91热爆

Well, I sincerely hope they succeed. If they do, it may mean that for once in their miserable political careers, the pair of them might actually achieve something of substance that would have public backing.

Which considering that all that Davies has done in the last five years is preen and all that Straw managed to do was to keep kicking this particular ball - and others - into the long grass, would at least in my eyes mean some sort of rehabilitation for these two characters.

Whilst CastIron at least acknowledged that at some point the issue would have to be faced up to, given his Europhile credentials and those of the LibDems, his capitulation on this front was hardly surprising, however galling it may have been.

What exactly is to be achieved by denying prisoners their vote when at some point the vast majority will have to live under the policies of local or national government. Deprivation of liberty is a powerful punishment, disenfranchisement simply delivers a pointless alienation.

I would much rather give prisoners a vote than the alternative. I work with prisoners daily and most of them won't bother to vote but I guarantee that they will all claim for compensation because their rights have been infringed, every single last one of them. I do not want any more of my taxes going to prisoners than is absolutely necessary. Unfortunately the right to vote is the lesser of two evils in my opinion.

Cameron gave way on voting rights for prisoners, to appease the Lib/Dems in the Coalition. Straw and Davis have my complete support on this issue.

Why is everyone ignoring the obvious in this debate? You cannot take away an individual's rights, in any kind of context. This is what separates a right from a privilege.

While I understand and sympathise with the problem this poses for democratic legitimacy because most people do not agree with the law. However, in this instance, MPs, Lords and the public have to bow to the technocratic argument because the former are ignoring the legal definition of a right.

"The government says that if it does not change the law it will face hundreds of compensation claims costing well over a hundred million pounds."

As there seems to be an increasing trend in MP's spending time at HM's pleasure, perhaps this is just another wheeze for them to milk yet more money out of the system!

I don't like Jack Straw. To me he represents all of the worst aspects of New Labour. In my opinion the best thing he could now would be to retire quitely and take up gardening.

It seems the only purpose of this debate is to embarass the government and tease the old Thatcherite right wing of the Conservative Party about their impotence in the face of coalition government and the growing power of the EU.

Perhaps that is no bad thing but even if Straw was succesful it will simply result in the taxpayers handing over compensation to prisoners.

I don't see the logic in depriving prisoners of the vote - surely the ultimate aim is integration rather than exclusion. Why do secondary schools often organize mock elections to coincide with general elections? Presumably to develop maturity and an interest in society and democracy. These would be useful qualities to instill in prisoners too, who are by and large rather childish, in my experience.

I can see there might be practical issues involving prison locations and constituency boundaries.

Forget human rights,focus on realpolitik.Most who commit crime against property are conservative.They accept the aim of getting filthy rich,they just use illegitimate means.

I think Mr.Cameron must have been chatting to a criminologist.Said he wanted to amend the Human Rights act before the election,has now changed his mind.The man has b**** of steel,admirable.

2 watriler

What exactly is to be achieved by denying prisoners their vote when at some point the vast majority will have to live under the policies of local or national government. Deprivation of liberty is a powerful punishment, disenfranchisement simply delivers a pointless alienation.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

John Hirst killed his 63 year old landlady with an axe in an unprovoked attack, perhaps you should consider how alienated the the family of his victim will feel if he is given the vote.

Personally, I do not think that prisoners should have any rights at all beyond being fed, clothed and not subject to torture etc.

Anyway, regardless of personal views on the subject, the wider point is surely that our parliament should decide whether prisoners should be able to vote, not some unelected judge in another country.

5. At 1:20pm on 18 Jan 2011, matt wrote:
"Why is everyone ignoring the obvious in this debate? You cannot take away an individual's rights, in any kind of context. This is what separates a right from a privilege."

Come on Matt,of course you can,rights are man made.Bentham said rights were nonsense,the Rights of Man "Nonsense on stilts".

9. bryhers

Forget human rights,focus on realpolitik.Most who commit crime against property are conservative.They accept the aim of getting filthy rich,they just use illegitimate means.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No bryhers, they are socialists who think that they are entitled to other peoples wealth.

AS71

'Anyway, regardless of personal views on the subject, the wider point is surely that our parliament should decide whether prisoners should be able to vote, not some unelected judge in another country.'

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Our parliament did, it passed a vote that incorporated the ECHR into British law in 1999/2000. Democracy has prevailed, a law was passed and now it is being fully implemented

Bryhers wrote:
"Most who commit crime against property are conservative"

What a ridiculous comment. Your hatred of conservatives is greater than your intelligence (and I don't doubt the latter is considerable).

A criminal is someone who is found guilty in a court of law according to the evidence.

Nick: 鈥淭he government says that if it does not change the law it will face hundreds of compensation claims costing well over a hundred million pounds鈥�.

鈥︹�︹��& Labour don鈥檛 seem to care where the money will come from.
No lessons learnt.

5. At 1:20pm on 18 Jan 2011, matt wrote:
Why is everyone ignoring the obvious in this debate? You cannot take away an individual's rights, in any kind of context. This is what separates a right from a privilege.

========================

These rights are arbitrary consensus.
Also enshrined in these legislations are rights to liberty - yet self evidently we restrict and remove that liberty from criminals to protect and punish those incapable or unwilling to not infringe the rights of others. As such I see it entirely uncontentious that where an individual has abrogated the rights of others by their actions that they lose other rights for the term of the punishments imposed.

Rights come with responsibilities - if people are unable to take the responsibilities entailed by rights i.e. respecting other peoples like rights - then they show they are not ready to have those same rights.

I find it somewhat of a sick joke clearly demonstrative of the thinking of the people pushing this "right" through the courts that the case chosen was a person convicted of a crime which permanently denied this same right of voting (in addition to every other right in the book) to another human being. Such contempt for society the chambers behind this must have.

However I think #3 has it absolutely right though unfortunately - the people who would get the vote will mostly not use it and don't give a stuff for the nobler arguments but all would jump on a legal bandwagon to try to get some free money from the rest of us adding insult to the injury they already caused to society. They care little for these concepts of rights, if they did they would not be in prison in the first place.

I would propose the government gives them a polling card - which if they are at liberty to do so they can use to vote in person at their polling station like the rest of us. Hardly anyone elses fault if through their own actions they are unable to attend on the polling day.

Have to scratch postal votes also of course - however hardly a great loss to the system given the questions over it.

Once someone has committed a crime , and found guilty , they should lose ALL their rights .

"5. At 1:20pm on 18 Jan 2011, matt wrote:
Why is everyone ignoring the obvious in this debate? You cannot take away an individual's rights, in any kind of context. This is what separates a right from a privilege."

I'd rather like to think that I have the right not to be mugged or have my house broken into. It's certainly a right that I respect in others.

Do any of your rights go hand in hand with responsibilities?

'Come on Matt,of course you can,rights are man made.Bentham said rights were nonsense,the Rights of Man "Nonsense on stilts".'

Indeed they are man made but once they are passed into law by a democratically elected legislature then they have to be implemented. As galling as it sounds this is a case of politicians and the public 'cherry-picking' elements of principals that it likes, which kind of goes against the whole purpose of principals, that they are accepted irrespective of the consequences of them

"9. At 1:40pm on 18 Jan 2011, bryhers wrote:
Most who commit crime against property are conservative.They accept the aim of getting filthy rich,they just use illegitimate means."

For someone who likes to look down on others intellectually (am I worthy of your attention) that comment of yours must take some sort of prize for ideological idiocy.

Most who commit crime against property are conservative? This conclusion is based on what, exactly?

I can only conclude that someone has slipped something into your Earl Grey tea.

"8. At 1:38pm on 18 Jan 2011, pdavies65 wrote:
Why do secondary schools often organize mock elections to coincide with general elections? Presumably to develop maturity and an interest in society and democracy."

I'd always thought it was because it was an easy option. You know, like getting kids to write an essay on "what I did in my holidays" on the first day of term.

"Our parliament did, it passed a vote that incorporated the ECHR into British law in 1999/2000. Democracy has prevailed, a law was passed and now it is being fully implemented"

One of the more stupid things Labour did. The ECHR was cobbled together after WWII to act as a temporary measure in former fascist countries. The laudable aim was to stop the excesses seen in the 1930s and 1940s. It has subsequently been seized on by people who are huge on rights and miniscule on responsibilities.

How much will it cost to run polling stations in prisons? On what basis will prisoners select a candidate (apart from watching TV)? Will prison guards man the polling stations? What's to stop corruption? Is denial of voting really a big felon disenfranchisement?

If the problem here is that we don't think prisoners should be able to vote, but we're going to have to let them or get sued because we've sign the ECHR, clearly the solution is to withdraw from the ECHR. Then we can keep those parts of it that we agree with, and bin the parts of it that are rubbish, based on what the population of *this* country reckons is right and wrong.

"23. At 2:42pm on 18 Jan 2011, RedandYellowandGreennotBlue wrote:
How much will it cost to run polling stations in prisons? On what basis will prisoners select a candidate (apart from watching TV)? Will prison guards man the polling stations? What's to stop corruption? Is denial of voting really a big felon disenfranchisement?"

Lots of questions....my answers...

Lots.

Well, according to bryhers they'll all vote Conservative (perhaps all socilaists are saints?) but I suspect that the real answer is in the same way everyone else does.

Maybe, if their union can negotiate treble overtime and a week off in lieu.

no.

5. At 1:20pm on 18 Jan 2011, matt wrote:

Why is everyone ignoring the obvious in this debate? You cannot take away an individual's rights, in any kind of context. This is what separates a right from a privilege.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

They're not individuals, they're convicted crims, who in significant enough cases have shown scant regard for the rights of the person that they committed the crime against.* Stuff 'em. They already get it too easy as it is. Prison is meant to be about punishment and protecting the public, not just alternate free board and lodgings for crooks.


*Notwithstanding the amount of mentally ill patients who should be in secure hospitals as against jails.

9#

Now you must be on a wind-up. Even by your standards.

Either that or you are Laurie Penny in disguise and are still sore about being pulled down a peg or six by Guido this morning.

8. At 1:38pm on 18 Jan 2011, pdavies65 wrote:

I don't see the logic in depriving prisoners of the vote - surely the ultimate aim is integration rather than exclusion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, thats the sopping wet liberal do-gooding aim that has got us to this pitiful place that we're in now.

The real aim ought to be about protecting the law abiding majority from the machinations of the criminal fraternity. Only Neil of the more serious contributors, (yet again) has hit the nail on the head with this, objectively.

Ah, see I missed out one answer "what's to stop corruption".

Well, I'm sure that having asserted their rights, prisoners would realise that rights come with responsibilities and so they won't even think about corruption.

13 matt

Our parliament did, it passed a vote that incorporated the ECHR into British law in 1999/2000. Democracy has prevailed, a law was passed and now it is being fully implemented

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I want our parliament to decide whether prisoners should have the vote, whether foreign criminals should be deported etc.

I don't want the decision outsourced to unaccountable, unelected bodies.

If this requires us to withdraw from the ECHR then so be it.

Talking about prisoners (or those who might soon be one) I see that conservative Lord Taylor is on trial and using the "everyone was at it" excuse. I wonder if Lefty has sympathy with this. he did when it was a Labour MP on trial. Personally, I have no sympathy at all with Lord Taylor. This is because I'm not wedded to a political party to the point where I will shift and change my stance on anything just to further the party.

To be honest I don't really care if prisoners have a vote or not. Just make sure it's a postal vote!

But once again this shows up the shabby nature of this dodgy government.

Under Thatcher we might have had the fascism and the unemployment but at least nonsense like this would have been firmly dealt with immediately by her government.

Under this current shower we have the fascism and deliberate unemployment, but the government lacks the bottle to address a simple issue of EU interference. We have to rely on the actions of a back bench MP.

Yet again the conspiracy government never fails to disappoint.


(I see inflation is UP. Rising unemployment AND rising inflation. Wow, these emergency economic policies are working well. Ho, ho, ho)

18. At 2:16pm on 18 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
I'd rather like to think that I have the right not to be mugged or have my house broken into.
============================

So are you in favour of your tory chums releasing thousands of prisoners to cut costs?

RedandYellowandGreennotBlue

"On what basis will prisoners select a candidate (apart from watching TV)?"

Well on current form they, the prisoners, will be canvassed within. Funny old world when you could end up sharing a cell with the same guy you voted for.

"33. At 4:08pm on 18 Jan 2011, jon112dk wrote:
18. At 2:16pm on 18 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
I'd rather like to think that I have the right not to be mugged or have my house broken into.
============================

So are you in favour of your tory chums releasing thousands of prisoners to cut costs?"

No. And they're not my chums, just the party with more of the right ideas than the others.

32 - "Under this current shower we have the fascism and deliberate unemployment, but the government lacks the bottle to address a simple issue of EU interference."

Under this 'current shower'? Are you saying the previous government stood up to the EU?

"(I see inflation is UP. Rising unemployment AND rising inflation. Wow, these emergency economic policies are working well. Ho, ho, ho)"

Can't see why that should be a cause of merriment. Unemployment and inflation have real consequences for real people.

23. At 2:42pm on 18 Jan 2011, RedandYellowandGreennotBlue wrote:
How much will it cost to run polling stations in prisons? On what basis will prisoners select a candidate (apart from watching TV)? Will prison guards man the polling stations? What's to stop corruption? Is denial of voting really a big felon disenfranchisement?

====================================

Practically these are easy to deal with - you treat the prisoner basically as an overseas voter with a postal vote registered in the last constituency they were resident in (or use the court location they were sentenced at if of no fixed abode).
I would bet that far more non-prisoners will select a candidate for worse reasons than what they saw on TV.

As a postal vote the potential for corruption is less than with the normal postal system - at least the returning officer could be certain they actually existed.

None of these are problems to resolve practically and neither are any potential difficulties with them good reasons to deny them a vote.

That they deny others their rights in the act commiting their crimes is a perfectly good reason to deny them such a right.

being in jail means that to foriet the rights that others have simple as that and the only type of compensation should be to the victims of crime.

see the left backing the rights of prisoners

BUT what about the right of fathers to be fathers that have been denied by the left for the last 14 years ?

14. At 1:59pm on 18 Jan 2011, johnharris66 wrote:
Bryhers wrote:
"Most who commit crime against property are conservative"
What a ridiculous comment. Your hatred of conservatives is greater than your intelligence (and I don't doubt the latter is considerable).
A criminal is someone who is found guilty in a court of law according to the evidence."

I really seem to have cut you to the quick on this but you have forgotten our discussion on Merton`s classification of deviancy as a disjunction between socially prescribed goals and illegitimate means.

You will recall he used first generation immigant Anericans as examples,
They were the organizers of criminal gangs,were into prostitition,race fixing,numbers and robbery.Many became legitimate,by he forties one mobster had a christmas tree on his lawn in deference to Eisenhower`s.They backed Kennedy and Nixon,J Edgar Hoover was a buddy.
Conservative to the core,they just climbed the ladder in a different way.

I don`t hate conservatives,how could I,I am married to one.

19. At 2:17pm on 18 Jan 2011, matt wrote:
'Come on Matt,of course you can,rights are man made.Bentham said rights were nonsense,the Rights of Man "Nonsense on stilts".'

"Indeed they are man made but once they are passed into law by a democratically elected legislature then they have to be implemented. As galling as it sounds this is a case of politicians and the public 'cherry-picking' elements of principals that it likes, which kind of goes against the whole purpose of principals, that they are accepted irrespective of the consequences of them"

Matt,Matt.Rights can be unpicked as quickly as they are established.If you think that rights established by a democrartic legislature are sacrosant look at the fate of the Weimar Republic.

20. At 2:22pm on 18 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
"9. At 1:40pm on 18 Jan 2011, bryhers wrote:
Most who commit crime against property are conservative.They accept the aim of getting filthy rich,they just use illegitimate means."

For someone who likes to look down on others intellectually (am I worthy of your attention) that comment of yours must take some sort of prize for ideological idiocy.
Most who commit crime against property are conservative? This conclusion is based on what, exactly?
I can only conclude that someone has slipped something into your Earl Grey tea."

Read my comments to JH.66.Not definitive but might make you think.

. At 3:05pm on 18 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
"Talking about prisoners (or those who might soon be one) I see that conservative Lord Taylor is on trial and using the "everyone was at it" excuse. I wonder if Lefty has sympathy with this. he did when it was a Labour MP on trial. Personally, I have no sympathy at all with Lord Taylor. This is because I'm not wedded to a political party to the point where I will shift and change my stance on anything just to further the party."

Of the two who now have form,will they be voting Labour or Tory7?

JH

Not forgetting Los Vegas:Funded by Mafia dollars.Air Chav will take you there and fund your first $100 of chips.

Fubar 27

Wo is Guido? or Penny whatshername?

46

Wipe that smirk off your face bryhers, you know fine well. And if you dont immediately know, you've got the brains to be able to find out.

42. At 8:27pm on 18 Jan 2011, bryhers wrote:

"Read my comments to JH.66.Not definitive but might make you think."

"Not definitive". Something of an understatement. You leap from 'American organised crime' to 'property criminals vote conservative'. Most shockingly, one of them even had a Christmas tree! Must look out for that as a sign that someone might be a mobster. And these people supported both Kennedy AND Nixon. One a Democrat, the other a Republican. To be honest, I'd struggle logically to get from "American mobsters at one time or another supported both of the main political parties" to "people who steal vote Conservative" but I'll accept that this sort of connection must make sense in your world.

And you're married to a Conservative as well. I'm not sure, but does that make him a criminal?

"44. At 8:42pm on 18 Jan 2011, bryhers wrote:
JH

Not forgetting Los Vegas:Funded by Mafia dollars.Air Chav will take you there and fund your first $100 of chips."

"Air Chav"?

Oh, my, you do look down your nose at some people don't you. Is it because people who gamble in casinos are more likely to be Liberal-Democrats (or some other weird assumption you've made).

Bryers 40

I don't often pick you up on issues because their seems little point. Fiction is fiction whether it be on the economy or any other matters. This tends to be what you peddle constantly.

I am very surprised that john harris did not point out to you that John F. Kennedy was in fact a democrat. Furthermore his family, mainly Joseph P. Kennedy, was in fact associated with unsavoury activities.

I think you have been reading too much on the theory of the Christian Mafia, and have become confused.

Seems to have been little debate following the weekend's stories on how top footballers are avoiding tax. I'd have thought that all the lefties would be calling for protests outside of football grounds.

50#

Curious that, isnt it? Curious that all of those banging on about equality and all of the students have been deafeningly quiet on the subject?