Why on earth is this being allowed in a civilised society ?

[bazwillrun]

This is utterly ridiculous

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13918358

It appears for a select few that crime does pay.

We need to ditch outside influence on this country and apply our own laws where and how we see fit and not be forced by others into even tolerating these claims and subsequent payouts.

[Sqad]

Difficult one this baz.

Do you or do you not loose your human rights when you pass through those prison gates?

[jno]

so people are sentenced to jail - and then kept there longer than their sentence. How would you like to be locked up for a week or two because nobody could be bothered to let you out?

[bazwillrun]

"human rights"

I hate that phrase, there is no such thing, these are man made and man given.

If a crime is committed inside a prison then it should be subject to the same laws as the outside , there should not be financial gain.

[jackthehat]

Compensation is NOT a financial gain, as such.
It is a 'remedy' for an injury, etc. sustained; a recompense for some (usually) physical distress which may have long-term ramifications. Just because the injured party was in prison at the time, does not mean that they should not be able to seek the same financial redress as the rest of society.

[bazwillrun]

If they are kept in longer than they should (most arent in long enough in the first place, or are out early for one reason or an other)

then they should be given no more or less than they could have realistically earned had they been released based on what they were earning before they committed their crimes.

Or give them the equivalent jobseekers for the period of overstay

[jackthehat]

I agree that there ought to be some limits on the amount of awards made in cases of 'over-staying'.
But there is a pretty broad sweep of 'compensation payouts' referred in the linked article...

[TTG]

"Just because the injured party was in prison at the time, does not mean that they should not be able to seek the same financial redress as the rest of society. " I am sure if you were a victim of one of these criminals, you'd have a different opinion.

[jackthehat]

TTG - Natural Justice and Legal Justice are two separate animals.
If anyone of whom I was a victim had the misfortune to break a limb whilst in prison, I probably would think 'Ha! Couldn't have happened to a more deserving bloke/ss'........but I'd still defend their right to seek a compensation claim if I thought they had just cause.

[bazwillrun]

"but I'd still defend their right to seek a compensation claim if I thought they had just cause. "

and there lies the problem

and I take it you would also be comfortable with a mass murderer having a case thrown out on a technicality if you thought there was just cause, even though the proof of guilt was undeniable ?

[jno]

people always want murderers executed 'in cases where there's no doubt'. It would be a wonderful world where murderers all had their victims' blood on them and were carrying several smoking guns and a signed confession. In the real world, though, it doesn't happen. Guilt is seldom undeniable. Even people who confess to crimes sometimes turn out not to have done it.

[bazwillrun]

If there is just cause then punish the person/people /organisation that was a fault that let whatever event happen, but do not pay money to freakin convicted criminals, as I said earlier if you really must and it makes you feel good about it then pay them enough to buy some more drugs in jail or an illegal phone or whatever else seems to be rife in our prisons, do not give them tens/hundreds of thousands of pounds or more whatever the reason.

dont commit a crime, dont go to jail, event wouldnt have happened that now lets you take the freakin pissss out of the rest of us.

No I dont have any sympathy for them, hey why not let them vote whilst we are at it !

[jackthehat]

I think you'll have to elaborate on what you mean by 'comfortable' and 'technicality'.

[sp1814]

bazwillrun

Did you read the full story?

[bazwillrun]

yes

[Dodger666]

They got it right in the old Wild West. If someone broke the law they were outlaws, i.e. outside the protection of the law. Bounty Hunters could bring them in Dead or Alive.

Obviously that's a bit drastic these days but a prisoner getting £1.14M because he wasn't sent for medical treatment when, if his crime was murder then the maximum amount of compensation the murder victim's family woud get is £11,000. doesn't add up in my opinion.

[jake-the-peg]

Human rights are man made and man given?

Gosh? Really?

You mean like every other law passed in every other land in the world?

What a ludicrous thing to say!

Where exactly do you get the idea that Human right slegislation is "Outside influence"?

The UK was a driving force in Human rights

We passed Magna Carta - perhaps the world's first human rights bill
We were umoung the first to abolish slavery

Modern Human rights goes back to Churchill at Yalta and the formation of the UN

The British Lawyer Sir David Fyfe chaired the comittee that drafted the European convention on Human rights.

http://en.wikipedia.o...ki/David_Maxwell-Fyfe

Foreign influence? Only if you count Scottish as foreign!

Don't tell me you're still one of these people who thinks the European convention on Human rights is to do with the EU because it has the word "European" in it!!!

You really should learn a bit more about the things you rant about - then you might get taken a bit more seriously

[bazwillrun]

more selective garbage as is usual from you

talking of rants Hello said Mr Pot to Mr Kettle !

[sp1814]

bazwillrun

But JTP has raised several points about human rights legislation that you've not responded to (points which I may add, I didn't know myself). How do you stand on the charge of 'outside influence'?