Labour wins Peterborough

Maizied

"Can you clarify those figures for me please, POGS? "
----
" I can't find any report of the P'borough by election on the Electoral Commission's site. So where are these figures coming from?"
--

www.itv.com/news/anglia/2019-06-17/electoral-fraud-allegations-at-peterborough-by-election-investigated-by-police/
--
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-48680715

' Postal votes accounted for 9,898 of the 33,998 ballot papers received, and 400 of the postal votes returned were rejected due to either the signature, or date of birth, or both not matching council records.'

With a postal vote you have to add your signature , when you apply for a postal vote and when you vote.

Here you are
pcc-live.storage.googleapis.com/upload/www.peterborough.gov.uk/news/council/PeterboroughByElection2019-BriefingNote10June19v2.pdf?inline=true

I can't find any report of the P'borough by election on the Electoral Commission's site. So where are these figures coming from?

400 of the nearly 10000 postal ballot papers were rejected - % wise this is a higher rejection rate than the average.

9,898 of the 33,998 ballot papers received, and 400 of the postal votes returned were rejected due to either the signature or date of birth or both not matching council records.

Can you clarify those figures for me please, POGS? Particularly the 'ballot papers' one. Ballot papers don't have signatures or birth dates on them so how could they be rejected for birth date or signature being 'wrong'?

Urmstongran

"Actually, as far as I’m concerned, this is about a lot more than Peterborough. It is about a system that is wide open to corruption, to intimidation, to bribery, to abuse on a whole number of levels. I have mentioned this a number of times in the past.”
---

Not only Farage!

We know there has been voting fraud over many years in the UK and to my mind postal ballots are the main problem.

' Granny Farming ' / Proxy Voting is another unknown.

As for Peterborough I think there are factors that naturally set some concern there is a possibility all may not be satisfactory and I think it should be challenged , if only to put the issue to bed.

Postal votes accounted for almost 1/3rd of the votes cast in Peterborough , that is a very high percentage! 9,898 of the 33,998 ballot papers received, and 400 of the postal votes returned were rejected due to either the signature or date of birth or both not matching council records.

Happy to corrected on the figures.

Well a legal challenge will hopefully establish the truth.

And they say remainers are sore losers ...

I think it’s good that Farage is going to mount a legal challenge.

Urm perhaps NF is referring to previous elections where he has lost

Just now in the Graun:

The Brexit party is to launch a formal legal challenge against the result of this month’s Peterborough byelection, where it was narrowly beaten by Labour, claiming that allegations of corruption connected to postal votes need to be investigated.

Nigel Farage, the party’s leader, insisted the challenge was about more than the loss to Labour by 683 votes, saying the wider use of postal votes was open to abuse and needed to be investigated.

“I know people will say: ‘Oh, but it’s sour grapes.’ It isn’t,” Farage told a press conference in London.

“Actually, as far as I’m concerned, this is about a lot more than Peterborough. It is about a system that is wide open to corruption, to intimidation, to bribery, to abuse on a whole number of levels. I have mentioned this a number of times in the past.”

I think it would be best of all to make it illegal to photograph any ballot paper. The current law of course was enacted before social media was a thing and so is really out of date anyway.

I think we probably need information noticeably displayed at all Polling Stations saying photography isn't acceptable and may be illegal. Some people may be doing it accidentally, but I'm not sure even that would prevent deliberate fraud.

Sorry trisher - I’ve realised that I don’t know about if a photo of your own slip must not include the number.

If it’s your own ballot slip you can do with the photo what you want and it can include the number - it’s only other people’s ballot slips that are off limits( quite rightly)

suziewoozie BBC site says it's illegal to reveal how someone else has voted, which could happen inadvertently via a sloppy selfie. In addition, taking a photo of a ballot paper's unique identification number is against the rules.
The Independent site says the same. So if you take a photo of a ballot slip you would need to block out the number.

I’ve just done some googling - it’s not against the law to photograph your own ballot slip- what has to be guarded against is revealing through your photo how someone else voted.

Thank you Nico97

But before the police could properly investigate, they’d need the name of the person alleged to have taken the photo wouldn’t they? Only the staff present at the polling station could give that information and evidence I would guess.

Even after deletion, evidence can be found on the SIM card.

But surely they would delete it ? or can it still be traced ?

If someone's phone has a photograph of a marked voting slip on it and records showed it had been sent to someone else that should be evidence enough.

Why would you photograph and send a copy of your vote to someone unless it was to provr how you voted, especially of you were following up the recipient as well.

Mobile phones are routinely confiscated and all traffic on them. investigated in criminal investigations.

It’s not going to be feasible is it to have a police presence in every polling station for 13 hours. Society relies on people behaving well without a police presence for the most part doesn’t it?

I doubt it can now be proved if the only evidence is to be
found on mobile phones,