A ‘Chity’ blood system

This is about a chit-system operated by the National Blood Transfusion Service on your fav Rock, which has been problematic for decades, and how its suspension caused chaos. Why should this be of any importance to you? Well, if you’re unfortunate enough to be haemorrhaging as a result of a serious road traffic accident on the Rock, or some violent assault on your person, and you were in desperate need of a blood transfusion, the last thing you would want to worry about is whether you would actually get a life-saving blood transfusion (leaving aside obvious exceptions such as being a Jehovah's Witness).

In synopsis the blood-banking system in T&T had operated a chit-system. Basically if your relative or friend needed elective surgery (planned surgery) and was likely to need a blood transfusion in that surgery, a bunch of family (aka famaly) and friends would descend on a collection unit somewhere and donate pints of blood. No – your relative would not get the same blood donated by those famaly and friends. It’s a bank, after all. Donated blood has to be tested carefully before it goes into the blood bank and that takes some time. In addition blood donated by friends and famaly are not guaranteed to match that of the individual requiring surgery. So, they get somebody else’s blood quite possibly and there is nothing strange or unusual about that. Chits would be issued to guarantee that if they needed a blood transfusion they would be entitled to a minimum of the quantity of blood donated.

You don't need to be highly intelligent or to be a haematologist to figure out that Rock-crawlers would seek to exploit the system by selling their chits on the ‘black market’ (illegal as it is). All of the Rock requires some 65,000 units annually however the average annual donation has only been around 20,000. Clearly this means that demand for blood is exceedingly high. Those circumstances clearly predict that certain kinds of despicable people would seek to profit from that kind of demand. The problem was not a new one and was cited in Newsday in December 2007, when a woman who was in need of surgery was asked by a donor to pay $700. I knew personally, that the serious shortage of donated blood on that Rock existed back in 1986, when I myself donated blood in Port-of-Spain Gen Hospital. In fact as a young child it was not uncommon to see a public alert on TV, begging for blood donations. On occasion my parents would be called up to donate blood. I recall at least one occasion when my father left home in the middle of the night to donate O-negative blood. That must have been 40 years ago!!

The chit system was suspended in January 2011. That led to a national crisis in the transfusion service i.e. there was a severe shortage of blood, as donations fell sharply. There was national outrage. But hey, there was bigger news than a blood shortage around that time – right? See $$ For Blood (2011-03-26). A Newsday (2011-04-09) editorial said, "We cannot fathom the logic in breaking this link between a donor and the intended recipient. Human nature is not infinitely altruistic, so no one is going to repeatedly donate blood in the name of a loved one only for it to be repeatedly diverted to unknown persons.” A medical lab technician, Justin Sankar, was quoted in that editorial as saying, “We have lost over 500 units of blood per month as a result of the ‘no-chit system’ so we need to build up the reserves."

The then Minister of Health, Therese Baptiste-Cornelis, in April 2011, said “What you had was false chits out there, blood being sold, people were not receiving the blood. We were getting medical aid requests to buy blood. Just recently I had an MP write me for someone trying to recuperate $6,000 he spent to buy three pints of blood, but then he didn’t need the blood which had already been donated. He wanted me to give him the three pints back to him, or to give him back the $6,000”. Whilst reports were awaited by folk in the Ministry of Health, elective surgeries were cancelled in their numbers and poor people suffered. There was real stress for people requiring urgent surgery; worrying whether they would have life saving emergency transfusions. Most certainly the illegal bartering of blood-chits continued well below the radar of the law. When it’s your money or your life – you’ll quicker part with the money, I think.

Dr Kenneth Charles, formerly head of the National Blood Transfusion service (known colloquially as the ‘Blood Bank’), wrote in the Trinidad Guardian of 2011-06-07 outlining the reasons why the chit system by which 90% of all blood in collected, was, "unsafe, unethical, expensive, permissive of illegal activity and inconsistent international standards for public safety." Importantly Dr Charles noted that, “The US Department of State through its travel advisory warns its citizens that, should they need a blood transfusion in T&T, they would be expected to have at least the equivalent amount donated on their behalf.” This is factually correct [US State Dept]. Dr Charles had published research in Feb 2010 on the particular problem of a high blood-donor deferral (i.e. rejection) on the Rock. In summary high-risk sexual activity,  low haemoglobin  (the red colouring in blood) and high-blood pressure accounted for just over one-third of rejections. In particular 44.5% of female donors were rejected due to low haemoglobin i.e. weak blood. Those research findings were on the existing chit system, suffering as it was with such a high donor-rejection rate. So, any sudden shock to the system was bound to make things worse.

The Guardian Editorial of 2011-06-06 said quite rightly, “The sudden shift from a decades old and readily understood system of blood donation based on banking metaphor to a completely new procedure based on altruism represented such an abrupt shift in perception that the sharp drop in blood donations was inevitable. Most donors found out that their chits were useless when they came to give blood and that’s an inexcusable lapse in public communication. By failing to articulate these critical changes clearly with the public, its most essential resource, the Ministry of Health missed a critical window of positive engagement with the community most critical to a continuing blood supply at the Blood Bank. After the sharp drop in donations, the Ministry of Health managed to put itself in the position of both having to explain its new position while trying to win donors back to the Transfusion Service.”

I pause for a moment – to say that if all the above is stale news to you, that’s fine. However, I am sure that there are hundreds if not thousands of people on the Rock who did not appreciate how serious the situation is. What can I (Captain Walker) do about it? Nothing!! More importantly for those living on the Rock is “What can and ought you to be doing about it?” When was the last time you wrote to, or met your MP to outline an issue of national importance? So – my actions are limited to motivating you to do something. You may consider some means of writing to your MP, explaining your individual concern arising. That is the proper way in your system of government to effect change – instead of the march mentality.

Right so what happened next? Well Baptiste-Cornellis got the nudge (for reasons we shall not distract ourselves about) and in comes Dr Fuad Khan to the rescue [Guardian 2011-07-03]. He then declares, “I believe in the chit system. In fact, I indicated to the Permanent Secretary that we go back to the chit system. The families of people who are having surgery will be able to use the chit system to get blood and any spill over will be used on the other patients..” So – that which is “unsafe, unethical, expensive, permissive of illegal activity and inconsistent international standards for public safety” according to Dr Charles, is the thing that Fuad Khan, “believes in”. Many a Rock-crawler will now conclude, that Dr Charles was wrong! Ah mean tuh say the Minister of Health wouldn’t be promoting something that Dr Charles has clearly described as ‘unacceptable’. I know the Rock-way outta dis. You simply say they are both right – and both wrong at the same time!! Ah good eh?  And daize it!! Allyuh back tuh 40-odd years ago! What more you want meh tuh say, dat dey spinning top in mud? Lemme keep quiet oui. Jess joking…yuh know ah cyah keep quiet.

Well, in parting, some will have become disturbed that I’m merely slinging mud at people about things they already know. That’s not something I would find to be a constructive use of my time. I’ve taken the effort above to pull together evidence about an issue that successive regimes and dozens of experts in their fields have known about for decades. They know the problem and after at least 40 years they can’t solve it. Why? That is my issue. Dr Charles probably has the expertise to solve the situation. But I’m betting that he would find his hands tied if he tried. And I’m betting that many like him in other parts of the health service would have felt their hands similarly tied. Why? Why must the pace of change be so circular or glacial in speed? The obstacles are not ‘physical’ – and I assert they are of the worse kind. They are non-physical. It’s the thing that you cannot touch that restrains progress that you need to worry about. So my ‘mission’ as some will call it – in this post – is really about one thing, for people on and off the Rock to reflect and better see the things that restrain progress. If only they can see these things perhaps they will be better able to confront them. Now put away your placard.. and pick up a pen and paper or computer or whatever and write your MP (on any issue of national importance, that disturbs you).

The Essence of the Subconscious–Part Two

In my last post, regarding the clear conflict of the expressed thoughts (on the Express website) with logic, reasoning and critical thinking skills, I wrote:

People fail to see that the rape by (and imprisonment) of the perpetrator is a separate and different issue to the beating he suffered at the hands of a prisons officer, who is charged with the duty to protect and safeguard said prisoner during his incarceration. In the eyes of the law, the prisons officer has a duty of care (a legal term) towards each and every prisoner under his watch.

Now this post definitely is not a rehash of that, but rather how our subconscious deludes us… what the Captain calls ‘substrata’ has clearly affected the minds of the population.

The night after I had that running argument on the Express website, I was reading a book called “Blink– The Power of Thinking Without Thinking” by Malcolm Gladwell. I shall refer to the book as simply “Blink”.

A  side note:

Lately, I’ve been exploring books of this nature, such as books by Edward de Bono, (“regarded by many to be the leading authority in the world in the field of creative thinking and the direct teaching of thinking as a skill. He has written 62 books with translations into 37 languages and has been invited to lecture in 54 countries. He is the originator of lateral thinking which treats creativity as the behaviour of information in a self-organising information system - such as the neural networks in the brain. From such a consideration arise the deliberate and formal tools of lateral thinking, parallel thinking etc.”).

In “Blink”, Gladwell explores how the subconscious, the substrata, is instrumental in affecting our thinking processes, usually unknown to us… and yes, I know the Captain has pointed that out time and time again… maybe he wasn’t as clear as Gladwell. (^_^)

In any event, it got me thinking, whether being IN a situation affects our ability to clearly see what the realities of that situation is. Specifically, I wonder if those on Monkey Island are so affected by living IN Monkey Island, that they cannot see clearly how their behaviour is affected to the extent that their thought processes are out of whack. What I/we see as deviant behaviour, is it really, to them? Because they seem to accept things I/we don't.

Alternatively, I wondered if they were simply not up to speed on critical thinking skills, something I’ve been pushing myself lately to absorb through websites like Austhink. Or are they simply reacting emotionally, letting the emotions cloud rational thought?

Alternatively, is the reaction I see daily an attempt to ‘fit in’?

Whatever the reason, it is definitely fascinating to see how the mind of a Monkey Islander works, and how it changes and develops with exposure to the outside world.

‘Runaway’ from common sense and virtue

The owner and contributors to this blog do not condone or promote viewing of pornographic material. However, it is asserted dispassionately that the proper evaluation of the form, content and intent of certain videos in question can only be undertaken by looking at the video material.

Over the last two weeks or so people on the Rock and in various parts of the world have been celebrating Anya Ayoung-Chee’s success at the Project Runaway contest. I – as many will expect – have been less than impressed. In fact I am ashamed again to be associated with that Rock or to think that Anya Ayoung-Chee would represent the Rock or its values. Some will know or think they know, what I’m going to say. That ignorant mind-reading ‘some’ may move on swiftly. Nothing cures them but direct pain and suffering. Some of you will see only ‘sex’ in this post; you’re so obsessed with sex – that you can’t see into any deeper issue that may be related to ‘sex’. I hope the rest of you can get past the issue of ‘sex’ and see the more salient issues.

Well, it should be no surprise that the impetus for my analysis is Anya Ayoung-Chee’s sex tapes, but not merely the ‘making of the tapes’. Immediately a majority of you will be thinking “Well, it’s her private tapes.. so what’s the big issue?” – as if to imply that I’m making something out of nothing. And another majority of you will be thinking, “Big deal, lots of women are making private porn videos – so what!” So in essence the defence of Anya Ayoung-Chee actions seems to rest on 1. It was her private tapes. 2. Everybody does it (i.e. it’s common practice). The important issues are whether those are facts, opinion or mere rumour. Today (4th November 2011), I summarised all that’s below and asked a very level headed English woman what she thought. I’ll give you that later.

I have searched the internet several times over the last few days to tease out the following issues:

1. How does a private sex tape end up on the internet?
2. How do we know that the tapes were ‘private’?

Before I take issue with the two main lines of argument for ‘the making of the sex tapes’ I want to say that I am very disturbed about what this whole issue means for young women on the Rock and in other parts of the world.

Private sex tapes

I want to put you in a zone of discomfort. I want to say that the vast majority of you in my estimation, haven’t evaluated the content and nature of the sex tapes. To be blunt you have not seen the content and form of the tapes. I assert that most of you have been led to think the tapes are ‘private’ and not designed for public consumption.

Where did you get those ideas from? Think carefully. I’m pretty certain, that it’s what you’ve been told. Perhaps it’s something you picked up in the media. And who’s given the story to the media that the tapes were ‘private’? Ahhhhh…. now you’re thinking.

Wyatt Gallery, the male involved in the explicit sexual acts – supposedly ex-boyfriend of Anya – was reported to say: “I feel horrible and embarrassed for Anya, her family and myself, because this was a private moment that was never supposed to be made public. This was an intentional, malicious sabotage against Anya and her career, and I feel stupid for not deleting the files off of my computer."

I had originally drafted this post with a link to the sex tapes. I have omitted the link for one simple reason. Google will ‘X-rate’ this site quite probably if I put such a link. So those who wish to evaluate the tapes for non-erotic purposes, may find them by Googling the following words ‘Xvideo Anya Ayoung-Chee’ – just like that (no quotes), and see what comes up. I am not encouraging anyone to look at porn – I’m simply saying if you wish to evaluate this issue properly there is hardly a way to do it without actually finding and looking at the videos in question.

Woooo..hooooooh… suddenly many will have an attack of an ‘over-developed’ conscience and will now be thinking, “I don’t see why I have to look at what wasn’t meant for me.. and what if it was my sex tapes would I want it out there and people oogling them?” That’s a very good question. Hold on to it. But note the assumption in your thinking that the videos were ‘private’ . You don’t know factually that they were private! Then you will argue, “Even if they’re not private, I have no business looking at porn – you perv!” Hey, I’m not forcing you to look at porn – and you need to stop being so judgemental. I’ve only looked at parts of these videos for seconds, to assess the issues I have set out above. I saw nothing sexually arousing in them. Those who are likely to be aroused or fearful of being aroused, are the true pervs in all this!

But some of you managed to pic out a few of the sex tapes in question from Xvideo. And whoops - many of you will have seen the intro picture of the video with Anya Ayoung-Chee holding on to an erect penis and about to perform oral sex on it – then had a sudden attack of fear, leading to you closing down the page. Others will secretly have gone further and skimmed through parts of these tapes and quickly came to a view that those are ‘private’ matters. And this is the point, you don’t see what you don’t want to see. You therefore miss the anal sex scenes in a well lit room, with another female commenting “Hot.. hot” – as being a display.. a production! Ignorance is bliss. Perhaps you don’t want to see this, because the real issue is that you don’t want anything to cause you to believe the opposite of what you currently believe.

However, if you are a person who thinks deeply and widely about issues you may wish to consider the following:

1. The total duration of the tapes is about an hour.
2. The scenes appear to involve another female. What’s private about that?
3. In total, three people at least were involved in these videos. They took turns at filming each other.
4. There is such a sense of confidence and lack of discomfort in performing these sexual acts in front of a video camera? One might have thought that for an intimate and private love scene that there would be more ‘hesitance’  or diffidence, especially with a camera in the room? But no – we see her/them playing to the camera.
5. Isn’t there an obvious lack of emotional attachment in all of these scenes? If you think so, what does that tell you? That this is private and meant to remain private? You must be the most naive person on earth.
6. Notice that she doesn’t gag when deep-throating down to hilt, on that rather large penis? Think about it. The natural physiological response is to gag! Go on try doing it with a banana or a carrot – stick it down your throat and see what happens. Any deep-throat experts out there want to educate us more on this?
7. How does the video get from a computer out on to the internet? Does it just leap out of the computer? Hackers – that’s the one that Rock crawlers go for – without a shred of evidence that hackers had anything to do with it. Oh it was the boyfriend or whatever that done it?

Runaway sex tapes

Now I come to how these tapes ‘escaped’ the confines of their computer. It was reported in The Hollywood Grind that Wyatt Gallery – the male in question, in the videos – took the computer for repairs in Trinidad and the videos were stolen and therefore unlawfully reproduced on the internet. He reportedly said, “I feel horrible and embarrassed for Anya, her family and myself, because this was a private moment that was never supposed to be made public. This was an intentional, malicious sabotage against Anya and her career, and I feel stupid for not deleting the files off of my computer." So that’s how they got out? Well if you believe that utter nonsense, you will also believe that Prince Charles is my brother! Well, certainly Hollywood Grind doesn’t believe it and they say, “As for Gallery’s claim the video was stolen from his laptop when he took it to a Trinidad computer shop for repairs, we don’t believe it”.

Now I mean to stretch your brain to breaking point.

1. What action has Gallery and Ayoung-Chee taken to stop these now illegally acquired videos from further distribution, from day one? I’ve seen no reports about them considering or taking legal measures to stop these videos from being reproduced.
2. Surely Gallery would know the computer shop he took the computer to – and could engage Anya to sue the shop and any other organisation that reproduced those videos.
3. Are there more videos? It is a fair point to wonder about, someone who is not in the slightest shy of deep-throating on  camera, could possibly have had much practise and possibly have made many more similar videos.
4. For a person of previously proper character the damages to be settled in court could be in the millions – unless I speculate, there is more damage to be caused by suing. Think ‘breach of privacy’ and ‘defamation’. You may wish to think about Ulrika Jonsson case, where she went to court to block the release of a privately made sex tape.
5. Could the whole matter have been dropped so as not to raise a hornet’s nest? What nest? Well, apparently the tapes were made before she took part in the beauty pageant. If so, any digging into the origins of the tapes – in a court say by defence lawyers -  was bound to cause real trouble. 
6. Does ‘everybody’ make sex tapes – as we are lead to believe? I say that that is utter garbage, an attempt to trivialise the situation, and make light of very important moral issues.
7. What percentage of couples make sex tapes? I don’t know and I couldn’t find an authoritative and reliable answer on Google.
8. What about celebs and sex tapes? Well it seems that celebs are really big on sex tapes and many actually enhance their careers for producing these tapes.  See how Paris Hilton profited from her notoriety.

Having thought about it from all different angles I am unable to see that the sex tapes of Anya in the company of others were either private or not designed for eventual public distribution. I’m happy to change my mind if a set of reasons or evidence emerges that will compel me to think differently. My female English colleague, mentioned at the start of this article, blurted out, “She did it to gain popularity and enhance her profile”. I think that that sentiment is one shared by a body of opinion that is hesitant to say so on the Rock. Off the Rock, people are more open and honest about these matters, I suspect. I’m not particularly interested in her motives for doing what she did. 

There are bigger and deeper issues. Whilst these emerge from ‘sex’ or porn, they are not primarily about those issues. I assert that we must examine moral values in relation to sexual conduct. I’m concerned about the following general issues in relation to all women who would do similar. (The word ‘general’ is most important because I am unable to discuss A A-C’s personal situation. Just to be even clearer, my questions are not directed at A A-C even if some think they are.)

1. What are young women to think about all this? Should they accept that sexual exhibitionism is a good and acceptable way to gain power and wealth?
2. Should a women sell their souls by producing sex tapes?
3. What kind of respect do men have, or should have for women?
4. Do women of today collectively have a greater lack of self-respect and self-esteem?
5. Are people who make sex tapes appropriate role models for young people?
6. Is the accidental distribution of supposedly private sex tapes an new ploy to gain fame and fortune?
7. Which self-respecting parent would be happy with such a disrespect for moral values and would relish seeing their daughter in such videos, or knowing that such videos are floating around out there?
8. Which mother would be happy to bless their son to marry someone who has been in such a situation?
9. Is it acceptable for a female prime minister, doctor or judge to be involved in making sex tapes, and allowing their distribution, under a guise that they were private and not for public consumption?

(I feel a need to re-iterate, that even if the impetus for the above considerations arise from ‘sex’ and porn' there are deeper moral and societal issues for consideration).

The essence of the subconscious - part one

There is something peculiar about the mind-set of a typical Monkey Islander. Take this article in the Daily Express for example. The essential facts as reported are as follows:

A convicted rapist sentenced to serve a 25-year jail term has been awarded $120,000 by a Port of Spain High Court Judge.

Justice Judith Jones on Friday awarded Kernel Sealy $100,000 in general damages inclusive of aggravated damages and $20,000 in exemplary damages. The sums awarded will carry interest in the sum of 6 per cent from October 29,2010. Costs of $27,000 were also awarded.

During the ruling, a stern-sounding Jones expressed alarm over the treatment meted out to Sealy at the hands of a prison officer. More so, Jones expressed dissatisfaction that taxpayers will once again have to bear the costs of unnecessary force used by the prison officer.

Stating, there have been high instances of brutality by police and prison officers, Jones said something needed to be done to curb such occurrences.

Noting, that she accepted Sealy's defence of what occurred, Jones said this was backed by medical documents supplied to the court, which showed the extent of injuries Sealy suffered to the head.

"Two things stood out in the evidence-the nature of the wound and how the wound came to be,"Jones said. Adding the prison officer "did not present to be a credible and was an unhelpful witness," Jones described the officer's evidence as "incredulous."

It was Sealy's case that on July 23, last year, he was in a cell at the State Golden Grove Prison when he and another inmate got into an altercation over a pail.

The inmate attacked Sealy and both men started fighting. Prison officers on seeing what was happening approached the duo and started beating them with a riot stave

Sealy told the court "I was begging the officers not to hit me because I did not do anything wrong but they just continued beating me and the other inmate.

"I was hit a number of times all over my body, on my legs and arms and in my belly and back. I fell to the ground while the officers were beating me. I think I black out for a few moments and when I revived I remember passing my hand to the back of my head and seeing blood all over my hands and the floor. The officers had hit me to the back of my head and buss my head real bad. There was blood all over the ground and on my body," Sealy testified.

Sealy said he was able to identify one of the officers. The officer in his defence told the court he did not notice any injuries to Sealy and proffered the explanation that Sealy's injuries came as a result of Sealy hitting against the wall of the prison during his fight.

Sealy, alias "Stone", 35, a rigger, of Sherwood Park, Arima, was found guilty by a nine member jury of rape, buggery, grievous sexual assault and common assault.

Now, the punishment for Sealy  - for the rape - was a sentence of imprisonment, of 25 years. Full stop! That was what the court deemed just for the crime that he perpetrated. 25 years in prison is a very long time, especially living under the conditions that are present in the prisons of Trinidad and Tobago. They have actually been described as ‘sub-human’!

Now Sealy was beaten by a prisons officer (PO), whom the judge described as not a "credible witness" and his given evidence as "incredulous". The judge just did not believe the PO. The sum awarded reflected the injuries received, and likely a punitive value as well, not for Sealy but to reflect the atrocious actions of the PO.

Lo and behold, the comments on the Express webpage, coming fast and furious, reflect such a paucity of thinking that I am appalled. For example:

crime continues to pay. man rapes. man is convicted and incarcerated. man is treated by prison officers equal to his crime. judge disagrees. judge awards man handsome comfort money. judge rules that comfort money must bear interest. the interest born by comfort money at 6 percent is 30 times greater than commercial interest rates which average zero point 2 percent. thus crime pays. "Sealey, alias "Stone", 35, a rigger, of Sherwood Park, Arima, was found guilty by a nine member jury of rape, buggery, grievous sexual assault and common assault," will surely be out of lockup soon to enjoy his loot complements taxpayers including the victim.

And this:

What The Helll Wrong With This Judge A Rapist Should Have No Rights

And this:

What is wrong with beating the shiiiiit out of convicted rapists? Did the rapist show mercy when he was brutally assaulting and mentally scaring for life his victim?

And this:

This is crap!! Sealy raped, buggered and attempted to murder an innocent 17 year old girl! A crime for which he was tried and convicted by a jury!! Yet no mention was ever made of compensation for his victim!! NOT ONE RED CENT SHOULD BE PAID TO THAT CRIMINAL!! The judge should have awarded the monies to be paid to the girl who has been traumatised for her LIFE!! Oh, and could anyone tell me why the so "innocent" Sean Wallace was convicted in the first place?... Yes he may have recieved a severe beating at the hands of the officers (wrong by any standard).. but by his own account he hid the bag of cigarettes that came over the wall of the state prison. No doubt in an effort to sell as part of the prison's contraband trade... Yet he's been compensated for almost $300K (TT). What part of that did Mr. Wallace use to comepnsate the victims of his crimes?... Judges,... people time to stop letting criminals profit more than once for their crimes.... Don't get me wrong,... if one prisoner is raping another,.. then a severe beating is justified,.. But they shouldn't profit from comitting crimes in prison too... paid for by taxpayers who're working hard and staying out of jail...

And this: – (in response to the above)

Well said! Your comment is quite thought provoking. He suffers an injustice but is compensated yet his victim received no sort of damages or compensation. Something is wrong with this justice system.

And this:

OMG!!! Again trinidad justice system is a joke. sorry guys i could not stop laughting when i read this. maybe if he had rape the judge relative it would of been different story. ONLY IN T&T.

Note these are among the more popular posts. They were regarded with great favour and approval (thumbs up), which to me indicated that there is something wrong with the mentality of the people down on the Rock.

My response to all of these and several more is as follows:

For all of those who are mouthing off at the 'injustice' of the judgment...

Put yourself in the victim's shoes... imagine you're in prison. A prisons officer (PO) comes along and beats you unconscious, bussing your head and leaving you with blackouts.

The officer later lies, and provides an incredible story that you hit your own head against the wall thus causing self inflicted injuries, the very nature of which is impossible to self inflict!

How would you take it? Would you 'smart' at the injustice of it and seek to have the 'wrong' righted, or would you, as you bleat now, say 'it good fuh meh, I go keep meh ar*se quiet and take it'?

Even if you are not in prison, if a police duncey do this to you... what would you do?

It's easy to be a critic when you are not the victim. Or maybe I should ask how many of you will let me beat the crap out of you with a baton for $120,000??

Note, that money is almost meaningless. He is still in prison, and cannot spend it.

To the bright spark who posted this comment:

So what if a rapist get ah buss head? The law is really an a$$. There should be a way that the award could be made and the money given to the victim.

I offered:

So will you let me beat the crap out of you with a baton for $120,000??

As can be expected, my offer - as generous as it was - was declined!

And to:

A victim of police violence gets more considerate treatment from the law than a rape victim, who is usually persecuted several times over in the course of due process simply by the way those trials run. That is comparative coddling and you know exactly what I meant. Stop being obtuse.

My response:

Obtuse?

I don't know if I am more appalled or shocked by your short-sightedness.

(a) The man was sentenced to 25 years in prison for his crime. 25 long years in conditions that are subhuman by everybody's accounts. Not 25 years plus brutal beatings, mind you.

(b) The sentence was deemed appropriate in law for his crime. You are now saying it is not enough and is licks in his tail too? Who are you to judge?

(c) The victim may be traumatised... But an imperfect system is what we have, and she has recourse in law if she seeks to use them. I feel for her but that crime is a separate issue to a brutal beating placed upon her attacker.

(d) I don't know that a man beaten so brutally that he loses consciousness, partial hearing loss for life, long term effects such as headaches and blackouts (Justice Jones indicated this was supported by the medical reports so we know it to be factual), is coddled. Would that you be coddled similarly, eh?

All in all, you display paucity of thinking/reasoning and a woeful ignorance of the basic tenets of law. You are emotive, uncaring, narrow-minded and biased. Did I leave anything out?

People fail to see that the rape by (and imprisonment) of the perpetrator is a separate and different issue to the beating he suffered at the hands of a prisons officer, who is charged with the duty to protect and safeguard said prisoner during his incarceration. In the eyes of the law, the prisons officer has a duty of care (a legal term) towards each and every prisoner under his watch. When this prisons officer or any other breach that duty of care, we the taxpayers are the ones that pay.