You mean in terms of protecting people from arbitrary, biased decisions?

No

What then?

Voting rights for prisoners.

Are you telling me issues such as that was considered by those drafting the convention?

Parliament in this country should decide the laws of this country.

Why should that be an issue with anyone?



They probably never considered iPads or Blackberries either. Again relevance?



Parliament does decide the laws in this country but they should always be decided with a mind to the various conventions that we are signatories.

Another penny in the (UKIP) hat...

At least he didn't mention cats

Nothing wrong with the Human Rights legislation, it's the abuse of it that wrankles a lot of people.

You can say that about most legislation designed to protect the vulnerable, you just have to make sure the negatives are outweighed by nthe positives.

Yep. Virtually every law has potential problems and abuses of it. It doesn't mean you get rid of them when they work well in most cases.

If you don't even comprehend that Parliament DOES decide the laws of this country then you are too stupid to usefully join this debate.

Ask the Government and Parliament.



No Technology has no relevance to human rights but thanks for answering my question in the negative.

You are too stupid to have a discussion without resorting to abuse and childish insults as you always do.

Like all those vulnerable prisoners?

I noticed you ignored this in relation to prisoners voting rights in favour of a cheap point scoring attempt....

"Are you telling me issues such as that was considered by those drafting the convention?"

Fortunately the legislators involved in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its follow on into the European Convention on Human Rights had recognised that legislation written in stone for all time would not last one generation before some loophole or unforeseen circumstance allowed a country to by-pass the agreements, so with foresight they allowed for amendments, as do most legislators when writing laws that will change the course of history.

Unfortunately that is not something that is easily understood by commentators who regularly wheel out the old chestnut of "Ah yes but Winston Churchill never meant for the gays to be equal, etc, etc, etc..."

Oh dear, touched that nerve did I?

In fact, if I assume (as I do) that you actually read the article to which I linked, then (even if you didn't know before) you would know (if not too stupid to understand it) that Parliament DOES decide the laws of this country.

I am not offering abuse. I am pointing out a simple fact, that if you fail to comprehend that simple point then it MUST be you are too stupid to usefully debate the issue.

But as a personal service, here is a short relevant excerpt, which I've coloured in a bit to make it easier for you to see the particularly apposite bits:



Is the subtlety therefore lost on you too? I suggested it was, as you said:


Well, NEWSFLASH for AJW - IT ALREADY DOES. I am not abusing you, I entirely allow for the possibility that maybe you are NOT too stupid to understand this; but then I would be forced to wonder why you PRETENDED not to, and claim the case is otherwise, wouldn't I?

Why would it have occurred to them? If a list of what did occur to them was available I'd love to see it. Reading the articles I'd suggest the problems of the second world war, such as forced labour camps, concentration/torture camps, the freedom for people to practice a religion if they choose to, and the right to liberty (save in certain circumstances) would have been uppermost in the consideration, because of the timing. If the whole thing was drafted now, different considerations would be taken into account.

What did occur to them, as JC pointed out, was that things may [uchange[/u in future, so the articles are very general and there is room for interpretation and amendment if required, and if circumstances suggest it. Do you imagine gay marriage was considered? Or anything now possible in 2014? Of course not.

FWIW, and without wishing to move the debate away from general principles, I have no problem with certain prisoners voting. Cleverer people than me will pick the bones out of all that and something acceptable will result, hopefully. Do you have a particular issue with that?

Oh and lol at the accusation of ignoring a question

Chris28

Why certain prisoners, why not all or none at all?

Because that's the whole point.

The general prinicple is in Article 3 of Protocol 1 :


As the Chamber put it (a position endorsed by the majority vote of the Grand Chamber) -



So, there is no reason (and none was stated) as to why a decision to disenfranchise in any given case should not be made, it was the arbitrary nature of the blanket ban which fell foul, not the general principle. The UK can legislate to restrict prisoners' voting rights, but the existing 1983 blanket ban was held incompatible as it does not in any way take into consideration the hugely varying individual circumstances.

I feel he is begging the question to allow debate rather than taking a stance on one group.

As far as I know the old statement, "I think it's clear that every man that is to live under a Government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that Government" has met with near full approval by politicians to allow voting. It is within the context of that belief that we have a right in the choice of the people who rule us, that the arguement to restict it comes close to foundering.

When I ask people, who should be refused recourse to Human rights, it is never themselves.

For the reasons FA suggests primarily. Not sure that a person in jail for a couple of weeks for a minor offence should lose their right to vote just because their sentence falls around an election. Equally I'm not sure that a murderer, say, in prison for life should be allowed to vote. It's a personal thing, no science behind it.

As I said though I don't want this issue to end up as the thread

Just to swerve back to the question originally asked - the choice between the European Convention on Human Rights or a British Bill of Rights - you have to ask yourself first if you are happy to allow a group of people to draw up YOUR bill of rights if their first decision is to rip up the European Convention on Human Rights, what is intrinsically so bad about the ECHR that it needs to be scrapped in its entirety and what will THEY replace it with if its not something that benefits THEIR interests rather than OURS.

Indeed. And worryingly the government is populated by ignorant cretins like failing Grayling, and they can't even articulate exactly what it is that they object to, or how their brave new human rights free world will be better, in what way, for whom?

The plain answer is, of course, that they want increasingly free rein to trample on people's rights, and the ECHR is one of the few remaining areas where they face any real opposition. Add a dumbed-down population who blindly and ravenously gobble up anti-HR Wail scare stories and you can see how they get away with their incessant attack on long-established rights and freedoms.

Unlike all but a fraction of the population prisoners tend to be extremely well informed about just how corrupt the world really is.

Which makes them a uniquely dangerous class of voter should voting ever threaten to re-distribute wealth in any serious way.