I'm not sure we are going to rely on them for anything in terms of defending the realm, one worry is what would we do if a Falklands war happened again
we seem to be getting 2 carriers but agreeing/sharing keeping one at sea at all times with the French
[quote][cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]I'm not sure we are going to rely on them for anything in terms of defending the realm, one worry is what would we do if a Falklands war happened again
we seem to be getting 2 carriers but agreeing/sharing keeping one at sea at all times with the French
Bearing in mind the French actually gave us intelligence on how to render Exocet useless and they also gave us missiles to fight the Argies too.
I think whether this is a good deal or not, it is sadly indicative of the times but given the hopeless, ignorant, jingoistic reactions that I've read or seen on TV then popular opionion will be guided to view the deal in a poor light.
yes they did that in secret though, do you think they would overtly let us use one of their carriers to defend a British interest like the Faklkand islands against a client country who they sold jets and missiles too? I guess that is my concern.
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]and allow the ones still left in prison to have a vote?
In fairness, you can thank out friends in the European Court for that one.
No. You can thank the Tories for dropping their original plan to create a UK Bill of Rights.
For me, it's entirely appropriate that a prisoner should still be allowed to vote. However, the Tories have never stated that they want to change the current system, but as soon as they face a little bit of difficulty, they perform a spectaculalry swift volte face.
We're used to Tories letting the country down. But it's strange to see them letting their own voters down so quickly, so completely and so badly.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]seems to be they are being deprived of their freedom, and liberties so why should they be allowed to vote.
Criminals are rightly punished by being deprived of their freedom and "society" is rightly protected by having its prisoners taken off the streets. But it is not right, proper or sensible to make convicted offenders "outlaws". They should always remain within the law, not in a separated schism, deprived of the opportunity to contribute, debate, inform and, ultimately vote.
[quote][cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Barn Door Varney[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]and allow the ones still left in prison to have a vote?[/quote]
In fairness, you can thank out friends in the European Court for that one.[/quote]No. You can thank the Tories for dropping their original plan to create a UK Bill of Rights.
For me, it's entirely appropriate that a prisoner should still be allowed to vote. However, the Tories have never stated that they want to change the current system, but as soon as they face a little bit of difficulty, they perform a spectaculalry swift[i]volte face[/i].
We're used to Tories letting the country down. But it's strange to see them letting their own voters down so quickly, so completely and so badly.[/quote]
Has it been dropped? It was delayed due to having a coalition govenment but I hadn't read anywhere that it had been dropped.
Can's see any basis that it is "appropriate" for someone that has been convicted of a crime to be entittled to vote. So will have to agree to disagree.
As for "letting the country down" where have you been for the last 13 years!!
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]seems to be they are being deprived of their freedom, and liberties so why should they be allowed to vote.
Criminals are rightly punished by being deprived of their freedom and "society" is rightly protected by having its prisoners taken off the streets. But it is not right, proper or sensible to make convicted offenders "outlaws". They should always remain within the law, not in a separated schism, deprived of the opportunity to contribute, debate, inform and, ultimately vote.
why, its a punishment? they are being deprived of their liberties and they are outlaws by definition.
They aren't allowed to go where they want (surely a far more important right than voting), be employed and many other 'rights', why should voting be different?
I am all for civilising inmates, but one vote in 5 years isn't going to make a big difference
[quote][cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]seems to be they are being deprived of their freedom, and liberties so why should they be allowed to vote.[/quote]Criminals are rightly punished by being deprived of their freedom and "society" is rightly protected by having its prisoners taken off the streets. But it is not right, proper or sensible to make convicted offenders "outlaws". They should always remain within the law, not in a separated schism, deprived of the opportunity to contribute, debate, inform and, ultimately vote.[/quote]
They made themselves "outlaws" when they chose to break the law. Until they have served their sentence, they should remain as such.
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]seems to be they are being deprived of their freedom, and liberties so why should they be allowed to vote.
Criminals are rightly punished by being deprived of their freedom and "society" is rightly protected by having its prisoners taken off the streets. But it is not right, proper or sensible to make convicted offenders "outlaws". They should always remain within the law, not in a separated schism, deprived of the opportunity to contribute, debate, inform and, ultimately vote.
They made themselves "outlaws" when they chose to break the law. Until they have served their sentence, they should remain as such.
Absolutely right. They should serve their sentences completely. But, they should also be allowed - in fact, encouraged - to express their opinions via the ballot box.
How does disenfranchising one section of the community benefit anyone? And, if it's right to deprive some people of their right to vote, why not others? Why not only allow employers a right to vote? You employ someone, you get a vote; if not, you don't. Madness.
"And, if it's right to deprice some people of their right to vote, why not others? Why not only allow employers a right to vote? You employ someone, you get a vote; if not, you don't. Madness. "
[cite]Posted By: razil[/cite]seems to be they are being deprived of their freedom, and liberties so why should they be allowed to vote.
Criminals are rightly punished by being deprived of their freedom and "society" is rightly protected by having its prisoners taken off the streets. But it is not right, proper or sensible to make convicted offenders "outlaws". They should always remain within the law, not in a separated schism, deprived of the opportunity to contribute, debate, inform and, ultimately vote.
They made themselves "outlaws" when they chose to break the law. Until they have served their sentence, they should remain as such.
Absolutely right. They should serve their sentences completely. But, they should also be allowed - in fact, encouraged - to express their opinions via the ballot box.
How does disenfranchising one section of the community benefit anyone? And, if it's right to deprice some people of their right to vote, why not others? Why not only allow employers a right to vote? You employ someone, you get a vote; if not, you don't. Madness.
not sure what the thing about employers is all about..
but, a lot of them are deprived of their liberty and would have no impact on public safety, its stops them participating in the political process of going to council meetings, protest, etc so you could just as easily say the same for that. Going to prison is a punishment as well as a detterent, etc
[cite]Posted By: smudge7946[/cite]From a french perspective it makes sense, saving money, sharing resources and a garentee that they will be on the winning side for once.
And perhaps we could share the football team? ......as Frangland, we might stand a chance of winning something.
Oh, scrub that, their national team has aready dropped down to our standard..
The right to vote and the punishment of criminals are two mutually exclusive topics, as far as I am concerned. They should not be connected in any way. When you deprive any group of a right to vote, you diminish the overall value of the democracy.
In the UK, until now, four groups were legally disenfranchised. Criminals serving a sentence of more than six months; people with diminished mental faculties; members of the House of Lords and close memebers of the Royal Family. In all but the second case, this is nonsense.
Do we really think that anyone who breaks the law should be deprived of a right to vote? Whether it's burglary, being drunk and disorderly, speeding, failing to pay for a TV licence? If the Government can choose which "types" of criminals can be disenfranchised, they can gerrymander.
By all means deprive criminals of their liberty; but do not stop thgem plyaing a part in our democracy. If this is wrong, then David Cameron should fight it. But he's chosen not to.
People are sent to prison to lose their liberty, not their identity.
[cite]Posted By: Chizz[/cite]The right to vote and the punishment of criminals are two mutually exclusive topics, as far as I am concerned. They should not be connected in any way. When you deprive any group of a right to vote, you diminish the overall value of the democracy.
In the UK, until now, four groups were legally disenfranchised. Criminals serving a sentence of more than six months; people with diminished mental faculties; members of the House of Lords and close memebers of the Royal Family. In all but the second case, this is nonsense.
Do we really think that anyone who breaks the law should be deprived of a right to vote? Whether it's burglary, being drunk and disorderly, speeding, failing to pay for a TV licence? If the Government can choose which "types" of criminals can be disenfranchised, they can gerrymander.
By all means deprive criminals of their liberty; but do not stop thgem plyaing a part in our democracy. If this is wrong, then David Cameron should fight it. But he's chosen not to.
People are sent to prison to lose their liberty, not their identity.
Comments
we seem to be getting 2 carriers but agreeing/sharing keeping one at sea at all times with the French
bbc
we seem to be getting 2 carriers but agreeing/sharing keeping one at sea at all times with the French
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11670247]bbc[/url][/quote]
Bearing in mind the French actually gave us intelligence on how to render Exocet useless and they also gave us missiles to fight the Argies too.
I think whether this is a good deal or not, it is sadly indicative of the times but given the hopeless, ignorant, jingoistic reactions that I've read or seen on TV then popular opionion will be guided to view the deal in a poor light.
This is the same Tories that decided to let more prisoners out to save money and allow the ones still left in prison to have a vote?
In fairness, you can thank out friends in the European Court for that one.
For me, it's entirely appropriate that a prisoner should still be allowed to vote. However, the Tories have never stated that they want to change the current system, but as soon as they face a little bit of difficulty, they perform a spectaculalry swift volte face.
We're used to Tories letting the country down. But it's strange to see them letting their own voters down so quickly, so completely and so badly.
interesting
In fairness, you can thank out friends in the European Court for that one.[/quote]No. You can thank the Tories for dropping their original plan to create a UK Bill of Rights.
For me, it's entirely appropriate that a prisoner should still be allowed to vote. However, the Tories have never stated that they want to change the current system, but as soon as they face a little bit of difficulty, they perform a spectaculalry swift[i]volte face[/i].
We're used to Tories letting the country down. But it's strange to see them letting their own voters down so quickly, so completely and so badly.[/quote]
Has it been dropped? It was delayed due to having a coalition govenment but I hadn't read anywhere that it had been dropped.
Can's see any basis that it is "appropriate" for someone that has been convicted of a crime to be entittled to vote. So will have to agree to disagree.
As for "letting the country down" where have you been for the last 13 years!!
Oi!
I'm going to complain to admin about your bullying
why, its a punishment? they are being deprived of their liberties and they are outlaws by definition.
They aren't allowed to go where they want (surely a far more important right than voting), be employed and many other 'rights', why should voting be different?
I am all for civilising inmates, but one vote in 5 years isn't going to make a big difference
They made themselves "outlaws" when they chose to break the law. Until they have served their sentence, they should remain as such.
How does disenfranchising one section of the community benefit anyone? And, if it's right to deprive some people of their right to vote, why not others? Why not only allow employers a right to vote? You employ someone, you get a vote; if not, you don't. Madness.
They removed themselves from the comminity for the duration of their sentance when they chose to break the law.
You make a choice, you live by it. No one is ever made to break the law.
"And, if it's right to deprice some people of their right to vote, why not others? Why not only allow employers a right to vote? You employ someone, you get a vote; if not, you don't. Madness. "
not sure what the thing about employers is all about..
but, a lot of them are deprived of their liberty and would have no impact on public safety, its stops them participating in the political process of going to council meetings, protest, etc so you could just as easily say the same for that. Going to prison is a punishment as well as a detterent, etc
And perhaps we could share the football team? ......as Frangland, we might stand a chance of winning something.
Oh, scrub that, their national team has aready dropped down to our standard..
In the UK, until now, four groups were legally disenfranchised. Criminals serving a sentence of more than six months; people with diminished mental faculties; members of the House of Lords and close memebers of the Royal Family. In all but the second case, this is nonsense.
Do we really think that anyone who breaks the law should be deprived of a right to vote? Whether it's burglary, being drunk and disorderly, speeding, failing to pay for a TV licence? If the Government can choose which "types" of criminals can be disenfranchised, they can gerrymander.
By all means deprive criminals of their liberty; but do not stop thgem plyaing a part in our democracy. If this is wrong, then David Cameron should fight it. But he's chosen not to.
People are sent to prison to lose their liberty, not their identity.
spot on.