Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1421593/Ryanair-refuses-to-let-Para-on-flight-despite-military-ID.html>
>>
>> And, no, Ryanair doesn't accept other, less secure forms of ID:
>>
>> From:
>> https://helpcentre.ryanair.com/hc/en-ie/categories/9606855902481-Check-In-Travel-Documents
>>
>> When travelling with Ryanair, we generally accept 2 forms of ID:
>>
>> - A valid passport;
>> - A valid National Identity Card.
>>
>> We do not accept a driver's license or birth certificate for travel to any
>> location. It is each passenger’s responsibility to carry Photo ID which
>> meets our requirements and the requirements of the relevant Immigration
>> Authority.
>
> This sounds like deliberate discrimination against members of the UK forces.
>

Have you any evidence that they accept ID from the Irish Defence Forces
instead of the documents they list ? Or the ID from any other nations
military come to that.
Unless they are doing that I don’t see how it can be deliberate
discrimination against UK ones.
GH

On 14/03/2023 14:16, MB wrote:
> On 14/03/2023 13:53, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Oh dear, only a few weeks to go before the election, and it's all
>> illegal?
>
>
> I have used my Scottish bus pass for all sorts of things when someone
> wanted photo ID - the photograph on the driving licence is very poor
> quality.  Might have used at some MOD sites.

I can recall visiting a prison in Dorset a few years ago with my then
boss. His ID? A Texas driving licence - acceptable.

--
Colin

In message <nXZOL.572694$fWC.119894@fx08.ams1>, at 11:51:47 on Sat, 11
Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <b45LL.270158$82jd.197712@fx13.ams1>, at 16:42:47 on Mon, 27
>> Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> Farringdon allows transfer between London Undergronud services and
>>>>>>>>> Thameslink services without passing through a gateline. That's not
>>>>>>>>> possible at StP because to get to the Thameslink platforms from the LU
>>>>>>>>> platforms involves passng through two gatelines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Roland wants validators on the TL platforms so TL passengers can
>>>>>>>> touch in and out of the Oyster zone, switching from/to
>>>>>>>> some other TL ticket. They will remain on TL, ideally on the
>>>>>>>>same train.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, for example, someone coming from Cambridge with a London
>>>>>>>> Terminals ticket (valid as far as KGX or SPI) and wishing
>>>>>>>> to continue on the same train to, say, London Bridge, needs to
>>>>>>>> touch-in at that point, even though they are continuing
>>>>>>>> on TL.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Under what circumstances would this actually be a thing a person might
>>>>>>> want to do? There are fares from Thameslink served stations to
>>>>>>> destinations "through the core" beyond London Terminals, and they are
>>>>>>> cheaper than a London Terminals ticket + Oyster Z1 fare,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fare regimes ebb and flow (so what's cheaper today might not be
>>>>>> tomorrow), and not all journeys have such tickets to zonal destinations
>>>>>> available - especially as not everyone started the day on a Thameslink
>>>>>> train.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See this page which I've been maintaining for over a decade now,
>>>>>> especially the first bracketed note to section 2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://perry.co.uk/avantix_for_dummies.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Meanwhile, I may not want to go forward to just to one zonal
>>>>>> destination, there might be several more legs I was anticipating during
>>>>>> the day, making perhaps an outboundary travelcard cheaper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But again, the frog boilers are hard at work making *them* less
>>>>>> attractive year upon year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems to me the least complicated thing to do is get a ticket (a
>>>>>> paper one probably) to London terminals, and then continue my day with
>>>>>> Oyster (rather than CCC because of the lack-of-Senior-Railcard
>>>>>> loadability).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so not only does this hypothetical passenger have to inconveneince
>>>>>>> themself by getting off the train to validate their oyster card,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given the number of trains rattling through SPILL, at worst it's getting
>>>>>> off one and onto the next. And should there be validators, I'd soon
>>>>>> remember where about in the train to sit to be able to reach them
>>>>>> quickest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but they also have to pay more for the privilege.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See earlier comments, it's not automatically cheaper, even if only doing
>>>>>> a simple two-leg extension.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And somehow, for a passenger deliberately inconveniencing themself and
>>>>>>> paying extra,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> It *is* shorter because it's not a very long corridor. More of a lobby
>>>> really.
>>>
>>> I suspect you have no personal knowledge of the route.
>>
>> Why do you suspect that, because I've mentioned here several times about
>> having done site visits, most recently confirming that the "missing"
>> validator in question has been deployed, albeit held together with
>> duct-tape.
>>
>>>>> 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.

What might be missing is a comma after "trip".
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tup6rv$7snu$1@dont-email.me>, at 07:14:07 on Tue, 14 Mar
> 2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> rOn Mon, 13 Mar 2023 22:23:51 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 status for
>>>>>>>>>> age verification. None are acceptable "all over the UK" on buses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have had various forms of official ID issued to me for specific
>>>>>> purposes from time to time but all they generally "prove" is my name
>>>>>> which is not unique.
>>>>>
>>>>> A friend works for the local District Council, and has a photo-ID badge
>>>>> to show on request to any members of the public they encounter when "on
>>>>> duty".
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that even though that very same District Council
>>>>> organises the polling arrangements, and staff such as he are prime
>>>>> candidates for being polling clerks, that particular photo-ID is not
>>>>> valid when casting a vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Having said all that, there are significant numbers of old folk
>>>>>>> that don’t
>>>>>>> use buses and haven’t bothered to apply for a pass. My late mother never
>>>>>>> had one. But she could have used her blue badge or expired passport for
>>>>>>> voting.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <nXZOL.572694$fWC.119894@fx08.ams1>, at 11:51:47 on Sat, 11
> Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <b45LL.270158$82jd.197712@fx13.ams1>, at 16:42:47 on Mon, 27
>>> Feb 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Farringdon allows transfer between London Undergronud services and
>>>>>>>>>> Thameslink services without passing through a gateline. That's not
>>>>>>>>>> possible at StP because to get to the Thameslink platforms from the LU
>>>>>>>>>> platforms involves passng through two gatelines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Roland wants validators on the TL platforms so TL passengers can
>>>>>>>>> touch in and out of the Oyster zone, switching from/to
>>>>>>>>> some other TL ticket. They will remain on TL, ideally on the
>>>>>>>>> same train.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, for example, someone coming from Cambridge with a London
>>>>>>>>> Terminals ticket (valid as far as KGX or SPI) and wishing
>>>>>>>>> to continue on the same train to, say, London Bridge, needs to
>>>>>>>>> touch-in at that point, even though they are continuing
>>>>>>>>> on TL.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Under what circumstances would this actually be a thing a person might
>>>>>>>> want to do? There are fares from Thameslink served stations to
>>>>>>>> destinations "through the core" beyond London Terminals, and they are
>>>>>>>> cheaper than a London Terminals ticket + Oyster Z1 fare,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fare regimes ebb and flow (so what's cheaper today might not be
>>>>>>> tomorrow), and not all journeys have such tickets to zonal destinations
>>>>>>> available - especially as not everyone started the day on a Thameslink
>>>>>>> train.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See this page which I've been maintaining for over a decade now,
>>>>>>> especially the first bracketed note to section 2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://perry.co.uk/avantix_for_dummies.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, I may not want to go forward to just to one zonal
>>>>>>> destination, there might be several more legs I was anticipating during
>>>>>>> the day, making perhaps an outboundary travelcard cheaper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But again, the frog boilers are hard at work making *them* less
>>>>>>> attractive year upon year.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems to me the least complicated thing to do is get a ticket (a
>>>>>>> paper one probably) to London terminals, and then continue my day with
>>>>>>> Oyster (rather than CCC because of the lack-of-Senior-Railcard
>>>>>>> loadability).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> so not only does this hypothetical passenger have to inconveneince
>>>>>>>> themself by getting off the train to validate their oyster card,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Given the number of trains rattling through SPILL, at worst it's getting
>>>>>>> off one and onto the next. And should there be validators, I'd soon
>>>>>>> remember where about in the train to sit to be able to reach them
>>>>>>> quickest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but they also have to pay more for the privilege.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See earlier comments, it's not automatically cheaper, even if only doing
>>>>>>> a simple two-leg extension.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And somehow, for a passenger deliberately inconveniencing themself and
>>>>>>>> paying extra,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See above.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> It *is* shorter because it's not a very long corridor. More of a lobby
>>>>> really.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect you have no personal knowledge of the route.
>>>
>>> Why do you suspect that, because I've mentioned here several times about
>>> having done site visits, most recently confirming that the "missing"
>>> validator in question has been deployed, albeit held together with
>>> duct-tape.
>>>
>>>>>> 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.

>
> What might be missing is a comma after "trip".

Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
> On 13/03/2023 23:44, Recliner wrote:
>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>> On 13/03/2023 19:31, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>> From experience, that is not such much bloody-minded as a
>>>> representation of the ability of many "security" staff to make a
>>>> reasoned assessment. It can also be the result of them being tied to
>>>> an instruction which will be used to (metaphorically) beat them round
>>>> the head if they disobey.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> More a case of Southern Ireland airline and staff.
>>>
>>> They were accepting other forms of ID which were very insecure, only
>>> British Army ones refused.
>>
>> Ths story goes back 20 years, and concerns one case (Pvt Alex Phillips from
>> Lanarkshire). It seems that Ryanair simply hadn't thought of military ID
>> cards (which probably aren't much used in neutral Ireland).
>>
>> His rather pushy mother, Annette Phillips, enlisted the help of the
>> Scottish secretary, the defence secretary and the transport secretary. She
>> also spoke to Michael O'Leary, the Ryanair chief executive, who agreed to
>> refund the cost of Pvt Phillips's ticket, but refused to change his
>> company's policy.
>>
>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1421593/Ryanair-refuses-to-let-Para-on-flight-despite-military-ID.html>
>>
>> And, no, Ryanair doesn't accept other, less secure forms of ID:
>>
>> From:
>> https://helpcentre.ryanair.com/hc/en-ie/categories/9606855902481-Check-In-Travel-Documents
>>
>> When travelling with Ryanair, we generally accept 2 forms of ID:
>>
>> - A valid passport;
>> - A valid National Identity Card.
>>
>> We do not accept a driver's license or birth certificate for travel to any
>> location. It is each passenger’s responsibility to carry Photo ID which
>> meets our requirements and the requirements of the relevant Immigration
>> Authority.
>
> This sounds like deliberate discrimination against members of the UK forces.
>

That's absurd. It has absolutely nothing to do with UK armed forces.

Ryanair has relatively few domestic flights (in any country), so it simply
chooses to use the same ID requirements for them as for its more numerous
international flights. That has the merit of simplifying the rules for its
ground staff, who already know what the boarding rules are, without needing
to know the destination. Simple rules means lower costs and fewer mistakes.

On 14/03/2023 17:26, Recliner wrote:
> Coffee <martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 13/03/2023 23:44, Recliner wrote:
>>> MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>> On 13/03/2023 19:31, Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>> From experience, that is not such much bloody-minded as a
>>>>> representation of the ability of many "security" staff to make a
>>>>> reasoned assessment. It can also be the result of them being tied to
>>>>> an instruction which will be used to (metaphorically) beat them round
>>>>> the head if they disobey.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More a case of Southern Ireland airline and staff.
>>>>
>>>> They were accepting other forms of ID which were very insecure, only
>>>> British Army ones refused.
>>>
>>> Ths story goes back 20 years, and concerns one case (Pvt Alex Phillips from
>>> Lanarkshire). It seems that Ryanair simply hadn't thought of military ID
>>> cards (which probably aren't much used in neutral Ireland).
>>>
>>> His rather pushy mother, Annette Phillips, enlisted the help of the
>>> Scottish secretary, the defence secretary and the transport secretary. She
>>> also spoke to Michael O'Leary, the Ryanair chief executive, who agreed to
>>> refund the cost of Pvt Phillips's ticket, but refused to change his
>>> company's policy.
>>>
>>> <https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1421593/Ryanair-refuses-to-let-Para-on-flight-despite-military-ID.html>
>>>
>>> And, no, Ryanair doesn't accept other, less secure forms of ID:
>>>
>>> From:
>>> https://helpcentre.ryanair.com/hc/en-ie/categories/9606855902481-Check-In-Travel-Documents
>>>
>>> When travelling with Ryanair, we generally accept 2 forms of ID:
>>>
>>> - A valid passport;
>>> - A valid National Identity Card.
>>>
>>> We do not accept a driver's license or birth certificate for travel to any
>>> location. It is each passenger’s responsibility to carry Photo ID which
>>> meets our requirements and the requirements of the relevant Immigration
>>> Authority.
>>
>> This sounds like deliberate discrimination against members of the UK forces.
>>
>
> That's absurd. It has absolutely nothing to do with UK armed forces.
>
> Ryanair has relatively few domestic flights (in any country), so it simply
> chooses to use the same ID requirements for them as for its more numerous
> international flights. That has the merit of simplifying the rules for its
> ground staff, who already know what the boarding rules are, without needing
> to know the destination. Simple rules means lower costs and fewer mistakes.
>

Don't spoil a perfectly good conspiracy theory with facts.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> rOn Mon, 13 Mar 2023 22:23:51 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> 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 who
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 status for
>>>>>>>> age verification. None are acceptable "all over the UK" on buses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> I have had various forms of official ID issued to me for specific
>>>> purposes from time to time but all they generally "prove" is my name
>>>> which is not unique.
>>>
>>> A friend works for the local District Council, and has a photo-ID badge
>>> to show on request to any members of the public they encounter when "on
>>> duty".
>>>
>>> It seems to me that even though that very same District Council
>>> organises the polling arrangements, and staff such as he are prime
>>> candidates for being polling clerks, that particular photo-ID is not
>>> valid when casting a vote.
>>>
>>>>> Having said all that, there are significant numbers of old folk that don’t
>>>>> use buses and haven’t bothered to apply for a pass. My late mother never
>>>>> had one. But she could have used her blue badge or expired passport for
>>>>> voting.
>>>
>>> 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.

“Scotrail photo-Smartcard”, so it would be a little odd if it were
anonymous.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> rOn Mon, 13 Mar 2023 22:23:51 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 who
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 status for
>>>>>>>>> age verification. None are acceptable "all over the UK" on buses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> I have had various forms of official ID issued to me for specific
>>>>> purposes from time to time but all they generally "prove" is my name
>>>>> which is not unique.
>>>>
>>>> A friend works for the local District Council, and has a photo-ID badge
>>>> to show on request to any members of the public they encounter when "on
>>>> duty".
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that even though that very same District Council
>>>> organises the polling arrangements, and staff such as he are prime
>>>> candidates for being polling clerks, that particular photo-ID is not
>>>> valid when casting a vote.
>>>>
>>>>>> Having said all that, there are significant numbers of old folk that don’t
>>>>>> use buses and haven’t bothered to apply for a pass. My late mother never
>>>>>> had one. But she could have used her blue badge or expired passport for
>>>>>> voting.
>>>>
>>>> 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.

But how would loading a travel concession onto it make it more secure?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tuo7pn$3uvlk$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:23:51 on Mon, 13 Mar
> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> 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 who
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 status for
>>>>>>>> age verification. None are acceptable "all over the UK" on buses.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> I have had various forms of official ID issued to me for specific
>>>> purposes from time to time but all they generally "prove" is my name
>>>> which is not unique.
>>>
>>> A friend works for the local District Council, and has a photo-ID badge
>>> to show on request to any members of the public they encounter when "on
>>> duty".
>>>
>>> It seems to me that even though that very same District Council
>>> organises the polling arrangements, and staff such as he are prime
>>> candidates for being polling clerks, that particular photo-ID is not
>>> valid when casting a vote.
>>>
>>>>> Having said all that, there are significant numbers of old folk
>>>>> that don’t use buses and haven’t bothered to apply for a pass.
>>>>> My late mother never had one. But she could have used her blue
>>>>> badge or expired passport for voting.
>>>
>>> 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?
>
> Because it's having the travel concession loaded which validates it as
> sufficiently secure to use for voting. My Scotrail photo-ITSO (and more
> recently a C2C) uses a photo I self-certified by implication when
> uploading it. Not for example scraped from the Passport Office or DVLA
> by the train company.

I’m unsighted as to what extra security level is provided by loading a
travel concession onto the card.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> rOn Mon, 13 Mar 2023 22:23:51 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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 who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 status for
>>>>>>>>>> age verification. None are acceptable "all over the UK" on buses.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have had various forms of official ID issued to me for specific
>>>>>> purposes from time to time but all they generally "prove" is my name
>>>>>> which is not unique.
>>>>>
>>>>> A friend works for the local District Council, and has a photo-ID badge
>>>>> to show on request to any members of the public they encounter when "on
>>>>> duty".
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me that even though that very same District Council
>>>>> organises the polling arrangements, and staff such as he are prime
>>>>> candidates for being polling clerks, that particular photo-ID is not
>>>>> valid when casting a vote.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Having said all that, there are significant numbers of old folk that don’t
>>>>>>> use buses and haven’t bothered to apply for a pass. My late mother never
>>>>>>> had one. But she could have used her blue badge or expired passport for
>>>>>>> voting.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
> But how would loading a travel concession onto it make it more secure?
>
> Sam
>

Presumably you have to prove who you are for an old folk bus?

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 status for
>>>>>>>>>>>> age verification. None are acceptable "all over the UK" on buses.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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. I don't have the authority to issue
official documents but it is only illegal if I issue any purporting to
be such.

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

>>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.

>>>>>>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.

>>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.

>>>It appears on so many lists of accepted government-issued photo-ID, and
>>>it's a card, that there's an elephant in the room.
>>>
>>Different lists deal with different purposes and vary with the
>>quantity of proof of identity to be supplied.
>
>Indeed they do.
>
>>>>>>If you accept ID issued by your own organisation then you
>>>>>>will probably have the means of verifying it but not for other
>>>>>>issuers.
>>>>>
>>>>>And yet I'm told that a District Council's Officer's ID badge is
>>>>>unlikely to be accepted by the Returning Officer (who is usually from
>>>>>that District Council).
>>>>>
>>>>>>The underlying danger of accepting non-primary ID is that it
>>>>>>could become part of a false chain of identity.
>>>>>
>>>>>Until we have photo-birth-certificates, what do you suggest. Oh wait!!
>>>>>Birth Certificates aren't proof of ID, anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>They are however the necessary/practical origin of a person's chain of
>>>>identity (geneticists please keep quiet). In theory you could take a
>>>>baby's footprints as further evidence but in practice there is little
>>>>baby-swapping (or it is well-hidden).
>>>
>>>You'd probably, in practice, take a DNA sample, but that's a huge can of
>>>worms.
>>>
>>That doesn't work perfectly with identical twin newborns. Around 75%
>>(depending on your source) have identical DNA.
>
>That could be one of the worms. Do they also have identical footprints,
>and if not, why not.
>
Footprints seem to be regarded as being as practically unique as
fingerprints. They aren't set by genetics and AFAIAA have never been
demonstrated to be anything other than a random feature; OTOH even
random things can repeat once all possible combinations have run out.

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 15:38:48 +0000, ColinR
<rail@greystane.shetland.co.uk> wrote:

>On 14/03/2023 14:16, MB wrote:
>> On 14/03/2023 13:53, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> Oh dear, only a few weeks to go before the election, and it's all
>>> illegal?
>>
>>
>> I have used my Scottish bus pass for all sorts of things when someone
>> wanted photo ID - the photograph on the driving licence is very poor
>> quality.  Might have used at some MOD sites.
>
>I can recall visiting a prison in Dorset a few years ago with my then
>boss. His ID? A Texas driving licence - acceptable.
>
I have visited various places whose security is imperfect, often not
even bothering to look at ID rather than the uniform. The method that
seems to be generally foolproof is to compare you with a previously
submitted and verified set of documents and details including the
obvious one, a photograph. If somebody is expecting you then your name
being on the list is one security stage done already; to some extent
that might reduce the stringency of what further ID you need to
produce.

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 07:14:07 -0000 (UTC), Tweed
<usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> rOn Mon, 13 Mar 2023 22:23:51 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 who
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 status for
>>>>>>>>> age verification. None are acceptable "all over the UK" on buses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> I have had various forms of official ID issued to me for specific
>>>>> purposes from time to time but all they generally "prove" is my name
>>>>> which is not unique.
>>>>
>>>> A friend works for the local District Council, and has a photo-ID badge
>>>> to show on request to any members of the public they encounter when "on
>>>> duty".
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that even though that very same District Council
>>>> organises the polling arrangements, and staff such as he are prime
>>>> candidates for being polling clerks, that particular photo-ID is not
>>>> valid when casting a vote.
>>>>
>>>>>> Having said all that, there are significant numbers of old folk that don?t
>>>>>> use buses and haven?t bothered to apply for a pass. My late mother never
>>>>>> had one. But she could have used her blue badge or expired passport for
>>>>>> voting.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
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.

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 18:54:24 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> rOn Mon, 13 Mar 2023 22:23:51 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 who
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 status for
>>>>>>>>> age verification. None are acceptable "all over the UK" on buses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> I have had various forms of official ID issued to me for specific
>>>>> purposes from time to time but all they generally "prove" is my name
>>>>> which is not unique.
>>>>
>>>> A friend works for the local District Council, and has a photo-ID badge
>>>> to show on request to any members of the public they encounter when "on
>>>> duty".
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that even though that very same District Council
>>>> organises the polling arrangements, and staff such as he are prime
>>>> candidates for being polling clerks, that particular photo-ID is not
>>>> valid when casting a vote.
>>>>
>>>>>> Having said all that, there are significant numbers of old folk that don?t
>>>>>> use buses and haven?t bothered to apply for a pass. My late mother never
>>>>>> had one. But she could have used her blue badge or expired passport for
>>>>>> voting.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>“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.

On Tue, 14 Mar 2023 18:58:41 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
<ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:

>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tuo7pn$3uvlk$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:23:51 on Mon, 13 Mar
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> 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 who
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 status for
>>>>>>>>> age verification. None are acceptable "all over the UK" on buses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> I have had various forms of official ID issued to me for specific
>>>>> purposes from time to time but all they generally "prove" is my name
>>>>> which is not unique.
>>>>
>>>> A friend works for the local District Council, and has a photo-ID badge
>>>> to show on request to any members of the public they encounter when "on
>>>> duty".
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that even though that very same District Council
>>>> organises the polling arrangements, and staff such as he are prime
>>>> candidates for being polling clerks, that particular photo-ID is not
>>>> valid when casting a vote.
>>>>
>>>>>> Having said all that, there are significant numbers of old folk
>>>>>> that don’t use buses and haven’t bothered to apply for a pass.
>>>>>> My late mother never had one. But she could have used her blue
>>>>>> badge or expired passport for voting.
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> Because it's having the travel concession loaded which validates it as
>> sufficiently secure to use for voting. My Scotrail photo-ITSO (and more
>> recently a C2C) uses a photo I self-certified by implication when
>> uploading it. Not for example scraped from the Passport Office or DVLA
>> by the train company.
>
>I’m unsighted as to what extra security level is provided by loading a
>travel concession onto the card.
>
Unlike e.g. a machine-supplied Oyster Card, there has been some ID
verification involved, although looking at the Senior Railcard webpage
that is nothing more than what you look like (according to the
photograph supplied by yourself) and your date of birth evidenced by
your passport, driving licence, EEA national identity card or (oh
dear!) "your ... birth certificate". The last document for many people
will connect to your current National Identity Number (more commonly
recognised as your NHS or CHI number) so if they actually bother then
it can be checked but I suspect they don't hence my comment.

In message <tuqg51$f7mv$1@dont-email.me>, at 18:58:41 on Tue, 14 Mar
2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tuo7pn$3uvlk$1@dont-email.me>, at 22:23:51 on Mon, 13 Mar
>> 2023, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> 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 who
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 status for
>>>>>>>>> age verification. None are acceptable "all over the UK" on buses.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>> I have had various forms of official ID issued to me for specific
>>>>> purposes from time to time but all they generally "prove" is my name
>>>>> which is not unique.
>>>>
>>>> A friend works for the local District Council, and has a photo-ID badge
>>>> to show on request to any members of the public they encounter when "on
>>>> duty".
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me that even though that very same District Council
>>>> organises the polling arrangements, and staff such as he are prime
>>>> candidates for being polling clerks, that particular photo-ID is not
>>>> valid when casting a vote.
>>>>
>>>>>> Having said all that, there are significant numbers of old folk
>>>>>> that don’t use buses and haven’t bothered to apply for a pass.
>>>>>> My late mother never had one. But she could have used her blue
>>>>>> badge or expired passport for voting.
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>
>> Because it's having the travel concession loaded which validates it as
>> sufficiently secure to use for voting. My Scotrail photo-ITSO (and more
>> recently a C2C) uses a photo I self-certified by implication when
>> uploading it. Not for example scraped from the Passport Office or DVLA
>> by the train company.
>
>I’m unsighted as to what extra security level is provided by loading a
>travel concession onto the card.

See my reply to Tweed.

--
Roland Perry

In message <tuqls6$giq2$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:36:22 on Tue, 14 Mar
2023, Tweed <usenet.tweed@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.
>>
>> But how would loading a travel concession onto it make it more secure?
>
>Presumably you have to prove who you are for an old folk bus?

I would expect the process to be slightly more than just "loading" the
bus pass as if it was some form of season ticket. For example issuing a
fresh card with a couple of extra words on it, and as you say having
verified the person using the same process as the existing bus pass.
--
Roland Perry

On 15/03/2023 01:18, Charles Ellson wrote:
> "Originating from a single fertilized egg, they later acquire unique
> genetic mutations. New advances in DNA sequencing are making it
> possible to pinpoint those mutations — and to tell identical twins
> apart."

There is a tendency for police to believe DNA is 'unique' encouraged by
quoting one in a <very large number> chance of a match.

There was the case where a young couple were held in cells and came
close to being convicted of killing a baby (or at least an illegal
disposal) who remains had been found buried in their garden (I think).
There was a DNA match so presumed to be their child.

On 15/03/2023 01:28, Charles Ellson wrote:
> I have visited various places whose security is imperfect, often not
> even bothering to look at ID rather than the uniform. The method that
> seems to be generally foolproof is to compare you with a previously
> submitted and verified set of documents and details including the
> obvious one, a photograph. If somebody is expecting you then your name
> being on the list is one security stage done already; to some extent
> that might reduce the stringency of what further ID you need to
> produce.

Worth reading Jon Pertwee's autobiography on how he used to test
security at RN Dockyards with fake ID (or even without ID) in WWII.

Eventually he got into into one with an ID card for Herr A. Hitler, with
appropriate picture and whilst wearing German uniform.

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 09:15:25 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 15/03/2023 01:18, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> "Originating from a single fertilized egg, they later acquire unique
>> genetic mutations. New advances in DNA sequencing are making it
>> possible to pinpoint those mutations — and to tell identical twins
>> apart."
>
>
>There is a tendency for police to believe DNA is 'unique' encouraged by
>quoting one in a <very large number> chance of a match.
>
>There was the case where a young couple were held in cells and came
>close to being convicted of killing a baby (or at least an illegal
>disposal) who remains had been found buried in their garden (I think).
>There was a DNA match so presumed to be their child.
>
A snag with Low Copy Number DNA is that rather than proving A was with
B, it really shows that A was within an increasing distance of B, the
vast majority of which is not in the immediate vicinity of B. Quite a
few reported trials seem to have ignored that feature or failed to
signify how that was negated.
It maybe bears comparison with (sometimes rather wild) incorrect
positions on Google timelines whose reason is often revealed by
looking at the large circle of error (related to low copy) or where it
is clear that a WiFi router is no longer where Google thinks it is
located (related to transfer). Coming back to topic, my DNA can be
expected to be found on trains at many locations around E/SE England
but I would have only been on most between Farringdon and London
Bridge.

On 15/03/2023 19:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
> A snag with Low Copy Number DNA is that rather than proving A was with
> B, it really shows that A was within an increasing distance of B, the
> vast majority of which is not in the immediate vicinity of B. Quite a
> few reported trials seem to have ignored that feature or failed to
> signify how that was negated.

The case I mentioned was a very close DNA match so 'proved' they were
guilty.

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 21:04:32 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 15/03/2023 19:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> A snag with Low Copy Number DNA is that rather than proving A was with
>> B, it really shows that A was within an increasing distance of B, the
>> vast majority of which is not in the immediate vicinity of B. Quite a
>> few reported trials seem to have ignored that feature or failed to
>> signify how that was negated.
>
>
>The case I mentioned was a very close DNA match so 'proved' they were
>guilty.
>
But (as described) there seems to have been a failure to consider the
matter of proximity. Usually it is a case of defeating a defence that
"I was never there" but where a victim is naturally in the same place
as the accused then there is no point simply demonstrating the
presence of the DNA without considering why it could be there for good
or bad reasons.

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 21:04:32 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 15/03/2023 19:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> A snag with Low Copy Number DNA is that rather than proving A was with
>> B, it really shows that A was within an increasing distance of B, the
>> vast majority of which is not in the immediate vicinity of B. Quite a
>> few reported trials seem to have ignored that feature or failed to
>> signify how that was negated.
>
>
>The case I mentioned was a very close DNA match so 'proved' they were
>guilty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecutor%27s_fallacy

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.