A prisoner has effectively called the bluff of the Scottish Government by suing it for passive smoke exposure – paving the way for many more cases against the government if the prisoner wins.
Reading through the worst claims about secondary smoke, one can see why a prisoner (still exposed to secondary smoke because of exemptions built into the 2005 law) might be worried. The fact that not a single fatality has been identified should offer some reassurance, but a prisoner who lives in dread of smoking-related conditions (which all affect vital body organs) might still seek compensation – why not? (Madame Labate's case might give a reason why not – see most recent link above).
Which way will the Scottish courts fall on this one? Admit no harm, or expose the Scottish public to a bill for compensation?
Will this be a push towards banning smoking in prisons – effectively removing the smoking ban exemption in prisons (as ASH Scotland aims to do)?
Will this be a political decision or one based on the evidence?
8 comments:
I wouldn't be surprised if it's a put up job, the prisoner will take an out of court settlement and ASH and the Scottish govt get their way and extend their restrictions. What price the enforcement of an ideology? They can afford it. It isn't their money they are spending.
I'd be very surprised if it went the other way Pat.
Whatever happens true justice will not prevail as the Scottish courts will prove to be as crooked as the English courts!
If there is an out of court settlement then every other prisoner that believes that that have been exposed to SHS will jump on the bandwagon.
They won't keep on settling out of court.
When will the first English prisoner make their claim ?
If ALL the evidence were examined in detail by the Court then the Smoking Ban would END TOMORROW.
I'd like to believe that but I fear the prejudice of the courts and the investment in ensuring the general public believe the fraud of SHS at any cost. As a court reporter, I know one judge who threatens to fine smokers for any offence more than non-smokers because he hates smoking.
How would we ever be assured it was not yet another paid for result by the anti-smoker industry playing heavily on the prejudice of individual smokerphobic judges?
The SHS scam should never have got this far but here we are.
. What price the enforcement of an ideology? They can afford it. It isn't their money they are spending.
Post a Comment