|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Aug 12, 2023 13:55:04 GMT
So the article reports on several unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud. A lot of that 'claiming' and bad mouthing was done by, here we go again, Nigel Farage, and the Brexit candidate Mike Greene. The article is from 2019 and is regarding the 2019 by-election. It opens with - remembering that it was still June 2019 - that initial police inquiries found that no offences had been committed. 5 electoral fraud allegations were investigated. Going outside that particular article/blog, in July 2019 Cambridgeshire Constabulary concluded their enquiries and announced that no offences had been committed. In 2020, Mike Green was ordered to pay the Labour Party's legal costs after dropping a High Court challenge. In a similar vein, in 2020 Dr Shabina Qayyum, a Labour city councillor in Peterborough, sued Conservative councillor Mr Seaton for libel following allegations he made that she had committed electoral fraud and voter intimidation, stealing the ballots of vulnerable voters, and had associated with known criminals/fraudsters, and had sought to shut down legitimate enquiries by threatening unfounded complaints to the police. In September 2020 she won "substantial damages", an apology and retraction. Seaton’s statement accepted that each one of the allegations was “false and unfounded”, apologised for the distress caused, and confirmed that he was paying her damages and legal costs. His defence was that "[they were]Not my words, copied and pasted from elsewhere”. Very good question: on the basis of evidence presented here, one does have to wonder. I think "had to" could be replaced with "wanted to". As a side note, I'm not exactly against voter id. Though lets be clear, Voter ID as introduced did not affect existing postal votes one jot. You've skipped over the part that reports the "Mayor of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets was removed from office after he was found guilty of electoral fraud". The Electoral Commission even spelled out where the fraud risk is greatest. " A report by the Electoral Commission published in 2014 identified 16 local authority areas, including Peterborough, where there was a greater risk of cases of alleged electoral fraud being reported. These were all areas which are known to have a significant South Asian presence and the authors reported receiving strongly held views about electoral fraud being ‘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." Following Tower Hamlets, "Subsequent research [on specifically Pakistani/ Bangladeshi practices] also outlined how community leaders or elders can ‘take advantage of the postal voting on demand system to commit personation and tamper with ballots’".
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 12, 2023 13:59:02 GMT
So the article reports on several unsubstantiated claims of electoral fraud. A lot of that 'claiming' and bad mouthing was done by, here we go again, Nigel Farage, and the Brexit candidate Mike Greene. The article is from 2019 and is regarding the 2019 by-election. It opens with - remembering that it was still June 2019 - that initial police inquiries found that no offences had been committed. 5 electoral fraud allegations were investigated. Going outside that particular article/blog, in July 2019 Cambridgeshire Constabulary concluded their enquiries and announced that no offences had been committed. In 2020, Mike Green was ordered to pay the Labour Party's legal costs after dropping a High Court challenge. In a similar vein, in 2020 Dr Shabina Qayyum, a Labour city councillor in Peterborough, sued Conservative councillor Mr Seaton for libel following allegations he made that she had committed electoral fraud and voter intimidation, stealing the ballots of vulnerable voters, and had associated with known criminals/fraudsters, and had sought to shut down legitimate enquiries by threatening unfounded complaints to the police. In September 2020 she won "substantial damages", an apology and retraction. Seaton’s statement accepted that each one of the allegations was “false and unfounded”, apologised for the distress caused, and confirmed that he was paying her damages and legal costs. His defence was that "[they were]Not my words, copied and pasted from elsewhere”. Very good question: on the basis of evidence presented here, one does have to wonder. I think "had to" could be replaced with "wanted to". As a side note, I'm not exactly against voter id. Though lets be clear, Voter ID as introduced did not affect existing postal votes one jot. You've skipped over the part that reports the "Mayor of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets was removed from office after he was found guilty of electoral fraud". The Electoral Commission even spelled out where the fraud risk is greatest. " A report by the Electoral Commission published in 2014 identified 16 local authority areas, including Peterborough, where there was a greater risk of cases of alleged electoral fraud being reported. These were all areas which are known to have a significant South Asian presence and the authors reported receiving strongly held views about electoral fraud being ‘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." Following Tower Hamlets, "Subsequent research [on specifically Pakistani/ Bangladeshi practices] also outlined how community leaders or elders can ‘take advantage of the postal voting on demand system to commit personation and tamper with ballots’". I skipped it because having spent some time investigating the first purported "evidence of voter fraud significant enough to affect an election" and finding it came up a big fat zero, I decided to not bother spending tine on the second purported evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Aug 12, 2023 14:24:19 GMT
You've skipped over the part that reports the "Mayor of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets was removed from office after he was found guilty of electoral fraud". The Electoral Commission even spelled out where the fraud risk is greatest. " A report by the Electoral Commission published in 2014 identified 16 local authority areas, including Peterborough, where there was a greater risk of cases of alleged electoral fraud being reported. These were all areas which are known to have a significant South Asian presence and the authors reported receiving strongly held views about electoral fraud being ‘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." Following Tower Hamlets, "Subsequent research [on specifically Pakistani/ Bangladeshi practices] also outlined how community leaders or elders can ‘take advantage of the postal voting on demand system to commit personation and tamper with ballots’". I skipped it because having spent some time investigating the first purported "evidence of voter fraud significant enough to affect an election" and finding it came up a big fat zero, I decided to not bother spending tine on the second purported evidence. You're free to take what you want from it. Obviously the Mayor of Tower Hamlets being found guilty of electoral fraud doesn't chime with you, that's fair enough. I stand by my first bullet point, which was about respect for the democratic process now being less prevalent than it used to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Aug 12, 2023 14:37:43 GMT
Just off the top of my head, and leaving aside skin colour (not sure why you raise it, and the list below involves all colours), in some areas our immigration policy has brought about the following cultural enrichment, none of which I recall as a lad. - Respect for democracy being replaced by election fraud, cheating via postal vote rigging and other corrupt practice.
- Respect for the law and our fellow man being replaced by knife culture, gun culture, shoplifting gangs, muggings, steaming gangs, drug gangs, cannabis farms and graffiti plastered over trains and every wall in sight.
- Acceptance and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs being replaced by intolerance and in some cases a violent and dangerous hatred of other faiths, including the country’s predominant established faith.
And before large scale immigration we had the gang culture of the 50s, the Krays etc. Teddy boys terrorising towns. The IRA. Persecution of gay people. Rogue landlords, poverty and slums. Disabled people in 'mental' hospitals. And there was still plenty of robbery and murder. We were not exactly perfect as I recall. Of course we weren't perfect back then. Perhaps mass immigration has introduced a massive improvement in respect for the law today and I just haven't noticed it.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703 
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Aug 12, 2023 15:49:49 GMT
I think its a shame we've introduced ID at elections. Not from a lefty, How are this or that disadvantaged people going to vote but from the perspective it seems like a huge sledge hammer to crack a tiny, weak nut.
I'm sure there are little pockets of it as Berny highlights but blanket ID doesn't seem the solution for me. Also he sights the Electoral commission. This organisation has discredited itself in a number of ways so I wouldn't rely on them.
As an aside, do we feel safer joining large security queues in airports partly due to complex rules around liquids and laptops? If I thought I could just walk through the airport, flashing my passport as appropriate without queuing anywhere, I think I'd take an increased risk from 1 in a billion to 2 in a billion.
And as another aside, but slightly more on topic, do we need to screen 100% of all passengers that arrive? We don't for customs so why do we for immigration?
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Aug 13, 2023 12:14:34 GMT
And as another aside, but slightly more on topic, do we need to screen 100% of all passengers that arrive? We don't for customs so why do we for immigration? I would suggest it's classic risk analysis maybe? The probability of an event occurring multiplied by the outcome severity of that event. Smuggling in a bit of contraband isn't that likely to be life-changing, so you don't need 100% total screening of that event. And if it's on a repetitive cycle, they'll eventually be caught. Granted the odd weapon might slip through. On the other hand, allowing in a dangerous individual could have very serious consequences. Even if the individual isn't dangerous, but an illegal alien, there will likely be significant costs to the state at some point going forward. I've no idea if this stacks up, but that would be my punt at an answer.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Aug 13, 2023 12:36:29 GMT
And as another aside, but slightly more on topic, do we need to screen 100% of all passengers that arrive? We don't for customs so why do we for immigration? I would suggest it's classic risk analysis maybe? The probability of an event occurring multiplied by the outcome severity of that event. Smuggling in a bit of contraband isn't that likely to be life-changing, so you don't need 100% total screening of that event. And if it's on a repetitive cycle, they'll eventually be caught. Granted the odd weapon might slip through. On the other hand, allowing in a dangerous individual could have very serious consequences. Even if the individual isn't dangerous, but an illegal alien, there will likely be significant costs to the state at some point going forward. I've no idea if this stacks up, but that would be my punt at an answer. Agree with your simple modelling but not the example. A bit of contraband could easily be Kilos of Class A drugs or worse something like Novichok to a Russian special services team. An "illegal alien" as you and the USA puts it surely is not likely to be of such high risk? Sure they could go on to be murderers or something but so could any Brit or anyone else coming through the border.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Aug 13, 2023 12:44:39 GMT
The processing time is surely the root cause here. Would having adequate resources not be cheaper than the cost to accommodate migrants in hotels up and down the UK. Political parties really need to get a grip on this and pronto. I can see it becoming a hot topic(again)come the next election. Quicker processing might discourage further landings and a strict processing criteria would send a message the UK is not a soft touch. Slower processing, increasing the backlog, is the government aim. Having vast amounts of unprocessed asylum seekers is supposed to be a visible warning to others. Increase the sense of crisis. It plays well with the base.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 4,587
Likes: 2,621
|
Post by keitha on Aug 13, 2023 13:45:00 GMT
Smuggling in a bit of contraband isn't that likely to be life-changing, so you don't need 100% total screening of that event. And if it's on a repetitive cycle, they'll eventually be caught. Granted the odd weapon might slip through. As I remember a case there was a couple using a small regional airport and running back and forth ( at least once a month to Spain ) on cheap flights each coming back with thousand of cigarettes in suitcases. again if I remember correctly they got caught because they got greedy and started bringing back 2 suitcases each every time. When the data was checked they done 15 flights in the previous year. so let's say 5,000 a time or 250 packs, at the time they were about £2 a pack in Spain and 6 over here effectively they defrauded the revenue of 250 * £4 * 15 trips £15,000 given they were also selling then I'd estimate they probably made about £8,000. OK it doesn't match the big boys smuggling them in by the lorry load but it's still big money. yes I've known people stopped at regional airports with a small amount of weed coming back from Amsterdam or wherever.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Aug 13, 2023 15:00:37 GMT
I would suggest it's classic risk analysis maybe? The probability of an event occurring multiplied by the outcome severity of that event. Smuggling in a bit of contraband isn't that likely to be life-changing, so you don't need 100% total screening of that event. And if it's on a repetitive cycle, they'll eventually be caught. Granted the odd weapon might slip through. On the other hand, allowing in a dangerous individual could have very serious consequences. Even if the individual isn't dangerous, but an illegal alien, there will likely be significant costs to the state at some point going forward. I've no idea if this stacks up, but that would be my punt at an answer. Agree with your simple modelling but not the example. A bit of contraband could easily be Kilos of Class A drugs or worse something like Novichok to a Russian special services team. An "illegal alien" as you and the USA puts it surely is not likely to be of such high risk? Sure they could go on to be murderers or something but so could any Brit or anyone else coming through the border. Naturally there will always be counter-examples, but the cost-benefit curve (and traveller delay) demands a certain level of pragmatism from the border authorities.
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Aug 13, 2023 15:12:41 GMT
Smuggling in a bit of contraband isn't that likely to be life-changing, so you don't need 100% total screening of that event. And if it's on a repetitive cycle, they'll eventually be caught. Granted the odd weapon might slip through. As I remember a case there was a couple using a small regional airport and running back and forth ( at least once a month to Spain ) on cheap flights each coming back with thousand of cigarettes in suitcases. again if I remember correctly they got caught because they got greedy and started bringing back 2 suitcases each every time. When the data was checked they done 15 flights in the previous year. so let's say 5,000 a time or 250 packs, at the time they were about £2 a pack in Spain and 6 over here effectively they defrauded the revenue of 250 * £4 * 15 trips £15,000 given they were also selling then I'd estimate they probably made about £8,000. OK it doesn't match the big boys smuggling them in by the lorry load but it's still big money. yes I've known people stopped at regional airports with a small amount of weed coming back from Amsterdam or wherever. Big money to them perhaps, but not on a scale to trouble the Treasury. A good example of a small fry, low impact event where they eventually got caught and which doesn't warrant 100% customs screening.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,703
Likes: 2,981
Member is Online
|
Post by michaelc on Aug 13, 2023 16:17:17 GMT
The processing time is surely the root cause here. Would having adequate resources not be cheaper than the cost to accommodate migrants in hotels up and down the UK. Political parties really need to get a grip on this and pronto. I can see it becoming a hot topic(again)come the next election. Quicker processing might discourage further landings and a strict processing criteria would send a message the UK is not a soft touch. Slower processing, increasing the backlog, is the government aim. Having vast amounts of unprocessed asylum seekers is supposed to be a visible warning to others. Increase the sense of crisis. It plays well with the base. Interesting. If true its presumably backfired spectacularly. To those seeking refuge this might be comfort that they'll get at least a year or two and the longer you stay the easier it will be to remain. Moreover its now showing up the government/Home Office to be incredibly incompetent.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 13, 2023 16:46:13 GMT
Slower processing, increasing the backlog, is the government aim. Having vast amounts of unprocessed asylum seekers is supposed to be a visible warning to others. Increase the sense of crisis. It plays well with the base. Interesting. If true its presumably backfired spectacularly. To those seeking refuge this might be comfort that they'll get at least a year or two and the longer you stay the easier it will be to remain. Moreover its now showing up the government/Home Office to be incredibly incompetent. this has been true for like forever. More processing in country as well would help to clear 2 birds with one stone.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Aug 13, 2023 16:49:29 GMT
I skipped it because having spent some time investigating the first purported "evidence of voter fraud significant enough to affect an election" and finding it came up a big fat zero, I decided to not bother spending tine on the second purported evidence. You're free to take what you want from it. Obviously the Mayor of Tower Hamlets being found guilty of electoral fraud doesn't chime with you, that's fair enough. I stand by my first bullet point, which was about respect for the democratic process now being less prevalent than it used to be. Well as I very clearly said: I looked at the first chunk, with a title all about Peterborough, spent quite a bit of time digging into that, beyond the "he alleged/she alleged" in that piece, came to the conclusion that it had been proven to be a load of rollox, and stopped there. EDIT: of course there is some level of fraud. Elections are held nationwide, and frequently involving millions of people The question is whether it is significant, and given your conviction that it is a new thing induced by immigration, is there any evidence of it being particularly prevalent in a specific demographic. Electoral fraud dataThis is from the electoral commission. I think someone posted something similar in thread but I didn't read it. Here is one of the 'summary' statements (I think this goes up to end 2022): "In the past 5 years, there is no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud.
Of the 1,386 cases of alleged electoral fraud reported to police between 2018 and 2022, 9 led to convictions and the police issued 6 cautions.
Most cases either resulted in the police taking no further action or were locally resolved by the police issuing words of advice."I guess one of those 9 convictions included this man: Eastleigh man convicted of election fraud and ordered to complete 50 hours unpaid work I spotted this article about fraud in 2001: www.theguardian.com/society/2001/mar/10/localgovernment
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Aug 14, 2023 0:24:23 GMT
You're free to take what you want from it. Obviously the Mayor of Tower Hamlets being found guilty of electoral fraud doesn't chime with you, that's fair enough. I stand by my first bullet point, which was about respect for the democratic process now being less prevalent than it used to be. Well as I very clearly said: I looked at the first chunk, with a title all about Peterborough, spent quite a bit of time digging into that, beyond the "he alleged/she alleged" in that piece, came to the conclusion that it had been proven to be a load of rollox, and stopped there. EDIT: of course there is some level of fraud. Elections are held nationwide, and frequently involving millions of people The question is whether it is significant, and given your conviction that it is a new thing induced by immigration, is there any evidence of it being particularly prevalent in a specific demographic. There is. Sir Eric Pickles conducted an independent review of electoral fraud in 2016 and concluded precisely that. See paras 194, 198 & 199. The Mail at the time reported [my underlining]: I see your Eastleigh man (who deprived one citizen of being able to vote, and voiced disdain for the system by openly mocking it) and raise you this delightful chap… www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/25/tower-hamlets-dictatorship-east-end-lutfur-rahman Worth a read. Even the Guardian(!) found the circumstances appalling and it was this case which prompted the review above.
|
|
