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

[Pabmusic]

Oooooh no! I don't think so. The emphasis there is purely on the voting and not the counting. You are effectively saying that it is a requirement to determine whether everyone who has voted is alive or dead at the count. That doesn't happen.

Plus voting in many elections takes place the day before the count or several days before the count.

The Citizens Advice Bureau says "the only prisoners who are entitled to vote are those detained on remand (whether in prison or in hospital) and those convicted but not yet sentenced". That comes at it slightly differently and is also not a blanket ban.

You may be right, I suppose (though I wouldn't put money on it). But I think you are trying to be too nit-picking. It is clear that the ECHR decided that the ban that we have (all convicted prisoners - the CAB advice you quote is at odds with s. 3 (2) (a) of the 1983 Act, which would include convicted but not yet sentenced) is too wide without further justification. Whether we call that a 'blanket ban' or something else is not especially relevant, but it's useful shorthand for these boards.

[Lateralthinking1]

You may be right, I suppose (though I wouldn't put money on it). But I think you are trying to be too nit-picking. It is clear that the ECHR decided that the ban that we have (all convicted prisoners - the CAB advice you quote is at odds with s. 3 (2) (a) of the 1983 Act, which would include convicted but not yet sentenced) is too wide without further justification. Whether we call that a 'blanket ban' or something else is not especially relevant, but it's useful shorthand for these boards.

Yes and I have decided that Protocol 3 of Article 1 does not give scope for ECHR nit-picking.

A nit-picking organisation is presumably content if any response is broad-brush. It can pat it away and say the detail matters. If the response is nit-picky, it has a problem with nit-picking all of a sudden.

It might be worth bearing in mind that the great example we must follow is Italy. All of the terrific Italians I've met think that their political system is absolutely dire. Britain go forth and nit-pick with zeal. Balance the scales!

Here is the CAB advice - http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/englan...pecific_groups

Incidentally, I was very keen on the Lilburn and thought that many of your other choices were excellent.

And you are a good person who talks a lot of sense.

[Pabmusic]

Yes and I have decided that Protocol 3 of Article 1 does not give scope for ECHR nit-picking.

A nit-picking organisation is presumably content if any response is broad-brush. It can pat it away and say the detail matters. If the response is nit-picky, it has a problem with nit-picking all of a sudden.

It might be worth bearing in mind that the great example we must follow is Italy. All of the terrific Italians I've met think that their political system is absolutely dire. Britain go forth and nit-pick with zeal. Balance the scales!

Here is the CAB advice - http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/englan...pecific_groups

Incidentally, I was very keen on the Lilburn and thought that many of your other choices were excellent.

And you are a good person who talks a lot of sense.

That's kind of you. You, too, talk a lot of sense, and I enjoy your thoughtful posts. I do have some credentials for chipping in where prisons/prisoners/crime and punishment are concerned, of course; I'd be lost talking about marketing or economics (or football!). As for Aotearoa, I played in this once, in 1972 (I think) and was immediately smitten - Sibelius seen through English pastoralist eyes, and all with a New Zealand twang. I could easily have included most of you final ten overtures in my own list.

[Lateralthinking1]

...........I have now out of respect for you, and with interest, read S.3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 carefully. My starting point there was to say "let's for a moment meet the ECHR halfway and consider their rulings as they were presumably intended rather than on the basis of an interpretation on how they have been worded". I now have the following additional points:

1. As you say, the provision reads: "A convicted person during the time that he is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence or unlawfully at large when he would otherwise be so detained is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local government election." This does not appear to apply to elections for police commissioners and parish councils or referenda.

2. The only part of Protocol 3 of Article 1 that could possibly be relevant is "the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature". We are then told that Italy enables some prisoners to vote but others cannot vote. Ditto Sweden etc. How precisely does only a partial permission meet the requirements of "the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature"? My view is that "free" in this context cannot be relative. A miss is as good as a mile. A partial permission is not free by any definition just as no permission is not free by any definition. I suggest that no signatory meets the definition.

3. A complaint of the court is that the relevant British court made no specific reference to disenfranchisement in its sentencing. Since when has it been the requirement of a court to list all activities a prisoner cannot undertake? In my view, it is a red herring.

4. I do think that your distinction between "a ban on voting" and "having no legal ability to vote" is relevant. It suggests that the legal emphasis is not on a withdrawal of full entitlements from prisoners but rather an enabling of restricted entitlements to prisoners and that voting isn't enabled. The invalidation of votes cast by free citizens on the grounds that they subsequently become prisoners would surely be in the realm of withdrawing full rights rather than in the framework of enabling restricted rights.

[Pabmusic]

...........I have now out of respect for you, and with interest, read S.3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 carefully. My starting point there was to say "let's for a moment meet the ECHR halfway and consider their rulings as they were presumably intended rather than on the basis of an interpretation on how they have been worded". I now have the following additional points:

1. As you say, the provision reads: "A convicted person during the time that he is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence or unlawfully at large when he would otherwise be so detained is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local government election." This does not appear to apply to elections for police commissioners and parish councils or referenda.

2. The only part of Protocol 3 of Article 1 that could possibly be relevant is "the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature". We are then told that Italy enables some prisoners to vote but others cannot vote. Ditto Sweden etc. How precisely does only a partial permission meet the requirements of "the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature"? My view is that "free" in this context cannot be relative. A miss is as good as a mile. A partial permission is not free by any definition just as no permission is not free by any definition. I suggest that no signatory meets the definition.

3. A complaint of the court is that the relevant British court made no specific reference to disenfranchisement in its sentencing. Since when has it been the requirement of a court to list all activities a prisoner cannot undertake? In my view, it is a red herring.

4. I do think that your distinction between "a ban on voting" and "having no legal ability to vote" is relevant. It suggests that the legal emphasis is not on a withdrawal of full entitlements from prisoners but rather an enabling of restricted entitlements to prisoners and that voting isn't enabled. The invalidation of votes cast by free citizens on the grounds that they subsequently become prisoners would surely be in the realm of withdrawing full rights rather than in the framework of enabling restricted rights.

Immediate thoughts are:

Point 1 - I agree, and I've no idea what happens in those sorts of elections. All I'd say is that, since the ban is a statutory one, we are limited to what the statute says. So we're skating on very thin ice if we ban voting for other elections (which is what I suspect we do - I can't recall it every having been raised in my day - at least, with me).

Point 2 - I'm not sure I can get my head round this entirely, but the UK doesn't seem to have argued along these lines, so I assume it's not a useful point.

Point 3 - The issue is partly one of what constitutes a prison sentence. The ECHR recognises that prisoners lose (temporarily) rights that are incompatible with a prison sentence because of the very nature of a prison sentence (the right to freedom of movement, for instance, or the right to family life). Their loss cannot be avoided. Voting does not come into this category; it is not incompatible with imprisonment (after all, we allow unconvicted prisoners to vote, and other jurisdictions allow all prisoners to do so). Therefore, it is imposed as part of the punishment - a very different thing indeed - and furthermore it is not imposed by the court, but is 'built-in' to every sentence. So it must have been difficult for the UK to argue that voting was a right incompatible with imprisonment.

Point 4 - I do not think it matters greatly. If your argument allows a legal loophole, so be it (it won't be the first time*). If it is seen as a problem, the law can always be amended. I have no idea if anything happens in cases where an advance vote has been submitted but the voter dies before the election day. If pushed, I suspect the law would say the vote doesn't count, but I doubt it happens often. I certainly don't think this argument removes the foundations of the ECHR decision.

*Not that I am holding you accountable for creating legal loopholes.

[french frank]

On 1 it's clear that prisoners cannot vote for PCCs:

"8.7Can prisoners vote?

Remand prisoners (those who have not been convicted and sentenced) can vote. Convicted prisoners detained because of their sentence cannot." Electoral Commission Media Handbook, Police and Crime Commissioner elections on 15 November 2012, Aug 2012.

I would take parish council elections to be 'local government elections'.

On referenda, I don't know - but they are clearly distinct: they are not elections.

[MrGongGong]

I'm still in the dark about why this is SO offensive to some folk ?

[french frank]

I'm still in the dark about why this is SO offensive to some folk ?

What? That they can't vote? Or the suggestion that in some circumstances they ought to be able to?

[MrGongGong]

What? That they can't vote? Or the suggestion that in some circumstances they ought to be able to?

The suggestion that they should (in some circumstances) be able to

the Cameron "makes me feel sick" response seems out of all proportion

[Mandryka]

The question posited in the thread title is entirely typical of the original poster's smug and introverted habitual sophistry.


Those who have broken the laws that society frames deserve to forfeit their rights to determine the shape of the society they have transgressed. There should, imv, be no argument about this.

[Simon]

The question posited in the thread title is entirely typical of the original poster's smug and introverted habitual sophistry.

Someone else who knows him of old, then!

[french frank]

I've posted a warning [sic] that people should direct their criticisms at ideas, not other members. If personal insults continue I shall take huge egotistical pleasure in zapping them

[Simon]

I've posted a warning [sic] that people should direct their criticisms at ideas, not other members. If personal insults continue I shall take huge egotistical pleasure in zapping them

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.

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.

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.

But you'd need to be careful: Flossie's quip at me earlier was a real winner, and I still grin when I think of it. Provided they are astute/witty/to the point and not genuinely hurtful, we do need a bit of freedom to make the odd barbed comment, don't you think?

[John Shelton]

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.

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.

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.

But you'd need to be careful: Flossie's quip at me earlier was a real winner, and I still grin when I think of it. Provided they are astute/witty/to the point and not genuinely hurtful, we do need a bit of freedom to make the odd barbed comment, don't you think?

I am more than happy for ff to delete every one of my contributions to Platform 3, if she could face the tedium of so doing. I am happy to post only on musical subjects.

The origin of the particular frustration expressed in that post was the absolute impossibility of discussing ideas with certain members of this community. This happens over and over again on Platform 3 and you are again welcome to complain about this remark but you are one of a group who specialise in rejecting discussion based on knowledge either by invoking 'common sense' or 'what every sensible / normal person knows', or by adopting an insulting tone where you stop just short of making a comment that can immediately be moderated.

Whatever you or some others may think I do not expect to be agreed with. I don't always agree with myself. I hope to see my views challenged by knowledgeable, informed people: not met with empty sneers. And that is what angers me and that, in my opinion, is what is dragging Platform 3 down to a very low level indeed. It is a great pity, given the quality of contribution of, say, aeolium, who I am sure is at odds with a great deal in my politics but whose contributions have content and are thought provoking.

It is, in my view, pretty obvious that such unpleasantness as there is in my post and in other posts of mine is consistently reactive: a response to often deeply personal provocation of a kind that you, in particular, have long specialised in. (Feel free to complain about that). I am not so obtuse as to fail to realise that you love every moment of unpleasantness, and have done so for years (as on the old BBC MB).

This is my last contribution to Platform 3 though not the musical section of the MB. I will draw ff's attention to this exchange.

[Hornspieler]

I am more than happy for ff to delete every one of my contributions to Platform 3, if she could face the tedium of so doing. I am happy to post only on musical subjects.

The origin of the particular frustration expressed in that post was the absolute impossibility of discussing ideas with certain members of this community. This happens over and over again on Platform 3 and you are again welcome to complain about this remark but you are one of a group who specialise in rejecting discussion based on knowledge either by invoking 'common sense' or 'what every sensible / normal person knows', or by adopting an insulting tone where you stop just short of making a comment that can immediately be moderated.

Whatever you or some others may think I do not expect to be agreed with. I don't always agree with myself. I hope to see my views challenged by knowledgeable, informed people: not met with empty sneers. And that is what angers me and that, in my opinion, is what is dragging Platform 3 down to a very low level indeed. It is a great pity, given the quality of contribution of, say, aeolium, who I am sure is at odds with a great deal in my politics but whose contributions have content and are thought provoking.

It is, in my view, pretty obvious that such unpleasantness as there is in my post and in other posts of mine is consistently reactive: a response to often deeply personal provocation of a kind that you, in particular, have long specialised in. (Feel free to complain about that). I am not so obtuse as to fail to realise that you love every moment of unpleasantness, and have done so for years (as on the old BBC MB).

This is my last contribution to Platform 3 though not the musical section of the MB. I will draw ff's attention to this exchange.

Well spoken. Welcome back to normality and good manners.

HS