Self Assessment Return Re Charitable...
Business & Finance1 min ago
Should Prisoners Be Allowed To Sue?
73 Answers
http://
/// It is feared that if the legal cases are successful, they could leave the way open for a flood of similar claims from other prisoners. There are 11,248 Muslims in prisons in England and Wales, accounting for 13.1 per cent of the jail population. ///
/// It is feared that if the legal cases are successful, they could leave the way open for a flood of similar claims from other prisoners. There are 11,248 Muslims in prisons in England and Wales, accounting for 13.1 per cent of the jail population. ///
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Yes they should.
Prisoners sue all the time for various reasons.
- not being allowed to smoke
- inadequate disabled access
- attacks by other prisoners
- substandard medical care
// over £10 million in compensation has been awarded to prisoners over the last five years, and a significant proportion of this has been as a result of medical negligence claims //
But now it is muslims who may sue, you decide to to comment on it.
Prisoners sue all the time for various reasons.
- not being allowed to smoke
- inadequate disabled access
- attacks by other prisoners
- substandard medical care
// over £10 million in compensation has been awarded to prisoners over the last five years, and a significant proportion of this has been as a result of medical negligence claims //
But now it is muslims who may sue, you decide to to comment on it.
I assume that AOG would've posted something similar had any of the other cases made the pap...
Oh...
http://
AOG - I'm surprised you missed that story, as it featured in the Daily Mail, which I believe is your newspaper of choice!
Why is your interest only piqued by some stories, and not others?
Do you think this is why so many commentators on AB read subtexts into your posts and as sandyRoe has said, need not have magnifying glasses to read between the lines?
I'm not saying that this is necessarily fair, but posts like this just seem to add to the impression that you are more likely to post if the protagonists (or rather antagonist) meets your brief.
And as to whether prisoners should be able to sue - I don't think so, no. There should be a certain standard of care, and all prisoners should be allowed to practice their religious beliefs, but over and above that, luxuries should be limited.
I look at it this way - prisoners' lives should be no more comfortable than a pensioner on state benefits.
Oh...
http://
AOG - I'm surprised you missed that story, as it featured in the Daily Mail, which I believe is your newspaper of choice!
Why is your interest only piqued by some stories, and not others?
Do you think this is why so many commentators on AB read subtexts into your posts and as sandyRoe has said, need not have magnifying glasses to read between the lines?
I'm not saying that this is necessarily fair, but posts like this just seem to add to the impression that you are more likely to post if the protagonists (or rather antagonist) meets your brief.
And as to whether prisoners should be able to sue - I don't think so, no. There should be a certain standard of care, and all prisoners should be allowed to practice their religious beliefs, but over and above that, luxuries should be limited.
I look at it this way - prisoners' lives should be no more comfortable than a pensioner on state benefits.
-- answer removed --
From one of your recent posts AOG
// what about the risk to those other prisoners if they happen not to smoke? Will these prisoners not be able to sue the prison authorities at a later date if they happen to contact a lung disease? //
You seem to be accepting the right for prisoners to sue in that instance. Why are you questioning that right now?
// what about the risk to those other prisoners if they happen not to smoke? Will these prisoners not be able to sue the prison authorities at a later date if they happen to contact a lung disease? //
You seem to be accepting the right for prisoners to sue in that instance. Why are you questioning that right now?
"AOG - I'm surprised you missed that story, as it featured in the Daily Mail, which I believe is your newspaper of choice!
Why is your interest only piqued by some stories, and not others?
Do you think this is why so many commentators on AB read subtexts into your posts and as sandyRoe has said, need not have magnifying glasses to read between the lines?
I'm not saying that this is necessarily fair, but posts like this just seem to add to the impression that you are more likely to post if the protagonists (or rather antagonist) meets your brief.
"
so are you saying people should post on matters of which you set out the criteria for ?....
of course you could always utilise the "dont read/ ignore" option for posts that dont fit what you seem to think should or shouldnt be posted by people on here.
Why is your interest only piqued by some stories, and not others?
Do you think this is why so many commentators on AB read subtexts into your posts and as sandyRoe has said, need not have magnifying glasses to read between the lines?
I'm not saying that this is necessarily fair, but posts like this just seem to add to the impression that you are more likely to post if the protagonists (or rather antagonist) meets your brief.
"
so are you saying people should post on matters of which you set out the criteria for ?....
of course you could always utilise the "dont read/ ignore" option for posts that dont fit what you seem to think should or shouldnt be posted by people on here.
"From one of your recent posts AOG
// what about the risk to those other prisoners if they happen not to smoke? Will these prisoners not be able to sue the prison authorities at a later date if they happen to contact a lung disease? //
You seem to be accepting the right for prisoners to sue in that instance. Why are you questioning that right now"
no he doesnt , where does he say hes accepted anything...just posited a simple theoretical situation that may or may not happen...
// what about the risk to those other prisoners if they happen not to smoke? Will these prisoners not be able to sue the prison authorities at a later date if they happen to contact a lung disease? //
You seem to be accepting the right for prisoners to sue in that instance. Why are you questioning that right now"
no he doesnt , where does he say hes accepted anything...just posited a simple theoretical situation that may or may not happen...
if passive smoking can be proven to harm the the health of prison workers let them sue, prisoners no.
as for this bunch of muslim no-goods, like i said, was their health at risk !? no.... so they should start thinking about the crimes they comitted and the victims and not their dietry requirements.
if they want special food then let them pay for it.
about time we stopped worrying about what muslims want
as for this bunch of muslim no-goods, like i said, was their health at risk !? no.... so they should start thinking about the crimes they comitted and the victims and not their dietry requirements.
if they want special food then let them pay for it.
about time we stopped worrying about what muslims want
"I'm sure AOG doesn't need you to answer for himself. "
and yet again youre telling people on here what they should and shouldnt respond to...i guess you'll never learn.
I've told you on numerous occasions that i will respond to any post on here that i so choose, if you dont like that, then thats your problem.
and yet again youre telling people on here what they should and shouldnt respond to...i guess you'll never learn.
I've told you on numerous occasions that i will respond to any post on here that i so choose, if you dont like that, then thats your problem.
Any action along these lines should be struck out.
Who was testing these products for pork (probably an expensive procedure) and why? If a Muslim accidentally eats a morsel of pig meat it is not the end of the world. They are unlikely to die; they are unlikely to suffer a lasting illness; they will be forgiven if and when they reach Paradise because their action was not deliberate; their 72 virgins will ensure they have no time to worry about such matters.
In short the entire matter is a farce - and just about sums up the ridiculous way the UK authorities tie themselves in knots when any issue relating to Islam rears its head. If it is found to be true that the producs contained pork a simple "Sorry about that. We'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again but cannot guarantee it. Perhaps the best way to avoid such a tragedy befalling you again is to refrain from committing serious offences if and when you are released." should suffice.
Who was testing these products for pork (probably an expensive procedure) and why? If a Muslim accidentally eats a morsel of pig meat it is not the end of the world. They are unlikely to die; they are unlikely to suffer a lasting illness; they will be forgiven if and when they reach Paradise because their action was not deliberate; their 72 virgins will ensure they have no time to worry about such matters.
In short the entire matter is a farce - and just about sums up the ridiculous way the UK authorities tie themselves in knots when any issue relating to Islam rears its head. If it is found to be true that the producs contained pork a simple "Sorry about that. We'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again but cannot guarantee it. Perhaps the best way to avoid such a tragedy befalling you again is to refrain from committing serious offences if and when you are released." should suffice.
bazwillrun
What is it about you that stops you from understanding things that people post.
Where have I said that you cannot post?
Read my post. Go on read it.
Read it again...slowly.
Do you not understand what I posted?
Why? I said, "I'm sure AOG doesn't need you to answer for him".
Did you read that as "Don't answer for AOG"?
Why? What's wrong with your comprehension skills?
What is it about you that stops you from understanding things that people post.
Where have I said that you cannot post?
Read my post. Go on read it.
Read it again...slowly.
Do you not understand what I posted?
Why? I said, "I'm sure AOG doesn't need you to answer for him".
Did you read that as "Don't answer for AOG"?
Why? What's wrong with your comprehension skills?
Latest Posts
News1 min ago
News4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
Merci Beaucoup Pour Rien Le Francais
News10 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.