British Prison Smoking Ban Riot Fears As 'Stability' Concerns Overshadow Health Implications

by Guest Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:23 pm

First topic message reminder :

Authorities in Australia thought they were "very ready" for a smoking ban to kick-in at a remand prison in the state of Victoria on July 1.
The ban came with 18-months notice and the government had worked with anti-smoking group Quit Victoria to tailor programs specifically for inmates. And it appeared to be working. On June 30, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported that just 10 percent of inmates would be going cold turkey when the ban came into force the following day. Previously, it was thought that 85 percent of them smoked, so if nothing else, before the ban even came into effect, authorities had cut smoking-rates by 75 percent. But that very day inmates at Ravenhall Prison chose a fitting way to let politicians in the nation's capital, Canberra, some 660km (410miles) away, know what they really thought of the ban - they sent a smoke signal. -Plumes of black smoke could be seen billowing from the correctional facility around midday, after fires were lit in cells, and outdoor wheelie bins were set ablaze. Two further fires were lit at the nearby Port Phillip Prison.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/27/riot-fears-over-uk-prison-smoking-ban_n_7879234.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Very interesting article with lots to read.
Smoking is most definately a privilege for a prisoner and I am stunned they are still allowed to smoke inside their cells.
Like everyone else throughout the UK there should be smoking areas outside for them. That would be the best compremise, but am stunned they have smoking privileges over law abiding citizens.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:21 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Still no answer

This is why you are so thick, what has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

I was done and served six months for the stupidity of footie violence

Still no answer

This is why you are so thick, what has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

by Raggamuffin Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:22 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Answer my question.

Still no answer

This is why you are so thick, what has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

Answer my question.

by Raggamuffin Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:22 am

Didge, are you likely to offend again?

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:23 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Still no answer

This is why you are so thick, what has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

Answer my question.

I asked you first.
Still no answer

This is why you are so thick, what has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:23 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, are you likely to offend again?

Still no answer

This is why you are so thick, what has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

by Raggamuffin Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:23 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Answer my question.
I asked you first.
Still no answer

This is why you are so thick, what has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

Didge, are you likely to offend again?

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:23 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:
I asked you first.
Still no answer

This is why you are so thick, what has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

Didge, are you likely to offend again?

Still no answer

This is why you are so thick, what has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

by Raggamuffin Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:24 am

Didge, are you likely to offend again?

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:25 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, are you likely to offend again?

Still no answer

This is why you are so thick, what has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

by Raggamuffin Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:28 am

Didge, you're clearly a prime example of someone who is not rehabilitated, and yet you described your crime as a "mistake". It was obviously in character for you, and so why should anyone give you another chance?

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:29 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, you're clearly a prime example of someone who is not rehabilitated, and yet you described your crime as a "mistake". It was obviously in character for you, and so why should anyone give you another chance?

Still no answer

This is why you are so thick, what has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

by Raggamuffin Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:39 am

So if someone was convicted of stealing money or of shoplifting, how likely would they be to get a job in a shop where they had access to money and goods?

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:40 am

Raggamuffin wrote:So if someone was convicted of stealing money or of shoplifting, how likely would they be to get a job in a shop where they had access to money and goods?

Still no answer

What has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

by Raggamuffin Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:49 am

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:50 am

Raggamuffin wrote:...

Still no answer

This is why you are so thick, what has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

by Raggamuffin Thu Aug 06, 2015 6:51 am

It worked!

British Prison Smoking Ban Riot Fears As 'Stability' Concerns Overshadow Health Implications - Page 4 3489511464

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:45 am

Raggamuffin wrote:It worked!

Still no answer

This is why you are so thick, what has rehabilitation got to do with protecting children s rights?

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:18 am

Raggamuffin wrote:I can't see all of that Veya - it's huge.

That's not a sentence you see every day!

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:21 am

Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, you're clearly a prime example of someone who is not rehabilitated, and yet you described your crime as a "mistake". It was obviously in character for you, and so why should anyone give you another chance?

We don't agree very often, but we do here. Didge's very frequent lapses into abusive behaviour confirm it. BTW, I don't think people get 6 months for a first ofference do they?

Plus, when an offender is given a determinate sentence, half of the sentence is served in custody and half of the sentence in the community, so was the sentence actually for a year?

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:26 am

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, you're clearly a prime example of someone who is not rehabilitated, and yet you described your crime as a "mistake". It was obviously in character for you, and so why should anyone give you another chance?

We don't agree very often, but we do here. Didge's very frequent lapses into abusive behaviour confirm it. BTW, I don't think people get 6 months for a first ofference do they?

laspes, not really just scum like you should be treated with utter contempt when you promote hate daily.
Like I said I am not standing for your intolerance and racial hatred against the Israeli's enough is enough.
Not that it is difficult to show up such an idiot such as yourself mind

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:29 am

Did someone fart, thought I heard a noise. Oh no, it just a general bad smell caused by 'This post was made by Cuchulain who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.'

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:35 am

sassy wrote:Did someone fart, thought I heard a noise. Oh no, it just a general bad smell caused by 'This post was made by Cuchulain who is currently on your ignore list. Display this post.'

It may help if you close your mouth as to where the foul stench is emulating from.

by Raggamuffin Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:37 am

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Didge, you're clearly a prime example of someone who is not rehabilitated, and yet you described your crime as a "mistake". It was obviously in character for you, and so why should anyone give you another chance?

We don't agree very often, but we do here. Didge's very frequent lapses into abusive behaviour confirm it. BTW, I don't think people get 6 months for a first ofference do they?

Plus, when an offender is given a determinate sentence, half of the sentence is served in custody and half of the sentence in the community, so was the sentence actually for a year?

I think it depends on the gravity of the offence and/or whether the person has committed a previous offence.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:39 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:

We don't agree very often, but we do here. Didge's very frequent lapses into abusive behaviour confirm it. BTW, I don't think people get 6 months for a first ofference do they?

Plus, when an offender is given a determinate sentence, half of the sentence is served in custody and half of the sentence in the community, so was the sentence actually for a year?

I think it depends on the gravity of the offence and/or whether the person has committed a previous offence.

that's the legal rule on sentencing, so someone who went to prison for 6 months would actually have a sentence of a year.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:41 am

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it depends on the gravity of the offence and/or whether the person has committed a previous offence.

that's the legal rule on sentencing, so someone who went to prison for 6 months would actually have a sentence of a year.

So funny when people speculate and clearly have not got a clue or place any view on the time frame when this happened.

But then two clowns love to talk shit as seen

by Raggamuffin Thu Aug 06, 2015 10:42 am

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it depends on the gravity of the offence and/or whether the person has committed a previous offence.

that's the legal rule on sentencing, so someone who went to prison for 6 months would actually have a sentence of a year.

That seems to be the case these days, yes.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:00 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:

that's the legal rule on sentencing, so someone who went to prison for 6 months would actually have a sentence of a year.

That seems to be the case these days, yes.

Plus, what is the cost to the taxpayer keeping someone in prison for 6 months? or police time apprehending them, (if it was footballl related he would not have been the only one) cost of bringing them to court etc. Who was hurt, and how hurt were they, did it effect them for life? How traumatised were they by it? Behind every act of criminal violence is a story.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:08 am

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

That seems to be the case these days, yes.

Plus, what is the cost to the taxpayer keeping someone in prison for 6 months? or police time apprehending them, (if it was footballl related he would not have been the only one) cost of bringing them to court etc. Who was hurt, and how hurt were they, did it effect them for life? How traumatised were they by it? Behind every act of criminal violence is a story.

Hilarious again, still clueless as to what actually happened.
The actual fact was I was in the clock end at Highbury and my nephew (he was 7) got hit on the head with a chair thrown by Spurs supporters and I lost it and laid into a few people. My sentence was reduced taking into consideration what happened to my nephew, but then you are such a thick idiot you would not understand anything.

by Raggamuffin Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:21 am

So the sentence would have been even longer.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:31 am

Cuchulain wrote:
sassy wrote:

Plus, what is the cost to the taxpayer keeping someone in prison for 6 months? or police time apprehending them, (if it was footballl related he would not have been the only one) cost of bringing them to court etc. Who was hurt, and how hurt were they, did it effect them for life? How traumatised were they by it? Behind every act of criminal violence is a story.

Hilarious again, still clueless as to what actually happened.
The actual fact was I was in the clock end at Highbury and my nephew (he was 7) got hit on the head with a chair thrown by Spurs supporters and I lost it and laid into a few people. My sentence was reduced taking into consideration what happened to my nephew, but then you are such a thick idiot you would not understand anything.

Thought I'd look as it was about you. Since when did people carry chairs to football matches? And a prison sentence for a first offence? Either it wasn't a first offence or you hurt somebody badly.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:32 am

sassy wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Hilarious again, still clueless as to what actually happened.
The actual fact was I was in the clock end at Highbury and my nephew (he was 7) got hit on the head with a chair thrown by Spurs supporters and I lost it and laid into a few people. My sentence was reduced taking into consideration what happened to my nephew, but then you are such a thick idiot you would not understand anything.

Thought I'd look as it was about you. Since when did people carry chairs to football matches? And a prison sentence for a first offence? Either it wasn't a first offence or you hurt somebody badly.

PMSL

They sit on seats at football matches you idiot, since when terraces were banned

And you wonder why I think you are a thick ---- ha ha ha ha

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:48 am

No they didn't, you stood in the terraces and the seats in the seated area were not moveable. Been to enough. You are a total liar.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:52 am

sassy wrote:No they didn't, you stood in the terraces and the seats in the seated area were not moveable. Been to enough. You are a total liar.

Ha ha ha ha you really are one thick ----.

In 1993 the Clockend was turned to all seats, as was the rest of the ground.
So you are talking out of your arse and the seats are easy to rip up and here is an example from recent times for you dummy

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/arsenal-vs-galatasaray-travelling-fans-rip-out-seats-at-the-emirates-9773447.html

I love making you look an even bigger ----, its great fun

Razz

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:53 am

And the seats were not moveable. So you are saying this was after 1993?

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:53 am

What sasy claims is impossible:

British Prison Smoking Ban Riot Fears As 'Stability' Concerns Overshadow Health Implications - Page 4 Emirates

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:55 am

sassy wrote:And the seats were not moveable. So you are saying this was after 1993?

It was in 1995 in a game with Spurs, I was or used to be a season ticket holder, where we sat 3 seats away from the away fans.
The seats were easy to rip up, you are just one thick ---- as easily seen ha ha ha ha ha
Of course if your nephew of 7 had been hit on the head you would not be outraged I bet, lying twat.

by Raggamuffin Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:58 am

Cuchulain wrote:
sassy wrote:And the seats were not moveable. So you are saying this was after 1993?

It was in 1995 in an evening game with Spurs, I was or used to be a season ticket holder, where we sat 3 seats away from the away fans.
The seats were easy to rip up, you are just one thick ---- as easily seen ha ha ha ha ha
Of course if your nephew of 7 had been hit on the head you would not be outraged I bet, lying twat.

You weren't very young then.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:59 am

But they would not have sent you to prison for a first offence if you were defending your nephew, and as you said they reduced it because of your nephew, it must have been quite bad and not a first offence.

And you show your temper and your abusive nature on here all the time, so you haven't changed one bit. In fact, the way you bring sex into your abusive makes me really wonder.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:59 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

It was in 1995 in an evening game with Spurs, I was or used to be a season ticket holder, where we sat 3 seats away from the away fans.
The seats were easy to rip up, you are just one thick ---- as easily seen ha ha ha ha ha
Of course if your nephew of 7 had been hit on the head you would not be outraged I bet, lying twat.

You weren't very young then.

Young enough

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 11:59 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

It was in 1995 in an evening game with Spurs, I was or used to be a season ticket holder, where we sat 3 seats away from the away fans.
The seats were easy to rip up, you are just one thick ---- as easily seen ha ha ha ha ha
Of course if your nephew of 7 had been hit on the head you would not be outraged I bet, lying twat.

You weren't very young then.

Obviously not.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:02 pm

Oh, BTW, if it was after the 1993 remodeling, when it was made an all seater, crowd segregation was put into place, so who did you trample on to get to the other fans?

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:02 pm

sassy wrote:But they would not have sent you to prison for a first offence if you were defending your nephew, and as you said they reduced it because of your nephew, it must have been quite bad and not a first offence.

And you show your temper and your abusive nature on here all the time, so you haven't changed one bit. In fact, the way you bring sex into your abusive makes me really wonder.

What did you not understand about how I lost it?
can you contemplate what I did due to the anger?

I will ignore the sex claim part as now you are just being a real ignorant ---- as per usual

If I met you sassy I would just laugh in your face and then start humming a rolling stones song.

Laughing

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:03 pm

sassy wrote:Oh, BTW, if it was after the 1993 remodeling, when it was made an all seater, crowd segregation was put into place, so who did you trample on to get to the other fans?

Which shows you have never been to highbury

All that seperated the fans was some sterwards and some Police on a walkway.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:10 pm

So you went through the police and the stewards?

How many of them did you hurt?

And frankly if my nephew had been hit on the head by a chair, obviously thrown from some distance, I'd be more worried about getting him to hospital.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:13 pm

sassy wrote:So you went through the police and the stewards?

That had alerady happened when the spurs fans rushed forward throwing chairs.
You have no idea do you?

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:14 pm

sassy wrote:So you went through the police and the stewards?

How many of them did you hurt?

And frankly if my nephew had been hit on the head by a chair, obviously thrown from some distance, I'd be more worried about getting him to hospital.

His father and mother did take him to hospital.
We all used to go together, many from my family to watch Arsenal.
Did you think his dad was not there?

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:19 pm

I still be at the hospital with him, not causing more trouble for the police and stewards. And as I said, taking that into account, you must have done some real damage to get that sentence if it was reduced.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:20 pm

sassy wrote:I still be at the hospital with him, not causing more trouble for the police and stewards. And as I said, taking that into account, you must have done some real damage to get that sentence if it was reduced.

You have no comprehension what family means, if you did you would understand.
What you would do is irrelevant.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:28 pm

What you mean is, your temper got the better of you and you really hurt someone. I'd be worrying about my family and would let the police deal with the thugs, because I wouldn't want my family worrying about me as well as the child.

My family have always depended on me seeing them through their troubles, which is why I know my responsiblity would be to them, and would not be selfishly indulging my temper to give them something else to worry about.

by Guest Thu Aug 06, 2015 12:35 pm

sassy wrote:What you mean is, your temper got the better of you and you really hurt someone. I'd be worrying about my family and would let the police deal with the thugs, because I wouldn't want my family worrying about me as well as the child.

My family have always depended on me seeing them through their troubles, which is why I know my responsiblity would be to them, and would not be selfishly indulging my temper to give them something else to worry about.

You have never experinced such a situation, so what you claim to do is all speculative nonsense.
When you have been involved in such a situation, then come back and talk about it. So when you claim to say what you would do in the heat of such a situation is utter nonsense.

by Sponsored content