Does this BBC video support #Copeland #suspectcount allegations?

Earlier this evening, the SKWAWKBOX published information provided by independent electoral analysts Applied I F Limited, which indicates that the process for completing an election lawfully had not been completed properly in the Copeland by-election – and that the vote count was therefore suspect.

In the early hours of Friday morning, after the Stoke Central result had already been announced and discussed, the BBC switched to Tom Bateman, its reporter in the Cumbrian constituency for an update.

Bear in mind that, late on Thursday evening, various commentators – including BBC Question Time’s David Dimbleby, had stated they were hearing that it was ‘looking very much like’ Labour had held Copeland as well as Stoke Central.

Bateman then tells studio host Andrew Neil:


At the time, before the result had been announced, it seemed a little odd but not necessarily significant.

Now, in the wake of a claim by an electoral analyst that the election was not concluded legally and that the count is ‘suspect’, this statement assumes a weighty and potentially sinister significance.

Could the BBC’s Tom Bateman have given away a signifier of vote tampering that was not meant to reach the eyes and ears of viewers – at the time or now?

The results of the forensic analysis currently underway are now awaited even more eagerly.

If you want to watch the key moments on video, you can do so on BBC iPlayer here, starting from 2h55m:12s:

BBC election night special

The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.




  1. I watched on the evening till about 3am (Stoke result) one thing that stuck in my mind because the reporter repated it numerous times was the very high number of postal votes 9,000 i think he said, his words were ‘unusually high’…………………worth investigating.

      1. I remember that the reporter said how unusual it was that there was a hiatus, between verification of the dubious ballots and the count proper, when the counters were given a rest break. I just checked it on iplayer and the time was at 02.09.48.

        Having checked a number of spots trying to find the clip, I was struck by how every commentator said it was too close to call and that they had no sense of the result.

        FYI 01.15.01 Cat Smith MP; 01.26.05 Independent Mayor Mike Starky: 01.44.26 Andrew Stephenson Con. MP; 02.09.48 Bateman; 02.54.52 Bateman (empty trays)

  2. I’m being told that a “Tory stronghold” was included in the Copeland constituency following boundary changes after the 2015 General Election. Not had time to follow this up yet though. ..

  3. He’s just commenting on the low turnout of Labour areas that usually have a decent turnout. Meaning trays which we would usually rely on for a strong Labour turnout were this time sparse or empty. It’s nothing sinister.

  4. What struck me was that they were saying the result for Copeland wasn’t expected until around 4am or 3.30 earliest, then suddenly they announced shortly before 3am as I recall.

  5. Was Peter Lilley’s electoral services company Idox used for this election? Anybody know?

      1. I’ve asked Copeland Borough Council for the facts, rather than base them on wild assumptions. You can follow on their Facebook page. Why not ask yourself – remember to remove the silver foil from around your head before asking :p

      2. Cheers for that. I’m going to ask Mr Dimbleby to give his ‘prediction’ in a prerecorded BBC show of what happens next. I’ve heard Mulder & Scully are to feature.

      3. From Copeland Borough Council: “In this age of ‘fake news’ it is tempting to suggest this claim makes use of alternative facts.
        To be clear, there is no investigation regarding last week’s election. The election not only went smoothly, but prompted feedback that it was exceptionally well-administered. People may be unaware that a member of the Electoral Commission was in attendance and observed the whole verification and count. In addition almost the entire proceedings were filmed by several broadcasters (some streamed the whole event live.) The conspiracy theories are nonsense and detract from the spectacularly efficient job our staff and volunteers did in delivering this election in a short timescale.
        The Electoral Commission have confirmed the information published following the election was as required. Anyone can visit http://www.copeland.gov.uk to see the detail of the results.

        The Electoral Commission has also issued the following statement:

        “An (Acting) Returning Officer is required to provide public notice of the name of the candidate(s) elected, the total number of votes given to each candidate and the number of rejected ballot papers under each heading. The declaration of results was made by the RO from the stage on Friday night and the results were published by Copeland Borough Council on their website. Paper copies of the full declaration have been displayed on council notice boards, fulfilling the requirement to provide public notice.”

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: