HeadingNorth Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Yes, you're right. International treaty bodies have no jurisdiction in the UK. They do when the UK government passes an Act to give them jurisdiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Lags should not be allowed to vote. If allowed they will just vote Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Lags should not be allowed to vote. If allowed they will just vote Labour. That's not a valid reason for stopping them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 No, but that they are convicted criminals serving time at her majestys pleasure is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 What about political prisoners? A government could lock up a lot of opposition party voters before an election... Anyway, all prisoners should have the vote, it's a human right, they're still humans. They have to deal with the government all day every day, the government controls prisoners lives while they're in prison. If you take too many of prisoners rights & punish them too much then there's no chance of rehabilitation, they'll just continue to be criminals for the rest of their lives & keep re-offending. We need to teach them some self respect, that includes giving them rights & letting them feel like they have some control over their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
max Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Lags should not be allowed to vote. If allowed they will just vote Labour. Duh, I'll quote my previous post just for you. 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...
Nagel Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 If prisoners are allowed a vote, then what constituency will their vote be in? I imagine the MPs for the Isle of Wight are worried by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 No, but that they are convicted criminals serving time at her majestys pleasure is. Why should that deny them their right to vote? (I'm not arguing the issue either way, but I want to know what reasons people have for their standpoints.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 Most stupid people don't vote at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted May 24, 2012 Share Posted May 24, 2012 If prisoners are allowed a vote, then what constituency will their vote be in? I imagine the MPs for the Isle of Wight are worried by this. Presumably they would vote in the constituency in which they were present on polling day. - As do servicemen. Dick Taverne (the sitting Labour MP in Lincoln) when the rule was made. 'The Queen in Parliament' is the sovereign Lawmaker and if the British Parliament decides to wave two fingers to the ECHR judgement it may do so. Cameron has put himself in a corner. Should he reverse course, and should Milli Young UN offer (and promise - not that his promises would be worth a lot) a referendum on EU membership, the Cameron might find himself in a hole. I can't see that happening. It would beggar belief! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.