[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

Originally Posted by Shaun

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]

Originally Posted by 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]

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.

[Angus]

Why have some posts been deleted?

[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.

[MTVN]

Originally Posted by CookieDough4000

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]

Originally Posted by angus58

Why have some posts been deleted?

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

[CookieDough4000]

Originally Posted by MTVN

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]

Originally Posted by CookieDough4000

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]

Originally Posted by Zippy

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]

Originally Posted by angus58

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]

Originally Posted by Shasown

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?

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.