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

[Lateralthinking1]

And that adds up to over 90% of British people how exactly?

AHinton's position is far closer to the 8% who said that all prisoners should be allowed to vote than any other. He only excludes electoral fraud and similar crime. That places him on the level of support for UKIP in an election when UKIP are performing well.

[Simon]

It might on certain occasions have turned into that, but this is no excuse; after all, you could say that about all manner of things that can be and are frequently manipulated by lawyers!

It's not intended to be an "excuse". You really mustn't read into statements things that aren't there, Alistair. It's simply a reason why some people disagree with some of the ways that it has been implemented. No +, no -. :-)

[ahinton]

90% of contributions here indicate opinion similar to yours. About 50% of those have been written by you and two other people.

In terms of the views of individual contributors, that is much more evenly balanced. We do not know the opinion of people who only read the contributions. However, over 90% of British people have indicated consistently in polls since 2011 that they don't agree with opinions that you happen to hold. That is the only figure that concerns me here.

It would concern me as well if there were evidence in support of it which, who knows, there might indeed be and, if there were, I would not expect my views on the restoration of prisoners' voting rights to be accepted, still less implemented, just because I happen to hold them. Whilst I do not pretend to be party to reliable and sufficiently comprehensive statistics on general public support or otherwise for this, I do suspect that a substantial swathe of the British electorate hasn't even bee invited or responded to invitations to focus upon the subject at all; whilst 90% is indeed a high figure, it must be taken to be less than conclusive in the absence of statistics as to the numbers of people polled.

You wonder whether people who "prefer to refer back to those such as Bentham, Mill and the like harbour either contempt or at the very least suspicion of UDHR, the European Convention and the ECHR". That entire phrase strikes me as malign.

Then it strikes you incorrectly, for it embraces no such intent.

No one here has said that they have a preference for Mill over the ECHR. If it is a general point, it glides so close to my contribution on Mill that it is touching it. The word "harbour" suggests "giving shelter to a criminal" and should be withdrawn.

I have not stated that anyone "here" or even elsewhere has done so - merely that anyone who does or did do so would arguably be expressing preferences for what could only be seen today as certain antiquated ideas about justice. The word "harbour" in the context in which I quite clearly used it is intended to suggest nothing of the kind, otherwise it should indeed be withdrawn were it not for the fact that it would not have been present in the first place; I wrote about "harbouring" "either contempt or at the very least suspicion of UDHR, the European Convention and the ECHR", no more, no less - how or why you contrive to interpret it as referring to the "harbouring" of criminals is entirely beyond me.

It isn't clear to me whether you really support the ECHR or actually despise it. How you were to answer would not necessarily convince me of your true position. It would be easy for those who oppose the ECHR to pursue deeply unpopular causes there while saying it is absolutely terrific. There is no surer way of encouraging the public to loathe it.

It doesn't necessarily have to be (and probably wouldn't be in any case to anyone prepared to relocate harbours as you have done above) clear to you and I've not stated my view on it in detail anyway. Whether or not any answer would necessarily convince you of anything can only be for you to decide, but what I do think is that, like anything else, it may be argued to be far from perfect but the principles behind international attempts to bring about and operate such an organisation does have its roots in a post-WWII climate and I believe the intents behind it to he honourable.

I don't need any statistics to tell me that those who fought in WW2 would fight another war to ensure that this measure didn't get through. What worries me particularly is that the ECHR will become so discredited that countries will leave it. Too much liberalism is very often the direct route to fascism. And the two are often the yin and yang in an individual's identity.

I don't know what statistics you might need for anything, but do please consider that the way in which British law prescribes on this is not universal and that other nations whose law on it is different from that of Britain also fought in WWII. Once again, I have provided my view and, to the best of my limited ability, the reasons for holding it but I have not been, nor do I intend to become, dogmatic about it especially if it turns out to be a minority view. What, however, is "too much liberalism" and how will everyone ever agree on which might constitute it? I do not, however, consider that allowing prisoners to vote without otherwise compromising their sentences or providing other freedoms to them constitutes an example of "too much liberalism" and, for the record, it might be worth recalling en passant Sorabji's take on the term "fascism" as rather too uncomfortably often meaning "everyone else's fascism except one's own"...

[ahinton]

AHinton's position is far closer to the 8% who said that all prisoners should be allowed to vote than any other. He only excludes electoral fraud and similar crime. That places him on the level of support for UKIP in an election when UKIP are performing well.

Even if those statistics were (a) to be believed and (b) reasonably representative of a cross-section of the British electorate, the most that it might do is arguably to place me on a "level" of such support, as you say; it would not, however, place me in a position of support for UKIP (and I do realise that you hadn't suggest that it did)...

[Lateralthinking1]

Even if those statistics were (a) to be believed and (b) reasonably representative of a cross-section of the British electorate, the most that it might do is arguably to place me on a "level" of such support, as you say; it would not, however, place me in a position of support for UKIP (and I do realise that you hadn't suggest that it did)...

Purely context.

On "harbouring", I looked at it in the light of your always very considered and carefully crafted replies. It appeared to be an intriguing twist. The "criminal" I was "harbouring" was the UK Government for not stepping into line and, indirectly, the electorate.

[ahinton]

90% plus would not bring back hanging.

Where's the evidence for that? If it really is somewhere and can be relied upon, I'm hanged if I'll stay in this barbarous country a moment longer than I have to!

I support the well-established principle that it is for our elected representatives to decide.

On that we agree (subject to my remarks below); at least some of us could then try to get out of the country if the majority wanted barbarous things like capital punishment - especially in the form of hanging - to be return to our statute books!

Last week's YouGov poll found that 63% of respondents said that 'no prisoners should be allowed to vote at elections', 8% said that 'all prisoners should be allowed to vote', 9% said 'prisoners serving sentences of less than 4 years should be allowed to vote' and 15% said 'prisoners serving sentences of less than 6 months should be allowed to vote'.

OK, well even on the basis of that, there's quite a wide divergence of opinion but, had it been a simple yes or no poll, it would likely have been 63-37 in favour of maintaining the status quo,which is still a fairly large majority; it's only for our electorate to decide on individual legislation in referenda which happen very rarely and there's not likely to be one on this issue.

I understand that AHinton favours voting for prisoners other than those who have been convicted of electoral fraud or other very narrowly defined political crimes. That to me suggests that he is out of step with 90% plus of the population but if you would prefer that I revised my statement to over 80% or 85% I am happy enough to do so with a proviso.

Whilst I don't really care that much by how many percentage point you might revise your statement, with or without an as yet unspecified "proviso", but I am rather inclined to think that, even insofar as a YouGov poll might be trusted accurately to reflect public opinion, a revision to 63% - a figure provide by you, after all - would seem more realistic.

Anyway - "out of step"? I compose music, so I must in some ways be "out of step" with most of the population! I can live with that...

[ahinton]

Purely context.

On "harbouring", I looked at it in the light of your always very considered and carefully crafted replies. It appeared to be an intriguing twist. The "criminal" I was "harbouring" was the UK Government for not stepping into line and, indirectly, the electorate.

Well, at least you know now what my meaning was and, having confirmed this, it was as simple as it was presented as being (blimey, that was a quite astonishingly clumsy sentence for someone who prepares "very considered and carefully crafted replies", for which compliment I thank you graciously!...)

[Flosshilde]

I don't need any statistics to tell me that those who fought in WW2 would fight another war to ensure that this measure didn't get through. What worries me particularly is that the ECHR will become so discredited that countries will leave it. Too much liberalism is very often the direct route to fascism. And the two are often the yin and yang in an individual's identity.

THis is complete fantasy - you have no way of knowing this, just as you have no justification for claiming that "over 90% of British people have indicated consistently in polls since 2011 that they don't agree with opinions that you happen to hold.".

[Lateralthinking1]

Where's the evidence for that? If it really is somewhere and can be relied upon, I'm hanged if I'll stay in this barbarous country a moment longer than I have to!

No, no......I think you might misinterpret me there. 90% would not bring back hanging rather than 90% would bring back hanging. That incidentally doesn't mean that the 90% figure is the figure for those who oppose hanging. That figure is lower but my reason for mentioning the 90% is that 92% would not support votes for all prisoners.

What I was saying is that it isn't a parallel situation. If you are arguing that some things are best not left to the electorate then the extent of support can matter. Here a blanket permission to prisoners on voting would be opposed by 92%. Capital punishment would not be supported by anything like 92%. So it's different.

There is a principle in law that you need fairly substantial agreement to make legislation workable, otherwise enforcement is difficult. In any case, capital punishment is decided on the basis of election results.

To Flosshilde, the polls have been fairly consistent since 2011. I was referring specifically to the opinions Ahinton holds as you yourself make clear by quoting me. He supports a blanket permission other than in the case of electoral fraud. 90% plus of people don't do so as only 8% want a blanket permission. That isn't fantasy.

[ahinton]

THis is complete fantasy - you have no way of knowing this, just as you have no justification for claiming that "over 90% of British people have indicated consistently in polls since 2011 that they don't agree with opinions that you happen to hold.".

At least give Lat the opportunity to demonstrate that he really does know, from sufficient specified reliable and quotable sources, that
(a) there'd be a near 100% of people - or even only British people - aged 85 or more (and they'd have to be of around that vintage to have fought in WWII) who would go to war again (although against quite who remains unclear) purely to ensure that British prisoners would not be allowed to vote and
(b) ECHR will become so discredited that countries will leave it when, for one thing, all EU members have to be signatories to it and would accordingly have to leave EU in order to become exempt from responsibilities that it confers and, for another, the very fact that at least some of the 20 non-EU signatories to it have become such over relatively recent times suggest that, at present, at least, the greater likelihood is that countries might join it rather than leave it.

[ahinton]

No, no......I think you might misinterpret me there. 90% would not bring back hanging rather than 90% would bring back hanging. That doesn't mean that the figure 90% is the figure for those who oppose hanging. That is lower but my reason for mentioning the 90% is that 92% would not support votes for all prisoners.

Sorry - I did indeed misunderstand you on the hanging issue (should I be hanged for that?!). That said, the figure of 92% (it seems to have gone up again, like the price of petrol!) does not accord to the 63% figure that you citede from the YouGov poll.

What I was saying is that it isn't a parallel situation. If you are arguing that some things are best not left to the electorate then the extent of support can matter. Here a blanket permission to prisoners on voting would be opposed by 92%. Capital punishment would not be supported by anything like 92%. So it's different.

Legislative decisions are best left to the electorate only to the extent of a choice existing (as it does not always) between political parties' policies on different issues. I still don't get the source or justification for your now 92%.

There is a principle in law that you need fairly substantial agreement to make a law workable, otherwise enforcement is difficult. In any case, capital punishment is decided on the basis of election results.

Indeed.

To Flosshilde, the polls have been fairly consistent since 2011. I was referring specifically to the opinions Ahinton holds as you yourself make clear by quoting me. He supports a blanket permission other than in the case of electoral fraud. 90% plus of people don't as only 8% want a blanket permission. That isn't fantasy.

As with all the to-ings and fro-ings that have long beleaguered tot run-up to the referendum on Scottish independence from UK, everything depends on how you ask what questions!

[Lateralthinking1]

At least give Lat the opportunity to demonstrate that he really does know, from sufficient specified reliable and quotable sources, that
(a) there'd be a near 100% of people - or even only British people - aged 85 or more (and they'd have to be of around that vintage to have fought in WWII) who would go to war again (although against quite who remains unclear) purely to ensure that British prisoners would not be allowed to vote and
(b) ECHR will become so discredited that countries will leave it when, for one thing, all EU members have to be signatories to it and would accordingly have to leave EU in order to become exempt from responsibilities that it confers and, for another, the very fact that at least some of the 20 non-EU signatories to it have become such over relatively recent times suggest that, at present, at least, the greater likelihood is that countries might join it rather than leave it.

I think the burden of proof falls more on those whose positions are counter-intuitive. When you have visited the British Legion clubs around the country and asked who there are among the 8%, I would be absolutely fascinated to hear the results.

Alternatively you could do it by proxy with the willing assistance of a couple of splendid chaps from Help for Heroes.

[Flosshilde]

Something you've done, presumably?

I don't think that the hyperbole that your last few posts have sunk to does your argument any favours at all. They seem to me to be the last resort of thge desperate.

[Lateralthinking1]

Something you've done, presumably?

I don't think that the hyperbole that your last few posts have sunk to does your argument any favours at all. They seem to me to be the last resort of thge desperate.

I have spent quite a bit of time at the Corfe Castle British Legion but not in recent months. My options are constrained as I am not permitted to refer to anything that predates ECHR. You might have had a little Montesquieu but sadly he died in 1755.

In Coster v the United Kingdom, five gypsy families who had not been provided with a site by their local authority and who were refused planning permission for their caravan, alleged that the measures deprived their children or grandchildren of an education.

ECHR found that the measures were "in accordance with the law" and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the "rights of others" through preservation of the environment. As regards the necessity of the measures taken in pursuit of that legitimate aim, the Court considered that a wide margin of appreciation had to be accorded to the domestic authorities who were far better placed to reach decisions concerning the planning considerations attaching to a particular site.

It is an interesting example of the Court in its work. I have to wonder how much the policy towards gypsies in Eastern Europe was influential in this decision. Had there been a different judgement, the segregation of children in schools on ethnic grounds might have had to have been reconsidered there. It would be a pity if in one part of its schedule ECHR was insisting on higher standards as it perceives them and in others it was delivering a sort of "Essential Classics" of human rights to appeal to lowbrow preferences.

[ahinton]

I think the burden of proof falls more on those whose positions are counter-intuitive. When you have visited the British Legion clubs around the country and asked who there are among the 8%, I would be absolutely fascinated to hear the results.

Alternatively you could do it by proxy with the willing assistance of a couple of splendid chaps from Help for Heroes.

Sure, but you're still talking about a handful of able-bodied and equally able-minded people aged around 85+ who fought in WWII and it's hard to imagine that this self-evidently minuscule category (without seeking to undermine them) constitutes a large proportion of the electorate although, more importantly, you provide no hard evidence even of how such people feel about this matter, let alone whether they'd go so far as being prepared to go to war (at their age) against an unspecified enemy to ensure that prisoners didn't get the vote in Britain.

I think that you've closed your own case here more effectively than I or anyone else here might have tried to do.