Votes for prisoners

[MM]

Was any legislation ever passed that explicitly denies the vote to UK
prisoners?

MM

[The Todal]

On 22/11/12 09:03, MM wrote:
> Was any legislation ever passed that explicitly denies the vote to UK
> prisoners?
>

Yes. Representation of the People Act 1983, s.3

[Portsmouth Rider]

"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ciqra8tmmp3ssblre...@4ax.com...

> Was any legislation ever passed that explicitly denies the vote to UK
> prisoners?
>
> MM

I don't see why a Parliamentary seat should not be created, called
"Prisons", returning one member of parliament. The electorate for that seat
would be the current prison populaion on the Qualifying Day.

[peterwn]

There is an easy way for prisoners to get the vote - do not commit
crimes.

[®i©ardo]

Surely current thinking is that they are as much "victims" as the people
they rob, maim and kill. Maybe one or two of our Guardian readers could
enlighten us.

--
Moving things in still pictures

[GB]

That sounds a lot simpler than them all having postal votes at their old
constituency - that some of them may not have seen for 20 years.

[abelard]

they're probably the bigger victims...everyone else
should be imprisoned to guard their human rights

[LebesgueMeasure]

"peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:c8c26ea4-53f7-4e88...@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

>
> There is an easy way for prisoners to get the vote - do not commit
> crimes.
>
>

Strange how that argument is never applied to middle class yobbos who exceed
the speed limit!

[The Todal]

Yes, as a Guardian reader I can assure you that you are talking shite.
But as a Daily Mail reader, I think your post was absolutely brilliant
and you ought to have a regular column in the Daily Mail. Please ensure
that the phrase "you couldn't make it up" appears at least once in every
4 column inches.

[The Todal]

I'm sure most prisoners don't give a shit about whether or not they have
the vote.

What we should be asking is, what are our politicians so afraid of, that
they can't bear the thought of a prisoner having the right to put his
cross on a bit of paper? Would we end up with criminals in the House of
Commons? Surely that could never happen.

[Mentalguy2k8]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:ah6lfd...@mid.individual.net...

> On 22/11/12 11:36, LebesgueMeasure wrote:
>> "peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>> news:c8c26ea4-53f7-4e88...@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> There is an easy way for prisoners to get the vote - do not commit
>>> crimes.
>>>
>>>
>> Strange how that argument is never applied to middle class yobbos who
>> exceed
>> the speed limit!
>>
>
> I'm sure most prisoners don't give a shit about whether or not they have
> the vote.
>
> What we should be asking is, what are our politicians so afraid of, that
> they can't bear the thought of a prisoner having the right to put his
> cross on a bit of paper?

Remember that next time you're berating someone else for spouting the
"nothing to hide nothing to fear" line....

[Jethro_uk]

Isn't the whole point of those "you couldn't make it up" stories is that
they are, in fact, made up ?

[Jethro_uk]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:51:57 +0000, The Todal wrote:

> On 22/11/12 11:36, LebesgueMeasure wrote:
>> "peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message

>> news:c8c26ea4-53f7-4e88-b5f6-
b1b69d...@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...

>>>
>>> There is an easy way for prisoners to get the vote - do not commit
>>> crimes.
>>>
>>>
>> Strange how that argument is never applied to middle class yobbos who
>> exceed the speed limit!
>>
>>
> I'm sure most prisoners don't give a shit about whether or not they have
> the vote.
>
> What we should be asking is, what are our politicians so afraid of, that
> they can't bear the thought of a prisoner having the right to put his
> cross on a bit of paper? Would we end up with criminals in the House of
> Commons? Surely that could never happen.

No. What we should be asking is what is the moral imperative for a
citizen to obey the law, when his government doesn't ? What sanctions are
available ?

On a totally imaginary, but interesting scenario. What if at the next
election, the returning officer for a constituency with a prison in it
attempted to arrange for the prisoners to vote. Clearly they would be
subject to action from HMG. Presumably this action to enforce a law which
has repeatedly been ruled to contravene the UKs obligations under the ECHR
would itself be illegal ?

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Jethro_uk" <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote in message
news:8Oprs.470934$9D6.3...@fx27.am4...

It seems to be to be a very petty matter which both sides are using to make
a particular point. The outcome isn't important but the rhetoric is.

[abelard]

so, why not let it play out?

[Mentalguy2k8]

"abelard" <abel...@abelard.org> wrote in message
news:n1bsa8llmv3l7lc9s...@4ax.com...

We should hold a referendum on it, that should appeal to the prisoners'
new-found sense of democracy.

[Andy Walker]

On 22/11/12 09:25, Portsmouth Rider wrote:
> I don't see why a Parliamentary seat should not be created, called
> "Prisons", returning one member of parliament. The electorate for that seat
> would be the current prison populaion on the Qualifying Day.

Easier than that. Give them all a vote. Just make sure
that (a) being in prison is not a valid reason for a postal or a
proxy vote [the rules for which need serious tightening anyway],
and (b) the cost of transport to the polling station and back is
charged to the prisoner concerned.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Ophelia]

"The Todal" <deadm...@beeb.net> wrote in message
news:ah6lfd...@mid.individual.net...

lol

--
--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

[GB]

This all seems very petty. I don't particularly care whether prisoners
vote or not. More importantly, neither do they.

I can't see why they shouldn't just use the standard postal voting
system? Most of them won't bother, anyway. Job done at minimal expense,
and let's move on to something more important.

[Fredxx]

Alan Turin, Guildford 4, Maguire Seven come to mind.

I find it strange how we put pressure on South African countries to have
one man one vote, yet our politicians don't like it in their own back yard.

[®i©ardo]

LOL! I think the thought police may well be on to us with comments like
those!

[®i©ardo]

On 22/11/2012 12:50, The Todal wrote:

Thank you for your endorsement, and my sincere apologies for for having
successfully rattled the bars of your cage and your prejudices.

[®i©ardo]

But only if we allow them to vote!

;-)

[Andy Walker]

On 22/11/12 14:07, GB wrote:
>> Easier than that. Give them all a vote. Just make sure
>> that (a) being in prison is not a valid reason for a postal or a
>> proxy vote [the rules for which need serious tightening anyway],
>> and (b) the cost of transport to the polling station and back is
>> charged to the prisoner concerned.
> This all seems very petty.

Being petty is an appropriate response to interfering
bodies trying to enforce unpopular rules on a democracy. The
European court has more important things to do.

> I don't particularly care whether
> prisoners vote or not. More importantly, neither do they.

That isn't important; it's more important that most of
the UK population thinks that being deprived of the vote is a
appropriate and proportionate [part of the] penalty for breaking
the law in a serious-enough way to be sent to prison. Note that
the judges, broadly, feel the same way -- their view seems to be
that there should not be a blanket ban, not that there should be
a blanket right.

> I can't see why they shouldn't just use the standard postal voting
> system?

That is presumably because. as you say, you're one of
those who don't particularly care about the principle. Those
who do care presumably can see why.

> Most of them won't bother, anyway. Job done at minimal
> expense, and let's move on to something more important.

Well, indeed. But there are already far too many postal
votes, so creating new categories of people who are entitled to
them should be treated very cautiously.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Fredxx]

On 22/11/2012 15:45, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 22/11/12 14:07, GB wrote:
>>> Easier than that. Give them all a vote. Just make sure
>>> that (a) being in prison is not a valid reason for a postal or a
>>> proxy vote [the rules for which need serious tightening anyway],
>>> and (b) the cost of transport to the polling station and back is
>>> charged to the prisoner concerned.
>> This all seems very petty.
>
> Being petty is an appropriate response to interfering
> bodies trying to enforce unpopular rules on a democracy. The
> European court has more important things to do.

The same way we interfere with other countries that don't or haven't had
one man one vote?

>> I don't particularly care whether
>> prisoners vote or not. More importantly, neither do they.
>
> That isn't important; it's more important that most of
> the UK population thinks that being deprived of the vote is a
> appropriate and proportionate [part of the] penalty for breaking
> the law in a serious-enough way to be sent to prison. Note that
> the judges, broadly, feel the same way -- their view seems to be
> that there should not be a blanket ban, not that there should be
> a blanket right.

What next? Anyone with a conviction? Would that include suspended
sentences? Or until Community Sentence has been carried out? Having
points on a driving licence?

>> I can't see why they shouldn't just use the standard postal voting
>> system?
>
> That is presumably because. as you say, you're one of
> those who don't particularly care about the principle. Those
> who do care presumably can see why.

I do care - especially about one man one vote, the sort of thing our
ancestors fought for.

>> Most of them won't bother, anyway. Job done at minimal
>> expense, and let's move on to something more important.
>
> Well, indeed. But there are already far too many postal
> votes, so creating new categories of people who are entitled to
> them should be treated very cautiously.
>

What on earth is wrong with postal votes?

[Andy Walker]

On 22/11/12 16:04, Fredxx wrote:
>> Being petty is an appropriate response to interfering
>> bodies trying to enforce unpopular rules on a democracy. The
>> European court has more important things to do.
> The same way we interfere with other countries that don't or haven't
> had one man one vote?

Perhaps you'll remind us which countries [say, since WW2,
to keep the list short and relevant] we have "interfered" with
*for that reason*? And, more importantly, how that relates to
an external body enforcing rules on a democracy?

>> [...] Note that

>> the judges, broadly, feel the same way -- their view seems to be
>> that there should not be a blanket ban, not that there should be
>> a blanket right.
> What next? Anyone with a conviction? Would that include suspended
> sentences? Or until Community Sentence has been carried out? Having
> points on a driving licence?

Why should there be a "next"? No-one in this debate has
been proposing that the existing rules should be extended to anyone
with points on a driving licence. Few have proposed that the rules
should be ditched [and in particular the judges haven't asked for
that]. The search appears to be for a face-saving formula that
leaves the status as near to quo as possible while permitting a
few prisoners to vote. But there is no good reason why the UK
Parliament should work very hard, against their own wishes, to
save the faces of others.

> I do care - especially about one man one vote, the sort of thing our
> ancestors fought for.

I don't think many of our ancestors fought in order to
give votes to prisoners. There are much more important and worthy
causes to have fought for over the centuries.

> What on earth is wrong with postal votes?

They are too easily gamed [the known frauds are likely to
be only the tip of the iceberg], they are not guaranteed secret
[eg within the family] or more generally free of undue pressure,
you can't change your mind in the light of arguments made or
events occurring close to polling day, and they make voting too
easy, too casual. They should be confined to people with good
reasons [such as infirmity] for not being able to vote in person
at the polling station.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Owain]

On Nov 22, 9:25 am, "Portsmouth Rider" wrote:
> I don't see why a Parliamentary seat should not be created, called
> "Prisons", returning one member of parliament. The electorate for that seat

> would be the current prison population on the Qualifying Day.

There'd be problems with prisoners who been moved between prisons
between the electoral register being compiled and polling day.

And prisons would have to be opened to allow ex-prisoners back in to
vote if that's where they were registered to vote.

Owain

[Portsmouth Rider]

"Owain" <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote in message
news:df6e53b9-71f6-41cf...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

Nothing insurmountable there.

A prisoner registered in the "Prisons" constituency (which would not be a
geographical constituency) would vote in whichever prison he was residing
on voting day.

And a released prisoner could use a postal vote, or transfer to his home
constituency if there were sufficient time.

What it WOULD require is A Will To Do It.

[MM]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:51:57 +0000, The Todal <deadm...@beeb.net>
wrote:

>On 22/11/12 11:36, LebesgueMeasure wrote:
>> "peterwn" <pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
>> news:c8c26ea4-53f7-4e88...@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> There is an easy way for prisoners to get the vote - do not commit
>>> crimes.
>>>
>>>
>> Strange how that argument is never applied to middle class yobbos who exceed
>> the speed limit!
>>
>
>I'm sure most prisoners don't give a shit about whether or not they have
>the vote.

Ah, so because they supposedly "don't give a shit" British "justice"
can remove their human rights.

Nice one! The People's Court is thataway --------->

MM

[DVH]

It's an ingenious idea, with considerable appeal.

Write to the Howard League and attract their attention.

[Portsmouth Rider]

"DVH" <d...@vhvhvhvh.com> wrote in message
news:IGurs.780301$Ak.5...@fx24.am4...

I CBA, as it doesn't really affect me.... a bit like the recent PCC
elections, for most people, then :o)

[Peter Turtill]

On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 01:42:11 -0800 (PST), peterwn
<pet...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

>On Nov 22, 10:03 pm, MM <kylix...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> Was any legislation ever passed that explicitly denies the vote to UK
>> prisoners?
>>
>> MM

>There is an easy way for prisoners to get the vote - do not commit
>crimes.

Who cares about the actual prisoners? I expect most of them wouldn't
vote anyhow and are not really interested. However the European Court
have made a ruling and it must be obeyed.

pete

[abelard]

vithout qveshchon

[JNugent]

On 22/11/2012 09:25, Portsmouth Rider wrote:

> "MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ciqra8tmmp3ssblre...@4ax.com...

>> Was any legislation ever passed that explicitly denies the vote to UK
>> prisoners?
>>
>> MM
>

> I don't see why a Parliamentary seat should not be created, called
> "Prisons", returning one member of parliament. The electorate for that seat

> would be the current prison populaion on the Qualifying Day.

Only if the candidate with the lowest share of the vote is elected.

[®i©ardo]

On 22/11/2012 15:45, Andy Walker wrote:

...as the existing rules are too laxly applied as has been demonstrated
in several recent elections.

[®i©ardo]

On 22/11/2012 18:16, Portsmouth Rider wrote:

So the sensible solution would be a postal vote for wherever they lived
prior to being incarcerated for disregarding the laws of the land.

[Owain]

On Nov 22, 6:16 pm, "Portsmouth Rider" wrote:
> > There'd be problems with prisoners who been moved between prisons
> > between the electoral register being compiled and polling day.

> A prisoner registered in the "Prisons" constituency (which would not be a
> geographical constituency) would vote  in whichever prison he was residing
> on voting day.

That would require a fundamental change in the way the electoral
register is used for recording that electors have used their vote.
With polling day from 7 am to 10 pm a prisoner could easily be in two
prisons in one day and vote in both.

Would there also be a "Prisons" constituency for the Scottish
Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, etc? How would prisoners vote in local
government or police commissioner elections? There are also
occasionally local referenda. If you start giving prisoners "the vote"
you're going to have to give them voting rights for everything, not
just UK Gov.

Owain

[Portsmouth Rider]

"Owain" <spuorg...@gowanhill.com> wrote in message

news:15cc831c-119d-43d0...@dg10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 22, 6:16 pm, "Portsmouth Rider" wrote:
> > There'd be problems with prisoners who been moved between prisons
> > between the electoral register being compiled and polling day.
> A prisoner registered in the "Prisons" constituency (which would not be a
> geographical constituency) would vote in whichever prison he was residing
> on voting day.

That would require a fundamental change in the way the electoral
register is used for recording that electors have used their vote.

* True. Not insurmountable.

With polling day from 7 am to 10 pm a prisoner could easily be in two
prisons in one day and vote in both.

* True, but so what. There are not that many transfers between prisons, and
a system could easily be devised to show whether Norman Fletcher had cast
his vote, or not.

Would there also be a "Prisons" constituency for the Scottish
Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, etc? How would prisoners vote in local
government or police commissioner elections?

* Not considered that. but don't really see a problem there. I suppose you
could have a "Prisons" constituency for Scotland, and one for Wales, with
only those who are scottish or welsh allowed to vote in those elections.
Administrative detail.

There are also
occasionally local referenda. If you start giving prisoners "the vote"
you're going to have to give them voting rights for everything, not
just UK Gov.

* Would be true, except the propsal is about electing our leaders. Referenda
are an "add-on" to the Electoral Sytem (in the UK, anyway) and are not,
AFAIK, the subject under discussion by those who are advocating votes for
prisoners. But it might need addressing at some time, and should not prove
insurmountable.


Owain

[Charles Bryant]

In article <EMrrs.529376$Tf3....@fx12.am4>,

Andy Walker <ne...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
} But there are already far too many postal
}votes, so creating new categories of people who are entitled to
}them should be treated very cautiously.

Since everyone in England, Scotland, and Wales can get a postal vote,
it wouldn't be a significant extension to include prisoners.

[JNugent]

On 26/11/2012 01:55, Charles Bryant wrote:

> Andy Walker <ne...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:

> }But there are already far too many postal
> }votes, so creating new categories of people who are entitled to
> }them should be treated very cautiously.
>
> Since everyone in England, Scotland, and Wales can get a postal vote,
> it wouldn't be a significant extension to include prisoners.

The postal vote system needs to be tightened up, and not further liberalised,
in order to curtail opportunities for electoral fraud.

[Portsmouth Rider]

"JNugent" <jenni...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:ahi3gt...@mid.individual.net...

I rather imagine a postal vote would become a realisable asset in prison...