MPs ban prisoners from having the vote

[Angus]

MPs defy European Court of Human Rights who have ruled that all prisoners should have the right to vote.

I'm delighted that commonsense has prevailed and MPs across all parties have voted by a substantial majority to ban prisoners from having the right to vote. I hope this is the first step towards rejecting the tyranny of unelected judges in Strasbourg interfering in the UK constitution.

The gloves are off, let battle commence, and I, for one, hope the outcome is a total rejection and repeal of the iniquitous and deeply unjust Human Rights Act.

[Shaun]

grrrr yeah cos prisoners aren't people they're all evil paedos :@:@:@

[Beastie]

I am glad. All prisoners should remain NOT to have the right to vote. Their "rights" were all taken away when they went to prison.

[Angus]

I am glad. All prisoners should remain NOT to have the right to vote. Their "rights" were all taken away when they went to prison.

It's sheer hypocrisy for a criminal to bleat about his own "human rights"" when he or she has blatantly infringed and run rough shod over someone else's. Let's hope our Government holds its' resolve and refuses to be browbeaten by increasingly ludicrously out of touch judges in Strasbourg.

[Stu]

It's sheer hypocrisy for a criminal to bleat about his own "human rights"" when he or she has blatantly infringed and run rough shod over someone else's. Let's hope our Government holds its' resolve and refuses to be browbeaten by increasingly ludicrously out of touch judges in Strasbourg.
Whose human rights have non violent drug offenders trampled on?

Cheers.

[Shaun]

I thought this debate might be above the usual suspects' heads:pat:
Predictable reaction, which is becoming increasingly boring and pitiful in its attempt for attention:bored:

If you're going to write off everything I say with "the usual suspects" paranoia and hyperbole (that worked very well for WOMBAI by the way :D) then you're not going to get anywhere.

My point was that viewing prisoners as a subspecies is ridiculous. Say some of them are in there for credit card fraud, or drug posession - does that mean they shouldn't get a say in how the government's formed? Of course it shouldn't.

In fact I can't think of a single crime that should sacrifice one's right to democracy. Even all the horrible ones which you seem to revel in with some kind of morbid anger.

It's sheer hypocrisy for a criminal to bleat about his own "human rights"" when he or she has blatantly infringed and run rough shod over someone else's. Let's hope our Government holds its' resolve and refuses to be browbeaten by increasingly ludicrously out of touch judges in Strasbourg.

Well whilst we're at it why don't we just take away their right to live :bored: this is such a backward view it's unreal.

[GypsyGoth]

I don't think criminals should have the vote.

They are in jail because they broke the law, they have lost their right be be a free citizen.

[Stu]

I don't think criminals should have the vote.

They are in jail because they broke the law, they have lost their right be be a free citizen.
I'm continually breaking a law I perceive is wrong because it is hindering my right to be a free citizen. What would you have done with me?

I'm of the opinion that not all criminals are evil harbringers of the apocalypse and that quite a few are just misguided **** ups. That means they are members of society serving a punishment for a crime they have commited. It doesn't mean they are permanently black bagged out of society.

Why shouldn't non violent protestors, drug policy reform advocates and general seekers of change who went to prison for the first place for their beliefs not be allowed vote from inside in the hope that they can help change things?

Anyone who harbours such bizarre views is silently advocating for an Orwellian state. It's our law or we cut you off and tell you to go and **** yourself. You scare the **** out of me sometimes, Angus. What's worse is that it's just a recreational activity for you. I like to shoot nazis in the back on my PlayStation. You like to complain about the great injustices of our world. It practically forms the backbone of 90% of your posts.

[GypsyGoth]

I'm continually breaking a law I perceive is wrong because it is hindering my right to be a free citizen. What would you have done with me?


Well I think your rights as a person are different to the rights the society grants you. If you get caught breaking the law (for whatever reasons, and regardless of crime) I think you should lose your right to vote. I think it's part of the punishment.

While I disagree with the laws making grass illegal, it is however still a law. Were you to go to jail because of it I feel it's fair you can't vote.

And I don't think criminals are evil, far from it, I think they're just people, but still they should be punished for their crime.

[Shaun]

But where is the correlation between breaking the law (which in itself is a very broad and vague term - you can't compare murderers with tax evaders) and wanting to vote Labour?

[Stu]

I'm gobsmacked. I don't even know what to say.

Anyone know where I can pick up a V For Vendetta quote book?

[MTVN]

I agree with Shaun and angus please stop with the "usual suspects" jibes and your whole "wooly-minded liberals" rhetoric, it adds nothing to the debate.

The vote should be something that all humans should have, it is a right I consider to be universal, I dont think you can pick and choose who deserves to be able to vote and who doesnt. When you do that you elevate one set of humans over another, essentially treating them as subhuman.

This is always a contentious issue and while prisoners do lose their liberty when they're sentenced they dont also lose their human rights, and are still treated with dignity as human beings; I personally feel the vote is a part of that.

But then I can see the arguments against it, it really is one issue where I am close to being undecided

[Angus]

Whose human rights have non violent drug offenders trampled on?

Cheers.

Mine and everyone else's since,by keeping the drug barons and dealers in business, they are responsible for violence, fraud, embezzlement, prostitution etc via third party in order to keep them supplied with their favourite poison. Furthermore, drug addicts under the influence can hardly possess the mental capacity to cast a reasoned and considered vote, so I don't want to have to suffer the consequences of their stupidity. What's more, they will only be put in prison if they commit a crime, whether violent or not, or did you not register that bit?

Cheers.:thumbs:

[GypsyGoth]

But where is the correlation between breaking the law (which in itself is a very broad and vague term - you can't compare murderers with tax evaders) and wanting to vote Labour?

Well I see voting as a right for all law biding people. If people go to jail they lose loads of privileges and voting is one of them.


I'm gobsmacked. I don't even know what to say.

Anyone know where I can pick up a V For Vendetta quote book?

I know I have strange views.

[Stu]

Mine and everyone else's since,by keeping the drug barons and dealers in business, they are responsible for violence, fraud, embezzlement, prostitution etc via third party in order to keep them supplied with their favourite poison. Furthermore, drug addicts under the influence can hardly possess the mental capacity to cast a reasoned and considered vote, so I don't want to have to suffer the consequences of their stupidity. What's more, they will only be put in prison if they commit a crime, whether violent or not, or did you not register that bit?

Cheers.:thumbs:
Isin't it the instigators and supporters of prohibition that are keeping the drug barons in business? The United States government through sheer stupidity created Al Capone. Not the guy who wanted the freedom to booze after work. What about people growing weed for their own benefit? Or the people who buy from these people?

Also not all drug users are consistently high. It's like passing a law prohibiting drinkers from voting coz they'll be pissed at the polling station.

Jesus christ almighty.

[Shaun]

Well I see voting as a right for all law biding people. If people go to jail they lose loads of privileges and voting is one of them.

Well I'd have thought losing the privelege of where to go, what to do, etc. would come part of the punishment :tongue: But I still don't understand the thinking behind "right, you've set fire to a building, that means you can't vote any more".

Like - those who're imprisoned for animal cruelty lose the right to keep animals. That's understandable. But unless the crime you've committed is to do with rigging elections I don't see why you can't get to use your democracy.

[Angus]

I'm continually breaking a law I perceive is wrong because it is hindering my right to be a free citizen. What would you have done with me?

I'm of the opinion that not all criminals are evil harbringers of the apocalypse and that quite a few are just misguided **** ups. That means they are members of society serving a punishment for a crime they have commited. It doesn't mean they are permanently black bagged out of society.

Why shouldn't non violent protestors, drug policy reform advocates and general seekers of change who went to prison for the first place for their beliefs not be allowed vote from inside in the hope that they can help change things?

Anyone who harbours such bizarre views is silently advocating for an Orwellian state. It's our law or we cut you off and tell you to go and **** yourself. You scare the **** out of me sometimes, Angus. What's worse is that it's just a recreational activity for you. I like to shoot nazis in the back on my PlayStation. You like to complain about the great injustices of our world. It practically forms the backbone of 90% of your posts.

If I scare the **** out of the likes of you, then my existence is not in vain. I'm not intimidated by the liberal bigots on this forum and will continue to state my views rejoicing in the knowledge that they irritate the hell out of the usual suspects.

To those who don't like the laws we all have to live by in the society we all have to live in, I suggest a nice little cave up in the mountains where they can do their own thing without bothering anyone else, or being bothered by others.

[Angus]

Isin't it the instigators and supporters of prohibition that are keeping the drug barons in business? The United States government through sheer stupidity created Al Capone. Not the guy who wanted the freedom to booze after work. What about people growing weed for their own benefit? Or the people who buy from these people?

Also not all drug users are consistently high. It's like passing a law prohibiting drinkers from voting coz they'll be pissed at the polling station.

Jesus christ almighty.


Oooh, them poor, hard done by ickle drug addicts who contribute so much to society - my heart bleeds, NOT:rolleyes:

[Shasown]

Hardly shows prisoners who will be released during the term of the most recent election that society wants them to reintegrate back eh?

But hey ho lets just line Cherie Blair and Co's pockets for the next few years. Run up millions in legal aid for prisoners to sue or attempt to sue the government for restricting their right to vote.

[Stu]

And how, pray, are drug users, especially those whose addiction has led them to be imprisoned "improving society"?

As for your mate, is he stoned and hallucinating?:laugh: Your fixation with the Daily Mail is embarrassing - can't you find a better paper to read?
You are ignoring the point and narrowing it down to drug users. You said if people in general do not like the laws of the society they have to live in they should sod off to a cave. God forbid if people through history actually took your pissant advice we would all be living in a far worse society. You are essentially saying nobody should try and change society for the better. They should just leave if they don't like it.

Do you see the utter stupidity of what you wrote yet? And what wonderful tennis ball will you throw my way to distract from it or somehow change it?

But still I will respond to the drug user point anyway and just let you know that the vast majority of people consume drugs of some form and that does not exclude movers, shakers and revoluionaries over the years.

Perhaps you have your own comprehensive list of teetotal freedom fighters and virtuous philanthropists but I bet my list is bigger.

[Angus]

You are ignoring the point and narrowing it down to drug users. You said if people in general do not like the laws of the society they have to live in they should sod off to a cave. God forbid if people through history actually took your pissant advice we would all be living in a far worse society. You are essentially saying nobody should try and change society for the better. They should just leave if they don't like it.

Do you see the utter stupidity of what you wrote yet? And what wonderful tennis ball will you throw my way to distract from it or somehow change it?

But still I will respond to the drug user point anyway and just let you know that the vast majority of people consume drugs of some form and that does not exclude movers, shakers and revoluionaries over the years.

Perhaps you have your own comprehensive list of teetotal freedom fighters and virtuous philanthropists but I bet my list is bigger.



No you're wrong my dear - only the majority of people YOU know are drug users. You disingenuity in equating drinks and cigarettes with recreational drugs is predictable and pretty stupid, especially since you believe you are being very clever. However, I have been around a lot longer than you and can honestly say I don't know a single drug user. Yes, I know, it's quite shocking isn't it, that there are millions of people in the world who don't share your liberal, laissez faire, to hell with social norms and conventions mindset. And thank God for it.

[Stu]

Alcohol and cigarettes are recreational drugs. That is not up for debate. Are you saying only the users of illegal drugs are the addicts now?

I'm sorry I know I said I wouldn't engage but this is fascinating stuff.

[Shasown]

No you're wrong my dear - only the majority of people YOU know are drug users. You disingenuity in equating drinks and cigarettes with recreational drugs is predictable and pretty stupid, especially since you believe you are being very clever. However, I have been around a lot longer than you and can honestly say I don't know a single drug user. Yes, I know, it's quite shocking isn't it, that there are millions of people in the world who don't share your liberal, laissez faire, to hell with social norms and conventions mindset. And thank God for it.

I bet you do really only you dont know they use drugs recreationally, they wouldnt tell you because they know what your rection would be.

[Angus]

Alcohol and cigarettes are recreational drugs. That is not up for debate. Are you saying only the users of illegal drugs are the addicts now?

I'm sorry I know I said I wouldn't engage but this is fascinating stuff.

Have you lost the ability to extract information from the written word? I have said quite clearly that those whose drug addiction has led them to be imprisoned have no right to vote. As far as I know drinking and smoking are not criminal offences, unless accompanied by violence.

[Angus]

I bet you do really only you dont know they use drugs recreationally, they wouldnt tell you because they know what your rection would be.


No, I don't, REALLY. Says more about your lifestyle than mine if you think drug taking is normal and acceptable.

[Stu]

No, I don't, REALLY. Says more about your lifestyle than mine if you think drug taking is normal and acceptable.
Why isin't it? We have already normalized two of the most damaging drugs in existence through the magic of legislation.

Do you have difficulty telling the difference bewteen drug abuse and drug use? What's so abhorrent about me smoking a joint and monging out with a stick of pepperoni in front of the telly? I enjoy myself and I hurt nobody in the process.

Most people always have and always will want to alter their conciousness. By virtue of statistics alone it is normal.

[MTVN]

No, I don't, REALLY. Says more about your lifestyle than mine if you think drug taking is normal and acceptable.

You're so unbelievably docile, clearly cigarettes and tobacco are far more deadly than cannabis is. The only reason you refuse to accept that fact is because of their legal status and becuase you daren't do anything that could possibly disrupt the status quo

[Shasown]

No, I don't, REALLY. Says more about your lifestyle than mine if you think drug taking is normal and acceptable.

Doesnt say anything about my lifestyle at all.

It simply says I am realistic to understand that lots of people do use illegal drugs for recreational purposes.

It also says I am open minded enough to accept that some people will use them, but that doesnt make them bad people.

Why dont you ask your kids if they ever tried them? Watch the look on their faces. That look of horror wont be at the thought of trying drugs, it will be at the thought of admitting it to you.

[InOne]

Well we don't really have life here go guess it's possible most will be released at some point in their life (depending on age). I do wonder how many would actually vote though, I doubt it would be the majority. Might as well let them do it, don't think it will change things a whole deal.

[joeysteele]

I am just glad to see that it is possible on issues to have all parties coming together, Europe is a divisive issue in politics but on this the right decision has been made together.

However the battle now is with Europe again and it is for the govt to try to overturn the ruling that prisoners in the UK must have the vote,

However the govt has said this vote is not a binding one on the govt, who will have to assess whether it will defy the European court and so have to pay millions in compensation or still implement votes for some prisoners.

It would though be an absolute disgrace to allow murderers to have the vote, when the people they murdered have by no fault of their own been denied their right not only to vote but live their lives by those who murdered them.

Loss of liberty which is what prison means, means you are segregated from society for the good of society and you should lose all the privileges of being part of that society while in prison.

On this I domn't envy David Cameron's new position,he has MPs of all parties saying he has to defy the European court, if he does he risks losing any cooperation from Europe and still in the end taxpayers will have to pay millions in compensation to prisoners.
If he does nothing and gives the vote to some prisoners, he will be damned there too by his own party and MPs from other parties.

[Angus]

I am just glad to see that it is possible on issues to have all parties coming together, Europe is a divisive issue in politics but on this the right decision has been made together.

However the battle now is with Europe again and it is for the govt to try to overturn the ruling that prisoners in the UK must have the vote,

However the govt has said this vote is not a binding one on the govt, who will have to assess whether it will defy the European court and so have to pay millions in compensation or still implement votes for some prisoners.

It would though be an absolute disgrace to allow murderers to have the vote, when the people they murdered have by no fault of their own been denied their right not only to vote but live their lives by those who murdered them.

Loss of liberty which is what prison means, means you are segregated from society for the good of society and you should lose all the privileges of being part of that society while in prison.

On this I domn't envy David Cameron's new position,he has MPs of all parties saying he has to defy the European court, if he does he risks losing any cooperation from Europe and still in the end taxpayers will have to pay millions in compensation to prisoners.
If he does nothing and gives the vote to some prisoners, he will be damned there too by his own party and MPs from other parties.

Yes, it's a case of the Government being damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I just hope they stick to their guns.

[joeysteele]

Yes, it's a case of the Government being damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I just hope they stick to their guns.

Its a tricky one for him but if he can get a new ruling it will be massively to his credit. He can argue he has the whole of the UK parliament behind him on this though,not just his own party. Indeed the vast majority of the UK too, because I think also in a referendum, the voters would vote against giving prisoners the vote too, by a massive margin likely too.

[Vicky.]

A bit off topic, but about this whole drugs thing...recreational drug taking is a LOT more common than peole think it is.

Also, it doesnt really harm anyone(except on the rare occasion the person who is chosing to take the drugs) so I dont see why people who take drugs are made out to be evil or something :S

The exception to this, in my eyes, are heroin addicts, but that is only because of an experience when I was younger that kinda made me think all smackheads were vile and should burn in hell :/ (involving a needle, and my 3 year old brother, and a park...not going into any more detail)

[Angus]

Its a tricky one for him but if he can get a new ruling it will be massively to his credit. He can argue he has the whole of the UK parliament behind him on this though,not just his own party. Indeed the vast majority of the UK too, because I think also in a referendum, the voters would vote against giving prisoners the vote too, by a massive margin likely too.

I think the majority of people would be against the Strasbourg ruling - It's not as if prisoners, once they've served their sentence, remain disenfranchised because that is NOT the case. The only people who are going to benefit either way are the greedy Human Rights lawyers such as Cherie Blair.

[Shasown]

Its a tricky one for him but if he can get a new ruling it will be massively to his credit. He can argue he has the whole of the UK parliament behind him on this though,not just his own party. Indeed the vast majority of the UK too, because I think also in a referendum, the voters would vote against giving prisoners the vote too, by a massive margin likely too.

Yeah coz the majority realise that the ruling comes from the European Court of Human Rights and that has nothing to do with the European Union.

They could go the opposite way and demand ALL prisoners be given the vote and start ordering compensation payouts, larger compensation payouts than expected and with a much longer backdating.

Or he could simply ask them if allowing only prisoners with less than 4 years to go till release will realise their rulings. After all he has now held a parliamentary debate on prisoner voting which was one of their points raised in the original ruling.

[Angus]

A bit off topic, but about this whole drugs thing...recreational drug taking is a LOT more common than peole think it is.

Also, it doesnt really harm anyone(except on the rare occasion the person who is chosing to take the drugs) so I dont see why people who take drugs are made out to be evil or something :S

The exception to this, in my eyes, are heroin addicts, but that is only because of an experience when I was younger that kinda made me think all smackheads were vile and should burn in hell :/ (involving a needle, and my 3 year old brother, and a park...not going into any more detail)


I have absolutely no problem with anyone shoving whatever drugs into their own bodies so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else, and that includes heroine, cocaine or whatever. I was specifically talking about those drug users who have obviously committed some crime or other as a result of their addiction that has resulted in them being banged up in prison, but I don't really care what the crime is - the whole point of prison is segregation from society and deprivation of certain rights and privileges for the duration of the sentence. Unless prisoners are in prison for life, they are not permanently disenfranchised.

[Vicky.]

I have absolutely no problem with anyone shoving whatever drugs into their own bodies so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else, and that includes heroine, cocaine or whatever. I was specifically talking about those drug users who have obviously committed some crime or other as a result of their addiction that has resulted in them being banged up in prison, but I don't really care what the crime is - the whole point of prison is segregation from society and deprivation of certain rights and privileges for the duration of the sentence. Unless prisoners are in prison for life, they are not permanently disenfranchised.

But you can get prison for just posession. You dont necessarily have to do anything to harm others or anything...

I remember freaking out once in newcastle as I had a couple of E on me (holding on to for a mate unfortunately, not mine :p ) and I saw police :laugh:

[BB_Eye]

Hardly shows prisoners who will be released during the term of the most recent election that society wants them to reintegrate back eh?

But hey ho lets just line Cherie Blair and Co's pockets for the next few years. Run up millions in legal aid for prisoners to sue or attempt to sue the government for restricting their right to vote.
And there's the rub. No legal body, even the eminent ECHR, could refuse the potential mass litigation goldmine in this mockery of not only our national sovereignty, but also the very principle of human rights.

[Angus]

But you can get prison for just posession. You dont necessarily have to do anything to harm others or anything...

I remember freaking out once in newcastle as I had a couple of E on me (holding on to for a mate unfortunately, not mine :p ) and I saw police :laugh:

Unfortunately, if possession is deemed a crime under UK law, then there are probably consequences if caught, but I doubt a first offence would merit a prison sentence, unless you had a couple of pounds of heroine or something concealed about your person!

[Shasown]

And there's the rub. No legal body, even the eminent ECHR, could refuse the potential mass litigation goldmine in this mockery of not only our national sovereignty, but also the very principle of human rights.

Exactly the process of claiming the compensation would be even funnier, they apply to the UK court and it would get rubber stamped without even an email to any part of Europe.

I think its a ploy by Cameron to be seen to be standing up to the ECHR, in a few weeks/couple of months it will be quietly announced that prisoners with less than a year or similar time frame will be allowed to vote, minimum back dated payments made to the date of the original ruling.

It is however amusing to note that in the 19th century only criminals sentenced to above 12 months lost the right to vote. Losing the right to vote when incarcerated isnt based on common law.

[Shasown]

Unfortunately, if possession is deemed a crime under UK law, then there are probably consequences if caught, but I doubt a first offence would merit a prison sentence, unless you had a couple of pounds of heroine or something concealed about your person!

You do realise than in some cases certain citizens of the UK have been sentenced to prison for what are simply debts. I am not talking about committers of fraud or any other crime.

[joeysteele]

You do realise than in some cases certain citizens of the UK have been sentenced to prison for what are simply debts. I am not talking about committers of fraud or any other crime.

You are right on that, that is another thing that needs sorting out and changing. The guidelines of the Law and sentencing needs total change.
As you say people can be sent to prison,wrongly in my view for as you point out debts.
They should not go to prison at all, or people who haven't a TV licence and other silly small crimes, also the prisons have too many people in with mental health problems,serious ones too,that will only get worse in there.
I would certainly agree that those you mention above should not be given a custodial sentence at all.

[Tom4784]

What-the-actual-flying-***** at this topic.

I think it's stupid to take away the vote from prisoners really, there's not a 'Stabby Stabby Kill Kill' Party they can vote for so what's the harm? Like I always say in topics like this, why don't you cut out the middle men and just execute anyone that's ever accused of anything. Hang all the murderers and anyone that's had a lick of drugs that aren't legal or prescribed and heck, why not shoot that kid in the face for not crossing the road properly? Best shoot him now then for him to shoot up crack later on... It's a slippery slope idolised by bloodlusting armchair warriors who are out of touch with today's world and have a sheltered view of life. So i'm with the 'usual suspects' on this one, they're the only ones that have spoken a lick of sense in this topic. The rest is just paranoid ramblings from a person who takes the media's views to heart.

Angus, I've got to ask you some things....What exactly is a liberal bigot? is it like an anti-bigot? Someone that hates on white and straight people? :joker: top marks for making me laugh throughout the whole topic. You're such a hoot.

[Shaun]

-votes Stabby Stabby Kill Kill in 2014-

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

-votes Stabby Stabby Kill Kill in 2014-

:joker::joker::joker::joker::joker:

[arista]

Yes MP's Voted
but it does not change the Law of Europe.


So we know most do not want them having Vote
but the problem is we are Stuck under EU controls

[CookieDough4000]

The vote should be something that all humans should have, it is a right I consider to be universal, I dont think you can pick and choose who deserves to be able to vote and who doesnt. When you do that you elevate one set of humans over another, essentially treating them as subhuman.


I don't think you've thought through what you've just said. Should ten year olds and people in France be allowed to vote in British elections? You say that the vote is a 'universal' 'right' that 'all humans should have', and that we can't 'pick and choose who deserves to be able to vote', so I assume your answer is yes. Am I correct?

[Angus]

I don't think you've thought through what you've just said. Should ten year olds and people in France be allowed to vote in British elections? You say that the vote is a 'universal' 'right' that 'all humans should have', and that we can't 'pick and choose who deserves to be able to vote', so I assume your answer is yes. Am I correct?

Yes, that is exactly what MTVN is saying. Unbelievable isn't it?:shocked:
New Labour really did a number via the shambolic education system on a whole generation of suckers didn't they?

So glad I kept my kids out of the state system (and no, I didn't pay a penny in school fees, they both won scholarships having inherited their brains from me:wink:)

[joeysteele]

Well Europe sadly will likely not bend an inch on the Human Rights act,also no other country seems to be moaning at it either so its unlikely the govt can get away with not giving at least some prisoners the vote.

It cannot risk the having to pay taxpayers money at this time in compensation to prisoners, all it can hope for is that to give the vote to a certain classification of prisoners can still be withheld while giving it to the rest.

I was glad the MPs voted against this and don't think any prisoner should have the vote,while also conceding that there are a great number of people in prisons who should not be,who should be dealt with in other non-custodial means.

My elation that the MPs voted against giving the vote to prisoners is also matched with disappointment that well under half of our elected MPs even bothered to vote in the debate. I feel that will weaken the govts chances of winning much on this with Europe.

yes, Europe to the person who said I was wrong to say this was a EU issue and that is was only eith the European court of Human Rights,of course the Court has made this ruling but the Human Rights act came from the EU so that is how the govt has to try to get a new deal out of the EU on the Human Rights act for this one but I cannot see it happening.

Hopefully though no major crime committing prisoner will get the vote under any agreement with the Court and the EU in the future.

[MTVN]

I don't think you've thought through what you've just said. Should ten year olds and people in France be allowed to vote in British elections? You say that the vote is a 'universal' 'right' that 'all humans should have', and that we can't 'pick and choose who deserves to be able to vote', so I assume your answer is yes. Am I correct?

Well we have to make a disticntion between adults and children because they are fundamentally different. Children arent allowed the vote because they arent considered to have the ability to make a correct decision, prisoners have it denied just out of a desire for retribution and revenge. Being a prisoner doesnt make you suddenly unable to decide who is best fit to run the government; like Dezzy said it wont suddenly mean the Stabby Stabby Kill Kill party will come into power.

[Pyramid*]

Well we have to make a disticntion between adults and children because they are fundamentally different. Children arent allowed the vote because they arent considered to have the ability to make a correct decision, prisoners have it denied just out of a desire for retribution and revenge. Being a prisoner doesnt make you suddenly unable to decide who is best fit to run the government; like Dezzy said it wont suddenly mean the Stabby Stabby Kill Kill party will come into power.

and what about 'adults' who are in no real position to understand what a vote is, what effect is has, or who (through no fault of their own) simply have not (will not ever) reach emotional or intellectual maturity.

What about those adults (not the majority I grant you), that who have no idea what planet they're on, on any given dy, never mind being able to tell you which political party is in government - those who are in the position of the only thing mattering to them is how their are going to get their next fix? (I am talking of those who are seriously in the realms of life threatning drug addiction levels). Those 'adults' for example like the mother of young Baby Alex - a woman who wasn't fit enough to provide basic care for her own flesh and blood....... if she can't make a decision or be responsible on such a basic and rudimentary basis, how are people of that ilk able to be responsible enough to cast a vote over how the country is run? (I know...very very extreme example, but I'm just 'putting it out there) - for the purposes of debate.

Surely stating every human being, then chipping that to stating 'every adult' doesn't solve the problem (or answer the question).

As for the original OP. It's one I have mixed views on - dependant on the type of crime. Murders, rapists, drug dealers.....No I don't think they should be allowed to vote.

But to sweep everyone with that 'in prison rule', also means the poor little pensioner who did nothing wrong all their lives, worked 40 odd years and then fell foul of the law as far as not paying their rates are concerned / refusing to cut down a tree - and all other nature of ludicrious imprisonments. That's where the 'no vote for all prisoners' falls down.

What's the ideal solution? I'm not entirely sure.

[CookieDough4000]

Well we have to make a disticntion between adults and children because they are fundamentally different. Children arent allowed the vote because they arent considered to have the ability to make a correct decision, prisoners have it denied just out of a desire for retribution and revenge. Being a prisoner doesnt make you suddenly unable to decide who is best fit to run the government; like Dezzy said it wont suddenly mean the Stabby Stabby Kill Kill party will come into power.

But that's different from what you originally said. You said the vote is a fundamental human right - like the right to food or the right to life, it is not contingent on a person's abilities or status. And you've only answered half of my question. What about people from France, or Venezuela, or Morocco? Should they be allowed to vote in British elections? Are they not as mentally capable as people from Britain?

[Jords]

Depends on the severity of the crime imo, shoudnt be so black and white.

[MeMyselfAndI]

good they deserve it.

[MeMyselfAndI]

why should a murderer or rapist be able to vote. they shouldn't, they dont deserve to be able to ever leave their cell ever

[Judas]

grrrr yeah cos prisoners aren't people they're all evil paedos :@:@:@

Even though I consider myself left wing on most issues I do feel that its fair that prisoners loose the right to vote. Whether they commited relatively minor crime, or were part of the 'pedo' camp that Tabloid Britain seems obsessed with.

I agree that individual rights are not 'a given' to all; to earn them you must abide by certain codes in that society to be given those rights you protest for. Prisoners know they are at risk of loosing these rights for commiting a crime, which in many cases take rights from other individuals.

[Judas]

Even though I consider myself left wing on most issues I do feel that its fair that prisoners loose the right to vote. Whether they commited relatively minor crime, or were part of the 'pedo' camp that Tabloid Britain seems obsessed with.

I agree that individual rights are not 'a given' to all; to earn them you must abide by certain codes in that society to be given those rights you protest for. Prisoners know they are at risk of loosing these rights for commiting a crime, which in many cases take rights from other individuals.

Of course, this is not to say I have never commited (relatively minor) 'crimes'. If I were to say start partaking in larger 'crimes' such as dealing, I feel my right to protest against my personal libertys and freedoms being taken away is invalid. In partaking in crimes the indvidual must be aware of the risks, and undoubtly this can include a challenge to my personal freedoms. Heck, it may not be fair. But that is the world we live in - partaking in actions considered 'bad' by wider society need some kind of punishment.

[bananarama]

I have no time for criminals petty criminals or otherwise.......They cost the tax payer dear and as a result finacial resources are bled away from other social needs more deserving.......Career criminal are trash and I would hang most of them.......

However what i would not do is deny anyone including prisoners the right to vote.......That is an abomination of arrogance by MP's byond belief

The fact is what happens to criminal is decided by Governments. Definition of crimes is decided by governments........Probably quite frequently inoccent people are sentenced by dim wit juries......

It is therfor right to allow all people the basic right to vote.......Those that deny others the vote should indeed be locked up themselves......

[Angus]

I have no time for criminals petty criminals or otherwise.......They cost the tax payer dear and as a result finacial resources are bled away from other social needs more deserving.......Career criminal are trash and I would hang most of them.......

However what i would not do is deny anyone including prisoners the right to vote.......That is an abomination of arrogance by MP's byond belief

The fact is what happens to criminal is decided by Governments. Definition of crimes is decided by governments........Probably quite frequently inoccent people are sentenced by dim wit juries......

It is therfor right to allow all people the basic right to vote.......Those that deny others the vote should indeed be locked up themselves......


Why stop there? Why deprive ANYONE of their freedom to commit a crime and abuse society, without loss of any privileges or rights?:rolleyes:

If there are no sanctions for criminals (one of which is to deny them the right to participate in society because of their crime) why the hell should they have the right to vote on issues that affect law abiding citizens? I have no interest in their so called "rights" when they have purposefully and deliberately deprived an innocent person of theirs.

Governments set definitions of crime: CORRECT with the implicit democratic agreement of the electorate that voted them in. I had no part in voting in the Strasbourg judges who have decided this moronic ruling on the basis of an axe murderer bringing an action for denial of HIS human rights. (I'm sure his poor victim would have liked the basic human right to have lived a long and happy life rather than being bludgeoned to death with an axe).

The fact that a tiny minority of prisoners may have been wrongfully convicted is neither here nor there - That doesn't negate the principle that prisoners have relinquished certain rights because they have violated those of fellow citizens.

[Angus]

Why have some posts been deleted?

[jc7]

Why stop there? Why deprive ANYONE of their freedom to commit a crime and abuse society, without loss of any privileges or rights?:rolleyes:

If there are no sanctions for criminals (one of which is to deny them the right to participate in society because of their crime) why the hell should they have the right to vote on issues that affect law abiding citizens? I have no interest in their so called "rights" when they have purposefully and deliberately deprived an innocent person of theirs.

Governments set definitions of crime: CORRECT with the implicit democratic agreement of the electorate that voted them in. I had no part in voting in the Strasbourg judges who have decided this moronic ruling on the basis of an axe murderer bringing an action for denial of HIS human rights. (I'm sure his poor victim would have liked the basic human right to have lived a long and happy life rather than being bludgeoned to death with an axe).

The fact that a tiny minority of prisoners may have been wrongfully convicted is neither here nor there - That doesn't negate the principle that prisoners have relinquished certain rights because they have violated those of fellow citizens.

I think you've hit the nail on the head there.

[MTVN]

But that's different from what you originally said. You said the vote is a fundamental human right - like the right to food or the right to life, it is not contingent on a person's abilities or status. And you've only answered half of my question. What about people from France, or Venezuela, or Morocco? Should they be allowed to vote in British elections? Are they not as mentally capable as people from Britain?

Hmm, I see your point. Perhaps my wording was slightly wrong when I described it as a "fundamental human right", I would support lowering the voting age to 16, maybe even 14 but not for all children because they wouldnt have developed the required formal thought process. And those living abroad shouldnt vote because they will not be subject to the laws put in place by the ruling party; prisoners will be.

[Stu]

It's just such an insanely needless thing to complain about at the end of the day. Who cares if prisoners vote? They are being punished by being put in prison and serving time cut off from the outside world. That is their punishment.

What about books in prison? Why should criminals be entitled to read OUR books we - in our moral, law abiding perfection - have created for OUR society?

What seperates books from voting in this hypothetical situation? Or healthcare? Why don't we just delete the prisoners from public records and encase them in a conrete tomb for a bit?

Where do you draw the line with it? I think even in theory it sounds like a dangerous precedent. And again ... and as silly an argument as it sounds ... who cares? Do prisoners voting really keep you up at night?

[Zippy]

Good call.

Prison is about punishment and the loss of certain priviliges...freedom being the first one. The right to vote should also be one of them. I know there are degrees of crime but you can't pick and choose which prisoners are worthy of a vote. Many of them certainly don't deserve it and I for one don't want a goverment chosen by them!

If you feel strongly about voting then refrain from committing crime. Simple.

[James]

Why have some posts been deleted?

Insults towards other posters. There's really no need.

[CookieDough4000]

Hmm, I see your point. Perhaps my wording was slightly wrong when I described it as a "fundamental human right", I would support lowering the voting age to 16, maybe even 14 but not for all children because they wouldnt have developed the required formal thought process. And those living abroad shouldnt vote because they will not be subject to the laws put in place by the ruling party; prisoners will be.

So anyone who moves to a country should automatically get the vote? This is presently not the case. Why do you think that is?

[Zippy]

So anyone who moves to a country should automatically get the vote? This is presently not the case. Why do you think that is?

er, I think he means UK citizens who live abroad can still vote in UK elections even though they don't live here.

Sean Connery, for one. He hasn't lived in Scotland for decades but still sticks his oar in every election telling Scots to vote SNP.

[Angus]

er, I think he means UK citizens who live abroad can still vote in UK elections even though they don't live here.

Sean Connery, for one. He hasn't lived in Scotland for decades but still sticks his oar in every election telling Scots to vote SNP.

Hmm, don't you just love those super rich socialists who avoid paying any taxes in this country, yet still feel as if they have the right to put their two pennorth in to UK affairs? Hypocrites? Is the pope catholic?

[Shasown]

Hmm, don't you just love those super rich socialists who avoid paying any taxes in this country, yet still feel as if they have the right to put their two pennorth in to UK affairs? Hypocrites? Is the pope catholic?

Once again spouting off in vague terms, Angus, the usual garbage.

Connery does pay UK taxes, on earnings earned in the UK, these include taxes on earnings from royalties, earnings on investments, properties etc. Betweem 1997 and 2003 he paid over £3.7m

[Angus]

Once again spouting off in vague terms, Angus, the usual garbage.

Connery does pay UK taxes, on earnings earned in the UK, these include taxes on earnings from royalties, earnings on investments, properties etc. Betweem 1997 and 2003 he paid over £3.7m


Yeah, because your responses are all so well googled, copied and pasted and presented as your own well thought out, intelligent and erudite pronouncements, eh dear Shasown, aren't they?:joker:

[Shasown]

Yeah, because your responses are all so well googled, copied and pasted and presented as your own well thought out, intelligent and erudite pronouncements, eh dear Shasown, aren't they?:joker:

Go on then Angus show me what I cut and pasted and from where?

Did I touch a nerve? Are you that thin skinned you cant stand constructive criticism? Going to slag me off, call me immature, living off my parents while reading the grauniad in need of life experience?

They do say going on the offensive is sometimes the best defence eh?

And yes I do sometimes check facts about which I am unsure before posting, saves looking a complete and utter twat. I can only recommend you try it in future!

[Claymores]

Just for correction purposes, I thought the thing originated from a European Court of Human Rights decision and nothing to do with EU and whether we are members or not. Am I wrong? EU and European court are 2 separate entities. One funds the other but that's about it

[Shasown]

Just for correction purposes, I thought the thing originated from a European Court of Human Rights decision and nothing to do with EU and whether we are members or not. Am I wrong? EU and European court are 2 separate entities. One funds the other but that's about it

Very succinctly put Ian.

[Grimnir]

Prisoners should never be able to vote.

They go to prison because they are criminals and they deserve punishment and all rights taken away.

And about the recent story on sex offenders register. There should NOT BE A REGISTER.

If someone is deemed a danger to society and children especially, they should be IN PRISON, not let out EVER. Its not rocket science.

****** the Euro Court of Human Rights, its pathetic

Instead we should have UK Court of Rights of Society

What is more important?

[Angus]

At last the voice of reason and commonsense prevails. High Court Judge Mr Justice Langstaff has thrown out the claims of 588 prisoners seeking to cash in on the MPs' ban on their voting, and they've been ordered to pay £76 each towards the costs (equivalent of two weeks' prison wages). No greedy lawyers wish to represent them since they have all been denied legal aid.

The Judge quite rightly stated that European Judgments cannot be allowed to trump British Laws passed at Westminster. In fact there is no legal requirement whatsoever for Britain to abide by European Judgments.

On this issue I am positive Cameron's government will get massive support from the public who will be amazed and delighted that we still have some Judges with commonsense. This will also be a justified and well deserved kick in the teeth for the usual liberal bigots who seem to have lost sight of the difference between basic human rights and privileges. It will no doubt also deter the opportunistic prisoners and greedy lawyers from attempting to launch compensation claims in future.

[Shasown]

At last the voice of reason and commonsense prevails. High Court Judge Mr Justice Langstaff has thrown out the claims of 588 prisoners seeking to cash in on the MPs' ban on their voting, and they've been ordered to pay £76 each towards the costs (equivalent of two weeks' prison wages). No greedy lawyers wish to represent them since they have all been denied legal aid.

The Judge quite rightly stated that European Judgments cannot be allowed to trump British Laws passed at Westminster. In fact there is no legal requirement whatsoever for Britain to abide by European Judgments.

On this issue I am positive Cameron's government will get massive support from the public who will be amazed and delighted that we still have some Judges with commonsense. This will also be a justified and well deserved kick in the teeth for the usual liberal bigots who seem to have lost sight of the difference between basic human rights and privileges. It will no doubt also deter the opportunistic prisoners and greedy lawyers from attempting to launch compensation claims in future.

Good decision by the Judge on this one, however there are still over Two and a half thousand cases pending in Strasbourg and another 800 between Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Should be amusing to see what the government does if either the Scottish or N Irish courts decide contrary to this one.

Incidentally £76 is about 8 weeks wages not two. So some of them wont be enjoying chocolate or smokes for a while.

[Shasown]

Latest Update on this:



The Government has lost its final appeal against a human rights ruling requiring Britain to give prisoners the vote.

Prime Minister David Cameron - who said the thought of granting the vote to criminals made him physically ill - now has six months to produce "legislative proposals" ending the current blanket ban on inmates voting in national and European elections.

The ultimatum was delivered by a five-judge panel of the European Court of Human Rights, which last November awarded two UK prisoners 5,000 euro (£4,350) in costs and expenses for their loss of voting rights, which was ruled a breach of their human rights.

On Monday the Court dismissed a request for an appeal hearing and decreed the original verdict final.

A statement issued by the Court said: "The Court now gives the UK Government six months from 11 April 2011 to introduce legislative proposals to bring the disputed law in line with the (European Human Rights) Convention.

"The Government is further required to enact the relevant legislation within any time frame decided by the Committee of Ministers, the executive arm of the Council of Europe, which supervises the execution of the Court's judgments".

More than five years ago the same court delivered a similar verdict in a separate case brought by a prisoner, but the then Labour government left the blanket ban in place.

Last November's second ruling came in a case brought by prisoners named as Robert Greens and MT, both serving time at Peterhead prison.

By then Mr Cameron's coalition government had announced that it reluctantly accepted there was a legal obligation to offer voting rights to at least some prisoners, and scrap the total ban



Should be interesting.