View Full Version : Should Criminals in Jail get to vote?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=a-boot-in-the-ballots%26method=full%26objectid=18526273%26siteid =66633-name_page.html
I think this is a case of where the European Court of Human Rights have got it wrong. If you are a convicted criminal IMO you lose all your rights. But no they are treated better than our pensioners and have better accomodation than many.
Do we really want the likes of William Beggs, Mags Haney and their ilk getting to vote.
The inmates really are running the asylum now IMO.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=a-boot-in-the-ballots%26method=full%26objectid=18526273%26siteid =66633-name_page.html
I think this is a case of where the European Court of Human Rights have got it wrong. If you are a convicted criminal IMO you lose all your rights. But no they are treated better than our pensioners and have better accomodation than many.
Do we really want the likes of William Beggs, Mags Haney and their ilk getting to vote.
The inmates really are running the asylum now IMO.
Must agree with you here - on all counts!
in the tabloids today ,a 1000 pounds to every con in jail. apparently judges have ruled that because cons have been denied the right to vote ,their human rights have been breached so they are now entitled to compensation.
this comes about becouse the law cannot be changed in time for the election. well now, i have heard some rubbish in my lifetime but i think that were just verging on insanity now. i dont see why the government doe,st build a big fire in the centre of every city town & village so the tax payer can just toss their cash in them as they feel like it.
a country gone completely mad.
Whitewater
25-Jan-07, 11:29
NO
They are put to prison because they have committed a crime and in so doing probably deprived their victims of their rights. They are put to prison to loose their freedom. Too much effort is being put into 'Human rights' for prisoners, nothing is ever done for the people who have suffered because of their misdemeanours.
Would the type of people who are in prison vote when they were on the outside? I don't think so, the majority don't give a hoot about the rest of the world, the people in it or who governs the country.
We are far too soft with prisoners.
Yet more nonsense from our crazy governments. People who commit crimes that warrant prison should immediately lose all rights except the very basic human ones, e.g. a clean cell, sanitation, good healthy food, access to medical help when required, work and/or training etc. It is also high time access to drugs was completely removed. Do they pay taxes, council tax, maintain their families whilst in prison? If not, the old slogan of "no taxation without representation" needs reversing here.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=a-boot-in-the-ballots%26method=full%26objectid=18526273%26siteid =66633-name_page.html
I think this is a case of where the European Court of Human Rights have got it wrong. If you are a convicted criminal IMO you lose all your rights. But no they are treated better than our pensioners and have better accomodation than many.
Do we really want the likes of William Beggs, Mags Haney and their ilk getting to vote.
The inmates really are running the asylum now IMO.
Any other sections of the community the "likes" of which you don't want voting?
Was a time that only land owners got to vote, they didn't want the "likes" of commoners having a say.
Was a time when women didn't get to vote, why should the "likes" of them have a say in the running of the country.
Either we are a democracy or we are not a democracy, in a true democracy everyone gets to vote whether you "like" them or not.
Any other sections of the community the "likes" of which you don't want voting?
As the Law stands at the moment Prisoners do not get a vote, that was democratically decided a long time ago Fred.
The UK signed up to the European Court of Human Rights back in the 1950's, but have we adhered to all the rulings from the Hauge?...I dont think so, so why this time.
And your question asking if I wished any others to be barred from Voting, is an infringement on my Human Rights and I do not wish to answer [lol]
I know mistakes are sometimes made, but in the majority of cases people are in prison because theyve broken the law. Usually this will have involved breaching the human rights of other people one way or another.
Am I wrong in thinking prisoners can vote once they've been released?
That seems fair enough, but I feel that losing the right to vote is one of the "freedoms" they lose for the duration of their sentence.
I think there are too many people imprisoned anyway, and that it isn't always the best solution, but that's not really the issue!
cuddlepop
25-Jan-07, 12:39
No all privileges should be denied.:(
No all privileges should be denied.:(
I think you've hit the nail on the head Cuddlepop - the right to vote should be seen as a privilege and not a basic human right.
A stolen purse, smashed car windows on several occasions, tyres removed, even petrol syphoned off, burglary with the theft of TV, audio equipment etc, have over the years made me feel that my human rights had been breached. :(
My family have all had similar experiences.
I totally agree with Golach and Cuddlepop, all privileges should be denied.
Criminals are locked up to be punished. Once they have done the time for their crime, then they can have the right to vote and any other privileges that they have been denied.
As the Law stands at the moment Prisoners do not get a vote, that was democratically decided a long time ago Fred.
The UK signed up to the European Court of Human Rights back in the 1950's, but have we adhered to all the rulings from the Hauge?...I dont think so, so why this time.
Were you arguing for or against the rule of law there?
And your question asking if I wished any others to be barred from Voting, is an infringement on my Human Rights and I do not wish to answer [lol]
No, I was asking if there were any others the "likes" of you didn't want voting.
We know that a disproportionate amount of the prison population are from poor homes, from inner cities or run down council estates, are non white, homosexual, anyone else you don't want the "likes" of voting?
Am I wrong in thinking prisoners can vote once they've been released?
In this country they do, the ones that are released, not everyone who goes into prison gets out.
In other countries, notably several states in America, they don't and this has been used to affect the outcome of elections. In some deprived areas over a third of the population have criminal records.
The purpose of a prison should be rehabilitation not punishment, we should be doing our best to bring stray sheep back into the fold not shutting them out and telling them they are not welcome in our society.
danc1ngwitch
25-Jan-07, 15:59
question??? i once tryed applyin for something... the woman said " do you vote ? " i replyed yes, she babbled something about oh good then you will be on blah blah register ?? i had no clue to what she was on about.. so what register would she have been on about ??? voting register[lol] probably i dunno
I voted 'yes' because if there is any hope of rehabilitation then we should not disenfranchise the criminal whilst they are on the inside.
question??? i once tryed applyin for something... the woman said " do you vote ? " i replyed yes, she babbled something about oh good then you will be on blah blah register ?? i had no clue to what she was on about.. so what register would she have been on about ??? voting register[lol] probably i dunno
Everyone who votes is on the Electoral Roll, if you arn't then you will not get a card to go and vote with.
Copies of the Electoral Roll are kept at every library or can be bought, by people who fill our mail boxes with junk, from HM Stationers Office.
just food for thought I may be wrong, but as british citizen outside UK I´m not allowed to vote for pollitics in the UK I can agree with that. living in germany inside the EU I´m not allowed to vote for local polliticians because im not a national. I can vote for EU reps. for the local area as a `free Person' so where is the right for those that have had there rights taken from them for their own behaviour ( nobody forced them to do what they have been convicted of) to have a vote . I´m all for helping them better their ways but do they have to have more rights and better living conditions than some folk
North Rhins
25-Jan-07, 20:08
I’m with Fred on this one, I think that they should get the vote. I also think that they should have single person cells, unless they wish to exercise their conjugal rights, They should also have a plasma screen TV with full Sky subscription paid for by the state. The cell is to be minimum of 40 square yards, carpeted throughout, with an ensuite shower and toilet. Obviously the cell is to be centrally heated and must be left unlocked at all times. All meals are to be a la carte served either in the cell or in a centrally located restaurant. A comprehensive wine list is to be made available for evening meals. I fear that by denying prisoners of these basic needs is inhuman, I mean it’s not as if they’ve done anything wrong, is it?
just food for thought I may be wrong, but as british citizen outside UK I´m not allowed to vote for pollitics in the UK I can agree with that. living in germany inside the EU I´m not allowed to vote for local polliticians because im not a national. I can vote for EU reps. for the local area as a `free Person' so where is the right for those that have had there rights taken from them for their own behaviour ( nobody forced them to do what they have been convicted of) to have a vote . I´m all for helping them better their ways but do they have to have more rights and better living conditions than some folk
If you are a British citizen and you have been resident in and eligable to vote in Britain at any time in the last 15 years then you can vote. You just have to register as an overseas voter.
I wouldn't mind betting there arn't more than a handfull of prisoners actually give a damn if they are able to vote or not and I'm certain the prospect of not being able to vote in the next election isn't even considered by anyone thinking of committing a crime. This isn't about the prisoners it's about us, about what sort of society we live in and what sort of values we have. If we believe in democracy then we should uphold that belief and we should defend it from anyone who tries to take it away as who they are taking it away from.
rockchick
25-Jan-07, 21:49
Hate to be a colonial, BUT
in Canada, the criminal in prisons are one of the three groups excluded from voting.
The other two are:
1) Native North Americans living on reservations (cuz they don't pay taxes and don't really join into Canadian society)
2) The insane
Not a bad system, if you ask me. I personally wouldn't want to be stripped of my vote, but in these circumstances, it seems just and fair.
danc1ngwitch
25-Jan-07, 22:20
ty fred, x
Whilst I agree that prisoners should not be eligible to vote I also know for a fact that there are soo many people within the prison system that should simply not be there, mainly because they are mentally ill. Sort the system out is what I say.
Hate to be a colonial, BUT
in Canada, the criminal in prisons are one of the three groups excluded from voting.
The other two are:
1) Native North Americans living on reservations (cuz they don't pay taxes and don't really join into Canadian society)
2) The insane
Not a bad system, if you ask me. I personally wouldn't want to be stripped of my vote, but in these circumstances, it seems just and fair.
I agree, seems very sensible. I don't think they should have a vote. They may be paying their debts to society, but those debts aren't paid yet, and the reason they have those 'debts' in the first place is because they caused suffering to other people.
1) Native North Americans living on reservations (cuz they don't pay taxes and don't really join into Canadian society)
the only reason they don't pay taxes is because they have had their lands and rights striped from them by so called sane people.
Any other sections of the community the "likes" of which you don't want voting?
Was a time that only land owners got to vote, they didn't want the "likes" of commoners having a say.
Was a time when women didn't get to vote, why should the "likes" of them have a say in the running of the country.
Either we are a democracy or we are not a democracy, in a true democracy everyone gets to vote whether you "like" them or not.
We do not live in a true democracy. We vote for representitves. I would not usualy point out an error but it is important that people are aware. We are told we live in a democracy but we do not.
The answer to the original question is an emphatic NO. There are, no doubt, numerous examples of political/social crimes that could be argued and they would need to be reviewed, but I feel if one is acting against the common good, for personal gain (material or not) at the expense of the said good (which is currently decided by the legal system) one foregos the right to be an equal part of this system.
[quote=Angela;184959]I know mistakes are sometimes made, but in the majority of cases people are in prison because theyve broken the law. Usually this will have involved breaching the human rights of other people one way or another.
It would be nice to think this but unfortunately sometimes it's because the agencies involved don't have anywhere else to send them. Like short stay beds in mental hospitals or rehab
highlander2222
25-Jan-07, 23:26
NO NO NO Thy give up there right when thy are in prison
I'm in full agreement with you, Golach. The galling thing about this compensation agreement - how many of the said inmates would have voted in the election anyway? They must be laughing all the way to the bank!!
Schoolhouse Blues
26-Jan-07, 00:54
If you're in prison, you don't deserve to vote. It's been an accepted principle for years and there is no good reason to change it. Transgress against society and, if your misdemeanor is serious enough, you will be excluded from society. Surely it's reasonable that exclusion from society includes no right to vote.
Vote no (unless ofcourse you're reading this from inside the clink!)
I'm with the majority on this one - the price you pay for depriving others of their rights is to have some time without some of your rights. Rehabilitation of offenders is a great idea, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. I remember my brother, a policeman, saying in the 70's, physical fitnress regimes as part of rehabilitation of offenders was a great idea with one minor draw back - they hit the street so fit that they could then outrun the average bobby if they did re-offend!!
yes, im with you 100% on this . the human rights bill has gone far to far, it,s now at the stage where it,s just plain stupid. compensation for this and more for that .where is it going to. its getting to the stage where holly wood can get the makings of a pretty good comedy movie out of uk prisons an inmate tried to do himself in and the warders saved his life so he sued the prison service for allowing him to be in the position where he could attempt suicide. http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_11_23.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_ZNxmk696LDGB) NUTS
http://www.smileycentral.com/sig.jsp?pc=ZSzeb098&pp=ZNxmk696LDGB (http://smiley.smileycentral.com/download/index.jhtml?partner=ZSzeb098_ZNxmk696LDGB&utm_id=7926)
fingalmacool
26-Jan-07, 01:38
Rehabilitation, Thats A Big Word, And One For The Bleeding Heart Liberals Of This Country, If It Was Them That Were Robbed,raped,and Molested And Generally Victimised, Would They Still Shout (if They Want Cake, Give Them Cake, I Think Not.) In The Words Of The Comics--youve Taken That To Far!. No Rights When In Stir, Thats The Price You Pay For Taking The Rights From Others. End Of, Get A Grip.
Rehabilitation, Thats A Big Word, And One For The Bleeding Heart Liberals Of This Country, If It Was Them That Were Robbed,raped,and Molested And Generally Victimised, Would They Still Shout (if They Want Cake, Give Them Cake, I Think Not.) In The Words Of The Comics--youve Taken That To Far!. No Rights When In Stir, Thats The Price You Pay For Taking The Rights From Others. End Of, Get A Grip.
Well that is a good reason why we have an independent judiciary in this country, because a victim of crime can turn into a vigilante so easily and live to regret it.
Oh and btw, there's no too many atheists in a fox hole on the battlefield either! :)
Lolabelle
26-Jan-07, 08:44
No, I think they forfiet the right when their behaviour is socially unacceptable.
Rehabilitation, Thats A Big Word, And One For The Bleeding Heart Liberals Of This Country, If It Was Them That Were Robbed,raped,and Molested And Generally Victimised, Would They Still Shout (if They Want Cake, Give Them Cake, I Think Not.) In The Words Of The Comics--youve Taken That To Far!. No Rights When In Stir, Thats The Price You Pay For Taking The Rights From Others. End Of, Get A Grip.
Ah you're afraid of them, that's why you hate them. Pretty much the same emotion fear and hatred, governments use that to great effect, first you get the population affraid of whoevers country you want to plunder then they don't mind too much when innocent babies get blown to bits.
But in order to hate them we have to set them apart, there has to be an "us" and "them", two distinct sides and the "us" has to be superior to the "them" and we must never miss an opportunity to remind them of it. Just as if we ever saw that foreign baby blown apart as being the same as our own baby blown apart there would be uproar.
Liberal now and here was me just getting used to being Communist, you even have to set people who don't agree with you apart and stick a label on them so you know who the enemy is.
Did you know that the prison population has doubled since 1993? Did you know that over half the men in prison were expelled from school when they were children? That three quarters suffer from two or more mental disorders?
I don't suppose that will bother you because it isn't like they were one of us, not like they are a part of our society and it wasn't us who excluded them was it? They decided to exclude themselves.
Ah you're afraid of them, that's why you hate them. Pretty much the same emotion fear and hatred, governments use that to great effect, first you get the population affraid of whoevers country you want to plunder then they don't mind too much when innocent babies get blown to bits.
But in order to hate them we have to set them apart, there has to be an "us" and "them", two distinct sides and the "us" has to be superior to the "them" and we must never miss an opportunity to remind them of it. Just as if we ever saw that foreign baby blown apart as being the same as our own baby blown apart there would be uproar.
Liberal now and here was me just getting used to being Communist, you even have to set people who don't agree with you apart and stick a label on them so you know who the enemy is.
Did you know that the prison population has doubled since 1993? Did you know that over half the men in prison were expelled from school when they were children? That three quarters suffer from two or more mental disorders?
I don't suppose that will bother you because it isn't like they were one of us, not like they are a part of our society and it wasn't us who excluded them was it? They decided to exclude themselves.
Fred I am sorry, you have lost me here, the poll is about whether convicted criminals inside Scotland's prisons should have the right to vote in the May elections or any other elections.
Now you are saying we are scared of these convicts and possible we hate some of them, How do you arrive at this conclusion? If a convict is inside doing time I personally do not fear him/her nor do I hate them.
No one has mentioned plundering countries and blowing up babies apart from you.
IMO the criminal has set him/her self apart from society by commiting a crime and being caught and convicted and sentenced.
Was Imran "Baldy" Shahid a convicted killer of Kriss Donald ever expelled from school? Was William Beggs a murder who chopped up his victims bodies ever expelled?.
There are many other criminals I could mention so I will not bore the .Org readers.
I have known and met a few ex prisoners who are not in the class of the two I have mentioned, normal people who fell foul of our legal system, by greed, or just misfortune. I would still deny these people the right to vote when they are inside, none of them ever suffered from mental disorders either.
Again Fred you have lost me, but you will no doubt correct me, as I am just a plain old mannie, who was never expelled but I may be suffering from some form mental disorder as I disagree with all your doctines.
Way back in this thread I asked whether prisoners pay tax. If not, and you reverse the old slogan to "no representation without taxation", that's one answer. It would also be interesting to know how many of these prisoners who may be "compensated" have bothered to register to vote in the past. If they're not on the electoral register they have already voluntarily surrendered the right to vote.
Having said all that, I agree with the majority and repeat what I said earlier, if you commit a crime sufficiently serious to land you in prison (and judging by recent publicity it's going to have to be very serious) you should automatically lose certain rights. What we seem to have forgotten in this country is that rights come with responsibilities. We hear far too much about people's rights and far too little about their responsibilities.
Way back in this thread I asked whether prisoners pay tax. If not, and you reverse the old slogan to "no representation without taxation", that's one answer. It would also be interesting to know how many of these prisoners who may be "compensated" have bothered to register to vote in the past. If they're not on the electoral register they have already voluntarily surrendered the right to vote.
So are you saying that everyone who doesn't pay tax has no right to vote?
Fred I am sorry, you have lost me here...
Well that isn't difficult.
rockchick
26-Jan-07, 17:10
..............
i've reread... rockchick I don't mean u.. I mean I think its daft that natives have nae vote for the next regime that may contemplate desecrating and/or stealing their homeland from them.
Wellll...they CAN, if they live off reservation. If you think of the reservation as being a wee country on its own, they choose which nation they want to live in. If they want to vote for Canadian government, they have to follow Canadian laws, pay Canadian taxes, etc.
Please don't think that I'm advocating how natives were treated in the past, but the reservation system is a compromise that seems to work. (btw - Not that I'm anti-British, but it was the British and French who colonized Canada that knocked the natives off their land in the first place.)
I wonder how many of those who have such strong opinion of our justice system have ever had the misfortune of being incarcerated at Her Majesty's Pleasure. Those who have not have no idea what they are talking about. I have spent time in prison and the system is barbaric and serves no purpose. Those criminals who are dangerous to the public are perhaps better locked up but the percentage of prisoners who re-offend is higher in the UK than anywhere else and prison does not rehabillitate very many of those who spend time there. We have a higher prison population than anywhere in Europe. The number of people who are locked up for minor offences would surprise you and this practise serves no purpose as these people re-offend again and again.Our entire approach to justice needs to be changed and, although I cannot see the right to vote being important to most of the people I met in prison, this move to franchise the inmates could well be a move in the right direction.
Fred - I'm sure you will find some honourable exceptions but, basically, unless for some genuine reason, e.g. being below any tax threshold, you don't pay any kind of tax, why should you be able to vote?
Gleber2 - this is taking us into a whole new area but I totally agree that we are locking up far too many people and the wrong people. If we could limit prison sentences to those who are a danger to the public, with the exception of the mentally ill, our prisons would not be overcrowded and maybe some real attempt could be made at rehabilitation. The re-offending rates should make it obvious to our dimwitted governments that they are doing something wrong, but they seem incapable of grasping simple facts that the rest of us see as obvious. Interesting that the head of the Youth Justice Board has resigned because he believes the government is criminalising young offenders. At least someone can see what is happening.
But no they are treated better than our pensioners and have better accomodation than many.
Presumably then, Gleber2, you would agree with Golach's opinion here. Was your accomodation [sic] better than many (?) Were you treated better than 'our' pensioners, in prison?
Perhaps Golach was referring about the luxurious splendour of a particular one he has visited.
Interesting case in the news yesterday of the man charged with downloading child pornography who couldn't be sent to prison as there wasn't enough space . . . is he still allowed to vote?
Was Lord Archer allowed to vote when he was inside?
Presumably then, Gleber2, you would agree with Golach's opinion here. Was your accomodation [sic] better than many (?) Were you treated better than 'our' pensioners, in prison?
Perhaps Golach was referring about the luxurious splendour of a particular one he has visited.
Interesting case in the news yesterday of the man charged with downloading child pornography who couldn't be sent to prison as there wasn't enough space . . . is he still allowed to vote?
Was Lord Archer allowed to vote when he was inside?
Yes, the accomodation was not bad and in in fact is better than some would have to suffer. Food varies from prison to prison but on the whole is sustaining. If you could imagine sharing your toilet with two others for 23 hours a day when one, or both, might be violently psychotic you would see that prison is no holiday camp. Sharing a cell with a violent criminal when you have been jailed for growing a God given plant is a bit disconcerting and makes you wonder if there is any justice at all in this system.
Deprivation of freedom is punishment enough for most people without removing the rights that we all take for granted. Remember that convicts are human beings and not a race apart.
It should be mentioned that it costs £25000 to £30000 per year to keep the cons in jail. Expensive business for the poor tax payer to fund.
Fred - I'm sure you will find some honourable exceptions but, basically, unless for some genuine reason, e.g. being below any tax threshold, you don't pay any kind of tax, why should you be able to vote?
But that's the only reason that most prisoners don't pay income tax, because they are below the tax threshold. A prisoner who has investments bringing him an income pays tax just the same as anyone else.
As for other taxes I would say that prisoners pay a far greater portion of their income in tax than anyone else. If you spend most of your wage on tobacco, which most prisoners do, then most of your wages go as tax.
Fred - I'm sure you will find some honourable exceptions but, basically, unless for some genuine reason, e.g. being below any tax threshold, you don't pay any kind of tax, why should you be able to vote?
I dont live in the UK, dont pay UK Tax..........but I'm entitled to vote.........don't really agree with that - but hey, its my right:)
Our entire approach to justice needs to be changed and, although I cannot see the right to vote being important to most of the people I met in prison, this move to franchise the inmates could well be a move in the right direction.
I agree entirely.
I hardly think not letting prisoners vote would lead to rioting on D Wing.
Letting prisoners vote would not affect anyone on this forum in the slightest.
Where it may make a difference would be if it encouraged some prisoners to take an interest in and feel a part of the society we live in.
Let's face it, if there was any justice in this world half the Houses of Parliament would be banged up. Nicking a tin of corned beef because you're hungry gets you six months while flogging a peerage for a million quid gets you a nice cushy seat on the board of Murdoch Enterprises when Gordon takes over.
I agree entirely.
I hardly think not letting prisoners vote would lead to rioting on D Wing.
Letting prisoners vote would not affect anyone on this forum in the slightest.
Where it may make a difference would be if it encouraged some prisoners to take an interest in and feel a part of the society we live in.
Let's face it, if there was any justice in this world half the Houses of Parliament would be banged up. Nicking a tin of corned beef because you're hungry gets you six months while flogging a peerage for a million quid gets you a nice cushy seat on the board of Murdoch Enterprises when Gordon takes over.
Glad you see things as they are and not ranting on without logic.
I dont like in the UK, dont pay UK Tax..........but I'm entitled to vote.........don't really agree with that - but hey, its my right:)
You bet it's your right and if you pay tax in the UK or not has nothing to do with it.
Saying that "no taxition without representation" means "no representation without taxation" just does not make sense. There's no omelette without eggs but you can have eggs without omelette.
[evil]
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_headline=a-boot-in-the-ballots%26method=full%26objectid=18526273%26siteid =66633-name_page.html
I think this is a case of where the European Court of Human Rights have got it wrong. If you are a convicted criminal IMO you lose all your rights. But no they are treated better than our pensioners and have better accomodation than many.
Do we really want the likes of William Beggs, Mags Haney and their ilk getting to vote.
The inmates really are running the asylum now IMO.
Its them using legal aid to fight for their right to vote that gets me. If they weren't in jail would they vote anyway? And yes I agree prisoners may be in danger from their jailers and peers but they do have the luxury of 3 meals a day, entertainment, a bed, education, support network etc....people who do nothing wrong have to pay taxes to keep them there, pay bills, mortgages, the upkeep of the people they leave behind (in some cases). etc...*rants wildly*
Hate to be a colonial, BUT
in Canada, the criminal in prisons are one of the three groups excluded from voting.
The other two are:
1) Native North Americans living on reservations (cuz they don't pay taxes and don't really join into Canadian society)
2) The insane
Not a bad system, if you ask me. I personally wouldn't want to be stripped of my vote, but in these circumstances, it seems just and fair.
Oops, things have changed in this red and white land.
In 1960, Treaty Indians were given the right to vote in Canadian elections.
And in 2002, the encarcerated of longer than 2 year sentences were also given the right. Prisoners with less than a 2 year sentence could vote before that date.
(OTTAWA, Thursday, October 31, 2002) — On October 31, 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer). In that judgment, the court held that the former s. 51(e), now s. 4(c), of the Canada Elections Act that prevents inmates who are serving sentences of two or more years from voting is in breach of s. 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and cannot be justified under s. 1 of that document.
As a result, s. 4(c) of the Canada Elections Act, which prevents those serving two or more years in prison from voting, is of no force or effect. All incarcerated electors may now vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums regardless of the length of the term they are serving.
I hope this clears up some of the confusion. Now this is Canadian law, provincial and municipal regulations might be different.
The people who cannot vote are the Chief Returning Officer and the assistant R O.
Should Criminals in Jail get to vote?
An emphatic No from me
Which is getting right back to the original question here & ignoring all attempts inbetween to hijack the thread into something else entirely.
fingalmacool
27-Jan-07, 02:33
Listen Peeps We All Know That Punters Get Put To Jail For Petty Crimes, But The Truth In This Is That They Keep Doing It, So The Courts Have Nothing More To Offer But Jail, Community Service---joke!!!! Most Do Three Quarters Of Time Given, Knowing That It Is To Exspensive For The Courts To Chase It Up To Make Them Finish It (fact). Compensation To The Peeps Victimised, Anybody Know Anybody Who Scored In This Area,not!.
I Am Really Confused As To Some Of The Gritted Teethed Replies From A Couple Of Orgers On This Subject,as A Tax Payer I Dont Mind Funding Jails, And Yes There Is A High Percentage Of Punters In Jail Who Shouldn't Be There, But You Have To Take On Board That Things Like Care In The Community And The Persistant Petty Criminal Might End Up In The Same Cell, How Can We Stop This If The Gov Wont Reconise The Problem. Anybody With A Squeak Of Sense Knows That Jail Dosn't Work For A High Percentage, So Whats The Answer, Gleber2 If Jail Is Not The Answer What Is, As You Said Yourself, You Got The Teashirt And Havn't Gone Back!!!. Fred What Do You Suggest, Franchise Has Numerous Meanings, So In Theory You Would'nt Mind A Murdering Drug Dealer To Continue To Sell His Wares While Being Locked Up, That Is Of Course If He Is Paying Tax. Vote Your Having A Turkish!!!!!!
Fred What Do You Suggest, Franchise Has Numerous Meanings, So In Theory You Would'nt Mind A Murdering Drug Dealer To Continue To Sell His Wares While Being Locked Up, That Is Of Course If He Is Paying Tax. Vote Your Having A Turkish!!!!!!
I didn't say anything about not minding a murdering drug dealer continuing to sell his wares.
What I did say is what we are seeing in this thread is one section of society being ostracised, de-humanised, by the other. If anyone here thinks that denying prisoners the vote is any kind of punishment they are sadly mistaken they couldn't care less if they can vote or not and what would it cost us to let tham vote? Nothing. So what is the purpose of denying them the vote? To send a clear message that they are not one of "us", that they are not British people who for whatever reason have digressed and are now repaying their debt to society they are outsiders, foreigners, a different race and a race the tabloids can discriminate against with impunity.
Yesterday on the BBC web site, right under the article about only the most dangerous violent criminals being sent to prison was an article about a News of the World reporter being sent to prison for tapping into Prince Charles' phone messages. Goes to show how much respect those responsible for stiring up the hatred, perpetuating the myth of prisoners lying around watching TV and waiting for the warder to come round with the menu, for giving the impression our prisons are full of "murdering drug dealers" and peadophiles have for the law. They are bigger hypocrits than the rest of us but then they make a lot of money out of it, it sells newspapers, it sells a lot of newspapers because everbody wants to have someone they can look down on, everybody has to have an "us" and a "them", everybody wants someone to hate. As the news of the World reporter showed, there is no "us" and "them", there is no difference between someone who shoplifts and someone whe helps themselves to the office stationary, there is no difference between the social security cheat and someone who hikes up an insurance claim, no difference between the heroin adict and the alcoholic and there is no difference between a conman and a premium rate phoneline operator, we are all the same, there's good and bad both sides of those prison walls.
What happens if they all vote to be released???
EEK!
i voted yes... primarily becuase i dont think they will use it anyway, so whats the point of not letting them have it in the first place.
What was the estimate of the (un-incarcerated) population that contributed to the last couple of elections?
so i dont think we really need to bother excluding people from the right when we need more to start contributing....
What happens if they all vote to be released???
EEK!
The overcrowding problem is solved overnight.
But that would never happen because as I have said they are no different to us, it is more likely they would vote to bring back hanging for sex offenders.
The overcrowding problem is solved overnight.
But that would never happen because as I have said they are no different to us, it is more likely they would vote to bring back hanging for sex offenders.
.......... but the sex offenders get a vote too!
I reckon they'd just vote for a reduction in tobaco tax!
(my original post was tongue-in-cheek)
Penelope Pitstop
28-Jan-07, 15:32
Of course criminals shouldn't be allowed to vote. For goodness sake they're in prison for a reason......and it's not because they've been a good upstanding citizen. They should have to relinquish all rights when they go in prison. Just unfortunate that the system doesn't manage to catch them all and pack them all in there.....who cares if they are overcrowded....I wouldn't loose any sleep over it. Sure they don't loose any sleep over their victms. At the end of the day if you do the crime then take the time.
All this human rights stuff is just going a step to far. This country is going to the dogs.
All this human rights stuff is just going a step to far. This country is going to the dogs.
If you associate the ability of a country to go to the dogs with the presence of human rights, can you explain to me why countries that respect the least amount of human rights are generally closer to the dogs than the UK?:confused
All this human rights stuff is just going a step to far. This country is going to the dogs.
Until it comes to some-one close to you and then human rights are wonderful.
Hi, Golach
Call me old-fashioned (I know some will) but if someone transgresses the morals and laws of society - ie Human Rights - what bit of sense on this planet of ours decides that criminals deserve any human rights? They don't give a monkey's for the human rights of their victims, so they shouldn't start bleating when they get nicked and put away. To be honest, I think prison id far too cushy these days - the Victorians had the right idea: lock 'em away, forget about them, rinse the cell out occasionally. :confused
Hi, Golach
Call me old-fashioned (I know some will) but if someone transgresses the morals and laws of society - ie Human Rights - what bit of sense on this planet of ours decides that criminals deserve any human rights? They don't give a monkey's for the human rights of their victims, so they shouldn't start bleating when they get nicked and put away. To be honest, I think prison id far too cushy these days - the Victorians had the right idea: lock 'em away, forget about them, rinse the cell out occasionally. :confused
Ricco, my sentiments exactly, if you cannot do the time do not do the crime, the Victorians were not daft, Prisons should be a deterrant not for rehab
Penelope Pitstop
28-Jan-07, 23:33
If you associate the ability of a country to go to the dogs with the presence of human rights, can you explain to me why countries that respect the least amount of human rights are generally closer to the dogs than the UK?:confused
Sorry, but it's human rights of people in jail that I was referring to. Not human rights of normal upstanding citizens. (The thread here is about people in jail having the right to vote...). Shoot me down, but in my opinion they give up their human rights by doing the crime. :(
Hi, Golach
Call me old-fashioned (I know some will) but if someone transgresses the morals and laws of society - ie Human Rights - what bit of sense on this planet of ours decides that criminals deserve any human rights? They don't give a monkey's for the human rights of their victims, so they shouldn't start bleating when they get nicked and put away. To be honest, I think prison id far too cushy these days - the Victorians had the right idea: lock 'em away, forget about them, rinse the cell out occasionally. :confused
Well now let's just take the case of Zahid Mubarek, a 19 year old sentenced to 3 months for stealing a packet of razors worth £6.
At Feltham Prison they put him in a cell with someone they knew was a racist and a psychopath, who killed him, beat him to death with a table leg.
No, old fashioned isn't the term I'd use for you.
Well now let's just take the case of Zahid Mubarek, a 19 year old sentenced to 3 months for stealing a packet of razors worth £6.
At Feltham Prison they put him in a cell with someone they knew was a racist and a psychopath, who killed him, beat him to death with a table leg.
No, old fashioned isn't the term I'd use for you.
What you describe above has no relation to prisoners' human rights or Ricco's post.
Or are you saying that Zahid could have voted to avert the situation??
What you describe above has no relation to prisoners' human rights or Ricco's post.
Or are you saying that Zahid could have voted to avert the situation??
You don't think Zahid Mubarek's human rights were violated?
No, you wouldn't would you, spurred on by tabloids obsessed with crime you have created an "us" and "them" and the them are not human so how can they have rights.
Instead of closing your eyes and screaming "off topic" why not look at reality? The only difference between us and those in prison is that on the whole they are more honest than we are. Our government breaks international law and commits crimes against humanity, our police force has no compunctions about aiding and abetting cold blooded murder and the prison service is institutionally racist but that doesn't bother you because they are "us", we are human and someone who steals a packet of razors worth £6 isn't.
I voted against prisoners having the right to vote. This doesn't mean that I think everyone in prison should necessarily be there.
Maybe we need a new thread on -
a) the "punishment fitting the crime" -whether someone should be in prison in the first place and if so for how long?
and
b) whether custodial sentences can be part of a process of rehabilition, or are only ever a punishment & deterrant.
Penelope Pitstop
29-Jan-07, 12:47
"The only difference between us and those in prison is that on the whole they are more honest than we are."
Sorry, but I just don't understand this statement at all.....am I the only one?? How do you work that one out Fred?[disgust]
"The only difference between us and those in prison is that on the whole they are more honest than we are."
Sorry, but I just don't understand this statement at all.....am I the only one?? How do you work that one out Fred?[disgust]
I feel a Biblical quote coming Penelope........maybe John 8:7.........or Mat 7:1
"The only difference between us and those in prison is that on the whole they are more honest than we are."
Sorry, but I just don't understand this statement at all.....am I the only one?? How do you work that one out Fred?[disgust]
Read the rest of the post, we have a government that breaks international laws and commits crimes against humanity, a police force that aids and abets cold blooded murder and a prison service that is institutionally racist.
At least prisoners admit to being criminals, they don't pretend to be anything else, they don't pretend they were doing the old lady they mugged a favour.
Well now let's just take the case of Zahid Mubarek, a 19 year old sentenced to 3 months for stealing a packet of razors worth £6.
IMO Fred "Stealing" is a crime, be it £6 worth or £60,00000 worth. If your example's name was was Joe Bloggs would you be repeatedly mentioning this single case, I think not.
IMO Fred "Stealing" is a crime, be it £6 worth or £60,00000 worth. If your example's name was was Joe Bloggs would you be repeatedly mentioning this single case, I think not.
What I want to know is why a Muslim would want a packet of razors........by the way that is a joke.
I feel a Biblical quote coming Penelope........maybe John 8:7.........or Mat 7:1
Just so no one feels left out:
John 8:7 "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
Matthew 7:1 "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged."
At least prisoners admit to being criminals, they don't pretend to be anything else, they don't pretend they were doing the old lady they mugged a favour.
But Fred, surely not all criminals do admit to their crimes?
Or are you saying that everybody that commits a crime pleads guilty to it? :confused
IMO Fred "Stealing" is a crime, be it £6 worth or £60,00000 worth. If your example's name was was Joe Bloggs would you be repeatedly mentioning this single case, I think not.
Oh yes, let's take every shop lifter and beat them to death with a table leg, can't do the time shouldn't do the crime eh Golach?
If the example's name was Joe Blogs he wouldn't have been beaten to death.
What I want to know is why a Muslim would want a packet of razors........by the way that is a joke.
What makes you think he was a Muslim?
I don't remember any mention of his religion in the reports I read.
North Rhins
29-Jan-07, 20:19
Oh! Dear Oh1 dear. Yet another thread corrupted by Frederick the Greats particular brand of anti everything poison. What are the odds of finding a topic that he couldn’t infect. Paranoia doesn’t get a look in, it’s anti Bush, anti Blair, anti American, anti Zionist, anti establishment, and if a particular thread doesn’t warrant a tirade of his particular brand of drivel, then no matter, just post it anyway.
Oh! Dear Oh1 dear. Yet another thread corrupted by Frederick the Greats particular brand of anti everything poison. What are the odds of finding a topic that he couldn’t infect. Paranoia doesn’t get a look in, it’s anti Bush, anti Blair, anti American, anti Zionist, anti establishment, and if a particular thread doesn’t warrant a tirade of his particular brand of drivel, then no matter, just post it anyway.
Hey, I'm pro prisoners voting, pro democracy.
It's you lot who are anti.
Penelope Pitstop
29-Jan-07, 20:48
Correct...............we are ANTI crime.
But Fred, surely not all criminals do admit to their crimes?
Or are you saying that everybody that commits a crime pleads guilty to it? :confused
Angela, your so right, if the criminals did admit to their crimes, we would have no need for highly paid defence lawyers would we?
North Rhins
29-Jan-07, 20:51
Correct...............we are ANTI crime.
Absolutely and unequivocally, spot on.
Correct...............we are ANTI crime.
Yeh, sure, that's why we elected a war criminal Prime Minister.
North Rhins
29-Jan-07, 22:01
Yeh, sure, that's why we elected a war criminal Prime Minister.
When you say ‘we,’ does that include yourself? Are you as culpable as others are of electing this alleged ‘war criminal’ Tony Blair?
Penelope Pitstop
29-Jan-07, 23:34
Yeh, sure, that's why we elected a war criminal Prime Minister.
Are you for real .............or is all this a wind up.?...........I so hope you're not for real......I'm not sure if that's for your sake or the sake of mankind!! LOL:confused
Are you for real .............or is all this a wind up.?...........I so hope you're not for real......I'm not sure if that's for your sake or the sake of mankind!! LOL:confused
Which part don't you think is real?
That Blair is a war criminal or that he was elected?
Which part don't you think is real?
That Blair is a war criminal or that he was elected?
When did you become a Judge at the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague?
When did you become a Judge at the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hauge?
Some-one's in a different reality. Where is the Hauge, Fred, is it in your reality? It's not in mine.
When did you become a Judge at the War Crimes Tribunal at the Hauge?
About the same time you became a Law Lord in Strasburg.
Some-one's in a different reality. Where is the Hague, Fred, is it in your reality? It's not in mine.
Many thanks for that reality check [disgust]
Some-one's in a different reality. Where is the Hauge, Fred, is it in your reality? It's not in mine.
It's a strange world he lives in Gleber2, a world where causing the deaths of a million people is no crime but stealing a packet of razors deserves the death penalty.
I stopped trying to understand the logic a long time ago, there just isn't any.
Penelope Pitstop
30-Jan-07, 11:27
Which part don't you think is real?
That Blair is a war criminal or that he was elected?
YOU!!!!! .......... Could I not spell it out any clearer. LoL
Is it only me that thinks this thread has maybe worn itself out now? :confused
Is it only me that thinks this thread has maybe worn itself out now? :confused
Stop clicking on it then.
Stop clicking on it then.
hmmm... there were 17 posts between my last post & the previous post I'd made...:confused
But I will now bow out! :D
YOU!!!!! .......... Could I not spell it out any clearer. LoL
Who me?
When I agree with the European Court of Human Rights I get told I'm doing it because I'm anti-establishment.
Then when I point out that if someone who deliberately starts a war of agression without provocation and deliberately lies to Parliament to get them to go along with it has the right to be prime minister someone who steals a tin of beans surely should have the right to vote for or against them I'm told I'm not real.
Maybe you could point out where my logic is flawed?
What makes you think he was a Muslim?
I don't remember any mention of his religion in the reports I read.
It was quoted on Sky News, and also if you check the Zahid Mubarek Enquiry Website it will tell you.
http://www.zahidmubarekinquiry.org.uk/article.asp?c=483&aid=3498
The following is a quote from the webpage:
The position of Muslims in prisons is now high on the agenda - not simply because Zahid Mubarek was a Muslim, but also because of the significant increase in Muslim prisoners in recent years and the possibility of reprisals against them by other prisoners in the wake of recent terrorist outrages. What steps, if any, are being taken to afford Muslim prisoners adequate protection from other inmates?
It was quoted on Sky News, and also if you check the Zahid Mubarek Enquiry Website it will tell you.
Well there you go I learn something new every day.
Not that it makes any difference, one 19 year old clubbed to death with a table leg is pretty much the same as any other to me.
Penelope Pitstop
30-Jan-07, 15:28
Who me?
When I agree with the European Court of Human Rights I get told I'm doing it because I'm anti-establishment.
Then when I point out that if someone who deliberately starts a war of agression without provocation and deliberately lies to Parliament to get them to go along with it has the right to be prime minister someone who steals a tin of beans surely should have the right to vote for or against them I'm told I'm not real.
Maybe you could point out where my logic is flawed?
I'm afraid you seem VERY blinkered and see only what you want to see..you don't seem to be able to see things from everyone who is involved's point of view... or if you do, you don't let on. LOL Sometimes no one person is right in a situation.
Do you really believe that our country went to war with Iraq purely through "agression"? Not being a politician I'm not privy to all the details...only what I've seen in the press and media .....your info will be gained from the same source I should imagine! We all know how good the media are at reporting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...not!!:confused
No doubt you will retort!! LOL
Is it only me that thinks this thread has maybe worn itself out now? :confused
Angela, It is due to close tomorrow, and by the poll so far I think it is clear that the majority of who took part are thinking along the same lines.
Malcolmdog
30-Jan-07, 16:12
Rock Chick, according to Election Canada web site www.electionscanada.ca
You are entitled to vote in federal elections and referendums if you are a Canadian citizen, and will be 18 or older on polling day. See also section 3 of the Canada Elections Act.
If you are an elector (a person who is eligible to vote) and have been living away from Canada for less than five consecutive years since your last visit home, you are eligible to vote under the Special Voting Rules. You can register to vote at any time – just click here.
an Incarcerated electors who are serving a prison sentence in a Canadian correctional institution, have the right to vote in federal elections and referendums. For details, see Voting by Incarcerated Electors. You can also consult the October 31, 2002 press release on voting rights of incarcerated electors.(OTTAWA, Thursday, October 31, 2002) — On October 31, 2002, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered its decision in Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer). In that judgment, the court held that the former s. 51(e), now s. 4(c), of the Canada Elections Act that prevents inmates who are serving sentences of two or more years from voting is in breach of s. 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and cannot be justified under s. 1 of that document.
As a result, s. 4(c) of the Canada Elections Act, which prevents those serving two or more years in prison from voting, is of no force or effect. All incarcerated electors may now vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums regardless of the length of the term they are serving.
The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Jean-Pierre Kingsley took no active part in the litigation.
The Chief Electoral Officer of Canada stated that the Special Voting Rules for incarcerated electors will be applied forthwith by Elections Canada.
As set out in sections 244 to 262 of the Canada Elections Act, incarcerated electors who wish to vote in a federal election, by-election or referendum must register by filling out an Application for Registration and Special Ballot, which will be available through the auspices of the correctional institute where they are incarcerated.
Elections Canada is the non-partisan agency responsible for the conduct of federal elections and referendums.
Contact: Elections Canada Media Relations at 1-800-267-7360 or 613-993-2224.
As to Native Canadians, I have personally given a lift to Native Canadians who were without transportation, living on their reservations, in order to assist them to polling stations. All were very keen to excersize their right to vote. While you are correct they do not pay taxes, the tax exclusion rules are very specific - they must be status Indians living on reserve -
Hate to be a colonial, BUT
in Canada, the criminal in prisons are one of the three groups excluded from voting.
The other two are:
1) Native North Americans living on reservations (cuz they don't pay taxes and don't really join into Canadian society)
2) The insane
Not a bad system, if you ask me. I personally wouldn't want to be stripped of my vote, but in these circumstances, it seems just and fair.
Malcolmdog
30-Jan-07, 16:23
A person who is mentally incompetant, is excluded from executing any legal form of document, which I believe includes a voting ballot. However, being Canada, I am sure that upon application to a court, this could change!!
Well there you go I learn something new every day.
Not that it makes any difference, one 19 year old clubbed to death with a table leg is pretty much the same as any other to me.
Too true Fred, it is a horrific case. My initial comment about why was he buying razors was as I said tongue in cheek (if you can be so about such a horrible event), as the (Western Perceived)stereotypical young Muslim craves a long beard so...........maybe young Zahid was just a regular guy.........shiver the thought!
I'm afraid you seem VERY blinkered and see only what you want to see..you don't seem to be able to see things from everyone who is involved's point of view... or if you do, you don't let on. LOL Sometimes no one person is right in a situation.
You are wrong, very wrong. I've been studying the subject from every point of view for a long time now, since long before the invasion of Iraq, since we were killing Iraqi children with sanctions not bombs. I read the papers from all around the world, see the pictures every night. It's not me who has the blinkers on.
Do you really believe that our country went to war with Iraq purely through "agression"? Not being a politician I'm not privy to all the details...only what I've seen in the press and media .....your info will be gained from the same source I should imagine! We all know how good the media are at reporting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...not!!:confused
I don't just believe that our country went to war with Iraq purely through agression I know they did. Unless someone can come up with those Weapons of Mass Destruction that were going to be deployed against us within 45 minutes that is the only explanation.
The media are not allowed to report the truth, when they come up with concrete evidence the government threatens them with a D notice to stop them publishing it, like they did with the Downing Street memo. Did you read the Downing Street memo? I did, I've read other leaked Cabinet papers as well which leave no doubt, heard testimony from former inteligence workers about how the evidence was fixed.
Why don't you take the blinkers off? Here's a link to an article in the Times for you, read this then tell me how the invasion of Iraq could be legal.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1650822-523,00.html
The war in Iraq wass initiated by pure aggression from the "West". The whole WMD thing was/is a joke - the only WMD they had was what we had already given them.
Penelope Pitstop
30-Jan-07, 21:23
You are wrong, very wrong. I've been studying the subject from every point of view for a long time now, since long before the invasion of Iraq, since we were killing Iraqi children with sanctions not bombs. I read the papers from all around the world, see the pictures every night. It's not me who has the blinkers on.
I don't just believe that our country went to war with Iraq purely through agression I know they did. Unless someone can come up with those Weapons of Mass Destruction that were going to be deployed against us within 45 minutes that is the only explanation.
The media are not allowed to report the truth, when they come up with concrete evidence the government threatens them with a D notice to stop them publishing it, like they did with the Downing Street memo. Did you read the Downing Street memo? I did, I've read other leaked Cabinet papers as well which leave no doubt, heard testimony from former inteligence workers about how the evidence was fixed.
Why don't you take the blinkers off? Here's a link to an article in the Times for you, read this then tell me how the invasion of Iraq could be legal.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-1650822-523,00.html
I've been to the link...........another newspaper report:confused .....Anyway the original thread has been totally lost here!!
I've been to the link...........another newspaper report:confused .....Anyway the original thread has been totally lost here!!
Penelope Pitstop, dont worry thats what Fred does with all threads, brings them to Iraq by fair means or foul. [disgust]
You could put a thread on the Forums asking everyone if they thought that the Moon was made of cheese, within 2 days Fred would be blaming Tony Blair and George Bush for it not being made of good Orkney Cheddar, but that it is a conspiracy, made by them and it was really made of French Brie
caithness lad
30-Jan-07, 21:41
yes. they should vote on being hung or the electric chair. jails would have more room then:eek:
Penelope Pitstop
30-Jan-07, 21:55
yes. they should vote on being hung or the electric chair. jails would have more room then
Hi
Maybe Fred could put that option to Parliament when he becomes the next local MP:lol: ........................LOL .....sorry couldn't resist, I'll get back in my box:Razz
I've been to the link...........another newspaper report:confused .....Anyway the original thread has been totally lost here!!
So what were you expecting? Have you got any evidence whatsoever of any legal grounds for our invasion of a defenceless country?
The thread isn't lost, it's still here. Or by lost did you mean you were hoping you could post your ill informed and bigoted opinions without anyone posting an opposing viewpoint?
I don't see how any of us can take the moral high ground with criminals while there is a mass murderer in Number 10, that would be stretching hypocrisy to the extreme.
Penelope Pitstop, dont worry thats what Fred does with all threads,
Talking rubbish again Golach, the vast majority of threads I don't even post in.
Penelope Pitstop
31-Jan-07, 14:02
So what were you expecting? Have you got any evidence whatsoever of any legal grounds for our invasion of a defenceless country?
The thread isn't lost, it's still here. Or by lost did you mean you were hoping you could post your ill informed and bigoted opinions without anyone posting an opposing viewpoint?
I don't see how any of us can take the moral high ground with criminals while there is a mass murderer in Number 10, that would be stretching hypocrisy to the extreme.
How dare you call me a bigot! You can't see the real world past the end of your nose. As for me being ill informed, I think it is you that's ill informed..........get out more, see the world, get a real life in that real world.
Have YOU got any legal evidence whatsoever over your alligations.....other than Newspaper reports.........cause they are always 100% aren't they. Do you always believe what you read in the papers??
It's YOU that doesn't like anyone saying different to you!!!!!!!
How dare you call me a bigot! You can't see the real world past the end of your nose. As for me being ill informed, I think it is you that's ill informed..........get out more, see the world, get a real life in that real world.
Have YOU got any legal evidence whatsoever over your alligations.....other than Newspaper reports.........cause they are always 100% aren't they. Do you always believe what you read in the papers??
It's YOU that doesn't like anyone saying different to you!!!!!!!
Where do you get your information? Do you have a secret infallible source that Fred and I have not yet discovered?
Penelope Pitstop
31-Jan-07, 20:50
Where do you get your information? Do you have a secret infallible source that Fred and I have not yet discovered?
Yeah, my day jobs at No10 Downing Street;) Just thought I'd log on to caithness.org cause I was bored of the hum drum goings on there!:lol:
How dare you call me a bigot!
That's what you are:
bigot –noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
You can't see the real world past the end of your nose. As for me being ill informed, I think it is you that's ill informed..........get out more, see the world, get a real life in that real world.
You think? You haven't bothered to find out? You just decided I was wrong because you wanted me to be wrong and are prepered to blindly argue while presenting no evidence to back your argument.
Please see above definition of "bigot".
Have YOU got any legal evidence whatsoever over your alligations.....other than Newspaper reports.........cause they are always 100% aren't they. Do you always believe what you read in the papers??
Yes I do have legal evidence. There were three possible legal reasons for our invasion of Iraq, self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. None of those applied, the "self-defence" excuse we now know was manufactured, there were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no humanitarian crisis in Iraq apart from the one we caused with our sanctions. We failed to get a UNSC resolution permitting the use of force.
It's YOU that doesn't like anyone saying different to you!!!!!!!
I just tell it how it is, I just post the facts, we did to Iraq what Hitler did to Poland, there is no doubt about it.
Penelope Pitstop
31-Jan-07, 21:32
That's what you are:
bigot –noun a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
Wow is that what it means, thanks for telling me I would never have known .....and me being so stupid and all. You couldn't be more wrong - I always look at the argument from others point of view. Creed, colour, belief....everyone is the same to me. That is except criminals...where this all started from. Criminals in my view loose their human rights when they do the crime. You ever had experience of crime? Anyone you know been murdered, raped, mugged, robbed?? Are you saying you would forgive and forget??
You think? You haven't bothered to find out? You just decided I was wrong because you wanted me to be wrong and are prepered to blindly argue while presenting no evidence to back your argument.
Please see above definition of "bigot".
I don't agree with alot of your sentiments - you don't seem to like the fact that someone can have a different opinion than you...sorry that's life. Criminals are as low as a snakes belly as far as I'm concerned. You want to stick up for them...you carry on.
Yes I do have legal evidence. There were three possible legal reasons for our invasion of Iraq, self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. None of those applied, the "self-defence" excuse we now know was manufactured, there were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no humanitarian crisis in Iraq apart from the one we caused with our sanctions. We failed to get a UNSC resolution permitting the use of force.
You miss my point, Newspapers don't always report the truth...they have been known to blow things out of all proportion. What is your legal evidence?
I just tell it how it is, I just post the facts, we did to Iraq what Hitler did to Poland, there is no doubt about it.
Back to Iraq again. What would you have done about Iraq? Would you have left them fighting amoungst themselves?? Women and children being raped and pillaged. Innocent men, women and children crying out for help, but not finding it in their own country. Hundred and thousands of people being slaughtered though their dictator and his mates?? (I'm not saying I would have choose to go to war with them, I'm asking you what you think the answer would have been?)
No doubt you'll go off on another tangent on this...you always seen to have to have the last word. How come this thread has moved from Criminals voting rights to Iraq and Tony Blair? Don't see the connection (other than you believing that Tony Blair is a criminal of course).
What ever this thread is past it's best, but all said you've had another good rant!
Back to Iraq again. What would you have done about Iraq? Would you have left them fighting amoungst themselves?? Women and children being raped and pillaged. Innocent men, women and children crying out for help, but not finding it in their own country. Hundred and thousands of people being slaughtered though their dictator and his mates?? (I'm not saying I would have choose to go to war with them, I'm asking you what you think the answer would have been?)
No doubt you'll go off on another tangent on this...you always seen to have to have the last word. How come this thread has moved from Criminals voting rights to Iraq and Tony Blair? Don't see the connection (other than you believing that Tony Blair is a criminal of course).
What ever this thread is past it's best, but all said you've had another good rant!
What ever Fred would would have done to Iraq, it could not have been worse than what Bush and his poodle did. War is never the answer, politics are. Now look, who is currently talking to Iran et al? Not many but everybody is up for the next war. All that prefer war to talks are criminals in my opinion. And by the way, the secretary of the UN condemned the invasion of Iraq as being illegal. So where does this leave the democratic rights of the British people?
Back to Iraq again. What would you have done about Iraq? Would you have left them fighting amoungst themselves?? Women and children being raped and pillaged. Innocent men, women and children crying out for help, but not finding it in their own country. Hundred and thousands of people being slaughtered though their dictator and his mates?? (I'm not saying I would have choose to go to war with them, I'm asking you what you think the answer would have been?)
You have a very vivid imagination. Saddam's human rights record was not good but there were far worse in the world. In any case even if you do know your neighbor is beating his wife that doesn't give you the legal justification to murder his children, steal his family silver and burn his house down.
Regime change is not a legal basis for military action under international law.
No doubt you'll go off on another tangent on this...you always seen to have to have the last word. How come this thread has moved from Criminals voting rights to Iraq and Tony Blair? Don't see the connection (other than you believing that Tony Blair is a criminal of course).
You don't see any connection between our government and voting? Or between our invasion of Iraq and crime? I think you only see what you want to see.
Like I said, if criminals can run the country I don't see why criminals shouldn't vote.
Metalattakk
01-Feb-07, 03:35
Having read this entirely tedious thread from page one to page 7 (as of now), I can only come to the conclusion that fred certainly has a hair up his 'posterior' about something. All he ever posts about is Iraq. Fair enough, but to twist everything (and every thread he is involved in) around to his preferred subject is not really conducive to the continued interest of any sort of message board or open forum, or its users.
Anyway;
I voted 'No' for voting rights for prisoners, for the following reasons:
Prisoners should lose certain rights when they are sentenced to prison. Voting is one of those rights. To me it doesn't matter a jot if the crime is serious (murder, rape, war crimes) or trivial (stealing a £6 razor, growing one of 'God's own plants' or selling copied DVDs in the pub), the only relevant point is that the law has been broken, and the culprit convicted and sentenced accordingly.
I cannot understand the arguments that people have for the introduction of voting rights for prisoners. It's madness. Sheer madness.
And yes, that insinuates that anyone who supports voting rights for prisoners is insane also.
That's my opinion. Deal with it.
Having read this entirely tedious thread from page one to page 7 (as of now), I can only come to the conclusion that fred certainly has a hair up his 'posterior' about something. All he ever posts about is Iraq. Fair enough, but to twist everything (and every thread he is involved in) around to his preferred subject is not really conducive to the continued interest of any sort of message board or open forum, or its users.
All I ever post about is Iraq?
The facts disprove your fantasy world, I post on many subjects.
Anyway;
I voted 'No' for voting rights for prisoners, for the following reasons:
Prisoners should lose certain rights when they are sentenced to prison. Voting is one of those rights. To me it doesn't matter a jot if the crime is serious (murder, rape, war crimes) or trivial (stealing a £6 razor, growing one of 'God's own plants' or selling copied DVDs in the pub), the only relevant point is that the law has been broken, and the culprit convicted and sentenced accordingly.
I cannot understand the arguments that people have for the introduction of voting rights for prisoners. It's madness. Sheer madness.
And yes, that insinuates that anyone who supports voting rights for prisoners is insane also.
That's my opinion. Deal with it.
Easy to deal with.
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that prisoners have the right to vote yet you say we should ignore that ruling and break European law. When we collectively as a nation break international law as in the Invasion of Iraq you don't seem to mind yet for some reason if an individual breaks a law you think they should have all rights taken away from them not just those neccessary for the protection of the public.
You say the seriosness of the crime doesn't matter, how about everyone with an endorsement on their driving licence being denied the right to vote?
This thread isn't about justice it's about class warfare plain and simple.
Where do you get your information? Do you have a secret infallible source that Fred and I have not yet discovered?
They live in fantasy world Gleber2, bet there arn't many of them never paid cash to avoid VAT but they consider themselves moraly superior to someone who shoplifts a packet of razors.
Many thanks to all who took part in this poll, the results confirm my faith in the .Orgers, even if Fred and his ilk tried to take the thread over. Thanks again
Many thanks to all who took part in this poll, the results confirm my faith in the .Orgers, even if Fred and his ilk tried to take the thread over. Thanks again
Take the thread over?? Surely discussion and arguement based around the concept of the quesiton is what messageboard polls are all about?
Niall Fernie
01-Feb-07, 12:16
Thread closed at request of original poster.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.