathers of the Human Rights Act envisaged that it would … actually protect those who seek to break the law more than it does everyone else in society?”

    They made school sports non-competitive so nobody ever has to ‘lose’, god forbid. Of course there are no winners and losers in the lottery of life are there? So why prepare young minds to be focused and determined, have a goal in mind and to strive to achieve it.

    A few years ago, if you thought you`d been unfairly treated you went to court. If it didn`t go your way you appealed. If that didn`t work it went to higher courts (I`m guessing the actual route but you`ll take my point). No satisfaction and it would go to the Lords. Finally it went to Europe.

    What a timesaver the Human Rights Act is. First whiff of a decision going against you and you can wave the ‘Rights’ card. It`s so woolly it can be interpreted to suit any purpose and is guaranteed to win. It`s an absolute automatic failsafe. A safety net draped under all of us so our feet are never really in contact with the ground at all.

    That`s the problem. It`s an absolute right.

    A quick tour of the PNLDB (Police National Legal Database) made me realise that laws are not normally cut and dried at all. In many cases the practice of law is about trying to accurately define words and their precise meanings. Nothing absolute at all in most cases.

    Equally woolly you might think, open to interpretation. True. But open to interpretation by a judge in a court of law, based on years and years of similar definitions and refinements. Law should evolve over time.

    The Human Rights Act seems to have come out of nowhere and does little except shield offenders from the reach of those hard-earned laws. And more importantly the consequences of breaking those laws.

    The Human Rights Act comes from the same mind as the non-competitive school sports. The same mind thinks that the world can be made a fair and equitable place by creating rules then enforcing them. They think the law is there to tell people how to live their lives, not to punish them when they do wrong.

    I think the law shouldn`t interfere with my life, unless I`m doing something that is likely to interfere with someone elses. If it start encroaching at every turn then something has gone badly wrong.

    Ah, Gordon, there you are, we were just talking about you. Tell me more about how you plan to run our country, I`m fascinated.

    No thank you.

    April 23rd, 2008 at 13:48

  3. carl says:

    to make anyone go cold turkey off methadone is cruel and unusual punishment and some people sent to jail are not even charged with a crime yet. innocent until proven guilty? what about people like me who need it for pain? its not just for heroin addicts!

    August 5th, 2008 at 00:44

Leave a comment