Prisoners getting the vote – eh?

Is the EU for real?

Should this be the issue that finally rids us of this insanity?

Is there even a reasonable argument that this is the right thing to do?

Prisoners forfeit their right to freedom by committing a crime – why should they be allowed the vote?

Many are imprisoned a long way from their homes – what electoral roll would they be on?

Why couldn’t the EU just have stuck to what it was intended to be:

a) A way to ensure France and Germany never went to war again.
b) An economic alliance to allow Europe to compete (ha ha) with the likes of the US and China (based on coal and steel only at the beginning if my memory serves me).

Why did it have to become a self-serving political project with a self-serving layer of parallel bureaucracy?

Why was currency union deemed desirable when it shackled the likes of Germany with the likes of Greece so that neither can now form their own fiscal policy?

Why couldn’t it have remained a loose set of trading arrangements that served each participant so long as they signed up to that specific arrangement?

I feel I’ve gone off-topic already in an OP, but really, I mean really, why can’t we just tell Brussels to eff off when they’re being ridiculuous?

DC has said that they won’t get the vote “under this government”.

EFTA served that loose trading agreement before we joined the common market

Is the EU for real?

Yes

Should this be the issue that finally rids us of this insanity?

Doubt it dave seems unlikely to give them the vote

Is there even a reasonable argument that this is the right thing to do?

Yes there are a number of reasons

Prisoners forfeit their right to freedom by committing a crime – why should they be allowed the vote?

A society with laws set by government has removed their freedom and you think they should not be allowed a say in that government and what it does?

Many are imprisoned a long way from their homes – what electoral roll would they be on?

Not sure

Why couldn’t the EU just have stuck to what it was intended to be:

everything grows and changes, even your contempt for them.

Why did it have to become a self-serving political project with a self-serving layer of parallel bureaucracy?

That is so unlike our own government

Why was currency union deemed desirable when it shackled the likes of Germany with the likes of Greece so that neither can now form their own fiscal policy?

Bit more complicated than a soundbite answer would allow

Why couldn’t it have remained a loose set of trading arrangements that served each participant so long as they signed up to that specific arrangement?

I think it is because the people of these countries want something different from you?

I feel I’ve gone off-topic already in an OP, but really, I mean really, why can’t we just tell Brussels to eff off when they’re being ridiculuous?

We can but it will not be without consequences [ tutting mainly].
Do you think highly of countries that ignore international law?

we would be bound by European Court of human rights even if we were not in the EU much like Iceland, Norway, Turkey etc. It can really be like Daily Mail in here sometimes.

It can also be like ‘The Mirror’ in here sometimes…Often in fact.

so the OP can tell the difference in the future

Council of Europe
European Court of Human Rights
European Union

Pffffffttttt as if there’s a difference they all want to take away my pint

Maybe the OP was a tad ‘ranty’, but what is wrong with countries electing governments who then enter into agreements with other governments (or not) for mutual benefit?

Seeing as how the human race has decided to draw lines around geographical areas and called them ‘countries’ and spent hundreds of years (mostly) building up a legislature that ‘works’ what worth is there in suddenly creating a macro-country that has governance in at the same time as its constituent parts?

A lot of the time it barely works at country versus state/region/county level, so what is the EU other than another layer of admin that, for the most part, duplicates the laws of its constituent parts (as these are largely the goals of all reasonable societies) whilst wasting time and money on side-issues?

Do we really not have the faith in ourselves not to elect extremists and so have to be bound by the European Court of Human Rights in everything – even when it position becomes one of reducto ad absurdum like the vote for prisoners?

Some of you folks need to move out from behind your Mail reader versus Guardian reader mud-slinging and actually have a bit of a think about the garden path you are being led down. Examine your own motives for kicking out before doing so – you might be surprised by how led you are.

This is not a right vs left argument – and, for the record (not that I feel I even need to express a preference as this is not the point) I much prefer the Graun (decent standard of journalism if a tad driven by blind ideology) to the Mail (which is a comic, not a newspaper) or the Telegraph for that matter.

Do we really not have the faith in ourselves not to elect extremists and so have to be bound by the European Court of Human Rights in everything – even when it position becomes one of reducto ad absurdum like the vote for prisoners?

Well the evidence would appear to be we have elected extremists who wont obey the laws regarding human rights. Indeed it is absurd you ask this

Some of you folks need to move out from behind your Mail reader versus Guardian reader mud-slinging and actually have a bit of a think about the garden path you are being led down. Examine your own motives for kicking out before doing so – you might be surprised by how led you are.

Are you Kaesae ?

we have elected extremists

Oh dear.

No, we haven’t.

Rather overstated the case a bit there, I think.

Now who’s into soundbite responses?

By any definition ‘PR-man Cameron’ and his ineffectual mates are not extremist – it’s actually insulting to even state it when you contrast it with bona fide extremists.

It seems that your definition of ‘extremist’ is ‘someone whose policies I don’t like’. Extremist in itself potentially?

Let’s pray to every god that cameroon let’s this EU decision to let prisoners vote as that would no doubt mean tory inbreds would not be in control once this has been allowed.

See their is logic to EU strangeways even if I don’t see what the eff they stick and still to this day control our so called independant country the UK!

Not sure on precise detailed info but Davey wonder cacoon let’s this go through then he’s just shot his party and what they stand for in the foot/feet.

It’s that simple if you think logically about it!

Why shouldn’t prisoners get the right to vote?, lets say in the near future where our current laws are continually changing due to perceived terror threats you were imprisoned for protesting against the government at the time and you were jailed as a political prisoner or jailed under new political dissent laws – do you now consider that you shouldn’t have a say in who runs this country?, do you agree with your own argument that you do not deserve the right to vote?.

Laws are constantly being changed and bent to suit the needs of those in power, in a civilised (though not necessarily a true working democracy) country such as the UK i consider it inhuman and reprehensible to refuse the right to vote to a section of society who are thus deemed to be lesser citizens than the rest of us.

I agree that work will need to be done to the voting system to ensure that mass block voting in local elections cannot be tainted by prisoners who’s usual place of residence is outwith the local area concerned but this is something that could be remedied.

A citizen is a citizen no matter what crime they have committed, i’ve broken laws that may possibly send me to jail if i were caught, the fact that i continue to believe along with the majority of this countries population that those laws are wrong and morally indefensible may not protect me in court but i should still maintain the right to vote if i were to be sent to jail.

I was going to type a response, but trying to read onceinalifetime’s post has broken my ability to comprehend english.

Oh no it’s back.

You have to love the irony of this. On the one hand, “Criminals should not have the vote, they’ve done wrong and broken the law and must be punished”. On the other “Yeah, we’re going to throw out our obligations and do what we want regardless of the code of laws” Can’t help but feel our lawmakers should be a bit more law-ey.

It’s that simple

😀

Let’s pray to every god that cameroon let’s this EU decision to let prisoners vote as that would no doubt mean tory inbreds would not be in control once this has been allowed.

once again ECHR is not the EU.

Can’t see any good reason that prisoners should be denied the right to vote.

They have forfeited their right to liberty, not representation.

Cameron dislikes the Human Rights Convention and wants us out if it. But announcing your government doesn’t believe in Human Rights is a vote loser, so instead he is drawing focus on issues like this to get the Daily Mail brigade on side.

jailed as a political prisoner or jailed under new political dissent laws

You’re going to have to help me with what these new laws might be and how a British government would manage to pass them.

Assuming such (abhorrent) laws were to become statute (which they won’t), do you think such a government would give a monkey’s about my right to vote anyway?

The ‘extremists take power in Britain’ argument is a fantasy construct to enable the formation of views that suit their individual holders.

OP you’re making the classic fail of thinking the Human Rights act has anything to do with the EU. It doesn’t.

Also, if we treated out prisoners with a bit more dignity and a bit less of a hard-on for punishment, perhaps we wouldn’t have such a woefully high recidivist rate. See Norway for an example of a more civilised and massively more effective approach.

They have forfeited their right to liberty, not representation

Well, through the Representation of the Peoples Act (or whatever it’s called), we, through Parliament, have decided that they’ve forfeited both. One of the ideas of imprisonment is that you’ve done something so serious against ‘society’ that you lose the right to participate in that ‘society’ for a period of time, and that, we have decided, includes the right to vote.

The judgment from the court is not that “prisoners must be able to vote”, it’s “you can’t have a blanmket ban on prisoners voting”. So if we enacted a law that said “any prisoners given sentences of over a year can’t vote” that’d be fine legally, but suicide politically.

we let dumb people vote, so why not prisoners? we let daily mail readers vote, so why not prisoners? we let wimmin vote (god forbid they’ll be wanting to drive next!), so why not prisoners?

EDIT – good post from IHN above!

I think prisoners should be allowed to vote. We should be trying to keep them as included in our society as possible, you know, encourage them to participate in it, not outside of it.

And there are a few people in here I would prefer to dis-enfranchise before prisoners, starting with anybody who believes anything they read in a red-top, then anybody who votes for a contestant on X-Factor or Strictly, they are much more of a danger to our society.

I’ll add anybody who doesn’t understand how Europe works to that list, in honor of the OP.

Yup don’t see the problem. Unless I’ve missed the Party Political Broadcast from the Free All Prisoners Party (FAPP)?

I for one think it’s disgusting that the EU has made it illegal for foxes not to vote.

There are far worse villans in the house of commons, and they vote all the time.

What sort of society are we in, when someone could murder or rape your 5 year old child, and then still have rights!

The ‘extremists take power in Britain’ argument is a fantasy construct to enable the formation of views that suit their individual holders.

I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with this. We aren’t in a country like the Ukraine or Russia where the political opposition are imprisoned, we have a much better freedom and human rights record than them so we should be able to take away peoples rights. Oh…

geologist – Member
What sort of society are we in, when someone could murder or rape your 5 year old child, and then still have rights!

A decent, civilised one that adheres to its international legal obligations?

By the way though, I’ve never seen it suggested we should have to give all prisoners voting rights, just that a blanket ban goes against binding legal agreements we have made. As Northwind points out, shouldn’t law and order fans be in favour of sticking to binding international legal agreements?

What sort of society are we in, when someone could murder or rape your 5 year old child, and then still have rights!

does murdering and raping a 5yr old not suggest that they might possibly be suffering from some form of mental illness, and as not to discriminate against mental illness, the person should receive treatment not punishment? yes there are some people who have capacity and are generally truly abhorrent nasty people, but there’s also a whole world of variables and individuals out there who dont fit the simple description of ‘murderer and paedophile’

so instead he is drawing focus on issues like this to get the Daily Mail brigade on side.

The OP knows this. This is an anti-EU rant via the “human rights” issue after all.

The ‘extremists take power in Britain’ argument is a fantasy construct to enable the formation of views that suit their individual holders.

Pot looked over to the other side of the stove. “Kettle” it said, “are you black?”

It hasn’t happened yet, but this Government is currently looking at passing a law that will enable them to read everyone’s on-line communications. Political extremes do have a habit of creeping up on the unwary.

Thought the last govt. did something to allow “some” prisoners to vote? Or did that just not get thru?
Can kind of understand those banged up for something petty for say 28days getting a vote.
Either way there’s other unfairness in the right to vote anyway. I was fortunate enough to vote on my 18th. Someone a day younger, if that were a General Election, would not have had such a right until long after graduating from uni and/or starting employment. Who ought to have more (or any) right to vote? The guy that was born a day or week late? or the guy that gets released from prison the week after a general election?

“Assuming such (abhorrent) laws were to become statute (which they won’t), do you think such a government would give a monkey’s about my right to vote anyway?“

Er, didn’t someone recently get 8 months’ porridge for wearing an anti-police T-shirt? See also a few other similar cases recently, much publicised on social media. They’re not exactly sophisticated political dissent, they’re mostly idiots; but they’re in a similar vein, of holding an anti-establishment view or saying things which cause some people to be upset but cause no actual harm. One’s sophistication when it comes to expressing one’s views shouldn’t, within reason, detract from their right to either hold or express those views.

I think the main problem with prisoners voting is a purely technical one, ie they tend to be clustered in certain constituencies. As a general principle I don’t see any valid or coherent justification for a blanket ban on prisoners’ basic rights.

Voting should be dictated by intelligence, not whether you’re locked up or not.

I’d prefer intelligent criminals to vote rather than stupid people.

😀

But a prisoner could have a postal vote in his ‘home’ constituency.

I thought we had gone a step too far when we let them have flushing toilets.

“It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones.”

? Nelson Mandela

Those damn jailbirds!

camerons just got his back up coz he knows no prisoner would ever vote tory, apart from all the ones who get done for fraud, white collar crime etc…

just say, rape and murder no vote, evryone else is fine

i suspect that most inmates dont bother to vote anyway

it my be a good way of getting them on the road to integrating back into society

i suppose if you just want prison to be a punishment (tho im not sure that your average crim paces his cell every night worrying about who his mp is going to be)
without ever looking to fix the problems then you would take camerons side

Oh dear.

No, we haven’t.

Rather overstated the case a bit there, I think.
You think I am overstating the case – Chinny rub of irony there me thinks given your posts
Well the word extremist is your word and they are ignoring the law so the evidence still is that we are capable of electing a government who ignore international law. if you dont want to call that extreme [ like you did in your quote]then that is fine with me.

It seems that your definition of ‘extremist’ is ‘someone whose policies I don’t like’. Extremist in itself potentially?

You seem to be confusing me with you. You support our government when it ignores international law because you disagree with the law – “policies you dont like” but you would call Iraq , I assume, extremist, because they [ arguably] ignore international law.
I am liking your principle at work here and it certainly has nothing to do with your personal opinion of course

Rogg, if you cannot intepret my reply then it is the case that your simple.