FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Council of Bloody Europe!!
Council of Bloody Europe!!
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Who the fuck do they think they are the pompous twats!! They are insisting that the BRITISH government cannot include an blanket ban on serving prisoners voting in the forthcoming bill to address the issue of prisoner voting rights.
The govt intends to give MPs three options: 1) allow prisoners serving less than 4 months to vote, 2) allowing prisoners serving less than four years, or 3) a blanker ban.
The Council of Europe has ruled Britain cannot include option 3 as it contravenes the European Court of Human Rights.
And here's the bit that really boils my piss: the ECHR plan to debate the issue at their 1179th meeting in Sept 2013.
They're actually counting the amount of meetings they have as though it is REALLY REALLY important!
Fucking impotent if you ask me. Cnuts.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
But wouldn't a blanket ban BE an infringement on their rights?????
Before you go off on one saying they have forfitted any rights by being criminals, its worthwhile knowing that incarceration IS the maximum legal punishment for criminal acts.
The issue is not whether we like a directive from Brussels, but should we continue to FOLLOW directives from Brussels????
If Davy Cam had done as he had promised, and given us a referendum about staying in the EU, then we could legitimately tell Brussels to fuck off.
As it stands, if we try to implement option 3, then we ourselves will be in contravention of European legislation (of which we are still bound to follow) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
Worth remembering where the ECHR comes from.
The period after the war - the war that could not happen after the war "to end all wars" - saw countries such as the UK come together in the hope of finding a way once and for all to protect citizens from abuse by the state.
The tyrrany of Germany and others, and its appalling neglect of any human rights of its citizens, was very fresh in the mind.
The European Convention of Human Rights was part of the answer in the 1950s. UK was a founder.
It is designed to curb the power of the state and protect all citizens from unreasonable interference. It has worked, in the sense that none of the signatories have gone to war with each other since.
It may not be perfect, and it grants protection to people you may consider undeserving, but throw it away at your peril. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"You're missing the point. UK has been a signatory to the ECHR since the 1950s. Membership of the EU is a red herring."
Cameron's proposals on Gay Marriage in places of worship are worded exactly to avoid contravening the same directives. It's the blanket ban that is the issue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You're missing the point. UK has been a signatory to the ECHR since the 1950s. Membership of the EU is a red herring."
"If Davy Cam had done as he had promised, and given us a referendum about staying in the EU, then we could legitimately tell Brussels to fuck off.".....  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"You're missing the point. UK has been a signatory to the ECHR since the 1950s. Membership of the EU is a red herring.
Cameron's proposals on Gay Marriage in places of worship are worded exactly to avoid contravening the same directives. It's the blanket ban that is the issue."
What directives?
What blanket ban?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You're missing the point. UK has been a signatory to the ECHR since the 1950s. Membership of the EU is a red herring.
"If Davy Cam had done as he had promised, and given us a referendum about staying in the EU, then we could legitimately tell Brussels to fuck off."..... "
Although all voters may not be of the same opinion ............  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"You're missing the point. UK has been a signatory to the ECHR since the 1950s. Membership of the EU is a red herring.
Cameron's proposals on Gay Marriage in places of worship are worded exactly to avoid contravening the same directives. It's the blanket ban that is the issue.
What directives?
What blanket ban?
"
Directive 2000/78 provides for equality under the law, amongst other things.
The blanket ban on votes for all people in prison means they are not able to vote for the systems of law that affect their rights.
In the case of gay marriage by saying that it is up to the particular church/religion it is not a blanket ban and provides equality under the law. The next case will then be for civil partnerships to be available to heterosexual couples as there is an argument they are being denied a provision now available only to same sex couples.
Civil partnerships do not require sexual consummation whereas, technically, marriage does. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
And do you think UK trade with other EU countries is worth less or more than that?
Sure, stop paying money into the system. You position the UK on the outside of our largest trading area. The free trade disappears and UK exports become subject to the same tarrifs as, say, Argentina or China exporting to the EU.
You'd be cutting off your nose to spite your face. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Hell it's not difficult, it's only in the wording, as they have decided on 4 months and 4 years as two of the terms, drop the blanket ban and consider giving the vote to those serving less than 4 hours instead  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I think giving prisoners a vote who have less than 4 months to serve would placate the ECHR as these prisoners will be voting for a govt that will still be in place when they are released. I think that would work. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"lets meet down Maceys in the Bigg Market and thrash this out ova a few shorts !!!  "
If I read you right you want me to thrash you while you're wearing shorts? Fuck yeah! What time?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
hit the nail on the head fella ... eh .. hows about we go see the strippers in rockshots before the match on saturday .. then hit the big market to drown our sorrows after Newcastle get beat and let the day degenerate in the natural fashion that it does from there ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"hit the nail on the head fella ... eh .. hows about we go see the strippers in rockshots before the match on saturday .. then hit the big market to drown our sorrows after Newcastle get beat and let the day degenerate in the natural fashion that it does from there ??"
Sounds like a plan. Although the Newcastle getting beat part might not go down so well with the natives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Who the fuck do they think they are the pompous twats!! They are insisting that the BRITISH government cannot include an blanket ban on serving prisoners voting in the forthcoming bill to address the issue of prisoner voting rights.
The govt intends to give MPs three options: 1) allow prisoners serving less than 4 months to vote, 2) allowing prisoners serving less than four years, or 3) a blanker ban.
The Council of Europe has ruled Britain cannot include option 3 as it contravenes the European Court of Human Rights.
And here's the bit that really boils my piss: the ECHR plan to debate the issue at their 1179th meeting in Sept 2013.
They're actually counting the amount of meetings they have as though it is REALLY REALLY important!
Fucking impotent if you ask me. Cnuts.
"
I take it you are not a fan of the Treaty of Rome? Usually an extreme stance fails to look at all sides of the arguement objectively. Prisioners do have human rights and in this sceptred Isle we have a reasonably good record on human rights save for Northern Ireland (past) and Rendition of innocent people to America for torture. Now my view is that if you loose your liberty for 5 years or more (the maximum length of a Parliament)then you do not have an influence on that parliamentry term. Offences that carry a tarriff of less then 5 years could have conditions attaced to it giving the right to vote if those conditions were satisfied i.e. learning to read and write (45% of all male prisioners are classed as illiterate) or just general good behaviour. That is my next point you are presuming prisioners give a damm about voting. Most are in prision because they are detached from the whole process. The EU has its problems I freely admit but on Human rights you either have them or you dont. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Who the fuck do they think they are the pompous twats!! They are insisting that the BRITISH government cannot include an blanket ban on serving prisoners voting in the forthcoming bill to address the issue of prisoner voting rights.
The govt intends to give MPs three options: 1) allow prisoners serving less than 4 months to vote, 2) allowing prisoners serving less than four years, or 3) a blanker ban.
The Council of Europe has ruled Britain cannot include option 3 as it contravenes the European Court of Human Rights.
And here's the bit that really boils my piss: the ECHR plan to debate the issue at their 1179th meeting in Sept 2013.
They're actually counting the amount of meetings they have as though it is REALLY REALLY important!
Fucking impotent if you ask me. Cnuts.
I take it you are not a fan of the Treaty of Rome? Usually an extreme stance fails to look at all sides of the arguement objectively. Prisioners do have human rights and in this sceptred Isle we have a reasonably good record on human rights save for Northern Ireland (past) and Rendition of innocent people to America for torture. Now my view is that if you loose your liberty for 5 years or more (the maximum length of a Parliament)then you do not have an influence on that parliamentry term. Offences that carry a tarriff of less then 5 years could have conditions attaced to it giving the right to vote if those conditions were satisfied i.e. learning to read and write (45% of all male prisioners are classed as illiterate) or just general good behaviour. That is my next point you are presuming prisioners give a damm about voting. Most are in prision because they are detached from the whole process. The EU has its problems I freely admit but on Human rights you either have them or you dont."
I'm all in favour of Human Rights but not from a body of unelected officials declaring what a human right is or isn't. We need to retain our own system of declaring which human rights apply in this country and how it effects our society. The rest of Europe can do likewise and between it's member nations we'll come up with a set of human rights that all members are happy with.
Breaking the law means a person has decided not to live by the laws to which the rest of us subscribe, and with that should be the removal of priviledges the rest of us honest citizens are rewarded with for keeping within the law. You can't have it both ways. Remain a law abiding citizen and reap the rewards for doing so, or step outside of the law and be punished for doing so.
Mr Cameron could sideswipe this whole issue if he declared that only certain buildings can host election booths, and exclude prisons from that category. If they can't get to a booth they can't vote, and as postal ballots require voting forms to be sent to a fixed abode they can't receive them in jail either because anyone could intercept them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
" ..........
Mr Cameron could sideswipe this whole issue if he declared that only certain buildings can host election booths, and exclude prisons from that category. If they can't get to a booth they can't vote, and as postal ballots require voting forms to be sent to a fixed abode they can't receive them in jail either because anyone could intercept them."
We now have 'notional residence' which permits remand prisoners to be sent postal ballots at the institution in which they presently are held.
If the system works for remand prisoners, there's no reason why it can't work for convicted prisoners. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
" ..........
Mr Cameron could sideswipe this whole issue if he declared that only certain buildings can host election booths, and exclude prisons from that category. If they can't get to a booth they can't vote, and as postal ballots require voting forms to be sent to a fixed abode they can't receive them in jail either because anyone could intercept them.
We now have 'notional residence' which permits remand prisoners to be sent postal ballots at the institution in which they presently are held.
If the system works for remand prisoners, there's no reason why it can't work for convicted prisoners."
People on remand are not prisoners as they haven't been convicted in a court of law. They are on remand because the evidence presented reflects the severity of the crime and likelihood of the remandee absconding in the face of imminent justice, but they are still not part of the mainstream prison population. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Who the fuck do they think they are the pompous twats!! They are insisting that the BRITISH government cannot include an blanket ban on serving prisoners voting in the forthcoming bill to address the issue of prisoner voting rights.
The govt intends to give MPs three options: 1) allow prisoners serving less than 4 months to vote, 2) allowing prisoners serving less than four years, or 3) a blanker ban.
The Council of Europe has ruled Britain cannot include option 3 as it contravenes the European Court of Human Rights.
And here's the bit that really boils my piss: the ECHR plan to debate the issue at their 1179th meeting in Sept 2013.
They're actually counting the amount of meetings they have as though it is REALLY REALLY important!
Fucking impotent if you ask me. Cnuts.
I take it you are not a fan of the Treaty of Rome? Usually an extreme stance fails to look at all sides of the arguement objectively. Prisioners do have human rights and in this sceptred Isle we have a reasonably good record on human rights save for Northern Ireland (past) and Rendition of innocent people to America for torture. Now my view is that if you loose your liberty for 5 years or more (the maximum length of a Parliament)then you do not have an influence on that parliamentry term. Offences that carry a tarriff of less then 5 years could have conditions attaced to it giving the right to vote if those conditions were satisfied i.e. learning to read and write (45% of all male prisioners are classed as illiterate) or just general good behaviour. That is my next point you are presuming prisioners give a damm about voting. Most are in prision because they are detached from the whole process. The EU has its problems I freely admit but on Human rights you either have them or you dont.
I'm all in favour of Human Rights but not from a body of unelected officials declaring what a human right is or isn't. We need to retain our own system of declaring which human rights apply in this country and how it effects our society. The rest of Europe can do likewise and between it's member nations we'll come up with a set of human rights that all members are happy with.
Breaking the law means a person has decided not to live by the laws to which the rest of us subscribe, and with that should be the removal of priviledges the rest of us honest citizens are rewarded with for keeping within the law. You can't have it both ways. Remain a law abiding citizen and reap the rewards for doing so, or step outside of the law and be punished for doing so.
Mr Cameron could sideswipe this whole issue if he declared that only certain buildings can host election booths, and exclude prisons from that category. If they can't get to a booth they can't vote, and as postal ballots require voting forms to be sent to a fixed abode they can't receive them in jail either because anyone could intercept them."
The council has its mandate from Elected MPs (Euro) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
" ..........
............
People on remand are not prisoners as they haven't been convicted in a court of law. ............
That is simply incorrect."
Ok, I got my terminology wrong, it should have been held without bail awaiting trial. So remand prisoners have been convicted but they are yet to be sentenced. They still haven't entered the mainstream prison population. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
......."they can't receive them in jail either because anyone could intercept them".....
What a ridiculous argument! The same could be said for any place post is sent! Don't you trust prison officers? Or do you think prisons are full of criminals? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
knickers in a twist about nothing. This objection to prisoners voting is ridiculous. If they vote or dont vote it will never make a difference to any election. It may help in rehabilitation, but not letting them vote serves no purpose what so ever other than giving people who like to rant about this stuff something to rant about.
There are things in the world that people should rightly be angry about but this aint one of them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
" ..........
............
People on remand are not prisoners as they haven't been convicted in a court of law. ............
That is simply incorrect.
Ok, I got my terminology wrong, it should have been held without bail awaiting trial. So remand prisoners have been convicted but they are yet to be sentenced. They still haven't entered the mainstream prison population."
Remand prisoners aren't awaiting sentencing - they're awaiting trial. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You're missing the point. UK has been a signatory to the ECHR since the 1950s. Membership of the EU is a red herring.
"If Davy Cam had done as he had promised, and given us a referendum about staying in the EU, then we could legitimately tell Brussels to fuck off."..... "
To be fair it wasn't just the Tories who reneged on promises for a in out referendum-How can any government give away our powers when we only lend them to them for 5 years max .
Its time this issue was settled once and for all,tbh i don't know how i would vote if we got one i need more information on the pro's and cons.
But the point is even if we fuck up and choose wrong ,it will be our doing and not the politicians ...so i hear you loud and clear on that one |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
" ..........
............
People on remand are not prisoners as they haven't been convicted in a court of law. ............
That is simply incorrect.
Ok, I got my terminology wrong, it should have been held without bail awaiting trial. So remand prisoners have been convicted but they are yet to be sentenced. They still haven't entered the mainstream prison population.
Remand prisoners aren't awaiting sentencing - they're awaiting trial."
There are different types of remand custody.
Until a prisoner is sentenced, the treatment they receive in custody reflects the fundamental principle that an individual is innocent until proven guilty.
The majority of those who are in custody on remand are remanded in custody awaiting trial and have not been convicted of a criminal offence.
A prisoner who is held on Judges Remand has been convicted and is waiting to be sentenced. As a rule, once on Judges Remand, a prisoner will follow the same regime as a convicted and sentenced prisoner.
Source: Jigsaw Visitor's Centre, Reg. Charity for visitors to Leeds HMP. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"knickers in a twist about nothing. This objection to prisoners voting is ridiculous. If they vote or dont vote it will never make a difference to any election. It may help in rehabilitation, but not letting them vote serves no purpose what so ever other than giving people who like to rant about this stuff something to rant about.
There are things in the world that people should rightly be angry about but this aint one of them."
Fair point well made! Also as I have stated most people in prision are so far removed from the system they would not know how to vote. The OP is more concerned with the role the EU and inparticular the EU council has over GB sovereignty. We are in the EU and the smart money is on staying in the community as to leave would have serious financial consequences for this little non descript and strategically unimportant island. Those who want out will use the EU rules to bemoan the overall use and effectiveness of membership but will forget that membership does have significant benefits in terms of trade wider European security. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I love it when Wishy gets angry... very sexy....
Yeah, but you know how to unwind me dontcha, tiger!!  "
you have a definate resemblance of Gimli from Lord of the Rings when you're riled |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I love it when Wishy gets angry... very sexy....
Yeah, but you know how to unwind me dontcha, tiger!!
you have a definate resemblance of Gimli from Lord of the Rings when you're riled "
Yes, so I've been told but I have a bigger chopper.. er.. axe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
strictly speaking all EU law passed into the uk legislature is treason.
The queen swore an oath on her coronation to uphold the laws of god.
Eu law and any acts/statutes passed through westminster are not gods law. police officers also swear an oath to serve the queen and uphold the LAW.
The queen does not honour her oath and neither do the police which is an act of treason. Still, everyone seems happy with that state of affairs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
makes no odds to me who has the right to vote....whoever votes for what make little difference, at the end of the process the politicians of whatever political party get voted into power average joe ends up getting finacially butt fucked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
