|
|
Topic Originator: dafc
Date: Thu 25 Apr 13:10
No
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Parplod
Date: Thu 25 Apr 13:32
If they are due to be liberated during the term of the Parliament or Council then let them vote. However a notice of the election should be posted within the prison and they should apply for a postal/ proxy vote with no assistance whatsoever from anyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Thu 25 Apr 15:29
Nope. If you are in prison on the day of the election then you shouldn't be able to vote. Thems the breaks.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Thu 25 Apr 15:41
Anyone in for 20 years sure ain't gonna miss an Indy Ref vote...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Thu 25 Apr 16:08
No.
Pete Wishart had a majority of 21 at the last General Election.
Imagine if the prisoners in Perth Jail got a vote it could have changed the result.
Oh...wait a minute!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 25 Apr 16:18
Yes. Prison is a restriction of liberty as a punishment for a crime not a complete exclusion from society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Thu 25 Apr 16:24
Never in a million years. They already have more rights than they deserve as it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Thu 25 Apr 17:08
No they don't. They have the basic human rights they're entitled to as members of the human race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Captain Desmond Fancey
Date: Thu 25 Apr 18:49
If only that were really the case.
Still if you think people like the two Peters - Sutcliffe and Tobin (yes I know he's dead) - should still be able to influence elections then I think that says much more about you than it does anything else.
I'm going to guess you have Owen Jones or the likes at the top of your Twitter feed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Thu 25 Apr 22:00
Quote:
Captain Desmond Fancey, Thu 25 Apr 18:49
If only that were really the case.
Still if you think people like the two Peters - Sutcliffe and Tobin (yes I know he's dead) - should still be able to influence elections then I think that says much more about you than it does anything else.
I'm going to guess you have Owen Jones or the likes at the top of your Twitter feed
What additional rights do they have beyond their human rights then please. I'm not sure if they should vote but in a democracy it's up for debate.
Who is Owen Jones?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: londonparsfan
Date: Fri 26 Apr 00:13
Guardian columnist. On the whole makes a lot of good points but can on occasion disappear up his own @rse a bit. Same as a lot of political commentators, I agree with some of what he says and disagree with other bits.
I'm quite happy for my belief that prisoners should be allowed a vote to say something about me. It's not as if I've suddenly joined team Sutcliffe.
Prison should be a punishment but it should also be geared to rehabilitation of offenders and even the Prison Governers Association (I know we don't believe in experts any more) believe it's important for inmates to remain part of some social processes such as voting to help them feel part of society and hopefully less likely to reoffend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Fri 26 Apr 09:45
On balance, I would tend to favour the position taken by Parplod. I would not support an open to all prisoners solution.
For some reason, this all conjures up a picture of Teresa May out on the campaign trail at Barlinnie. Certain to get a warm reception...
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: DBP
Date: Fri 26 Apr 11:53
I agree as well with parplod...
My only question would be if prisoners are released early and don't serve full term... Will we have enough notice to know if they will be released?
Don't know the early release process but assume there's a parole board decision and if yes, do they get straight out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: richie5401
Date: Fri 26 Apr 12:38
Voting is a right in democratic society,but since criminals give up their right to function in that society through choice,their vote goes as well.
I don't agree that not voting leads to re-offending.Folks re-offend for a number of reasons,primarily in many cases because it's the easiest option.
If you took a poll asking re-offenders did you commit another crime upon release because you were denied a vote in prison?Many would give a strange look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: aaaaaaaaaargh
Date: Sat 27 Apr 11:49
I think prisoners should be allowed to vote out of principle.
If you don't agree that what you did was a crime, or you think it shouldn't lead to a prison sentence, you should be able to vote for a government that can change the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: AdamAntsParsStripe
Date: Sat 27 Apr 12:37
The vast majority of prisoners are in for minor crimes and many on remand awaiting trial so in general , they should be allowed to vote.
Zwei Pints Bier und ein Päckchen Chips bitte
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Sat 27 Apr 23:59
Quote:
Captain Desmond Fancey, Thu 25 Apr 16:24
Never in a million years. They already have more rights than they deserve as it is.
Do you think dehumanising them and completely excluding them from society will help them conform into law abiding citizens when they are released?
Even in prison they are affected by decisions in parliament so the should be aloud to vote. Being locked up and seperated from your family is enough punishment. Prisons are not as cushy as you think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 28 Apr 14:15
Shouldn't it depend on the crime? e.g. violent crime = no vote. Non-violent maybe vote.
Post Edited (Sun 28 Apr 14:18)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Sun 28 Apr 14:30
I'd rather, in jail for crime= No vote. Not in jail for not committing crimes = Full voting rights.
Aaps. I'd argue that nobody in the UK is in prison for minor crimes. Certainly not just commiting one minor crime anyways.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 28 Apr 14:36
Sounds fair TOWK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 2 May 04:29
Re: Should prisoners vote?
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 28 Apr 14:15
Shouldn't it depend on the crime? e.g. violent crime = no vote. Non-violent maybe vote.
I tend to agree with this. Certain crimes , the most serious ones should see a bar from voting. The majority of prisoners should get a vote.
Some of the biggest criminals in our society currently sit in the HoC and make the frigging laws !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: desparado
Date: Thu 2 May 04:31
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Thu 25 Apr 15:41
Anyone in for 20 years sure ain't gonna miss an Indy Ref vote...
Or see a Labour Party in Government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Thu 2 May 07:45
...I hope not. Corbyn is even scarier than the mad witch of Bute Hoose. The thought of either of them having their mitts on my hard earned pensions is unthinkable. The choice between Venezuela or or an even barmier banana republic.
Pete Wishart is no daft though, his majority is only16 votes, so by becoming Speaker he would keep his seat unopposed. Secures his place in the Westminster gravy boat for years and years to come, with wigs, gowns, stockings and palatial apartments all thrown in.
Wish him all the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sadindiefreak
Date: Thu 2 May 09:19
Quote:
Mario, Thu 2 May 07:45
...I hope not. Corbyn is even scarier than the mad witch of Bute Hoose. The thought of either of them having their mitts on my hard earned pensions is unthinkable. The choice between Venezuela or or an even barmier banana republic.
Pete Wishart is no daft though, his majority is only16 votes, so by becoming Speaker he would keep his seat unopposed. Secures his place in the Westminster gravy boat for years and years to come, with wigs, gowns, stockings and palatial apartments all thrown in.
Wish him all the best.
Mario you are a bit confused on this matter but any reason to bash the SNP I suppose.
The speaker has to be re-elected to parliament at the general election. They do not get a free pass.
The current speaker has had this afforded him as opposition parties chose not to stand against him. They could have had candidates stand.
The tradition is that if a speaker wins their Westminster seat at a general election they are then elected by MPs unopposed to be speaker again.
This will be where your confusion arose.
To recap.
1. The speaker must win their constituency seat. Opposition parties can contest this seat but have chosen not to with the current speaker.
2. If successfully re-elected they traditionally will remain as speaker unopposed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Thu 2 May 10:14
I stand corrected, Bercow has been opposed in a GE and our last Scottish Speaker was also twice opposed, by the SNP. But major parties now tend to stand aside. Quite interesting reading how this has developed in the past.
Whatever, Pete would have a very good chance. Labour won’t vote for a Tory (Bercow being the exception because the Tories didn’t want him) and vice versa, so he could be the compromise that nicks the post. He better mean it though, too late to change your mind when you are being dragged kicking and screaming to the chair!
Post Edited (Thu 02 May 12:48)
|
|
|
|
|
|
