[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.

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

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.

[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.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by angus58

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.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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)

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.]

Originally Posted by angus58

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 ) and I saw police

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

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 ) and I saw police

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]

Originally Posted by angus58

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.

[Tom4784]

What-the-actual-flying-f*ck 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? top marks for making me laugh throughout the whole topic. You're such a hoot.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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......

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

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.

[jc7]

Originally Posted by angus58

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

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.

[Shaun]

-votes Stabby Stabby Kill Kill in 2014-

[Fetch The Bolt Cutters]

Originally Posted by Shaun

-votes Stabby Stabby Kill Kill in 2014-

[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

[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.

[Jords]

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