Huntley

IMO think it's less about the sanctity of human life, more about the
large number of mistakes.

 

IWHT that that would require quite a lot of sugar to make a
(substantial) difference, but I'm not going to experiment.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

I agree that there should be a duty of care regarding prisoners but I
think it's a shame the attempt to slash his throat didn't succeed in
killing him.

If he gets the reported £100k will he be expected to put the money
away to pay for his new identity when he's eventually released from
jail or will the taxpayer have to foot the bill for that one leaving
him with a nice little cash reserve?

 

Stealing someone else's bleach.

 

Especially given that the sugar would be added after boiling, so would
actually have reduced it's temperature, not raised it. Whether it
makes any difference to its stickiness i couldn't say. In any case I
rinsed it all of the face within seconds - the only bits that were
actually burned were the chest and neck where it soaked into clothing
that took a little longer to remove.

 

I was so nervous, on intake, that when someone asked what I was in for
I appeared to be joking about it. This was then by way of a welcoming
committee.

 

And verily, didst hastily babble thusly:

Then they leave the choice up to the nonce.
you can a: live in isolation or b: mix with the prison population.
Your choice, but don't come running to us with lawsuits if you don't like it
or get injured. And you can sign this disclaimer stating it was your choice
too.
--
| | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |

 

sorry, poor attempt at crap humour. You did tell me all about it at
Chimay a few years back.

 

Certainly, although the mistakes could be vastly reduced.

Perhaps the answer is for prisoners to contribute to the cost of their
incarceration according to their means. A sort of reverse benefit system
that favours the tax payer. How novel.

 

"des in all probability sticking around for another two months"

People like that are usually put on Rule 43 for their own protection and
are locked away from other inmates! should they then be attacked, then
the prison are fully responsible

If they choose to refuse it, it is the inmates own responsibility as
to their awareness of attack from other inmates!!

To a Lesser degree!!!

Regards.

Lee.

 

Surely the whole point of locking someone up is to remove some of their
rights? I think he should be allowed to sue, but no way should he get
legal aid to do so. And if he wins, the money should be seized as the
proceeds from crime[1] & given to CICA.

[1] He wouldn't get the money if he wasn't in prison, & he wouldn't be
in prison if he hadn't been found guilty[2].

[2] If he's subsequently found innocent, he gets the money back along
with any other compensation due.

 

Boiling syrup I can understand but that needs quite a lot of sugar.

Sounds grim


--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

When? I think it's the mother of all ifs.

 

There!s something wrong w!th your !!!! key!!!!!!!!!!

 

He'll get out eventually. It's not as if he robbed a train so he can't
be considered a proper criminal.

 

I agree with you to a point, but I don't think the state assumes all
responsibility for inmates being attacked by other inmates. Your point
about an inmate murdering another illustrates this perfectly, the person
committing the murder faces the legal ramifications of that. Unless the
prison authorities have ignored credible evidence of a threat, I don't
see how they can be liable.

 

You can make a claim against the state funded criminal compensation
scheme .

Ironically

If your a sex offender and your infomation is released under Sarahs
law and the recipient of the infomation then reveals this to another
and you suffer because of this (which is ilegal to do) you could have
a claim against both that person and the state as they have a duty of
care to you when realesing such infomation .

I can see the lawyers rubbing the hands together already

Ironically again

If the revealation puts the sex offenders life in danger the state
will do as they have with Venables and give you a new identity and
Police protection


Its right what they say the Laws an Ass

 

I am aware of the concept, but I don't agree that any harm that comes to
an inmate while incarcerated indicates a failure of that duty on the
part of the authorities. If they have not taken reasonable steps to
ensure safety of "known" threats, then maybe so, but unless there is a
regime of zero interaction of inmates, then they cannot foresee and
prevent every attack. As someone else has already said, due to the
demographic, prison is a dangerous place.

 

Huntley as a child killer will be a target of attack has been
attacked before and has attempted suicide , he is deemed as a
vulnerable prisoner requireing protection an constant supervision

 

That statement alone indicates that prisoners such as Huntley are at
extreme risk of harm because of the nature of the crimes committed