EU & Labour to give prisoners the right to vote after 1,000 years

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168562/Rapists-paedophiles-burglars-vote-Government-prepares-lift-prisoners-election-ban.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe#Relations_in_general_between_the _CoE_and_the_EU

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/04/09/article-1168562-045CB9E0000005DC-272_468x164.jpg


Rapists, paedophiles, burglars and muggers could be among 28,800 prisoners handed the right to vote, it emerged last night. The Government is preparing to demolish 1,000 years of legal practice by proposing that inmates serving up to four years in jail will be allowed to help elect MPs and councillors.

Labour is implementing a verdict by the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled five years ago that it was unfair to stop convicts casting their vote. The case was brought by axe killer John Hirst, who became the self-styled ' jailhouse lawyer'. The Strasbourg court said a blanket ban was illegal - but did not specify all prisoners must be entitled to vote. Discretion on how it should be implemented was left to ministers. Last night, the scale of the revolution proposed by the Government caused shockwaves. With as many as 29,000 votes up for grabs, it raises the prospect of politicians having to canvass for votes inside prison.

Tory justice spokesman Dominic Grieve said: 'Many people will question whether this is a sensible development. 'The principle that those who are in custody after conviction should not have the opportunity to vote is a perfectly rational one. 'Civic rights go with civic responsibility, but these rights have been flagrantly violated by those who have committed imprisonable offences. 'The Government must allow a parliamentary debate which gives MPs the opportunity to insist on retaining our existing practice that convicted prisoners can't vote.'An absolute disgrace, and who do you think these prisoners will vote? - will they vote Labour who give them the cushy prisons/pathetic sentences they recieve or will they vote for another party?. If you commit a crime you forfeit your right to civil liberties in my mind otherwise whats the point in prison if its not a punishment.

Also as a side-note before anyone says the European Courts are not the European Union, both are very closely linked/connected and the EU itself is many bodies put together all 'working for an intergrated Europe' as is the European Court - why bother having elections with that unelected and corrupt lot running our country? - I want our courts and politicians running this country, not some (now totally crazy) European socialists from the planet zog.

Thoughts, should prisoners be allowed to vote?

[Smits]

They lose the right to vote when they commit the crime.

All this will lead to is even comfier prisons as parties try to grab those potentially crucial votes.

Obviously theyre goign to vote with labour.

[dirrty]

they shouldn't have the right to influence who comes into power in this country. they lost that right the second they committed the crime.

[alexxxxx]

lets kill em all too.

but srsly, they should have the vote, but it wont make any difference to an outcome.

and it's not the EU again. ^_^ the CoE and the EU aren't the same thing at all. but of course intricacies such as these don't matter to you at all.

[-:Undertaker:-]

lets kill em all too.

but srsly, they should have the vote, but it wont make any difference to an outcome.

and it's not the EU again. ^_^ the CoE and the EU aren't the same thing at all.

It'll make a difference in swing seats where you have Labour and another party neck and neck in the polls, 1,000+ votes from a nearby prison can dramatically alter that vote. On why they should have the vote, why should they? - they forfeitted their rights when they plunged a knife into someone, murdered people in cold blood, raped innocent women/children and so forth. Why on earth have any remorse/respect for their 'human rights', they already get Xboxes and all the toys and games they want in prison (Ian Huntley who murdered two little innocent girls).

On the EU, again not offically but both are very connected and both working towards a 'intergrated Europe' as shown by the diagram on the link. Not to mention the fact both were never elected or chosen by the British public.

[dbgtz]

Why don't we just give them better food the the NHS? ... :l Prison isn't much of a punishment for most.

[alexxxxx]

It'll make a difference in swing seats where you have Labour and another party neck and neck in the polls, 1,000+ votes from a nearby prison can dramatically alter that vote. On why they should have the vote, why should they? - they forfeitted their rights when they plunged a knife into someone, murdered people in cold blood, raped innocent women/children and so forth.

On the EU, again not offically but both are very connected and both working towards a 'intergrated Europe' as shown by the diagram on the link. Not to mention the fact both were never elected or chosen by the British public.

you think that prisoners should lose their human rights? what happens if we start criminalising other things. it's a long slippery slope when you mess with things like this. plus if you read the article, you should notice that the ruling was not for all prisoners, but for just SOME prisoners and only prisoners serving up to 4 years in prison MIGHT be given voting privileges which spreads to around 8k in the country, split literally all over the country. then you have to think that these people are unlikely to vote. it will make very little difference. last time i checked, cold blooded killers get more than 4 years in prison.

i don't think we got a vote on whether to prohibit cannabis, nor whether we should be in the UN. the coe was made up after the second world war and court set up and human rights were made by them.

I went to a very good conference in Paris at the weekend, with Vince Cable, Sharmi Chackribati (cba to spell her name), tory MP Pickles and 2 labour MPs and Vince Cable was quite clearly the best politician. And Sharmi's talk on human rights was absolutely outstanding. Plus we were shown in detail how the EU works and about the CoE and Human rights. (h)

[Stryderman]

Except some people are innocently convicted..

About time imo

[Special]

Except some people are innocently convicted..

About time imo

Yeah, about 5% are innocently conviced, the other 95% consist of perverts who have in the past proably perverted on you...

[FlyingJesus]

Except some people are innocently convicted..

About time imo

So you think upwards of 29k prisoners should be allowed to vote because perhaps 5 were wrongly convicted

[-:Undertaker:-]

you think that prisoners should lose their human rights? what happens if we start criminalising other things. it's a long slippery slope when you mess with things like this. plus if you read the article, you should notice that the ruling was not for all prisoners, but for just SOME prisoners and only prisoners serving up to 4 years in prison MIGHT be given voting privileges which spreads to around 8k in the country, split literally all over the country. then you have to think that these people are unlikely to vote. it will make very little difference. last time i checked, cold blooded killers get more than 4 years in prison.No not human rights, their civil liberties are lost when they commit a crime. The freedom to move around is lost when you commit a crime, a more important 'human right' than voting but you don't see to have any qualsm about that, maybe because thats the whole point of prison - its a punishment not a reward. If a child is naughty you do not reward them, otherwise the child and his peers will see being naughty as a way to get a reward.

On some prisoners, indeed. But how long will that stay for?, not very in my eyes. On how long prisoners are inside for, you mean like the killer of the little boy Rhys Jones who is serving a 'life' sentence with a minimum of 22 years? - that is disgusting. Or even the murderers of the little boy Jamie Bulger who were released after 8 years - that is sick.


i don't think we got a vote on whether to prohibit cannabis, nor whether we should be in the UN. the coe was made up after the second world war and court set up and human rights were made by them.So after 1,000 odd years of British justice & courts, the unelected Europeans who have caused more wars with eachother than any other continent in the world now have the right to tell my country and my people what is right and what is wrong? - you support votes for prisoners yet don't support the British people having their promised referendum on Europe - you have very mixed up priorities indeed.


I went to a very good conference in Paris at the weekend, with Vince Cable, Sharmi Chackribati (cba to spell her name), tory MP Pickles and 2 labour MPs and Vince Cable was quite clearly the best politician. And Sharmi's talk on human rights was absolutely outstanding. Plus we were shown in detail how the EU works and about the CoE and Human rights. (h)I couldn't care less how the European Union says it works, I know how it works and I know its utterly corrupt as shown by its audits not being signed off for over a decade with billions missing along with Mr Mandelsons fantastic 'holiday' with a Russian steel tycoon days before an important EU tariff was lifted on imported steel. Not only that, but the utter arrogance shown by federalists and eurocrats is mind-boggling, how they get away with it is beyond me. Human rights do not come via the unelected European system because of the very simple flaw that it is unelected and unaccountable.

What human rights is somebody like Ian Huntley entitled to? - you go and tell Jessica and Hollys parents how you think Ian Huntley should be allowed to vote as to not to infringe his human rights and see what they think of his human rights when it comes to voting. Infact, ask anyone on the street and the majority verdict you'd get back is most would like to see that vile scumbag hung.

[alexxxxx]

No not human rights, their civil liberties are lost when they commit a crime. The freedom to move around is lost when you commit a crime, a more important 'human right' than voting but you don't see to have any qualsm about that, maybe because thats the whole point of prison - its a punishment not a reward. If a child is naughty you do not reward them, otherwise the child and his peers will see being naughty as a way to get a reward.

Their is no human right which means you cannot be arrested and jailed for a crime. It would be ridiculous if there was. And that example is stupid, the children already have the reward before a select few 'naughty' children are allowed their 'reward.' Plus, 4 years is a decent time frame as it is likely that an elected government would stand in longer than they are in prison for.


On some prisoners, indeed. But how long will that stay for?, not very in my eyes. On how long prisoners are inside for, you mean like the killer of the little boy Rhys Jones who is serving a 'life' sentence with a minimum of 22 years? - that is disgusting. Or even the murderers of the little boy Jamie Bulger who were released after 8 years - that is sick.

baseless assumptions.


So after 1,000 odd years of British justice & courts, the unelected Europeans who have caused more wars with eachother than any other continent in the world now have the right to tell my country and my people what is right and what is wrong? - you support votes for prisoners yet don't support the British people having their promised referendum on Europe - you have very mixed up priorities indeed.

Of which those wars have included the united kingdom, a dominant european state. There was no promised referendum on Europe, nor the Lisbon Treaty, the defunct Constitution - yes.



I couldn't care less how the European Union says it works, I know how it works and I know its utterly corrupt as shown by its audits not being signed off for over a decade with billions missing along with Mr Mandelsons fantastic 'holiday' with a Russian steel tycoon days before an important EU tariff was lifted on imported steel. Not only that, but the utter arrogance shown by federalists and eurocrats is mind-boggling, how they get away with it is beyond me. Human rights do not come via the unelected European system because of the very simple flaw that it is unelected and unaccountable.

What human rights is somebody like Ian Huntley entitled to? - you go and tell Jessica and Hollys parents how you think Ian Huntley should be allowed to vote as to not to infringe his human rights and see what they think of his human rights when it comes to voting. Infact, ask anyone on the street and the majority verdict you'd get back is most would like to see that vile scumbag hung.
Ian Huntley is entitled to his human rights as he is a human. Start by dehumanising the prisoners, then the asylum seekers, the the immigrants, then the ethnics... progression. The EU is accountable. Completely accountable. You don't like the commission, you vote in another MEP that wouldn't vote in someone like that again (commissioners have to be voted in by the parliament if you didn't know). You don't like the Council of Ministers, you vote in a different government in the general election who will send different ministers. Completely accountable. Stop burying your head in the sand. Corruption is alive and well in all levels of government, even in UKIP. We do our best to clean up our act.

[Tash.]

This won't happen. The link is from the daily mail and therefore in my eyes is written to provoke an angry response in the easily annoyed.

To answer the question you posed: No they shouldn't get the vote, they relinquish that right the moment they step into prison.

[Stryderman]

So you think upwards of 29k prisoners should be allowed to vote because perhaps 5 were wrongly convicted

Yes, Why shouldnt they be allowed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Their is no human right which means you cannot be arrested and jailed for a crime. It would be ridiculous if there was. And that example is stupid, the children already have the reward before a select few 'naughty' children are allowed their 'reward.' Plus, 4 years is a decent time frame as it is likely that an elected government would stand in longer than they are in prison for.

A human right is freedom, if you are in prison you are not free. Therefore by your logic prison is taking away peoples human rights. Voting is not a human right, its a civil liberty. If you commit a crime, you forfeit your civil liberties.


baseless assumptions.

Of course its an assumption, and going by your logic (as an EU federalist) its an assumption that you already support implementing and therefore it will not be long before all of the vile scumbags get the vote. As I proved by those two high profile cases in my city of Liverpool, justice in this country is a complete and utter joke.


Of which those wars have included the united kingdom, a dominant european state. There was no promised referendum on Europe, nor the Lisbon Treaty, the defunct Constitution - yes.

Of course they included the British Empire, the Empire which stood up against the evil Third Reich when no one else would. So why are we taking directives and regulations from the people who couldn't stop beating the hell out of eachother for the past 1,000 years?. The treaty is the same as the Consitituion, even ardent EU supporters have said it themselves. The emblem, motto and badge were removed for cosmestic purposes but that didn't matter anyway, as they just implemented it via the backdoor without having to go through the trouble of the Treaty/Consitution.


Ian Huntley is entitled to his human rights as he is a human. Start by dehumanising the prisoners, then the asylum seekers, the the immigrants, then the ethnics... progression. The EU is accountable. Completely accountable. You don't like the commission, you vote in another MEP that wouldn't vote in someone like that again (commissioners have to be voted in by the parliament if you didn't know). You don't like the Council of Ministers, you vote in a different government in the general election who will send different ministers. Completely accountable. Stop burying your head in the sand. Corruption is alive and well in all levels of government, even in UKIP. We do our best to clean up our act.

Ian Huntley is not entitled to vote after killing two little girls, nor is he entitled to an Xbox. How on earth is it dehumanising? - how dare you talk about humanity when talking about the likes of Ian Huntley, the man has no humanity. Humanity has nothing to do with voting anyway so I have no idea where you get this stuff from.

On the European Union, oh I see cleaning up its act then. So I look forward to the day when the European Union investigates the conduct of Peter Mandelson and the Russian Steel Tycoon, not to mention the antics of Baroness Cathy Ashton who was the treasurer for the Nuclear disarmament group which recieved money from the Soviet government. I really look forward to that day along with the day we find out where the billions upon billions of taxpayer money has gone from EU books which have not been signed off in over a decade.

Of course theres corruption and wrongdoing in everything, and UKIP took fast action against the corrupt MEP who was found to be a fraudster (another reason why I have swapped from the Conservatives to UKIP) while the main three parties have stood by and accused eachother of theft from the taxypayer, when over 300 members of parliament have done it themselves (Cameron, Brown, Darling). The fact of the matter is, not only is the European Union unelected and unaccountable (yes thats right, its not elected!) but it doesn't even try and clean up its image and instead focuses on the most important issues to everyone, such as the size of fruit and vegtables on our supermarket shelves.

[alexxxxx]

A human right is freedom, if you are in prison you are not free. Therefore by your logic prison is taking away peoples human rights. Voting is not a human right, its a civil liberty. If you commit a crime, you forfeit your civil liberties.

There is no human right which allows someone to escape the law.



Of course its an assumption, and going by your logic (as an EU federalist) its an assumption that you already support implementing and therefore it will not be long before all of the vile scumbags get the vote. As I proved by those two high profile cases in my city of Liverpool, justice in this country is a complete and utter joke.

being an EU federalist has nothing to do with this.


Of course they included the British Empire, the Empire which stood up against the evil Third Reich when no one else would. So why are we taking directives and regulations from the people who couldn't stop beating the hell out of eachother for the past 1,000 years?. The treaty is the same as the Consitituion, even ardent EU supporters have said it themselves. The emblem, motto and badge were removed for cosmestic purposes but that didn't matter anyway, as they just implemented it via the backdoor without having to go through the trouble of the Treaty/Consitution.

The same british empire that attempted to appease hitler and allowed him to take land from other countries before getting worried that he might actually be a bit crazy. What happened in the past is in the past. European member states don't want to invade each other any more and would rather trade and work together.


Ian Huntley is not entitled to vote after killing two little girls, nor is he entitled to an Xbox. How on earth is it dehumanising? - how dare you talk about humanity when talking about the likes of Ian Huntley, the man has no humanity. Humanity has nothing to do with voting anyway so I have no idea where you get this stuff from.

Ian Huntley would not be eligible to vote under the measures being brought in. So I don't honestly see your point. Ian Huntley is a bad person. But believe it or not, he is a human, not an animal. He may not have 'humanity' and acted like a monster but that does not change him.



On the European Union, oh I see cleaning up its act then. So I look forward to the day when the European Union investigates the conduct of Peter Mandelson and the Russian Steel Tycoon, not to mention the antics of Baroness Cathy Ashton who was the treasurer for the Nuclear disarmament group which recieved money from the Soviet government. I really look forward to that day along with the day we find out where the billions upon billions of taxpayer money has gone from EU books which have not been signed off in over a decade.

Of course theres corruption and wrongdoing in everything, and UKIP took fast action against the corrupt MEP who was found to be a fraudster (another reason why I have swapped from the Conservatives to UKIP) while the main three parties have stood by and accused eachother of theft from the taxypayer, when over 300 members of parliament have done it themselves (Cameron, Brown, Darling). The fact of the matter is, not only is the European Union unelected and unaccountable (yes thats right, its not elected!) but it doesn't even try and clean up its image and instead focuses on the most important issues to everyone, such as the size of fruit and vegtables on our supermarket shelves.
Mandelson paid with his job and the EU is elected. If you could explain to me how it isn't i'd welcome it.

[Smits]

Yes, Why shouldnt they be allowed.

I dont think its a question of whether or not the prisoners should be allowed to vote. What he meant was the fact a few might be innocent, is hardly a valid reason to allow voting.

[-:Undertaker:-]

There is no human right which allows someone to escape the law.Indeed, and there is no human right as far as I know which tells the government of this country that criminals have a right just like the rest of us, to vote and elect a government despite intentially committing a crime and thus forfeiting their liberty & rights.


being an EU federalist has nothing to do with this.Yes it does, you will support EU policies no matter what the rest of the country think or want. No concept of putting others before yourself, although we are talking about the EU here so thats not a new thing.


The same british empire that attempted to appease hitler and allowed him to take land from other countries before getting worried that he might actually be a bit crazy. What happened in the past is in the past. European member states don't want to invade each other any more and would rather trade and work together.Indeed, the appeasement to the workings and contruction of a European superstate which ultimately shows that superstates do not work and are not wanted. More to the point and a more recent example; The Soviet Union which was sympathised with by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party along with numerous other socialists around Europe who now have jobs in the European Union, a Union which the last Premier of the USSR asked of why European leaders are so determined to recreate the Soviet Union in western Europe.


Ian Huntley would not be eligible to vote under the measures being brought in. So I don't honestly see your point. Ian Huntley is a bad person. But believe it or not, he is a human, not an animal. He may not have 'humanity' and acted like a monster but that does not change him.No it doesn't change him, but it changes his civil liberties as it has done for criminals over the past 1,000 years. On Ian Huntley maybe not for now, but I do not want any criminal to have the vote. The only reason Labour want this is because a criminal of obviously more likely to vote for the party which gives them a slap on the wrist.


Mandelson paid with his job and the EU is elected. If you could explain to me how it isn't i'd welcome it.Mandelson did not pay with his job, Mandelson saw more power in the United Kingdom and thus came back over here. Just like Neil Kinnock who was once a ardent opposer to the European project, but now both he and his wife have been on the Brussels gravytrain - strange how money changes a 'socialists' mind!. So i'd like to ask how is someone like Mandelson getting away with something like that which is clear and utter corruption?

Peter Mandelson is not elected because he is Lord, and when he was in the EU he was also not elected. He may of been chosen by his mates Blair and co. but he has no mandate from the people just as George Galloway pointed out the other day about Lord Falconer who became a Lord on the basis because he was Tony Blairs old flatmate. More to the point not only are the EU commission and the people who make EU policy unelected, they also weren't even asked for. I was never asked for a European Union, my Dad was never asked, my Grandad was never asked, his Dad was never asked and so forth.

What a utter corrupt shambles they all are and the whole thing is, where you put the rights of criminals (voting wise) above those of the British people (voting wise).

[Catzsy]

The OP missed a pretty important bit out.

From the article:
Mr Wills said the Government has made it clear that it disagreed with the court's ruling.
He added: 'However, the result of the ruling is that some degree of voting being extended to some serving prisoners is legally unavoidable.
'We will ensure whatever the outcome of this consultation, the most serious and dangerous offenders held in custody will not be able to vote

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168562/Rapists-paedophiles-burglars-vote-Government-prepares-lift-prisoners-election-ban.html#ixzz0ezVelrkY

As they are members of The European Parliament the government essentially has to abide by the Court of Human Rights.
Personally I don't agree with it but don't blame the Labour Party. It would be the same for any party in Government.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The OP missed a pretty important bit out.

From the article:
Mr Wills said the Government has made it clear that it disagreed with the court's ruling.
He added: 'However, the result of the ruling is that some degree of voting being extended to some serving prisoners is legally unavoidable.
'We will ensure whatever the outcome of this consultation, the most


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168562/Rapists-paedophiles-burglars-vote-Government-prepares-lift-prisoners-election-ban.html#ixzz0ezVelrkY

That makes it even worse! - They obviously do support it because otherwise they would tell the European Courts "No, we and the British people do not want this". The Labour Party was elected in 2005, not the European Court so therefore the Labour Party has a mandate to run this country, not foreign judges. So why are the Labour Party not vetoing/refusing to implement this just and France and Germany do when they dont like something that doesn't suit them.

..Hmm could it possibly be because they really agree with it and it'll gain them more votes, especially when a tight election is around the corner and it'll look good to be taking a tough stand after dithering for the past 13 years?

[alexxxxx]

Indeed, and there is no human right as far as I know which tells the government of this country that criminals have a right just like the rest of us, to vote and elect a government despite intentially committing a crime and thus forfeiting their liberty & rights.

There probably isn't a human right, no.



Yes it does, you will support EU policies no matter what the rest of the country think or want. No concept of putting others before yourself, although we are talking about the EU here so thats not a new thing.

This isn't an EU policy. I don't support all EU policies at all. What i thought we were a country of individuals anyway? Why should I care what anyone else thinks? :S Your concepts are incredibly confusing. You seem to care about the UK's past present and future, the way the 'british' do things and what is british and what isn't yet reject the idea of society and we are all individuals.



Indeed, the appeasement to the workings and contruction of a European superstate which ultimately shows that superstates do not work and are not wanted. More to the point and a more recent example; The Soviet Union which was sympathised with by the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Party along with numerous other socialists around Europe who now have jobs in the European Union, a Union which the last Premier of the USSR asked of why European leaders are so determined to recreate the Soviet Union in western Europe.

The EU is far, far, far from the USSR.



No it doesn't change him, but it changes his civil liberties as it has done for criminals over the past 1,000 years. On Ian Huntley maybe not for now, but I do not want any criminal to have the vote. The only reason Labour want this is because a criminal of obviously more likely to vote for the party which gives them a slap on the wrist.

Labour have to obide by the law, and would any other political party, unless they wanted to exit the CoE, which would be unthinkable. Like it or not, unless Britain floats away from europe, we will be involved in european politics, just like we have been for 1,000 years.



Peter Mandelson is not elected because he is Lord, and when he was in the EU he was also not elected. He may of been chosen by his mates Blair and co. but he has no mandate from the people just as George Galloway pointed out the other day about Lord Falconer who became a Lord on the basis because he was Tony Blairs old flatmate. More to the point not only are the EU commission and the people who make EU policy unelected, they also weren't even asked for. I was never asked for a European Union, my Dad was never asked, my Grandad was never asked, his Dad was never asked and so forth.

What a utter corrupt shambles they all are and the whole thing is, where you put the rights of criminals (voting wise) above those of the British people (voting wise).
We have had lords for the last 1000 years, why change it now? ;) EU comission is appointed by the parliament and the parliament are elected via the people. Like our government. The comission drafts laws along with the Council of Ministers and the parliament and they must be passed through these places too.

I've never had a vote on the UN, but I know that the government of the time (elected) willing fully led us into it. There was a vote for the common market, which developed into the EU over time.

[Catzsy]

That makes it even worse! - They obviously do support it because otherwise they would tell the European Courts "No, we and the British people do not want this". The Labour Party was elected in 2005, not the European Court so therefore the Labour Party has a mandate to run this country, not foreign judges. So why are the Labour Party not vetoing/refusing to implement this just and France and Germany do when they dont like something that doesn't suit them.

..Hmm could it possibly be because they really agree with it and it'll gain them more votes, especially when a tight election is around the corner and it'll look good to be taking a tough stand after dithering for the past 13 years?

Did you read the post? It says the most dangerous criminals would not be able to vote so let's get some perspective. Where are the examples of Germany and France saying no to rulings of the Court of Human Rights?
In any event it was the Conservatives who took us into it in the first place.
Fishing for votes? Not unless The Sun or the Sunday Sport back Labour. LOL =]

It is getting out of hand though and I think if a party promised a referendum
on re-evaluating Britain's membership of the EU they would get a lot of votes.
At least we have not joined the Euro yet.

[ifuseekamy]

What is that convict on about? Killing someone unprovokedly with an axe is completely different to not having the right to vote because you committed such an act :S

[GommeInc]

Okay, whoever thought up this brain dead logic probably needs to be institutionalised... Prisoners should not be allowed to vote. The only sort of political involvement they should have is watching it on the news, and that's it :/

[-:Undertaker:-]

There probably isn't a human right, no.

So why should they be given the vote under the banner of 'human rights'?


This isn't an EU policy. I don't support all EU policies at all. What i thought we were a country of individuals anyway? Why should I care what anyone else thinks? :S Your concepts are incredibly confusing. You seem to care about the UK's past present and future, the way the 'british' do things and what is british and what isn't yet reject the idea of society and we are all individuals.

We are all individuals, and an individual goes to a polling booth and elects which party they feel would do/has done the best job. No you shouldn't care what anyone else thinks, although if democracy is a core value in yourself then you would naturally care to keep democracy despite the fact you might disagree with the outcome.


The EU is far, far, far from the USSR.

Both are very socialist, very centralised and have structures which are very similar not to mention the fact both cover most of Europe and most people did not elect or choose it. The last President of the USSR said it himself. :P


Labour have to obide by the law, and would any other political party, unless they wanted to exit the CoE, which would be unthinkable. Like it or not, unless Britain floats away from europe, we will be involved in european politics, just like we have been for 1,000 years.

Exit the CoE then or pass legislation on this issue which vetoes the CoE on this decision. If not, has it not woken Labour up to how wrong this entire European project is?. Why is it unthinkble, we are the country which formed democracy in the modern world yet we are now incapable of making our own decisions?

Involved in Europe, not ruled by Europe.


We have had lords for the last 1000 years, why change it now? ;) EU comission is appointed by the parliament and the parliament are elected via the people. Like our government. The comission drafts laws along with the Council of Ministers and the parliament and they must be passed through these places too.

They are not that old I don't think, and why change it now? - because they are unelected and are nowadays used for political games and political class. They have no mandate. I used to be supportive of the Liberal Democrats, for climate change, socialism and the lot until I read history and realised that without democracy, theres nothing.

That is indirect democracy, which still begs the question anyway whether or not you agree/disagree with indirect democracy of the fact that the British people have never been asked whether or not they want the European Union and its legal systems.


I've never had a vote on the UN, but I know that the government of the time (elected) willing fully led us into it. There was a vote for the common market, which developed into the EU over time.

The United Nations does not pass legislations on the United Kingdom and does not make over 80% of our laws via directives and regulations, if the UN ever did then i'd call for a referendum on UN membership aswell. On the EU, yes we voted for a Economic Community, not a Political, Social and Economic Union.


Did you read the post? It says the most dangerous criminals would not be able to vote so let's get some perspective. Where are the examples of Germany and France saying no to rulings of the Court of Human Rights?

I did read the post and I have answered that point before that it is my belief that it will not stop at that. Not to mention I disagree with the fact any criminal having the right to vote. On France & Germany cannot find at the moment so obviously my word cannot be taken seriously on that, although France and Germany are notirious for not paying fines to European bodies (such as the French meat protests against Britain which cost us millions over a false scare).


In any event it was the Conservatives who took us into it in the first place.
Fishing for votes? Not unless The Sun or the Sunday Sport back Labour. LOL =]

Another reason why I do not support the Conservatives anymore and believe Ted Heath was a another lying, untrustworthy politician. The British people must be consulted on what is the biggest issue facing this country and will continue to be the biggest issue, agree with its existence or not.


It is getting out of hand though and I think if a party promised a referendum on re-evaluating Britain's membership of the EU they would get a lot of votes.

Totally agree, I want European co-operation but not to be ruled by Europe - as do most British people.


At least we have not joined the Euro yet.

They are pushing (the Lib/Lab/Con) for that and when we reach a stage on decision, it will mark a turning point where it will make it incredibly difficult to rule our own country then because essentially to put it crudely, they've got you by the balls.

[Black_Apalachi]

The only possible logic behind this is what Dan was getting at; 'They will vote for us so let them vote'. There is no advantage gained by society in letting this happen. Disgraceful.

[alexxxxx]

So why should they be given the vote under the banner of 'human rights'?

I don't honestly know the ruling as the DM article doesn't really explain the ruling in full as it's article is dreadful.



We are all individuals, and an individual goes to a polling booth and elects which party they feel would do/has done the best job. No you shouldn't care what anyone else thinks, although if democracy is a core value in yourself then you would naturally care to keep democracy despite the fact you might disagree with the outcome.

what.?


Both are very socialist, very centralised and have structures which are very similar not to mention the fact both cover most of Europe and most people did not elect or choose it. The last President of the USSR said it himself. :P

not really though, as EU competition rules prevent stupid amounts of state aid to companies.


Exit the CoE then or pass legislation on this issue which vetoes the CoE on this decision. If not, has it not woken Labour up to how wrong this entire European project is?. Why is it unthinkble, we are the country which formed democracy in the modern world yet we are now incapable of making our own decisions?

it's impossible to write legislation vetoing a higher courts decision or it defies the point in having a court in the first place. we are completely capable of making our own decisions yet it makes sense that in a lot of areas we set common market rules, increase competition etc for business and set examples for developing nations in central and eastern europe for human rights and rule of law.



Involved in Europe, not ruled by Europe.

we are europe. we rule ourselves.



They are not that old I don't think, and why change it now? - because they are unelected and are nowadays used for political games and political class. They have no mandate. I used to be supportive of the Liberal Democrats, for climate change, socialism and the lot until I read history and realised that without democracy, theres nothing.

That is indirect democracy, which still begs the question anyway whether or not you agree/disagree with indirect democracy of the fact that the British people have never been asked whether or not they want the European Union and its legal systems.

there is always going to be 'indirect' democracy in almost every government as it is impossible to vote in everyone. the usa has the supreme court, we have the house of lords, commission in the EU (yet that has more to do with making sure the parliament doesn't pass laws that it isn't allowed to) and more legal systems.



The United Nations does not pass legislations on the United Kingdom and does not make over 80% of our laws via directives and regulations, if the UN ever did then i'd call for a referendum on UN membership aswell. On the EU, yes we voted for a Economic Community, not a Political, Social and Economic Union.


it does pass laws on us telling us who we can and can't be allowed to engage in wars with. laws on the treatment of prisoners of war, international co-operation etc. where's my referendum on the UN? :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't honestly know the ruling as the DM article doesn't really explain the ruling in full as it's article is dreadful.They are being given this vote under the banner of rights, as a criminal they have forfeitted their civil liberties.


what.?You know perfectly well what, just explained it to you.


not really though, as EU competition rules prevent stupid amounts of state aid to companies.1) EU stifles competition with its thousands of pieces of legislation.
2) Has the UK suddenly lost the ability to create its own legislation regarding competition?

So despite hundreds of years of development and being the first truly democratic modern state in history, we are now deemed incapable of creating our own legislation on competition laws despite being the former economic superpower in the modern world and since the 1980s, being an incredibly strong economic power. Meanwhile our European neighbours (the ones who have been fighting with eachother for the past 1,000 years) have the knowledge and know-how to tell me how my country should be run!


it's impossible to write legislation vetoing a higher courts decision or it defies the point in having a court in the first place. we are completely capable of making our own decisions yet it makes sense that in a lot of areas we set common market rules, increase competition etc for business and set examples for developing nations in central and eastern europe for human rights and rule of law.Then you leave the court, very simple. On setting examples, what kind of an example are we setting when we fought against the Soviet Union which ruled them countries, yet now we are creating the exact same thing in western europe. I'd understand you have a case if we chose this European Union, but no matter what you say, love, glorify about the EU the fact remains it has not been chosen and as opinion polls show, we do not want it.


we are europe. we rule ourselves.We are the sovereign state United Kingdom, we are ruled by Europe.


there is always going to be 'indirect' democracy in almost every government as it is impossible to vote in everyone. the usa has the supreme court, we have the house of lords, commission in the EU (yet that has more to do with making sure the parliament doesn't pass laws that it isn't allowed to) and more legal systems.Of course there will be, but the fact remains the EU creates most of our legislation so not allowing a vote on the EU/having it unelected might make democratic sense to a tinpot like Robert Mugabe, but not in a 21st century western country. A country which is against superstatism and always has been.


it does pass laws on us telling us who we can and can't be allowed to engage in wars with. laws on the treatment of prisoners of war, international co-operation etc. where's my referendum on the UN? :rolleyes:
No it doesn't tell you if/not a war is allowed, it merely sets out the legal standards for war and what it classes as illegal/legal. You know perfectly well alex that the United Nations is in no way the same as the European Union, thats like comparing the EU to NATO - no match what so ever. The EU creates over 80% of our laws, not the UN or NATO. If the UN ever did then i'd call for a referendum on that aswell.

You want a federal superstate, yet have made it clear you think the British people are too stupid/not qualified and not deserving enough to decide this issue for themselves. An issue which is so important to this country, especially in future terms. Yet on the other hand you think prisoners (murderers, criminals in general) should have the right to vote.

Your logic is;

The British people having a referendum on a highly important issue?
No, certainly not!!

The criminals in prison being allowed a vote despite not having the vote for the past 1,000 years?
Yes in the name of rights - how dare we not allow them to vote!!