Forum Topic

Mr Ixer There is a scheme for gaining photo id if you do not have a passport, driving licence etc 'PASS (the Proof of Age Standards Scheme) is a government-backed scheme in the UK that gives citizens a valid and accepted form of proof of age identification. The scheme is supported by the Home Office, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute (CTSI) and the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC). It acts as an umbrella system: it does not itself issue identification cards, but various proof of age card schemes operate under the PASS umbrella, and issue cards which bear a PASS hologram as proof of authenticity and validity.It costs £15 for a standard application, which typically takes no more than 3 weeks.Requirements for application:A recent photo of yourself (similar quality to a passport photograph, taken against a plain white background).A referee who can vouch for you (someone in a recognized profession who isn’t related to you, such as a teacher, doctor, or solicitor).The CitizenCard, bearing the PASS hologram, is another widely recognized ID card in the UK.It costs £18 for a standard application, and the card is typically posted within 21 days via Royal Mail 2nd class.The CitizenCard serves as everyday ID and proof of age.Remember, both the Post Office PASS card and CitizenCard are valid and accepted forms of proof of age across the UK'.So should id be required to vote to avoid fraud, and it is a sign of the times that it might, there is no validity to the claim it would prevent racial or 'class' minorities from voting providing they are keen enough to do so and are willing to put in the effort to gain the means.

John Hawkes ● 58d

Looking at the Tower Hamlets and Midlands cases of electoral fraud impersonation of identities doesn't seem to be a significant factor, possibly none at all. Postal votes seem to be more vulnerable because there may be little privacy when completing them in some households, or good old bribery or plain corrupt religious coercion. Interestingly, I heard of an instance where an evangelical priest in the US was telling his congregation it was their duty to vote for Donald Trump, so perhaps he's really the one attempting electoral fraud!I think it's very likely there are many underprivileged people who don't have a driving license or passport (why would they spend money on something they'll never use?) - that's probably why many were subjected to the injustice of the Windrush scandal. Of course we must have postal votes for better off people (and I'd include myself in that) as they may well be abroad on holiday or business when an election is called - so postal votes won't be touched - but let's increase the hurdles for others even if there isn't really an issue with impersonation fraud! Still, I do find it amusing the Jacob Rees -Mogg now thinks it was a bad move …"The Election Commissioner upheld a number of the allegations, including:
Voting fraud: ballots were double-cast or cast from false addresses
False statements made against Mr Rahman's rival Mr Biggs
Bribery: large amounts of money were given to organisations who were "totally ineligible or who failed to meet the threshold for eligibility"
Treating: providing free food and drink to encourage people to vote for Mr Rahman
Spiritual influence: voters were told that it was their duty as Muslims to vote for Mr Rahman. Mr Mawrey cited a letter signed by 101 Imams in Bengali stating it was people's "religious duty" to vote."https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648"the court heard evidence of wholesale theft of votes in the city, with thousands of postal ballots being diverted to a "safe house" where they were filled in on an "industrial scale"."https://www.theguardian.com/society/2005/apr/04/localgovernment.politics

Michael Ixer ● 59d

To quote an article in the Evening Standard: in an appearance on GB News, Mr Anderson said: “I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan and they’ve got control of London… He’s actually given our capital city away to his mates.” To my knowledge he has subsequently refused to retract or apologise for the statement; he did say on GB News his words were clumsy and according to the Guardian he said in a statement released on Monday. “But, when you think you are right, you should never apologise because to do so would be a sign of weakness.” That would seem to imply to me that he stands by the sentiments of his original comment?The same ES article says: when questioned about the remarks, last month Mr Khan responded: "These remarks from a senior Conservative are racist, Islamophobic, and anti-Muslim".I don't know what Mr Anderson was thinking or what his intent was -perhaps just playing to his audience without thinking or given that he's moved from the Labour party to the Conservative party and now seems to be considering joining the Reform party perhaps he's unsure - but, given current threats of violence to politicians, Mr Khan's response doesn't seem unreasonable as irrespective of Mr Anderson's meaning or intent his comments could fuel such prejudices. I see the Jewish News has reported Sadiq Khan and Susan Hall issued a joint call for unity in zero tolerance of both antisemitism and Islamaphobia; that seems good and commendable to me, and how politics should be? https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/khan-and-hall-issue-joint-call-for-zero-tolerance-of-both-antisemitism-and-islamophobia/

Michael Ixer ● 61d