May could face loss of seat over #Abbott comment electoral breach #GE17 #BBCQT

As the SKWAWKBOX reported on Sunday, Theresa May has been reported to police over false claims she made during Friday’s BBC Question Time special about Diane Abbott and police DNA records.

May told the studio audience and millions of viewers around the country that Abbott had advocated the removal of the DNA samples of ‘criminals and terrorists’ from police databases – an accusation that is completely untrue.


bbc qt cropped
Theresa May during last Friday’s BBC Question Time special


Making false statements about a candidate’s ‘character or conduct’ during an election campaign is a criminal offence under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

Paul Cardin of the Wirral in it Together blog reported the matter initially to the Metropolitan Police, as May is based in Downing Street, but the Met has advised that the matter needs to be investigated by North Yorkshire Police (NYP), because the programme was filmed – and the alleged offence committed – in York. Cardin has formally complained to NYP and has submitted evidence, including video of May’s comments.

If found guilty, Mrs May would face both criminal penalties and the loss of her parliamentary seat – assuming of course that she wins it on Thursday.

This is not a merely theoretical possibility. In 2010, Phil Woolas – who had been a government minister until that year’s General Election – was investigated and found guilty of making false statements about his LibDem opponent in the General Election.

Woolas lost his seat and was barred from public office for three years.

Paul Cardin has also reported the matter to the Electoral Commission and directly to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

The Prime Minister appears to have seriously overreached in making a statement about Ms Abbott that she must have known was untrue – on national television and with a clear intent to influence election results. It is to be hoped that North Yorkshire Police, the CPS and the Electoral Commission will treat the matter with the seriousness it deserves.

The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you found this information helpful and can afford to, please do 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. Fat chance. She will have some of the best lawyers in the land working on it. Unfortunately.

  2. Reblogged this on Sid's Blog and commented:
    Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson ❌FAT CHANCE❌
    Amber Rudd 🔵NO CHANCE🔵

    So who will replace the Replicant?

  3. The evidence is there for all to see.

    The electoral commission, old bill and CPS ought to grow a pair and nail the lyin arl coo.

    But I doubt they will…A-GAIN. And ‘Lois’ may’ll e free to continue with her ‘Nine-eleven’ bullshit. I’m very clear about that.

  4. good on them. and has anyone reported Mr B Johnson for the same liesabout mr corbyn. his voting record and the shoot to kill comments discredited ,repudiated but still quoted by BBC

  5. I hope they throw the fucking book at her. She deserves to lose everything, she’s a menace to society, and the British people deserve so much better. Her days are numbered, and the end of this Tory government couldn’t come sooner, cant wait but Everybody needs to Vote Labour, we need to take back our country now!!.

  6. Problem is, the guy who WAS prosecuted in 2010, made the comments about an opposing ‘CANDIDATE’.
    May is not, technically, up against Abbott or Corbyn – neither is Boris. So, might not qualify…

    Perfect example – Alistair Carmichael!
    Supplied a factually inaccurate report of a conversation between Nicola Sturgeon and the French Ambassador to the DT…for political gain during the 2015 election.
    Department gets caught with its involvement in the release of a confirmed falsehood.
    Lies on camera about his knowledge of it, and then instigates an investigation costing millions, for answers he already knows, because the findings won’t be out until after the election.

    Gets taken to court by constituents, and the judges agree that he lied…but that “it was a personal lie – not a political lie”?!

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: