Does the disenfranchisement of UK prisoners make them all Political prisoners?

[Bryn]

It would appear that we are faced here with a couple of 'thieves' running around shouting "Stop theif!". The OP posed what I consider a question worthy of discussion. Rather then duck the issue I included my own view on it. That seems to trouble a few here. "Oh dear. How sad. Never mind."

[french frank]

If you will excuse me, I'll close this thread while I examine these exchanges as there has been a complaint.

As last time, this is just temporary to stop people posting here while I'm sorting through the different views ...

[french frank]

May I suggest that it would be fair if you zapped the FIRST post that is made that is obnoxious. On this thread, it would be #43 - a really unpleasant attack on scotty.

I'm not sure, Simon, how you decide exactly which post has exceeded your own obnoxiousness level, but I do see #43 as a response to #42 which was not friendly.

If you replaced it with "The post by xxxx has been removed as it was deemed unpleasant", it would indicate to everyone where the blame lay, and would also, with luck, drive away the few who are really nasty.

Well, again, where is the line between 'nasty' and 'really nasty'?

That way, those of us who get fed up with the jibes and stupidity and therefore retaliate, wouldn't need to get involved and the threads would be much better.

It appears from what you say to be your perception that it's the others who start the trouble and you just retaliate. I think for all of us, now and again, it may be a case of γνῶθι σεαυτόν ... I certainly hadn't noticed that the trouble always began on one side.

But you'd need to be careful.

I will take heed of that.

In reponse to Bryn: I agree - I see nothing wrong with the OP as an issue for debate. I didn't agree with the premise but there wouldn't be a debate if we all agreed with each other.

I do note, in general, that irritation creeps in when people respond to arguments with opinions. It isn't a proper way of debating if you don't back up your opinion with at least some sort of reason or evidence. And it's very annoying.

[Flosshilde]

A very reasonable response to Simon, ff. & I'd agree about post 43, which does seem to be a reasonable, if somewhat ecxasperated, response to Scotty's post 42, which didn't engage in any argument but simply sneered at an imagined 'superior' tone in Hey Nonymous' preceeding post.

Anyway, to get back to the discussion of prisoners voting, as I said earlier many other countries manage to allow it, so I don't see why Britain can't. There's nothing exceptional about either our prisons, prisoners, crimes or voting system that would make it practically or conceptually difficult.

[teamsaint]

I certinly hope Hey Nonymous sticks around on Platform 3. Some extremely well informed views.

[teamsaint]

A very reasonable response to Simon, ff. & I'd agree about post 43, which does seem to be a reasonable, if somewhat ecxasperated, response to Scotty's post 42, which didn't engage in any argument but simply sneered at an imagined 'superior' tone in Hey Nonymous' preceeding post.

Anyway, to get back to the discussion of prisoners voting, as I said earlier many other countries manage to allow it, so I don't see why Britain can't. There's nothing exceptional about either our prisons, prisoners, crimes or voting system that would make it practically or conceptually difficult.

perhaps they aren't the right sort of votes , in the right sort of marginals.
Would explain things !

[Stillhomewardbound]

French Frank, you must proceed as you see fit and it is for no one to tell you otherwise. I'd had a most irksome situation elsewhere where I deleted a thread posted by myself for the very good reason that it had run its course and was threatening to descend into rancour, with me likely to be dragged along with it.

So, that was the action I took, but another user layed into me about censorship this, censorship that.

It is a complete mystery to me that people use a service that is completely free, and, what is more, run by the efforts of volunteers and then seek to complain when the rules are applied.

[Lateralthinking1]

I feel for the sake of completeness that I should respond from my own point of view to the "why can't we?" question. This has been raised by several people including Flosshilde and it has had several responses including from Mandryka. The question, as it is asked, means "why shouldn't we?" as in "why shouldn't we give prisoners the vote?". Residing in that strand of liberalism which is beyond the broad stripe of liberalism in my own philosophy, I am inclined to think that the most suitable answer is "Because!"

But to be a little more helpful, I feel that votes for prisoners would send out all the wrong signals. Again. This is now a country run by people who have among their number many law breakers. That applies to politics, banking, journalism, you name it. And the legislation itself often operates to support the cowboy instincts of "ordinary" people whereas innocent parties find themselves unsupported. Proposed changes to planning law are one example and there are possibly hundreds of examples in current law.

In that light, I don't think that we should bend over backwards to give prisoners votes. To me, it makes the all-round dodgy nature of our systems dodgier by giving credence to those who have not obviously earned rights. I am not of the hang 'em and flog 'em school and never have been. I am very keen on rehabilitation. But I do believe in the concept of rights with responsibilities.

I also think that there should be a firm boundary in terms of influence. When in prison, no influence. When out of prison, influence. Currently we have a situation in which the law makes it difficult for ex-offenders to have influence in their own lives. Now we want offenders serving a prison sentence to have influence over our lives. It is all sloshing around like water either side of the line. The over-authority of interference after a prison term and now a proposal for under-authority during it. It's horribly vague and unwise.

I think too that there is something to be said for giving prisoners the freedom of being outside the normal system during their prison stay. It gives them an opportunity not to be tainted by the wayward aspects of our law and politics. Those who support a vote for prisoners are often the first ones to say that the Government is lousy, all political parties are lousy, the bankers are lousy and there is little point in voting. Is that what they mean when they say a vote for prisoners would enable them to be accommodated?

[Tony Halstead]

I think too that there is something to be said for giving prisoners the freedom of being outside the normal system during their prison stay. It gives them an opportunity not to be tainted by the wayward aspects of our law and politics

Totally agreed and seconded!

[scottycelt]

I thank Simon for being fair-minded. We are often in vehement disagreement especially over the EU but I've never found his posts particularly 'obnoxious' in contrast to quite a few others here! Indeed I have found them challenging. He has been baited constantly on this forum. That is a fact, whatever's one political views.

I'm also astonished (and disappointed) that #42 should be picked out as the origin of 'bad feeling' in this thread. I've already indicated that this, in introspect, was a rather silly 'knee-jerk' reaction to a personal attack on myself (which I've got well used to and can easily handle) but also on another member then subsequently a third. If anyone is any doubt simply check #41.

No one is forced to contribute on this forum. If members are so intolerant of the views of others they should surely not get involved in the first place instead of making grand announcements (again) that they will no longer contribute.

This otherwise marvellous forum will hopefully easily survive without any one of us in the end ...

[french frank]

I'm also astonished (and disappointed) that #42 should be picked out as the origin of 'bad feeling' in this thread.

Point of information, scotty: I didn't pick out #42 as the origin of bad feeling. Simon selected #43 as his choice for the origin of 'bad feeling' and I simply commented that it was a direct response to your comments. It was an escalation, and Simon took it upon himself to decide who the initiator of the obnoxiousness was.

[Flosshilde]

I feel for the sake of completeness that I should respond from my own point of view to the "why can't we?" question. This has been raised by several people including Flosshilde and it has had several responses including from Mandryka. The question, as it is asked, means "why shouldn't we?" as in "why shouldn't we give prisoners the vote?". Residing in that strand of liberalism which is beyond the broad stripe of liberalism in my own philosophy, I am inclined to think that the most suitable answer is "Because!"

...

Nothing that Lateral has said (& he is the only person, in my view, to have produced any reasonable arguments against) persuades me that the UK is so special that its inhabitants (I hesitate to call them - us - 'citizens') or its institutions are unable to cope with prisoners voting, when many other countries manage it without any apparent problem.

[MrGongGong]

Nothing that Lateral has said (& he is the only person, in my view, to have produced any reasonable arguments against) persuades me that the UK is so special that its inhabitants (I hesitate to call them - us - 'citizens') or its institutions are unable to cope with prisoners voting, when many other countries manage it without any apparent problem.

[Lateralthinking1]

Fair enough Flosshilde. With a lot of these subjects people have individual perspectives and there is probably little scope for any of us to change our minds. What, I wonder, and perhaps frenchfrank could answer this one, is the Liberal Democrat position?

Has there been extensive discussion/disagreement in the Cabinet and/or the party itself or is the official position of NCLD that it must be resisted at all costs? Would TFLDs be any different or is the leader-in-waiting pragmatic? And where in this light is the expressed support on the British political spectrum? Post-Meadowcroft way? I feel I know the answers but still need to ask.

[french frank]

What, I wonder, and perhaps frenchfrank could answer this one , is the Liberal Democrat position? Has there been extensive discussion and disagreement in the Cabinet and the party itself or is the official position of NCLD that it must be resisted at all costs? Would TFLD be any different or is the leader-in-waiting pragmatic? I And where in this light is the support on the British political spectrum? I feel that I know the answers but still need to ask.

No, ff couldn't . I feel it to be 'liberal' to allow prisoners to vote but the argument seems to me to be the wrong way round because at present they can't. If they did have the vote, how strong would the arguments be to take that right away?

This goes back to 2010, but I don't know if the situation has changed since.