Prison vote vultures: No-win, no-fee lawyers

[vanman]

Prison vote vultures: No-win, no-fee lawyers line up thousands of convicts to claim compensation for being denied their polling rights

Lawyers have set up shop in dozens of prisons, encouraging inmates to claim compensation for not having the right to vote.
They have already collected 2,500 clients seeking payouts at the European Court of Human Rights.
If David Cameron loses a looming constitutional battle with the Strasbourg-based court over prisoner voting, tens of thousands more could join the queue.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1Cua83DSZ

this prisoner stuff is getting out of hand

[Stuart]

We don't need to give prisoners the vote (IMO).

However, we do need to stop no win no fee lawyers. They are bleeding the legal system dry.

[vanman]

Originally Posted by Stuart

We don't need to give prisoners the vote (IMO).

However, we do need to stop no win no fee lawyers. They are bleeding the legal system dry.

and the European court

European court could order taxpayer to foot £100m compensation bill

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by vanman

and the European court

I don't actually agree about the European Court. We need an organisation that has the power to act against our Government when they don't act in our interests and our own court system fails.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Stuart

However, we do need to stop no win no fee lawyers. They are bleeding the legal system dry.

My automatic reaction is to agree with you on that but then I considered the fact that surely they only win if the case is sound. In which case the plaintiff gets justice.....(a little simplistic but you see my point)

[nomadking]

Technically locking them up in the first place, deprives them of some of their so called Human Rights. Therefore there is no case for having to allow all Human Rights and so any right to vote is just another 'right' that can be allowed to be denied. It's not as if the voting ban carries on after their release.

---------- Post added at 16:26 ---------- Previous post was at 16:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart

I don't actually agree about the European Court. We need an organisation that has the power to act against our Government when they don't act in our interests and our own court system fails.

The ECHR seems to only rule in favour of criminals.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

My automatic reaction is to agree with you on that but then I considered the fact that surely they only win if the case is sound. In which case the plaintiff gets justice.....(a little simplistic but you see my point)

Depends if the case is sound because someone legitimately did something wrong at the organisation with the compensation claim against it, or if the defence buggered up the case..

I'll agree that these lawyers can be handy in some cases, but they've led to a situation where companies are introducing a lot of unnecessary restrictions and procedure (costly, in some cases) to avoid the possibility of being sued.

I did oversimplify, but I can't help thinking that generally, I was right.

Originally Posted by nomadking

The ECHR seems to only rule in favour of criminals.

Now, those are the cases we hear about. How about those we don't. They could (and probably do) paint quite a different picture.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Stuart

Now, those are the cases we hear about. How about those we don't. They could (and probably do) paint quite a different picture.

So opinion should be based on things we don't hear about. You're not exactly forthcoming with evidence to back up your conjecture.

There is a difference between cases that only have a narrow or specific scope and cases like this that are wide ranging in nature.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So opinion should be based on things we don't hear about. You're not exactly forthcoming with evidence to back up your conjecture.

What you base your opinion on is your business. I am entitled to base my opinion on what I wish as well. You are allowed to express your opinion, and I am allowed to disagree, and am allowed to express that disagreement. That's called debate.

However, I was making the point that we only hear about certain cases submitted to the ECHR. Those that the media consider "newsworthy" or will sell papers.

As for evidence, well, how many cases submitted to the court make news? 10, 20 a year? How many judgements do you think the court made?

According to http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres...Figures_EN.pdf , it was 1625 in 1999 alone, and it averages around 2000 a year..

So, you wanted evidence that we don't hear about all the cases heard by the ECHR? There it is. You want evidence that we don't know the outcome of the cases we haven't heard about, that's just logic.

There is a difference between cases that only have a narrow or specific scope and cases like this that are wide ranging in nature.

I never contended otherwise. In fact, I made no reference to cases other than this, so don't see the relevance of the argument.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Stuart

I don't actually agree about the European Court. We need an organisation that has the power to act against our Government when they don't act in our interests and our own court system fails.

Absolutely not. The fact we do have such an organisation makes a mockery of any claims that we are a sovereign nation.

By that token we then need an organisation to act against Europe when it fails, etc, etc.

There absolutely has to be a body where the buck stops and one that is as local as possible to those it serves as opposed to one that could scarcely be more distant.

I have absolutely no respect at all for the European Court and find the fact that the politicians our votes elected are able to be overruled by them farcical and a gross affront to the sovereignty of the UK and our claim to be a democracy. It should stop with our own Supreme Court which should be a body transparently elected in a similar manner to the process within the United States.

---------- Post added at 20:52 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

In response to the initial post I am absolutely delighted by this course of events. Hopefully a nice high profile bill to the UK tax payer to compensate prisoners will put into sharp focus within people's living rooms that their votes mean nothing while the political class insist on being up Europe's behind for no real reason and motivate them to do something about it.

If this happens and is put into focus along side the money the UK tax payer hands to the EU every fortnight, the disastrous CAP and CFP and the utter disrespect for democracy within the political class of the EU even the Euro-sycophantic Nick Clegg would struggle to justify it, and struggle to continue denying us our referendum.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Stuart

I did oversimplify, but I can't help thinking that generally, I was right.

You probably are m8.....

[budwieser]

Surely though, Voting is a priviledge not a Human Right?
Being banged up for something means that you lose certain priviledges doesn`t it?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The ECHR seems to only rule in favour of criminals.

Agreed. There is only one answer and thats to tell the ECHR's to sod off

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

<snip> It should stop with our own Supreme Court which should be a body transparently elected in a similar manner to the process within the United States

It consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight Associate Justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed with the "advice and consent" (majority vote) of the Senate. Once appointed, justices effectively have life tenure, serving "during good Behaviour",[1] which terminates only upon death, resignation, retirement, or conviction on impeachment.

Wiki

Think I would prefer the judges to be elected by the people. Systems of appointment are often subject to nepotism and vested interests usually to the detrement of the people at large. There again I agree Igni with the conjecture that OUR supreme court should be the highest justice and not subservient to some un-elected body appointed by un-elected Eurocrats with no overall control.

I think we should also withdraw from the ECHR and have our own bill of rights that would also stop the farce of not being able to get Hook sent off to the USA for some real justice because it might be a bit unpleasant for him.

[Ignitionnet]

The US Supreme Court judges are nominated by the President but then go through an interviewing process and are consented to by elected representatives which happens in front of the people's eyes.

No offence meant to us all but it's not really appropriate for judges to be elected directly by the people, it turns them into politicians appealing to the populous rather than the position they should have which is above that. Their purpose is to enforce our laws despite the populous views of politicians.

The most viable solution to that is nomination and appointment by our elected representatives as a totally independent body would be very hard to find.