It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This is where I have a problem. Why should prisoners get any luxury's at all when a lot of people in the UK cant afford such things. I don't have any chocolate and if I want any i have to work for it. Its coming to that stage where prison offers a better living than being on the outside. Heck I could go try to kill someone get chucked in prison, have my own bed, tv, chocolate and free education then get out in a few years ending up with more money in my bank that I started with.
Originally posted by JackofBlades
Recently the Sun (a paper for the less intellectual reader but still with undeniable courage) posted an that an insider reported Ian Huntley (the sick, twisted abuser and murder of Holly and Jessica) was outraged because he didn't get any chocloate... and was rewarded with a large bag of sweets.
Now its only a trivial problem, but its a good example.
Chocoloate? He should be lucky to still be alive. If he had lived in my neighbourhood the people would have probably lynched him.
A more "common sense" approach to human rights laws is needed by public bodies who sometimes misinterpret them, the Lord Chancellor is to say.
Lord Falconer has said the importance of the Human Rights Act has been "clouded by nonsense".
The Tories have said they would scrap the Act altogether claiming it is being abused by criminals.
But Lord Falconer said that if rulings do not make common sense, then the Act has been wrongly interpreted.
He will give a speech later at Manchester University, to set out a campaign to explain the Act to public rights workers.
It follows several reports of cases, where the rights of criminals appear to have been put above public safety.
These include a convicted paedophile being allowed to use a gym shared by school pupils and a suspected car thief who was served fried chicken during a 20-hour siege.
Lord Falconer told the BBC that was "absolute nonsense".
"Common sense would tell you are not entitled to food if you are running away from the police. You are not entitled to not have your photograph shown if you are a convicted murderer on the run."
He added: "What we are trying to do is to bust these myths".
Originally posted by Freedom ERP
And to think, we ran this country without a human rights act for hundreds of years.
What are the rights that prisoners have? Looking back at this thread, how do we know what rights should be taken away?
Two brothers have been jailed for killing a woman who was shot dead as she held her baby niece at a christening party. Timy and Diamond Babamuboni were sentenced as juveniles despite widespread doubts about their true ages.....
....It is thought the police may have thought that under the Human Rights Act they were not able to force the brothers to undergo the tests.....
....A spokeswoman for the Department of Constitutional Affairs told BBC Radio Five Live: "Nothing in the Human Rights Act prevents carrying out a dental check on a person who is suspected of carrying out a crime.
"On the contrary, the Act explicitly allows public authorities to interfere with an individual's right to privacy in the interests of public safety or for the prevention or detection of crime."
In order to prevent this from happening anymore shouldn’t the number one purpose of all British law be “to serve the interests of the British people”?