Posting this up here because ‘It has been sent to the moderation queue’ on TiG’s poll/article about giving the vote to prisoners. Presumably because of the word ‘buggers’. Conversely, did you know that you can say ‘shit’ on the BBC’s message boards, as long as you’re not using it abusively?

My comment will probably be allowed on inspection, but again, if not, here it is in all its glory…

Well, it’s 10% for and 90% against, now. Does that mean that one person (me) voted for giving prisoners the vote, or have two voted for and eighteen or so against?

Why did I vote the way I did? Because unless murderers and rapists are being allowd to vote for murderers and rapists, what difference does it make? Prisoners still make up a small percentage of the population, anyway, so how likely are they to swing a vote? Even if they did, at least one of the candidates would be happy about it. And John Hirst might be a tool, but some prisoners have probably had the time and the opportunity to reach a more informed decision about how to cast their vote. Again, not likely that any candidate is going to appeal to the prison vote, as he/she would lose more votes than would be gained.

I know MPs like to please the crowd on occasion, and this is an open goal, but it’s really a trivial issue to play silly buggers with the ECHR on.