Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Scum Politicians . . .

Worra load of bollocks. One of my friends is a self-employed window cleaner and had his own van. It was second-hand and shitty, but he could just about afford it. Does having your own van make one p-bourgeois now?

Being a window cleaner quite possibly makes him a Jehovah's Witness.
 
My understanding is that councils will be able to issue a free voter identity card - any time soon (think there was a decision not to try and launch it just before xmas when everyone would be thinking about other things) but i'm not sure how you prove your identity to get one of them.

I'm sure some will find this tedious enough to skip. Which is the point.

So yes, the right to vote has been taken away. Before I could turn up and vote. Now I need something extra that I don't have. THere is no law compelling ownership of passports, which aren't cheap, nor driving licenses. Oyster cards are acceptable, iirc, but only if you are elderly (ie a tory voter).
 

I'm sure some will find this tedious enough to skip. Which is the point.

So yes, the right to vote has been taken away. Before I could turn up and vote. Now I need something extra that I don't have. THere is no law compelling ownership of passports, which aren't cheap, nor driving licenses. Oyster cards are acceptable, iirc, but only if you are elderly (ie a tory voter).
When people apply for jobs they have to prove they have the right to work in this country but I don't hear you going on about that. Whether you agree with having to prove who you are when you vote, and I don't, the right to vote hasn't been removed any more than any right to work. Sure, they've made it a pain and the people who'd have difficulty with ID are more likely to vote Labour but no one has had their right to vote removed. It's more hyperbole from you
 

I'm sure some will find this tedious enough to skip. Which is the point.

So yes, the right to vote has been taken away. Before I could turn up and vote. Now I need something extra that I don't have. THere is no law compelling ownership of passports, which aren't cheap, nor driving licenses. Oyster cards are acceptable, iirc, but only if you are elderly (ie a tory voter).
But by saying it's removing the right to vote, is bollocks and patently so. The problem with that line is people can dismiss it as bollocks and move on. This leaves the true issue: that it makes voting harder in a way that disproportionally effects poorer and more marginalised people, unaddressed.
 
Being a window cleaner quite possibly makes him a Jehovah's Witness.
or a potential film star
BigWin.jpg
 
When people apply for jobs they have to prove they have the right to work in this country but I don't hear you going on about that. Whether you agree with having to prove who you are when you vote, and I don't, the right to vote hasn't been removed any more than any right to work. Sure, they've made it a pain and the people who'd have difficulty with ID are more likely to vote Labour but no one has had their right to vote removed. It's more hyperbole from you
Correct, in that voter suppression, by it's definition, does not remove the right to vote but reduces the practical enactment of that right through the introduction of needless barriers, gatekeepers and hoops.
 
Being a window cleaner quite possibly makes him a Jehovah's Witness.

I had noticed this but didn't know how widespread it is. Pretty sure my current window cleaner isn't unless the johos have started encouraging the smoking of industrial amounts of weed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
Oyster cards are acceptable, iirc, but only if you are elderly (ie a tory voter).
I'm not trying to be picky here but this is also hyperbole - older person's bus passes and Oyster 60+ cards are acceptable as ID for voting, yes. That anyone over 60 is very likely a tory voter is obviously not true.
 
I'm not trying to be picky here but this is also hyperbole - older person's bus passes and Oyster 60+ cards are acceptable as ID for voting, yes. That anyone over 60 is very likely a tory voter is obviously not true.
It is, but the 'reasoning' offered by the vermin to justify the acceptance of older Oyster cards and rejection of the similar young people's version stinks. The intent is obvious.
 
It is, but the 'reasoning' offered by the vermin to justify the acceptance of older Oyster cards and rejection of the similar young people's version stinks. The intent is obvious.
I get that, and I only omitted saying so because of the obviousness. But "over 60s = tory voters" is just nonsense.
 
Yes, I agree...it's clearly not correct to say all over 60s (not least because that includes quite a few of us on here! :D )....but we're all well aware that what Karl Masks said contains an essential truth about voting by cohort:

View attachment 361014
i'd be interested in seeing the 'did not vote' % by age, sure a lot of people are of the 'have voted labour but won't get fooled again' persuasion
 
But by saying it's removing the right to vote, is bollocks and patently so. The problem with that line is people can dismiss it as bollocks and move on. This leaves the true issue: that it makes voting harder in a way that disproportionally effects poorer and more marginalised people, unaddressed.
You're just saying what I said using more words, for some reason. People now cannot vote as they did before, as has always been the case since perhaps universal suffrage. So yes, it is correct to call this the removal of the right to vote. Arguing semantics is just watering down the seriousness of this policy
 
You're just saying what I said using more words, for some reason. People now cannot vote as they did before, as has always been the case since perhaps universal suffrage. So yes, it is correct to call this the removal of the right to vote. Arguing semantics is just watering down the seriousness of this policy

It’s really not. It’s a an example of the biggest danger of propaganda. Starting to believe your own.
 
It’s really not. It’s a an example of the biggest danger of propaganda. Starting to believe your own.
What I have said is factually accurate, everything else is just ignorance on your part. I cannot now vote as I did before. All you're doing is arguing that because there is a way around it, which misses the point, it isn't as serious as I have suggested. That is incorrect and arguing against the only solution, fraught as it is, that's on the table means you aren't a serious actor.
 
What I have said is factually accurate, everything else is just ignorance on your part. I cannot now vote as I did before. All you're doing is arguing that because there is a way around it, which misses the point, it isn't as serious as I have suggested. That is incorrect and arguing against the only solution, fraught as it is, that's on the table means you aren't a serious actor.
That's me telt.
 
Back
Top Bottom