2006-11-14 00:18:15 · 24 answers · asked by reggie 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
The reason the prisoners took their case to court was that when they were on the methadone treatment programme, they were receiving support and help to stop using heroin. However when they went to prison the methadone was stopped and they were automatically put into cold turkey situations, no drugs, no alternatives, no support to stop.
Most of the 200 claimed that they have since become drug users again, because the support was not there when they went into cold turkey. They are only getting an average payment of £3,750.
Sex addicts could therefore in theory claim too, however the government would be much less likely to settle in these cases, because sex offenders are given counselling to change their ways.
2006-11-14 00:59:21 · answer #1 · answered by thebigtombs 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As far as I know, by not challenging the claim and paying out before a trial, they are not trying the human right law, so the human right law may not cover it, but will they settle int he fitire if a padeo tries it? Would not be a surprise with this Government.
Can an alchoholic claim the same thing? No one seems to rememebr they were doing a n illegal drug that they probably did an illegal act to make money to pay for it. They should be given the rights. Would someone addicted to stealing be allowed to steal from inmates or guards in future?
2006-11-14 00:23:13 · answer #2 · answered by acidedge2004 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i don't be attentive to the place to locate the figures, yet i've got examine that there have been something like a hundred registered heroin addicts in Britain in the 70s till the Thatcher government desperate it may be extra valuable to prescribe methadone and made it the two unlawful or extra complicated to prescribe heroin. we've vast quantities of heroine and methadone addicts. Do the mathematics.
2016-10-17 06:26:43 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Last I heard sex addiction is not illegal otherwise people like John Prescott would be in 'clink'. I have little sympathy for drug addicts and less for their suppliers but lawyers will jump out of the woodwork to get them their 'rights' at the same time milking the legal aid system. With this government of sick lefties and an Opposition not much better nothing would surprise me in their concessions to paedophiles
2006-11-15 02:51:53 · answer #4 · answered by Rob Roy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
As if free drugs paid for by taxpayers weren't enough, I worked in a division where free NEEDLES were handed out, so that the poor little junkies wouldn't get HIV from sharing them.
They would promptly go into the alley to the rear of the office that was handing them out and - you guessed it - shoot up. Then they would throw they used needles on the ground and leave.
We were not allowed to arrest these bottom-feeders because the City Council said it could be entrapment.
I felt so sorry for the residents in that area, as they would leave to go to work in the morning, they would find the alley littered with needles, sometimes sleeping junkies, and who-knows-what kind of other filth and detrius strewn up and down the area.
Plus the junkies would then target the residential section for burglaries so they could get more money for dope.
Well the end of this story is, the building where this office was got burned down by the same junkies they were giving needles to. One of them set a fire in the rear lobby to keep warm because they woke up after all of the shelters were closed.
2006-11-14 00:34:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Under the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights as implemented in the UK via the Human Rights Act 1998 every person living in this country has human rights already, whether law-abiding citizen, victim, drug addict or paedophile.
2006-11-14 00:23:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I'd sooner them get Methadone in prison than go cold turkey and then go whining to the court about their "human rights" being breached.
It would cost the taxpayer a lot less.
As for paedos and their human rights - you must have read about the paedo who has been given permission to work out in a school gym to avoid infringing his human rights?! Crazy.
2006-11-14 03:07:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Best question of the day this one!
Seriously, excellent point, your spot on. The world has gone mad, if I robbed your house and was arrested could I say it is an addiction to rob? What would they do then? Would they be breaking my human rights not to rob?
More to the point is this, what about the victims of crimes of these addicts? Where is THEIR human rights? The money these druggies win should go directly to people they have committed crimes on in their past.
They received the money for their drugs from crime so at the very least any award should go to crime prevention, not the druggie.
PS The answer from dark angel says that withdrawal from heroin can be lethal??? NO IT CANT!!!
2006-11-14 00:26:04 · answer #8 · answered by scouser 2 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Human rights bollocks, what about bank robbers, cant get enough, next cant remember the name of the disorder but keep clening things, job at Dettol, its all gone so F***** mad, if u happen to end up on drugs, and some dont want to stay on, best way take IT away, I cannot even finish this I'm SOOOOOOO f******* off with the lunies in this poxy country
2006-11-14 19:54:17 · answer #9 · answered by david g 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
All addicts are human rights cases, regardless of their addiction. However, you have lumped people addicted to sex to people who have committed crimes. A sex addict is not necessarily a criminal while a paedophile is. Don't forget, a criminal has more rights protecting them than thier victim. They have been "human rights cases" ever since the 60's
2006-11-14 00:25:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋