InigoMontoya Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 The European Court hasn't decided a blanket ban is illegal. It's a decision from the European Court of Human Rights. How many times do I have to repeat they are separate institutions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InigoMontoya Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Well I suppose that if they did look at one specific case and consider that. Then decide that it was illegal in that case. It surely follows that every other case would have to be covered by the same ruling (ie a blanket ban). That's the legalities of it. It's like the PPI cases and the banks mis-selling it. Wasn't that as a result of one court ruling, so it followed that it must have been the case across the board. Oh, and I'm not supporting it. Personally I think the EU courts ought to keep out of out sodding business. What would prisoners vote for? Less latrine duty? Plasma TV's? Less interference from prson officers?....etc.....While they lose their liberty to interact with 'normal' society, they also lose their right to vote for anything. That's what losing your liberty means! (although I daresay some smart Alec will give us the dictionary definition shortly) The EU courts have kept out of it. It's the ECHR - established by the European Convention on Human Rights - adopted under the Council of Europe -founded in the late 1940's - not the European Union - founded as the EEC in the late 1950's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tasha_78_1 Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 As far as I can see, people in prison have committed a crime and due to this have been removed from society. In my opinion they have lost their rights to be a part of normal society, this should include having the vote taken away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Having established, on another thread, that most incarcerated criminals are below average intelligence and that most stupid people are conservatives (according to John Stuart Mill) you can understand why Cameron and his party would be receptive to this proposal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 A: it cannot. There is NO such thing as 'international law'; mere treaties create no rights. The UK Government should ignore the Court; but, being craven quislings, they'll cave-in as usual. You WISH as a little Englander that there was no such thing as international law but the UN, IMF, WTO, EU, ECHR, Geneva Conventions, and many other bodies would suggest that your wish is nothing more than a fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fareast Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Some people [ many here on SF ] have been saying for years that Europe is a Nanny State writ large. It 's tried to interfere in as many aspects of life as possible. Unfortunately, successive governments in the U.K have acted like craven sheep and given in to all kinds of lunatic rules and regs. Even more unfortunately millions of ' proud ' British citizens have often kowtowed even more than the government ! Rule Britannia ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 When a person commits a crime and is then charged and imprisoned for it then they lose the right to vote. That is it, there should be no grey area, no concessions, nothing until they are released. If certain prisoners are given the right to vote then they will all want it and that is a recipe for trouble. It is easier to implement if none of them are able to vote The rest of Europe should get their own house in order before interfering here. I would guess that 90% of the prison population have neither voted or intend to vote, either through apathy or marginalization. What better time to introduce the ideals behind the vote to those that don't care for society or society seeming not to care for them. Being punitive seems ever so non productive. I get the impression some are more concerned with the punishment than how the offender will perform on release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 A: it cannot. Yes, it can; because, although you might well argue that... There is NO such thing as 'international law'; mere treaties create no rights. ...it's an irrelevant argument. The UK Government has passed Acts of Parliament binding itself to abide by ECHR rulings. Those Acts do create rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 the UN, IMF, WTO, EU, ECHR, Geneva Conventions, and many other bodies No, it's you who are wrong. International TREATY organisations are merely that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 The UK Government has passed Acts of Parliament binding itself to abide by ECHR rulings. Those Acts do create rights. Yes, you're right. International treaty bodies have no jurisdiction in the UK. BUT UK law can reflect what they'd like to impose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.