- This topic has 117 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
@ Kim Sanders-Fisher January 5, 2020 at 16:44
Just re-try, perhaps the site was under attack at the time, not unprecedented.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.
A C Grayling https://twitter.com/acgrayling/status/1209477694846582784
“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?”
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 obtainedAnother 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 sham
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.)
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.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…
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-corruption
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.Done.
Hi Kim
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
Conservatives: 22500
Labour 18500
Lib Dems: 7800
Brexit party: 3586
Independents 2300
Greens: 4500Majority Con : 4000
As simple as that.
I’ve not seen these facts.
We need to.
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.
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.
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.
“Question 11.
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.
“Question 12.
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>
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.
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.
J – See my January 8th entry further up or click on the embeded link:
House of Commons Website – Constituency Data.@ 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.Kim
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.https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2020/01/a-window-for-peace/comment-page-3/#comments
Current pageCurrent page
Hi Kim
Thanks for the info.
Successfully uploaded to Excel.
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.
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.
- The topic ‘Elections aftermath’ is closed to new replies.