Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

VOTES FOR CRIMINALS

2
 
On 4 Oct 2014 at 8:15am Knock Off Neville wrote:
Dear Lewes Residents
Knock –Off Neville here, coming at ya from Lewes Prison, which is mon abode due to having been caught breaking n’ entering on several occasions. I am sorry for the stuff I nicked and the damage to your houses…not really but, nothing personal l if you know wot I mean.
Way ai hear it, yooze are finking about taking the ooman Rights Act away. Come on mans, the lads wanna vote in the next election. As there about 600 of us we reckon we should have our own Councillor as well and we woz thinking of Serial Killer Sid oo is much admired due to the severity of his offences. He iz very grateful that despite three murders he cannot be put away forever thanks to the ooman Rights Act as well .
He says that would be torture, and he should know because he tortured his victims .. respek ! He is brutal man, and would have that Ruthless O Keefe, who I hear is a nut job herself, for breakfast.
We woz finking that as a constituency the ‘bent vote ‘ could get “Innocent until proven innocent “ written into the Law and stop paying the filth.
Well I must go now because they are handing out the drugs and ciggies but I would like to thank everyone who supported us and lets keep the Human Rights Act. It was written by British Lawyers you know …. Probably mine … he`s bent as well .
Love and kisses
Knock-off -Neville
XX
 
 
On 4 Oct 2014 at 8:27am Crafty Cliffe wrote:
Right on Bro .
3
1
On 4 Oct 2014 at 9:43pm skeptical green wrote:
As the outgoing conservative attorney general pointed out on the BBC, what Grayling says about the 2 ECHR decisions in question is simply untrue. They said a whole life tariff is fine for the most serious murder cases as long as you review it after say 25 years to check that it is still appropriate. They did not say that all prisoners should get the vote, they said that a blanket ban on voting for all prisoners was disproportionate. At the moment someone who gets 1 day in jail for not paying a £50 fine loses their vote in the general election on that day and is treated the same as a mass murderer on that score. Its a matter of opinion whether that is disproportionate or not but the ECHR decision on it is wrongly characterised as bonkers and the UK could comply by giving the vote to a few short sentence prisoners. What is noticeable is that the Tory opponents to the ECHR have to rely on made up stories about cases to win their argument like the one about the man not being deported because he hadacat which Teresa May made up. ( the Judge in the case mentioned the cat in passing and it formed no part of the decision).The fact is that the UK wins 98% of the cases taken against it in Strasbourg and our laws are nearly always compliant with the ECHR anyway; not surprising as it was mainly written by UK lawyers and Judges! The Human Rights Act just means that human rights considerations in cases can be considered in UK courts as the case goes through our system rather than having to wait till all the appeals are over and then take a point to the Court in the Hague each time.
1
1
On 5 Oct 2014 at 12:03am Sword Of Truth wrote:
I see, perhaps you also agree with Dominic Grieve that “The European Union is, “subverting” the rules in its attempts to intervene in matters that should always be decided by the UK “ as he said when he was, ”astonished” by recent EU attempts to grab new powers over the British justice system…..”
The ECHR ruled that the removal of the Franchise had to be compatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol .That means the onus is on us to justify each departure from the principle of universal suffrage. So you are misleading your public when you say we could pick a few harmless prisoners and let them elect her Majesties Government.Au contraire, every departure has to be justified by us, the rest vote.
You claim that Britain would only be forced to let the odd drunk decide who should make our laws. Well lets look at that exemplary citizen John Hirst (who took our country to court in 2005) on the crim -votes issue .JH killed his landlady ( he )“hit her, perhaps seven times, on the head with the axe. He then went to the kitchen to make coffee and drank it, waiting for Mrs Burton to die.". He managed plea of diminished responsibility , got 15 but still did 25 years due to violent acts whilst inside . He never shown any remorse and has never been forgiven by the victims daughter. Not exactly …” someone who gets 1 day in jail for not paying a £50 fine loses their vote in the general election on that day “is he?
The Chamber of the European Court of Human ruled that there had been a violation of Hirst's human right under Article 3 etc.. The UK lodged an appeal but lost.
You will find your argument in the cocked hat yonder

PS - “it was mainly written by UK lawyers and Judges…” So what, are you suggesting anything anyone British dis after the war is ok? How about spying for the Soviet Union then? Mainly done by senior British civil servants after all ....
 
 
On 5 Oct 2014 at 10:32am Skeptical green wrote:
Er no Hirst v Uk says exactly what I posted. Hirst won on the argument that a blanket ban on prisoners voting is not compliant with the ECHR, the did not say that a proportionate law would have to give someone like him the vote. They did not order that he be given the vote as that is not how the relationship between the Hague Court and individual States like the UK works. To comply with the decision all that the UK has to do is have a law which draws a reasonable distinction between those whose crimes merit withdrawal of the right to vote and those whose crimes are minor in which case such a step is disproportionate punishment. Hence my comment that a law which gave the right to some short term prisoners would be compliant. Dominic Grieve did have some valid criticisms of the ECHR system. He thinks it has been overstepping its jurisdiction in some areas, that it needs to widen the variation between different countries' laws on similar issues that it views as ok ( the so called margin of appreciation) to take more account of the different cultures and histories of the countries concerned and he was concerned that some of the Judges sent there by other countries are not up to the high standard of the ones we send. I am far from being a supporter of the Conservatives but agree with most of his points and he was engaged in a so far successful project of reform of the Court with other ministers and diplomats from our partner countries to improve on those issues. So disappointing that he has now been replaced by a mediocre criminal bar hack from the Midlands called Jeremy Wright who seems to have been chosen only for his ability to agree with the dangerous, ill informed and unqualified Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary neo Thatcherite Chris Grayling and not for any obvious high talent in his profession.
 
 
On 5 Oct 2014 at 3:28pm Sword of Truth wrote:
I had of course noticed that despite the passing of the years no prisoners had as yet elected the Party for keeping doors unlocked. The news that the Hurst case was specifically distanced from , and not applicable from the prisoner that bought it I have you to thank for. Show me where .
The passing of time tells me that the pro Europe cabal have been conducting negotiations in which they have been unable to come up with any formula they have a prayer of selling to the electorate. So whilst you claim to know that only those guilty of looking at us funny will be electing MPs, I see no evidence for this
unless you can prove otherwise the assumption must be you are making it up.
Neither does anything we know about the broad European movement with all its hydra heads assure us we will be told the truth or that more will not follow when it is politically possible
Dare I suggest that this “gloss” on the judgement is not unconnected to UKIP polling more than any other Party in the last European elections and the UK moving inexorably towards leaving the whole ,thing with its lawyers corruption and liberal presumption . Something I would, of course, support, on the simple grounds of National sovereignty.
No-one for one second thinks that without the threat of a trade embargo( an empty threat ) we would put up with being lectured by foreigners about universal human rights ,if indeed there is such a thing which there is not .Thats what this is really all about .. and don`t pretend the one is not contingent on the other.
1
 
On 5 Oct 2014 at 4:52pm Spoon of porridge wrote:
well said
1
 
On 5 Oct 2014 at 4:54pm smell of greens wrote:
still hangs around HMP Lewes like the posters on the forum
 
 
On 7 Oct 2014 at 9:39am Porridge stirrer wrote:
Everyone in UK knows that if they end up in chokey they will lose their right to vote while inside, so if they are caught breaking the law and up inside they knew that their actions could lead to them losing their vote.
If they don't want to risk losing their vote they shouldn't break the law.
All this "proportionality" talk is nonsense - did they, or did they not get caught breaking the Law "Yes" or "No"? If "Yes" then they lose their right to vote if they get a custodial sentence.
Simples....

 
 
On 9 Oct 2014 at 9:12pm Longford lord wrote:
Provided prisoners get postal votes for the constituency of their home address there is little risk of them influencing an election as a group. They are a group that are perhaps particularly effected by the party in power so it would seem right that they should have a say. They all get the vote back the moment they complete their sentence anyway. I would reserve the loss of voting rights to very serious offences only.


27 posts left

Your response


You must now log in (or register) to post
Click here to add a link »
Smile
Smile Wink Sad Confused Kiss Favourite Fishing Devil Cool

terms


 

Snowdrop Stairs 105:132
Snowdrop Stairs

Thanks, Stevied. You’re right, They are the best fields and pretty secure, (save for the gate at the top.) She’s on heat at... more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
I like All the wide open spaces on the downs
Jojo