Skip to main content

Prisoner Votes and the European Court of Human Rights

The issue of which prisoners should be allowed to vote was discussed in the House of Commons yesterday.

There are some points that have been missed from the debate:

Firstly, the European Court Judgment that said that there should be some consideration of a change in the law did not pay any compensation to the person complaining.

Secondly, the judgment also said that one reason why they felt that things were wrong was that parliament had not looked at the issue. Well parliament now has.

I don't think that the issue is finished with, however. It may be that people who have been imprisoned for less than 2 years are permitted to apply to court to get a vote if their offence did not involve abusing the human rights of anyone else.

Noone, however, is suggesting that there will be any proposal for serious offenders to get the vote. The front benches of all parties abstained from this vote.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NHS reorganisation No 3,493,233

Followers of my blog will have seen the NHS question about how many reorganisations have we had. We've yet another. The number of PCTs (Primary Care Trusts) nationally is to halve. This means merging East and North. (and then probably HoB and south). It would be nice if people would stick with one structure. There is a quotation ( Which sadly does not appear to be a true quotation ) We trained hard . . . but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganized. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralization. But has to have been originated by someone. The web link shown goes through the derivation which appears to be more linked to an anonymous British Soldier WW2 than any Roman or Greek General called by a name perming 2 out of (Gaius, Galus, Petronius and Arbiter). From the...