ChatterBank2 mins ago
Why draw a line in the sand over the issue of votes for prisoners?
Why are the Tories making such a fuss over this? What do they hope to gain?
http
http
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sandyRoe. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
And you can apply the same logic to those who have broken the law but not gone to prison.
But all of this is not an argument based on logic
It's been an argument deliberately engineered to try to steer up anti-european sentiment.
What I can't work out is why David Cameron fell for it
Is it part of this thinking on the EU budget? or is he hoping to win some sort of concession to throw to the Euro-skeptics (possibly in exchange for caving in on the budget)
Or perhaps I'm seeing too much subtlty in him - maybe he just reacted and can't now back peddel
But all of this is not an argument based on logic
It's been an argument deliberately engineered to try to steer up anti-european sentiment.
What I can't work out is why David Cameron fell for it
Is it part of this thinking on the EU budget? or is he hoping to win some sort of concession to throw to the Euro-skeptics (possibly in exchange for caving in on the budget)
Or perhaps I'm seeing too much subtlty in him - maybe he just reacted and can't now back peddel
And question 2 should be:
Should we withdraw from the EU.
Thing is Cameron (and Brown before him) knowwhat the answer will be(pretty much the same as any vote on EU from any country.
But of course when we voted to get out we would have to keep voting until we 'got the right answer' as the EU dictates.
No, I am not confusing the 2 Jake, that old rhetoric is well past its sell by date mate.
Should we withdraw from the EU.
Thing is Cameron (and Brown before him) knowwhat the answer will be(pretty much the same as any vote on EU from any country.
But of course when we voted to get out we would have to keep voting until we 'got the right answer' as the EU dictates.
No, I am not confusing the 2 Jake, that old rhetoric is well past its sell by date mate.
rojash
/// Presumably they were wearing clothes when they broke the law, so your argument would also justify keeping them naked. ///
Oh,dear, oh dear, come on rojash you can come up with something more sensible than that.
Perhaps you could still oblige me with this request?
Or perhaps a better idea would be for Rojash to post speaking for those who oppose the prisoners right to vote.
/// Presumably they were wearing clothes when they broke the law, so your argument would also justify keeping them naked. ///
Oh,dear, oh dear, come on rojash you can come up with something more sensible than that.
Perhaps you could still oblige me with this request?
Or perhaps a better idea would be for Rojash to post speaking for those who oppose the prisoners right to vote.
To be honest Jake, I dont know, I really dont like the man, nor trust him. He is too much like Blair.
I totally and utterly disagree it would be damaging in any term. That is purported by the pro campaign to scare the population. Europe needs us not us need them, we, along with the Germans fund it for Gods sake.
We should have trade agreements, yes, i fully agree(But no more 'mountains'. But that is it.
Europe would be more than happy to trade, we import more than we export so why would they not?
Anything apart from Trade with Europe is not of any good to us.
I totally and utterly disagree it would be damaging in any term. That is purported by the pro campaign to scare the population. Europe needs us not us need them, we, along with the Germans fund it for Gods sake.
We should have trade agreements, yes, i fully agree(But no more 'mountains'. But that is it.
Europe would be more than happy to trade, we import more than we export so why would they not?
Anything apart from Trade with Europe is not of any good to us.
The argument really is: why should all prisoners not have the vote? There are arguments both ways, including the simplistic: "they did something wrong therefore ..." which is fair enough provided you choose not to delve any further into the issues.
I am absolutely certain that eventually, maybe sooner rather than later, the UK Govt will see sense over this. By "see sense" I mean cease to use it as a populist anti-Europe issue. The wording of the ECHR judgment seems wholly reasonable to me.
I am absolutely certain that eventually, maybe sooner rather than later, the UK Govt will see sense over this. By "see sense" I mean cease to use it as a populist anti-Europe issue. The wording of the ECHR judgment seems wholly reasonable to me.
http
/// But Mr Grayling suggested that Britain could block prisoners getting access to legal aid to help them mount legal challenges against the Government. He said ministers will make an announcement on changing the use of legal aid "before long". ///
Blimey, no vote and soon no legal aid, there soon won't be any benefit from being in prison.
/// But Mr Grayling suggested that Britain could block prisoners getting access to legal aid to help them mount legal challenges against the Government. He said ministers will make an announcement on changing the use of legal aid "before long". ///
Blimey, no vote and soon no legal aid, there soon won't be any benefit from being in prison.
I hear our liberal master thinkers: "The argument really is: why should all prisoners not have the vote? There are arguments both ways, including the simplistic: "they did something wrong therefore ..." which is fair enough provided you choose not to delve any further into the issues. " - "The simplistic", yes simple, prison deprives the prisoner, what would you have it do?
(Pardon me while I wring my hands :-))
It doesn't deprive the prisoner of everything though.
The court has ruled that it is unlawful automatically to deprive someone of the right to vote merely because they are in prison.
(It also ruled in 1968 that the the then Labour Govt could not ban immigrants to Britain on the basis of the colour of their skin, by the way).
It doesn't deprive the prisoner of everything though.
The court has ruled that it is unlawful automatically to deprive someone of the right to vote merely because they are in prison.
(It also ruled in 1968 that the the then Labour Govt could not ban immigrants to Britain on the basis of the colour of their skin, by the way).
"Or perhaps a better idea would be for Rojash to post speaking for those who oppose the prisoners right to vote."
You are completely missing the point AOG. I'm actually not bothered very much one way or the other whether prisoners have the right to vote, I would just like to see some reasoned argument that is specific to the right to vote in connection with the fact that they are in prison.
Simply repeating endlessly "they broke the law so they can't vote" is not a reasoned argument - it's just a sentence. And, as has been pointed out, it could apply equally to those who broke the law but didn't get a jail term.
You are completely missing the point AOG. I'm actually not bothered very much one way or the other whether prisoners have the right to vote, I would just like to see some reasoned argument that is specific to the right to vote in connection with the fact that they are in prison.
Simply repeating endlessly "they broke the law so they can't vote" is not a reasoned argument - it's just a sentence. And, as has been pointed out, it could apply equally to those who broke the law but didn't get a jail term.
Looks like the favoured proposal is giving the vote to those serving less than 6 months.
Labour still fully opposing
I think that's pretty disingenuous - I'm pretty sure if they were still in power both side would be arguing precisely each other's cases.
As for the EU and trade agreements
Why on Earth would France and Germany say "OK leave don't contribute but you can keep the same trade terms?"
I wonder if my Gym will let me cancel my membership but still use the facilities?
Labour still fully opposing
I think that's pretty disingenuous - I'm pretty sure if they were still in power both side would be arguing precisely each other's cases.
As for the EU and trade agreements
Why on Earth would France and Germany say "OK leave don't contribute but you can keep the same trade terms?"
I wonder if my Gym will let me cancel my membership but still use the facilities?
"Why on Earth would France and Germany say "OK leave don't contribute but you can keep the same trade terms?" "
Simple - because the advantages of trade and commerce (thankfully) eventually transend the disadvantages of political dogma. If you believe, jake, that Germany and France will suddenly stop trading with the UK because they have left the EU then you are suffering delusions. All EU countries trade quite successfully with non-EU countries and quite frankly the UK's best interests lie with developing trading links with growing nations. EU nations (particularly those in the eurozone) are suffering enormously because of the political vanity of successive politicians who will not admit they got it badly wrong.
Simple - because the advantages of trade and commerce (thankfully) eventually transend the disadvantages of political dogma. If you believe, jake, that Germany and France will suddenly stop trading with the UK because they have left the EU then you are suffering delusions. All EU countries trade quite successfully with non-EU countries and quite frankly the UK's best interests lie with developing trading links with growing nations. EU nations (particularly those in the eurozone) are suffering enormously because of the political vanity of successive politicians who will not admit they got it badly wrong.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.