No vote for prisoners

[Gun]

Puggit said:

Shamed! The 22 who voted no

GREEN Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion)

There's a surprise!

[carmonk]

fluffnik said:

carmonk said:

fluffnik said:

I don't see you justifying that viewpoint, merely stating it.

No, I've justified it. I've explained it, I've detailed my thinking and I've given examples. I'm afraid it's you who has literally no justification whatsoever for your argument, hence your succession of one-liners.

Assertion is not argument.

I do not see what protection society derives from denying prisoners the vote and you have not described any mechanism to show how it might.

I've explained it time and time again and you're simply ignoring what I wrote in favour of glib one-liners, so either read what I've written and stop being silly or admit you've no argument.

fluffnik said:

carmonk said:

fluffnik said:

You don't have to hang out here long to realise that there is no agreement as to what constitutes just imprisonment. Why compound potential injustice.

That's not relevant. Prisoners exist as a group in law and that is not incumbent on what Pistonheads forum members think.

Easy is not the same as just.

It's entirely relevant because there is not that much rhyme or reason as to who happens to be in jail on election day...

There's no rhyme nor reason about a cop hiding in the bushes when you happen to be doing 100mph, it's just the way it goes. You commit the crime and you take that chance.

fluffnik said:

carmonk said:

fluffnik said:

No, it's about restoring a right which was wrongly removed.

There has never been a point in history when all prisoners could vote. That aside, are there any more pre-1870 laws you'd like to resurrect while you're at it?

I don't want to resurrect any pre 1870 laws or return to a state which had even less respect for the rights of its subjects than the current shower. An inalienable right remains an inalienable right whether it has ever been respected previously or not.

I disagree that it's an inalienable right, and so do most people. Just because a bunch of liberals overseas says it is don't make it true.

fluffnik said:

carmonk said:

And also I'd like an answer to the final question I posed. If this is so critically important, how come that neither you nor rs1952 nor anyone else has raised this matter before the EC brought it to your attention. Surely such a pressing matter would be deserving of at least one thread?

I don't see this as a particularly pressing matter, but since it is topical I'd prefer my Government to do the Right Thing...

But if you think voting is an inalienable right then surely you must think it's important, and your posts in this thread seem to bear that out. I'm just wondering if it's simply a chance to jump on the liberal bandwagon and bash a government you don't like.

[fluffnik]

carmonk said:

fluffnik said:

I do not see what protection society derives from denying prisoners the vote and you have not described any mechanism to show how it might.

I've explained it time and time again and you're simply ignoring what I wrote in favour of glib one-liners, so either read what I've written and stop being silly or admit you've no argument.

Sorry, I might be being thick, but I can't see any reason, vindictiveness apart, for ignoring more of a prisoners rights than strictly necessary.

carmonk said:

fluffnik said:

It's entirely relevant because there is not that much rhyme or reason as to who happens to be in jail on election day...

There's no rhyme nor reason about a cop hiding in the bushes when you happen to be doing 100mph, it's just the way it goes. You commit the crime and you take that chance.

Different thing entirely, not that you'll find me defending any arbitrary law...

carmonk said:

I disagree that it's an inalienable right, and so do most people. Just because a bunch of liberals overseas says it is don't make it true.

Aha! I think I may see the root of our disagreement.

I don't see that the state/mob has any intrinsic moral authority. Its legitimacy is solely derived from it protecting the rights of its citizens; all of them...

[Globs]

Vipers said:

Couldn't give a rats arse if they vote or not.

With the central banking cartels owning the country and the crooked EU running it, our vote doesn't count for much these days anyway.

[carmonk]

fluffnik said:

carmonk said:

fluffnik said:

I do not see what protection society derives from denying prisoners the vote and you have not described any mechanism to show how it might.

I've explained it time and time again and you're simply ignoring what I wrote in favour of glib one-liners, so either read what I've written and stop being silly or admit you've no argument.

Sorry, I might be being thick, but I can't see any reason, vindictiveness apart, for ignoring more of a prisoners rights than strictly necessary.

Then we'll have to leave it there because I'm not repeating my reasoning.

fluffnik said:

carmonk said:

fluffnik said:

It's entirely relevant because there is not that much rhyme or reason as to who happens to be in jail on election day...

There's no rhyme nor reason about a cop hiding in the bushes when you happen to be doing 100mph, it's just the way it goes. You commit the crime and you take that chance.

Different thing entirely, not that you'll find me defending any arbitrary law...

I don't see how it's different. You seem to be talking from a point of view of fairness that doesn't exist.

fluffnik said:

carmonk said:

I disagree that it's an inalienable right, and so do most people. Just because a bunch of liberals overseas says it is don't make it true.

Aha! I think I may see the root of our disagreement.

I don't see that the state/mob has any intrinsic moral authority. Its legitimacy is solely derived from it protecting the rights of its citizens; all of them...

Then you'll agree that it should protect the rights of the law-abiding society not to have their governance influence by people who have shown themselves opposed to that society and are in the process of undergoing punishment for that opposition.

If you don't agree with that it means you don't really believe what you wrote. If you do agree with it then it's a case of identifying the lesser evil, and therefore there's no resolution to the disagreement. You think it's one thing, I think it's another.

[JagLover]

Vipers said:

Couldn't give a rats arse if they vote or not.

Can't say I'm that bothered myself, but the key principal is that it should be our elected representatives that decide.

[carmonk]

And it ends up with the prisoners paying £76 each. Result. (well, this stage ends anyway)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358295/Hi...

[MOTORVATOR]

Brilliant

[thinfourth2]

JagLover said:

Vipers said:

Couldn't give a rats arse if they vote or not.

Can't say I'm that bothered myself, but the key principal is that it should be our elected representatives that decide.

Bingo

Give them the vote which they won't use anyway and then go tell the court of human rights to go swivel