Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> prisonlawinsideout

International Law

: prisonlawinsideout

Lord Bach(side) because he talks out of his arse

By John Hirst

Lord Bach(side) because he talks out of his arse

The charge:

"Lord Bach (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour)

My Lords, I cannot give any guarantee to the noble Lord, sympathetic though I am to him usually. I cannot do any better than quote what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, then the Lord Chancellor, said in the foreword to the first document that was published on this in December 2006:

"Successive UK Governments have held to the view that the right to vote forms part of the social contract between individuals and the State, and that loss of the right to vote, reflected in the current law, is a proper and proportionate punishment for breaches of the social contract that resulted in imprisonment".

This is hot air, because although successive governments have maintained the view that convicted prisoners should be denied the franchise, it has nothing to do with the social contract and more to do with the status quo and keeping up the tradition. Moreover, it has been eloquently argued ?Politicians who lie or mislead parliament break the social contract, but we do not ban them from voting", therefore Lord Bach(side) is merely spouting hypocrisy. Given that Lord Falconer spouted his nonsense immediately following the government's defeat in the ECtHR, this is sour grapes coming from Lord Bach(side). It is for the Judiciary to punish criminals and not the government. It is not an offence to break the so-called social contract. The ECtHR rejected the government's traditional view as being disproportionate. It remains for Lord Bach(side) to justify his present stance, not merely to break wind and expect everybody to breathe in the fumes and and pretend what they are smelling comes from roses.

Full post as published by prisonlawinsideout on January 28, 2009 (boomark / email).