Ell – I visited your new Blog earlier and reading through the data you posted there a few points that bounced off the screen: As I noted in the comment I left: “Please do not give up; you have put too much effort into this so far to shelve your efforts or just give up now. There is a lot of tabulated data here that is difficult to fit in the space, but it demonstrates that there is plenty of material to work with if we could get a professional investigative Journalist interested in this matter.

I have contacted a number of organizations and individuals including the International Consortium of Professional Investigative Journalists, Open Democracy, Carole Cadwalladr, John Pilger, Aaron Bastani and others. I suggest you double up on my contact appeals to the same organizations, individuals and more.”

You documented the report that supposedly: “There were very low numbers of postal votes.” You later noted in your tabulation of the numbers that although postal votes were down from 2017 the fall was not that dramatic. However, you then note that: “There were high numbers of people turning up at the polling stations necessitating extra staff being employed at the count.” Do you have any pictures to document long lines of people waiting to vote as there were elsewhere in the UK? How does this evidence of higher than normal turnout correlate with turnout being less than in 2017?

Pictures tell a damning story. This discrepancy is hard for the vote riggers to fudge when people produce pictures of the phenomenal number of people waiting in line with reports of reduced turnout. A lot of people took these photos on their phone because it was a very unusual occurrence, but it does not support lower turnout – quite the opposite. Where people turning up to vote only to discover that they were not on the register as they should have been? Were these discrepancies causing hold-ups that left people waiting in line longer than normal?

The next thing to catch my attention was when you documented: “A total of 28 ballot boxes arriving at the count,” later revealing that there were a total of 31 polling stations! So what happened to the ballot boxes from the three other polling stations? Is this where witnessed long lines of voters shank down to a lower turnout with three whole ballot boxes missing in action? This would represent a serious discrepancy looking a lot like tampering.

Here is a continuation of my response to Ell with regard to further evidence gathering and discrepancy exposing options:
Within any given total of postal votes sent out it is quite normal for a percentage not to be returned due to a move, an illness, death or a prison term preventing a response. However, this can present an opportunity for ballot stuffing to make up the quota sought through fraud. In the Scottish Independence Referendum the percentage returned was not credible, in some cases as high as over 96%, sparking the really in depth analysis of suspicious votes in the Dunoon Unit Report. This report makes interesting reading as it very clearly points to fraud.

The postal votes that are returned are sent back in a very conspicuous white envelope with a large letter “B” printed on the front. These envelopes have been described as a blatant invitation to theft, aptly put by one Judge who said they might as well be marked with the words “Steal Me!” Since postal ballots can be handed in at a polling station on Election Day, the allegedly unreturned ballots may account for a number of people being turned away told they had already voted: this was excused as an innocent error. In reality their unreturned B envelope was available for substitution during the postal vote managed process controlled by Idox; the exceptionally high record breaking return rate points to this being the case.

The seal or seals placed on ballot boxes are applied after the inner envelopes marked with the letter “A” are opened in front of observers. But what security is placed on these A envelopes before they are opened to remove the ballot papers? Between the opening of the outer B envelopes, when standard checking of the voter’s signature occurs and a number of ballots are rejected as invalid due to incorrect data or signature, and the observed opening session for the A envelopes, who secures and guards these ballots?

All of this is accomplished in-house at Idox facilities where there is potentially an opportunity to trade out the valid ballot envelopes for replacement ones. These replacement A envelopes containing the ballot could very easily be produced to order with a pre-marked ballot for the desired candidate inside the A envelope sealed as normal, but probably all using an automated process. Idox controls every single step of this process and has computerized access to all of the assigned numbers printed on the ballot A envelopes that must also match the ballot papers inside; this presents few obstacles to prevent tampering as there is no oversight. A Watchdog that cannot Watch is just a Dog!

When the sealed ballot boxes are brought to the polling station they are routinely mixed in with other votes eliminating one of the very few opportunities to flag-up ballot stuffing. There is really no logical justification for this mixing up of the votes since if postal ballots were tallied separately it would alert Returning Officers to a suspicious discrepancy in the vote tally that might lack credibility. The percentages for each candidate should not be radically different between postal voters and those who vote on polling day. If a massively high percentage of just the postal votes favour one candidate it would look highly suspicious if this was not matched by walk in voters. A very simple change of tactic could be implemented for all future votes to reduce the risk of fraud.

One interesting feature that could distinguish the postal ballots from other votes, even after this unhelpful mixing process, is the probability that the vote cross will most likely be marked in pen by postal voters after completing information and signing in pen. However, the ballots from voting booths are normally marked with a pencil as that is what is available within the booth. So what if a large sample of pen marked ballots were examined for signs of automation, a pen mark that does not look individual or distinctively different enough from other pen marked votes within the same batch. This closer examination of pen marked ballot papers probably would not be anticipated or prepared for by fraudsters, as there is such a scramble to count quickly on election night.

The ballots and even the ballot A envelopes are all retained for one year, opening up the possibility for examination by police if we can prove that it is warranted. There is one further examination of the ballots and the A envelopes that would conclusively prove that fraud had been committed. It requires that the evidence is tested for fingerprints. While prints are not always picked up on paper, it would be highly unlikely for none of the A envelopes or ballot papers to have a unique set if prints, just sets of common prints from the opening team and counters. With no evidence of a voter’s fingerprints this phenomenon would only be possible if automation was used to create batches of replacement ballots.

The winning margins are all in exactly the right constituencies by precisely the right numbers like the votes were made to order. This would have required automation and a master plan; a whistleblower might still blow this rigged election wide open. The wins were loosely supported by Tory “push poles” and the relentless BBC and other media propaganda, the smear campaign and hiding the true picture of Corbyn support and Boris vilification. As you can see there are multiple ways to deceive the public if your party is determined to seize power through fraud. However, there are ways to expose the truth if it is possible to have an investigator examine the evidence.
DO NOT GIVE UP – All Votes Must Count – Please keep up the good work to “Rescue our Watchdog!”