- This topic has 117 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 4 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
SA – It is absolutely incredulous that anyone might claim that the BBC has an anti-Tory bias after all they have done to decimate the Labour Party. But then it is equally monstrous for a rabid bigot who makes seriously offensive incitements to racial hatred to vilify a respected iconic leader of the struggle for peace and justice. Current Head of the BBC, Lord Hall, has vehemently denied that the painfully obvious anti-Labour bias exists as he defends the BBC’s warped political agenda. The breaches of Electoral Law committed by the reporter Laura Kuennsberg and Dominic Raab MP, both caught on camera by the BBC, have resisted challenge so far: they broke the law and should be charged,
Lord Hall is stepping down from his position at the BBC this summer; the issue of anti-Left BBC bias needs to be fully acknowledged and addressed before he goes. Public outrage must dominate who is chosen to succeed him as the rogue team of Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings will seek ways to maintain control, possibly by targeting BBC funding to ensure absolute compliance with Tory propaganda. The rules of Purdah should have levelled the playing field, but the BBC went to unprecedented extremes, drowning out every positive message from Labour on policies with an aggressive fake anti-Semitism smear campaign. This was one of many tricks to deliberately deceive or dissuade voters from exercising their democratic right.
This Canary Article highlighted how, on the night of the final deadline to register to vote, our “impartial” BBC News Election 2019 exerted their influence over the British public. Instead of reminding the population of the urgency and importance of getting on the Electoral Roll they displayed this discouraging message: “Non-voters wouldn’t change the result everywhere. In 2017’s election even if every non-voter registered went to the polls, in 99/650 seats the same MP would have been elected.” That clearly revealed the BBC agenda: don’t bother participating, the Tories already have their votes stacked up among elderly regulars and they wouldn’t want to risk a strong youth vote.
The negative BBC messaging backfired spectacularly as over a million predominantly younger voters managed to get registered in the final 48hours before the midnight deadline. Regrettably, many of the university students chose to use a postal vote due to the deliberate poor timing of the election scheduled for the week of moving back home for the Christmas break. There are multiple reports of problems they encountered, but where did all their votes go?
The nightly Paper Review segment offers the BBC an ideal opportunity to maximize their amplification of the vile right-wing smears when they selectively home in on tabloid articles that emphasize, exaggerate, fabricate and lie about Corbyn to unjustly demonize him with one-sided vilification. There is no balance and no means of defence as all Labour MPs are systematically grilled over fake anti-Semitism. When disgruntled Labour defector Ian Austin spewed his vile rant in the media and the Chief Rabbi offered his personal interference to deter Labour voters there was no alternative perspective sought from Jewish Voice for Labour. The JVL 6th of December Article: “Jews, antisemitism and Labour – a letter to the BBC” is worth reading.
FIGHT BACK: Harking back to notably the most egregious vilification committed by the BBC in a Panorama programme just prior to the election, Birkbeck College, University of London Journalism and Media lecturer Justin Schlosberg is fighting back. This Jewish co-author of the book “Bad News for Labour. Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief.” is Crowdfunding to launch a legal challenge against the BBC and he deserves our support in this noble effort. Schlosberg’s Crowdfunding has already raised over half the target amount for: “A formal legal challenge to Ofcom’s decision not to investigate complaints about the BBC’s Panorama programme ‘Is Labour antisemitic?’” This abhorrent hatchet job was so appallingly biased it received over 1500 complaints to the BBC that were ignored as per usual, but appeals to Ofcom were equally dismissed as they too decided not to investigate.
The public is denied accountability again by a fake “watchdog:” A Watchdog that refuses to watch is despicable dog!
AND MORE FIGHT BACK: Change.org Petition Cooperation – John Han 16 Jan 2020 — “We have decided to run a joint petition campaign of our ‘Stop the anti-Corbyn bias on the BBC’ with Richard House’s ‘Demand a full independent inquiry into the BBC’s coverage of the 2019 General Election’. We are going to look for a shared action, as well as possibly joining up with other groups against BBC bias. There are a lot of exciting things happening at the moment. There is more news to come soon. Please sign the other petition.”
YET MORE FIGHT BACK: ‘Demand a full independent inquiry into the BBC’s coverage of the 2019 General Election’ Richard House’s Petition on Change.org appears to have stalled below its modest target of 7000 votes. We need to give this petition the boost it deserves by sending the link to family and friends; I know from experience just how hard it is to make sure an important petition gets noticed. “We have just witnessed the dirtiest general election campaign in British political history.” was no understatement by House who includes a long list of links to supporting evidence that I will include here.
Novara Media Novara Media – “The BBC is… CANCELLED?”
Media Lens – “The Arrogance of BBC News”
Jewish Voice for Labour – “Jewish Voice for Labour lobbies BBC over election coverage bias”
A Very Public Sociologist – “All that is Solid – The BBC’s Anti-Labour Bias” https://averypublicsociologist.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-bbcs-anti-labour-bias.html
Guardian – “How truth gets lost in the BBC’s search for balance”
Independent – ‘Consciously’ biased BBC contributed to Tory election win, Labour MP says”
Andy McDonald MP, Daily Mirror – ‘Labour’s unfair treatment shows broadcasters need urgent democratic reforms’
LSE – “The Exit Poll, BBC Election Night and systemic media bias”Richard House states that: “When voters’ access to unbiased information is compromised in this way, democracy itself is gravely threatened. When a government is elected to absolute power, carried over the line by bias and propaganda, its very legitimacy is in severe doubt – with grave implications for the sheer governability of a deeply disgruntled, disenfranchised citizenry.” He concludes his petition: “We the undersigned demand an immediate independent inquiry into the BBC’s 2019 general election coverage (NOT held by OfCom), to ascertain the truth about these grave accusations, and so lessen the possibility of such an outrage to democracy being repeated at future general elections.”
In the Canary Article supporting Schlosberg’s Crowdfunding Appeal they note he highlights the fact that: “This was the third Panorama edition since 2015 that was focused on, and wholly critical of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the party. It contained gross breaches of the BBC’s legal commitment to due impartiality and due accuracy rules.” There are several embedded links that focus on supporters of a very different reasoning that drives the not so hidden agenda of the BBC and in the same piece, the Canary also reported that: “Among unfavourable analysis of the BBC‘s election coverage was a YouGov poll showing that only 44% of Britons now trust BBC News reporters to tell the truth. This fell by 7% between October and December 2019.” (Original links embedded in this Canary quote for reference.)
I deviate from the opinion that, as vile and disgusting as the BBC smear campaign got during the election, it was not the magic bullet that secured a genuine landslide victory for the Tories. I believe it was part of a well coordinated cover story, that remains a work in progress, in a desperate effort to lend legitimacy to the rigged vote. I do not know if exposure of the smear campaign and all of the serious violations of the Purdah laws alone will be enough to overturn this rigged election, but it presents a far more tangible initial target and a good place to start.
A mandatory rebalance forced on the BBC by the courts would show the massive crowds who came out singing and cheering for Jeremy Corbyn. This huge volume of support does not equate to the unfathomable loss of votes in Labour heartlands. Once the “everybody hates Corbyn” myth has been debunked as fake-news, the dubious vote results will stand out as an obvious fabrication of a stolen election. Voters could have opted for a safer Brexit option under Labour and there is very little else to support any legitimate reason for a “landslide” Tory majority. It is highly suspicious that rather than focusing on any remote reason for a Tory victory the media are still obsessing over dissecting the Labour loss.
We could appeal to the EU while we still remain EU citizens, which is why Boris is rushing through the vote. Although there is very little time before the Brexit deadline the transition period offers our last hope. If the Election is proven to be illegally rigged, with strong suspicions over the EU Referendum vote already exposed and further discredited by the vote rigging scandal, we have every right to appeal to the EU for a new free and fair Referendum.
Would the EU ignore a proven case of illegal vote rigging in a member state to strip away the rights of millions of European citizens? It is not in their best interests for us to crash out against our will so that Boris can create an ultra-deregulated rogue state on the edge of the EU to destabilize Europe for Trump! I think the European Court would support a case to defend EU citizen’s rights against corruption and injustice.
Postal Vote Investigation @PostalVoteProbe is still hauling in the data with a growing number of people fileing Freedom of Information requests to get postal vote stats from their local authority to post them on the thread. I am not on twitter, and I get very confused over who posted what, when, but each time I check there is more data posted – this is great work. If we have any number crunchers interested in this project this is a good source of data even if it is trickling in piecemeal.
In a post on the 22nd of January, Postal Vote Investigation @PostalVoteProbe wrote:
“There is a growing problem with local authorities @StockportMBC @ADCAshfield etc refusing requests for electoral results (pv stats). Have emailed @ElectoralCommUK to see if anything can be done #postalvotes. Please also ask electoral commission.”
I will be getting on their case again tomorrow; here is a rough copy of the request made to the Electoral Commission:
“Lots of people have been requesting postal vote stats for GE2019 from their local authorities, most local authorities have been happy to provide the information. However some local authorities have refused: stating that Returning Officers are not listed as being regulated under the Freedom of Information Act. Under which government department would the electorate be able to lodge a Freedom of Information to request postal vote information from Returning Officers. In addition has the Electoral Commission recommended or do they plan to recommend that the government requires all local authorities to publish postal vote statistics immediately after an election given that postal votes now comprise roughly 30% of all votes in elections.”With these individual Freedom of Information requests Ashford has been mentioned several times as uncooperative, now Stockport; do they have suspicious stats that would sound alarm bells? What do they need to hide? Why isn’t all this data readily available from the Electoral Commission?
Postal Vote Investigation @PostalVoteProbe also wrote:
“I invite you to look at the cases listed on this account, and some of the questions they raise. In particular we make the following recommendations 1) Postal votes should be counted separately at the count 2) Publication of results should happen at the polling station level.”I think in my email to the Electoral Commission I will also be asking them why they don’t strongly recommend that the government requires all local authorities to count postal votes separately when they arrive at the count. There is no logical reason for the postal vote to be mixed in with votes from the wards during the count. If the postal votes were kept separate during the count we could immediately tell if there were huge unexplainable discrepancies that might indicate ballot stuffing.
There is evidence being accumulated out there, but we still need a professional investigative journalist to bring this all together for a credible case that would stand up in court. I have had no “hot on the scent” rapid reply to my request for help from the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists yet; they might have written me of as a conspiracy theory nut-case and moved on. If you are as passionate about this as I am you could email them too. Perhaps if members of the consortium realize I am not just one lonely voice in the wilderness they might respond.
Kim
Great work. I am afraid I have not been able to pursue some of my promises. I have tried to raise the profile of this page in the general discussion forum and also in the site technical issues so that it could become more visible, but without much effect. But what you have done remains a repository and a resource that is extremely important.
Just a comment about ICIJ and not to dampen your enthusiasm but amongs their supporters are the Addessium foundation a dutch outfir. My suspicion is that they post the piece of news that Bellingcat received the Machiavelli award, another Dutch outfit with Military on board and the link makes me suspicious. Also another ‘Supporter is Luminate which is part of the part of The Omidyar Group, and more significantly is the Open Societies Foundation the well known promoter of colourful regime change revolutions. Of course they have produced significant exposures but it looks to me selective and they probably will not touch such an establishment based investigation. Also their Media Partners include the BBC Panorama, THe New York Times and the Washington Post amongst many others.@ Kim Sanders-Fisher January 23, 2020 at 01:25
Re the BBC bias, an academic aims to legally challenge them:
‘One academic is so sick of BBC bias, he’s taking legal action’:
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2020/01/17/one-academic-is-so-sick-of-bbc-bias-hes-taking-legal-action/
He’s got a fundraiser running, and so far has 30% of needed funds.I have returned to the Schlosberg Crowdfunder and both of the Petitions several times over the past few days. I noted in my previous post that “‘Demand a full independent inquiry into the BBC’s coverage of the 2019 General Election’ Richard House’s Petition on Change.org appears to have stalled below its modest target of 7000 votes.” This is where these Fund Raising and Petitions efforts stand and at last glance:
Schlosberg Crowdfunding now stands at £15,247 raised of £25,000 target with 648 supporters https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/challenge-bbc-bias
John Hans Petition: “Stop the anti-Corbyn bias on the BBC” 23,451 have signed. Let’s get to 25,000!
Richard House Petition: “Demand a full independent inquiry into the BBC’s coverage of the 2019 General Election” 5,915 have signed. Let’s get to 7,500!I have just now discovered two more Petitions that are related to our cause also on Change .org
Alex Webb Petition: “Recount the Postal Votes GE 2019” – 7,427 have signed. Let’s get to 7,500!
John Clayton Petition: “Please investigate why legitimate voters were turned away in the 2019 general election.” 682 have signed. Let’s get to 1,000!Although the Richard House petition has been creeping up slowly from the mid 5000s, I would have expected it to get a lot more traffic after teaming up with the more heavily signed John Hans petition, but progress is still slow. This has made me wonder if more cannot be done at the petition site to help promote all of these closely related petitions together on one page so that they can all get noticed and pick up more signatures?
Getting a petition noticed initially is an extremely tough task, but it is a terrific way to get crucial information out there that the public might be searching for online to answer growing concerns over the legitimacy of the recent General Election vote and how the results are still being misinterpreted by the BBC and print media. The more people sign the petition the higher it climbs in a Google search where, in reality, very few people move on to check out page two. Google is probably still the most popular search engine, that’s now sadly becoming heavily manipulated for commercial and political ends. Money makes the world go around….
If people are doing a Google search for “Vote Rigging” they are currently more easily taken in the wrong direction to reports of one of the rare cases of personating that is being used by the government to justify their “sledge hammer to crack a nut” attack on voting rights. This helps fuel the Tory obsession with the need to introduce a voter ID requirement that is essentially a way to disenfranchise over three million predominantly poor and minority voters who will primarily vote Labour.
The two newly discovered petitions had been up for a month without my finding them, but when I went to sign I got a red flag message: “There was an error submitting your signature.” I will have to check out why; please tell us if you have the same experience.
I remain highly suspicious of behind the scenes manoeuvring over a similar petition that was posted on 38 Degrees that disappeared after rapidly gaining over 6000 signatures in the first 24 hours. I have raised this issue in previous posts encouraging other people to call or email 38 Degrees with an inquiry. Has anyone had any luck? I have now called 38 Degrees several times to discover why the petition was taken down. I have been told that “someone in the petitions team will get back to me” but, so far this has not transpired. I have now waited over a week with no word from them on what was flagged up as an urgent issue.
By contrast the longest I have waited for a reply from our toothless watchdog the Electoral Commission is three working days. If you have ever dealt with any public watchdog you will realize this was a remarkably rapid response from the EC. I am getting back in touch with them today. Perhaps we can help make this toothless watchdog more than just a dog by demanding the expansion of their remit. I will keep you all posted…
The Media Reform Coalition’s Media Democracy Festival takes place on 14th March is always worth attending (free entry but need to register) and is bound take a very good look at the BBC.
Justin Schlosberg, quoted above, is one of their members, as is Des Freedman who has written about democratising the BBC in the LRB.
SA – Peter – I get this incredibly creepy feeling that I am trapped in a dystopian Ira Levin plotline and there is no way to escaping the inevitable doom and disaster. Truth be told I have felt that way for months on end now. I fully admit that I don’t know enough about the individual supportive organizations behind the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists to judge them one way or the other.
I look at the impressive track record of the ICIJ noting that they have broken a number of serious anti-establishment stories in the past: so why not this one? It is still worth a shot. Does Schlosberg only take issue with the damaging propaganda being spewed by the BBC, or is he just as concerned about other factors that skewed the Labour vote in the 2019 General Election? Does he too suspect that the election was rigged? Can we get Justin Schlosberg, Des Freedman or both of them interested in looking into the possibility of a serious vote rigging scandal so that we can build the case for overturning the vote?
The talking heads are ruminating over the fabricated tale of Labour’s disgraceful demise; trying desperately to bed-in that fake news so that it is 100% universally accepted as the new truth, just like all those years of being forced to regurgitate the vile lie that all the devastating austerity cuts really were “necessary” or be universally derided as a heretic! Labour MPs are being invited on air by the same right-wing attack dogs who drowned-out their election pledges with false accusations. Now they are expected to beat their chest till they draw blood: one after another they willingly comply. Which of the enfeebled centrist warriors will the Tories promote to lead the token opposition “tribute act?”
The wistful talk of “borrowed votes” and the Labour Party fighting back to take on the Tories again in five years time, is completely delusional. This is just a cheap Tory con trick, as I fear there will be no such opportunity. I am absolutely convinced that if we do not oust this corrupt government very swiftly, we will experience what will morph into a hard right-wing dictatorship within this year. All of the classic signs are there in plain sight: Boris Johnson’s absolute control over all Tory party MPs, his plans for disempowering parliament and the judiciary, his desire to gag our free press and manipulate the BBC, pledges to curtail the right to strike or to protest and the targeting of vulnerable minority groups.
All of these moves represent classic hallmarks of a dangerous rising dictatorship. Such narcissistic megalomaniac leaders maintain a paper thin veneer of democracy though absolute control of the media and the occasional rigged election. Every time a so called “strong man” seizes power it takes several decades to overthrow that total stranglehold on power to finally remove them from office. Is Boris even in control or is Trump, Bannon or Dominic Cummins actually pulling the strings? The December Crash-Out Brexit with panic and food riots will offer Boris a perfect opportunity to flex military muscle, ostensibly to restore law and order, but in reality to solidify state oppression under his command.
We need to stop fantasizing about tightening up the electoral system for another chance at a free and fair vote in five years time because Boris controls all the rules and regulations so that they will be manipulated to his advantage. We must get real and deal with the reality of our last chance to rescue our democracy. I think that there is a tipping point where it becomes worthwhile to take a big risk and go out on a limb. If the sensational news story is big enough then it becomes a career accelerator for the Investigative Journalist who uncovers the truth; that is a huge reputational boost. Can we get Schlosberg to take on our cause? I have to believe there is a possible way through this or I really would give up hope.
I have been looking for the legal path and Statute of Limitations for bringing an Election Petition to challenge the incomprehensible results of the 2019 General Election that appeared so obviously rigged to enable the fake Tory “landslide” victory. This document was particularly helpful due to its clear language: “Electoral Petitions the Law Commission’s Proposals for Reform.
The grounds for bringing a legal challenge.
Challenge to an election can only be brought by way of an election petition. It is imperative that the petition is presented in the form prescribed by the rules as detailed in the legislation. One way in which an election petition can be used (amongst other statutory grounds for challenge), is to challenge the validity of an election and to correct the result, through a process known as “scrutiny”. This power of the election courts grants them with the ability to look at particular votes to determine whether the electors who cast them were entitled to do so, and if not, the Court has the power to strike off those invalid votes. The legislation in its current form provides that where the validity of an election is successfully challenged, it can be annulled on one of three grounds.”The Law Commission goes on to highlight that these grounds are not all presented together clearly in one place so they recommend:
“The Law Commission has attempted to collate the grounds together in one place in accessible and unequivocal terms in its interim report [3], as follows:
(1) a breach of electoral law during the conduct of the election which was either:
(a) fundamental; or
(b) materially affected the result of the election;
(2) corrupt or illegal practices committed either:
(a) by the winning candidate personally or through that candidate’s agents; or
(b) by anyone else, to the benefit of the winning candidate, where such practices were so widespread that they could reasonably be supposed to have affected the result; or
(3) the winning candidate was at the time of the election disqualified from office.”While this Law Commission article is well worth reading I cannot find a similar clear set of rules that indicate the statute of limitations on filing that govern the recourse open to petitioners. The limitation is tighter than for other areas of justice and redress due to the need for finality and to bring certainty for an individual candidate. The difficulty here is that the alleged postal vote ballot stuffing of the 2019 appears to be so pervasive and so widespread that it has provided fake legitimacy to an entire elected government placing the Tory Party in an unchallengeable position of dominant power through illegal means.
Towards the conclusion of the Law Commission article there is a recommendation about where and by whom these Electoral petition challenges should be heard and ruled on; it states that:
“The judiciary for England and Wales is supportive of the call for reform and to this end, Sir Brian Leveson, the President of the Queen’s Bench Division stated:
‘The proposal to transfer the election court’s jurisdiction to the High Court in England and Wales, and to bring the Election Petition Rules within the scope of the Civil Procedure Rules, would not only increase administrative efficiency, but more importantly is right in principle. The separation of the election court is…an anomaly, not least as it has all the powers of, and draws its judiciary from, the High Court.’”While searching for a definitive Statute of Limitations in this area of the law, after delving into the Crown Prosecution website under ‘Legal Guidance – Electoral Offences’ I found the following useful information: “There is no power for the CPS itself to investigate or to direct police officers to do so. Although the Act refers to the Directors duty, by virtue of section 1(7) of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985 any Crown Prosecutor can exercise the functions of the DPP.’”
In offering further guidance, this .gov page then refers the College of Policing section entitled “A Practical Guide to Officers Investigating Election Offences” a site I have linked to before in this forum. Where to direct allegations:
“All allegations of breaches of the Representation of the People Act must be referred to the CPS Special Crime Division (SCD). Should you be approached by the police seeking to investigate election offences, they should be directed to the Authorised Professional Practice (“APP”). This can be accessed from the College of Policing web-site or via the Electoral Commission website. It provides useful guidance on offences and practice. It was designed and written as a practical guide to officers investigating election offences.”Since I am not a legal eagle I am a bit confused by this and the section on Statute of Limitations which seems to offer two deadlines: “Section 176 lays down the time-limit for the commencement of proceedings for any offence under any provision contained in or made under RPA 1983. That applies to summary only offences which would normally, by virtue of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, be subject to a 6 month time-limit.” (RPA 1983 refers to the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983.)
It goes on to highlight another deadline: “against a person in respect of any offence to which Section 176 applies must be commenced within one year after the offence was committed. For the purpose of Section 176, the laying of information is deemed to be the commencement of the proceedings. There are circumstances in which the time limit can be extended but an application to a Magistrates’ Court do so must be made within the 12 month time limit.”
So how long is the crucial evidence kept and under whose supervision?Six months or possibly a year is not long at all, but other deadlines are looming too as we will lose all right to appeal to the European Court when Boris Johnson crashes the UK out of the EU in December. This is a matter of dire urgency as the damage of this stolen vote could be catastrophic an irrevocable. Deciphering legal jargon is not in my skill-set. Anyone with the appropriate legal knowledge to be able to explain and elaborate on the information in these source links do please share your expertise with us here.
Re how long is the crucial evidence is kept for and under whose supervision? According to one of the Electoral Commission replies to my email inquiries I was told the following:
“Thank you for your e-mail below and also your earlier e-mail received yesterday at 13:00 these have both been forwarded to our Electoral Administration team and I have picked both of these up.
I will address your queries below in this e-mail and then respond to your further e-mail in due course. We produce guidance for Acting Returning Officers at a UKPGE including the Absent Voting processes which will give you much more detail on these processes. Our guidance is based on the relevant electoral legislation you can find this guidance in Part D Absent Voting and I have also attached a flowchart which outlines the postal vote opening process.”
Three of my questions included:
1. Are these A envelopes kept and stored for a period so that a check of the numbers can be made if a ballot box goes missing?
2. If they are kept where are they stored and for how long?
3. For how long are the ballots themselves retained after an election before they are destroyed?Replies were as follows:
“1 While there is no requirement to retain A envelopes they are routinely stored securely and kept for one year Part F of our guidance covers storage and disposal of documents following an election. Legislation provides for the recording of ballot paper numbers against an electors number via a Corresponding Number List (CNL). The CNL is used at the issue of postal ballot packs in the same way that a CNL is used in a polling station to record that a ballot paper has been given to an elector. A marked register of postal voters shows which postal ballot packs have been returned similar to the marked register in a polling station.2 Legislation requires that election documentation is kept securely, this is a matter for the Returning Officer and in practice this can be a secure strong room within the local authority or at other secure facilities.
3 One year.”
From this it would seem that the maximum window of opportunity for both gaining access to evidence and the Statute of Limitations for filing an Election Petition challenge is one year; not long, but we still have time.
How did the Brexit Campaign grow such sturdy legs to march us out of the EU? It caught on with the branding of its highly memorable name BREXIT. British exit from the EU was compacted into an easily recognizable abbreviation that drove home the core essence of its disastrous message. To get a story noticed it takes a really eye catching headline and a short, sharp, name brand that acts as a “hook” to lure the public’s interest over and over again. In recent years these powerful compacted messages have morphed into popular Hashtags that go viral on twitter.
Due to my lack of social media skills, I am not quite sure how one launches a successful Hashtag. However, I realize that exposing the atrocity of this stolen election requires a really memorable Hashtag. There are a few out there in circulation already: #VOTEFRAUD, #GEF2019, #ElectoralFraud, #ElectionFraud, #RiggedElection, #IDOX, etc., but they do not necessarily identify and lock-in the Tories as the sole culprits. I would suggest: #TORYRIG2019. Why might this compacted name propel our cause?
#TORYRIG2019 is a logical combination that says it all: the Tory rigging of an election in 2019: #TORYRIG2019. “Torrid” amply describes this scorching hot topic that we cannot allow to cool by chilling-out in apathetic acceptance as we head towards the Titanic failure of a crash-out Brexit slamming into the giant berg as we enter the Ice Age of our Democracy!
#TORYRIG2019 can also function as a bold standalone headline, inciting curiosity and intense public interest that will definitively separate this ongoing scandal from the known distractions of a multitude of historic incidents and reports of individuals charged with personating at the polls. It avoids publicising the Tory push for Voter ID that will disenfranchise millions of voters! This diversion has proved very effective so far as the Tories have been able to deflect legitimate accusations regarding ballot stuffing of the postal votes through their whataboutery where they point to Labour as the source of all voting fraud.
#TORYRIG2019 is an exclusively Tory issue; they own it lock stock and barrel. It would be propelled to the top of any Internet search on vote rigging, free and clear of all those other headlines about one off arrests or the scandal in Tower Hamlets. If #TORYRIG2019 shoots to the top of the search page it would facilitate information gathering by those interested in accessing the evidence on this specific rigged election favouring a Tory win using rigged postal votes. Rapidly finding results will rescue our campaign from the oblivion of page 2 search wilderness that no one goes to.
Here are a few related examples for down the line after #TORYRIG2019 has become well and truly established as a headline grabber: #TORYRIG2017 – For the Tories less successful attempt to steal our votes; thwarted by huge youth engagement and vastly increased Labour turnout. #BREXIRIG2016 – For the stolen Brexit Referendum vote in 2016. What about: #SCINDIRIG2014 – For the rigged Scottish Independence Referendum of 2014; that title has all the flare of a wildly swinging highland kilt!
Although neither of these recent two highly suspicious referendums can be directly attributed to Tory vote rigging alone the same methodology was being developed manipulating the outsourced handling of the electoral process among other underhand Tory tactics. #TORYRIG can be transferred to other earlier votes, which I am in little doubt the Tories also tried to rig before gaining full control via IDOX. Why do the Tories deserve to own this so completely? If the weaknesses were fully exposed any responsible government would act swiftly to close the safety loopholes and secure the electoral vote. The Tories are not at all interested in this area of vote security.
Do we need to go a lot further to restore true Democracy in the UK? The Labour Party would probably act decisively to renationalize our electoral process and they would not be afraid to follow the Venezuelan example to legitimize all future votes. We might even decide to join the ranks of civilized democracies by ditching our unrepresentative First Past the Post Elections process. We could also formulate a proper written constitution to protect our citizens rights and create a democratically elected second chamber to replace the “Vermin in Ermine” in the House of Lords.
But, urgent priority number one is to expose the truth and correct the gross injustice of this rigged election. So let’s get the message out there loud and clear with a distinctive headline grabbing Hashtag: #TORYRIG2019!
I posted a new petition on the Avaaz Website and it took an age of fiddling around to get it right. I doubt I can get many people to sign as I am not well connected on social media. I wanted a petition that targets fixing our insecure electoral system and demanding greater oversight as well as investigating the 2019 election. I would have added the picture here, but I didn’t know how to upload it. Please follow the embedded link to sign and they send it to friends, thanks.
2019 TORY LANDSLIDE VICTORY DEMANDS URGENT NATIONWIDE INVESTIGATION
Crown Prosecution Service Special Crime Division – Boris Johnson – Electoral Commission.The toothless Electoral Commission remit authorized by this government left the UK electoral system grossly insecure and highly susceptible to corruption with an open invitation to industrial scale vote rigging since it was privatized. Due to this unacceptable lack of scrutiny the integrity of both referendums and recent elections held in the interim cannot be guaranteed, placing the legitimacy of all the results in very serious jeopardy. Oil & Gas subsidiary Idox have rapidly expanded, absorbing smaller competitors, to monopolize this sector with zero Electoral Commission oversight:
A Watchdog that cannot watch is just a dog!Unprecedented vote swings are bound to appear highly suspicious following the revelation that the majority of UK vote handling was outsourced to one private company with the Idox Postal Vote Managed Service marred by powerful ties to the Tory Party. Democracy is strengthened by robust challenge: if there was no impropriety then there is no legitimate reason to resist an Electoral Petition.
We demand a comprehensive nationwide investigation into the 2019 election to expose the truth, confirm the validity of the results and rectify the ongoing damage to the integrity of our democracy.Manipulation of elections presents a growing menace to all free societies, with no safeguards to monitor outsourced vote handling systems and hackable computer files controlled by unaccountable companies drastically increasing that risk. When the votes of ordinary citizens are rigged or no longer counted, the majority of the electorate are rendered helpless and vulnerable to exploitation by the wealthy elite and powerful corporations. The UK Government has a duty to demonstrate a principled example by decisively eradicating all of the modern day threats to electoral integrity that are steadily delegitimizing the validity of claims to high office by the most influential political leaders worldwide.
You’re doing great Kim and your arguments are beautifully developed. Thanks.
https://twitter.com/Serec_Fourmyle/status/1221850961104207872
J – (Toussaint) Many Thanks for your valuable boost to get my petition noticed; I really appreciated seeing the complementary twitter post re: 2019 TORY LANDSLIDE VICTORY DEMANDS URGENT NATIONWIDE INVESTIGATION
I have been plodding away sending out emails to all my contacts some of whom have high profile Facebook pages. All of the other petitions, mostly posted on Change.org, appear to be stalled and not making any further headway. Mine differs in that it focuses on fixing what is wrong with the system as well as attempting to correct the injustice of the rigged 2019 Election. I am hoping this strategy will strike a nerve and the petition will go viral: do please pass the link on to friends
I do not understand why when I enter the title of my petition into the “duckduckgo” or “Bing” search engine the link to my petition page in AVAAZ tops the list. However, when I enter the petition title into a Google search I get zip! I have even tried to add the words “AVAAZ Petition” but Google still draws an absolute blank as if the page simply does not exist. Only when I paste the full length link into the link box and press the arrow does it finally go direct to the page.
Is Google falling down on the job or just steering me in the wrong direction because they too have an agenda? I am switching my searches to “duckduckgo.” Duckduckgo offer greater privacy and they do not track your search history. This is good if you do not want to be directed by algorithms and prefer to be guided by your own intuition. Any advise on this matter is welcome.
#TORYRIG2019 – Time to Fight Back! Problems were identified and alarm bells sounded well before the 2019 General Election, but all the warning signs were ignored; if anything the vulnerability was deliberately manipulated by the Tory call for a mid December election. This deceitful ploy was brought to my attention in a recent twitter post from: Postal Vote Investigation @PostalVoteProbe: “9m mainly young, low-income, renters and ethnic minorities. The election was called for Dec12 hampering efforts to register these voters as the normal annual canvass (house enquiry forms) on Dec 1st was disrupted. Is this why Labours vote dropped 3m?”
The dilemma identified in this Postal Vote Investigation tweet was the subject of a late October article in the Independent in the lead up to an impending General election: “Proposal for snap vote in December sparks fears of electoral roll chaos.” In the article the Independent reported that: “Britain is facing the possibility of electoral chaos if Boris Johnson pushes ahead with plans for a December general election. A pre-Christmas snap election would force officials to use two different electoral registers to manage voting, potentially leading to confusion and delays.” (my emphasis)
In retrospect the two differing electoral registers may indeed have accounted for the confusion, delays and also the large number of people unexpectedly denied the right to vote on polling day. This was chaos warned of well in advance so clearly chaos by design. The chaotic sotiation was relished by the Tories as it very deliberately suppressed the vote, although this will undoubtedly be strenuously denied with bogus claims of “unintentional consequences.”A supporting link in the tweet was to a late September 2019 Guardian article: “More than 9 million eligible UK voters ‘not correctly registered – Electoral Commission research prompts renewed calls for automatic registration” The piece featured: “Research by the Electoral Commission analysed electoral registers and found that 17% of eligible voters in Great Britain, as many as 9.4 million people, were either missing from the electoral register or not registered at their current address, with major errors affecting up to 5.6 million people.” Among the troubling facts that the research uncovered: “It highlighted stark differences in registration levels between younger people, renters, low-income and black and ethnic minority people, compared with older white people who own their homes.”
Statistics show that older home owners will be more likely to vote Tory while young people living in private rental accommodation, probably under precarious circumstances due to the reliance on insecure zero-hours contract jobs, would be easily excluded from voting. Surviving from pay check to pay check, possibly requiring Universal Credit and food banks just to get by while under the constant threat of a rapid eviction without cause, I sincerely doubt that this sector of the population would have voted for more exploitation and austerity under the Tories no matter how they felt about Brexit. However, the precarious nature of their low paid jobs would compound their total lack of tenancy rights, meaning that they would have been frequently required to up sticks and move quite suddenly, which is when and why they drop off the electoral register.
Labour manifesto pledges would have eliminated the exploitation advantage of hiring zero-hours contract staff, bringing stability and certainty to workers lives and a decent increase in the minimum wage to stem their reliance on Universal Credit top-ups and food bank use. A huge investment in social housing would provide secure tenancies with increased time residing at one stable address, but none of that is on the Tory agenda, because it decreases the opportunities for exploitation as well as getting working class and poorer voters registered to vote the toxic Tories out of office.
According to that Electoral Commission research: “Private renters remain the least likely to have up to date register entries (58%) compared to people who own their houses outright (91%). Registration levels are also low among young people aged 18-34, with only 71% correctly registered, compared to 94% for people aged 65 and over.” The sad reality for those 18-34 tear olds is that the vast majority of them do not earn enough money to be able to afford to leave home and even when they do their prosperity and livelihood is so tenuous that the slightest glitch puts them at the mercy of parental generosity or stranded to chose between sofa-surfing or sleeping rough on the streets.
All of this evidence of the disenfranchisement, of precarious living and the daily fight for survival helps debunk the fake-news that huge numbers of working class Labour voters went to the polls in droves to change allegiance and vote for five more years of pain and suffering under Tory rule. However, this is precisely the insecurity and dependence cycle the Tories intend to perpetuate to facilitate their remaining in power. Increased building of social housing would reduce property values for their wealthy supporters and end the exorbitant rental charge gravy-train channelling public money into their housing benefit provision slush fund. Those means tested to receive Universal Credit to top-up their pittance wages are not the target for this Tory engineered benefit: in reality that money goes to the employers who fail to pay a living wage.
Once the Tories manage to fully privatize our NHS another whole level of insecurity kicks in as those who receive health care coverage as a benefit of their jobs will live in fear of losing their job just as they do in the US. Once we no longer have the worker’s rights and protections of EU membership there will be a rapid shift to an American “business friendly” model that prioritizes corporate demands. This includes penalties for calling in sick more than three times in one year or for arriving at work late; breaks are at the discretion of the employer and overtime becomes mandatory in key sectors. Then there is the ability to fire employees without cause: “At Will” firing. This endangers us all as whistleblowers are effectively gagged and often marched out in disgrace surrounded by security as Dominic Cummins demonstrated with one of the number ten Special Advisors. Stripping away workers rights and crippling the power of UK unions was a key goal of Brexit.
This Guardian article reminds us that: “In 2014, the government introduced individual voter registration to reduce the possibility of electoral fraud. This prevented universities from registering students en bloc.” Many students were not deterred by this tactic and there was a massive surge in voter registrations from students eager to have their say, but the timing of the election targeted the one week they would most likely be on the move returning home for Christmas. They were free to select between their home constituency and their university location and hopefully used their vote wisely for the greatest impact. However, because of the poor timing of the election a large number of students decided to use a postal vote and we know from irate reports that vast swaths of their votes were invalidated and discarded.
The same Guardian article also notes that: “The ERS has also called for same-day registration systems to be trialled, allowing people to sign up on election day, as well as an online service to find out if people are registered.” They also pointed out that “You shouldn’t have to opt in to your right to vote. As the Electoral Commission note, we need to move towards automatic registration now, starting with being able to check you are registered online, and being able to register whenever you engage with government bodies or services. We know this works from other countries.” (ERS may actually refer to the Electoral Commission as a source of this input as the article was corrected.)
Under the Tories it is set to get a lot worse with the “Sledgehammer to crack a nut” proposal to introduce voter ID checks. The Guardian reported that: “Earlier this year, voter ID was made compulsory in 10 voting districts despite voter impersonation making up just 3% of all alleged electoral offences at the previous local election” It went on to say in conclusion that: “More than 100,000 people applied to register to vote in two days this month, with young people making up the bulk of the surge. However, it followed an almost 1% overall drop in those registered to vote between 2017-18.”
In a system that, in the words of one highly respected Judge. is now an open invitation to fraud “on an Industrial Scale,” how much worse could it get? Introducing voter ID could deliberately disenfranchise about three million potential voters who could not afford a passport or a driving license. The poor, minorities and the most vulnerable get wiped off the voting register with no ID due to lack of funds; no problem they were not likely to vote Tory. Students and the majority of young people subsisting in increasingly precarious circumstances will find it harder to stay registered; they probably do not support the Tories either.
Now the Tories have absolute control over government they can determine how Idox will secure total control over not just the postal vote but the entire voting system without any bothersome Watchdog oversight. Then to make the whole vote rigging system a lot easier to hack, and more reliable to rig, the Tories will introduce electronic voting machines just like the ones used to fraudulently corrupt so many US elections. Anyone who really thinks there will be another genuine opportunity to oust the Tories in five years time is totally delusional. If we fail to overturn this rigged election result within the next few months Boris Johnsons dictatorship will dominate our politics for decades. We need to Rescue or Watchdog! Please sign the AVAAZ Petition:
2019 TORY LANDSLIDE VICTORY DEMANDS URGENT NATIONWIDE INVESTIGATIONI have focused my comment pieces on the well recognized flaws that have rendered our Electoral System insecure with an open invitation to vote rigging since unaccountable private companies were allowed to handle the voting process without Electoral Commission oversight. Sector dominance by Idox, an Oil and Gas subsidiary with strong Ties to the Tory Party, further raised suspicions with the introduction of their comprehensive “Postal Vote Managed Service.” My online rants have targeted this latest most egregious abuse of our electoral system in the recent 2019 General Election, but strong warning signs should have prompted serious investigation and corrective measures as early as the 2014 Scottish Referendum when alarm bells were ignored.
After serious Postal Vote anomalies were identified during the Scottish Referendum, the obvious conflict of interest posed by Tory MP Peter Lilley’s directorship position at Idox compounded doubts regarding the validity of the Scottish Referendum result. The EU Referendum was marred by dodgy financial support, illegal foreign involvement, false promises, unreliable fake-news propaganda and outright lies. Despite the deliberate exclusion of crucial sectors of the UK population the media insisted that the flawed narrow victory for “Leave” in England and Wales represented the wholehearted “Will of the People” throughout the UK: an albatross that has been hung around our neck ever since.
Today I am truly devastated as there is certainly nothing to celebrate in this momentous step towards crashing out of the EU by year’s end. Aside from the absence of our MEPs nothing will drastically change until the end of this year. Is this seeming finality of Brexit completely irreversible? The real question we should be asking must be: was the referendum result legitimate and can we really trust the validity of two General Election results held since then? Was the 2016 referendum valid? If the 2017 Election result was rigged then Theresa May had no legitimate right to submit the Article 50 letter on behalf of the British people. If the 2019 vote is exposed as the corrupt result of a rigged election then Boris Johnson has no right to wrench us out of the EU without the final say that the majority of people in the UK want to have.
Legally there are established ways in which member states can chose to leave the EU, “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.” In other words, this would require the consent of the people in a vote that must abide by the official democratic electoral process in that member state. It cannot possibly endorse the deception and fraudulent rigging of a referendum vote that already excluded key sectors of the electorate who would be the most severely impacted by the result. This deliberate gerrymandering should have been challenged by the EU prior to the EU Referendum as it concerns the loss of critical rights and protections by British nationals living outside the UK and long-term taxpaying EU citizens residing in the UK.
We cannot simple ignore and accept this gross electoral injustice one more time as the stakes are far too high. Ultimately, the future of British democracy is now in very serious jeopardy. Unions and the right to strike are under serious attack; facial recognition technology and the proliferation of surveillance cameras threaten our right to protest. The accountability of the elite controlled tabloid press once under the potential scrutiny of Levison 2 was abandoned. Former Labour MP John Mann has been elevated to the Lords as “anti-Semitism Tsar” determined to crush alternative progressive outlets like the Canary. Despite their biased reporting during the election the BBC will come under tighter Tory control eliminating all dissenting opinions. We can no longer pretend to be living in a democracy in the UK!
Page 48 of the 2019 Tory Manifesto vaguely outlines an authoritarian agenda that bears all of the classic hallmarks of dictatorship. There is a pledge to eliminate any possibility of the judiciary curtailing Boris’s unlawful excesses among other damaging proposals that also include an “update” of our Human Rights! In an eye-opening pre-election article in the Independent entitled: “The Tory manifesto is a sign of things to come – an elected dictator who will scrap our democracy” Sean O’Grady warns that: “By, say, 2021, Boris Johnson will be free to just shut parliament down, for as long as he finds convenient. That really should frighten you. Don’t say he hasn’t tried to do it before.”
A direct quote from the now infamous page 48 of the Tory Manifesto should have scared every single voter in the UK regarding the horrendous implications of supporting the Conservative Party:
“After Brexit we also need to look at the broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the government, parliament and the courts; the functioning of the Royal prerogative; the role of the House of Lords; and access to justice for ordinary people. The ability of our security services to defend us against terrorism and organised crime is critical. We will update the Human Rights Act and administrative law to ensure that there is a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government.”The Fixed Term Parliament Act is set to be abolished, but it is for Boris alone to decide what will replace it: a ten year term? The Tories pledged to introduce voter ID, an insidious and unnecessary “sledgehammer to crack a nut” reform guaranteed to disproportionately disenfranchise over three million of the most vulnerable and impoverished voters who would be unlikely to vote Tory. Those who mistakenly believe that there will be a chance to remove the Tories from office in a free and fair election in five years time are hopelessly naive or totally delusional. With a huge parliamentary majority and Tory MPs sworn to absolute loyalty, we should expect introduction of easily hackable electronic voting machines that will make vote rigging a whole lot easier in future. These machines are responsible for widespread vote rigging in the US.
After securing absolute control and consolidated a comprehensive stranglehold on power it will quite literally take several decades to remove our newly unelected despot from office. Even if you do not believe that the 2019 vote was rigged there is a massive cloud of suspicion hanging over this General Election casting serious doubt on the legitimacy of this Tory Government. The only thing obscuring the reality of this doubt is the relentless stream of propaganda being pumped out by the BBC and MSM. We know that the Electoral Process remains extremely vulnerable to corrupt practices and vote rigging on an industrial scale; this must be exposed and corrected ASAP.
It is not too late to steer away from Boris’s Titanic Iceberg of a Tory Brexit crash-out disaster. We must demand greater electoral accountability and appropriate oversight in future elections. Citizens must have a reasonable opportunity to bring a legitimate Election Petition Challenge, with no excessively punitive deterrent for those submitting a case in good faith, plus the hope of a swift and decisive investigation with a fair resolution that might even include overturning the vote. The Electoral Commission requires a greatly expanded remit with regard to the oversight of outsourced private companies handling our votes: A Watchdog that cannot watch is just a dog! All Votes Must Count; Rescue our Watchdog!
Please read, sign share and Link to this Petition on AVAAZ:
2019 TORY LANDSLIDE VICTORY DEMANDS URGENT NATIONWIDE INVESTIGATION.Signed. Just for info: ‘Twitter bombarded with conspiracy theories after release of final Iowa poll AXED ahead of Democratic caucuses’:
https://www.rt.com/usa/479887-iowa-poll-withheld-bernie-conspiracy/?
Looks like the polls must have been overwhelming for Bernie.The other day I experienced great difficulty during multiple attempts to post my latest comment, but the fault may lie with my lengthy rants and the links I include to elaborate on the supporting information. Although this thread has grown to the point where it is slow to load, there is no reason why a brief comment might experience a similar problem. A huge wealth of information and links remain on this thread and I hope it will still attract visitors in future, but it might be best to consider posting replies elsewhere. So where?
On the advice of Moderators I have decided to launch a new thread with a connected title that captures the main thrust of what we have tried to accomplish here, although I adnit that may have altered slightly since it was started as a discussion forum. I wanted to raise awareness about the extreme vulnerability of our Electoral Services in the UK and how this might potentially have compromised the 2019 General Election and earlier votes.
Occasionally there might be links from the new thread to the material posted here as I will continue to push hard for an urgent nationwide investigation into the recent election. However, it will be less problematic to post new replies on a fresh, uncluttered discussion thread.
I must sincerely apologise to SA for monopolising your Elections Aftermath thread with my passion for this cause. I am very grateful to you for launching this important discussion and I really appreciate the input from yourself and other who have contributed evidence and information along the way. I want to thank the site Moderators, SA for starting this thread, and all those who have contributed their input so far.
I hope you will all follow and contribute to the new thread entitled: Elections Aftermath: Was our 2019 Vote & the EU Referendum Rigged? #TORYRIG2019. I am attempting to launch two new Hashtags: #TORYRIG2019 & #TORYWARPED2019 to help publicize this important issue, but I must admit I am a little clueless on how to go about accomplishing this task; I could use some tech savvy assistance.
Please also read, sign, share and Link to this Petition on AVAAZ:
2019 TORY LANDSLIDE VICTORY DEMANDS URGENT NATIONWIDE INVESTIGATION.W.A.R.P.E.D. Withdrawal Against the Rights of People’s Electoral Decision – #TORYWARPED2019
Some good news from across the Pond: ‘Kemp Loses Vote Purge Suit Brought by Reporter Palast’:
https://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Kemp-Loses-Vote-Purge-Suit-in-General_News-Brian-Kemp_Georgia_Georgia-Politics_Greg-Palast-200209-305.html
Pity he doesn’t take an interest in our ‘sewer’ system.
I have a horrible suspicion a ‘Higher (smelling) Court’ will reverse the Palast judgement.
- The topic ‘Elections aftermath’ is closed to new replies.