Will Windrush citizens also lose their voting rights? Researchers will be watching to find out : The Conversation

Theresa May’s first words as prime minister on the steps of Downing Street signalled that she would put “fighting against burning injustice” at the heart of her political agenda. Highlighting inequalities across the lines of ethnicity, class, gender and age, she set out her “mission to make Britain a country that works for everyone”.

These bold ambitions have been put under scrutiny as details have emerged about the way May’s government has treated people who moved to the UK from the Caribbean between the 1940s and 1970s. The Home Office didn’t keep records for many of those members of the so-called “Windrush generation” and, in 2010, their landing cards were destroyed by the Home Office. Changes to the law subsequently required to them have this paperwork to work, receive benefits, access healthcare and many have been left feeling unwanted and concerned about their futures in the UK. Bureaucracy and paperwork, boring as it may sound, can make a fundamental difference to our lives.

Now some of these same people may also be prompted for paperwork when wanting to exercise their democratic rights. For the first time in British elections, citizens will be asked to prove their identity at the polling station before being able to vote in the 2018 local elections in England. For now, it’s just a pilot and only five authorities will take part. But the government has set a trajectory that will see it steam ahead with expanding this policy. Its 2017 election manifesto vowed to “legislate to ensure that a form of identification must be presented before voting”.

We’ll be monitoring the pilots to see if it does end up limiting the rights of certain groups.


Source: Will Windrush citizens also lose their voting rights? Researchers will be watching to find out : The Conversation

YouGov Are Asking Whether Benefit Claimants Should Be Allowed To Vote

Of course Benefit Claiments should be allowed to vote for them not to would be against democracy, to even think this is a worry for now and certainly the future.

Same Difference

Same Difference is deeply upset by this YouGov poll question. Of course, we answered that benefit claimants should be allowed to vote.

View original post

Brian Monteith: Showing ID a smart move that will curb voter fraud : The Scotsman

Being able to vote in an election, to choose the people that decide the laws by which we should abide, or who commit us to war or set the taxes that we must pay is a right that our forebears have made great sacrifices to procure and protect. It is a solemn undertaking when we exercise our vote, one that we should treat in all seriousness, for we are not just casting a ballot on behalf of ourselves, but also in the knowledge that our choice may impact irrevocably on others.

It is, therefore, important that the ballot is, in every respect, beyond reproach; that we know it has not been tampered with and could not have been subverted to the benefit of any one candidate or a party’s candidates. Seeking to skew an election is not an easy task and while the aftermath of British elections has on occasion led to isolated examples of accusations about individuals or certain groups exploiting seeming weaknesses in our procedures, instances of malpractice or deliberate cunning that have led to prosecutions are, thankfully, rare.

Following the last General Election concerns were raised that young students were encouraged to cast their votes twice by voting once from their home address and again using a second term-time address. To do so would have been illegal, and while the police investigated some 70 specific reports in the end only one successful prosecution was brought against Mohammed Zain Qureshi. He had voted twice from his home address by registering two different versions of his name and thus obtaining two polling cards.

Nevertheless it is not as if we have not had difficulties with personation or double voting before. For decades the joke that in Northern Ireland voters were encouraged to “vote early, and vote often” by using the names of dead relatives that might still be on the electoral roll was believed to have some substance. In 2002 a Northern Ireland opinion survey showed 66 per cent believed “electoral fraud is very common in some areas” whilst 64 per cent thought in some areas it was “enough to change the election results”.

After the Labour government passed its Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act in 2002 – requiring voters to present photographic proof of identity – comparative surveys of returning officers in 2001 and 2003 indicated the percentage who reported seeing people vote more than once had decreased from 3 per cent to 0.1 per cent. Those experiencing being turned away because someone had already voted in their name declined from 4 per cent to 1 per cent and those presented with documents they suspected to be forgeries declined from 3 per cent to 0.2 per cent.

Source: Brian Monteith: Showing ID a smart move that will curb voter fraud : The Scotsman

Fury as students ‘openly boast of voting TWICE’ for Corbyn’s Labour – rules review called : Express.

Should this be true, then moves need to be made to ensure that one vote by one person is maintained and this could be done by asking for national Insurance numbers when registering to vote or allow everyone 2 votes. Another way could be to ensure that every voting card carries a picture of the official voter, but this would discriminate against those voters who do not have photographs and will not get round the postal vote problem. But do not use this as an excuse to withdraw postal votes as this is a bonus for those will mobility problems.

With regards to husbands voting for their wives and maybe adult children, then this is more complicated, as this could be done through postal votes and the signature , which should be a check, may not always be, as the husbands could apply by them signing as their relative.. Even fingerprint will not work for postal, as the husband could just implant the relatives fingerprint, but still not allow them to vote.

Anyone who is eventually found guilty of any of the above, should permanently lose their right to vote in addition to any other punishments.

Currently I cannot think of a way, but more than likely there will be.

Aren’t humans devious creatures.


THE government has signalled that it will review election rules after an MP claimed students are openly boasting about voting twice in the election.

Amid concerns that Labour support was boosted by illegal double voting by students and abuse of postal voting, Leader of the House Andrea Leadsom told MPs there was a need to “investigate” abuse of the democratic process.

Ms Leadsom was responding to a concern raised by Wellingborough Tory MP Peter Bone who said that boasts by Leftwing students of voting where they went to university and in their home constituencies had been posted online.

He said: “It has been brought to my attention that people can be registered to vote in a general election in two places.I am registered in London and in my constituency.

Student voteGETTY

Election rules review after students ‘openly boast of voting TWICE’ for Corbyn’s Labour

“However, a number of students are bragging…

View original post 203 more words

Jimmy Dore: Stop and Search Policing Now Shown to Be Rubbish

Persecute the innocent and eventually the innocent will want their revenge. By profiling you are demonising an entire race, religion or culture.

In every race, religion or culture there will be a minority who will not conform to what society expects for a variety of reasons, ignorance of the said rules or laws, a persecution complex, contempt for others, bullying, etc. Many of these persons could need educating or counseling to ascertain reasons for their behaviour and some a form of punishment. For we are in an assumed civilised society and should care for our fellow beings and show them respect and understanding in order that they may reflect on what they are doing.

But first we require an equalised society in that the controlling powerful forces, such as Government, police, media, etc. do not castigate, vilify or victimise sections of the community to further increase resentment and exclusion.

Beastrabban\'s Weblog

This is another fascinating piece from the American comedian Jimmy Dore, who turns up regularly on The Young Turks internet show. In this video he discusses an article in one of the New York Papers, reporting a study that has shown ‘broken windows’ policing to be complete rubbish. ‘Broken windows’ policing is the name given to the police strategy of prosecuting people for minor offences – what are called ‘quality of life’ offences, like graffiti, riding your bike on the pavement and so on, in the expectation that cracking down on minor crimes will lead to a drop in major felonies. It includes ‘stop and frisk’ – what over here is called ‘stop and search’ – in which people are stopped and searched at random by the rozzers.

The ‘broken windows’ strategy takes its name from an official experiment, in which a car was left in the road with its…

View original post 469 more words

Women’s position as of 2016

Save the ‘F’ World

“What goes unsaid is that women might be more ambitious and focused because we’ve never had a choice. We’ve had to fight to vote, to work outside the home, to work in environments free of sexual harassment, to attend the universities of our choice, and we’ve also had to prove ourselves over and over to receive any modicum of consideration.”

(Roxane Gay: How We All Lose in Bad Feminist-Essays)

View original post