AOG - I have opined many times on the AB that, when someone opens a response with 'So ...' - it usually means that the response will indicate either that the original post has been misunderstood, or, as in this case, that the original post said something which it clearly did not say.
//So you are in favour of equal treatment for all prisoners regardless of whether they are TV licence dodgers, rapists, or mass murderers? //
No I am not in favour of equal treatment for all prisoners, and a firm indication of my disagreement is that I have never ever said that, and I did not say it in my post.
//Don't certain measures have to be taken for the smooth running of the Gaol, and the safely and well being of the rest of the prisoners?//
Absolutely, and that again is not argued by me - here or anywhere else.
The point of the issue is that the law was broken by the prison authorities - and they are not above the law.
Legislation applies to everyone under the justice system, and that is the point I was making.
It doesn't matter that the individuals may not appear deserving of the protection of the law, the fact remains that they are - and that is why their case was upheld.
Hope that has cleared up any misunderstanding.