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

[-: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/arti...#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/arti...#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?