
Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
( , Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | Popular

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20053244
So do you think prisoners should get the vote? I do, so if you don't you're wrong. Opinions?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:35, 221 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

The actual EU ruling says that banning certain prisoners from voting is allowed, but a blanket ban is illegal.
So ban anyone that you consider has lost the right to vote, but not everyone.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:39, Reply)

it's not fucking rocket science.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:40, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:41, Reply)

it makes no difference. you get banged up, you broke the law.
law says you can't break into a military base, so you shouldn't have. thems the rules you filthy pinko.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:42, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:47, Reply)

you've been convicted of a crime = no vote.
that simple enough for you?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:49, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:13, Reply)

What possible right do you have to dictate to me how and when I should be offensive to people with low intelligence who spend all their time on he internet being "edgy"?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:15, Reply)

you see, the joke was that I implied that because you were scottish you were simple. That was reasonably funny, but then you went and got all upset about it and started trying to tell me what I could and couldn't do and it all got a bit messy especially since it wasn't like it was either the greatest joke in the world, or the most cutting insult.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:20, Reply)

well played, you massive bender.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:29, Reply)

having a sit in at a vodafones protesting the taxes they pay.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:43, Reply)

those are not political prisoners you fucking prick.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:46, Reply)

these pricks are not political prisoners you fucking gimp.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:48, Reply)

they're not going to get the vote. they don't deserve it either.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:51, Reply)

because the only thing that makes worse headline than "prisoners get the vote" is "prisoners get awarded compensation for not being given the vote"
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:56, Reply)

but then follow the EU by paying compensation for ignoring the law?
Surely they'd just ignore that too?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:10, Reply)

and what makes a headline even worse is "Government wastes enormous amounts of public money fighting a legal case it knew it was going to lose and then ha to pay out anyway"
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:12, Reply)

And vice versa?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:41, Reply)

lots of people want "rights" and "entitlements" but aren't prepared to have any "responsibilities" towards their fellow men and women.
This applies across all the social spectrum.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:46, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:51, Reply)

And I like the concept. Everyone can moan then because they voted.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:58, Reply)

but you'd need a "none of the above" option, and the way things are at the moment it'd probably win.
If you were imprisoned for not voting, would that make you a political prisoner?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:03, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:05, Reply)

but mostly I think that if people inside believe they are inside unfairly they should be able to vote for a party the agrees that they should be released. Not so long ago you could be banged up for buggery. Perhaps those people thought "I want to vote for a lefty hippy party that will decide bumming people is OK and let me out"
So yes I guess I think everyone should have the vote and the voting age should be lowered.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:49, Reply)

The political cross section of the Isle of White will change pretty radically I should think. The first MP representing the shit in a bucket party.
Mind you, having been to the Isle, that's not much of an improvment.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:51, Reply)

like a postal vote.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:53, Reply)

www.moneysavingexpert.com/deals/cheap-champagne-sparkling-wine
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:54, Reply)

Take Dartmoor, prison population about 600, total population less than 50,000. In theory, the inmates could have a significant vote in who represents the region.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:54, Reply)

Or so Monty told me.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:56, Reply)

www.google.com/url?q=http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-01764.pdf&sa=U&ei=x-aHUKywA6Ke0QX6kIDoAQ&ved=0CBgQFjAB&usg=AFQjCNGARid5AH8oDY5i6s4mZmQ_U0UKPA
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:02, Reply)

most of us have committed a few crimes in our time, even if not major. trying to create an arbitrary line between criminals and 'normal decent people' is bollocks. more devicive bullshit, along the same lines as painitng OAPs as 'drains on society' and the unemployed as scroungers
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 13:56, Reply)

some probably went down for doing things I've done but not been caught for. iF committing a crime makes you ineligible to vote, then Boyce definitely doesn't get one.
or is it just being caught?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:00, Reply)

using monty boyce to boost your argument. fucking hell.
of course that prick shouldn't be allowed to vote.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:02, Reply)

Drive drunk? Lie on a mortgage application?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:03, Reply)

people who lie on a mortgage application?? so, what, the bank forecloses their mortgage and they go down for ten years.
you're such a trolling shit. I HATE you.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:05, Reply)

getting sent down does not mean you cross some magic line and stop being a person, there are worse people out of jail (boyce for one) and probably a few perfectly decent people in jail. it's not a meaningful deviding line, unless you like the world to be just nice short words and primary colours and read the daily mail.
i'd be in favour of having to pass a fitness test to vote, in or out of prison.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:09, Reply)

I wouldn't not hold your breath though.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:15, Reply)

THEY ARE IN PRISON NUFF SAID
which seems to be the only point you've made in the dozen or so posts you've made in this thread.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:17, Reply)

voting is not a right, it is a privilege awarded to you by the queen. I don't like it but that's how it is.
criminals lose the right to vote because their actions damage society to some degree and they are being removed from society, with all the privileges that go with it.
to say that prisoners should vote merely because some people have committed crimes but not been caught is kinda shit. like qc.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:23, Reply)

anyway, I'll leave my side of the argument to chomp, he's more than capable and I have work to do.
he's right though i'd have expected a less shit argument from you. :(
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:31, Reply)

at least chompy can be arsed to try and put a point of view across.
the trolling shit.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:39, Reply)

it's more than I have time or energy to do and he cares more and does it better.
you don't even have an argument to speak of.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:55, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:02, Reply)

Would you let them go to a primary school and put a tick in a box?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:03, Reply)

They're in jail so couldn't get to a polling station anyway
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:01, Reply)

e.g. the housebound, but you have to apply beforehand iirc.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:06, Reply)

They couldn't do a worse job of choosing our next government than we did of the last one.
in fact, let ONLY prisoners vote and see what we end up with.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:04, Reply)

then part of any campaign will be directed at prisoners. And that doesn't sit easy with me.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:08, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:09, Reply)

that's like saying every party ignores 33 year olds.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:12, Reply)

Tuition fees and university access is probably the main issue for 18 year olds.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:15, Reply)

it has, without exception, made for the most embarrassing TV ever.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:48, Reply)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687
Surprised?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:15, Reply)

since they will definitely be inside during a general election.
But anything less and it's purely arbitrary timing wise from when they start their sentence as to whether they would miss an election so you could let them keep the vote.
Problem solved, lets move on.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:17, Reply)

Is that the Judge while sentencing can decide to revoke the right to vote from the convict.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:19, Reply)

But at least it takes away an arbitary line for it and puts it into a more case by case basis.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:21, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:21, Reply)

they can't appeal that someone else got 5.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:22, Reply)

But this is a different issue to length of sentence. These would be appeals on Human Rights grounds.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:28, Reply)

People will be appealing not on the length of their sentence, but on being refused the right to vote.
Congratulations Chompy, you've just thought of a way of making one of the most tortuous legal systems in the word even more ridiculous.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:53, Reply)

rather than listening to some shower of Euro-wanks.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:00, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:10, Reply)

Would that be 5 years sentenced or 5 years actual time inside?
To do 5 years inside you'd have to have been sentenced to 10 or more, these days.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:22, Reply)

It's about eligibility for parole, it's not automatic 50% off prison time. Newspapers lie to you.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:23, Reply)

I got distracted by the fact that one of the first results is people asking 'What is the difference between consecutive and concurrent sentencing'.
Fuck me. THOSE are the people that shouldn't be allowed to vote.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:25, Reply)

that has to be passed before you're allowed to vote?
Wonder how many MPs would pass...
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:32, Reply)

As tempting as the idea is sometimes, I don't actually believe in it.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:33, Reply)

Do you think he should still be allowed to vote in the future? I mean, they are still bottom of the Championship.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:28, Reply)

the last decent job he did was at bradford, what 10 years ago?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:30, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:31, Reply)

Imprisonment is supposed to be a form of punishment. Losing your right to vote is one of the side effects.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:55, Reply)

But it is pointless if you don't attempt to reform these people.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:57, Reply)

Why don't we get rids of prisons altogether? We can just give all the naughty people a slap on the wrist and tell them not to do it again.
All the money saved can be spent on cake and kittums.
Who's with me?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:02, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:06, Reply)

as a member of society. That is the punishment that society deems appropriate for the crimes committed. The right or privilege to vote should therefore also be removed for the period of their incarceration and restored along with the rest on their release.
If somebody does not go to prison, they do not have their right to vote removed.
There. Problem solved. Everybody can go back to talking about food now.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:36, Reply)

All those people that come out of prison are much less likely to reoffend.
You are such a hippie.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:38, Reply)

And yes, I am.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:40, Reply)

then you should remove them from society. If you don't think that's a fair punishment, then don't imprison them.
Whether imprisoning somebody is fair or not is a different argument.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:41, Reply)

You can't stop them an ordinary prisoner speaking to their family, that's solitary confinement. You stop those if they end up in solitary. You remove their civil rights, not their human rights, in prison and voting is a civil right.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:48, Reply)

Because you'll find that we don't necessarily follow the EU in all things and we've shown by our actions as a country that we don't agree with the EU being the final arbiter on what happens to our citizens so, really, saying that the highest court in the EU disagrees is as useful as saying the highest court in the US or Namibia disagrees i.e. not at all.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:56, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:58, Reply)

then we haven't ratified or signed anything that gives the EU the right to tell us how our prisoners should vote, or not.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:00, Reply)

Not letting prisoners the vote, isn't just saying "our problem not yours" it's breaking an international treaty we signed. It's not the end of the world, no, but it's not simply ignoring someone who has no authority.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:03, Reply)

which parts of signed European agreements that we actually follow is right or not, I'm just pointing out that we've decided not to follow this one so it's the UK high court, not the EU one that's salient when discussing UK prisoners.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:06, Reply)

it's obviously the court of human rights that counts.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:10, Reply)

still happened though.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:05, Reply)

Then maybe they might stand a chance of not reoffending.
I never said anything about not imprisoning offenders or it not being fair. I'm just pointing out that there are (theoretically, at least) two strands to our criminal justice system - punishment and rehabilitation.
Otherwise you might as well just take the American approach and lock people away for as long as possible.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:46, Reply)

I don't see how this is applicable. Prison is prison, it is not a holiday camp. They have their civil rights removed for crimes against society.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:49, Reply)

And they are taught trades as part of the rehabilitation program.
What purpose does removing a civil right, such as the right to vote, have anyway?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:56, Reply)

By putting them in prison you are, as a society, stating that this person is undesirable and does not deserve to be a free member of society. I'd say the freedom to vote and thereby have a say in the direction the country takes is a pretty big part of being a free member of society.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:58, Reply)

My point is that the removal of freedom is already the punishment part of it, so why is there any need to add further punishment?
By putting them in prison we are stating that this is their punishment and not all of these undesirable people receive custodial sentences.
Prisoners are still a part of society. They are still there and likely to return.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:03, Reply)

Do you think cons should be allowed to be called up for jury service?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:13, Reply)

get them to fuck off to australia perhaps.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:42, Reply)

Where does that leave poor Poppet when Battered steps off the plane, eh?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:11, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:44, Reply)

If you're going to imprison somebody and take away their rights as a free citizen, then that is what you should do.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:46, Reply)

And that, right there, is the issue. What if society doesn't deem it appropriate? And I think there's a fair case to be made that it might not.
In case it's not clear among the crap I've been saying, I'm on the side of prisoners being allowed to vote in certain circumstances.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:39, Reply)

should be stopped. That, however, is not what the discussion is about.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:40, Reply)

The point you seem to be making is that 'this is what prison does and that's the end of the matter because it's what society deems appropriate'
The point I was hamfistedly trying to counter with was 'what if society doesn't actually think that taking someone off the streets for whatever reason should automatically mean they lose their right to vote'.
Prisoners don't have 'all' their rights removed anyway, so it becomes a question of where the punishment should end and the rehabilitation should begin. I happen to think that anything that keeps a prisoner who is going to be released actively interested in the outside world is likely to help reduce the risk of them reoffending. A person released back into a world that feels totally alien to them is likely to be less inclined to integrate with it than one who has been allowed to play a part, however small, in shaping it.
And that's the end of me being serious for today.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:42, Reply)

Removal of civil liberties. I'm not advocating removing *all* of their rights as a human being, but there's a difference between removal of civil righs and liberties and removing their basic rights as a human.
People are clouding the waters between the two things.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:54, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:07, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:08, Reply)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20042508
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:39, Reply)

cos i've seen it with my own eyes man, it can't all be CGI
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:41, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:44, Reply)

( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 14:50, Reply)

Might go for a pint in the pub garden
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:04, Reply)

nor did I ever flush anyone elses head down the toilet. Therefore, I don't believe the practice existed.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:15, Reply)

As a 'fag' he repeatedly had his head stuck down the toilet in the interests of 'character building'.
Unfortunately the character it built was that of a bent spastic.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:21, Reply)

In fact, there is a great deal of popular culture that has passed me by.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:19, Reply)

and this is the first statement that I think we can all agree with.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:10, Reply)

Chompy is just trying to wind us up by being obtuse, some are liberal wackos, others are conservative staypennies, we won't resolve this argument, and I seriously doubt anyone is brave enough to try for a serious debste on it, as the back lash from both camps will be stupid, as it always is with this sort of dive question. So let's all just go back to moaning about taxes and the price of cheese, and leave the big issues to slip through under the net, while the media try and oust every major celebrity of the last 40 years as a bunch of filthy sex pests.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:14, Reply)

I haven't educated myself enough in the matter; I have not done my civic deuty to be made aware of the facts and form a viewpoint. I do not deserve to power to influence the matter.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:25, Reply)

And the one with the least likely to reoffend was a turkish one, where they went to work in a factory all day, got taught skills, it was like a little society that issolated from the big one. Where as by contrast, the worst one was a brazilian one which was like 100 people to a cell with rape and all kinds of shit.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:23, Reply)

But saying that, I'm not a victim.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:23, Reply)

and more recently the Gangnam one, that looked like a fun place?
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:24, Reply)

One of the non-major oriental ones anyway.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:25, Reply)

That sounds perfect.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:26, Reply)

But there was a threat of going to a normal prison if they fuck up.
( , Wed 24 Oct 2012, 15:29, Reply)
« Go Back | Reply To This »