Prisoner wins £7,500 payout over forced X-ray body scans

HAYSIE

https://uk.yahoo.com/news/prisoner-wins-7-500-payout-182112060.html

Essexphil

The Telegraph. Yet again. Ignoring the actual facts. In order to seek to create division. Mote the wording "won" £7,500..."launched" legal action, and so on.

This is a very simple case. Full body scanners involve a small risk to anyone undergoing them. A bit like having an X-ray at the Dentist.

There are clear rules as to when a full X-ray body scan should be carried out. In short, it must not be random, and should only be carried out when there is specific and credible intelligence to suggest the need for it in this particular instance. To give the Dentist example, a need for the X-ray-not just every time the Dentist feels like it.

That is not only the official Governmental guideline. It is also the specific ruling given by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman-

https://ppo.gov.uk/news/x-ray-scanning-complaint-upheld/

The Prison in this case is a privately-run prison. Run by G4S. It decided to completely ignore the guidelines, and introduce its own. Not only introducing random testing whenever it felt like it, but threatening prisoners who did not wish to comply.

The simple question should be this. Why did G4S feel entitled to ignore the guidelines. And has the person responsible lost their job?

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

The Telegraph. Yet again. Ignoring the actual facts. In order to seek to create division. Mote the wording "won" £7,500..."launched" legal action, and so on.

This is a very simple case. Full body scanners involve a small risk to anyone undergoing them. A bit like having an X-ray at the Dentist.

There are clear rules as to when a full X-ray body scan should be carried out. In short, it must not be random, and should only be carried out when there is specific and credible intelligence to suggest the need for it in this particular instance. To give the Dentist example, a need for the X-ray-not just every time the Dentist feels like it.

That is not only the official Governmental guideline. It is also the specific ruling given by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman-

https://ppo.gov.uk/news/x-ray-scanning-complaint-upheld/

The Prison in this case is a privately-run prison. Run by G4S. It decided to completely ignore the guidelines, and introduce its own. Not only introducing random testing whenever it felt like it, but threatening prisoners who did not wish to comply.

The simple question should be this. Why did G4S feel entitled to ignore the guidelines. And has the person responsible lost their job?

Good point.
Perhaps you should be advising them.

HAYSIE

HAYSIE said:

Essexphil said:

The Telegraph. Yet again. Ignoring the actual facts. In order to seek to create division. Mote the wording "won" £7,500..."launched" legal action, and so on.

This is a very simple case. Full body scanners involve a small risk to anyone undergoing them. A bit like having an X-ray at the Dentist.

There are clear rules as to when a full X-ray body scan should be carried out. In short, it must not be random, and should only be carried out when there is specific and credible intelligence to suggest the need for it in this particular instance. To give the Dentist example, a need for the X-ray-not just every time the Dentist feels like it.

That is not only the official Governmental guideline. It is also the specific ruling given by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman-

https://ppo.gov.uk/news/x-ray-scanning-complaint-upheld/

The Prison in this case is a privately-run prison. Run by G4S. It decided to completely ignore the guidelines, and introduce its own. Not only introducing random testing whenever it felt like it, but threatening prisoners who did not wish to comply.

The simple question should be this. Why did G4S feel entitled to ignore the guidelines. And has the person responsible lost their job?

Good point.
Perhaps you should be advising them.

Who will be paying the 7.5k?

HAYSIE

Essexphil said:

The Telegraph. Yet again. Ignoring the actual facts. In order to seek to create division. Mote the wording "won" £7,500..."launched" legal action, and so on.

This is a very simple case. Full body scanners involve a small risk to anyone undergoing them. A bit like having an X-ray at the Dentist.

There are clear rules as to when a full X-ray body scan should be carried out. In short, it must not be random, and should only be carried out when there is specific and credible intelligence to suggest the need for it in this particular instance. To give the Dentist example, a need for the X-ray-not just every time the Dentist feels like it.

That is not only the official Governmental guideline. It is also the specific ruling given by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman-

https://ppo.gov.uk/news/x-ray-scanning-complaint-upheld/

The Prison in this case is a privately-run prison. Run by G4S. It decided to completely ignore the guidelines, and introduce its own. Not only introducing random testing whenever it felt like it, but threatening prisoners who did not wish to comply.

The simple question should be this. Why did G4S feel entitled to ignore the guidelines. And has the person responsible lost their job?

Do you not think that this is a valid story?