I posted recently about the monumental scale of postal ballot fraud organised by New Labour in 2005 in Blackburn.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2009/05/electoral_fraud.html
I have irrefutable evidence that this is happening again, and New Labour are engaged yet again in criminal electoral activity in Jack Straw’s constituency.
Michael Poultney, New Labour sub-agent for the North West Region Euro Election, has written to the Electoral Commission to complain that the rules governing the discarding ot torn ballots inadvertently favour the BNP.
http://www.blackburnlabour.org/blog/Torn-postal-ballots-advantage-the-BNP.html
In doing so, Poultney reveals he has been looking at the postal ballots and seeing how people voted.
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.
But party scrutineers are specifically banned from seeing where the “marked X” is when postal ballots are opened.
The rules on this are very strict and could not be clearer. Nobody is allowed to see how the postal ballots are cast until they are counted with the others – not least because at the opening of postal ballots, they are accompanied by signed forms identifying the voter.
This is the rule on opening postal ballots. It could not possibly be clearer:
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
See Chapter 5 para 15 of the Electoral Commission’s Guide.
How then did Poultney know where the vote was on these ballot papers?
That is the law, and plainly Poultney – and very probably the Blackburn returning officer – has broken the law. I know from experience as a candidate in Blackburn that if you are not New Labour, you certainly won’t get to see how postal ballots are cast. The local returning officer is, of course, the New Labour chief executive of the New Labour borough council and the people actually opening the ballots are employees of the New Labour borough council.
Anybody who thinks that deep political corruption begins only at Westminster is a fool.
UPDATE
In response to New Labour commenters trying to defend this, look at Poultney’s letter quoted above again and read it carefully.
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.
It is obvious that he has been looking at a number of ballot papers, and knows where the X is and that they have torn the paper in line with it – ie, rather than for example tear the paper in half a good way below their X. So he is definitely looking at who postal voters are voting for, (and not just the BNP voters). That is simply illegal – you can’t spin it away.
For goodness sake, New Labour have had Blackburn councillors jailed for postal vote fraud. The place stinks of corruption. The ex council leader, Lord Taylor of Blackburn, has just been suspended from the House of Lords for corruption. Stop acting all innocent.
UPDATE 2
Having been exposed, Poultney has now hurriedly added this lie in comments after his letter:
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.
As lies go, that is completely unconvincing. Poulter wrote originally:
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.
In that sentence, “their” plainly does refer to the voters, and we all know what “Their marked X” refers to on a ballot paper. On top of which, the official icon he now says he was referring to is not an X.
Michael Poultney. New Labour electoral cheat and transparent liar.
.
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.