No vote for prisoners
Discussion
JagLover said:
Time to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights IMO
For those who say we need a check on our elected politicians give our own supreme court sufficient power.
Lawyers are political. They are also open to pressure from politicans, the same ones they went to school with and probably buggered senseless. Our legal system is free from the massive political bias that is present in many other countries but it is far from immune from corruption. For those who say we need a check on our elected politicians give our own supreme court sufficient power.
We've had that great bastion of freedom, the USA, ignore habeas corpus. We've had that same country torture prisoners. This was supported, tacitly, by our politicians. We've been taken into an illegal war - by one man it appears! - and you want to give the mates of such politicans total control over our rights.
Right!
We live at the moment in a state where we have certain rights. However, politicians will infringe these: want your DNA taken and sold to the highest briber? What about being locked up for no reason?
The ECHR has a mandate, agreed by this country, and is limited by that mandate. Whether prisoners get the vote or not in a really minor cause celebre. Does it really matter? We are talking about a minority of them after all.
The real issue here is our signing of the EHCR. That is what is at issue. It is not about votes for short-term prisoners. This is Cameron trying to cut the limits on what a government can do.
A poster or two mentioned the fact that the judges on the EHCR were unelected. I can't remember actually voting for any of ours either.
Blair rode roughshod over all normal procedures when he took this country to war. This conceit is present in most political leaders and most MPs did not even raise an objection. Give any political leader full reign and we've got real problems.
So don't argue about whether some prisoners should have the vote. That is a bright light that appears to have dazzled you. This is about removing a check on the infringement of your, and my, rights. You have a right to freedom and liberty. Do you think putting it in the hands of politicians and politically motivated lawyers with no check is a good idea?
FourWheelDrift said:
"The government says it has to end the ban on inmates voting, or face being sued for tens of millions of pounds."
Not unless we introduce a law that specifically states that it over-rides an EU directive.
In theory that can be done (constitutionally of course no-one can over rule Parliament), but there is caselaw from Europe which says the European Court trumps UK legislation.Not unless we introduce a law that specifically states that it over-rides an EU directive.
All this means is that the UK will end up paying compensation to many prisoners.
A number of points.
1. The European Court of Human Rights is not the EU, or anything directly to do with it. If you bother to look at the names of the countries who have signed up to the ECHR you will see it is a wider organisation than the EU.
2. The ECHR is not a "club that we asked to join," as effectively was the case with the EU (or the Common Market as it was then known). We (ie the UK) were involved from the start, drafting its constitution and setting its terms of reference. Therefore we will look like a nation of bleedin' imbeciles if we decide to withdraw from something we helped create in the first place when they say something we as a nation don't happen to agree with
3. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't for the life of me see why so many people are getting so wound up about this. The media have been pushing the line "we will have to give the vote to terrorists and murderers and rapists and paedophiles" - has nobody around here (or come to that in the rest of the country) sussed out that there are literally thousands of terrorists and murderers and rapists and paedophiles who have the vote already? These include those who haven't been caught yet and those who have served their sentences.
4. Practicalities. After Googling it I find that we have about 85,000 locked up at the moment. Of these, a fair proportion are brain dead and won't be on the electoral roll anyway for a number of reasons. Leaving that to one side, the wider electorate rarely manages to get more than a 50% turnout at general elections, so in truth, only about 42,500 of these are going to bother to vote anyway. Assuming an even spread over all 650 constituencies, that works out at an average of 65 prisoners per constituency who are likely to vote. Now how much bloody difference do you think that those numbers are going to make to any election result?
5. Finally, we as a country have been told that if we do not give at least some prisoners the vote we lay ourselves open to compensation claims from those that we have denied it. Perhaps the most ludicrous aspect of the whole affair is that the vast majority of compensation claimants would never have voted anyway even if we had let the buggers do so. So the net result of this national indignation/ outrage/ pig-headedness will be to give prisoners some money to compensate them for something they wouldn't have done anyway if we hadn't been so idignant/ outraged/ pig headed in the first place.
I'll be putting money on the vast majority of lags sitting inside at the moment rubbing their hands with glee over this
1. The European Court of Human Rights is not the EU, or anything directly to do with it. If you bother to look at the names of the countries who have signed up to the ECHR you will see it is a wider organisation than the EU.
2. The ECHR is not a "club that we asked to join," as effectively was the case with the EU (or the Common Market as it was then known). We (ie the UK) were involved from the start, drafting its constitution and setting its terms of reference. Therefore we will look like a nation of bleedin' imbeciles if we decide to withdraw from something we helped create in the first place when they say something we as a nation don't happen to agree with
3. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I can't for the life of me see why so many people are getting so wound up about this. The media have been pushing the line "we will have to give the vote to terrorists and murderers and rapists and paedophiles" - has nobody around here (or come to that in the rest of the country) sussed out that there are literally thousands of terrorists and murderers and rapists and paedophiles who have the vote already? These include those who haven't been caught yet and those who have served their sentences.
4. Practicalities. After Googling it I find that we have about 85,000 locked up at the moment. Of these, a fair proportion are brain dead and won't be on the electoral roll anyway for a number of reasons. Leaving that to one side, the wider electorate rarely manages to get more than a 50% turnout at general elections, so in truth, only about 42,500 of these are going to bother to vote anyway. Assuming an even spread over all 650 constituencies, that works out at an average of 65 prisoners per constituency who are likely to vote. Now how much bloody difference do you think that those numbers are going to make to any election result?
5. Finally, we as a country have been told that if we do not give at least some prisoners the vote we lay ourselves open to compensation claims from those that we have denied it. Perhaps the most ludicrous aspect of the whole affair is that the vast majority of compensation claimants would never have voted anyway even if we had let the buggers do so. So the net result of this national indignation/ outrage/ pig-headedness will be to give prisoners some money to compensate them for something they wouldn't have done anyway if we hadn't been so idignant/ outraged/ pig headed in the first place.
I'll be putting money on the vast majority of lags sitting inside at the moment rubbing their hands with glee over this
rs1952 said:
4. Practicalities. After Googling it I find that we have about 85,000 locked up at the moment. Of these, a fair proportion are brain dead and won't be on the electoral roll anyway for a number of reasons. Leaving that to one side, the wider electorate rarely manages to get more than a 50% turnout at general elections, so in truth, only about 42,500 of these are going to bother to vote anyway. Assuming an even spread over all 650 constituencies, that works out at an average of 65 prisoners per constituency who are likely to vote. Now how much bloody difference do you think that those numbers are going to make to any election result?
Except the prisoners will be voting where they are at prison - and that could be a very large block vote, especially in a local election.Puggit said:
Except the prisoners will be voting where they are at prison - and that could be a very large block vote, especially in a local election.
But is that the intention, because presumably they would have a postal vote (for some pretty obvious reasons ) so they could just go to their "home" constituency.rs1952 said:
A number of points.
Using good sense, logic and history to support a point of view on a PH political thread - not a good idea.Just one thing: many 'professional' offenders do not register to vote for obvious reasons. In fact, it is the vast majority. So, although I agree with everything you say, the figures might be over optimistic/pessimistic (not sure which applies), anyway, too high.
Mind you, it can sometimes be handy to check on the register. Sometimes you do get an address, if not for them then their wife or partner.
It might be a good idea to suggest that they can only vote in the area that they registered within the previous four years before conviction. That would give about four per constituency.
Mind you, with Ilsey now in prison, and one to follow, Cameron might think that he might get some votes now especially as they would have two votes.
Gargamel said:
Gun said:
The thing with this is, although most people in this country wouldn't allow them to vote, and quite rightly so, they've got the court of ooomin rights behind them so when they aren't given the vote they'll just go to court and get a payout for it. They're not interested in the right to vote, they just see it as a chance to get a big payout.
Who or what is actually going to make us pay though ? We can just accept the judgement of the court and decline to pay. Or withdraw our funding from the ECHR.
rs1952 said:
A number of points.
As you say ECHR has nothing to do with EU. The important point debated today was that the ECHR has taken it upon itself to decide itself a living organisation that can change it's direction without our remit and defy our own laws.
Additionally as many speakers pointed out they seem to be moving in a direction where they are more interested in the soft touches such as ourselves rather than actually implementing what they were formed for in the first place.
There are numerous outstanding judgements relating to abhorrent practices that have not been implemented by countries that are brushed to one side in favour of this sort of rubbish.
As one speaker said today, when we joined in 52 there was little talk about whether Rudolph Hess should keep his voting rights!
MOTORVATOR said:
The important point debated today was that the ECHR has taken it upon itself to decide itself a living organisation that can change it's direction without our remit and defy our own laws.
No.The ECHR has tried to prevent a government acting inhumanely against (some of) its citizens.
MOTORVATOR said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12409426
A step in the right direction.
Bit of a shock given what we think of our politicians.
212 majority to tell Europe to poke it.
It illustrates how little power our elected parliament now has.A step in the right direction.
Bit of a shock given what we think of our politicians.
212 majority to tell Europe to poke it.
Welcome to the EUSSR.
fluffnik said:
whoami said:
They lost their right to vote when they committed their crime.
Nope.When convicted they were sent to jail. The punishment is loss of liberty, nothing else.
Depriving people of further rights is an abuse of state power.
How can that be an abuse of state power?
fluffnik said:
No.
The ECHR has tried to prevent a government acting inhumanely against (some of) its citizens.
So which of the following is inhumane?The ECHR has tried to prevent a government acting inhumanely against (some of) its citizens.
Removal of liberty
Removal of right to vote and influence lawmakers
Restriction of internet access
Restriction of goods delivered to cells
No menu in the cell
No fluffy cushions
No access to own PS3 with COD access
Laughable, the rule was in place before you done the crime so you know what the consequences are if you break the law.
fluffnik said:
whoami said:
They lost their right to vote when they committed their crime.
Nope.When convicted they were sent to jail. The punishment is loss of liberty, nothing else.
Depriving people of further rights is an abuse of state power.
Globs said:
MOTORVATOR said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12409426
A step in the right direction.
Bit of a shock given what we think of our politicians.
212 majority to tell Europe to poke it.
It illustrates how little power our elected parliament now has.A step in the right direction.
Bit of a shock given what we think of our politicians.
212 majority to tell Europe to poke it.
Welcome to the EUSSR.
Which is the real tragedy.
Not some scum being "deprived" of their "right" to have a say in how our country is governed.
grumbledoak said:
fluffnik said:
Nasty petty totalitarianism in my view.
Rubbish. Some rights are fundamental; some are contingent on not being a 
.Those in the latter category can be suspended.
tting on the people.Mostly, it works well and when it does fail it tends to be due to a failure to tell "democratic"/mob governments to take a hike - they should have stomped S172 into the dirt for example.
whoami said:
Why you want murderers, rapists, etc having a say in the government (central or otherwise) of the country is beyond me.
I don't. I don't want the state to have the right to deprive them, or any citizen, of their franchise either.
85,000 prisoners voting is much less problem than the state taking even one more power.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff