Prisoners to get the vote as spineless Cameron kowtows to Europe's demands

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...es-Europe.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...irst-time.html

Prisoners are to have the right to vote after the Coalition conceded defeat in a long-running battle with Europe. The Government has confirmed it will change the law to remove the voting ban on the 70,000 inmates of British jails. It is being forced to do so after admitting it cannot win its fight against the European Court of Human Rights, which has been urging prisoners to seek compensation for being denied a voice in elections.David Cameron is said to be exasperated and furious but accepts the government has little choice but to end the 140-year blanket ban.

The climbdown comes days after he faced criticism for failing to achieve a cut or freeze in the budget of the European Union. Giving rapists and burglars the vote will be highly unpopular among many of his backbenchers, who believe criminals have forfeited their democratic rights. But the policy will be more popular with Lib Dem members of his coalition. The move comes after government lawyers advised that failure to comply with a 2004 ECHR ruling could cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds in litigation costs and compensation.

Convicted killer John Hirst, who took the case to the European Court of Human Rights, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: 'The whole thing about this is that in this system where you've got a democracy, that people can put pressure and lobby in Parliament for changes in the law and improved conditions, but you can't do that if you haven't got the vote. 'All prisoners can do is riot, if they've got a complaint, so you've got to give them this legitimate channel to bring their issue in.'

And here is a video of that scumbag celebrating his victory in prison;

http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-n...-what-about-us

"David Cameron says he is 'exasperated' and 'furious' with the way in which he has no power other than to capitulate to bullying from European Courts," said UKIP Leading Spokesman Nigel Farage."Well he must at last be sharing the rage of the British people who are fed up with being dictated to by people like him and his close friends in Brussels.

"As far as anybody can see the fact that he may allow rapists and murderers to vote is a direct consequence of Britain's acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty, which put the European Convention on Human Rights and judgements of the Court in Strasbourg into British law.

"We do not know for sure because the legal advice is not public, but if that is not the case, then he is doing it because he wants to, and damn the views of the British public," Mr Farage said.

"There is no way that the people of this country want to give prisoners the right to vote. By committing crimes they have surrendered the privileges of society. When they leave prison, when they have served their dues, then those rights are returned, but not before.

Out of all the things that go on, its stories like this which make my blood boil - especially seeing that scumbag celebrating his victory which has been given to him on a plate by our powerless and pathetic government along with the absolute nutcases in the European project who just live on a totally different planet.

How sweet would it be though that, as a result of this - the likes of Nick Clegg and David Cameron lost their seats to Labour thanks to a massive swing of a few thousands that a prison would most likely bring to an electoral seat in favour of Labour. So there we are, more evidence if needed that our courts are now powerless and it does not matter who you elect at the next election out of the main three parties, because they are all taking their orders from Brussels.

Personally I would have the likes of John Hirst hung by the neck rather than worrying about his right to vote.

Thoughts?

I'd suggest a read of the comments on the video i've posted from Youtube, along with the comments on the Daily Mail website - but as usual the majority is totally ignored.

[Moh]

lol, they couldn't even handle the votes without the prisoners.

[GommeInc]

A Professor at my University mentioned this on his twitter, and he's for it. I am too, but not in the same way as applied here. The majority should be allowed to vote, but for the ones who'll never be free during the next government seems a waste of time seeing as they gave up their liberties the moment they committed the crime. I'm not entirely sure what they'll be voting on, seeing as the law very rarely changes as far as murder and stealing is involved.

EDIT: Nevermind, he's against it and says it's about as sensible as giving all prisoners 12 years regardless of the crime they've committed, but my opinion still stands

[Nixt]

For the record, that guy is not in prison. Minor detail, but a point to be made nevertheless.

I personally believe that when one commits a crime, they sacrifice their liberty and to an extent their human rights. Those who violate the law should not be protected by it in the same way a law abiding citizen is. Regardless of that though, what irks me is that the government is having its hand forced by the ECHR. Whilst I think, internationally, the role of the ECHR is important and should be utilised when it comes issues that could not necessarily be settled in a judiciary with jurisdiction over one country, an issue that affects the sovereignty of our country should be dictated by the Supreme Court of England and Wales and not a European court. If a British court made the decision on the basis of British law, so be it. Otherwise, it is abhorrent that individuals who have shown their understanding of society to be completely skewed (murderers, rapists, paedophiles right through to the common thief) should be allowed to shape that same society with a vote.

[Inseriousity.]

lol the majority is totally ignored? and you base that on video comments and the comments box of a newspaper? I'm sure it's only a tiny minority of the country who use either of those things.

Anyway as for prisoner votes, I agree with gomme that if you're in custody through the next government's changes then there's no point having a vote as your vote won't see anything change... and it'd also solve the murderers/rapists thing, who should be in for life (but that's a different debate). However, if you're going to be out and back into society during the period of the next government then you should be allowed to vote.

[Accipiter]

Is that the cretin from lord of the rings on the video

How the **** do they get champagne in prisons? (wait he's not in prison? :S -confused)

Personally i think yes, to the low offenders, no to the ******* creeps.

[Conservative,]

I'd rather have them hung, shot or electricuted. Criminals have broken the law and therefore give up any rights other than the absolute necessities (food, water & shelter).

They should not deserve the right to vote and why the European government is deciding this for us idk.

[Jahova]

Shouldn't be allowed. Pathetic.

[dbgtz]

All they've done here is made a loaf of bread, which will eventually mould (be abused). I do think it depends on the crime, murderers shouldn't but those in for man slaughter, it's completely different. And what if you're in prison on a day of an election for about 1 day because you hit someone or something, they should be allowed to aswell.

In the end it depends on the crime, but I kinda wish cameron would say no. Not long until we join the Euro.

[alexxxxx]

there isn't allowed to be a 'blanket ban' on prisoners voting, however there are several ways around this:

-Different crimes/sentence lengths can warrant whether they are allowed or not.
-Judges might be able to decide if a prisoner can vote or not when sentencing.
-Prisoners would vote in their last postal address' constituency.

im not against 1month->6months prisoners voting tbh.