Democracy has got a different look to it these days - its new name is Murdocracy - or Mailocracy.

You put it perfectly JK.

Aside from living in a Mailocracy, there are a number of issues I find disturbing here :

1/ the general sense that denying prisoners the vote deprives individuals from voting against a government and legal system that has taken away their liberty.

This is increasingly disturbing because..

2/ more and more laws are being passed that criminilize huge swathes of the population (or at least when nulabor are in power - that government apparently passed more legislation than all the previous governments of the 20th century put together), and more and more of these laws are essentially for 'thought crime'.

And thirdly, certain groups are overrepresented in the prison population. For example black people, or muslims. Groups which are poorly represented in the government and legal system that have deprived them of both their liberty and their right to vote. And, of course, there is quite a gender imbalance in the prison population, one that rarely gets talked about within the dominant narrative of patriarchal oppression, but which leads to the female vote being significantly larger than that of the male.

JK2006 wrote:
Democracy has got a different look to it these days - its new name is Murdocracy - or Mailocracy.

the Sun King's days are numbered. I have every faith that when he goes to his maker at least 2 of the children will attempt to change the culture of News Corp.

Not James though-a chip of the old block.

Blackit wrote:
certain groups are overrepresented in the prison population

there is quite a gender imbalance in the prison population

Not vaguely relevant - all are part of the UK population, in or out of jail/prison.

The point is simply; should they be allowed to vote whilst incarcerated?

Yes, except killers, rapists and other serious offenders,

Philip wrote:
Blackit wrote:
certain groups are overrepresented in the prison population

there is quite a gender imbalance in the prison population

Not vaguely relevant - all are part of the UK population, in or out of jail/prison.

The point is simply; should they be allowed to vote whilst incarcerated?

Yes, except killers, rapists and other serious offenders,

and yet even some who are serving sentences for these crimes are eventually found to be innocent so what happens if their vote was denied all those years ?

Banning anyone's vote for any reason means we no longer live in a democracy.

It's a mean spirited act by ghastly creepy politicians who are the scum of the earth as we have seen time and time again.

veritas wrote:
some who are serving sentences for these crimes are eventually found to be innocent so what happens if their vote was denied all those years ?

So you think that Peter Sutcliffe - the Yorkshire Ripper (convicted of, and who admitted, the killing of 13 women) - should have a vote?

I wouldn't give a damn if Sutcliffe had the vote and the the number of prisoners like him are so minimal they couldn't have the slightest affect on any election.

Though it would be rather fascinating to see who he voted for !

Once you start to restrict the vote and draw the line in the sand..that line can change.

Banning anyone's vote is undemocratic. You can have part democracy.

There are all sorts of potentials for corruption here.

veritas wrote:
the number of prisoners like him are so minimal

Banning anyone's vote is undemocratic

Minimal maybe. But to allow everyone a vote - traitors, spies, serial child molesters etc. - is simply wrong.

Undemocratic. So what?

Janine wrote:

Minimal maybe. But to allow everyone a vote - traitors, spies, serial child molesters etc. - is simply wrong.

Why?

Janine wrote:

Undemocratic. So what?

Wow. So democracy is only something for those you think worthy of it? Christ save us from "democrats" like you.

Janine wrote:
veritas wrote:
the number of prisoners like him are so minimal

Banning anyone's vote is undemocratic

Minimal maybe. But to allow everyone a vote - traitors, spies, serial child molesters etc. - is simply wrong.

Undemocratic. So what?

how many people are we talking about ?.

but why is it wrong ?
That is merely an opinion along the lines of "they loose all their rights etc etc" when it isn't true.

and they aren't talking about the Sutcliffes of the world are they. They are talking about people with a certain number of years in their sentence.

That can automatically make it unfair. Someone may receive a bond in lieu of a sentence..someone may be released earlier because they behave correctly enough to satisfy the parole board but are still corrupt or a criminal.

This is all talk drummed up by media and a proposal from politicians who want to "look tough on crime"

And tell me why Tony Blair has a vote when he is directly responsible for a disastrous invasion of 2 countries who never harmed Britain..in which 2 million people have been displaced and hundreds of thousands of innocents have died,

Locked Out wrote:
I think that might be too many words for Janine, Veritas

LO again kindly illustrates why sarcasm fails to win an argument.

Janine wrote:
Locked Out wrote:
I think that might be too many words for Janine, Veritas

LO again kindly illustrates why sarcasm fails to win an argument.





Now that would probably be a valid point if you'd actually made an argument. Unfortunately you didn't. You simply voiced the view that you think that democracy sometimes shouldn't count for anything. Go away and think about exactly what it is you're trying to say because, beyond "not very much", I don't have much more of a clue than you appear to.

Locked Out wrote:
you think that democracy sometimes shouldn't count for anything

Veritas said that banning anyone's vote is undemocratic.

No, its not - if its done by a democratically elected goverment, as in the UK.

Goodbye LO; I hope you find your keys soon and try harder to keep up!.

I think that any citizen who is taxed (prisoners pay VAT on purchases) and affected by government policy should be allowed to vote.

The argument against votes for prisoners seems to be "they're rotters and I don't think they should be allowed becouse I don't like them."

In any case, there's no debate to be had. The European court has quite clearly ruled that prisoners must be allowed to vote: not just some prisoners, or certain categories of offenders.

SJB wrote:
I think that any citizen who is taxed should be allowed to vote.

And ones who don't pay UK tax should not?

Is there anyone who doesn't? Surely even homeless people buy the odd ciggie or coke?

JK2006 wrote:
Is there anyone who doesn't?

There are a number of categories; the numbers currently exceed, in total, the UK's prison population.

For instance, a UK citizen who neither derives an income from, nor lives in the UK.

She/he can still vote in the UK (by mail) - and, in some instances, abroad.