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

[scottycelt]

but this isn't ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9671394/Burning-poppy-photo-Man-arrested-for-posting-image-on-Twitter.html

It might be insensitive but is it a crime ?

No ... and that is also quite absurd and, yes, just as dangerously creepy to my mind as well ...

[John Shelton]

No.

Thank you for explaining that you support an institution concealing the sexual abuse, rape and violation of children by those who work within that institution on the grounds that it is that institution's and nobody else's business. And for making clear that you find that institution threatening anyone who might go public perfectly acceptable.

Thank you also for explaining that in your view if anyone has values that a State you approve of considers contrary to that State's values they should be spied upon. Presumably anti-war activists, Marxists (any kind of Socialist?), Greens, and perhaps as a precaution anyone who studies political philosophy, or just has copies of works by Marx published by Penguin or Rosa Luxemburg published by Routledge will be eligible for the same treatment. Thanks for clarifying that you entirely support a police / surveillance state.

Not being keen on apologists for child abuse or enthusiasts for societies like Stalin's or Hitler's or Mussolini's or Mao's or Franco's or Pinochet's or indeed the below in the USA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/24/usa.schools

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/mar/14/schools.schoolsworldwide

I now know not to touch you or any of your postings with a bargepole again.

[scottycelt]

Thank you for explaining that you support an institution concealing the sexual abuse, rape and violation of children by those who work within that institution on the grounds that it is that institution's and nobody else's business. And for making clear that you find that institution threatening anyone who might go public perfectly acceptable.

Thank you also for explaining that in your view if anyone has values that a State you approve of considers contrary to that State's values they should be spied upon. Presumably anti-war activists, Marxists (any kind of Socialist?), Greens, and perhaps as a precaution anyone who studies political philosophy, or just has copies of works by Marx published by Penguin or Rosa Luxemburg published by Routledge will be eligible for the same treatment. Thanks for clarifying that you entirely support a police / surveillance state.

Not being keen on apologists for child abuse or enthusiasts for societies like Stalin's or Hitler's or Mussolini's or Mao's or Franco's or Pinochet's or indeed the below in the USA

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/24/usa.schools

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/mar/14/schools.schoolsworldwide

I now know not to touch you or any of your postings with a bargepole again.

For that, I'm truly grateful and relieved.

Best Wishes,

scottycelt.

[ahinton]

Ah, well, there you are. It begins to unravel at that point. Some would see insider trading as a political crime. Some would see polluting the rivers as a political crime. Some would see rape as a political crime. Some would see burglary as largely a consequence of bad politics. Some would see terrorism linked to Islamic fundamentalism as purely religious. Some would see a woman with a long history of mental illness who mouths racist insults on a bus as essentially unwell. It really is never-ending.

It may be so, but none of these things - all of which are issues well worth of discussion - have a direct bearing upon the subject under discussion here; let's leave aside for one moment the question of "political crimes" and "political prisoners" (not that, in so saying, I am seeking to undermine that issue) and keep it simple for the specific purpose of dealing with that issue. Insider trading, river pollution, rape, burglary and terrorism are all crimes and mental illness that can be proved by qualified medical professionals to have resulted directly in the risk and/or actuality of the mouthing of racist insults on a bus is mental illness; none of these has a direct bearing on whether or not prisoners convicted of crimes that have no bearing on electoral fraud may or may not retain the right to vote that is their privilege as British citizens when not in prison.

But look - we are never going to agree on this subject. The thread has been a great way of having an opportunity to express an opinion. I am grateful to you and especially to Bryn for bringing the issue to the forum. I'm now switching over to music.

That lack of agreement is, I'm sure, not down to my intransigence or unwillingness to perceive another point of view even if I cannot understand what might have brought it about. Enjoy your music! And, while you're about it, please try to remember that you're not a Soviet citizen who daren't get caught listening to Roslavets otherwise you could have had an awful lot more privileges and rights withdrawn from you than mere voting ones (which would hardly have constituted much anyway under such a régime)...

[Lateralthinking1]

Just popping my head in. It's been a quick lengthy e-mail to, would you believe, a decent solicitor (no connection with the forum or any indication of misdemeanour on my part) and some time with the contributors' recommendations. If Jayne's Panufnik is Roxanna, then she certainly makes a good point.* I am not sure what to make of your comment about Roslavets but did have doubts about mentioning Gliere. For all of his central positioning, he was an ethnomusicologist of sorts. I would defend him on those grounds.

(*I am listening to her father, Andrzej, now - can't find the overture though)

[Flosshilde]

Lateral, the following countries all allow prisoners to vote - Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Sweden, Zimbabwe and Hong Kong. How come they can cope with out any problem, but the UK couldn't?

[ahinton]

Lateral, the following countries all allow prisoners to vote - Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Sweden, Zimbabwe and Hong Kong. How come they can cope with out any problem, but the UK couldn't?

Thank you for this. I'm not surprised about Australia (as you may deduce from my earlier questioning about that country's policies vis-à-vis voting) - or Canada, for that matter - but I did not know about the others, even including our nearest southern and nearest northern neighbour. Zimbabwe may not perhaps be the best endorsement, but that would appear to be neither here nor there given the sheer size and diversity of that list. I confess to not knowing the answer to the question that you directed at Lat; perhaps he does and, if so, maybe he'll provide it.

[John Shelton]

We all start life with human rights.HS

Really?

"The child poverty map shows a country divided between children born into very different lives, some fortunate, some with much poorer life chances. It reveals that we still have much higher rates of child poverty than in most other wealthy European countries, reaching 57% of children in one London constituency and more than 60% in some wards."

http://www.endchildpoverty.org.uk/news/press-releases/child-poverty-map-of-britain/24/187

[Flosshilde]

Just popping my head in. It's been a quick lengthy e-mail to, would you believe, a decent solicitor (no connection with the forum or any indication of misdemeanour on my part) and some time with the contributors' recommendations. If Jayne's Panufnik is Roxanna, then she certainly makes a good point.* I am not sure what to make of your comment about Roslavets but did have doubts about mentioning Gliere. For all of his central positioning, he was an ethnomusicologist of sorts. I would defend him on those grounds.

(*I am listening to her father, Andrzej, now - can't find the overture though)

Are you in the right thread with this post?

[Pabmusic]

We all start life with human rights.

Those who abuse those rights, by assault, burglary, libel, fraud, perjury or any other crime which merits a custodial sentence have, by their actions, shown that they do not recognise the rights of their fellow citizens and are therefore not entitled to claim those rights for themselves.

Whether it be the mugger, who knocks an old lady to the ground, a rapist who defiles and terrorises an innocent girl, a drunken motorist who denies other road users the right to safe passage on the highway, a house breaker who denies the house owner owner of a precious heirloom, or a hoodlum who trashes the property of others and threatens the safe passage of law abiding citizens on the street or in trains and buses; they have for me, forfeited their own human rights by their total disregard for the rights of others.

Too many bleeding hearts in this country - but the real agonies are suffered by the innocent victims, not the perpetrators of anti-social and unlawful behaviour.

Nobody wants to be controlled by a totalitarian state; but the present lack of discipline and regard for the law of this land is an encouragement to those "British Nationalist" parties to gain an unwelcome increase in supporters.

HS

It was the existence and power wielded by totalitarian states that led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the UN in 1948. The subsequent European Convention of 1950 was simply Europe's response, their way of implementing the Universal Declaration. When 'human rights' enters into any discussion now we tend to use it as a catch-all for a vague collection of liberal values, something easily exploited by cynics. But 'human rights' has a clear meaning - the rights listed in the Universal Declaration, and incorporated into our constitution by the European Convention. These are rights that all people (not just citizens) have just because they exist. They cannot be taken away as a punishment, but some may be temporarily suspended by implication because of their incompatibilty with (for instance) a properly imposed prison sentence; an example of this would be the right to freedom of movement. Forfeiting human rights beyond this doesn't enter into it.

The problem has been, not surprisingly, that countries have approached the issue of human rights in different ways. China is one that notoriously ignores the Universal Declaration. The US is ambivalent - for instance, it still allowed racial discrimination, including marriage bars, in some states until the late 1960s, and it has refused to sign the American Convention on Human Rights. We know that it has allowed torture recently. But then, it's only been 65 years.

Here is the Universal Declaration: http://www.un.org/events/humanrights...ion%20_eng.pdf

I happen to agree with your final two paragraphs, particularly with the hostage to fortune that a failure to get to grips with persistent low-level crime by (mainly) young men gives to the far-right. But it isn't the fault of there being human rights.

[Pabmusic]

Lateral, the following countries all allow prisoners to vote - Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Sweden, Zimbabwe and Hong Kong. How come they can cope with out any problem, but the UK couldn't?

That's a question that could be asked many times about our criminal justice system. Why do we have so very many people in prison, compared with our neighbours? How much more dangerous are Ireland, Spain, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark or Norway, because they imprison many fewer (per capita) than we do? We have more prisoners in the three jurisdictions of the UK serving life (ie: indeterminate) sentences than in the remaining 46 states of the Council of Europe combined - about 12,500 compared with about 8,000. And it wasn't like this before - most of this has occurred since the 1980s. It's shameful.

[teamsaint]

That's a question that could be asked many times about our criminal justice system. Why do we have so very many people in prison, compared with our neighbours? How much more dangerous are Ireland, Spain, France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark or Norway, because they imprison many fewer (per capita) than we do? We have more prisoners in the three jurisdictions of the UK serving life (ie: indeterminate) sentences than in the remaining 46 states of the Council of Europe combined - about 12,500 compared with about 8,000. And it wasn't like this before - most of this has occurred since the 1980s. It's shameful.

and as for America....

[Lateralthinking1]

Lateral, the following countries all allow prisoners to vote - Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Sweden, Zimbabwe and Hong Kong. How come they can cope with out any problem, but the UK couldn't?

Thank you for the information but that is up to them. It is probably the case in Scandinavia that all prisoners are studying for qualifications in classrooms, have career advisers and all kinds of anti-discriminatory laws on their release. But I've written a lot on this thread and it is for other people now to have an opportunity of expressing their views.

[ahinton]

Thank you for the information but that is up to them. It is probably the case in Scandinavia that all prisoners are studying for qualifications in classrooms, have career advisers and all kinds of anti-discriminatory laws on their release. But I've written a lot on this thread and it is for other people now to have an opportunity of expressing their views.

"Now"? They have been doing so already!

[Lateralthinking1]

"Now"? They have been doing so already!

I meant people other than those who have expressed views already. That is what I meant by now. They have not been prevented from doing so but some might be dissuaded by another dozen contributions from me or anyone else.

That's my decision on what I am doing. Everyone else can decide what is appropriate from their point of view. In any case, I hope to be going for a walk and a meal somewhere later and also have a light fitting to fix.