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

[ahinton]

I have spent quite a bit of time at the Corfe Castle British Legion

Oh, dear! That's the village in which Sorabji lived for his final 35 years or so!

My options are constrained as I am not permitted to refer to anything that predates ECHR.

"Constrained" by whom and under whose authority? - and who refuses you permission on what grounds to "refer to anything that predates ECHR" and why?

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.

Did I or anyone else here claim that it was perfect in its principles, structure and implementation?

[Lateralthinking1]

Oh, dear! That's the village in which Sorabji lived for his final 35 years or so!

So it is. Did you write his entry in Wikipedia? :

""The Eye", Sorabji's home in Corfe Castle, had a sign at the gate stating: "Visitors Unwelcome"". I like that in a kindly way.

I do walks and stuff. The Scott Arms is only a bus ride away but the Legion is better when it is raining.

This is the best one though. It has a museum with fossils. - http://www.squareandcompasspub.co.uk/

I would genuinely be interested to learn how, if at all, Sorabji was influenced by Busoni but that's for another thread.

And on the matter raised by Bryn, I am stepping to one side again.

[ahinton]

So it is. Did you write his entry in Wikipedia? :

No, but I have edited a couple of minor details in it.

""The Eye", Sorabji's home in Corfe Castle, had a sign at the gate stating: "Visitors Unwelcome"". I like that in a kindly way.

That's not all that the various signs outside that house said by any means; for more details, see Sorabji: A Critical Celebration, ed. Prof. Paul Rapoport (Scolar Press [now Ashgate Publishing], Aldershot, England, 1982 repr. 1984) and/or for further details please email sorabji-archive@lineone.net.

I would genuinely be interested to learn how, if at all, Sorabji was influenced by Busoni but that's for another thread.

Immensely (and, after all, he did meet and play for him once), though by no means exclusively and yes, it is indeed for another thread.

And on the matter raised by Bryn, I am stepping to one side again.

Which particular matter might that be, then?...

[Lateralthinking1]

Many thanks for that information Alistair - and best wishes to you in your music work.

[ahinton]

Many thanks for that information Alistair - and best wishes to you in your music work.

You're more than welcome - and thank you very much for your kind words which are greatly appreciated!

[Mandryka]

I think the essence of the problem referred to upthread is that a majority of people on here subscribe to a superficial and somewhat lazy knee-jerk left-liberalism of the kind that is acquired by osmosis through continual exposure to the Guardian newspaper and other such minority publications/organs.

There may also be a feeling of disenfranchisement among such people, as their views have never been less represented in mainstream political thought than they are today.

It is also fairly obvious that the 'left liberals' on this forum are for the most part of the post-war 'baby boomer' generation - people who grew up in the kind of affluence that will be inconceivable to the current generation and therefore had plenty of time to 'self-actualise', or whatever they called it back then.

No doubt they miss the good old days of their mis-spent youth - when there were such things as 'socialist' Labour governments and there was such a thing as a 'National Council For Civil Liberties' (maybe there still is, but who's bothered?)- and, if these ageing childrren want to continue their fun and games in cyberspace, I suppose it would be churlish of me to frown on them.

To get back to the original point (although I don't think it was much of a point and it was hardly 'original', in any case): isn't it only reasonable for society to temporarily/permanently disenfranchise those who have transgressed its laws - and that the length of that disenfranchisement should be commensurate with the offence committed?

Or do the left-liberals on here actually disagree with the whole concept of punishment itself? It would not altogether surprise me if many of them did.

[ahinton]

To get back to the original point (although I don't think it was much of a point and it was hardly 'original', in any case): isn't it only reasonable for society to temporarily/permanently disenfranchise those who have transgressed its laws - and that the length of that disenfranchisement should be commensurate with the offence committed?

Or do the left-liberals on here actually disagree with the whole concept of punishment itself? It would altogether surprise me if many of them did.

I cannot speak for "left-liberals" as I am no more one of them than I am a member of any other specific party-political group but, as I have stated previously, I do not see the connection between the entitlement to vote (which could, if the law were changed to grant it to prisoners) and the crimes committed by those prisoners for which they are being punished by being denied the freedoms of movement and action that they would otherwise have enjoyed "on the outside", as it were; one particular reason for this is that as, in some cases, the law allows a judge to pass either a custodial or a non-custodial sentence (i.e. a fine and/or community service order) for the same crime, the variable punishment that might be handed down to the criminal might or might not include such disenfranchisement (i.e., custodial = voting rights withdrawn, fine and/or community service order = voting rights maintained). Whilst, of course, this scenario does not apply to more serious crimes, it does apply to some and, when it does, the lack of connection between the crime itself and the disenfranchisement or otherwise becomes the more apparent. I stated that I would make an exception of prisoners convicted of electoral fraud because, in such cases, there is a connection between the crime and the punishment handed down in respect of it.

My concern, therefore, is that undue advantage should not be taken of those against whom judicial sentences have been passed, on the grounds that those sentences - and their relevance as punishment for the crimes for which those guilty receive them - constitute and should be seen to constitute proper judicial response to those crimes, no more, no less.

[Bryn]

Mandrake, please consult the House Rules, then delete your most recent rude and insulting message.

[Flosshilde]

Mandrake, please consult the House Rules, then delete your most recent rude and insulting message.

I don't think it's particularly rude & insulting (if that's what he intended he'll have to try a lot harder); simply pathetic & desperate.

[Simon]

Accused of being rude by Bryn and pathetic by Flossie! Good heavens, Mandryka - you've hit the jackpot of surreality!

All you need for a full house is... oh no - better not tempt fate...


Well done for a measured and perceptive post - though it doesn't apply, to course, to all the l/ls here.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Is it possible to disenfranchise a group of people who have never had the right to vote?

[Flosshilde]

If you were convicted of a crime & sent to prison you would be disenfranchised, as you would lose the right to vote that you had before you were imprisoned (assuming that you are over 18 now).

[teamsaint]

Well Mandy was right about one thing, there certainly isn't much of a real political debate in mainstream public life these days.


But nothing is for ever, as the soviets discovered.

[Simon]

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 don't think you often think at all.

You just come along, misunderstand Lat's detailed comments, decide you disagree, post a couple of brief sentences without any attempt to engage with the discussion or provide an alternative and reasoned argument. (We can all do this at times, for various reasons, but have you ever made a detailed, reasoned, logical post?) Then you sit back and disappear whilst people who haven't sussed you waste time anwering you. You aren't on your own, either.

If you are interested in the discussion - and if you understand it - why not do our fellow-posters the courtesy of engaging with it?

[Flosshilde]

My alternative & reasoned arguments appeared some time before the post you quote.

You just come along, ..., post a couple of brief sentences without any attempt to engage with the discussion or provide an alternative and reasoned argument. ...Then you sit back and disappear

Not something you do