|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jun 24, 2019 13:13:13 GMT
... being away from the designated polling station during limited hours problem. (My emphasis) As has been pointed out before, our polling hours are 07:00 - 22:00, in other words for 15 hours. These are among the longest single-day polling hours anywhere in the world. If you're suggesting that we allow voting in person for more than one day, let's hear that suggestion. As things stand, these polling hours will be sufficient for almost everybody who wishes to vote in person, to vote, and genuine exceptions* should be accommodated by a postal or proxy vote.
* E.g. absence due to employment, education, illness, pre-booked holiday. I think this is going to be a rerun of this discussion. Here's one method that would be straightforward within our current system - early voting at town halls (and other civic buildings in spread out districts) without convoluted bureaucracy to satisfy jobsworths that your movements are such you can't be sure to be able to get to the designated polling station within the hours available. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 3, 2019 12:58:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 3, 2019 15:55:35 GMT
What's the deadline to submit it by?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 3, 2019 15:59:08 GMT
What's the deadline to submit it by? 21 days after the return so by last Friday, 28 June. If a petition intends to challenge on spending grounds then it might be later as the expenses returns are not yet due. But the challenge is not understood to be on those grounds. If the petition raises questions about postal votes, the Returning Officer should be a respondent, but no notice of presentation of petition has appeared on the council website. The Peterborough Telegraph may have the public notice tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by Ron Swanson on Jul 4, 2019 19:44:58 GMT
I don't recall Farage having an issue with postal votes back in 2016 when it was widely considered that postal votes in the referendum were more pro-Brexit than the votes on the day. Douglas Carswell launched a pre-emptive strike, publicly telling Farage he didn't want to wake up to a narrow Remain victory and Farage moaning about postal votes, he wanted to see the Leave campaign run a proper PV effort. Another piece of Farage's comments in that press conference were very telling. He repeated his whine about the postal votes being sent out before other parties had had a chance to campaign. Campaigns do not start at the close of nominations. Campaigning is ongoing and stepped up when key elections are looming or likely - it's been nearly a year since Onasanya was first charged and the by-election sirens will have been sounding back then. But Farage parties only seem to turn up once there's a vacancy. They're always going to struggle against parties that have been stepping up the ground operation for a good while. You’d think that after countless silver medals, Farage might have recruited someone who could establish a PV strategy? From signing up your own known supporters, to knocking up... Getting out campaigning when you reckon there’ll be a by election... and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 10, 2019 19:26:58 GMT
What's the deadline to submit it by? 21 days after the return so by last Friday, 28 June. If a petition intends to challenge on spending grounds then it might be later as the expenses returns are not yet due. But the challenge is not understood to be on those grounds. If the petition raises questions about postal votes, the Returning Officer should be a respondent, but no notice of presentation of petition has appeared on the council website. The Peterborough Telegraph may have the public notice tomorrow. Any sign of this? Or do we have one of the following: 1). Everyone involved is rubbish at providing public notices. 2). The Brexit Party got the deadlines wrong and awaited the expenses return (to check if someone was actually employed on the campaign?). 3). All this is just hot air to deflect from the Brexit Party's campaign shortcomings and no petition has been submitted. |
|
|
|
Post by iainbhx on Jul 10, 2019 20:06:50 GMT
21 days after the return so by last Friday, 28 June. If a petition intends to challenge on spending grounds then it might be later as the expenses returns are not yet due. But the challenge is not understood to be on those grounds. If the petition raises questions about postal votes, the Returning Officer should be a respondent, but no notice of presentation of petition has appeared on the council website. The Peterborough Telegraph may have the public notice tomorrow. Any sign of this? Or do we have one of the following: 1). Everyone involved is rubbish at providing public notices. 2). The Brexit Party got the deadlines wrong and awaited the expenses return (to check if someone was actually employed on the campaign?). 3). All this is just hot air to deflect from the Brexit Party's campaign shortcomings and no petition has been submitted. I'll plump for No 3 here. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 10, 2019 20:37:55 GMT
21 days after the return so by last Friday, 28 June. If a petition intends to challenge on spending grounds then it might be later as the expenses returns are not yet due. But the challenge is not understood to be on those grounds. If the petition raises questions about postal votes, the Returning Officer should be a respondent, but no notice of presentation of petition has appeared on the council website. The Peterborough Telegraph may have the public notice tomorrow. Any sign of this? Or do we have one of the following: 1). Everyone involved is rubbish at providing public notices. 2). The Brexit Party got the deadlines wrong and awaited the expenses return (to check if someone was actually employed on the campaign?). 3). All this is just hot air to deflect from the Brexit Party's campaign shortcomings and no petition has been submitted. I haven't seen anything to demonstrate that there is an actual petition. There is no notice of one on Peterborough council's website. But a proper legal team has been set up: Wedlake Bell LLP are the petitioners' solicitors, and Francis Hoar has been signed up as counsel. Given they were on board, one might assume the legal deadlines and other requirements will have been complied with. See also: If the petition intends to look into postal ballots then the Returning Officer would be a respondent and therefore Peterborough City Council should have a copy of the petition. I'll email their elections office to ask. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 11, 2019 16:33:09 GMT
Peterborough Electoral Services have mysteriously replied, neither confirming nor denying that they know of a petition, but directing inquiries to the Election Petition Office at the High Court.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 16, 2019 9:43:46 GMT
Meanwhile the police have determined that none of the five of the reports of electoral offences in the byelection could be substantiated.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 16, 2019 10:46:54 GMT
Well there's a surprise  The usual suspects have of course moved on seamlessly to the "this proves the police are corrupt and part of the VAST CONSPIRACY" spiel. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 16, 2019 13:03:38 GMT
Well there's a surprise The usual suspects have of course moved on seamlessly to the "this proves the police are corrupt and part of the VAST CONSPIRACY" spiel. Don't forget that we are now living under Sharia Law and the Muslamics will take over by next September. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473 
|
Post by peterl on Jul 16, 2019 13:21:16 GMT
Let's not forget that the standard of proof is different in criminal and civil cases. What might prompt a prosecution differs from what might suceed in a petition.
Incidentially, has anyone contacted the Election Petitions Office to ask if a petition has been filed?
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 16, 2019 13:25:11 GMT
Except that (a) we haven't seen any proof there is actually an election petition; (b) the main accusation of those pushing the election petition obviously would not overturn the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 16, 2019 13:32:06 GMT
I wasn't aware that "Voting While Muslim" was against electoral law
|
|
|
|
Post by lbarnes on Jul 16, 2019 13:37:42 GMT
Let's not forget that the standard of proof is different in criminal and civil cases. What might prompt a prosecution differs from what might suceed in a petition. Incidentially, has anyone contacted the Election Petitions Office to ask if a petition has been filed? Although it would be a civil case as a petition it carries possible criminal sanctions therefore the level of proof is identical - beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the balance of probabilities. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 16, 2019 15:01:13 GMT
|
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Jul 16, 2019 21:19:16 GMT
Let's not forget that the standard of proof is different in criminal and civil cases. What might prompt a prosecution differs from what might suceed in a petition. Incidentially, has anyone contacted the Election Petitions Office to ask if a petition has been filed? Although it would be a civil case as a petition it carries possible criminal sanctions therefore the level of proof is identical - beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the balance of probabilities. This depends does it not on the reason for the petition. If it is to do with the actions of the returning officer then criminal sanctions are not in issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 16, 2019 21:26:23 GMT
Although it would be a civil case as a petition it carries possible criminal sanctions therefore the level of proof is identical - beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the balance of probabilities. This depends does it not on the reason for the petition. If it is to do with the actions of the returning officer then criminal sanctions are not in issue. There are essentially two grounds which have been put forward: 1) Employment of corrupt agent - it is asserted that Tariq Mahmood was an agent of the Labour candidate, and that his being so invokes s. 165 of the 1983 Act. I think this claim fails on both counts - because there is no evidence he had any role in organising the Labour campaign, and because even if he did, he is no longer under any electoral disabilities so does not invoke s. 165. 2) More vague accusations of some problems with the postal votes. No real substantial assertion has been made. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Jul 16, 2019 21:35:56 GMT
So presumably ground 1 is beyond a reasonable doubt because employing a corrupt agent is an illegal practice. Ground 2, well that depends if we are talking potential fraud or alleged mismanagement by the RO. Would be very interested in seeing the full details if you have managed to find them.
|
|
