At the weekend, the SKWAWKBOX broke the conclusion of a firm of electoral analysts that the by-election result in Copeland had been unlawful – and that the count of votes was suspect. This conclusion was based on failure to observe proper procedures according to electoral law and the failure to report the numbers of votes issued, returned, spoiled and rejected.
Footage was also published that showed BBC political reporter Tom Bateman – as the picture and quote above show – telling Andrew Neill about ‘unusual’ handling of ballot boxes and of BBC Question Time host David Dimbleby announcing that Labour had held the Copeland seat.
A full analysis of the votes is underway, but there is already enough to raise serious concerns about the legitimacy of the Copeland result.
Some, predictably, have dismissed the evidence as ‘fake news’ – but the mainstream media (‘MSM’) are now also beginning to wake up to it and clearly feel there’s enough substance to the matter to take it very seriously.
The SKWAWKBOX has learned that Patrick Worrall formerly of ITN and then FactCheck (and now, seemingly, back with ITN) and Buzzfeed political editor Jim Waterson have been talking to the electoral analysts about the story.
It remains to be seen whether they will publish it – if they do, it will be far from the first time that the MSM have followed the SKWAWKBOX’s trail.
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.
I recall one if the first insults used against Corbyn was that his economic policy would turn the UK in Zimbabwe. That has been roundly disproved, but it does appear that under the Tories it may still come true.
A simple question (which I’m sure that MSM will be asking). Which part of which legislation is alleged to have been breached, and in exactly what way? We now know, of course, that the information in the spreadsheet produced by the “electoral analysts” bore no relation to the official declaration in Copeland.( I wonder how they’ve analysed Stoke.)
It’s interesting, but I’m sure no conspiracy, that my link to the full analysis of voting in the 2015 GE, which the “electoral experts” seem to say doesn’t exist, has been “awaiting moderation” for 4 hours.
So here it is again.
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/excel_doc/0011/191648/UKPGE-turnout-postal-rejected-admin-amended-WEB.xlsx
If the 9000 postal votes are suspect, then to move it from a narrow Labour victory to a 2000 Con majority would mean the postal votes would register as 2000+ votes more for Cons than Labour. If Labour got say 3000 postal votes and the Cons got 5000 postal votes and the rest 1000 that should raise the alarm bells as an indicator for voter fraud.
And then an analysis of the ratio of Con v Labour postal votes compared to 2015 should reveal whether it was broadly similar or totally different.