Clifton – I am still on the case going through older entries, and also Posts in an earlier Elections Aftermath Forum that was started shortly after the Covert 2019 Rigged Election, in the hope of finding out who has been compiling data on this. I will contact you at the temporary email you have given; this was a smart fix as it is unwise to just post your regular email in a Forum. One person that I am in touch with I just contacted yesterday and am waiting to hear back; another sent data to a semi-abandoned blog of mine that I mention lower down in this post. I think the UK public are starting to realize how disastrous and deadly this Government is and are a lot are more receptive to hearing the truth, but we really need publicity and a professional Investigative Journalist on this case as they would know the short cuts for obtaining the data. The Dunoon Unit Report, despite being done by the Democratic Socialist Federation in Scotland and pertaining to the 2014 Postal Ballot at the Scottish Independence Referendum, uncovers a whole host of useful information. I just reviewed a Must Watch Video where the presenter raised several very important points.
One point raised was about Ruth Davidson’s televised prior knowledge of the result. This crime occurred again in the Covert 2019 Rigged Election with Laura Kuenssberg’s widely publicized BBC gaff and with Dominic Raab appearing so confident of a win due to the postal vote in a constituency he was widely expected to lose. The claim that someone, as in a person, took a sample look at the ballot papers simply doesn’t hold up to logical scrutiny. In reality, in order to get a meaningful sample, that would have required literally hundreds of trusted officials all over the UK to break a law which carries a custodial sentence! This is highly unlikely, which means that any confident claim regarding postal votes favouring the Tories throughout the UK had to come from a central source, ie: those who rigged the election. The presenter also claims that it’s ludicrous for the police not to pursue the case by citing lack of evidence, he says that if someone announced on TV that they had stolen goods the police would not have an option to ignore it.
In my page 4, Post #51624 I wrote about a post on Ricky Coxon’s Blog, “Did Labour really lose for this reason?” I touched on the above issue saying, “To see the lengths that Della Reynolds went to in her efforts to get Dominic Raab investigated you can find and follow these Links by going to the comment section at the end of Coxon’s Blog post and locating the comment posted on March 7, 2020 at 3:22 pm by: [email protected]. The comment begins: “This is a well researched piece. Certainly the 2019 GE needs to be looked at and it seems that only members of the public are concerned.” Towards the end of his comment you will find the two links that caused me such a problem when I tried to insert them in my post. One Link goes to a group of exchanges between Della Reynolds, who was a constituent of Raab not prepared to just accept his illegal conduct. It is worth reading her exchange of complaint emails directed towards the Electoral Commission and their dismissive replies.”
I reported that, “I wanted to see if there was a way to find Della Reynolds elsewhere on the Internet in Blogs, Twitter comments or Facebook. Without much effort I quickly made a very interesting discovery: apparently Della Reynolds had been entered as an independent candidate in two previous Election cycles. In what was once a Tory safe seat of Esther and Walton Della Reynolds tried to make a difference by competing stating on Surry Mummy: ‘I am the first Citizen candidate to stand in the UK. I am standing on the platform of accountability and social justice’.” I found, “contact info that I will be chasing down in the coming days. On Twitter at, Della Reynolds #Truth @phsothefacts, I found that the comment posted by: [email protected] appears to be one in the same person; I’m not sure how these accounts as I’m not twitter enabled.”
Further down in the same Post I relay, “On another Twitter page on a 7th of April Twitter post, David McCulloch wrote: ‘Having undertaken to analyse the 2019 Election Results in relation to the 2017 figures, I have chased the detailed media data promised in March by the Electoral Commission. Unsurprisingly it is not ready, with no timescale promised. From a preliminary analysis of the 2017 figures, focusing on the seats gained by Conservatives in 2019, it is almost certain that Postal Voting is the key to any manipulation. The risk is that both the detailed data and the Russian Report will be deliberately forgotten because of the pandemic. We must not let that happen.’ Another person commenting on Coxon’s Blog posted a link to a Facebook group saying; ‘If you’re on FB, please join this group: DemocracyNotDeMOCKracy’ On this Facebook page Emma Lightburn writes: ‘See this below and my many other posts with analysis of data for last 5 GE, NO-ONE CARES’!!” I so detest Facebook I have never joined so it is harder for me to contact someone who is only accusable via that site.
This person talks of compiling data so if you are better connected it might be worth getting in touch via Facebook. She wrote, “We all know GE2019 was rigged. In an effort to try to understand how, I myself needed to go through the guidance for Electoral Officers published by Electoral Commission and pull out the salient point. I have posted my findings as a series of posts in ‘bite-size’ chunks. I have one more that I am hoping to get finished in the next few days which is the process for opening, checking and counting the returned postal votes. After I have all of my write-ups together and printed out, now that I understand what happens and who has access to what information, hopefully I can see where it would be easily interfered with. HOWEVER: going down this road is long, drawn out and costly to even get an investigation going – and of course who would investigate based upon suspicion. The easier and less costly way is to prove Human Rights abuse because folks were denied their right to vote.”
I am not sure if this is of use, but I found this in an early entry on January 3rd Saticon #49442 Posted data on the number eligible to vote in 2019 in various areas documenting the following numbers that may or may not be helpful. “The first 26 constituencies that saw a decline in those registered to vote compared with 2017” The following list of numbers was posted containing data for the listed Constituency | Electorate | Valid Votes Cast, the numbers are ‘Reduction in Electorate’ and ‘Reduction in Votes Cast:’
Wolverhampton South East | -6945 | -2861 ~ Erith and Thamesmead | -4325 | -3080 ~
Bridgwater and West Somerset | -3967 | -615 ~ Aldershot | -3588 | -1023 ~ Watford | -3148 | -545 ~
Stoke-on-Trent Central | -2772 | -1075 ~ Faversham and Kent Mid | -2604 | 645 ~
York Central | -2514 | -3583 ~ Oxford West and Abingdon | -2336 | -1196 ~ Hyndburn | -2200 | -2796 ~
Warwickshire North | -2006 | -1264 ~ Suffolk Central and Ipswich North | -1915 | -274 ~
Montgomeryshire | -1758 | -677 ~ West Bromwich East | -1722 | -3123 ~ Spelthorne | -1712 | -605 ~
Gloucester | -1631 | -307 ~ Rotherham | -1549 | -2272 ~ Stoke-on-Trent South | -1547 | -2086 ~
Halton | -1527 | -3315 ~ Huddersfield | -1508 | -1952 ~ West Bromwich West | -1380 | -1635 ~
Warley | -1303 | -2967 ~ Hemel Hempstead | -1274 | -1011 ~ Caerphilly | -1215 | -1180 ~
Easington | -1203 | -1781 ~ York Outer | -1183 | -2080
In Wolverhampton South East any impact of the reduced electorate/turnout fell entirely on the Labour Party. Wolverhampton SE would be mainly the Bilston area, although Wolverhampton as a whole is predicted to gain a population of about a thousand people per year. West Bromwich East is Tom Watson’s former seat, which George Galloway contested. Rushmoor District Council which represents the Aldershot constituency only predicted a fall in population of about seven hundred persons in the two years since 2017. However, Aldershot is due to have several new housing developments in the next few years. Kim, I’ve posted more to your blog at medteam.wordpress.com”
I replied later in Post #49443 Telling Saticon that, “all of your posts came to my email address for moderation. Unfortunately, I have not touched my blog for rather a long time, so long that I have even forgotten my password so I could not gain access to approve your posts. In reality the important information you sent would languish in neglect on my obscure medical whistleblower blog. I have cut and pasted all the info you sent into a file where I can review the data. It would be far more topical and useful to post all of your data here on this forum where others who are trying to crunch the numbers and make some sense of this debacle can share your findings. Ross has also been uncovering relevant facts about the vote so he could benefit from the information you shared with me. It will undoubtedly contribute to all of our efforts to expose the truth, so thank you for sharing.”
Saticon remarked that, “As I don’t know how long my comments will last on here I’d have preferred to post somewhere more neutral.” However, this Forum is proving to be one of the more readable and reliably stable places to deposit information as I am still gaining very easy access to links, data and information that was posted months ago. These posts were from the first Elections Aftermath Forum that is now closed for comment, but all of the material posted there is still readily accessible. A flurry of Posts are all grouped together in the same area of the original Elections Aftermath Forum. Saticon then says, “I’ve had a brief look at some of the social media reports of high turnout and they tend to correlate with a high turnout registered in their constituency if it can be inferred. Walsall have broken down their results to a ward-by-ward basis” (I have embedded the Link.)
In another January 3 Post #49445 Saticon offers more information that I presume there is supporting evidence for saying: “Faulty ballot papers affected postal voters in Newcastle and Wansbeck, under 200 voters in total, threatening to invalidate their votes. They also reveal that the voter information can still be paired up with their voting intention or marked ballot after the covering envelopes would have been processed.” This was deduced from what I presume was corrective material sent out containing the quote, “For those who may have already sent in their ballot paper, we are asking them to sign the additional letter along with their date of birth in the space provided, then return it in the pre-paid envelope we have supplied. Alternatively, they can ask for a replacement pack and we will cancel the original pack.”
Saticon includes the following reporting, “According to the BBC, errors or defective settings in software supplied by Xpress / Electoral Reform Services / Civica to 245 Local Authorities meant that several people were wrongly informed that they were entitled to vote despite the fact that they had apparently registered successfully after the 26 November deadline. ‘The issue means scores of people who did not apply before the 26 November electoral registration deadline may have been wrongly informed that they can vote at the election, forcing councils to reprint their polling station registers after installing a software update’.”
Still in the same section of fairly early contributors at the bottom of page 1 of 3 in the original Elections Aftermath Forum, in Post #49455 Postal Vote Investigation offers information saying, “You can follow my twitter at @PaulWar17502822. By mind mapping the postal vote services, use cases, and documentation flow I independently came to pretty much the same conclusion that others have on how there are many points where a private contractor can either suppress postal votes (by delaying their delivery) or create phantom postal votes (by knowing who has and who hasn’t used their postal votes). It seems IDOX is very much involved in the voter registration drive as well, and so who and who isn’t registered is now also a piece of the jigsaw puzzle, and they also have their own canvassing app that has been used across the board to identify voter intention I think the most important thing we can do is highlight the possibility of fraud, so that the general public no longer has faith in outsourcing democracy.”
Also in this section you will find an idea that I shared for making a definitive determination of criminality. In Post #49457 I said, “If you are thinking that our efforts will be totally stymied by lack of evidence take heart and think again. All we need is to get our foot in the door with a warrant to seize ballots for testing. We need access to a random batch of votes in a heavily suspect marginal constituency. When I say ‘access’ I mean a level of suspicion that affords more than a quick glance under supervision. The ballot papers will need to be tested by the forensic department of the local police department concerned. These ballot papers will include a number of postal ballots mixed in with ballots cast in polling stations. As I have stated in earlier posts it is still possible to differentiate between postal ballots and polling station ballots after the fact despite the mixing in with postal ballots.”
I explain how one feature may still differentiate the two types of ballot when put under closer scrutiny noting that, “The postal ballots are more likely to be marked in pen after filling in confirmation data in pen, while in the polling station only a pencil is available. In an automated process the marked ballot would need to match similar postal votes prior to the mixing in process. A statistically significant number of the ballot papers, would need to be subjected to forensic testing primarily to identify fingerprints.” I note that despite what might at first seem too complicated it is not that complex, I say, “While this might all sound rather labor intensive it is actually incredibly simple; the principal is so simple it was probably overlooked in arrogance and haste. It would be normal to find a group of common sets of fingerprints within the same batch of ballot papers. Idox staff are not pictured wearing gloves in the promotional video, but the count staff will also have left their mark.”
Then I reveal my thought on the value of fingerprinting as, “it is not the fingerprints present you are testing the ballots for, it is the fingerprints that are missing. Replacement ballots would have required a fully automated printing process with a limited number of people involved to maintain secrecy. There is no way that Idox or any other Vote Management service could possibly explain why a significant number of the tested ballots of any type did not bear a unique set of fingerprints from the person actually casting the ballot; this is simply not humanly possible. Yes on some occasions a person has very dry hands and does not leave an easily identifiable print, but there are also more sophisticated ways of testing for fingerprints on paper now. There is no possible credible explanation for a large number of ballots to be totally devoid of any unique sets of fingerprints. Got ya!”
Of course you would need to have significant enough suspicion to request the police to test the ballots in the first place and that is where the value of statistical data comes in. The results in Dominic Raab’s constituency would be a perfect target due to several factors; he was not expected to do well, but he won and he boasted of knowing he would win ahead of time. The above argument of how was he so confident of support from the postal votes means that he has evidence of a crime in the same way as if he was touting stolen goods on TV. There is a constituent of Raab’s who has been trying to resolve this via the Electoral Commission and the local police; she has filed FOI requests and she has all the data now for that constituency. Raab’s win is not just a significant anomaly in the expected result; he holds one of the four highest offices in this Tory Government and he is not popular, especially after his most recent comments about taking the knee. I think FOI requests are in public record so I will try to make contact with her.
A number of people have revealed on this bog that they have either contacted their own local council or they have data on several constituencies. Ross was one and I have just emailed Ell, another. There are people who have documented on twitter that they have this data including Postal Vote Investigation@PaulWar17502822 and Facts Central @StillDelvingH. The problem I have with Twitter, and why I do not tweet, is that information is so fleetingly available and research trying to track down information is a nightmare, but perhaps that is just because I do not know how to use it. If you, Clifton know how to contact people on twitter then these two names are a good place to start finding the data you are seeking to compile. I am going to continue scanning through all of the older posts on this Forum and the original Elections Aftermath Forum to see what I can dig up.
There are many people who showed huge enthusiasm for uncovering the truth early on, but have since given up in the belief that nothing can be done now. This process of letting go accelerated with the onset of concern over Covid 19 as people said we needed to put this on hold until the epidemic was under control. People are just starting to realize that this crisis will not be over for many months and worse still that this Tory Government we are allowing to remain in place is manipulating the situation to further extend the damage, misery and death toll inflicted on the British people. We need this to be fully investigated ASAP to expose the industrial scale fraud that was used to steal the Covert 2019 Rigged Election; we must destroy the legitimacy of Boris Johnson and bring down this Government before more harm is done. By the end of this year it will be too late after crash-out Brexit strips away our last remaining rights as we could then face decades of dictatorship. We must take this threat seriously: DO NOT MOVE ON!