Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: There is plenty of electoral fraud in the UK by the use of postal votes. Bliar was warned about this arising when he proposed to change the rules about 15 years ago. He ignored the warnings, made the changes, and fraud duly increased. Unfortunately, Voter ID does nothing to combat postal voting fraud.
The risk is that you introduce an ID system that you will put off more than this number from actually voting and you make elections far less approachable. It's the police's job to convict people; I agree that I'd isn't going to help with postal votes. My suspicion is always, especially given prat pickles view of the world that this is a method to further force a change on the system that favours the mainstream parties (and from his perspective almost certainly the tories)
The question I haven't seen asked though is what happens if someone turns up without ID that are entitled to vote? If they are refused on the basis of a trial how democratic could that possibly be?
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I agree, it seems that all this does is ensure a lower voter turn out. I'm guessing that it would have something to do with suiting the conservatives better to have a low turn out?
I'm just spit balling obviously, I don't actually know if that's the case.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
r_squared wrote: I agree, it seems that all this does is ensure a lower voter turn out. I'm guessing that it would have something to do with suiting the conservatives better to have a low turn out?
I'm just spit balling obviously, I don't actually know if that's the case.
It depends on which group you are reducing. Most Tory voters are reasonably well off settled to retired voters. Therefore having say passport ID is more likely. Poorer less mobile people are less likely to have such forms of ID simply because they can't afford the expense (it could hence be voting by income). Also students fall into this latter category. The tories pretty much revile students because they are for the vast majority completely unsupportive of the Tory ideals. You can say for many students they revile the tories for the same reasons. More Students are also less likely to have ID so passport, driving licence. It's not a surprise to me that I think this proposal would impact the likely number of students voting just as changing how the electoral register was managed also did.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/27 23:45:51
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Pretty much all students will have identification through the Uni, be it a library card, meal card or NUS membership with photo ID. Universities have been getting everyone photo ID for decades.
I kind of have the feeling that any voter disenfranchisement that will happen from this (and I'm pretty sure that, unfortunately, there will be), will be from incompetence rather than malice... Which will contrast with the same things happening in America.
I think the most common thing will be low income council housing where younger voters still live with family. Therefore, they won't go to uni, they won't be learning to drive. Paying £70 for a passport is just a hilarious joke and they won't have any bills in their name either.
I think it will more likely be the hassle of an extra obstacle to voting. It's not like most people need yet another excuse to not vote.
It just seems bizarre that some politicians insist that unions have a minimum turnout for a mandate, but seem to be pushing a policy that may actually discourage voters from turning out when voting for MPS.
Well it's not that bizarre actually, we're all very familiar with the double standards that many politicians operate on.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Kilkrazy wrote: There is plenty of electoral fraud in the UK by the use of postal votes. Bliar was warned about this arising when he proposed to change the rules about 15 years ago. He ignored the warnings, made the changes, and fraud duly increased. Unfortunately, Voter ID does nothing to combat postal voting fraud.
Blair didnt ignore the warnings, it was what he wanted.
There was large scale vote stealing in the 1997 election and in every one since. As it was Labour who benefited they were not interested.
There is also an ethnic trend for the majority of vote stealing, criminals in the Asian community. This was another tool by which it could be overlooked, as noting the discrepancies could be seen as racist.
Though the tower Hamlets vote rigging scandal involved mostly blacks.
Vote rigging tends to happen in ethnic groups because of people immigrating from places where elections are won at any cost, and thinking that there is no reason not to continue as before. It is also important for the candidate to be clean but need a large number of accomplices, so extended family do the vote rigging.
The main method is by postal vote theft, though as perpetrators were consistently unchallenged methods have diversified. The Tower Hamlets scandal crossed the line in several ways though, and the sleepy government took action.
There is a lot to be done to stop postal vote theft, but inertia and the decline in our moral standards in the integrity of elections means nothing is done. The biggest issue is that the voting register includes a tick box to choose a postal vote, but no confirmatory tick box to wish to vote in person. Frankly this is an obvious weak point as ballot fraud only needs an addition of the postal address and the box to be ticked, it doesn't require existing information to be altered. This makes the crime essentially undetectable.
What really bugs me is that we know it happens and people can find out where their voters get redirected to, and have since the problem first surfaced in Blacko Lancashire in 1997, but until very recently nobody was punished despite large scale smoking gun evidence.
Postal votes also allow whole families to block vote, with those who have favour to have extra ballot papers sent. In my hometown in some communities ballot papers were sent out and returned for children as young as two.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Pretty much all students will have identification through the Uni, be it a library card, meal card or NUS membership with photo ID. Universities have been getting everyone photo ID for decades.
Except none of these are mooted as an acceptable form of ID...
Kilkrazy wrote: There is plenty of electoral fraud in the UK by the use of postal votes. Bliar was warned about this arising when he proposed to change the rules about 15 years ago. He ignored the warnings, made the changes, and fraud duly increased. Unfortunately, Voter ID does nothing to combat postal voting fraud.
Blair didnt ignore the warnings, it was what he wanted.
There was large scale vote stealing in the 1997 election and in every one since. As it was Labour who benefited they were not interested.
There is also an ethnic trend for the majority of vote stealing, criminals in the Asian community. This was another tool by which it could be overlooked, as noting the discrepancies could be seen as racist.
Though the tower Hamlets vote rigging scandal involved mostly blacks.
Vote rigging tends to happen in ethnic groups because of people immigrating from places where elections are won at any cost, and thinking that there is no reason not to continue as before. It is also important for the candidate to be clean but need a large number of accomplices, so extended family do the vote rigging.
The main method is by postal vote theft, though as perpetrators were consistently unchallenged methods have diversified. The Tower Hamlets scandal crossed the line in several ways though, and the sleepy government took action.
Evidence please...as I pointed out in the earlier links on the electoral commissions page there has been less than 1000 cases of possible electoral fraud in 2015 (and less in previous years). That there have been a few high profile cases does not mean it is prevalent throughout society. If there was evidence of large amounts of fraud then maybe there is a rational for ID but there isn't. If a system is introduced that reduces the number of people voting by much more than 1000 then the proposals fail completely (even if it is because several 10'000s want to vote on the way home from work and simply forget they need ID).
To clarify your point on racism. It is acceptable to say that Tower Hamlets had some issues with voting in 2015 and that it has a significant fraction of non-white voters. It *is* racist to say that because of the ethnic profile of Tower Hamlets that it is more likely that vote rigging will be more prevalent in areas with 'black' voters or that it is only 'criminals in Asian communities' that will undertake election fraud. That is because (a) you don't know whether that the fraud is more likely because of, for example, the socio-economic circumstances and (b) that if given the same circumstances but with a 'white' population then the election fraud would not also happen. Racism comes from thinking that because an area has a high non-white population that fraud is more likely i.e. you are relating a specific group of people based on ethnicity to a certain activity without considering any wider evidence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
In other news. The demands from this group beggars belief and still makes me think a lot of people are living in "Have cake and eat it land"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/28 11:22:54
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I think that there will be some harmony when exit is finalised but If business wanted to trade freely through Europe then backing leave was probably not the best way to achieve this aim.
Think for yourself. You wont get Blair or anyone else admitting to this. You have to extrapolate from the facts we have.
1. Case studies of vote rigging. Press articles witnessed over the last two decades. Its out there in print. I saw it. Find it for yourself.
2. Tower Hamlets. A special nastier incident that was well reported.
3. Voting forms. They don't have tick boxes to say you want to vote in person, this means voting forms can be altered purely by adding material, rather than changing or deleting material. This would be so easy to fix, but it isn't fixed. This is my own conclusion as an analyst and it holds water.
4. Balloting two year olds. This I cannot souce as the source is a local official in my home town. You either believe me, or you dont.
...as I pointed out in the earlier links on the electoral commissions page there has been less than 1000 cases of possible electoral fraud in 2015 (and less in previous years).
It makes sense its more prevalent more recently, the current government wants to do something about this, New Labour wasnt interested.
Also remember you have only a two week window to contest an election result in UK law, so its easy to fudge electoral fraud statistics by dragging heels. Yes we have freedom of information, but not in the relevant timeframe.
That there have been a few high profile cases does not mean it is prevalent throughout society.
You are guessing. I am not. Yes it is prevalent. However it is not prevalent on a scale to effect most election results. Aka its widespread, but not widespread enough in one place to skew major results in most cases. however it might effect a marginal seat, and definitely can effect local politics.
If there was evidence of large amounts of fraud then maybe there is a rational for ID but there isn't.
Wrong on two counts.
1. It is happening on a large scale.
2. Democracy is supposedly one of th cornerstones of our society. For anyone to have their vote stolen should be a major issue. This is how it was seen. It is a symptom of the rot you think this way. 'Its not happening on a large scale so who cares' is the wrong attitude.
Note this is an issue we can do something about. We can give notification back to voters who their postal vote is directed to. We can axt when numbers of votes get transfered to dodgy addresses. We can also change voting forms to include a positive notitifcation to wish to vote in person.
Voter ID cards arent a deterent as votes are hijacked and redirected to known addresses and the ballot is cast by a recipient with a genuine identity.
To clarify your point on racism. It is acceptable to say that Tower Hamlets had some issues with voting in 2015 and that it has a significant fraction of non-white voters. It *is* racist to say that because of the ethnic profile of Tower Hamlets that it is more likely that vote rigging will be more prevalent in areas with 'black' voters or that it is only 'criminals in Asian communities' that will undertake election fraud.
Actually the vote rigging in Tower Hamlets was very clearly ethnically profiled, as are the other cases seen.
Second I didnt say there was a correlation with ethnoiticity and vote rigging as that would imply that ethnics natrually vote rigged. I mentioned that there was a correlation between vote rigging and certain communities. For example in Tower Hamlets it was strange in that several groups were vote rigging, usually it was only Asians. however the vote rigging occurs within the ethnic subgroup.
(b) that if given the same circumstances but with a 'white' population then the election fraud would not also happen.
These are recent changes, the UK doesn't have a history of vote rigging, and it didn't gain one around the time of mas immigration in the 50's. It began in the 1997 election, and New Labour being the beneficiaries of the vote rigging didn't take any action.
Racism comes from thinking that because an area has a high non-white population that fraud is more likely i.e. you are relating a specific group of people based on ethnicity to a certain activity without considering any wider evidence.
Just as well I wasnt saying that then wasnt it.
However that shouldn't stop me. You know kids got raped and raped again in Rotherham by asian gangs because nobody including the police wanted to admit they were asian gangs. and again the asian gangs were mostly extended family.
I was careful, and accurate in what I was saying: Large numbers of votes were redirected as postal votes to extended family members of asian candidates for local authorities.
In other news. The demands from this group beggars belief and still makes me think a lot of people are living in "Have cake and eat it land"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38447743
It is not unreasonable to ask. Free trade goes both ways, tariffs go both ways.
The zeitgeist is however: punish the UK for daring to leave.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
You are guessing. I am not. Yes it is prevalent. However it is not prevalent on a scale to effect most election results. Aka its widespread, but not widespread enough in one place to skew major results in most cases. however it might effect a marginal seat, and definitely can effect local politics.
You're "extrapolating" based on very flimsy evidence at best. You're probably doing worse than just guessing. As usual.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 13:07:06
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
You are guessing. I am not. Yes it is prevalent. However it is not prevalent on a scale to effect most election results. Aka its widespread, but not widespread enough in one place to skew major results in most cases. however it might effect a marginal seat, and definitely can effect local politics.
You're "extrapolating" based on very flimsy evidence at best. You're probably doing worse than just guessing. As usual.
Any reason to say this, other than because your head is in the sand?
Also its NO EXTRAPOLATION. We have testimonies of numbers of people whose votes were stolen to chase the ballot form information and find their votes were sent to persons unknown to them who were relatives of the candidates in the election. This is EXACTLY what happened in Blacko in 1997, and other places in subsequent elections. These stories would resurface in the press in all the subsequent elections up to 2010.
But it was nice to be eventually proven right. As usual:
It was only recently that the press had the courage to air these problems. PC dogma is starting to lose its grip. They couldnt have said the above in 1997 or 2001 or 2005, and the articles explain the difference.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Think for yourself. You wont get Blair or anyone else admitting to this. You have to extrapolate from the facts we have.
1. Case studies of vote rigging. Press articles witnessed over the last two decades. Its out there in print. I saw it. Find it for yourself.
2. Tower Hamlets. A special nastier incident that was well reported.
3. Voting forms. They don't have tick boxes to say you want to vote in person, this means voting forms can be altered purely by adding material, rather than changing or deleting material. This would be so easy to fix, but it isn't fixed. This is my own conclusion as an analyst and it holds water.
4. Balloting two year olds. This I cannot souce as the source is a local official in my home town. You either believe me, or you dont.
You just plough on in don't you? .That I prefer to see some real evdience and data on the issues *is* thinking for myself. Because with this I can challenge the claims for either side and determine whether they are pigswill or really happening. Your version of "thinking for yourself" appears to be believing whichever right wing paper you tend to read (or all of them). You run the very large risk that you read and re-read the same story hashed several times over several papers making the situation appear worse than it actually is. One report repeated several times over a period of months doesn't make it either any more true or more common. This is where thinking for yourself comes in and question just how many data sources the reports are actually refering to. All you have provided is a list of individual examples that are meaningless without the wider context. A few hundred ballot papers if sent out by mistake is tiny compared to the 10's millions that are sent out correctly.
No one is claiming fraud isn't happening at all, it's an argument as to whether for a 1000 or so incidents per election it is actually worth implementing a change that could result in putting off (or making it harder for) a much larger number of people from voting at all.
It makes sense its more prevalent more recently, the current government wants to do something about this, New Labour wasnt interested.
Also remember you have only a two week window to contest an election result in UK law, so its easy to fudge electoral fraud statistics by dragging heels. Yes we have freedom of information, but not in the relevant timeframe.
It is not for individual parties to do something about electoral fraud. That is the Police's responsbility. You seem to be confusing allowing people a wider range of methods to vote (so postal votes) with methods for controlling fraud. You seem so blinded by hate towards New Labour that that you are missing this point
You are guessing. I am not. Yes it is prevalent. However it is not prevalent on a scale to effect most election results. Aka its widespread, but not widespread enough in one place to skew major results in most cases. however it might effect a marginal seat, and definitely can effect local politics.
OK, evidence please. I refer you back to country wide data from the Electoral commission, where is your data (and to point out that doesn't mean articles from the Daily Fail and their ilk). I mean the actual hard data you are referring to when you say that electoral fraud is prevalent. Nor is acutal evidence include what you think is right, nor oracle work from examining tea leaves or the remains of the dead animal you ate yesterday that you happen to examine. Where are your actual hard data that supports your statements!
Second I didnt say there was a correlation with ethnoiticity and vote rigging as that would imply that ethnics natrually vote rigged. I mentioned that there was a correlation between vote rigging and certain communities.
Sorry, what? You are just repeating the same thing but with the words inverted. I fail to see how your statement "Vote rigging tends to happen in ethnic groups because of people immigrating from places where elections are won at any cost, and thinking that there is no reason not to continue as before. " is not stating there is a correlation between vote rigging and ethnicity?
These are recent changes, the UK doesn't have a history of vote rigging, and it didn't gain one around the time of mas immigration in the 50's. It began in the 1997 election, and New Labour being the beneficiaries of the vote rigging didn't take any action.
Evidence and data; data and evidence. You are just stating things as fact without backing them up with anything substantial. Where is the evidence of all this that you are alluding to as the definitive and only truth of the matter. Where's your data for election fraud in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's so you can directly compare?
It is not unreasonable to ask. Free trade goes both ways, tariffs go both ways.
The zeitgeist is however: punish the UK for daring to leave.
The EU works on having free trade between it's members states and with that comes free movement. Having a group come out and say they want free trade 'just because' implies they are waking up to the reality that it is going to cost UK PLC way more than it will cost the EU by having trade barriers. The EU will never agree to free trade without free movement however, it is one of their fundametal ideals, it's not about punishing the UK, it's about saying that if you want to be part of the free trade club, you need to sign up to our other ideals too. Which in some ways is a worthy ideal when compared to the UK's approach to Trump which is pretty much knuckle down and kiss ass.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/28 14:43:13
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Think for yourself. You wont get Blair or anyone else admitting to this. You have to extrapolate from the facts we have.
1. Case studies of vote rigging. Press articles witnessed over the last two decades. Its out there in print. I saw it. Find it for yourself.
2. Tower Hamlets. A special nastier incident that was well reported.
3. Voting forms. They don't have tick boxes to say you want to vote in person, this means voting forms can be altered purely by adding material, rather than changing or deleting material. This would be so easy to fix, but it isn't fixed. This is my own conclusion as an analyst and it holds water.
4. Balloting two year olds. This I cannot souce as the source is a local official in my home town. You either believe me, or you dont.
You just plough on in don't you? .That I prefer to see some real evdience and data on the issues *is* thinking for myself.
Why dont you stop being lazy and do a search. Try 'Tower Hamlets voting scandal'.
I provided links evidencing there is a problem, and if the Law Lord investigating the problem says so perhaps I have some backing.
The difference is I already thought thatway, based on the evidence i had seen, and been thus vindicated on my interpretation.
Because with this I can challenge the claims for either side and determine whether they are pigswill or really happening. Your version of "thinking for yourself" appears to be believing whichever right wing paper you tend to read (or all of them).
As an analyst I can read into the pres thankyou very much. Its a simple enough skill.
Why do you assume its lies and exaggerations just because it appears in the right wing press?
You run the very large risk that you read and re-read the same story hashed several times over several papers making the situation appear worse than it actually is. One report repeated several times over a period of months doesn't make it either any more true or more common.
You could make that claim over anything you read. However to answer you its called multiple sourcing. When I first saw the problem in Blacko in 1997 I kept it in mind but really took notice when I saw parallels in the pres after the 2001 election.
A few hundred ballot papers if sent out by mistake is tiny compared to the 10's millions that are sent out correctly.
You really are desperate to clutch at straws.
The ballot papers were not sent out in error, they were sent out, returned, filled in by a dishonest clerk or someone else with access to them adding a relative of acandidate as the postal ballot address,
This should be simple enough, it was described clearly.
No one is claiming fraud isn't happening at all, it's an argument as to whether for a 1000 or so incidents per election it is actually worth implementing a change that could result in putting off (or making it harder for) a much larger number of people from voting at all.
Again its a LOT more than 1000 per election, its nearly that many in one borough, or so the evidence goes.
If you want to look into dishonest reporting look into the statistic you want to hold dear. Also keep in mind that those who wish to complain have a very narrow window to do so under law.
It is not for individual parties to do something about electoral fraud. That is the Police's responsbility. You seem to be confusing allowing people a wider range of methods to vote (so postal votes) with methods for controlling fraud. You seem so blinded by hate towards New Labour that that you are missing this point
Again the two week window, and it's not the polices responsibility if the electoral commission doesn't forward the issue to the police. You cant just have the police seizing ballot papers in a democracy. Come on try to think please. Also remember who was in power at th time. New Labour the same party as decided that child rape was ok in Rotherham, as was Islamic indoctrination in Birmingham schools, the planned backstab of Gibraltar, let alone the 'dodgy dossier' on Iraq. Do you really think with their track record New Labour would be happy to have thieri won election victories questioned?
Please note that I am not attributing New Labour's victory in 1997 2001 abd 2005 to fraud, it was a small factor.
I refer you back to country wide data from the Electoral commission, where is your data (and to point out that doesn't mean articles from the Daily Fail and their ilk).
Daily Mail is a better source than you might think. They broke the story on Blacko in 1997. They also broke the story on Rotherham. They were willing to post stories on Islamifaction of schools, while no other paper would, and above all they broke the story on Blairs intended sell out of Gibraltar in 2006 when nobody else did and this story was eagerly looked for my myself and other analysts and was proven true only in 2011 when double sourced from an ex-Ministers memoires revealed what Blair intended (had he remained in office).
Daily Mail prints a lot of stuff which is found out in retrospect to be true but too edgy for other papers to print. Daily Fail? they have more integrity than most other papers in actuality as they are prepared to print, even if others newspapers will not.
You have frankly been hoodwinked by the Daily Fail meme, which is there to have this effect. If there is a fault in the Daily Mail it is that they didn't know that they too were a tool of New Labour, being the only voice against the regime, they were as they were alone easy to discredit by handwaving because they were the only voice on a topic, mainly because most other papers didn't want to rock the boat.
I mean the actual hard data you are referring to when you say that electoral fraud is prevalent. Nor is acutal evidence include what you think is right, nor oracle work from examining tea leaves or the remains of the dead animal you ate yesterday that you happen to examine. Where are your actual hard data that supports your statements!
Well I gave three press reports in my last post in a reply to Walrus.
If that isnt enough for you then so be it.
Sorry, what? You are just repeating the same thing but with the words inverted. I fail to see how your statement "Vote rigging tends to happen in ethnic groups because of people immigrating from places where elections are won at any cost, and thinking that there is no reason not to continue as before. " is not stating there is a correlation between vote rigging and ethnicity?
Evidence and data; data and evidence. You are just stating things as fact without backing them up with anything substantial.
Well the Electoral Commission in the post New Labour years is singing a different tune. They refer to the phenomena of asain vote rigging as 'high risk'. The Communities Secretary has enough to say on the matter. Tower Hamlet's corruption was so blatant it stopped most mealy mouthed appeasers.
There will always be one or two holdouts against reason though, that appears to be your job.
The EU works on having free trade between it's members states and with that comes free movement.
Does it now. Hungary closed its borders, as have other countries, still have free trade though.. This freemovemnt for free trade is apolitical gambit by hostile European partner states,, its in order to force a bitter pill. If you look you will find that it is ok to break the rules, it depends on who does so.
Having a group come out and say they want free trade 'just because' implies they are waking up to the reality that it is going to cost UK PLC way more than it will cost the EU by having trade barriers.
The EU will never agree to free trade without free movement however, it is one of their fundametal ideals, it's not about punishing the UK,
This is not. Free movement becomes a fundamental ideal as a sticking point with the UK. Hungary can get away with blocking free movement as much as they like, its not trying to leave the EU and thus make waves.
it's about saying that if you want to be part of the free trade club, you need to sign up to our other ideals too. Which in some ways is a worthy ideal when compared to the UK's approach to Trump which is pretty much knuckle down and kiss ass.
You need to think more and read into what you see. The UK is not the only country wanting relations with Trump, so don't single us out there. Also the PM has been very standoffish about Trump, its Farage who likes him, but they got on prior to his election, Farage backed Trump while Trump was toxic. I still don't trust Trump to be friendly though.
What is known is that the pres is full of reports of diplomats and businessmen trying to gain partisan access to the president elect. This by the way is not 'kissing arse'.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/28 16:52:09
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Also, apparently on Katie Hopkins radio show, a caller openly admitted to committing vote fraud. They took their brothers identity to cast two votes for remaining in the EU. The source is the Daily Express so definitely take it with a shaker of salt, but if it was on a live radio show I'm sure it will be there to hear:
If it's true, it confirms my suspicions that voting without photographic identification is just asking for trouble. That fraud isn't wider spread is quite a surprise to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 19:27:24
Why dont you stop being lazy and do a search. Try 'Tower Hamlets voting scandal'.
I provided links evidencing there is a problem, and if the Law Lord investigating the problem says so perhaps I have some backing.
The difference is I already thought thatway, based on the evidence i had seen, and been thus vindicated on my interpretation.
I am well aware of what happened in Tower Hamlets, thanks. However unlike you I do not use this as 'evidence' that such issues are both prevalent and only limited to certain parts of our society and recognise that broader more holistic evidence is required than a few extreme examples that occasionally crop up despite the fact since 1997 (which you seem to state as some sort of bizarre watershed for corruption to suddenly occur) we have had numerous local, district, national and EU elections (lets say 10 years worth and hundred voting areas each time, so 1000 voting regions and it may be conservative) and yet only one "Tower Hamlets". Hence that makes 0.1% of the elections possibly corrupt, that is hardly prevalent and widespread corruption.
And yet you have proved my point in stating that the "evidence you have seen" has "vindicated your interpretation". You just don't seem to understand that by having a biased view you are intrinsically finding evidence that 'justifies' your opinion and instead of getting any real evidence you are reliant on what is being reported by papers with a certain political leaning. This sort of thinking is both unscientific and dangerous because it only further reinforces an established view and doesn't actually challenge what is being reported. This is why I ask for where your evidence is. Reports in papers is not evidence, at best it's reporting on actual evidence and therefore potentially biased by the person reporting it and at worst it's rehashed versions of reports on information several conversations down the line. I don't really think you get what I mean by actual evidence!
As an analyst I can read into the pres thankyou very much. Its a simple enough skill.
Why do you assume its lies and exaggerations just because it appears in the right wing press?
Hmmm, could you advise me what analysis you work on so I can...erh...ensure it gets given an 'appropriate' weighting? I think that both left and right wing press is just as guilty, it is just quite apparent you appear to like the right wing side of the things. No press article is independent because it is at the bias of the owner/editor/writer. Even fairly reasonable ones like Huffington post and Private eye still have bias because they are designed to sell news and they target certain parts of society. That's why reading too much into press articles is dangerous because it reinforces the bias you have already consciously or sub-consciously taken in picking up that paper in the first place. You are reinforcing your own bias by doing this and makes your analysis immediately faulty.
Whirlwind wrote: The ballot papers were not sent out in error, they were sent out, returned, filled in by a dishonest clerk or someone else with access to them adding a relative of acandidate as the postal ballot address,
This should be simple enough, it was described clearly.
You just aren't getting the subtleties of the point are you. No one is saying fraud does not happen. Yes it happens, but there seems to be minimal evidence that you are providing that it is prevalent. There have been high profile cases, but the fact they did come to light shows just how well our system works at uncovering it both through the police, people willing to come forward probably implies just how low the issue really is. This is backed up by the actual data from the electoral commission rather than some hooey spouted by the press. However over a population of 10's millions even a few thousand fraudulent votes is negligible. Whatever system you introduce is not going to be perfect. However a system that reduces accessibility for a much greater number of people that would like to vote legally compared to reducing illegal voting by a small number is hardly the solution.
Again its a LOT more than 1000 per election, its nearly that many in one borough, or so the evidence goes.
If you want to look into dishonest reporting look into the statistic you want to hold dear. Also keep in mind that those who wish to complain have a very narrow window to do so under law.
Again the two week window, and it's not the polices responsibility if the electoral commission doesn't forward the issue to the police. You cant just have the police seizing ballot papers in a democracy. Come on try to think please.
It is not for individual parties to do something about electoral fraud. That is the Police's responsbility. You seem to be confusing allowing people a wider range of methods to vote (so postal votes) with methods for controlling fraud. You seem so blinded by hate towards New Labour that that you are missing this point
I did look at the evidence, that's the point, you on the other hand keep on failing to provide any quantative data on the issue and just keep on posting articles from right wing press. I looked at the Electoral commission data. Also I don't believe there is a limit on reporting a crime (only a limit on challenging a electoral result) which are two completely separate issues. Yes everybody has a duty to report malpractice even down to us as individuals.
Also remember who was in power at th time. New Labour the same party as decided that child rape was ok in Rotherham, as was Islamic indoctrination in Birmingham schools, the planned backstab of Gibraltar, let alone the 'dodgy dossier' on Iraq. Do you really think with their track record New Labour would be happy to have thieri won election victories questioned?
Really??? I know you have deep 'reservations' about New Labour but you are pushing the boat out just a wee bit claiming they were 'ok with child rape in Rotherham' and so on. Would you like to clear the air and blame anything else on them, perhaps the Vietnam War; or Climate Change, perhaps they were responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs? Anything else you would care to add. Yes they made some bad mistakes but I don't think being ok with child rape and so on is a bit far fetched. Maybe you should email them these views and see how quickly the lawyers are on the phone?
I did, I think you are hiding behind not having any proper quantative data to support your 'arguments'. I'll happily provide evidence to back up my statements, you should be able to provide actual quantative evidence (i.e. not just press clippings) to support your arguments.
Sorry, what? You are just repeating the same thing but with the words inverted. I fail to see how your statement "Vote rigging tends to happen in ethnic groups because of people immigrating from places where elections are won at any cost, and thinking that there is no reason not to continue as before. " is not stating there is a correlation between vote rigging and ethnicity?
Try thinking about it a bit (or at all).
Yes I thought about it a lot as to make sense of it. My concern was that you weren't at all when you wrote the statement. I still fail to see how your above statement that "vote rigging tends to happen in ethnic groups" is not stating that "there is correlation between vote rigging and ethnicity"?
Does it now. Hungary closed its borders, as have other countries, still have free trade though.. This freemovemnt for free trade is apolitical gambit by hostile European partner states,, its in order to force a bitter pill. If you look you will find that it is ok to break the rules, it depends on who does so.
Good grief...Hungary closed it's borders to migrants fleeing Syria (mainly) and similar places not to EU citizens. They are two completely different issues. Free trade with Europe includes free movement of it's own citizens not migrants. If you are mangling the principle of free EU citizen movement and non-EU migrants with the free trade argument then you really are getting yourself in tiz-waz. Non-EU migrants do not have the same free movement rights, because the idea was that they registered in the first country they arrived in; however the system never expected millions to be moving en masse to escape persecution.
Also, apparently on Katie Hopkins radio show, a caller openly admitted to committing vote fraud. They took their brothers identity to cast two votes for remaining in the EU. The source is the Daily Express so definitely take it with a shaker of salt, but if it was on a live radio show I'm sure it will be there to hear:
If it's true, it confirms my suspicions that voting without photographic identification is just asking for trouble. That fraud isn't wider spread is quite a surprise to me.
I am, err, skeptical. Barring the fact that anyone slightly left of far right can't stand Katie Hopkins (I hope everyone saw here apology she issued at 2 am in the morning...and just in case for once I am happy to link to the Daily Fail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-4046558/The-Mahmood-family-apology.html#ixzz4THEiUAxC) it doesn't really make more sense. Why would they phone, to gloat over a lost vote, just to antagonise the right wing of the populace? Admit to their crime on air? I'd be less surprised to find it was some random right wing Joe phoning from a pub somewhere as a method to reinforce their world views.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 21:34:51
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Yeah it's probably fake, but the fact that it's even vaguely possible is still a problem. Photo I.Ds for voting would really help eliminate fraud in elections.
Future War Cultist wrote: Yeah it's probably fake, but the fact that it's even vaguely possible is still a problem. Photo I.Ds for voting would really help eliminate fraud in elections.
You'll never be able to get rid of fraud completely, even systems that use finger prints and so on still have some fraud. It's more to do with what is reasonable given the current levels of fraud. If you implement a system that discourages more people from voting that are legally entitled to do so than you actually find committing the fraud then the endeavour is a complete failure. That is why there are a lot of people saying that the solution being proposed is a sledge hammer to crack a walnut; the problem in the UK is tiny compared to the number of voters, less than 1000 in 2015 elections. You actually decrease the relevance of fraud if you can encourage more people to vote because it become proportionally less significant because of the increased numbers.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Future War Cultist wrote: Yeah it's probably fake, but the fact that it's even vaguely possible is still a problem. Photo I.Ds for voting would really help eliminate fraud in elections.
It will have little effect.
Photo ID will only prevent someone from impersonating someone else at the voting booth, which is not how voting fraud really works. As even without photo ID the fraudster will have to visit several voting booths or risk being recognised in addition to the one they are voting at themselves, or be good at disguises, They can also risk being recognised if the person they stole the vote from turns up before them or sends their own lawful proxy.
The way go steal a vote is to take the voting return forms, find someone who wants to vote in person and tick the box requesting a postal ballot, include the postal ballot address and vote by postal ballot the day before. The victim turns up on polling day to found they have 'already voted'. As the data is not digitised but kept on the paper one cna only effectively contest the theft of your ballot after the fact, and have only fourteen days to do so under law.
The postal voting system was built with two intentional flaws. I call them intentional because they are easy to spot and have been notified upon but without effect.
1. The voting registration paper doesn't include an active box informing that one wishes to vote in person.
2. There is no immediate to hand digital record of where postal vote addresses that election officials can see on the day to find how many stolen ballots are redirected to which names and addresses.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Photo ID will only prevent someone from impersonating someone else at the voting booth, which is not how voting fraud really works. As even without photo ID the fraudster will have to visit several voting booths or risk being recognised in addition to the one they are voting at themselves, or be good at disguises, They can also risk being recognised if the person they stole the vote from turns up before them or sends their own lawful proxy.
The way go steal a vote is to take the voting return forms, find someone who wants to vote in person and tick the box requesting a postal ballot, include the postal ballot address and vote by postal ballot the day before. The victim turns up on polling day to found they have 'already voted'. As the data is not digitised but kept on the paper one cna only effectively contest the theft of your ballot after the fact, and have only fourteen days to do so under law.
The postal voting system was built with two intentional flaws. I call them intentional because they are easy to spot and have been notified upon but without effect.
1. The voting registration paper doesn't include an active box informing that one wishes to vote in person.
2. There is no immediate to hand digital record of where postal vote addresses that election officials can see on the day to find how many stolen ballots are redirected to which names and addresses.
OK, good points. Consider me educated. But, I still think photographic I.D should be made compulsory, just to tighten up all the loose ends. Even if it has just a small impact. Like I said before, we have it here in Northern Ireland and it works out ok.
But that then goes back to, what sort of valid photo ID would an 18 year old in an inner city with no real job prospects, no £70 for a passport, no money to afford a car, no chance in hell of further education and so on, actually have. And anything that costs them money, they probably won't do, especially if they're living hand to mouth anyway. Ultimately, no matter what you think of them, they have as much of a right to a voice in society as you, or I do.
The Governments never going to spring pay for an official ID. - And that caused ridiculous amounts of issues back when that idea was tried anyways.
You expand things out to things like bills and not photobased, that's still not going to work. - Plus, things are going paperless now anyway.
In saying that, keeping in mind I'm not one to agree with Orlanth (I'm still somewhat peeved about the various assumptions he has made about me a few pages ago), but, if there is ways to tighten up potential fraud, that won't have end-user effects on the voters themselves, such as tweaking the way that forms are filled out, then yeah, I can't see why that should be opposed.
However, you can't disenfranchise people, either indirectly or directly. We're better than that.
I am well aware of what happened in Tower Hamlets, thanks. However unlike you I do not use this as 'evidence' that such issues are both prevalent and only limited to certain parts of our society and recognise that broader more holistic evidence is required than a few extreme examples that occasionally crop up despite the fact since 1997 (which you seem to state as some sort of bizarre watershed for corruption to suddenly occur) we have had numerous local, district, national and EU elections (lets say 10 years worth and hundred voting areas each time, so 1000 voting regions and it may be conservative) and yet only one "Tower Hamlets". Hence that makes 0.1% of the elections possibly corrupt, that is hardly prevalent and widespread corruption.
First, the Tower Hamlets scandal IS evidence., not 'evidence'. Nothing fake about what was/is going on.
Second it is prevalent in our society. You keep on bringing up the 1000 registered election frauds from the Elecrtoral Commission. If so also take the same Electoral Commissions word for it that there is endemic electoral corrruption in Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities. This isn't just my words, its theirs. If you hold to their figures also hold to their stated assessments, it is logically consistent to do so.opinions.
Third the problem rose since 1997 because that is when postal voting was introduced. Nothing bizarre about that watershed. Prior to 1997 no large scale opportunity for electoral fraud, and also no New Labour to gloss over gross corruption by selective ethnic groups for community cohesion. Back in the early years of this century it would be 'racist' to even consider there was a problem, even now its a bold step for the Electoral Commission to make by highlighting the Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities for electoral fraud, but things are different. Its now post the stage where asian rape gangs can molest children and have the police turn a blind eye because it might be 'racist' to act.
The last remaining problem are dogmatised holdouts who constantly deny the plainly available evidence, but we will keep on at you.
Fourth Tower Hamlets is not alone, it was just a very obvious test case. You need to learn to think and read. If the Electoral Commission says that the problem is widespread in asian communities then it is obviously not just referencing Tower Hamlets.
The press didnt want to know prior to the Cameron government so its easy for them to keep to the program as prior to Cameron they didnt mention it at all, with exception of the Daily Mail and Daily Express.. Electoral fraud = use Tower Hamlets example, Islamification of schools = Birmingham example, Asian rape gangs = Rotherham example.
Large scale child abuse is not limited to Rotherham, but now the police are doing something about it. They are being told they will get support if they investigate asian communities for these crimes and not be written off as 'racist'. The press are still not printing all there is to say on these issues, especially the other sites where it is happening, the press info is kept deliberately vague. The crimes are just dealt with as ordinary crimes.
And yet you have proved my point in stating that the "evidence you have seen" has "vindicated your interpretation". You just don't seem to understand that by having a biased view you are intrinsically finding evidence that 'justifies' your opinion and instead of getting any real evidence you are reliant on what is being reported by papers with a certain political leaning.
Where to begin with this. For a start everyone is biased. I however can think through it, you cannot. It is not the case of just swallowing every right wing press story, you have to look for patterns. Hence in my example when the news broke on Blacko I kept it in the back of my mind and didn't properly notice the pattern until corroberation in 2001. This is the mental discipline known as multiple sourcing.
Now while everyone has a bias, yours is out of control. You flatly dismiss evidence you don't like just because you don't like it. You have the lack of integrity to provide just one source, a link to the Electoral commission statistics, show yourself unable to read the data properly by remaining wilfully ignorant of how electoral fraud reporting actually works under law (it was explained); and furthermore then completely regard your only source when it flat out makes assertions in its professional opinion that you dont like and completely undermine your position.
If the Electoral commission is your only source and they say its a major problem, then why arent you admitting its a major problem?
This sort of thinking is both unscientific and dangerous because it only further reinforces an established view and doesn't actually challenge what is being reported.
I multiple sourced and waiting until multiple sourcing was available. You can't even keep faith with the one source you use.
Got to laugh at the bare faced hypocrisy of your statement, the funny thing is you cant even see it.
This is why I ask for where your evidence is. Reports in papers is not evidence, at best it's reporting on actual evidence and therefore potentially biased by the person reporting it and at worst it's rehashed versions of reports on information several conversations down the line. I don't really think you get what I mean by actual evidence!
Ok. If the press is not evidence why are you even here, most of what we discuss is based on reports in media, and you comment on them often enough. Try, just try for some intellectual consistency. What level of evidence satisfies you. Note for the hard of thinking - level of evidence doesnt mean 'evidence that agrees with your assumptions'.
Hmmm, could you advise me what analysis you work on so I can...erh...ensure it gets given an 'appropriate' weighting?
In a nutshell:
You dont know that a political analyst works on filling in the gaps in missing data, and interpretation of existing data. If it was just plain rewading we wouldnt need politiial analysts.
In this politcial analysts work on analogy with an infinite dataset (reality), so its different from data analysts who work entirely from known data, most business analysts are data analysts and they work entirely from the data block.
So for example a data analyst would take sales data and determine what sold well and thus what might sell well in future.
A poltical or social analyst would look for patterns and gaps in incomplete data sets (such as political reality) and draw conclusions based on existing data, integrity of existing data and also equally importantly voids in the data.
If you don't understand the above, we will move on, that is all you are going to get and I don't want to have to bother to explain deeper, I would likely be wasting my time.
I think that both left and right wing press is just as guilty, it is just quite apparent you appear to like the right wing side of the things.
There is very little left wing coverage.
You should see the pattern here. Prior to an enabling by the change of government only the Daily Maila nd Daily Expresxwould print about these issues, and to be fair to them they reported accurately but it bewcame 'Daily Fail' simply because nobody else dared and thus they were considered unsubstantiated. The Msil and Express didnt realise they were tools of Blair simply because of this.
Now in the post Labour era still only some newspapers cover the story at all. The left wing press still holds to the mantra that investigating large scale ethnic crime is a form of racism, due to advantage or conditioning. The Guardian wishes Rotherham and similar scandals just went away.
The ballot papers were not sent out in error, they were sent out, returned, filled in by a dishonest clerk or someone else with access to them adding a relative of a candidate as the postal ballot address,
This should be simple enough, it was described clearly.
You just aren't getting the subtleties of the point are you. No one is saying fraud does not happen. Yes it happens, but there seems to be minimal evidence that you are providing that it is prevalent.
It is prevalent enough that the Electoral Commission considered large scale ballot rigging in asian communities a 'major threat'.
There have been high profile cases, but the fact they did come to light shows just how well our system works at uncovering it both through the police, people willing to come forward probably implies just how low the issue really is.
I will pause here to think about the enormity of the stupidity of your comment, allowing for evidence already provided for you from the one source you have taken to.
...
Now, seriously.
If the Electoral Commission considered this a major threat in Asian communities (note the plural), we are obviously talking about more than Tower Hamlets here.
Think about it for a minute.
This is backed up by the actual data from the electoral commission rather than some hooey spouted by the press.
So now you can rest assured by the Electoral Commission that we are right when we tell you: THE STORIES ARENT HOOEY. They fit in with what the Electoral Commission is now saying.
In addition you should never have had the immoral audacity to write them off to begin with. The postal ballot fraud is easy to track, when its too late under letter of law. We can read of large numbers of voting registry forms being altered and having the postal vote activated and directed to addresses unconnected with the voter. Sadly I cannot find a copy of this story online anymore, only on hardcopy.
However over a population of 10's millions even a few thousand fraudulent votes is negligible. Whatever system you introduce is not going to be perfect.
First is not a 'few thousand' each case reported can be of multiple vote thefts, and do do it properly usually is. Normally about 100-1000 votes. If it was a thousand cases of a thousands votes then it would be a million votes.
Also a lot of this is unreported, people find their vote is stolen get miffed about it but then don't do anything as its too much bother.
Remember there is a two week window to report cases. All in all the figures are easy to manipulate.
However a system that reduces accessibility for a much greater number of people that would like to vote legally compared to reducing illegal voting by a small number is hardly the solution.
I am sorry but that reply is just blatantly stupid.
I took the pains to point out how postal ballot system is broken and how it could be fixed.
So where to you come to the conclusion that after explaining how the postal ballot system can be fixed to eliminate most electoral fraud do you come to the conclusion that I want to abolish the system?
Come on, think!
I did look at the evidence, that's the point, you on the other hand keep on failing to provide any quantative data on the issue and just keep on posting articles from right wing press. I looked at the Electoral commission data.
Really??? I know you have deep 'reservations' about New Labour but you are pushing the boat out just a wee bit claiming they were 'ok with child rape in Rotherham' and so on.
We have witness evidence that ongoing rapes were reported to the police and the police did nothing because of the policy of community cohesion.
It was more problematic for the police to be 'racist' by targeting asian rape gangs than if they dealt with child protection.
This was a direct continuence of the New Labour dogma.
Also the issue was kept out of the press successfully, most likely by a D-notice, until Cameron took office then suddenly the problem existed, as did the Islamification and indoctrination of primary school children in Birmingham.
These problems didn't materialise in 2010, they became actionable in 2010. New Labour didn't want to know. They did however want to know about failures in implementation of Equality and Diversity.
Would you like to clear the air and blame anything else on them, perhaps the Vietnam War; or Climate Change, perhaps they were responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs?
If the dinosaurs were first reported by the majority of the press to be extinct in 2010 and up until then we were forced to assume they were happy wandering around the fully multi-cultural UK with refugee status then perhaps I might.
Sorry, what? You are just repeating the same thing but with the words inverted. I fail to see how your statement "Vote rigging tends to happen in ethnic groups because of people immigrating from places where elections are won at any cost, and thinking that there is no reason not to continue as before. " is not stating there is a correlation between vote rigging and ethnicity?
Try thinking about it a bit (or at all).
Yes I thought about it a lot as to make sense of it. My concern was that you weren't at all when you wrote the statement. I still fail to see how your above statement that "vote rigging tends to happen in ethnic groups" is not stating that "there is correlation between vote rigging and ethnicity"?
Your lack of understanding doesnt surprise me now. It is plain as day that a problem within an ethnic community is not a problem of an ethnic community.
The latter is the brainwashing society received in the Blair years. In other words if someone reports on mass electoral fraud in Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, then people like you are conditioned to assume that the person reporting this problem has a hate agenda towards Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. You can replace electoral fraud with child rape, or Islamic indoctrination of primary school children, the result is the same. Nobody wants to know because nobody wants to be labeled a bigot. A policeman who investigated Rotherham rape culture prior to 2010 would be a racist and quickly removed from the case. He would be lucky to keep his job. Now you see why things are not done.
Good grief...Hungary closed it's borders to migrants fleeing Syria (mainly) and similar places not to EU citizens. They are two completely different issues.
They still closed an EU border, violated Shengen. It was reported and the Hungarian government got some flak for it, but ultimately nothing changed.
The situation in the Uk is different. Its a beatstick. One of the things the French want to do is force us to take the Calais refugees, if you actually look at the legality of that refugees must settle in the first country outside of persecution they come to. Those are the rules, but the rules don't apply to the French, hence Calais squatter camp.
International politics is about how you wield the stick, fair has nothing to do with it.
France in particular is pushing for a hard brexit, either that or highly unfavourable terms, either will satisfy them.
I am, err, skeptical. Barring the fact that anyone slightly left of far right can't stand Katie Hopkins (I hope everyone saw here apology she issued at 2 am in the morning...and just in case for once I am happy to link to the Daily Fail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/article-4046558/The-Mahmood-family-apology.html#ixzz4THEiUAxC) it doesn't really make more sense. Why would they phone, to gloat over a lost vote, just to antagonise the right wing of the populace? Admit to their crime on air? I'd be less surprised to find it was some random right wing Joe phoning from a pub somewhere as a method to reinforce their world views.
Every newspaper runs a bad story every now and then, especially with personal anecdotal stories When the Daily Mail do it its Daily Fail, then the Guardian do it, its ignored.
OK, good points. Consider me educated. But, I still think photographic I.D should be made compulsory, just to tighten up all the loose ends. Even if it has just a small impact. Like I said before, we have it here in Northern Ireland and it works out ok.
Northern Ireland is to all intents and purposes an ex-warzone, photo ID and security checks/checkpoints etc are accepted there. Also there is a hard land border.
I would be a toxic policy in the mainland UK, and thus no politician would want to forward it. There are also issues with photo ID, it could still fairly easily be faked as with any ID, and would enable more identity theft crime as a result. Banks etc already require photographic evidence which is often not checked or badly checked.
There are cost elements but also issues with right to anonymity, problems with missing or stolen ID replacement costs and various human rights issues.
The police can check who people are fast enough anyway.
When was photo-ID introduced in Northern Ireland, I wouldn't be surprised if you have had it a long time.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/29 01:20:42
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Anyone calling another user or their comment stupid from hereon out will get a holiday from at least the OT. Stop it, it doesn't win you an argument to say "that's stupid". It's just rude. You can all stand to act more maturely in your discussions.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
There isn't, the border is completely open, and it is even unlikely to be a hard border post Brexit. It was also never a 'warzone'.
Photo ID is a good idea although it would need to very well implemented to ensure that no one is 'prevented' from voting.
The polling station that my sister in law goes to in London doesn't even require you to produce your voting card nor check you off the register. This is obviously anecdotal and is sure to be an outlier but still it is something that shouldn't ever happen.
There isn't, the border is completely open, and it is even unlikely to be a hard border post Brexit. It was also never a 'warzone'.
True, but that is why I said 'for all intents and purposes'. Armed soldiers and police on the streets daily, sniper shootings, bombings, checkpoints, terrorist checkpoints etc.
Photo ID is a good idea although it would need to very well implemented to ensure that no one is 'prevented' from voting.
You could have photo ID polling cards, but as you can lawfully vote by proxy why. Fix that system. I would put barcodes on the ballot cards and link that to a database with photo ID. People can alternatively give their National Insurance number. Lots of ways within the existing framework to tighten up voting integrity without national Photo ID.
The polling station that my sister in law goes to in London doesn't even require you to produce your voting card nor check you off the register. This is obviously anecdotal and is sure to be an outlier but still it is something that shouldn't ever happen.
Possibly intentional.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Brexit will be a mess, massive job losses, robots taking over, ageing population leading to the collpase of the NHS etc etc
These may well come to pass BUT
Who predicted Trump? Or Brexit?
And on the flip side, as I've said many a time, even remaining in the EU would not have shielded us from these problems.
Climate change for example will not give two hoots for the EU or any other nation for that matter.
I remain cautiously optimistic for 2017, whilst acknowledging the fact that big challenges lie ahead.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
.That I prefer to see some real evdience and data on the issues *is* thinking for myself. Because with this I can challenge the claims for either side and determine whether they are pigswill or really happening. Your version of "thinking for yourself" appears to be believing whichever right wing paper you tend to read (or all of them). You run the very large risk that you read and re-read the same story hashed several times over several papers making the situation appear worse than it actually is. One report repeated several times over a period of months doesn't make it either any more true or more common. This is where thinking for yourself comes in and question just how many data sources the reports are actually refering to. All you have provided is a list of individual examples that are meaningless without the wider context. A few hundred ballot papers if sent out by mistake is tiny compared to the 10's millions that are sent out correctly.
