- This topic has 117 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by Paul Barbara.
January 4, 2020 at 16:43 #49471Kim Sanders-Fisher
One of the questions I have asked the Electoral Commission is why, if company employees at electoral management companies are not meant to have political affiliations or vested interest in the results, it was not a massive conflict of interest for Tory MP Peter Lilley to remain the director of IDOX for so many years? Lilley and his family still retain significant shares in IDOX.
Saticon – I had been looking to find out which two companies handling some aspect of the vote had reportedly closed shortly after the 2019 General Election. I found this in among the info you sent to my blog:
“IDOX acquisitions include ‘Halarose Ltd. […] a software development company specialising in Electoral Registration and Election Management software for local government customers, including Birmingham City Council, The Electoral Office of Northern Ireland, and Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council. Its EROS-II Electoral Registration software registers over 6 million electors …” You said that it was both Halarose and Halarose Holdings who were dissolved just before Christmas.
IDOX acquisitions include ‘Halarose Ltd:
“Halarose delivers a wide range of contemporary registration and election management solutions which are continuously refined and evolved to deliver practical outcomes that best suit the customer’s needs. With an outstanding local government client list, and a strong reputation in the elections market, Halarose significantly extends Idox’s capabilities and reach in the sector.”
Idox Chief Executive Andrew Riley said: “The acquisition of Halarose, which has a strong product offering, team and track record, presents Idox with the opportunity to significantly expand its existing presence in the elections market.”
Postal Vote Investigation, Paul – I was curious to know more about the IDOX connection to the canvassing app you mentioned which would certainly provide the company with useful data on who to target for the late delivery or removal of labour supporting postal votes from the ballots they handle with their Postal Vote Managed Service.
I found the link you posted to it on twitter, worth repeating here:
“Quite a few people (mainly Councillors or those involved in canvassing have been adamant that there is no way IDOX can have access to voter intention. I give you IDOX canvassing app”
How secure is our ballot when one company IDOX, the subsidiary of an Oil and Gas Company with strong links to the Tory Party, offer this canvassing app and boast:
“A fully-managed Postal Vote Checking service, tailored to your needs, providing intuitive technology for complete accuracy and reassurance.”
I do not feel in the least bit reassured…January 5, 2020 at 02:50 #49482SA
I am now utterly convinced that what you are doing In pursuing this is extremely important. My moment of seeing the light cake not on the road to Damascus, but on what happened on the road from Baghdad airport. I am trying to rally support through the main discussion pageJanuary 5, 2020 at 16:37 #49486Kim Sanders-Fisher
Wow! This is truly unprecedented, a major international crisis that could herald an inextricable march towards a major war in the Middle East and the BBC’s Marr Show is still obsessing over the Labour leadership contest candidates rather than focusing on the charlatan who stole the recent election and whether he might take the UK to war on Trump’s orders. One wouldn’t want to disturb Boris basking on a sunny beach in the Caribbean while the duped masses fret over the threat of him compliantly following the US into another illegal war based on lies.
The Foreign Secretary’s was invited to present his evidence free justification of the US extrajudicial slaughter of Suleimani as if it was warranted as it certainly went unchallenged by Marr. Raab’s feeble attempt to shore-up the ludicrous Trump assertion that taking Suleimani out was done to “prevent a war” rather than credibly provoking justifiable retaliation passed with little viable interrogation from Marr over that ridiculous premise. This was a truly shocking display of gullible ignorance regarding the dangerous reality of the situation we now face after the BBC pulled out all the stops to shoehorn this hard right Tory government back into power with a majority to end all resistance or debate.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s plight was easily written off with meaningless platitudes as was Raab’s too little too late intervention on the Cyprus rape case. The British public should get used to being completely abandoned by our Foreign Office while this die hard supporter of US and Israeli interests remains in the position of Foreign Secretary. Marr swiftly moved on to the Brit’s favourite genre of daring epic, the next heroic war movie to hit the screen. Such idealistic nostalgia about war will always help to soften up the cannon fodder in readiness for a fast approaching brutal onslaught.
Why was so much prominence given to who might become the next leader of the opposition at a time when MPs of all parties will have almost zero influence over foreign or domestic policy for the foreseeable future? The BBC know they have helped the Tories pull off the greatest con trick in UK political history so they must be really worried about all those angry Labour voters who could take to the streets in protest or grind the country to a halt with massive strikes before such democratic options are entirely outlawed.
Who knew that the potential US war with Iran would be upon us so soon? We had all hoped in vain that Trump would be distracted and contained by impeachment but, POTUS is merely the puppet of far more dangerous actors like the War Hawks Pompeo and Bannon. Ignore this Pompeo moment of truth caught on video at your peril as Boris blindly follows US dictates. Also captured on a revealing film clip we cannot forget Pompeo’s early warning threats to destabilize a Corbyn Government if their dirty foreign intervention tactics failed to secure a Tory stranglehold on power.
The powerful Zionist Lobby groups in the UK foolishly allowed Joe Glasman to rant on camera about the disgraceful extent of the Israeli Government’s foreign intervention and manipulation of UK politics. We should have headed the strong warning back in 2009 when a Dispatches documentary revealed the dangerous path we were on in our blind support of Zionist apartheid policies. What will it take for the UK public to finally wake up to the terrifying prospect of a prolonged Tory dictatorship forced upon us through a rigged election?
To fulfil the US, Israeli mission the Tories need a cowering, totally enfeebled Labour leader to help quell the coming unrest as they know the fight-back is coming and we could see rioting on UK streets. Weekening the opposition was what the BBC prioritized this morning; not questioning our absconding PM revelling in the glory of his stolen election, but insuring that no one questioned his legitimacy. The big push from the BBC is getting as many Labour MPs as possible to own their fake defeat and make a radical change of direction to support the Tory agenda. We cannot allow this to happen: protests and nationwide strikes are the pragmatic next step.
We must focus the attention of Labour MPs on the very real threat that the Tories will lead us into another illegal war in the Middle East unless we immediately and aggressively challenge the legitimacy of their rigged parliamentary majority. There is no effective opposition unless we overturn the vote. We must contact all MPs urging them to change their defeatist narrative and relentlessly start questioning the unfathomable results of this 2019 General Election before it is too late. There is legitimate cause for concern over the results on a multitude of fronts with significant anomalies that cannot be dismissed by insisting that Labour voters deserted the party over Brexit and anti-Semitism. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s not a giraffe!
If you watched Andrew Marr grill two of the five potential candidates for leadership of a thoroughly toothless opposition, spiced up by an interview with recently knighted Sir Sam Mendes, including a liberal dollop of action clips from his new film about the Second World War, you might have guessed the elephant in the room… My quest for knowledge on what to expect from the Tories as the prospect of war looms was not satiated by the pathetic “I agree with Trump” spin from Dominic Raab. Who is running the country and, perhaps more importantly, on whose behalf? We all know the BBC cannot be trusted to present real news: STOP DRINKING THE KOOLAID!January 5, 2020 at 16:44 #49490Kim Sanders-Fisher
I tried to post new materual three times; what is up?January 5, 2020 at 21:59 #49495Paul Barbara
@ Kim Sanders-Fisher December 28, 2019 at 16:11
Re ‘Facts Central @StillDelvingH’, like you I don’t ‘Twitter’, but when I tried to follow a number of her links, I found the page didn’t exist (probably removed).
You don’t appear to have had a response from any Twitterer’s on here, though I am only now still going through the large number o f comments.
Re Greg Palast, I contacted him on his site via an online form re our extremely dubious election results, but he didn’t bother to reply.
Glad you and others are keeping this thread alive.January 5, 2020 at 23:05 #49499Paul Barbara
@ Kim Sanders-Fisher December 28, 2019 at 16:11
Re Jennifer Cohn, here is her Facebook page; you said you didn’t do Twitter, but maybe you are on Facebook. If so, you could apply to ‘befriend’ her, then if accepted you could comment on her Facebook page and also send a personal message with whatever queries you have:
Also, following up on her 60 minutes comment, I found this:
‘Convicted felon /embezzler Jeffrey Dean massaging the huge vote-by-mail databases for CA and CO counties’: http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/convicted-felon-embezzler
(it seems to take ages to load, but it does eventually).January 5, 2020 at 23:28 #49500Paul Barbara
@ Km Sanders-Fisher December 30, 2019 at 10:44
I came late to this thread (although suggesting initially that you should continue on here) so I hope my comments will not be missed). I absolutely agree with you. These politicians will gladly lead us into wars which cost millions of lives and ruined countries, and then swan around the world with plum ‘jobs’ and lucrative ‘speaking engagements’; does anyone really believe they wouldn’t steal elections, if they could? And given the state of modern technology, does anyone believe they don’t have that ability?January 6, 2020 at 00:06 #49501Paul Barbara
@ Kim Sanders-Fisher January 1, 2020 at 17:14
I have emailed Skwarkbox re the identities of the two firms dissolved after the ‘selection’, and if they know why they were dissolved.
I’ll let ya’ll know if I get a response.January 6, 2020 at 00:26 #49502Paul Barbara
@ Kim Sanders-Fisher January 3, 2020 at 04:33
If you forget your password, there is normally a button to press marked ‘Forgotten password?’ which allows you to set a new password.January 6, 2020 at 07:00 #49505SA
Excellent. One thing to add. Tge Tory party treasurer is a dual citizen the other country being a beneficiery if outlawing tge BDS movement. He donates a lot to the party.January 6, 2020 at 07:58 #49506Paul Barbara
@ Kim Sanders-Fisher January 5, 2020 at 16:44
Just re-try, perhaps the site was under attack at the time, not unprecedented.January 6, 2020 at 18:14 #49507Kim Sanders-Fisher
I wrote in a previous post about watching, “Andrew Marr grill two of the five potential candidates for leadership of a thoroughly toothless opposition…” but, I bust my sides laughing when I heard a chap on last night’s paper review sum up this neurotic focus over the contest as, “five bald guys fighting over a comb!” His comment epitomized the thoroughly disproportionate media frenzy over the party who they far too adamantly claim lost the election and why they failed, rather than trumpeting their victor and celebrating the achievement of a miraculous landslide. No one has mentioned the LibDem leadership; they have served their purpose of making the split remain vote look credible and the Tories do not need any further contribution from them to support the big lie.
Paul Barbara – In answer to a number of your recent posts on this thread: first, I must be one of the few holdout independently minded people in the UK to reject the temptation to join Facebook. Far too vacuous for me and I never felt comfortable with their format or their intrusive reach into ones personal space. I remain a stubborn holdout steering clear of Facebook at a time when increasing numbers of people are becoming disenchanted and worrying about inappropriate use of their data.
Without contacting Skwawkbox I discovered that the “two companies” they mentioned in their post were Halarose and Halarose Holdings who were dissolved just before Christmas. Both companies were acquired by IDOX in mid August 2019 thus consolidating the IDOX monopoly of power over the electoral process in the UK.
At some point I will make the effort to get back into my blog and clean up the mess, I just have not felt motivated for a while. The whole focus of my blog was an outlet to overcome the massive hurt and frustration of having my career destroyed after I blew the whistle over a patient safety issue at the hospital where I worked in the US. After I was accepted into thoroughly unnecessary retraining here in the UK I needed to discretely put my blog to one side. At this point I could return to my blog to expose a repetition of what I experienced as a medical Whistleblower in America; it was just as futile, bruising and totally devastating when I was targeted and my retraining was sabotaged to silence me.
But, truth be told, innovative people are the most likely employees to spot risk or danger that they feel compelled to speak up about. It is all too easy for someone like me, with a routine pragmatic reliance on route cause analysis, to think a risk or fault must be blindingly obvious to everyone as you unwittingly draw attention to a sensitive issue that managers do not want highlighted. It is that same reliable process of thinking through things logically that kept me safe during 150,000 miles of ocean passage making delivering sailing yachts offshore for twenty years. It is such an instinctive thought process that it applies to every decision I make, plus the well informed analysis of whatever I read or hear on the news before taking a position on any matter.
I was first attracted to this blog by the Skripal case which, when you have even the most rudimentary knowledge of infection control, containment and Hazmat, simply does not make sense. I noted how well Craig applied that process of logical deduction to his subject matter and I was impressed. It is also rewarding to read through meaningful and intelligent, informative comments rather than the ignorant, angry rants I see in other areas of the Internet. I have applied the same meticulous rules of logical analysis to conclude that, with regard to all the information and data on the results, I remain convinced last UK General Election was rigged by the Tory Party to accomplish that landslide majority.
The myopic failure feeding frenzy to discredit Labour should tell you everything you need to know about this vote rigging deception; it is an ongoing project. It is vital to maintaining the credibility of the result that, on even the most cursory examination, makes no logical sense at all.
SA – I know you have commented on the simplicity of the moronic “Get Brexit Done” messaging and how it just might have struck a cord with Labour voters, but it would still make no sense to vote Tory. What do those who supposedly prioritized Brexit really expect to actually get from leaving the EU? “Cheaper food, clothes and footwear” as promised by a selfish Tory millionaire? The opulent Nirvana of glorious prosperity delivered by the Tory Party with a track record for increasing inequality and hording their wealth offshore? No cheap foreign competitors in the job market, especially after all of the manufacturing plants relocate to the continent?
Take back Control was a popular vision. “Control” over our own laws after we are rescued from the oppression of EU protections over our right to work oppressively long hour for slave wages and our human rights that Boris urgently wants to “redefine” for us? Regulations no longer governed by Brussels will be stripped of all the tedious red tape constrains like food and safety standards. Yes, in the rump of little England left after we send Scotland into the wilderness, Boris will be free to sculpt our laws, and even our legal system, to suit the needs of his puppet masters, Trump, Bannon and Cummings. Dictatorship is a really simple form of control without any petty debate or dissension allowed.
At least the newly “liberated” ultra nationalist Brexiteers can apply for that nostalgic blue pathetic little England passport but, in reality the prisoners of mother England (POMs) will never need to leave our rain soaked shores again. This is probable just as well as after their “paid leave” evaporates our rail fares will continue to soar so I doubt they will earn enough to go on any type of holiday as we transform into a feudal slave state. But don’t forget the added perks like discovering your UK driving license is no longer accepted, you need to purchase health insurance and will pay higher roaming charges on calls from your mobile. My favourite will be the first time I need to get a special visa just to visit the continent, something that was never necessary before we joined the EU!
There are so many obvious benefits you can really see why they all prioritized Brexit, or not… So what else did the Tories have on offer that was so exciting? More money for the NHS, more nurses and 40 new hospitals? A pathetic attempt to undo the damage of ten years of underfunding abd beglect that sparked a staffing exodus. Those new hospitals will be built as soon as US for profit healthcare corporations get their greedy hands on our NHS but, don’t forget your credit card. An end to the depravation of Universal Credit? No. Scrapping the waiting period after applying? No. The rape clause gone? No. Abolishing the Bedroom Tax? No. Doctors trusted to judge your fitness for work? No. An end the benefit freeze? No word on that one. Is that the end of austerity? Who could possibly believe the Tories would do that?
Could any of the Brexit obsessed voters have actually been stupid enough to believe that the Tories would stop their needless cruelty and restore essential elements of the welfare state? Would any of them have doubted for an instant that the Labour Party would end the worst of their misery even if they were unable to follow through on many of their more extravagant promises? This is why the “too much stuff on offer” reasoning does not hold up. I have experienced hardship in my early life so I can say from experience that the raw agony of hunger is a pain that is etched into your memory for life. Did these Brexit fanatics ignore the reality of a job or disability forcing them into the destitution of Universal Credit, eviction and freezing to death on the streets? Did they really vote for continued poverty, reliance on food banks and watching their children starve? I do not, cannot, believe they did.
There must have been some positive enticement? Raising the minimum wage to £10 an hour? It will only happen if the economy picks up, so maybe at some point but, probably not anytime soon. More police on the streets? Yes; Boris will need them to quell the riots. More stop and search? Of course, it’s a vital component of intimidation. Longer prison terms? Oh yes; a lot of things are set to become illegal like “unauthorized encampments” but, at least it will ethnically cleanse our towns of Gypsies and possibly the homeless too. Boris will need a lot more prison spaces but, there is an easy solution to that because his new American partners will export their business model for using “for profit prisons” so that incarceration doesn’t make a dent in the UK budget.
This media propaganda drumming home the unreality of how important it was to those Northern Heartland Brexiteers to know that their vote had finally been respected is a myth only believed by those who have not faced extreme hardship. If you are being taken in by this message stop and think hard about what it would be like to be homeless, starving hungry and desperate, before you try to imagine how it might change your priorities. It is only because the media regularly portray the poor as gullible, racist idiots that they can continue to sell the message that the turkeys voted to Christmas because they were so stupid. The logical part of me knows that the survival instinct is far too strong for that to be true.January 6, 2020 at 22:55 #49510J
“Mere speculation, but: dodgy postal vote spike, dodgy Tory funding, Kuenssberg breaking electoral rules – what’s the chance of the election being voided, hung Parliament returning & this time getting it right: a government of national unity and a second-thoughts EU referendum?”January 6, 2020 at 23:02 #49511January 7, 2020 at 00:08 #49513Postal Vote Investigation
Every postal ballot has a unique id, every voter has a unique id. The corresponding numbers list matches the two.
So every single voter can be connected to their vote. In addition every single postal ballot is logged on the marked postal ballot list.
tractability is not an issue
The issue is that the corresponding numbers list, and the ballot papers are sealed for one year, and can only be opened with a court order. So it has to be pretty much proved the electoral results in one constituency are incorrect, before a court order could be obtainedJanuary 7, 2020 at 00:12 #49514Postal Vote Investigation
Another interesting find is the there was a freedom of information request asking if IDOX has complied with the various regulations on postal vote procedure, such as opening postal votes, counting them, etc.
it turns out the returning officer, or the council have no obligation to answer any questions on third party compliance with the regulations. What a shamJanuary 7, 2020 at 00:49 #49515J
So most of the 19% increase in postal ballots is potentially phony (assuming the real increase is similar to that recorded in Scotalnd of a percent or so.)
The validation process itself might be another place adjustments could be made. I’m plucking ideas out of my arse but couldn’t valid ballots easily be targeted and rejected automatically in some way? If the validation software connects to a remote server to update itself the validation process could be vulnerable to tampering or modifcation by the vendor at any time.* And if IDOX/Halarose software connects to remote servers while in operation (and associated databases) it could identify the voter and likely voting intention from a signature and DOB. IDOX specialises in date mining of election data, they certainly have the means to do that. Any votes rejected this point are supposedly available to be examined by officials from each party. Did this in fact happen? How does it actually work in practice? Did they do anything else on election day?
I’m also curious about the rich history of data loss and the sale of electoral data by these companies.
I’ve also noticed that https://www.factscentral.site/Idox.htm (who had done a reasonable job of fleshing out Idox/Halarose) is down and their Twitter account was also deactivated by Twitter for a while last week.
Cached versions are still available for the moment in most search engines but I can only find their IDOX page via <b>some<b> search engines and not others.
(*Would malicious updates leave a finger print on council systems? Even if say, the software was altered again afterward? Presumably a reason for dissolving Halarose might be to shred any and all evidence at their end.)January 7, 2020 at 11:14 #49518Kim Sanders-Fisher
J – Certainly the exceptionally high number of postal votes looks suspicious. This is especially glaring when compared to the figure for Scotland with people in more cold and remote areas worried about getting to the polls, but only a modest increase in the mid winter demand for postal votes. Although some of the postal votes might have been used by student who were in the week of moving home from University this would have been just as true north of the border.
Look at my December 28, 2019 at 09:02 post and you will see some really whacky numbers. I was reviewing one of Craig’s pre Election post: “The Largest Vote Swings in British General Election History Censored Out By the BBC and Mainstream Media.” It compares highlighting of data from the last big Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification (MRP) model YouGov did prior to the vote. These MRPs are the polls touted as deadly accurate, but You Gove always lurches to the right more than any other poling company and it was done before Boris’s final week of colossal blunders.
I would expect that the Tories had the most accurate data under wraps in an internal poll while relying on YouGov to cook the numbers to help them meet expectations on the day. Certainly there were Tories including Raab who seemed to know his seat was not in danger and all would be taken care of: he revealed as much on camera before catching his own blunder. Boris too should have expected a close call but, he was so cocky he didn’t even go to vote in Uxbridge.
After comparing the expected big swings in certain places as predicted by YouGov and the radically different results on Election night there were some numbers that really stood out:
Dudley North: an expected 4.9% shift to the Tory candidate, but it was over three times that a whopping 17% swing!
Wokingham: predicted a massive 20.35%.from Tory to LibDem, but Tory Redwood clung on with a swing of just 7%.
Grimsby: a predicted swing from Labour to Tory of 3.6% but, on Election Day it was over three times greater at 13%!
It took a 5% increase in turnout in remain backing Putney in London to achieve the solitary Labour gain of the 2019 General Election.
Esher and Walton: Raab was fighting an expected swing of 19.6% from Tory to Lib Dem but that loss was halved to 9%. This was also one of the areas where there was an admitted increase in turnout from 73.9% to a healthy 77.7%. I say “admitted” because overall the turnout was claimed to have been lower than in 2017 despite numerous pictures of young people waiting in exceptionally long lines to vote.
As I wrote in a previous post on the results, despite the cold and rain of winter, given the copious photographic evidence of unusually long lines of people waiting to cast their vote, perhaps the most incomprehensible piece of information presented on the House of Commons review of the results was this statement: “Turnout was 67.3%, down from 68.8% in 2017. The total registered electorate was 47.6 million, up from 46.8 million in 2017”.
Doubling the total number of people casting a postal vote since the last election two years ago looks suspicious enough. Some of the anticipated swings in voting intention were quite remarkable as were a few of the eventual swings that occurred on polling day. The big gaps between poling expectations and voting results are equally remarkable. The most suspicious thing in the stolen Scottish referendum result was the exceptionally high percentages of postal ballots returned: in places it was as high as 94 – 96 % which is unprecedented world record worthy! I don’t have this data yet.
One twitter comment highlighted another alarming fact about those who did not receive their vote in time again:
“About a third (32%) of overseas postal voters in Spain DID NOT get their ballots on time – this is the THIRD election in a row where MILLIONS of eligible voters have been denied a vote @ElectoralCommUK why aren’t you investigating voting irregularities exposing democratic fraud?”
For all of these unprecedented features to be present in this one election is not just a coincidence, it really stinks of foul play. There are far too many issues that do not make sense and taken in combination along with the claimed drop in turnout despite the long lines of people waiting to vote, I know we have been conned! That’s before you even ask me to swallow the BS about how zombie Brexit fanaticism managed to overcome any maternal instinct to protect kids from starving and the voter’s own basic self preservation.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it’s not a giraffe!
The BBC and all MSM are still desperately trying to ram the square peg into a round hole while confusing and distract us with the contrite Labour leadership candidates vying for the top job in our decimated opposition. It is not as if Labour can have any impact on the train wreck crash out Brexit the Tory majority will inflict on us if we fail to overturn this vote. The stakes could not be higher: we must keep gathering data and prepare to challenge the legitimacy of this election.January 7, 2020 at 12:28 #49520Kim Sanders-Fisher
I checked my emails shortly after posting my last comment. I noticed I had received a comment from the Electoral Commission 23 minutes earlier. When I returned to the Discussion Forum dashboard to see if anyone had posted a new comment following my own I noted that I was still the last recorded comment with a time given as 23 minutes earlier!
Now that coincidence is quite spooky – are we being monitored? If we are, then the Electoral Commission should understand that our greatest objective is securing the integrity of the vote which should face be capable of withstanding robust scrutiny from a watchdog with the power to take decisive action. The Electoral Commission’s reply was, once again, remarkably speedy for such a bureaucratic body; it was polite and detailed. I will go over it very carefully before posting here again, but my first impression is that while government bestows and defines their power they will remain confined to a rather limited remit.
It looks like their remit still leaves gaping holes that could, and my well have already been, easily be exploited. The correct level of oversight may have come adrift from advancing technology possibilities and the privatization of the vote handling system after it was recklessly outsourced to private companies. Obviously the government should have put additional safeguards in place before handing responsibility over to commercial third party interests capable of being manipulated. Any oversight recommendation the Electoral Commission might have made to the government regarding this matter may well have been ignored if they were not in the interests of those wishing to remain in power.
It is our duty to expose this massive unacceptable flaw in the system and put huge public pressure on the government to investigate the situation, correct any unlawful votes and enact more appropriate safeguards to protect future votes. Removing the private sector from this equation would certainly help restore public confidence and if the IDOX Postal Vote Managed System is shown to be corrupt they should not be trusted with any future contracts.
However, the harsh reality of the abysmal oversight revelation is that this potentially illegitimate government holds all the cards. If the result of the 2019 General Election was valid it can withstand the challenge of rigorous scrutiny, but does this Tory “landslide majority” Government have something to hide. Only a lot more publicity and an overwhelming public outcry can change that dynamic. If the Electoral Commission are now monitoring this blog we should commend their input so far. Our actions are not subversive they are corrective and can only help to insure that in future this public watchdog is awarded the powers to act in the public interest to protect our democracy. More to follow later…January 7, 2020 at 12:50 #49522J
I note this petition gained over 6,500 signatures in its first 24 hours but has subsequently disappeared from 38 Degree’s website. Could be significant. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/demand-an-independent-investigation-into-the-2019-general-election-we-suspect-fraud-corruptionJanuary 7, 2020 at 13:52 #49523Kim Sanders-Fisher
Two more Petitions one on Change.org and another on the Care2 Website.
Demand Parliamentary Investigation into rigged postal votes 2019 Election.
We want an independent investigation into the implementation of the 2019 UK General Election.
We need to screen capture these before they are taken down.January 7, 2020 at 14:36 #49524J
Done.January 7, 2020 at 22:30 #49528Ken Kenn
I’ve looked at he coluring in charts and percentages and vote share etc etc and it’s no criticism of you or anyone else but what we require is something like this – as was the norm amny moons aho:
Constituency: Anywhere South
Lib Dems: 7800
Brexit party: 3586
Majority Con : 4000
As simple as that.
I’ve not seen these facts.
We need to.January 8, 2020 at 00:52 #49529Kim Sanders-Fisher
I am getting this Wordfence massage: 403 Forbidden
A potentially unsafe operation has been detected in your request to this site. Generated by Wordfence at Wed, 8 Jan 2020 0:48:16 GMT.
Your computer’s time: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 00:48:16 GMT.
Not sure what this means – I have done an Antivirus check and all is OK. Please advise.January 8, 2020 at 01:28 #49530Kim Sanders-Fisher
House of Commons Website – Constituency Data
There is a small drop down menu for you to scroll down to find the data on each separate constituency. All of the individual vote counts are listed here as well as the percentage of the vote plus the majority won by in number of votes and as a percentage. It also gives the candidate names, the party that won and if it was a gain or a hold.
Key pieces of information include the “Change in Party’s Vote Share (Compared to 2017)” Some of these vote swings are suspiciously high at almost record levels. Another critical piece of data is turnout expressed as a percentage of eligible voters; this may or perhaps in some cases may not match what was seen on the ground.
You can download a computer printout of all the data from a link on this page.
What is not identified on these pages is how many of the votes were postal votes and how many postal votes were rejected. What issues to enquire about on a constituency by constituency basis:
1. Is the handling of any component of the electoral process outsourced to a private company and if so which one?
2. Did this private company take full control of all aspects of the Postal Votes?
3. On what date were the postal ballot packs mailed out to addresses in the UK and addresses overseas?
4. Was sufficient time allowed for the voters to both receive and return their ballot?
5. How many of the votes were postal votes?
6. Was there a percentage increase in postal votes and if so by how much? (In some constituencies this percentage increase was extraordinarily high like almost twice as many as in 2017 only two years ago; another highly suspicious finding)
7. How many of the postal vote packages that were sent out were completed and returned for inclusion in the count?
8. How many of the returned postal ballots were rejected?
9. Were there complaints from people who were registered to vote discovering they were not on the list or that their vote had already been crossed off?
10. Were there complaints from people who did not receive their postal cote pack or did not get it in time to mail in?
In the Scottish Independence Referendum these figures for the number of postal voting packs returned was so high that it presented a huge area of suspicion. In some areas this percentage was over 96% return rate, which considering some of those people would have moved away or died was totally unrealistic. This is what caused so much suspicion over the vote. Did this same phenomenon occur again at this 2019 General Election? I hope this helps you crunch the numbers.January 8, 2020 at 12:37 #49537Kim Sanders-Fisher
A Watchdog that Cannot Watch is Just a Dog! While I really like dogs, the security of our votes and the integrity of our electoral system demands far more than passive tail wagging to credibly validate British democracy.
This is a Q&A Session with the Electoral Commission and it is rather lengthy, but supplies more definitive answers. Here follows the most recent set of questions laid out in my recent email to the Electoral Commission with their replies in italic; links they provided are embedded in the text. .
I remain deeply concerned about the stated total lack of oversight that you admitted to me in our recent phone conversation. Please correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of what you revealed in our call and reassure me that there are adequate protections to secure the integrity of our electoral system.
1. You say that: The Electoral Commission does not maintain a publically available list showing which constituencies, throughout all areas of the UK, have outsourced all or part of their voter registration, postal vote management or other electoral services to which private companies. If there is a nationwide concern over one aspect of voting, say postal vote handling, you are honestly claiming that the Electoral Commission would have no knowledge of where that was being handled and by whom? This can only be described as a massive oversight or gross negligence.
2. On your own admission, there is absolutely zero Electoral Commission oversight of any of these vote management companies, their practices or any external monitoring to quantify or verify the integrity of the votes cast. This leaves the entire system wide open to blatant fraud whether it has been committed on this occasion or not. That’s a bit like advertising the combination for the safe and trusting that no unauthorized person will take money from it!
3. Despite restrictions on employees of such companies having political affiliations or any conflicts of interest, there have been well documented, potentially very significant, conflicts of interest at the senior management level of Idox that have gone unchallenged or corrected by the Electoral Commission for years: is this of no concern to you?
“Questions 1, 2, and 3.
As mentioned in my previous email, the handling of the postal ballot packs (distribution, retrieval, verification etc.) is a matter for the (acting) Returning Officers at the local authorities. We have no remit in regards to the conduct of local authorities, outside of providing advice and guidance, and therefore you will need to contact the electoral services directly and raise your concern with them.
The process for managing returned postal ballot packs is provided for in law. Most Returning Officers use electoral management software systems to support them with the process. The procurement of any electoral management software, such as IDOX, is a matter for the Returning Officer and they must ensure that any system enables them to meet all legislative requirements. The Commission has no role in the procurement or quality assurance of any such software. Returning Officers and Electoral Registration Officers must ensure they comply with Electoral Commission Performance Standards which are laid before Parliament, as such, they needs to ensure any software they use is able to comply with these standards.
Whilst software is often used by individual Returning Officers to verify the personal identifiers (signature and date of birth) that are required to be returned as part of a valid postal ballot pack, the counting of the postal ballot papers themselves is carried out manually, there would also be manual adjudication should the software be unable to match any personal identifiers during the verification process. Once the personal identifiers have been verified, ballot papers must be securely stored by the Returning Officer and transported to the count centre, where they are counted along with all other ballot papers completed in the polling stations.”
4. There is no oversight of the Electoral Registration process to insure that this does not target disenfranchise certain minority communities or randomly exclude the legitimate registration of those who meet deadline requirements. This obvious flaw has lead to complaints of large numbers of people excluded or wrongly included in the election.
5. There is no simple verification process that would allow potential voters to easily check if their voter registration is in order. This is an easily avoidable problem that conveniently obscures the number of newly registered voters. There is no logical reason that this information should not be readily available to the public along with accurate statistics on the actual new voter applications. This justifies the excuse that the huge surge in registration will include many who were already registered when in fact there is no legitimate reason to obscure the actual new registration data.
Questions 4 and 5.
Electoral registration is undertaken by the Electoral Registration Officers at the local authorities. The Commission has provided advice to government to improve the system, including providing a mechanism for EROs to compare information about electoral register entries across all 381 authority’s which would help to further improve the accuracy and completeness of electoral registers, however the Commission holds no legislative power and therefore cannot enact these changes.
6. After we cast our vote, can the Electoral Commission guarantee that there is a reliable “Chain of Custody” security guarantee that the Electoral Commission enforces on behalf of the voting public with regard to the Idox Postal Vote Managed Service or any other similar outsourced service offered by any alternative vote management company.
7. Rumours persist about “sampling” of the postal votes or viewing a percentage of the postal votes sent in to gain prior knowledge of the result. These rumours are supported by announcements made by candidates and the BBC in what is clearly a violation of the law that is repeatedly ignored with impunity. This continues to happen due to lack of oversight and subsequent lack of prosecution. People could place bets and win money based on this data!
Questions 6 and 7.
As mentioned above, the handling of the postal ballot packs (distribution, retrieval, verification etc.) is a matter for the (acting) Returning Officers at the local authorities. Postal vote opening sessions are run by the (Acting) Returning Officer for each election and their electoral services team. Candidates, their election agents and a person appointed by a candidate to attend in place of their election agents are entitled to attend the opening of returned postal votes. Additionally, candidates may appoint postal voting agents to attend openings on their behalf. Anyone attending a postal vote opening session has a duty to maintain secrecy. Ballot papers will be kept face down throughout a postal vote opening session. Anyone attending an opening session must not attempt to see how individual ballot papers have been marked and must not keep a tally of how ballot papers have been marked.
Our guidance for candidates and agents contains more information about the postal vote opening session process, and the role of observers. It may be an offence to communicate any information obtained at postal vote opening sessions, including about votes cast, before a poll has closed. Anyone with information to suggest this has happened should report it immediately to the police. More information on the law can be found here.”
8. Violations of the law, even repeated violations of the “Representation of the Peoples Act” are not the responsibility of the Electoral Commission and must be reported to the police who will be equally dismissive!
9. Violations of the Purdah laws are not the responsibility of the Electoral Commission and must be reported to other regulators who will be equally dismissive. Breaches of the Purdah laws have become so routine and so frequent that these regulations to equalize the political landscape have become totally worthless on our path to dictatorship!
10. The documented alarming undue influence of lobbyists on behalf of foreign powers is of no concern at the Electoral Commission in their efforts to protect the dubious effort of maintaining integrity in UK elections within the crumbling facade of British democracy. The unjustified furore over anti-Semitism that drowned out any possibility of presenting progressive policy issues to the UK public was contrived and promoted by the well funded Zionist lobby groups in order to protect the Israeli government from criticism at the expense of British voter’s priorities and interests.
“Questions 8, 9, and 10.
All of these areas fall outside the remit of the Commission and as such I can neither comment on them or how they are handled by the respective authority/department. However, as previously mentioned, if you have evidence that an offence has been committed you should report this to the police immediately.”
11. Violations of Campaign Finance Restrictions will warrant some type of investigation, handed over to the police, with the potential for cursory fines to be handed down. No matter how egregious the violations are they make absolutely no difference to the unfairly rigged result obtained by cheating, why? This has become the acceptable expense of getting caught which is factored into the plan; it in no way redresses the crime that has been committed.
The only way to challenge the result of an Election is through an Election petition. This is define in electoral law and as mentioned above, the electoral Commission holds not legislative power and as such cannot enact any changes to legislation. More information on the election petition process can be found on page 5 onwards here.”
12. Beyond the last token intervention, I see precious little justification for the existence of our paper tiger, the so called “Electoral Commission.” Please elaborate on any aspect of what the Electoral Commission does that might help to protect the safety and integrity of our voting process here in the UK.
As mentioned in my previous email, the Commission is an independent body set up by UK Parliament. Our remit is defined in the Political Party, Referendums and Elections Act 2000. We regulate party and election finance and provide guidance to Electoral Registration Officers and Returning Officers. Furthermore, the Commission produced reports on a number of aspects in regards to elections, conducts an observer scheme to open up the democratic process and brings to the fore discussions around changing electoral law. If you wish to view in more detail the work that we do, you can view this on the Electoral Commissions website. Under the ‘who we are and what we do’ tab.”
Please confirm or deny the accuracy of all of these statements and wherever appropriate give the Electoral Commission’s justification for the zero oversight, hands off, negligent policy of absolute blind faith trust. A regulatory system designed with inbuilt weaknesses and flaws, extremely limited oversight and minimal penalties for violations offers a very strong invitation to commit fraud with impunity. A regulator that has no teeth functions as a purely cosmetic means of duping the public into thinking that their votes count and our elections are not rigged.
The sheer vagueness of the Electoral Commission’s oversight responsibility parameters and the admitted total lack of control over voter registration data further complicates determining whether fraud has been committed on this particular occasion or not. Most people in the UK did not vote for the Tories with or without the possibility of rigged results, but there is little chance of exposing the truth by relying on the Electoral Commission to function as an effective watchdog protecting our democracy.
That the privatization of our electoral system was instituted with minimal oversight to safeguard our votes is extremely alarming. Very few people in the UK know about this privatization or when it took place; it represents the dismantling of our democracy by stealth as we cannot even determine which constituencies outsource which services This was encouraged and tolerated by a government pledging to introduce voter ID requirements to fix a problem that is virtually nonexistent by disenfranchising over three million UK voters.
In combination these factors are destroying any remaining confidence in our electoral system. There is a very strong possibility that the highly problematic, easily hackable, electronic voting machines will be quietly introduced to make control of vote counting easy and predictable. Relying on these machines without a paper verification as a backup will enable future elections to be easily flipped just has been demonstrated throughout the US. With this powerful tool in place to corrupt the vote a government determined to cling to power despite growing opposition will be unstoppable.
For your information, I am not a member of the Labour Party and I did not vote Labour in this last Election; I am just a deeply concerned citizen who cares passionately about the truth, transparency and the integrity of our democracy. Please give this matter your most urgent attention and reply answering all of my questions ASAP as I have become increasingly worried about the results of this election and it has cast doubt over the validity of past votes including the disastrous EU Referendum. An inability to elaborate clearly on these points will invite further suspicion that this election was rigged. I will look forward to a swift reply…
It took them just three working days for them to get back to me which is not bad at all. On transparency and their willingness to continue engaging in this area of enquiry they did well by supplying a direct phone line and a specific person to contact; info I will not print here for reasons of discretion. From this exchange I got the distinct feeling that although they would like to have greater powers of oversight their hands are tied by government. As I said at the start “A Watchdog that cannot watch is just a dog!” We should petition to change that shortcoming ASAP>January 9, 2020 at 04:07 #49549J
Good questions. I came to some of the same conclusions from my own correspondence. Political credibility is at an all time low while calling for an investigation into the election would be difficult for Labour at the best of times. It will be difficult for Labour in particular though, even as all parties will suffer the fallout of a sham election Labour are starting from way behind, not least the extreme imbalance in media which also magnifies any damage from internal saboteurs. I suspect any attempt to get an investigation going from within the Labour party will be hard to achieve but if they’re serious about the threat to our islands and to our climate, one would think they really have no choice. I would have thought it’ll be impossible to get a speedy or remotely real investigation going without external pressure, which will require evidence.
Do you happen to know when we can get accurate and detailed election data? I found the BBC stuff useless in terms of what we need. Who has the data and how can we get it as soon as possible?
Random thought, I also wonder if the post office wasn’t already privatised it would be necessary to do so before attempting postal fraud in an election.January 9, 2020 at 09:55 #49553Kim Sanders-Fisher
I looked into petitions and discovered that the government petitions access is closed down awaiting the formation of a new committee following the election. All the petitions in progress were closed when the election was called and need to be re-launched once the site is back up and running again. Initially I thought it would be the best place to put a petition up, but it requires waiting.
I just called 38 Degrees to find out why the Petition calling for an Investigation into the 2019 General Election with suspicions of fraud and corruption was taken down. The person I spoke to did not know but, she will be passing my inquiry to their petitions team and I hope to hear from them with an explanation soon.
I tried to encourage her to discuss the need for 38 Degrees to get behind a petition on this important issue before our democracy fades into the past. I told her about the discussion on this forum so that the team have access to some of the info we have exposed so far; hopefully it will convince them of the dire need for urgent action. If anyone wants to get in touch with the 38 Degrees office team they can be contacted on this number 0207 8460 093 or you can send them an email at: [email protected]
A Watchdog that cannot watch is just a dog!
There is no question in my mind that after realizing that the Electoral Commission has zero oversight, we absolutely must expose the danger of fraud even if it did not occur this time. The other two petitions have stagnated, but this is often due to not getting the right exposure. I have launched a petition in the past and I know it requires a lot of promoting to get noticed. Since I am not on Facebook and I do not Twitter or Tweet or whatever, that is a tough call for me. We really need a public outcry over this so that the BBC and MSM propaganda can no longer stupefy the nation.January 9, 2020 at 13:29 #49555Kim Sanders-Fisher
J – See my January 8th entry further up or click on the embeded link:
House of Commons Website – Constituency Data.January 9, 2020 at 13:54 #49556Paul Barbara
@ J January 7, 2020 at 12:50
I’ve emailed 38* and asked them. They do seem to be a decent bunch, but I wouldn’t expect much from Care 2 and Change. They may well keep the petitions online, but I believe they just rig the figures after allowing an initial burst.
That is something that could be monitored and checked, but I suppose they would shrug it off as a glitch.January 9, 2020 at 21:13 #49567SA
I tried to highlight the good work you and others are doing here on the ongoing page but sadly nobody responded except for an irritating anti EU contributor.January 9, 2020 at 21:15 #49568SA
Current pageCurrent pageJanuary 9, 2020 at 21:47 #49570Ken Kenn
Thanks for the info.
Successfully uploaded to Excel.January 10, 2020 at 02:26 #49578Kim Sanders-Fisher
In reality it is actualy a really tough slog building up the number of signatures on a petition. You need good social media contacts and you have to work hard to get your petition noticed. If it is highlighted in a newspaper article it might take off and gain a lot of signitures very rapidly, but that is the main issue just getting noticed.
I called 38 Degrees earlier today to find out what was going on with this petition; they will be getting back to me on it.January 10, 2020 at 12:54 #49591Kim Sanders-Fisher
UK electoral law poses “serious and unnecessary risks”
Dated 01 November 2019, this article states that:
“Current UK electoral law poses serious and unnecessary risks for everybody involved, concludes Electoral Law: the urgent need for reform, a report published today by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC). Candidates, agents, parties, administrators and voters must navigate a thicket of complicated and sometimes contradictory legislation ahead of the December election.”
• Read the full report: Electoral Law: the urgent need for reform. Unfortunately, I doubt I can embed this lik as it goes direct to a pdf file that just automatically downloads to your laptop without exposing the text of the link itself. It goes on to mention a 2016 Interim report:
“An interim report published by the Law Commission in 2016 made recommendations designed to consolidate electoral law and make it fit for purpose, but to date little progress has been made – prompting PACAC’s inquiry. The Law Commission is due to publish its full report in 2020, and PACAC urges the Government to make this the basis for future reforms.”
This section also contains a direct download pdf file link. To access these links click on the title of this piece which has an embedded link to the relevant Commons Select Committee page as does this last link.
“In its report, PACAC underlines the urgent need to of simplify, update and consolidate current legislation, and with the country set to go to the polls in December, its conclusions should be treated as a priority by whoever forms the next Government.”
These Reports Highlighted the difficulty of challenging an election result under the current Petition system:
“The election petition system for challenging elections is archaic, too complicated and not fit for purpose. It is in the public interest that meritorious election petitions are brought forward but the under the current system there is a risk that such petitions will not be brought forward, due to the complexity of the process and the level of potential cost. “We agree with the Law Commission’s recommendation that that the election petition system is brought into the modern court system. As part of any such reform, the Government must ensure the right balance is struck between ensuring access to justice for electors and also preventing vexatious attempts to challenge elections.””
Unfortunately, these warnings have been ignored by a government that stood to gain from the complexity of challenging their potentially corrupt mandate. Only a massive public outcry could force recognition of the need for an investigation.January 10, 2020 at 19:44 #49603Paul Barbara
Kim, I contacted Jennifer Cohn and she said she was worried about Idox and Halirose lack of transparency. I posted the following, inviting her to comment on here:
‘Jennifer Cohn Thanks for reply. It appears that ‘Halarose and Halarose Holdings who were dissolved just before Christmas. Both companies were acquired by IDOX in mid August 2019 thus consolidating the IDOX monopoly of power over the electoral process in the UK.’ Here is a thread about the election of the Discussion Forum on Craig Murray’s Blog: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/…/elections-aftermath/… Craig was an ex-British Ambassador to Uzbekistan. The main driver of the election thread is Kim Sanders-Fisher. We would appreciate it if you look through the comments and perhaps give us a few pointers, though I am sure you are up to your eyes with stuff in the States.January 11, 2020 at 15:53 #49652Kim Sanders-Fisher
AVAAZ – 4 Principles for 2020 – A Hopeful Pledge:
I just received an email from the AVAAZ team with a message that really resonated with me; an attempt to remove the poison from our dialog on the Internet with a pledge to become more respectful in future. I welcomed this intervention and indorsed the pledge by submitting my own personal comment. You might also wish to add this to your New Year Resolutions by supporting this AVAAZ Pledge.
Although this might at first seem to have little to do with restoring the integrity of our democracy by investigating the possibility of rigged elections; on the contrary, the focus of this initiative champions the same important objectives. The propaganda lies and fake news smears warped public opinion and helped sabotage our pragmatic decision-making at a crucial juncture. The disastrous outcome of this latest vote will sorely test our capacity for polite discourse and moderation in the near future. In consideration of this harsh reality I wanted to share with you the comment that I submitted on the AVAAZ Website.
As a self-confessed Disruptive Innovator/inventor my critical thinking and radical maverick ideas have led to harsh ramifications; I have been targeted as a whistleblower on both sides of the Atlantic with devastating consequences. However, I genuinely welcome objective criticism as the robust challenges of this vital input always serve to strengthen the formulation of my most viable concepts and help perfect the parameters of my creative designs.
I resist the instant gratification of twitters, tweets and other rapid fire quips on the Internet as they can so often encourage cruel and mindless anonymous attacks that cause deep hurt and offence. I declare my full name, or at least a compacted version of my name: Kim Sa-Fi. This serves to remind me to behave as if I am face to face with the person I reply to in a comment; it insures that I maintain respectful dialog even with those whom I might vehemently disagree. I immediately disengage with openly insulting comments in order to truncate the ramping-up of venomous tit for tat exchanges.
Despite travelling a lot less now than I used to, as someone who has lived, worked and been welcomed by people of all ethnic groups, races and religions, rich and poor, in countries all over the world, I would still categorize myself an “Eco-Nomad.” I consider those that so many now disparagingly refer to as “Migrants” as people who share all of the same personal goals and noble objectives of my earlier nomadic lifestyle; prejudice is unfounded as we have nothing to fear from these eco-nomads.
I have crafted a set of proposals to fully democratize freedom of movement for the universal benefit of all, young and old, not just the wealthy and powerful but the poor and disadvantaged too; this concept of “Collaborative Circular Migration” is designed to enhance cooperation and global equality.
The rise of toxic nationalism is a horrific infection that now grips so many nations around the world; it serves no one but the greedy billionaires and corporations bent on enshrining neo-liberal exploitation. I am not at all proud of the conquests of our once mighty empire, our proxy wars arming foreign despots or our many jingoistic forays overseas.
I combat assaults on the strength of my personal support for the defence of our British national identity by declaring that I remain a “Peaceful Patriot of the Planet,” dedicated to protecting our common humanity, especially the persecuted and most vulnerable. I do this while mindful of our increasingly precarious environment with a mandate to protect the world we share with all of the precious species that inhabit the earth: “There is no Planet B.”
The motto of my 93/94 Whitbread Round-the-World-Race sailing team was: “A healthy body and mind on a healthy peaceful planet.” Sadly, this optimistic message was not inspiring enough for Team Pro-Maxi to gain the sponsorship we needed for our diverse International group of professional female sailors to compete in that race, but this stirring sentiment remains a hopeful course towards a brighter future.
We must proactively strive to create a positive alternative narrative that is capable of totally disarming the hateful rhetoric of nationalism and the myopic unwarranted “them and us” mentality designed to divide and scapegoat the weakest in our society.
I truly abhor the divisive term “British Values,” as if only the British maintain a common set of values: this is ludicrous poison targeted to dope the masses. I propose an alternative: the collaborative creation of a set of Universal Human Values. Somewhere high up on that list would be “The Courage to say I am Sorry.” This would go a long way towards peace building throughout the world,
Peaceful Patriot of the Planet, Kim Sanders-Fisher: (PPP – Kim Sa-Fi)January 12, 2020 at 18:24 #49667Kim Sanders-Fisher
I would strongly encourage all those who believe in honest and civilised debate, with an end to the incessant lies and slurs that warped all public dialog during recent crucial votes, to sign the Principals for 2020 AVAAZ Pledge. This pledge includes resisting the “triggers” that allow emotion to override sensible thinking and it has this as its forth commitment:
“Stop the Gossip, seek the truth – Fake news, half-truths, smears, and disinformation motivated by emotion and agenda bring out the worst in all of us. People are fundamentally decent, but we are quick to embrace simple demonizations that justify the worst we do to each other. Let’s strive to see the human not the villain, and understand the often complex truth.”
Back in November of 2010, when it was a Labour PM under attack for lying about a political opponent in order to retain his seat, there was a successful petition challenge to deprive him of his victory which ultimately also barred him from standing for public office for three years. An article in the Guardian predicted the impact this would have on politics.
“The former immigration minister Phil Woolas was ejected from parliament today after two high court judges ruled that he lied about his Liberal Democrat opponent during the general election, in a judgment that is likely to have profound implications for all future campaigns.”
But that was then, with a Labour candidate under attack and a genuine commitment to accountability and political integrity. The picture is so very different now, after a relentless Tory campaign of disgraceful, unverified fact-free lies, smears and deformation has managed to depict Jeremy Corbyn, a dignified man of peace, as a hateful, vilified racist! What was the turning point for the decision made in this 2010 case?
“The specially convened election court upheld those arguments after it saw confidential emails between Woolas’s team, which included the line: “If we don’t get the white folk angry he [Woolas]’s gone.””
The Labour Party at that time took full responsibility and acted appropriately in accordance with the court judgement by refusing to support any appeal in defence of their candidate. “The deputy leader Harriet Harman said it was “no part of Labour’s politics to try to win elections by telling lies” and the party would not support any appeal.” Wow! Let that statement sink in a bit… Sp where do we stand now? Surely the Woolas case set an important precedent with regard to the use of false information to incite anger and stoke a fabricated ethnic divide. Because the UK lacks a written constitution, our law is primarily governed by precedent.
We know that the hard data categorically does not support an increase in anti-Semitism in the Labour Party; in reality the opposite is true. Sadly, Labour’s policy of appeasement and engagement with this confected “major problem,” an issue that at most potentially implicated a miniscule 0.1% of their half million membership, really did not help. If following treatment your doctor declared you 99.9% cancer free you would be ecstatic; why is 0.1% so difficult to comprehend? Demonizing loyal Labour Party members to remove high profile figures that were innocent of any anti-Semitic views did not satiate the destructive Tory beast which had the right wing media and even the supposedly neutral BBC on side.
This divisive Tory wrecking ball was aided and abetted by a few rogue centrist members of the Labour Party whose primary loyalty was not to their struggling working class constituents but, to a foreign power, namely, the Israeli Government via their powerful Jewish Lobby groups in the UK. A 2009 BBC Dispatches documentary investigated the undue influence of these Jewish Lobby groups and their increasing control over political decisions in both major parties, but we did not heed the strong warning signs. The anti-Semitism furore is not about protecting British Jews from prejudice it demands unquestionably loyalty and support of the Zionist agenda of the State of Israel in their persecution on the Palestinian people.
The brazen crowing of Joe Glasman in his YouTube rant following the triumph of the Tory “landslide victory” is both chilling and utterly disgusting. With Glasman as Head of Political and Government Investigations for the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, CAA, a Zionist bigot who has freely expressed his anti Corbyn bias, is inappropriately positioned to pass judgement on the Labour Party over the handling of a problem that statistics show barely exists. This grossly disproportionate highlighting of anti-Semitism does not make Jewish people in this country any safer; instead it stirs up trouble where there is none and emboldens dangerous, racially bigoted, far right extremists.
In many instances Labour are their own worst enemy, as valid law suits for libel could have easily shut down many spurious attacks in an instant. There was never enough evidence to conclusively prove any of the totally unfounded cases of anti-Semitism in a court of law. Unfortunately, these cases never came to court; Labour and Jeremy Corbyn were unfairly tried in the media based on the lies promulgated by MPs and supporters of the Tory Party. Corbyn was declared guilty and demonized utilizing the unique reach of the state’s most powerful propaganda juggernaut the BBC.
That said it does not make the demonization justified and it certainly was not in the best interests of conducting a free and fair election; British voters were cruelly duped by MPs whose integrity and public statements they should have been able to trust. Amplified by blatant media bias, MPs who deceitfully perpetrated those lies have “stolen” the seats they now occupy in parliament: this injustice cannot be allowed to remain unchallenged. This was not just a solitary MP targeted through unjustified smears, it was an entire political party and the leader of that party wrongfully discredited and demonized throughout the UK.
The BBC is massively at fault in this deformation case: during the mandated neutral period of Purdah their political interviews were saturated with the fake news attacks over anti-Semitism that disproportionately drowned out all of the important information on Labour manifesto policies. No wonder people were so clueless about Labour policies, their MPs and candidates were unable to present the facts while under such unrelenting toxic assault. Despite the BBC’s frequent use of a fact check feature on their broadcasts they never once sought to use this tool to determine the actual incidents of anti-Semitism in the Labour Party; instead they just ploughed ahead with fake news assumptions and right wing opinions that discredited Corbyn and the left.
Back in a time when a genuine commitment to accountability and political integrity was the norm on both sides of the House, an MP who lied about his political opponent during the general election was “ejected from parliament.” There is a strong case that this decision set a real precedent. Since so much of UK law is governed by precedent, the overwhelming evidence of industrial scale lying by MPs intent on demonizing the Labour leadership to steal the election, should be sufficient to warrant voiding the corrupted result. Did the 2010 Woolas judgment really have profound implications for all future campaigns? Perhaps not.
Does the UK electorate honestly prefer the current chaotic political landscape where the best financed candidate is able to fund dirty tricks? Can we ignore the use of slander and liable, to relentlessly discredit an opponent with a campaign of lies and smears, as an acceptable path to victory for any MP? Do we allow libellous false accusations and brutal unfounded character assassination to encourage the most unscrupulous, power hungry politicians to break the law with impunity, funded by dodgy money from supportive billionaires? Can we afford to let the selfish interests of the wealthy, and the malevolent intervention of foreign powers, override the needs of ordinary UK voters?
Overturning this rigged election result would send a very clear message that no one, MP, Lord or PM, is above the law. It would abundantly demonstrate the vital need for proper, credible standards of media oversight and accurate fact check accountability especially from, our “not so neutral” state broadcaster, the BBC. If deceitful politicians knew they would face serious consequences in future, it could finally eliminate the use of lies, fake news, deformation and shallow undeliverable promises repeated with impunity. A clear precedent was set in 2010; there is an urgent priority to pursue this eminently winnable case which is so obviously in the public interest.January 13, 2020 at 14:42 #49696Kim Sanders-Fisher
On the Jewish Voice for Labour Website there is an interesting article exposing the fake news of the so called “anti-Semitism crisis” in the Labour Party that helped derail the election. Surely this article: “Smoke Without Fire: The Myth of a ‘Labour Antisemitism Crisis” has the necessary evidence to fight a defamation case that could void the shocking 2019 Election result. JVL Note: “This article by Jamie Stern-Weiner and Alan Maddison features in an eBook on the ‘Labour antisemitism’ controversy edited by Jamie Stern-Weiner, forthcoming from Verso. As of the 2nd December: This FREE eBook is now available…” – Visit the JVL Website to download it.
In the above article there is a useful link to the Media Reform Coalition they revealed that: “The Media Reform Coalition (MRC) has recently provided us with some hard statistical evidence. Its report on media coverage of antisemitism in the Labour Party shows that (perhaps counterintuitively) the BBC and Guardian are among the worst progressive media, offenders.” Who would have thought it!
The embedded link to Glasman’s toxic rant in my last comment has been taken down; I guess he is not so proud of that poorly worded victory outpouring. It could imperil the charitable status of the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism, CAA, as legitimate charities claiming charitable status are supposed to be apolitical. I hope a few of you will take the opportunity to file an official complaint with the Charities Commission reporting CAA for Glasman’s revelling take on CAA’s underlying agenda.
I have provided a functioning new link to this material posted in a piece written by Asa Winstanley for Electronic Intifada called “The beast is slain.” I just hope it hold up for a bit longer so that we can expose this man’s ruthless agenda to sabotage Corbyn and the Labour Vote. Adding a comment and a link back to this forum, I also contacted Asa Winstanley by direct email. I hope he reviews some of the data here, takes an interest and has the time to offer his investigative skills.January 13, 2020 at 15:25 #49704cimarrón
Kim, thanks for staying with this, and for your energy and determination.
I, too, believe some underhand business has been going on to create such a big win for the Conservatives; and, perhaps even more importantly, to ensure that Corbynism cannot gain a foothold in Western politics.
I imagine that such a political coup would likely be orchestrated by the same arseholes who have been manipulating the world to fit their iniquitous agenda.
As Mary has pointed out, Boris Johnson seems to have some kind of connection to the Henry Jackson Society: and those are just the kind of people I’m thinking of.
Henry Jackson Society patrons include Robert Kagan, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and husband of the odious Victoria ‘Fuck-the-EU’ Nuland, the Ukraine coup agitator; William Kristol, PNAC co-founder with Kagan; and Richard Perle, PNAC signatory.
From 2004: “It should not be entirely surprising in this context that while advocating for regime change in Iran, war-mongering in Syria, and hyping up US homeland terror (despite terrorist incidents steadily declining over the last decades and now at an all time low), the Henry Jackson Society invests much of its energies in intellectual agitation on behalf of elite Anglo-American financial, security and fossil fuel interests.”
A signatory of the Henry Jackson Society and fellow of the Hudson Institute, economist Irwin Stelzer was a frequent visitor to 10 Downing Street during Blair’s reign.
From 2004: “Few passers-by would have noticed the lone figure slipping discreetly through the front door of Number 10. Fewer still could have guessed what was on the agenda with the Prime Minister. According to media reports at the time, the visitor was delivering a message from his master. And for Tony Blair it turned out to be a Corleone-style horse’s head in the bed.
“The visitor was Dr Irwin Stelzer, the American economist widely defined as Rupert Murdoch’s emissary, secret agent and representative on earth. To some this makes him a devil incarnate. Peter Oborne, political editor of the Spectator, wrote that Stelzer ‘stands in the same kind of relationship to Murdoch as Suslov did to Stalin’. Chris Patten, the former EU commissioner, remarked: ‘I wouldn’t sup with Irwin Stelzer if I had a spoon a yard long.'”
These are devious people. They will do what is necessary to preserve their world.
- The topic ‘Elections aftermath’ is closed to new replies.