The last 50 comments posted on Liberal Conspiracy

1. Jailhouselawyer posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
   A history lesson... Winston Churchill: The UK's first European



2. Vicarious Phil posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
   I followed the link to the BBC interview with John Hirst who says "When you're a prisoner, the only thing you can do if you want to complain and no-one listens, is riot and lift the roof off - which isn't the best way of going about things. "Because we didn't have a vote, there was no will in parliament to change anything," this would be an interesting argument had he not put it to a journalist questioning him about his successful hearing by the European Court of Human Rights. I have voted many times, I've never kiled anyone or been in prison. I've never had my opinions broadcast by the beeb. If I were of the Daily Mail persuasion I might suggest John Hirst should get his voting rights back at same time as his deceased victim... do you think he appreciates the irony in this?



3. Kane L posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
   @ 58 Wrong again, They voted for the EEC not the EU superstate. Unlike others, we were not even allowed a vote on the Lisbon treaty. Now why do you think that might be?



4. Kane L posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
   @ 52 "Their poll of 1,807 people in England and Wales found 61% had committed one of a series of offences." mmmm. Its a poll actually, not a factual reality.



5. tim f posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
   #45 So you decided that the reason for someone acting in a rude manner was because of their ethnicity? And you're worried about being called a racist?



6. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
   

   “And that is another political construct by an unelected bureaucracy of an organisation no one voted to join and has no mandate to decide.” You do realise the UK was one of the founding members of this organisation that put together the convention on human rights?

   The claim isn't even true, the country did vote for it.



7. Kane L posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
   @ 55 Not true. It was a perfectly valid question, not abuse, that you censored and one which recieved the astounding and disgusting reply of: "Nobody lives forever, duh!" My question: "So, contrary to your previous statements, are you now remorseful for beating an innocent woman to death with an axe and denying her human rights and right to live not just for a period of time, but forever?" Why would you censor the question but allow that sickening reply?



8. Jailhouselawyer posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
   @52 DisgustedofTunbridgeWells: Funny you should mention the silent majority. I am presently fisking "This insult to OUR human rights Commentary by Melanie Phillips - Daily Mail, October 7, 2005" which I found on The Silent Majority website.



9. Lee Griffin posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
   I've cleaned up a couple of comments here. There's been enough abuse that simply isn't constructive to this discussion. What you've wanted to say, Kane, has been said and you've made your views clear. The issue here is the general right of prisoners to vote, either as a whole or in part. No more meaningless abuse against another commenter please.



10. Lee Griffin posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    "And that is another political construct by an unelected bureaucracy of an organisation no one voted to join and has no mandate to decide." You do realise the UK was one of the founding members of this organisation that put together the convention on human rights?



11. Lee Griffin posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    "Those who choose to stand outside normal society by becoming criminals are no longer valid stakeholders in that decision making process nor are they intentions trustworthy or their opinion on the shape society should take relevant." So you agree that if someone is going to be outside of prison during the parliaments term then they ARE valid stakeholders in that decision making process. So why bar them just because they were in prison? "In a more practical vein, if the vote was allowed for prisoners (the US for instance is a prime example with its huge penal populace) opportunists could offer concessions to criminals that are detrimental to society and criminals could vote for them to become lawmakers." The prison population, for a start, is only less than 100,000 people, and given that there is no political grouping or MP in the world that is going to give concessions to prisoners over the rest of those (like you) are extremely vocal about kicking criminals while they're down. Remember that these people come from a variety of constituencies, all over the country, and only account for less than 1% of all eligible voters nationally. In fact prisoners could form a constituency for themselves in practical terms due to the population number, there could be a "prisoners" MP, however the potential for abuse is higher in such a position, and the stigma on that individual person would no doubt make their lives hell...so keeping prisoners voting in their previous addressed constituency makes most sense on a practical level all around. Second, even if it were the case that a single MP was voted for by giving concessions to prisoners, they would (to get those concessions in to law) have to make a bill that was supported by first their party and then second by at least 300 or so of their fellow MPs, most of which WON'T have been swayed by the minority populace in prisons. Again, I'd be surprised to see either a party or mass movement of MPs try to give prisoners more "luxury" a life just to win their votes and see their popularity remain at the levels with the "law-abiding" populace. Third you assume that prisoners are, in their own right, a set of people set on subverting democracy. You need to demonise them, I can tell you have to make them in to un-people just to get by. But the reality is that the majority are just people that have made the wrong decisions or had those wrong decisions made for them. Most aren't inherently violent, most certainly aren't mentally ill. The idea that they would en masse vote for the destabilisation of a country just because is one rooted firmly in fantasy. Finally, where do you stop with this mentality of censorship? Prisoners are evil so shouldn't vote because they'd only vote for corruption...how about people that are on the sex offenders register? They'd *only* vote for child fiddling policies, right? Or how about those on benefits, they'd only vote for more money? The list goes on, you cannot stop people voting just because they may vote for some ideal that *you* don't agree with.



12. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    

    4. This is not about the so-called law-abiding majority. This is about a vulnerable group in society being victimised by that society and the state. Does your so-called law abiding majority include all those expenses fiddling MPs and members of the House of Lords who hypocritically point the finger?

    As you allude to, there is no 'law abiding majority' in this country, six out of ten people have been involved in criminality at some level. As we're seeing this fictional ingroup (along with it's cohabiting life partner 'the silent majority') is usually used to justify extreme legislation or behaviour. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6235988.stm



13. Jailhouselawyer posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    Nobody lives forever, duh!



14. Dan | thesamovar posted on What brain scans can't teach us
    I think it's quite possible that what will be much more important than finding new ways of getting children to learn efficiently, using flashy techniques and high powered science, is to understand the social aspects of why some children don't learn. Do teachers have lower expectations of working class children, for example, and does this lower achievement of these children? If so, what can be done about that. This is hugely important and neuroscience has nothing to say about it. The figure I heard quoted about IQ, and it was from an IQ expert but may be out of date now, is that the correlation between one IQ test and another was the same as the correlation between IQ and height. In other words, you'd do about as well measuring people's heights as bothering to go through all the effort of doing an IQ test. (And anecdotally, my girlfriend did 3 and got results varying between 105 and 150.) Matt, I think Rumelhardt and McLelland is a little out of date now. IIRC it was based more on hypothesis than empirical work (which didn't stop it being very interesting, foundational work). Repetition is important to learning in many cases, but obviously doesn't explain phenomena such as flashbulb memories or one-shot learning. Actually, these conclusions based on a lack of understanding of what the research says and what conclusions can safely be drawn from it illustrate quite well the dangers of premature application of neuroscience.



15. Kane L posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    @ 49 And that is another political construct by an unelected bureaucracy of an organisation no one voted to join and has no mandate to decide.



16. Jailhouselawyer posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    Voting is a human right, under Article 3 of the First Protocol, and the leading authority for this position is Hirst v UK(No2) "56. Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 appears at first sight to differ from the other rights guaranteed in the Convention and protocols as it is phrased in terms of the obligation of the High Contracting Party to hold elections which ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people rather than in terms of a particular right or freedom. 57. However, having regard to the preparatory work to Article 3 of the Protocol and the interpretation of the provision in the context of the Convention as a whole, the Court has established that it guarantees individual rights, including the right to vote and to stand for election (see Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 113, pp. 22-23, §§ 46-51). Indeed, it was considered that the unique phrasing was intended to give greater solemnity to the Contracting States’ commitment and to emphasise that this was an area where they were required to take positive measures as opposed to merely refraining from interference (Mathieu-Mohin, § 50)... ...59. As pointed out by the applicant, the right to vote is not a privilege. In the twenty-first century, the presumption in a democratic State must be in favour of inclusion, as may be illustrated, for example, by the parliamentary history of the United Kingdom and other countries where the franchise was gradually extended over the centuries from select individuals, elite groupings or sections of the population approved of by those in power. Universal suffrage has become the basic principle (Mathieu-Mohin, § 51, citing X. v. Germany, no. 2728/66, Commission decision of 6 October 1967, Collection 25, pp. 38-41).



17. Kane L posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    @ 47 What an ignoramus you are. In a democratic society, the only dynamic for legal societal and policy change is election; voting is a political construct encompassing a civic duty and a civil liberty, not a human right. and as such it can and should be taken away from people that oppose and attack society through their criminality.



18. Mustapha Dump posted on Settlements are unsustainable, and Netanyahu knows it
    It's just Bibi confiming to the world that Obama is a weak leader, as if they didn't already know.



19. Yurrzem! posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    Voting is not ‘freedom of expression’ but the most serious civic duty a person has. It decides everything about the shape of society and the future of that society. HaHaHaHa Ha! What planet are you from? Political activism makes changes, voting merely endorses them.



20. claude posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    #43 You make an excellent point... I believe the moderators may be away today ...also there are two e-mails they haven't answered about this very post here...mega tut.



21. A.W.Bunn posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    I wasn't going to vote but I had my mind made up for me yesterday when walking to the shops, an asian woman parked her car right across the pavement in front of me forcing me and another woman pushing a pram into the road and incoming traffic. She thought it funny and laughed. What could I say ? If I had done anything, or said what I thought, I would have been a rascist and I would be in trouble. Another example of the declining standards and great dumbing down that comes with imigration, Hello Nick.



22. Kane L posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    @ 35 Voting is not ‘freedom of expression’ but the most serious civic duty a person has. It decides everything about the shape of society and the future of that society. Those who choose to stand outside normal society by becoming criminals are no longer valid stakeholders in that decision making process nor are they intentions trustworthy or their opinion on the shape society should take relevant. In a more practical vein, if the vote was allowed for prisoners (the US for instance is a prime example with its huge penal populace) opportunists could offer concessions to criminals that are detrimental to society and criminals could vote for them to become lawmakers.



23. Yurrzem! posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    "Voting is not a right, but a liberty" I think I missed some of the fine print somewhere. While its good to hone one's skills debating with people who have different opinions I do find it annoying when righty ravers hijack an interesting and sensible discussion. Suddenly progress is halted and everything is reduced to tabloid-style posturing and slagging. How does that benefit LC? Would more moderation be better?



24. crusade posted on Against multiculturalism
    Daniel Hoffmann-Gill @ 220 I think you are best ignored really, as you are quite clearly a thread wrecking troll as already accused, and not a very bright one at that. Your whole ‘rebuttal’ is rooted in the language and logic of a child. You are very much in breach of this sites comment policy; you have not been involved in substance on this thread or in this debate, you have just chosen to appear here purely to offer unsolicited and wholly inaccurate abuse towards me and offer the very dishonest and bizarre accusations that got you flagged by others here in the first place. Your style strikes me as akin to one of those many talent less wannabe football players cum supporters stood at the sidelines offering unqualified advice and fawning praise for ‘their team’ and nonsensical hysterical abuse and surreal distractions for ‘the opposition’, all without being able to get on the pitch and play with the actual game amongst the men. Other then your already noted trade mark trolling of threads and bizarre proof less accusations (you could demonstrate that you are indeed even remotely genuine here by proving your racism accusation and the other absurdities) do you actually have anything of substance to say here? Anything to add to the debate at all? Any adult observations to make? I very much doubt it. That is way out of your league, I suspect. Best stick to trolling.



25. tim f posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    I agree that everyone should be able to vote - political equality is a cornerstone of democracy - but I don't think disengagement is an effective protest. It might seem like there's a neat symmetry there but it seems like a means to make yourself feel better rather than a means to change. At best it is a stunt which lends itself to misinterpretation. Can you name a mechanism by which not voting could lead to prisoners (or anyone else currently denied the vote) gaining the vote?



26. crusader posted on Against multiculturalism
    5cc @ 221 Again you fail to grasp that what you have presented as evidence is nothing of the sort. (You did the same with the link you presented on Ahmed which related to another matter entirely then the one discussed.) That Home Office would not comment on Wilders and that statement was not addressed at Wilders: “ The Home Office refused to comment specifically on Mr Wilders but a spokesperson said: "The Government opposes extremism in all its forms. It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country and that was the driving force behind tighter rules on exclusions for unacceptable behaviour that the Home Secretary announced on in October last year”.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5710559.ece They refused to comment on Wilders. The only specific comment they made on the Wilders ban was after it was overturned and they cited ‘inter-faith violence’ as the fear and reason. The Foreign Secretary’s comment are irrelevant and untrue as for one, the film is merely an extract from the Koran and two, the film was shown here in any case and no-one has even been charged let alone convicted under the laws he claimed it breached. Given all of this, and that the only concern raised against Wilders was the fear of “inter-faith violence” I really cannot understand why you cant accept that this was the official position and I find it most strange that you want me to supply another explanation or word for the official position. If the government were worried about extreme-right wing protests as the source of violence they would have said as much; they didn’t. They choose to deliberately cite “faith” as the spark for violence, and any reasonable person would associate “faith” in this context with religion. Just as any reasonable person would say that on balance, if any faith was likely to take violent exception to an event criticising their faith it would be the followers of Islam and that if any violence or fear of violence that would arise from such an event taking place it would be most likely to come from them, given their long and voluminous history of such violence in the face of criticism. You seem equally confused by erroneously naming the EDL as the real source of the fear violence (not cited by the government at all) but then backtrack on even that for various reasons whilst eluding to other organisations you still seem unable to identify and now alternatively name individuals, not culpable organisations, of which at least one was diagnosed as being a paranoid schizophrenic. All of which is far removed from the official position for the banning and far removed from reality. As for Ahmed, I have repeatedly told you that I believe the evidence against him but still allowed for the possibility that he didn’t say it, contrary to your claim. And at last we have arrived at a point where you concede that you understand the general context of the common usage of the term ‘human condition’ below and so lets end this feeble semantic obfuscation device of yours and agree that it is indeed in the common usage context that I use the term and include within it racism. “The human condition encompasses the totality of the experience of being human and living human lives”



27. Instant Banner Maker | Definitive Internet Marketing News posted on Power 2010 in action in Harrow
    [...] Liberal Conspiracy » Power 2010 in action in Harrow [...]



28. Unity posted on Power 2010 in action in Harrow
    Amended...



29. Jailhouselawyer posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    @37 Lee Griffin: Kane not able :-)



30. Jailhouselawyer posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    @35 Kane: 1. The difference between you and me as that I know what I am talking about and make sense, whereas you just make noise and make no sense. 2. Remorse is a personal thing. Personally, I do not believe everything I read in the papers. I rely upon 2 Court of Appeal decisions, which the State accepted, which show that I have shown remorse. Yawn! 3. And you are 'normal'? Got any other good one liners like that? "I couldn’t care less what legal niceties deemed it", so you are not one of the so-called law abiding, then? 4. My sanity is not in dispute, I have the papers to prove it. Have you got a clean bill of mental health? 5. I don't hate society. However, I prefer animals. And, I like the country better (like the Yorkshire Dales) than the people who inhabit it. 6. Answer your stupid and irrelevant question? The only right that offenders lose is their right to liberty. If you don't like it, that's tough. Are you a member of BNP by any chance?



31. ex-leftie posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    Kane L, well said. What a truly disgusting creature he is.



32. ex-leftie posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    The first commenter got it right. Glad you re staying home. The fact that you choose the issue of prisoners not being allowed to vote as a reason to er... NOT VOTE shows either a sense of humour or a rather perverted sense of priorities. This lot would seem rather more deserving... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1259368/Is-sinister-Labour-plot-stop-British-troops-voting-election.html But its The Daily Mail so it cant be true...



33. 5cc posted on Against multiculturalism
    Bugger html. This passage shouldn't have been included in a blockquote: An extreme right-wing politician is banned from the country, and the government states that such bans are to stop people who want to spread extremism. I am not imagining an extreme right-wing threat. If you want to maintain that the government banned Geert Wilders because they thought muslims would start violence, you have to show evidence. Your lame clinging to idea that the inclusion of the word ‘faith’ in the term used to describe violence centred around people of a particular faith means that the government only thought different faiths would be involved in potential violence isn’t cutting it, and says bugger all about who starts the violence. It’s not the trump card you think it is.



34. Lee Griffin posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    35. Could you explain how the right to freedom of expression is something that someone can't be trusted with?



35. 5cc posted on Against multiculturalism
    You have declined to engage with many of my points in favour of restating yours over and again without back up. Show a different term that describes violence between muslims and non-muslims than 'inter-faith'. Stop dodging . Show why 'inter-fath' can exclude the far right because it's not a faith, but not agnosticism or atheism, which aren't faiths. And show why the logic that says the government really meant only between faiths doesn't mean they thought Wilders was perfectly safe from these violent muslims you allege were their reason for a ban because of his lack of faith. I've shown - with evidence both from the Home Office's original statement about the ban, and from a comment by the Foreign Secretary saying the idea the ban was made to appease extremist muslims was an 'apalling misrepresentation of the truth' - that it's likely the government thought violence would break out between muslims and non-muslims because of the spread of anti-muslim extremism. You've shown nothing outside your own empty assertions that 'it seems pretty apparent that any reasonable person' knows muslims are violent. You've avoided answering this before, but do you honestly believe the government did not think that far-right extremists would be involved in the violence they thought the visit would spark?

    Even your imaginary “extreme-right wing” threat... An extreme right-wing politician is banned from the country, and the government states that such bans are to stop people who want to spread extremism. I am not imagining an extreme right-wing threat. If you want to maintain that the government banned Geert Wilders because they thought muslims would start violence, you have to show evidence. Your lame clinging to idea that the inclusion of the word 'faith' in the term used to describe violence centred around people of a particular faith means that the government only thought different faiths would be involved in potential violence isn't cutting it, and says bugger all about who starts the violence. It's not the trump card you think it is. Even your imaginary “extreme-right wing” threat is ludicrous as the EDL have done no more then simple affray

    Is 'simple affray' not violence, then?

    if they were not who you had in mind why name them and only them in the first place?

    Because they were a handy group that I could provide a single link showing a long list of examples of violence to show that the far-right also engage in violent disorder. I could not be arsed to search for links to people like David Copeland, Robert Cottage, Martyn Gilleard, Ian Davidson and on and on and on. The EDL weren't even formed in February 2009, for Christ's sake. The previous sentence to the one with the link to the EDL, where I mentioned 'far right nutjobs' was to show that I was only using the EDL as an example of violent far-right nutjobs. I've explained this before and I think you're ignoring it because focusing on the EDL gives you an opportunity to dodge and present my postition as more absurd than it is.

    ...when quite clearly I actually did do just that: “ but either ways, whether he made this particular threat or not…”

    Which you said after you said you believed the evidence agaiinst him, a point you have repeated here. Your position is that you believe he made the threat, and you've made a statement about what you think the character of the man is whether he made the threat or not. This is not the same as taking the position 'maybe he said it, maybe he didn't'.

    Lastly, you appear to be very confused about the meaning of oft used terms such as “human condition”...

    I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I provided a chuffing definition of 'the human condition', and I'm perfectly aware of what it commonly means. You've used three different terms 'a natural human condition', 'a human condition' and 'the human condition'. 'The human condition' is a common term that most people have an idea of the meaning of - although the actual meaning is tough philosophical question to crack. 'A human condition' is not, and 'a natural human condition would mean something entirely different. The link you provide for a definition even includes two ways the term is used, one general and one metaphysical. You haven't even said which one you mean. If you really meant 'the human condition' all along, were you initially asking whether racism 'encompasses the totality of the experience of being human and living human lives.'? Were you asking whether racism was 'the human struggle to find answers to these questions [questions beyond ones necessary to survival] — and the very fact that humans can conceive them and ask them'?. Clearly not. By 'a human condition' you meant something else. What exactly was that? Was it 'part of the human condition' (and by that, did you mean 'part of the totality of the experience of being human' or 'part of the struggle to find answers to metaphisycal questions'), 'a condition humans experience', 'a condition particular to humans' or something else? What did you mean when you added the word 'natural'? Why did you drop that word from the question? How do I know you didn't intend to re-introduce it later? I need to know what your question means before I answer it. We both want to avoid me answering yes to a question and you following up by claiming I'd said yes to something else, don't we?



36. Lee Griffin posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    "As to time limits, I think this is a grey area. Perhaps the vote could initially be given to those who expect to be released within the next electoral cycle and gradually extended as confidence grows." This certainly seems like the most sensible first step



37. Kane L posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    @ 32 1. You are the one ‘gobbing off’ and haven’t stopped since you were jailed killing an innocent woman by smacking a woman around the head with an axe and still say you have no remorse 2. That’s right; your dead victim doesn’t have any rights anymore because you took them all away but haven’t stopped crying about your ‘rights’ ever since 3. You smacked an innocent woman around the head with an axe with no provocation or sane motive, I couldn’t care less what legal niceties deemed it, to most normal people you are a murderer. Don’t like it? Sue me. 4. Your hate for society at large is still apparent with your ‘so-called law-abiding majority’ jibe; the fact is that the vast majority of people are law abiding and don’t feel the need to kill people for no reason and the other lesser crimes and that is why there is no dispute whatsoever that we should have our full civil liberties 5. Answer the question: Why should you and others that disregard the rights of the law abiding majority not have certain civil liberties taken from you? Not only as punishment but because you cannot be trusted with them?



38. Lee Griffin posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    "I notice how criminals and their apologists always clamber about their ‘rights’ without any thought or regard whatsoever to the rights of the victims of their crimes." Oh blah blah blah. Can we all be adult and realise that the rights of criminals and the rights of victims are not competitive entities? The victim's rights have been dealt with by having justice been seen to be served and by carrying through with it. The prisoner's rights are his human rights that largely cannot be diminished except for the purposes of maintaining the punishment that has been levied upon them. The prisoner always has their rights eroded for the sake of the victim, we're just asking that rights that have *nothing to do with the victim* don't get eroded as well. Unless you want to live in a vile and petty society?



39. Oranjepan posted on Choose your scumbag of the week
    Theresa May. Scumbag of the month. Oh, it's still March.



40. Jailhouselawyer posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    @32 Kane: 1. 'What about the victims?' In this case, if you had bothered to read the judgment instead of simply gobbing off, the prisoners are the victims of state abuse. 2. The dead don't have rights, which means they cannot be libelled. 3. If you had read the judgments it quite clearly states that I was convicted of manslaughter and not murder, and you have libelled me. 4. This is not about the so-called law-abiding majority. This is about a vulnerable group in society being victimised by that society and the state. Does your so-called law abiding majority include all those expenses fiddling MPs and members of the House of Lords who hypocritically point the finger? In this case, the prisoners are firmly on high moral ground.



41. Daniel Hoffmann-Gill posted on Against multiculturalism
    Hello 'Crusade', you seem familiar to me, last word obsession, ducking and ignoring 5cc's points, arguing in a circular fashion, ideas that disagree with yours dismissed as irrelevant, inability to concede any ground whatsoever...I could go on. I am not in breech of the comments policy because words I used are accurate but I am glad you concede it is an opinion, you seem to operate from a position of confusing your racist opinions with fact. As for you judging my contributions here, thanks, I do not need the opinions of an anonymous racist. As for tactics I employ, sorry, you are taking the word of an anonymous troll here and using that as evidence, for all I know that could be you. I'm done here but I'll be very curious to see about your IP address. Take care now!



42. Kane L posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    @ 27 I notice how criminals and their apologists always clamber about their ‘rights’ without any thought or regard whatsoever to the rights of the victims of their crimes. You for instance ‘jailhouse lawyer’, what rights does the victim of your crime have left? What rights can the woman you murdered exercise now? Did you care any for her rights when you took her life? Certainly nowhere near as much as you cared about your own ‘rights’ when you were rightly locked away for it. Why should you and others that disregard the rights of the law abiding majority not have certain civil liberties taken from you? Not only as punishment but because you cannot be trusted with them?



43. tim f posted on Choose your scumbag of the week
    #43 Why do you want to stop Jo from saying what she thinks?



44. Would UK Politicians Support The Digital Economy Bill If It Applied To Offline Activities As Well? | Blog Ahmad Shamli posted on Would the actions of the Digital Economy Bill be tolerated "offline"?
    [...] Lee Griffin wrote up a good blog post about the Digital Economy Bill in the UK, wondering how people would feel if the same rules were applied offline: Would you appreciate being put under house arrest not because of any court determined guilt, but [...]



45. Oranjepan posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    @LeeGriffin surely voting would also be an incentive for prisoners to get rehabilitated, as they would come to understand that having an input into what kind of world they are to live in makes it more acceptable. As to time limits, I think this is a grey area. Perhaps the vote could initially be given to those who expect to be released within the next electoral cycle and gradually extended as confidence grows.



46. blanco posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    Why not give your vote to a prisoner? Contact a prison charity, ask them to put you in touch with a prisoner who would like to vote, ask them who they would vote for if they had the right, then vote. Make it into a nationwide campaign. Just don't sit there and do nothing as if that will solve anything at all. We will have to wait four or five years until the next general election, so let's make our votes count this time.



47. John T. Capp posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    Post 2 sums it up: "I appreciate the sentiment. But not voting is not a protest, because if you don’t vote then you can’t be counted. Set up a ‘Votes for Prisoners’ party, stand in your constituency or ask a prisoner to stand, and use your vote to send a message. Staying at home sends no message other than you were too lazy either to go and vote or to make up your mind between the many parties on offer." Opting out of the political process just means its a hell of a lot harder to change things. As well as the suggestions above, have a look at what progressive candidates are standing in your area, publicise the issue and put pressure on the parliamentary candidates to respond to you. For me, however, although I agree with you that this is an outrage, it won't be the defining feature of this election for me.



48. Oranjepan posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    Voting is not a right, but a liberty. Participation shows support the process - not just the side one agrees with. Therefore non-voters don't just oppose the parties involved but they also oppose the principles of both liberty and democracy. Voluntary or enforced curtailments of liberty are only ever acceptable on immediate public safety reasons wherein evidence shows opportunity for safe rehabilitation is afforded. Which means there are circumstances where the voting curtailments are acceptable. Of which, if Neil Robertson's commitment is principled then he will accept not to vote until the reform occurs, but if he demurs he is making excuses for violating his civic responsibilities and will happily accept his exclusion from any future electoral registration anyway. With the utmost respect, I have been remarkably impressed by his demonstration of illogical, wooly-minded and self-defeating thinking. It is among the highest calibre twaddle I've read for a long time - and that's going a long way, even for Liberal Conspiracy!



49. Guy Aitchison posted on Power 2010 in action in Harrow
    I didn't write this! I just sent it in to LC - it's by Annie Quick Power2010's London campaigner.



50. Jailhouselawyer posted on Why I'm not voting at the next election
    ukliberty: When this case goes back to the Court, the only issue to be determined is whether the UK is in violation of the judgment. Clearly, the UK is in violation of the judgment, the fact is that the UK has chosen to play silly buggers for 5 years. The crime has been committed, it remains for the sentence to be imposed. What is being missed here, is that the judgment needs to be read in the context of the objectives of the Council of Europe. Also, the only reason that the Article 10 and Article 14 submissions were not ruled upon was because the case had already been won on the Article 3 of the First Protocol submission. As Article 14 deals with discrimination, if the government decided that those serving over 4 years should be denied the franchise this would violate their human rights. Because, the Court has already stated that severity of crime and/or sentence has nothing to do with the human right to vote. Only those convicted of offences such as ballot rigging can legitimately be denied the franchise because there is a link between crime and punishment. Prisoners are entitled to freedom of expression, Article 10, and this extends to casting a vote. The government really has no option but to do as it is told. Ireland passed a law to allow all prisoners the postal vote in 2006, "to fully comply with the Hirst v UK(No2) decision".