skinnydipper Posted 11 February 2011 Posted 11 February 2011 i agree , but they will be now that lawyers are seeking out huge compensation claims for them.( and huge fees for themselves ) i suspect that lawyers looking for a new gravy train are at the bottom of all this , not any great concern for human rights . Mmmm..... That bait looks very tasty indeed
skinnydipper Posted 11 February 2011 Posted 11 February 2011 A politician on the news summed it up perfectly 'those who break the law can't make the law'. Sweet irony With so many MPs (primary law makers) having been on the fiddle.
Zingari Posted 11 February 2011 Posted 11 February 2011 Mmmm..... That bait looks very tasty indeed If my earlier post implied that lawyers were a bunch of corrupt scavenging vultures , whose only interest was to make huge profits out of society then i'd should add ; Present company excepted of course
kimmy619 Posted 12 February 2011 Posted 12 February 2011 I don't think that it can depend on what crime they have committed as people's opinions would differ to much about the severity of a crime. It has to be all or nothing, and in my opinion it should be nothing. When they have served their time and have been released, they should be able to vote again. Prison is a punishment.
samjohnson Posted 12 February 2011 Posted 12 February 2011 Why should they be allowed to vote? They have broken the laws of the land and should be made to pay for it. This should include voting for the government of whom's laws they have broken.
Flynny Posted 12 February 2011 Posted 12 February 2011 I've been watching this whole debate on the telly and in the papers and am a bit flabbergasted at people's inability to separate out the issues dispassionately.. For a start, when we're talking about being 'dictated to by Europe' or whatever - it's not quite true. We're not talking about the EU here, which I have mixed feelings about, but a court under the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe. Given that it was set up after WWII to ensure that the kind of thing that happened in Germany could never happen again, to help us all rub along together, etc, It's a much more noble institution than the EU altogether. Secondly, it's about separating out what rights you retain in prison. Obviously you surrender your right to freedom, but does that mean you lose all your rights? Or are we alright to torture and mistreat whoever we like if they've broken the law? Following on from that, if state power grew further intrusive, could governments or law-enforcement agencies influence elections? Also, what is being objected to and asked for by the court is not votes for all prisoners, but a removal of the 'blanket ban' on prisoners voting. I'm pretty uncomfortable with all prisoners voting, certainly. But what about people who are moving towards release and whom prisons are trying to re-integrate into society? I don't think I'd be against the kind of people who are on day-release programs voting, for instance, because it might genuinely help them, and by extension, all of us. And what about people who've been imprisoned for repeated misdemeanors rather than criminal acts? This is a complicated issue being reduced to gut feelings and it stinks a bit. Obviously I don't want Ian Huntley voting, but to use that to poo-poo all prisoners rights, and to belittle an entire court which on the whole does good work is silly.
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 12 February 2011 Posted 12 February 2011 I don't think that it can depend on what crime they have committed as people's opinions would differ to much about the severity of a crime. It has to be all or nothing, and in my opinion it should be nothing. When they have served their time and have been released, they should be able to vote again. Prison is a punishment. Agreed
MPH Posted 12 February 2011 Posted 12 February 2011 I've been watching this whole debate on the telly and in the papers and am a bit flabbergasted at people's inability to separate out the issues dispassionately.. For a start, when we're talking about being 'dictated to by Europe' or whatever - it's not quite true. We're not talking about the EU here, which I have mixed feelings about, but a court under the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe. Given that it was set up after WWII to ensure that the kind of thing that happened in Germany could never happen again, to help us all rub along together, etc, It's a much more noble institution than the EU altogether. Secondly, it's about separating out what rights you retain in prison. Obviously you surrender your right to freedom, but does that mean you lose all your rights? Or are we alright to torture and mistreat whoever we like if they've broken the law? Following on from that, if state power grew further intrusive, could governments or law-enforcement agencies influence elections? Also, what is being objected to and asked for by the court is not votes for all prisoners, but a removal of the 'blanket ban' on prisoners voting. I'm pretty uncomfortable with all prisoners voting, certainly. But what about people who are moving towards release and whom prisons are trying to re-integrate into society? I don't think I'd be against the kind of people who are on day-release programs voting, for instance, because it might genuinely help them, and by extension, all of us. And what about people who've been imprisoned for repeated misdemeanors rather than criminal acts? This is a complicated issue being reduced to gut feelings and it stinks a bit. Obviously I don't want Ian Huntley voting, but to use that to poo-poo all prisoners rights, and to belittle an entire court which on the whole does good work is silly. Thats a very strange sentance to bring into the argument... you equate wether someone has the right to vote alongside torture? as to those who are 'moving towards release' they are still serving their sentance moving towards the end of it or not. Is not day release somthing that will ' genuinely help them' ? And who has said anything about poo poo ing all their rights? We are only talking about Voting.. Lets not forget - it is OUR tax paying money that is paying for their upkeep , their free tv, free gym free meals as someone else put it.. cliche or not, i think their rights have been curtailed by their own actions, not ours. I am not talking about their basic human rights, for which they are entitled to... I do very much support the idea of them doing some form of work that contributes towards society as a means to pay for those, but thats a different argument altogether...
Fox1651 Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 No votes at all for prisoners IMO, Those who break the law shouldnt be able to make the law
SuperSwede Posted 16 February 2011 Posted 16 February 2011 I just can not understand how you lot want to deprive the prisoners of their democratic rights. I does not matter if you are a convict or not. If you make them live under your rules, why shouldnt they have the right to descide what rules they are FORCED to live under? If you want to break the law, then break the law but be prepared to take the consequences.
Zingari Posted 16 February 2011 Posted 16 February 2011 I just can not understand how you lot want to deprive the prisoners of their democratic rights. I does not matter if you are a convict or not. If you make them live under your rules, why shouldnt they have the right to descide what rules they are FORCED to live under? If you want to break the law, then break the law but be prepared to take the consequences. the last sentence sounds contradictory to the rest . ( or do you mean if the uk breaks european law ,that we all should be prepared to take the consequences of compensation claims ? )
acooling08 Posted 17 February 2011 Author Posted 17 February 2011 I just can not understand how you lot want to deprive the prisoners of their democratic rights. I does not matter if you are a convict or not. If you make them live under your rules, why shouldnt they have the right to descide what rules they are FORCED to live under? If you want to break the law, then break the law but be prepared to take the consequences. The first part is bollocks - you can't just decide to break a law if you don't like it. The second part about taking the consequences - Not being able to vote is a consequence!!
z-layrex Posted 18 February 2011 Posted 18 February 2011 It's just another way to disenfranchise the poor. Poor babies.
James. Posted 18 February 2011 Posted 18 February 2011 People who break the law shouldn't make the law is a retarded thing to say.
z-layrex Posted 18 February 2011 Posted 18 February 2011 People who break the law shouldn't make the law is a retarded thing to say. Its not their fault they broke the law. We should be giving their useless chav families more money.
Simmo86 Posted 18 February 2011 Posted 18 February 2011 A politician on the news summed it up perfectly 'those who break the law can't make the law'. +1
Fosse Boy Posted 18 February 2011 Posted 18 February 2011 Its not their fault they broke the law. We should be giving their useless chav families more money. Nice to see we've not resorted to throwing stereotypes around eh?
James. Posted 18 February 2011 Posted 18 February 2011 Its not their fault they broke the law. We should be giving their useless chav families more money. What the hell are you talking about?
Raj Posted 18 February 2011 Posted 18 February 2011 People who break the law shouldn't make the law YET most politicians who DO help make the law are the biggest fcukers around! Personally dont think anyone in prison should vote. i aint got a massive dossier on why i think that way,just do so there...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.