MPs ban prisoners from having the vote
 

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.

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

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.

Whose human rights have non violent drug offenders trampled on?

Cheers.

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.

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.

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 fuck 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 fuck yourself. You scare the shit 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.

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.

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?

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 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

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:

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 know I have strange views.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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:

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.

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!

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.