the Electoral Commission says meant some people were "regrettably unable to vote"

ska66 said:
Just register to do a postal vote.
Click to expand...
I think this covers most people, but there are some who because of their severe age or possibly mental capacities that find even registering for a postal vote a stress. They just want to take their poll card to a polling station. They are small in number possibly 1 to 2% of the electrorate, but every vote does matter.

With fraud I would say Postal Vote is more prone to fraud, because one person can gather up a series of family postal votes and vote on their behalf and no one would know.
 
Last edited:
Im probably in the minority here but I welcome voter id.

So only 9 people have been convicted of voter fraud, but how many have got away with it? I used my sons polling card by mistake once, so I actually committed voter fraud.

I don't get the argument about not all people have photo id, I bet most people have or can get one.
A passport, driving licence, bus pass or a PASS card. If you want to vote, you will either have one of these or at least get one.

BTW, employers must ask for photo ID nowadays as proof of your eligibility to work in the UK, so most will have that.
 
Laughing said:
In a utopia you might have a point. We don't live in a utopia nor are we ever likely to.

A bigger question might be, why should the police have powers to Id individuals whom there is no evidence against?

I can't think of a single reason why this is a good idea.

Our current system of having a clear and articulated suspicion is fine.
Click to expand...
Well how about your home is burgled and you see someone running away down the drive you see the person wearing a grey tracky, with white trainers and report it to police.

Crime being reported with vague description of alleged criminal. Police spot somebody in nearby vicinity walking down street who has similar description, There is no evidence of that person being the burglar, several people will wear grey tracky’s and white trainers. Should the police just let them wander off or stop and question? They may be totally innocent, but may also have some evidence hidden on their person.

If you meant just casual a stop and search for absolute no reason or suspicion other than a whim, a coppers nose etc then no, they shouldn’t stop them, but i’ve already said the rules would need to be clear, bodycam evidence of search and reasons stored for say 14/28 days in case of complaint. Officers record reasons for stop and search on bodycam. It will be self evident if people or types of people through race or sex were repeatedly targeted unfairly and officers then held to account accordingly.

Given the amount of knife crime around though, I’d be in favour of occasional planned patrols of officers stopping random young males in particular, and searching them, whatever their colour, in areas where local communities highlighted concerns about knife crime and reports show it as a bona fide issue. Police do it now, with drivers, occasionally stopping vehicles at certain times usually morning, looking for drivers over the limit through drinking or drug taking etc, I was stopped and breathalysed once along with 5 other vehicles, December before last. I was told it was a special operation that occasionally identified offenders. I had no issue with it it took less than 5 minutes and was on my way. I suspect they will have found one or two and the operation was publicised in advance, they just never said where and when the stops would take place. They had no evidence to stop me personally, but it was a good deterrent not to drive to soon after the night before.
 
coluka said:
You ignored my questions, why?

To answer yours though, In part through I.D cards like driving licences, fingerprints from past arrests, DNA etc. unfortunately not all criminals are previous offenders so some of this data may not be readily available, not all drivers of cars hold licences. Some offenders are not correctly identified and abscond never to be seen again leaving victims without closure and police without prosecution.
Click to expand...
To answer your question, at the football club I'm involved with we do accept people's word that they are over 60, our concession age. It isn't a problem trusting people for me. At 18 I was refused drinks in some establishments and I in turn refused to serve drinks to people I thought were under age.

As for the criminals you're using as a reason why all people should carry ID. You talk of not all drivers having driving licences but we hear of them being prosecuted. Those intent on crime will simply refuse to carry an ID card. Then what, build more prisons?

The lack of trust and respect are big UK problems, turning into a more authoritarian country isn't going to solve that.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
To answer your question, at the football club I'm involved with we do accept people's word that they are over 60, our concession age. It isn't a problem trusting people for me. At 18 I was refused drinks in some establishments and I in turn refused to serve drinks to people I thought were under age.

As for the criminals you're using as a reason why all people should carry ID. You talk of not all drivers having driving licences but we hear of them being prosecuted. Those intent on crime will simply refuse to carry an ID card. Then what, build more prisons?

The lack of trust and respect are big UK problems, turning into a more authoritarian country isn't going to solve that.
Click to expand...
Well I assume you support Boro and you have indicated you attend some matches, a Boro over 65 SC requires some form of I.D. these days apparently.

As for the police, yes of course some drivers are prosecuted, but not all are, shocking as it is, not everyone is honest, some give false details and addresses, some give family or friends details and receive tickets and hey presto, don’t turn up later at the police station with their licence like a good citizen, they never get found or prosecuted whilst an innocent party has to defend a summons that isn’t theirs, know nothing of till a letter arrives in the post 🤷‍♂️ I dare say some of these innocent folk will know who was driving a vehicle, or at least suspect who it was, but people don’t tend to dob them in I’d guess.

Trust will always be abused by some, its a fact of life sadly. I.D cards should be feared more by the guilty than the innocent and providing rules are maintained and abusers dealt with accordingly whatever side of the law your on, then to me the benefits outweigh the downsides and a universal I.D card could do away with driving licences, bus passes, passports etc as the database is loaded with approvals and permissions just like a Boro SC card is albeit on a much smaller scale of privileges.
 
coluka said:
Well I assume you support Boro and you have indicated you attend some matches, a Boro over 65 SC requires some form of I.D. these days apparently.

As for the police, yes of course some drivers are prosecuted, but not all are, shocking as it is, not everyone is honest, some give false details and addresses, some give family or friends details and receive tickets and hey presto, don’t turn up later at the police station with their licence like a good citizen, they never get found or prosecuted whilst an innocent party has to defend a summons that isn’t theirs, know nothing of till a letter arrives in the post 🤷‍♂️ I dare say some of these innocent folk will know who was driving a vehicle, or at least suspect who it was, but people don’t tend to dob them in I’d guess.

Trust will always be abused by some, its a fact of life sadly. I.D cards should be feared more by the guilty than the innocent and providing rules are maintained and abusers dealt with accordingly whatever side of the law your on, then to me the benefits outweigh the downsides and a universal I.D card could do away with driving licences, bus passes, passports etc as the database is loaded with approvals and permissions just like a Boro SC card is albeit on a much smaller scale of privileges.
Click to expand...
I pop to the Riverside now and then, cup matches and the occasional league game but I follow Northern League football and help out at a club as a volunteer.

ID cards will be abused by the people who abuse anything else but we'll create more criminals than enough when people are stopped for questioning while innocent and haven't got their ID card.

It does work in some countries but I'm not sure of the trustworthiness of their police compared to here.
 
The_Tiler said:
Im probably in the minority here but I welcome voter id.

So only 9 people have been convicted of voter fraud, but how many have got away with it? I used my sons polling card by mistake once, so I actually committed voter fraud.

I don't get the argument about not all people have photo id, I bet most people have or can get one.
A passport, driving licence, bus pass or a PASS card. If you want to vote, you will either have one of these or at least get one.

BTW, employers must ask for photo ID nowadays as proof of your eligibility to work in the UK, so most will have that.
Click to expand...
Regardless of your views on whether ID should be used the argument that only 9 people have been convicted is a pretty poor one. Are we to infer from low rape convictions that this crime isn't happening much either? The amount of people being convicted of a crime correlates to how much that crime is being investigated.
 
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret said:
Regardless of your views on whether ID should be used the argument that only 9 people have been convicted is a pretty poor one. Are we to infer from low rape convictions that this crime isn't happening much either? The amount of people being convicted of a crime correlates to how much that crime is being investigated.
Click to expand...
No, im agreeing that although only 9 people have been convicted, voter fraud is probably very much higher. Thats why I agree with voter ID to prevent it.
 
We can discuss the need for ID cards. But this was a blatant attempt by the Tories of voter suppression. People were turned away before they even got through the door.
I doubt we will find out what the true number of people who were refused.
What should be banned at polling stations are these so called “greeters” lurking around outside.
 
Dybuk said:
I must have imagined showing my employers my passport and DL before starting new jobs. YOu may have but you don't need to.
Click to expand...
An employer has to check ID to confirm that a new employee has the right to work in the UK.
If they can't prove they have checked, e.g. by taking a photocopy, they could be fined up to £20k.
 
Rofesleg said:
An employer has to check ID to confirm that a new employee has the right to work in the UK.
If they can't prove they have checked, e.g. by taking a photocopy, they could be fined up to £20k.
Click to expand...
Very very true. They need to check ID for example a birth certificate. No one is claiming that you don't need ID at all. You just don't need the photo id that you do need to vote i.e. passport, driving license, old peoples bus pass (note not yound peoples bus pass as they might vote for the wrong party).

Prove your right to work to an employer

Find out how to prove your right to work in the UK to an employer. Get an online share code to prove your right to work if you’re eligible or check what documents you can use instead.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
 
Jedi boro said:
People often say there’s been little or very little election fraud of “ that fraud is not widespread in the UK”.


Here are the stats

Since 2018, there have been nine convictions and six police cautions issued in connection with cases of electoral fraud, according to the Electoral Commission.

9 out of a 60 plus million population

9 !!!!
Click to expand...
Plus those that were successful. I'm not suggesting this is a huge figure, simply that logically you cannot know of successful electoral fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top