this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
231 points (94.9% liked)

United Kingdom

4114 readers
248 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 64 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly as everybody warned.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (11 children)

this was always the plan, since minorities and disabled citizens in the UK tend not to vote conservative.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 31 points 1 year ago

Also affected the poorest communities. The health, wealth and representation gaps grew even wider that day.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 year ago

Yeah that was the plan

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 year ago

Works as intended then.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

Colour me shocked

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

The authors found that “polling clerks are more likely to fail to compare a photo ID to the person presenting that document if the person is of a different ethnicity”.

They also highlighted the case of Andrea Barratt, who is immunocompromised and was blocked from entering a polling booth after refusing to remove her mask for an identification check.

WTF am I even reading? The problem is that some clerks are too stupid to identify non-white persons? And that someone else refused to take off the mask for 2 seconds to show her face!!?

At least it's not the usual racist bullshit from the US where non-white people are allegedly too stupid and/or poor to get an ID...

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Immunocomprimised may potentially be a big risk landing someone in hospital if they inhaled something from the atmosphere that a weakened Immune system could handle

Sometimes that risk could end up being fatal

Fyi not a doctor but most people excluding anti-vaxers know how immune systems work

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

If you are that endagered that you can't take it off for a few seconds, you would also not be casually walking around with a normal mask... They are not a 100% protection.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Really shouldn't have to take the risk to stick a cross next to your favourite Oxford University graduate's figurehead

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

more likely to fail to compare a photo ID to the person presenting that document if the person is of a different ethnicity

Wait, are they saying if someone is a different ethnicity they are more likely to not check if the ID matches?

That's how it reads to me but I don't think it's the intention?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think it means they're less likely to be able to identify that the ID photo is the same person as the one standing in front of them. It's the other-race effect, which I understand is quite natural for people of all races that have less experience with other races.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Controversial rules governing voter identification led to racial and disability discrimination at this year’s local elections in England, according to a damning report co-written by one of the former ministers responsible for introducing them.

MPs and peers on the all-party parliamentary group on democracy and the constitution will publish a report on Monday saying that the rules caused more harm than they prevented when they came into force in May, and will call for changes, including the acceptance of a greater range of ID documents.

The report was co-authored by Sir Robert Buckland, who was justice minister in 2021 when the bill to introduce the rules was first launched in parliament, and who subsequently helped vote them through.

The report says: “Their decision in that instance was … clearly discriminatory (and potentially unlawful) because they denied Andrea Barratt the right to cast a ballot purely on the basis of circumstances which arose as a direct result of a disability.”

An interim study published by the Electoral Commission earlier this year found at least 14,000 people had been denied a vote because they lacked the correct form of ID.

The report’s authors call for ministers to broaden the types of documents that can be accepted as identification, and to allow those who fail ID checks to sign a legally binding declaration instead confirming their identity.


The original article contains 660 words, the summary contains 224 words. Saved 66%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

... and will call for changes, including the acceptance of a greater range of ID documents.

They're just a bunch of fucking dullards aren't they?!?! REPEAL IT!

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›