British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

[tzijlstra]

They should loose it for the same reason they loose their.

 

That is your opinion, I don't see any reason for not giving prisoners their democratic right to vote. I am yet to hear one coherent argument about that. It is one of those things where my British wife disagrees with me vehemently, but even she (and she is a smart cookie) can't come up with a plausible reason other than emotion.

 

The reason they should have the right to vote is simple however: They are not in prison forever, when they come out we want them to participate in society rather than to remain on the criminal fringe. Denying them the right to vote basically tells them: You don't count.

[mjw47]

No it looks equal to me and this from your link appears to agree with me.

 

The Home Office's extradition review, led by former Court of Appeal judge Sir Scott Baker, argued there was no real difference between the US tests of "probable cause" and the introduction of "reasonable suspicion".

 

The panel said that both tests amounted to the basic standard of proof used by police officers in both countries to make an arrest.

 

You appear to want to believe any BS that the authorities wish to feed you.

Did you actually read the report?

 

If you did.

 

How do you manage to believe that this;

 

'A critical test set out in the treaty is that the British request must include " such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offence for which extradition is requested."

 

And this;

 

'This requirement does not apply to requests submitted by the US to the UK.'

 

Can be regarded in any way as comparable and equal?

 

We have to explain why we want their citizen and provide some evidence as to why we believe they are guilty of a crime.

 

They don't have to supply us with anything, they don't have to explain anything.

 

All they need to do is request us to hand over a British citizen and the only question we can ask is where and when do you want them delivered.

[firemanbob]

That is your opinion, I don't see any reason for not giving prisoners their democratic right to vote. I am yet to hear one coherent argument about that. It is one of those things where my British wife disagrees with me vehemently, but even she (and she is a smart cookie) can't come up with a plausible reason other than emotion.

 

Of cause its just my opinion, just as it is just your opinion that prisoners should have the human right to vote. I am yet to here one coherent argument that would convince me that they should have the right to vote.

 

The reason they should have the right to vote is simple however: They are not in prison forever, when they come out we want them to participate in society rather than to remain on the criminal fringe. Denying them the right to vote basically tells them: You don't count.

 

They don't count whilst locked up, but when they have served their time they do count, can rejoin society and enjoy all the privileges that freedom brings, including the right to vote. It will give them something to look forward to when they get out. Do you also think they should have the right to sex with their partner, to go for a run in the park, to go on holiday abroad?

 

---------- Post added 07-10-2014 at 16:18 ----------

 

You appear to want to believe any BS that the authorities wish to feed you.

Did you actually read the report?

 

If you did.

 

How do you manage to believe that this;

 

'A critical test set out in the treaty is that the British request must include " such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offence for which extradition is requested."

 

And this;

 

'This requirement does not apply to requests submitted by the US to the UK.'

 

Can be regarded in any way as comparable and equal?

 

We have to explain why we want their citizen and provide some evidence as to why we believe they are guilty of a crime.

 

They don't have to supply us with anything, they don't have to explain anything.

 

All they need to do is request us to hand over a British citizen and the only question we can ask is where and when do you want them delivered.

 

According to the link that you provided, that is incorrect.

Edited October 7, 2014 by firemanbob

[Lotusflower]

Would you trust the police with your DNA?

 

Yes or no!

 

Ok. Define total trust then as opposed to some other form of trust.

[mjw47]

 

---------- Post added 07-10-2014 at 16:18 ----------

 

 

According to the link that you provided, that is incorrect.

 

The quotes which I included in my last post between ' ' marks were from the linked article.

[firemanbob]

The quotes which I included in my last post between ' ' marks were from the linked article.

 

And this is your incorrect interpretation of those quotes.

 

 

 

 

They don't have to supply us with anything, they don't have to explain anything.

 

All they need to do is request us to hand over a British citizen and the only question we can ask is where and when do you want them delivered.

[mjw47]

And this is your incorrect interpretation of those quotes.

 

What part of 'The British must provide information etc'

 

And ' This does not apply to the US etc'

 

Contradict my post?

[firemanbob]

What part of 'The British must provide information etc'

 

And ' This does not apply to the US etc'

 

Contradict my post?

 

Read your link or the quotes I posted from your link.

[mjw47]

Read your link or the quotes I posted from your link.

 

So let me get this clear, the USA and the UK agree a reciprocal extradition treaty, in the UK it is agreed by the Commons, and nodded through by the House of Lords , in the USA however, it is thrown out by Congress on the grounds that they are not prepared to extradite a US citizen to a foreign country without satisfactory proof of a crime being committed by the person involved.

 

You agree that that is a fair summary?

 

Another link for you to peruse http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/25jul/ukus

 

So we a have situation whereby the UK have to provide information when requesting extradition of a US citizen, but the USA does not have to when making the same request from us.

 

A Home office spokesman says 'there is no real difference' and you believe him because that is what you want to believe.

 

Of course there's a difference, anyone can see there is, but we are now playing politics, what did you expect him to say, 'You know what, we've dropped a right clanger here, the Yanks have had our trousers down and made us look like the eager to please little arse kissers we are'.

Edited October 7, 2014 by mjw47

[firemanbob]

So let me get this clear, the USA and the UK agree a reciprocal extradition treaty, in the UK it is agreed by the Commons, and nodded through by the House of Lords , in the USA however, it is thrown out by Congress on the grounds that they are not prepared to extradite a US citizen to a foreign country without satisfactory proof of a crime being committed by the person involved.

 

You agree that that is a fair summary?

 

Another link for you to peruse http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/25jul/ukus

 

So we a have situation whereby the UK have to provide information when requesting extradition of a US citizen, but the USA does not have to when making the same request from us.

 

A Home office spokesman says 'there is no real difference' and you believe him because that is what you want to believe.

 

Of course there's a difference, anyone can see there is, but we are now playing politics, what did you expect him to say, 'You know what, we've dropped a right clanger here, the Yanks have had our trousers down and made us look like the eager to please little arse kissers we are'.

 

No, it your interpretation of it.