Does anyone know why bus passes and Oyster cards are only allowed as
proof of ID for older voters?
Does anyone know why bus passes and Oyster cards are only allowed as
proof of ID for older voters?
On 4/28/23 22:11, Michael Chare wrote:
Does anyone know why bus passes and Oyster cards are only allowed as
proof of ID for older voters?
I expect they mean a Freedom Pass.
<https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/services/freedom-pass>
Which is like an Oyster, but gives free travel, due to the holder being
old or disabled. They have photos, to prove they are being used by the
right person. I guess the issuer does more due diligence to check who
the owner is and that they are entitled to one.
Does anyone know why bus passes and Oyster cards are only allowed as
proof of ID for older voters?
The reason for this is of course that
the Tory Scum are trying to suppress the non-Tory vote, and are barely
even trying to hide this fact. They know they can't win a democratic election, and are therefore trying to arrange a non-democratic one.
On 28/04/2023 23:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The reason for this is of course that
the Tory Scum are trying to suppress the non-Tory vote, and are barely
even trying to hide this fact. They know they can't win a democratic
election, and are therefore trying to arrange a non-democratic one.
Oh, I didn't realise it was only 'Tory Scum' that were allowed to apply
for voter photo id cards or a postal vote. Thank you for enlightening
the group with your knowledge.
However, unless you have some more evidence to justify your assertion
this is a dastardly evil 'Tory Scum' plot I think this is complete
nonsense.
On 28/04/2023 23:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The reason for this is of course that
the Tory Scum are trying to suppress the non-Tory vote, and are barely
even trying to hide this fact. They know they can't win a democratic
election, and are therefore trying to arrange a non-democratic one.
Oh, I didn't realise it was only 'Tory Scum' that were allowed to apply
for voter photo id cards or a postal vote. Thank you for enlightening
the group with your knowledge.
However, unless you have some more evidence to justify your assertion
this is a dastardly evil 'Tory Scum' plot I think this is complete
nonsense.
Anyone intending to commit voter fraud will apply for a postal vote.
(that isn't much use to me the VH is closer than the post box)
On 28/04/2023 22:11, Michael Chare wrote:
Does anyone know why bus passes and Oyster cards are only allowed as
proof of ID for older voters?
In order to get a senior bus pass, I had to prove to the local authority
that I was who I claim to be, was over 60 and that the photo was mine.
Like my driving licence and passport, it is a document issued by a
government approved body with the photograph validated. My senior rail
pass did not need the same degree of validation and is not an acceptable
form of voting ID.
On 28/04/2023 23:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The reason for this is of course thatOh, I didn't realise it was only 'Tory Scum' that were allowed to apply
the Tory Scum are trying to suppress the non-Tory vote, and are barely
even trying to hide this fact. They know they can't win a democratic election, and are therefore trying to arrange a non-democratic one.
for voter photo id cards or a postal vote. Thank you for enlightening
the group with your knowledge.
However, unless you have some more evidence to justify your assertion
this is a dastardly evil 'Tory Scum' plot I think this is complete nonsense.
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.Tories hope because most deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour win easily anyway.
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any effort would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID card. Whilst true the effect will be less than the
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice,so ergo they no longer have photo ID.
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 08:24:57 UTC+1, Billy Christy wrote:
On 28/04/2023 23:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The reason for this is of course thatOh, I didn't realise it was only 'Tory Scum' that were allowed to apply
the Tory Scum are trying to suppress the non-Tory vote, and are barely
even trying to hide this fact. They know they can't win a democratic
election, and are therefore trying to arrange a non-democratic one.
for voter photo id cards or a postal vote. Thank you for enlightening
the group with your knowledge.
However, unless you have some more evidence to justify your assertion
this is a dastardly evil 'Tory Scum' plot I think this is complete nonsense.
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less
likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any effort
would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID card.
Whilst true the effect will be less than the Tories hope because most >deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour win easily anyway.
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards voting >Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have allowed
their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to lapse at
70 or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no longer have
photo ID.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters
turned away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be >permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's
supporters still cheer...
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 08:24:57 UTC+1, Billy Christy wrote:Tories hope because most deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour win easily anyway.
On 28/04/2023 23:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The reason for this is of course thatOh, I didn't realise it was only 'Tory Scum' that were allowed to apply
the Tory Scum are trying to suppress the non-Tory vote, and are barely
even trying to hide this fact. They know they can't win a democratic
election, and are therefore trying to arrange a non-democratic one.
for voter photo id cards or a postal vote. Thank you for enlightening
the group with your knowledge.
However, unless you have some more evidence to justify your assertion
this is a dastardly evil 'Tory Scum' plot I think this is complete nonsense.
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any effort would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID card. Whilst true the effect will be less than the
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice,so ergo they no longer have photo ID.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters turned away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's supporters still cheer...
On 28/04/2023 23:55, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 28/04/2023 22:11, Michael Chare wrote:
Does anyone know why bus passes and Oyster cards are only allowed as >>>proof of ID for older voters?
In order to get a senior bus pass, I had to prove to the local
authority that I was who I claim to be, was over 60 and that the
photo was mine. Like my driving licence and passport, it is a
document issued by a government approved body with the photograph >>validated. My senior rail pass did not need the same degree of
validation and is not an acceptable form of voting ID.
That, clearly, is the explanation; it's nothing to do with "Tory scum".
Just because a card has your photo on it doesn't mean it proves your >identity.
I still have a Rail Photocard which was issued to me a few years ago
when I bought a season ticket. I had to apply in person with a
photograph but I didn't have to prove I was who I said I was; it wasn't >necessary as the sole purpose of the card was to prevent me from
lending my season ticket to someone else (except for an identical twin
I don't have).
Presumable the same thing applies to passes or Oysters issued to
younger people.
(I assume the people who made the rules have established that issuers
of older people's bus (and Freedom) passes *do* check identity.
My first one, issued by South Bucks council was just sent through the
post and I didn't have to prove my identity, or, I think, my age.)
For my latest one, issued by Slough Unitary Council I had to attend
with my driving licence to prove my identity.
(I'm not sure what would have happened if I still had my South Bucks
one; maybe people were assumed to be more honest in those days.)
On 28/04/2023 23:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The reason for this is of course that
the Tory Scum are trying to suppress the non-Tory vote, and are barely
even trying to hide this fact. They know they can't win a democratic
election, and are therefore trying to arrange a non-democratic one.
Oh, I didn't realise it was only 'Tory Scum' that were allowed to apply
for voter photo id cards or a postal vote. Thank you for enlightening
the group with your knowledge.
Although this is from the Grauniad it explains how this voter ID trick
is straight out of the US Republican playbook for disenfranchising poor
and working class voters. They use some of the same advisers in the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/06/tories-id-voting-booths-labour-disadvantaged-ballot-box
Anyone intending to commit voter fraud will apply for a postal vote.
(that isn't much use to me the VH is closer than the post box)
On 29/04/2023 12:11, notya...@gmail.com wrote:the Tories hope because most deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour win easily anyway.
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any effort would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID card. Whilst true the effect will be less than
A good point. I was thinking the same when Roland talked of heartlands.advice, so ergo they no longer have photo ID.
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical
I just read the criteria, expired photo ID is explicitly mentioned as acceptable.
It's all the very same local authorities who conduct the elections, and
issue voter ID and Blue Badges. They trust themselves to have done a reasonable job!
On 29/04/2023 12:11, notya...@gmail.com wrote:the Tories hope because most deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour win easily anyway.
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any effort would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID card. Whilst true the effect will be less than
A good point. I was thinking the same when Roland talked of heartlands.advice, so ergo they no longer have photo ID.
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical
I just read the criteria, expired photo ID is explicitly mentioned as acceptable.
On 29/04/2023 12:11, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less >>likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any
effort would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID
card. Whilst true the effect will be less than the Tories hope
because most deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour
win easily anyway.
A good point. I was thinking the same when Roland talked of heartlands.
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards
voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have >>allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to
lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no
longer have photo ID.
I just read the criteria, expired photo ID is explicitly mentioned as >acceptable.
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 08:24:57 UTC+1, Billy Christy wrote:
On 28/04/2023 23:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The reason for this is of course that the Tory Scum are trying toOh, I didn't realise it was only 'Tory Scum' that were allowed to apply
suppress the non-Tory vote, and are barely even trying to hide this
fact. They know they can't win a democratic election, and are
therefore trying to arrange a non-democratic one.
for voter photo id cards or a postal vote. Thank you for enlightening
the group with your knowledge.
However, unless you have some more evidence to justify your assertion
this is a dastardly evil 'Tory Scum' plot I think this is complete
nonsense.
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less
likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any effort
would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID card.
Whilst true the effect will be less than the Tories hope because most deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour win easily
anyway.
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have allowed
their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to lapse at 70
or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no longer have photo
ID.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters turned
away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be
permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's supporters still cheer...
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice,so ergo they no longer have photo ID.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters turned away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's supporters still cheer...
Without checking, I believe that all acceptable photo ID documents are acceptable when expired, provided you can still be identified from them.
Ian
In message <8ef7f995-804a-49c9-99d7-ed46de24cbc4n@googlegroups.com>, at 04:11:08 on Sat, 29 Apr 2023, "notya...@gmail.com"
<notyalckram@gmail.com> remarked:
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 08:24:57 UTC+1, Billy Christy wrote:
On 28/04/2023 23:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The reason for this is of course that the Tory Scum are trying toOh, I didn't realise it was only 'Tory Scum' that were allowed to
suppress the non-Tory vote, and are barely even trying to hide this
fact. They know they can't win a democratic election, and are
therefore trying to arrange a non-democratic one.
apply for voter photo id cards or a postal vote. Thank you for
enlightening the group with your knowledge.
However, unless you have some more evidence to justify your assertion
this is a dastardly evil 'Tory Scum' plot I think this is complete
nonsense.
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less
likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any effort >>would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID card.
Whilst true the effect will be less than the Tories hope because most >>deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour win easily
anyway.
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards voting >>Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have allowed
their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to lapse at 70
or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no longer have photo >>ID.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters turned >>away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be
permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's supporters >>still cheer...
If any of that is true, why do you think it would not have emerged in
the various trial-areas?
Does anyone know why bus passes and Oyster cards are only allowed as
proof of ID for older voters?
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 14:53:45 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
Without checking, I believe that all acceptable photo ID documents are
acceptable when expired, provided you can still be identified from them.
Ian
WeBuyAnyCar won't accept a passport that has expired as proof of photo ID.
Had real hassles recently when trying to sell a car to them, it almost reached the point of "should we just forget the whole thing?"
On 29/04/2023 08:55, Martin Brown wrote:
Although this is from the Grauniad it explains how this voter ID trick
is straight out of the US Republican playbook for disenfranchising
poor and working class voters. They use some of the same advisers in
the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/06/tories-id-voting-booths-labour-disadvantaged-ballot-box
Based on her articles, Ellie Mae O'Hagan, the author of the article,
probably shares the same 'Tory Scum' views, just expressed more
eloquently than some.
Anyone intending to commit voter fraud will apply for a postal vote.
(that isn't much use to me the VH is closer than the post box)
I agree.
On 29/04/2023 12:11, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less
likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any
effort would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID
card. Whilst true the effect will be less than the Tories hope
because most deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour
win easily anyway.
A good point. I was thinking the same when Roland talked of heartlands.
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards
voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have
allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to
lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no
longer have photo ID.
I just read the criteria, expired photo ID is explicitly mentioned as acceptable.
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 12:19:00 UTC+1, Pancho wrote:the Tories hope because most deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour win easily anyway.
On 29/04/2023 12:11, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any effort would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID card. Whilst true the effect will be less than
advice, so ergo they no longer have photo ID.A good point. I was thinking the same when Roland talked of heartlands.
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical
I just read the criteria, expired photo ID is explicitly mentioned as
acceptable.
If they still have it (and in the case of driving licences, if they ever had a photocard issued in the first place).
It does seem like a (very expensive, bureaucratic) sledgehammer to crack an almost non-existent nut. And odd that they've leapt straight from no ID to quite a high standard of ID - why not simply "bring your polling card" as an option?
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 12:11:19 UTC+1, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards
voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have >>allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to
lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no
longer have photo ID.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters
turned away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be >>permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's
supporters still cheer...
Indeed. My passport has expired and even though the photo on it is
clearly me (I've been fortunate to have weathered well since 2009 when
it was last renewed) it is somehow no longer acceptable as a form of
photo id.
Likewise, my pink paper driving licence from 1981 isn't acceptable.
So one less Tory vote in future as I'm sure I'll be turned away from
the polling station.
In message <6f04e6ae-c873-4aa6...@googlegroups.com>,
Tikli Chestikov <tikli.c...@gmail.com> writes
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 12:11:19 UTC+1, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards
voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have >>allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to >>lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no
longer have photo ID.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters
turned away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be >>permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's
supporters still cheer...
Indeed. My passport has expired and even though the photo on it is
clearly me (I've been fortunate to have weathered well since 2009 when
it was last renewed) it is somehow no longer acceptable as a form of
photo id.
Likewise, my pink paper driving licence from 1981 isn't acceptable.
So one less Tory vote in future as I'm sure I'll be turned away fromFor what (other than when used as a passport) is your expired passport
the polling station.
no longer acceptable as photo ID?
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 21:59:37 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <6f04e6ae-c873-4aa6...@googlegroups.com>,
Tikli Chestikov <tikli.c...@gmail.com> writes
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 12:11:19 UTC+1, notya...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>For what (other than when used as a passport) is your expired passport
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards
voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have
allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to
lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no
longer have photo ID.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters
turned away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be
permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's
supporters still cheer...
Indeed. My passport has expired and even though the photo on it is
clearly me (I've been fortunate to have weathered well since 2009 when
it was last renewed) it is somehow no longer acceptable as a form of
photo id.
Likewise, my pink paper driving licence from 1981 isn't acceptable.
So one less Tory vote in future as I'm sure I'll be turned away from
the polling station.
no longer acceptable as photo ID?
There aren't standardised rules for such things,
but certainly some places
which require to check ID for anti-money-laundering purposes require ID
to be in date. I suppose the logic is that an out of date passport might be more likely to be tampered with, in a way which might get past a bank
clerk but not an immigration officer.
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 08:24:57 UTC+1, Billy Christy wrote:
On 28/04/2023 23:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The reason for this is of course thatOh, I didn't realise it was only 'Tory Scum' that were allowed to apply
the Tory Scum are trying to suppress the non-Tory vote, and are barely
even trying to hide this fact. They know they can't win a democratic
election, and are therefore trying to arrange a non-democratic one.
for voter photo id cards or a postal vote. Thank you for enlightening
the group with your knowledge.
However, unless you have some more evidence to justify your assertion
this is a dastardly evil 'Tory Scum' plot I think this is complete nonsense.
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.Tories hope because most deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour win easily anyway.
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any effort would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID card. Whilst true the effect will be less than the
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice,so ergo they no longer have photo ID.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters turned away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's supporters still cheer...
Indeed. My passport has expired and even though the photo on it is clearly me (I've been fortunate to have weathered well since 2009 when it was last renewed) it is somehow no longer acceptable as a form of photo id.
Likewise, my pink paper driving licence from 1981 isn't acceptable.
Tikli Chestikov <tikli.chestikov@gmail.com> writes
notya...@gmail.com wrote:
My passport has expired and even though the photo on it is
clearly me (I've been fortunate to have weathered well since 2009 when
it was last renewed) it is somehow no longer acceptable as a form of
photo id.
Likewise, my pink paper driving licence from 1981 isn't acceptable.
So one less Tory vote in future as I'm sure I'll be turned away from
the polling station.
For what (other than when used as a passport) is your expired passport
no longer acceptable as photo ID?
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:11:26 +0100, Michael Chare ><mUNDERSCOREnews@chareDOTorg.uk> wrote:
Does anyone know why bus passes and Oyster cards are only allowed as
proof of ID for older voters?
Mainly because the need to ensure that they are only issued to people old >enough to be eligible involves checking their identity prior to issuing
them. Ordinary Oyster cards don't require any ID check to obtain, so they >are, therefore, not a form of ID themselves.
The young person's equivalent of the older person's bus pass or Freedom pass >is the Proof of Age Scheme, or PASS, card.
On 29/04/2023 10:18 pm, David McNeish wrote:
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 21:59:37 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <6f04e6ae-c873-4aa6...@googlegroups.com>,There aren't standardised rules for such things,
Tikli Chestikov <tikli.c...@gmail.com> writes
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 12:11:19 UTC+1, notya...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>For what (other than when used as a passport) is your expired passport
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards
voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have >>>>> allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to >>>>> lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no
longer have photo ID.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters
turned away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be >>>>> permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's
supporters still cheer...
Indeed. My passport has expired and even though the photo on it is
clearly me (I've been fortunate to have weathered well since 2009 when >>>> it was last renewed) it is somehow no longer acceptable as a form of
photo id.
Likewise, my pink paper driving licence from 1981 isn't acceptable.
So one less Tory vote in future as I'm sure I'll be turned away from
the polling station.
no longer acceptable as photo ID?
Actually, for the purpose of casting votes in UK elections and
referenda, there *are*. See my other post in this thread, sent a few
minutes ago.
Or see: ><https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/voter-id/accepted-f >orms-photo-id>
--but certainly some places
which require to check ID for anti-money-laundering purposes require ID
to be in date. I suppose the logic is that an out of date passport might be >> more likely to be tampered with, in a way which might get past a bank
clerk but not an immigration officer.
On 29-Apr-23 12:11, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 08:24:57 UTC+1, Billy Christy wrote:
On 28/04/2023 23:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The reason for this is of course thatOh, I didn't realise it was only 'Tory Scum' that were allowed to apply
the Tory Scum are trying to suppress the non-Tory vote, and are barely >>>> even trying to hide this fact. They know they can't win a democratic
election, and are therefore trying to arrange a non-democratic one.
for voter photo id cards or a postal vote. Thank you for enlightening
the group with your knowledge.
However, unless you have some more evidence to justify your assertion
this is a dastardly evil 'Tory Scum' plot I think this is complete
nonsense.
Then please explain why a 'Senior Citizen's bus pass is acceptable,
whilst a younger person's ditto is not...
In message <6f04e6ae-c873-4aa6-97e9-a4284ee676d3n@googlegroups.com>,
Tikli Chestikov <tikli.chestikov@gmail.com> writes
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 12:11:19 UTC+1, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards
voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have
allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to
lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no
longer have photo ID.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters
turned away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be
permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's
supporters still cheer...
Indeed. My passport has expired and even though the photo on it is
clearly me (I've been fortunate to have weathered well since 2009 when
it was last renewed) it is somehow no longer acceptable as a form of
photo id.
Likewise, my pink paper driving licence from 1981 isn't acceptable.
So one less Tory vote in future as I'm sure I'll be turned away from
the polling station.
For what (other than when used as a passport) is your expired passport
no longer acceptable as photo ID?
On 29-Apr-23 15:36, Tikli Chestikov wrote:
 In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's supporters still
cheer...
Indeed. My passport has expired and even though the photo on it is clearly me
(I've been fortunate to have weathered well since 2009 when it was last
renewed) it is somehow no longer acceptable as a form of photo id.
Likewise, my pink paper driving licence from 1981 isn't acceptable.
So you haven't changed your address in the last 42 years?
I thought I was an outlier, but I had to give the pink licence up, when the clock struck 70.
On 29-Apr-23 12:11, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 08:24:57 UTC+1, Billy Christy wrote:
On 28/04/2023 23:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The reason for this is of course thatOh, I didn't realise it was only 'Tory Scum' that were allowed to apply
the Tory Scum are trying to suppress the non-Tory vote, and are barely >>>> even trying to hide this fact. They know they can't win a democratic
election, and are therefore trying to arrange a non-democratic one.
for voter photo id cards or a postal vote. Thank you for enlightening
the group with your knowledge.
However, unless you have some more evidence to justify your assertion
this is a dastardly evil 'Tory Scum' plot I think this is complete nonsense.
Then please explain why a 'Senior Citizen's bus pass is acceptable, whilst a younger person's ditto is not.
On 29/04/2023 21:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <6f04e6ae-c873-4aa6-97e9-a4284ee676d3n@googlegroups.com>,
Tikli Chestikov <tikli.chestikov@gmail.com> writes
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 12:11:19 UTC+1, notya...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>For what (other than when used as a passport) is your expired
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards >>>>voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have >>>>allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to >>>>lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no >>>>longer have photo ID.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters >>>>turned away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be >>>>permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's >>>>supporters still cheer...
Indeed. My passport has expired and even though the photo on it is >>>clearly me (I've been fortunate to have weathered well since 2009
when it was last renewed) it is somehow no longer acceptable as a
form of photo id.
Likewise, my pink paper driving licence from 1981 isn't acceptable.
So one less Tory vote in future as I'm sure I'll be turned away from
the polling station.
passport no longer acceptable as photo ID?
An expired passport is a photo at least 10 years out of date - people
can change appearance a lot in that sort of timescale. Some do and some
don't but I can think of plenty of people who don't look much like
their *current* passport photo never mind one that is a decade out of
date.
Then please explain why a 'Senior Citizen's bus pass is acceptable,
whilst a younger person's ditto is not.
On 29/04/2023 21:59, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <6f04e6ae-c873-4aa6-97e9-a4284ee676d3n@googlegroups.com>,
Tikli Chestikov <tikli.chestikov@gmail.com> writes
Indeed. My passport has expired and even though the photo on it is
clearly me (I've been fortunate to have weathered well since 2009
when it was last renewed) it is somehow no longer acceptable as a
form of photo id.
Likewise, my pink paper driving licence from 1981 isn't acceptable.
So one less Tory vote in future as I'm sure I'll be turned away from
the polling station.
For what (other than when used as a passport) is your expired passport
no longer acceptable as photo ID?
An expired passport is a photo at least 10 years out of date - people
can change appearance a lot in that sort of timescale. Some do and some
don't but I can think of plenty of people who don't look much like their *current* passport photo never mind one that is a decade out of date.
On 29-Apr-23 12:11, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 08:24:57 UTC+1, Billy Christy wrote:
On 28/04/2023 23:46, Jon Ribbens wrote:
The reason for this is of course thatOh, I didn't realise it was only 'Tory Scum' that were allowed to apply
the Tory Scum are trying to suppress the non-Tory vote, and are barely >>>> even trying to hide this fact. They know they can't win a democratic
election, and are therefore trying to arrange a non-democratic one.
for voter photo id cards or a postal vote. Thank you for enlightening
the group with your knowledge.
However, unless you have some more evidence to justify your assertion
this is a dastardly evil 'Tory Scum' plot I think this is complete
nonsense.
Then please explain why a 'Senior Citizen's bus pass is acceptable,
whilst a younger person's ditto is not.
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less
likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any
effort would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID
card. Whilst true the effect will be less than the Tories hope
because most deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour
win easily anyway.
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards
voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have
allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to
lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no
longer have photo ID.
Nope.
The Electoral Commission's list of accepted forms of Photo ID includes:
Older Person’s Bus Pass funded by the Government of the United Kingdom Disabled Person’s Bus Pass funded by the Government of the United Kingdom Oyster 60+ Card funded by the Government of the United Kingdom
Freedom Pass
Scottish National Entitlement Card
60 and Over Welsh Concessionary Travel Card
Disabled Person’s Welsh Concessionary Travel Card
Senior SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland
Registered Blind SmartPass or Blind Person’s SmartPass issued in
Northern Ireland
War Disablement SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland
60+ SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland
Half Fare SmartPass issued in Northern Ireland
If they no longer have a driving licence, then the chances of them _not_ having one of the above is near zero.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters
turned away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be
permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's
supporters still cheer...
It's a game of two halves.
In message <kb5itcFioigU2@mid.individual.net>, JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> writes
On 29/04/2023 10:18 pm, David McNeish wrote:
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 21:59:37 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message <6f04e6ae-c873-4aa6...@googlegroups.com>, There aren't standardised rules for such things,
Tikli Chestikov <tikli.c...@gmail.com> writes
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 12:11:19 UTC+1, notya...@gmail.comFor what (other than when used as a passport) is your expired passport >>>> no longer acceptable as photo ID?
wrote:
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards
voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have >>>>>> allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to >>>>>> lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no >>>>>> longer have photo ID.
There will be a lot of sob stories on 5th May from elderly voters
turned away from polling stations, and these electors will likely be >>>>>> permanently alienated from the Conservative Party.
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's
supporters still cheer...
Indeed. My passport has expired and even though the photo on it is
clearly me (I've been fortunate to have weathered well since 2009 when >>>>> it was last renewed) it is somehow no longer acceptable as a form of >>>>> photo id.
Likewise, my pink paper driving licence from 1981 isn't acceptable.
So one less Tory vote in future as I'm sure I'll be turned away from >>>>> the polling station.
Actually, for the purpose of casting votes in UK elections and
referenda, there *are*. See my other post in this thread, sent a few
minutes ago.
Or see:
<https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/voter-id/accepted-f
orms-photo-id>
However, the information about "Out of date photo ID" is second from
last, near the bottom. It should first thing referred to.
Did you get a reasonable price?
So you haven't changed your address in the last 42 years?
I thought I was an outlier, but I had to give the pink licence up, when
the clock struck 70.
--
Sam Plusnet
Out of date photo ID
You can still use your photo ID if it's out of date, as long as it looks
like you.
The name on your ID should be the same name you used to register to vote. ENDQUOTE
That ought to be authoritative enough for anyone.
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 18:02:00 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
Did you get a reasonable price?
Sold the car to them for £2k more than I paid for it new.
9 months old, 2000 miles on the clock.
Second hand values are crazy right now, I see it's on the market for £38k, I paid £31k via DriveTheDeal and WBAC gave me £33k.
We live in interesting times.
On 29/04/2023 23:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
Then please explain why a 'Senior Citizen's bus pass is acceptable,
whilst a younger person's ditto is not...
For the same reason that my Senior Rail Card is not. To get my Senior
Bus Pass I had to prove my identity to the issuing authority. To get my
rail card, I only had to pay money and provide a photo, which is there
to stop anybody else using it. The checks made mean that the photo on my
bus pass has to be me, while that on my rail card could be of anybody.
On 29-Apr-23 15:36, Tikli Chestikov wrote:
In football they call this an "own goal" and the other side's
supporters still cheer...
Indeed. My passport has expired and even though the photo on it is clearly me (I've been fortunate to have weathered well since 2009 when it was last renewed) it is somehow no longer acceptable as a form of photo id.
Likewise, my pink paper driving licence from 1981 isn't acceptable.So you haven't changed your address in the last 42 years?
I thought I was an outlier, but I had to give the pink licence up, when
the clock struck 70.
--
Sam Plusnet
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 12:19:00 UTC+1, Pancho wrote:the Tories hope because most deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour win easily anyway.
On 29/04/2023 12:11, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any effort would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID card. Whilst true the effect will be less than
advice, so ergo they no longer have photo ID.A good point. I was thinking the same when Roland talked of heartlands.
Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to have allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical
I just read the criteria, expired photo ID is explicitly mentioned as acceptable.If they still have it (and in the case of driving licences, if they ever had a photocard issued in the first place).
It does seem like a (very expensive, bureaucratic) sledgehammer to crack an almost non-existent nut. And odd that they've leapt straight from no ID to quite a high standard of ID - why not simply "bring your polling card" as an option?
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 15:10:25 UTC+1, David McNeish wrote:
On Saturday, 29 April 2023 at 12:19:00 UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
On 29/04/2023 12:11, notya...@gmail.com wrote:If they still have it (and in the case of driving licences, if they ever
The Tories may have miscalculated on this one.A good point. I was thinking the same when Roland talked of heartlands. >>>> Where they slipped up is that there is a strong age bias towards
Their reasoning was that electors from deprived households were less
likely to have passports and driving licenses and if it took any
effort would less likely to apply for the necessary "back door" ID
card. Whilst true the effect will be less than the Tories hope because >>>> most deprived electors live in deprived areas, where Labour win easily anyway.
voting Conservative and that people over 70 were more likely to haveI just read the criteria, expired photo ID
allowed their passports to expire and / or their driving licenses to
lapse at 70 or surrendered them on medical advice, so ergo they no
longer have photo ID.
is explicitly mentioned asacceptable.
had a photocard issued in the first place).
It does seem like a (very expensive, bureaucratic) sledgehammer to crack
an almost non-existent nut. And odd that they've leapt straight from no
ID to quite a high standard of ID - why not simply "bring your polling card" as an option?
It looks like the Tories have woken up to the issue. Quite apart from
what will probably be many genuine cases of older people not remembering
to bring passports or driving licenses that they either don't have or
keep at home because they rarely use them, it seems that they are
concerned that those opposed to this ridiculous measure may intend to
turn up and deliberately cause a scene and disruption at polling stations. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/30/left-wing-local-elections-no-id-protests-tories/
On 30-Apr-23 9:12, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 29/04/2023 23:10, Sam Plusnet wrote:
Then please explain why a 'Senior Citizen's bus pass is acceptable,
whilst a younger person's ditto is not...
For the same reason that my Senior Rail Card is not. To get my Senior
Bus Pass I had to prove my identity to the issuing authority. To get my
rail card, I only had to pay money and provide a photo, which is there
to stop anybody else using it. The checks made mean that the photo on my
bus pass has to be me, while that on my rail card could be of anybody.
Thanks. That makes sense.
notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]As an ‘older person’, I find the trend to claim older people can’t cope with paying to park via an app, can’t produce ID, don’t understand the internet, …… rather insulting.
As an ‘older person’, I find the trend to claim older people can’t cope with paying to park via an app, can’t produce ID, don’t understand the internet, …… rather insulting.
Who do those making this claim think invented the Internet or the microprocessor? Let alone the transistor.
I was designing systems based on microprocessors in the 1980s, my brother ( who is nearly a decade old than me) was programming computers in the late 1960s,
my school had a computer in 1965 or so and we learned basic computer programming.
Employers are finding it is the younger generations who lack basic IT
skills, not more mature employees. TikTok has limited value in business.
In message <u2iii4$2sbu6$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:55:47 on Sat, 29 Apr
2023, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Anyone intending to commit voter fraud will apply for a postal vote.
Apparently after widespread consultation, and trials, people don't
appear to agree with your condemnation of the ID scheme.
(that isn't much use to me the VH is closer than the post box)
The main reason to get a postal vote is because you'll be away that day.
Or indeed, manning a polling station (which is a particular category of
being away all day).
On 01/05/2023 12:40, Brian wrote:
...
As an ‘older person’, I find the trend to claim older people can’t cope
with paying to park via an app, can’t produce ID, don’t understand the >> internet, …… rather insulting.
I quite agree.
Who do those making this claim think invented the Internet or the
microprocessor? Let alone the transistor.
I was designing systems based on microprocessors in the 1980s, my
brother (
who is nearly a decade old than me) was programming computers in the late
1960s,
Memories of spending hours at a punched card machine and hoping that,
when the printout eventually came back, the programme had actually worked.
my school had a computer in 1965 or so and we learned basic computer
programming.
Employers are finding it is the younger generations who lack basic IT
skills, not more mature employees. TikTok has limited value in business. >>
The dreaded missed , or ; or whatever on the 8th card after
waiting a week for it to be run. My first Fortran program took me
about a month to get right .
On 01/05/2023 18:26, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 01/05/2023 12:40, Brian wrote:The dreaded missed , or ; or whatever on the 8th card after waiting a
...
As an ‘older person’, I find the trend to claim older people can’t cope
with paying to park via an app, can’t produce ID, don’t understand the >>> internet, …… rather insulting.
I quite agree.
Who do those making this claim think invented the Internet or the
microprocessor? Let alone the transistor.
I was designing systems based on microprocessors in the 1980s, my
brother (
who is nearly a decade old than me) was programming computers in the
late
1960s,
Memories of spending hours at a punched card machine and hoping that,
when the printout eventually came back, the programme had actually
worked.
my school had a computer in 1965 or so and we learned basic computer
programming.
Employers are finding it is the younger generations who lack basic IT
skills, not more mature employees. TikTok has limited value in
business.
week for it to be run. My first Fortran program took me about a month to
get right .
On 01-May-23 21:09, Robert wrote:
[...] My first Fortran program took me about aAt least it allowed you to practice modifying cards with the manual
month to get right .
punch machine.
Roland Perry wrote:That, I fear, is true.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Anyone intending to commit voter fraud will apply for a postal vote.
Apparently after widespread consultation, and trials, people don't
appear to agree with your condemnation of the ID scheme.
(that isn't much use to me the VH is closer than the post box)
The main reason to get a postal vote is because you'll be away that day.
Or indeed, manning a polling station (which is a particular category of
being away all day).
Voting in person would be important if you had reasons to be concerned
about interference with your postal ballot or coercion at home, but I
don't understand why everyone else doesn't just vote by post every
time. It's much more convenient and you don't have to worry about
unforeseen circumstances stopping you from voting on the day.
On Mon, 01 May 2023 11:40:17 +0000, Brian wrote:
notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]As an ‘older person’, I find the trend to claim older people can’t cope
with paying to park via an app, can’t produce ID, don’t understand the >> internet, …… rather insulting.
I think the real worry is the hard core of older voters who won't have
the required ID because "they don't need it". It's their attitude not
their abilities that is the issue
Remember this scheme is to stop young lefties voting, not respectable
white pensioners.
On 01/05/2023 07:34 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:That, I fear, is true.
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Anyone intending to commit voter fraud will apply for a postal vote.
That is not to say that everyone with a postal vote is fraudulent, of
course. I once voted by post because I was travelling daily to a remote
work location and had a genuine apprehension that I might get caught in
an M25 jam on the way home.
Apparently after widespread consultation, and trials, people don't
appear to agree with your condemnation of the ID scheme.
(that isn't much use to me the VH is closer than the post box)
The main reason to get a postal vote is because you'll be away that day. >>> Or indeed, manning a polling station (which is a particular category of
being away all day).
Voting in person would be important if you had reasons to be concerned
about interference with your postal ballot or coercion at home, but I
don't understand why everyone else doesn't just vote by post every
time. It's much more convenient and you don't have to worry about
unforeseen circumstances stopping you from voting on the day.
Postal voting is far too prone to fraud. The rules were significantly
relaxed by the Blair government, a move which enabled, inert alia, the
Tower Hamlets scam, where dozens of people were said to be living in
various small flats, etc.
The rules need to be changed back to what they were in early 1997.
Postal votes should only be available to people who know they will be
away from home (business, holiday) on polling day or who are genuinely
too infirm to attend the polling station.
On Mon, 01 May 2023 11:40:17 +0000, Brian wrote:
notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]As an ‘older person’, I find the trend to claim older people can’t cope
with paying to park via an app, can’t produce ID, don’t understand the >> internet, …… rather insulting.
I think the real worry is the hard core of older voters who won't have
the required ID because "they don't need it". It's their attitude not
their abilities that is the issue
Remember this scheme is to stop young lefties voting, not respectable
white pensioners.
On 01/05/2023 17:28, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2023 11:40:17 +0000, Brian wrote:
notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]As an ‘older person’, I find the trend to claim older people can’t cope
with paying to park via an app, can’t produce ID, don’t understand the >>> internet, …… rather insulting.
I think the real worry is the hard core of older voters who won't have
the required ID because "they don't need it". It's their attitude not
their abilities that is the issue
Remember this scheme is to stop young lefties voting, not respectable
white pensioners.
That may be the intention. But of all the age groups who are least
likely to have photo IDs it's going to be the elderly.
If you don't have a driving licence or a passport, it's a devil to open
a bank account.[1]
Solicitors, for example, will sometimes charge a fee if you don't have
photo ID and have to make an check online.
[1] I know there are alternative acceptable forms of ID, as well as
having a credit record, but not all institutions will accept them.
On 01/05/2023 18:26, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 01/05/2023 12:40, Brian wrote:The dreaded missed , or ; or whatever on the 8th card after waiting a
...
As an ‘older person’, I find the trend to claim older people can’t cope
with paying to park via an app, can’t produce ID, don’t understand the >>> internet, …… rather insulting.
I quite agree.
Who do those making this claim think invented the Internet or the
microprocessor? Let alone the transistor.
I was designing systems based on microprocessors in the 1980s, my
brother (
who is nearly a decade old than me) was programming computers in the late >>> 1960s,
Memories of spending hours at a punched card machine and hoping that,
when the printout eventually came back, the programme had actually worked. >>
my school had a computer in 1965 or so and we learned basic computer
programming.
Employers are finding it is the younger generations who lack basic IT
skills, not more mature employees. TikTok has limited value in business. >>>
week for it to be run. My first Fortran program took me about a month to
get right .
On 2023-04-29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <u2iii4$2sbu6$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:55:47 on Sat, 29 Apr
2023, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Anyone intending to commit voter fraud will apply for a postal vote.
Apparently after widespread consultation, and trials, people don't
appear to agree with your condemnation of the ID scheme.
(that isn't much use to me the VH is closer than the post box)
The main reason to get a postal vote is because you'll be away that day.
Or indeed, manning a polling station (which is a particular category of
being away all day).
Voting in person would be important if you had reasons to be concerned
about interference with your postal ballot or coercion at home, but I
don't understand why everyone else doesn't just vote by post every
time. It's much more convenient and you don't have to worry about
unforeseen circumstances stopping you from voting on the day.
Robert <robert@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 01/05/2023 18:26, Colin Bignell wrote:
On 01/05/2023 12:40, Brian wrote:The dreaded missed , or ; or whatever on the 8th card after waiting a
...
As an ‘older person’, I find the trend to claim older people can’t cope
with paying to park via an app, can’t produce ID, don’t understand the >>>> internet, …… rather insulting.
I quite agree.
Who do those making this claim think invented the Internet or the
microprocessor? Let alone the transistor.
I was designing systems based on microprocessors in the 1980s, my
brother (
who is nearly a decade old than me) was programming computers in the late >>>> 1960s,
Memories of spending hours at a punched card machine and hoping that,
when the printout eventually came back, the programme had actually worked. >>>
my school had a computer in 1965 or so and we learned basic computer
programming.
Employers are finding it is the younger generations who lack basic IT
skills, not more mature employees. TikTok has limited value in business. >>>>
week for it to be run. My first Fortran program took me about a month to
get right .
Cards, not until University.
Paper tape. The computer the school had was valve based. It had been
donated by an insurance company and filled a classroom. I think it was installed in 1965 - a few years before I passed the 11 plus and joined the school as a first year in 1968. It was scrapped in about 1971 , when we started using the local Town Hall computer. We prepared our programmes on paper tapes, they were transported to the Town Hall each evening, run
through as a batch job, and returned the next morning with the print outs.
I assume a teacher dropped them off etc but I don’t really know.
Even at Uni, some programming was done on paper tape. Fortran was on cards. Assembler on the Data General Nova was on tape. This was in the mid/ late 70s.
On 01/05/2023 19:34, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-29, Roland Perry wrote:
In message <u2iii4$2sbu6$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:55:47 on Sat, 29 Apr
2023, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> remarked:
Anyone intending to commit voter fraud will apply for a postal vote.
Apparently after widespread consultation, and trials, people don't
appear to agree with your condemnation of the ID scheme.
(that isn't much use to me the VH is closer than the post box)
The main reason to get a postal vote is because you'll be away that day. >>> Or indeed, manning a polling station (which is a particular category of
being away all day).
Voting in person would be important if you had reasons to be concerned
about interference with your postal ballot or coercion at home, but I
don't understand why everyone else doesn't just vote by post every
time. It's much more convenient and you don't have to worry about
unforeseen circumstances stopping you from voting on the day.
Whether I vote in person or send my vote by post, I have to park in the
same car park and the polling station is marginally closer than the
letter box.
On Mon, 01 May 2023 19:34:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-29, Roland Perry wrote:
The main reason to get a postal vote is because you'll be away that day. >> Or indeed, manning a polling station (which is a particular category of
being away all day).
Voting in person would be important if you had reasons to be concerned >about interference with your postal ballot or coercion at home, but IVoting in person you can be 100% certain that your vote has been cast and will be counted. With a postal vote, you are always at the mercy of the postal system and, while reliable enough most of the time, may not be quite reliable enough if you really care about your vote. And if you're the kind
don't understand why everyone else doesn't just vote by post every
time. It's much more convenient and you don't have to worry about >unforeseen circumstances stopping you from voting on the day.
of person who is habitually disorganised about many things, then remembering to post your vote in time may be a tad more challenging than remembering
that today is polling day. There will be plenty of reminders, in the media and on social media, of when polling day is. But nobody is going to prompt you to post your ballot paper a few days before that.
Finally, posting a postal vote means taking the ballot paper to a postbox. I'm sure I can't be the only person for whom my polling station is actually closer than my closest postbox!
On Mon, 01 May 2023 11:40:17 +0000, Brian wrote:
notya...@gmail.com <notyalckram@gmail.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]As an ‘older person’, I find the trend to claim older people can’t cope
with paying to park via an app, can’t produce ID, don’t understand the
internet, …… rather insulting.
I think the real worry is the hard core of older voters who won't have
the required ID because "they don't need it". It's their attitude not
their abilities that is the issue
On 2023-04-29, Roland Perry wrote:
The main reason to get a postal vote is because you'll be away that day.
Or indeed, manning a polling station (which is a particular category of
being away all day).
Voting in person would be important if you had reasons to be concerned
about interference with your postal ballot or coercion at home, but I
don't understand why everyone else doesn't just vote by post every
time. It's much more convenient and you don't have to worry about
unforeseen circumstances stopping you from voting on the day.
If someone can’t be bothered to identify themselves, then they obviously can’t be that bothered about voting.
On Mon, 01 May 2023 19:34:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Voting in person you can be 100% certain that your vote has been cast
and will be counted.
On Wed, 03 May 2023 17:44:20 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2023 19:34:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Voting in person you can be 100% certain that your vote has been cast
and will be counted.
I disagree.
You can be certain it went in the ballot box. After that, you have to
take everything on faith.
And my faith in public services is extremely limited and rather
unreasonably evidence based.
To reverse the telescope. The state has no way to prove to me - beyond
bland assurances and a mountain of best intentions - that my vote was included in whatever numbers are finally used to determine the outcome.
And since the remedy for being unlawfully denied the chance to vote is
"Too bad, so sad", the value of a vote is effectively zero.
Unless you know different ?
Does anyone know why bus passes and Oyster cards are only allowed as
proof of ID for older voters?
On 3 May 2023 at 19:24:35 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 2023 17:44:20 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2023 19:34:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Voting in person you can be 100% certain that your vote has been cast
and will be counted.
I disagree.
You can be certain it went in the ballot box. After that, you have to
take everything on faith.
And my faith in public services is extremely limited and rather
unreasonably evidence based.
To reverse the telescope. The state has no way to prove to me - beyond
bland assurances and a mountain of best intentions - that my vote was
included in whatever numbers are finally used to determine the outcome.
And since the remedy for being unlawfully denied the chance to vote is
"Too bad, so sad", the value of a vote is effectively zero.
Unless you know different ?
The state does indeed have a way to prove it - but will not do so for
your benefit. I am a bit hazy as to what crime has to be suspected for
the authorities to permit themselves to correlate the number on the
ballot paper with the number marked on the copy of the electoral
register used in the polling station, but it certainly isn't done just
to reassure you that your vote was counted.
On Wed, 03 May 2023 17:44:20 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2023 19:34:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Voting in person you can be 100% certain that your vote has been cast
and will be counted.
I disagree.
You can be certain it went in the ballot box. After that, you have to
take everything on faith.
And my faith in public services is extremely limited and rather
unreasonably evidence based.
To reverse the telescope. The state has no way to prove to me - beyond
bland assurances and a mountain of best intentions - that my vote was included in whatever numbers are finally used to determine the outcome.
And since the remedy for being unlawfully denied the chance to vote is
"Too bad, so sad", the value of a vote is effectively zero.
Unless you know different ?
On Wed, 03 May 2023 17:44:20 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2023 19:34:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Voting in person you can be 100% certain that your vote has been cast
and will be counted.
I disagree.
You can be certain it went in the ballot box. After that, you have to
take everything on faith.
And my faith in public services is extremely limited and rather
unreasonably evidence based.
To reverse the telescope. The state has no way to prove to me - beyond
bland assurances and a mountain of best intentions - that my vote was included in whatever numbers are finally used to determine the outcome.
And since the remedy for being unlawfully denied the chance to vote is
"Too bad, so sad", the value of a vote is effectively zero.
Unless you know different ?
On Wed, 03 May 2023 17:44:20 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 2023 19:34:27 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Voting in person you can be 100% certain that your vote has been cast
and will be counted.
I disagree.
You can be certain it went in the ballot box. After that, you have to
take everything on faith.
And my faith in public services is extremely limited and rather
unreasonably evidence based.
To reverse the telescope. The state has no way to prove to me - beyond
bland assurances and a mountain of best intentions - that my vote was >included in whatever numbers are finally used to determine the outcome.
And since the remedy for being unlawfully denied the chance to vote is
"Too bad, so sad", the value of a vote is effectively zero.
Unless you know different ?
On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:28:20 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I think the real worry is the hard core of older voters who won't have
the required ID because "they don't need it". It's their attitude not
their abilities that is the issue
My mum is a classic example of an older person who doesn't have photo ID,
not because of any lack of ability but because of a genuine lack of need.
She hasn't renewed her driving licence, because her eyesight is no longer adequate for driving. She hasn't renewed her passport, because since dad's dementia got too severe for him to travel she's had no reason to go
overseas.
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:11:26 +0100, Michael Chare wrote:
Does anyone know why bus passes and Oyster cards are only allowed as
proof of ID for older voters?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voters-id-election-polling- b2331700.html
On 03/05/2023 21:00, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I pity the poor staff having to tell people that they can't vote because
they don't look even remotely like their ancient out of date photo ID.
Plenty of people don't look much like their current passport photo!
On 03/05/2023 21:00, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:11:26 +0100, Michael Chare wrote:
Does anyone know why bus passes and Oyster cards are only allowed as
proof of ID for older voters?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voters-id-election-polling- b2331700.html
I pity the poor staff having to tell people that they can't vote because
they don't look even remotely like their ancient out of date photo ID.
Plenty of people don't look much like their current passport photo!
I wonder if any of them have been given training in how to do this?
I wouldn't want to be a presiding officer in a polling station tomorrow
it could get quite heated.
On 03/05/2023 21:00, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023 22:11:26 +0100, Michael Chare wrote:
Does anyone know why bus passes and Oyster cards are only allowed as
proof of ID for older voters?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voters-id-election-polling- >> b2331700.html
I pity the poor staff having to tell people that they can't vote because
they don't look even remotely like their ancient out of date photo ID.
Plenty of people don't look much like their current passport photo!
I wonder if any of them have been given training in how to do this?
On 2023-05-03, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:28:20 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk >><jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I think the real worry is the hard core of older voters who won't have >>>the required ID because "they don't need it". It's their attitude not >>>their abilities that is the issue
My mum is a classic example of an older person who doesn't have photo ID,
not because of any lack of ability but because of a genuine lack of need.
She hasn't renewed her driving licence, because her eyesight is no longer
adequate for driving. She hasn't renewed her passport, because since dad's >> dementia got too severe for him to travel she's had no reason to go
overseas.
So she does have photo ID, because expired photo ID is generally allowed
for voting purposes.
It'll be...interesting...to find out how they're getting on. The vast majority >of polling station staff do not check people's ID in their day job, so >goodness knows how many people will be wrongly turned away because
e.g. their photo is deemed not to resemble their current face, or (if there >is actually anybody trying to impersonate a voter) whether they get
merrily waved through with false ID.
On Wed, 03 May 2023 22:25:08 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
On 03/05/2023 21:00, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I pity the poor staff having to tell people that they can't vote because
they don't look even remotely like their ancient out of date photo ID.
Plenty of people don't look much like their current passport photo!
Which is odd, because it's been chosen as the "gold standard" for this
entire scheme. Funny how - the day before it is to be enacted it now
isn't and "discretion" is advised.
It's *almost* like no thought has gone into the law and no research was
done into the outcomes.
On 2023-05-03, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2023 16:28:20 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk >><jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
I think the real worry is the hard core of older voters who won't have >>>the required ID because "they don't need it". It's their attitude not >>>their abilities that is the issue
My mum is a classic example of an older person who doesn't have photo ID,
not because of any lack of ability but because of a genuine lack of need.
She hasn't renewed her driving licence, because her eyesight is no longer
adequate for driving. She hasn't renewed her passport, because since dad's >> dementia got too severe for him to travel she's had no reason to go
overseas.
So she does have photo ID, because expired photo ID is generally allowed
for voting purposes.
On Thu, 4 May 2023 03:11:16 -0700 (PDT), David McNeish <davidmcn@gmail.com> wrote:
It'll be...interesting...to find out how they're getting on. The vast >>majority of polling station staff do not check people's ID in their
day job, so goodness knows how many people will be wrongly turned away >>because e.g. their photo is deemed not to resemble their current face,
or (if there is actually anybody trying to impersonate a voter)
whether they get merrily waved through with false ID.
As a candidate in today's elections, I did the usual tour of polling
stations in my ward this morning and spoke to the staff on duty. All of them reported precisely zero people turning up without ID.
Obviously, that's fairly early on in what is a long voting day, so there's still plenty of opportunity for it to happen later. But they were all pleasantly surprised by the fact that they hadn't had any so far.
Equally obviously, that tells me nothing about how many people managed to vote with invalid or false ID. But I suspect that's less likely to be a problem overall than people not having it.
On 2023-05-04, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2023 03:11:16 -0700 (PDT), David McNeish <davidmcn@gmail.com> >> wrote:
It'll be...interesting...to find out how they're getting on. The vast >>>majority of polling station staff do not check people's ID in their
day job, so goodness knows how many people will be wrongly turned away >>>because e.g. their photo is deemed not to resemble their current face,
or (if there is actually anybody trying to impersonate a voter)
whether they get merrily waved through with false ID.
As a candidate in today's elections, I did the usual tour of polling
stations in my ward this morning and spoke to the staff on duty. All
of them reported precisely zero people turning up without ID.
Obviously, that's fairly early on in what is a long voting day, so there's >> still plenty of opportunity for it to happen later. But they were all
pleasantly surprised by the fact that they hadn't had any so far.
Equally obviously, that tells me nothing about how many people managed to
vote with invalid or false ID. But I suspect that's less likely to be a
problem overall than people not having it.
It also tells you nothing about how many people didn't turn up at all
because they knew that they wouldn't be allowed to vote even if they
did.
On 2023-05-04, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2023 03:11:16 -0700 (PDT), David McNeish <davidmcn@gmail.com> >> wrote:
It'll be...interesting...to find out how they're getting on. The vast >>>majority of polling station staff do not check people's ID in their
day job, so goodness knows how many people will be wrongly turned away >>>because e.g. their photo is deemed not to resemble their current face,
or (if there is actually anybody trying to impersonate a voter)
whether they get merrily waved through with false ID.
As a candidate in today's elections, I did the usual tour of polling
stations in my ward this morning and spoke to the staff on duty. All of them >> reported precisely zero people turning up without ID.
Obviously, that's fairly early on in what is a long voting day, so there's >> still plenty of opportunity for it to happen later. But they were all
pleasantly surprised by the fact that they hadn't had any so far.
Equally obviously, that tells me nothing about how many people managed to
vote with invalid or false ID. But I suspect that's less likely to be a
problem overall than people not having it.
It also tells you nothing about how many people didn't turn up at all
because they knew that they wouldn't be allowed to vote even if they
did.
Oh, also, apparently there are people stationed *outside* polling
stations checking IDs, or at least telling people they will need
IDs. So if you spoke to the people inside the polling station then
it's not surprising they said they hadn't seen anyone without ID,
because any such people would have been turned away before they
reached them.
On Thu, 4 May 2023 16:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+u...@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Oh, also, apparently there are people stationed *outside* pollingNo; those people are part of the polling station staff, and part of their role is to record how many people turn up without ID.
stations checking IDs, or at least telling people they will need
IDs. So if you spoke to the people inside the polling station then
it's not surprising they said they hadn't seen anyone without ID,
because any such people would have been turned away before they
reached them.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-04/Publication%20of%20data%20from%20polling%20stations_0.pdf
or https://tinyurl.com/2kdmydke
On Thu, 4 May 2023 16:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Oh, also, apparently there are people stationed *outside* polling
stations checking IDs, or at least telling people they will need
IDs. So if you spoke to the people inside the polling station then
it's not surprising they said they hadn't seen anyone without ID,
because any such people would have been turned away before they
reached them.
No; those people are part of the polling station staff, and part of their role is to record how many people turn up without ID.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-04/Publication%20of%20data%20from%20polling%20stations_0.pdf
or https://tinyurl.com/2kdmydke
Mark
On 05/05/2023 21:58, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2023 16:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Oh, also, apparently there are people stationed *outside* polling
stations checking IDs, or at least telling people they will need
IDs. So if you spoke to the people inside the polling station then
it's not surprising they said they hadn't seen anyone without ID,
because any such people would have been turned away before they
reached them.
No; those people are part of the polling station staff, and part of their
role is to record how many people turn up without ID.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-04/Publication%20of%20data%20from%20polling%20stations_0.pdf
or https://tinyurl.com/2kdmydke
Mark
However, that's much too complacent. Obviously. If someone is told "did
you bring your ID, you'll need it" and they then turn away and leave,
there is no system by which their name will be taken. The assumption
will be that they will come back later with their ID. But they may not.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/may/04/i-was-denied-my-right-voter-id-rules-a-barrier-for-some-in-england
quote
One potential flaw in the reporting will come through the use of
so-called greeters outside some polling stations, who reminded people of
the need for ID but did not take a note of those who then turned back.
The only such tally was made by electoral staff inside polling stations.
On Thu, 4 May 2023 16:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Oh, also, apparently there are people stationed *outside* polling
stations checking IDs, or at least telling people they will need
IDs. So if you spoke to the people inside the polling station then
it's not surprising they said they hadn't seen anyone without ID,
because any such people would have been turned away before they
reached them.
No; those people are part of the polling station staff, and part of their role is to record how many people turn up without ID.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-04/Publication%20of%20data%20from%20polling%20stations_0.pdf
or https://tinyurl.com/2kdmydke
On 2023-05-05, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 4 May 2023 16:28:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
Oh, also, apparently there are people stationed *outside* polling >>>stations checking IDs, or at least telling people they will need
IDs. So if you spoke to the people inside the polling station then
it's not surprising they said they hadn't seen anyone without ID,
because any such people would have been turned away before they
reached them.
No; those people are part of the polling station staff, and part of their
role is to record how many people turn up without ID.
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-04/Publication%20of%20data%20from%20polling%20stations_0.pdf
or https://tinyurl.com/2kdmydke
Sorry, I don't believe you. I have seen a great many reports of people encountering these people outside the polling stations, and that they
make no record of people who are turned away. I am not sure what part
of that document is supposed to contradict these eye-witness accounts.
They would of course have needed ID evidence to note who had been turned away!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 51:58:52 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,173 |
| Posted today: | 1 |