Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Conversely, why bother fighting the law that you signed up to? If the vast majority of lags don't care about it, then what difference does it make one way or the other?
Either walk away from the law completely, or stick to it. You can't have a government selectively choose which part of the legislation they want to enforce and which bits they want to stick two fingers up at.
Or actually, you can - you just can't expect to not get punished for it.
Last edited by TheFaQQer; 11 February 2011, 12:15.
Reason: Added "not" in last line
Best Forum Advisor 2014 Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership
Sorry, got mixed up there - supporters of applying this law...
It's a very important distinction; as I'm sure you know, the European Court of Human Rights was established under the European Convention on Human Rights, set up primarily by Britain's post-war government to provide a supra-national court, seeing as democracy at a national level had failed so drastically in protecting the rights of individuals in Germany, Spain, Italy and the occupied countries. The convention was ratified by Churchill's conservative government in 1953.
Sir Winston Churchill was a worldly chap and realised that you can't expect the rest of Europe to respect a human rights charter if Britain doesn't respect it; he also realised, with considerable wisdom, that Britain was not immune to the tyranny or injustice seen in other parts of Europe. I only wish W Churchill had been around when Tony B Liar was in power.
The European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the EU.
And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014
Conversely, why bother fighting the law that you signed up to? If the vast majority of lags don't care about it, then what difference does it make one way or the other?
Either walk away from the law completely, or stick to it. You can't have a government selectively choose which part of the legislation they want to enforce and which bits they want to stick two fingers up at.
Or actually, you can - you just can't expect to get punished for it.
Technically that seems a reasonable point, although did you mean "you just can't expect not to get punished for it"?
Society has excluded them for the crimes they have committed. Surely that exclusion should mean they don't have the rights and freedoms to which they were previously entitled?
You could argue that, but it's not self-evidently true that they are excluded from all aspects of society. Clearly, they are punished by having some things withdrawn from them. But it is not self-evident that being allowed to vote is one of those things. You may argue that it should be, but it is not self-evidently so.
Anyway, it really does depend on what you mean by "society", and "excluded". A prisoner is not allowed to do some things, like walk the streets or go for a curry and a beer, but he is allowed to do other things that are part of society, like raise money for charity, take communion, participate in the RSPB's bird watch, or write and publish a book. In short, they are punished, but not excluded.
Job motivation: how the powerful steal from the stupid.
As was argued in the 2000 US presidential election, disenfranchisement can also be argued as racism in certain areas, due to the demographic of those more likely to be inside.
If Zimbabwe gives prisoners the right to vote, isn't it about time we did?
Best Forum Advisor 2014 Work in the public sector? You can read my FAQ here
Click here to get 15% off your first year's IPSE membership
As was argued in the 2000 US presidential election, disenfranchisement can also be argued as racism in certain areas, due to the demographic of those more likely to be inside.
If Zimbabwe gives prisoners the right to vote, isn't it about time we did?
If Robert Mugabe asked you to jump off a roof would you?
Comment