Where were you? Yes You!

In the space of barely a week, Cameron has announced that he is ‘sickened’ by the European Court of Human Rights ruling on the issue of prisoner’s votes, and ‘appalled’ by a subsequent ruling that sex offenders will have the right to appeal against their placement on the sex offenders register.

This has unleashed a wave of anti-EU comment in the media and the Blogosphere. All that pent up anger over the lack of a referendum emerges in comments like ‘our sovereignty usurped by diktats from unelected judges in Strasbourg’.

Listening to some of the more siren voices, anybody would think Britain had been invaded by those plucky Belgians and new laws forced upon us at gunpoint – we weren’t, each and every one of us stood by impotently as this legal miasma become embedded in our national culture.

Of course, by ‘You’, I don’t mean YOU! I mean the fellow next to you. I know YOU will tell me of the articles you have written explaining the ramifications of the Treaty of Rome and subsequent amendments.

I know that YOU, and your Father before you, were out on the streets explaining to your fellow citizens that the original Human Rights law was written by British lawyers, at the behest of British politicians in the wake of World War II. But that fellow beside you, where was he?

I know that YOU, and your Father before you, carefully cross examined every prospective Member of Parliament at election hustings to make sure that he was fully aware that you didn’t expect that Human Rights law to be applied to British citizens, just those nasty Nazi’s, but what about that fellow beside you – was he there?

When Protocol 11 was ratified and a judge from each of the 47 contracting countries was elected to sit in judgement, so unlike our own truly British system of Judges being placed for life on the basis of whispers in the corridors of power, on violations of the Human Rights law – including a British judge, naturally, Sir Nicholas Bratza, who incidentally was in favour of prisoner’s votes, and said so loud and clear; so much for foreign unelected judges forcing their views upon us! – YOU were there, weren’t you, pointing out that this would mean British judges being involved in a system of justice drawn up by British lawyers, that could affect British citizens – although was not then enforceable in a British court of law, so was pretty toothless really. That fellow next to you though, he didn’t seem to be paying attention – looked like he was asleep to me.

Forgetting your Father’s role in all this, I know that YOU will tell me of the demonstrations you organised, the street riots, the viral posts you conjured up, the Twitter storm you created. All the paraphernalia that the world is applauding in Egypt, that forces governments to take notice of the rabble, real live democracy.  When Tony Blair brought all those delectable ‘babes’ into parliament and promised you wonderful things, and British MPs passed British laws which made the toothless judgements of the European Court of Human Rights enforceable in the British courts, YOU were there weren’t you? – but that fellow next to you – he didn’t even bother to vote, couldn’t have given you a single coherent sentence concerning what was happening in Europe, never got beyond the sports page in the Sun, probably voted Labour because his Father did, has no idea what his representative in parliament thought about Europe, couldn’t explain what ‘proportional justice’ meant or whether it was a good idea or not.

Now that the media have got their teeth into the subject and decided that ‘proportional justice’ means that paedophiles and rapists will automatically get the vote, and sex offenders will be abusing your children this time next Tuesday, and you’ll have to take a bag of eggs home, no more half dozens…..and it’s all being forced upon us by unelected foreign judges….YOU know different, don’t’ you? You know that they are elected, that some are British, that the Human Rights laws were written by the British, that the fact that they are enforceable – ‘Prisoners could get 10million in compensation’ – is because British parliamentarians dictated to a British court that this should be so; and that it was sleepy British voters who voted those parliamentarians into power.

YOU’ll have to shout a damn sight louder than you do at present though, because that fellow next to you thinks that its all the fault of some referendum he didn’t get that would be nice and simple for him, Yes or No, and he could have avoided all this, and he’s having a high old time knee jerking in every comments page he can think of that ‘Nobody asked him’.

They did. He just couldn’t be bothered to listen. Too complicated.

The fully paid up members of the Apathy Party. Where were they when their country needed them?

That’s whose fault it is. Not yours.

Gillig February 18, 2011 at 08:20

IN ABOUT TWELVE WEEKS WE MAY HAVE A VERY IMPORTANT REFERENDUM. A REFERENDUM
ON EU MEMBERSHIP
The” No to AV Campaign” started this week.
The Sun says
no, The Mail says no, both say it’s too expensive. Labour mostly say no,
conservatives say no and Clegg says he really wanted PR.
The point is that
the machinery is in place for a referendum and the Irish “about turn” is proof
that an EU referendum can be rigged.
To rig a referendum, first create a
problem, or reinvent an old one.
THE VOTES FOR PRISONER’S BILL. An issue
abhorrent to the British Public.
The idea of murderers and rapists being
able to vote uses extreme examples to make the point, no mention of the
prisoner who didn’t pay their TV license.
This issue was around when
Cameron lost what should have been a walkover election. He had broken his cast
iron promise and knew at this point that the EU membership issue would not go
away without a referendum.
An assault on the Court of human rights is
underway. Add in the sex offenders register issue to stir it up. I believe
Cameron will manipulate anti EU feeling enough to justify adding an EU
referendum onto the AV one, at the last moment.
Once the EU referendum is
in place, Cameron will win his battle with the Court of Human Rights, and
fight to keep EU membership.
CAMERON NEEDS A SNAP REFERENDUM. Lord Pearson
recently asked for a cost analysis of EU membership. It was refused. When they
were in power, Labour repeatedly refused such requests. The sums will not add
up. The arguments for staying in will not bear lengthy scrutiny.

Dave H February 17, 2011 at 19:05

I couldn’t be bothered to join the Apathy Party.

Pericles February 17, 2011 at 18:32

There are three matters here :

(1) whether precedent in the English courts should be set outside the
system of law in England ;

(2) whether convicted prisoners ought to have the vote ; 
and

(3) whether those on the register of sex offenders ought to be able to
appeal against their inclusion.

(1) Precedent

It really matters not whence the precedent, provided the decision be
right.  That we feel — or have felt — the need of decisions taken in
Strasbourg rather than London suggests a perceived weakness in the modern
administration of English law.

(2) Convicts

Imprisonment has four aims :  the punishment of the
convict ;  the deterrence of others ;  protection of the
public ;  and the rehabilitation of offenders.

Offenders are expected on release to take their place in society.  Can
they be expected to take the necessary interest in that society if denied a
say in its governance ?  Surely what we find offensive, if we do,
about their suffrage is that their voting power is to be the equal of that of
the law-abiding.

(3) Appeal by sex offenders

That a person placed on the register of sex offenders might never be
removed from it ought surely to depend on the gravity of the original offence
and the likelihood of recidivism.  Denying such a person even the right
to appeal against his inclusion — or continued inclusion — is arbitrary. 
No arbitrary law is good law.

ΠΞ

Caratacus February 17, 2011 at 15:12

Can’t get the feeling out of my head that all this fuss about the ECHR is
being staged for a gullible public. Get hoi polloi on side with a couple of
carefully engineered bits of outrage then when TPTB introduce their new
improved – and unnecessary – Bill of Rights, it will go through like crap
through a goose.

But what is wrong with the old Bill of Rights (1688)? asks Bluebottle,
stage left. It enshrines various freedoms which are a bit incompatible with
the general drift towards European style law/’justice’, and favours the common
law which has stood us in rather good stead hitherto, that’s what.

The louder Cameron speaks about standing against EU interference, the
faster I am counting my spoons.

Derek February 17, 2011 at 16:11

Good point caractacus. There is no problem in reviewing a sentance, just
make sure that no one gets off the register unless they are dead, or more
practically in circumstances such as in a care home where they need 24 hour
care, and then can’t get at anyone to do them harm. This should satisfy the
ECHR and it’s genuine chritics here. Maybe as you suggest, there is another
agenda.

Ed P February 17, 2011 at 14:08

If my vote had any validity I might agree with you. But, where I live in
one of the safest Tory seats, it matters not for whom you vote. So FPTP does
not give any sense of connection with the outcome of an election. Nor will
AV.
Perhaps we should have referenda at every GE, with many questions about
all the potential policies of all the parties? The incoming government would
have a comprehensive list of the desires of the majority on all issues.
I’m
still waiting for that promised referendum on EU membership…

Derek February 17, 2011 at 14:46

The same old excuse, a safe seat, so why should I bother. You should
stand up and explain to those about you that the idea of elections is to
choose a member of parliament to represent the constituancy. The electorate
should vote for the person, not the party. Political parties were invented
for the convenience of politicians, not the electorate. If enough of the
can’t be bothered because my vote won’t count brigade actually voted, then
their votes might change the shape of the parliament that is elected. If you
do not vote, or vote just on party lines, you can not complain if the lot
that get in do not do what you hoped that they might do.

Ed P February 17, 2011 at 19:01

Derek, I always vote and have not missed an election in 40 years. But
when your constituency has an unshakeable majority of over 20,000, there
is little choice. That was my point. As it happens, I vote for the
incumbent!

gladiolys February 17, 2011 at 13:37

At the risk of making myself persona non grata – I welcome the rulings from
the ECHR and the British Supreme Court. The whole point of justice, surely, is
to do the right thing, not the popular thing?

As far as sex offenders go, surely, if you go on the sex offenders register
as an adolescent, you should be able to present your case that you have
changed as a person in your 30s or 40s? Otherwise, where is the incentive to
change, to become a better person if you are going to be treated exactly the
same and experience the same restrictions as those who have not changed? How
will you ever get the chance to reform, build relationships, do good work, be
a good member of society if you will have to pay all your life for something
you did as a teenager? Unreconstructed paedophiles will not benefit from
appeals, so the resistance to this baffles me.

Votes for prisoners is symbolic. At any time, there are about 80,000 in
prisons, and people are released daily. One day you can’t vote, the next you
can…? 80,000 votes across the country will make any difference? All prisoners
vote the same way?

Surely Justice is – and should be – blind.

SadButMadLad
February 17, 2011 at 14:07

I’m with you on the justice being not the will of the mob but with some
logical thought behind it to allow consistency across judgements. Mob rule
is too emotional.

The sex offenders and the prisoners votes both are blown out of
proportion by the mob. Neither mean that murders getting the vote or
peadophiles being allowed out early. Both mean that there shouldn’t be a
blanket ban/imposition without some checks and balances.

With votes a simple procedure that requires judges to dictate whether the
prisoner can vote as part of the sentencing is all that is required. The
fact that judges might deny the vote to 99.99% of prisoners is beside the
point, the issue is that it’s not a blanket ban. That’s all the ECHR
judgement requires. In reality votes might be given to prisoners in open
prisons who can actually go to the polling booth.

With sex offenders a simple procedure that just means that after a long
time a person who is on the list can ask to be removed is all that is
required. Just like requests for parol by serving prisoners not always
working. The fact that the appeals hardly ever win is beside the point, the
issue is that it’s not a blanket lifetime ban. That’s all the ECHR judgement
requires. In reality people who are on the list for sending a sex-text when
they were kids will be the only ones who get off the list.

Anna
Raccoon February 17, 2011 at
14:10

Music to my ears – someone who actually ‘gets it’!

JuliaM February 17, 2011 at 14:58

Well, we HOPE those are the only ones who get off the list…

Robert February 17, 2011 at 13:29

I would be fuming if the Moors killer Brady had a vote and a few others who
killed for the fun of it.

But somebody who is in jail for say tax evasion, or Enron fraud while I’m
disabled and told to work these Pratt’s got away with millions they got eleven
years will come out and live what they salted away.

But what about the bloke who was drunk knocked down a child and drove off,
the fact is jail in this country is a holiday swapping play station games or
telling people they intend to watch Football on TV sky no less I cannot afford
sky.

What is Jail for if not to remove you from society to punish you. what
about open prisons where most of the MP’s will go who stole expenses, should
they get to vote, whom would they vote Labour does not want them nor do I.

But hell give them what you like, I a cripple I do not really count in
labour s politic PC society.

How about giving the people these morons killed the choice about voting,
whoops they are dead.

PT February 17, 2011 at 13:18

Phew, what a scorcher. That’s told me, no mistake. I really must brush up
on those old ubiquity skills, so I can be at all those places where these
decisions are continually being made. And I really must not blithely assume
that the MPs we elect represent us in any way. Yes, you are right Anna. We
must all get together and become a vociferous majority. Perhaps next month, or
next year, when I’m feeling a bit livelier.

JuliaM February
17, 2011 at 13:12

I’ve voted UKIP . What more can I do?

“…that the fact that they are enforceable – ‘Prisoners could get
10million in compensation’ – is because British parliamentarians dictated to a
British court that this should be so…”

Anyone who couldn’t see how this could be turned around on us should hand
in their brains. They clearly aren’t using them.