We cheer the young Egyptians and Tunisians demanding their human rights yet at the same time Great Britain (which worships and adores hypocrisy) urges Cameron and Co to challenge the Court of Human Rights and ban prisoner votes, sticking sex offenders on a register for life.

"Dump Human Rights" squeal the tabloids - they would like a sensible society that deals with sex offenders like proper countries like Iran and Uganda do.

Ken, it's a question of knowing where to draw the line; I'm sure the majority of UK citizens believe - give them some credit for not always absorbing tabloid drivvel - that prisoners should have their right to vote withdrawn for the period of their sentence, which for the majority of inmates is only a few years. If you've been convicted in a court of law then that should be the case. Of course for minor offences such as not paying your council tax the idea is preposterous.

I'm not sure how you could make amends for someone who has had their conviction quashed though.

Karmic Bounce wrote:
...prisoners should have their right to vote withdrawn...


Why?

Karmic Bounce wrote:
it's a question of knowing where to draw the line

The majority of citizens isn't knowledgable enough about the evidential and legal basis of policies to assert a valid opinion on where the line should be drawn.

If you believe in democracy, that's no problem: everyone gets a say in matters they know nothing - or something - about.

If you believe in good government then let the experts decide, although people are often uncomfortable about technocrats deciding to impose policies on society For Your Own Good.

Ken Clark's prison reform ideas are a good example. Those who oppose him want those rascals in prison to be treated more unpleasantly, for longer. The research Mr Clark uses to form his views shows that concentrating on rehabilitative measures are more effective at preventing crime and much cheaper than "hard time" policies.

The father of that poor murdered Sally Bowman was on TV saying he thought her killer should be starved to death. I suspect irony doesn't dawn on some people.

It sickens me completely. Human Rights are just that. Without them we become an Iran, an Egypt, to name but two. Is that what people want? The tabloids of course don't give a hoot they just enjoy provoking their readership. In a country without human rights a free press would eventually succumb to state control anyway.

My good grief don't people learn anything from what happened in Germany circa 1936?

And I've seriously gone right off Cameron. He's like some demented walking talking Red top!

Yes indeed, King of Hits.

The UK's Supreme Court has ruled that the sex offenders register is unlawful in imposing a statutory requirement on people indefinitely and without provision for review (a bit like the terrorist control orders).

This "seems to fly completely in the face of common sense" says our Prime Minister.

Idiot.

Most people are completely unaware (isn't ignorance bliss?) that the vast majority of the Human Rights Convention was drafted by British lawyers !

you elected a plonker in Cameron.

He risks doing incredible damage with his pompous nationalistic rantings about HRC.

It's only a matter of time before the same attacks begin on the UN and then the cracks begin to appear.

The T.Blairs of the world who use the UN charter to start wars will be floundering. As will the concept of UN forces protecting citizens in war zones.

The whole eddiface could could crumbling down as Britain retreats into isolationism and others follow suit. Except for the rest of Europe.

I can see lawsuits by the thousands. Chaos.

(and the get tough ravings about 'welfare to work' will be quietly shelved)

In the same way that you lose your driving licence if you get caught being seriously over the drink-drive limit, to a degree even, where you are a danger to other road users, so you should lose your right to vote if you have been convicted of a serious offence. The logic is simple - you get penalised for seriously unacceptible behaviour.

Karmic Bounce wrote:
In the same way that you lose your driving licence if you get caught being seriously over the drink-drive limit, to a degree even, where you are a danger to other road users, so you should lose your right to vote if you have been convicted of a serious offence. The logic is simple - you get penalised for seriously unacceptible behaviour.

that really is a pretty strange anology ... how is a con voting going to increase crime ?

banning boozy drivers is obviously necessary for everyone's protection but a person in jail palcing a vote in the ballot box isn't doing any harm at all.

And there is the very social necessity of those in jail being encouraged to participate in important social activities..it is to be encouraged.

Aren't you going down that road .."they lose all their freedoms and rights blah blah "?

In fact they don't lose all their rights. They have the right to be housed and fed and kept warm and not be raped and beaten (often ignored ) and so on.

There is no logical reason for prisoners not to vote.

It will not affect one other single person and laws that are enacted for no logical reason are an anathema.

And my point is - whether it should or should not be allowed is neither here nor there; it is the law so it must now be allowed until or unless they change the law.