"Fuck the police" - Cameron vows prisoners will not get the vote despite ECHR ruling
91 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20053244[/url]
[quote=BBC News][B]Prime Minister David Cameron has said Britain will continue to defy a European Court ruling saying prisoners must be given the right to vote.[/B]
"No one should be under any doubt - prisoners are not getting the vote under this government," he told MPs.
But he offered a further Commons debate to "help put the legal position".
It comes after Attorney General Dominic Grieve warned Britain's reputation would be damaged if it did not follow the European Court ruling.
The government is negotiating with the court, but Mr Grieve said there was "flexibility" over action needed.
Most coalition MPs and Labour oppose giving prisoners the vote.
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a blanket ban on voting for anyone sent to jail is illegal and the government has until the end of November to decide how to react.
The UK has been on a collision course with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) since the Strasbourg court ruled in 2005 that it was a breach of human rights to deny prisoners a vote.
[B]'Standards'[/B]
The court ruled it was up to individual countries to decide which prisoners should be denied the right to vote from jail, but said a total ban was illegal.
In May of this year, it gave the UK six months to outline how it proposed to change the law on prisoner votes.
But Attorney General Dominic Grieve said there was "flexibility" in the European ruling, and that Parliament had sovereignty over the issue of who was able to vote, as any change would require a Commons vote for amendments to the Representation of the People Act.
Mr Grieve told MPs on the Commons Justice Committee that the UK had a legal duty to implement the judgements of international bodies it had joined. This was also set out in the Ministerial Code, he said.
If Parliament voted to keep a blanket ban on prisoners voting, the government would be liable to pay damages to those affected.
Mr Grieve said: "That would be costly to the United Kingdom, unless it chose not to pay... [which] would be a further breach of the obligations."
He added: "The issue is whether the United Kingdom wishes to be in breach of its international obligations and what that does to the reputation of the United Kingdom."
Mr Grieve said: "The United Kingdom has an enviable reputation in relation to human rights standards and adherence."
He added: "I have no doubt that it would be seen by other countries as a move away from out strict adherence to human rights laws."
Mr Grieve admitted that expulsion from the European Council, which oversees the court, was possible, adding that the UK could itself withdraw: "Governments can leave the Council of Europe if they wish to do so."
[B]'Complicated'[/B]
Of the reported possibility prisoners could get the vote, a government source told the BBC: "It is completely untrue. It's not happening. It's complete nonsense."
They said the discussions were "legally complicated" but declined to elaborate further.
After the European Court's judgement was announced in May, Prime Minister David Cameron said it would make him "sick" to change that, and that he would resist the ECHR ruling, saying the ban on voting from jail "should be a matter for Parliament... and not a foreign court".
The coalition has to decide whether to comply with the ruling, seek a further delay or do nothing and risk a fine or maybe more.
BBC political correspondent Robin Brant said one Tory backbench MP said any change would be made "over my dead body", and another that the justice secretary should get on with his day job and show the ECHR that "two can play at interminable delay".
For Labour, shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said: "The Tory-led government's sheer confusion over whether prisoners will or won't get the vote is yet another illustration of the ridiculously shambolic way they are running our country.
"The public will be rightly concerned at reports prisoners could get a vote. If true, thousands of those serving sentences for serious and violent crimes such as wounding, assault and domestic violence would be given a say in who runs the country.
"Instead of the chaos of leaks and spin we've seen this morning, the public deserve the truth about the government's intentions."
But Liberal Democrat backbencher Stephen Williams, a member of the constitutional reform select committee, has said prisoners serving short sentences should be allowed to vote as part of their rehabilitation.
At present, the only prisoners allowed to vote in Britain are those on remand.[/quote]
Well that's dumb .
There isn't really any reason why prisoners should be not able to vote.
They're still citizens, and they need encouragement to be members of society.
[QUOTE=Satansick;38162513]Well that's dumb .[/QUOTE]
No, this is dumb:
[IMG]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01774/david-cameron-220_1774555f.jpg[/IMG]
It's not like giving prisoners the vote will increase their participation in politics and help them feel involved in society, aiding rehabilitation, right guys?
Seriously, fuck you David Cameron.
I don't want prisoners to get the vote. They're prisoners. They clearly don't think the rules apply to them, so why should they get a right to vote?
[QUOTE=Memobot;38162555]I don't want prisoners to get the vote. They're prisoners. They clearly don't think the rules apply to them, so why should they get a right to vote?[/QUOTE]
Because maybe some of them regret their crimes?
Because the purpose of a prison is to punish and then re-integrate into society those who break the law?
Because the Britain is a DEMOCRACY where EVERY CITIZEN is supposed to be allowed to vote.
Last time I checked, prisoners were still citizens.
Because prisoners cant be concidered people anymore, right?
[QUOTE=Memobot;38162555]I don't want prisoners to get the vote. They're prisoners. They clearly don't think the rules apply to them, so why should they get a right to vote?[/QUOTE]
Because you cannot rehabilitate someone by screaming "you are shit" at them constantly.
You need to get them involved in society and stop them from being apathetic, helping them to learn useful skills and treating psychological conditions they might have.
of course a conservative is against prisoners voting. it's thanks to people like them that prison populations are so large, giving them a vote means more opposition
What's the point of this? As if throwing someone in a cell for a few months or years isn't going to make them hate the government enough, they're literally going to make them second class citizens now?
[QUOTE=Rents;38162617]What's the point of this? As if throwing someone in a cell for a few months or years isn't going to make them hate the government enough, they're literally going to make them second class citizens now?[/QUOTE]
Not all prisons are like the american deathcamps you see in movies, just so you know.
[QUOTE=EcksDee;38162640]Not all prisons are like the american deathcamps you see in movies, just so you know.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't matter, even in those lovely prisons in Scandinavia that're better than a lot of apartment buildings, a lot of the prisoners don't like it for the simple fact they can't leave.
Wait what, prisoners in the UK don't have the right to vote? Wtc.
Your time in prison is to remove you from society, to pay your debt to it. No way in hell should they get the vote. I support this.
[QUOTE=Matriax;38162758]Your time in prison is to remove you from society, to pay your debt to it. No way in hell should they get the vote. I support this.[/QUOTE]
No, it is restricting your freedom to move around, not removing you from society.
[QUOTE=Memobot;38162555]I don't want prisoners to get the vote. They're prisoners. They clearly don't think the rules apply to them, so why should they get a right to vote?[/QUOTE]
Ok so I am the ruling party, you support another party. I dislike that fact, you are now in jail. Have fun with your inability to elect someone else.
That and the whole concept of democracy.
[editline]24th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;38162694]Wait what, prisoners in the UK don't have the right to vote? Wtc.[/QUOTE]
Our government loves to ignore the [del]EU's[/del] European (Council of Europe, most defiantly not the EU) court rulings it appears. I wonder what the consequences of this actually are for them.
[QUOTE=Matriax;38162758]Your time in prison is to remove you from society, to pay your debt to it. No way in hell should they get the vote. I support this.[/QUOTE]
Prison isn't about paying debts, it's about putting you in the position to pay them. What's the point of a prison where people come out angry and hateful of the government?
[QUOTE=Jsm;38163021]the EU's court[/QUOTE]
As in every thread I must point out that the ECHR is not part of the EU
[QUOTE=Matriax;38162758]Your time in prison is to remove you from society, to pay your debt to it. No way in hell should they get the vote. I support this.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, no. The whole "removal from society" thing is not why prisons exist (in the UK anyway). As long as you are a citizen of a country that claims to be democratic you should have the right to vote.
You can't just deny the right to vote to some 88 thousand people.
[editline]24th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=smurfy;38163051]As in every thread I must point out that the ECHR is not part of the EU[/QUOTE]
Shut up you! I knew what I meant and I [B]hope[/B] everyone else did. Council of Europe doesn't have the same ring to it.
[QUOTE=Memobot;38162555]I don't want prisoners to get the vote. They're prisoners. They clearly don't think the rules apply to them, so why should they get a right to vote?[/QUOTE]
"Hello, my name is Memobot and I say prisoners don't deserve the [I]human right[/I] to vote, and by extension say that prisoners aren't human"
as far as i know the mentally handicapped have the right to vote. if people who arent in their right mind can vote, i dont see why giving prisoners the right to is any less okay
You can't call it a democracy if only a certain proportion of citizens can vote.
Either let all citizens of Britain vote or let none.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;38163180]"Hello, my name is Memobot and I say prisoners don't deserve the [I]human right[/I] to vote, and by extension say that prisoners aren't human"[/QUOTE]
What's your take on people like Charles Manson?
Might be wrong, but I thought he'd been stripped of almost everything and named a warden of the state.
[QUOTE=NoDachi;38162522]There isn't really any reason why prisoners should be not able to vote.
They're still citizens, and they need encouragement to be members of society.[/QUOTE]
Well personally I have to ask: Which prisoners? The US disenfranchises felons, which are the ones convicted of serious crimes. It's part of our punitive measures against crime. Now that "does it work?" is a whole 'nother debate. I think it has its purpose. Not necessarily that it's entirely effective, but I think it has a place.
[QUOTE=scout1;38163557]Well personally I have to ask: Which prisoners? The US disenfranchises felons, which are the ones convicted of serious crimes. It's part of our punitive measures against crime. Now that "does it work?" is a whole 'nother debate. I think it has its purpose. Not necessarily that it's entirely effective, but I think it has a place.[/QUOTE]
what purpose? to stop all the prisoners getting together and voting to legalize crime? seriously what purpose does not letting prisoners, serious criminals or otherwise, vote serve?
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;38163592]what purpose? to stop all the prisoners getting together and voting to legalize crime? seriously what purpose does not letting prisoners, serious criminals or otherwise, vote serve?[/QUOTE]
The only reason I can see why they (the government) are against it is because it will add large blocks of people who will vote against them in every election going.
That is like the only purpose, which is more reason to give them the vote.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;38163180]"Hello, my name is Memobot and I say prisoners don't deserve the [I]human right[/I] to vote, and by extension say that prisoners aren't human"[/QUOTE]
And what about the human rights of the people who have been infringed in order for these people to have committed a crime?
You don't know what I know. There needs to be some flexibility surely. But rehabilitation in its current form doesn't work, so why give someone a freedom back (such as voting) when they'll only reoffend.
My point is the two sides of the argument make it sound too easy. It's much more complicated than a yes/no answer.
[QUOTE=Lolx0rz;38162526]No, this is dumb:
[IMG]http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01774/david-cameron-220_1774555f.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Is this guy like the george bush/romney of britain? I am unfamiliar with foreign politics besides major wars etc, but I've heard a lot of shit about this guy.
[QUOTE=Memobot;38163692]My point is the two sides of the argument make it sound too easy. It's much more complicated than a yes/no answer.[/QUOTE]
Then make it sound more complicated you twat.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.