No vote for prisoners

[MOTORVATOR]

fluffnik said:

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.

Did you mean to say retain rather than take?

[fluffnik]

Globs said:

fluffnik said:

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.

I thought it was the law, and a law most people agree with.
How can that be an abuse of state power?

Consider the difference between mob rule and democracy...

[fluffnik]

MOTORVATOR said:

fluffnik said:

85,000 prisoners voting is much less problem than the state taking even one more power.

Did you mean to say retain rather than take?

All state power is taken from the people.

[F93]

Another reason to leave the EU.

And, all the unwashed liberals whining on about human rights?

fk off, go to China, Zimbabwe or the Middle East before you blither on about the human rights of some criminal who's ruined a woman's life, molested a child or murdered a fellow human living the life of luxury at the law-abiding citizen's expense.

But no! They have to have the vote!

Well hey, while we're at it, let's rehabilitate paedophiles in nursery schools!

tts, go whine on about it where you'd actually make a damn difference.

[rs1952]

F93 said:

Another reason to leave the EU.

And to Globs and whoami ....

You just don't get it do you? The EU and the ECHR are two different things. Read my post again and get Googling - put yourselves straight

[whoami]

rs1952 said:

F93 said:

Another reason to leave the EU.

And to Globs and whoami ....

You just don't get it do you? The EU and the ECHR are two different things. Read my post again and get Googling - put yourselves straight

Thanks for the patronising reply

Where have I stated that the two organisations are synonymous?

[MOTORVATOR]

fluffnik said:

All state power is taken from the people.

Hard work we are tonight.

So just so we have this straight. Our laws state and have stated for a very long time that prisoners do not get the right to vote once incarcerated.

The ECHR have come along and decided that we need to review that and our government today have told them to poke it.

The ECHR over the last few years have become a pain in the backside of many people due to their supposed ability to rule differently to what our laws say.

Now I really couldn't give a stuff about the rights of a few prisoners, what I am saying is that this is a good thing on the basis that Human Rights gets wheeled out every time someone feels hard done by with our laws or can see a quick buck to be made.

So do you think it's good that we may finally see some cap to the control of the ECHR or do you believe that we acceded all lawmaking rights to them when we signed up?

[rs1952]

whoami said:

rs1952 said:

F93 said:

Another reason to leave the EU.

And to Globs and whoami ....

You just don't get it do you? The EU and the ECHR are two different things. Read my post again and get Googling - put yourselves straight

Thanks for the patronising reply

Where have I stated that the two organisations are synonymous?

Here:

whoami said:

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.
Welcome to the EUSSR.

Which is the real tragedy.

[fluffnik]

MOTORVATOR said:

Hard work we are tonight.

Not 'specially. I'm always more Yippie than Hippie...

MOTORVATOR said:

So do you think it's good that we may finally see some cap to the control of the ECHR or do you believe that we acceded all lawmaking rights to them when we signed up?

We, as in the UKofGB&NI, played a big rôle in the establishment of the ECHR due in large part to having become all to aware of what happens when states exercise power which is not properly theirs against people who ought to have had some fundamental rights respected.

I'm very glad that the EHCR continues to restrain lawmakers when they succumb to the temptation to be populist bullies playing to the baying mob.

Indeed I wish the EHCR would be less tolerant of small, allegedly utilitarian, breaches like S172...

The fact that someone has been convicted of something (currently) illegal to the extent that the state feels justified in depriving them of their right to liberty does not excuse entirely disregarding their opinion.

[WhoseGeneration]

fluffnik said:

We, as in the UKofGB&NI, played a big rôle in the establishment of the ECHR due in large part to having become all to aware of what happens when states exercise power which is not properly theirs against people who ought to have had some fundamental rights respected.

I'm very glad that the EHCR continues to restrain lawmakers when they succumb to the temptation to be populist bullies playing to the baying mob.

Indeed I wish the EHCR would be less tolerant of small, allegedly utilitarian, breaches like S172...

The fact that someone has been convicted of something (currently) illegal to the extent that the state feels justified in depriving them of their right to liberty does not excuse entirely disregarding their opinion.

I wonder if the ECHR would have considered the ID card system proposed by the previous Government as against fundamental rights.
Then, how would any have been able to present a case?

[MOTORVATOR]

fluffnik said:

We, as in the UKofGB&NI, played a big rôle in the establishment of the ECHR due in large part to having become all to aware of what happens when states exercise power which is not properly theirs against people who ought to have had some fundamental rights respected.

I'm very glad that the EHCR continues to restrain lawmakers when they succumb to the temptation to be populist bullies playing to the baying mob.

Indeed I wish the EHCR would be less tolerant of small, allegedly utilitarian, breaches like S172...

The fact that someone has been convicted of something (currently) illegal to the extent that the state feels justified in depriving them of their right to liberty does not excuse entirely disregarding their opinion.

Have you actually looked at some of the judgements they hand down.

I think the most recent one that boiled me up was the [Iranian?] doctor over here that was found guilty on 2 charges of sexual molestation or somesuch.

2 counts, found guilty on both with subsequent appeal ending with 15 months for one and 18 months for the other to run concurrently and the court not giving leave to further appeal.

The appeal was based on the fact that the first count was evidenced by a witness statement that unfortunately could not be cross examined because the witness had committed suicide after the event.

He took it to ECHR and won the case that he was not afforded a fair trial and count 1 should not have been bought making no difference to the term of incarceration, a mockery of our justice system and a whole load of cost to boot.

I personally don't think that was the intent of the court of human rights when it was set up and it's about time they focussed on some real issues rather than that sort of rubbish.

[Derek Smith]

MOTORVATOR said:

The appeal was based on the fact that the first count was evidenced by a witness statement that unfortunately could not be cross examined because the witness had committed suicide after the event.

If that is true then by the laws of this country it could not be entered into evidence. I think the circs you quote must be wrong.

[whoami]

rs1952 said:

whoami said:

rs1952 said:

F93 said:

Another reason to leave the EU.

And to Globs and whoami ....

You just don't get it do you? The EU and the ECHR are two different things. Read my post again and get Googling - put yourselves straight

Thanks for the patronising reply

Where have I stated that the two organisations are synonymous?

Here:

whoami said:

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.
Welcome to the EUSSR.

Which is the real tragedy.

Which proves exactly what?

[JagLover]

MOTORVATOR said:

I personally don't think that was the intent of the court of human rights when it was set up and it's about time they focussed on some real issues rather than that sort of rubbish.

Indeed

It was focused on true abuses of state power, to prevent genocide torture etc.

But as with so many such organisations they suffer from 'mission creep' and, a common failing of judges, interpreting law in ways the writers never intended to make it suit their own agendas.

Leaving aside the issues that get the soft left riled up from the treatment of a few bearded loons who want to blow us all up to asylum and immigration policy. The labour years saw massive state intrusion into the lives of the whole of the population. From laws saying how old a child has to be to leave them at home by themselves ( a recent example), CRB checks for people driving children home from sports events, the list goes on and on, all without a word of protest from those supposed to be safe guarding our liberties.

As envisioned by the left human rights are merely rights to protect bearded loons and criminals from the state. What I would like to see is the ECHR scrapped altogether and replaced with a British constitution that safeguards basic rights for all, with sensitivity to British laws and customs, enforced by our own supreme court.

Britain has an ancient culture of constraint of state power and the rule of law, certainly far more so than most of the countries who send judges to sit on the ECHR. We should have faith in ourselves and not rely on others.

[powerstroke]

fluffnik said:

No.

The ECHR has tried to prevent a government acting inhumanely against (some of) its citizens.

Yes the criminals !!! and IMHO the ECHR would be better described as ECCR = european court of criminal rights.. has it helped many law abiding citizens of this country or just scum and vexatious litigants...???

Edited by powerstroke on Friday 11th February 09:07

[rs1952]

JagLover said:

Britain has an ancient culture of constraint of state power and the rule of law

Any Scottish or Irish historians out there who would like to comment on this?

[Puggit]

(from today's soar-away Sun)

Shamed! 22 who voted no

LIBERAL DEMOCRAT Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed), Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington), Don Foster (Bath), Duncan Hames (Chippenham), Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark), Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge), Tessa Munt (Wells), Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute), Stephen Williams (Bristol West).

CONSERVATIVE Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) LABOUR Barry Gardiner (Brent North), Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston), Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn), Andy Love (Edmonton), Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East), John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington), Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East).

PLAID CYMRU Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr), Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd), Hywel Williams (Arfon).

GREEN Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion).

INDEPENDENT UNIONIST Lady Hermon (North Down).

[Derek Smith]

rs1952 said:

Any Scottish or Irish historians out there who would like to comment on this?

Why not English and Welsh as well. Enclosures anyone? Vagrancy Act? Workhouses?

And what about Oz, where human rights abuse, with regards to childen deported there from this country and the ghastly things done to and with abogriginal children was ignored by the legislature and the courts of this country?

This country wasn't particularly bad in its treatment of the population by those in power, but it certainly should not be held up as an example of good practice.

Abuses of basic rights by legislators and lawyers goes on in this country. If you think it doesn't then I'd suggest you look around you. The prisoner's vote bit has been picked on by Cameron because it is emotive. It generates a response totally out of all proportion to the seriousness of the subject.

Cameron wants control. The only reason any politician wants to limit the authority of the EHCR is because they want to abuse hunman rights. There can be no other reason. Just because Cameron is a bit of an idiot doesn't make him not dangerous.

[rs1952]

^^^

Thanks Derek - you filled in a lot of the gaps I didn't have time to research this morning before I posted

There was also something I seem to vaguely remember about sending the troops in to "deal with" strikers ....

[Fittster]

Puggit said:

(from today's soar-away Sun)

Shamed! 22 who voted no

22 who want to save the UK taxpayer getting a rather large fine. At least they see the reality of situation rather than posturing to Sun readers.