observer Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 A lifer, convicted of sexually abusing and killing his niece, is pursuing a case through the courts to gain entitlement for all prisoners to be eligible to vote - do you agree? What is perhaps more disturbing is, who's paying for his legal services - us - through legal aid : yer just can't make it up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Of course they don't get a vote! And I don't believe they should be entitled to legal aid for anything other than appeals either. If you break the law and are removed from society so everyone else is free/safe from your antisocial conduct then you've forfeited your right to be consulted on how said society is run. And that goes for anyone locked up for any length of time or offence. Are we in danger of agreeing then, Obs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 i think that they should only get legal aid for their first appeal after that no more help. if they want to use that aid for any other cause then that is their option but once that has been used then that should be it. interesting thought though. if he is successful how many politicians are going to visit the jails to canvass for votes (will refrain from saying that most probably will be in there if the expenses fiddle gets sorted properly ) addendum, maybe that is why he is getting legal aid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Wow, we've agreed on somthing LP - now what did I say wrong?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Nothing, Obs - by the law of averages, even YOU will be right once in a while....... even a stopped clock manages it twice a day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 I think a prisoner should be able to vote if they are to be released less than, say, half way through the lifetime of the Parliament being voted for. Otherwise, someone serving a short sentence during which an election falls is disenfrachised for the whole of the next 5 years, whereas someone else serving the same sentence when there is no election is not. If ex-pats can vote for governments they won't have to put up with at all then I don't see the justice in withdrawing the vote from someone who is serving a very short sentence - or even from someone who is on remand having not yet been convicted of anything at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Ex-pats aren't breaking the law, and can return any time they like. They are subject to UK law on any holdings here, pensions, tax, etc. Remand is different, I agree. If you've not been convicted and wish to vote, then you should get a postal or proxy vote. Can't you have that now if you're on remand? I bet the movement from inside is intending to lobby for being allowed out to nip to the polling station though!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 .... and why should ex-pats have a vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 If the vote IS to be restricted - and we are to abandon the hard won principal of UNIVERSAL sufferage - then maybe only those who pay more than a certain amount of UK tax per annum should be entitled to determine who forms the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 That's a large number of pensioners without a vote then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 That's a large number of pensioners without a vote then. ..........and MP's too then!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Seems to me that anyone who is a British subject, actually living in this Country has been/is liable to defend it in time of war - so; if yer good enough to fight for it, seems reasonable that yer good enough to vote for who leads it?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 By that yardstick prisoners who are UK nationals would get the vote. Make your mind up Obs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Convicts are people who chose to disregard the laws that give society structure. Prison is the removal of people like that to protect everyone else and preserve the stucture. Whilst in prison, you should not expect all the rights and benefits due to members of the social structure you ignored and undermined. Basically, you opted out of membership. It's a total p* take for someone who took away a life to object to having his vote taken from him. He should think himself lucky that his life wasn't taken in return and be grateful that he gets a second chance one day. Instead, he gets a law degree for free and then sues because the telly in his cell can't get channel 5! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Nope - I think I discounted "prisoners" in an earlier post - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inky pete Posted October 25, 2009 Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 You did, earlier. Then you said:- anyone who is a British subject, actually living in this Country....... good enough to vote for who leads it?! Anyone else you'd like to exclude from "anyone"? Members of religious orders who've chosen to retreat from society? People who've chosen to live self-sufficiently in remote places? People who habitually don't vote? (they have, after all, voluntarily withdrawn themselves from the governing of society) I'm not, personally, in favour of lifers and other long term prisoners voting - but I believe that anyone who will have to live out in society under a particular government should be eligible to take part in its selection. To remove 5 years worth of voting rights from someone just because they are incarcerated on the 1 day that an election is held would be un-democratic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2009 Where do you get this "five years" from? It's quite possible for someone to be imprisoned for say 3 years in between national elections - so would vote in both; I see no point in those that are excluded from society by way of criminal conviction should enjoy a priviledge afforded to being a member of said society. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.