Strasbourg payout ruling due on jail vote ban

www.bbc.com/news/uk-28749814

'The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is due to rule on whether prisoners who have been denied the vote should get compensation.

The case concerns 10 men serving sentences in Scottish prisons who claim their human rights were breached when they were not allowed to vote.'

Democracy as an idea means government elected by the people.So it ,should be 'all' the people.If you start excluding people where does it stop?

Do these prisoners actually give a toss about whether they can vote or is it a case of self-serving lawyers feeding them the 'compo' bait as with Jimmy Savile?

agree with Pattaya.

this is not too far removed from when only landowners could vote.

My feelings are as expressed elsewhere - democracy doesn't work; voting is a waste of time and usually done for the wrong, superficial reasons.

Pattaya wrote:
Democracy as an idea means government elected by the people.So it ,

Never really been "sold" on the one-man-one vote idea, Pattaya.

Why should some idle layabout have the same (and equal) right to select potential governments, as say, Sir Richard Branson, who employs thousands, and probably pays enough tax to keep a couple of hospitals going?

If its "equality" in choice, surely it should also be "equality" in every other sense?

www.bbc.com/news/uk-28753874

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the UK has again breached prisoners' rights by failing to give them the vote.

'But it refused to award damages to the 10 inmates bringing the action, saying the ruling in their favour was enough.'

Actually the biggest waste of time seems to be the European Court.
Delivers very little of every day value and costs a fortune.

In The Know wrote:
Pattaya wrote:
Democracy as an idea means government elected by the people.So it ,

Never really been "sold" on the one-man-one vote idea, Pattaya.

Why should some idle layabout have the same (and equal) right to select potential governments, as say, Sir Richard Branson, who employs thousands, and probably pays enough tax to keep a couple of hospitals going?

If its "equality" in choice, surely it should also be "equality" in every other sense?

Branson's whole empire was founded on avoiding paying taxes / getting back taxes never paid (and on the Sex Pistols).

DJones wrote:
In The Know wrote:
Pattaya wrote:
Democracy as an idea means government elected by the people.So it ,

Never really been "sold" on the one-man-one vote idea, Pattaya.

Why should some idle layabout have the same (and equal) right to select potential governments, as say, Sir Richard Branson, who employs thousands, and probably pays enough tax to keep a couple of hospitals going?

If its "equality" in choice, surely it should also be "equality" in every other sense?

Branson's whole empire was founded on avoiding paying taxes / getting back taxes never paid (and on the Sex Pistols).

If it was based on taxes then most big businessmen would never get a vote

On a serious note history proves ITK wrong.
Before the 1834 Reform Act we were just another European country with a few foreign interests...after the 1867 Reform act we went on to be a great empire,and to being the strongest country in the world....all made possible by uniting the people of the UK together,and pushing forward as one!

Just because you make lots of money does not mean you know best how to run a country.For example lots of business people wanted us to join the Euro...did they really know best? The average person in the street wasn't fooled,I say deprive the vote from people who have ideas of royal grandeur...oh and let's take bets on how few votes The Looney Libs get next time

I'm with ITK on the Lib Dems Patt; I think they will, yet again, be part of the Coalition, with whichever of the big two get most seats.

JK2006 wrote:
I'm with ITK on the Lib Dems Patt; I think they will, yet again, be part of the Coalition, with whichever of the big two get most seats.

I know Mr King,but let's see how little public support they get.