Today's news that an incarcerated paedophile is lining up the Scottish legal system for a battering is most exciting for this case (long time coming) will have the legal system in knots. In fact, I can envisage clumps of horse hair syrups flying all over the place as the defence tries to prove that passive smoking is NOT dangerous at all and therefore no harm can have been occasioned.
This result will of course ensure that Mahmood Qadri’s dreams of benefiting to the tune of ten grand are well and truly shattered-as is right. Why should this perverted 'kiddy fiddler' even be allowed to claim when he in the clink for serious wrong doings in the first place!
"Because sir, it is the law-and he is entitled to use the law just as anyone else is!"
Apparently there is a prison population of 7,800 in Scotland, with only 1,600 being non smokers! I'll bet Sheila Duffy would love to spend a few nights in Barlinnie sorting the smokers out, though I rather fancy the smokers would sort her out-desperate as many of them must be for a little bit of female company! (paper bag springs to mind)
The question arises however that if there are only 1,600 non smoking prisoners (less than 25%) why haven't they simply set aside a couple of prisons so as to segregate the poor wee darlin's? Have the Scottish Parliament not even thought of that possibility? After all, it makes perfect sense to me.
As the article states, if 'pervy pete' wins this case it will set a precedent for the other 1,599 non smoking inmates, which, apart from all legal fees considered, adds up to a tasty £16m. All because of a wisp of smoke-hahahahahahahaha!
But, my friends, the legal ramifications do not stop with the terrible prospect of 'dishing out loadsa dosh', oh no, let's delve a little further shall we?
Case found unproven-upon what grounds? The only grounds that can base an unproven result on are, quite simply, that passive smoking is harmless!
Pardon your worship, lordship, head of the syrup brigade, could you repeat that please?
For the defence (the crown) to win, they have to prove that SHS is harmless: in other words they have to denounce everything that ASH (DUFFY) and all the other lying, scheming, manipulating, fabricating, deceitful bastards have thrown at governments to ensure smoking bans were enacted in the first place. OH JOY!
According to all the crap we have seen and recorded over the past 5 years, the merest wisp of tobacco smoke should be enough to cause cardiac arrest, emphysema, severe bronchial disorders - and a whole heap of deaths! In fact, how come Scotland still has so many smoking inmates? Shouldn't they have already wiped each other out with smoke? And there is your proof folks! More than 75% of the prison population have/are surviving happily puffing away and doing their time so how can 'pervey pete' even have a case?
One thing for sure, this will have enormous ramifications! For law is law, even though the judiciary try to twist it every which way they can to suit their own ends.
Just remember this, Mdme Kay Labat took her case to the EU courts as her dearly departed had worked in a smokey environment for 27/28 years. They kicked her claim out as "Manifestly Unfounded", ie, SHS could not have possible killed him therefore there was no case to answer. She got nothing for all her troubles.
I think we need to keep our eyes on this one folks as this will be very, very interesting indeed!
3 comments:
I would like to know given the EU Courts findings why their decision has Not been expanded on, it would take away the likes of ASH's "claims" and undermine any smoke bans.Maybe the Scottish courts need to know about the EU findinds and decision.
Tug.
On the contrary Tug, we need to sit back and see which way this is played my friend. We know what the EU courts stated-now we need to see what the Scottish courts say!
It is a rather delicious irony! Perhaps someone like Dave Atherton should offer his knowledge and expertise on the subject to the Crown defence - as an expert witness.
Ha! Yes, it could be an interesting result. If it goes against Quadri then that obviously opens up a real possibility of a legal challenge to the smoking bans.
Post a Comment