We're off

Interesting quote from Cameron: proof that money means more than morals.

No votes for prisoners should be decided by our government not any EU instituition. Similarly our human rights, or the rights of anyone in this country (not just citizens of the UK), should be determined by our government in a UK human rights Act, not in any EU instituition.

If the EU says we will be fined, we simply refuse to pay, and if pushed we withhold funding of the EU totally.

With the current economic position of the EU, I don't think for a minute they will want to lose the second largest net contributor.

I wasnt happy when the government of the day incorporated ECHR into Btitish law,and nothing that has happened since has caused me to change
that view.

However,there is now to be a debate in the House which dosnt fill me with
confidence that common sense will win the argument.

So,is there perchance a descendant of the young lad who blurted out the truth about the Emperors new clothes? Anybody? Somewhere? He could blurt
out the truth concerning the ECHR and get it through some very thick heads that it has no place in sovereign states.Furthermore it is being
used more and more in a completely different way as to what it was intended for.

The young lad could then turn his attention to the EU (and yes,he does know that the two entities are quite separate).....but thats for another
blog....

2. At 4:51pm on 18 Jan 2011, FairandTrue wrote:
No votes for prisoners should be decided by our government not any EU instituition. Similarly our human rights, or the rights of anyone in this country (not just citizens of the UK), should be determined by our government in a UK human rights Act, not in any EU instituition.

If the EU says we will be fined, we simply refuse to pay, and if pushed we withhold funding of the EU totally.

With the current economic position of the EU, I don't think for a minute they will want to lose the second largest net contributor.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1) This debate has nothing to do with the EU. It was the European Court of Human Rights, a completely separate body that ruled the UK ban unlawful, and acts as guardian of the ECHR Treaty.

2) This was decided democratically, by the last Labour government. The ECHR was put to parliament and was passed into law, by a democratic vote.

Quite frankly, this whole issue, irrespective of ones' moral position, reflects the UK's attitude (both politicians and public) to issues of principal and the institutions that underpin them, lazy and riddled with double-standards.

If the government wishes to challenge this then it should have the guts to put its' money where its' mouth is and make voting a privilege that can be removed from more than just criminals, rather than standing by the principal of the right to vote and trying to add on caveats

All this was caused by a violent convict. Allowing this makes a nonsense of the crime of prison mutiny, to defy the British justice system cannot be anything other than mutiny. It's time assess how this works, the punishment for prison mutiny must be clearly stated, minimum 10 years and death for a repeat offence. Human rights should only apply to the human, not the inhuman.
Regards, etc.

I don't have a problem with this. Prisoners votes matter as little as anyone else's. Cameron wouldn't actually be physically ill if prisoners got the vote. It was just a bit of unconvincing reactionary dogwhistling. It doesn't really matter. Conservatives depend on creating little phoney wars with Europe to keep the people distracted.

What a mess. If there is a problem with the ECHR's approach chose an issue that is important to us all. There is nothing to be achieved in denying the facility to vote for prisoners when the probability is the rebels will lose. However it will be interesting to see how the parties will deal with this particularly as maintaining the status quo will be popular with most voters - some of whom will not be satisfied until all prisoners are routinely tortured as part of their punishment.

As per the the States within the USA, voting rights for prisoners should be decided on country-by-country basis within the EU.

No need to reinvent (or break any butterflies on) the wheel.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

4. At 5:32pm on 18 Jan 2011, matt wrote:

"This debate has nothing to do with the EU. It was the European Court of Human Rights"

So you think the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU!
The clue is in the first word EUROPEAN. Here in the UK we need the UK Act of Human Rights.


"This was decided democratically, by the last Labour government"

The last labour government also gave the FSA control over financial regulation and where did that get us? Thank god control is returning to the Bank of England.
The last labour government gave us a promise of a referendum on the EU constitution, rena,med the Lisbon Treaty, but renaged on our rights, and where has that got us?
The last labour government spent more than it received in income (taxes) every year and where has that got us?
This government can democratically refuse to accept the ECHR and produce our own Human Rights Act.


"If the government wishes to challenge this then it should have the guts to put its' money where its' mouth is"

It is our money, not the governments. That's what labour couldn't and never will understand.

1. At 4:44pm on 18 Jan 2011, RedandYellowandGreennotBlue wrote:
Interesting quote from Cameron: proof that money means more than morals.

===================================

It means nothing of the sort - it recognises because the previous government put into law something which was wide open to sharp legal practice and interpretation they have left the country open to external influences.
The issue is not one of morals but of principles.

The higher principle which it is struggling with is the reputation of this country as one which stands by its legal commitments and abides by international laws which its parliament has duly submitted itself to. Which is what enshrining the ECHR practically meant.

This is a pragmatic problem which pitches different principles against one another - with an arguably worse outcome the result of upholding one against the other - that being either handing criminals large amounts of money for something which ultimately no sensible person believes more than a handful of the prisoners actually cares about in the slightest beyond how much they could get or joining a list of nations that ignore their international agreements as it suits them.

Camerons problem is complex because if he had a majority then he could probably go to the repeal route - repeal the act enshrining ECHR and replace it with a clear UK specific version subject only to UK courts and parliament. However because the LibDems like the ECHR and are very much for votes for prisoners he has a political problem which is why it is Davis and Straw who are pushing the same button for very different reasons.

The money matters - but it is more the sickening thought of who could be getting it should he fail to resolve a mess not of his own making. Government is about pragmatic solutions to real world problems and sometimes you have to pick the least worst option.

Thing is, there's no link between how "good" a person is and how much their vote counts, they all count one. Be nice, I guess, if we could calibrate this better, be more sophisticated about it, but it's not practical. Hard to measure Goodness, in any case - e.g. there are loads of people in prison who shouldn't be, and even more who should be but aren't. Best we stick with the principle that all adults can vote - estate agents, investment bankers, prisoners, whoever.

Perhaps voting should only be allowed to prisoners who will be released within the lifespan of the newly elected Govt. That way they would be allowed to voice an opinion on a society they will be re-introduced to.

Has anyone told David Cameron that he is the Prime Minister? It is shockingly incompetent that he is issuing statements saying he he doesn't want to give prisoners the vote - but he has done nothing to stop them getting it.

Wakey wakey davey take a bit of responsibility.


This shambolic government are having a bad week.

10. At 6:16pm on 18 Jan 2011, FairandTrue wrote:
4. At 5:32pm on 18 Jan 2011, matt wrote:

"This debate has nothing to do with the EU. It was the European Court of Human Rights"

So you think the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU!
The clue is in the first word EUROPEAN. Here in the UK we need the UK Act of Human Rights.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't think, I know, I'm a student of political science and international relations. The EU has its own court, the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Human Rights was set up by the ECHR treaty to act as guardian and ultimate arbiter of the treaty and its member states.

I hope this clarifies things further, I thought it was from my initial post

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Taking into consideration Ken Clarke's new found liberalism (i.e. prison doesn't work), there's a fair chance that most inmates will be voting Tory at the next GA!

Saga @ 12

Since prisoners are likely to come into contact with the apparatus of state far more often than the average citizen - the courts, probation, NHS addiction clinics, benefit offices, etc etc - it would make sense for them to have two votes each. After all, they are more directly affected by a whole range of government policy. I remember suggesting this some time last year and I seem to recall it went down pretty well, although I could be wrong about that last bit.

15. At 7:03pm on 18 Jan 2011, matt wrote:

" I don't think, I know, I'm a student of political science and international relations. The EU has its own court, the European Court of Justice. The European Court of Human Rights was set up by the ECHR treaty to act as guardian and ultimate arbiter of the treaty and its member states."


Matt. My first post stated the following:

No votes for prisoners should be decided by our government not any EU instituition. Similarly our human rights, or the rights of anyone in this country (not just citizens of the UK), should be determined by our government in a UK human rights Act, not in any EU instituition.

*Not in any EU instituition.*


The usual EU blurb. The ECHR was set up by the ECHR treaty to act as guardian and ultimate arbiter of its own treaty !!!!! and member states (members of the EU!!!!!)

The UK should ignore the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.

FairandTrue @ 10 wrote:
So you think the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU!
The clue is in the first word EUROPEAN.

>>

Gosh, that's a comment and a half!
Next you'll be telling us you wouldn't allow your wife to go into the labour room to give birth.

#12 you are quite right to point out that there is the wrong mix in the jails, most of it the fault of your friends the former party of power.

is that an admisssion that there was another failed policy

first lets get the admissions policy right and hang those that deserve it
and then those that are left cannot vote and are not allowed to vote again until they have proven that they are changed people.

political prisoners though should be allowed to vote

Matt. My first post stated the following:

No votes for prisoners should be decided by our government not any EU instituition. Similarly our human rights, or the rights of anyone in this country (not just citizens of the UK), should be determined by our government in a UK human rights Act, not in any EU instituition.

*Not in any EU instituition.*


The usual EU blurb. The ECHR was set up by the ECHR treaty to act as guardian and ultimate arbiter of its own treaty !!!!! and member states (members of the EU!!!!!)

The UK should ignore the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ok, I shall try again. The ECHR treaty was drafted and designed by its members and the Council of Europe (not the EU one, the institution that was set up in 1949), which is not in any way related to the European Union. The primary role of the Council of Europe is to promote a common conception of democracy in Europe and develop closer cultural ties between European states (not just EU members). Furthermore, the council of Europe and the ECHR does not just involve members of the EU. In fact, membership of the ECHR and the Council of Europe is seen by non-EU states as a stepping stone towards EU membership.

BTW I take considerable offence to you quoting a few words of a two sentence explanation of my feelings towards the UK government and its double standard of promoting a rights based conception of voting, while treating it like a privilege. If Mr. Straw and Mr. Davis had any principals they would have tried to get a bill put through the commons to completely change the way we conceive voting, so that it is more in line with public opinion

"If the government wishes to challenge this then it should have the guts to put its 'money where its' mouth is and make voting a privilege that can be removed from more than just criminals..." (matt @ 4)
......................

Exciting proposition!

Matt (or others), let's have a look at the other categories for disenfranchisment ..... should be fun!

1

So you approve of 160m being given to crooks who didnt give a flying one for the rights of their victims then, just to spite Cameron?

Grow up.

"...political prisoners, though, should be allowed to vote" (IR35_SURVIVOR @ 22)
...................................
That's the whole point, political prisoners are in prison for their politics. It's an oxymoron thing.

IMO the act of incarceration itself involves the deprivation of liberties - including the liberty to vote.

I subscribe to the belief that, across the Continent, differing stances can be adhered to on human rights.
If a country, say Scotland, wishes to ban sodomy, it should be within its rights to do so.
There are plenty of other countries for the sodomists to go .... and the paedophiles, ... and the ...
Hell, at this rate all the Roma will end up back in Romania!

You see how the dilemmas screw with the brain. Aarrgggh!

19. At 8:27pm on 18 Jan 2011, pdavies65 wrote:
Saga @ 12

"Since prisoners are likely to come into contact with the apparatus of state far more often than the average citizen - the courts, probation, NHS addiction clinics, benefit offices, etc etc - it would make sense for them to have two votes each. After all, they are more directly affected by a whole range of government policy. I remember suggesting this some time last year and I seem to recall it went down pretty well, although I could be wrong about that last bit."

Lovely PD,and a third for good behaviour.

I believe an MP who has less than 1 yr prison sentence does not have to give up his seat. I often wondered would they be allowed out to vote?

Whatever we think of EU or ECHR, we signed up for the term and until there is a vote in this country to exit UK from both or one of the organisations we should then toe the line, We might not like it but that is what democracy is about, being grown up.

Straw had lots of time to play politics with this when Labour were in government but chose not too, now he is being flagrantly opportunistic as was his comments a few weeks back, yesterdays man.

According to TheyWorkForYou.com Jack Straw votes strongly for more EU integration. Didn't he know what he was voting for?
If he manages to block this legislation every prisoner in the country will be given the opportunity to sue the government. Then again New Labour ministers have form when it comes to squandering public money.
Jack Straw is either a hypocrite or a fool. I suspect that he's both.

28. At 00:51am on 19 Jan 2011, Indy2010 wrote:

The UK always tows the line and follows the letter of the law however the same cant be said for our other partners, France for example and their treatment of the Romanian Roma families it deported. Did they follow the directive and the ruling of the ECHR, no....

The same can be said for many of our other EU colleagues. So while we get all het up about caring about what the ECHR says the rest of Europe just does its own thing.

In my point of view a person who breaks the law should loose his liberty if that is what the court deems fit. And his liberty includes his vote. If the person does not want to loose all his liberty then he should not do the crime.

As far as a serving member of parliament going to prison, I feel they should be thrown out of office. I think we are all expected to act within the law and they should be showing us mere mortals an example.

I think it's great to see some proper politics - MPs from both Labour and Conservative working together and putting their point across in a reasoned way and it being debated and the outcome hopefully going to affect the law. This is what proper politics should be about - not beating people down to get your law into effect, as we tended to see in the Labour years. I think this goes above right or left politics to the heart of our sovereignty as a nation.

Does anyone else think that the minimum pricing of alcohol has more to do with raising money than health? Is this just another stealth tax in the making? Are the drinkers the new drivers so to speak. Can we expect perhaps a drinkers tax disk, will they introduce speed cameras for those who drink too quick? Will we have unmarked public house police out there to catch uninsured drinkers? Will drinkers have to pay into a siting meter or else be clamped?

29. At 08:53am on 19 Jan 2011, Poprishchin wrote:
If he manages to block this legislation every prisoner in the country will be given the opportunity to sue the government. Then again New Labour ministers have form when it comes to squandering public money.
=========================================================================
Perhaps he is just thinking about his ex colleagues and a way they can make a few more bob from us......

Good to see MPs challenging the awful policies of the conspiracy government.

Personally it's not that big a deal to me whether a prisoner is given a vote.

I am far more concerned about the release of thousands of criminals to cut costs. Once they are out on the streets they will surely have a vote (though I wonder how many actually use it) and they will ALSO be burgling houses, robbing citizens, dealing drugs etc etc.

Even the tory cheerleaders on here seem unwilling to defend that disastrous policy.


(Fiasco of the day: I see unemployment is UP again. The world is in up-turn following the worst global recession since WWII. But the disunited kingdom has RISING unemployment. Quite an achievement. These tory economic policies are doing a grand job - ho, ho, ho)

Jack Straw notes that the European Court of Human Rights ... "has been unable to resist the temptation to aggrandise its jurisdiction and to impose uniform rules on Member States. It considers itself the equivalent of the Supreme Court of the United States, laying down a federal law of Europe."

In fact, in this specific area of law, the USA delegates the decision as to whether prisoners can vote to the individual States, or more, precisely, the bottom-up democracy that is at the heart of the US Constitution, naturally insists that decisions of this nature are made at the 'local' i.e. State, level.

In Europe, with its broadly catholic, authoritarian history, the opposite tends to apply, that is, these decisions tend to be taken at the highest level and then imposed on the member States.

Naturally, we in England bridle at this and have always resisted 'outside' pressure.

jon112dk
'Good to see MPs challenging the awful policies of the conspiracy government.'

This comment demonstrates the mindless party politics that have wrecked this country. Let's forget anything like context or facts and just wave our differently coloured rattles and scarves in each others faces!
Utterly pathetic!

#34 jon112uk

I would add to your last paragraph:
"The number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (the claimant count) fell by 4,100 between November and December 2010 to reach 1.46 million."

source: Office for National Statistics, January 19th 2011

So the seasonally-adjusted claimant count fell in December (actually small rises and small falls are within the margin of error).

I may return to international unemployment comparisons another time.

But don't worry, unemployment will rise soon and there will be no need for me to interrupt your merriment.

32. At 09:28am on 19 Jan 2011, Chris London wrote:
Does anyone else think that the minimum pricing of alcohol has more to do with raising money than health? Is this just another stealth tax in the making? .......

==================================

No. The proposal has nothing to do with either, it is a rather feeble attempt to try to be seen to do something about an issue which raises some public concern whilst not actually doing anything that affects anyone.

Even these few lines are more than the proposal is worth - utterly pointless proposal.

29. Pops
'According to TheyWorkForYou.com Jack Straw votes strongly for more EU integration. Didn't he know what he was voting for?
If he manages to block this legislation every prisoner in the country will be given the opportunity to sue the government. Then again New Labour ministers have form when it comes to squandering public money.
Jack Straw is either a hypocrite or a fool. I suspect that he's both.'

Not sure about the last bit. Very like his mate who is being recalled to the Chilcott Inquiry. Morals to suit any occasion.

"38. At 11:33am on 19 Jan 2011, Whistling Neil wrote:
32. At 09:28am on 19 Jan 2011, Chris London wrote:
Does anyone else think that the minimum pricing of alcohol has more to do with raising money than health? Is this just another stealth tax in the making? .......

==================================

No. The proposal has nothing to do with either, it is a rather feeble attempt to try to be seen to do something about an issue which raises some public concern whilst not actually doing anything that affects anyone.

Even these few lines are more than the proposal is worth - utterly pointless proposal."

Can't see the point in the proposals either. I think it means that a can of beer must cost at least 38p. Hardly likely to stop anyone getting drunk if you can pick up 13 cans of beer for a fiver is it.

Prisoners having the right to vote is part of the principle of universal suffrage.

Prisoners are in a particularly dangerous position as far as abuse by government is concerned. It is important that they have the same safeguards as the rest of us. The right to ask an MP to take their complaints up with the minister responsible and to vote for someone else at the next election, if not satisfied with the outcome.

Jack Straw seems to be losing his judgment, or is it that now he is nearing retirement he is allowing the mask to slip to reveal a nasty authoritarian streak. A week or two ago he let slip a racist comment about the grooming of young girls, and now he is associating himself with this typical piece of tabloid nastiness. Perhaps he should join the nasty party, maybe he might get a job in the coalition.

37. At 10:58am on 19 Jan 2011, johnharris66
"The number of people claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance (the claimant count) fell by 4,100 between November and December 2010 to reach 1.46 million."
============================

Please feel free to delude yourself everything is ok and your tory chums are doing a grand job.

One interpretation of what is happening is that the tories have targeted professional/middle-class people for their policy of deliberate unemployment. These people are averse to registering for benefits and, in any event, if they have a spouse who the tories are still allowing to work then they are not entitled to benefit.

Looking at a specific group of people not subject to this phenomenon is illuminating. Youth (16-24) unemployment has risen to the HIGHEST LEVEL EVER RECORDED. Yes, that’s right higher than it was at the depths of the worst global recession since WWII.

Of course all of this is against back drop of global economic recovery and (as you state) even before the bulk of the deliberate job destruction kicks in.

That's quite an achievement.

36. At 10:50am on 19 Jan 2011, Poprishchin wrote:
jon112dk
'Good to see MPs challenging the awful policies of the conspiracy government.'
This comment demonstrates the mindless party politics that have wrecked this country. Let's forget anything like context or facts and just wave our differently coloured rattles and scarves in each others faces!
Utterly pathetic!
==========================

I'm not a labour supporter.

The MPs challenging their dodgy policies are fellow tories.

Making assumptions about other peoples affiliations or motivations...

Utterly pathetic.

"Making assumptions about other peoples affiliations or motivations..."

Yeah, shocking, innit jon? After all, you've never said that anyone who doesnt parrot back your prejudices equally loudly is a tory apologist, have you? Not much!

"Utterly pathetic."

You said it mate, you said it!

42 - "in any event, if they have a spouse who the tories are still allowing to work then they are not entitled to benefit."

Contribution based JSA is an entitlement, so what your spouse is doing is irrelevant.

"the tories are still allowing to work". You really do write tosh. There are currently around 29 million people who have jobs in the UK. The Tories would like nothing better than full employment but they realise that needs to be achieved by the private sector, not creating non-jobs in the public sector.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

#43
'I'm not a labour supporter.'

My apologies. The way you blame the current government for EVERYTHING made me think you might have supported the last one!

going back to the original blog article, I'm not quite sure what legal force the Hoffmann speech that jack Straw is carrying about has. probably none. More to the point is Lord Hoffmann's opinion in the HL when he was in fact still a Law Lord. Just to recap, s. 2 HRA98 says this (amongst other things):
"A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must take into account any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights."
In Secretary of State for the Home Department v F [2009] UKHL 28 Lord Hoffmann said in essence that the United Kingdom is bound by the Convention, as a matter of international law, to accept the decisions of the ECtHR on its interpretation.
So I don't know what the debate is supposed to be about. I don't think even repealing section 2(1)(a) is going to do any good. And anyway the LidDems would love that. I say that ironically, but then perhaps they wouldn't care given the way this government is shaping up.
(unfortunately my earlier more detailed post was removed because the moderator wrongly perceived that a copy of an extract of an English judgment is copyright infringement--it isn't.)

41. stan

'Jack Straw seems to be losing his judgment, or is it that now he is nearing retirement he is allowing the mask to slip to reveal a nasty authoritarian streak. A week or two ago he let slip a racist comment about the grooming of young girls, and now he is associating himself with this typical piece of tabloid nastiness. Perhaps he should join the nasty party, maybe he might get a job in the coalition.'


stan, you've only just rumbled him now??

Someone ending up in jail, despite sentencing guidelines, is a subjective affair. Surely if we think its OK to deny people in jail the vote then why not those that have been found guilty of a jailable offence too?

We don't remove all of someone's human rights when they go to jail (although I'm sure there are people who wish we did). Why is this a special case and not say the right to read newspapers or the right to free speech?

Does anyone really want to fight with the EU on this one and potentially cost the UK money it can ill afford?

A final muse - what constituency will they end up voting in? Maybe the LibDems could turn up with some form of public pledge to replace the student votes they'll be losing?

apparrently if a blogging offence to suggest that some types of prisoners should be hung. Ie Cannot blog on that issue as it offends the blog police, but it alright to debate wether they can vote ?

45. At 12:26pm on 19 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
The Tories would like nothing better than full employment but they realise that needs to be achieved by the private sector, not creating non-jobs in the public sector
====================================

When are they going to start?

I roared with laughter at that meeting where lord snooty gathered all his 'private sector' chums to announce they would create the massive total of .... wait for it .... forty thousand jobs. LOL.

Meanwhile snooty was deliberately destroying one million jobs.

You've got to laugh. Creating rising unemployment and rising inflation and declining growth against the background of a global upturn, now that is quite an achievement.

#26 for political prisoner read Father 4 Justice and Real Fathers for Justice members that have been jailed for a long time for protesting against Labour policy.

Example and this will make you laugh.

Standing on a roof with a banner 2 months. did not even break-in etc loads of police yet

yet the average break-in does not get a police present let alone a sentence.

SO THOSE SHOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE OK

44. At 12:23pm on 19 Jan 2011, Fubar_Saunders

Hey, fubar.

So are you all in favour of the tories giving votes to prisoners then?

50 - "We don't remove all of someone's human rights when they go to jail"

Although John Hirst removed all of Bronia Burton's human rights when he killed her by hitting her seven times with an axe.

No51

Has Nick ever produced a blog on that topic when you have been unable to air your views? I think probably not.

Surely you're not going to attempt a link from the right to vote with the right to life?

Nope, sorry, I can't think of a single reason why they shouldn't be able to vote. And simply loads of reasons why they should.

55 - I know AndyC555 and he won't be getting the vote whatever happens and rightly so.

At the lower end of the spectrum I think there is a different debate to be had. I'm not trying to be some form of over the top liberal here - crime should be punished, but this debate misses the point of that.

jon112dk 43

Then what is it you do represent jon, because reading through your posts your ideas appear to change, but always have one thing in common, dislike of the Tories. In fact truth is distorted by yourself to fit the Labour line.

You cannot represent the true left-wing, not the Labour activists on here, that is, but the true leftie because they do not think and act as you do. In actual fact you would give what are often very sincere people a bad name if you claimed to represent a true leftie.

54#

I'm barely in favour of anybody giving fresh air, bread and water to prisoners mate, let alone the vote.

He's not a lefty Susan, just overindulges in "waaaaaaah's"... like the kind of red faced kids you see being ignored by their mothers when they're face down in the cereals and biscuits aisles of the supermarkets having failed to get their own way, banging their tiny clenched fists off the floor.
Its just attention seeking. He figures that if he shouts loud enough that he hates tories in a room that is largely full of similarly small minds that it will mean he's socially accepted into the group, when all he really wants to do is suck his thumb and ride in the shopping trolley.

59. At 1:17pm on 19 Jan 2011, Susan-Croft

Under this regime I regard it as every man for himself and make no claims of affiliations with any ill defined group such as 'true leftie,' whatever that means. Certainly have never been a labour supporter.

I consider plans to deliberately deprive one million people of their livelihood for purely ideological reasons as evil and reserve the right to criticise the regime carrying out that policy.

If you don't like that - too bad.

47. At 09:41am on 19 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
42. At 8:27pm on 18 Jan 2011, bryhers wrote:

"Read my comments to JH.66.Not definitive but might make you think."

"Not definitive". Something of an understatement. You leap from 'American organised crime' to 'property criminals vote conservative'. Most shockingly, one of them even had a Christmas tree! Must look out for that as a sign that someone might be a mobster. And these people supported both Kennedy AND Nixon. One a Democrat, the other a Republican. To be honest, I'd struggle logically to get from "American mobsters at one time or another supported both of the main political parties" to "people who steal vote Conservative" but I'll accept that this sort of connection must make sense in your world."

American mobsters are the examples given by Merton as I made clear.Extrapolating, the key idea is the disjunction between socially prescribed goals,ie.getting rich,and illegal means.

Organized crime is common across the UK as the police constantly make clear.Like their US equivalents the gangs are into drug trafficking,prostitution,match fixing,robbery and firearms.Perhaps you had the ill fortune to come across some of these characters during your career?

Cameron: "It makes me physically ill even to contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison."

>>

Is he really that lily-livered or just a drama queen?

60
They aren't evil, Fubar. Just inadequate, usually.

#23
"If Mr. Straw and Mr. Davis had any principals they would have tried to get a bill put through the commons to completely change the way we conceive voting, so that it is more in line with public opinion"
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Which bit of the publics opinion would that be?

49. At 11:10am on 19 Jan 2011, Susan-Croft wrote:
Bryers 40

I don't often pick you up on issues because their seems little point. Fiction is fiction whether it be on the economy or any other matters. This tends to be what you peddle constantly.

I am very surprised that john harris did not point out to you that John F. Kennedy was in fact a democrat. Furthermore his family, mainly Joseph P. Kennedy, was in fact associated with unsavoury activities.

I think you have been reading too much on the theory of the Christian Mafia, and have become confused.

I think I knew JFK was a democrat.The point is that both Demcrat and Republican are capitalist parties.

JFK had links with mobsters,he is alleged to have shared a mistress with one and had mafia assistance in the Bay of Pigs fiasco.(Havana had been a glambling mecca for the mob).It wasn`t only Joe who had the unsavoury connections.He called in all sorts of favours to get his sone elected,particularly in Chicago.

Is there a choice?
Speaking in the Commons, The Justice Secretary, Ken Clarke told MPs that to ignore a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) would expose the taxpayer to millions of pounds worth of compensation claims from prisoners.
Aside from that, I'd like to point out that not all prisoners are thugs; some may actually be innocent, and some are a dnager to no one, not even themselves.
Also under the proposals prisoners serving UP TO FOUR YEARS in prison will be able to vote in general elections by proxy or by post ON THEIR NORMAL CONSTITUENCY. Since murders and rapists seldom get under four years, I think there is every reason to approach this situation with perspective.
Clarke said that the four year threshold was decided upon after receiving legal advice and that it was a "rational line" that was drawn in order to comply with legal obligations
Tory MP James Gray said that the move would mean 6,000 violent offenders, 2,000 sex offenders and 4,500 drug offenders would be able to vote. All of these with sentances under four years?
The North Wiltshire MP branded the move "wholly offensive and unacceptable" and said it should be Parliament which decided such matters not the ECHR. No matter: to ignore a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) would expose the taxpayer to millions of pounds worth of compensation claims from prisoners.

jon112dk 62

Fair enough you represent nothing, fine, so Fubar is correct.

Who are these people depriving 1 million people of their livelihood for ideological reasons that you speak of. I am a fair minded person, I know of no such people, therefore what do you base you belief on.

What I like jon is for people to express their beliefs in way that is respectful and truthful to all parties. Your posts are unbalanced and often untruthful, mostly supporting the Labour party.

Andy @ 55

That point is often made, but I don't see its relevance. Giving the prisoners the vote doesn't involve pardoning them for their crimes. It just means that disenfranchisement isn't one of their punishments. Don't you think the state's approach to its citizens and their rights should be different from those of an axe-wielding thug?

63/67 - bryhers.

This discussion started because of your absurd "property criminals are Tories" line. You have not produced a single shred of evidence to back that up. Why can't you just admit it's a middle-class leftie myth?

So your argument now is that because American organised crime was located (er...) in America and sought influence amongst the political parties both of which are 'capitalist parties', this means that someone breaking into my house is a Tory voter?

Let's all play that game. You know what. I've got Fred West down as a Labour voter. Makes you think doesn't it.

Meanwhile, I dread to think of the games you play with your husband as the nasty Tory Boss, with you the helpless worker.....

65#

Who arent evil, pd?

Bryers 67

Please don't try this with me, I asked the pertinent question which would have proved whether you were a true leftie the other day and you are not.

You again produce biased untruthful posts supporting the Labour Party which no anti capitalist or true leftie would do.

Furthermore you accused all Conservatives of being dishonest and backed it up with your American theory about republicans being involved in illegal activities. Until it was pointed out to you that JFK was in fact a democrat. Kind of kills your argument stone dead don't you think.

64. pd

Cameron: "It makes me physically ill even to contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison."

'Is he really that lily-livered or just a drama queen?'


Just a sensitive soul, pd. A good Bordeaux served at 66F has been known to set him off.

"70. At 2:13pm on 19 Jan 2011, pdavies65 wrote:
Andy @ 55

That point is often made, but I don't see its relevance. Giving the prisoners the vote doesn't involve pardoning them for their crimes. It just means that disenfranchisement isn't one of their punishments. Don't you think the state's approach to its citizens and their rights should be different from those of an axe-wielding thug?"

The relevance is that it's a weak case from someone who has deprived a person from ever having any human rights at all to bleat about losing some of their own.

Should the state behave differently from an axe-wielding thug? Of course. I am an opponent of the death penalty and so support the state keeping alive someone who has deprived someone else of that most basic right. If all such a prisoner ever gets is food and clothing for life, is that not infinately more than he gave his victim?

Labour dragged their heels on this issue so they could claim that they were "tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime" and not have it thrown back in their faces at the election they knew was coming soon.

The major issue I have with prisoners getting the vote is that the next step in the human rights chain is probably a right to freedom of movement. Why are criminals allowed to have their movement restricted but they are allowed to keep their right to vote? Prisoners should be subject to having all their human rights removed at the will of the state at the legislature's pleasure.

I am not saying that capital punishment is acceptable due to the chances of a miscarriage (I think that the only positive part of capital punsihment is the 0% reoffender rate) but that is not a human right issue for the prisoner it is a personal choice.

Initially the Human Right's act had lots of "unless stated by state legislature" adendums which have slowly been erased.

71 - In fact, further to that and based on nothing whatsoever, I think all of the following almost certainly voted Labour:

Fred West
Harold Shipman
Jack The Ripper
Myra Hindley
Burke and Hare
John Christie
Dennis Nilsen (who was a civil servant and worked in a job centre, which is a clear indication of his possible support for Labour)
Peter Sutcliffe.

Even Ted Bundy is rumoured to have said that he wished he could have lived in the UK as he was a strong supporter of Labour.

And if that doesn't prove that all serial killers vore Labour and that all Labour voters are potential serial killers then my research is as daft and flawed as bryhers.

BlameGame @ 74
I remember him from his Oxford University days. He used to keep an orange studded with cloves inside his top hat. Whipped it out and held it under his nose whenever he was forced to walk past townies.

69. At 2:02pm on 19 Jan 2011, Susan-Croft
"Your posts are unbalanced and often untruthful, mostly supporting the Labour party."


Nope, you still haven't grasped it.

My posts are critical of the tories, not supportive of labour.

I am pleased to confirm that I make no attempt to be balanced in my condemnation of this regime.


"Who are these people depriving 1 million people of their livelihood for ideological reasons that you speak of. ... I know of no such people ..."

Are you in denial about the effects of the tory cuts or are you in denial about them being ideologically motivated?

61. At 1:31pm on 19 Jan 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
He figures that if he shouts loud enough that he hates tories in a room that is largely full of similarly small minds that it will mean he's socially accepted into the group.
===========================================

Not exactly in a room of like minded people here, am I fubar.

You still haven't said whether you agree with the tories capitulating to the european court and giving prisoners a vote.

If prisoners rights at a pan European level are to be extended tohave the right to vote, surely by the same argument you could say that they should all have recourse to a pan European legal and criminal justice systems? All legal and justice systems to a varying degree are different in Europe: will the ECHR now have the right to demand a standard criminal justice system prevail throughout the EU?

This is what our dozy and dopey politicians should have woken up to a long time ago. Well done jack Straw and David Davis!

Andy @ 75

Of course, I see what you are saying, but I don't think poetic justice should form part of our penal system. In deciding how to treat people who have committed crimes, our starting point should not be to ask "how does a murderous thug treat his victim?". However, I can understand why people feel little sympathy for violent offenders.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm not in favour of prisoners having the vote because of any argument about human rights, whatever those are. We have already taken away their liberty, so why not their vote too? My view is more pragmatic: we can't reduce the impact of crime on society without doing a better job of rehabilitation and involving criminals in the democratic process may have a positive effect.

79 - "I am pleased to confirm that I make no attempt to be balanced in my condemnation of this regime"

Really, you had no need to say that.

79 "Are you in denial about the effects of the tory cuts or are you in denial about them being ideologically motivated?"

What ARE the effects of the Tory cuts then? Creating a culture of only spending what the country can afford? Making people realise that money doesn't grow on trees?

Besides, how many politicians do you know that aren't ideologically motivated?

OK, I know, Tony Blair wasn't. But other than him.

82 - "My view is more pragmatic: we can't reduce the impact of crime on society without doing a better job of rehabilitation and involving criminals in the democratic process may have a positive effect."

Noble sentiments indeed.

"Look here, old chap, you've been convicted of dozens of crimes and have finally ended up in prison. Throughout your life and up until now, you've had the right to vote and it's made not the slightest difference to your behaviour. Now, we think that giving you the vote in prison will change you around competely"

I do love the portrayal of David Cameron as aloof, arrogant and out of touch by the labour apologists on these posts.

As if a man who grew up in salubrious north London, chatting away over the organic tofu about the oppressed masses with his marxist father while never having been near one in his life is any better placed.

Which one is better placed to decide whether prisoners get the vote?

You'll have to try harder, brothers.

It's grim up north London...

80#

80. At 3:15pm on 19 Jan 2011, jon112dk wrote:

61. At 1:31pm on 19 Jan 2011, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
He figures that if he shouts loud enough that he hates tories in a room that is largely full of similarly small minds that it will mean he's socially accepted into the group.
===========================================

Not exactly in a room of like minded people here, am I fubar.

=============================================

There are many days on here jon, where you are in the company of very similar minds. I'm sure thats not lost on you. Thats when you're not surrounded by the hallucinatory tory stooge attack dogs....
=================================================================
You still haven't said whether you agree with the tories capitulating to the european court and giving prisoners a vote.
==================================================================

I did give you an answer, in post 60.

Just not in the form you expected.

But as an intelligent man, I'm sure you can extrapolate out the "hidden" meaning from

"I'm barely in favour of any party giving fresh air, bread and water to prisoners mate, let alone the vote."

Heres a hint... I agree, it stinks. But it doesnt surprise me. Cam is the illegitimate offspring of Ted Heath and Tony Blair. Quasi-liberal but with the spine of a earthworm.

I'm sure he's a very nice chap, deep down, but not the kind of PM the nation needs. So, I think you'll find we've probably got more in common than you'd think.

Its just that I'm not blowing that Class Warfare whistle for all its worth. You resent his background (and are probably jealous of him), I dont. Regardless of that, neither of us think he's up to the job.

Andy @ 85
No, not noble, pragmatic. As I said.

Robin @ 86

Quite a loyal defender of the moon-faced Mr Cameron you're becoming lately, Robin. And it's hardly a year since you were damning him as as no better than Brown. Looks like the PR offensive worked - on you, at least.

jon112dk 79

I am pleased to confirm that I make no attempt to be balanced in my condemnation of this regime.

------------------------------------------------------------

I cannot believe you have actually written that jon. It closes down any possible discussion that could be had, because the outcome would always be the same from you. Pointless really, in you engaging with people on the blog, because you are virtually saying you would be untruthful to get your point over.

I am not in denial with regard to any issue, I know the problems with both the Labour Party and the Coalition. However, if you seriously believe that any Government, of any colour, would through ideology, take away peoples livelihood you are living in cuckoo land. What would it gain them for goodness sake?.

This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

This comment is awaiting moderation. Explain.

pdavies..

Your comments get neither more interesting nor illuminating. But then you are not part of the centre right consensus so why am I surprised?

How's the tofu?

Robin@94

Unusually sour.

. At 2:16pm on 19 Jan 2011, AndyC555 wrote:
63/67 - bryhers.

"This discussion started because of your absurd "property criminals are Tories" line. You have not produced a single shred of evidence to back that up. Why can't you just admit it's a middle-class leftie myth?"

OK,so you have difficulty in applying the idea of a conflict between sociazl goals and means to a British context,don`t see the connection and then drift into strange fantasies about my marriage.

Try this instead:Since entering government the conservatives have adopted a series of measures wghich on the face of it appear criminal friendly.Certainly many conservatives including my husband think so.They wantr to dismantle the national DNA data base which has been instrumental in catching criminals and solving many cold cases.They intend to jail fewer people and close prisons in the teeth of opposition from law and order Tories like Michael Howard,and now they want to give prisoners the vote.

Now I would call that criminal friendly.Perhaps they hope they will becomed donors?

73. At 2:21pm on 19 Jan 2011, Susan-Croft wrote:
Bryers 67

Please don't try this with me, I asked the pertinent question which would have proved whether you were a true leftie the other day and you are not.
You again produce biased untruthful posts supporting the Labour Party which no anti capitalist or true leftie would do.
Furthermore you accused all Conservatives of being dishonest and backed it up with your American theory about republicans being involved in illegal activities. Until it was pointed out to you that JFK was in fact a democrat. Kind of kills your argument stone dead don't you think."

Don`t quite catch the drift of this.I think true lefties died out with Keir Hardy if not before, so sorry to disappoint.Nor did I accuse all conservatives of being dishonest,I merely pointed out the consonance of conservative values with those of professional criminals.Thank you for pointing out JFK was a democrat,I thought he might be a member of Hezbollah!

bryers 96

That is not what you said at all bryers, people only have to look back on your posts to know the truth. You said the Tories were property criminals, then went into you American nonsense. If I were Andy, I would not waste any more time on you.

BTW Mixing language that makes absolutely no sense, does not impress.

96 - So you're now not just suggesting that property criminals are all Tory voters but also that the Conservatives are cahnging the law to help criminals who will then contribute to party funding....

But I see that challenged to produce any evidence whatsoever of the voting tendancies of property theives in the UK (or anywhere else for that matter) you come up with precisely nothing. Oh, except that your husband thinks that the Conservatives have adopted criminal friendly measures. Well, why didn't you say so before? If your husband thinks that, it's obviously case closed.

"I merely pointed out the consonance of conservative values with those of professional criminals."

*sigh* criminals, by definition, break the law. How is it a conservative value to break the law? The only mass organised law breaking lately has been those jolly demos where students throw fire extinguishers at the police. Or have you conveniently forgotten that?