Is it possible that you can report this to the police.

Would they have to act?

Who is supposed to initiate prosecution for such an offense?

Surely there was a time in England when such behaviour was, almost universally, beneath a public servant?

This is serious. Plod needs to be involved asap. And it needs to be on the telly asap too in order that the voters of Blackburn can talk to election officers to see what can be done before the polls close.

You bet Craig.

The corruption of our electoral system would put any self respecting banana republic to shame.

The notions of decency and honour prevailing and the count officers, and the rest of the partisan mob employed specifically for this reason ensure that the electoral commission’s rulings are adhered to, just for the sake of appearances, while in reality the fraud goes on.

The rotten boroughs on both sides of the political spectrum ensure that the musical chairs played out as the “elections” only favours the tapped, and approved candidates, as for the rest, they can go and whistle Dixie, and try and prove their case for fraud, or any investigations thereof.

“Spreading apathy among the voters” as Willy Whitelaw put it so eloquently put it!!!!!

Off topic

Craig

Just thought you would like to know…Read comments…

http://tinyurl.com/r3lpze

So Sad.

Actually, compeletely on topic in a way you may not know, George.

Postman Patel, or my mate Ed Teague, was my agent for the Blackburn election against Jack Straw in 2005. The blog title Postman Patel and his Dog Jack was a reference to Lord Patel’s organisation of postal ballot fraud in Blackburn.

Ed has know he was on the way out shortly, from long term diabetes. So sorry the crisis has come. I do hope that we will nail these bastards on the infringement above. It would be a great tribute to Ed.

Craig

I am sorry.

I see that you commented on that blog.I only read down to his daughters comment and the very last comment and then posted here…missed yours.

Had a lot of time and the greatest respect for the postman.Will truly miss him.

Even if the ballot papers were upside down it wouldn’t take an idiot to realise it was only those torn papers which contained the official mark and the first candidate on the list (i.e the BNP) were the only ones which were being counted – it wouldn’t necessarily be the case that the party’s agent had seen the x on the other side.

I suspect even if the papers are upside down in accordance with the rules that the party’s agents are in some cases able to detrmine how the vote was cast (moral press lightly when placing your cross)

Except that he specifically states that he has seen the X. He does not just base his argument on the length of the ballot papers. He specifically notes seeing the X.

As for the argument that he was it accidentally from the otherside, ballots are quite deliberately made of a thick high density paper to stop that happening, plus the law specifically and deliberately places a duty on the agent to make sure he does not see. Check the wording.

It’s impossible NOT to notice which is marked, as his entire point was that they’ve only sent in the part which they marked.

Strife

You are not meant to see if it is marked or not. You are not supposed to try and look, and the thing is meant to be upside down so you can’t see if you wanted.

Dear Craig

I have asked Michael Poultney to respond after I read your post.

Here is my post to Blackburn Labour Party blog, it is a moderated blog but as you can see it is a reasonable ask. I used some of your post quotes.

I will look forward to his explanation if he puts my post up.

Dear Michael Poultney

As far as I understand it postal votes are mixed in with polling station votes for the count.

How did you see the marks on postal votes prior to being mixed in?

I thought party scrutineers are specifically banned from seeing where the “marked X” is when postal ballots are opened because they are accompanied by signed forms identifying the voter.

Can you explain this?

I understand the rules on this are very clear and specific;

“candidates and agents should not make any attempt to see how any individual ballot paper is marked, nor make any attempt to take notes on how ballot papers are marked. In any event, all ballot papers will be kept with the voting side face down and so it will not be possible to see how the postal voters have voted”.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

George

Feel free to post the reply here.

Just realised it’s a good idea to copy the text of Poultney’s letter in case they take it down.

Dear Sirs,

Whilst acting as scrutineer of postal ballot papers in the Blackburn with Darwen Borough section of the European Election for North West England, I have noticed that a few postal voters have cut or torn their ballot papers only submitting the portion of each paper in line with their marked X.

The consequence of this is that their paper is rejected for want of official mark – unless their vote is for candidate list No.1 at the top of the ballot paper which happens to be the British National Party. This is because the official mark on the front of the paper is at the top and therefore still intact and that the numbers on the reverse of the paper are also at the top behind section No.1.

Do you not believe that, in future, there is a case for the ballot paper numbers on the reverse being printed lower down the paper leading to all such mutilated papers being rejected? Or do you believe that entries numbered 1 on the ballot paper deserve this extra advantage?

Yours sincerely,

Michael Poultney

Labour Party sub-agent Euro Election

Postman Patel’s first array on his excellent blog.

Start date April 21, 2005.

Most are about voting fraud…

http://tinyurl.com/q34wsf

Revelations that Blear’s avoided CGT on a SECOND property. This story conveniently appears in todays Telegraph and is being spun as the ‘real’ reason for her departure.

See:

http://order-order.com/2009/06/03/telegraphs-porter-taking-copy-from-downing-street/

sorry Criag, the above comment is in the wrong post

I got an email today from the USDAW union (of which I used to be a member before I left my job because of ineffectual and bullying management) saying that I should vote for Labour to keep out the BNP! This was my stern reply:

The Labour Party is falling apart. They have not helped me while I was working. Unions should be standing against Labour’s extremely poor record on living wages. Saying that voting for them will keep out the BNP is nothing more than a cynical marketting exercise from toadying New Labour creeps. You should be ashamed.

Craig

The Blackburn Labour Party have already taken George Laird’s comments down (they were on the website half an hour ago, along with another critical comment) so you were both right to copy them!

Replaced by a post from Poultney denying he’s seen the actual “X”s on the papers!

Nice though it is to kick Labour when they’re down, this story is nonsense. IIRC from my scrutineering days they place the papers upside down, but ballot papers are printed on the next best thing to loo roll and you can see where the Xs are. To say this is fraud is hyperbole, all parties do it in order to see how much support you got out of postals.

The legitimate stick to beat Poultney with is him claiming this supposed practice of cutting out a bit of the ballot paper and returning it. That sounds absurd and I have never seen it done.

One possible solution to stop this farce…..

lets get the Army to man the polling stations……

From above:

“The Blackburn Labour Party have already taken George Laird’s comments down (they were on the website half an hour ago, along with another critical comment) so you were both right to copy them!”

There appears to either not be the case or they have since re-instated the letter: it’s there now anyway.

http://www.blackburnlabour.org/blog/Torn-postal-ballots-advantage-the-BNP.html

Craig,

I’ve just posted this on the Blackburn site, seeking some clarification:

(Apologies for the somewhat illiterate text; meant to re-read before posting the original, got distracted and forgot.)

—-

“Craig Murray on his blog is claiming that, if the above letter accurately describes Michael Poultney actions, then this is in violation of the anonymity of these votes. He claims that in so doing Michael Poultney has broken the law (if I understand Craig blog correctly).

Michael Poultney states in a later post: “I have not referred to marks made by voters, only to the ‘official mark’.” Re-reading the letter though, he does appear to be, fair unambiguously, referring to the voters mark – as indicate by the phrase “their marked X” (where “their” is referring to the voter mentioned earlier in the sentence).

Perhaps, then, some clarification then is needed. Is Michael saying that, though he did refer to the voter’s mark, meant was really talking about the official mark?”

Paul

Maybe you’ve a cached version as it’s definitely not there on my browser, only a couple of earlier comments and Poultney’s explanation.

I which case I suggest you take a screen grab…

Paul,

They’ve taken your post down too!

John,

Definitely not cached since I only visited the Blackburn page *after* reading the post about the letter being taken down. I can read the letter in both IE and FireFox browsers but you do have to scroll the page down a bit. I haven’t checked that the text is unchanged but the key phrase “their marked X” is present in the text there now.

I have saved a copy (of the entire page) for my own reference.

John,

Unlike Craig’s comments section, which immediately includes all posts, the Blackburn site says that it’s comments are moderated: it tells you this when you post. Therefore, I don’t think they have taken my post down; I think it was never up.

They may of course, if they choice, never post it. I also note that there are very few comments there anyway. They probably vet and post (or discard) sequential posts in blocks.

Paul

I agree your post has not yet been (probably never will be?) put up, never said it was – I was talking about George Laird’s, which definitely WAS put up before the censors got at it; I read it there when I first linked from here, along with at least one other critical post which has also now gone. I wish I’d copied these.

I only have IE but have just looked again and can only see the 3 comments that were up a couple of hours ago.

BTW, I remember reading somewhere that being at the top of the ballot paper is worth several percentage points, especially if it’s a long list. Maybe someone called Aaron Abbot should start an Ardvark Party?

John,

It’s not alphabetical! They draw lots.

Somebody should report this to the police and the local media.

Regarding those now-you-see-them, now-you-don’t web pages allow me to recommend Zotero. This is an add-on for Firefox which allows you to store, index and annotate web pages for research purposes. It’s free, and indispensable.

http://www.zotero.org/

Michael,

I am afraid both the local police and the local media in Blackburn are 100 per cent in Jack Straw’s pocket. I have long bitter experience of this.

Dear Craig

Here is the reply to the world from Michael Poultney.

“In response to a couple of emails we’ve had – I think there is some confusion here, please allow me to clarify. I have not referred to marks made by voters, only to the ‘official mark’. This is an icon at the top of the ballot to ensure that it has been printed properly. This is completely different from the marks made by voters to indicate their choice of candidate.

There is nothing improper about this at all. One doesn’t actually have to see the paper at all as we have been told this is the situation by the Electoral Registration Officer. Indeed, we are aware of a number of complaints on this issue from across the country”.

I would draw people’s attention to this part of his post;

“I have noticed that a few postal voters have cut or torn their ballot papers only submitting the portion of each paper in line with their marked X”.

Then he writes;

“One doesn’t actually have to see the paper at all as we have been told this is the situation by the Electoral Registration Officer”.

Two versions which don’t match up. He writes he saw the ballots then writes he was told.

Yours sincerely

George Laird

The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

My only surprise is that people are surprised. I was called by a parish priest when I was politically engaged in Lanarkshire to have it explained to him how the local Labour party (who had been round to see him )knew how he had voted the previous day.

We take too much on trust. It is perfectly possible to match up votes with voters if you have adequate access but that requires connivance at electoral returning office level.

Postal voting as presently organised is a recipe for fraud.

The Labour Party’s greatest success in recent years has been in dampening calls for a proper enquiry into the Glenrothes result and the highly convenient misplacing of the marked up registers and voting papers (weighing in total about 2 cwt) which were sent to the Sheriff Court at Kirkcaldy for the required years public access and somehow lost.

Word is there was over 9500 postal votes at the Glenrothes by election instead of the usual 2000 – 3000 and it also has been suggested that Labour canvassers were going round with postal voting forms already filled.

The SNP asked to check the marked up registers a few days after the election. Marked up registers are the only safeguard against personation. If they are lost there is no way of knowing if the election was properly conducted. It took over two months for the Sheriff Court to tell the SNP they had been “lost”.

Excellent post, Mr Hill.

As you know, the extent of corruption we see nationally is mirrored in what we see in local politics.

http://tinyurl.com/9ku9t7

All you can do is keep on fighting.

Blackburn and Jersey seem to have something in common.

In Jersey, two candidates have been charged and sentenced for helping constituents, who could not otherwise vote, merely apply for postal votes.

And Jack Straw is responsible for good governance in the crown dependencies.

“No connection with the other crook across the road”?

My secondary school English teacher explained the grammatical meaning of this phrase to me long ago.

Self-incrimination. A beauty.

Here in Lancashire the arrogance of the local Labour Party organisations is understood. And in at least one area they have refused (so far) to instruct Party workers on a statement on postal votes issued by the Returning Officer. The locally resident Liberal Democrat Peer Tony Greaves has, for many years, been actively working to draw attention to and prevent Electoral corruption through abuse of the Postal Vote.

Meanwhile the Association of Chief Police Officers has a policy Guidance on Preventing and detecting Electoral Malpractice available on its website at

http://www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/Guidance%20on%20Preventing%20and%20Detecting%20Electoral%20Malpractice.doc

The emphasis of purpose is prevention rather than prosecution. Perhaps unread in Blackburn.

It is strange that you can infer that I am a New Labour commenter – incorrectly by the way (but never mind Stalin also inferred that all his opponents were Trotskyists) – but that you don’t allow the Labour Agent to make a perfectly reasonable inference as to where the marked X is by reference to the length of the torn ballot paper. And even if he did see the marked X, the law would seem quite clear that it is the returning officer he committed the offence, unless you can demonstrate that the front of the paper was exposed as a result of the agent’s attempts to view it.

I find it somewhat strange that someone who usually believes in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, cannot see that this should also be the case with his enemies as well as his friends.

I have just seen a blog where the BNP are claiming that the seals on ballot boxes have been broken in Bromley.

Apparently they have photographic evidence of the tampering, which has been ignored by local council officials and police alike.

I am really scared for the future of my kids in this country as our leaders are corrupt, and any government that tampers with the ballot box, removes us from the list of democratic nations, and lumps us with the politically failed nations of this world.

At the verification of the postal votes,

party agents such as myself are allowed to inspect the reverse of the ballot papers to check that the number on the back corresponds with that on the front of the relevant envelope A – after the postal voter’s statement declaring his/her identity has been taken to another location making sure that the elector cannot be identified.

Any torn paper to be rejected for being incomplete will be removed before this can take place as it will not bear a number. Any acceptable cut or torn paper(for position number 1) will be added to the pile of potential ones for scanning – in those circumstances it is sadly evident where the cross must be as these are the only ones accepted under the Electoral Commission’s current guidelines. Printing the numbers lower down on the ballot will remove this advantage since then any papers bearing just that section would then be rejected for want of official mark. I am quite prepared to explain this situation to the Police if necessary.

With uncut and untorn postal ballots – these are removed face down preventing agents from seeing the position of the votes.