www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11671164

The European Court of Human Rights has ruled the current ban on prisoners being banned from voting illegal.

Surely democracy is one person one vote? However heinous a crime,you're still a citizen,so should have a vote.
Stopping prisoners is the tip of the iceberg.How soon before other unfashionable groups get banned as well?
Democracy is all about letting each of us express our freewill,not curtailing it.

of course they should vote and you are right..thin edge of the wedge and so on.

And about bloody time. A triumph for my friend John Hirst.

Most comments on BBC Site about this say
Get Convicted = No Human Rights
which is a very strange way of saying anyone in prison can be abused - tortured - even killed because you should give up your rights in prison totally !!!

However this one comment was interesting about those FALSELY ACCUSED and I cut and paste :

"99.9% of prisoners are guilty and deserve to be punished by imprisonment. However 0.1% are found to be innocent.Most of their lives have been totally destroyed by an incompetent and uncaring society. Those innocents should have the right to totally destroy any persons, organisations or institutions involved in the destruction of their lives. To all society - be careful what you wish for."

The Prisons are full of at least 10% of these sorts of people - and this is surely what will happen as those locked up by the NWO POLICE STATE come out of prison intent on changing society. There are now many thousands of such people - they are not remaining quiet at all about INJUSTICE like JK etc.

The NWO has made a big mistake in trying to control society by locking up innocent people. That is a one way ticket to the collapse of society and I agree with the Poster on the BBC On that issue.

BR wrote:
[quote]Most comments on BBC Site about this say
Get Convicted = No Human Rights
which is a very strange way of saying anyone in prison can be abused - tortured - even killed because you should give up your rights in prison totally !!!

quote]

I always love these comments.."you loose all right to etc etc blah blah ".

No-you get found innocent or guilty and if guilty pay a prescribed price as the judge dictates..no more.. yet dickheads still think that somehow you become a boxing bag and open to any sort of abuse. Which happens of course but isn't right.

FANTASTIC QUOTE ABOUT THIS

"Juliet Lyon, director of the Prison Reform Trust, welcomed the move. "A historic decision to enfranchise serving prisoners would mark the end of the archaic punishment of civic death dating back to the Forfeiture Act of 1870," she said.

"In a modern prison system you would expect prisoners to have rights and responsibilities and politicians to take an active interest in their constituency prisons.

"People are sent to prison to lose their liberty not their identity."


Worth quoting in ALL pieces any of you write about this for the media - newspapers- etc because it hits the nail on the head completely and puts it in proper historical terms.

Australians have been able to vote for ages, so it's only fair!

Did anyone notice this...?

Under the ECHR ruling each country can decide which offences should carry restrictions to voting rights.

So prisoners are entitled under European law to vote, except if their member state governments don't feel like letting them.

It's strangely reminiscent of Article 3 which prohibits torture, unless the member state thinks it's a good idea and does it somewhere secret.

Or the Article 6 rights to fair trial, unless governments don't feel like treating people as innocent until proven guilty, or don't bother about disclosing evidence against the accused etc.

Then there's the right to privacy which we all have - until the state wants to read our emails or text messages, or follow us around on CCTV.

And how about our freedom of expression (Article 10)? But don't say anything that the state fancies making illegal.

Finally, we have the Article 13 entitlement to effective remedy from the member state if it breaches any of our rights. But only if the member state can be arsed to comply with European legal decisions, like retaining DNA samples of the innocent or denying votes to prisoners.

It reminds me of that Monty Python sketch about having car insurance, but there's no actual cover. Except not funny.

Hirst has just been on the Jeremy Vine show, Vine of course kept on missing the point over and over ("what about the human rights of the victims") to which Hirst eventually told him "Jeremy, no wonder they had to dumb down Panorama for you" effectively silencing the BBC's Golden Calf for a minute or so. They're wheeling in some "victims of crime" now, amidst the usual "filth and the fury" comments from the braindead "Angry from Kent" listeners

www.beehivecity.com/television/andrew-ne...dent-bbc-attack3598/

One-sided "Interview", Hirst doesn't come across well, but neither do the BBC bigots

The bottom line is that Prisoners will pay tax - they will use services - therefore they HAVE to have the right to vote.

Universal suffrage means just that. We cant pick and choose people on the basis of how nice they are to vote - that smacks of NAZI ideology.

One person's terrorist or criminal could be another's FREEDOM FIGHTER. Robin Hood for instance and Guy Fawkes would have never been able to have the vote