Prisoners to get the vote as spineless Cameron kowtows to Europe's demands

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1325776/Prisoners-right-vote-Government-loses-Europe.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8103580/Prisoners-to-get-the-vote-for-the-first-time.html


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/11/02/article-1325776-013AF1F800001005-710_468x378.jpg




Prisoners are to have the right to vote after the Coalition conceded defeat in a long-running battle with Europe. The Government has confirmed it will change the law to remove the voting ban on the 70,000 inmates of British jails. It is being forced to do so after admitting it cannot win its fight against the European Court of Human Rights, which has been urging prisoners to seek compensation for being denied a voice in elections.David Cameron is said to be exasperated and furious but accepts the government has little choice but to end the 140-year blanket ban.


The climbdown comes days after he faced criticism for failing to achieve a cut or freeze in the budget of the European Union. Giving rapists and burglars the vote will be highly unpopular among many of his backbenchers, who believe criminals have forfeited their democratic rights. But the policy will be more popular with Lib Dem members of his coalition. The move comes after government lawyers advised that failure to comply with a 2004 ECHR ruling could cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in litigation costs and compensation.


Convicted killer John Hirst, who took the case to the European Court of Human Rights, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'The whole thing about this is that in this system where you've got a democracy, that people can put pressure and lobby in Parliament for changes in the law and improved conditions, but you can't do that if you haven't got the vote. 'All prisoners can do is riot, if they've got a complaint, so you've got to give them this legitimate channel to bring their issue in.'




And here is a video of that scumbag celebrating his victory in prison;



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKsLcxJ2shU&feature=player_embedded


http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/1965-cameron-furious-what-about-us



"David Cameron says he is 'exasperated' and 'furious' with the way in which he has no power other than to capitulate to bullying from European Courts," said UKIP Leading Spokesman Nigel Farage."Well he must at last be sharing the rage of the British people who are fed up with being dictated to by people like him and his close friends in Brussels.

"As far as anybody can see the fact that he may allow rapists and murderers to vote is a direct consequence of Britain's acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty, which put the European Convention on Human Rights and judgements of the Court in Strasbourg into British law.

"We do not know for sure because the legal advice is not public, but if that is not the case, then he is doing it because he wants to, and damn the views of the British public," Mr Farage said.

"There is no way that the people of this country want to give prisoners the right to vote. By committing crimes they have surrendered the privileges of society. When they leave prison, when they have served their dues, then those rights are returned, but not before.


Out of all the things that go on, its stories like this which make my blood boil - especially seeing that scumbag celebrating his victory which has been given to him on a plate by our powerless and pathetic government along with the absolute nutcases in the European project who just live on a totally different planet.

How sweet would it be though that, as a result of this - the likes of Nick Clegg and David Cameron lost their seats to Labour thanks to a massive swing of a few thousands that a prison would most likely bring to an electoral seat in favour of Labour. So there we are, more evidence if needed that our courts are now powerless and it does not matter who you elect at the next election out of the main three parties, because they are all taking their orders from Brussels.

Personally I would have the likes of John Hirst hung by the neck rather than worrying about his right to vote.

Thoughts?

I'd suggest a read of the comments on the video i've posted from Youtube, along with the comments on the Daily Mail website - but as usual the majority is totally ignored.

[Moh]

lol, they couldn't even handle the votes without the prisoners.

[GommeInc]

A Professor at my University mentioned this on his twitter, and he's for it. I am too, but not in the same way as applied here. The majority should be allowed to vote, but for the ones who'll never be free during the next government seems a waste of time seeing as they gave up their liberties the moment they committed the crime. I'm not entirely sure what they'll be voting on, seeing as the law very rarely changes as far as murder and stealing is involved.

EDIT: Nevermind, he's against it and says it's about as sensible as giving all prisoners 12 years regardless of the crime they've committed, but my opinion still stands :P

[Nixt]

For the record, that guy is not in prison. Minor detail, but a point to be made nevertheless.

I personally believe that when one commits a crime, they sacrifice their liberty and to an extent their human rights. Those who violate the law should not be protected by it in the same way a law abiding citizen is. Regardless of that though, what irks me is that the government is having its hand forced by the ECHR. Whilst I think, internationally, the role of the ECHR is important and should be utilised when it comes issues that could not necessarily be settled in a judiciary with jurisdiction over one country, an issue that affects the sovereignty of our country should be dictated by the Supreme Court of England and Wales and not a European court. If a British court made the decision on the basis of British law, so be it. Otherwise, it is abhorrent that individuals who have shown their understanding of society to be completely skewed (murderers, rapists, paedophiles right through to the common thief) should be allowed to shape that same society with a vote.

[Inseriousity.]

lol the majority is totally ignored? and you base that on video comments and the comments box of a newspaper? I'm sure it's only a tiny minority of the country who use either of those things.

Anyway as for prisoner votes, I agree with gomme that if you're in custody through the next government's changes then there's no point having a vote as your vote won't see anything change... and it'd also solve the murderers/rapists thing, who should be in for life (but that's a different debate). However, if you're going to be out and back into society during the period of the next government then you should be allowed to vote.

[Accipiter]

Is that the cretin from lord of the rings on the video

How the **** do they get champagne in prisons? (wait he's not in prison? :S -confused)

Personally i think yes, to the low offenders, no to the ******* creeps.

[Conservative,]

I'd rather have them hung, shot or electricuted. Criminals have broken the law and therefore give up any rights other than the absolute necessities (food, water & shelter).

They should not deserve the right to vote and why the European government is deciding this for us idk.

[Jahova]

Shouldn't be allowed. Pathetic.

[dbgtz]

All they've done here is made a loaf of bread, which will eventually mould (be abused). I do think it depends on the crime, murderers shouldn't but those in for man slaughter, it's completely different. And what if you're in prison on a day of an election for about 1 day because you hit someone or something, they should be allowed to aswell.

In the end it depends on the crime, but I kinda wish cameron would say no. Not long until we join the Euro.

[alexxxxx]

there isn't allowed to be a 'blanket ban' on prisoners voting, however there are several ways around this:

-Different crimes/sentence lengths can warrant whether they are allowed or not.
-Judges might be able to decide if a prisoner can vote or not when sentencing.
-Prisoners would vote in their last postal address' constituency.

im not against 1month->6months prisoners voting tbh.

[Fez]

We have the "working class" vote, now we have "criminal vote".

[Neversoft]

David Cameron himself once said that burglars leave their humans rights at the door. Criminals should not be allowed to vote and that's all there is to it.

[mr.tom]

**** me the guy speaking is an absolute creep

[Chippiewill]

David Cameron himself once said that burglars leave their humans rights at the door. Criminals should not be allowed to vote and that's all there is to it.
Human rights are rights, not privileges, no person, no group has the right to remove it.

[Neversoft]

Human rights are rights, not privileges, no person, no group has the right to remove it.

You've completely missed what I'm getting at. No where did I say anyone could remove human rights. I posted what Cameron said because it is ironic that he said that yet isn't willing to stand up against the EU when they implement things like this.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Human rights are rights, not privileges, no person, no group has the right to remove it.

Based on that line of thinking, prisons would be void on the pretext of the human 'right' of freedom and free movement.

[Chippiewill]

Based on that line of thinking, prisons would be void on the pretext of the human 'right' of freedom and free movement.

They are free, they are not slaves, and as for free movement I don't see you walking into people's houses and saying 'Human rights'

[Conservative,]

They are free, they are not slaves, and as for free movement I don't see you walking into people's houses and saying 'Human rights'

You don't get it. They can't go where they want when they want therefore their right to free movement has been taken away. Therefore your statement is invalid. And 100 years ago no one except the rich could vote so tbh there js no "right" to vote. It is a privilege which should be taken away when necessary.

[-:Undertaker:-]

They are free, they are not slaves, and as for free movement I don't see you walking into people's houses and saying 'Human rights'

But that is only similar to your argument where you cite that "Human rights are rights, not privileges, no person, no group has the right to remove it."

[Chippiewill]

But that is only similar to your argument where you cite that "Human rights are rights, not privileges, no person, no group has the right to remove it."

Which is why it really shouldn't be a Human right to move anywhere, it just isn't practical.

[GommeInc]

I'm amazed some of you are shocked about Cameron going back on his word. Of course he will, he's a muppet who does what any other politician does to get into office. Lie :P

[Eoin247]

The only thing a murderer should be allowed to vote for... what way he/she should be executed.

[immense]

I think it's very refreshing that certain prisoners are given the right to vote. I think Cameron said it was something that had to be done and made out it's out of his hands or was that just the opinion the person writing the article gave off? Was a few days back now.

[Agnostic Bear]

A terrible decision made by a terrible entity. The EU hate should be going through the roof now. Prisoners are prisoners for a reason, they should not have any say in what goes on in the country they committed these atrocities against.

[Conservative,]

The only thing a murderer should be allowed to vote for... what way he/she should be executed.

Agreed with this.

[Bun]

i'm all for prisoners to have the vote unless they have committed murder, rape or treason (or plotted to do any of these).

[Catzsy]

David Cameron himself once said that burglars leave their humans rights at the door. Criminals should not be allowed to vote and that's all there is to it.

Agree totally. His wimpish excuse was that if Britain didn't comply Britain would be fined
160 million for non-compliance. How would the EU enforce that? He could at least make a stand against it.

[Special]

how stupid, putting them in a cell to start with was to get them out of the real world so to speak so allowing them to vote is brining back into the real world & getting involved. what's the point of them getting involved anyway? they don't know what happened or they shouldn't know what's happening outside unless they're given t.v's to watch which shoudn't be happening......

they lost all their rights when they were sent to jail

[Eoin247]

Most of the prisoners probably won't vote in the end anyway.

[Bun]

Most of the prisoners probably won't vote in the end anyway.

on the contrary the may look forward to it if they have nothing else to do, it MAY provoke a talking point amongst them.

[Chippiewill]

on the contrary the may look forward to it if they have nothing else to do, it MAY provoke a talking point amongst them.

We shouldn't completely isolate prisoners from society :) , I doubt there's much to talk about in prison (Unless they get the newspaper?)

[Eoin247]

We shouldn't completely isolate prisoners from society :) , I doubt there's much to talk about in prison (Unless they get the newspaper?)

I believe they get newspapers on some days and can have radios/tvs so they aren't completely isolated. To be honest, the more i think about it the more i realise this is a very petty issue. In the long run it's not going to make much of a difference to our world whether prisoners can vote or not.

[Conservative,]

I believe they get newspapers on some days and can have radios/tvs so they aren't completely isolated. To be honest, the more i think about it the more i realise this is a very petty issue. In the long run it's not going to make much of a difference to our world whether prisoners can vote or not.

But id still rather see then shot. Especially murderers ect. They will be voting for more radical parties :/

[Eoin247]

But id still rather see then shot. Especially murderers ect. They will be voting for more radical parties :/

Well i'd agree with you in that murderers shouldn't be allowed to live if they kill, but did you ever see that movie called "The life of David (second name)"?

The movie showed how it can never be totaly proven in many cases that a person killed somebody, (remember the birmingham 6?). Many times innocent people have been sent to prison or executed for crimes they didn't commit.

So i agree with an eye for an eye but only if its 100% certain that justice is being served

[immense]

But id still rather see then shot. Especially murderers ect. They will be voting for more radical parties :/

This is the 21st Century.

[Conservative,]

This is the 21st Century.

Yes. We live in a world of ever growing danger. We should rid those who pose a threat.


And yes I agree that it needs to be 100% certain before someone is executed (Derek bently was executed under false charge of murdering a policeman).

I don't like this idea but I'll deal with it when I have taken over the world.

[immense]

Yes. We live in a world of ever growing danger. We should rid those who pose a threat.


And yes I agree that it needs to be 100% certain before someone is executed (Derek bently was executed under false charge of murdering a policeman).

I don't like this idea but I'll deal with it when I have taken over the world.

Why should we reduce ourselves to the same level as a convicted murderer? Makes no sense. We wrongly or rightly stick our nose up at countries who actively participate in execution.

[Eoin247]

George Orwell lend us your thought police ( or whatever they were called). Sigh... if only our world was perfect we'd know when to rightfully convict somebody. Actualy if our world was perfect we'd have no crime. Alas....

[immense]

I think George Orwell would turn in his grave if he knew you, somebody who believes we should use the death penalty, is using any of his genius.

[Eoin247]

I'm getting a feeling that you dont believe in using the death penalty at all?

Do you not think a person who has been proven 100% to have taken a life intentionally, should themselves have that privelage taken away from them?

[immense]

No, of course not. That's probably what they want. Restricting their freedom for tens of years is a much more severe punishment.

[MrPinkPanther]

I hate to sound like a "soppy liberal" but an eye for an eye makes literally no sense. Almost all severe crime is committed in a moment of passion, it is that set of particular events that leads to the Murder or other serious crime, had one thing changed then the whole outcome could be completely different. Now this of course doesn't justify the crime in any way but it certainly means that the offender is not beyond repentance. In my opinion the systematic murder of people on death row is many times worse than a crime of passion which very often is unintentional when things calm down. One of the core problems regarding the death penalty is where is the boundary for executing someone? There is a huge difference between putting someone in prison for 20 years and outright killing them. Surely you can't agree with execution for all murderers because it is of course very subjective and is an entirely different crime depending on the circumstances. What happens if 15 years down the line you find out they weren't guilty after all as so often happens? Even if we only get it wrong in 1% of cases thats still an abomination against mankind, putting perfectly innocent and decent people to death for crimes they played no part in.

The thing is guys, whilst the death penalty might sound good in theory, in practice it doesn't work. It doesn't deter crime because most severe crime is carried out in moments of passion and actually countries with the death penalty tend to have higher severe crime rates over all. Perhaps because it's impossible for the state to lecture people on morality whilst it's putting it's own citizens to death?

[Conservative,]

Well, I believe if you kill someone, in a moment of passion or not, you do not deserve to live.

I agree that you'd have to be 110% sure they were guilty but there a legal processes you can go through ect. To make sure. And people say remember 50/60/70 years ago people killed for something they didn't do well attitudes were different hen. They believed that I there was a crime someone should be punished, even if there was insufficient evidence (Derek bently).

Now we are different,and if they cannot be completely proved then they shouldn't be killed...but rapists, murderers and terrorists should be put on death row if found guilty without doubt from the jury.

Back on topic, thinking about it I'm not bothered as long as we don't have the bnp immolate because of them.



I hate to sound like a "soppy liberal" but an eye for an eye makes literally no sense. Almost all severe crime is committed in a moment of passion, it is that set of particular events that leads to the Murder or other serious crime, had one thing changed then the whole outcome could be completely different. Now this of course doesn't justify the crime in any way but it certainly means that the offender is not beyond repentance. In my opinion the systematic murder of people on death row is many times worse than a crime of passion which very often is unintentional when things calm down. One of the core problems regarding the death penalty is where is the boundary for executing someone? There is a huge difference between putting someone in prison for 20 years and outright killing them. Surely you can't agree with execution for all murderers because it is of course very subjective and is an entirely different crime depending on the circumstances. What happens if 15 years down the line you find out they weren't guilty after all as so often happens? Even if we only get it wrong in 1% of cases thats still an abomination against mankind, putting perfectly innocent and decent people to death for crimes they played no part in.

The thing is guys, whilst the death penalty might sound good in theory, in practice it doesn't work. It doesn't deter crime because most severe crime is carried out in moments of passion and actually countries with the death penalty tend to have higher severe crime rates over all. Perhaps because it's impossible for the state to lecture people on morality whilst it's putting it's own citizens to death?

[Chippiewill]

The death sentence has never been a solution and often murderers murder due to a psychological disorder of which said murderer has no control over, by no means does it make them innocent or mean that they shouldn't be punished. But it is not fair and nobody has the right to kill another person.

[MrPinkPanther]

Well, I believe if you kill someone, in a moment of passion or not, you do not deserve to live.

So if someones attacked and they hit the attacker round the head with a steel pole then do they deserved to be killed? My point is you can never truly asses the situation or state that they were in and very often they will be physiologically and mentally unstable so yes they may not be fit to enter society but it doesn't mean they should be put to death.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I hope all of anti-death penalty crowd on here are also against Abortion and Euthanasia, because killing is wrong right?

If not, then stop making excuses for criminals - if you commit a crime then you face the consquences.

[MrPinkPanther]

I hope all of anti-death penalty crowd on here are also against Abortion and Euthanasia, because killing is wrong right?

No because I'm not against it based on a religious standpoint, rather a standpoint based on the fact that its impossible to determine the circumstances that someone was in. The difference between Aborition, Euthanasia and the Death penalty is massive and you know it, in abortion you are killing a POTENTIAL human being usually because you are unable to bring it up and it will have a poor quality life and in Euthanasia the person is killing themselves because they are having a poor quality life. I'm not whole heartedly in favour of Euthanasia anyway but lets not go into that.


If not, then stop making excuses for criminals - if you commit a crime then you face the consquences.

Please answer my question. So if someones attacked and they hit the attacker round the head with a steel pole then do they deserved to be killed?

[-:Undertaker:-]

No because I'm not against it based on a religious standpoint, rather a standpoint based on the fact that its impossible to determine the circumstances that someone was in. The difference between Aborition, Euthanasia and the Death penalty is massive and you know it, in abortion you are killing a POTENTIAL human being usually because you are unable to bring it up and it will have a poor quality life and in Euthanasia the person is killing themselves because they are having a poor quality life. I'm not whole heartedly in favour of Euthanasia anyway but lets not go into that.

The circumstances? we have a court system which decides who is guilty and who is innocent that looks at the circumstances of each case.

In terms of abortion, i'm afraid like it or not - that baby is alive. It is a person. I am for abortion, I am for euthanasia - but i'm also for the death penalty. If anything, Abortion ranks as the worst as it takes away pure innocent life. Euthanasia ranks second as it also takes away innocent life. The Dealth penalty meanwhile takes away the life of somebody who has been tried by a court and a jury, and found guilty for their crimes.


Please answer my question. So if someones attacked and they hit the attacker round the head with a steel pole then do they deserved to be killed?

No as that was provoked (self-defence), that is manslaughter and not murder.

[Eoin247]

No as that was provoked (self-defence), that is manslaughter and not murder.

This is true, although i think mrpinkpanther meant that the killer might be wrongly accused of murder as a result.

[MrPinkPanther]

This is true, although i think mrpinkpanther meant that the killer might be wrongly accused of murder as a result.

That is exactly my point :). The border between Manslaughter and Murder is very thin and often it is impossible to determine because many Murderers will claim they acted in self defence and many people who genuinely did act in self defence are told by their lawyers to plead guilty to Murder if they don't have sufficient evidence to defend their claims. At the moment this results in differing prison times, in your system this would be the difference between life and death.

[Chippiewill]

In terms of abortion, i'm afraid like it or not - that baby is alive. It is a person.
Not till it's heart starts beating..

[GommeInc]

Yes. We live in a world of ever growing danger. We should rid those who pose a threat.
Pfft, most people who pose a real threat end up turning the gun on themselves anyway, so this doesn't seem that valid. Besides, legal-state murder would lead to a very dull and fearful world and I certainly wouldn't want to live in a world where even the state thinks murder is awesome. They never really justify it anyway "You shoot people, we go shoot you too now". Urgh.


Not till it's heart starts beating..
They say that, but it's still a person whether or not the heart is or isn't beating :P It just isn't a fully functioning person. Like not callin a car a "car" because it hasn't got an engine yet. It's all hypothetical really.

[Chippiewill]

It's not alive till its heart starts beating.

[GommeInc]

It's not alive till its heart starts beating.
That's debateable though. Some say the fact it's growing makes it a person, or the fact it's the egg of a person makes it a person, or when it's brain starts showing signs of activity makes it a person, or your view, that when the heart starts beating makes it a person. Some have their arguments like the case of siamese twins, is one of them not a person in their own right because they share a heart, a brain or another body?

[Chippiewill]

That's debateable though. Some say the fact it's growing makes it a person, or the fact it's the egg of a person makes it a person, or when it's brain starts showing signs of activity makes it a person, or your view, that when the heart starts beating makes it a person. Some have their arguments like the case of siamese twins, is one of them not a person in their own right because they share a heart, a brain or another body?

You missed my point, I didn't say it's not a person until its hearts beats, it's not ALIVE till its heart beats.

[Nixt]

You missed my point, I didn't say it's not a person until its hearts beats, it's not ALIVE till its heart beats.

That's about 5/6/7 weeks. Prior to that point, most people aren't even aware they are pregnant. I'm assuming on that basis you are against abortion altogether?

[Conservative,]

I think you guys aren't looking at it logically. Of course each case will be scrutinized to the deepest degree, assessed, re-assessed and looked over several times before death sentence is passed. But if someone is clearly a threat to the lives of others, they shouldn't be on this planet. Murderers, rapists, drug dealers & terrorists are those that in my ideal world, would be getting the death sentence.

And it is justified by if you take a life of another (literally or metaphorically. Literally being killed someone, metaphorically being ruining it via drugs or rape) then why should you have yours? An eye for an eye is the best way for these crimes. Not ALL crimes, but these crimes. I think petty thieves should get jail sentences and have to re-pay everything.

I also hate the idea of abortion except in cases of rape or extreme danger to the mother, and euthanasia unless they are clearly in severe pain.

[GommeInc]

You missed my point, I didn't say it's not a person until its hearts beats, it's not ALIVE till its heart beats.
Same difference :P Some may believe the baby is alive before the heart starts beating - it's just dependent on the mother or "carrier".

And all this "not safe to live" nonsense is infuriating. I'd still rather live in a world where we don't justify murder of any kind. If anything, murderers are less likely to re-offend, even when they do make it to the end of their "life" sentence. It's very rare for a murderer to keep on killing till their heart is content.

[Chippiewill]

Same difference :P Some may believe the baby is alive before the heart starts beating - it's just dependent on the mother or "carrier".

That's like saying a a tumor is alive.


And all this "not safe to live" nonsense is infuriating. I'd still rather live in a world where we don't justify murder of any kind. If anything, murderers are less likely to re-offend, even when they do make it to the end of their "life" sentence. It's very rare for a murderer to keep on killing till their heart is content.

Say you were bipolar and you had no control over your emotions, you believe that if you killed a person when you were not able to control yourself then you deserve to die?

[immense]

murder and abortion aren't comparable. fascist.

[-:Undertaker:-]

murder and abortion aren't comparable. fascist.

Abortion results in unjudged the killing of an innocent child, murder results in the judged killing of a convicted killer.


Say you were bipolar and you had no control over your emotions, you believe that if you killed a person when you were not able to control yourself then you deserve to die?

No, you would go to an asylum given that you were a threat to the public and yourself.

Or whatever we call asylums now.

[GommeInc]

Say you were bipolar and you had no control over your emotions, you believe that if you killed a person when you were not able to control yourself then you deserve to die?
No one deserves to die, legally or illegally. If you're proven to not have any control over your actions, then you should probably be monitored by a carer, guardian, parent, family or friends. We live in a civilised society compared to the past where we killed anyone for petty crimes, and the world has changed alot since then.

And a tumour is alive. Ever heard of dorment tumours? Ones that go undetected until they come alive to wreak havoc? :P

[immense]

Abortion results in unjudged the killing of an innocent child, murder results in the judged killing of a convicted killer.



No, you would go to an asylum given that you were a threat to the public and yourself.

Or whatever we call asylums now.

the amount you have been brainwashed into thinking your ideologies make sense is incredible

[-:Undertaker:-]

the amount you have been brainwashed into thinking your ideologies make sense is incredible

Prove me wrong then, you barely ever reply.

I'm for euthanasia, abortion and the death penalty - but you can't pick and choose, its either all three or none at all.

[Eoin247]

Prove me wrong then, you barely ever reply.

I'm for euthanasia, abortion and the death penalty - but you can't pick and choose, its either all three or none at all.

I'm with you to a certain extent on all three.

However i don't agree that people can't pick and choose.

[Conservative,]

Death Penalty - As long as they're mentally stable, are clearly guilty, and it was murder/rape/drugs/terrorism I'm fine with it.

Abortion - In the case of rape or danger to the Mother's life yes, any other time, no.

Euthanasia - Yes, as long as the person gives permission, not the family.

[Chippiewill]

No, you would go to an asylum given that you were a threat to the public and yourself.

People who murder intentionally 99% of the time have a mental health problem, your idea of murdering the murderers applies to three people.



Or whatever we call asylums now.
Mental health facility