- Government’s first duty to protect the citizenry
- Unequivocal freedom of speech
- Border control Fiscal responsibility
- The state as servant, not master
- The law applied without fear or favour
- Low taxes
- An end to grooming gangs & their cover-ups
- A robust response to charlatan wokery
- Economic stability before Green virtue-signalling
jueves, 4 de julio de 2024
Opposition opening...
lunes, 30 de noviembre de 2020
Oval Office onslaught II...
Just a follow-up really to the previous post and to the mass of red flags; “the mass of red flags already raised in the 2020 POTUS election is getting to banana republic proportions.” And to the Five More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms [The Federalist] “Surely the journalist class should be intrigued by the historic implausibility of Joe Biden’s victory. That they are not is curious, to say the least.” …yep. Sadly, expected though, in the UK we have the same problem.
More on The American Spectator from Patrick Basham, Director of The Democracy Institute: Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling.
"To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what."It is an eye-opening read about many of the red flags; I have summarised, quoted, emphasised, edited slightly or paraphrased:
President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking re-election.
Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him.
He earned the highest share of all minority votes for a Republican since 1960.
Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent.
Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Only once since 1852 has a candidate lost after winning this trio (in 1960; John F. Kennedy's victory is still the subject of great suspicion).
Biden’s black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.
We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties…yet somehow outdid Obama in total votes.
The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained many seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and made gains at the state level.
Non-polling metrics: party registrations trends/ primary votes/ candidate enthusiasm/ social media followings/ broadcast and digital media ratings/ online searches/ the number of small donors/ the number of individuals betting on each candidate. These metrics have a 100% percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s re-election. For Trump… to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time…
In the article there follows a list of peculiarities, which also lack ‘compelling explanations’, including: many swing states stopped counting ballots and/or continued without the observers; statistically abnormal vote counts (spikes) were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio.
Late arriving ballots were counted/ impossible or extraordinary postal return dates (over 100k votes in PA alone in this category). The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, historically low absentee ballot rejection rates; missing votes/ voting machine USB cards. Non-resident voters: in Georgia alone, this category alone is larger than Biden’s winning vote margin. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases…
Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch.
Yet the MSM both sides of the Atlantic play dumb, insist on calling Biden “President-elect”, erroneously, and just play on The Donald’s inability to accept defeat. This is sinsiter and evil.
[edit 11:51] From the Federalist link above and underlining one of the anomalies in the non-polling metrics: "In the past, primary vote totals have been remarkably accurate in
predicting general election winners"... "no incumbent who has received 75 percent of the total primary vote has lost re-election"... President Trump "received 94 percent of the primary vote"... ... and at the same time "set a record for most primary votes received by an incumbent", in fact that was almost DOUBLE the previous high.
"For Biden to
prevail in the general election, despite Trump’s historic support in the
primaries, turns a century’s worth of prior election data on its head."
Like I said, sinister and evil and yet most of the world's media is singing la-la-la with its collective hands over its ears.
Oval Office onslaught II...
Just a follow-up really to the previous post and to the mass of red flags; “the mass of red flags already raised in the 2020 POTUS election is getting to banana republic proportions.” And to the Five More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms [The Federalist] “Surely the journalist class should be intrigued by the historic implausibility of Joe Biden’s victory. That they are not is curious, to say the least.” …yep. Sadly, expected though, in the UK we have the same problem.
More on The American Spectator from Patrick Basham, Director of The Democracy Institute: Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling.
"To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what."It is an eye-opening read about many of the red flags; I have summarised, quoted, emphasised, edited slightly or paraphrased:
President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking re-election. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him. He earned the highest share of all minority votes for a Republican since 1960. Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent. Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Only once since 1852 has a candidate lost after winning this trio (in 1960; John F. Kennedy's victory is still the subject of great suspicion).
Biden’s black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.
We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties…yet somehow outdid Obama in total votes.
The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained many seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and made gains at the state level.
Non-polling metrics: party registrations trends/ primary votes/ candidate enthusiasm/ social media followings/ broadcast and digital media ratings/ online searches/ the number of small donors/ the number of individuals betting on each candidate. These metrics have a 100% percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s re-election. For Trump… to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time…
In the article there follows a list of peculiarities, which also lack ‘compelling explanations’, including: many swing states stopped counting ballots and/or continued without the observers; statistically abnormal vote counts (spikes) were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio.
Late arriving ballots were counted/ impossible or extraordinary postal return dates (over 100k votes in PA alone in this category). The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, historically low absentee ballot rejection rates; missing votes/ voting machine USB cards. Non-resident voters: in Georgia alone, this category alone is larger than Biden’s winning vote margin. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases… Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch.
Yet the MSM both sides of the Atlantic play dumb, insist on calling Biden “President-elect”, erroneously, and just play on The Donald’s inability to accept defeat. This is sinsiter and evil.
[edit 11:51] From the Federalist link above and underlining one of the anomalies in the non-polling metrics: "In the past, primary vote totals have been remarkably accurate in predicting general election winners"... "no incumbent who has received 75 percent of the total primary vote has lost re-election"... President Trump "received 94 percent of the primary vote"... ... and at the same time "set a record for most primary votes received by an incumbent", in fact that was almost DOUBLE the previous high.
"For Biden to prevail in the general election, despite Trump’s historic support in the primaries, turns a century’s worth of prior election data on its head."Like I said, sinister and evil and yet most of the world's media is singing la-la-la with its collective hands over its ears.
viernes, 20 de noviembre de 2020
Obvious out-of overspend
POTUS election 2020. "Fundraising by federal candidates: In previous presidential election cycles before the 2020 election, fundraising by Democrats and Republicans remained relatively even." From The Center for Responsive Politics (Open Secrets.org)
But the main image seen above - from the article - is only one of the amazing changes: look at the out-of-state donors to state-level candidates (donations of money coming in from a different state) and the Democrats have a 75% to 25% 'lead' (currently). This is clearly the ultra wealthy living in the Clinton Archipelago* trying to buy out the fly-over states/rust belt voters. I have personal anecdotes from colleagues and family in two of those states where the overt overspend was blatant and in both cases the Democrats still lost: they hadn't banked on an overwhelming turnout for Trump. Just as well then that the small donor portion of the overall also increased:
"Candidates for Congress and the presidency raised a combined $1.8 billion from small donors in the record-breaking 2020 election cycle. That's three times the 2016 total."
...with 45 percent of donations recieved for incumbent POTUS Donald Trump's coming from said voters giving USD200 of less. This is the best small-dollar showing for a Republican presidential candidate.
In other snippets: [The Guardian] "That is, in a year when a black woman was on a major party ticket for the first time in US history, the margin between Democrats and Republicans among black women shifted 9 percentage points in the other direction – towards Trump."
Trump saw comparable gains with Black and Hispanic men as well. What changed in the racial and gender dynamics this cycle to produce these apparently extraordinary results? The truth is, absolutely nothing. These trends have been underway for the entirety of Trump’s public life.
Also, if Biden is actually certified - no, no, I mean the VOTE - it would mean that no fewer than ten bellwether counties lost their record: [including] Valencia County in NM and Vigo County IN, whose winning streaks go back to 1952 and 1956 respectively.
[added p.m.] Also, just looking at these totals provokes so many questions.
* I looked back when I mentioned this in 2016 and was interested to see the date: that DJT had only recently been certified...3rd week of December 2016.
Update from 23rd Nov, 5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms
Obvious out-of overspend
POTUS election 2020. "Fundraising by federal candidates: In previous presidential election cycles before the 2020 election, fundraising by Democrats and Republicans remained relatively even." From The Center for Responsive Politics (Open Secrets.org) But the main image seen above - from the article - is only one of the amazing changes: look at the out-of-state donors to state-level candidates (donations of money coming in from a different state) and the Democrats have a 75% to 25% 'lead' (currently). This is clearly the ultra wealthy living in the Clinton Archipelago* trying to buy out the fly-over states/rust belt voters. I have personal anecdotes from colleagues and family in two of those states where the overt overspend was blatant and in both cases the Democrats still lost: they hadn't banked on an overwhelming turnout for Trump. Just as well then that the small donor portion of the overall also increased:
"Candidates for Congress and the presidency raised a combined $1.8 billion from small donors in the record-breaking 2020 election cycle. That's three times the 2016 total."
...with 45 percent of donations recieved for incumbent POTUS Donald Trump's coming from said voters giving USD200 of less. This is the best small-dollar showing for a Republican presidential candidate.
In other snippets: [The Guardian] "That is, in a year when a black woman was on a major party ticket for the first time in US history, the margin between Democrats and Republicans among black women shifted 9 percentage points in the other direction – towards Trump."
Trump saw comparable gains with Black and Hispanic men as well. What changed in the racial and gender dynamics this cycle to produce these apparently extraordinary results? The truth is, absolutely nothing. These trends have been underway for the entirety of Trump’s public life.
Also, if Biden is actually certified - no, no, I mean the VOTE - it would mean that no fewer than ten bellwether counties lost their record: [including] Valencia County in NM and Vigo County IN, whose winning streaks go back to 1952 and 1956 respectively.
[added p.m.] Also, just looking at these totals provokes so many questions.
* I looked back when I mentioned this in 2016 and was interested to see the date: that DJT had only recently been certified...3rd week of December 2016.
Update from 23rd Nov, 5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms
viernes, 7 de junio de 2019
Overall optimism...
Despite the disappointing (but very positive!) result in Peterborough The Brexit Party has every reason to be cheerful. The whole might of Labour's electoral juggernaut was brought to bear and they only squeaked the win by fewer than 700 votes. The good news is that "The Brexit Party takes the lead for the first time in our latest YouGov/Times Westminster voting intention survey, on 26% of the vote." Now that the pollsters are actually listing TBP as one of the choices, that choice is being made. The Lib Dem blip last week is history...I hope.
TBP say in a communication to supporters: "Our party is just eight weeks old. We had only two weeks to campaign after our tremendous victory in the European elections. Yet we came within 683 votes of unseating the Labour Party and we beat the Tories into third."
"Peterborough was 201st on the Brexit Party’s list of potentially winnable Westminster seats. If we can come so close there, then no Labour or Tory seat is safe any longer."
Maybe I shouldn't mix two subjects but there is a lot of background noise that the 'block postal vote' won it for Labour; certainly wouldn't be the first time for Labour, nor in Peterborough! Last year they became part of a scheme ("Peterborough is one of eight areas in England to take part in a Voter Pilot scheme to help combat electoral fraud") [edit: ** see update below] "which aims to reduce the risk of election fraud and ensure voters have confidence in the electoral system." I wonder what they found. Apparently yesterday about 20% of the cast votes were actually postal votes...about 6000 votes. Last nights pictures of a certain ethnicity celebrating was food for thought: relevant old post about overwhelmingly one ethnicity (and ususally one community!) being involved? From that post:
“Postal voting on demand is inherently unsatisfactory. The whole system is open to abuse. Secret ballots were introduced in 1872 to stop exactly this sort of problem and we now seem to be going back to the 19th century.”
This by Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, an academic expert on elections: worth a read Electoral Omission, and in full HERE in PDF, the "dramatic decline in the quality of the electoral registers between 2006 and 2014"; voting fraud is rife and The Electoral Commission is "still a flawed institution"...we know from recent shenanigans it still is, probably worse.
**[Update 20:30] Talking of probably worse, thanks to anon who posted THIS LINK: it appears that "A scheme to stop voter fraud in Peterborough has been stopped because of city MP Fiona Onasanya’s conviction and sentence."... ..".A spokesperson for Peterborough City Council said: "We have spoken to the Cabinet Office about our pilot and it has been agreed that, for this year, we will not do a pilot as other election/democratic processes may have to be undertaken due to the conviction of our MP.”"
WTF?!! This really stinks: an election shouldn't be an excuse to stop the postal vote [fraud] pilot; it is the PERFECT time to test the scheme!
Overall optimism...
Despite the disappointing (but very positive!) result in Peterborough The Brexit Party has every reason to be cheerful. The whole might of Labour's electoral juggernaut was brought to bear and they only squeaked the win by fewer than 700 votes. The good news is that "The Brexit Party takes the lead for the first time in our latest YouGov/Times Westminster voting intention survey, on 26% of the vote." Now that the pollsters are actually listing TBP as one of the choices, that choice is being made. The Lib Dem blip last week is history...I hope.
TBP say in a communication to supporters: "Our party is just eight weeks old. We had only two weeks to campaign after our tremendous victory in the European elections. Yet we came within 683 votes of unseating the Labour Party and we beat the Tories into third."
"Peterborough was 201st on the Brexit Party’s list of potentially winnable Westminster seats. If we can come so close there, then no Labour or Tory seat is safe any longer."
Maybe I shouldn't mix two subjects but there is a lot of background noise that the 'block postal vote' won it for Labour; certainly wouldn't be the first time for Labour, nor in Peterborough! Last year they became part of a scheme ("Peterborough is one of eight areas in England to take part in a Voter Pilot scheme to help combat electoral fraud") [edit: ** see update below] "which aims to reduce the risk of election fraud and ensure voters have confidence in the electoral system." I wonder what they found. Apparently yesterday about 20% of the cast votes were actually postal votes...about 6000 votes. Last nights pictures of a certain ethnicity celebrating was food for thought: relevant old post about overwhelmingly one ethnicity (and ususally one community!) being involved? From that post:
“Postal voting on demand is inherently unsatisfactory. The whole system is open to abuse. Secret ballots were introduced in 1872 to stop exactly this sort of problem and we now seem to be going back to the 19th century.”This by Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, an academic expert on elections: worth a read Electoral Omission, and in full HERE in PDF, the "dramatic decline in the quality of the electoral registers between 2006 and 2014"; voting fraud is rife and The Electoral Commission is "still a flawed institution"...we know from recent shenanigans it still is, probably worse.
**[Update 20:30] Talking of probably worse, thanks to anon who posted THIS LINK: it appears that "A scheme to stop voter fraud in Peterborough has been stopped because of city MP Fiona Onasanya’s conviction and sentence."... ..".A spokesperson for Peterborough City Council said: "We have spoken to the Cabinet Office about our pilot and it has been agreed that, for this year, we will not do a pilot as other election/democratic processes may have to be undertaken due to the conviction of our MP.”"
WTF?!! This really stinks: an election shouldn't be an excuse to stop the postal vote [fraud] pilot; it is the PERFECT time to test the scheme!
martes, 31 de mayo de 2016
Oath of office...
| Sign the petition HERE |
If (and when, I hope) Leave wins, we could still be kept in the EU (as many of us suspect anyway). Here's how, text, partly edited, is borrowed from eforce on this Zero Hedge article: Brits "Appalled, Disgusted" At Brexit Postal Ballot 'Fraud' re, obviously, a probable Postal Vote stitch up in the coming EU Referendum. This info can also be confirmed HERE ("Was Britain Taken Into The EU Illegally?" on Vernon Coleman's interesting and informative website. I am also inclined to recall the Treason.
"The machinery to keep the UK as part of the EU was decided long before the referendum was announced.
The referendum is just a safety valve to placate those citizens upset by the way they have little say in how their affairs are decided.
[Previously] one could go to the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand and lay a complaint at common law that someone had caused you harm or loss. There would be no charge to lay such a complaint, neither would there be any court costs because as Magna Carta dictates - justice should be free and available to all.
About that time Lord Levenson introduced his Guide to the Queens Bench (The Queen's Bench Guide - PDF)
In this he describes the three different catagories of Queens Bench but omits the fourth, the common law court of record. Who knows precisely why he did that; but a fair guess is that any one UK resident could make a complaint at common law that his prime minister had caused him harm by giving away his sovereignty.
The judge in a common law court goes on his oath of office. If he does not follow precedent he can be sued. In all other courts although the man [...] is called a judge in law he is not a judge. He is just a clerk working for the company known as the ministry of justice. This is why they are called administrative courts which conduct the business of the court. These pretend judges cannot be sued because the rules of the business, a statute also called an act with exactly the same meaning as a stage act, created by parliament, has given these clerks a protected status. This means that they do not have to follow the rules of law that the rest of the population have to do. You might now understand why some very strange decisions are made by these pretend judges.
One persistent man was able to get past the Clerks at Royal Courts of Justice but when he tried to present his case at common law, the judge said he had no jurisdiction because he refused to go on his oath of office.
You might now be wondering what this has to do with the referendum. It's because Cameron has already stated that he will use the Lisbon treaty to leave the EU if the vote is to leave. Bear in mind that when in opposition, Cameron rubbished the Lisbon treaty. He knows that it was designed by unelected bureaucrats to make it difficult for any country to leave and anyway is subject to qualified majority voting.
After June the 23rd and we vote to exit the EU, the population will breathe a sigh of relief that it's all over and leave it to the politicians to get on with it; after all isn't that what we pay them for.?.
This is where Cameron and Osborne are correct. All parties agree that it will take at least two years of negotiations during which time the uncertainty will cause the predicted depression in the economy. This will reverse most of the opinions of the leave group who will change their mind and agree to stay in.
During which time Parliament will vote through the bill which is waiting in the wings, having already been debated and just waiting to be signed into law.
THIS ACT, not reported in the media, removes from the Queen the duty to veto a bill that is against her subject's sovereignty.
You might be puzzling and wonder what this has to do with Parliament's duty to act in the public's interest. Wonder no more.
Before 1972 when Prime Minister Edward Heath signed the Treaty of Rome for us to join the common market, now the EU. he asked the top law officer at the time the legal implications of signing the treaty. This man, the Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir described our constitution evolving from Magna Carta and even before, and wrote that giving away our sovereignty to another state would be illegal. Heath still signed it and misled parliament by stating that there was no loss of sovereignty. Before he died he admitted his conduct in his memoirs.
Here an understanding of the international law of treaties will help you see what the government's problem is and what is really is motivating them. Any treaty where fraud or deception is used is immediately null and void. So since 1972 when more illegal treaties have been signed the government has kept this fact from you.
The letter was hidden under the thirty year rule but was prized from the archives by an activist. Then the government machine was cranked up to block any move to expose the subject to the public. The media know of the letter but dare not discuss it. The eurosceptic politicians know of the letter but will not admit in public to it's existence. So you have the British public in a state of confusion with all the lying statistics from both sides of the Brexit argument. Don't you think that their minds would be clarified if they knew that we had joined the EU by power mad controllers who lied to them?"
[See the letter and sign the petition HERE]
"If this petition gets to 10,000 before 23rd June, the government has to comment on it...
[...] Sign the petition. Get this letter's contents into the public domain and you can then demand that the treaties be declared null and void so that the laws that gave away our sovereignty back to 1972 would revert back to the position pertaining in 1972.
Follow the thought through and you will realise that our exclusive 12 mile fishing boundary would be returned over night. Alright there might be some stock market jitters but the jitters felt by the other EU countries would cause them to consider what best suits them is for our trading arrangements to remain the same. The European army and other evils we could just walk away without too much trouble. So please do not let these politicians confuse you by their convoluted rhetoric. The matter is clear and simple. The EU treaties are against our laws. We the people need to get this fact out to one and all."
jueves, 7 de mayo de 2015
Obvious offences; open omissions...
![]() |
| Image credit Horatio at the News Hub [Link] |
The most corrupt elections for 150 years writes Raedwald. He goes on to note that voter registration problems will skew the result, adding:
"...there are 3m folk on the rolls who should not be there and 3m missing who should be.** And add to this the total cock-up over getting postal ballots out to up to a million expats after 20th April that means many who wish to vote are unable to do so."
As one commentator there says, with fixed-term parliaments they know 5 years in advance when the election is going to be, even if it has to change the actual date by a week or even a month or two there is no excuse not to have these delivered anything up to a year before the election! Postal voting (from 2001) plus mass immigration ("...voting fraud and intimidation are rife in certain Commonwealth population constituencies", LOL, great way of putting it!) that can be laid squarely at the feet of New Labour, Blair, Brown and Co. have made things so bad but the Coalition haven't even got near sorting out the mess (Lib Dem dummy-spitting to blame for the "failure to eliminate Labour's corrupt advantage from Electoral Quotients").
Then we have Birmingham Muslims (city with 1 million + population, 20% Muslim) ordered to vote Labour and the chronic bias of the BBC [Google search] and my blood pressure is through the roof.
** Info from Michael Pinto-Duschinsky (Senior Consultant on Constitutional Affairs to Policy Exchange). Electoral Omission study [PDF] is well worth a read, depressing though it is: on the UK Electoral Register there are 13 to 15.5 Million Errors (doubled since 2006); the "dramatic decline in the quality of the electoral registers between 2006 and 2014"; voting fraud is rife and The Electoral Commission is "still a flawed institution".
Obvious offences; open omissions...
![]() |
| Image credit Horatio at the News Hub [Link] |
"...there are 3m folk on the rolls who should not be there and 3m missing who should be.** And add to this the total cock-up over getting postal ballots out to up to a million expats after 20th April that means many who wish to vote are unable to do so."As one commentator there says, with fixed-term parliaments they know 5 years in advance when the election is going to be, even if it has to change the actual date by a week or even a month or two there is no excuse not to have these delivered anything up to a year before the election! Postal voting (from 2001) plus mass immigration ("...voting fraud and intimidation are rife in certain Commonwealth population constituencies", LOL, great way of putting it!) that can be laid squarely at the feet of New Labour, Blair, Brown and Co. have made things so bad but the Coalition haven't even got near sorting out the mess (Lib Dem dummy-spitting to blame for the "failure to eliminate Labour's corrupt advantage from Electoral Quotients").
Then we have Birmingham Muslims (city with 1 million + population, 20% Muslim) ordered to vote Labour and the chronic bias of the BBC [Google search] and my blood pressure is through the roof.
** Info from Michael Pinto-Duschinsky (Senior Consultant on Constitutional Affairs to Policy Exchange). Electoral Omission study [PDF] is well worth a read, depressing though it is: on the UK Electoral Register there are 13 to 15.5 Million Errors (doubled since 2006); the "dramatic decline in the quality of the electoral registers between 2006 and 2014"; voting fraud is rife and The Electoral Commission is "still a flawed institution".
Obvious offences; open omissions...
![]() |
| Image credit Horatio at the News Hub [Link] |
"...there are 3m folk on the rolls who should not be there and 3m missing who should be.** And add to this the total cock-up over getting postal ballots out to up to a million expats after 20th April that means many who wish to vote are unable to do so."As one commentator there says, with fixed-term parliaments they know 5 years in advance when the election is going to be, even if it has to change the actual date by a week or even a month or two there is no excuse not to have these delivered anything up to a year before the election! Postal voting (from 2001) plus mass immigration ("...voting fraud and intimidation are rife in certain Commonwealth population constituencies", LOL, great way of putting it!) that can be laid squarely at the feet of New Labour, Blair, Brown and Co. have made things so bad but the Coalition haven't even got near sorting out the mess (Lib Dem dummy-spitting to blame for the "failure to eliminate Labour's corrupt advantage from Electoral Quotients").
Then we have Birmingham Muslims (city with 1 million + population, 20% Muslim) ordered to vote Labour and the chronic bias of the BBC [Google search] and my blood pressure is through the roof.
** Info from Michael Pinto-Duschinsky (Senior Consultant on Constitutional Affairs to Policy Exchange). Electoral Omission study [PDF] is well worth a read, depressing though it is: on the UK Electoral Register there are 13 to 15.5 Million Errors (doubled since 2006); the "dramatic decline in the quality of the electoral registers between 2006 and 2014"; voting fraud is rife and The Electoral Commission is "still a flawed institution".
sábado, 15 de febrero de 2014
Obnubilation obloquy: official...
As usual not much can be read into the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election; UKIP did come second as most were predicting and are set to make many more headlines in the Euro elections in May...but what is so shocking and a dire reflection of the state of hoi polloi is their almost total lack of participation in how and who runs the country: it is woeful when you read the figures: yes turnout is low at by-elections but here less than 2 in 10 people turned up to vote (1.63). Total turnout was a little over 28%, around 24,000 votes BUT postal votes accounted for over 10,000. 72% didn't vote: the winner got about 15% of the electorate. Classy.
Now, 42% of votes in this by-election being postal votes is nowhere near a record (58%!) but it does increase the worry: seven years ago it had already been going on too long (yet another New Labour shit-fest we are stuck with for over a decade) but was largely deemed to be a problem in certain cities and certain 'communities'; however, political campaigns and improving situations and 'events, dear boy, events' mean nothing if half the electorate are already hard-wired in having already voted. Corruption, 'Banana Republic', 'inherently unsatisfactory', gross manipulation, abuse of the system...end it now!
Obnubilation obloquy: official...
As usual not much can be read into the Wythenshawe and Sale East by-election; UKIP did come second as most were predicting and are set to make many more headlines in the Euro elections in May...but what is so shocking and a dire reflection of the state of hoi polloi is their almost total lack of participation in how and who runs the country: it is woeful when you read the figures: yes turnout is low at by-elections but here less than 2 in 10 people turned up to vote (1.63). Total turnout was a little over 28%, around 24,000 votes BUT postal votes accounted for over 10,000. 72% didn't vote: the winner got about 15% of the electorate. Classy.
Now, 42% of votes in this by-election being postal votes is nowhere near a record (58%!) but it does increase the worry: seven years ago it had already been going on too long (yet another New Labour shit-fest we are stuck with for over a decade) but was largely deemed to be a problem in certain cities and certain 'communities'; however, political campaigns and improving situations and 'events, dear boy, events' mean nothing if half the electorate are already hard-wired in having already voted. Corruption, 'Banana Republic', 'inherently unsatisfactory', gross manipulation, abuse of the system...end it now!
lunes, 25 de noviembre de 2013
Overwhelmingly of one...
...community. Yes, overwhelmingly of one community. ..." [he] knew what he was saying and was right to say it. By all means ask him to explain, but he shouldn't have to apologise"; why has Dominic Grieve apologised? " Hat-tip to Thoughtful: "So that must mean that the Electoral commission are also racist' and must be forced to apologise for telling the truth" because HERE (pdf) in their Electoral Fraud in the UK: Evidence and Issues paper comes the following:
"There are strongly held views, based in particular on reported first-hand experience by some campaigners and elected representatives in particular, that electoral fraud is more likely to be committed by or in support of candidates standing for election in areas which are largely or predominately populated by some South Asian communities, specifically those with roots in parts of Pakistan or Bangladesh. These concerns reflect issues also highlighted by a small number of previous studies of political and electoral participation. These studies have suggested that extended family and community networks may have been mobilised to secure the support of large numbers of electors in some areas, effectively constituting a ‘block vote’ – although this does not necessarily involve electoral fraud. They also argue that the wider availability of postal voting in Great Britain since 2001 may have increased the risk of electoral fraud associated with this approach, as the greater safeguards of secrecy provided in polling stations are removed." [my emphasis]
Thoughful's list of clearly 'South Asian' names led me to dig further: the government's own website: "Postal voting and electoral fraud 2001-09 - Commons Library Standard Note", HERE where you can download their pdf file: you will read (part 8, Chronology) that there have been at least 42 convictions for electoral fraud in the UK in the period 2000–2007; here are those named in the government's own paper: Mohammed Hussain, Mohammed Choudhary, Ahmad Ali, Mozaquir Ali, Manzoor Hussain, Dessie Stewart, Jamshed Khan, Iftkhar Hussain, Khurshid Ahmed, Sajid Mehmood, Mohammed Khan, Naseem Akhtar, Adeel Hanif , Maqbool Hussein, Tariq Mahmood, Haroon Rashid (later cleared) Jamshed Khan, Reis Khan, Eshaq Khan, Mohammed Anzal Anwar, Norman Whitlock, Mohammed Chaudhary Saghir, Abdul Razaq, Raja Akhtar, Mohammed Khaliq , John Hall, Nawaz Khan, Ian Withers (…of Antrim was fined 1p; he had refused to give his national insurance number and was arrested for electoral fraud), Mahboob Khan, Basharat Khan, Arshad Raja, Altaf Khan, Gulnawaz Khan, Anisur Rahman...do you see what it is yet? It is a cross party problem BUT it IS clearly a problem and overwhelmingly within ONE community!
Pakistani MPs and MEPs from all parties have [edit] complained about what Dominic Grieve said, plus Mohammed Shafiq (chief exec Ramadhan Foundation and usually sensible) said: "Mr. Grieve's mentioned one incident in Slough which was dealt with by the courts and had not produced any further evidence of an endemic problem with corruption." [Link] Jeez, I doubt washing in the Pool of Siloam would help such blindness.
Overwhelmingly of one...
...community. Yes, overwhelmingly of one community. ..." [he] knew what he was saying and was right to say it. By all means ask him to explain, but he shouldn't have to apologise"; why has Dominic Grieve apologised? " Hat-tip to Thoughtful: "So that must mean that the Electoral commission are also racist' and must be forced to apologise for telling the truth" because HERE (pdf) in their Electoral Fraud in the UK: Evidence and Issues paper comes the following:
"There are strongly held views, based in particular on reported first-hand experience by some campaigners and elected representatives in particular, that electoral fraud is more likely to be committed by or in support of candidates standing for election in areas which are largely or predominately populated by some South Asian communities, specifically those with roots in parts of Pakistan or Bangladesh. These concerns reflect issues also highlighted by a small number of previous studies of political and electoral participation. These studies have suggested that extended family and community networks may have been mobilised to secure the support of large numbers of electors in some areas, effectively constituting a ‘block vote’ – although this does not necessarily involve electoral fraud. They also argue that the wider availability of postal voting in Great Britain since 2001 may have increased the risk of electoral fraud associated with this approach, as the greater safeguards of secrecy provided in polling stations are removed." [my emphasis]Thoughful's list of clearly 'South Asian' names led me to dig further: the government's own website: "Postal voting and electoral fraud 2001-09 - Commons Library Standard Note", HERE where you can download their pdf file: you will read (part 8, Chronology) that there have been at least 42 convictions for electoral fraud in the UK in the period 2000–2007; here are those named in the government's own paper: Mohammed Hussain, Mohammed Choudhary, Ahmad Ali, Mozaquir Ali, Manzoor Hussain, Dessie Stewart, Jamshed Khan, Iftkhar Hussain, Khurshid Ahmed, Sajid Mehmood, Mohammed Khan, Naseem Akhtar, Adeel Hanif , Maqbool Hussein, Tariq Mahmood, Haroon Rashid (later cleared) Jamshed Khan, Reis Khan, Eshaq Khan, Mohammed Anzal Anwar, Norman Whitlock, Mohammed Chaudhary Saghir, Abdul Razaq, Raja Akhtar, Mohammed Khaliq , John Hall, Nawaz Khan, Ian Withers (…of Antrim was fined 1p; he had refused to give his national insurance number and was arrested for electoral fraud), Mahboob Khan, Basharat Khan, Arshad Raja, Altaf Khan, Gulnawaz Khan, Anisur Rahman...do you see what it is yet? It is a cross party problem BUT it IS clearly a problem and overwhelmingly within ONE community!
Pakistani MPs and MEPs from all parties have [edit] complained about what Dominic Grieve said, plus Mohammed Shafiq (chief exec Ramadhan Foundation and usually sensible) said: "Mr. Grieve's mentioned one incident in Slough which was dealt with by the courts and had not produced any further evidence of an endemic problem with corruption." [Link] Jeez, I doubt washing in the Pool of Siloam would help such blindness.
viernes, 3 de mayo de 2013
Observing oddities III...
Nothing much to say about the local elections except perhaps I was very surprised that the 'council' country is still largely black and blue. The South Shields by-election however had a few interesting points: hardly a surprise that Labour won: with only one non-Labour MP since 1929 and no Conservative EVER it was a foregone conclusion. They say turn-out was low but that doesn't tell the whole story: it was 39% turnout but actual real people visiting the polling booth was a mere 25%: postal votes boosted the turnout massively: 58% of the total vote were postal votes! I have called the graph double dip because Labour polled just over double UKIP (2nd) who polled just over double Conservative (3rd) who polled just over double Ahmed Khan (Independent, 4th) who polled just under double the votes of Independent Socialist (5th) and BNP (6th) who polled just over double the Lib Dems (7th)...
Observing oddities III...
Nothing much to say about the local elections except perhaps I was very surprised that the 'council' country is still largely black and blue. The South Shields by-election however had a few interesting points: hardly a surprise that Labour won: with only one non-Labour MP since 1929 and no Conservative EVER it was a foregone conclusion. They say turn-out was low but that doesn't tell the whole story: it was 39% turnout but actual real people visiting the polling booth was a mere 25%: postal votes boosted the turnout massively: 58% of the total vote were postal votes! I have called the graph double dip because Labour polled just over double UKIP (2nd) who polled just over double Conservative (3rd) who polled just over double Ahmed Khan (Independent, 4th) who polled just under double the votes of Independent Socialist (5th) and BNP (6th) who polled just over double the Lib Dems (7th)...
sábado, 18 de abril de 2009
Odd occurances (11)...
"...some areas where the votes were being counted and collated were obscured from view. ...[The Electoral Commission] also voiced concern over aspects of the arrangements for postal voting."And there's more: (Yorkshire Post) "One of Yorkshire's best known Labour members has launched a ferocious attack on the party and Gordon Brown"... "Alice Mahon, a Halifax MP for 18 years and a party member for more than 50 years, has resigned her membership of the party saying she can no longer stomach how it operates". h/t Guido.
Update 7pm (BST) In Message 230 on Guidos' blogpost Susan Stevens says - regarding another reason for Alice Mahon's resigning her party membership - "the method of selection of the Calder Valley Labour candidate last week. This is Cherie Blair’s step-mum, Steph Booth, who won with a majority from a large number of postal votes against another woman who had a majority of those present at the meeting." My emphasis.
The pattern is clear...any investigative journalists up to it?
Update 9pm (BST) Well it shouldn't be difficult to find something: The Halifax Courier says: "She was chosen in favour of the Mayor of Hebden Royd, Sue Press, at a packed meeting of Party members in Mytholmroyd Bowling Club last night." Clearly giving the impression that the packed meeting voted for Booth, except that they didn't: the Yorkshire Post tells us that Mrs Booth won by an almost 2-1 majority, 95-52 but of the 95 cast for Booth 73 were postal votes and for Susan Press only 17 were postal votes. h/t John BM
lunes, 30 de abril de 2007
Official obnubilation or obloquy...
Figures seen by the BBC suggest the problem was worse than first thought.In four other wards, where there were allegations of fraud at the time but no formal enquiry, more than half the postal voters have disappeared from the list.
Election commissioner Richard Mawrey QC upheld allegations of postal fraud relating to six seats won by Labour in the ballot of 10 June 2004.Judge Mawrey said evidence of "massive, systematic and organised fraud" in the campaign had made a mockery of the election and ruled that not less than 1,500 votes had been cast fraudulently in the city.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
obloquy n. - abuse; disgrace. oblocutor, n. one who denies or disputes
obnubilation n. - beclouding or obscuring; obfuscation
X marks the spot...Vote rigging? It seems that this year extra checks have been introduced following a series of allegations of vote rigging, ...allegations...I'm sure there has been some sort of fraud ever since postal voting was introduced in 2001. In 2002 there were problems with irregularities in the electoral roll [BBC Link] and who could forget the famous quote from a judge investigating the vote rigging in Birmingham's 2004 local elections who said he had heard evidence of fraud that...
"would disgrace a banana republic".However now there has been a large increase in applications for postal votes and there is concern that the computers that will do the counting (and checking of signatures) may not be able to cope, if not then manual checking will be the fallback...why not just have manual checking in the first place?...it may take time but it will safer and less open to rigging. All that said I was somewhat horrified to read of what, in my opinion, is downright criminal corruption; the following excerpts are shocking: full article from the Times Online HERE.
Hyde (Graham Hyde, a Labour councillor, working as a parliamentary aide to the local MP George Mudie) warned: "Put the postal vote form out of sight...Don’t get caught with any on you. We are not supposed to collect them."
"He appeared well aware of the ramifications of what he was suggesting. One of the students conspiratorially told the group he believed that what they were doing was “illegal”. Hyde responded: “Yes it is. But we’ve done 25% already, so...”
"Last year Labour’s activities in the ward were the subject of complaints from rival candidates. One said: “Local Labour voters were going door to door, pressuring people to fill in their votes and then delivering sacks up to the polling station."
"At the count, the ballot boxes were opened first and the Liberal Democrats had a commanding lead. Then the postal votes were opened and they were almost all Labour. everyone present had suspicions that something was afoot.""Complaints about the activities of the Labour teams canvassing door-to-door were made to the police, who wrote a strongly worded letter to all the parties warning them to abide by the code of conduct.
Despite repeated warnings, the government failed to introduce safeguards to make the system secure. Political parties rushed to persuade hundreds of thousands of people to sign up for postal votes and experts now fear fraud is endemic.
The government has repeatedly refused to tighten up the system... In the forthcoming election, postal voters are simply asked to provide a signature and date of birth, although fears are also mounting that new electronic verification machines will be unable to cope."
“Postal voting on demand is inherently unsatisfactory. The whole system is open to abuse. Secret ballots were introduced in 1872 to stop exactly this sort of problem and we now seem to be going back to the 19th century.”This last by Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, an academic expert on elections. He's so right!




