The original report is here.
Of the worst abuses is the systematic misuse of postal voting:
“70. Postal voting on demand attracted the greatest degree of comment from respondents. It was considered by some to be the UK’s main electoral vulnerability and to provide the ‘best’ opportunity for electoral fraud.The situation is so severe that the very “integrity”of voting and democracy itself in Britain is being put into question.
71. Abuses of postal voting on demand were noted too often be carried out in communities where an individual’s right to vote in secret and exercise free choice may not be fully valued. Evidence was presented of pressure being put on vulnerable members of some ethnic minority communities, particularly women and young people, to vote according to the will of the elders, especially in communities of Pakistani and Bangladeshi background. There were concerns that influence and intimidation within households may not be reported, and that state institutions had turned a blind eye to such behaviour because of ‘politically correct’ over-sensitivities about ethnicity and religion.
72. Richard Mawrey QC noted that postal votes were the most significant problem and that, whilst the introduction of ‘postal vote identifiers’ (signature and date of birth) in 2007 had been a step in the right direction, the possibilities of undue influence, theft of postal votes and tampering with them after completion were all still risks. In summary, he saw the system as effectively just being policed by political parties watching each other with not enough rigour in the systems themselves.”
“Securing the Ballot: Report of Sir Eric Pickles’ Review into Electoral Fraud,” August 2016, p. 22.
From the conclusion:
“My fear now is that such a trust-based system is becoming no longer tenable. To retain the integrity of our democracy, we need to introduce more rigour into the processes we use, to see more clarity and proactivity from institutions such as the police in upholding the system. We need to act now to avoid further major instances of fraud taking place.So we have yet another incredible failure of multiculturalism in Europe.
Further steps are necessary to stamp out electoral corruption – across voter registration fraud and error, postal voting fraud, impersonation, bribery, treating, undue influence and intimidation.
There are sometimes challenging issues over divisive community politics and ethnic-religious polarisation, but this is no excuse for failing to enforce British law and protect the integrity of our democratic process. The law must be applied equally and fairly to everyone. Integration and good community relations are undermined by the failure to uphold the rule of law and ensure fair play.
Our nation has a proud heritage as the ‘mother of Parliaments’, yet the worrying and covert spread of electoral fraud and state of denial by some bodies threatens that good reputation. It is time to take action to take on the electoral crooks and defend Britain’s free and fair elections.”
“Securing the Ballot: Report of Sir Eric Pickles’ Review into Electoral Fraud,” August 2016, p. 55.
LK, watch out Khan doesn't prosecute you under his new programme.
ReplyDeleteNotice that opposition to reforms comes from the Left?
Let's see: roughly 1.6 million out of 63 million. Roughly 2.5%. Less than 20% of votes are cast by mail. What percentage of that is fraudulent? By the time we are done, we have a fraction of one percent: hardly enough to sway any election.
ReplyDeleteAnd what evidence is there of the RATE of fraudulent voting? I looked at your reference, and it has no rates. In the USA, even though the right is screaming about fraud, the rate is microscopic.
Once again, you are trumpeting racist right-wing agitprop without evaluating its significance. If there is any failure of multiculturalism, I suspect that the rabid right-wing attitudes are the real failure.
So let's get this straight:
Delete(1) an official government report finds evidence of serious voting fraud and warns that "To retain the integrity of our democracy, we need to introduce more rigour into the processes we use, to see more clarity and proactivity from institutions such as the police in upholding the system". But according to you the problem is insignificant.
(2) the immigrant Asian population of Britain is actually about 6.92% of total population and rising. Where did you pull your 2.5% figure from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnicity
(3) you are obviously so ignorant, you don't understand that immigrants are often concentrated in much larger numbers in certain areas, and so can -- without any doubt -- influence the outcome of an election in that constituency by voting fraud, especially where margins between the parties are narrow.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/667147/Brexit-EU-referendum-vote-rigging-electoral-fraud-local-elections-UKIP-London-Mayor
(4) if you had done any research, you'd know there was very recently a strong suspicion that the Oldham West and Royton by-election was tainted by postal vote fraud.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/12/03/ukip-furious-over-postal-votes-scandal-in-oldham-by-election/
-----------------
Finally, I am not "trumpeting racist right-wing agitprop": I am reporting straightforward facts.
So please just f*ck off if all you can do is insult me like this, because I am not going to be slandered by anybody.
Yes, let's get this straight.
Delete(1) You can always "find evidence", and you can always trust politicians to pander by saying it is serious. What YOU apparently can't find is an NUMBERS that tell how serious the problem is.
(2) I got my 2.5% number from using "Pakistani and Bangladeshi" and the identica
l source you suggested. Do you mean to imply that all Asians (including Chinese and Indian) are doing this to make the problem seem more significant?
(3a) "you are obviously so ignorant": perhaps I should allow somebody I normally respect to answer this for me. "So please just f*ck off if all you can do is insult me like this, because I am not going to be slandered by anybody."
(3b) What is your newspaper article supposed to show about postal ballots? All
it says about them is that there are "concerns" they could swing the ballot. No
t that they have. Nor does it show any multiculturalist failure: it tells of el
ection officials doing the right thing in response to allegations as they have for many decades. The rigging it DOES talk about is not specific to any kind of
culture: it is plain, old-fashioned corruption.
(4) You actually cite Breitbart and UKIP ***allegations***, and then turn around and claim 'I am not "trumpeting racist right-wing agitprop": I am reporting straightforward facts.'?
Oh, and if you want to claim I am insulting you, please specify. Perhaps quote
me. Unless you mean to imply that mere disagreement is insult.
What is evident here is the militant irrationality and inability to even admit facts.
DeleteLet's start with a basic fact: Lutfur Rahman, elected mayor of Tower Hamlets, was removed from office and found guilty of corrupt and illegal practices and shown to have used false accusations of claiming racism and Islamophobia to silence his critics.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3341679/Former-mayor-High-Court-battle-500-000-legal-costs-declaring-bankrupt.html
------------------
Do you acknowledge this fact?
Fact 2:
Deleteimmigrants from the communities in question tend to be concentrated in much larger numbers in certain areas. It follows that voting fraud can obviously influence the outcome of an election in that constituency especially where margins between the parties are narrow.
----------
Do you acknowledge this fact? Yes or no?
If "no", then what is your evidence that immigrants are all spread out at an equal percentage in all UK constituencies?
Fact 3:
DeleteA Pakistani-born Tory councillor Eshaq Khan was found guilty of election fraud using fake postal ballots in 2008. He and his associates were jailed for this fraud and stealing the election from Labour councillor Lydia Simmons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/berkshire/7302809.stm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/4640500/Former-mayor-invented-ghost-voters-to-ensure-Tories-could-snatch-marginal-seats.html
-------------
Do you acknowledge this fact? Yes or no?
And on top of all that LK, he doesn't even try to answer the concern about coerced votes. In a booth a woman can vote as she wishes, but is that true in all homes? Or of course Tammany Hall tactics. Any fool can see mail votes can be bought and sold.
Delete"What is evident here is the militant irrationality and inability to even admit facts." Do you really need to be so insulting to one to your own admirers? Are you that hurt or fearful of disagreement?
DeleteAs for your facts, the plural of anecdote is not data. While your selected factoids may be in some ways consistent with your claims, they also can be inconsistent. And they ignore the big picture of historical election fraud and other crimes, which is exactly why they don't qualify as data to demonstrate the quantitative claims you are making.
I'll give you one last chance to display the minimal honesty required for good faith debate.
DeleteAssertion 1: A Pakistani-born Tory councillor Eshaq Khan was found guilty of election fraud in a British court using fake postal ballots in 2008. He and his associates were jailed for this fraud and stealing the election from Labour councillor Lydia Simmons.
------------
Is this a fact (an empirical truth)?
Yes or no?
The first word of your response should be either "yes" or "no".
More bafflegab from Huben. The point under discussion was whether fraud could plausibly throw an election. He said no with claptrap about a small percent. Your counter example was and is right on point. It isn't a small per centage spread thinly everywhere; there is evidence it has and therefore can throw an election.
DeleteYes, it is true that he was found guilty. But what does that mean? It means that a criminal standard of proof was met: not infallible truth of his crimes.
DeleteI must also note that his fraud is NOT the fraud you initially alleged, of pressure being put on vulnerable members to force their postal votes: instead, the problem was bogus names.
Neither you nor Ken B seem to make distinctions about this. Have you been sloppy in your research, or didn't you care that you're changing your story as it is challenged?
http://law.slough.info/law41/law41.php
"I must also note that his fraud is NOT the fraud you initially alleged, of pressure being put on vulnerable members to force their postal votes: instead, the problem was bogus names."
DeleteFalse. My original post was with reference to *all* forms of fraud, including the invention of non-existent people and the use of fake postal votes, as detailed in the links and report, even if I did not say this explicitly.
Now we have a second question for you: you asserted that given that low percentage of migrants, they were "hardly enough to sway any election."
You now have direct evidence of an election stolen by ethnic voting fraud.
Are you going to display basic honesty and admit your assertion was wrong?
Yes or no?
The first word of your response should be either "yes" or "no".
Ah: I see the misunderstanding.
DeleteI focused on point 71 in your initial post, because it was the one thing that clearly had to do with the word "multiculturalism" in your title.
Postal voting fraud itself is not a problem uniquely multicultural: it is a universal issue. The allegation of ethnic familial postal voting fraud is. If there is a serious level of elections fraud, I would still like to see statistics and analysis that convincingly show the problem tone due to multiculturalism.
And since you seem to like yes or no demands "to display basic honesty", I've got one for you.
Breitbart is a right wing agitprop site, and you cited it.
Yes or no?
The first word of your response should be either "yes" or "no".
I'll give you an answer to all your comments but ONLY if you honestly respond to this first:
Delete(1) you asserted that, given the low percentage of migrants in the UK (implying that they were spread out evenly), they were "hardly enough to sway any election."
(2) You now have direct evidence of an election stolen by ethnic voting fraud.
Are you going to display basic honesty and admit your assertion was wrong?
Yes or no? Once again, no evasions: the first word of your response should be either "yes" or "no".
And I warn you, this thread is closed unless I get an honest answer.
DeleteThe nature of Breitbart is not a factual claim, nor a claim LK disputed.
DeleteThe answer is, it doesn't fricking matter is the information they cite is accurate. It's dishonest to pretend you can ignore facts because people you don't like cite them.
Precisely, screaming about Breitbart being right-wing is ridiculous ad hominem fallacy. What, does Breitbart never, ever report basic facts?
DeleteI could have cited any number of left-wing or right-wing news sites where the facts are simply reported.
Breitbart in that article is mostly just reporting the facts as you can read them in left-wing UK news sources like the Independent or Guardian.
Furthermore, Breitbart recently ran an article against free trade, describing (correctly) the protectionist history of 19th century America:
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/26/american-presidents-washington-lincoln-agree-donald-trump-trade/
----
So, what now? Am I now supposed to think change my opinion on free trade, just because f*cking Breitbart has articles I broadly I agree with?
" What YOU apparently can't find is an NUMBERS that tell how serious the problem is."
ReplyDeleteThe evidence suggests that the numbers are shockingly high and the problem was known as long ago as 2010:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/election/article-1271457/General-Election-2010-Postal-vote-fraud-amid-fears-bogus-voters-swing-election.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10469448/Corruption-rife-in-the-Pakistani-community-says-minister.html
Huben is up to Austrian-level prevarication. Let's review the bidding.
ReplyDeleteLK asserted
"The situation is so severe that the very “integrity”of voting and democracy itself in Britain is being put into question."
I would say if elections are being stolen, or there is very strong evidence they are, or if the reliability of the electoral process is called into serious doubt that LK would be vindicated.
Huben denied this could happen.
LK cited several cases including one, Khan, where the election seems to have been stolen, and where indipustably the reliability of the
election and integrity of the ballot were called into doubt. I will quote from a link Huben provided in trying to refute LK: the judgment in the case. This is section 338.
"
I am also satisfied to the same standard of proof and certify that in the election for the Central Ward of Slough held on 3rd May 2007:
there were corrupt and illegal practices for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of the Respondent Mr Eshaq Khan at that election and
those corrupt or illegal practices so extensively prevailed that they may reasonably be supposed to have affected the result of such election.
"
I think LK is vindicated. But how does Huben take this?
"But what does that mean? It means that a criminal standard of proof was met: not infallible truth of his crimes....Neither you nor Ken B seem to make distinctions about this."
First I would say that infallible truth of his crimes is not necessary to establish that the integrity of the process was undermined; a standard criminal level of proof seems more than adequate.
And as for "infallible truth". That is unobtainable in any electoral system isn't it? It's inherent in nature of secret balloting that trust and reasonable certainty not infallible proof is required. Canada's electoral system seems to have integrity yet no Canadian election results are known infallibly.
And I think LK and I both have a long track record of distinguishing between normal standards of proof and "infallible truth". I for one don't even think it an infallible truth Huben is a jack-ass.
To emphasize. Elections don't even have to be successfully stolen for the integrity of the process to be undermined, with disastrous effect. This is why we exclude racists from juries. Perhaps the racist juror's guilty vote would be correct and fair, but we would excuse him anyway wouldn't we? To enhance and preserve trust and integrity.
ReplyDelete