On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 11:07:01 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

> From what I remember the conviction was only overturned because a
>photograph was found of the couple on holiday somewhere abroad at the
>time of the birth. Without that it is quite likely they would have had
>great difficulty in proving their innocence.
>
Photographs can also work both ways. The Daily Mirror (IIRC) got into
deep sh1t for publishing a cropped photograph which could have helped
to wrongly put someone inside for murder.

In message <29521ipeu66u5heh6himf96v8h627381u7@4ax.com>, at 01:18:27 on
Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 13:53:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <k6tu0i130q92r2uco0dq09i2otti4c1pjq@4ax.com>, at 19:27:38 on
>>Mon, 13 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 10:13:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <ps1r0i5mur2unr9atrc7v1vbd40ues7m8o@4ax.com>, at 08:12:27 on
>>>>Sun, 12 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 07:34:31 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>In message <gquq0ipvso2nkf895nhtpdhf85a8rvveau@4ax.com>, at 07:21:22 on
>>>>>>Sun, 12 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 06:50:56 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In message <rgsh0i9k5bi16vv61qo92tq2h3l7hqih0c@4ax.com>, at 20:44:23 on
>>>>>>>>Wed, 8 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:10:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>>>>>>><usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 22:46:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/03/2023 21:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people least likely to have photo ID are older people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't drive and don't have a passport. And they are also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the ones most likely to have difficulty with an online
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>system for obtaining photo ID.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But most will have a bus pass (under various names).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and those are acceptable (all over the UK, not just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the area of validity of the pass).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bus passes come in different forms and do not have equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>> age verification. None are acceptable "all over the UK"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody said they were. You seem to be confused.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am not confused. If they aren't valid on a bus then why
>>>>>>>>>>>should they be valid for voting? <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Because they are officially issued photo ID. You don’t stop
>>>>>>>>>>being you just
>>>>>>>>>>because you are outside the geographic validity of the bus pass.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The validity of the document changes, in the case of a bus pass to
>>>>>>>>>being invalid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But only invalid for getting a free bus ride.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They are naturally only valid for the purpose for which they are
>>>>>>>issued not anything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They weren't issued as polling ID, but have been accepted to be as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Accepted by the polling place staff but not issued as such thus not
>>>>>supported by the issuer.
>>>>
>>>>On what grounds do you think that issuers of bus passes don't "support"
>>>>their use as polling ID, being closely linked organisations issuing and
>>>>accepting them?
>>>>
>>>1. They haven't got the legal authority to do so.
>>
>>Oh dear, only a few weeks to go before the election, and it's all
>>illegal?
>>
>I didn't say it was illegal.

You said in as many words that Local Authorities had no legal right to
accept them as voter-ID.

>I don't have the authority to issue official documents but it is only
>illegal if I issue any purporting to be such.

Given that concessionary passes are now on the official list of
Voter-ID, anyone issuing a card which they claim is a concessionary card
is also claiming they are valid as voter-ID.

>>>2. It is not their intended use.
>>
>>It is now.
>>
>Not by the issuers.

They'd have to print "Not valid as voter-ID" on them to demonstrate a
lack of intention.

>>>3. If they actively support such use then they could find themselves
>>>assuming unwanted duties, obligations and liabilities.
>>
>>How do you expect them to show a lack of support? Print "not to be used
>>as Voter-ID" on the front? Go round grabbing back all the leaflets which
>>have been printed and circulated, saying they acceptable...??
>>Ditto Blue badges.
>>
>They don't have to show a lack of support if another party has
>unilaterally decided to make use of their documents.

It's at least bi-lateral (the Government *and* the Returning Officers).

>>>>>>>If you accept ID issued by another party then you could be accepting ID
>>>>>>>which has since been cancelled or was never true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Barmen accept driving licences as ID, issued by DVLA and not whatever
>>>>>>the Licensed Victuallers Association is called this week.
>>>>>>
>>>>>A "trusted document" for many organisations but still only a driving
>>>>>licence not an ID card.
>>>>
>>>>As we all know, there isn't a UK National ID card, so I'm not sure what
>>>>point you are trying to make.
>>>>
>>>There are many official forms of identity of which a limited range are
>>>trusted to be true for multiple forms of official use. A bus pass is
>>>not one.
>>
>>Clearly false, as it has the multiple use as a travel concession card,
>>and voter ID.
>>
>Try getting into various government buildings with a bus pass.

Is there such an expression as "flogging a dead straw man". Well, there
ought to be.

If we want to pursue this ridiculous quest, I'm sure there are
various(sic) polling stations in public buildings such as schools,
where a bus pass is accepted as photo ID.

>>>If you try following me into some places waving your bus pass
>>>then you will find yourself with a large chap/ess sitting on you or
>>>shoving their gun up your nose.
>>
>>What an odd place to a have a polling booth.
>>
>I am not referring to polling booths; I am referring to a place where
>a bus pass is definitely not accepted as ID despite being accepted as
>such by other parts of officialdom.

What possible enlightenment are we supposed to gain from such a
statement of the obvious?
--
Roland Perry

In message <l0a21itdsvcphnk6hll8lrt4c093ae77ug@4ax.com>, at 02:06:52 on
Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>>“Scotrail photo-Smartcard”, so it would be a little odd if it were
>>anonymous.
>>
>So that is one card that might be more secure than some of the others.

How many of the classes of bus-pass approved for voter-ID don't have a
photo on them?

Assuming there's no such thing as a photo-smartcard vending machine,
they'll have (like bus passes and blue badges) some sort of application
process, with the card then sent out in the post - so there's an address
involved.
--
Roland Perry

In message <rt721ih7tog8c503lelar9vqcls2n18n4k@4ax.com>, at 01:32:49 on
Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>>I suppose the voting authorities are interested in the security of the card
>>issuing process. A concessionary bus pass issuer is going to take careful
>>steps to make sure the person applying is who they say they are. A Scotrail
>>photo ITSO card is issued to anyone who uploads a photo and types in a name
>>on the website.
>>
>Bearing in mind that the whole palaver started with HMG deciding that
>a non-existent/miniscule problem had to be solved then it would be no
>surprise if they try to solve it with documents whose security might
>be non-existent.

Luckily, however, documents with non-existent security don't feature on
the list for Voter-ID.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:15:35 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <29521ipeu66u5heh6himf96v8h627381u7@4ax.com>, at 01:18:27 on
>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 13:53:47 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <k6tu0i130q92r2uco0dq09i2otti4c1pjq@4ax.com>, at 19:27:38 on
>>>Mon, 13 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 10:13:09 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <ps1r0i5mur2unr9atrc7v1vbd40ues7m8o@4ax.com>, at 08:12:27 on
>>>>>Sun, 12 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>On Sun, 12 Mar 2023 07:34:31 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <gquq0ipvso2nkf895nhtpdhf85a8rvveau@4ax.com>, at 07:21:22 on
>>>>>>>Sun, 12 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>On Sat, 11 Mar 2023 06:50:56 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In message <rgsh0i9k5bi16vv61qo92tq2h3l7hqih0c@4ax.com>, at 20:44:23 on
>>>>>>>>>Wed, 8 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 07:10:45 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
>>>>>>>>>><usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 03:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 22:46:12 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/03/2023 21:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The people least likely to have photo ID are older people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't drive and don't have a passport. And they are also
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the ones most likely to have difficulty with an online
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>system for obtaining photo ID.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But most will have a bus pass (under various names).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, and those are acceptable (all over the UK, not just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the area of validity of the pass).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bus passes come in different forms and do not have equal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> age verification. None are acceptable "all over the UK"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody said they were. You seem to be confused.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not confused. If they aren't valid on a bus then why
>>>>>>>>>>>>should they be valid for voting? <snip>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Because they are officially issued photo ID. You don’t stop
>>>>>>>>>>>being you just
>>>>>>>>>>>because you are outside the geographic validity of the bus pass.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The validity of the document changes, in the case of a bus pass to
>>>>>>>>>>being invalid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>But only invalid for getting a free bus ride.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>They are naturally only valid for the purpose for which they are
>>>>>>>>issued not anything else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>They weren't issued as polling ID, but have been accepted to be as such.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Accepted by the polling place staff but not issued as such thus not
>>>>>>supported by the issuer.
>>>>>
>>>>>On what grounds do you think that issuers of bus passes don't "support"
>>>>>their use as polling ID, being closely linked organisations issuing and
>>>>>accepting them?
>>>>>
>>>>1. They haven't got the legal authority to do so.
>>>
>>>Oh dear, only a few weeks to go before the election, and it's all
>>>illegal?
>>>
>>I didn't say it was illegal.
>
>You said in as many words that Local Authorities had no legal right to
>accept them as voter-ID.
>
A lack of legal right does not equate to illegality.

>>I don't have the authority to issue official documents but it is only
>>illegal if I issue any purporting to be such.
>
>Given that concessionary passes are now on the official list of
>Voter-ID, anyone issuing a card which they claim is a concessionary card
>is also claiming they are valid as voter-ID.
>
That is an Alice in Wonderland interpretation.

>>>>2. It is not their intended use.
>>>
>>>It is now.
>>>
>>Not by the issuers.
>
>They'd have to print "Not valid as voter-ID" on them to demonstrate a
>lack of intention.
>
Rubbish. Intention is an active choice not a passive one. One party
cannot form intent on behalf of another.

>>>>3. If they actively support such use then they could find themselves
>>>>assuming unwanted duties, obligations and liabilities.
>>>
>>>How do you expect them to show a lack of support? Print "not to be used
>>>as Voter-ID" on the front? Go round grabbing back all the leaflets which
>>>have been printed and circulated, saying they acceptable...??
>>>Ditto Blue badges.
>>>
>>They don't have to show a lack of support if another party has
>>unilaterally decided to make use of their documents.
>
>It's at least bi-lateral (the Government *and* the Returning Officers).
>
The Returning Officers are ultimately acting for HMG not for third
party issuers of identity.

>>>>>>>>If you accept ID issued by another party then you could be accepting ID
>>>>>>>>which has since been cancelled or was never true.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Barmen accept driving licences as ID, issued by DVLA and not whatever
>>>>>>>the Licensed Victuallers Association is called this week.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>A "trusted document" for many organisations but still only a driving
>>>>>>licence not an ID card.
>>>>>
>>>>>As we all know, there isn't a UK National ID card, so I'm not sure what
>>>>>point you are trying to make.
>>>>>
>>>>There are many official forms of identity of which a limited range are
>>>>trusted to be true for multiple forms of official use. A bus pass is
>>>>not one.
>>>
>>>Clearly false, as it has the multiple use as a travel concession card,
>>>and voter ID.
>>>
>>Try getting into various government buildings with a bus pass.
>
>Is there such an expression as "flogging a dead straw man". Well, there
>ought to be.
>
>If we want to pursue this ridiculous quest, I'm sure there are
>various(sic) polling stations in public buildings such as schools,
>where a bus pass is accepted as photo ID.
>
>>>>If you try following me into some places waving your bus pass
>>>>then you will find yourself with a large chap/ess sitting on you or
>>>>shoving their gun up your nose.
>>>
>>>What an odd place to a have a polling booth.
>>>
>>I am not referring to polling booths; I am referring to a place where
>>a bus pass is definitely not accepted as ID despite being accepted as
>>such by other parts of officialdom.
>
>What possible enlightenment are we supposed to gain from such a
>statement of the obvious?
>
That you will start an argument and then claim there is no argument?

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:20:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <rt721ih7tog8c503lelar9vqcls2n18n4k@4ax.com>, at 01:32:49 on
>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>>I suppose the voting authorities are interested in the security of the card
>>>issuing process. A concessionary bus pass issuer is going to take careful
>>>steps to make sure the person applying is who they say they are. A Scotrail
>>>photo ITSO card is issued to anyone who uploads a photo and types in a name
>>>on the website.
>>>
>>Bearing in mind that the whole palaver started with HMG deciding that
>>a non-existent/miniscule problem had to be solved then it would be no
>>surprise if they try to solve it with documents whose security might
>>be non-existent.
>
>Luckily, however, documents with non-existent security don't feature on
>the list for Voter-ID.
>
A Voter Authority Certificate only requires submission of a NI number
and a photograph. Where is the security in that?
It can also be issued without supplying an NI number but the list of
documents is still not proof against personation as the list of
alternative documents can still be ultimately founded upon the use of
another person's birth registration. The number of people likely to be
doing it is probably still miniscule thus it remains as a non-problem
that doesn't need solving.

On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:24:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <l0a21itdsvcphnk6hll8lrt4c093ae77ug@4ax.com>, at 02:06:52 on
>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>>“Scotrail photo-Smartcard”, so it would be a little odd if it were
>>>anonymous.
>>>
>>So that is one card that might be more secure than some of the others.
>
>How many of the classes of bus-pass approved for voter-ID don't have a
>photo on them?
>
Try "How many bus passes don't have the photograph of the true holder
on them?".

>Assuming there's no such thing as a photo-smartcard vending machine,
>they'll have (like bus passes and blue badges) some sort of application
>process, with the card then sent out in the post - so there's an address
>involved.
>
Which is not inevitably that of the person collecting it from the pile
of post at many HMOs.

In message <tuq6re$divq$6@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:58 on Tue, 14 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>>> That validator was needed on the short-cut route between the northbound
>>>>>>> TL platform and the EL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Short-cuts are usually shorter.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just claimed it's longer.
>>>>
>>>> No I didn't, it's blatantly obvious it's shorter. See "more of a lobby
>>>> really". And obviously on the level, whereas the route they previously
>>>> expected people to take was up some stairs to street level, then back
>>>> down again.
>>>
>>> So why did you say, "May I remind you they've now installed a validator at
>>> Farringdon, when the trip via a double gateline that it eliminates, is far
>>> shorter"? Clearly the route via the surface ticket hall is longer, not
>>> 'far shorter'. Am I missing some invisible words in your statement?
>>
>> The trip avoiding the eliminated double gateline, is far shorter.
>
>Yes, but your statement says the exact opposite.

I've explained why it doesn't, so any further discussion is vexatious.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tuq6rd$divq$5@dont-email.me>, at 16:19:57 on Tue, 14 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:

>>>>>> I've used (just as an experiment) my Scotrail photo-Smartcard as
>>>>>> "Government issued ID" to get into some facilities. But it probably
>>>>>> shouldn't have worked. For voting purposes, as it has no travel
>>>>>> concession loaded, it probably shouldn't work either.
>>>>>
>>>>> JOOI why would having a travel concession loaded on your ITSO(?) card
>>>>> govern whether the card would identify you for some other purpose?
>>>>>
>>>> Depending on exactly which cards you are referring to, the ability to
>>>> load a travel concession might run together with whether or not the
>>>> card is anonymous or tied to a person.
>>>
>>> I suppose the voting authorities are interested in the security of the card
>>> issuing process. A concessionary bus pass issuer is going to take careful
>>> steps to make sure the person applying is who they say they are. A Scotrail
>>> photo ITSO card is issued to anyone who uploads a photo and types in a name
>>> on the website.
>>
>> They gave an indication a few years ago that they might merge the
>> Scotrail and Saltaire Card functionality, but I don't now if that's
>> still on the cards(sorry).
>
>What has ScotRail got to do wit a small Yorkshire mill town?

I'll swap my additional "a" for your missing "h".
--
Roland Perry

In message <9n1d1idm6l8d2nhrajcp7ononp90nsh0e1@4ax.com>, at 04:01:16 on
Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>>>>>If you try following me into some places waving your bus pass
>>>>>then you will find yourself with a large chap/ess sitting on you or
>>>>>shoving their gun up your nose.
>>>>
>>>>What an odd place to a have a polling booth.
>>>>
>>>I am not referring to polling booths; I am referring to a place where
>>>a bus pass is definitely not accepted as ID despite being accepted as
>>>such by other parts of officialdom.
>>
>>What possible enlightenment are we supposed to gain from such a
>>statement of the obvious?
>>
>That you will start an argument and then claim there is no argument?

I didn't wish to have an argument, let alone start one. You appear to
have chip on you shoulder about voter-ID in general (but that ship
sailed long ago) and make disparaging remarks about the people
implementing it.
--
Roland Perry

In message <i92d1idqrrkl94f0q0v5dn3m2p36c0eurm@4ax.com>, at 04:20:08 on
Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:20:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <rt721ih7tog8c503lelar9vqcls2n18n4k@4ax.com>, at 01:32:49 on
>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>>I suppose the voting authorities are interested in the security of the card
>>>>issuing process. A concessionary bus pass issuer is going to take careful
>>>>steps to make sure the person applying is who they say they are. A Scotrail
>>>>photo ITSO card is issued to anyone who uploads a photo and types in a name
>>>>on the website.
>>>>
>>>Bearing in mind that the whole palaver started with HMG deciding that
>>>a non-existent/miniscule problem had to be solved then it would be no
>>>surprise if they try to solve it with documents whose security might
>>>be non-existent.
>>
>>Luckily, however, documents with non-existent security don't feature on
>>the list for Voter-ID.
>>
>A Voter Authority Certificate only requires submission of a NI number
>and a photograph. Where is the security in that?

Sufficient for the purposes of the scheme.

>It can also be issued without supplying an NI number but the list of
>documents is still not proof against personation as the list of
>alternative documents can still be ultimately founded upon the use of
>another person's birth registration. The number of people likely to be
>doing it is probably still miniscule thus it remains as a non-problem
>that doesn't need solving.

Others disagree. I don't think it's as difficult as some people make out
to obtain something sufficient to allow one to vote - most complaints
are about the non-problem of people who might.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ld3d1i9v68254hbg4g3fa1ada400ocm0eq@4ax.com>, at 04:25:39 on
Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:24:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <l0a21itdsvcphnk6hll8lrt4c093ae77ug@4ax.com>, at 02:06:52 on
>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>>“Scotrail photo-Smartcard”, so it would be a little odd if it were
>>>>anonymous.
>>>>
>>>So that is one card that might be more secure than some of the others.
>>
>>How many of the classes of bus-pass approved for voter-ID don't have a
>>photo on them?
>>
>Try "How many bus passes don't have the photograph of the true holder
>on them?".

Sounds like a good topic for an FOI on a representative sample of
issuers.

But why pick bus passes - some people have false passports.

>>Assuming there's no such thing as a photo-smartcard vending machine,
>>they'll have (like bus passes and blue badges) some sort of application
>>process, with the card then sent out in the post - so there's an address
>>involved.
>>
>Which is not inevitably that of the person collecting it from the pile
>of post at many HMOs.

Which is true of numerous items of value sent through the post. Each
project has its own risk assessment. I forget what it was, but had a
letter recently marked "do not redirect", which was aimed at the postie
who might otherwise have run it through the commissioned redirection
scheme (rather than the person now living at that address, who might or
might not have a relevant forwarding address to hand).

One house I rented I got so fed up forwarding post I filled in the
official redirection forms and went round to their new residence and
said - read this, write a cheque, and send it off *please*".
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:45:21 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <9n1d1idm6l8d2nhrajcp7ononp90nsh0e1@4ax.com>, at 04:01:16 on
>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>>>>>If you try following me into some places waving your bus pass
>>>>>>then you will find yourself with a large chap/ess sitting on you or
>>>>>>shoving their gun up your nose.
>>>>>
>>>>>What an odd place to a have a polling booth.
>>>>>
>>>>I am not referring to polling booths; I am referring to a place where
>>>>a bus pass is definitely not accepted as ID despite being accepted as
>>>>such by other parts of officialdom.
>>>
>>>What possible enlightenment are we supposed to gain from such a
>>>statement of the obvious?
>>>
>>That you will start an argument and then claim there is no argument?
>
>I didn't wish to have an argument, let alone start one. You appear to
>have chip on you shoulder about voter-ID in general (but that ship
>sailed long ago) and make disparaging remarks about the people
>implementing it.
>
Many people have your perceived "chip". We don't like an inherently
dishonest government implying that the voters are significantly
dishonest. Many people also recognise that there is no general problem
to be dealt with rather than odd localised occurrences which have been
dealt with under existing law and which do not evince that there is a
general problem to be solved.
See also sledgehammer v. nut.

On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:47:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <i92d1idqrrkl94f0q0v5dn3m2p36c0eurm@4ax.com>, at 04:20:08 on
>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:20:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <rt721ih7tog8c503lelar9vqcls2n18n4k@4ax.com>, at 01:32:49 on
>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>>I suppose the voting authorities are interested in the security of the card
>>>>>issuing process. A concessionary bus pass issuer is going to take careful
>>>>>steps to make sure the person applying is who they say they are. A Scotrail
>>>>>photo ITSO card is issued to anyone who uploads a photo and types in a name
>>>>>on the website.
>>>>>
>>>>Bearing in mind that the whole palaver started with HMG deciding that
>>>>a non-existent/miniscule problem had to be solved then it would be no
>>>>surprise if they try to solve it with documents whose security might
>>>>be non-existent.
>>>
>>>Luckily, however, documents with non-existent security don't feature on
>>>the list for Voter-ID.
>>>
>>A Voter Authority Certificate only requires submission of a NI number
>>and a photograph. Where is the security in that?
>
>Sufficient for the purposes of the scheme.
>
>>It can also be issued without supplying an NI number but the list of
>>documents is still not proof against personation as the list of
>>alternative documents can still be ultimately founded upon the use of
>>another person's birth registration. The number of people likely to be
>>doing it is probably still miniscule thus it remains as a non-problem
>>that doesn't need solving.
>
>Others disagree. I don't think it's as difficult as some people make out
>to obtain something sufficient to allow one to vote - most complaints
>are about the non-problem of people who might.
>
When it draws criticism from across the media ranging from the Morning
Star to the Daily Express and others in between then there is clearly
something widely regarded as wrong with voter ID and that there is not
a "non-problem".

On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:59:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <ld3d1i9v68254hbg4g3fa1ada400ocm0eq@4ax.com>, at 04:25:39 on
>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:24:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <l0a21itdsvcphnk6hll8lrt4c093ae77ug@4ax.com>, at 02:06:52 on
>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>>“Scotrail photo-Smartcard”, so it would be a little odd if it were
>>>>>anonymous.
>>>>>
>>>>So that is one card that might be more secure than some of the others.
>>>
>>>How many of the classes of bus-pass approved for voter-ID don't have a
>>>photo on them?
>>>
>>Try "How many bus passes don't have the photograph of the true holder
>>on them?".
>
>Sounds like a good topic for an FOI on a representative sample of
>issuers.
>
>But why pick bus passes - some people have false passports.
>
A bus pass involves rather less critical circumstances (thus involves
lower security standards) than a passport.

>>>Assuming there's no such thing as a photo-smartcard vending machine,
>>>they'll have (like bus passes and blue badges) some sort of application
>>>process, with the card then sent out in the post - so there's an address
>>>involved.
>>>
>>Which is not inevitably that of the person collecting it from the pile
>>of post at many HMOs.
>
>Which is true of numerous items of value sent through the post. Each
>project has its own risk assessment. I forget what it was, but had a
>letter recently marked "do not redirect", which was aimed at the postie
>who might otherwise have run it through the commissioned redirection
>scheme (rather than the person now living at that address, who might or
>might not have a relevant forwarding address to hand).
>
"Do not redirect" is not aimed at the delivery staff but at the
returned letter section who get the letters back from the recipents
who actually bother to put them back in the post.

>One house I rented I got so fed up forwarding post I filled in the
>official redirection forms and went round to their new residence and
>said - read this, write a cheque, and send it off *please*".
>
The most excitement I have had with one was a threatening letter** to
someone who had presumably been gripped and given his correct name
(probably supported by non-conclusive ID) but a random address (mine)
and postcode (matching neither). Less than a minute's Googling came up
with some "previous" for what was fairly certainly him along with his
true address which was passed on to the fare evasion people.

**unopened by me, I recognised the shared railway premises address in
N-wherever on the back and could see enough through the envelope
window to identify the subject matter.

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:39:21 -0000 (UTC)
>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:56:38 -0000 (UTC)
>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> it is nevertheless unacceptable to have them go up a couple of flights
>>>>>>> of stairs/escalators to the gateline.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a ridiculous thing to have to do. May I remind you they've now
>>>>>> installed a validator at Farringdon, when the trip via a double gateline
>>>>>> that it eliminates, is far shorter.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not, you know. That validator was needed on the short-cut route
>>>>> between the northbound TL platform and the EL.
>>>>
>>>> I've noticed they seem to have made it as awkward as possible to get
>>>> from the tube platforms to thameslink and vice verca at Farringdon without
>>>> going through the gatelines though it is possible via the bridge right up
>>>> the end or via a small set of stairs from the NB tube to SB TL which has
>>>> a no entry sign in the other direction (which I ignored). God knows why.
>>>
>>> No, it's just as easy/difficult to transfer between LU and TL as it always
>>
>> No it isn't. As you go in from the old LU entrance there was a staircase
>> at the left that took you down to the northbound TL platform which was a much
>> shorter walk than going via the liz line entrance.
>
> That route crossed the busy main entrance/exit flows. They want
> interchanging passengers to use the two Interchange bridges.
>
>> For reasons best known to
>> themselves they closed that. There were also IIRC 2 sets of stairs linking NB
>> LU and SB TL but they closed one set and the remaining one is tucked away
>> unsignposted.
>
> I thought there were still three?
>

I was there a few days ago and found three sets of stairs, approximately
evenly spaced along the section where the platforms are adjacent to each
other.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> wrote:
> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 11:39:21 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 10:56:38 -0000 (UTC)
>>>>> Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> it is nevertheless unacceptable to have them go up a couple of flights
>>>>>>>> of stairs/escalators to the gateline.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a ridiculous thing to have to do. May I remind you they've now
>>>>>>> installed a validator at Farringdon, when the trip via a double gateline
>>>>>>> that it eliminates, is far shorter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not, you know. That validator was needed on the short-cut route
>>>>>> between the northbound TL platform and the EL.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've noticed they seem to have made it as awkward as possible to get
>>>>> from the tube platforms to thameslink and vice verca at Farringdon without
>>>>> going through the gatelines though it is possible via the bridge right up
>>>>> the end or via a small set of stairs from the NB tube to SB TL which has
>>>>> a no entry sign in the other direction (which I ignored). God knows why.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's just as easy/difficult to transfer between LU and TL as it always
>>>
>>> No it isn't. As you go in from the old LU entrance there was a staircase
>>> at the left that took you down to the northbound TL platform which was a much
>>> shorter walk than going via the liz line entrance.
>>
>> That route crossed the busy main entrance/exit flows. They want
>> interchanging passengers to use the two Interchange bridges.
>>
>>> For reasons best known to
>>> themselves they closed that. There were also IIRC 2 sets of stairs linking NB
>>> LU and SB TL but they closed one set and the remaining one is tucked away
>>> unsignposted.
>>
>> I thought there were still three?
>>
>
> I was there a few days ago and found three sets of stairs, approximately
> evenly spaced along the section where the platforms are adjacent to each
> other.

Yup, I was there on Friday, and counted the same three connections.

I also didn't notice any touch pads on the easiest route from the
southbound TL platform down to the EL.

PS:
The 4GL signal works well on the JLE.

On 19/03/2023 22:47, Charles Ellson wrote:
> Many people have your perceived "chip". We don't like an inherently
> dishonest government implying that the voters are significantly
> dishonest. Many people also recognise that there is no general problem
> to be dealt with rather than odd localised occurrences which have been
> dealt with under existing law and which do not evince that there is a
> general problem to be solved.
> See also sledgehammer v. nut.

Are bus and train companies accusing us of being being dishonest by
putting photographs on 'bus passes' and I believe season tickets.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 07:51:45 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 19/03/2023 22:47, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> Many people have your perceived "chip". We don't like an inherently
>> dishonest government implying that the voters are significantly
>> dishonest. Many people also recognise that there is no general problem
>> to be dealt with rather than odd localised occurrences which have been
>> dealt with under existing law and which do not evince that there is a
>> general problem to be solved.
>> See also sledgehammer v. nut.
>
>
>Are bus and train companies accusing us of being being dishonest by
>putting photographs on 'bus passes' and I believe season tickets.
>
They don't need to accuse. It is unarguable that fare evasion is a
problem that they have been fighting for many years unlike voter
impersonation which has never been a problem serious enough to need a
solution in Great Britain.

In message <tv93ah$3eh56$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:51:45 on Mon, 20 Mar
2023, MB <MB@nospam.net> remarked:
>On 19/03/2023 22:47, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> Many people have your perceived "chip". We don't like an inherently
>> dishonest government implying that the voters are significantly
>> dishonest. Many people also recognise that there is no general problem
>> to be dealt with rather than odd localised occurrences which have been
>> dealt with under existing law and which do not evince that there is a
>> general problem to be solved.
>> See also sledgehammer v. nut.
>
>Are bus and train companies accusing us of being being dishonest by
>putting photographs on 'bus passes' and I believe season tickets.

Of course they. And in spades by installing ticket barriers everywhere.
--
Roland Perry

In message <ov3f1ill8jolg50trnn9olvjpccsbui7gi@4ax.com>, at 22:47:49 on
Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:45:21 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <9n1d1idm6l8d2nhrajcp7ononp90nsh0e1@4ax.com>, at 04:01:16 on
>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>>>>>If you try following me into some places waving your bus pass
>>>>>>>then you will find yourself with a large chap/ess sitting on you or
>>>>>>>shoving their gun up your nose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What an odd place to a have a polling booth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I am not referring to polling booths; I am referring to a place where
>>>>>a bus pass is definitely not accepted as ID despite being accepted as
>>>>>such by other parts of officialdom.
>>>>
>>>>What possible enlightenment are we supposed to gain from such a
>>>>statement of the obvious?
>>>>
>>>That you will start an argument and then claim there is no argument?
>>
>>I didn't wish to have an argument, let alone start one. You appear to
>>have chip on you shoulder about voter-ID in general (but that ship
>>sailed long ago) and make disparaging remarks about the people
>>implementing it.
>>
>Many people have your perceived "chip". We don't like an inherently
>dishonest government implying that the voters are significantly
>dishonest.

No, the chip on your shoulder is just as much about your implication
that the people implementing the political decision (made by a
democratically elected government) are incompetent.

>Many people also recognise that there is no general problem
>to be dealt with rather than odd localised occurrences which have been
>dealt with under existing law and which do not evince that there is a
>general problem to be solved.
>See also sledgehammer v. nut.

That ship sailed years ago. Where were you then?
--
Roland Perry

In message <sc4f1i5cpoibq4kbdud7kqadkleg2hvu84@4ax.com>, at 22:55:18 on
Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:47:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <i92d1idqrrkl94f0q0v5dn3m2p36c0eurm@4ax.com>, at 04:20:08 on
>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:20:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <rt721ih7tog8c503lelar9vqcls2n18n4k@4ax.com>, at 01:32:49 on
>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:

>>>>>>I suppose the voting authorities are interested in the security of
>>>>>>the card issuing process. A concessionary bus pass issuer is going
>>>>>>to take careful steps to make sure the person applying is who they
>>>>>>say they are. A Scotrail photo ITSO card is issued to anyone who
>>>>>>uploads a photo and types in a name on the website.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Bearing in mind that the whole palaver started with HMG deciding that
>>>>>a non-existent/miniscule problem had to be solved then it would be no
>>>>>surprise if they try to solve it with documents whose security might
>>>>>be non-existent.
>>>>
>>>>Luckily, however, documents with non-existent security don't feature on
>>>>the list for Voter-ID.
>>>>
>>>A Voter Authority Certificate only requires submission of a NI number
>>>and a photograph. Where is the security in that?
>>
>>Sufficient for the purposes of the scheme.
>>
>>>It can also be issued without supplying an NI number but the list of
>>>documents is still not proof against personation as the list of
>>>alternative documents can still be ultimately founded upon the use of
>>>another person's birth registration. The number of people likely to be
>>>doing it is probably still miniscule thus it remains as a non-problem
>>>that doesn't need solving.
>>
>>Others disagree. I don't think it's as difficult as some people make out
>>to obtain something sufficient to allow one to vote - most complaints
>>are about the non-problem of people who might.
>>
>When it draws criticism from across the media ranging from the Morning
>Star to the Daily Express and others in between then there is clearly
>something widely regarded as wrong with voter ID and that there is not
>a "non-problem".

They should have spoken up years ago, not now it's a done deal.

Heavens above, you make Remoaners look like angels.
--
Roland Perry

In message <hn4f1illnirvk9e414hkmsvik43ffu0rjb@4ax.com>, at 23:13:57 on
Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:59:05 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <ld3d1i9v68254hbg4g3fa1ada400ocm0eq@4ax.com>, at 04:25:39 on
>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>remarked:
>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:24:02 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <l0a21itdsvcphnk6hll8lrt4c093ae77ug@4ax.com>, at 02:06:52 on
>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>remarked:
>>>>>>“Scotrail photo-Smartcard”, so it would be a little odd if it were
>>>>>>anonymous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>So that is one card that might be more secure than some of the others.
>>>>
>>>>How many of the classes of bus-pass approved for voter-ID don't have a
>>>>photo on them?
>>>>
>>>Try "How many bus passes don't have the photograph of the true holder
>>>on them?".
>>
>>Sounds like a good topic for an FOI on a representative sample of
>>issuers.
>>
>>But why pick bus passes - some people have false passports.
>>
>A bus pass involves rather less critical circumstances (thus involves
>lower security standards) than a passport.

And hence because the rewards are higher, wouldn't one expect far more
forged passports than forged bus passes?

>>>>Assuming there's no such thing as a photo-smartcard vending machine,
>>>>they'll have (like bus passes and blue badges) some sort of application
>>>>process, with the card then sent out in the post - so there's an address
>>>>involved.
>>>>
>>>Which is not inevitably that of the person collecting it from the pile
>>>of post at many HMOs.
>>
>>Which is true of numerous items of value sent through the post. Each
>>project has its own risk assessment. I forget what it was, but had a
>>letter recently marked "do not redirect", which was aimed at the postie
>>who might otherwise have run it through the commissioned redirection
>>scheme (rather than the person now living at that address, who might or
>>might not have a relevant forwarding address to hand).
>>
>"Do not redirect" is not aimed at the delivery staff but at the
>returned letter section who get the letters back from the recipents
>who actually bother to put them back in the post.

That's plain wrong. It's *precisely* aimed at the posties who would
otherwise by-rote redirect the mail to the addressee's purported new
address.

The aim is to circumvent instances of where a person's address has been
fraudulently signed up for redirection.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:20:51 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <ov3f1ill8jolg50trnn9olvjpccsbui7gi@4ax.com>, at 22:47:49 on
>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:45:21 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <9n1d1idm6l8d2nhrajcp7ononp90nsh0e1@4ax.com>, at 04:01:16 on
>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>>>>>If you try following me into some places waving your bus pass
>>>>>>>>then you will find yourself with a large chap/ess sitting on you or
>>>>>>>>shoving their gun up your nose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What an odd place to a have a polling booth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am not referring to polling booths; I am referring to a place where
>>>>>>a bus pass is definitely not accepted as ID despite being accepted as
>>>>>>such by other parts of officialdom.
>>>>>
>>>>>What possible enlightenment are we supposed to gain from such a
>>>>>statement of the obvious?
>>>>>
>>>>That you will start an argument and then claim there is no argument?
>>>
>>>I didn't wish to have an argument, let alone start one. You appear to
>>>have chip on you shoulder about voter-ID in general (but that ship
>>>sailed long ago) and make disparaging remarks about the people
>>>implementing it.
>>>
>>Many people have your perceived "chip". We don't like an inherently
>>dishonest government implying that the voters are significantly
>>dishonest.
>
>No, the chip on your shoulder is just as much about your implication
>that the people implementing the political decision (made by a
>democratically elected government) are incompetent.
>
Wrong.
I am not implying anything about the competence of those running
polling places.

>>Many people also recognise that there is no general problem
>>to be dealt with rather than odd localised occurrences which have been
>>dealt with under existing law and which do not evince that there is a
>>general problem to be solved.
>>See also sledgehammer v. nut.
>
>That ship sailed years ago. Where were you then?
>
Did you see this ship sail?

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 16:22:58 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <sc4f1i5cpoibq4kbdud7kqadkleg2hvu84@4ax.com>, at 22:55:18 on
>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 08:47:45 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <i92d1idqrrkl94f0q0v5dn3m2p36c0eurm@4ax.com>, at 04:20:08 on
>>>Sun, 19 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>remarked:
>>>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 08:20:10 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In message <rt721ih7tog8c503lelar9vqcls2n18n4k@4ax.com>, at 01:32:49 on
>>>>>Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>>>>>remarked:
>
>>>>>>>I suppose the voting authorities are interested in the security of
>>>>>>>the card issuing process. A concessionary bus pass issuer is going
>>>>>>>to take careful steps to make sure the person applying is who they
>>>>>>>say they are. A Scotrail photo ITSO card is issued to anyone who
>>>>>>>uploads a photo and types in a name on the website.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Bearing in mind that the whole palaver started with HMG deciding that
>>>>>>a non-existent/miniscule problem had to be solved then it would be no
>>>>>>surprise if they try to solve it with documents whose security might
>>>>>>be non-existent.
>>>>>
>>>>>Luckily, however, documents with non-existent security don't feature on
>>>>>the list for Voter-ID.
>>>>>
>>>>A Voter Authority Certificate only requires submission of a NI number
>>>>and a photograph. Where is the security in that?
>>>
>>>Sufficient for the purposes of the scheme.
>>>
>>>>It can also be issued without supplying an NI number but the list of
>>>>documents is still not proof against personation as the list of
>>>>alternative documents can still be ultimately founded upon the use of
>>>>another person's birth registration. The number of people likely to be
>>>>doing it is probably still miniscule thus it remains as a non-problem
>>>>that doesn't need solving.
>>>
>>>Others disagree. I don't think it's as difficult as some people make out
>>>to obtain something sufficient to allow one to vote - most complaints
>>>are about the non-problem of people who might.
>>>
>>When it draws criticism from across the media ranging from the Morning
>>Star to the Daily Express and others in between then there is clearly
>>something widely regarded as wrong with voter ID and that there is not
>>a "non-problem".
>
>They should have spoken up years ago, not now it's a done deal.
>
>Heavens above, you make Remoaners look like angels.
>
What has it got to do with the EU?